Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Dr. DIMENTO'S ONGOING "PJ" PUP EXPERIMENT
- Thread starter luknfur
- Start date
I've been working w/ Brian from BestBassGear & Tom from Bartolini, coming up w/ thoughts for my application. Just ordered an 8SU w/ a 9J-L1 & a NTBT from Brian...
Went w/ a brighter P pup, because I went w/ Black Korina, & Wenge, & was worried the 8S was going to be too dark... w/ the mid/low heavy wood combo... Plus, its easier to EQ-OUT too much brightness, than it is to pump it up.
Once I get all assembled, I'll let you know what I think.
Went w/ a brighter P pup, because I went w/ Black Korina, & Wenge, & was worried the 8S was going to be too dark... w/ the mid/low heavy wood combo... Plus, its easier to EQ-OUT too much brightness, than it is to pump it up.
Once I get all assembled, I'll let you know what I think.
McHack said:
Ok, waiting on the folks at Bartolini to deliver an 8SU to Brian was driving me insane, so modified my pup selection.
What I wound up using is, an 8CBP & a 9J#1 w/ the NTBT.
Here's my initial impressions... Forgive my vagueness, because these are in my new bass & as the whole instrument is new to me,,, its a whole familiarization process...
First off, I was worried this combo would be really dark sounding. Granted, its definately got a fat bottom, its not what I would call dark or muddy at all... Maybe its the unfamiliar strings, they're really zingy. But, its definitely got hardcore midrangy burp.
Anyway, P pup is quite a bit hotter than the J pup. I did NOT go w/ an 8S, because I was worried about a dark, bottom heavy wood combination,, mixed w/ a dark bottom heavy pup. Well, the 8CBP is NOT dark. Don't get me wrong, its got a seriously fat, & deep bottom to it, but its really more of top to bottom pup. It's got quite a bit of bite to it as well. The 9J is definately much mellower & has less output than the P pup.
With this combo, in order to get the J sound, you've gotta turn OFF the p pup, & up the volume. Bridge pups tend to be a little anemic anyway.
Anyway, It sounds great. The actions a little low for me, & the strings are really zingy, but these are things I'm adjusting to.
McHack said:
At the moment they're installed, in fact, I kind of keep them installed for days when I can't seem to find a bass with a tone I like. But I know from reading my own review the back of P was expoxy and unmarked and the J was a 9J-L. I'm assuming they're the standard deep tone PJ's, the P being an 8S. I haven't had other Bart PJ's but I'd guess the PJ combo's would be a safer bet for getting a tone you could live than a J set. I've had enough Bart J's to know they can vary considerably.
Something that just came to mind is, the two pups I used are NOT voice matched... But, I kind of like it like that. It makes for a more versatile setup.
I haven't had time to work out all the angles of versaility you could get out of it, but frankly I'm not that versatile of a player... I slap for ****, & am a die-hard finger style player. I can't even spell pikc right... see... But, someone I know is a MUCH better & more versatile player, who's messed with it was able to get all kindsa of useful tones out of it.
I haven't had time to work out all the angles of versaility you could get out of it, but frankly I'm not that versatile of a player... I slap for ****, & am a die-hard finger style player. I can't even spell pikc right... see... But, someone I know is a MUCH better & more versatile player, who's messed with it was able to get all kindsa of useful tones out of it.
McHack said:
Yeh, you can get lucky with a mismatch sometimes. Definitely a way to get a non-mainstream tone. I run pups straight to jacks so there's no such thing as a mismatch in the normal sense - as in impedence. Of course the player can make more difference than anything. Licks aside, technique and knowing how to get tone.
luknfur said:
Good point... Ya know whats funny is, this bass sounds pretty dang good w/ the preamp off... When I turn ON the pre, I almost don't know what to do with it!!
McHack said:
You rrrrrrreally don't won't to get me started on the preamp thing, onboards that is. Suffice it to say to date I have not found preamps to be pickup friendly gadgets. It was just last night I was messing with the Bart Bass and experimenting with variations in signal degradation from running direct, through pots, and through preamps. Hopefully soon I'll be posting something of some use that makes sense.
FENDER MIA PJ's (P from a 2001 MIA P and J bridge from 2001 MIA Jazz)
Two wire (plastic coated) passive single coils
Reaized I had both a Fender 2001 P and J pup (though not a set from a PJ bass) and was curious as to how they'd work together. At any rate, they very well could have been a matched pair and, in deed, these pups are a good compliment for each other and struck me as more appealing than they did ran in the P bass and J bass configuration. Regardless, hadn't done a PJ review for a while so it seemed in order.
Loaded into an acoustically bright bass. Volume about 15% below average. Typical single coil hum. Sensitivity average or less. Noticeable finger transfer but nothing that was a problem.
Initial thoughts were along the lines of a studio bass. Very identifiable Fender tone and qualities. Nothing to get excited about (if you're a bass player anyway, maybe a sound engineer) but a solid team-player tone that worked well. Tone varied depending on the tune. Some tunes were a fairly plain J tone with a P thud. Some there was moderate J warmth and rawness. Some had bulge on E & A strings and growl, though fairly minimal - more so with the "fuzz" tone addressed hereafter.
Pretty mid oriented pups. The mids were typically near maximum cut with very little adjustment needed to dial a useable tone. For most tones played to music, generally low mid range oriented tone. Treble tones were rounded and could have easily been boosted beyond useable tone. Sometimes I would have liked more bass but the pups easily become boomie when bass was increased much.
Some trouble with mid range at times for some tunes - mostly lacking definition. Initially I thought I'd get it adjusted out but the problem persisted. As a result, I swapped the pup channels on the amp (neck pup to 3 band and bridge to 2 band). I had a similar experience with some SD Ric pups and it resolved so thought I'd try it with these PJs. Doing so remedied the mid issue and also added a tasteful "fuzz" tone that was very similar to a Carvin MM pup I play through - and struck me as having more tonal flexibility than the Carvin (in series anyway) . About the last 25% of the tunes were played this way.
