• 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.

Thunderbird Club

#124,722
dukeorock said:
From what I’ve seen here, the most popular pickups are (in no order)

Lollar
Thunderbucker Ranch- ‘63’s &66’s
Lull
#760’s (in Epi Vintage Pros)

I can’t judge on the Lulls because I’ve never tried em. The reviews are glowing from those who have, though.
They are the most expensive option.

I have a TB ‘66 in my Cataldo NR and a pair of Lollars in my Gibson. I also tried the TB ‘63 in my Cataldo. To me, the ‘63’s sound closer to the #760’s. Think chunkier P bass. At least that’s my takeaway.

I currently have both of my T Birds strung the same (Cobalt flats) and the ‘66’s and Lollars sound extremely similar, though not exact. I could be perfectly happy either way. I’d say the Lollars are a tad smoother and punchier and the 66’s are tad more aggressive.
Click to expand...
I would argue that stock are the most popular. I think the majority are not swapping out the stock pickups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, dagrev and 4 others
#124,724
Richard I said:
Crazy, crazy market :laugh:



How do Lollars compare with stock Gibson pups?

It is impossible to change pu covers without changing the whole pickups, I suspect
Click to expand...

Lollars (in my opinion) have quite a bit more clarity and top end.

PillO said:
I would argue that stock are the most popular. I think the majority are not swapping out the stock pickups.
Click to expand...

I meant (thought I said so) REPLACEMENT pickups. I would think many would be happy with stock pickups. They sound really cool. I happen to prefer Lollars and TB’s. On a shallow note, I also prefer chrome :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, Gaolee and 8 others
#124,726
Richard I said:
Well...I won't buy a factory-new, high mark axe that doesn't sound, at least for my ears, in a proportional way with it's price tag :)
But for me, and for a lot of people living in the same part of the world where I am, the instrument "net value" is different from the value of the upgrades made to it. They might be high level upgrades, but they are subjective.

EDIT: especially modifications that are not reversible, such as moving from the 3 point bridge to the vintage 2-piece
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it’s worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it and this isn’t a commodity instrument like a Squire Affinity P with $800 of upgrades. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Bird sold for that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, MCF and 7 others
#124,729
dukeorock said:
Lollars (in my opinion) have quite a bit more clarity and top end.



I meant (thought I said so) REPLACEMENT pickups. I would think many would be happy with stock pickups. They sound really cool. I happen to prefer Lollars and TB’s. On a shallow note, I also prefer chrome :)
Click to expand...
Most of us are shallow! There’s a 2012 Gibson on local CL that I’m considering, but I find myself thinking about chroming it out!
Might be smarter to buy another VP and pay someone to refinish it in nitro....
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, fasterpussycat and 9 others
#124,733
dukeorock said:
I meant (thought I said so) REPLACEMENT pickups. I would think many would be happy with stock pickups. They sound really cool. I happen to prefer Lollars and TB’s. On a shallow note, I also prefer chrome :)
Click to expand...

I figured that was your intent, but some of us can be a little pedantic. Personally, I think the stock Gibsons sound good (good enough to not worry about replacement). On the other hand, I still am mulling what to do with the electronics in the Pro-V. TBHZs are under consideration, but still thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, Nocturnal and 5 others
#124,734
Chucky Stiletti said:
good eye Pill....it's single ended so rebiasing would take an Rk tweak which is not necessary as i was driving it unrealistically hard to confirm the whopping 2.3 Watt output of the 50C5 power tube...
Click to expand...

Lots of watts there! I'm not familiar with the 50c5, but using both sides of a couple of 12AU7s, if memory serves, gives about about 5W at a plate voltage of something around 250V
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBassNorth, dagrev, GonePlaid and 1 other person
#124,735
Engle said:
Most of us are shallow! There’s a 2012 Gibson on local CL that I’m considering, but I find myself thinking about chroming it out!
Might be smarter to buy another VP and pay someone to refinish it in nitro....
Click to expand...

