4000

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='1264124' date='Jun 10 2011, 04:47 PM']He sounded just like himself on the clips i've heard. I really don't get the whole "Ric sound" thing, the ones i've played have sounded nothing like what i have come to expect, that's with me playing them and their owners gigging them. The best "Ric" sound i've had from a bass was attained with an RD Artist. I also find them uncomfortable basses to use btw, the little quirks are, for me, serious design faults.[/quote] His Ric sound and his P bass sound are nothing like each other IMO, but I think we've just been through a similar issue in another thread. Depends on your ears I guess. What's funny is I can get my Rics to sound pretty much exactly like many of those classic records, as can certain of my friends that own them. Ever thought you're maybe doing something wrong? One thing I will say is I don't feel that if you want that classic sound you can just plug in and play; there's a lot of tweaking involved. I eq pretty heavily. You also need the right Ric and the right amp.....

I think I recognise that bass..... Hiya Wints!

[quote name='Delberthot' post='1263412' date='Jun 9 2011, 10:59 PM']How is it sh*te? This is from experience - if you had a choice of something comfortable and easy to adjust and something with hard edges and harder to adjust then I know which one I'd go for. And yes, you can get the Hipshot bridge (didn't they have to stop making them because of RIC?) and the Pickguardian thingy for the pickup surround but I wouldn't want to spend £1600 on a bass only to find that I had to buy extra bits to make it easier to adjust[/quote] Ok, maybe "sh*te" was a bit harsh, sorry , but it just gets so predictable; "I've had a few of bass "x", didn't get on with them, therefore they're crap and should be avoided at all costs". As I've doubtless posted countless times, I've owned 12 (I think) Rics and played hundreds more. I've owned 4 Fenders or Fender types and played hundreds more. I've also owned about 25-30 other basses from Alembic to Wal and have played literally thousands of others. And yet I keep coming back to my Rics, although my point isn't really about Rics but about preferences. What you have to realise is that this is all subjective. The Fender bass with it's forearm contour is, for me, one of the least comfortable basses ever made. The contour causes nerve problems in my right arm and actually stops me playing. The "hard edges" of the Ric cause me no such problems. Generally speaking (depends on the bass) I find slab bodies more comfortable. Why? No idea. They just seem to suit me better. So Fenders are NOT more comfortable. They are more comfortable FOR YOU. They may be for many others too, but it's still subjective. Our guitarist can't get on with Les Pauls, he finds Strats far more comfortable. I'm the opposite; a Strat feels far less comfortable than a Les Paul to me. We're different and obviously have different physical requirements. In terms of build quality, the only new Fender I've bought had a neck that had to be replaced within the first week. The entire neck. That's a biggie. Never had a problem with a Ric (except for a very old and somewhat abused bass where the neck had pulled forward), although I know some others have. However I'm sure someone somewhere has had problems with just about any make you could care to name. Whether they make a huge issue of it is another thing. In terms of being easy to adjust, what about Fenders where you have to take the entire neck off to adjust the truss rod? Or anything with an ABM bridge, which I actually find far more irritating to adjust than a Ric one? The Ric bridge isn't the easiest thing to adjust, but I've never had a problem with it. If you're not used to it it can be a pain, but you could say that of anything. I had to replace the bridge on my old 70s P Bass because every time I hit the string it moved the string on the saddle. And I play very lightly. I don't stick my finger in the Ric treble pickup hole either so again it's never bothered me. Plenty of people manage without modding. These are all personal preferences and experiences and don't necessarily mean that a particular make is inherently flawed. I would never say the Fender bass is inherently flawed. I don't tend to get on with Status basses; every one I've had I've had problems with, but many people swear by them and have never had a single problem. That's fine by me.

[quote name='Delberthot' post='1263182' date='Jun 9 2011, 08:06 PM']Cos they're uncomfortable, the bridge is badly in need of an upgrade, if you play without the pickup cover you lose the skin off your fingers on the sharp edges, from the ones I've had they're simply not worth the money in terms of fit and finish versus the cost and waiting time. Compare it to the simple Precision or Jazz - comfortable forearm contour and belly cut, easy to adjust string height and intonation, you can rest your thumb on the pickup, no mucking about with twin truss rods that have to be adjusted differently from most other basses made. If I was a pro player and really wanted to get a Rick sound then I'd try different amps, effects etc rather than getting another one. Oh aye - Bruce Foxton also endorses Waterstone semi-acoustic basses[/quote] Oh God, not this familiar sh*te again.

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='1263090' date='Jun 9 2011, 07:08 PM']I though Bruce Foxton played Precisions more nowadays? In most of the recent clips i've seen of him he's playing a Fender, still gets that same sound though![/quote] He does, and the sound is a million miles away!

