Dingwall Owners Club

[Derek Williams]

Today I went up to my buddy Sean's place and we did a pickup swap on my Super J. I replaced the stock FDVs with a full set of SF2s. I'll preface this all by saying that I really did love the sound of this bass with the FDVs, and this was driven entirely by two factors:

1. Curiosity, and;
2. Hoping for a neck-bridge in parallel combination that was closer to a Jazz bass than what the FDVs offered, which I always felt was more Spector'y, or in some ways Wal'y.

The swap was much simpler than I had anticipated with no soldering required due to the Glock preamp using screw terminals for the pickup wires. Dead simple. We kept the same arrangement of N and B pickups as the factory FDVs, such that it goes Neck-N, Middle-B, Bridge-N. We also took measurements beforehand to restore the pickup heights to be the same as the FDVs for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible. Below are my thoughts. First I'll describe the frequency response differences, then the very surprising feel/attack differences, and finally my general feelings on these pickups for use in a Super J.

The FDVs do a good job of what Dingwall describes in their ad copy for these pickups. They feel like updated Fender-style pickups that skew a little more modern than most of what Fender does. As mentioned, the neck-bridge in parallel combination doesn't really sound like an actual Jazz bass, but it's a nice sound regardless. The FDVs have a good but not overly deep bottom end extension, a reasonably high top end extension that feels pretty polite, a bit of a bump in the lower midrange, and what always felt like a slight dip around 500-700hz. It's a nice sound for sure.

The SF2s are a different animal all together. I read an earlier post that described them as being "too MTD" for that particular user. I can see where they're coming from, but I wouldn't totally agree with the MTD comparison. The frequency response difference between the two pickups is largely that the SF2s go both lower and higher, they seem to lack the bump in the lower midrange which presents more evenly, and the slight dip around 500-700hz feels like it's still there. The politeness in the top end on the FDVs is gone with the SF2s, but that's not to say that the SF2s sound super aggressive or snarly up top. It's simply that there's a more even response from the upper midrange to the top of the usable range of the pickups, whereas the FDVs had some sort of dip and swell in the nasty frequencies in the upper midrange. That's a common theme here; The FDVs feel like they're pretty heavily targeted at a specific voice, whereas the SF2s feel much more even through their presentation from top to bottom.

The note attack and general feel of the FDVs was one area where I sometimes struggled. The FDVs are not what I would describe as an "open" sounding pickup. On the contrary I hear them as being compressed, congested, cramped, etc. such that the initial onset of a note's attack was very present, really thumped, and immediately jumped out of speakers in a useful way. By comparison, the rest of the attack envelope of each note felt like it decayed rather quickly. Not quite in the way of comparing fresh rounds to old flats, but the analogy isn't entirely without merit. I feel like the FDVs were designed to highlight the attack of a note in a way that aligns with notions of what "vintage" means when describing tone. They really nailed it with that. A lot of the time I liked that vibe, but there were times, particularly when slapping, that I felt like it was getting in the way.

The SF2s, by comparison, are very different. Much in the way the frequency response is more even, the note attack is more even as well. I did not expect this when making the switch. Every portion of the note seems to come out smoothly and evenly with no aspect of it dominating another. The decay is smooth without any obvious steepness to the drop-off between attack, sustain and release (for lack of better terms to describe what I'm hearing). For my playing style, taste, and choices, this is a MAJOR upgrade. It fixes everything about the one aspect of my bass I never totally loved. Problem solved in a big way, and as a result I'm very happy with the switch.