Pups played acceptably or better to all of the tunes, though not excelling at any. The "fuzz" tone was very useable and worked better to tunes than without it. Volume, sesnitivity, clarity, and cut were even across the board for the tones played to tunes. No solo sounds noted.
Two wire (plastic coated) passive single coils
Reaized I had both a Fender 2001 P and J pup (though not a set from a PJ bass) and was curious as to how they'd work together. At any rate, they very well could have been a matched pair and, in deed, these pups are a good compliment for each other and struck me as more appealing than they did ran in the P bass and J bass configuration. Regardless, hadn't done a PJ review for a while so it seemed in order.
Loaded into an acoustically bright bass. Volume about 15% below average. Typical single coil hum. Sensitivity average or less. Noticeable finger transfer but nothing that was a problem.
Initial thoughts were along the lines of a studio bass. Very identifiable Fender tone and qualities. Nothing to get excited about (if you're a bass player anyway, maybe a sound engineer) but a solid team-player tone that worked well. Tone varied depending on the tune. Some tunes were a fairly plain J tone with a P thud. Some there was moderate J warmth and rawness. Some had bulge on E & A strings and growl, though fairly minimal - more so with the "fuzz" tone addressed hereafter.
Pretty mid oriented pups. The mids were typically near maximum cut with very little adjustment needed to dial a useable tone. For most tones played to music, generally low mid range oriented tone. Treble tones were rounded and could have easily been boosted beyond useable tone. Sometimes I would have liked more bass but the pups easily become boomie when bass was increased much.
Some trouble with mid range at times for some tunes - mostly lacking definition. Initially I thought I'd get it adjusted out but the problem persisted. As a result, I swapped the pup channels on the amp (neck pup to 3 band and bridge to 2 band). I had a similar experience with some SD Ric pups and it resolved so thought I'd try it with these PJs. Doing so remedied the mid issue and also added a tasteful "fuzz" tone that was very similar to a Carvin MM pup I play through - and struck me as having more tonal flexibility than the Carvin (in series anyway) . About the last 25% of the tunes were played this way.
Pups played acceptably or better to all of the tunes, though not excelling at any. The "fuzz" tone was very useable and worked better to tunes than without it. Volume, sesnitivity, clarity, and cut were even across the board for the tones played to tunes. No solo sounds noted.
Thanks for the review. This is the set in my MIM P Bass Special and I had been interested as to what your impressions would be.
Tom P said:
Seems the specials came with MIA pups so I'd guess those must be stock then? Also assume there's no preamp? Regardless, since you've got a different bass, different gear, proably different strings, and different ears; what's your impression of the pups?
Yes, the MIA pickups are/were stock on the MIM Specials. No preamp, alder bod and RW neck would not classify this as a "bright" bass. I'm using TI Flatwounds. Amp is a SWR LA 12. Clearly an entry level rig but thats approptiate for me. I am an experienced guitarist but have only been playing bass for 4 mos now and as such, don't have a great sampling of flavors to compare them to.
I would agree on several points of your review. Although the guitar is shielded (nice touch - stock cavity paint shielding) there is some humbuzz. They seem to my ears to be a fine representation of a Fender tone. I also feel that the mixed combo offers a nice variety of sounds by dialing in various levels of P and J and working the tone knob.
I have Lawrence pickups in my guitars and am considering a swap if I find a set.
I've got not major issues with the pickups and overall I'm very happy with the bass.
I would agree on several points of your review. Although the guitar is shielded (nice touch - stock cavity paint shielding) there is some humbuzz. They seem to my ears to be a fine representation of a Fender tone. I also feel that the mixed combo offers a nice variety of sounds by dialing in various levels of P and J and working the tone knob.
I have Lawrence pickups in my guitars and am considering a swap if I find a set.
I've got not major issues with the pickups and overall I'm very happy with the bass.
IBANEZ PJ's (from passive 2000 GSR 200)
Some time back, out of curiosity, I ran some low-end pups I'd acquired in a package deal. Even though low-end, they had a decent reputation (specifically PV Foundation super ferrites and Epiphone Thunderbirds) so it made me wonder what a stock set of Ibanez pups I had would do - since I hadn't played them in years since getting the bass.
Loaded in an acoustically midrange bass. Ouptut about average. Typical hum I get through my setup killed by touching strings. Sensitivity about average, less on some settings, more on others. No finger transfer of any consequence.
Primarily midrange pups with lows that were lacking at times. Top end was rounded and could be adjusted in or out as needed but not bright pups. On a number of occassions had trouble getting the low end, midrange, and top end all where I wanted them, only pulling off mid and lows or mid and highs. Easy for the midrange to become on the boxy side without mids cut, bass cut and trebles increased (considerably more than usual). Clarity of the pups was about average, less on some settings more on others.
Nevertheless, the pups put out a fairly appealing midrange J tone with more growl than usual and rawness that worked very well to some tunes and, in general, IMO was more appealing than tones put out by many of the popular (Bart, SD, etc.) after market pups. Seems BP had a fairly decent review on the Ibanez GSR not that long ago. Apparently the newer ones have a preamp but I'd doubt the pups are any different. BP gets a bad rap from some people but I haven't found any of their reviews to be out of line with my personal experiences.
The pups had a dull punch to them at some settings that was different and interesting. Also a fuzzy, warm, crunch oriented, Fender-like J tone but was more full and less transparent than typical Fender. Growl was also more full and less transparent and thin than a Fender growl. I prefer the Fender growl but this was something different anyway.
Pups played acceptably or better to all tunes, excelling at maybe 20%. Volume, sensitivity, clairty, and cut fairly even across the board. Struck me as pups that could easily get you by or better but also as not quite being there in terms of a steady player. There were fairly consistently close but not quite the tone I wanted. I don't think I've ran a set of pups that were so consistently close to getting the desired tone without being there. Yet they were better than the majority of the pups I've ran.
Another issue of mention here is my left ear has been plugged up for the last few days for some wierd reason and that may have some bearing on picking low frequencies.