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1263096' date='Jun 9 2011, 07:11 PM']I entirely understand peopole's preference for more 'melodic' thematic bass playing a la Dreamland but, for me, hearing that once is enough. I can't get excited about 'pretty' tunes. Got into and out of that 20+ years ago. It all sounds very predictable to me now so I look for more interesting things. I totally get that this is less accessible but I guess that's what I am looking for. The layman's accessible is my predictable.[/quote] Funny, because that's kind of the opposite journey to mine. I was listening to (not just hearing) bebop when I was 6, 7 or 8 years old. I knew who Ray Brown, Charlie Parker, Dizzy etc were earlier than that. I wanted to be Buddy Rich at the age of six or seven. Other than the Beatles (obviously) I couldn't have named a single musician in any rock or pop band. And yet strangely I happily enjoy "predictable" music, and as I grew older I grew to love it more and more. I remember hearing Deep Purple aged around 14 and thinking "damn that's simple....but it's fantastic!". I rate AC/DC or ABBA as high as any jazz artist I've ever heard; higher, probably. There's a tiny hint of the superior about your post. Ultimately your interesting can be another person's anything but and vice versa. At the point where someone feels that only more supposedly "sophisticated" music is better or more worthy, they really don't understand the beauty of music anymore IMO.

[quote name='RhysP' post='1261505' date='Jun 8 2011, 05:41 PM']There are a lot of players who are far more guilty of this than Jaco IMO, Stanley Clarke being the king of them.[/quote] Yeah, but I prefer his cliches. And his tone. Jaco was a fabulous, creative player, no argument here; a giant amongst electric bassists (although certainly not the only one). However I have to agree with Wombatboter overall. I never liked his live solo playing; always found it disjointed and not very musical (to my ears). I really don't think he comes across as much of an improviser; his written solos are far better. There are many soloists I prefer. Compositionally I'm not much of a fan either; his music just doesn't speak to me at all. For me Jaco's greatest strength by far was his groove playing and his time. EDIT: One thing I have to add is that I don't come at Jaco from an "automatic-anti" stance. When I first heard about him some 20-odd years ago (?) I rushed out and bought his 1st album and fully expected it to blow me away. At the same time, in the same record shop, my dad happened to pick up Stan's "brown" album, saying "I've heard he's good". I wasn't really interested, but took both home all the same. I listened to both one after the other, and it was Stan's album that blew me away (it's still my favourite of his). I've tried and tried and tried to get into Jaco's music over the years but it either just leaves me cold or actually slightly unsettles me, with the exception of Okonkole y Trompa which I find quite haunting.

[quote name='toneknob' post='1259383' date='Jun 7 2011, 10:07 AM']I put it down to a cool hat, alarmingly high-waisted trousers and [/quote] For years I used to think "wow, Jaco has double-jointed thumbs. How cool would that be"? Then I saw a photo. And laughed. My thumbs do that too, although maybe not [i]quite[/i] as far. I didn't know other people's thumbs didn't do that!

Used to have one on my old Trace 300SMX. Tried it a couple of times, never liked it. Don't really have the problem you mention though.

[quote name='Johngh' post='1253822' date='Jun 2 2011, 12:38 PM']Just got this 6 string S2 Classic Thruneck from Bass Direct. It's superb. It has an extra pick up on it for for extra bottom end grunt. Also away from standard is extra bass and mid sweep knobs. It also has blue front and side LEDS. First rehearsal with ti tonight and if all goes well first gig with it tomorrow night. [attachment=81546:Statusfront.jpg] [attachment=81547:Statustop.jpg][/quote] That's extremely nice John!

[quote name='BassBus' post='1248585' date='May 28 2011, 07:53 PM']From my own experience I'd disagree. When my S2000 arrived it had 30-95 strings on it, together with a load of buzz on the neck whenever I played it. Imediately put on a set of 35s and no buzz whatsoever. Therefore, the truss rod adds the flexibility to use whatever guage of string you wish. So I'd hardly say they are a "[i]ridiculous idea on graphite necked basses[/i]" Rob does know what he is doing. As far as I know, the graphite used for Status necks these days is a lot more flexible than it was in older graphite necks.[/quote] +1. I've played several graphite-necked basses (not just Status) where the relief was completely wrong for me, and as above there is the issue of changing string gauge. Yes, you can take the frets out and have the board planed but isn't it just easier to have a trussrod? FWIW the myth of forever-stable graphite necks is exactly that. Of my 4 Statii one had a warped neck, and I mean [i]warped[/i]. I've also known owners of Zon and Modulus basses amongst others that have had similar problems. Great idea when it works though, I love it in principal.

[quote name='Nostromo' post='1259564' date='Jun 7 2011, 12:28 PM']I just find the wider string spacing of a Precision less comfortable for playing than the closer string spacing found on a Jazz width neck. Whilst I agree that a P neck is no wider than many 6 string guitar necks, the strings on a Jazz are closer together (maybe almost as close as the string spacings on a 6 string I guess) and I suppose that may be why some bass players say that Jazz necks are "faster" ? . . .[/quote] See, I always think of P & J string spacing as essentially the same. Why? Because to me the crucial string spacing is that at the bridge. My left hand adapts easier than my right.

