Fender (and Squier) wide range humbucker - what's going on under there?

[Andrew 1976 Ibanez 2353]

I picked up one of the new Squier Paranormal Rascal basses last fall, an I am absolutley in love with the sound of this bass. 2 Squier-branded (and I'm sure Chinese made, if that makes a difference to anyone) wide-range humbuckers in it. I'm only vaguely familiar with this type of pickup from the old Fender Telecaster bass and it's various reissues. I've never played one in person, or anything else with these pickups. What's their story? What's going on under the cover? How do they compare to, say a Gibson mudbucker or the DarkStars?

I"m loving them so much and the Squier bass is affordable enough that I almost want to grab another one, just to experiment with!

I am very interested in these pickups... I have a '76 Ibanez (lawsuit era copy LOL) of the '74 era Tele Bass. It has the Maxon version of the Seth Love Wide-Range pickup... So what do we see..??? we se what looks like an enclosed SPLIT COIL humbucker... I do not know... I have not seen one opened... neither the real thing (Fender) or otherwise... what does the pole piece placement indicate..?? SIDENOTE: I love the neck position.. not MUD but deep resonant thunder..!! (read that again - RESONANT THUNDER) LOL - thank you all...

 

[Andrew 1976 Ibanez 2353]

Here's a great, detailed article on the original CuNiFe WRHB concept and design:

The Wide Range Humbucker and The Genius of Seth Lover — Lawing Musical Products

These pickups are most famously used in guitars, but appeared in the 70's Telecaster bass. Fender reintroduced them in the 2010's in the Fender Modern Player Telecaster (neck & bridge pickups) and a Squier version (neck only), but these used AlNiCo V magnets (I think, although it's possible it's a ceramic design) and are not as well-regarded as the original. I have a Modern Player Telecaster bass and frankly don't like it a lot because it's quite muddy, though I made it better by incorporating push-pull knobs to switch between serial (stock) and parallel. I thought about replacing the pickups for a while but kept them because they have a tone that's unique relative to my other basses.

More recent Fender Paranormal, Vintera, and Jaguar basses incorporate this pickup, but I don't know if they're CuNiFe or not. They might be, but I say that only because Fender has recently reintroduced the CuNiFe design for guitar pickups (you can even buy them individually, without a guitar), so maybe this latest generation of bass pickups is also retro in that way. I've sometimes wondered if the guitar pickup would work as a bass pickup given the different pole piece layout.

There are a few companies that make facsimiles of these pickups for guitar and fewer that make some for bass. These facsimiles have generally used AlNiCo, but The Creamery has recently offered a CuNiFe option for their bass WRHB pickups.

thank you..!!

 

[klattman]

I swapped the pickguard and shielded my rascal. Those pickups are very heavy and was a bit of a chore (could have used an extra hand)

They have higher output than any of my basses and need some care when gain staging your amp or pedals.

sounds phenomenal on the bridge or combined. Neck alone gets a little muddy, which can be useful, but not my favorite.

They are not as muddy as a mudbucker or the pickups on the Epiphone embassy (which I did not like the sound of).

 

[Andrew 1976 Ibanez 2353]

I am very interested in these pickups... I have a '76 Ibanez (lawsuit era copy LOL) of the '74 era Tele Bass. It has the Maxon version of the Seth Love Wide-Range pickup... So what do we see..??? we se what looks like an enclosed SPLIT COIL humbucker... I do not know... I have not seen one opened... neither the real thing (Fender) or otherwise... what does the pole piece placement indicate..?? SIDENOTE: I love the neck position.. not MUD but deep resonant thunder..!! (read that again - RESONANT THUNDER) LOL - thank you all...

knowing that EACH screw was a pole piece I now wonder how true to this design the MAXON version was..?? I love the idea that all these FUGIGEN and MOSTSUMOKU product - cheaper and ready to sell - ARE NOW so damm collectible... I love this endeavor/ passion/ interest... and LIFE...

 

[micguy]

By turning the height adjustment screws.