Some time back, out of curiosity, I ran some low-end pups I'd acquired in a package deal. Even though low-end, they had a decent reputation (specifically PV Foundation super ferrites and Epiphone Thunderbirds) so it made me wonder what a stock set of Ibanez pups I had would do - since I hadn't played them in years since getting the bass.
Loaded in an acoustically midrange bass. Ouptut about average. Typical hum I get through my setup killed by touching strings. Sensitivity about average, less on some settings, more on others. No finger transfer of any consequence.
Primarily midrange pups with lows that were lacking at times. Top end was rounded and could be adjusted in or out as needed but not bright pups. On a number of occassions had trouble getting the low end, midrange, and top end all where I wanted them, only pulling off mid and lows or mid and highs. Easy for the midrange to become on the boxy side without mids cut, bass cut and trebles increased (considerably more than usual). Clarity of the pups was about average, less on some settings more on others.
Nevertheless, the pups put out a fairly appealing midrange J tone with more growl than usual and rawness that worked very well to some tunes and, in general, IMO was more appealing than tones put out by many of the popular (Bart, SD, etc.) after market pups. Seems BP had a fairly decent review on the Ibanez GSR not that long ago. Apparently the newer ones have a preamp but I'd doubt the pups are any different. BP gets a bad rap from some people but I haven't found any of their reviews to be out of line with my personal experiences.
The pups had a dull punch to them at some settings that was different and interesting. Also a fuzzy, warm, crunch oriented, Fender-like J tone but was more full and less transparent than typical Fender. Growl was also more full and less transparent and thin than a Fender growl. I prefer the Fender growl but this was something different anyway.
Pups played acceptably or better to all tunes, excelling at maybe 20%. Volume, sensitivity, clairty, and cut fairly even across the board. Struck me as pups that could easily get you by or better but also as not quite being there in terms of a steady player. There were fairly consistently close but not quite the tone I wanted. I don't think I've ran a set of pups that were so consistently close to getting the desired tone without being there. Yet they were better than the majority of the pups I've ran.
Another issue of mention here is my left ear has been plugged up for the last few days for some wierd reason and that may have some bearing on picking low frequencies.
FENDER PROPHECY III PJ's & GUTS (volume, bass, treble, blend)
Passive epoxied 3 wire J (3rd lead goes to ground plate)
Passive epoxied 2 wire P (pup grounded to plate and terminal lead ran off plate)
Stock 2 band preamp
Loaded into an acoustically mindrange bass. Output better than average. Hum killed by touching strings. Sensitivity to attack better than average. About average sensitivity to variations in position/technique, maybe a little better. Average sustain. Some finger/flat pick transfer but nothing of consequence. Worked well to finger and flat pic.
Pretty decent setup. No excitement and fun with the tone but just good, solid bass tone. Very versatile. No real variation in sounds per se' but LOTS of variation in tones from the sound it had. J tone was different than the P but you could tell it was the same bass - if that makes any sense. Loosely put, I could play about any tone variation to about any tune and it would work - it'd just be different. It's very possible I could pull considerable improvement from these pups with more time. It was just so easy to get tones to work that there was no motivation to be jumping around on the controls. No quality vintage Fender P or J tone to be had it's got P and J tone.
The pups had an active, hi-fi quality to the tone. It felt and sounded that way and that's what I'd think I was playing if not for the hum. There was a clarity and cut to all tones. Tones could go deep and fat yet retain clarity. Distinctly soft tones, fairly thumpy, leaning more to P than J in nature for most of the settings I played at. Some punch, bulge, and growl. Farily even frequency distribution of lows, mids, and highs. In fact there was a thick monotone quality and not enough seperation between frequencies at times. But tones could be thinned and seperation could be had as well. The top end can be made thin and bright but not peircing, glassy. Useable tones throughout the span of the blend control. J and P with sufficient output to use alone. Definetly adequate boost from treble and bass pots, seldom above the detents. I noticed odd strings could fade from the mix depending on setting and tune but it wasn't anything that couldn't be worked around with minimal effort.
Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board. Pups worked passably or better to all tunes and better than average to maybe 20% - a real ballpark figure. As mentioned previously, there was no push to make them work. There were many times when I just wanted some rawness or edge to get them over the top - but they're basically refined in nature. Chucking the pre may do it.
FLUFF:
Prophecy III is a rare Japanese bird with some English thrown in (Heartfield) and didn't last long. Apparently a pretty decent bass but undermarketed and didn't fly. Nothing unusual about that. The only reason Gibson didn't cancel the Les Paul before it ever caught on was because Les Paul himself intervened. Supposedly the Aerodyne is a later day version of the Prophecy. The Prophecy was supposedly a good bass for slap. Unfortunately, the strings on this bass are too high for me to slap comfortably (and so tolerate the output) to really check it out. I never really noticed the string height issue on this bass that I can recall. Maybe I'll add an update if I stick them in another bass. This is the Marcus Miller pup bass so I'm not jacking with the string height.
Bought the pups and got the guts with them so dropped them in too cause they'd actually fit in one of my basses with a minimal amount of misery - what a shock. Been a LLLLLLLLLLong time since I've played pups with guts. Good for me to do every blue moon to refresh me as to why I abandoned it to begin with. So much junk in the control bay (has those older fairly rigid, ribbon-type leads between pups) that I had to tape the battery outside the bass just to run it. Will do a run with the pups alone and see how pre no pre compare. But the pre seemed pretty decent actually.
Passive epoxied 3 wire J (3rd lead goes to ground plate)
Passive epoxied 2 wire P (pup grounded to plate and terminal lead ran off plate)
Stock 2 band preamp
Loaded into an acoustically mindrange bass. Output better than average. Hum killed by touching strings. Sensitivity to attack better than average. About average sensitivity to variations in position/technique, maybe a little better. Average sustain. Some finger/flat pick transfer but nothing of consequence. Worked well to finger and flat pic.