I use the word "tone" to describe the sound I'm hearing. Now this is obviously where it gets slippery; we often describe Jaco's "tone" as a general thing but if you want to get specific he had a number of "tones", or sounds that he used. Using the Claypool, JE or MK examples, the sound produced is not always the same sound. However if you're using the broader terminology they may all have the same tone, as in "LC's tone", "MKs tone" etc. I often use it in that more general context too, but if we're being specific I apply it to the actual sound I'm hearing and if that sound varies then using my terminology the tone is different. Of course others may use the term differently and whether my terminology is technically correct I have no idea (nor do I really care); that's how I hear things and that's how I describe what I'm hearing. Actually I've missed an obvious example of what I'm saying which relates to JJ Burnel himself (who has had many sounds over the years); compare In the Shadows with Nice N Sleazy.

For me it's the Overwater by a country mile. Lovely-looking bass too. The Status sounds like they do when I play them, which is why I don't currently own one....

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='1258487' date='Jun 6 2011, 03:40 PM']Also avoid your girlfriend's mini dresses if you're 6'3" and she's 5'4". Doesn't work.[/quote] Depends how forward you want to appear.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1257434' date='Jun 5 2011, 04:21 PM']I don't think there's one particular source for all this information ... except some website called Basschat or something. IME spacing varies from 19mm (most 4-string Fenders) down to 14mm (Hofners and Rickenbackers, IIRC), and can be almost anything between for either 4-string or 5-string basses.[/quote] I think there's a big problem here in that many sources measure differently. Rics 14mm??? They're more like 16.5mm to 17mm, but again it depends how you measure it. If you measure edge to edge then the distance will vary depending on your string gauge, and will be smaller. I tend to measure centre saddle to centre saddle....except when I don't . Centre to centre I tend to like 16 to 17mm, even on a 4. Rickenbacker and Alembic have the most natural 4 string spacing for me (no surprise there) but Alembic's spacing varies depending on string gauge; I know, I asked! My custom Rim (see Affiliates section) is going to be 16.5mm. It actually makes a big difference to me because I generally play with a pick in a guitaristic fashion and I like a minimal hand movement; the narrower the spacing (up to a point) the less my hand has to move, which means more speed and accuracy. For some obviously this won't be a factor due to different technique; once again it's important to note that everyone is different.

I absolutely love the band but strangely don't rate his guitar playing at all.

[quote name='munkonthehill' post='1256064' date='Jun 3 2011, 11:23 PM']The slight distortion of the ric was lovely however when I boosted the bass and treble on the jag I just got muffled sound compared to the articulation of the ric that seems to ba a passive powerhouse!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] I tend to find that basses which sometimes don't sound so great on their own often sound better in the mix. I've owned loads of high-end active stuff and in a band situation where there are distorted guitars, as good as they may have sounded at home, they all fall flat in rehearsals or at gigs.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1254770' date='Jun 2 2011, 10:55 PM']In the original Ric bridge pickup the "horseshoe" was actually the magnet assembly and removing it would cause the pickup to stop working. Is this still the case with the new Rics with this feature or is the horseshoe simply a cosmetic detail now?[/quote] It isn't part of the pickup as such (no magnets) & doesn't affect the magnetic field in the same way as the original: it's essentially cosmetic. Ric says there is a slight effect but as I stated above I suspect it really is pretty slight if so; I'd be surprised your average punter would notice any difference, although I could be wrong. When I got my first CS I'd read that they shouldn't be removed so never did; on my second I found out it didn't matter so tried it without for a while (soon put them back for cosmetic reasons). Having said that I'm quite happy having them (or the normal handrest) on; it's quite comfy for me because that's how I learned to play, on a Ric with a handrest.

[quote name='bumnote' post='1254854' date='Jun 2 2011, 11:56 PM']As far as i understand it the pickup is different to the originals, and that the top 'covers' for want of a better word are chunky bits of metal that are connected to the pickup and provide some sort of magnetism. Ric say the covers can be removed carefully by a specialist, but it will alter the sound. My nose is twitching a bit cos it sounds like a bit of marketing bs, but its still a great bass.[/quote] You can remove them and most people can't tell the difference in tone. On my 4001CS I couldn't really tell the difference and I don't say that lightly! Although I've never done it to a C-Series (never owned one) and the pickup is slightly different on those, but I'm pretty sure there are some Rick Resource Forumites who have done it; I'd ask on there.

I love the idea of Status and think they have really nice necks (well, apart from the very early ones) but ergonomically I don't get on with them at all. The body contouring (mainly that forearm contour) absolutely crucifies me. Doesn't matter whether I play fingerstyle or pick either, although fingerstyle is worse. I've also never managed to get the sounds to work for me, but I'm pretty sure that's down to the way I play. When I've play them with a pick (fingerstyle being a complete no-go for reasons already stated) no matter how I eq or what I play them through they always seem to sound synthetic, and that's everything from the graphite-necked Energys to the modern stuff. I did once have some success with my mate's Status through a Mesa Walkabout though; I suspect the parametric mids on the amp had something to do with that. Wish I got on with them better to be honest as they would have saved me loads of bother over the years; rock solid, good value, etc etc. Having said that of the 4 I've owned (all bought used) one had a warped neck and 3 had electronics issues, but you could have those sort of problems with pretty much any used bass. It was the ergonomics that finished me off in the end.

Ah, that appears to be about the going rate for a new C-Series. Very different in sound and feel to a 4003; I actually much prefer them.