Page 2 of 6
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:04 pm
by jingle_jangle
BlueAngel wrote:[Also without trying to cause any grief, I find the slightly unquestioning-fan attitude to Rickenbacker's design and occasional quality problems on both forums a little annoying. I LOVE Ricks, and in many ways how the company operates, but that doesn't blind me to genuine issues with the instruments which most certainly do exist - I've seen plenty as a professional repairer, and to believe that every Rickenbacker leaves the factory perfect is a fantasy. (Just as it is with any other manufacturer.)
The tail is lifting slightly on my 2-year-old 4003 bridge too, and although it's nowhere near bad enough to cause trouble (yet), the reason for it is simply that the Rick bridge is quite a poor design and is made using too low a quality of metal. There, I said it... sorry. It would be perfectly possible to make a bridge that looked IDENTICAL and didn't suffer from this if it was cast with much thicker walls, machined from solid, or using a harder metal alloy (or a combination of some of these things).
I think it's great that a company like Hipshot should be offering an alternative which seems to do the job without needing to modify the instrument, although personally I think it looks ugly. It's a shame that RIC won't work with aftermarket parts manufacturers on things like this - it's not as if the Hipshot bridge could ever be mistaken for an original or used to make counterfeit Rickenbackers. If anything, it should benefit the company... I'm sure there are some people who will ONLY buy a Rickenbacker because they know there is a replacement bridge available.
First things first...I, too am a huge fan, and at least for the 3+ years that I've been a member here, I can't recall anyone calling these instruments "perfect" even once, except in hyperbolic and nonliteral, enthusiastic praise (as in, "What a perfect day!"). Part of the fun here and on the factory forum is in the discussion of the quirks of these interesting and involving products.
I agree that the hipshot looks ugly; it's an engineering solution to a problem that needed to address esthetics, too, but failed in that regard. It works, but yeccchhh.
It's not that RIC "won't work" with aftermarket manufacturers; it's that they have a patch to protect (and MUST protect, by law) and there are considerations that we are not aware of. May of us have ideas for "improving" a product, but none of us have the entire "big" picture of all the factors involved. We simply want "our" changes, and we want them now, and get testy when we are denied our own brand of satisfaction on our own timelines.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:26 pm
by wayang
Yes, yes...but more importantly: have you ever had lipstick on your hipshot?
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:58 pm
by jakeox
sloop_john_b wrote:+1 Jake, great post.
Thanks. I have to get in one overly long intellectualized post per month. Normally nobody reads them.
dpowell wrote:Would you rather censor three words or have your company sued for defamation?
dpowell wrote:Solid, but being a private company, they have to have some degree of control over what's said on their website.
I don't think it's wildly inappropriate that they change three words to maybe protect themselves legally.
As for the bridge, +1 on needing a redesign for wayyy too long...
I have no problem with them enforcing whatever rules they want on their own forum. I just personally don't like to hang around forums that are moderated that way. The main reason I don't hang there is actually just the relative lack of traffic.
And although I hate when people argue against RIC's pursuit of copyright infringement based on their own naive ideas of legality, I think that style of moderation can't possibly help much legally, and replacing certain words with other absurd words is just kind of silly. I'd much rather they just didn't allow posts with the words they don't want discussed. And while I fully support their right to disallow whatever they want to disallow, it absolutely contributes to some perceptions about the company not being open to criticism.
If I say that I'm a massive fan of 99 percent of what RIC does, some people will label me an unreasonable fanatic, and if I say that there's 1% I'm not a huge fan of, some people will call me a basher. All you really need to know is that I'm here, and I own a bunch of Rickenbacker basses.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:27 pm
by qwezirider
dpowell wrote:Solid, but being a private company, they have to have some degree of control over what's said on their website.
I don't think it's wildly inappropriate that they change three words to maybe protect themselves legally.
