33.25" Ric scale - your opinion?

[Hounddog409]

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.

Odd. I find the direct opposite compared to my Carvin LB70. The Ric's neck is definitely "shorter" on the reach. The Carvin is a 34" and is a noticable longer reach. Not that its much - both are comfortable to play.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Odd. I find the direct opposite compared to my Carvin LB70. The Ric's neck is definitely "shorter" on the reach. The Carvin is a 34" and is a noticable longer reach. Not that its much - both are comfortable to play.

It depends how you position it as well, I guess. But ultimately, Rics kick some booty!

 

[fishdreams]

I was after a 4003 for a while and the ones I tried in the store definitely felt a bit more comfortable to play to me, especially in that 1st 5 fret range. I teally like it. Then again, I used to have 24fret 32 inch SD Curlee, and that did get a bit claustrophobic up there in the top end. So for me , 33 inch might be the perfect scale length

 

[el_Bajo_Verde]

I've played a few Ricks and honestly I would have had no idea that the scale was slightly shorter if no one had told me...

It's only ¾ of an inch...is it really that big a deal?

 

[scotch]

The slightly shorter scale length is subtle, but I do feel a difference right away. I just considered it part of the Ric 'thing'.

I chanced upon a Japanese 60's Jazz copy that happens to be 33 1/4". I felt it right away & I LOVE it!

I still play all kinds of course: 34, 32, 30, etc. I don't have a favorite necessarily, but the 33.25 is unique.

 

[OzzyGreg]

........ I didn't even know that they weren't 34" scale instruments until I started hanging around TB! Certainly never noticed anything about the scale length that made me suspect it was contributing anything to the experience.

My experience exactly.

 

[TonyP-]

[QUOTE="Hounddog409, post

I think this scale length is a TB thing....never heard any discussion on this topic outside of these forums.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect its not a forum thing and I'm saying this in a positive way.

It's a real life thing.

35" has more definition pierod and those with harder technique (like myself) benefit greatly from it.

I'm not anti Ric or anti short scale at all but scale length is an attribute that does have an effect.

 

[Relsom]

I got my 1st Ric in 1976 and didn't know or care about the scale. Sold it around 1980. Got my 2nd Ric 2 months ago. Don't care about the scale. I play Basses with scales ranging from 32" to 36" without really giving it much thought.

 

[troy mcclure]

For those of you who think that 3/4 of inch makes no difference , you better ask you significant other .

 

[Jay2U]

The missing 3/4 of an inch must have saved them a lot of wood.

 

[flam]

A 4003 is my main bass. I always thought it was maybe the slightest bit easier to play, due to string tension, not distance between frets. It's probably more placebo than anything. What I really like about the neck is how it hardly tapers.

 

[Slaptapandpop]

Interesting comment. How close are the strings on the basses you currently own? After reading your post I measured my own basses, set up to my preferences, using the top of the body (to eliminate any differences in pickguard height) to the underside of the low E string right at the end of the neck:

March 1973 Rickenbacker 4001 - 15/32"
September 2013 Rickenbacker 4004L - 9/16"
October 2015 Rickenbacker 4004L SPC - 1/2"
2010 Martin Keith Elfin 5 fretless - 13/32"
2011 Martin Keith Elfin 5 - 7/16"

I have owned a whole slew of basses by different makers over the past 4 1/2 decades (Alembic, Fender, G&L, Kramer, Martin Keith, Rickenbacker, ZON - and others, as noted below, plus some I may have forgotten about!) that all have/had a relatively similar feel, as far as string height off the body goes. The only ones I recall that had somewhat higher string heights were the Gibson, Höfner, Rick Turner, and Yamaha basses I have owned. I have never owned or played a bass the strings were in "incredibly close proximity of the strings to the body", so it would be cool for all of us to list these measurements on the basses we currently own. Another bit of minutia for the TB statisticians.

Maybe it's the lack of contour to the body that makes it feel more pronounced. I find them a very uncomfortable bass for slap.

 

[mellowinman]

The big thing I notice about playing my Ric is that a lot more women want to be mine. I don't know if that is about the scale or not? Let me ask one.

"Fantasy? What is it you like about my Ric?"

I thought for sure she would say the pretty color.

Turns out, it's the scale.

 

[Hounddog409]

It depends how you position it as well, I guess. But ultimately, Rics kick some booty!

copy that

 

[Iridescentone]

Perfectly comfortable with my 34" and 35" scale basses....but even more comfortable with 33" scale.

Although I haven't had a 33 in decades, I did have a few 4001's way back in the day. I always thought the Ric scale length somehow contributed to it's amazing sound, even if only in some small way that I can't explain. It definitely is part of the overall feel, IMO.

If I were ever to have a custom spec'd bass built I would choose 33" scale.

OTOH, I haven't found any merit with 32" basses for my tastes. Same for 30" basses.

Maybe I'll get another Ric someday, but I'd want to play a bunch of them first, and that's a daunting prospect for someone who detests going to music stores.

 

[johnclink]

Just saw this poll & voted "I play a Ric, and the 33.25" scale is part of the reason".

I adore Rickenbackers for many reasons...
I now have a 4003s in Mapleglo & I adore the push/pull sound options... as fave a sounding bass as I have...
...while I dig their look in general, in particular the non-binding version, most especially in mapleglo, is probably my fave looking bass ever!

But... it's also the slightly smaller size/scale to be sure! I don't play full scale at all anymore. I have 2 fretted short scales, 2 fretted medium scale, 2 fretless medium scale & the Rickenbacker. I only wish the Rickenbacker were available in a medium (32"), scale option, and/or short scale... couldn't care less about a larger, full scale, option...

I'd have to be a much richer man, but, maybe someday... the last bass I think I'd ever still want... is to do a conversion & have a fretless version of my mapleglo Ric 4003s to have as a twin to my beloved fretted version. But I'm mainly a 6-string player, so I'm guessing there are a couple non-bass purchases that would come before that... and those are now 3rd tier choices to begin with... so, barring a financial windfall, but who knows... maybe someday...

 

[Killed_by_Death]

The thing I notice is that they only have 20 frets.

 

[drummer5359]

Switching between my Rickenbackers, Fenders and my Stingray, I feel no difference in the scale.