4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
cjj
RRF Moderator
Posts: 10932
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cjj »

rickaddict wrote:Well then the way I see it, the only way to find out which pickup configuration will best suit CJ's needs is to build the Rickenbacker 4004 equivalent of this:
That's exactly what I'm afraid of if I put 4 pickups on my 4004Cii...
:roll: :lol:
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
User avatar
86kubicki
Advanced Member
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by 86kubicki »

rickenbrother wrote:A sound clip of a 4004LK bridge pickup would be great.
Ask and ye shall receive Joey!
http://www.soundclick.com/seagreenvibe
I've added another clip - click on the "4004lk" link. Recorded straight into Pro Tools, this is a 4004LK with factory RIC roundwounds, and the tone control is on full treble. The first part of the clip is all three pickups, and the latter part is the bridge pickup only.
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13218
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by rickenbrother »

Thanks Steve! :)
That bass sounds really nice. I love the clarity and growl from the bridge pickup. With the growl from that pickup, if that bass was fretless, Tony Cabibe would be on the next plane to Canada and you'd have a permanent house guest! :lol:
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
User avatar
cjj
RRF Moderator
Posts: 10932
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cjj »

Yes, Steve, thanks for posting that! I'm definitely liking the idea (and sound) of adding a pickup in the 4004LK bridge position.

Now, if I could only figure out what difference moving from my present 4004Cii bridge position to the 4004LK middle position would be. I'm guessing that even if you made a recording of just that pickup, gauging how that's different from a 4004Cii bridge pickup would be difficult...
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
User avatar
86kubicki
Advanced Member
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by 86kubicki »

rickenbrother wrote:...Tony Cabibe would be on the next plane to Canada and you'd have a permanent house guest! :lol:
As long as Tony likes Canadian winters! :lol:
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13218
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by rickenbrother »

86kubicki wrote:
rickenbrother wrote:...Tony Cabibe would be on the next plane to Canada and you'd have a permanent house guest! :lol:
As long as Tony likes Canadian winters! :lol:
Don't worry, he's getting really good at baking. It keeps the house warm! :wink:
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
User avatar
VRICKY63
Intermediate Member
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:31 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by VRICKY63 »

86kubicki wrote:
VRICKY63 wrote:Are we playing Bass or guitar ? A pickup close to the bridge would be useless .
I beg to differ - here's a 4002 recorded using only its bridge pickup:

http://www.soundclick.com/seagreenvibe
Not impressed with that burpy tone :roll:
It's too early in the morning to talk about our relationship !
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by rickaddict »

VRICKY63 wrote:
Not impressed with that burpy tone :roll:
But whether you like the tone or not, the playing rocks!
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13218
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by rickenbrother »

rickaddict wrote: But whether you like the tone or not, the playing rocks!
+1!
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
User avatar
cjj
RRF Moderator
Posts: 10932
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cjj »

rickenbrother wrote:
rickaddict wrote: But whether you like the tone or not, the playing rocks!
+1!
Yes, I agree! Great playing!

I have to say, the "burpy" tone alone might be a bit much, but adding that edge to the huge sound the 4004Cii has would, In my opinion, be great! As I said before, the 4004Cii has a great tone, but I want a bit more bite in it. I'm thinking this would be a good thing to do.

I'm having a bit of a hard time imagining just how much different the tone would be from the stock position of my 4004Cii bridge pickup and the 4002/4004LK mid position. I mean, it's only 1.75 inches. But then again, that's about the same distance to the 4002 bridge pickup too, so I suppose it could be very different indeed...
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
User avatar
cassius987
Senior Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cassius987 »

I understand why people don't like some bridge pickups, like the anemic bridge pickup on a Jazz Bass (though some folks swear by it... I'm not among them). The difference with the 4002 is that its humbucker really gives it a lot of beef. I have played Scott Pope's 4002 (and gigged it) and I treated it very much like my 4003s: lots of blending that depended on the song. Some song really called for that pickup to dominate. Others begged for the neck pickup.

CJ, you do what you want with it, it's your bass. Aesthetically I think 4 pickups would be better than 3... I know it sounds goofy because it is aesthetically motivated but you may be happiest if you just get everything evenly spaced, and give each pickup a switch so they can be turned on or off and operate on a single volume and tone (to reduce impedance so everything sounds nicer). Then you can blend to your heart's desire, though I guess not so much in terms of decibel levels... Just a thought I guess. To reduce clutter you could put the switches on the back of the bass as long as they were those low-profile types. You could replace the current selector switch with another pot maybe or use it to toggle something like a capacitor.

As for Steve's 4002 clip, I adore it. Good work buddy.
Last edited by cassius987 on Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
winston
Membership Admin
Posts: 11010
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:00 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by winston »

cassius987 wrote:As for Steve's 4002 clip, I adore it. Good work buddy.
I could not agree more with the above comment. Well done Steve.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
User avatar
cjj
RRF Moderator
Posts: 10932
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cjj »

Here's a little taste of what it would look like with 3 pickups (thanks a HUGE bunch to the skills of Mr. Joey V.!):
4004Cjj3PU.jpg
A 4th pickup might look OK, but then again, it just might start to look goofy.

I'm thinking right now that I'll do triple stacked knobs, V/T for each pickup. That way I really don't need a switch to select as I can just roll the volume off if I don't want one in the mix.

I'll be setting this up for stereo too (I've already got that). I'm thinking a switch on the back to add the center pickup to either the bridge or neck as desired. Also, switches to select single or double coil for each pickup. I've got that already with the 2 I have now.

If I put a 3rd stacked pot in, I won't have room for as many switches as I've got now though, so I'll lose the selectable 4002 tone circuit. So far, I can't say it does a whole lot with the HB-1's so the loss won't be missed much...
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
User avatar
cassius987
Senior Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by cassius987 »

cjj wrote:A 4th pickup might look OK, but then again, it just might start to look goofy.
To each his/her own, but if it were me doing this I would try to achieve the most evenly spaced pickup layout possible (distance between all pickups is the same) to achieve the best aesthetic--and I think there would be sonic benefits to that scheme as well. This kind of layout could only be done using four pickups in this situation so for me it would be hard to do anything else. Others may not be bothered by this sort of thing, but I think about it in cases like this.

Naturally I'm not the one doing the project so my opinion is nothing more than chatter, and I also can't back it up by saying that I would actually go through with it if I really had the chance. I just wanted to clarify my previous statement about why I suggested going with four pickups instead of three.
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: 4004Cii to 4002/4004LK Conversion

Post by rickaddict »

Nice photoshopping, Joey!

Could we see what it would look like with 4 evenly spaced pickups?!

(Give me an inch and I'll take a mile!!)

8)
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”