Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

PREFACE: I have always heard strong opinions on the 4004. Some are very positive. Others are quite negative. All of these opinions are backed up by the opinion-haver's personal experience. After so much of this, though, I as a third party to these experiences can't with any rational thought declare one thing or another about the 4004. So when I finally got a chance to play one, I jumped at it, not because I wanted a new bass but just to find out for myself just what the mysterious fish was like.

Let me also preface that I walked into this expecting to dislike the bass rather than to like it.

The BASS: A brand new 4004 Cii FG built in 2009, in stock at Wildwood Guitars. It was set up at the dealership (presumably at the factory as well).

AESTHETICS: The bass resembled my 2008-built 4003FL very much in the finish, although mine is AFG. From the back, the neck appeared almost like a twin. The headstock was set off by nice gold hardware on the Schaller M4s. There was some very nice flamed maple going on as well as more common figured designs. The unfinished bubinga fingerboard looked really great and reminded me of Warwick basses I had played before. I liked the "walnut sandwich" look. I showed my wife, who is a vintage-retro freak, and she said she preferred the 4003s--which I think proves my point that the 4004 takes a cue from modern bass luthiership, where beautiful wood and elegant design is the trend. (She couldn't stand the Conklins I took her to see.) I was suprised to notice, however, that I felt like my 4003s were made out of just as good of materials as this 4004--the maple and bubinga on this bass was stellar, and they are also stellar on my 4003s. This seems in contrast to other companies who privilege some models over others in terms of material quality.

FEATURES: I liked the Schaller M4s. Very sturdy. As a whole the simple design of the bass definitely appealed to me in a different way than my 4003s do. I liked the Hipshot B-style bridge (I believe that's what it was). Here was something important: the pickup routs are now done by CNC. Do you all remember when people were complaining about sloppy routs on a run that came out six months to a year ago? Now I am quite positive that the routs are done by CNC. They are a tiny bit generous but the perfection of the lines causes me not to feel any dislike about this. It looks great. Get a few inches back and you can't even tell. Finally, the knobs and jack were great.

SETUP: The neck was dead straight. There might have been the tiniest amount of backbow because there was (extremely minute) fret buzz on the A string for frets 2 and 3. You had to listen closely to hear it.

SOUND: I walked into this play test expecting to really dislike the sound of the neck pickup based on previous reports. I was also told this pickup is unblendable (however this came from a 4004L player, not a Cii). I can only guess as to how the walnut influences the tone. People were saying it would be highly dark sounding, however, I did not detect anything "dark" about it.

This sounded like a traditional Ric bass with a stronger low end to me. Nothing more. I tried all four strings for eveness of volume and clarity and tone and it was there. There was sustain for days. There were lots of useable tones on each pickup--approximately three distinct sounds per pickup setting (neck/blend/bridge). I did not favor one pickup over the other. The blended setting gave the most clarity in the sound. The bridge pickup had the strongest attack. The neck pickup was great for reggae and "grungey" rock. I did some Police songs on the neck pickup and an employee came by and said it sounded really good--I never get compliments about anything from music store staff so I think that comment could have been meaningful.

OVERALL: This was a really nice bass. Was it worth more than a new 4003? I don't think so in terms of sound, although perhaps so. In terms of aesthetics? Possibly. The build quality may arguably be a bit better, because there were NO dead spots and it sustained for days whereas one out of three 4003s I have played had a dead spot. The coolest thing about this bass to me is that it bypasses antiquated things about the 4003, like its bridge and its "horseshoe routing". It was a very capable bass that I think any professional bassist could get use out of and appreciate, similar to the ubiquity and usefulness of the P Bass. I will stick with my 4003s because I have them just like I like them, but if I had it to do over again I may have gotten a 4004 to avoid having to mess with bridge issues and so on. I may even get one in the distant future.

I give the 4004 Cii a thumbs up. I definitely liked it; it was not a piece of junk like some have experienced; it was also not so much better than my 4003s that I felt I needed to upgrade (unlike how I sometimes feel playing a 4002!). Now, I do not know how much different a 4004 L would sound, but if it is "brighter" like people say, I would stick to the Cii. I like its full, thick tone.

These are good basses, if this example is representative of the whole. Now that RIC is producing more of them and faster due to improved processes at the factory, more of us should get to play test them... And I think a lot of us will enjoy them. Better than a 4003? Not really. Different? A little, and that difference may make it appeal to different players... If RIC continues with the 4004 for long enough it will worm its way into the heart of enough people to make a lasting place in music history, I'm quite sure.

I hope this review was helpful. I tried to be as unbiased as possible. For one, I went in expecting to dislike the bass due to other experiences. In addition I had no desire to buy it from the outset--this was "observe and report". However, they are now on my radar, and if I can snag one some day in the future, I very well may.

Finally... SUGGESTIONS: I don't have as many as I thought I would. Perhaps the pickups could be "pushed south" if more frets were added, but now I don't really think that's so necessary. The pickups both had lots of good useable tones. It had sustain for days. The pickup routs were uniform and looked good. Perhaps the dot inlays could be a little "flashier" than they already are, they look a little plain, but that's sort of the simple beauty RIC is going for. Alright... that's all from me.