Or maybe you meant to ask if there was a specific method for setting them to their "optimal" height?

The same way you do any other pickup: start at a few mm, and experiment from there.

These pickups (like the ones used on a lot of Gibsons) have a screw coil and a slug coil. Fundamentally, these pickups cancel hum, and listen to each string at two points - that second bit means they rob you of some articulation. There is a trick, though that gets some (but not all) of that back - you adjust the screws so that they are much closer to the string than the slugs that are hidden under the cover - that gives you more signal from the screw coil and less from the slug coil, so that the pickups sounds a little closer to a single coil. The Fender version has the advantage that, when you do that, it has symmetry working for it in terms of keeping the hum cancellation optimized - a Gibson loses a bit of it's hum cancelling when you back the screws out.

 

[larrysb]

I haven't set hands upon the bass version of the WRHB, but I have studied the guitar version a good bit. I'm an electrical engineer in real life, and I have the means to measure the electrical and magnetic properties of pickups. I can measure the intensity of the magnets, and the inductance, capacitance as well as the DC resistance.

The real useful data on pickups is not the DC coil resistance, which really indicates almost nothing about the pickup. You'll see this listed a lot, because it is very simple and easy to measure with a simple inexpensive meter.

The useful information about pickups is the inductance in Henries and the Capacitance in Farads. The inductance and capacitance are reactive to frequency and determine the frequency response and the resonant frequency of the pickup which altogether indicate how it sounds. The inductance of the coil and strength of the magnets determine how much output the pickup will produce for any given mass of vibrating string at some particular frequency.

The original PAF pickup (and all of its descendants and clones) was designed to sound very much like a P90. Seth Lover designed it and the WRHB. The WRHB was designed to have a brighter sound, more like the Telecaster neck pickup, but more output and humbucking. Lover changed the shape of the magnetic fields by eliminating the bar magnet and steel slugs and screws of the PAF-style, and using small independent magnets, like Fender used in all their single-coil pickups. This changes the sensing field, and eliminating the soft steel slugs and screws reduced the inductance of the coils. To regain output from the inductance lost by removing the steel poles, Lover wound more turns onto the coils, which is why the WRHB is bigger than the PAF style humbucker. The 3-and-3 pole screws was a marketing choice, to set it apart visually from the competitors.

The only thing that's interesting about the special CuNiFe alloy is its machinability. Alnico is extremely brittle, it chips easily, if you drop one on the floor, it will probably crack. CuNiFe forms a good permanent magnet like alnico, but it can be machined into a variety of shapes and even drawn into thin wires. Hence, that's why it was used to make the screw-shaped magnets.

Lollar made a really good clone of the WRHB, using alnico-5 magnetic screws. They must have been very difficult to manufacture.

The guitar WRHB has a somewhat higher resonant frequency and a sharper peak to the frequency response than the PAF-style conventional humbucker. It thus, resembles the Tele neck sound. It's not earth-shatteringly different. To my ear, it produces a really nice, "R&B" kind of sound, mildly brighter, less muddy than sticking a standard humbucker into the neck position of a Telecaster.

If anyone has a Fender bass WRHB, I'd love a chance to measure and document its magnetic and electrical properties. I can do this without any harm at all to the pickup. If you have one that's not working, I can probably fix it in many cases.

 

[Andrew 1976 Ibanez 2353]

I haven't set hands upon the bass version of the WRHB, but I have studied the guitar version a good bit. I'm an electrical engineer in real life, and I have the means to measure the electrical and magnetic properties of pickups. I can measure the intensity of the magnets, and the inductance, capacitance as well as the DC resistance.

The real useful data on pickups is not the DC coil resistance, which really indicates almost nothing about the pickup. You'll see this listed a lot, because it is very simple and easy to measure with a simple inexpensive meter.

The useful information about pickups is the inductance in Henries and the Capacitance in Farads. The inductance and capacitance are reactive to frequency and determine the frequency response and the resonant frequency of the pickup which altogether indicate how it sounds. The inductance of the coil and strength of the magnets determine how much output the pickup will produce for any given mass of vibrating string at some particular frequency.

