Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hi there, i'm going to buy a Hipshot replacement bridge for my 4001.

I've heard from a guy here in Italy (he purchased the brass one) that he experienced increased bass frequencies and a little more sustain after the install, which is something i'm looking for, and i was wondering if i can get the same result with the aluminium version or both versions were created with a differend sound in mind.

There is in your opinion a noticeable difference (sonically speaking) between the aluminium and brass version ?

Yes it does have an effect, pls. use search function and you'll find lots of posts.

Have you bypassed the .0047 bass-cut capacitor on your 4001 Mattia? That would give you better bass response.

Honestly, this does next to nothing to change the tone. What people tell you it is doing is, IMO, completely borne out of their expectations--projecting them onto the replacement. I was guilty of it too for a while but went back and forth enough times to realize I was being full of ****. The best reason to use the Hipshot bridge is if you need a quick way to access palm muting or if you're intonating your bass every day for some reason or if you've got an issue with tail lift... otherwise the stock bridge is fine.

It'd be a very likable replacement bridge if it was designed so the action could easily be made low enough and the saddles didn't wobble, but it has both of these problems--which are both issues with the stock bridge too sometimes but when they happen to it are much easier to fix.

I LOVE my stock Rick bridges!



And I agree with Joshua. I think that there is a LOT of this going around:

cassius987 wrote:What people tell you it is doing is, IMO, completely borne out of their expectations--projecting them onto the replacement.

...and it's not just limited to bridges.

Oh yes already done the cap bypass.

It's just that i want to try the Bridge change .... maybe i'll find that i'm full of **** too !!

cangaroo wrote:Oh yes already done the cap bypass.

It's just that i want to try the Bridge change .... maybe i'll find that i'm full of **** too !!

Well...You've got to do what you've got to do!

Here's my load of s--t. I have used both the brass and aluminum on two 1977 4001 basses. They both cured the dead note on the necks. The brass was of course rather heavy. I liked the aluminum for its light weight, note fixes, and Rickenbacker tone. My "expectations" were better palm muting and easy intonation. I got those and more. The Hipshots are superior to the stock tail piece in every way for the older RIC 4001 basses. My 2008 FG4003 is a completely different instrument and the stock tail functions well enough.

I've had both the brass and aluminum Hipshot bridges on my '89 4003S. The brass one definitely gave the bass a darker tone, and a noticeable increase to the weight of the instrument. I switched to aluminum, which has a much more "normal" Ric tone and is much lighter.

rickaddict wrote:I LOVE my stock Rick bridges!


And I agree with Joshua. I think that there is a LOT of this going around:

cassius987 wrote:What people tell you it is doing is, IMO, completely borne out of their expectations--projecting them onto the replacement.

...and it's not just limited to bridges.

My opinions as well.
Placebos for your Rick.

gearhed289 wrote:I've had both the brass and aluminum Hipshot bridges on my '89 4003S. The brass one definitely gave the bass a darker tone, and a noticeable increase to the weight of the instrument. I switched to aluminum, which has a much more "normal" Ric tone and is much lighter.

MY experience exactly. I had stock, aluminum, and brass Hipshots on the same 4001. Hipshots cleared all the dead note/string problems, no hokey washer trick needed. They had easy access to, and plenty of adjustment of intonation while tuned to pitch. The brass IMHO changed the sound too much, I've heard it described as darker, sounds right. Also it was very heavy and upset the neck balance. I think for playability and trueness of tone the aluminum Hipshot can't be beat. For collectability, stock is timeless and functions well considering.

ricosound wrote:I think for playability ... the Hipshot can't be beat. For collectability, stock is timeless and functions well considering.

But I don't get how it's any more "playable" other than being able to palm mute. What are you getting at? My argument is that it only really works as an improvement if you need to palm mute or have ridiculous unfixable tail lift. No, I don't put washers under the stock bridge, either. You can understand why I'm confused by some of the highly positive claims about it.

I have tried the stock bridge and both materials of the chromed Hipshot bridge... I have never heard a serious difference in tone between any of them other than some high-end loss going from stock to either Hipshot and it's not that much. I also used one once thinking of improving sustain but that did little to nothing as well. The difference was there but barely measurable. I'm not saying any of you folks who say these things are happening are wrong but, having messed with these bridges a LOT myself (curiosity killed the wallet), I'm heavily skeptical.

cangaroo wrote:It's just that i want to try the Bridge change .... maybe i'll find that i'm full of **** too !!

I would not tell you not to do it, Mattia, just buy used so you can recoup the cost if you decide you're unhappy. (I may put one up for sale soon.) I still use Hipshot bridges on a couple of my basses so it's not like I think they're unplayable, I'm just relating what I feel I have learned about them.

cassius987 wrote:I would not tell you not to do it, Mattia, just buy used so you can recoup the cost if you decide you're unhappy. (I may put one up for sale soon.)

haha you're becoming my main rick stuff dealer ...

anyway yes i know what i'm going to do. i'm expecting no miracles at all ... but maybe the issue with the bridge (some heard changes, other not) it's related to the fact that every bass is different from each other so maybe an hardware change has a different reaction between basses ...

I tried both Hipshot versions on a 1997 4003FG. The brass one gave the tone more bass and also more presence frequencies, so overall blended the Ric towards "HiFi sound". Then I tried the aluminium one and it was totally different, much more towards the middle frequencies and much more "vintage" Ric tone character . As it also added less weight to the bass than the brass one, I kept the aluminium one to be used again when my 1974 4001 retuns from Paul' refin. Besides the sound, I just like the technical aspects of the Hipshot bridge. But I will always keep the original Ric bridge for the looks if I join some "vintage confluence", however I modified this bridge to be a "seven screw bridge" in order to avoid tail lift.

and it will cure your acne,too! but seriously,folks,i noticed only that the string-to-string balance was more even,tone wise i think that was about the only difference for me. (using the aluminum hipshot). that alone was an improvement,but getting the cumbersome mute thingy outta my way was worth the price of the upgrade,plus it is tightly bonded to the body unlike the original one which was lifting,and i actually prefer the look of it. i kept the old bridge in the case,but as long as i own the bass,it will not be going back on......i would definitely do it again if i were to purchase another 4001/3 type bass. (not real likely as i love the 2 i have and don't see the need for more....)