ShortScale.org

maybe i'm just bitter because my much lusted after 620/12 arrived with a broken pickup (which i wasn't allowed to fiddle with due to rickenbackers bizarre warranty) and various finish imperfections. this made me less and less willing to tolerate the narrow nut and general unplayability, and so it was sent back the next day. i stand by my comment that they are not practical guitars regardless. people just seem hindered when playing them, relying on a few chord voicings and arpeggios to get some shimmer. i want to be able to pick up a 12 string and play it in the same way i play a 6 string, with no restrictions - soloing, jazz chords, open tuning and finger style. an individually intonatable bridge and wider nut, available on many other non-rick models, allows this.

rickenbacker have now cottoned onto this though and offer a 12 saddle bridge and wider nut on models like the 660/12 but they are nearly double the price of standard models, but they are very pretty...



to my shame, if i won the lottery i'd still check it out

This sounds like your kind of guitar George:

[youtube][/youtube]

dezb1 wrote:

NickS wrote:Mine has a non-intonatable bridge that's just held in place by pressure, like an old Höfner

On a double 6... Pic?

Bad pic for now, will do better some time:

dezb1 wrote:This sounds like your kind of guitar George:

[youtube][/youtube]

lots of nice features. that nut width is similar to a DC12 and fender strat 12 string which i can do most things on. additionally it has the slotted headstock design, which is on ricks (most rick models however are not completely slotted, just recessed, making string changing slightly difficult)

George wrote:

dezb1 wrote:This sounds like your kind of guitar George:

[youtube][/youtube]

lots of nice features. that nut width is similar to a DC12 and fender strat 12 string which i can do most things on. additionally it has the slotted headstock design, which is on ricks (most rick models however are not completely slotted, just recessed, making string changing slightly difficult)

Again with the Ric hate... You're like a spurned lover, that Ric experience has really affected you.

Let it go George, let it go. It's eating you up.

i will never stop (except in this thread, cos people are getting sick of it)

Ha, no, it's quite funny (and refreshing).

When I first started playing the guitar I wanted to get a Rickenbacker, because Ride, but they were way out of my price range then and I'd lost interest by the time I could afford one. I do sort of admire their refusal to make non-US budget Rickenbackers but there is also a total load of bollocks associated with the brand. IMHO etc.

BearBoy wrote:Ha, no, it's quite funny (and refreshing).

When I first started playing the guitar I wanted to get a Rickenbacker, because Ride, but they were way out of my price range then and I'd lost interest by the time I could afford one. I do sort of admire their refusal to make non-US budget Rickenbackers but there is also a total load of bollocks associated with the brand. IMHO etc.

This^ apart from it was because of Marr not ride... I've still never played a Ric.

George wrote:i will never stop (except in this thread, cos people are getting sick of it)

Don't stop George stand up and be counted...

dezb1 wrote:

BearBoy wrote:Ha, no, it's quite funny (and refreshing).

When I first started playing the guitar I wanted to get a Rickenbacker, because Ride, but they were way out of my price range then and I'd lost interest by the time I could afford one. I do sort of admire their refusal to make non-US budget Rickenbackers but there is also a total load of bollocks associated with the brand. IMHO etc.

This^ apart from it was because of Marr not ride... I've still never played a Ric.

Me neither. Maybe I should actually give one a go. Might actually like it.

Done a bit more work on the beast tonight, got it all wired up and went to string it and had two problems 1, one if the machine heads isn't drilled all the way through and 2, the strings came in a big unmarked bundle and I have no idea what goes where... Is it optional whether the thin string goes at the top? And if so are the low E strings the thinnest wound string and the thickest, therefore leaving the G B E strings all unwound or is the thinnest wound string the G?

How many wound strings have you?

The thicker string of each pair should be closer to your nose when playing.

As I understand it the E and A strings get double two octaves up. The D one octave, and the G, B and e strings are all just doubled in the same octave.

So that would mean you should (could?) have either three wound strings (Low E, Low A, Low D) or five (Low E, Low A, Low D and the two Gs).

not quite paul. E to G strings are all octaved but just one octave up from the regular string. B and E are doubled up, same octave

pretty much *all* 12 strings except rickenbackers have the thinner octave drone string like this nearer your nose (good description):

E
E
B
B
G
G (drone)
D
D (drone)
A
A (drone)
E
E (drone)

check the nut grooves and it should corroborate with that. the B and top E are just repeated obvs. if you're cutting your own nut you can swap the octaves and the regular string if you like, to replicate how a rick does it. up to you, the bridge won't care

if you're stuck and can't tell which string goes where, check with a set of digi calipers or feel thickness and rough it out against a standard set description online. if you have a, let's say 9-42 gauge, they're all pretty much apcked the same

I have 4 wound strings I'm now assuming the thinnest one is the low E (drone) so...

E unison
E unison
B unison
B unison
G thickest unwound
G (drone)
D wound
D (drone)
A wound
A (drone)
E wound
E (drone) wound

Looks spot on. Only thing I might check is whether the low e drone and d regular string thicknesses aren't confused, and also check the a drone against the regular g, because they're easy to confuse

By "drone" do you mean the lower or higher (pitchwise)?

wikipedia wrote:The most common tuning, considered standard today, is E3•E2 A3•A2 D4•D3 G4•G3 B3•B3 E4•E4, moving from lowest (6th) course to highest (1st) course. Lead Belly and some other players have doubled the lowest course two octaves above instead of one, producing a third string in unison with the top course.

You are right. It seems my brother's 12 string (which I'm basing all this off) was done Lead Belly style. Perhaps for teh kurtz.

drone means the higher pithced string. i don't know why it's called that or where i picked up that name, or i might have even made it up lol

The 660 isn't that new.

George wrote:maybe i'm just bitter because my much lusted after 620/12 arrived with a broken pickup (which i wasn't allowed to fiddle with due to rickenbackers bizarre warranty) and various finish imperfections. this made me less and less willing to tolerate the narrow nut and general unplayability, and so it was sent back the next day. i stand by my comment that they are not practical guitars regardless. people just seem hindered when playing them, relying on a few chord voicings and arpeggios to get some shimmer. i want to be able to pick up a 12 string and play it in the same way i play a 6 string, with no restrictions - soloing, jazz chords, open tuning and finger style. an individually intonatable bridge and wider nut, available on many other non-rick models, allows this.

Personal preference/idiosyncrasies figure into this so much though... I'm absolutely hindered by the extra-wide nut on my Seagull S12+... when I play Ricky 12-strings they seem more practical to me because I can wrap my hands around the neck like a regular guitar.

I've sort of been cautioned vicariously by your experience with Rick, if that makes you feel better. Every time my finger is poised over the Buy It Now button on a $1500 4001 because I've been watching Sgt Peppers/Lemmy/Cliff Burton vids all night I'm like "well, what if this goes all Georgy in my face..."

I've always been weary of their "dangerously close to that other Adolph" business policies though, to be fair.