Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Ok.
I have said my piece about this subject in posts many times but lets get down to the technical side of what an aluminium cast bridge/tailpiece
adds to the sound of a 4000 series bass compared with the zinc version.

To start off the discussion, I have owned and played several 60s 4001 (1999) basses and currently own recent CS and V63 basses that have some of the attributes of the 60s 4001s but differ significantly (in my opinion) due to the addition of a zinc version of the bridge/tailpiece.
Now I am not putting myself forward as any sort of expert but as a bass guitarist I am the end user of the instrument and I have had time and experience to assess the basses we all know and love.
Firstly,
Consider the effect of a large chunk of aluminium anchoring the strings to the solid through neck design of the 4000/4001 bass.
Aluminium is a great conductor of sound as I found out when I owned a Kramer SMB2 in the early 80s. Although not the best design for a bass it demonstrated the musical quality of aluminium in terms of sustain and strength and stability.

Rickenbacker are one of the two great (and now we are in the 21stCentury they are historic) electric guitar design companies who emerged at the begining of RocknRoll with idiosincratic yet somehow "so right" concepts in terms of materials for their instruments.
When Rickenbacker decided to use aluminium for their new re-designed bridge/tailpiece for the 4001 bass,it was probably because aluminium was used in so many other similar forms of construction at the time and other materials like chrome steel would be too heavy as would brass.
Thats just my assumption.
Whatever the reason when the new tailpiece was added to the 4001 it worked well didnt warp and was installed on all 4000 series basses up until the early 70s.
Then there was the change to a zinc cast bridge/tailpiece.
The reason for the change was (as far as I can tell) that the production methods involved with the aluminium ABTP (lets call it that)were very laborious and the methods involved in the new zinc (ZBTP)were more expedient as far as production was concerned.
Fine.........We all know the problems with the zinc version like "tail lift" etc.and theres no need to go into all that here because I want to focus on the aluminium BTP.
We are really discussing a very highly valued musical instrument here and one that is still a hands on hand finished product and which in its past incarnation in the 60s as a Rose Morris 1999 has now transcended any considerations of fast production turnround to become an icon of historic proportions.
So what gives a 1964/5 RM1999 its sound?
The timber is as near as the same and the carpentry is as good if not better in 2010 with the help of modern technology.
Pickup placement is the same on a V63 or CS and maybe we can tell the difference between a "hot" HS and a RI HS but I wonder if we really can at times.

What is the biggest difference in manufacturing terms between a 60s RM and a 1990 4001Cs that might make one sound/feel so much different from the other?

The Bridge/tailpiece!

Its the fundamental part in a bass guitar sound/construction that anchors the strings and brought companies like Baddass and Schecter parts to the fore when guys wanted to improve their tone and sustain on their Fender basses.
(Personally I keep my Jazz as stock!)
But thats my point...........aluminium IS STOCK! on a 60s and early 70s Rickenbacker 4001 or 1999 etc.
Not zinc!
So we need to get back to a stock aluminium unit to attain that sound.

Discuss........................................

What if I really like how my basses with zinc tailpieces sound?

so what do you think of the hipshots? Do they make any difference?

jamespaul71 wrote:so what do you think of the hipshots? Do they make any difference?

Good question, especially considering one type is aluminum. As for me I think they don't affect the sound very much, and where they do I think it's related to the break angle of the string over the saddle as opposed to the tailpiece material. The usefulness of the Hipshot bridge seems to be more functional, if your stock bridge is shot from tail lift or you got some crummy saddles. Like Pete, I've done a lot of back and forth testing and observation, but in my case it's zinc tailpieces versus brass and aluminum Hipshot bridges. If you have more questions about the Hipshot we can PM each other or start a new thread as I don't want to corrupt Pete's thread.

Pete, a good test, although cumbersome, would be to swap out tailpiece/bridge assemblies (TBA) on the same instrument and record the sound thereby singling out the TBA as the source of any difference. Of course, 3 screw vs. 5 screw mounting will probably have an effect on the tone, so that may invalidate this test. There are so many things that have an affect on the tone of a particular instrument we may never really get to the bottom of this.

Better still,
How about Rickenbacker get a new stock 4003,mount a vintage aluminium BTP from a museum model and test that?

The metals have got to be the key to the way sound is transmitted through the body of the bass and how the tone could be affected should a less resonant metal be used for the unit.
Add to that the fact that you never hear complaints about the stability of the aluminium ones.

I say Rick shoul re-cast the current BTP in aluminium and phase out zinc.

...or maybe they could be CNC machined out of billets.

scott_s wrote:...or maybe they could be CNC machined out of billets.

what? They can make things without having to do it by hand?

I think a pretty huge percentage of the build process is CNC nowadays.

I'd be interested in an aluminum vs. zinc comparison as far as sound goes. I have found claims about brass vs. aluminum bridges to be highly dubious in the past, so I'm skeptical that this is really all that important. Stability has never been an issue with my zinc tailpieces, either.

Here's what one company has to say:

Leo Quan wrote:All BADASS™ products are made of specially developed high density alloy Zinc. Engineered for the most efficient sound-coupling effects possible when mounted on wood guitar & bass bodies. The transference of resonance characteristics is superior to any other metal.

I recently fitted the correct tail/bridge on my RM after years of having a 70s zinc one fitted.
There was not a huge difference but there definately was some, I feel that it refines the mids a tiny bit and made my bass sound a little more like... my bass!
I don't think that fitting an aluminium tail to a new bass will make it sound like a 60s one. For me I think the biggest factors in the 60s sound is the weight (or lack of it) of the Timber, the Trussrods, and the Toaster.

I do like what the Aluminium tail as it adds a small refinement to the sound that is small part of "that" sound..
However all of these subtle inprovements in sound can easily be undone by then fitting the wrong strings....

emac.

If aluminum really does add mids it makes sense that Badass bridges would use zinc, to clarify the mids-heavy Fender basses. But I don't know if that claim can actually be substantiated.

"What is the biggest difference in manufacturing terms between a 60s RM and a 1990 4001Cs that might make one sound/feel so much different from the other?"

The pickups! Totally different animals..... Having said that, I do believe the type of metal used for the bridge/tailpiece has its own effect as well. I like the idea of swapping the bridges on the same bass. That would make the most sense. And FWIW, I've had both brass and aluminum Hipshot bridges on my 4003S and there is an undeniable difference in tone. I prefer the aluminum. It sounds more "stock" and is much lighter obviously.

And I still have my Kramer SMB2 from the 80s! At some point I had it de-fretted and it sounds excellent. Sings for days....

gearhed289 wrote:"What is the biggest difference in manufacturing terms between a 60s RM and a 1990 4001Cs that might make one sound/feel so much different from the other?"

The pickups! Totally different animals..... Having said that, I do believe the type of metal used for the bridge/tailpiece has its own effect as well. I like the idea of swapping the bridges on the same bass. That would make the most sense. And FWIW, I've had both brass and aluminum Hipshot bridges on my 4003S and there is an undeniable difference in tone. I prefer the aluminum. It sounds more "stock" and is much lighter obviously.

And I still have my Kramer SMB2 from the 80s! At some point I had it de-fretted and it sounds excellent. Sings for days....

What is it about the pickups then? Material? Winding? Magic?

Magnets, turns on the coil, shape of the coil, pole pieces, magnet strength (after 50 years), there are probably more. Quality of the copper and it's insulation, for those esoteric ears out there.

Another variant in the equation is the difference in the thickness of body & neck wood on the '64 basses vs the reissues. Also, the difference in the type of fretboard woods.