(We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progress)

[Kopfjaeger]

Mark,

I too love the tone of both basses. Both classic Rickenbacker. I also like the more pronounced aggressive tone of the RM a bit more. The 68 does seem a bit warmer in comparison. My ear is much more attracted to the edgier thicker tone of the RM.

Fantastic playing, BTW!!

Sepp

[teeder]

I lean towards the RM tone too.

[opticnerve]

Mark,

I too love the tone of both basses. Both classic Rickenbacker. I also like the more pronounced aggressive tone of the RM a bit more. The 68 does seem a bit warmer in comparison. My ear is much more attracted to the edgier thicker tone of the RM.

Fantastic playing, BTW!!

+1

What about the strings Mark? Is the set on the RM brand new?

[walker]

Thanks for the comments, guys!

Both basses were played with newish roundwound strings. I've gotten comments about the RM having more of an edge & bite to it than the '68 4001, and with the gain at the amp set the same for both, the '68 is a bit mellower - cleaner than I usually run it. I only did this to show the difference in output of the two basses, but the '68 has plenty of grit when the gain is up a bit more.

I eventually want to do a more comprehensive sound-test vid of just the RM by itself, playing it with flats as well as rounds, and soloing the pickups, backing off on the tone and so on.

Friendly reminder: a gritty '68:

[Lefty4003S8]

First off...GREAT playing Mark!!!!!! You make it look SO easy!!!!

BOTH basses sound absolutely fantastic, and, have that famous Rickenbacker sound that drives me crazy.

The '68 has a biting, yet warmer sound. The RM DEFINATELY is brighter, with that "In Your Face" tone.
I can't help but wonder what influence the pick has on the sound/tone.

GREAT job on the RM restoration.......LOVE it!!!!!

Lefty4003s8







Do not drink from the toilet when taking Lyrica

[s4001]

Nice comparison. The snarl in those 60's S basses has a life all its own. Magic instruments, they are.

[BigJohnAZ]

Awesome playing, maybe one day I'll be half as good!

I love the RM, especially when you played your 15/8 riff. The tone on the mid frets was better than the 4001. To my ears, the 4001 sounds a bit edgier and the RM sounds more ballsy, if that makes sense. Ricks are still the best...

[walker]

Yeah, I notice the difference too, even acoustically. The '68 has a nice tight attack while the RM has more of an open roar, similar to a P-bass. Hard to say how the different constructions play out; I know the fretboard on the RM is thicker - 5/16" vs the '68's fretboard at 1/4", plus the RM fretboard is more solid with small dot inlays vs the 4001 with more wood cut out for the fancy full-width CP inlays. Maybe the neck wood is more resonant, too, and the smaller body may contribute to the resonance as well.

[walker]

The wood that the top wing was cut from as well as used for paint testing, obviously.

[chefothefuture]

Way nice
The 65 certainly has more presence.
But that is pretty typical. Every '68 I had was just a little lacking compared to the earlier ones..

Nice resto too.

[henry5]

Both sound great but the the RM sounds GRRREAT! !

[JakeK]

OK - here's the RM 1999 audio test drive video. I compared it side-by-side with the '68 4001 for comparison. Apologies ahead of time - I didn't think to solo the pickups during the test run.

They both sound great, but, I'm in the RoMo category, it's just got more edge to it, to my ears. Have you or will you be trying flats on either bass?

[walker]

Yes, I'd like to eventually do a more thorough video soundcheck with the RM bass with flats as well as rounds, solo the pickups, roll off on the tone, play through different amps, etc.

[johnallg]

Both tones are most wonderful. Not sure which I like better, but tend toward the '68. Then I hear you play something else and its the RM I like..... I wouldn't kick either bass out of the bed.

[walker]

Exactly. They can both stay!