The original PAF pickup (and all of its descendants and clones) was designed to sound very much like a P90. Seth Lover designed it and the WRHB. The WRHB was designed to have a brighter sound, more like the Telecaster neck pickup, but more output and humbucking. Lover changed the shape of the magnetic fields by eliminating the bar magnet and steel slugs and screws of the PAF-style, and using small independent magnets, like Fender used in all their single-coil pickups. This changes the sensing field, and eliminating the soft steel slugs and screws reduced the inductance of the coils. To regain output from the inductance lost by removing the steel poles, Lover wound more turns onto the coils, which is why the WRHB is bigger than the PAF style humbucker. The 3-and-3 pole screws was a marketing choice, to set it apart visually from the competitors.

The only thing that's interesting about the special CuNiFe alloy is its machinability. Alnico is extremely brittle, it chips easily, if you drop one on the floor, it will probably crack. CuNiFe forms a good permanent magnet like alnico, but it can be machined into a variety of shapes and even drawn into thin wires. Hence, that's why it was used to make the screw-shaped magnets.

Lollar made a really good clone of the WRHB, using alnico-5 magnetic screws. They must have been very difficult to manufacture.

The guitar WRHB has a somewhat higher resonant frequency and a sharper peak to the frequency response than the PAF-style conventional humbucker. It thus, resembles the Tele neck sound. It's not earth-shatteringly different. To my ear, it produces a really nice, "R&B" kind of sound, mildly brighter, less muddy than sticking a standard humbucker into the neck position of a Telecaster.

If anyone has a Fender bass WRHB, I'd love a chance to measure and document its magnetic and electrical properties. I can do this without any harm at all to the pickup. If you have one that's not working, I can probably fix it in many cases.

*** MY MAN - this is GREAT information... I fully appreciate knowing this. WOW well done..!!

 

[CaptainGreen]

*** MY MAN - this is GREAT information... I fully appreciate knowing this. WOW well done..!!

I emailed Curtis Novak recently asking about the WRHB bass pickups that he offers and wether or not they included the CuNiFe magnets or if that was an add-on and in his reply he mentioned that while he could build them with CuNiFe if I wanted, "Actually the WRHB bass was nothing like the guitar version and never used CuNiFe. It used standard steel pole pieces and a huge bar magnet." so since I have no reason to doubt him I found it interesting and figured I'd forward the information along.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

Interesting reading here.

I have a Fender TEB101 pickup that I acquired built into a pretty substandard short scale build. It was someone's take on the Retrovibe idea of a Squier guitar body and short scale bass necks. I found it in a local mom/pop store for sale on consignment. I knew nothing about the pickup but a little research told me if I tried to rework the bass and failed I could make all of the $175 purchase price back on the pickup alone.

That bass is done and the pickup is amazing. I don't remember but think the ohm reading was around 20, didn't write it down, I'm no expert and knew it worked with a unique sound.

As I said, a very unique sound. I love it, not too muddy but very full in my opinion. Research on that pickup shows buying an original is very cost prohibitive. But having said that I wonder if anyone has ever done or knows of a sound comparison between those TEB101's and the Squier WRHB's that are in the Paranormal Rascal bass.

If I thought, or knew, they were even close in sound I would buy a Rascal just to pull the pickups and unload the rest. I have two parts basses that I would love to get that more full sound from. A couple searches have stated the two pickups in the Rascal are the same. If that's wrong, that's just what I read.

Anyone have any info available on that sound comparison. I've read the Squier ones are Alnico and the originals were CuNife.

 

[CaptainGreen]

Interesting reading here.

I have a Fender TEB101 pickup that I acquired built into a pretty substandard short scale build. It was someone's take on the Retrovibe idea of a Squier guitar body and short scale bass necks. I found it in a local mom/pop store for sale on consignment. I knew nothing about the pickup but a little research told me if I tried to rework the bass and failed I could make all of the $175 purchase price back on the pickup alone.

