Thinking of going from P to double-reverse -P

[Empap]

The problem with that photo is that the second fixed point is a guess at the bridge. Try to take a line across the 19th frets and you'll see that the scaling isn't accurate.

True. I tried to scale it with 3 lines (Nut, 12th, Bridge), but couldn't make it work. Hence the theory that the pictures may have been taken at slightly different angles. however I could try see what's the outcome if I match them all at the nut + 19th fret.

 

[Empap]

The problem with that photo is that the second fixed point is a guess at the bridge. Try to take a line across the 19th frets and you'll see that the scaling isn't accurate.

Measure from Nut & 19th. It brought most of them closer to the P Bass. BB barely moved, FGN got a bit further. Jaguar is the one that moved the most. Decision P is now the one would be closest instead of the FGN.

 

[dAs]

View attachment 7414246

I really like how this Electra X700JB looks and plays. I also like the sound—like a thick, dark precision, especially tuned BEAD as I have it—but I would probably use it more if I could also get some more defined and atypical sounds out of it. It occurred to me that I could retain the current sound and add some others I don’t already have by adding a pickup half to either side of the existing pickup, like this:

View attachment 7414247

I’m mostly interested in how that resulting reverse-P nearest the bridge would sound, as it puts the pole pieces under the B and E strings pretty much in Stingray territory, but it seems like I might as well add two pickup halves rather than leaving one to rot in a parts bin.

Electronics remain mostly incomprehensible magic to me, but It seems this would allow the following possible configurations:

•two reverse-Ps in combination i.e. all four pickup halves in the circuit
•a reverse-P with the A and D nearer the neck than standard Fender orientation
•standard Fender orientation
•a reverse-P with the B and E nearer the bridge than standard Fender orientation, in the approximate Stingray position
•a wide reverse-P engaging the B-E half nearer the bridge and the A-D half nearer the neck (weird, but might sound interesting)

The double-reverse-P would also sort of echo or follow the body shape, which I like in theory.

Please note that I’m not just looking to brighten up a dark-sounding bass—I would like to retain the current sound as an option among a few new ones—and I neither expect nor want to nail a Stingray with a passive Precision pickup in the approximate Stingray position (I already have other instruments that get me sounds in that realm).

All that said:

•do I have the possible pickup configurations this would add correct?
•what are my options for a switch? 5-way blade and 5-way rotary?
•very broadly speaking, how would each of the possible combinations sound? (I understand that answers to this question would be highly subjective.)
•should I try to track down an exact copy of this pickup, or would an actual DiMarzio Model P come close enough? I think it’s a Schaller copy of a Model P used in many instruments made in Japan in the 1980s.
•does anyone have personal experience with something like this they would care to share?

Thanks in advance for your helpful replies.

I am properly late to the game, but I added one additional p pick up so you can flip between the 2. The pickup for the DG string is always on, it's the EA that switches.

 

[DWA2469]

I am properly late to the game, but I added one additional p pick up so you can flip between the 2. The pickup for the DG string is always on, it's the EA that switches.

That is a creative solution!

 

[Riff Ranger]

I am properly late to the game, but I added one additional p pick up so you can flip between the 2. The pickup for the DG string is always on, it's the EA that switches.

Not so late, as I still haven’t gotten the instrument whose surgery instigated this thread back from my tech. I hope to have it in time to consider using it when my band opens our new hometown metal festival later this month.

I like a lot of what you have going on here in addition to the switchable EA pickup halves. This looks like an Ibanez RB620 or similar, yes?

 

[dAs]

Not so late, as I still haven’t gotten the instrument whose surgery instigated this thread back from my tech. I hope to have it in time to consider using it when my band opens our new hometown metal festival later this month.

I like a lot of what you have going on here in addition to the switchable EA pickup halves. This looks like an Ibanez RB620 or similar, yes?

You are correct, I bought it used. Someone replaced the pickups to the Duncan quarter pounders, and upgraded the bridge to a badass. The top has a crack in it which is weird as it a laminate top but the wood ( which is solid not ply ) under it was fine. The pickguard they made was badly cut, so this was the perfect 'project' bass to work with. I routed the new area for the pickup and put on the vinyl. I'm an idiot when it comes to the electronics so I brought it to a local store ( Kudo's Anthony at Flemington guitar shop ) who wired and soldered it up.

