Split coil pbass pickup design is octave matter, respect to Leo Fender theory !
But, the main problem is thin string on D and G.
But, the main problem is thin string on D and G.
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.
P vs Reverse P, what’s better?
- Thread starter BassAndReeds
- Start date
I don't have a preference on 4 string. If I were to have a 5 with a split coil P, I would reverse the orientation. Preferably have a BEA coil and DG coil. This way if there is any extra articulation to be had, it will be on those lower strings.
Have been a little interested in doing a mod that includes the Bartolini 2CBJD-type (passive) single pickup in the traditional P location. From what I gather, if you get the 6 wire quad coil, you can put in a 3-way switch, and have P, Reverse P and all 4 segments. From reading this thread, consensus seems to be the P/Reverse P might be a negligible difference. Although - I am imagining all 4 coil segments at once being more in the MM territory. That sound about right?
If the 4 coil segments are in parallel, it will sound more Stingray-esque, if the coils are in series, it will sound more Pbass. A G&L L1000 or Peavey T45 are basses with dual coils in the P sweet spot, which will still have much more low end and low mids vs a pickup in the tighter, punchier Stingray sweet spot. The Stingray pickup location is about 2 inches towards the bridge compared to a P spot. The SR pickup is centered at about 30.5" from the nut, a P is centered about 28.5".
Wow. Was not thinking about 4 segments series/parallel. I was all thinking about the 4 segments in terms of splitting two of the 4 segments via 3 way toggle.
classic p shape
reverse p shape
all 4 of the segments simultaneous
Did not think about the series/parallel aspect. From what I gather, the consensus is that the p/reverse p is a negligible difference. The positioning of the pickup would be a bigger difference. And I am sure the series parallel would be a big difference.
Might be more useful to have:
Classic p shape
All 4 series
All 4 parallel
And then locate the pickup as would be appropriate. I’m thinking classic p in the stingray spot might be an interesting choice...
classic p shape
reverse p shape
all 4 of the segments simultaneous
Did not think about the series/parallel aspect. From what I gather, the consensus is that the p/reverse p is a negligible difference. The positioning of the pickup would be a bigger difference. And I am sure the series parallel would be a big difference.
Might be more useful to have:
Classic p shape
All 4 series
All 4 parallel
And then locate the pickup as would be appropriate. I’m thinking classic p in the stingray spot might be an interesting choice...
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,016
- 1
- 31,730
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
Within the Stingray milieu, reverse P is more historically correct.
I doubt I'd hear much of a difference unless they're being A/B'd right in front of me. Additionally, I doubt I'd hear a difference in a full mix.
I think there are clips somewhere around here of JohnK with his "jazzmaster" bass - he did this with a quad coil musicman pickup. I remember liking the two P options (classic and reverse P; and they DID sound very similar), but not so much the parallel or series options of all four coils. But, the devil may be in the details - such as pickup location, strings, EQ, technique... there's a lot one can mess around with!
Also, as you move the pickup towards the bridge, the reverse P might work better than the classic P (if you chose one over the other), like that prototype Stingray ctmullins posted above... Then again, if you have a quad coil, why not try all the options, see what you like?
Also, as you move the pickup towards the bridge, the reverse P might work better than the classic P (if you chose one over the other), like that prototype Stingray ctmullins posted above... Then again, if you have a quad coil, why not try all the options, see what you like?
I listened with headphones and with the basses used considering the fact one was mahogany and the other ash, it seems there was more midrange apparent in mahogany Mockingbird. The difference between the two examples is something a good EQ could make negligible.
Sorry. I don’t agree at all. A reverse P doesn’t sound like a P. And you can’t get there with EQ. The wood type is having minimal effect.
It’s the placement of the pole pieces (due to reversing them) that is making a majority of the tonal change. Regular P senses the string further toward the neck than a Reverse P. Resulting in a deeper “burp” in the lower 2 strings from the position. You can’t EQ in that “burp”, it’s just there or not.
Like others have mentioned, it evens out the balance, and to me it's very noticable, and a lot better sound wise in my opinion, but this comes at a big cost as the range of sound is severely limited. It's great when you just love the sound of the bass, but otherwise, it can give you a limited range that you won't like.
Answering an old thread here Ed Friedland had mentioned and I noticed this as well that when you reversed the P pick up in the PJ configuration when you have the two pick ups equal it doesn’t have quite that nasally quality to it
I agree with this, I find myself favoring a traditional P placement on a PJ than a reverse P. After owning an Ibanez sr650 for 6 years, I went with a fender PJ and like it more than the Ibanez. I really do get that nasal quality which I like on the fender more than the Ibanez, the Ibanez gives me a dark grunt/harsh tone which is really good for hard rock/alternative.
Not so much for me outside of those two respectable genres.
I'll go one very important point further. Practise and technique is way more important than any of this over thinking stuff. Forty plus years of laying down every conceivable groove to thousands of smiling faces on a ton of stock P basses kinda re-enforces my thinking.
I have had two bass with reverse P route and they rank among my favorites. One was the old Yamaha BB300. Excellent, versatile tone and a gorgeous aggressive growl. The other was a Power Jazz Bass Special. It had a musical P that blended extremely well with the J at the bridge position. To me it almost sounded like a very nice jazz tone.
Overall, I believe that though there is no "beating" the original P design, the reverse P in the traditional location offers a very musical alternative. One that could easily serve as a primary tone depending on the taste, the technique, and musical style of a given bassist.
Overall, I believe that though there is no "beating" the original P design, the reverse P in the traditional location offers a very musical alternative. One that could easily serve as a primary tone depending on the taste, the technique, and musical style of a given bassist.
Last edited:
Personal preference. By the time you factor in string type, plucking technique, tone woods, amp, amp settings, effects chain and settings, FOH and venue acoustics you're left with very little difference except aesthetics.