Pretty decent setup. No excitement and fun with the tone but just good, solid bass tone. Very versatile. No real variation in sounds per se' but LOTS of variation in tones from the sound it had. J tone was different than the P but you could tell it was the same bass - if that makes any sense. Loosely put, I could play about any tone variation to about any tune and it would work - it'd just be different. It's very possible I could pull considerable improvement from these pups with more time. It was just so easy to get tones to work that there was no motivation to be jumping around on the controls. No quality vintage Fender P or J tone to be had it's got P and J tone.
The pups had an active, hi-fi quality to the tone. It felt and sounded that way and that's what I'd think I was playing if not for the hum. There was a clarity and cut to all tones. Tones could go deep and fat yet retain clarity. Distinctly soft tones, fairly thumpy, leaning more to P than J in nature for most of the settings I played at. Some punch, bulge, and growl. Farily even frequency distribution of lows, mids, and highs. In fact there was a thick monotone quality and not enough seperation between frequencies at times. But tones could be thinned and seperation could be had as well. The top end can be made thin and bright but not peircing, glassy. Useable tones throughout the span of the blend control. J and P with sufficient output to use alone. Definetly adequate boost from treble and bass pots, seldom above the detents. I noticed odd strings could fade from the mix depending on setting and tune but it wasn't anything that couldn't be worked around with minimal effort.
Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board. Pups worked passably or better to all tunes and better than average to maybe 20% - a real ballpark figure. As mentioned previously, there was no push to make them work. There were many times when I just wanted some rawness or edge to get them over the top - but they're basically refined in nature. Chucking the pre may do it.
FLUFF:
Prophecy III is a rare Japanese bird with some English thrown in (Heartfield) and didn't last long. Apparently a pretty decent bass but undermarketed and didn't fly. Nothing unusual about that. The only reason Gibson didn't cancel the Les Paul before it ever caught on was because Les Paul himself intervened. Supposedly the Aerodyne is a later day version of the Prophecy. The Prophecy was supposedly a good bass for slap. Unfortunately, the strings on this bass are too high for me to slap comfortably (and so tolerate the output) to really check it out. I never really noticed the string height issue on this bass that I can recall. Maybe I'll add an update if I stick them in another bass. This is the Marcus Miller pup bass so I'm not jacking with the string height.
Bought the pups and got the guts with them so dropped them in too cause they'd actually fit in one of my basses with a minimal amount of misery - what a shock. Been a LLLLLLLLLLong time since I've played pups with guts. Good for me to do every blue moon to refresh me as to why I abandoned it to begin with. So much junk in the control bay (has those older fairly rigid, ribbon-type leads between pups) that I had to tape the battery outside the bass just to run it. Will do a run with the pups alone and see how pre no pre compare. But the pre seemed pretty decent actually.
DIMARZIO MODEL P & MODEL J (set 2)
both 4 lead humcanceling adjustable allen screw bi-poles
First, reading "Fluff" at the end of this review is definetly recommended.
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass with J wired in series and P in parallel. The model J is actually a neck pup in bridge position but, to my knowledge, the only difference is the length of the pups. Output - above average. Some hum killed by touching strings (I didn't revese wire these so they should be dead quiet wired as such). No finger/pic transfer of consequence except marginally when bass was cut and treble upped, which was not a frequent tone employed anyway. Workd well to fingerstyle and flatpick. Overall sensivity to attack, hand position, and techniqe noticeably better than average - depended on setting. Tone could be cleared up, muddied up, or strings faded to suit taste with decent flexibility. Noticeably better than average sustain.
In general a warm, thumpy, punchy low mid PJ mix (suprise suprise). But it really was a blatant blend of both. Sensitivity on the punch was marked depending on the setting - with the right setting you could blow hats off the front rows with a misplaced dig without compression. The pups combined seemed almost as responsive as the single J when bass was cut and or treble up a bit. Again, sensitive to subtle adjustment in controls - including mids to a lessor degree. The amp is mid heavy so increasing mids at all tended to muddy up tone which these pups don't need help with. On the J alone I don't think I ever had mids off full cut and with the P alone not very often. With the PJ setup mid adjustment was more useful.
Too thin of bass was an issue on several tones to tunes but moving hand position toward the neck filled it out adequately - but the bite on higher frequencies with the same tone was back at the J pup on several tunes and I found myself bouncing back and forth which just throws more needed skill into the mix to get the job done. Bass was otherwise adequate to ample. Again, a little adjustment went a long way although the need for adjustment was fairly frequent from tune to tune.
Trebles were also very useful, responsive, frequently adjusted, and also worked within a narrow band of a couple steps on the controls. Upping treble excessively didn't make tone harsh or brittle, it would just thin and fade or make tone boxie.
A common experience was a distinct, brass wind color to tone. Tuba-like in low end (nice raspy rawness), mellowed French Horn mid when the edge was removed, with some scattered trombone. Little bizarre sounding I guess but that's what came to mind periodically throughout the session - and I haven't been listening to horns lately so no recent influence. At any rate, the obvious application to a fretless is a thought.
In accord, the pups exhibited an appealing heaping of rawness. Punch, some growl, fuzz, crunch, aggressiveness - general glimpses otherwise of qualities mentioned in the model J run (punchy, bulgey, percussive, growly, crunchy, gritty, fussing, buzzing, aggressive, in your face pups). Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut fairly balanced across the board for tone to tunes. Bass volume and cut at times could be noticeably more or less responsive/sensitive depending on setting. Overall the pups are cut monsters, will slice through about anything, and the louder the music the better they cut - to a suprising degree with amp volume unchanged.
Played to all tunes, at minimum, average or better. Excelled at roughly 25%. A myriad of variations of P/PJ tone. Some unique tones and a decent vintage Fender P tone. Some useable solo tone.
In general, fun pups to play but a fair share of tweaking and skill required. The LPMM/soap combo was sweet but different. This pup combo is hard to beat, great value, and at this point would be my set of choice if I had to be shackled to one set of pups.
