You're right about Rickenbacker's marketing. I think this Bass is an attractive option for 5 string buyers. The pizzas look fine and it didnt have the big talent inhibitor across the Middle. Great Bass overall.
I picked up one of these in walnut recently, it's honestly the best bass I've ever played in my life. Truly in love with it, I plan to keep it in good condition for years to come Also, I'm not 100% sure it's fair to give it 4 claws just based on the rick-o-sound and shark inlays. Rick-o-sound , while neat, is not used by the majority of rick owners.The shark inlays would be cool, but I hardly consider it to be a con myself, though I understand people want the full ric experience. Overall good review though, it's a great demonstration for anyone curious on getting one
Ricks are very specific. I have been watching you for a while without commenting, liking or subscribing. It's funny that this video showed up on my feed. I'm in the market for a Rick now, having owned a 4001 in the 80's, being a professional I found it to be the least versatile bass except for the Danelectro but I was stupid then. I'm even more stupid now. I'm liking, subscribing and commenting because you finally broke me with this video. Seeing it two years after you made it. Your passion and honesty, not being afraid to call out "bullshit" when it is needed, appreciating your fans, being humble, I should have liked, commented and subscribed sooner. For that, I apologize. Thank you for being you and all that you do.
Hey Dude! Great video. I have this bass and having been a pro player for 25 years in Nashville, this is a Godsend. I’ve had several Rics and never kept them because they weren’t 5 strings and I hated the bridge pickup. This fixed all my problems. Rickenbacker as a company sucks tho, majorly. I tried to call them to order strings for this bass, but they don’t have them. Not gonna get them either. Basically told me to kiss off and just buy some other strings, but their Basses come setup with exclusive gauges that are hard to find. Curt Mangan has them. Cheers!
Hey Jeff! Thanks for the comment! Yeah I had some string issues too. Originally I put a 5 string rotosound set on her but the B sounded like crap. The folks in the Ric megathread on TB recommend a slightly lighter gauge of D'addario pro steels and it's much better now.
@@LowEndLobster just ordered a walnut 5 string (my first rickenbacker :) ). Do you by any chance still know what gauges of pro steels you used? Thanks for the review by the way, it really helped me to finally make a decision
A sweet offering from Ric, no doubt. The style is a bit of a cross between the classic 4001/3 models and the Laredo models. I think Ric made a good decision when they updated the electronics a few years ago; it took care of the "weaker" bridge pickup issue if you wanted something a bit fuller sounding.
Great video. I'm considering buying one so this is just what I needed. It sounds like it may have more gain than the regular 4 string which was good news considering that low gain was always an issue. I think the fact that this one is an "S" model accounts for why there's no binding or shark fin inlays in the fretboard. I think that all the S models were always like that so this one is consistent with what they've always done.
Yup. I understand that, I've had a non S and currently have a 4 string SW. I guess the biggest thing for me (which I didn't clearly communicate in the video haha) is that this shouldn't really be a non-S model IMO. Just my opinion, but I wish this got the full 4003 treatment because the lack of some of those features on a bass like this makes it feel almost incomplete.
@@LowEndLobster it's not just informative, but also entertaining to watch your reviews :) btw whats the string spacing at the bridge and the nut width?
@@Ganelin No idea. I could look it up, but I actually just purchased one of those digital calipers to get exact measurements of things. Why blindly trust spec sheets and internet strangers when we can verify it ourselves on video, right? :) Caliper will be here on Thursday, and I'll definitely be using it in my reviews moving forwards. Thanks for the suggestion!
Great to see a new Rick! Looks great, and they got rid of that awful bridge. I cant see why they still got the two truss rods though. Rickenbacker have always been hopeless at advertising and giving info on maintaining their products. If I had the dosh - then I would love one. Great video Mr L.
I had a 4001 back in the 80s (MASSIVE Geddy and Yes fan). It had to go when I started in covers bands. BUT I REALLY like the sound (s) of that wee beastie. Nice Barchetta intro. 👌🏻🖖🏼 PS. Love the flats on your Walnut.
