Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I agree with CORBS about string tension affecting the sound of a given instrument. The shorter scale length doesn't feel much different to me. Reminds me of transposing up a whole step. The neck taper (or lack thereof) is what feels odd compared to a Fender. Rics are unique basses, no doubt. I love them. Fenders, too.
The reason I don't own a Rickenbacker anymore is because of the sharp bound body edges. The scale length was just fine.
That's one of the (many) reasons I like the unbound ones. I like the look of binding (especially checkerboard), but the smooth edges of the 'S' models won me over. For me it's sound first, then playability (including comfort), then looks. I feel lucky to have found all 3 aspects (for me), in one bass.
Last edited:
Nice one .
I must say that I do love the looks of the 'S' Rics. I hope to try one sometime.
I prefer the dots to the sharkfin inlays too.
Less 'bling' is my thing now..
Then you should get a 4003s or 4004.
Mine are pretty 'bling-y' (lots of chrome). I don't play 'em without shades
. Maybe check out the 4004s? They're easier to set up, too (bridge and saddle wise).
I swear, I think they measure that 33.25" to the front of the bridge. I tried one out and lined it up next to a Jazz Bass and there didn't seem to be any difference whatsoever. Now, if someone wants to take a pic of their Ric with a tape measure along the neck, I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Actually, just came across this. Apparently Rickenbacker measures their scale length the "enlightened way."
Question: I always thought that Rickenbacker basses were 33-1/2" scale. In fact their older literature states this scale measurement. Recently, I checked out the Rickenbacker website and the basses are now listed with a 33-1/4" scale. Did Rickenbacker recently shorted the length of their bass scales by 1/4"?
Answer: No, the scale is the same. This is the difference between the old method of measuring scales vs. a more modern, and I hope enlightened, method. In the past, the scale length was measured from the inside edge of the nut to the average of plus and minus bridge adjustment. This takes into account that some strings maybe be adjusted longer than "scale" and others shorter to intonate properly. Now most companies, including ourselves, measure from the inside edge of the nut to the inside edge of the12th fret and double it, which is more theoretically precise number.
Question: I always thought that Rickenbacker basses were 33-1/2" scale. In fact their older literature states this scale measurement. Recently, I checked out the Rickenbacker website and the basses are now listed with a 33-1/4" scale. Did Rickenbacker recently shorted the length of their bass scales by 1/4"?
Answer: No, the scale is the same. This is the difference between the old method of measuring scales vs. a more modern, and I hope enlightened, method. In the past, the scale length was measured from the inside edge of the nut to the average of plus and minus bridge adjustment. This takes into account that some strings maybe be adjusted longer than "scale" and others shorter to intonate properly. Now most companies, including ourselves, measure from the inside edge of the nut to the inside edge of the12th fret and double it, which is more theoretically precise number.
xparis001
Supporting Member
- Jun 10, 2003
- 575
- 134
- 4,571
- 50
- Disclosures
- Senior Product Manager, Akai Professional
I go from my 35 scale modulus to my 33.25" scale rick all the time and practically never notice the difference.
I notice the difference, but only slightly. I wouldn't list it among the top reasons to play or not play a Ric.
I want to know who voted "do not play a Ric BECAUSE of the 33.25 scale"......
I always thought that the consistent and proper way to figure scale length was to double the measurement from the witness point of nut to the 12th fret. From the pic above, that would clearly make that a 33" scale neck.
Right on. I stand corrected. I need to do the same with my 34" bass when I get home. Maybe they're actually a bit short.
I had the tape at the inside edge of the nut. I'm guessing that's close to the witness point? (I can re-take shots, easily)
I don't own one, but have played one.
That slight scale difference doesn't make any noticable
difference to me, at all.
The lack of taper is a little odd
and the sharp body edges suck.
Otherwise, I like Rics just fine.
That slight scale difference doesn't make any noticable
difference to me, at all.
The lack of taper is a little odd
and the sharp body edges suck.
Otherwise, I like Rics just fine.
Gaolee
Official leathers tester and crash dummy
I had a Ric and liked it well enough. I like Thunderbirds better, so it's gone to somebody who prefers Rics. Scale length had nothing to do with it. The Ric went for the same reason I don't play Fenders most of the time. It was how it sat on its strap.
i must admit i never realized the scale difference. where the bridge sits compared to a fender probably makes it feel the same position to me. I recently got a few few 32" scale basses (CB and fender mod tele) and they feel much different than the others so maybe for me to break out one of the old rics and see if i really notice. When i did play them it was my main bass so it just felt normal. though i played them for the sound not the feel as i have been a pbass now monarch guy for 40+ years. wonder if i switched during a set if i would notice it more.
I never noticed but one of the factors is that I think the neck sticks out a little farther. Tim Cloonan from Callowhill pulls his bridges back farther, shortening the reach. Scale is the same, but the reach is closer, and hence a bit easier to play.
The Ric is shorter scale, but a bit farther out, so really doesn't feel that different from a 34 to me.
The Ric is shorter scale, but a bit farther out, so really doesn't feel that different from a 34 to me.