Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Over the years I've owned quite a few 12-string Rickenbackers and have been trying to find the perfect looking, sounding, and playing Rickenbacker (still not there yet). Earlier this year I picked up an early 66 330/12 (May 66). It's not in pristine condition, but still a solid 8.5/10. A few months later I found a near 10/10 330/12 from the same year, only a bit later (August 66). I couldn't resist and bought it too and compared them side by side for so many hours I've lost track. I was hoping to keep the second, more pristine one. But over the course of many hours of comparing the guitars, I've noticed some major differences in sound, even when unplugged. The guitars, both made in 1966, sound very different from each other. Here's a quick comparison:

Mid-66 330/12 fireglow - Even unplugged this guitar sounds amazing. It simply explodes when you attack it with a pick, and the sound reminds me a lot of the Byrds or Who tracks from the 60's era. Bass response is more pronounced, and the guitar just has an amazing compressed sound, without a compressor! Through a compressor I get the best sound of any Rickenbacker I've ever owned. It takes a lot to get it to feed back because the top of the guitar is extremely thick, twice as thick as the late 66 model. The action is a bit higher near the neck pickup. The neck pickup is nearly flush with the top of the fretboard, but the distance from the pickup to the strings is identical to the late-66 model. There is no separation where the neck meets the body, but the distance from the top of the body to the top of the fretboard is lower than on the late-66 guitar below. As a result, when I strike a chord, it just rings and sustains for what seems forever and it takes a lot to get it to feed back. The bridge is an original 60's bridge and the saddles were carved in a zig zag pattern on one of the saddles to reduce intonation problems. This appears to have been done at the factory. I have not weighed the guitar but when I pick it up it's noticeably heavier than the late-66 guitar.

Late-66 330/12 fireglow - Very pretty sounding and looking guitar (flamey wood top and neck and awesome fireglo finish), nearly a 10/10 aside from a couple of scratches. The neck pickup is very warm and beautiful, almost delicate sounding. Perhaps due to the short poles? The guitar is very bright sounding, and doesn't sound as loud as the early 66 guitar. The action is incredible all up and down the neck and it's extremely easy to play, better than any Rickenbacker I've ever seen or owned. The top is twice as thin as the guitar above. As a result, it tends to feed back sooner and sound somewhat brighter. The guitar isn't as heavy as the one above. When played unplugged, it doesn't have the presence that the guitar above has. This guitar has a reissue 12-saddle bridge. I tried swapping the bridges on the guitars and it made little to no difference in sound, which surprised me. It's an amazing player, and great for uncompressed type of guitar playing - reminds me of early Smiths "Hatful of Hollow" type of sound.

There are essentially two main differences between the two guitars. One has short-pole pickups at the neck and one has long pole pickups at the neck with the top routed to accept the poles. One has a thin top and the other has a top that is twice as thick. When set to the bridge pickup, the early 66 model just sounds so much louder and punchier. I'm torn because the later 66 model plays so much better up and down the neck and sounds better for brighter more delicate 12-string arpeggiated runs. They both sound great, and I'd like to keep them both because they give me a wide spectrum of tones between the two guitars, but that's probably not possible. The more I compare these guitars, the more I'm convinced that it's the X-braced body and top thickness, essentially the wood of the guitar, that makes the most difference in tone. Anyone else have a similar observation?

If you were forced to choose between your best-sounding and best-playing Rick 12-string, which would you choose?

Oh man, I'd pick the beat-up, great-sounding guitar any day. Playability can always be improved by an experienced tech, the resonance/tonal character is harder to "fix."

- Scott

Interesting. Can you tell us what the actual top thicknesses are?

One other thing you might check is to see if someone removed or shunted the series cap on the bridge pickup on the one that you like. If you can get a pic of the underside of the pick guard it would be easy to tell. There should be three caps--two that are the same (and larger)--these are the tone control caps; and one that is different (and physically smaller)--this is the bridge pickup series cap.

in any case it sounds like you have a couple of nice ones to play.

If you can't keep both, I'd go with the better sounding 12.

The thicker topped Ricks have more sustain. Brian Medway has a thick-top X-braced 330, and I have a thick top X-braced 360 WB; both have great sustain. It's a characteristic of the thicker-topped Ricks.

The short pole neck toaster has lower output than the long pole toaster does-likely the source of the "warmer" tone you describe on the other guitar.

I guess I should have clarified what I meant by better. Better is obviously subjective. It's not that the earlier model is necessarily better, they're both better at different tones. There's a certain crunchy compressed tone that I prefer to get out of a Rickenbacker so for me the earlier 12-string sounds better and I've narrowed it down to the short-pole pickups and thin top vs. the long-pole pickups and thick top. The first Church album nails that crunchy tone (Of Skins & Heart), as do the early Who and Byrds tracks, and some of the early Jam tracks. I've heard people say that the Carl Wilson guitars have a more acoustic tone due to the thinner tops. To me, acoustic tone would be fuller, which is what I get out of the thicker top Rick. PS: Electronics on both guitars are untouched and identical except for the location of the bridge ground wire.

better playing versus better sounding? can the better sounding one have bit worse action too? - the higher action lets the strings vibrate different way...so that could be part of the sound difference, + the shorter magnets can give again less pull on the strings and while the resistance of the pickup is roughly the same the string still vibrates in different way...the thick top is more rigid so it holds the neck tang better and is not likely to warp so that means better connection = better sustain ....

and btw...carl wilson ric is different animal all together - the neck tang goes further and since the top has no x brace it has very different properties compared to 60's ric - it is great guitar from mechanical point of view - it is light and has good sustain due to the neck to top/bridge connection...