Good Review , I own one these Rickenbacker 4003S-5 basses in Fire Glow .. this is a really well made 5 string bass , I have 2 American Fender 5 string jazz basses & the 4003S-5 has become my favorite, I also have a Rickenbacker Jet Glow 4003 4 string & again the 4003S-5 edges it IMO . I just find this to be a great playing bass ... I agree that Rickenbacker could of done a better job marketing this bass to the public, maybe do a You Tube video & give a breakdown on the changes made on the 4003S-5 that differentiates it to the 4 string 4003S .. some purists don't visually like the triangle pickups , all I can say is give them a chance, they're good pickups & FYI I read that the triangle is supposed to mimic or pay homage to the triangle fret markers on the 4003 4 string . Which I thought was pretty cool, I also like that this bass comes without the pickup cover on the bridge pickup & I love the Schaller 3D-5 bridge ... Rickenbacker did such a good job on this bass ... it's addictive & fun to play ... I just wish they would have done a little better job marketing it online on You Tube & their website... this bass deserves it, ..... that being said all reviews I have read in bass & music magazines have also been favorable regarding the 4003S-5, I urge everyone to try one out if you get the chance.
I just would like to precise that this model is lacking binding, rickOsound, shark fretboard inlays because it's an S model. They've made the 5 string version of the 4003S model which does not have all these features.
I know, I just think that this model should have been presented as a non S. I think that's a missed opportunity given the price tag of this compared to a regular 4003 non S.
Aight, gonna save up for one of the walnut variation. I've always wanted a rick, and the desire grew when I saw a vid of Cliff Burton playing his modded one during Anesthesia during an early metallica show. I could never justify it tho cuz the guitarist in my band plays a 7. Now, I can
I loved the walnut version of these. Kind of regret not getting one. I love my wally 4 string. It's actually getting some work done, very excited to show you guys when I get it back.
Thanks for this review. Very informative and well constructed. Like you, I too would prefer to see the shark teeth inlays, the Ric-O-Sound option and the binding that is on my four string 4003 on this 5 string. Although the sound and playability are more important, I guess. I suppose RIC wanted to save $ though, hence leaving those options out. My other bass is a Gibson EB5 2017 model with two humbuckers that can be coil tapped for a more open, single coil tone which makes it sound somewhat similar to the Ricky. The EB5 is very versatile bass and has a longer scale length and 24 frets but a Ricky 5 ... hmmm... Very tempting indeed... I may have to see if I can get my hands on one here in Oz. It would be very interesting to compare its sound with my EB5.
Thanks for your comment! I've been curious about the EB5. Styling is subjective, but I'm very curious about the playability and tone. How would you describe the neck?
@@LowEndLobster the neck is very playable, but, of course, much wider than that of my 4003 with its 4 strings. And longer, of course. A number of the songs that we play in the covers band I'm playing with at the moment really require a 5 string so my Ricky 4003 doesn't get as much use these days. I do still occasionally use it in my studio though and I record it through my stereo DBX preamp, although the sound of the Gibson EB5 is quite similar (perhaps a function - at least in part - of the set, maple neck with a rosewood fingerboard being the next best thing to the Ricky's through maple neck and rosewood fingerboard). Both my basses sustain for days. One issue I have found with the Ricky - if I pluck the E string fairly hard, the vibrating string has a tendency to hit the exposed pole on the neck pickup making an unpleasant, and loud, click. (I lowered the pickup recently to help resolve that problem but still need to be mindful of that when playing - especially in the studio.) The pickups on the Gibson have the magnet poles below the plastic cover so I don't have that issue at all. That's about the only negative I have about the Ricky's design. My EB5 has a clear, satin finish (built to a price I guess) and doesn't have any binding or the nice gloss sunburst finish of the Ricky. The only negative I have about the Gibson is that it only came with a gig bag so I had to buy a hard case (and because of it's long headstock (long overall length) the options for a case were limited to one or two more expensive options). I don't regret buying either instrument though. They are both excellent workhorses and both have great, usable tone with solid, fundamentals and plenty of higher overtones to supply clarity. When I first purchased my 4003 (many years ago) I was comparing it with a similarly priced Fender Jazz Bass. The Ricky was lighter, sounded better and I figured would keep its value better (definitely true). I bought the Gibson a few years ago because I needed a 5 string, (primarily based on its price but also on what it sounded like). Gibson might not be as well known for their basses but I'm very happy with my EB5. Cheers. B.
