SG Bass "EB Thunder" - Thunderbucker in "P" position

[DrSpunkwater]

I've had the idea to put a Thunderbucker Max Neck in the "P" position of my SG bass, affectionately renamed the "EB Thunder" on account of a mudbucker in the neck position and a Thunderbucker Max Bridge in the bridge position. To make this possible, I'm thinking I'd completely disconnect the tone pot and turn it into a third volume.

Since my electronics knowledge leaves something to be desired, help me understand the pros and cons of doing this.

Also, on a different note, I notice a big dropoff in volume when I turn my mudbucker and Thunderbucker mx bridge on full. I thought the obvious solution would be to wire them in series rather than parallel. After talking to the guy who works on my stuff, he was adamant that the bass was already wired in series. This left me confused because I was certain the volume dropoff was a characteristic of parallel wiring. Maybe he was mistaken.

Someone with greater knowledge, please educate me.

 

[dedpool1052]

Also, on a different note, I notice a big dropoff in volume when I turn my mudbucker and Thunderbucker mx bridge on full.

it's the pickups loading, or "fighting" eachother, which is normal in two-pickup basses with independant volumes. wire it up with a master volume and a 3-way switch and it'll solve that issue. or get a blend pot with the right value. i spoke to Mike Lull about this at length and what he said was if you're using a 250k volume pot, you need to use a 500k blend pot because it basically splits up the needed value evenly (500k blend = 250k on each side) so you dont get that volume drop in the center detente.

 

[DrSpunkwater]

I just learned something new. I'm going to see about getting my hands on a three-way switch.

Perhaps a blend knob would be appropriate for the TB Mx Neck. I'm not terribly interested in having a tone knob anyhow.

In my head, I see this being very similar to Bill Lawrence's "Hendrix" wiring.

 

[DrSpunkwater]

Actually, I suppose a blend knob for the bridge would be more sensible. Provided that it can all be done. I have no idea what a schematic for this would look truly look like.

 

[dedpool1052]

Provided that it can all be done. I have no idea what a schematic for this would look truly look like.

neither do i. i'm not an electronics guy either. i was just paraphrasing what a lot of other people have said concerning the volume drop on two-p'up basses when both volumes are dimed. if i was wrong about anything in my first post, i'm sure someone more techinically inclined will correct me.

 

[Steve Dallman]

It sounds like one pickup is out of phase with the other. Reverse the phase on one of the pickups and the volume drop should end.

 

[DrSpunkwater]

Man, I don't know. I'll go to the guy who worked on it and talk with him about it. I imagine we'll be able to get to the bottom of it all and find a solution.

 

[Korladis]

I've had the idea to put a Thunderbucker Max Neck in the "P" position of my SG bass, affectionately renamed the "EB Thunder" on account of a mudbucker in the neck position and a Thunderbucker Max Bridge in the bridge position. To make this possible, I'm thinking I'd completely disconnect the tone pot and turn it into a third volume.

Since my electronics knowledge leaves something to be desired, help me understand the pros and cons of doing this.

Also, on a different note, I notice a big dropoff in volume when I turn my mudbucker and Thunderbucker mx bridge on full. I thought the obvious solution would be to wire them in series rather than parallel. After talking to the guy who works on my stuff, he was adamant that the bass was already wired in series. This left me confused because I was certain the volume dropoff was a characteristic of parallel wiring. Maybe he was mistaken.

Someone with greater knowledge, please educate me.

I'd actually wire in an on/off switch for each individual pickup.

 

[Will_White]

Also, on a different note, I notice a big dropoff in volume when I turn my mudbucker and Thunderbucker mx bridge on full.

Assuming the mudbucker is wound to full vintage spec (30k ish) and the Thunder bucker isn't a super overwound pickup, I'm going to say it's the natural pickup loading and cancellation as well, but adding a 3 way switch (unless it's wired for series) won't help with that. It's just like on a PJ or jazz bass but more pronounced due to the difference in output.

 

[RED J]

I am not an electronics guy either, but can tell you from long experience that mixing pickups with vastly different windings does not work well, whether two or three.

This goes for P/J sets as well. Some mix well and compliment each other, others suck each other down. A balanced set is a beautiful thing, unbalanced a pain in the tail.

I built a P3 that mixes perfectly, but they are all similar pickups.

I have also been successful in putting a similar pickup to bridge "under the hood' of a mudbucker which is btw what Gibson did on the modern SG's to make V-V-T work in a balanced way.
If you put a third thunderbucker under the Mudbucker cover, put back the screw heads as dummys for looks, install V-V- and a third stackpot for V-MT, (master tone) you will get what you are looking for in your three pickup beast.

You wont be lacking for mud from the neck simply because of the position, if that is what you want.

 

[Dadagoboi]

Real mudbucker neck, single coil SD quarter pounder bridge, volume, blend, tone pots. PARALLEL WIRING. No problems.

...also works fine with a three way switch.

I'm the guy who commissioned Steve Soar to reverse engineer ThunderBuckers from my vintage Thunderbird pickups and develop the MAX. A MAX will definitely play nice with a real '60s Mudbucker and will work fine with the TB+ in an SG...as long as you get the wiring right.

A ThunderBucker (or any other USA Thunderbird pickup) is too wide to fit under a Mudbucker cover.

 

[Korladis]

Real mudbucker neck, single coil SD quarter pounder bridge, volume, blend, tone pots. PARALLEL WIRING. No problems.

...also works fine with a three way switch.

I'm the guy who commissioned Steve Soar to reverse engineer ThunderBuckers from my vintage Thunderbird pickups and develop the MAX. A MAX will definitely play nice with a real '60s Mudbucker and will work fine with the TB+ in an SG...as long as you get the wiring right.

A ThunderBucker (or any other USA Thunderbird pickup) is too wide to fit under a Mudbucker cover.

Who makes real mudbuckers these days? Also have you ever tried one in the bridge position?

 

[Dadagoboi]

Who makes real mudbuckers these days? Also have you ever tried one in the bridge position?

I used a Novak in this long scale build at the customer's request, it was about 12k so it didn't sound like a real one. I guess he'd wind one that high.

A month later the bass came back for a ThunderBucker MAX transplant. Both of us thought it was a big improvement.

I've never put a Mudbucker in the bridge position. I'm perfectly happy with them in the neck in my 3 EBOs and an EB2 but they are what they are.

 

[Korladis]

I used a Novak in this long scale build at the customer's request, it was about 12k so it didn't sound like a real one. I guess he'd wind one that high.

A month later the bass came back for a ThunderBucker MAX transplant. Both of us thought it was a big improvement.

I've never put a Mudbucker in the bridge position. I'm perfectly happy with them in the neck in my 3 EBOs and an EB2 but they are what they are.

I'm just curious what it would sound like.

 

[Dadagoboi]

I'm just curious what it would sound like.

That's why I have this:

I can test any pickup or combo at any location, it takes out the guesswork. Since I always use the same body/bridge/strings the only variables are pickup(s) and pots. That's an original '64 TBird pup.

 

[Korladis]

That's why I have this:

I can test any pickup or combo at any location, it takes out the guesswork. Since I always use the same body/bridge/strings the only variables are pickup(s) and pots. That's an original '64 TBird pup.

Oh nice. That makes a lot of sense.