Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I posted this over at the "Chris Squire and Yes" thread, and am afraid its going to get buried. However, I think its a decent question, so Im tossing it here on this thread for you all to pick apart. It was initially directed to Vincent Gallo, but here it is:

Vincent, since you seem to have the largest collection of vintage Rickenbackers I've heard of, and especially praise '60's era Ricks, I was wondering if you have had a chance to pick up or try a new "C" series 4001. And if so,,what were your thoughts?

Im so curious to know if its actually the vintage bass itself that feels and sounds so much better, or if its just simply the natural "aging" process of an instrument being some odd 40 years old?

Which, (I'll try to tie this all together here),,,what I'm trying to say is,, will a V63 or a C64 4001 sound and play like a RM 40 years from now?

Forgive me in advance if this sounds silly, but I've never played anything older than a '72.

I'm obviously not VG, but I can point out a couple major differences between my 4001C64S, my '98 4001V63, and the 10 or so 60's Ricks that I've played: My C64S and my '98 V63 have noticeably larger (in girth) necks than the 60's Ricks. The tone out of a re-issue horseshoe is a lot beefier too. Not as much high end and harmonics, but a more solid fundamental. I don't think any aging of the wood is gonna change those two things.

The new re-issues are great basses with stronger necks and superior truss rods and I'm sure will appreciate in value and have their own following 40 years from now, but I think those two things will always separate the 60's Ricks from the re-issues.

I'm sure the wood will be a major factor, and not just because of the ageing. I've read that much of the wood used in vintage guitars had been around a lot longer, was grown a lot slower etc, and therefore the density differs. Whether this is true I don't know, but if it is, and the density of the guitar is affected, then there are likely to be some sonic differences. I know people who say this is the main reason why a typical 50s Les Paul sounds so much better than a typical modern one (although ultimately it depends on your personal taste; it's quite feasible that some people may prefer the sound of modern basses/guitars).

I don't believe that older wood makes for better musical instruments ... but they were built differently ... there are benefits and consequences to the way they built Rickenbacker basses in the 60s ...

The down side of 60s basses ...
1 - simply stringing them with a set of round wound strings will stress the neck beyond its design specs ...
2 - the horseshoe pickups used are prone to degaussing ... and sometimes they won't recharge ...
3 - The capacitor completely eliminates bass and low mid response from the bridge pickup ...
4 - if you adjust the truss rods improperly the fret board can pop off ...

The up side of the 60s Rickenbacker basses ...

1 - The necks are thinner and made with fewer pieces of wood then the modern 4003 neck ... this makes them resonate better but they are also weaker ...

60s basses are rare so if you can put up with the weaker necks and weaker pickups they are fun to play ...

I liked my old 68 4001 when I removed the capacitor and put in 4003 pickups ... If I had any interest in playing 4 string basses then I would have kept that bass ... the modern 4003 neck is built stronger this makes the 4003 able to use any strings but it also does not resonate as well as the 60s basses ...

There are several reasons they don't build the basses like the old 4001 basses any more ...

After got a RM1999 I sold my V63.
They have completely different sound and feel.
If you like modern bass sound (like "Mid cut"),v is good bass but heavy and fat neck especially around low position.
'60s is lighter than V, and Very thin neck (mine is no need to adjust. Always stay in tune,amaging!) and Fat sound with longer sustain.
Yes, I also remove the low cut cap, re-charge the horse-shoe. Best choice for the '60s sound, not modern.
It is hard to find but if you try one, you can realise the differences very easily.

It is hard to find

Not really, just look in VGs abode!

for me after having this bass here http://www.3dentourage.com/425/68-ric-2.htm as my bass for 33 years I now really appreciate the newer Rics ... the straighter stronger necks and better electronics won me over ...

Squire's RM1999 neck was shaved down even further than its original specs plus it's had rotosounds on for 40 years. Yet other 4001 basses from the same era (Entwistle's) and later have been ruined by roundwounds. If a 4003 neck is stronger due to laminates and better truss rods, possibly 'overengineered', than is there any reason it couldn't be safely shaved down to thinner 60's specs?

Squire's bass was also strengthened by a new fretboard ... my old 68 had a sweet neck but it would never completely flatten out like the new basses necks do ...

I had RS66LDs on DH163 with no problems.
I also used to do vibrato by bending the neck!
Never had any problems.
The John Lodge RM had a new fretboard but the neck warped at the headstock and at that time I didnt know of anyone who could fix it so I sold it.
Could be that some necks were made of stronger wood.

I used to bend my old 68 neck to add fret buzz as desired ...

Pete,

I had Roto's on DH163 for years too and never any problems. It's 40-95 D'Addario's today with that thin neck.

Funny, DE554 has a much thicker neck and has had trouble all it's life. The wood is definitely a factor.

I recently discussed this with a world class luthier. Even he said you can never predict which necks you may have trouble with. The wood is a huge factor, as each piece is different.

Soundwise, if you look at the footage of Renaissance playing "Black Flame" on Youtube, that's pretty much my ideal Rick sound, and my '72 sounds very like that. Anyone know what year that bass is? Looks 72 or earlier to me.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_5h0SKUSM

that's pretty much my ideal Rick sound

I can get that sound with XLs and this: