Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I considered buying one, BUT if they really arent leaps and bounds better than the hi gains I have now, nah, I'll pass.

aceonbass wrote: I think RIC should just replace the 4003 bridge hi-gain with this and just right the wrong that was done by the plastic cover.

But what about those of us who value how our bass plays over how it looks?

aceonbass wrote:

rickaddict wrote:But what about those of us who value how our bass plays over how it looks?

Good point if the shoes are in your way, but then I leave the cover/shoes on for use as a handrest. Like the plastic cover, you can always remove the shoes.

Are the shoes purely cosmetic (just a better looking version of the plastic cover) or do they affect the performance of the pickup?

I'll find out soon how I like playing with the horseshoe - but I have to note that my favorite Rick bassist's technique doesn't seem to be hampered by the pickup on his RM1999!

Unless you consider the possibility that having Alnico magnets as pole pieces might give a different magnetic field (and quite likely, a different inductance profile) than steel slugs/screws.

I also remember John Hall mentioning that they carefully designed the RIHS to have similar magnetic charactersitics to the original horseshoes, using Hall Effect sensors (no relation to John's family) to measure the magnetic field.

Now, does this change the sound? Well some people seem to think so. I guess I'll find out what I think fairly soon...

....put the .0047Mf cap in line as that is part of the sonic property of a horseshoe pickup, also. You may even want a larger cap as I found the cap rolled off more bottom end from my magnetic HSPU than the RIHSPU, my guess is the lower winding DC resistance of the magnetic PU vs. the RIPU.

jps wrote:....put the .0047Mf cap in line as that is part of the sonic property of a horseshoe pickup, also. You may even want a larger cap as I found the cap rolled off more bottom end from my magnetic HSPU than the RIHSPU, my guess is the lower winding DC resistance of the magnetic PU vs. the RIPU.

Good point. I use the cap engaged quite a bit on my stock 4003, I use DR Lo-Riders, and my rig can get lots of bottom end when I need to anyway.

aceonbass wrote:While they aren't leaps and bounds over a standard bridge hi-gain, they give that perfect retro-vintage touch to those looking for something different. I put one in my '64 4001S because anything else would be just wrong. I think RIC should just replace the 4003 bridge hi-gain with this and just right the wrong that was done by the plastic cover.

My personal opinion is that the modern bridge pickup is only about the look, anyway. I have often wondered why the bridge route is still routed for a horseshoe pickup when a standard high gain would seem to make more sense. In this context, the horseshoe makes sense to be placed on all 4003s, so I say go for it

jps wrote:....put the .0047Mf cap in line as that is part of the sonic property of a horseshoe pickup, also. You may even want a larger cap as I found the cap rolled off more bottom end from my magnetic HSPU than the RIHSPU, my guess is the lower winding DC resistance of the magnetic PU vs. the RIPU.

Oh, yes, the cap is in the plan, with a switch to bypass it.

I'm not clear what you meant to say about a "larger cap". A larger cap would pass more lows (it's in series with the pickup). If you're saying more low end needs to be filtered off of the RIHS, wouldn't that take a smaller cap?

What might be more significant is the value of the volume pot. My originals are 250K volume, 500K tone, the new basses have 330K for both.

I'm planning to go Rick-o-sound anyway, though, which will give me ample control over the tone of the bridge pickup.

songdog wrote:I'm not clear what you meant to say about a "larger cap". A larger cap would pass more lows (it's in series with the pickup).

Well then, a smaller cap. So, it works the same way as a tone cap, that larger the value the more lows it passes? I know that a tone cap is in parallel, so I thought a series cap would work the opposite way, please enlighten me.

jps wrote:

songdog wrote:I'm not clear what you meant to say about a "larger cap". A larger cap would pass more lows (it's in series with the pickup).

Well then, a smaller cap. So, it works the same way as a tone cap, that larger the value the more lows it passes? I know that a tone cap is in parallel, so I thought a series cap would work the opposite way, please enlighten me.

High frequencies go through a capacitor easier than low frequencies. In the tone control circuit, the cap is used to short high frequencies to ground. The low frequencies can't go through the cap, so they are still available to drive the amp. In this circuit, it is the DC resistance of the coil and the capacitor that form a voltage divider that depends on frequency.

The cap in series with the bridge pickup blocks low frequencies from reaching the amp, but lets the high frequencies through. In this circuit, it is the capacitor and the volume pot that form the voltage divider.

In either case, to a first approximation the "corner frequency" (where the resistance and the capacitance divide the the voltage evenly between them) is 1 / (2 * pi * R * C), where R is ohms and C is farads. So, for example, if the DC resistance of the pickup is 7.5k, and the tone control is fully CCW (effectively connecting the .047 cap directly to ground), the tone control kicks in around 450 Hz (anything above that will be seriously attenuated).

I need to find a nice way to post diagrams here... words may not be an adequate explanation.

Watch it Bill, you're starting to sound almost as nerdy as me...

I wish I understood 10% of that.