No doubt, we're on the same page about them having control for whatever reason. I don't think it's inappropriate at all and they should control what is said on their site. I just don't find potential defamation to be a probable reason, especially if the name is being changed to dipstick.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:01 pm
by espidog
jingle_jangle wrote:We simply want "our" changes, and we want them now, and get testy when we are denied our own brand of satisfaction on our own timelines.
In respect of the bass bridge - designed in the 1950s and out-dated by the 1970s - I hardly think that argument applies. Hasn't 50 years been long enough to sort out a solution?
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:46 pm
by Darkhollow
espidog wrote:jingle_jangle wrote:We simply want "our" changes, and we want them now, and get testy when we are denied our own brand of satisfaction on our own timelines.
In respect of the bass bridge - designed in the 1950s and out-dated by the 1970s - I hardly think that argument applies. Hasn't 50 years been long enough to sort out a solution?
For a high end instrument manufacturer like Ric, any noticeable design flaw should be addressed ASAP. Allowing another company to provide your customers with a better solution would insult me as a manufacturer. If this is indeed been a problem for as long as some people here say.
I agree with Paul though, the hipshot is not pretty to look at. But I am sure at some point here Ric will address the issue with a cosmetically appealing and functional product.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:53 pm
by nukebass
Darkhollow wrote:
For a high end instrument manufacturer like Ric, any noticeable design flaw should be addressed ASAP. Allowing another company to provide your customers with a better solution would insult me as a manufacturer. If this is indeed been a problem for as long as some people here say.
I think this makes a lot of sense regarding the bridge, especially with the current prices Rickenbacker instruments command. Back when they were just slightly more expensive than Fenders, who some argue also have poor bridges (and thus replace with aftermarket), it made more sense. Now that the basses are selling for around $2,000 on the street, there should be no known design flaws. However, they do still sell, the bridge still works, and it fits well with the looks of the bass. Does RIC really have an incentive to push out the new bridge design unless sales suffer? The new features probably do more to add sales than the bridge does to reduce them, but it would be nice to not have to remove the saddle to intonate.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:00 pm
by weemac
espidog wrote:jingle_jangle wrote:We simply want "our" changes, and we want them now, and get testy when we are denied our own brand of satisfaction on our own timelines.
In respect of the bass bridge - designed in the 1950s and out-dated by the 1970s - I hardly think that argument applies. Hasn't 50 years been long enough to sort out a solution?
Well.. they had it "sort of" right up until 1973 and then had to cheapen the materials, lost some tone and then got the bends....
emac.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:38 am
by espidog
nukebass wrote:it would be nice to not have to remove the saddle to intonate
Agreed. It would also be nice if said saddle didn't rock back and forth on its grub screws as soon as string tension is slackened, making it nigh impossible to put the thing back in exactly the same position it came from - a fairly basic requirement, wouldn't you think? Likewise it would be a heartening novelty to have a mute that is a practical, usable device - i.e. one that doesn't take 5 whole minutes to screw into position, giving you sore fingers in the process, and another five minutes to screw back down again - all the while being careful not to give those screws one turn too many, lest the thing drop off altogether.
It ain't rocket science. Back in the 1980s I owned an Ovation Magnum bass. Its bridge also had an integral mute. Bringing the mute into play (to a position precisely determined by preset adjustment) took a fraction of a second. You just pushed a lever, and it was in place. Thus it was usable as and when needed in a live situation. A simple, effective bit of engineering.
Darkhollow wrote:...But I am sure at some point here Ric will address the issue with a cosmetically appealing and functional product.
I wish I had your confidence. I'm 50 years old, and frankly, given the history of this issue, I fully expect to be cold in my grave before RIC comes up with anything even remotely approaching a usable solution.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:31 am
by jdogric12
So why did they stop the 7-screw tailpieces? Seems they are the best solution, right? Were there problems with those?
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:19 am
by woodyng
i guess i am a lone voice in saying that i actually think the hipshot is better looking than the original-i think it is really a great modernization of the look of the original bridge,certainly better than a badass 2 stuck on top of peice of plastic.( been there-done that,too,me and geddy). every bassist i have ever shown my 4000 to loves the look as well. we all like what we like about these instruments,as comparison,i hate the look of any 4000 variant with its neck pickup cover off and that big ugly-*** pickup and surrounding hole showing........
