Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

basshead wrote:

Seans wrote:More room with a 4004?

I wouldn't think so. Aren't the bodies the same shape, except for basically the binding?

Yes, but I mean space on the body, like the small pickups especially the treble.

aceonbass wrote:I would do this without the standard 4000 series guard. First I'd make a maple block to fill the neck pickup route, as it already weakens the neck area. Next, I'd mill 1/4" off of the front. Then another 1/4" off of the back. Then route the body wings out and certain areas down the center section, being careful to stay away from the body/wing joints. Next, a 1/4" cap of book matched, quilted maple would go on top. This would be routed for a neck pickup mounted like a 4004's, and the standard bridge pickup and tailpiece routes. Controls would be mounted to a 4005 style guard. I'd do a book matched quilted back 1/4" thick. The sound hole would be the 5 1/2" X 1 1/2" hole routed for the bridge pickup. The bass would be double bound to hide the seams for the front and rear body caps.

Now, that sounds interesting...

aceonbass wrote:I would do this without the standard 4000 series guard. First I'd make a maple block to fill the neck pickup route, as it already weakens the neck area. Next, I'd mill 1/4" off of the front. Then another 1/4" off of the back. Then route the body wings out and certain areas down the center section, being careful to stay away from the body/wing joints. Next, a 1/4" cap of book matched, quilted maple would go on top. This would be routed for a neck pickup mounted like a 4004's, and the standard bridge pickup and tailpiece routes. Controls would be mounted to a 4005 style guard. I'd do a book matched quilted back 1/4" thick. The sound hole would be the 5 1/2" X 1 1/2" hole routed for the bridge pickup. The bass would be double bound to hide the seams for the front and rear body caps.

I like that idea!

johnallg wrote:Wim, hollowing out a 4001/3 style has possibilities, but for me the slash soundhole and the shape of the body (lines and curves) just don't fit for me aesthetically.

Any better?

aceonbass wrote:I would do this without the standard 4000 series guard. First I'd make a maple block to fill the neck pickup route, as it already weakens the neck area. Next, I'd mill 1/4" off of the front. Then another 1/4" off of the back. Then route the body wings out and certain areas down the center section, being careful to stay away from the body/wing joints. Next, a 1/4" cap of book matched, quilted maple would go on top. This would be routed for a neck pickup mounted like a 4004's, and the standard bridge pickup and tailpiece routes. Controls would be mounted to a 4005 style guard. I'd do a book matched quilted back 1/4" thick. The sound hole would be the 5 1/2" X 1 1/2" hole routed for the bridge pickup. The bass would be double bound to hide the seams for the front and rear body caps.

That would no doubt look great, but I don't think I'll go that much effort, lol.

I agree on the slash soundhole being not too compatible with the 4000 series contours.
An f hole would make it even worse.
It could do without soundhole, but then that would beat the purpose of showing off it's hollowedness off course.
A 4004 would be a better instrument to convert I think.

A 360 or 370 is rounded and they look pretty good.

A lot of work for not much return I suspect, unless you're really into the aesthetics.

It is an interesting idea, and of course a person can do just about anything, given enough time and money. What bothers me,though, is that for some reason the whole idea keeps making me think about the insides of my Danelectro DC bass. I don't know why, other than the thinness, and the way the wooden part of the body is essentially just a ring. An interesting concept; will have to get my sketchpad out...

I don"t wan't to be a downer, but: let's keep it easy, no, it's just not right.

daveman wrote:I don"t wan't to be a downer, but: let's keep it easy, no, it's just not right.

WRT the sound hole, flipping the "slash" sound hole upside down is the right idea, but the sound hole needs to be smaller, and the front end cut doesn't work; I suggest you shring the sound hole dimensions slighlty (smaller body, smaller sound hold), and flip just the front end cut of the sound hole cut/shape back to the way it looks right side up, and sharpen the angle slightly to complement the shape angle of the top body horn; if you do those two things, I think you'll have a sound hole that works with the body shape.