Vintage vs. Modern Rickenbacker Basses: 4001 & 4003 Bass, etc.

[Micky]

For clarity's sake, the .0047µF cap only functions on the bridge pickup as it it placed between the selector switch lug for the bridge pickup and the center lug of the treble volume control; it has no effect on the neck pickup. The modern Ricks with the "vintage switch" have it on the treble tone control just for convenience as it does affect the tonality of the bass, but it is not part of the tone control circuit; RIC could have chosen any pot to have the switch on, really.
There is no boost function to the "vintage switch", you are just perceiving a boost as the switch is a HPF when engaged, dropping out the bottom end of the bridge pickup, not boosting that range when disengaged.

The "modern mode" boosts the signal in comparison with the "vintage mode", that is, puts out a hotter signal than that WITH the capacitator. Not the other way around. I Think you read my message upside down
Again: (quoting RIC themselves). Period!

 

[bobyoung53]

Mine is a 77 and the neck is extremely thin compared to modern rics except at the nut.

Yeah I had a 75 with the old neck profile, small headstock etc, very shallow like the 72's (had one) and it was the strongest neck I've ever seen on a Rick, it also had 1/2" spacing with a high gain instead of a toaster.

 

[bobyoung53]

Um, Not!

Let's re-clarify, shall we?

The signal of the bridge pickup with the cap bypassed is the "nominal" full frequency range signal level. Now, we place a capacitor in line with it which acts as a HPF that reduces the bass and very low mids of the pickup, this will make the overall signal level sound lower, eve though the mids through the treble are still at the same volume level (they are not affected by the capacitor above the knee of the HPF). This gives the false impression that when the cap is bypassed that the signal is boosted. It is not boosted, it is just at its nominal full signal strength vs. the reduced signal strength with the cap in place.

Get it, now?

Yes with the knob in it's down position it is just like any other Rick made from 1984+1/2 - 2006, the vintage tone in it's up (pulled) position just adds the cap to the circuit and cuts mids and bass from that pickup, I actually wired one of the tone controls on a 4001 to vary the amount of cap in the circuit years ago, it worked well except that when you dropped either volume control it also cut the treble.

 

[JMacBass65]

The "modern mode" boosts the signal in comparison with the "vintage mode", that is, puts out a hotter signal than that WITH the capacitator. Not the other way around. I Think you read my message upside down
Again: (quoting RIC themselves). Period!

Well, you, and Rick, are wrong. Any circuit designer (not me) or audio engineer (me) will confirm this. Why not read up on what a high pass filter is, that would help your understanding.

Um, Not!

Let's re-clarify, shall we?

The signal of the bridge pickup with the cap bypassed is the "nominal" full frequency range signal level. Now, we place a capacitor in line with it which acts as a HPF that reduces the bass and very low mids of the pickup, this will make the overall signal level sound lower, eve though the mids through the treble are still at the same volume level (they are not affected by the capacitor above the knee of the HPF). This gives the false impression that when the cap is bypassed that the signal is boosted. It is not boosted, it is just at its nominal full signal strength vs. the reduced signal strength with the cap in place.

Get it, now?

Exactly correct. However, this is a hard thing for many to understand. The fact that one is not cutting frequencies does not mean that frequencies are being boosted.

I don't think we will convince our friend here though.

 

[Ric5]

Mine is a 77 and the neck is extremely thin compared to modern rics except at the nut.

My main bass for many years was a 1968 4001 ... these old basses have really slim necks ... in 73 they redesigned the neck and that's when it got the skunk stripe. the new neck was stronger and more stable. Old 60s 4001 basses would sometimes experience neck failure ... I also owned a 73, 74, 75, 78 4001 basses ... compared to the 68 they had chunky necks. Ric introduced the 4003 in 1980 and the neck get fatter and stronger and modern truss rods. The neck profiles do vary at times ... recently about 2010 +/- they redesigned the neck to be stronger and thinner and also brought back full width inlays.

