I just installed these pups in my sr496 6 string along with the BQS system preamp. The sound is pretty good but the 40j bridge pup is much lower in output and sounds a bit too thin to me, even after raising it much much closer to the strings then the 40p neck pup. Is this normal for these emg's, Im thinking now that maybe I should have gone with putting another 40p in for the bridge insted? thanks for anyone that has info or experience with these pups!

I just installed these pups in my sr496 6 string along with the BQS system preamp. The sound is pretty good but the 40j bridge pup is much lower in output and sounds a bit too thin to me, even after raising it much much closer to the strings then the 40p neck pup. Is this normal for these emg's, Im thinking now that maybe I should have gone with putting another 40p in for the bridge insted? thanks for anyone that has info or experience with these pups!

FWIW:

A 40P (or any pup) at the bridge would have consideably less output than at the neck by virtue of it's location alone. So that's normal enough in any bass. I've never run acrossed a matched pair of pups that were balanced output wise between neck and bridge.

EMG makes a blend specifically for EMGs and I see no reason it couldn't be used with a BTC, although it's usually associated with the BQ. Call EMG and find out. To my knowledge it even's the output.

Thanks a bunch!

EMG makes a blend specifically for EMGs and I see no reason it couldn't be used with a BTC, although it's usually associated with the BQ. Call EMG and find out. To my knowledge it even's the output.

Both BQ and BT tone circuits are available as either Systems (with volume/blend controls,) and Controls (without). Is that what you're referring to?

What value pots are you using? I suppose the ones that came with the EMGs? Try using 100K... I found that made the 40J a bit louder.

I love the sound of the J, but it is a bit weak and thin.

What value pots are you using? I suppose the ones that came with the EMGs? Try using 100K... I found that made the 40J a bit louder.

I love the sound of the J, but it is a bit weak and thin.

Really?

What about the tone, did the high end change noticeably with the higher value pot? If not, I may try this myself...

Really?

What about the tone, did the high end change noticeably with the higher value pot? If not, I may try this myself...

OK, here's what I found. I had an Ibanez Soundgear 5-string when they first came out (back in the 80's).

I had installed two EMG LJ5 pickups to replace the stock pickups. The stock pots in the Ibanez were a different value from the EMG pots, so I did an experiment. I ran a cable from the pickup directly out of the bass. This went into a box with a rotary switch connected to a number of volume pots. This way I was able to A/B different values. I had 25, 50, and 100K. I might have even had 250K.

I felt a 100K pot gave a punchier tone than the stock 25K. Didn't seem brighter, but I heard more sound out of it.

I spoke to the head engineer of EMG (who's name escapes me at the moment) about this back in '95, at the ASIA (American Stringed Instrument Artisans) Symposium, they had a booth set up. He said it shouldn't make a difference, but i could hear it. [edit] I was actually trying to get him to change their pots to 100k! He probably thought I was a crackpot! ;)

Give it a try and see what you think. This is one of my pet peeves with EMG... the output level of their different models varies greatly.

OK, here's what I found. I had an Ibanez Soundgear 5-string when they first came out (back in the 80's).

I had installed two EMG LJ5 pickups to replace the stock pickups. The stock pots in the Ibanez were a different value from the EMG pots, so I did an experiment. I ran a cable from the pickup directly out of the bass. This went into a box with a rotary switch connected to a number of volume pots. This way I was able to A/B different values. I had 25, 50, and 100K. I might have even had 250K.

I felt a 100K pot gave a punchier tone than the stock 25K. Didn't seem brighter, but I heard more sound out of it.

I spoke to the head engineer of EMG (who's name escapes me at the moment) about this back in '95, at the ASIA (American Stringed Instrument Artisans) Symposium, they had a booth set up. He said it shouldn't make a difference, but i could hear it.

Give it a try and see what you think. This is one of my pet peeves with EMG... the output level of their different models varies greatly.

FWIW:

that's interesting. Never really even thought about it cause 25k pots are the most accessible. But I would have thought the aforementioned would have become common knowledge by now.

You have to wonder about manufacturers sometimes. "Shouldn't" is a red flag word though. Translates into stuff like "I think but I don't know"; "Paper says this but I've never really tried it"; "We don't know why but it does make a difference." At the time of introduction in theory a humbucker shouldn't have worked either.

At the time of introduction in theory a humbucker shouldn't have worked either.

Oh I don't know about that... in theory it makes sense.

Because of the reverse magnet polarity, the strings get picked up by each coil 180° out of phase. Noise on the other hand doesn't use the magnets to get picked up, so it goes into both coils with in phase.

Then you wire one coil 180° out of phase with the other, and the two formally out of phase string signals are now summed together in phase, while the noise gets canceled out.

In practice however, it gets weird. The two coils should be exactly the same, but if you look at a typical Gibson style humbucker, they aren't. The "screw coil" has a different load then the "stud coil," which each sounding a little different and having a different induction. Having mismatched coils tends to make the pickup sound livelier, at the expense of a little noise though.

It's one of these things that's not entirely well understood, just because of the complexity of a pickup. It's the same with any string instrument really... we know how to make them, and generally how they work, but not exactly. :)

Oh I don't know about that... in theory it makes sense... we know how to make them, and generally how they work, but not exactly. :)

Makes sense afterthefact but not sure about in the 50's when Gibson through them together (at least seems there were credited). Never really followed up but I've always had the impression it wasn't something drawn out on a blackboard (remember those :D ) and put together but discovered by accident. I doubt they expected the hum to be canceled and tone not to be.

This was the same era where they had intially planned to use a half dozen H bombs along the shores of Japan as if it were offshore artillery before they went running through the stuff to complete the invasion. Sounds insane now but they didn't know any better then.

Makes sense afterthefact but not sure about in the 50's when Gibson through them together (at least seems there were credited). Never really followed up but I've always had the impression it wasn't something drawn out on a blackboard (remember those :D ) and put together but discovered by accident. I doubt they expected the hum to be canceled and tone not to be.

This was the same era where they had intially planned to use a half dozen H bombs along the shores of Japan as if it were offshore artillery before they went running through the stuff to complete the invasion. Sounds insane now but they didn't know any better then.

The humbucking pickup was invented by Seth Lover while he was working for Gibson. He was assigned to come up with a quiet pickup, and he did. His wasn't the first humbucker either, but it was the first commercially successful one.

Lover also designed the P-bass pickup, and Fender's Wide Range Humbucker.

The humbucking pickup was invented by Seth Lover while he was working for Gibson. He was assigned to come up with a quiet pickup, and he did. His wasn't the first humbucker either, but it was the first commercially successful one.

Lover also designed the P-bass pickup, and Fender's Wide Range Humbucker.

FWIW:

well pretty much a pridictable result from an assumption :D

Do you happen to know if it was something he worked out theoretically or was more or less an Edisonian trial and error approach?

Oops, guess that can be scratched. Apparently the concept or foundation was already outlined for him. I wonder if the original guy actually calculated the outcome or just stumbled on the results?