Dr DIMENTO'S ONGOING "J" STYLE PUP EXPERIMENT

[luknfur]

BARTOLINI ACTIVE 9E J's

Bridge is active 5 wire w/ground
Neck is actually a passive 2 wire

Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass. Output about average. Dead quiet. Noticeable finger tranfer but not an issue as the pups could be exceedingly brite with treble up so it was tempered for all settings to music. Worked well with a pic by making the pups darker to compensate for the brighter attack (used a standard plastic medium guitar pic). Above average sensitivity to attack and sustain.

I was curious as to what an active set of Barts might sound like and now I know. Typical Bart J tone and probably no different than some of their passives - in fact very similar to some of their passive J's I've preferred. Pretty toastie. Perhaps a little more punch and clarity. Plenty of bottom and top end with proportionately less pronounced mids but no shortage. Aside from a good J tone, one of the better P tones.

Growl on the thin side but a nice raw quality to them for active (according to the Bart site, when the tone control was maxed it was supposed to yield a vintage tone but I can't say as I notice anything but a change in briteness from the tone backed off slightly to maxed). The neck pup was probably medium dark but fairly muddy. Never used it alone and really just enough to add a little punch from more output for the most part.

Pretty predictable pups in terms of adjustment so not a lot of tweaking to get tones plus there was some lattitude in useable tones with them. About average response to variations in technique/hand position. Pups not suprisingly were punchier on E and A strings but with a tendency for D & G strings to thin and fade but nothing major - just would have liked a little more meat on the D & G on a number of occassions.


Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut in accord with the above - noticeably more on E & A but not disruptively so.
Pups worked passably to all tunes and better than average to roughly 80%. Very flexible pups to varying styles. May even keep them for a while.

FLUFF:

The Barts were installed per Bart diagram (compliments of DavidWilson - but also on the Bart site) except the volume to the neck pup was a 500K. I initially installed them ran direct to seperate jacks and they sounded similar though with a strong tendency to get lost in the mix that way and output was much less than per Bart diagram. And I was curious if proper installation would make a difference. I should also add that I ran an Aggie GS-112 as an extension with the Poly. First time I've ran a test on a set of pups that way but the basics are the same - just sounds more full.

 

[luknfur]

BARTOLINI 9JS J Set (marked 9ST-S)

(single wire w/ground passive singles)

Loaded into an acoustically bright bass. Output low average - below average. No hum, quiet. Sensitivity to attack average. Average sustain. No finger/pic transfer of consequence. Worked with finger and flat pick.

Pretty signature Bart for the most part for tones played to tunes. Fairly warm, noticeably clear, balanced, noiseless, rounded tones. Clarity varies with setting but, from recall, they don't seem as clear as most Bart J's I've had. Adequate bass, mids, and top - but the top seemed a bit different. I did notice that increasing the treble brightened the tone but it also clouded the tone which was on the boxie side which I found pretty useless. I also noticed that keeping the treble down, and the bass about the same (maybe increased a bit over my typical Bart settings), that mids and top would cut through an essentially bass heavy tone which created an appealing outcome. More P sounding than J. Very traditional Fender-like characteristic with a bottom that was either felt or a brief punch with mids and top presence when on a J like setting.

And those were pretty much the two tones used for all tunes. Not much tweaking knobs beyond searching to see what it would produce. Top end was never harsh and never set above flat. Never ran the neck or bridge by itself but was close with the bridge. It seemed I could use more neck than usual without dirtying up the tone - which helped output wise. Too much neck and the tone lost clarity and became boxie. No solo tones noted. No variation of significance regarding alterations to technique/hand position.

Pups played passably to all tunes and that was pretty much it. Voume, tone, clarity, and cut balanced across the board within a given setting except as otherwise mentioned. Some punch, bulge, little growl. and noticeable edge/rawness at times.

 

[luknfur]

KENT ARMSTRONG SLV-1 LOW OUTPUT VINTAGE SPLIT-TUBE LIPSTICKS

2 wire w/ground singles (4.9K DC resistance)

Loaded into an acoustically bright bass in standard J position (they're singles, and they look about like J's in the bass, they sound like J's, so I stuck them in this thread). Output below average. Some hum - but suprisingly little. Sensitivity to attack noticeably above average. Average sustain, maybe a little better. No finger/pic transfer of consequence. Worked well to finger and flat pic.

Very smooth, primarily soft, warm Fender-like mid range vintage J tone for the most part - nice spread of accented frequencies. A passable P tone for short orders but I couldn't get the top end as clear as I wanted with bass set acceptably, but will pass for a P where that's not needed. These are supposed to be scooped stuck in a 6 string guitar but these were mid strong with an extended-ranged, pleasant, useable top - for most tones to tunes anyway. No top end hashness at all. Some of that may be explained by the Poly being mid heavy but I rarely ever had mids off full cut. Tad shy on bass but played fine to reggae by upping bass and cutting back trebles - a low midrange Reggae but it waspassable for a few tunes of it. A few times I couldn't get enough bass but bass was adequate by and large.

Pretty predictable pups in terms of adjustment and the pups complimented each other well. Basically just one versatile sound that could be dirtied up or cleaned up, darkened or brightened - and that's about all that's really needed in most cases. No fading of strings from these pups - except the E when bass was inadequate. Pups were noticeably responsive to control variations but didn't require a lot of tweaking. Changing tone by varying hand position was about average compared to other pups but these pups were noticeably more responsive in terms of attack, could dig in pretty hard for punch without it screwing up the rest of the tone.

Some definite punch, bulge, and bite, very minimal growl - it's there but it didn't cut. Little tubey and noticeable fuzz at times which became slightly crunchy on some settings with some tunes. The pups played passably to 95% of the tunes and better than average to most. 5% there just wasn't sufficient bass to compliment the rest of the tone I wanted. Pups could really use more flexibility on the low end. Volume, tone, clarity, and cut balanced acrossed the board for a given tone with the exceptions noted - when bass was lacking and getting growl to cut.

Definite potential for some solo tones. The pups sounded much softer solo than they did played to tunes and the harmonics were more pronounced. Really pleasing solo tone with chords and double stops. Made me really wonder what a fretless with lipsticks would produce cuase it seems like an obvious match. Of all the pups I've had, these stand out the best for tones that work to tunes that also work solo. I would think some effects could really produce some choice, and probably unique, solo tones.

