Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

If he (the builder) doesn't like the way Rickenbacker basses play, that's fine, but build something a little more original then...

sloop_john_b wrote:

IvanMunoz wrote: I don't know what you wrote that is censored out, but my opinion on pickholders is that they are stupid. They look terrible on guitars and kind of amatureish, but still I have to hand it to the guy, the build it holder is clever.
I just put my picks in the strings or on the The Hofner, ram it underneath the neck pickup mount.

Just pick any disparaging 7-letter word you like.

e'rr...... "Catfish"!

Eden.

" 'Fuuudge.' Only I didn't say 'fudge.' "

bassduke49 wrote:" 'Fuuudge.' Only I didn't say 'fudge.' "

I said the queen mother of all dirty words; the F triple dash word....


Over the years I became quite the connoisser of soap....

iiipopes wrote:And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string?

Not sure I understand this criticism. The tuners for the B and E strings are roughly going to be in the same place either way AFAIK. Also would depend on the string maker, I guess.

Although I don't personally care for this design, I don't believe this will be removed. The seller does not say "Rickenbacker copy" and there are enough little alterations in his design, headstock, pick-ups, bridge...etc. Perhaps I'm incorrect.

bassman7365 wrote:Although I don't personally care for this design, I don't believe this will be removed. The seller does not say "Rickenbacker copy" and there are enough little alterations in his design, headstock, pick-ups, bridge...etc. Perhaps I'm incorrect.

I don't care for the look either. It looks like a 4001/3S shaped tree trunk with guitar parts. It says, "Rickenbacker Style" in the title of the ad.

bassman7365 wrote:Although I don't personally care for this design, I don't believe this will be removed. The seller does not say "Rickenbacker copy" and there are enough little alterations in his design, headstock, pick-ups, bridge...etc. Perhaps I'm incorrect.

Oh it will be gone very soon. Body, pickguard, TRC shape. Not to mention he does mention Rickenbacker style in both the title and text.

See Ya

jps wrote:

iiipopes wrote:And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string?

Like these?

Yes.

cassius987 wrote:Not sure I understand this criticism. The tuners for the B and E strings are roughly going to be in the same place either way AFAIK. Also would depend on the string maker, I guess.

On many lesser 5-string basses, the 3+2, 4+1 or even 5 in line arrangements can put the B-string tuner so close to the nut that the break angle over the nut is too severe, the string wraps past the leader to the windings around the post, causing binding, or are too cramped to adjust properly, or one or some or all the above, to my opinion making a five string headstock unweildy, cramped, and difficult to tune or otherwise live with.

Also, in my opinion, it dates from the expansion of 4-string basses to 5-string basses with the B-string simply tacked as the "add-on" string, instead of reengineering the instrument from the ground up as its own instrument.

iiipopes wrote:On many lesser 5-string basses, the 3+2, 4+1 or even 5 in line arrangements can put the B-string tuner so close to the nut that the break angle over the nut is too severe, the string wraps past the leader to the windings around the post, causing binding, or are too cramped to adjust properly, or one or some or all the above, to my opinion making a five string headstock unweildy, cramped, and difficult to tune or otherwise live with.

Also, in my opinion, it dates from the expansion of 4-string basses to 5-string basses with the B-string simply tacked as the "add-on" string, instead of reengineering the instrument from the ground up as its own instrument.

I see--I'll be curious what you think of what Paul W. is cooking up for me when it's all done. I wonder if one simple fix for the "inferior" tuner arrangement (relative to the nut more than anything, it would seem) might be to simply cut the excess string on the B a bit shorter than for the others. (I already do this in reverse, to get more break angle on the strings further out from the nut.) But again, string manufacturer will matter as this will change how much voiced length versus non-voiced length the post sees.