That bass is done and the pickup is amazing. I don't remember but think the ohm reading was around 20, didn't write it down, I'm no expert and knew it worked with a unique sound.

View attachment 7203173 View attachment 7203177

As I said, a very unique sound. I love it, not too muddy but very full in my opinion. Research on that pickup shows buying an original is very cost prohibitive. But having said that I wonder if anyone has ever done or knows of a sound comparison between those TEB101's and the Squier WRHB's that are in the Paranormal Rascal bass.

If I thought, or knew, they were even close in sound I would buy a Rascal just to pull the pickups and unload the rest. I have two parts basses that I would love to get that more full sound from. A couple searches have stated the two pickups in the Rascal are the same. If that's wrong, that's just what I read.

Anyone have any info available on that sound comparison. I've read the Squier ones are Alnico and the originals were CuNife.

Check my post above yours. Assuming pickup-maker Curtis Novak is a reliable source, he tells me that the original bass versions of the WRHB pickups didn't use CuNiFe like the guitar versions.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[WI Short Scaler]

Check my post above yours. Assuming pickup-maker Curtis Novak is a reliable source, he tells me that the original bass versions of the WRHB pickups didn't use CuNiFe like the guitar versions.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can't dispute or affirm anything about Curtis Novak. Like I said in my post I did research on this pikcup. Especially during the rework time I read many articles that all specified the "one-off" tone of the TEB101 was the design which was based on CuNife magnets and a large amount of wire wraps because those magnets are smaller than Alnico. Maybe neither of us will know without tearing one apart, I'm out on that.

I was just hoping someone could affirm/deny that the Squier versions in the rascal are even in the same sound category, that warm/full sound for lack of a better term. I have dual rails in a couple of my basses that I'd love to give some of that wide range tone.

 

[CaptainGreen]

I can't dispute or affirm anything about Curtis Novak. Like I said in my post I did research on this pikcup. Especially during the rework time I read many articles that all specified the "one-off" tone of the TEB101 was the design which was based on CuNife magnets and a large amount of wire wraps because those magnets are smaller than Alnico. Maybe neither of us will know without tearing one apart, I'm out on that.

I was just hoping someone could affirm/deny that the Squier versions in the rascal are even in the same sound category, that warm/full sound for lack of a better term. I have dual rails in a couple of my basses that I'd love to give some of that wide range tone.

I agree it's all very confusing with conflicting info all over the net. My reply was really just to the last sentence in your post. Maybe someone else will chime in with some vetted information.

In the meantime, I don't know if it helps in any way but for some additional reference of what Fender is calling a bass WRHB today & if anyone is curious, here is a photo of the one in my Fender Mike Kerr bass that I took a while back. Sorry for the really bad angle, but it's what I've got to share for now.

 

[larrysb]

If interested I'll be happy to characterize the pickup non-destructively. I have the necessary equipment to measure frequency response, resonance, inductance and capacitance, and the magnetic field strength. PM if interested.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

If interested I'll be happy to characterize the pickup non-destructively. I have the necessary equipment to measure frequency response, resonance, inductance and capacitance, and the magnetic field strength. PM if interested.

That's a generous offer, and something to consider. I'd probably be more inclined to send Squier ones to you if I did get some. No judgement against you and not doubting your integrity but I feel like I really lucked into a great pickup at a great price and mailing it off to the unknown would rattle my peace of mind alot.

And not to over-simplify things but I'm more curious to the basic sound comparison than the science behind it. I realize that the science behind those things and the sound are tied together, but I have enough tiny details to remember at work and with a bass I want to keep it simpler. "Will a small investment give me that sound" sort of thing.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[larrysb]

That's a generous offer, and something to consider. I'd probably be more inclined to send Squier ones to you if I did get some. No judgement against you and not doubting your integrity but I feel like I really lucked into a great pickup at a great price and mailing it off to the unknown would rattle my peace of mind alot.

And not to over-simplify things but I'm more curious to the basic sound comparison than the science behind it. I realize that the science behind those things and the sound are tied together, but I have enough tiny details to remember at work and with a bass I want to keep it simpler. "Will a small investment give me that sound" sort of thing.