FLUFF:

I've been thinking about some lipsticks for months and finally picked up a pair. Really haven't looked into lipsticks much but turns out these are about J length so not bad luck. I initially planned on having to run a pair like split P's to get string coverage. Never had a Kent Armstrong pup so always nice to try somebody different. After hearing these, I'm suprised there aren't a lot more of them around in basses given the popularity of a vintage Fender J tone. I've had my share of "vintage" J pups that couldn't touch these..

 

[luknfur]

DIMARZIO ULTRA JAZZ NECK (DP 147)

Passive 4 lead split HB Alnico 5 with ceramic
Ran parallel

Loaded into an acousticaly bright bass in standard bridge position - primarily cause that's what I favor. To my knowledge there's no difference in the ultra bridge and necks aside from length and there's no difference in Dimarzio's description of them, or the set for that matter.

Output low average to below average. Some hum mostly killed by touching strings. Nothing unusual for me to get a little hum with humbuckers with these temporary wire-nutted installs but this was more pronounced and definetly more annoying than usual. Even touching the strings I could rotate in an arc and faintly here the hum come and go. I double-checked connections and they were good. Sensitivity average. Above average sustain. Some irritating finger transfer on the D & G strings with even modest treble (cut a step or two) or use of tweeter. Noticeable in some tunes with treble cut about three steps but tolerable. Don't do recording but bass player mag was impressed with the recording aspects of the pup so I guess there's a way around finger transfer in recording. Suprisingly, no problem using a flatpick.

Primarily a quality, relatively thin, midrange, vintage Fender J tone. Bottom was adequate for the most part (except for Reggae and some P) and top just sort of faded out of sight dog whistle style. Fairly warm. Probably a good Fender J replacement for all but the purist who has a less than desireable existing set (and they should be dead quiet at any volume setting when properly installed) Very similar to Fender but tone is more focused without the harmonic spread. No problem catching the lower half of some Fender tone but to get the whole range didn't happen in this session. In fact, I never got the Fender top half at any point. Nevertheless, very passable and maybe beyond with some time and tweaking, or different variables (rigging, etc.).

Could dirty it up some or clean it up but no real variation in tone - just tweaking the tone to make it work to a given tune. Could pull some passable P tones for isolated tunes - and possibly better with different variables. Pup's fairly sensitive to minor adjustments in controls and it did require regular tweaking with tune changes, not just styles. Bassplayer called ultra's clear but I didn't see the tone as excelling in clarity at all, to me more focused (concentration of frequency) with considerable presence resulting in a cut. Less than average sensitivity to changes in technique or hand position (but the closer I played to the pup the more pronounced the finger transfer).

Some good punch and bulge on E and A strings. Decent growl, some rawness/edge, little fuzz and crunch about the tone on some settings to some tunes. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the strings for a given tone/tune. In fact the pup was very balanced for the most part. You could lose a string or two but it was't anything thing that wasn't easily dialed in. Didn't notice the ability to intentionally direct a controlled fading of the strings in this session. Finger transfer pretty much trashes the option of solo tones - maybe unless you like the sound of acoustic 6 string guitars with squeaky bronze rounds (not the sound I got but you get the idea). But with darker tones (less finger transfer) there may be some solo options depending on taste. Keep in mind this is with TI flats. Rounds would probably put finger transfer through the roof. I'm guessing you could get an almost unparalled piano ring with these with rounds and a flat pick (due to the presence). Probably a good pup for slappers and Parrotheads.

Worked passably to all tunes except Reggae and better than avearage to roughly 40% of the tunes. Not what I'd call a fun pup to play but it was enjoyable for the most part and definetly not unpleasant by any stretch.

Update: something that hadn't occurred to me for whatever reason (probably cause typically it's not so pronounced a difference) is that this is loaded into an acoustically bright bass which is going to bring out brighter aspects of the pup. Maybe I'll stick it in a midrange bass and see how it varies.

FLUFF:

Appears to be common knowledge that the ultra's are a set Sadowsky took for a basis and had custom wound to his specs - and I could easily see that happening. Ended up picking up just one of these to just check it out cause these things have some serious resale value - I've seen used ones go for more on ebay than they can be bought online new. At any rate, the times I've ran a single pup and later picked up a like set, the single pup tonewise was very reflective of the set. Probably should have stuck this one mid position to be more reflective of a pair (it's not like this pups is shy on the top or much would be lost in the process).

I've read some reviews on these and everybody seems to be okay with the top end and no complaints of finger transfer but that was not my experience this run. Going to try it in series (which most players seem to prefer for this pup - and should cut into the top and meat the bottom) and if that doesn't pan out I'll move it up the neck some.

 

[luknfur]

DIMARZIO ULTRA JAZZ NECK (DP 147)

Passive 4 lead split HB Alnico 5 with ceramic
Ran in series

Basically a noticeably darker parallel tone across the frequency range - but not major. Even though wired in series, as in the past the Poly exhibited a cleaner parallel-like tone with it on channel 1 of the amp but it's not quite as thin and bright as the pup in parallel. Of course volume was increased to about average output over parallel. Overall characteristics of the pup were still the same but a little beefier and top end and finger transfer were not an issue. Treble could be cut considerably to darken the tone more yet still have the mids and top cut. Bass remained very marginal on some tunes.

The pup worked to all tunes on practically any setting within it's operating frequency range (the spread of settings that worked to all tunes). Ballpark, but I'm guessing series extended the range of tones that worked better than average to tunes from 40% - 60%. Only speculation but I believe a matched pair would resolve most if not all aspects I found issue with. It may be different with a set, but with the single pup, a series/parallel switch is in order. Definetly a worthy pup in my experience and, considering it's only half a set, close enough to things I've heard about it to keep an eye out for a pair (or bridge if this one hangs around long enough).

 

[luknfur]

Aero J's Type I (Bass Player Mag shootout model MP-181)

Passive bi-pole single hum canceling (revers wound/polarity) J's with 2 leads

Loaded into an acousticaly bright bass. Output average. Some hum killed by touching strings. Sensivity to attack fingerstyle average or less. Noticeable finger transfer at times but nothing of consquence. Finger transfer could be borderline snappy sounding at times which is a nice plus. Not much variation with changes in technique/hand position. Average or better sustain. Worked well to finger and flat pick.