Great video, you showed that the new pickups will give you traditional Rickenbacker Tones. Unfortunately, like most 5 string bass demos from everybody, the 5th string is not focused on where it would be good to hear tones playing it with neck, bass, both pickups on, and tone controls set to low then high respectively. As well as your opinion on any 5 string buzz that a number of 5 strings do. Also, I did not hear you discuss string spacing as the problem with old Rick 5s was the string spacing made it virtually impossible to play with the fingers, thus needed a pick
Thank you Scamp! Yeah, the B string isn't as strong with both pickups on together, but slightly leaning off one of them makes it a bit more defined. I had Roto swing 66 in 45-125 on there originally and the B was practically dead. I have a slightly lighter D'addario gauge on there that is a bit better. Yeah, string spacing was definitely a problem on the old Rics. I alluded to the spacing problem in how they basically slapped on a new bridge an extra tuner. The spacing on the new /5 is much nicer though. Thanks for the in depth comment! Any other Ric content that you'd like to see?
Interesting, I would have thought the heavier the gauge 5th/B string would have resulted in a more fuller low-end bass sound, not a dead sound. On some 5 string bass sets, the 5th string is no thicker than 4th on most basses. Sounds like the 5 string Rick is more suited to have the 5 as the lightest, where instead of a low B, the 5th string is a high C - what do you think?- Other Rick content, perhaps do another video with B samples. If you get a Walnut 5 string, compare it with this one. The Walnut should produce a more Woody Acoustic Tone. Thanks
@@smscamp3016 I was super tempted to trade mine for a wally, but I think I'll keep the matte black. I think it might be the nut that's the culprit, probably designed with Ric strings in mind which I think have some weird gauges. I do have a 4003SW though to get my walnut fix :).
Great review! Really appreciate how you do not slap everything and you don't use a pick all the time (or even at all) That is how a great bass review should be. And oh boy am I happy to own 2 P basses, a 1962 and a 2019 and they are quite different in sound. A P has a certain forwardness in its sound, you can always pick it out of the line up. I guess I could add a 5 string but should it be a Ric or is there another brand some where in the greener grass? Ric made this bass because it was way cheaper to produce and they are still able to put a 2,500 dollar price tag on it. Even if it is a good bass, Ric made this bass from a high margin point of view IMO.
Thanks Wouter! I appreciate that :). Honestly, this "modern" Ric is still a Ric, and has many of the same flaws that regular 4 banger Rics do. If you want a Ric and need the Low B, I don't think there's a better option out there. They're very comfortable, easy to play, and still have "the sound". It's a really solid instrument BUT there are definitely more well rounded 5'ers out there for less money... but they'll never sound like a Ric. I absolutely agree with their pricing (and I hate it). I've ranted on several other videos and live streams about their silly pricing model. I got my 4003SW brand new for 1300 this year, the 5 was 1800. The "2500" price tag would have been more palatable pre-internet when there was a greater air of mysticism surrounding instruments like this. I think they charge so much in order to stay the same, which is part of their (love it or hate it) charm. Low volume, high desirability, and utilizing the classic building techniques that they've been mostly following for decades.
Love the review Lobster! If they made this in 4 string, I might consider buying a Ric again. As it stands, I've got no use for a (i guess medium scale?) 5 string when you can get a much better tone on a fanned fret system, with more downtuning versatility to boot. Could also be much improved by using a single graphite truss rod with a heel adjustment and ditch the awful dual truss rods.
Thank you Brett! You make excellent points. It's a great bass, and the best 5 string Ric, but if you're looking for a 5er, better and more versatile can be had for less... But people (myself included) who buy Rics don't really argue the value of them, because they're terrible values. 20 fret neck, noisy electronics, annoying truss rod system, and sketchy pricing system with dealers will be a hard sell for someone not specifically looking for a Ric.
Lobster, I actually lucked up on this bass in 2018,and I agree with you on some things I think it's a great come back on rickenbackers part to make an electric bass that a bass player can rap their talent around, I refuse to call a bass,bass guitar, that's not the instrument Leo Fender created, someone decided to mix things up, me personally, I play the electric bass that Leo Fender created . You have acoustic piano, electric piano, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, acoustic bass, electric bass., I'm a bass player, I don't play bass guitar( whatever that is), Lobster good review.
