Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

OK! I used this bad boy for a full set or two last night and last weekend as well. I put her thru the paces British Invasion, Blues, Rockabilly (I find the Accent Vibrato is working great!) , Surf, 80's Pop, and man oh man does it sound great. It blows my 97 360/12V64 away tone-wise. I am ruined, is it the old wood? The old P'ups? why does it sound sooo much better?

Well, it's the combination of everything aging for 40+ years. Once you go vintage, it's tough to go back to the newer stuff. No matter how much you "relic" a guitar, it will and can never play and sound like an old one, in my opinion.

vintagemusicgear wrote:Well, it's the combination of everything aging for 40+ years. Once you go vintage, it's tough to go back to the newer stuff. No matter how much you "relic" a guitar, it will and can never play and sound like an old one, in my opinion.

+1

After having "gone vintage," I can't think of many reasons to buy a modern Ric, if I had a choice between the two, at even twice the price.

They just feel more "delicate," IMO.....like an old violin. Thin wood, thin finish, thin neck, THICK sound. Go figure!

OK so why did the now vintage ones sound so great when they were new?? (think Pete, George, Roger, etc...)

billydlight wrote:OK so why did the now vintage ones sound so great when they were new?? (think Pete, George, Roger, etc...)

Like Collin said: thin wood, thin finish, thin neck -- plus -- the '50s and '60s toaster pickups were different (many threads here on the difference between vintage and reissue toaster pickups) and some electronics were different (wiring, caps). They also experimented with and modded their guitars (think JL, PM, Roger) to squeeze out of them the sound they wanted.

Plus THEY SURE KNEW HOW TO PLAY ! ! !

Agreed Ron. I know a lot of guys don't consider The Beatles to be the most techinically proficient guitarists. BUT, those are the tones that everyone are STILL trying to get, unsuccessfully... (including myself....) Lenny Kravitz apparantly bought a lot of outboard gear from Abbey Road that the Beatles used to try and recreate those tones. Not successful. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to get the early VanHalen tone, Hendrix, or Led Zep tones, etc. But the Beatle tones are still impossible to recreate for some reason. Especially from Revolver to Abbey Road.

Most people who don't think the Beatles were technically profiecient obviously haven't tried some of the uber weird "Beatley" chords that they liked (especially Lennon).

NOT the easiest stuff in the world, especially if you were groomed on blues (12 bar, pentatonics) etc like myself and others.

Don't forget one thing. The mics, the mixing consoles the mastering equipment etc, etc. All had different frequency response back then. The sound that you hear on tape came from not only the guitar and amp but also all that other gear from that 60's time frame.

I know from restoring 20's, 30's and 40's equipment that when you play a 78 on a 30's or 40's Philco for instance that, it just has "that" 30's sound. Even the speaker be it electro magnetic or also my father has a speaker one in his 20's RCA that is the transitional speaker between the horn (acoustic speaker) and the electro magnatic. All of these things account for the sound of an era. The recording techniques in the 40's same thing applies. The frequency response of the equipment used and that was out at the time lends to the sound. Today alot of recording equipment is so good and can catch so many frequencies that alot of people are dissapointed that they cannot get the sound of their 60 idols. My only point being it is everything in the chain that made that sound not just the guitar and amp and todays recoding equipment is totally different.

Nice! I love this place! You guys are great

If there are forumists interested on getting that Beatles-AbbeyRoad-Sound, here's an help:

http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/

That is one magic-looking guitar Billy. Great to hear that it sounds and plays like it looks!