Anyone have any idea why the old Fender jazz pu's (I have original 61's) have much more output on the outer strings, E- and G-string. It seems that Fender already though of this problem back around 53 when they presented the staggered pole pieces on the single coil P-bass. On the post 57-P it's not an issue because of the split pu configuration that makes it possible to adjust pu height individually.My 61- jazz sounds great but the one thing that's hard to come around is the louder sounding E- and G-string. Did Fender have any idea behind this design (mellow flats, dampers, amplifiers), or is it just overseen by the design team at that time?
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.
Vintage string to string balance question.
- Thread starter basmicke
- Start date
Crown radius. The poles are flat. The fingerboard is curved. As a result, the A and D strings are farther from the pole pieces. This is one reason why the standard 45-105 sets of strings have 65 and 85 as the D and A strings, instead of 60 & 80, which are more consistent, tension-wise. Magnetic fields drop off as the square of the distance from the magnet, so even a little bit is noticable.
There are those companies that make staggered J-pickups for this very reason.
Now, why Fender staggered the poles on the original single coil P-pickups, but not on the later J-pickups, I'll never know.
There are those companies that make staggered J-pickups for this very reason.
Now, why Fender staggered the poles on the original single coil P-pickups, but not on the later J-pickups, I'll never know.
That's exactly what I'm wondering too. Why they left that concept since it's pretty obvious that the pole pieces doesn't follow the curve of the fingerboard which would be logical. Financial reason? Well, why? It shouldn't really be more expensive and they did staggered the pole pieces on the Strat pu's and earlier P-basses so they must have been aware of the problem. Maybe we'll never know. I use DiMarzio J's on my other Jazz bass but it's hard to top the sound of these early 60's pu's... except then for the balance problem.
There are those folks who risk tearing windings apart on old Strat pickups by pushing the magnets up or down through the fiber flat work to get the string balance they desire, with varying degrees of success, all the way from perfection to ruining the pickup and having to have it rewound. I don't know how much you're willing to risk that with your pickups.
Seymour Duncan's custom shop will unwind the wire, adjust the magnet stagger, and rewind the old wire, as well, for a price, of course.
Seymour Duncan's custom shop will unwind the wire, adjust the magnet stagger, and rewind the old wire, as well, for a price, of course.
Yes, I've heard of people doing that too. Since my pickups and electronics are completely untouched 1961's original I don't want to risk anything. The old problem of vintage value versus practical playability. Also the pu's sound so fantastic if I learn to play around the dynamic difference. I guess I'm fishing for an idea where these unstaggered pole pieces could actually be a good thing. I can always use a compressor and/or thinner gauge on the outer strings but that would affect the overall playability. Maybe if I play it a lot I could turn it into an advantage of some sort 
Take a small piece of steel the width of the pickup, about 1/16 inch thick, and the length of the outside edges of the A and D pickups. Flip it onto the top of a pickup covering the A and D poles. The pickup magnets will hold it on, and it will effectively bring the magnetic field closer to the pickups, and possibly help with the string-to-string balance. Also use a 95 or 100 instead of a 105 E string, and lower the E side of the pickup a touch. I don't think that small a piece of steel will change the inductance characteristics of the pickups enough to change the tone. And if you don't like it, you can just take the steel back off of the pickups. Tele players and Strat players have been doing this to the bottom of their pickups to get more oomph for decades.
And it gets better: remember the "High A" polepieces of original late '50's split P-bass pickups, where the A poles extended further off the flatwork than the other strings? That is the origin of a medium-light set of strings having the gauges 45-65-80-100, in order to balance string-to-string response. The pickup only lasted a couple of years, before reverting to all polepieces the same length, but the strange gauges of the set continue on....
Very interesting. I wonder why they stopped developing the string to string balance ideas and went back to flat pole pieces?
I can see this is a big reason why many modern basses have a more flat radius and that way gets more balanced outout.... but it sure doesn't feel as good under my fingers
I can see this is a big reason why many modern basses have a more flat radius and that way gets more balanced outout.... but it sure doesn't feel as good under my fingers
Flat pole pieces? Ease and economy of manufacturing, along with a corporate decision that it didn't make that much difference.
Well, all companies get into a rut, and for decades you had Fender P & J, and that was it. But look around: Circle K, D'Addario, Fender and other companies now have "balanced" sets, T-I seems to have worked on their A strings; other companies are now making J-pickups with staggered polepieces, and especially with 5-string basses the defacto "normal" now, fingerboards have to have a flatter radius to accommodate all the strings, and most have tone shaping onboard.
Progress is slow, but it does happen.
Well, all companies get into a rut, and for decades you had Fender P & J, and that was it. But look around: Circle K, D'Addario, Fender and other companies now have "balanced" sets, T-I seems to have worked on their A strings; other companies are now making J-pickups with staggered polepieces, and especially with 5-string basses the defacto "normal" now, fingerboards have to have a flatter radius to accommodate all the strings, and most have tone shaping onboard.
Progress is slow, but it does happen.
That, and since a lot of folks like a 100 or otherwise slightly lighter E string, to raise the E string as well to equalize the fretting on the lesser tension and greater string excursion.
And, well, Fender's traditional radius was 7 1/4 inches, really rounded. But since the '80's, they've gone to a 9 1/2 inch radius on a lot of models, and it doesn't feel that much different or less comfortable, and also helps with string-to-string balance.