Rick has tried to make 5 string a few times. The predecessor to the 4003/5 is the Ric 4004cii/5. This looks like a 4004 but with single coils and in the 4003 placement. It definitely uses a similar bridge, dot inlays, no binding, mono output, but the 4004 had Humbuckers and the pickups were in weird spots. Lemmy's bass was a 4004cii. So sadly, it's a fusion of 2 old models, no real new ideas other than those pickups and electronics. I always wanted to try a ric 4004cii/5, but I have thunderbirds and love the thunderbird neck and vintage thunderbird sound. I have a harder to find Gibson Thunderbird Studio 5 string with Thunderbuckers and one of Epiphone Vintage Pro 4 strings *which does a great job of recreating a mid 60's bird* plus a couple of others. Sadly, won't get to play my dream ric
Great comment! I've been curious about the various 4004's. Really want to get my hands on an Epi VP TB as I hear they're great as well and the TB ProV (active) was a total turd.
@@LowEndLobster I own aan Epi TB 5 Pro. They were a great idea, with active electronics, brass nut, and not a 3 point bridge but rather a bridge that could take piezo inserts... But the neck is very large at the nut, damn thing is 14lbs, the early ones had defective electronics, none sounded anything like a thunderbird, and the machining on the bridge was poor, and the had a tendency to not cut the nut enough and usually had the bridge too close to the nut so it would not intonate. I had Mike Lull rebuild mine, it has his pickups, Hipshot Bridge with string thru on E and B, all passive, and all chromed out. It was my go to bass for 5 string for a year and a half.
@@LowEndLobster The Epi Vintage Pro is a very very good instrument. It's neck is almost identical to its Gibson counter part. It's sound is like a cross between a reverse and a non reverse. The neck pickup is like a reverse, very strong and clear with excellent harmonic response and a good upper mid growl. The Bridge is very much later non reverse. Fairly full, a little honk, but not like modern, very even sounding with that upper mid growl. They look amazing with that 2 piece bridge. Mine is in white. And is my favorite 4 string bass
@@LowEndLobster Sadly, the TB 5 Pro currently has my least favorite tone. It's bland, overwound, cloudy harmonics and not at all like any vintage thunderbird character. Plus it's had to go back because the plating was defective on both pickups plus there have been other issues where it had to go back and fixed.
Great review, Lobster! I’m trying to find one of these Ric 5-strings as we speak. You mentioned that you have flats on your Walnut model. May I ask, what brand, model, and gauge do you use on it?
I know, right? Their website was the same as I remember it like 10 years ago up until a few weeks ago when they added the 4003S/5. They don't trust that new-fangled internet thingy. I'm surprised their email isn't RickNBacker@aol.com.
Indeed. You can't really compare a Ric to another bass, not because they're absolutely amazing, but because they're incredibly flawed instruments but some those flaws provide a lot of the character. IMO Rics need to be judged as Rics, and expectations need to be managed with them (especially for those inexperienced with the brand).
I traded emails back in the early 'aughts with John Hall about the images on the website (they weren't optimized well for lousy connections) and he snapped back at me about that. The site has barely changed since then as you mention LEL- compare the changes over the years on archive dot org and you'll see. They know their audience doesn't care all that much and that's ok. (I'm on my 4th Rick guitar, never had any of the basses, but might some day.)
@@ileutur6863 yeah but guitar techs are some of the laziest people on earth. They complain about anything that isn't a fender. Rickenbackers are so easy to set up if you know what you're doing.
We have to understand the particular market that this bass was created for, but me personally, I think it's good, I don't need the esthetics, just the ric tone and character and that's what's important to me.
Thanks! Yup, I know Ged was using his jazz there. Love his basslines, he was my first bass hero and is still a big influence on me today. Was OBSESSED with Rush in Highschool. I remember playing a terrible rendition of "Working Man" with some friends for a sophomore year talent show. I hope there's no video of that....
Great video, but in your summary you’re not comparing it against it’s rightful 4 string sibling. This is the “S” model which is and always was a mono only bass. The pricing of this bass carries a premium on the 4 string “S” model for the 5th string. A true 4003/5 (if Rick decide to produce it) will have an even higher price to reflect the work in the binding and the added stereo capability.
@@LowEndLobster Yeah man Om is awesome. They're bassist/vocalist, Al Cisneros, is in another band called Sleep. Very similar stuff. You should give them a listen, too!
