Tighter String-Spacing Pros and Cons

[Folkie]

This is a continuation of a previous thread that touched on this subject but was slightly off-topic:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=402541

There has been much talk here about the narrowness of the Rick 12-string necks, and the trouble this presents for some players with larger hands. But what hasn't been discussed are the problems created by squeezing the low courses and octaves TOO close together in order to allow more space BETWEEN pairs. In my opinion, there is a point of diminishing returns. I understand that those of us with larger hands may prefer the Arnquist nut mod to make things easier (see the earlier thread). But I also read here that, as of 2005, Rickenbacker began tightening up the string pairs on many of their 12-string models.

I own a 1991 330/12 with the wider pairs, and have had no problems fingering open chords. Actually, I prefer the wider pairs because they allow both strings (the low course and the high octave) to chime distinctly while I'm playing solo lines along the G-pair. By contrast, with my 2010 360/12, the paired G-strings are so close that they converge when I fret them, and this dampens some of the normal chime. Try playing the solo break to “Turn! Turn! Turn!” and you’ll find it sounds much brighter with a slightly wider G-pair. In fact, on the new 360’s, each low course and octave string are so close together that I can barely get my thin (.50mm) pick in between the courses when tuning up.

According to John Hall, Rickenbacker was initially reluctant to modify the factory string-spacing, but so many players were paying to have it done that it seemed like the right move. Admittedly, preferences in string-spacing are very subjective, especially for guitarists with different playing styles. But shouldn't the tighter octave pairs be made optional rather than factory stock?

I'm toying with the idea of either widening the pairs on my 360/12, or buying an older used model with the wider string-spacing. I understand the whole rationale behind squeezing those pairs together, but there must be a few players out there like me, who prefer the feel and the sound of the wider pairs.

Robert

[JakeK]

Paging Jim Krause: I think your thoughts on your baby 360/12 from '09 vs Gary Clauson's Roger McGuinn LE from '89 would be appreciated!

As for me, I've had a 360/12 from '03, a 660/12 from '91 and my current 360/12V64 from '87, and I've also played Steve Forgren's 360/12C63, Gary Clauson's 370/12 Roger McGuinn from '89, Rich Ferguson's 660/12 from '04, I believe, a vintage '66 360/12 (at Norman's Rare Guitars in October 2010, was still there when I went in August) and a vintage '65 360/12 (owned by Dan Saifer). Without a doubt, the C63 was the most comfortable neck (good choice, Steve!). The least comfortable was the '03 360/12, strings way too close and the neck seemed narrow and fat. The two 660's were similar (all the way down to color), and while I like the neck of that model, it's too wide for me. My V64 and Gary's McGuinn were similar in feel and spacing, a nice comfortable neck that wasn't too cramped, and felt nice. The necks on the two 60s 360/12 models were nice and thin, and had a completely different feel than the later models I've reviewed. The string spacing actually felt good.

Anyway, Robert, the '91 330 seems to be your way to go. I believe Todd Bradshaw had a way of remedying his situation for his 370/12WB and 340/12 models when he felt the string spacing was too close. Maybe he can share his modifications here (I know you've shared them a bunch, Todd, but we never tire of hearing how you made it work for you )?

[teb]

In my case, it was mainly a matter of taking advantage of the fast, easy-playing Rickenbacker necks (especially when you're used to Martins and Guilds) but getting enough space between the pairs that I wasn't damping strings with my big hands and rather blunt fingertips. This required pretty tight pairs that are spread as wide as possible at the nut. In addition to maximizing the space between pairs, it also helps me feel where my fingers are without having to look. On guitars where the primary-string-to-octave spacing is wider and the pair-to-pair spacing is narrower, I tend to get lost. The 660/12 that I had for a while felt like that. Rather than six pairs of strings, it felt more like a continuous band of strings across the fingerboard, and even though the neck was wider, the overall effect wasn't helping me. Had I kept it, I would have re-cut the nut with tighter pairs, but I prefer the big hollow bodies, so I sold it.

I have never felt like changing the spacing had any serious effect on the tone, sustain, etc, and I've never noticed the strings in my tighter pairs hitting each other. I seem to be able to get the sounds I want out of the guitars, whether playing very clean or heavily compressed with the gain boosted to add a little dirt and I don't remember ever hearing a recording and thinking "Gee. I wish I could make mine sound like that". It's pretty much just a matter of sitting down, listening carefully and fiddling with the knobs until I get that sound. Is it the best way for everybody to space their strings out? Probably not. Some people have different preferences for how their guitar feels when they play, but I've certainly never felt like I was losing any sound quality from the spacing I use. I'd put the tone of my Ricks up against any twelve-strings on the planet without hesitation.

One thing that could make a difference is that I play with a very light touch and a very thin pick. The strings aren't getting banged hard and I hardly ever do any sort of big power-strums. As a matter of fact, of the four Rickenbacker twelves that I've owned, I've never broken a string. The strings on my 370/12 are over two years old and have literally hundreds of hours on them. Somebody who plays hard with a stiff pick might be clanging strings together constantly and falling off the edges of the fingerboard with my tight pairs and wide spacing. So the important thing is getting the guitar set up to work for you and how you play - whatever that takes.

