Tailpiece comparisons
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
jwr2
I like the beefed-up tailpiece solution better. The original aluminum version worked fine only needing THREE screws, not five or seven. I don't like the look of seven screws, especially the extra two in back over the otherwise flush area. To me, that has the same aesthetic effect of a broken bumper held onto the car by using strips of duct tape. Also, I think that needing to drill SEVEN holes in your bass just to get the tailpiece to sit properly is clearly an indication of a design flaw. I think it's cool that RIC took the initiative to address the basis of the problem at the piece itself instead of just resigning to drilling more holes in the flawed piece. To each their own, but I'll gladly wait until the new improved tailpiece is back in stock.
I totally agree Mark...I never liked the idea of having to drill two extra holes in your bass to accomplish this task. It's nice to know they're on the right track to solving this problem.
'73 4001 MG '88 4003S JG '89 4003S FG '91 4003S MG
I don't mind the two extra holes for the time being until there is a significantly improved tailpiece, that does not lift. Anyway I will go for an alu-Hipshot as long as they are available.
The material of the original tailpiece has considerable effect on the sound, I figured out when I compared the old 4001 ('70ies) with the new one (2000+, but still lifting!). Surprisingly the 4001 thin cast version gives more resonance and harmonics, but still less than the brass Hipshot, bright and crisp with big bass pound, which on the other side adds too much weight in my opinion. The worst tailpiece I had was the AllParts, being beefier, heavier, but somehow "damping" the sound, most likely due to the different material of the individual string bridges (some chromed steel). All in all the sound does NOT follow the theoretical interpretations of the material used, but every change in the material and thickness influences the sound of the bass. The best solution for me was adding the two extra screws to the '70ies 4001 tailpiece:
1) No additional weight
2) Original sound kept
3) Drastically improved sustain and harmonics.
The two holes don't matter, as in the future they will be totally covered by either the alu-Hipshot or a non-lifting original Ric-tailpiec (I wonder if the latter will ever appear?). Last word: I never forgot to apply the washer method, that should be the basis of all tailpiece installations first of all!
The material of the original tailpiece has considerable effect on the sound, I figured out when I compared the old 4001 ('70ies) with the new one (2000+, but still lifting!). Surprisingly the 4001 thin cast version gives more resonance and harmonics, but still less than the brass Hipshot, bright and crisp with big bass pound, which on the other side adds too much weight in my opinion. The worst tailpiece I had was the AllParts, being beefier, heavier, but somehow "damping" the sound, most likely due to the different material of the individual string bridges (some chromed steel). All in all the sound does NOT follow the theoretical interpretations of the material used, but every change in the material and thickness influences the sound of the bass. The best solution for me was adding the two extra screws to the '70ies 4001 tailpiece:
1) No additional weight
2) Original sound kept
3) Drastically improved sustain and harmonics.
The two holes don't matter, as in the future they will be totally covered by either the alu-Hipshot or a non-lifting original Ric-tailpiec (I wonder if the latter will ever appear?). Last word: I never forgot to apply the washer method, that should be the basis of all tailpiece installations first of all!
"The youth of today should start thinking about the state in which they want to leave this planet to Keith Richards..."! Quote by an unknown musician