Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Mark, what was the reason why RIC moved the neck pickups down from the neck (closer toward the center of the bass) in the early 70s? Was there a sonic reason in doing this?

My 2 cents on it; only 2 realistic answers.
a[ Rick thought the neck PU tone was Too bottom
ended sounding[which you can clearly tell if you have one of each 4001 with the neck PUs in the different locations; I personally think the PU close to the neck has the Best tone]and, that by moving the PU, they could strengthen the area a bit where it is routed under the pickguard to accomodate the backside of the PU and a portion of the wire.

Thanks Don. Your answers make sense.

my 2 cents worth-- i had always heard that rickenbacker was going to move the truss rod adjustment from the headstock to the other end of the neck, and therefore had to move the neck pickup back about a half-inch, so you could access the adjustment area more easily. then they decided not to move the adjustment area, but decided to keep the neck pickup in the new area.

The change was most likely due to two things ;

1- cracking guards and moving the pickup would eliminate some of that .

2- harmonic placement ... I disagree with that tone of this change ... the 24th fret spot is a 'Sweet' spot and the pickups sound 'better' to my ears in that location .
Hence , my preference for a non 24 fret guitar neck. Basses , that location is too dark and thuddy , see Gibson EB-0 as an example .

Looking back at my last posting , I need to clarrify that a bit .

The original neck pickup on the 4001 was at the 24th fret location ...it was moved .

However , many neck pickups are dull and thuddy (Gibson EB-O is one of those .EVEN if you wire the coils parallel or even wire it as a single coil )

The Rick pickup is vastly undwound and as the polpieces are the magnets (on a Toaster ) you get a crisper sound ---less windings = more treble , more windings more out put /less treble.

A jazz bass by Fender has the pickups in two 'sweet' spots , the 4002 used these locations also , but that bass just does not have the 4001 tone ...I do like it however .I wish that it would have been thought through a bit more . but that is some else to discuss elsewhere.

The moving of the rods to the end of the neck was to eliminate the popping of the fretboard ....I have NEVER seen the end of the fretboard pop on a two guard 4003 . This was NOt an improvement to my eyes however , it does make adjusting more difficult .

I do ramble don't I .... should I stop ?

So Mark,

You are saying you prefer the guitars with the PU in the 'sweet spot' but you like the basses when the neck pu was in the original closer to the neck position?

Or you like it better where it has been moved to?

Mark's mention of the Gibson EB-0 is interesting. Being the biggest Jack Bruce fan in the world, I have long wanted that old Gibson bass tone. However, my preference is for the EB-3 shortscale model with the extra pick-up at the bridge and the Varitone circuit with the 4-way rotary selector. These basses are extremely difficult to find and I've never been able to play one for myself, much less examine it. I HAVE had the opportunity to briefly play a couple of EB-0 models and the experience was very disappointing. Both samples were long since worn out by the time I got my hands on 'em, and they had a cheap feel to them. A couple of people familiar with the EB-0 had warned me that they were not well-made basses and were notorious for the neck coming loose where it joined to the body. Sorry to say, they were right about them not being well-made.

But that incredible tone............... an EB-3 in Jack Bruce's hands and going through a Marshall Major was magic to my ears. I've heard & read a lot of criticism of Bruce's tone (though not his talent) during his time in Cream and West, Bruce, & Laing, but it's never dampened my enthusiasm in the 32 years I've been enjoying his amazingly inventive bass lines with that unmistakable "dull, thuddy" tone. More than one person has told me that particular tone sounds like "bass farts". I always laugh and never take offense because it's very subjective and I realize it's not for everyone. Very much like Rickenbacker: not everyone gets it, and that's perfectly okay.

Peter, I know this is a non-Rickenbacker post, and I do apologize to you and the others here. But Mark's mention of the EB-0 pick-ups made the temptation too strong to resist.

Jeffrey,

Understandable, your frustration with your EB-0 experience.

I have one of those "Cream - Farewell Concert" DVD's, and every close-up of JB shoes the pickup selector on "2", which is the bridge pickup.

How would you know, you ask? My first owned bass was a '63 EB-3 purchased from Top Gear of London (this was '74). The bass differed from Jack's in that my old one had nylon Tune-O-Matic saddles, compared to his solid metal fixed bridge.

Silly me… I traded it in '77 "up" to a re-issue Gibson T-Bird!

Yeah ... the bridge pickup is NECESSARY .

The thud of that neck pickup is overwhelming.

Garry ...I liked that T-bird ...kind of a twisted Jazz bass. Headstock heavy though.

Jack is not the tallest of bassists and the Gibson was available in the UK at the time .
Too bad the 3000 bass was not in the making in the late 1960's ...we might have seen him using that model ...I loved the sound of the 3000 series basses ,the look was another thing.