odd Squier telebass mod idea...3 pickups

Discussion in 'Pickups & Electronics [BG]' started by sheepdog, Feb 18, 2010.

  1. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    I like the sound of the mudbucker, especiaslly with a series/parallel switch. I also like the sound of a P pickup and a J bridge pickup.

    Add a P (possibly scpb) and a J to the mudbucker. Wire it with 3 volumes and a tone (possible v/v and v/t to reduce the number of pots/knobs needed)

    I have heard a P+mudbucker that sounded pretty good (even though it was played with a pick) and I know from experience that I like the PJ tone also.

    anyone given this any thought before?

  2. CrimsonGhost


    Nov 14, 2000
    why not 3 mudbuckers?
  3. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    I had thought about a pair of mudbuckers, but I like this idea better. Sort of like 3 of my favorite pickups on 1 bass: bridge jazz, P, and a mudbucker
  4. There is a newbie member here that I frequently IM with.
    I helped him through the process of adding a mudbucker to his PJ bass.

    His setup is somewhat similar to the Yamaha Attitude basses, but with the additional J pickup to blend in with the P.

    He seems pretty happy with it, but of course, since he was using an EMG PJ set, the pickups can only be played on separate outputs because of the impedance mismatch that would occur if he played the EMGs with the passive mudbucker.

    I don't know how a P a J and a Mudbucker would sound all together on one output.
  5. Bootzilla


    May 4, 2009
    I would put in a P and another mudbucker because in the end the placement of the pickup has way more effect on how it sounds than the type of pickup so you can still get those bridge tones with a bucker in the bridge. That way it will look a lot better. A jazz pickup will sound different because it has narrow windings and it's single coil but a bucker won't sound bad and you won't have any hum.
  6. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    definitely an idea. I can buy a 2nd Squire mudbucker if i wanted. If I did go with a jazz, I would probably do a stacked/humbucking jazz.
  7. I'm actually in the process of doing this. Just waiting for the 2nd pickup to come in from Squier before my tech starts the routing work. I'm hoping it'll be pretty sweet. We'll see I suppose.
  8. hachi kid

    hachi kid

    Jun 2, 2008
    Austin, TX
    hey. I was the person line6man was referring to. I once ran my bass through an amp that had two separate channels/inputs, and was able to run them all through the same amp. it sounded like a p-bass, but thicker, really.

    as far as how I personally run my rig, I take huge influence from Billy Sheehan on this, and I run two separate amps for each pickup. the mudbucker is for strictly low frequencies while the p pickup is for mids, highs, and distortion/other effects. just put it this way, I will never choose playing my bass through a single amp again over bi-amping. it's not just like black and white movies and then color movies, it's like watching a silent movie and then watching Avatar in 3D (strictly in terms of special effects). the tone is just SO much richer and more dynamic. you get this full bodied bass tone that just wraps around you and provides this solid low end thump that never goes away, regardless of where you are on the neck, along with the clarity that the second "treble" amp provides. it's sorta like a grand piano with a subwoofer.

    as far as the pickup configuration, I would use a musicman pickup in the bridge position. my "dream" pickup setup would be a mudbucker-p-MM setup (neck -> bridge). I find the j-pickup tone too thin for the stuff I play, and the MusicMan would add a bit more punch and definition I would need if I wanted that "bridge" sound.

    I would definitely keep the option open for a dual output, as well. line6man was saying you can use break terminals which would allow you to use mono output if only one was plugged in, but would go to stereo output when a second cable is inserted. if you like the way it sounds, what you expect from tone will be forever changed. if not, you can always just use it in mono mode.

    if you're curious, here's a video that was made from a random improv jam this past sunday. skip to 5:25 for a close up on the amp and you can hear a clearer clip of the tone I'm getting. it works super well in a band situation. you get clarity and you get plenty of low end to sonically support the band. very, very neat trick. it's kind of weird that this hasn't caught on. especially in a "rock" situation.

  9. Slax


    Nov 5, 2007
    Long Island, NY
    That is some sweet tone! :bassist:
  10. That would be the 1/4" TS jacks with break terminals.

    What you do is wire the tip terminal of jack #1 to the break terminal of jack #2, and the tip terminal of jack #2 to the break terminal of jack #1.