In fact, worked very well to flatpick. I would speculate these are much better flatpick than fingerpic pups. I have major slacked off flatpicking in recent months - I use to flatpick a session a week. So I didn't play these to tunes flatpicked - except the few flatpick tunes I play in the standard set (which the pups worked very well to). But I did sit down and run various classic flatpick riffs (Squire, Entwhistle, etc.) and flatpicking really brought these pups to life. Flatpicking them was fun: clarity, punch, warmth, response, and brought out the top half of the frequency range. Hardly the same pups flatpicked.

Fingerpicked - primarily a warm, realtively thick low mid J tone, with some punch and bulge on E & A strings, soft from mid mids up. Some growl, relatively refined pups with no pronounced rawness to tone - though there was a hint of rawness at times and maybe with different variables (rigging, whatever) it would come out more. Bass is at least adequate and then some (passable Reggae). Not a bright set of pups (and keep in mind this is a bright bass acoustically). Not a trace of harshness. In accord, the guy I got them off replaced them with a set of Nord NJ4SE's. Upper half of frequency range cut sufficiently to be heard but more of solid driving bass tone. Pretty mild top half. Almost a flip flop in frequencies from the DM ultra Jazz I just ran.

The Aero's sounded very similar to another set of J's I've had but couldn't quite place which ones. Sometimes Bart like, sometimes Duncan like, sometimes Dimarzio like. Cutting bass and upping treble would get a passable vintage Fender J tone. Makes it sound like there was a lot of versatility in tone but, more acurately, it was just hard to get a fix on a comparison. Really just variations of a single tone that could be tweaked to suit a broad range of styles - which it did. Marginal passable P tone. In general, not a great tone or one fun to play per se' but just solid get the job done bass tone. Defintely not frustrating or pups you have to battle to get useable tone. I did think of throwing a series/parallel switch in part way throught the session to try and liven it up some but the tones straight to the jacks worked well enough to not feel the need to resort to that. And I was thinking about another possible run with the switching but now I'd just flatpick them.

Volume, sensitivity, clarity, and cut markedly more prounoucned on the E string yet tone was balanced. On the other 3 strings all balanced. Maybe a pup height adjustment but I'm guessing bringing the E down would through the A out of balance. At any rate, similar height adjustment to any other pups I recall did not produce results like this. The E & A could be faded to match the D&G strings as to get the aforementioned Fender tone but to a great extent faded D&G strings was basically inherent in the pups by design. The pups worked passably to all tunes and better than average to roughly 15%. No solo tones noted. I didn't play around with it consciously cause I forgot about it, but from adjustments I made I'd speculate the neck pup would get boomie and wouldn't function alone. The bridge pup probably could cut it alone with enough amp to get the volume needed.

 

[luknfur]

BARTOLINI 9W4 QUAD NECK PUP

Single lead w/braided ground ceramic w/iron core 4 coil J pickup

Loaded into an acoustically bright bass mounted bridge position (since I favor bridge). Output marginal low average to below average. No hum. Sensitivity to attack depended on settings - average to plus some/minus some. Sustain average or better. No finger/pic transfer of consequence. Worked well to finger or flat pick. Sensitivity to variations in technique/hand position minimal.

Characteristically Bart with low mid J tone, marginal bass, mild top half, very mild rounded top end, soft and fairly warm overall. Mids and top cut particularly well, in fact treble could be cut +12dB and still came through the mix fine. Treble had by far the most range of the 3 general frequency bands. Distinctly Bart but not as clear as typical Bart overall, thinning bass could clear it up but the bass tended to be insufficient in doing so. Narrow operating room for bass between noticeably boomie and insufficient. Good slow jazz Van Morrison MoonDance type tones. Mild to moderate punch and minimal growl. No rawness to speak of but noticeably less refined than typical Bart. For a Bart, it tended to be relatively muddy.

E & A and D & G strings could be seperately thinned or fattened up noticably and usefully, bu not to a marked degree. Small variations in adjustment required to fit the tone to music but predictable and no excessive tweaking to get useable tones. Little flexibility in terms of P tone which could work well or not depending on the P tone your looking for. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board for tone to a given tune. Probably no solo tones but solo the pup sounded clearer, warmer, and softer so possibly depending on preference.

Pup worked passably to all tunes, marginal on Reggae, and better than average to roughly 25%, 10% of which it worked quite well. Decent blues, 60's R&B, and general light punch background bass. Some of what was lacking (particularly bass) would likely be compensated for with a pair.

FLUFF:

Beginning to see a pattern developing relative to this bass which I'll have to check out more and get back. It just so happens it's been the bass of convenience for swaps lately for everything and I've never done that with this bass in the past. It has pretty much been the Music Man bass.

Almost picked up another neck for an MIM pair trial but didn't come through so this will probably be it for the Bart 9W4.

 

[luknfur]

DIMARZIO MODEL J NECK - bridge position

4 lead split coil HB w/adjustable hex bi-poles

Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass in bridge position (since I favor bridge) and wired in series. To my knowlege, the model J neck and bridges are identical except for size. Output better than average. Quiet/no hum. Above averge sensitivity to attack, hand position, technique; and sustain. Noticeable finger/pic transfer at times but often complimentary -occasionally boarderline undesireable. Worked well to finger and flat pic.

Punchy, bulgey, percussive, growly, crispy, crunchy, gritty, grinding, buzzing, aggressive, raw, nose-bleed, through your face pup. Or you can make it girlieman warm and fuzzy. But the testosterone thing is hard to pass up. Amazing nuance of tones from jug bass to slap.

Such a pleasure to play that it crossed my mind that it was in a class of it's own. Thick or thin, muddy it up or clear it up, dull edge or razor edge, basement bass to slap treble. At one point I thought the D & G couldn't cut to some tunes - but I just wasn't boosting treble enough cause the adjustment was way beyond the useable range of most pups I've ran, and so is bass. In addition subtle changes can make a big difference and most adjustments are useable for something. I had a whole pallette of useable tonal options for too many to tunes to remember. I'm thrilled when I get a pup I can dial in one solid fun tone to play to all tunes (cause that's rare) let alone an array of fun tones for countless tunes. Add to that the responsiveness of the pup to tone variations from hand position and technique and it's a very impressive arsenal of tone control - with nothing in the control bay but a jack.

The down side is that it's not a pup I set once and played to a whole style of tunes (there's a lot of tweaking going on - but not so much to find a useable tone, it's to pick just one or hone one). Even so: it's worth it given the results; the fine tuning isn't necessary to get a solid tune so could be reduced consderably; and tweaking was only marginally excessive as it was. The pup did have a marked tendency to be boxie/muddy/lack clarity to tunes - until it was adjusted out. Another downside is sloppy techinque is poorly tolerated cause consistency is often required to get a given tone and, since the pup is so responsive to technique, mistakes are obvious. Not a beginners pup.