I have had an off-and-on relationship with 5-strings and seem to prefer them at extremes, either very 4-ish or not 4-ish at all; but the middle-of-the-spectrum ones leave me cold in most cases. If I was going to play a "5 that was meant to be a 5", I guess it would have to be a Dingwall, if not the Combustion I once owned but something a bit nicer.

I know one thing for sure, I have really fallen in love with how low B sounds on a Ric bass. As for this fake, it clearly infringes on trademark. The body shape is nearly dead-on.

cassius987 wrote:

iiipopes wrote:On many lesser 5-string basses, the 3+2, 4+1 or even 5 in line arrangements can put the B-string tuner so close to the nut that the break angle over the nut is too severe, the string wraps past the leader to the windings around the post, causing binding, or are too cramped to adjust properly, or one or some or all the above, to my opinion making a five string headstock unweildy, cramped, and difficult to tune or otherwise live with.

Also, in my opinion, it dates from the expansion of 4-string basses to 5-string basses with the B-string simply tacked as the "add-on" string, instead of reengineering the instrument from the ground up as its own instrument.

I see--I'll be curious what you think of what Paul W. is cooking up for me when it's all done. I wonder if one simple fix for the "inferior" tuner arrangement (relative to the nut more than anything, it would seem) might be to simply cut the excess string on the B a bit shorter than for the others. (I already do this in reverse, to get more break angle on the strings further out from the nut.) But again, string manufacturer will matter as this will change how much voiced length versus non-voiced length the post sees.

I have had an off-and-on relationship with 5-strings and seem to prefer them at extremes, either very 4-ish or not 4-ish at all; but the middle-of-the-spectrum ones leave me cold in most cases. If I was going to play a "5 that was meant to be a 5", I guess it would have to be a Dingwall, if not the Combustion I once owned but something a bit nicer.

I know one thing for sure, I have really fallen in love with how low B sounds on a Ric bass. As for this fake, it clearly infringes on trademark. The body shape is nearly dead-on.

Anything to keep as much tension on the B string as possible is good, I've played 5 strings that the B string was just floppy and rubberband like.

Ivan, break angle is more a determinant of the "isolation" of the string vibration between the nut and saddle than of the string's tension. This results in a string having more or less sustain and (inversely proportionate) harmonics, and this is why oftentimes people try to increase break angle on lighter strings and decrease it on the larger ones. String tension on the other hand is more a factor of mass per length and ultimately gauge, and a lot of string sets for 5-strings use very small gauges (in relative terms) for the low B resulting in much less tension relative to the others.

These guys put a lot of emphasis on getting the tension balanced in a string set, including 5-strings: http://www.circlekstrings.com

And in a somewhat special example, using D'Addario Nickel XLs, so have I: http://www.bassstringsonline.com/Joshua ... _1065.html

Oh it will be gone very soon. Body, pickguard, TRC shape. Not to mention he does mention Rickenbacker style in both the title and text.

Just went on E-Bay to look at it again and it looks like it's no longer on there!

cassius987 wrote:Ivan, break angle is more a determinant of the "isolation" of the string vibration between the nut and saddle than of the string's tension. This results in a string having more or less sustain and (inversely proportionate) harmonics, and this is why oftentimes people try to increase break angle on lighter strings and decrease it on the larger ones. String tension on the other hand is more a factor of mass per length and ultimately gauge, and a lot of string sets for 5-strings use very small gauges (in relative terms) for the low B resulting in much less tension relative to the others.

These guys put a lot of emphasis on getting the tension balanced in a string set, including 5-strings: http://www.circlekstrings.com

And in a somewhat special example, using D'Addario Nickel XLs, so have I: http://www.bassstringsonline.com/Joshua ... _1065.html

Wouldn't an angled back reverse headstock work then? Just a thought.

IvanMunoz wrote:Wouldn't an angled back reverse headstock work then? Just a thought.

Yes, if the B tuner is high enough on the headstock that only the leader wraps around the post so you can get enough wraps for tuning to be secure without the wraps binding on the bushing.