Thanks for reading!

Well, I'm glad you liked it better than you thought you would. After having several 4004's I can't really see the reason to return to a 4001/4003 except for sentimental reasons perhaps. I do, however, prefer the Laredo over the Cii.....with the ones that I had the Cii always had a slightly muddy quality as compared to my LK, Laredo or Ci......strictly my opinion of course. Otherwise the general tone of the Cii is like other 4004 variants with the Laredo being the brightest. Any way, good write up.

BTW....the bridge on the 4004's currently is a Schaller (previously they were ABM brand).

It's great to hear an unbiased opinion, especially since you went in a tad bit biased against it!. Great write up, pretty much in line with my own experience though I think my 4004 has a lot more bottom end than either my 4001 or 4003. Of course, those have the bass cutting cap in them so I can't really compare the 4004Cii to a modern 4003 tone...

Excellent review, JC...well written and comprehensive: thanks! Now, in a thousand words or less, how do you like Denver?

(Hope you don't mind the rain...we certainly don't, this town's looking as green as I've ever seen it...have fun in the Mild High City!)

wayang wrote: (Hope you don't mind the rain...we certainly don't, this town's looking as green as I've ever seen it...have fun in the Mild High City!)

Joshua, it good to hear the unbiased opinion. Though I really did think that you would like the 4004Cii.
I agree with you. The 4004 is not better than the 4003, just different. However, the 4004 basses take away all the features that the F*nd*r bass lovers dislike about Rick 4004/4003 basses. Many of those guys would love the 4004 basses.

I'm also able to get a good thumpy McCartney with Hofner bass tone from the neck pickup if I set the eq and tone settings just right and also play it just right.

It was a real gem of a bass, but my 4003s really have just as much groove and thump in them as it is, and nothing about the 4004 screamed "Buy me!". Like I said, though, they're now officially on my radar. If I ever want another Ric and I don't want the fuss of getting around the bridge issues, etc., I may get one. I agree, Joey, that a "traditional bassist" should be able to play one of these and like it even if a 4003 isn't their cup of tea. I am surprised at all of the negative comments I have heard; maybe the one I play tested was just above average or the others were set up poorly.

CJ, if you've never heard a 4003 without the cap out you really have no idea! It's a much bassier tone, even though it still has lots of clarity.

As for Denver... I'm liking it quite a bit, although I was hoping for less rain because I like dry weather. My cousin says the rain is a bit odd right now. In any case this is a cool city and I hope to find a good house.

Glad you got to try one & find out for yourself!

Joshua, thanks for the detailed review. I am hopeful of buying a Ric Bass when we visit the good ol' USA (NYC)in October: not that I am a bass player of course, but it would be fun to learn.

I was wondering if the price difference between the 4004 and 4003 is justified on the basis of sound and playability.

Aesthetically I lean slightly in favour of 4004, particularly if it was AFG, and I am not a fan of gold hardware except on MG, so that makes the choice pretty much a 4004L or a 4003. And availability becomes a problem for the 4004L.

Did you ask their selling price for the Cheyenne, I would be interested to find out.

Great review Joshua!

spongebob wrote:Great review Joshua!

+1!

longboard_ric wrote:I was wondering if the price difference between the 4004 and 4003 is justified on the basis of sound and playability.

Did you ask their selling price for the Cheyenne, I would be interested to find out.

I think they both sound equally good. It's a case of apples and oranges if anything. The pickups seem to be the biggest source of the difference in sound so you could always try HB1s in a 4003. However... if a 4004 is what you want that's probably what you had better get. For me, a 4003 sounds as good or better, so it makes sense for me to stick with that. For you it may not be that way. The 4004 I played was a really good bass that could suit nearly anyone given the right set up and strings.

I think I understand the price difference from a marketing standpoint but from a quality standpoint not as much. Aesthetically, perhaps. And you do ultimately get "more wood" with the 4004 because less of it is routed away or hidden.

I didn't ask the price because it was a moot point for me; however, the price difference is pretty well documented among new instruments. Among used instruments of equal quality the divide is much smaller, I have noticed.

I would also add that with the 4001/4003 you have the ability to adjust the tone and volume for each pickup separately. This gives you a bit more control over the tone than you can get with the 4004's single tone & volume controls.

There is, of course, the well known stacked knob V/T V/T modification for the 4004 which gives you this same flexibility in tone control. I did this mod with my 4004 and I think it was well worth it.

True, CJ, but I was surprised that there were still a large variety of tones on the 4004. I counted about 9--3 for each pickup setting.

I agree, there's really no need to change anything on the 4004, it is just fine as it is. I just like being able to adjust it like my 4001 & 4003. Of course, I almost always use 2 amps and Ric-O-Sound, which the 4004's don't allow. That makes the separate tone & volume a bit less necessary on the 4004. But then again, my 4004Cii does have stereo out now...