The pup had ample bass (pup moves a lot of air), mids, and treble. Could get a darker or fatter J tone, a thinner, punchy quality vintage Fender J tone, and a good useable P tone (not sure how good cause I haven't maximzed the adjustment yet - but I'd speculate a good vintage Fender P). More growl and rawness (and variety of rawness) than any pup I can recall. Could thin E&A or D&G strings if desired. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board for a given tone to tune for the pup within itself. To most tunes, clarity relative to other pups was average but it was better than average to probably 20% of the tunes. No tune I can recall that the pup didn't play better than average to and it excelled at roughly 30% - minimal. No stand out solo tones but good flatpicked to classic riffs and decent fingerpicked to chords, double stops, and the Stanley Clarke riffs - so there's bound to be something in there somewhere for everybody.

This is a much better pup alone than when combined with the model P (and I'd speculate another model J). Much clearer and all the positive qualities listed previously were obscured in combination with the model P, at least on the first run of the PJ setup.

 

[luknfur]

BILL LAWRENCE J45 SHORT (NECK) PUP

2 lead airgap J w/9 exposed poles

Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass but in standard bridge position. Output about average, maybe a little better. Dead quiet, no hum initially when setting the bass in the stand but I did notice some hum later when I took my fingers off the strings between tunes. Maybe just a location/directional thing. No finger/pic transfer of consequence. Worked well to finger and quite well to flatpick. I did notice that the pups do pickup contact with the pup quite a bit and that was not only annoying at times but a problem for some tunes where a very apparent "pat" was heard. Sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique average to a little better than average. Sustain less than average.

The first thing I noticed in playing them solo is it had a nice P tone. Probably some solo tones in the mix. Once I started playing them to music it sounded very similar to my Marcus Millers (Fender vintage from what I know). The low end may actually even be more appealing (it's been a while since I played the MM's). Ample low end and a nice bulge and punch. Quite a bit of rawness. Very appealing and different bottom but putting it into words escapes me, maybe with more play a description will come to mind.

More often than not the mids and top end however didn't seem to have the clarity and cut of the MM's and actually sounded muffled on some tunes, just a bit airy on others, and just right on others. Low end clarity was balanced in accord but punch on the low compensated for it. So a good Fender vintage J tone to some tunes but not consistently so. Treble could be completely cut and still come through the mix and work for some tunes but for most part doing so would cut too much treble off the top. Very useable top - plenty of range which didn't get boxie or harsh but would yield more fingers transfer than tone when beyond the treble's functional range. The lack of clarity when apparent always had a boxie quality to it but it wasn't caused by boosting treble - more the way it played to a given tune that was present regardless of adjustments.

Good P tone, couldn't quite get it to the benchmark riff vintage Fender P track I use but a quality P tone nevertheless - maybe with more tweaking. Often a good dark J tone which could be muddied up to do a good EBO-like tone. Noticeable percussive quality to all frequency ranges at times but especially upper mids and treble. During those occassions treble had an amp-like presence control to it (as opposed to the typical musical meaning). When I realized that I immediately thought of slap and tried a few licks and the pups have a useable slap tone to them. So those in combination with a good vintage Fender J at times makes for some repectable range of sounds on the pallette.

Played passably to about 80% of the tunes and better than aveage to about 25%. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut fairly even across the board for tones to tunes. For the most part, very predictable pups and easy to get useable tone and tweak tone in the sense that it comes quick or not at all.

FLUFF:

Since I was only running a single pup, at one point I hooked up the GEB-7 to see if I could figure out where that boxie/lack of clarity was and by boosting a 5C Hz a bit and cutting 8C, 4.5K, and 10K it cleared up the top end but noticeably lost some edge on the bottom. The E string was consistently sweet and the A to a lessor degree. Mostly an issue with the D string and to a lessor degree the G. I kept getting a feeling that I was just missing the right combination. I finally let it go with no resolution and pulled the GEB-7. For whatever reason with this pup I got the feeling that other variables (amp, bass, strings, whatever) could alter what I found lacking in a positive way. The pup has a different quality to it than any other pup I can recall. I had a curiosity that it may work better flatpicked than finger and If I can remember I'll try it more flatpicked and update.

 

[luknfur]

RICKENBACKER FACTORY ORIGINAL 70's 4001

2 lead single coils - neck and bridge

Not J's but a few single coils are also thrown into the category and this is one of them.

Loaded into an acoustically bright bass. None of my basses will allow for the orignal Ric location so they were placed as close to the neck as possible (9 3/4" center to 12th fret) with the roughly factory 4" C/C spacing between pups maintained.

Output noticeably better than average. A little hum killed by touching strings, but suprisingly little. Some potential problem finger transfer when treble is upped significantly - which wasn't a setting used to tunes or needed cause trebles cut well. Sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique noticeablly better than average. Sustain better than average. They required minimal tweaking of controls to get useable tone.

Worked to finger and flatpick. Flatpick increased clarity, bulge, and the mid range burp-like quality inherent in the pups. They pull off the "Roundabout" riff with no problem. If desired, with finess, flatpick tone could be made very similar and a passable substitute for fingerpick tone - more so than any pups I can recall. The second session I played quite a bit with a flatpick in a substitute mode for fingerpic and it worked very well but technique is critical. I used a medium pick but a thick pick probably would have made the job easier. Any uneveness, excessively heavy, or improperly angled attack is apparent. On the postive side, that also permits variations in tone.

The first thing I noticed about the pups was they were not nearly as clear and bright as I had expected. In fact it took some effort to make them too bright and their natural inclination is to be dirty when fingerpicked but tone can be cleaned up some by using the bridge pup alone, or flatpicking. The neck pup was VERY boxie and optimal clarity was obtained by using the bridge only with treble nearly completely cut. The neck pup alone should yield a good URB tone as it has a very piezo/acoustic/woody/airy quality about it. Haven't honed techinque for URB tone so can't say for certain.