In general I'd say that the FDVs are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be an updated and refined version of a classic Fender-style instrument. They really nail that vibe in a way that's equal parts modern and vintage. I think the SF2s are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be a very even, open, uncompressed, modern machine that might not be able to do everything, but can get very close. Since I have a passive Super P on order, I wanted my Super J to have the opposite vibe (i.e. modern and active with all the options versus a super simple vintage-inspired passive bass with no added options). I think this achieves that goes more effectively with the SF2s than the FDVs, so I'm quite happy. The real tests will come on my next few gigs. I'm off for a couple weeks, but will be back to gigging a bunch in December. One of our shows is at a very high profile venue that we played in October. I have a board recording from that October show and will get one in December. That will be a fun comparison to see how well the SF2s work compared to the FDVs on actual recorded material. I wouldn't mind trying the FD-3s at some point, but I doubt I'll ever pull the trigger on a set of those given how well the SF2s achieved what I was looking for.

View attachment 5254585

View attachment 5254586

I want you to try FD3s now just so we can get another thorough review.

 

[silky smoove]

I want you to try FD3s now just so we can get another thorough review.

I’m willing to accept donations on a full set of FD3s

 

[spiritbass]

Today I went up to my buddy Sean's place and we did a pickup swap on my Super J. I replaced the stock FDVs with a full set of SF2s. I'll preface this all by saying that I really did love the sound of this bass with the FDVs, and this was driven entirely by two factors:

1. Curiosity, and;
2. Hoping for a neck-bridge in parallel combination that was closer to a Jazz bass than what the FDVs offered, which I always felt was more Spector'y, or in some ways Wal'y.

The swap was much simpler than I had anticipated with no soldering required due to the Glock preamp using screw terminals for the pickup wires. Dead simple. We kept the same arrangement of N and B pickups as the factory FDVs, such that it goes Neck-N, Middle-B, Bridge-N. We also took measurements beforehand to restore the pickup heights to be the same as the FDVs for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible. Below are my thoughts. First I'll describe the frequency response differences, then the very surprising feel/attack differences, and finally my general feelings on these pickups for use in a Super J.

The FDVs do a good job of what Dingwall describes in their ad copy for these pickups. They feel like updated Fender-style pickups that skew a little more modern than most of what Fender does. As mentioned, the neck-bridge in parallel combination doesn't really sound like an actual Jazz bass, but it's a nice sound regardless. The FDVs have a good but not overly deep bottom end extension, a reasonably high top end extension that feels pretty polite, a bit of a bump in the lower midrange, and what always felt like a slight dip around 500-700hz. It's a nice sound for sure.

The SF2s are a different animal all together. I read an earlier post that described them as being "too MTD" for that particular user. I can see where they're coming from, but I wouldn't totally agree with the MTD comparison. The frequency response difference between the two pickups is largely that the SF2s go both lower and higher, they seem to lack the bump in the lower midrange which presents more evenly, and the slight dip around 500-700hz feels like it's still there. The politeness in the top end on the FDVs is gone with the SF2s, but that's not to say that the SF2s sound super aggressive or snarly up top. It's simply that there's a more even response from the upper midrange to the top of the usable range of the pickups, whereas the FDVs had some sort of dip and swell in the nasty frequencies in the upper midrange. That's a common theme here; The FDVs feel like they're pretty heavily targeted at a specific voice, whereas the SF2s feel much more even through their presentation from top to bottom.

The note attack and general feel of the FDVs was one area where I sometimes struggled. The FDVs are not what I would describe as an "open" sounding pickup. On the contrary I hear them as being compressed, congested, cramped, etc. such that the initial onset of a note's attack was very present, really thumped, and immediately jumped out of speakers in a useful way. By comparison, the rest of the attack envelope of each note felt like it decayed rather quickly. Not quite in the way of comparing fresh rounds to old flats, but the analogy isn't entirely without merit. I feel like the FDVs were designed to highlight the attack of a note in a way that aligns with notions of what "vintage" means when describing tone. They really nailed it with that. A lot of the time I liked that vibe, but there were times, particularly when slapping, that I felt like it was getting in the way.