 

[Riff Ranger]

‘tis finally done!

After I acquired the new DiMarzio Model P pickup, I had the body routed for an additional split pickup half to either side of the existing rout in the standard (i.e. Fender Precision) position and orientation. The new pickup went in toward the neck, the old pickup (an early ‘80s DiMarzio clone by Schaller, to the best of my knowledge) shifted toward the bridge, and a 4-way rotary switch replaced the tone knob.

I can now select:
•reverse-P with the bass half in the standard position and the treble half toward the neck à la Mark Hoppus (“neck position“)
•standard position and orientation (“middle position”)
•reverse-P with the bass half in the approximate Stingray position and the treble half in the standard position (“bridge position”)
•all four halves together (“everything”)

Going into this latest operation, I found the original pickup in the original position a bit darker and less defined than I generally like, even after trying stainless steel roundwound strings and 1M pots on both the volume and tone knobs. I hoped this new arrangement would get me at least one setting with more high end and definition, and predicted the bridge position and everything setting would get me there, with darker options in the middle and neck positions.

As it turns out, all four options seem like improvements for my purposes! The neck position doesn’t sound dark at all, if anything maybe a bit scooped relative to the middle position, with the bridge position perhaps a bit more mid-focused; all three of those settings provide excellent, slightly different takes on an aggressive Precision sound. Not too surprisingly, the “everything” setting sounds quite different from the others, but not quite in the way I expected. I did expect something like a thicker 50/50 P/J blend, and it does sound like that; but somehow this ended up the … darkest? … bassiest? …loudest? … least defined? setting of the new arrangement I do like the “everything” setting, but it sounds more like switching on some kind of pedal than merely switching pickups.

This move has worked out well for me

I do still wonder:
•Did removing the tone pot altogether brighten everything up? What is now the middle position sounds so much brighter and more defined than the original pickup did in that same position with the tone knob wide open.
•Does the new DiMarzio Model P just sound brighter and more defined than the 40-something-year-old clone? Even in the neck position, I hear more high end and definition from the actual DiMarzio than I do from the clone reversed and shifted toward the bridge; but the middle position, which combines a new half with an old half, doesn’t sound mismatched across the strings; would the bridge position just sound more mid-focused due to location anyway?
•I had to lower the new halves toward the neck and raise the old halves (and even the pole pieces) toward the bridge to achieve balanced output across the strings and positions. Would moving pickups toward the neck increase output and toward the bridge decrease output, or does the new DiMarzio just have higher output than the old clone? (I have no way to measure resistance.)

Thank you for all the contributions to this discussion thus far, for your patience in waiting with me for the work to get done, and for anything more you have to add now that I finally made this move.

 

[ctmullins]

Nice!

You have room for a third reverse P nearer the bridge. Just sayin’….

 

[Riff Ranger]

Nice!

You have room for a third reverse P nearer the bridge. Just sayin’….

… and maybe another near the neck I’ve heard from at least two players of the old BC Rich instruments with DiMarzios in more widely spaced double-P and double-reverse-P configurations that the blended sound really shines. I’ve only heard this one through my headphone rig so far—I might get to try it through my cabs today—but at this time the everything setting on this one seems like the one I would use least. I might tinker with pickup heights some more but I like where this one has ended up.

 

[Water buffalo]

View attachment 7499042
‘tis finally done!

After I acquired the new DiMarzio Model P pickup, I had the body routed for an additional split pickup half to either side of the existing rout in the standard (i.e. Fender Precision) position and orientation. The new pickup went in toward the neck, the old pickup (an early ‘80s DiMarzio clone by Schaller, to the best of my knowledge) shifted toward the bridge, and a 4-way rotary switch replaced the tone knob.

I can now select:
•reverse-P with the bass half in the standard position and the treble half toward the neck à la Mark Hoppus (“neck position“)
•standard position and orientation (“middle position”)
•reverse-P with the bass half in the approximate Stingray position and the treble half in the standard position (“bridge position”)
•all four halves together (“everything”)

Going into this latest operation, I found the original pickup in the original position a bit darker and less defined than I generally like, even after trying stainless steel roundwound strings and 1M pots on both the volume and tone knobs. I hoped this new arrangement would get me at least one setting with more high end and definition, and predicted the bridge position and everything setting would get me there, with darker options in the middle and neck positions.