But even at their clearest I would say the pups are no better than average for single coils. Very easy for them to become boxie. Equally suprising was that, although clarity was lacking, it took little if any tweaking to get bass, mid, and treble frequencies to cut well. The pups had a mid mid frequency and up that wasn't to the point of being boxie just noticeably lacking clarity - on the low average side. That could be transparent or not depending on the tune. Invariably, in the midst of this frequency fog was a cutting focused mid tone. The lack of clarity was equal across all strings, just more suprising on the top half. Treble could be increased significantly and they still didn't get boxie just the finger transfer became an issue. Adequate bass (enough to pull a good Reggae tone with treble full cut) but generally midrange focus with treble that was very flexible, controllable, with a lot more range than what I used for tones to tunes.

Rawness varied from negligable to quite a variety depending on tone to tune. Midrange burp-like quality. Growl as much as any pups to date. Some punch. Flatpick with snap and definitive burp. Acoustic properties previoulsy mentioned. A noticeable edge to tone at times.

They sound like Rics but they are taking some getting used to and I was definetly more turned off than turned on by the tone initially. With some play and trial and error I'm developing an appreciation for the uniqueness which they definetly have. The more I play them the more unique tonal variations I discover. They can pull a very useable P tone and J tone and play to tunes in accord, tossing in their own unique spin that is different but not a turn off. The "RicNess" of the pups was typically notiecable fingerpicked. Flatpicked, with good technique you can tone down the unique aspect if desired so that it would likely pass by all but the most astute. Dirty them up and they don't quite go EBO but they get a lot closer than I expected.

Volume, sensitivity, tone, clarity, and cut balanced across the strings. Worked passably to all tunes. Better than average to about 25% - which may change with more play. No solo tones or ability to fade strings noted. I suspect they may work well to slap but the neck pup's in the way (which in won't be for the upcoming Ric side by side) so I should get an answer to that.

In all, unique tone that is reasonably versatile, often noticeably different, and probably more inlcined to generate a love/hate response than anything in between.

Frequency Spread (highest value is 10 and the TB won't allow for the columns to align but they're in sequence and nearly need be shifted over)

Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K

4 8 .5 1 3.5 0 0

FLUFF:

Played these through 1 1/2 sessions. The half was for some questionable tunes that needed second playing and me in need of more experience with the pups. Tried a bunch of different settings in an attempt to increase clarity and had some success but nothing substantial. Could just be the pup placement. I might try just moving the bridge to the proper location and trying it to see if I get different results. If anything, I would expect it to be less clear moved up the neck. Maybe a pup height adjustment but they're not distorting that I can tell I've never had improvement in tone from dropping a pup that was not distorting.

The long intended SD Ric, Bart Ric, Original Ric side by side is in the making and should be forthcoming in the near future. Just need to determine the process to pull it off acceptably.

Tried a change up on the frequency spread but seems the usual procedure was significantly more reflective.

 

[KSB - Ken Smith]

I just posted this in another thread but a repeat would help clear up confusion here as well;

Lawrence and Ken Smith??
We never used the Same J pickup but we did use the same tooling. Our Pickups were wound differently and our Pickups were Shielded. Lawrence did not shield their J models.

We stopped using that Pickup almost a year age. Delivery was impossible and a few other issues to remain undisclosed.

We developed a New J pickup last year and have started installing them. It will take awhile to update our web photos as we make less Js than the other models.

Heres is a Pic of the new J in a Bass; Invalid Link Removed
Shielded Humbucker with no poles and no name (at the moment).

As far as our SoapBars go (nothing at all to do with Lawrence at all ever), they do NOT have covers at all. These are 'potted' in a special Epoxy in a rubber mold casted from Tiger Maple Masters (all holes pre-drilled in the Masters) that I/we hand-make in the shop. Every few years, we make new Masters as they are worn from the casting materials.

 

[luknfur]

FENDER NOISELESS J (Bridge primarily)

Beveled bi-pole alnico 8 with slightly elevated center poles
2 plastic coated leads with Noiseless in gold script on the cover face
Stacked Humbuckers

See Fluff at the end for rigging,etc.

Synopsis: Hi-fi mellow. A single pup that can stand alone. Useable quality tone that works to P and J tunes with minimal tweaking of controls.

Installed in an acoustically mid range bass. Output about average. Slight hum killed by touching strings. Some irritating finger transfer, primarily on the G string (making a pronounced pat-like sound) with relatively minimal treble kicked in. That could be compensated for to a consderable degree by altering attack to be more inline with the string, but awkward cuase it's not natural for me. Worked well to flat pick. Sensitivity to attack, technique, and position better than average. Sustain less than average.

As a gross generality the pup was sort of active EMG PJ like without the clairity. Distinctly hi-fi/active sounding pup. Compressed character to tone. Noticeably on the dull/lifeless side but not pronouncely so. Warmth was not something that crossed my mind playing as the tubes were the primary source of the warmth that was. Could be livened up substantially but doing so cut into bass and yielded excessive finger transfer. Hi-fi character not nearly as apparent through the tube set up as solid state or DI's. Sounded like a typical contemporary HB stack not a vintage single: darker, more overall beefiness and eveness to frequency spread with softer more rounded tone.

No real variation in sound but puts out tones that are very useable to P and J tunes. I could get plenty of any of the basic ranges - bass/mids/treble - but I didn't play with tone controls as it's more effective to go through amp variations that essentially shift the frequency spectrum up or down. This keeps tone more raw and lively since increasing treble or backing off bass controls on the THD tends to cut into bass/ punch/clarity/and rawness - pretty much with any pup not just this one (good thing it's got all the other junk to get you where you want to go).

Aside from altering attack, technique, and position, not much amp adjustment required to work to tunes. Not a plug and play pup but not a pup that requires much tweaking or where you have to work to get the pup to work. The only challenge I ran into with tone adjustment was primarily in the top half being airy and lacking focus/cut. Couple tunes needed to use a pic or tweak "attitude" (basically some compression) to bring the top half out more. On some tunes the entire spectrum was on the airy side and that was quickly resolved by cutting off the noise reduction switch which in effect brightens tone along the lines of going from a lo gain to hi gain input. This also cut apparent bass but that was either complimentary to tunes or left bass adequate at worse.

Tubes provided most of the rawness exhibited in tone but the pup had a nice punch/bulge on the E and A strings and some growl to tone. The description to this point may sound less than stellar but the pup put out useable, quality tone, with minimal effort. A moderately appealing unique character to tone at times that I can't put a finger on. The likes of which blended in with a majority of tunes but was quite apparent in about 10% or so.

Volume, sensitivity, tone, cut, and clarity fairly balanced across the board with no variations of any significance that weren't effectively and easily compensated for. No flexibility in fading strings noticed but not an issue as it "self-adjusted" to tunes in that sense. Worked to all tunes passably, better than average to at least 25%, excelled at maybe 15%. No solo tones noticed.