The SF2s, by comparison, are very different. Much in the way the frequency response is more even, the note attack is more even as well. I did not expect this when making the switch. Every portion of the note seems to come out smoothly and evenly with no aspect of it dominating another. The decay is smooth without any obvious steepness to the drop-off between attack, sustain and release (for lack of better terms to describe what I'm hearing). For my playing style, taste, and choices, this is a MAJOR upgrade. It fixes everything about the one aspect of my bass I never totally loved. Problem solved in a big way, and as a result I'm very happy with the switch.

In general I'd say that the FDVs are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be an updated and refined version of a classic Fender-style instrument. They really nail that vibe in a way that's equal parts modern and vintage. I think the SF2s are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be a very even, open, uncompressed, modern machine that might not be able to do everything, but can get very close. Since I have a passive Super P on order, I wanted my Super J to have the opposite vibe (i.e. modern and active with all the options versus a super simple vintage-inspired passive bass with no added options). I think this achieves that goes more effectively with the SF2s than the FDVs, so I'm quite happy. The real tests will come on my next few gigs. I'm off for a couple weeks, but will be back to gigging a bunch in December. One of our shows is at a very high profile venue that we played in October. I have a board recording from that October show and will get one in December. That will be a fun comparison to see how well the SF2s work compared to the FDVs on actual recorded material. I wouldn't mind trying the FD-3s at some point, but I doubt I'll ever pull the trigger on a set of those given how well the SF2s achieved what I was looking for.

I'll add that the SF2s in the bridge-neck parallel combination still don't sound like a class Jazz bass, but I would say the combination is much closer than the FDVs, particularly when I put each pickup in parallel with itself. I live in bridge-middle parallel with the middle pickup in parallel and the bridge pickup in series 99% of the time, so it's really not that big of a deal.

Addendum: The SF2s are noticeably higher output than the FDVs. Not a big deal either way for me, but worth noting.

View attachment 5254585

View attachment 5254586

Your post made me realize I've been playing Super Fatties for ten years now. I have to agree that they sound great in a jazz bass. The 2013 Super J in my avatar has a pair of the original (skinny) Fatties...

 

[RevOgre]

I had SF2's and swapped for FDVs. I miss them

Anyone want to trade a full set of 4 string FDVs for 4 string SF2s?

*edited to specify # of strings thanks @macribas

 

[Snake101st]

Still haven't set up properly for my band's tuning, but it's going to take me more tweaking than I thought to adjust to the FDVs vs FD3ns.

Does anyone feel that dirt sounds very different on FDVs? The pickups sound great alone and almost make me want to not use dirt anymore, but it's part of my sound on a lot of tracks. Having a hard time articulate the difference well heh

Also, I noticed that the used Z3X I just got has pretty much the same slight marks on the pickups that both my NG-3 and D-Roc have from the strings hitting them a bit while you have the action low and play hard. Do most of you all have the same thing on your pickups, or do you mostly play less hard or have higher action? I've been using the recommended heights and the bass I got seems right in that range, too.

 

[CeramicStinger]

I bet the sound was MASSIVE with that rig behind you

Cool to see you on here, have a question and maybe you will know, I was wanting a knob like Tony and Matt from “ The Omnific” have on their rotary kno and was trying to figure out what size the rotary pot is and if you or anyone knows what Kind of knob that is they have, it’s so they can switch pickup configurations quicker thanks

 

[macribas]

I had SF2's and swapped for FDVs. I miss them

Anyone want to trade a full set of FDVs for SF2s?

I think you play 4-strings, right?

 

[macribas]

While we are in the pickup swap talk... We know that the Super J 5-string pickups have their covers the size of "regular" 6-string pickups. But do you know if the internals are the same?

I have a pair of 5-string SF-IIs in the "regular" (D-Roc, NG3, etc). If I want to use them in my 5-string Super-J, can I ask Dingwall for Super-J 5-string covers and put their internals on them? String spacing seems to be the same. Not sure about the angle.