FREQUENCY SPREAD (maximum value is 10 which is most pronounced and the TB format won't allow the columns to line up but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over). to mean anything they have to be compared to something - like the following post Model P Ultra J run:
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
3.5 8 3 1.5 2 .5 0
FLUFF:
I hadn't even realized I'd already had this pair in the DP 126's. In fact I had just started doing these reviews when I had the last set. 2 reviews are fairly consistent for the combo. Doubt I'd have moved the first set on if it hadn't been an early set.
I did a review of these pups individually first and they're listed in the P and J experiments respectively (linksfollow). So those are recommended reads for a fact given the nature of these pups as worthy stand alones and the fact they sound different alone than together. It will also give a better appreciation of the unique range available from this pair of pickups. The only time I used a pup individually in this run was to compare it to the combined tone.
J: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2115173#post2115173
P: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127322&page=3&highlight=experiment
My natural inclination is to accent the bridge and use a neck pup to flavor cause I favor the tone of a bridge pup, but doing so in this case was counterproductive for the most part - with exception of more bulge on E & A strings. I found that accenting the J and flavoring with the P not only subtracted from the unique qualities mentioned in the J experiment, but effectively canceled the desireable characteristics and enhanced those undesireable - in general lacking clarity or sounding boxie. That was using roughly my standard 3 bridge to 1 neck volume adjustment. Before this session was complete, a slight increase of bridge volume over neck volume did produce a very useable tone.
Running them at a 50/50 mix or favoring the P somewhat was productive in terms of expanding the quality and useable range of the P. Although there was the similar affect with the J of losing some of the unique character of the P when used alone. Adding some J filled in most of the voids exhibited by the P alone and basically took on many of the positive qualities of the J used alone - just to a lessor degree. I didn't explore going heavy on the P cuase it was working very well as it was yet was significantly different in tone from the P or J alone. Adjusting tone control, varying technique, and hand position is all that was necessary. At some point in the future I'll up the P and comment accordingly.
both 4 lead humcanceling adjustable allen screw bi-poles
First, reading "Fluff" at the end of this review is definetly recommended.
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass with J wired in series and P in parallel. The model J is actually a neck pup in bridge position but, to my knowledge, the only difference is the length of the pups. Output - above average. Some hum killed by touching strings (I didn't revese wire these so they should be dead quiet wired as such). No finger/pic transfer of consequence except marginally when bass was cut and treble upped, which was not a frequent tone employed anyway. Workd well to fingerstyle and flatpick. Overall sensivity to attack, hand position, and techniqe noticeably better than average - depended on setting. Tone could be cleared up, muddied up, or strings faded to suit taste with decent flexibility. Noticeably better than average sustain.
In general a warm, thumpy, punchy low mid PJ mix (suprise suprise). But it really was a blatant blend of both. Sensitivity on the punch was marked depending on the setting - with the right setting you could blow hats off the front rows with a misplaced dig without compression. The pups combined seemed almost as responsive as the single J when bass was cut and or treble up a bit. Again, sensitive to subtle adjustment in controls - including mids to a lessor degree. The amp is mid heavy so increasing mids at all tended to muddy up tone which these pups don't need help with. On the J alone I don't think I ever had mids off full cut and with the P alone not very often. With the PJ setup mid adjustment was more useful.
Too thin of bass was an issue on several tones to tunes but moving hand position toward the neck filled it out adequately - but the bite on higher frequencies with the same tone was back at the J pup on several tunes and I found myself bouncing back and forth which just throws more needed skill into the mix to get the job done. Bass was otherwise adequate to ample. Again, a little adjustment went a long way although the need for adjustment was fairly frequent from tune to tune.
Trebles were also very useful, responsive, frequently adjusted, and also worked within a narrow band of a couple steps on the controls. Upping treble excessively didn't make tone harsh or brittle, it would just thin and fade or make tone boxie.
A common experience was a distinct, brass wind color to tone. Tuba-like in low end (nice raspy rawness), mellowed French Horn mid when the edge was removed, with some scattered trombone. Little bizarre sounding I guess but that's what came to mind periodically throughout the session - and I haven't been listening to horns lately so no recent influence. At any rate, the obvious application to a fretless is a thought.
In accord, the pups exhibited an appealing heaping of rawness. Punch, some growl, fuzz, crunch, aggressiveness - general glimpses otherwise of qualities mentioned in the model J run (punchy, bulgey, percussive, growly, crunchy, gritty, fussing, buzzing, aggressive, in your face pups). Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut fairly balanced across the board for tone to tunes. Bass volume and cut at times could be noticeably more or less responsive/sensitive depending on setting. Overall the pups are cut monsters, will slice through about anything, and the louder the music the better they cut - to a suprising degree with amp volume unchanged.
Played to all tunes, at minimum, average or better. Excelled at roughly 25%. A myriad of variations of P/PJ tone. Some unique tones and a decent vintage Fender P tone. Some useable solo tone.
In general, fun pups to play but a fair share of tweaking and skill required. The LPMM/soap combo was sweet but different. This pup combo is hard to beat, great value, and at this point would be my set of choice if I had to be shackled to one set of pups.
FREQUENCY SPREAD (maximum value is 10 which is most pronounced and the TB format won't allow the columns to line up but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over). to mean anything they have to be compared to something - like the following post Model P Ultra J run:
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
3.5 8 3 1.5 2 .5 0
FLUFF:
I hadn't even realized I'd already had this pair in the DP 126's. In fact I had just started doing these reviews when I had the last set. 2 reviews are fairly consistent for the combo. Doubt I'd have moved the first set on if it hadn't been an early set.
I did a review of these pups individually first and they're listed in the P and J experiments respectively (linksfollow). So those are recommended reads for a fact given the nature of these pups as worthy stand alones and the fact they sound different alone than together. It will also give a better appreciation of the unique range available from this pair of pickups. The only time I used a pup individually in this run was to compare it to the combined tone.