Update on the neck pup:

To make a long story short the neck pup works well by itself and with the bridge pup. From what I can tell, most pup sets are the same pups with same tone just different sizes. Done more than my share of swapping them back and forth. You move the same pup from the bridge up the neck and it gets louder, darker, less defined and generally less raw and less responsive. This pup is no exception. One reason I prefer bridge pups is I like clearer more raw/responsive tone. That doesn't mean you can't have such qualities at the neck position, it's just the exception and not the rule. And there are always exceptions it seems.

Frequency Spread (highest value is 10 and the TB won't allow for the columns to align but they're in sequence and merely need be shifted over)

Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K

2, 7, 3.5, 3, 2, 0, .5


FLUFF:

I've always been primarily a bridge player and continue to migrate to a single pup setup. The bass actually had a pair in it but I just played through the bridge. More and more I find the right single pup properly located is all that's needed. Keep the bass simple and use externals to make the necessary adjustments. Some pups stand alone well and some don't. Seems I've found more use for a neck pup to compensate for some deficiency in a bridge pup rather than having any significant useful variation in tone on it's own or from a mix of the two. I've yet to find a desireable pup that I personally preferred in the neck position as opposed to in mid/P or bridge position. But I continue to check them out and I'll do the same with the Noiseless and update accordingly.

I tinkered with the pups through the Poly combo, QSC power, and mixed in a Sans Di and MXR DI but this run was Art Mic Tube Pre > THD Univalve > Aguilar GS-112.

 

[luknfur]

Shur (of Pensa Shur) Noiseless J (Bridge primarily)

2 plastic coated leads coming off opposite ends of the coil
4 large poles with slightly elevated center poles (look like the early Fender Noiseless)
No marking on the covers
Winding is wrapped with a black tape so don't know what the coil makeup is.

Loaded into an acoustically midranged bass in standard J bridge position. Output better than average. Little hum killed by touching strings. Above average finger transfer but not as much as the Fender Noiseless and not really a problem. Worked well to finger and flatpick. Sensitivity to attack, technique, and hand position above average. Sustain little less than average.

Definitely clearer, brighter, and more lively than the Fender noiseless J and without that distinct hi-fi quality. Not really any warmer than the Fenders but appealing nevertheless. Adequate low end or better, flexible mids, ample controllable top with excessive fingerstransfer when trebled up beyond level 5 on scale of 10. Approaching a vintage Fender single J tone but lacking in the top half - minimal mid transparency and warmth, and treble clarity/brightness/cut. Same with a vintage Fender P tone but much closer to the Fender P tone than J.

Player friendly, not much tweaking to get workable tone. Only adjustment issue was getting trebles to balance with the other ranges with marginal results to some tunes. Too much air presented itelf on several occassons but was easily adjusted out. Good punch/bulge on the E and A strings at times and more than average growl. Some rawness to tone along the lines of a vintage Fender but less pronounced.

Volume, sensitivity, tone, clarity, and cut even across the board for roughly 50% of the tunes. Probably another 30% I compensated with attack for D & G strings that lacked volume/cut and the remaining 20% D & G volume/cut lacked noticeably but not in a major way. Was not apparent from the outset or I'd have adjusted the pup. I'd speculate raising the G side would resolve the issue since the pups are currently set evenly on both sides and both the D & G strings have issue. Tones worked passably to all tunes, better than average to roughly 40% and excelled at about 20%. No controlled fading of strings noticed. No solo tones noted.

Put the neck pup in and adjusted the bridge. Adjusting the bridge resolved the volume/cut issue there. The neck worked well by itself and in combination with the bridge pup and is apparently identical to the bridge pup in makeup cause tone was similar but darker. More hi-fi sounding cause basically what rawness the bridge exhibited was stripped away. Trebling up had the same fingertransfer as the bridge but still put out a very useable tone own it's own. The neck was very responsive to tone adjustment and either the top strings or bottom strings could be controllable faded if desired.

Frequency Spread (highest value is 10 and the TB won't allow for the columns to align but they're in sequence and merely need be shifted over)

Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K

1; 8; 3; 2; 3; 1.5; 0

FLUFF:

This run was MXR M80 > Art Mic Tube pre > THD Univalve > Aguilar GS-112. Used the clear channel on the MXR without the coloring except for Reggae. The MXR fattens the THD bottom up a little and skims off rawness a little but it's pretty transparent otherwise. Hitting the MXR "color switch" really colors tone in the sense I can't get the amp to put out that tone by itself. I tossed in the MXR mainly for 3 band tone control as the THD only has bass/treble and is not as useful as I'd like. The tubes complimented the pup well and produced a nice fat bottom and subtle but noticeable fuzz distortion on the top half tones, also warmed up the tone considerably.

 

[Sound Chaser]

Wow...this is a great thread! How about a review of the Seymour-Duncan Hot Jazz pickups?

 

[luknfur]

Wow...this is a great thread! How about a review of the Seymour-Duncan Hot Jazz pickups?

FWIW:

there's a review on a hot P J hotstack set in the Dimento PJ experiment in the FAQ thread.

Was an early review though and those tend to be minimal. But I've always heavily favored the bridge so, impression wise, it probably wouldn't be much different than my current tendency to run a single J at the bridge. And it should comment as to whether it was a stand alone pup or I thought needed help. But too long ago and don't remember and haven't read that review myself in a LLLLong time.

 

[kratekyle]

Im wondering why this thread is not a sticky? (like Smash's thread)

 

[luknfur]

Im wondering why this thread is not a sticky? (like Smash's thread)

FWIW:

It is, it's in the FAQ section.

 

[luknfur]

ALEMBIC J Bridge w/ALEMBIC PREAMP

Passive low output pup to my knowledge (greenish tint)
Preamp: Vol/vol/tone filter (PJ set with P vol full cut)

Very long winded but these are Alembics and they are different. If you read the Alembic P review you can skip parts in Italics.

Synopsis:

Definitely different, interesting, and unique sound and control arrangement. No cakewalk to get tone when I went fishing but a given tone worked to a broad range of tunes/styles. The filter control results in a fairly sudden phase-like transition from a very dark tone to a treble tone. Typically, both a bass heavy and treble heavy tone can be obtained that will work to each tune. The bass heavy tone, although it worked for virtually all tunes, it's probably too dark a sound for broad spectrum application by most standards - but it's teasingly appealing regardless with cutting mids that make up the top half of the tone. The treble tone is noticeably woody, Grateful Dead sounding. Definitive high frequency finger/flatpick attack followed by a clearly hollow tone - reminiscent of a Beatle Bass tone. Less so in this respect than the Alembic P.