I'm not shallow! No wait, I am shallow. But I am sure we can find someone around here who isn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JJR58, GBassNorth, dagrev and 2 others
#124,736
BklynKen said:
The common consensus here would be to buy both.
Click to expand...
I think if we took a poll the consensus would NOT be buy both. It would be find a third and buy all three.*

*Statistically, more is better. With each change, you are removing a degree of freedom so for meaningful comparisons, you need a larger sample.**

**So math says you need to buy more Thunderbirds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Engle, RedVee, JJR58 and 7 others
#124,737
PillO said:
I figured that was your intent, but some of us can be a little pedantic. Personally, I think the stock Gibsons sound good (good enough to not worry about replacement). On the other hand, I still am mulling what to do with the electronics in the Pro-V. TBHZs are under consideration, but still thinking.
Click to expand...

And for Kat, I'm back to thinking passive VV set up only. What to do with two extra holes. Maybe switches; not to do anything, just to make people think that it makes some difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, JJR58, fasterpussycat and 3 others
#124,738
PillO said:
Lots of watts there! I'm not familiar with the 50c5, but using both sides of a couple of 12AU7s, if memory serves, gives about about 5W at a plate voltage of something around 250V
Click to expand...
right you are, however you gotta consider the requirements...it's gotta be mounted on a cheap, flimsy plywood case that does not allow for the rigidity of mounting a power transformer and it has to be cheap. for this reason, the mains go directly to the plate of the halfwave 35W4 rectifier tube (none of this product would comply with UL508 standards today and there's NO WAY it could be sold legally) and on to the filters. this is the reason for the 50C5 since it will produce that power at 120Vdc. a halfwave rectifier is used since the bandwidth of this very cheap amplifier will not extend down to 60Hz so hum issues can be ignored, a common technique in cheap old Chinese radios...
the only real isolation happens via a small transformer to the filament of the preamp tube, the filaments of the other two tubes intentionally wired in series so that if one goes the whole thing dies.....
the design very cleverly fulfills the requirements in a way that would never fly today...
upload_2019-8-16_9-3-19.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Engle, RedVee, MCF and 5 others
#124,739
Chucky Stiletti said:
right you are, however you gotta consider the requirements...it's gotta be mounted on a cheap, flimsy plywood case that does not allow for the rigidity of mounting a power transformer and it has to be cheap. for this reason, the mains go directly to the plate of the halfwave 35W4 rectifier tube (none of this product would comply with UL508 standards today and there's NO WAY it could be sold legally) and on to the filters. this is the reason for the 50C5 since it will produce that power at 120Vdc. a halfwave rectifier is used since the bandwidth of this very cheap amplifier will not extend down to 60Hz so hum issues can be ignored, a common technique in cheap old Chinese radios...
the only real isolation happens via a small transformer to the filament of the preamp tube, the filaments of the other two tubes intentionally wired in series so that if one goes the whole thing dies.....
the design very cleverly fulfills the requirements in a way that would never fly today...
View attachment 3510124
Click to expand...

A low-fi, low tech solution! Engineering has always been about meeting a cost parameter.

Fast, Good, Cheap. Choose any two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Engle, RedVee, JJR58 and 5 others
#124,740
Chucky Stiletti said:
right you are, however you gotta consider the requirements...it's gotta be mounted on a cheap, flimsy plywood case that does not allow for the rigidity of mounting a power transformer and it has to be cheap. for this reason, the mains go directly to the plate of the halfwave 35W4 rectifier tube (none of this product would comply with UL508 standards today and there's NO WAY it could be sold legally) and on to the filters. this is the reason for the 50C5 since it will produce that power at 120Vdc. a halfwave rectifier is used since the bandwidth of this very cheap amplifier will not extend down to 60Hz so hum issues can be ignored, a common technique in cheap old Chinese radios...
the only real isolation happens via a small transformer to the filament of the preamp tube, the filaments of the other two tubes intentionally wired in series so that if one goes the whole thing dies.....
the design very cleverly fulfills the requirements in a way that would never fly today...
View attachment 3510124
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, the Eddie Bauer edition was 500 watts into eight tens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCF, Miles_ONeal, GBassNorth and 3 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back