I would be interested in a video that explains the difference between the Rick model 4001-4003 and all the letters x s lmnop shit. The harmonics in the roundabout intro sounds sick Great job, I’ll be watching that a few times to try and get it. I heard Chris squire used a quarter as a pick That bridge might make me interested in one of these bad boys
The 4001 and 4003 primarily differ in their truss rods and neck construction. The 4001 had old "hairpin" truss rods that were incredibly stable when set, but difficult to adjust in that you had to loosen them all the way, manually bend the neck to where you wanted it, and then re-tighten the rods to hold the neck there. The 4003 has the same kind of truss rods as most other basses, just two of them. The 4003 also lacked the strip of shedua wood running down the neck. This was initially added to the 4001 to strengthen the neck, but the 4003's different neck and modernized truss rods made this unnecessary. The 4001 also had a capacitor limiting the low end of the bridge pickup. 4003s didn't, until recently when they've added it back as a toggle-able vintage tone control as demonstrated in the video. Some of the last 4001s made, after the 4003 was introduced, were set neck instead of neck-through, but these are a small minority of 4001s built over the years. Since most of the differences between the 4001 and 4003 are internal, it can be difficult to tell them apart. The only obvious telltale sign is that darker shedua stripe running down the neck, but obviously this isn't visible on jetglo (black) and some other finishes. Both the 4001S and 4003S model (I can't remember if the S stands for "standard" or "special) is sort of a stripped down model of the 4001 and 4003 respectively. The S models have always lacked the stereo output, the binding (hence the contoured body edges), and the triangle inlays. 5-strings and 8-strings were almost always based on the S model. Hence the 4003S/5. Various reissues of the 4001 are more like 4003s in neck construction. The main reissues done are the 4001V63, the 4001C64, and the 4001C64S. There is also the 4001CS, which is a limited Chris Squire signature model. The 4001V63 (V for "vintage") was an early vintage reissue model from I think the late 80s through the late 90s, imitating a 1963 era 4001S bass. These have reproduction "toaster top" neck pickup and "horseshoe" bridge pickups. The latter are much higher output than the original horseshoe pickups though, and the shoes aren't independently magnetized (though they are in contact with the pickup magnets). On the original, old horseshoe pickups, that's actually big magnets surrounding the strings, similar to the very first magnetic electric guitar pickups. While obviously really cool, the large magnets had a tendency to lose their magnetism over time. The 4001V63 was discontinued shortly before the C64 came out. The 4001C64 and 4001C64S are reproductions of Paul McCartney's 4001S that he used in The Beatles and later Wings, but at different times. The 4001C64 is a reproduction of McCartney's bass as it was when he first got it. The 4001C64S on the other hand, is a reproduction of the same bass but after being heavily modified and eventually refurbished. The regular 4001C64 is a lot like the V63, except the pickup outputs are lower, like they would have been at the time (though the horseshoe pickup still doesn't incorporate actual big horseshoe magnets, opting for the same magnetized-via-the-regular-pickup-magnet construction as on the V63). After first doing a psychedelic DIY paint job around the time of recording "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," McCartney later sanded off the entire finish, going a bit overboard on the sanding, which is why the 4001C64S has the much slimmed down body horns. He also had a zero fret added, similar to his Hofner. Eventually the horseshoe pickup had to be rewired and the pickup surround/ring was swapped out for a newer, smaller one. These are the features the 4001C64S imitates. Both basses also have reverse-geared machine heads, as early 60s Rickenbacker basses did. Both basses also have headstocks that appear to be "upside down" on right-handed basses, as an homage to McCartney being left-handed, and in the old days, right and left handed basses being made with the same necks and headstocks, making the necks on left-handed basses look upside down. The 4001CS is a limited edition reproduction of Chris Squire's heavily modified 4001S/RM1999 ("RM1999" was the model name of the 4001S when imported to the UK). It's similar to the 4001V63 but has vermillion headstock wings and fretboard, as well as the faded cream color finish. And obviously the Chris Squire signature. The 4008 and 4003S/8 were eight string versions of the 4001S and 4003S respectively. They're essentially just a 4001S or 4003S with an extended head stock and eight strings. The octave strings are arranged opposite to how they are on most other eight string basses. The old 4003S/5 are the same, but with five strings. Like the eight string models, the only changes were to the bridge, bridge pickup, and slightly to the headstock. The neck is the same as on the 4003S, so the string spacing is extremely narrow. The 4000 was Rickenbacker's first entry into the bass market and only has a single pickup. On 60s basses this was a horseshoe, on 70s models it was a high-gain. It lacks a neck pickup. 