I think that post is way to prescriptive and a bit unhelpful. Stuff like: ".01 uf: This is the cap found in vintage 62 P basses. It will roll off a LOT of highs and give you a very boomy tone. I would NOT use any value above this." ...is a bit rubbish. I guess they're talking about a 0.1 uF capacitor anyway (not 0.01 uF, as this is the smallest capacitance value they quote), but 'boomy' suggests that frequencies are being boosted, which isn't the case. A boomy bass is going to be boomy regardless of the cap value in a passive tone control. This comment alone feeds into my twin hates: guitarists using microfarads as the only unit of capacitance they can get their head around (and then making mistakes) and vastly overstating the properties and roles of fairly basic, boring passive components. Fender did use 0.1 uF caps in the new PJ Mustangs however, for what it is worth. ".03: This is the cap found on the bridge pickup for 62 jazz basses. With the tone all the way up it will have SLIGHTLY more treble, and with the tone down it won't roll off quite as much. .022: This is the cap used in most 70's era jazz basses. It has more of a drastic effect than the .03 cap, and you'll fine a lot more treble in your tone. I would not recommend using a cap value less than this." Again, way to specific and prescriptive. The 0.008 uF difference between a 0.03 uF and a 0.022 uF capacitor is not discernible.