View Full Version : is there anyone here that actually hears a

11-05-2005, 09:52 AM
difference with direct mount and screw/spring installed pu's?
eddie van halen and others have said time and time again
that the tone is more full and solid mounted direct?
any truth?
I do like the fact the pup will not move anymore but is there a tonal advantage to this?

11-05-2005, 11:30 AM
Regarding the physics standpoint, it could very well be true that direct mount sound better. The vibrations resonate through the wood, directly to the pickup... while using rings, what ever resonance isnt lost to the ring itself, has to travel all the way down the screw... I would like to hear a comparison of the two: Same model guitar, one direct mounted, one using a ring. That would be the only way to really prove a difference I guess.

11-05-2005, 11:35 AM

11-05-2005, 12:04 PM
I personally think it's a bunch of hype.
If EVH mounted his pickup with toggle bolts through the backside of the trem cavity, people would swear that sounds better too. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I do agree that spacing, distance from the bridge, height, etc. ALL do have an effect on the sound, but IMO, a pickup is an electronic device that operates in the same manner regardless of how it's mounted.

11-05-2005, 12:53 PM
Thay say a floyded guitar does not have the same sustain as a hard-tail because it a floating trem. Wouldn't the same apply for pups?

11-05-2005, 02:11 PM
Pickups aren't responding to mechanical vibrations. Or, at least they shouldn't be. If they are, they are squealing bastards.
I think direct mounting is just another BS/Hype thing.

11-05-2005, 02:32 PM
difference with direct mount and screw/spring installed pu's?

[/ QUOTE ]
There would still be screws/springs installed with the pickup directly mounted. There'd just be no pickup bezel on the body.

11-05-2005, 03:54 PM
Pickups aren't responding to mechanical vibrations. Or, at least they shouldn't be. If they are, they are squealing bastards.
I think direct mounting is just another BS/Hype thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1 Pickups vibrating have nothing to do with your tone, not in a positive way anyways...

11-06-2005, 09:06 AM
This topic was brought up a month ago by (yours truly) I was unable to find the link. Supposidly some of the custom guitar builders, JET for one, claim that some microphonics are picked up by the pickup when mounted to the wood. This doesn't make sense since most pickups are potted in wax to reduce microphonics. I can't hear the difference. I have both methods of mounting and I think it is hype also.

11-06-2005, 03:01 PM
There have been studies done (I looked but can't sem to remember where I read this) on this subject that showed absolutely no diference. A pickup reads string vibrations with a magnet...it cannot read mechanical resonance. The only thing tht will affect tone is the pickups spatial relationship (vertical and horizontal) to the strings.
I have personally tried this with a parts mutt and found no difference as well.

11-06-2005, 03:22 PM
So do woods really effect tone then?

11-06-2005, 04:32 PM
So do woods really effect tone then?

[/ QUOTE ]
They certainly do, because they affect how the strings resonate.

11-06-2005, 04:58 PM
But then again, how can wood really affect the tone if the bridge materials are the same?
It's one thing to say a Les Paul with a standard stopbar/TOM and mahogany body sounds better than an Ibenhad EX with a basswood body and a potmetal Lo-Pro trem as the basis for the trem vs TOM argument, but there's never been a definite Floyded LP vs standard LP comparison.

Put a crappy potmetal TOM on an LP vs a standard TOM on an LP and you'll notice a distinct difference. Put a good quality bridge on a basswood body and it'll sound better than a crappy bridge on the same body.

Pickups only pick up the vibration of the string, and the largest factor that affects the string's vibration is the quality of the bridge and nut.
However, the body wood itself absorbs and transfers the vibration back to the bridge and nut in the form of physical resistance, which, when it is somewhat equal to the pressure that the vibration of the string is exerting, results not in cancellation, but rather cooperation, or feedback.
Since the vibration rate of the string is most influenced by the bridge and nut (as well as frets), the better the metal, the better the oscillation and the longer the time of oscillation, hence the vibrations have more time and force behind them to pass through the body back to the point of origin - the bridge.
This is turn feeds back into the string, causing it to harmonize and regenerate more and more.

Cleveland Metal
11-06-2005, 05:12 PM
Say what?

11-06-2005, 05:13 PM

11-06-2005, 06:33 PM
It is called sustain. A guitar that sounds good raw is always better. It means the body; the neck; the mounts on the pickups and even the tuners all let the vibes in the wood shine. Based on that, I would permanently secure my pups to the body. I know that that dosen't make any difference when you crank it up, but that is why those bozos pay billions of bucks for an old Fender or Gibson. /images/graemlins/cool.gif When they made acoustic guitars, wood was everything. There was not amplification. Your guitar rang or it was dead. With all the "mods" and electronics, all a "guitar" is now is a fancy platform. It still takes talent, however. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

11-06-2005, 07:53 PM
I've owned Ibanez RG & S models with identical hardware, but obviously different body materials (RG=basswood, S=mahogany) and the tones were VERY different.