 

[wavemaker]

View attachment 5254487
Wow, this new to me Z3X came in the mail a bit ago, the neck is incredible and the pickups sound vastly different from the FD3Ns I'm used to from my D-Roc and NG-3.

What a beauty! It’s all a matter of taste, naturally, but personally, I love seeing a Z build take a different route than heavily flamed / quilted / spalted maple!

The FDVs have a good but not overly deep bottom end extension, a reasonably high top end extension that feels pretty polite, a bit of a bump in the lower midrange, and what always felt like a slight dip around 500-700hz. It's a nice sound for sure.

[…]

The note attack and general feel of the FDVs was one area where I sometimes struggled. The FDVs are not what I would describe as an "open" sounding pickup. On the contrary I hear them as being compressed, congested, cramped, etc. such that the initial onset of a note's attack was very present, really thumped, and immediately jumped out of speakers in a useful way.

Man, I couldn’t agree more and that nails why I wrote how happy I am to now once again have the option of FD-3 pickups in my quiver.

I got to know Dingwall via two AB-1 four strings, the first one passive, the second with a Glock, and a passive Super-J3X with s/p-toggles, all of them with FD-3 pickups.

When I first received my D-Bird a couple years later, I loved the feel of the bass, but didn’t enjoy the FDV pickups at all, particularly because of that bump in the lower mids: My impression - coming from the experience of my former SJ with toggles - was that the FDVs made the whole bass sound like it was wired in series. So many low mids!

I learned to compensate by adjusting my preamps and compressor differently and the rest is history - my D-Bird and D-Roc are my primary basses by now, both with their stock FDVs.

I’m still in the process of finding settings for the ABHS, but a quick way of finding its voice for me was to put neck and bridge in parallel with each other while both pickups individually are wired in series, leaving the glock flat, and running the bass through nothing else than my Cali76 CB.

So to my ears, FD-3s are much more balanced pickups in themselves than FDVs. I think it was this very thread where I once read someone describe how the FD-3s are made with "modern" neo magnets and the FDVs with "traditional" (alnico, is it?) magnets, but sound-wise, their profiles were actually opposite as the FD-3s are more traditionally sounding and the FDVs are much more "modern" voiced.
I tend to agree with that statement, but from experience I also don’t think either pickup is limited unless you go completely direct.

 

[J Posega]

While we are in the pickup swap talk... We know that the Super J 5-string pickups have their covers the size of "regular" 6-string pickups. But do you know if the internals are the same?

I have a pair of 5-string SF-IIs in the "regular" (D-Roc, NG3, etc). If I want to use them in my 5-string Super-J, can I ask Dingwall for Super-J 5-string covers and put their internals on them? String spacing seems to be the same. Not sure about the angle.

Pretty sure the pickups are epoxied into the covers.

Also, string spacing is not the same. Super J has 19mm spacing, long scale 5s are all 18mm.

 

[RevOgre]

Oops, good call, yes I play 4 strings

I think you play 4-strings, right?

 

[Alban]

Hi guys, I was checking out a 3-pickup Super J the other day, and I was wondering what the actual switching modes are, I found this schematic on the Dingwall site but it is a bit puzzling why the middle pickup isn’t used in any of the positions?

 

[wavemaker]

Hi guys, I was checking out a 3-pickup Super J the other day, and I was wondering what the actual switching modes are, I found this schematic on the Dingwall site but it is a bit puzzling why the middle pickup isn’t used in any of the positions?
View attachment 5254906

3 is bridge / middle in series (but it’s actually next to the bridge pickup setting, so where "2" is indicated on the knob in the diagram.)

 

[Snake101st]

Cool to see you on here, have a question and maybe you will know, I was wanting a knob like Tony and Matt from “ The Omnific” have on their rotary kno and was trying to figure out what size the rotary pot is and if you or anyone knows what Kind of knob that is they have, it’s so they can switch pickup configurations quicker thanks

I have this saved from when I was looking for the same thing, so it should be correct... You'd want to double check, though:

PK-0173 Set of 2 Chicken Head Pointer Knobs

 

[Alban]

3 is bridge / middle in series (but it’s actually next to the bridge pickup setting, so where "2" is indicated on the knob in the diagram.)