60s and 70s models are similar to the 4001S, but obviously with no neck pickup. The 4002 was a very high end bass where the humbucking pickups were in the same positions as on a Fender Jazz or a Gibson Thunderbird, much closer to the bridge. It also used fancy woods and had an additional XLR output IIRC. The 4004 was basically a modernization of the 4003. It had humbucking pickups, a slightly wider neck (at first), no pickguard, no body binding, contoured body edges, a modern bridge, and a simplified control layout of a volume knob, a tone knob, and a pickup selector switch. It came in three models, the 4004L (Laredo) which was all maple (except for the fretboard), the 4004C (Cheyenne) which had walnut body wings but a maple fretboard, and the 4004Cii, which had body wings that were a maple/walnut/maple sandwich with figured maple on top, and a rosewood fretboard. There was also a 4004Cii/5, but not many of these were made. The 4003W and 4003SW are like the 4003 and 4003S, respectively, but with walnut body wings and a maple fretboard. The 4005 was a completely different bass. It was a set neck hollowbody, based loosely on the 330/360 model guitars. It had two pickups, with the neck pickup right up against the neck and the bridge pickup right up against the bridge. The only thing similar to the 4001 was the headstock (and general neck shape). Its controls also featured the 5th knob (for blend) as found on most Rickenbacker guitars. In the 60s, the pickups were toaster top, while later in the 70s they switched to the high-gain type. It was discontinued in the 80s. There was also a 4005/6 six-string model similar to the Fender Bass VI.
I've worked at a few music stores in my youth, big box retail ones and mom and pop stores alike. Rickenbacker as a brand in every interaction I've had with them are usually jerks. They're products can never under any circumstances be discounted or included in ANY deals whatsoever. If one of their instruments was damaged, instead of discounting it they expect it to be shipped back to them. They're reps are always douches too, very high and mighty and very dismissive of anyone who doesn't immediately buy into the Rick propoganda. I made a comment to a rep while working at an certain big retail guitar store that shall remain nameless, about how horrible their website is and he said verbatim; "If you're more interested in web design instead of the project, maybe you're the one with the problem."
Exactly, Rickenbacker has poor advertising about new models don't know why I had no idea that bass existed, BTW hate the shape of those pickups who designed them ? Dan Electro ,Vox ! Something 60s retro ,or maybe Frito lay designed the shape ,Thanks 🦞 Lobster. 🤣🤟✌️👍
ooh I have a Shaller 3D bridge on my Yamaha modded with emgs to a HS config from a PJ :) You forgot to mention that you can adjust string spacing on those bridges, so if you're not happy with the Rickenbacker spacing, use whatever suits you, 18,3? why not. 17.8? sure :D
Great point! I hope to snag another one of these (in walnut!) to revisit. This was like my 10th video ever (and we're over 235 vids now hahaha), it's crazy to see how far we've come in such a short period of time
Thanks Ross! This is definitely a very different beast from the 'Ray. I don't have this one anymore, but still have (and will always have) my 4003SW :).
I have an '88 Carvin LB90 which is (Drumroll) all maple, neck through and has a Schaller bridge and sounds great still, even though the neck is getting old. Recipe for great sound. Wish I had an all maple, neck through, Schaller bridge 5 string bass........ Still not thrilled with narrow string spacing. Love 19mm, don't mind 18mm, will live with 17mm in a pinch but 16.5mm is still way skinny. I'll have to see if I can find one on the rack to check how it really feels.
That's awesome! Yeah 16.5 is a bit tight. The Sterling SUB Ray5HH was 16.5 and that was probably my limit. I had an old OLP that was even tighter... that thing sucked.
Now I normally hate on ricks but I can’t hate on this...it sounds great! What I dislike about them is how they never seem to innovate when compared to companies like musicman or Ibanez. Good to see them innovating ;-)
Thanks for the comment! You're right about the innovation (or lack thereof). It's definitely nice to see them step out of their comfort zone, even if it is only a baby step.
