| Author |
Message |
|
jnbgtr
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings...  Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:21 pm |
|
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:40 am
Posts: 5
Location: Boston
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: Our objection to the early Rotosounds had nothing to do with fret wear but the excess tension beyond design load placed upon the 4001 basses. Careful setup and knowledgeable adjustment avoided most problems but back then those seemed to be in short supply.
Also, you must note that Chris's sound back then came from changing string at EVERY performance, something only someone like Chris who got free strings could afford to do. Hey there, Is the tension an issue on the 4001CS with the dual truss rod? I have never experienced a problem but I've never gone beyond the RTS SM66's? The CS shoudn't have a problem. Its a modern bass. Post 4001 builds. Should have the same saftey status as a 4003. Thanks. I am going to probably continue to use the lighter guage strings. Just wanted to see what everyone else's thoughts were. Never used the Ric strings but I may try them on my 4003 and see how they sound and keep the Roto's on the CS.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
lucky
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:26 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 209
Location: Bolton, England
|
|
Got an email from Rotosound yesterday and they said that Chris has always used the 45-105 set of strings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
764001jet
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:42 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:31 am
Posts: 7
Location: Tenn
|
|
well every one I use rs66ld what is the Standerd set from 1976 to now .the big Q is how much do you play.if you play every day for a hour put on new string ones a month if not six months .go get a Fender standerd bass use it for your bet up bass keep the rick safe or your main bass for your gigs have a main bass and a play all the time bass I will tell you more if you need it playing 74 to now.my story is a poor boys story
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ric5
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:34 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 1693
Location: Colorado
|
|
All of the Ric basses built 1986 and later can handle any strings out there. The modern necks and modern truss rods on modern Rickenbacker basses are more than strong enough to handle any set of strings out there. In fact some of us have converted the 4 string Rickenbacker into a 5 string Rickenbacker without a problem. A small truss rod adjustment and the neck was fine. Also one of the forum members here has converted a 4003s into a replica of the old 4008. The neck handles 8 strings quite nicely.
Even the old 70s 4001 basses had rather strong necks that held up nicely. Geddy's bass tech compliments the old 70s 4001 that Geddy plays by saying it has a more stable neck than Geddy's jazz basses.
The only Rickenbacker basses that would sometimes have weak necks are the pre 1973 basses, and even most of those can handle high tension round wound strings with a proper setup and adjustment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rickfan63
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:39 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Hickory,NC
|
|
I use DR compression wound strings, and I can attest to there being much less fret wear with this type of string. I stopped using Roto 66's many, many years ago to save re-fret jobs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Higgy
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:32 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 4
Location: UK
|
Quote: Our objection to the early Rotosounds had nothing to do with fret wear but the excess tension beyond design load placed upon the 4001 basses. Careful setup and knowledgeable adjustment avoided most problems but back then those seemed to be in short supply.
Would the 1990s 4001cs models be more tolerant of Rotosound strings than the 4001 models of the mid-60s, or are they identical in this respect? Can you say? Or have the rotosounds changed since then (as your first sentence suggests)? Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cjj
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:58 am
Posts: 1346
Location: En Zed
|
Quote: Quote: Our objection to the early Rotosounds had nothing to do with fret wear but the excess tension beyond design load placed upon the 4001 basses. Careful setup and knowledgeable adjustment avoided most problems but back then those seemed to be in short supply. Would the 1990s 4001cs models be more tolerant of Rotosound strings than the 4001 models of the mid-60s, or are they identical in this respect? Can you say? Or have the rotosounds changed since then (as your first sentence suggests)? Thanks. 1990's 4001's are really 4003's construction-wise, so they should handle Roto's just fine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnHall
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:42 am |
|
 |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 4038
Location: Santa Ana, CA
|
Quote: All of the Ric basses built 1986 and later can handle any strings out there. Make that as of September 1984 and you'd have a correct statement. Quote: Would the 1990s 4001cs models be more tolerant of Rotosound strings than the 4001 models of the mid-60s, or are they identical in this respect? Can you say? Yes, I can. Rotosounds of any era should be just fine with a 4001CS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Higgy
|
Post subject: Re: Chris Squire ...strings... Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:17 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 4
Location: UK
|
|
Thanks John!
(Better late than never, eh?!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