J: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2115173#post2115173
P: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127322&page=3&highlight=experiment
My natural inclination is to accent the bridge and use a neck pup to flavor cause I favor the tone of a bridge pup, but doing so in this case was counterproductive for the most part - with exception of more bulge on E & A strings. I found that accenting the J and flavoring with the P not only subtracted from the unique qualities mentioned in the J experiment, but effectively canceled the desireable characteristics and enhanced those undesireable - in general lacking clarity or sounding boxie. That was using roughly my standard 3 bridge to 1 neck volume adjustment. Before this session was complete, a slight increase of bridge volume over neck volume did produce a very useable tone.
Running them at a 50/50 mix or favoring the P somewhat was productive in terms of expanding the quality and useable range of the P. Although there was the similar affect with the J of losing some of the unique character of the P when used alone. Adding some J filled in most of the voids exhibited by the P alone and basically took on many of the positive qualities of the J used alone - just to a lessor degree. I didn't explore going heavy on the P cuase it was working very well as it was yet was significantly different in tone from the P or J alone. Adjusting tone control, varying technique, and hand position is all that was necessary. At some point in the future I'll up the P and comment accordingly.
DIMARZIO MODEL P ULTRA J
Both 4 lead with adustable allen bi-poles
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass with P ran parallel and J in series. The J is a neck pup mounted bridge position (To my knowledge there's no difference in the ultra neck and bridge other than length). Output better than average. Some hum killed by touching strings (these are reverse wired for humcanceling but this is a temporary install so they should be quiet and haven't heard any accounts to the contrary). Finger transfer quite noticeable but only a marginal issue to a few tunes. Worked to finger and flat pick. Overall sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique on the low side of average. Sustain average at best.
Generally a relatively plain jane version of the Model PJ run, which is not to say they can't be lively and appealing beyond that at times. Ample bass, mids, and treble for the most part. Pups could be darkened up or lightened up as needed. Overall they tended to lack clarity, often having a boomie wall of sound quality to them, lots of air. Not much employment of mid control due to similar results (but the amp is mid heavy so that needs to be factored in). With bass cut and treble up, clarity could be increased but still, at best, on the average side to tones played to tunes.
Quite a bit of range in terms of variation in tones and tones with some unique quality but, unlike the Model PJ's, the tones tended to not be as noticeable or make as much difference played to tunes - effectively being just darker and brighter variations. With a different combination of instruments or recorded they may be more useful. On the plus side, not that much tweaking of controls required - very easy to get a passable tone.
Some punch, bulge, growl, edge, and rawness about them depending on setting. Again, mild versions of the Model PJ's. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board. Volume on E string could get pretty marginal with bass cut and treble boosted. Cut was definetly less than with the model J. Played to all tunes passably and not much better. Some solo tones in the mix.
FREQUENCY SPREAD (maximum value is 10 which is most pronounced and the TB format won't allow the columns to line up but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over). to mean anything they have to be compared to something - like the previous post Model P model J run:
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
3.5 8.5 3 2.5 3 1.5 .5
FLUFF:
I used roughly a mixture of 50/50 about half the session cause it worked well. But got bored then went heavy on the J then heavy on the P, mainly trying to look for something more optimal than what I was getting. With a roughly even PJ mix, more of a fixed noticeably heavy P weighted PJ meld than being able to pick some P tone and J tone out. With heavy J or heavy P, trebles often could hardly be cut too much for them to be unuseable. There was a suprising sameness to tones with heavy P or heavy J with tone controls set the same to both.
Both 4 lead with adustable allen bi-poles
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass with P ran parallel and J in series. The J is a neck pup mounted bridge position (To my knowledge there's no difference in the ultra neck and bridge other than length). Output better than average. Some hum killed by touching strings (these are reverse wired for humcanceling but this is a temporary install so they should be quiet and haven't heard any accounts to the contrary). Finger transfer quite noticeable but only a marginal issue to a few tunes. Worked to finger and flat pick. Overall sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique on the low side of average. Sustain average at best.
Generally a relatively plain jane version of the Model PJ run, which is not to say they can't be lively and appealing beyond that at times. Ample bass, mids, and treble for the most part. Pups could be darkened up or lightened up as needed. Overall they tended to lack clarity, often having a boomie wall of sound quality to them, lots of air. Not much employment of mid control due to similar results (but the amp is mid heavy so that needs to be factored in). With bass cut and treble up, clarity could be increased but still, at best, on the average side to tones played to tunes.
Quite a bit of range in terms of variation in tones and tones with some unique quality but, unlike the Model PJ's, the tones tended to not be as noticeable or make as much difference played to tunes - effectively being just darker and brighter variations. With a different combination of instruments or recorded they may be more useful. On the plus side, not that much tweaking of controls required - very easy to get a passable tone.
Some punch, bulge, growl, edge, and rawness about them depending on setting. Again, mild versions of the Model PJ's. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut balanced across the board. Volume on E string could get pretty marginal with bass cut and treble boosted. Cut was definetly less than with the model J. Played to all tunes passably and not much better. Some solo tones in the mix.
FREQUENCY SPREAD (maximum value is 10 which is most pronounced and the TB format won't allow the columns to line up but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over). to mean anything they have to be compared to something - like the previous post Model P model J run:
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
3.5 8.5 3 2.5 3 1.5 .5
FLUFF:
I used roughly a mixture of 50/50 about half the session cause it worked well. But got bored then went heavy on the J then heavy on the P, mainly trying to look for something more optimal than what I was getting. With a roughly even PJ mix, more of a fixed noticeably heavy P weighted PJ meld than being able to pick some P tone and J tone out. With heavy J or heavy P, trebles often could hardly be cut too much for them to be unuseable. There was a suprising sameness to tones with heavy P or heavy J with tone controls set the same to both.
BILL LAWRENCE EB-60P & J45
2 lead 9 pole airgap noiseless J
3 lead blade pole split P (if they were humcanceling I didn't get it)
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass. Output better than average but often low average to settings I used - often cutting bass or treble significantly in different mixes. When tone resulted in bass or treble being relatively sigificantly increased, volume went up substantially. Considerable hum killed by touching strings. Some finger/pic transfer but nothing of consequence and actually was more inclined to compliment tunes than detract. Sensitivity to attack, hand position, technique average or less. Worked well to finger and flatpick. Sustain below average - especially with heavy use of the P pup.
