4000/1/3 vs. 4004 Poll

[Kopfjaeger]

Jeff,

I like the comfort of my 2012 4004. In terms of feel, it is almost identical to my 2011 4003. Yes, the body contours are softer than the sharp binding of the 4003 but binding has never been an issue for me. Tonally, the 4004 is very different from my 4003. I do prefer the tone of my 4003 and 4001's to the 4004. Not that the 4004 is bad, it's simply different. i like it more now that I have Dane's VVT harness with coil tapping. The different value pots have made a bit more versatile, in my opinion, than stock. I don't have a ton of EQ options with my amplification. I use Orange products, which I'm real happy and comfortable with. I have no trouble getting the tone I'm happy with out of either my Orange rigs and any of my 4001, 4002, or 4003 basses. My 4004 needs different settings for it to shine as much as my other RIC basses.

I like the Schaller bridge and I agree with Joey that it would be perfect with the addition of a quick change string slot instead of "string through". I'm not a huge Schaller m4 tuner fan. Oh, i love they way they look but I think Gotoh Gb7's are a vastly superior tuner. And this is coming from a German.

Sepp

[weemac]

I played a few early models and for some reason neither was the best sample of the marque. (Poor action and response)
I'd love to try a new trams green one with the two piece neck.

Eden.

[spongebob]

Interesting responses so far. What I see so far (these responses added to past comments in other threads), is that a lot of folks want to see "modern" Rickenbackers for today, for RIC to grow beyond the classic models that have been made for decades, to offer something new and different. RIC has indeed listened and created new and different models in both bass and guitar models, however, it seems they have not generally been embraced by those asking for these modern Ricks; they want something new and different yet they fall back on the old tried and true.

Why is this?

Problem is the 4004 was introduced in the early '90s - so it's not really a 'modern' bass - unless compared to an '01/'03.

I'd like to see something new for this decade/century....maybe an evolution not a revolution.....as I think the 4004 is a little too far for many (including myself), and now a 20+ year old design.

[Ashgray]

I think there's also an element of "knowing what you're getting" with a 4001/4003. I can't comment on the sonic attributes of a 4004 as I've never played one but mostly, what attracts me to a particular bass is its sound and its looks. If, like me, you hanker after that classic Rick sound, then a 4001/4003 is the obvious way to achieve it, whereas I personally find many more modern basses lacking in the degree of individual character that many vintage ones possess.

Same with design - I just love the look and feel of my vintage Ricks and, whilst the 4004 gets close in its appearance, it's not quite the same (I really must try one out some day though). For the same reasons, I'd love to get my hands on a Gibson Thunderbird one day - the only other classic bass that I feel as passionate about.

Ash

[jps]

I think there's also an element of "knowing what you're getting" with a 4001/4003.

Ash

This may be the crux of the problem; Fender goes through the same thing when they have tried to bring something new to the market. People fall back on the tried and true without even trying the new.

Yes, this bass came to market over 20 years ago, but I, and many others, feel it is very much a modern Rick bass. The 4004 does not have the typical modern sound most associate with humbucking pickups (Spector, Pedulla, Modulus, etc.), they can do the "classic" Rick bass tone but do it with a bit more authority and with a silent, buzz-free background. I used the Snowglo last night at band rehearsal and it most certainly gave me the nice aggressive tone that only a Rickenbacker can do. Just don't expect to plug it into an amp with the same EQ settings as a 4001/3 and get the sound, but it doesn't take much to create "that" sound.

[wints]

In a nutshell, the 4001/3 is iconic in design and sound. The 4004 is neither.

The 4001/3 stands alone from a visual and sonic perspective, while the 4004, good bass that it is, is lost in the mix of contemporary low end. Compared to say a Wal or an early 2 band EQ Stingray, both of which having a very definitive, distinctive sound, the 4004 comes across more as a follower rather than a leader...and I'm not sure that's going to change any time soon.

[edski]

I love both my 1975 4001 and 2004 Laredo. They are different basses, certainly, but they are both both Ricks when compared to other basses I have.

I find the 4004 can get a body feel thump more than the 4001, and the 4001 is far brighter. But - with fresh round wounds on the Laredo, and "calmed down" round wounds on the 4001, there is a lot of overlap to the sounds (disclaimer - my Laredo has dual concentrics, so I have V/T on each PUP). The 2004 4004's have the neck PU off of the neck, so I think there is a little bit more treble to that PU.

Frankly, I find the necks feel fairly similar, although the Laredo is more "chunky". But my measurements seem to indicate that this is a difference in the profile (the Laredo is fairly much a C profile closer to the nut) and about 1 mm in overall neck thickness. Both basses appear to be identical in width at the nut, the strings are all 7/16" apart. The string spacing at the bridge of the 4001 is slightly less than the Laredo. It's really hard to tell a difference.