The preamp is different, very passive sounding and the filter control blatantly audibly changes the curve and quality of tone in the process. It doesn't just sound like the same thing boost/cut. This Alembic preamp is hi-fi sounding in the sense that tone is quite clear and dead quiet, sound is passive otherwise.

Pup worked better than average to all tunes but didn't excell to any in particular.

Preamp:

I'll start off with the preamp. The Alembic filter is central to the tone and to me there's no way to seperate the tone of the pups from this filter, especially given that you'd have to cut (or jeri-rig) the Alembic clips to make the pups without it. The tone filter is the only thing that was adjusted with a given setup for this run.

This preamp is different from any of the onboard Bart, Aguilar, EMG or the outboard Sans DI, MXR M80 stuff I've had. These all effectively boost/cut and typically filter some rawness out of passive pup tone, but I don't here them doing much else with the exception of mid switching. The color switch on the MXR and the presence control on the Sans add a nice spin to that. From recall, the NE-1 parametric EQ was closer to this Alembic (esp. on the high frequency band). The Alembic is very passive sounding and the filter control blatantly audibly changes the curve and quality of tone in the process. It doesn't just sound like the same thing boost/cut. This is more what I expected preamps to do when I first got them and how I'd prefer them designed (especially if tone could be more easily dialed in). Makes me wonder about the Sad pre's, another untried arena. This Alembic preamp is hi-fi sounding in the sense that tone is quite clear and dead quiet, sound is passive otherwise.

Definitely different, interesting, and unique sound and control arrangement. The filter control results in a fairly sudden phase-like transition from a very dark tone to a treble tone. There is a small window of "midrange" transition but it's probably no more than about 10% of the control travel. So tone was for the most part divided into a dark or top half tone. Typically, both a bass heavy and treble heavy tone can be obtained that will work to each tune. Sometimes a tone will dial in and sync up to each tune not unlike harmonic tuning - drawing in, locking in, and fading in and out as the filter control is adjusted. Unlike harmonic tuning, the sync'ing up is sometimes very definitive, other times shades of gray, and still other times it's more a case of ruling out what doesn't work than what does.

A couple interesting things about the tone which I assume is more associated to the filter than pups. First, minimal changes in the filter setting can also make a significant difference depending. I was also struck at how big sounds at low volume could be. Aside from the obvious change in the frequency curve and in addition to controlling fade on strings, the filter could also seem to alter the shape of the note itelf. Four of those variations I found quite useful. In synch, it would be a clear defined note across the board. Rotating the filter from there would vary clarity: 2) the bottom half could retain some definition and seem to spread out while the top half retained most of it's definition 3) the bottom half could seem to practically disappear yet return a presence while the top half carried the note with warm midrange focus (ala Fender) 4) the bottom half could becoming a wall of sound while the top still had noticeable definition.

Still, it's no cakewalk to find a predictable tone with this filter. However, since the J tone was more adaptable to tunes without adjustment, it wasn't the nightmare with a song change that the P was. But it is a less severe form of the same experience when I went fishing for tone.

The pre also has a gain trim pot which I've read statements to the effect that the pup height doesn't matter with Alembics (Barts typically have a similar gain pot) cause you can simply increase the gain to compensate. Don't agree with that becuase the pickup senses the strings differently at different height's and these Alembics are no different in that respect. Even if gain were to affect tone, it's not going to be the same effect as altering pup height. I personally didn't find altering the gain control to be of much use. It did indicate it would be of use for boosting output or removing distortion if that were needed.

Pup Run:

Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass at the bridge. Plenty of output. Dead quiet. Finger and pic transfer blatant when trebled up but not an issue to tones to tunes. Finger and flatpick transfer complimented tone for the most part. Sensitivity to attack, technique, and hand position above average. Any errors - fretting, timing, etc. - are made known. Little less than average sustain.

Quite the reverse experience of the Alembic P pup. I literally played through 1/4 of the tunes without touching the tone filter or the amp and it worked fine. Given the P was on the nightmare side I was reluctant to touch anything initially. But doing so was not suicidal as it turned out. The J was a much more user friendly pup. About half of the filter spectrum was useable to a tune and half not. There was some sync'ing up in tone similar to the P pup but not as much. And even then, there was workable range around it.

Not killer tone but there are some interesting tones to be had, very useable, often with the Alembic quality spin to it, and perhaps nuances that perhaps may be quite useful recording but not so apparent live. The J did have an appealing swell to tone not apparent in the P. It also had the woody/hollow "tong" tone (Beatle Bass/Grateful Dead quality) aspect to tone like the P, but to a lessor degree. Mild to low moderate punch, bulge, and growl that could garduate to snarl at times - depending on setting but pretty much all on the top half of the filter. Bit of a buzz/fuzz to tone at times. Generally a soft quality to tone. Worked well to J and P tunes and passable Ric tone. Marginal slap with no solo tones noted.

Strings balanced across the board was not an issue with the J as with the P. Although string balance could readily be thrown off by the filter, it could also be reigned in to workable tone. The lack of clarity issue with the E string was also not an issue with the J as it was with the P. There was considerable control of string fading, but unlike the P, as much was useful as was not - including some ability to fade the E/A or D/G strings in pairs which I've find useful.

Quite a bit of useable versatility to tone from the neck to bridge by altering hand position. Tone resulting from use of a flatpick shifted tone from background/blending to out front and enhanced woodiness. Unlike the P pup, there was useable variation to the same tone by varying hand position. With the P, it was essentially isolated to one spot for a given tone and changing postion required a change in the filter for it to work.

Pup worked better than average to pretty much all tunes but didn't really excell to any per se'. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut was even across the board for tone to tune.

FLUFF:

This is an Alembic J from an old Activator-like PJ set. For this run I just full cut the P volume and maxed the J volume. The J volume control (all controls have a PCB) for whatever reason responds differently than the P volume control to the filter control. With the J volume control maxed and filter full "cut", bass drops out and overall volume drops significantly. I briefly hooked the P up to this same pot and got similar response. With the P volume pot maxed and filter full "cut", the pup just continues to get darker. Whether they respond similar throughout the rest of the filter spectrum I don't know, but it is definitely different on the "cut" end.