Extremely thuddy P. A response that is common in my acoustically dark bass but can't say it's ever happened in this one. Turns into thump or punch depending on setting. Both the P & J had an appealing tone at times and were quite useable together - primarily just adding a bit of one to make the primary pup more appealing. At times when the J was heavily accented, tone was markedly P in nature. At times when the P was heavily accented it sounded quite J. When accenting the P I had some problem with getting the frequency spread right and often couldn't get the top bright enough; treble frequencies would be enharmonic; insufficient spread in the frequencies; or tone would be boxie. Accenting the P there was LOTS of bass and plenty of mid and treble as well but all had a narrow operating range for application to tunes. Accenting the J and getting workable tones was simpler and more predictable - still retaining some definite P characteristics but I could brighten the pups sufficiently without losing the bottom end so easily.
Main issue was getting clarity and focused tone. Very boomie/boxie inclined. When I could get some focus, tone was very appealing. They also tended to need adjustment from tune to tune - lots of tweaking knobs. Tones to tunes tended to be 90% J or 90%P - so lots of adjustment swings. Never really got a feel for the pups in two sessions. P does a very good EBO. Could be muddy beyond desire or clearer variations of EBO. Very good P tone and overall marginal passable J. Almost always inclined to be P like.
Some nice rawness in the form of a fairly hard edge to tone at times. Minimal growl. Some fuzz. Lots of E & A bulge on some settings. Many punch variations.
Worked passably to about 90% of the tunes, but some of those were very marginal. Better than average to probably 25%. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut tended to be balanced across the board for tones to tunes. Other than these characteristics previously addressed, cut relative to other pups was about average. Punch on the E & A strings was noticeably more pronounced at times. No fading of strings per se'. Probable marginal solo tones but better than this review would seem to reflect.
Frequency Spread (sort of a seat of the pants expanded Dimarzio scale thing - maximum value is 10. The TB format won't keep the columns aligned but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over):
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
4.5 8 3.5 2 2.5 .5 0
FLUFF:
For pup pairs for the frequency spread I run both pups to one jack cause I only have one GEB-7. So pups are equal input and the amp is set flat. Which seems as logical a way as any to do it.
Anyway, in doing so I got a pretty appealing clean EBO like tone that I don't recall getting in the pup run. So I'll try that to tunes in the near future and see how it works.
2 lead 9 pole airgap noiseless J
3 lead blade pole split P (if they were humcanceling I didn't get it)
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass. Output better than average but often low average to settings I used - often cutting bass or treble significantly in different mixes. When tone resulted in bass or treble being relatively sigificantly increased, volume went up substantially. Considerable hum killed by touching strings. Some finger/pic transfer but nothing of consequence and actually was more inclined to compliment tunes than detract. Sensitivity to attack, hand position, technique average or less. Worked well to finger and flatpick. Sustain below average - especially with heavy use of the P pup.
Extremely thuddy P. A response that is common in my acoustically dark bass but can't say it's ever happened in this one. Turns into thump or punch depending on setting. Both the P & J had an appealing tone at times and were quite useable together - primarily just adding a bit of one to make the primary pup more appealing. At times when the J was heavily accented, tone was markedly P in nature. At times when the P was heavily accented it sounded quite J. When accenting the P I had some problem with getting the frequency spread right and often couldn't get the top bright enough; treble frequencies would be enharmonic; insufficient spread in the frequencies; or tone would be boxie. Accenting the P there was LOTS of bass and plenty of mid and treble as well but all had a narrow operating range for application to tunes. Accenting the J and getting workable tones was simpler and more predictable - still retaining some definite P characteristics but I could brighten the pups sufficiently without losing the bottom end so easily.
Main issue was getting clarity and focused tone. Very boomie/boxie inclined. When I could get some focus, tone was very appealing. They also tended to need adjustment from tune to tune - lots of tweaking knobs. Tones to tunes tended to be 90% J or 90%P - so lots of adjustment swings. Never really got a feel for the pups in two sessions. P does a very good EBO. Could be muddy beyond desire or clearer variations of EBO. Very good P tone and overall marginal passable J. Almost always inclined to be P like.
Some nice rawness in the form of a fairly hard edge to tone at times. Minimal growl. Some fuzz. Lots of E & A bulge on some settings. Many punch variations.
Worked passably to about 90% of the tunes, but some of those were very marginal. Better than average to probably 25%. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut tended to be balanced across the board for tones to tunes. Other than these characteristics previously addressed, cut relative to other pups was about average. Punch on the E & A strings was noticeably more pronounced at times. No fading of strings per se'. Probable marginal solo tones but better than this review would seem to reflect.
Frequency Spread (sort of a seat of the pants expanded Dimarzio scale thing - maximum value is 10. The TB format won't keep the columns aligned but they're in sequence and just need to be shifted over):
Hertz 50 1.2C 4C 5C 8C 4.5K 10K
4.5 8 3.5 2 2.5 .5 0
FLUFF:
For pup pairs for the frequency spread I run both pups to one jack cause I only have one GEB-7. So pups are equal input and the amp is set flat. Which seems as logical a way as any to do it.
Anyway, in doing so I got a pretty appealing clean EBO like tone that I don't recall getting in the pup run. So I'll try that to tunes in the near future and see how it works.
BARTOLINI ACTIVE 8TC P & ACTIVE 9E J
Both 4 lead w/ground active pups
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass. Output - WAY below average (less than Bart passives). And that's through the passive amp input not active. It would take a PA or a lot of watts to use these live. Only had one other set of actives like this. No hum, dead silent (almost literally). Sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique noticeably better than average. Attack was very interesting in that the response was like the pups were being overdriven but not to distortion (played both with gain up and volumes down and visa versa - same response). Nice percussive, punchy, airy, edgey, crunchy, crispy quality depending on tone settings. No finger/pic transfer of consequence - and tended to be pleasant if anything. Worked well to finger and flatpick. Sustain average, maybe a little better.
