Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickbass wrote:Well, exactly how much different is the sound in a magnetized horseshoe pickup and a non-magnetized horseshoe pickup ?? Like, would this be noticeable to the average bass guitarist, or only someone who reeaaallly listens to the subtle differences ? I ordered a horseshoe pickup from the factory in the early 90's, but it sure looks like the one in the picture.

That would also interest me very much.
But apparently no one can answer that ?!?

The easiest way would be if someone owns both shoes and could give a sound example.

Unless I'm missing something, if a pickup becomes demagnetized, it won't have any output. A partially demagnetized pickup would have a low output compared to a properly magnetized pickup.

My reasoning comes from generator theory. To generate a voltage requires a conductor, a magnetic field and relative motion between them. A vibrating string perturbs the magnetic field, causing relative motion between the field and the windings of the coil, which generates a voltage. So, no magnetic field, no voltage, no output.

Many thanks Isaac.

But I think you misunderstood.
We only wanted to know what's the differences in sound between an older horseshoe with magnetic shoes and a newer horseshoe without magnetic shoes.

Greetings Michael

Yup, it's been a while.

I believe it was John Hall that said RIC stopped offering the magnetized horseshoes because the steel with desirable magnetic properties had become too difficult to get and too inconsistent.

I own an 84 v63 with the magnetic horseshoe. The bobbin in unlike anything that is used in any RIC bass before or after. Slotted wide pad head screws are the pole pieces. It's a nice sounding bass but I'd stop well short of saying it sounds like a 60's horsie bass. All my past 60's bases rang like piano's when played acoustically. For me, this is the mark of a quality instrument. The 84 v63, well it sounds like piece of wood with strings attached to it, so she's handicapped right from the start. This is no way a knock on her, she is a fine instrument but she can't compete with a 60's 4001.

Everyone here has seen the horde of vintage parts that J Hall has in his, locked caged in area at RIC HQ. The loaded 4002 pickguard. numerous pairs of magnetized shoes, late 60's/early 70's slotted pole piece bobbins..... How many of these basses were made. no one knows. My guess is 10 or so. The shoes are identical in dimensions, looks, and finish to the 60's shoes. They either came from the same manufacturer, made to the exact specs, or they are left over. Only J. Hall knows for sure I will say this, they are indistinguishable from their 60's issued counterparts.

Sepp

soundcity5150 wrote:Many thanks Isaac.

But I think you misunderstood.
We only wanted to know what's the differences in sound between an older horseshoe with magnetic shoes and a newer horseshoe without magnetic shoes.

Greetings Michael

No comparison. If anyone tells you a modern RIC, or any other non horsie RIC for that matter, sounds like a vintage horsie 4001, they are either lying or they've never played an original 60's 4001. Like I've stated before, I truly believe the timber used in 60's 4001's is different from the wood used in 4003's today. Very few post 60's RIC basses ring quite like the 60's 4001's I've owned. My Shodow rings and I've often wondered how she would sound with a Horsie.

Sepp

Kopfjaeger wrote:

soundcity5150 wrote:...I truly believe the timber used in 60's 4001's is different from the wood used in 4003's today.

Sepp

Of course, the wood used today is not the same as that from 50 years ago, and, also, in that intervening time period, that old wood has probably changed its characteristics due to vibrational and moisture loss/change since it was newly used back then. The same goes for pickups and their magnetic properties.

Have you ever wondered what your 50 year old basses sounded like when they were brand new? Outside of recordings (which can not really be a true source given the recording process and all the tonal/sonic transformations that it can/does provide), most of us will never really know.

The "they don't make them/they don't sound like the old ones" debate would require a time machine to really put this to the test. The only people I can think of who have such a device are Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart.

jps wrote:

Kopfjaeger wrote:

soundcity5150 wrote:...I truly believe the timber used in 60's 4001's is different from the wood used in 4003's today.

Sepp

Of course, the wood used today is not the same as that from 50 years ago, and, also, in that intervening time period, that old wood has probably changed its characteristics due to vibrational and moisture loss/change since it was newly used back then. The same goes for pickups and their magnetic properties.

Hmm, I agree, to a point. Yes moisture plays a part but it's not the only part nor is it the biggest. Case in point, my 73 didn't ring like my 68 or my 65. There were 5 and 8 years separating the two 60's 4001's from the 73. So is 50 years the point in which matters? 45? 40? If that were the case, whoo hoo, another 5 to 10 years and everyones v63 will sound like a 64 RM 1999!!!!

