Chris Squire Bass 4001CS

seyesbass · Post by **seyesbass** » Wed May 23, 2001 10:59 am

Whitfords..DONT DO IT, if you have to play a Ric without the horseshoe magnet in the way please get a mid 70s 4001 and take the plastic cover off.

whitfordstholmes · Post by **whitfordstholmes** » Wed May 23, 2001 1:58 pm

Pete: Er...um...too late? I can certainly put it back on. Of course, having spent all my $ getting this bass, I'm not able to get a mid 70s 4001 right now. I haven't noticed any great change in the sound, and it's not very practical for my playing style with it on. Thoughts or comments on the issue are certainly welcome. (P.S. check the posts under "ask a Rickenabacker luthier")

SixtyFour · Post by **SixtyFour** » Wed May 23, 2001 9:14 pm

Hi all, i would like to comment on this current thread, it seems that this subject of the chrome covered "plastic" pu cover was discussed elsewhere on the Forum. Cir 1968, Rickenbacker ceased production of the now famous "horseshoe" ( over & under ) pu used for many years on the very first "electric" guitars pioneered by the Rickenbacker Co. In 1957 this same type over & under pickup was used on the first Rick bass, the model 4000. In 1963, in addition to the HS, a second pu was installed in the neck position, the "toaster" as we know it today. The model 4001 bass was "born", basically the second pu was added to make the bass a bit more versatile, tone wise. When the hi-gain pickup took the place of the horseshoe, in the bridge position, it was strictly an "under string" pu, it no longer used the two horseshoe magnets, the "over string" portion. IMO, Rick wanted to keep the traditional "look" of the horseshoe magnet pu, hence, the chrome covered "plastic" cover was used in place of the two magnets. This cover was "ornamental", a hand rest so to say, it served in no way to affect the tone of the bridge pu. Many players realised this and felt it only "got in the way" of their playing style and removed the plastic cover, which was a simple task to perform............ (this is my opinion), tnx.

BassyBill · Post by **BassyBill** » Thu May 24, 2001 11:56 am

Just found this forum and also currently dabating whether to upgrade my fleet to a 4001CS if i can find one. I was interested in the pickup cover thread. I though the CS had the up and over pickup with the gap in the middle. Is it plastic too? I have a 4003 and removed the plastic cover immediately

whitfordstholmes · Post by **whitfordstholmes** » Thu May 24, 2001 2:04 pm

The CS4001 has 'the real deal' so far as I can tell, i.e. a genuine horseshoe pickup. The cover IS metal, unlike the 4003S I have which is a plastic type cover.

rob · Post by **rob** » Thu May 24, 2001 6:31 pm

I think I'll buy one!!! (Uh-oh, here I go again!)

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Fri May 25, 2001 1:51 am

BassyBill, I have a 4001CS and all the metalwork on the guitar is basically of the same gauge used on the Rickenbacker 4001's of the 1960's. There are very minimal differences but the pickup in question is okay.

Rick_Harper · Post by **Rick_Harper** » Wed Jul 04, 2001 5:25 pm

Francis Hall told me on the phone in '84 that the horseshoe pu's being used on the first v63's were exactly like the originals... they found someone who could make them as they used a high-tungsten steel; it's my understanding the later horsehoes would work with full output without the "magnet covers" in place. I recall he said the main reason the horseshoes were discontinued in the first place was the cost of the things, the type of steel needed was very expensive at the time.

Rick Harper

Karl_X · Post by **Karl_X** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 1:52 am

I've played a '73 4001 with the guard in place for 6 years, and have gotten used to the thing right where it designed to be. After I took it off, I still find myself playing in the same position as always. I bought a '99 4001CS, and noticed the dramatic improvement in sound. I love it, and can't ever think of getting rid of it! All my (Fender)friends want me to use the Ric bass when we jam! *Note*...When I play my PJ bass, My hand and fingers automatically fall closer to the bridge. So it's all a matter of getting used to the instrument.

levykev · Post by **levykev** » Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:38 am

Answer me this: why do they ship the 4001CS Chris Squire signature bass with a nut that won't facilitate Rotosound strings?? Is that their way of getting us to use Rickenbacker strings?? Did everyone get their nut filed?

kl-

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Wed Aug 29, 2001 9:46 am

File the nut.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 6:10 pm

Rick, I might have told you about the horseshoes but my dad certainly didn't. He retired more than two years before the first "V" Series guitar was produced!

With regard to the Rotosounds, who said they won't fit? They have many different gauges available, some similar and even some smaller than our standard set . . . no filing required.

levykev · Post by **levykev** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:38 am

Hey John- I'm the guilty one. I purchased the Rotosound medium-guage RS66 Swing bass strings, like Chris Squire, and proceeded to put them on my newly acquired 4001CS....they didn't fit. In the process, I loosened the nut. I noticed that the A and D strings are very non-standard guages for most complete sets of medium guaged strings. That was my problem. I now just buy 4 seperate strings, until I have time to have my bass modified.

chucksimms · Post by **chucksimms** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 8:01 pm

I too had to file the nut when I put Rotosound RS66 strings on my CS4001 (ooh I love this bass!)

levykev · Post by **levykev** » Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:02 am

I find I have an imbalance of volume on my E and G strings on my 4001 CS. They're not as loud as the second and third strings. I've lowered the bridge saddle a little to compensate, but that just brings the A and D string closer to the magnets, thus louder.

So, without having independent string saddles, how can I compensate for this?