Here's my old 68 ... the neck never did completely flatten out ...

Here is a 2011 4003 with ne newest version of the neck ...

Here is a 2012 4003

They also have changed the fretboard from bubinga to Caribbean Rosewood

Through the years they have been making the 4003 more and more like the 1960s 4001 basses ... the body wings and headstock shapes went back to the 60s style, the walnut headwings and full width inlays came back. The push pull circuit gives you the vintage tone. But even with that, the neck on the 4003 is a lot stronger and the pickups are louder. The truss rods will not damage the neck no matter how hard you tighten them.

I love the modern 4003 ... but I hate the bridge tailpiece and I hate the pickup cover and I hate the mechanical mute ...

 

[JMacBass65]

Correct! Why should I become an ignorant like you guys? Seems rather stupid.

If you are going to try to insult us, please do so with a coherent sentence.

Now, to be instructive, I will try again to help you. Google is your friend here. Look up HIGH PASS FILTER, read and understand it. You might also read up on passive tone circuits and active tone circuits.

Hopefully after your mini education, you will understand how the Rick vintage tone circuit works as a High Pass Filter, because that is what it is. When engaged, it is removing mids and lows by the use of a capacitor, allowing only the highs to pass through (see where they got the name???). When that capacitor is removed from the circuit ("modern tone"), lows and mids are NOT REMOVED. However - there is no boost. You cannot boost frequencies in a passive circuit.

 

[ToasterPU]

I'm a 4001v63 /4001cs and all variants based off that. Best Rickenbacker basses for me. It's the best of both (looks vintage, but is a modern Ric everywhere else) So I'm a modern 4003 guy I guess. I added the push/pull vintage tone circuit to mine too...

 

[DigitalMan]

I love the Ric 4003 because it is the first and only passive bass in history with the ability to boost certain frequencies (apparently).

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Regarding the cap and how loud the signal is: when the cap is out of the signal path, IE modern tone, when both pups are run full, you get phase cancellation/comb filtering resulting in a slightly scooped tone. Nothing unusual going on here, Jazz basses, and other two pup basses all suffer from the same phenomena. When the cap is engaged IE vintage tone, it acts as a HPF as previously mentioned. What was left out is that a single component filter is a first order filter which knocks the phase 90°. That is enough to minimize the comb filtering, isolating the pups so more mids stay present. Unfornuntely, the .0047 uf value also cuts off at approx 150Hz or so. If people want to isolate their pups w/o high passing, a .1uf is recommended.

 

[Korladis]

First post ever from a longtime reader of this great site. So, I see that a lot of threads quickly go off-topic. Friendly request to all to keep this on-topic, please, friends. Thanks.

So, a seasoned guitar builder I am friendly with (who has been a management-level employee as floor supervisor and custom shop builder at Gibson, Fender, and Guild) told me that to keep costs low and profits high Rickenbacker now uses die-cast, aluminum, cheaper metals for the bridge, tuners, etc., and also installs pickups and electronics that are built from low-grade materials and manufactured by subcontractors to minimal standards.

Not finding much on previous (or even current) Rickenbacker manufacturing standards or if these assertions regarding the implied superiority of "vintage" 4001 and/or 4003 models is even true. If true, a three part question: (1) what were the machined parts made of, (2) what were the pickups/electronics made of OR by whom, and (3) did these variations result in superior sound-quality, better instrument playablity, or yield other positive attributes?

Final question and why I'm asking: I'm the owner of a 2015 4003, which was purchased new. I love the playability, feel, sound, and balance of this badboy but could this love affair be even better?! Will I get a better sound and an overall superior playing experience if I purchase an older 4001 or 4003 Rickenbacker bass and if so what model years?

I have a 1975 4001 and a recent 4003S.

They're both great. I don't think much has changed. I actually prefer newer 4003s in sound to most vintage 4001s I've tried.