As it turns out, all four options seem like improvements for my purposes! The neck position doesn’t sound dark at all, if anything maybe a bit scooped relative to the middle position, with the bridge position perhaps a bit more mid-focused; all three of those settings provide excellent, slightly different takes on an aggressive Precision sound. Not too surprisingly, the “everything” setting sounds quite different from the others, but not quite in the way I expected. I did expect something like a thicker 50/50 P/J blend, and it does sound like that; but somehow this ended up the … darkest? … bassiest? …loudest? … least defined? setting of the new arrangement I do like the “everything” setting, but it sounds more like switching on some kind of pedal than merely switching pickups.

This move has worked out well for me

I do still wonder:
•Did removing the tone pot altogether brighten everything up? What is now the middle position sounds so much brighter and more defined than the original pickup did in that same position with the tone knob wide open.
•Does the new DiMarzio Model P just sound brighter and more defined than the 40-something-year-old clone? Even in the neck position, I hear more high end and definition from the actual DiMarzio than I do from the clone reversed and shifted toward the bridge; but the middle position, which combines a new half with an old half, doesn’t sound mismatched across the strings; would the bridge position just sound more mid-focused due to location anyway?
•I had to lower the new halves toward the neck and raise the old halves (and even the pole pieces) toward the bridge to achieve balanced output across the strings and positions. Would moving pickups toward the neck increase output and toward the bridge decrease output, or does the new DiMarzio just have higher output than the old clone? (I have no way to measure resistance.)

Thank you for all the contributions to this discussion thus far, for your patience in waiting with me for the work to get done, and for anything more you have to add now that I finally made this move.

Very cool. It is a great pickup layout.

Here's my version.

 

[Riff Ranger]

Very cool. It is a great pickup layout.

Here's my version.
View attachment 7499174

That looks amazing! would you please tell me EVERYTHING about the electronics?

 

[Riff Ranger]

Not too surprisingly, the “everything” setting sounds quite different from the others, but not quite in the way I expected. I did expect something like a thicker 50/50 P/J blend, and it does sound like that; but somehow this ended up the … darkest? … bassiest? …loudest? … least defined? setting of the new arrangement I do like the “everything” setting, but it sounds more like switching on some kind of pedal than merely switching pickups.

While this all remains true, some fine tuning of the pickup heights has everything sounding better, most noticeably the everything setting.

 

[Empap]

I do still wonder:
•Did removing the tone pot altogether brighten everything up? What is now the middle position sounds so much brighter and more defined than the original pickup did in that same position with the tone knob wide open.
•Does the new DiMarzio Model P just sound brighter and more defined than the 40-something-year-old clone? Even in the neck position, I hear more high end and definition from the actual DiMarzio than I do from the clone reversed and shifted toward the bridge; but the middle position, which combines a new half with an old half, doesn’t sound mismatched across the strings; would the bridge position just sound more mid-focused due to location anyway?
•I had to lower the new halves toward the neck and raise the old halves (and even the pole pieces) toward the bridge to achieve balanced output across the strings and positions. Would moving pickups toward the neck increase output and toward the bridge decrease output, or does the new DiMarzio just have higher output than the old clone? (I have no way to measure resistance.)

• Yes, slightly.
• Cant say, but probably? specs and materials used vary over the years... bringing it closer to the bridge could make them sound more mid focused because the bass is slightly less present. The closer to the bridge, the honkier it gets, honk=mid freq.
• Moving pickups on the body will change the output because of string travel/amplitude. the closer to the middle, the more it travels.

As for the everything position sounding meaner, darker, louder... Could it be that they are wired in series in that position? if yes then it's obvious. if not, then it could be the simple fact that you have 4 coils working instead of just 2, and because they are all side to side they sound louder instead of sounding scooped (think of any 2-PU bass with a space in between).

 

[dunderwovvy]

Heavily inspired by Lee Sklar's Frankenstein, but with Wilkinson AlNiCo V pickups (for now - I think I'd like a slightly hotter bridge pickup). It's like a thicker, noiseless Jazz bass.