The pups are apparently low output passives and have no internal preamp. The preamp to my knowledge is an AE-1 or it's predecessor - two volumes and a filter control. I've played this J through an SS combo, an SS power amp, and a tube head. Response was similar in all cases.

 

[luknfur]

AFFECT OF A CERAMIC MAGNET ON TONE IN A FENDER NOISELESS J PICKUP

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

In a way this has turned out to be much to do about nothing. But it's done, and now it's posted, for what it's worth. At any rate, a quick read down through the Synopsis would likely suffice for all but the curious.

Making pickups is neither an art nor a science but both. Personally, I could care less about making them but I do care about using them. As a result I don't make an attempt to retain and assemble technical aspects of the process, the ear will tell me what I need to know. But periodically an opportunity presents itself that seems too opportunistic to pass on.

Among posts regarding tone and magnet composition, someone posted a thread inquiring about the affect on tone of the ceramic bars placed on the bottom of some pups. Lit reviews indicate bits and pieces of affects of ceramic mags on tone that I don't recall. I do recall that primarily ceramic mags brighten tone along with the qualities associated. I have found that to be consistent with MM pickups at the least. I have no awareness of an experience to contradict that ceramic mags brighten tone.

I've had Bongo's which are Neo mag and they sound nothing like other MM style pups. Given the Bongo pup looks more like the guts of a laptop than the guts of a pickup, the Neos may have little to do with the tone.

In terms of alnico, lit reviews indicate the larger the number the brighter the tone, Alnico 8 being brighter than Alnico 5.

In summation, here is an excerpt by Rick Turner to a thread and the related link:

For instance, the statement that magnets have no tone is true, but in a magnetic circuit they affect the inductance of the coil which does affect tone. Everything in a pickup affects tone.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=221307&highlight=alnico+magnets


Oddly enough, I bought a set of Fender Noiseless J's out of a Victor Bailey (VB) that had ceramic mags on the base and I already had a set of Fender Noisless J's with no such ceramic magnet. So by coincidence, the opportunity arose to do a comparison.

Synopsis:

The VB ceramic mag was roughly 33% brighter. In spite of DC resistance of the pups being the same, the ceramic pup also had roughly 33% lower output than the non-ceramic. Supposedly ceramic mags are more sensitive than alnico and should have higher output all else equal. If so, the ceramics should have had more output if anything, especially given their slightly higher output location in the bass. That's an indication there is something else that's different between these two pups other than just the presence or absence of a ceramic magnet. Which is to say that, in this experiment, any tonal variation between the two pups definitely could not be isolated to the presence or absence of the ceramic magnet alone.


Method:

I mounted one of each of the Noiseless bridge pups in a bass in mid-position, side-by-side, as close as I could. The ceramic VB in "neck" position and non-ceramic in "bridge" position. Even so the mag distance from one pup to the other was still 1 1/8", which is slightly significant and basically equivalent to the relationship between split P's. Signal chain was bass stereo out> switchable box with single output> Polytone Mini Brute V channel 1 (two band with bass/treble set flat with tweeter on or off depending).

Experiment:

I simply played a run from the 2nd to 14th fret covering all strings, threw the switch and did the same to the other pup, and compared the two. Did this numerous times with the tweeter off then repeated the same with tweeter on. Then with the tweeter off to ceramic VB pup and tweeter on to the non-ceramic (trying to draw more likeness to tone).

Results:

Blantantly obvious was the ceramic mag had at least 1/3 less output than the non-ceramic. The amp volume control was then adjusted to equal output. The VB ceramic was clearly brighter, thinner, with more noise than the non-ceramic. The frequency variation of the VB was roughly 1/3 more bright than the non-ceramic, this even though the ceramic mag was located in the inherently darker "neck" position. This tonal variation remained, though distinctly less so, even with the tweeter off for the brighter ceramic and on for the darker non-ceramic.

The quality of tone overall was VERY similar between the pups and the VB ceramic was in effect a lower output brighter version of the same thing.

Uncontrolled Variables:

Exactly how identical these pups are aside from the ceramic magnets I don't know.

The DCR (resistance) of the pups was the same. The lower output of the ceramic VB may be explained through Fenders known application of the VB pups going in a bass to be used in conjunction with a preamp. Where they adjusted for that I don't know.

To my knowledge, they both have alnico 8 magnets. The ceramic mags on the bottom of the VB are fairly substantial at 3/16" thickness covering the full width and 90% of the length of the pup base.

I'd removed the covers and compared the construction upon removal from the bass. The poles of the VB are gold plated, flat top with a very slight bevel whereas the poles of the non-ceramic have a seirous bevel, almost dome topped, and are chrome plated. Both have significantly elevated center poles. They are both stacked humbuckers and appear to be constructed identically with same type/gauge winding. The non-ceramic's have a signficantly stronger magnetic draw to metallic objects.

Conclusions:

Obviously the VB ceramic was brighter with lower output. I was taken back by the output variation relative to DCR. The output variation to me indicates there's something significantly different about the construction of the pup aside from the presence or absence of a ceramic magnet. That tonal variaton exhibited by these two different pickups is a result of the ceramic magnet alone is unbiasedly unlikely and at best non-conclusive.

 

[luknfur]

A QUICK FOLLOW-UP ON DC RESISTANCE

I post this as a reference and follow-up to the previous post and resolution to the contradiction in the DCR and output of Fender Noiseless pups.

In a nutshell, apparently there are mixes in variables (pickup materials, design, construction) that will throw the direct postiive correlation between pickup output and DCR out the window, although in general it is so. From what I gather, if all factors are equal in material, design, and construction excluding winding parameters affecting resistance, it should invariably be so. The optimal demonstration is the same pup in series/parallel.

The Fender Noiseless pups are the first blatant contradiction to that general rule I'm aware of. DCR is not something I've consciously monitored. I routinely check pups with a meter on arrival before installing them just to inspect integrity but that's it short of trouble-shooting.

This current conclusion has come from a few different sources. A correspondent who is more into technical aspects than I am and has had some personal experience and contact with established and respected builders and there have also been a few statements contributed in threads by Cary Nordstrand and Rick Turner in particular that lend creedence. So don't be suprised to run across such people stating that DCR means little in and of itself or shocked to find a pair of humbuckers where one with a DCR of 6K has blatantly more ouput than one with a DCR of 12.

If anybody knows this to be inaccurate, let me know.