Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'm thinking about the whole 4001/4003 thing.

Now, to the best of my knowledge (I've heard it mentioned around here) the 4003 was introduced to replace the 4001 for a few reasons, with one of them being the accommodation of higher tension roundwound strings (so I've heard).

Now, in all of my travels, I've never come across a set of roundwound bass strings that were higher tension than roundwounds, on any scale length.

So, is this flawed reasoning, or did early roundwounds really have a higher tension than the flatwounds of the time?

Yeah, I don't know where this comes from either. I've never seen rounds with higher tension than flats except perhaps TI flats, which admittedly are similar to old RIC flats.

Nick and Josh, keep in mind Rick flatwounds were fairly low tension flats (think TI Jazz flats tension or lower) and the only rounds out at first were the Rotosound rounds and they are a lot higher tension, but all rounds that came out back then were higher in tension. Also remember that the 60s bass necks are the thinnest 400x necks and people not really knowing how to properly adjust the truss rods. All this added up to the stories we share today.

+1, John.

The rotos I used in the seventies felt like bridge cable tension, comapared with flats. It made me work a lot harder to play them. My Gibson Ripper didn't seem to mind them, though, and the sound was outstanding.

You are correct. The premise is flawed. This stems from the fact that early Rotosounds loaded the neck quite a bit more than the Rickenbacker flats did. This coupled with the fact most techs / players / luthiers did not know how to adjust the old style rods lead to hundreds of trashed bass necks. The blame right or wrong fell on Rotosounds (heck all rounds) and stayed there for a long time. I used Rotos for over 20 years with no problems. They ate my frets but never trashed a neck. The model name change set a clear delineation between which basses could have rounds and keep their warranties.

Another example of Rotos not trashing an old Rick neck when properly adjusted (think RM1999) would be Mr. Squire. He's been using them with some success for well over 40 years.

I played Chris' 1999-briefly, and unplugged, in JH's office during NAMM...the neck is, shall we say...challenged? Something like 13/32" clearance of the low "E" at fret 15 or so...

Nevermind then, I have been answered.

The Roto's at the time were in fact higher tension than the flats at the time.

Chris' bass has taken a fair amount of abuse, as well.

...and it was at Namm....?

johnallg wrote:Another example of Rotos not trashing an old Rick neck when properly adjusted (think RM1999) would be Mr. Squire. He's been using them with some success for well over 40 years.

Some success, yes...and screwing up the neck on his original bass in the process.

tennis_nick wrote:Nevermind then, I have been answered.

The Roto's at the time were in fact higher tension than the flats at the time.

Not all flats. Fender flats from the 70s were horrendously heavy in the pull. They may have been responsible for the famous S shaped Fender necks.

jingle_jangle wrote:I played Chris' 1999-briefly, and unplugged, in JH's office during NAMM...the neck is, shall we say...challenged? Something like 13/32" clearance of the low "E" at fret 15 or so...

Good thing he's got those lumberjack hands!

Exactly my thoughts. It was work, way up there past the third fret!

Now, if he took those 45-105 Roto's off, the action would drop considerably....

jingle_jangle wrote:I played Chris' 1999-briefly, and unplugged, in JH's office during NAMM...the neck is, shall we say...challenged? Something like 13/32" clearance of the low "E" at fret 15 or so...

Why, I once played a bass with the neck so messed up.........