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:55 am
by Starless
woodyng wrote:i guess i am a lone voice in saying that i actually think the hipshot is better looking than the original-i think it is really a great modernization of the look of the original bridge,
You are not alone sir. Remembering the grief of my 70's 4001 adjustment fun and games, I was heartened to see that a replacement for that completely useless, ugly chrome turd was available in these modern times. I purchased a Hipshot (sorry, to be grammatically correct, that should read an Hipshot) as soon as I acquired my 4003 this year. It is a superb piece of work and looks absolutely superb alongside the bridge PU surround (minus cover - yet another example of Rickenbacker insisting on maintaining some kind of 'classic' design vibe when they know full well that the vast majority of Ric sightings show the PU cover consigned to the bin).
Lovely wood, distinctive shape, beautifully built and worth every penny/cent, BUT one day the powers that be might just wake up and give the punters what they want - a 4003P (the 'P' stands for 'Practical') - Hipshot bridge and a bridge PU with a minimalist chrome surround and no cover!
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:09 am
by deaconblues
Starless wrote:woodyng wrote:i guess i am a lone voice in saying that i actually think the hipshot is better looking than the original-i think it is really a great modernization of the look of the original bridge,
You are not alone sir. Remembering the grief of my 70's 4001 adjustment fun and games, I was heartened to see that a replacement for that completely useless, ugly chrome turd was available in these modern times. I purchased a Hipshot (sorry, to be grammatically correct, that should read an Hipshot) as soon as I acquired my 4003 this year. It is a superb piece of work and looks absolutely superb alongside the bridge PU surround (minus cover - yet another example of Rickenbacker insisting on maintaining some kind of 'classic' design vibe when they know full well that the vast majority of Ric sightings show the PU cover consigned to the bin).
Lovely wood, distinctive shape, beautifully built and worth every penny/cent, BUT one day the powers that be might just wake up and give the punters what they want - a 4003P (the 'P' stands for 'Practical') - Hipshot bridge and a bridge PU with a minimalist chrome surround and no cover!
Hey! Leave that pickup cover out of this!
Seriously, I wouldn't put it in the same camp, it's mainly cosmetic and easily removed. Just part of the quirkiness of the instrument.
I could see, if the backlog ever died down, a kind of dual bass lineup where the vintage nuts get 4001v68's with checkered binding, horseshoe, etc. and the working musicians get a 650-style lineup featuring a 4003P or what have you - stripped down for playability and modern tone, with a licensed Hipshot. Best of both worlds?
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:00 am
by ken_j
Although I too believe that the stock bridge could and should be improved on it seems that many of these issues were resolved with the 4004. If the Hipshot was available back in the early nineties I would never had built my own brass bridge.
Re: Hipshot or Dipstick?
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:11 am
by espidog
dpowell wrote:I could see, if the backlog ever died down, a kind of dual bass lineup where the vintage nuts get 4001v68's with checkered binding, horseshoe, etc. and the working musicians get a 650-style lineup featuring a 4003P or what have you - stripped down for playability and modern tone, with a licensed Hipshot. Best of both worlds?
Ohohohoho! If only life were that simple.
Y'see, that situation would leave me high and dry.
My personal fantasy no-holds-barred Rick bass would have to leave the factory with:
1. modern 4003 construction (i.e. with the new slimmer-profile neck)
2. poured-in inlays
3. checker binding
4. toaster (in the old half-inch position, of course)
5. horseshoe (not essential, but they do look cool)
6. stereo wiring
7. a pickup selector switch that goes east-west (i.e. it actually points at the pickup in question)
8. a mute that you can flip in and out quickly
AND...
9. a bridge that works!
ken_j wrote:If the Hipshot was available back in the early nineties I would never had built my own brass bridge.
Really? That's interesting. I'd like to see a picture of that.