Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Is eight enough? RIC's second production eight-stringer emerged at the same time as the S5. Obviously yet another headstock design, the S8 relied on the new stronger 4003 neck to hold the tension of the doubled string load. Once again, the Toaster was installed in the bass position, but this time a four-pole high-gain in the treble position. The tailpiece also had the "teeth" over the mute removed. The octave strings were installed "down" from the standard strings as opposed to the setup in the 4008 (the earlier eight-string 4001 model).

Both the 4003S5 and the 4003S8 started appearing in 1986 and production trailed off by 2002.

So let's discuss and post photos of the 4003S8 this week!

Mine is a Jetglo '93 with black trim & hardware:

1993 FG. Strings were already reversed when I got it, with a beautifully cut WHITE nut. I've also added vintage knobs since the picture was taken. And I got rid of the mute and adjustment screws. Treble pup cover removed and Ric/Schaller strap pins added. And I think I've mentioned before that the fingerboard is the thickest I've ever seen on any bass, but the overall necks dims are totally comfy - not much different than my '89 4003S. I think that's it! She stays in tune, and I'm rockin it every weekend lately.

Mine is a '98.
It has a BIG sound but the shared bridge saddles hold it back. The intonation is less than what it should be.

From Feb. '98:

I've noticed that the octive strings on Rics are on the top, while other brands I have seen are on the bottom. Can anyone tell me why this is, and why one would be better than the other? Thanks

When I first got this, I thought it would be hard to play, but it was surprisingly easy. Mine has the octave strings on the bottom. I haven't played one yet with the octave on the top, maybe it is easier.

Jetglo seems to be a popular finish for this model.

Here's some pics of my 1992:

dog wrote:I've noticed that the octive strings on Rics are on the top, while other brands I have seen are on the bottom. Can anyone tell me why this is, and why one would be better than the other? Thanks

Maybe I should have been more specific. By the bottom I meant towards the low end (E) and top I meant towards the high end (G). Anyone have any insight on this?

dog wrote:

dog wrote:I've noticed that the octive strings on Rics are on the top, while other brands I have seen are on the bottom. Can anyone tell me why this is, and why one would be better than the other? Thanks

Maybe I should have been more specific. By the bottom I meant towards the low end (E) and top I meant towards the high end (G). Anyone have any insight on this?

Actually, the 4003S/8 has the arrangement you describe, but the earlier 4008 is opposite. Some people like it one way, some like the other. Some say it depends on whether you play with pick or fingers, but often the reasoning doesn't make sense. Not sure why Rickenbacker switched, but my understanding is that the reason all the tuning machines are the same size is so that people can reverse the string order - which is what I eventually did on my 4003S/8! For me it was mainly a fretting-hand issue - perhaps due to the shape of my fingers I found it very difficult to cleanly fret both strings, but with the 4008-style arrangement I don't have any problems.

dog wrote:

dog wrote:I've noticed that the octive strings on Rics are on the top, while other brands I have seen are on the bottom. Can anyone tell me why this is, and why one would be better than the other? Thanks

Maybe I should have been more specific. By the bottom I meant towards the low end (E) and top I meant towards the high end (G). Anyone have any insight on this?

Sorry, I had that backwards, my octave strings are on the G side. I play with my fingers and this seems pretty comfortable to me. I've read that some people don't like the bridge, because you can't individually set intonation for each string, but this doesn't seem to be a problem on mine. Maybe it gives a little chorus effect, but I can say the sound is massive

Many thanks Harry and Stanley. Like most bass players, I have always thought it would be great to at least try an 8 string, but Ric 8's aren't often for sale. And when they are, the price is pretty high. (as well it should be) Anyway, I have been considering one from another maker, but as I looked at different models I found that every one of them had the octive string reversed when compared to the S8. This was the reason for my question. I suppose I will just buy one of these less expensive ones to give it a try. If I hate it, I can always bay it.

Thanks again for the input

As a former owner of an S/8, I can only conclude that it was done for the same reason the Rick 12-string is that way - you're left with a brighter tone on downstrokes.

My first 8 was a Warmoth/Mighty Mite creation that I put together with the strings in the "traditional" Ric layout - octaves toward the G. In theory, it made sense to me, but in practice, left hand fingering was not the best. As I mentioned above, my S/8 was already converted to octaves toward the E. I was very happy to see that when I opened the box.

Four bridge saddles is a drag. I manage to find a happy medium, but an elegant solution would be nice. I was thinking of trying to integrate a Hamer bridge into the Ric tailpiece somehow. I don't know. I'm not opposed to reversible mods. Some day I guess???

gearhed289 wrote: Four bridge saddles is a drag. I manage to find a happy medium, but an elegant solution would be nice.

So, you'd like something like this? Sorry, I don't know where to get one...