Thanks, I also assumed this, but it’s weird that this diagram showed up on the official website.

 

[Snake101st]

What a beauty! It’s all a matter of taste, naturally, but personally, I love seeing a Z build take a different route than heavily flamed / quilted / spalted maple!

Appreciate that! That's really what drew me to it. As much as I appreciate some of the incredible Z series specimens I've seen... The one with the light blue x top that looks like the millennium falcon jumping into light speed for example... I don't think I could justify bringing one of those out and risking the top/finish getting any marks.

This finish is still really nice and a bit more "me," and with the added benefit of being a bit more affordable. So with the used deal I got, I was able to get my dream bass - I've wanted a Z3 since I laid eyes on one, but thought it'd never happen so I started with the import models and loved them all the same.

The Z neck truly is something else though, easily the nicest on any instrument I've tried, and every inch of the bass just seems well thought out.

Still need to adjust to the FDVs like I said, and maybe I'll try to find some Canadian FD3s after my D-Roc and NG-3 sell to fund this purchase so I can compare the two pups - it'd be interesting to see how they differ from the import n's.

 

[huebass]

No luminlays but got this t-shirt!! Lol

 

[LuxuriousMistak]

The Z neck truly is something else though, easily the nicest on any instrument I've tried, and every inch of the bass just seems well thought out.

Thanks for sharing! How does the Z neck compare to NG3? Is it really that different?

 

[Snake101st]

Thanks for sharing! How does the Z neck compare to NG3? Is it really that different?

It's much thinner, and the compound radius is more noticeable than I thought it'd be. I just love it! It's overall a marvel of engineering and the art of woodworking for sure.

 

[gustobassman]

Today I went up to my buddy Sean's place and we did a pickup swap on my Super J. I replaced the stock FDVs with a full set of SF2s. I'll preface this all by saying that I really did love the sound of this bass with the FDVs, and this was driven entirely by two factors:

1. Curiosity, and;
2. Hoping for a neck-bridge in parallel combination that was closer to a Jazz bass than what the FDVs offered, which I always felt was more Spector'y, or in some ways Wal'y.

The swap was much simpler than I had anticipated with no soldering required due to the Glock preamp using screw terminals for the pickup wires. Dead simple. We kept the same arrangement of N and B pickups as the factory FDVs, such that it goes Neck-N, Middle-B, Bridge-N. We also took measurements beforehand to restore the pickup heights to be the same as the FDVs for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible. Below are my thoughts. First I'll describe the frequency response differences, then the very surprising feel/attack differences, and finally my general feelings on these pickups for use in a Super J.

The FDVs do a good job of what Dingwall describes in their ad copy for these pickups. They feel like updated Fender-style pickups that skew a little more modern than most of what Fender does. As mentioned, the neck-bridge in parallel combination doesn't really sound like an actual Jazz bass, but it's a nice sound regardless. The FDVs have a good but not overly deep bottom end extension, a reasonably high top end extension that feels pretty polite, a bit of a bump in the lower midrange, and what always felt like a slight dip around 500-700hz. It's a nice sound for sure.

The SF2s are a different animal all together. I read an earlier post that described them as being "too MTD" for that particular user. I can see where they're coming from, but I wouldn't totally agree with the MTD comparison. The frequency response difference between the two pickups is largely that the SF2s go both lower and higher, they seem to lack the bump in the lower midrange which presents more evenly, and the slight dip around 500-700hz feels like it's still there. The politeness in the top end on the FDVs is gone with the SF2s, but that's not to say that the SF2s sound super aggressive or snarly up top. It's simply that there's a more even response from the upper midrange to the top of the usable range of the pickups, whereas the FDVs had some sort of dip and swell in the nasty frequencies in the upper midrange. That's a common theme here; The FDVs feel like they're pretty heavily targeted at a specific voice, whereas the SF2s feel much more even through their presentation from top to bottom.