As far as pick ups goes, we can re-gauss shoes to mimic factory specs but I wasn't talking about tone under amplification. I was talking acoustically. Buy a Sans Amp and choose whatever tone floats your boat but acoustically shows everything the bass the capable of being from a pure standpoint.

Sepp

[quote= Buy a Sans Amp and choose whatever tone floats your boat but acoustically shows everything the bass the capable of being from a pure standpoint.
[/quote]

Agreed. My first Ric (74 4001) was never even plugged in at the store. I knew what they sounded like, having played three or four in the months before purchase. I was in the basement of Chuck Levins and went thru a stack of six or eight of them. How it resonated and felt, the 'tone' I could hear in the nice quiet basement, I just knew which one was right. When I had made the selection the sales guy said "lets go up and amp it up". I said "no, just wrap it up, i know what it sounds like already."

You cannot beat an acoustic evaluation!

They're all different. Each piece of wood is different. They dry differently over the years. There's no way to replicate that, though the "new" roasting methods probably help.

soundcity5150 wrote:Many thanks Isaac.

But I think you misunderstood.
We only wanted to know what's the differences in sound between an older horseshoe with magnetic shoes and a newer horseshoe without magnetic shoes.

Greetings Michael

Well, that's a horse of a different color!

Isaac wrote:

soundcity5150 wrote:Many thanks Isaac.

But I think you misunderstood.
We only wanted to know what's the differences in sound between an older horseshoe with magnetic shoes and a newer horseshoe without magnetic shoes.

Greetings Michael

Well, that's a horse of a different color!

Could you describe it,Isaac ??

The magnetic HS in the '85 I had had significantly lower output than the later ones. It was also characteristically unbalanced at the G string.
It took a bit of adjusting to even out the individual string volumes. Tonally it was close to a mid 60's lipped bobbin HS but had a little less "crunch" or grit.
It also seemed weak compared to the "hot" toaster.
The later HS pickups are hotter and brighter.

Interesting. So its the same question, "Is it the bass, or the pickups" that give the RM1999 its distinctive tone.?

If I had the tools and the skill set, I'd try building my own.

chefothefuture wrote:The magnetic HS in the '85 I had had significantly lower output than the later ones. It was also characteristically unbalanced at the G string.
It took a bit of adjusting to even out the individual string volumes. Tonally it was close to a mid 60's lipped bobbin HS but had a little less "crunch" or grit.
It also seemed weak compared to the "hot" toaster.
The later HS pickups are hotter and brighter.

Many thanks for your answer,John.
I don't know how the older horseshoes sounds.
But if your description is correct then I think I wouldn't really like the older shoe.

So I have another question.

I own a '91 4001 CS and a V63 that's also from '91.
Both have the 12k toaster and the 12k horseshoe.
And it was so,that the horseshoe sounds darker and fatter then the toaster.
I thought by myself that how it could be that the horseshoe is more fatter and darker as the toaster ???
On both I installed the 3rd cap.
The horseshoes now sounds more balanced.And they also do have now more ' crunch ' .

I would like to know,is it the right thing I was doing ?
I realized that a V63 or that CS have no 3rd cap... Why ???.
Does a real RM 1999 haven't that cap,too ?

Sorry for asking,but I'd like to have my CS and my V63 as close as possible to the original Sound

The wood is key to the 60s basses sound quality. RMs were lighter than their modern counterparts. My 1990 CS (now stereo) is very close to sounding like a 60s Rick but the timber is slightly heavier than the RM it is emulating. When I had Maurice Gibbs RM it was the liveliest bass both plugged and unplugged. Having owned three RMs I can say that the combination of light timber quality of construction and (lets not forget how much store guitarists put in the materials of their vintage bridges) the aluminium bridge/tailpiece anchoring the strings to that resonant wood make the bass sound like it does. Chris Squire (mistakenly in my opinion) thought his RM was “shaved down” during refinishing but he was probably more aware of the lightweight of the RM after using the 21 fret 4001 whilst it was being refinished. I would like some current RM owners (with all original basses) to do a weigh-in so we can see what the difference actually is. Any offers guys?