Pretty dark P tone oriented pups but higher frequencies cut relatively well. Trebles could be full cut and still come through and bass could be increased remarkably and still have a tone useful for some tunes. Good Reggae to say the least. Easy to make the pups pretty boomie/boxie and cloud clarity. But as a rule they could be muddied up or cleared up as needed. Supringly, bass could be noticeably thin on some settngs to tunes. Mids were used sparingly but were useful to get an edge, brighten tone, or muddy tone depending on need.
Getting a treble tone I wanted was the main obstacle. Often I could get close but not just where I wanted, but a "muffled/smothered" tone to trebles is a pretty signature Bart quality. When Barts were part of the starting rotation it didn't bother me but it tends to get on my nerves these days. Not always there but as often as not unless you get that zinger clear Bart dialed in - which may or may not work to a given tune. Easy to get a passable tone to tunes and some excellent tone was in these pups but hard to get it right. There are some nice pro tones in there for those who want to dig. Some prime Bart tones for those who know what I mean. Nice dark burpy slap tone. Chris Squire "Roundabout" flat picked. Some excellent P tone. Some non-slide growl.
Using either the P or J as a primary pup worked equally well and actually often put out suprisingly similar tones. In fact some of the best P tone was from going heavy on the J. No real variation in sounds from these pups, just variations of one sound but those variations had some very different and useful nuances about them.
Worked passably to all tunes and excelled at about 15% with better than average about 15%. Definetly got the feeling I hadn't tapped into all these pups are capable of. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut even across the board for given tone to tune. Occassionaly I'd loose a string in changing tunes but a little tweak would bring it back. Some definite solo tone potential.
FLUFF:
Since the 9EJ set actually is factory with a passive J neck, landing an active 8TC P for an active Bart PJ run was a thought that crossed my mind and logical next step.
It's possible I actually have the P wired incorrectly cause I haven't got hold of Bart yet. There's a Bart diagram for the 9E but zip for the 8TC. I assumed it was the same so tried it as such and when I maxed volume the P went ballistic. Maxing volume is supposed to give you a "vintage" tone on the 9E, different it was but I wouldn't call it vintage. So, I wired the P like a Bart HB plus a hot lead to the battery and it worked fine and the 9E the same. I really couldn't tell any difference in the 9E sound between this wiring and the Bart site diagram wiring.
*Note: tried to do the frequency response setup and so wired the pups together - and got zip from the J. The pup runs have the pups independent ran to seperate jacks but the FR has them connected, basically the same as you get through a typical harness. Didn't play with it at all but the indication is that the active P and active J may not be compatible through a standard harness. A call to Bart would be in order.
Both 4 lead w/ground active pups
Loaded into an acoustically midrange bass. Output - WAY below average (less than Bart passives). And that's through the passive amp input not active. It would take a PA or a lot of watts to use these live. Only had one other set of actives like this. No hum, dead silent (almost literally). Sensitivity to attack, hand position, and technique noticeably better than average. Attack was very interesting in that the response was like the pups were being overdriven but not to distortion (played both with gain up and volumes down and visa versa - same response). Nice percussive, punchy, airy, edgey, crunchy, crispy quality depending on tone settings. No finger/pic transfer of consequence - and tended to be pleasant if anything. Worked well to finger and flatpick. Sustain average, maybe a little better.
Pretty dark P tone oriented pups but higher frequencies cut relatively well. Trebles could be full cut and still come through and bass could be increased remarkably and still have a tone useful for some tunes. Good Reggae to say the least. Easy to make the pups pretty boomie/boxie and cloud clarity. But as a rule they could be muddied up or cleared up as needed. Supringly, bass could be noticeably thin on some settngs to tunes. Mids were used sparingly but were useful to get an edge, brighten tone, or muddy tone depending on need.
Getting a treble tone I wanted was the main obstacle. Often I could get close but not just where I wanted, but a "muffled/smothered" tone to trebles is a pretty signature Bart quality. When Barts were part of the starting rotation it didn't bother me but it tends to get on my nerves these days. Not always there but as often as not unless you get that zinger clear Bart dialed in - which may or may not work to a given tune. Easy to get a passable tone to tunes and some excellent tone was in these pups but hard to get it right. There are some nice pro tones in there for those who want to dig. Some prime Bart tones for those who know what I mean. Nice dark burpy slap tone. Chris Squire "Roundabout" flat picked. Some excellent P tone. Some non-slide growl.
Using either the P or J as a primary pup worked equally well and actually often put out suprisingly similar tones. In fact some of the best P tone was from going heavy on the J. No real variation in sounds from these pups, just variations of one sound but those variations had some very different and useful nuances about them.
Worked passably to all tunes and excelled at about 15% with better than average about 15%. Definetly got the feeling I hadn't tapped into all these pups are capable of. Volume, tone, sensitivity, clarity, and cut even across the board for given tone to tune. Occassionaly I'd loose a string in changing tunes but a little tweak would bring it back. Some definite solo tone potential.
FLUFF:
Since the 9EJ set actually is factory with a passive J neck, landing an active 8TC P for an active Bart PJ run was a thought that crossed my mind and logical next step.
It's possible I actually have the P wired incorrectly cause I haven't got hold of Bart yet. There's a Bart diagram for the 9E but zip for the 8TC. I assumed it was the same so tried it as such and when I maxed volume the P went ballistic. Maxing volume is supposed to give you a "vintage" tone on the 9E, different it was but I wouldn't call it vintage. So, I wired the P like a Bart HB plus a hot lead to the battery and it worked fine and the 9E the same. I really couldn't tell any difference in the 9E sound between this wiring and the Bart site diagram wiring.
*Note: tried to do the frequency response setup and so wired the pups together - and got zip from the J. The pup runs have the pups independent ran to seperate jacks but the FR has them connected, basically the same as you get through a typical harness. Didn't play with it at all but the indication is that the active P and active J may not be compatible through a standard harness. A call to Bart would be in order.
