Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I realise this will come down to personal taste and the individual instrument as much as anything, but many of the posts I've read over the past however many years suggest that a decent RM really is the best Ric bass out there. It's one of the few models I've never played and I was wondering; those who have experience of them, how true is this? Are the necks really so much thinner and easier to play? Are they really "more musical", for reasons of resonance, that horseshoe or both? I'm asking for a reason, not on a whim. Hopefully I may soon get the chance to find out, but I'd be interested to hear the experiences of those who have owned or played them. Apologies if this has already been discussed.

As an aside, my favourite-sounding Ric that I've ever played is my Feb '72. My second CS (a '91), possibly along with my 21 fretter, had the thinnest neck I've played, but the CS didn't sound that great, regardless of what I did with pickups or pots; I like growl, and it didn't really have any (neither did the first - a '96 - for that matter).

Well, I guess that question was met with tumbleweed.

Ok, so I've now played one. Unfortunately I didn't have my Rics with me to compare but it had mojo for years. It sounded very good, although the action was too high for me, strings a bit heavy (45s, DRs I think) and too much neck relief. The toaster was very warm and punchy, not unlike mine, although maybe a tad more so due to the higher action and heavier strings, which I would expect. The 'shoe was certainly different; very low output (possibly slightly uneven too; it seems to me the G and possibly E were a bit louder than the A & D). It sounded like the cap was in as it was pretty thin, but with what I can only describe as "boing" and "fizz" . Maybe smoother than my screw tops, certainly less output (although I have one bass with the cap out and the other where I think the cap has given up the ghost as taking it in or out seems to make no real difference), but definitely a different flavour that's difficult to describe.

My understanding is that the RMs have thicker fingerboards. For those who're familiar with them, do you think this affects the tone noticeably?

Well they did have thick fretboards and thin neck timber. The timber in general seems light. This contributes to the sound and probably to the weakness of the instruments, it would account for the high mortality of these instruments early on..