@@LowEndLobster As the next baby step perhaps they can utilize ghost(dummy) coils under their single coil pickups so we can get rid of that hum. Without that I feel like we are stuck to one pickup position. No one likes single coil hum on recordings, LOL ;-) Great review LowEndLobster!
@@gregpantelides1355 Ahaha, ain't that the truth! Check out my latest vid, the 7 basses 1 video one. I love my Ric 4003SW... but that hum man... that hum. I feel like Hide the Pain Harold every time I stop playing.
yes, I think the 4003 only updated twice in the 90s, one was changing the capacitor config to attempt to reduce the hum. Second update is to add back the same config with a pull knob (and called it vintage tone. lol) lack of innovation may not be a bad thing as Gibsons and Fender keep going back to their 50s/60s re-issues. Rickenbacker is an old school company, newer environmental rules in California only allows limited amount of chemical a factory can use in a year on the finishing. Instead of using new method, Rickenbacker decided to reduce the output of their basses & guitars.
I loved the 4001/4003 sound. Hated the bridge, the double truss rod, and the overall quality out of the box. I got rid of it a few months later. Stupid me.
(Borat Voice) Very Nice!! 👍👍. How's the maintenance on this bass? I've never owned a Ric but my buds that have all say the same thing, they rock but crap they require a lot of TLC. Basically if they're not set up perfectly, they give you issues.
Thank you! I have two Rics and neither have given me issues after initial setup. I did have issues stringing the S/5 with Rotosound standard medium/lt gauge (.45-.125), but the B sounded like crap. The Ric thread on TB recommended a particular special set of D'addarios that I forget, I think the B is a .112 or something. Either way, it sounds a lot better. My 4 string 4003SW (haven't made a vid on it yet, it's on my "7 basses 1 vid" video) is a peach. Had it strung with TI Flats and my tech set this one up. No issues thus far. I had a regular Jetglo 4003 around 14 or 15 years ago, and that one was a bit more finicky.
@@LowEndLobster WOW, thank you for the quick response. Well that sounds great. I've been eyeballing this one for awhile now. And thank you for the advice on the strings. I do love roto sounds though😢.
I owned one of these for about a week. The sound was good, construction was good, but just didn't like the neck. It got gradually thicker and chunkier as you moved from the 12th fret to the 1st fret. It made it slightly neck heavy and uncomfortable to play.
Thanks for the comment! Yeah the necks aren't for everyone, definitely a preference thing. I didn't find the neck uncomfortable, but 33.25" scale for a 5 string didn't really do it for me honestly. It's the best 5 string Ric out there, but there are definitely better 5 strings for the money.
@@LowEndLobster I’ve heard of people using copper tape, aluminum tape, and black or copper conductive spray to create a pseudo-“Faraday Cage” inside the body cavity to improve the grounding and reduce 60-cycle hum. I’ve done it a couple of times myself with reasonable levels of success.
I'm not sure if Rickenbacker makes this model anymore. Like you said their website is atrocious. I think that maybe this bass down the road might be a "Classic" to the die hard Rickenbacker fans. It pretty much has the old school Rick tone. (Well it sounds close). They should have gave it the stereo option like the 4003. Oh by the way LEL - I really like the way you picked out the opening guitar part to "ROUNDABOUT".
Thanks for the comment, Gavin! That's a great question. I can't say with absolute certainty (I'm not a metal guy), but I think it would work great. Tone wise, I find this to be a bit more versatile than the regular 4003. I just wouldn't use one for jazz lol.
LowEndLobster The only thing that I can think of being an issue is the tension on the low B string due to the shorter length, but theoretically thicker strings would counteract that, right?
@@horse_dog Theoretically, yeah... however I initially had standard gauge Rotos on there and the B string was terrible. I asked the Ric thread on TalkBass, and they recommended a specific set of D'addarios that worked out really well. They're slightly lighter gauge, but tension isn't much of an issue. If you're looking to pick one up soon, find a shop with a solid return policy and try one out for yourself. I think you'll like it.
I was considering making groove/nu metal music for the Crash Bandicoot parody but it’s on hiatus. However, I did record Pictures at an Exhibition in death metal for Vinesauce Joel animated.
Everyone keeps telling me to get a 5 string ric, but I play drop a, and that B string sounds terrible. I hope they make a larger scale 5 string down the line.