I really don't worry much about back contour on the necks. My 370/12 is thinner, front-to-back and a little flatter shape than my 340/12 and I probably like it a little better, but when I switch it just takes a couple minutes to adjust to it and after that I don't even think about it. I also own seven basses from six different manufacturers with different neck shapes and five different scale lengths (four of them fretless) so I'm pretty used to just playing whatever I happen to have in my hands at the moment.

[stsang]

Here's a closeup of the nut on my 2002 360/12 (I'm the second owner). As far as I know the nut is stock. I use a Jim Dunlop .60mm pick and have no problems getting the octave strings to chime whether I play light or hard. The string spacing makes the Ric play much like a 6-string, but with a 12-string sound. I love it!

Nut and string spacing on 2002 Ric 360/12

[paologregorio]

Rich F's 360/12 has the Arnquist mods, and it plays great. I noticed the difference from the factory spacing. I personally don't seem to have trouble with the spacing, but it does for some players, and the mod seems to generally work for those players. The 660/12 neck's wider dimensions are nice as well. I suppose I enjoy playing each type of neck for different reasons. For now I'm sticking with the factory spacing on my 381/12. It would have been really cool to try out the spacing on the360/12 C63 one-off with the 660 neck auctioned a few months back.

[teb]

This shows Simon's 360/12 on the left and my 370/12 with the Arnquist nut and full-width re-fret on the right. It's fairly drastic action to take on a perfectly good guitar, but in my case, the playability difference and the quality of the music I was able to put out because of it was huge. It's certainly not something everybody needs to do by any means, but for some of us, it's nice to know that it's available. There are two or three Rickenbackers (360/12, 360/6, 250, etc.) that I sold off over the years, simply because of playability problems for my big fingers. Had I come to the realization earlier that much of this was a fairly easy fix, and given up on the silly idea that it's a perfect instrument and not to be messed with, I'd still own them today.

[psychomatthias]

I'm convinced that whoever designed Rickenbacker's guitars and basses had guys like me in mind; those who want to play but are cursed with relatively tiny hands and fingers. This metalhead is also grateful for the HB1.

[Folkie]

Simon,

Thanks for the photo. Your 360/12 has MUCH wider pairs than mine, so much so that yours and mine look like two totally different instruments. And it appears Todd's pairs are somewhere in the middle: tighter than yours but wider than mine. Interestingly, I played a 360/12V63 at Sam Ash the other day, and the string-spacing felt more comfortable. Maybe I should invest in one of those.

Robert

[stsang]

Simon,

Thanks for the photo. Your 360/12 has MUCH wider pairs than mine, so much so that yours and mine look like two totally different instruments. And it appears Todd's pairs are somewhere in the middle: tighter than yours but wider than mine. Interestingly, I played a 360/12V63 at Sam Ash the other day, and the string-spacing felt more comfortable. Maybe I should invest in one of those.

Robert

You're welcome! Thanks for starting this thread - I didn't realize there was so much variation in modern Rics (especially the post-2005 ones). I was also thinking of checking out other Ric 12 strings at Rudy's or Sam Ash in New York City (assuming I can get past the protesters in Times Square).

[stsang]

I'm convinced that whoever designed Rickenbacker's guitars and basses had guys like me in mind; those who want to play but are cursed with relatively tiny hands and fingers. This metalhead is also grateful for the HB1.

I always wondered if Misters F.C.Hall or Roger Rossmeisl had small hands and that's why the guitars ended up with such narrow necks. I love the narrow necks. It feels strange to me when I play other guitars, for example the Gibson SG-12.

[JakeK]

Simon, your 360 is an '02, correct? And Todd, your 370WB is a '92 (despite the mods, just trying to get my assumptions right)? Let's compare even more with my '87 V64, which hasn't had the mod Todd made, simply because I'm doing a Lennon and don't care...

[stsang]

Simon, your 360 is an '02, correct? And Todd, your 370WB is a '92 (despite the mods, just trying to get my assumptions right)? Let's compare even more with my '87 V64, which hasn't had the mod Todd made, simply because I'm doing a Lennon and don't care...

Yes, mine is an '02. Here's a picture of all three beauties side by side: my '02 360/12, Todd's '92 370WB (with Mod), your '87 V64. I looked at some web images of the C63 and it appears to have the same nut as my '02. What do you guys think?

Comparing nuts on 2002 360/12, 1992 370/12WB (with Mod), 1987 360/12V64

[Folkie]

I'm having some confusion about the model numbers we're talking about here. The used guitar I played at Sam Ash was tagged as a 360/12V63. But the one Jake and others have praised is, in fact, a 360/12C63. Are these separate instruments or was the one I played mis-tagged?

[paologregorio]

I'm having some confusion about the model numbers we're talking about here. The used guitar I played at Sam Ash was tagged as a 360/12V63. But the one Jake and others have praised is, in fact, a 360/12C63. Are these separate instruments or was the one I played mis-tagged?

Mis-tagged; the model is a 360/12C63. Rick also makes some "V" series models, and the C63's predecessor was the 360/12 V64, hence the confusion.

[Folkie]

Jake,

I stand corrected. The used guitar I played at Sam Ash the other day was in fact a Jetglo 360/12C63. (It was mis-tagged as a "V63.") The neck and the string-spacing felt very comfortable, so I think we're on the same page there. Very beautiful binding as well!

My next step will be to check the POTR site to see if Chris has any in stock. Would such a specialized model be affected by the post-2004 string mods?

Robert