4005 differences

[johnallg]

I wound think the bridge location difference is due to the necks being different lengths into the bodies. Did you measure the overall scale length nut to saddles? I would guess they are probably the same, or really darn close.

[berth]

Some more cat pictures (and a short report on other findings from our mini confluence) can be found here.

[loves4003]

I heard Chris' 4005 before (very loud, through my Ampeg V4), but this was the first time I heard a 4005 with just the bridge pickup selected and it sounded a bit too thin to me. I prefer the sound of a 4003's bridge pickup. The 4005 is a beautiful bass, but I don't think I'd play it much because of that sound. The 4005 is a great couch-bass, just play it unamplified while watching tv. It's a bit louder than a solidbody and because of the size it's very comfortable. The neck pickup sounds great, but it's not really that different from the 4003.

[rickaddict]

What year are the two 4005's?

My 1979 4005 MG (http://rickresource.com/register/user_i ... llsize.jpg) seems to have a neck/body joint more similar to the MG4005WB pictured.

[berth]

I heard Chris' 4005 before (very loud, through my Ampeg V4), but this was the first time I heard a 4005 with just the bridge pickup selected and it sounded a bit too thin to me. I prefer the sound of a 4003's bridge pickup. The 4005 is a beautiful bass, but I don't think I'd play it much because of that sound. The 4005 is a great couch-bass, just play it unamplified while watching tv. It's a bit louder than a solidbody and because of the size it's very comfortable. The neck pickup sounds great, but it's not really that different from the 4003.

Neck pickup with a touch of bridge is my favorite sound. Did you try that? My 4005 still has the cap so it should be thin sounding on the bridge pickup. I like this though so I wont change it.

[loves4003]

I heard that sound when you played Chris' 4005.

[jps]

The cap was already bypassed, replaced with a piece of wire actually, when I got it in '73; I have never heard one with the cap in place, to my knowledge.

[berth]

The cap was already bypassed, replaced with a piece of wire actually, when I got it in '73; I have never heard one with the cap in place, to my knowledge.

I assumed there was a cap as I see more than 2 pieces of these electronics things with a wider part in the middle and pieces of wire at the outer ends. I see 2 of which I suspect they are for normal tone. And another a little smaller coming from the pickup switch, and another smaller one (resistor?) soldered to the bridge volume.

[johnallg]

Bert, the smaller one it the .0047uF capacitor that is in line with the bridge pickup. It removes the lowest frequencies from that pickup. If you have a very small diameter insulated wire handy, cut enough to bare both ends and wrap tightly around the wires coming from both ends of that smallest cap (effectively shorting it out of the circuit) and you will get to hear the bridge pickup in full. Easily removable.

[rickaddict]

Someone has a replacement volume pot!

[bails]

I've always wondered why Rickenbacker went to such trouble creating a body design specifically for the 4005 rather than simply using the existing templates for a 360. I realise it would have ended up being a bit smaller, but it would have been a hell of lot easier to produce, and in this day and age, a hell of a lot easier to re-issue...

What would a 4005 have looked like if it had had a 360 body instead?

[johnallg]

What would a 4005 have looked like if it had had a 360 body instead?

LIke a 360 with a longer neck and bass headstock, and lacking a couple strings??

[bails]

OK, a rephrase of the question...

What is the difference between a 360 and a 4005 body?

[johnallg]

Sorry, Mark, I couldn't help myself.

360:


'66 4005:

[berth]

Someone has a replacement volume pot!

Oh my dear. Are you telling me my 4005 is not in 100 % original pristine condition?