My 2009 Ric Recorded

[spongebob]

Hope I'm not breaking any rules here, or posting in the wrong section....

We did our band's (Sabotage) demo just before New Year, and last week got the finished article.

I've posted the 5 tracks (we're a covers band) on my Myspace page. All were recorded with my JG 2009 4003.

Out of interest, the other tracks on there - the UK Doors stuff was my old (sold) 2003 FG 4003, which never had the Ric sound! The same bass is on the Chaos live track, where it did sound a little better.

Basically, the 2009 sounds a zillion times better, IMHO!

Apologies for any mistakes in posting here, and please move to other section if needed!

[cassius987]

I like the way they BOTH sound a lot Iain. There is a recordings forum here, just check the index page and you'll see it for the next time you want to post recordings. I think these are fine here though.

My new project just recorded its first rehearsal together, and I was really proud of how my 2009 Ric sounded--totally different from both of yours. I'll have to post it as well for comparison's sake. It's cool how versatile and different just a handful of 4003s can sound--has a lot to do with the player of course, but still cool.

Here's the recording forum: viewforum.php?f=48

[spongebob]

That sounds cool, Joshua.

I'm looking forward to hearing how yours will sound in comparison - mine was played with a pick, BTW.

[cangaroo]

Hey sponge, your 2009 sounds very good !! It sounds definitively like a Rickenbacker should sound !!
And in fact your 2003 had really a weak and not-rick sound.

I had a story similar to yours, last year i had me a 2004 4003 and i had the same issues as you : the bass was not sounding at all like a Rickenbacker (it was more like a starving jazz bass). I tried different setups, different strings, none of them worked, so i had to sell it, and i buyed myself a 4001 much better sounding !! Being a lefty this is a pain in the @§§, but hearing your samples makes me want to give 4003 another chance ....

[cassius987]

And in fact your 2003 had really a weak and not-rick sound.

I don't get it, I thought it sounded good.

[cangaroo]

Yes the 2003 sound is good no doubt.
The fact is that (in my opinion of course) it lacks "something" that the 2009 has.

From 1 to 10, a Rickenbacker should score 10 in sound, not just a 6 or 7.

[stevebasshead]

You're better placed of courst to say how they sounded "live" but to my ears I think a lot of the difference is in the recordings themselves. The Sabotage ones sound like the bass takes up more of the stereo width between left and right and therefore feels/sounds more present in the mix. Whereas on the Doors songs the bass is more centred which sort of pushes it back a bit in the mix.

I also think the Sabotage tracks are mastered a little more aggressively for want of a better term which has helped bring the bass out more (I should clarify, I don't mean "aggressively" as a criticism nor to say they're over-mastered which seems to happen too much these days.)

[cassius987]

From 1 to 10, a Rickenbacker should score 10 in sound, not just a 6 or 7.

Right but what I'm saying is that to my ears they were both in the 8-10 range, in fact I kind've prefer the 2003 by a little bit. I think this is more about what people expect a Ric to sound like than whether the sound is "good" or not.

[spongebob]

When we did the Sabotage stuff, just before New Year, I made sure I had a word with the engineer - 'don't bury the bass' - most recordings these days, to me, lack space where you can hear the individual parts.

I think he did a good job on the tone. He DI'ed out from my Markbass.

I agree it's all personal taste - I suppose I've always had an 'ideal' Ric tone, and the 2009 hits it dead on.

The old 2003 was a weird one - it actually measured a little shorter than every other one I've played, and even with everything on high treble, always sounded like it was being played with a pair of gloves on!!

[Prowl]

ok, so I've listened to most of these tracks (nice work by the way and I gave you a plug on my facebook page!!) I think both basses sound similar. I think that the 2003 bass probably would have sounded like the 2009 if it were set up properly. Its a bit more bassey than the 2009. But over all both tones are very pleasant to listen to. Were you different strings on both basses?

[spongebob]

Thanks for the plug, Miles! I'm not on FB, so many thanks for that!

The strings on the 2003 - if I can remember (recorded in 2004) were Rotosound stainless. In the days before I'd read too much about fret damage.

The strings I always use now are D'addario Nickel EXL 165's - 0.45-105. It was this same scale I used on the Rotos.

To me, the Nickels are actually nicer to play, and a better tone than the stainless.

I don't know where my old '03 is now. I sold her on E-bay a year or so back, to a guy who'd actually not even started playing bass yet - just had too much cash! It's probably sitting under his sofa now.

[Prowl]

haha no problem man I have a lot of musical friends on FB so whenever someone on here posts something up I usually post a plug.

Pretty interesting to see we're very similar in our string choices. I used Rotosound on and off but now I think they're a bit pricey for what they are. So I'm back to D'Addario again. I get a positive tone from them when recording and playing through my amp so I've no complaints.