 

[Ric5]

Regarding the cap and how loud the signal is: when the cap is out of the signal path, IE modern tone, when both pups are run full, you get phase cancellation/comb filtering resulting in a slightly scooped tone. Nothing unusual going on here, Jazz basses, and other two pup basses all suffer from the same phenomena. When the cap is engaged IE vintage tone, it acts as a HPF as previously mentioned. What was left out is that a single component filter is a first order filter which knocks the phase 90°. That is enough to minimize the comb filtering, isolating the pups so more mids stay present. Unfornuntely, the .0047 uf value also cuts off at approx 150Hz or so. If people want to isolate their pups w/o high passing, a .1uf is recommended.

With a 4003 you simply roll off the neck volume a little and the phase cancellation disappears

 

[Korladis]

Do they? I was under the impression that the pickup position was changed on the newer 4003, as in right on the harmonic instead of slightly closer to the neck.

EDIT: The 4001 is 1/2 inch from the neck, while the 4003 is a full inch.

No, only really old 4001s had the neck pickup a 1/2 inch from the neck. My 4001 is a '75, and it has the full inch spacing.

 

[Korladis]

With a 4003 you simply roll off the neck volume a little and the phase cancellation disappears

Yep.

Or use just one pickup or the other, which is what I do most of the time.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

With a 4003 you simply roll off the neck volume a little and the phase cancellation disappears

Not the same thing as when using the cap.

 

[Ric5]

Not the same thing as when using the cap.

Ya without the cap it sounds better

 

[Korladis]

I played live with my 4003S last night for the first time (have used the 4001 a lot with another band, they're in different tunings). I actually used the cap a lot... but soloed, for a more twangy effect slightly more guitar like in some parts of songs.

My main tone remains bridge pickup soloed, cap disengaged.

 

[Right_Butterscotch64]

I found the cap almost unusable in mono, but it really sounded best when running a stereo rig. It acts essentially as a crossover since none of the lows and low mids are going to the bridge pickup. Cap engaged, Stereo rig IS the Ric tone to me.

 

[s_wood]

It's important to be technically correct in describing things for those who understand the science, but for most Rick players the point is this:
a big part of the "classic" Rick tone, particularly the iconic roundwounds with a pick variant, is really dependent upon the placement of a .0047 capacitor in the circuit. The 4003 basses without the capacitor, or without the "vintage switch" that allows for the capacitor to be switched in or out of the circuit, sound noticeably different than the 4001 basses with the capacitor. I have a 2010 4001c64 to which I added the "vintage switch" for extra variety, and I can tell you that the difference is pretty significant. Not to say which is best, but pretty much any bass player will immediately hear the difference.

Others have mentioned that the original 4001 basses have a truss rod system that wasn't the best, and that's true. Those basses, if you get a good one, are often perfect. Some, though, are a mess. The new truss rod system is absolutely better in every way, but it also led to a somewhat thicker neck profile. For me, the trade-off was worth it, but I sure do love the thin necks on most 4001.

Last point: like everyone above is saying, the construction quality on current Ricks is at least as good it was " back in the day."

 

[Paul Boyer]

It's not that the old "hairpin" truss rod system "wasn't the best," it was really about people not knowing how they worked and how they should be adjusted. In the right hands, the old-style rods work great. But they were so different from others and most didn't know that, and when they tried to adjust them, they ended up popping the fingerboard off the neck or cracking the neck. Rickenbacker eventually got fed up with folks not reading the manuals that clearly show how they should be adjusted and went with a more conventional rod system in 1985 up to the present.

 

[JMacBass65]

I love the Ric 4003 because it is the first and only passive bass in history with the ability to boost certain frequencies (apparently).

QFS (quoted for sarcasm)

I have a 2010 4001c64 to which I added the "vintage switch" for extra variety, and I can tell you that the difference is pretty significant.

Yeah, my 85 4003 had no capacitor. I learned about that here I think, and modded mine to add one with a mini toggle. I have it IN 90% of the time or more. THAT, for me, is the Rick sound.