Yeah, I would not recommend this bass for Drop-A tuning. The 33.25" scale neck definitely does not do the B any favors. Check out the Ibanez EHB multiscales, 35" scale B string, fanned frets, really nice finish options (though limited), and a nice roasted maple neck on the 1005 series. Also cheaper than the Ric 5 string and IMO the better bass. The Ric is a Ric, with all the negatives and positives associated with being a Ric.
@@loki3292 I run a Dingwal Ng2. So that 37 inch scale length on the B string is fucking sweet. As much as I love the look and sound of Rics... i just cant justify owning one yet.
Really wish they would just go to the new hardware/pickups for the 4 string. I don't think anyone would care as long as the body and headstock stays the same.
Let's grab my keys and put this to the test! Nah the matte finish is actually created by making the surface slightly bumpy and not flat/shiny. They have special cleaners for this stuff, and polishing it will result in the loss of the matte. This particular finish was very fragile relatively speaking. Other manufacturers have a much more durable matte finish.
I hate the regular 4003. The binding digs into your arm resting on the body. The S feels WAY better. I just bought the walnut 5 string. Very happy. The low B is not the best, but it will do the job. Plus, it sounds like a Ric. I am not interested in a modern generic tone like an Ibanez or a Dingwall. It's classic.
@@marcmalitz7074 I have a 4001, and I just don't put much pressure on my forearm I guess. Or just the way I play I don't rest my arm on the body very much.
Good eye! That's my former Conklin Rocco Prestia signature, VERY rare. I sold it to one of my best bass buddies who is a HUGE Tower fan, and it's definitely at home now hahaha. He's the one that buys basses that I don't necessarily want to keep but I don't want to go to a stranger ;P
When I was a kid and worshipped Geddy Lee and Chris Squire, owning a Rickenbacker was my dream! Then several years later, I actually played a real one. And I was really astonished, I didn't like it. I didn't like the way it played and I didn't like the way it sounded. I thought I might have had a lemon. But other Rick's I've tried I didn't care much for either. While I still love the look, there's no getting around it, Leo Fender really got it right.
Thanks for the comment Ron! I was kind of the same way, except I ended up buying one in high school. A 4003 in Jetglo. Never really got comfortable with it and sold it. That being said, my 4003SW is a completely different animal. It's one of my favorite basses. I'll be doing a separate review on that, but you can check it out a little on my 7-basses-1-video vid :). Take care and bass on my friend!
@@LowEndLobster Sure, I'll check out your other videos. It was cool just hearing those Rush basslines. And I can see these new generation Rick's are not our daddy's Rickenbackers. Maybe when all this craziness going on right now settles down, I'll look for these new Rickenbackers. But I have to say, I've been a Fender/G&L guy for what... over 30 years? I won't be easily won over no matter how cool they look. But I'll give 'em a shot. Have a good one. -r
@@LowEndLobster My pleasure! I'm a Ric nut, and I learned a lot from The Rickenbacker Electric Bass: 50 Years as Rock's Bottom. Very useful if you love Rics.
Great question! I really need to revisit this model. This was like my 10th video ever and I'm at over like 340 videos. I don't really remember the noise situation for this one.
The price is reasonable considering how Rics are artisanal handmade instruments, and, it's an S model so duh, it's not going to be bound or have ric-o-sound just like the 4001s and 4003s models. It costs more because it's a specially designed 5 string bass.
@@LowEndLobster I love Rics. They're my favs. I have a blue 4003s, and I might get a 5-string soon. I am a pick player, so I love the pickup covers, which I'll miss on a 5-string, but boy they sound good.
Hey Ricardo! Honestly, the fit, feel, finish, hardware, etc. were all on par with other Rics. Spacing wasn't bad and neck was comfortable too. B string wasn't the best but honestly this felt like a much more 'modern' Ric than the others. This was a VERY early video in the channel (10th video and we have over 237 videos now) when I was still finding my stride too. I hope to check out another one of these in the future and do a revisit - hopefully a Walnut finish!
The walnut version of this bass will be my next bass. I’ll get it in the next few months. SO EXCITED. I currently play a regular 4003 i’ve had since age 16. But in my band we want a 5 string bass sound, after a lot of research i fell in love with the rick 5