    When you have cables plugged into both jacks, you get separate outputs, but when you plug a cable into only one of the jacks (either one, it won't matter), the two outputs will automatically be combined to that one jack.
  11. Yep, I love it as well. :D
  12. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    any chance of more clips (audio or video) of just the bass? The bass sounded good.

    as far as MM, what about this one:


    some of both MM and Jazz? Getting expensive, but if it is done, might as well do it right. Plus the Delano MM pickups I've heard were awesome.
  13. hachi kid

    hachi kid

    Jun 2, 2008
    Austin, TX
    I do. there are two more videos.

    ignore the random bass wanking in the second video. I was just fooling around, and decided to be ridiculous. the bass amp is turned up a little too much, but you can still get an idea of the tone I am trying to get.

    and I wanted that pickup, but I don't have the money to do it. if it were me and I had the money to, I'd get that j/MM pickup.
  14. Hmm, a MM, a J, a P and a Mudbucker? That sounds extremely versatile. :hyper:
  15. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    all that I would need then is talent :D
  16. Stealth


    Feb 5, 2008
    Zagreb, Croatia
    The MB+P+J idea is something I'm currently working on, as well. (Hello, Mr. Sheehan...)

    Basically, it'll turn out to something like this:

    The planned pickups will be home-wound close to the DiMarzio Model One, a slightly fatter P and a standard 70's position J. Also with stereo output, but different wiring: a switch that routs differing combinations of pickups to each channel:

    • MB -> 1, P -> 2
    • MB -> 1, J -> 2
    • P -> 1, J -> 2
    • MB parallel to J -> 1, P -> 2

    ...and then a V/T stack on each of the channels.

    Preparations are still underway, the pickups will all be homewound soon, and the switch and stereo jack is here. To anyone who's also trying this, let us all know, combos like this tend to turn out insanely good. :D

    Also, Line6man, you mentioned you had a stereo wiring mod that would give mono output when one cable were plugged in, but stereo output when both cables were plugged in. Could you describe it in detail here? Does it include manually using a switch to join the two channels?
  17. hachi kid

    hachi kid

    Jun 2, 2008
    Austin, TX
    just put a volume/tone knob for the MB, a volume/tone knob for the p/j pickups, and a blend knob for the p/j pickups rather than two seperate volume knobs. with two seperate knobs, something about the signal when you have two volume knobs lowers the output of each pickup. but with a blend knob, you're getting full output (and thus, full tone) from both pickups, and you can tune the sound you want a little better. whenever I get a Yamaha Attitude LTD, I'm going to put a MM pickup right below the P pickup (most likely the MM/J combo pickup), and a blend knob for the P/MM pickup. I'll have to send it to a luthier to do it, though, cause I'm not THAT good with a router for it to be a clean installation.
  18. :confused:

    That doesn't make any sense.

    Two volumes will give you a better output than a volume and a blend.

    The volume/blend setup is three pots diverting your signal to ground as opposed to only two pots with the two volume setup.

  19. Already explained in post #10

    There is no need for any additional switches. The mono/stereo switching is done mechanically depending on whether a cable is inserted into both jacks or only one of them.

    The way the break terminal jacks work is that there is a "break" terminal that makes contact with the tip terminal only when nothing is inserted into the jack.
    When you insert a connector into the jack, the mechanical action of the tip terminal being bent outward to accept the connector causes the break terminal to lose contact with the tip terminal.

    If you wire the jacks with the break terminal on one feeding the tip terminal on the other (and vice versa), you will have a stereo output when both output jacks are being used, but if you only plug in one cable, the unused jack will automatically transfer it's signal to the jack that is being used through the break terminal.

    This is the best picture I could find on Mouser of a jack with a break terminal:

    Ignoring the fact that this is a TRS jack, and only a TS is needed, you can see the break terminals on the inside of the Tip and Ring terminals.
  20. sheepdog


    Feb 20, 2003
    Birmingham, AL
    I'd rather just have 3 separate volume knobs and a single tone. Only extra switching is for a series/parallel switch for the mudbucker. 2 stacked knobs and a switch. I do like the idea of a stereo jack: 1 for the mudbucker and 1 for the PJ.