The weight difference is noticeable - I'm not really sure how that comes about, as the body wings on both are 1 1/4", and the rounded edges of the 4004 doesn't seem to be enough wood to make the difference. Perhaps the wood for the 4004's is a less dense wood? I thought they were all maple (for the most part) - at least the Laredo's - and I know there's a natural variation in wood densities, but the 4004 is consistently a lighter bass...

Stylistically, I actually do not like the body binding on the 4001, but the neck binding and shark tooth inlays of the 4001 are more appealing to me. So mixed bag there.

Personally, I think if the 4004's had a PU spacing that was noticeably closer to the bridge the model would have a bit more clank/bite, but then it might sound too close to a 4003 to render itself redundant.

[Kopfjaeger]

In a nutshell, the 4001/3 is iconic in design and sound. The 4004 is neither.

The 4001/3 stands alone from a visual and sonic perspective, while the 4004, good bass that it is, is lost in the mix of contemporary low end. Compared to say a Wal or an early 2 band EQ Stingray, both of which having a very definitive, distinctive sound, the 4004 comes across more as a follower rather than a leader...and I'm not sure that's going to change any time soon.

Andy,

You bring up a very interesting and valid point. Yes, the 4004 looks like a Ric and it can sound like a 4001/3 with proper eq'ing but not right out of the gate. While I like my 4004, it does not hold the same attraction for me as my other 4001 or 4003 basses. To be perfectly honest, If were not going to grab any one of my Rickenbackers to play, I'd go for my Spector NS2 way before I'd go for the 4004.

Sepp

[jps]

It looks like the 4004 can't be judged on it's own merits, apparently, but only compared to it's older siblings, I guess it will always live in their shadow. A shame, really.

[Ashgray]

It looks like the 4004 can't be judged on it's own merits, apparently, but only compared to it's older siblings, I guess it will always live in their shadow. A shame, really.

I agree - it IS a shame. I do intend to try one at some point but oddly, I feel that I need a reason to, as I simply don't know what to expect.

I also think the problem (if we can call it that) extends to the audience, not just the players. For example, my 4001s and 4003s/8 attract quite a lot of interest and comments from audience members whenever I use them live. However, this reaction is noticeably subdued when I use my 4002, which is rarer, more valuable, arguably more collectible, and from my own perspective, fully the equal of my other Ricks in terms of its sound, albeit in a different way. I've even had one audience member assume that it's not a "proper" Rick due to the fact that the pickguard is different. Another said recently, and bizarrely, that the 4002 "doesn't sound like a Rick"! It's almost as though some people see the design as somehow being "non-standard" or "left-field" and as it's not exactly what they recognise a Rick should sound and look like, it doesn't get the attention that my 4001s get. Maybe the 4004 suffers by comparison, in some peoples' eyes, for similar reasons?

Ash

[edski]

Another said recently, and bizarrely, that the 4002 "doesn't sound like a Rick"! It's almost as though some people see the design as somehow being "non-standard" or "left-field" and as it's not exactly what they recognise a Rick should sound and look like, it doesn't get the attention that my 4001s get. Maybe the 4004 suffers by comparison, in some peoples' eyes, for similar reasons?

Managing expectations is a major issue in almost any endeavor. But I don't get the "sound like a Rick" when Paul McCartney's Rick sound was nothing like Chris Squire's...and where does a 4005 fit in that spectrum? But fan/player expectations play a big part.

Odd, I've gotten as many complements about the Laredo as the 4001.

[jps]

Another said recently, and bizarrely, that the 4002 "doesn't sound like a Rick"! It's almost as though some people see the design as somehow being "non-standard" or "left-field" and as it's not exactly what they recognise a Rick should sound and look like, it doesn't get the attention that my 4001s get. Maybe the 4004 suffers by comparison, in some peoples' eyes, for similar reasons?

Managing expectations is a major issue in almost any endeavor. But I don't get the "sound like a Rick" when Paul McCartney's Rick sound was nothing like Chris Squire's...and where does a 4005 fit in that spectrum? But fan/player expectations play a big part.

Odd, I've gotten as many complements about the Laredo as the 4001.

So have I, also with my old 4005WB, too.

[rickenbrother]

It looks like the 4004 can't be judged on it's own merits, apparently, but only compared to it's older siblings, I guess it will always live in their shadow. A shame, really.

...and people wonder why RIC doesn't readily come out with new models.

[sloop_john_b]

I don't see the need for any new models, personally. What else is needed? They have their niche and they fill it perfectly.

Guitars, on the other hand...

[woodyng]

The choices i have made with my current stable of Ricks pretty much indicates a path less travelled,but i am really happy with all 3 unorthodox basses. The main thing for the 4004's is not dealing with the factors which most folks consider "classic",and which i tend to find extraneous or problematic. So in that sense,to me,even with the design being a few decades old,i like the "modern" take of the 4004,and would still choose it over a 4003,as gorgeous as the new ones are.
And....Instead of bringing back the 4002,i would love to see a 4004 with the pickups in the 4002 positions with no pickguard,and with the schaller bridge. Birdseye maple of course!