I am about to rewind one pickup from my 63 jazz. I have done the research and have the correct gear. My question is whether or not to pot it, and if so how much? I realise that to be period correct I should do this but is it necessary? While the consensus seems to be that Fender did wax pot in this era, I have read that they only dipped them for about one minute whereas later pickups are dipped for 10-15 minutes or until the bubbles stop rising. Any thoughts/advice from my peers much appreciated.
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.
Should I wax pot 63 Jazz rewind?
- Thread starter Tim1
- Start date
While I am not knowledgeable on Fender's pickup production history, I would put proper potting above any attempts at vintage-correctness. If the originals were poorly potted, it was probably to save time in a production-oriented environment.
Hello. Though I am not an expert, I will share with you advice given to me by a pickup maker who is:
- If you want the pickup to sound as it did circa 1963, just after it was made originally, then pot it in whichever way you decide is period correct.
- But if instead you want the pickup to sound as it might sound today had it stayed functional for 52 years, then do not pot it. The sound of pickups made that long ago, heard today, often is affected by decayed potting. Such pickups effectively are not potted.
Good Luck!
That is a really interesting perspective. I totally had not considered it from that point at all. Decyaed potting is a new but valid idea to me. Thanks
You are quite welcome. I'm glad it was useful to you.
Hi Jim. Two things about this:
- For me it would have to be evidence I can hear, not see. Recently I received two custom P pickups that were not potted. Each was made by a different maker; and each was wound to exact specs not of my choosing (I only asked for "underwound", and got two meaningfully different results). Yet on playing those pickups, immediately I heard sonic characteristics common to both that I could not recall hearing in any other P pickup I ever played. One of those two custom Ps is part of a P/J set. In that set, the J pickup, though it was not underwound, also has what I now think of as 'the un-potted sound'.
- A "thin coating" of many kinds of substances is used in a variety of materials and parts designs, often for audio. Granted, sometimes the reason for those coatings (films, bonded molecular coats, etc.) is not to affect sound. But they may have an affect anyway. Since the frequencies in question here are micro-vibrations, it could stand to reason that the presence or absence of even the thinnest layer of some substance might affect them. Though I am not a chemist, audiologist, or engineer, the premise seems logical to me.
Well on the plus side I suppose that would be a little simpler to manage, thanks. I am mainly concerned with getting as close as possible to the original tone.
My opinion was based on watching the late Cezar Diaz and John Sprung (American Guitar Center) rewind vintage pickups.
John had bought Leo's ORIGINAL winder that has since been sold back to the Fender museum.
They choose wax as it was not dangerous to work with and did not have the potential to hurt the wire coating as compared to other materials.
I beleive the other reason to pot was to reduce microphonics.
Whikle I can not comment as to the sonic differences, the pups sounded great and customers were happy.
They were extrememly attentive to not only DC resistance but also to how "tight" the wire was fed (running through your hands) as well as the reaonably random wiring pattern.
There were plenty of pups that were wound, tested in a guitar, and then had all the wraps cut off to be done again until it was right before potting.
I would think that Mr. Duncan would be the person to ask about the intricate details.
John had bought Leo's ORIGINAL winder that has since been sold back to the Fender museum.
They choose wax as it was not dangerous to work with and did not have the potential to hurt the wire coating as compared to other materials.
I beleive the other reason to pot was to reduce microphonics.
Whikle I can not comment as to the sonic differences, the pups sounded great and customers were happy.
They were extrememly attentive to not only DC resistance but also to how "tight" the wire was fed (running through your hands) as well as the reaonably random wiring pattern.
There were plenty of pups that were wound, tested in a guitar, and then had all the wraps cut off to be done again until it was right before potting.
I would think that Mr. Duncan would be the person to ask about the intricate details.
Thanks for all the responses, which have been really helpful. I am leaning towards not potting the rewind initially, and just seeing what happens since the only reason for potting seems to be to avoid feedback microphonics. I may be lucky and not have this issue. It seems that I should shoot for 9000 - 9500 turns, so I will start with 9500 since I can always take some off. The bridge pup is about 8.4k so I suppose I should look to end up with around 8k for the neck. I do have pickup tape which I can wrap around it tightly if I do not pot it.
Actually, on reflection the Stewmac guide suggests 9500 turns for both, whereas other sites suggest 9000 so I will start with 9000 since I want it to be less than the bridge.
Actually, on reflection the Stewmac guide suggests 9500 turns for both, whereas other sites suggest 9000 so I will start with 9000 since I want it to be less than the bridge.
Invalid Link Removed I use a calculator when winding.. Scraping off insulation on wire is a major pain and can cause issues later. You can get pretty close with these.
Thanks very much for that. What an incredibly useful tool! Based on that I shall go for 9500 turns which hopefully will end up around 8K. I can always take some off if necessary.Invalid Link Removed I use a calculator when winding.. Scraping off insulation on wire is a major pain and can cause issues later. You can get pretty close with these.
This is what confuses me a tad, since it appears that many other early bass manufacturers (Gibson, Gretsch....) did not pot. Now they may have had feedback issues and certainly their basses were not the success that Fender was, but they did get played. It appears it is possible to wrap a coil that does not feed without potting, so the obvious thing I suppose is to try it first and pot if necessary although potting is so simple it almost seems silly not to do it straight away.
Thanks everyone for all the advice, this really is a most interesting thread (for me anyway
).