Hope that makes sense.

No worries at all. I'd not even try to talk you into something you're not comfortable doing.

I'm just as curious as you probably are. I'm a big fan of the WRHB in guitars. Would enjoy getting readings from the bass WRHB pickup.

If you get curious, PM me and I'll share my bona-fides with you and explain how the pickups are measured and what the test equipment is and does.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

Just thought of this conversation while hunting around for a cheap body I might want to get to practice some work on.

A loaded Rascal body, 2 of the Squier version of these pickups in it. If anyone is curious and wants to try them out. I have no affiliation to this sale in any way, just thought I'd share it since it seems like a good deal. I don't think that violates any TB rules but if so, delet it.

Squier Rascal Bass Body Candy Apple Red Finish Fully Loaded | eBay

 

[merseymale]

VINTAGE 1970s FENDER SETH LOVER TELECASTER BASS WIDE RANGE HUMBUCKER PICKUP - PROJECT! NEEDS REWIND | Reverb

Here i found something very interesting, it is an original from the 70's completely unassembled (sorry for my still poor english), and i can see that there is some kind of magnet there, god knows if it's AlNiCo, Ceramic or CuNiFe, but it seems that the bass itineration was not the same design as the guitar ones, so my guess is that the Modern Player/Squier Vintage Modified itineration called "TEB-101" is pretty much the same design as the originals.

R E A L L Y well spotted!
IF this IS a genuine description of an early Wide Range for Bass then this changes the game somewhat...!

 

[RedJag]

This thread has me very curious. I actually learned to make pickups this year and own the Mike Kerr bass. Since it mostly just sits around (mainly because I have too many other basses I like more, and the pickups in this are only so/so), I've actually been meaning to remove the pickups and open them up to understand what's going on inside. For example in the Mike Kerr, I felt the WRHB was super muddy. Maybe it's wired in series and I could wire it in parallel more like a Stingray… when I get a chance, hopefully over the holiday break, I might just open it up and take some photos/measurements

 

[DCCat]

I decided to experiment a bit with the WRHB pickups in my Modern Player Telecaster by removing the poles that are accessed from the bottom of the pickups. Each of the coils of these pickups has four poles, two accessed from the top and two from the bottom. The two accessed from the top are laid out in what looks like a split-P configuration and are the ones that are normally adjusted to sonic taste while the bottom ones are set-and-forget. The idea behind removing the bottom poles was to force each string to only be sensed at one point rather than two, in hopes of getting a bit more clarity from the tone. And that succeeded a little bit. But it also made the pickups sound more like split-P pickups in the sense of sounding thinner on the D-G than on the E-A because those poles are closer to the bridge. So I ended up putting the bottom poles back into the D-G positions to regain some of that fullness (the G all the way in, the D partway in). And overall, it sounds a little better, particularly in parallel.

One interesting fact I discovered in all of this is that the poles (and I took out one of the top poles to check as well) are not magnets but just steel pole pieces (presumably with a bar magnet in there somewhere) like Novak said. Actually, I can't attest that what he said is true of the original 70s Telecaster bass, but it's true of my Modern Player Telecaster and presumably the Squier that came out in the same timeframe as well. No idea if it's also true of the more recent Paranormals, etc.

 

[merseymale]

This thread has me very curious. I actually learned to make pickups this year and own the Mike Kerr bass. Since it mostly just sits around (mainly because I have too many other basses I like more, and the pickups in this are only so/so), I've actually been meaning to remove the pickups and open them up to understand what's going on inside. For example in the Mike Kerr, I felt the WRHB was super muddy. Maybe it's wired in series and I could wire it in parallel more like a Stingray… when I get a chance, hopefully over the holiday break, I might just open it up and take some photos/measurements

That is certainly one option and it will be Home counselling but you can also put a resistor in series with it to knock back The bass response or you could consider different value pots, etc

Alternatively why not lower the pick up significantly and raise the pole pieces?