The note attack and general feel of the FDVs was one area where I sometimes struggled. The FDVs are not what I would describe as an "open" sounding pickup. On the contrary I hear them as being compressed, congested, cramped, etc. such that the initial onset of a note's attack was very present, really thumped, and immediately jumped out of speakers in a useful way. By comparison, the rest of the attack envelope of each note felt like it decayed rather quickly. Not quite in the way of comparing fresh rounds to old flats, but the analogy isn't entirely without merit. I feel like the FDVs were designed to highlight the attack of a note in a way that aligns with notions of what "vintage" means when describing tone. They really nailed it with that. A lot of the time I liked that vibe, but there were times, particularly when slapping, that I felt like it was getting in the way.

The SF2s, by comparison, are very different. Much in the way the frequency response is more even, the note attack is more even as well. I did not expect this when making the switch. Every portion of the note seems to come out smoothly and evenly with no aspect of it dominating another. The decay is smooth without any obvious steepness to the drop-off between attack, sustain and release (for lack of better terms to describe what I'm hearing). For my playing style, taste, and choices, this is a MAJOR upgrade. It fixes everything about the one aspect of my bass I never totally loved. Problem solved in a big way, and as a result I'm very happy with the switch.

In general I'd say that the FDVs are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be an updated and refined version of a classic Fender-style instrument. They really nail that vibe in a way that's equal parts modern and vintage. I think the SF2s are a solid choice for anyone who wants their Dingwall to be a very even, open, uncompressed, modern machine that might not be able to do everything, but can get very close. Since I have a passive Super P on order, I wanted my Super J to have the opposite vibe (i.e. modern and active with all the options versus a super simple vintage-inspired passive bass with no added options). I think this achieves that goes more effectively with the SF2s than the FDVs, so I'm quite happy. The real tests will come on my next few gigs. I'm off for a couple weeks, but will be back to gigging a bunch in December. One of our shows is at a very high profile venue that we played in October. I have a board recording from that October show and will get one in December. That will be a fun comparison to see how well the SF2s work compared to the FDVs on actual recorded material. I wouldn't mind trying the FD-3s at some point, but I doubt I'll ever pull the trigger on a set of those given how well the SF2s achieved what I was looking for.

I'll add that the SF2s in the bridge-neck parallel combination still don't sound like a class Jazz bass, but I would say the combination is much closer than the FDVs, particularly when I put each pickup in parallel with itself. I live in bridge-middle parallel with the middle pickup in parallel and the bridge pickup in series 99% of the time, so it's really not that big of a deal.

Addendum: The SF2s are noticeably higher output than the FDVs. Not a big deal either way for me, but worth noting.

View attachment 5254585

View attachment 5254586

Fantastic review! The SF2's kill. They really do wonders for reggae with flats and a passive tone rolled all the way off- they are part of my "secret sauce" . I put the SF2's that came in my Z into my NG3 6'er, that bass is now perfect for anything post-1990 as far as covers go. Can cover SO much ground.

I think I was the one with the "too MTD-ish" comment - that was regarding the Glock+SF2 combination. I love the SF2's in passive and in combination with the DGTC- or with the Nordy pre and having a passive tone available.. To me the whole "too MTD" thing came from the crispy, almost surgical sound the Glock gives me compared to other preamps. I had never tried a Glock pre before and that was my initial reaction. I'm getting a little more used to it, but my Z sounds so good in passive with FD3's now! I never have the pre engaged.

Dingwall sent me instructions to reverse the P/P so "down" would be passive, but it's a non-reversible mod on the Glock pre and you have to cut a trace on the little board attached to the Vol pot. Not 100% sure I wanna do that yet, but I certainly dont want a bent pot shaft either.