Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pickup width and pole spacing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pickup width and pole spacing.

    I have many, many Seymour Duncan pickups. Some of them are extremely early examples, and some are brand new. I have compared them at various times, and I've discovered that the older ones are narrower than the newer ones. Among the pickups I have, there are three different widths. The very early ones are the narrowest, and the newer SH models are a little wider, with the sole TB model I have being the widest. (keep in mind these are all bridge pickups)

    has anyone else noticed a difference with the older ones?

    I don't like the TB models, even for Floyded guitars. The pickups don't seem to fit in all pickup rings without catching on them.
    Sleep!!, That's where I'm a viking!!

    http://www.myspace.com/grindhouseadtheband

  • #2
    The early ones are standard spaced.I have all three as well.TB is wider for sure I just use the old ones in floyd guitars The spacing doesn't bother me I go for the tone.Never had a problem with the TBs and pickup rings.
    Really? well screw Mark Twain.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think some time in the early to mid ´90s SD started using /molding "modern vintage" bobbins where the poles are spaced 1mm wider apart. That said, most manufacurers today use this spacing, real PAFs are also spaced slightly narrower than today´s GIbson PUs.

      Originally posted by zeegler View Post
      .....
      I don't like the TB models, even for Floyded guitars. The pickups don't seem to fit in all pickup rings without catching on them.
      That´s why they come with their own rings, though I´ve never had issues myself (only alleviated them for others)

      Comment


      • #4
        tonally it never bothered me, fit wise I've run into the occasional issue, but nothing beyond a minor hassle

        EVH used to claim he initially slanted the 'bucker in his strat to make sure the strings passed over the polepieces even if it was on an angle, I always thought that was a bit of an Ed fairy tale and he did it because Fender slanted the bridge single coil

        Comment


        • #5
          Some years back Gibson changed the angle of their TOMs to be a bit straighter, thus widening the string spacing to match Floyd spacing.

          I found that out after putting a Gibson 498T in a Floyded Jackson and the strings passed directly over the poles, yet were also perfectly aligned with my 93 LP Standard.

          Since Fender and Gibson set the pole-spacing standards, everyone followed them.

          Older pickups would obviously have not been through this design revision, and if you put them in a Les Paul that had the new spacing, the poles would not line up.
          I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood

          The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

          My Blog: http://newcenstein.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Newc View Post
            Some years back Gibson changed the angle of their TOMs to be a bit straighter, thus widening the string spacing to match Floyd spacing.

            I found that out after putting a Gibson 498T in a Floyded Jackson and the strings passed directly over the poles, yet were also perfectly aligned with my 93 LP Standard.

            Since Fender and Gibson set the pole-spacing standards, everyone followed them.

            Older pickups would obviously have not been through this design revision, and if you put them in a Les Paul that had the new spacing, the poles would not line up.
            Aha, so that explains why older SD pickups have narrower pole spacing then. Makes sense.
            Sleep!!, That's where I'm a viking!!

            http://www.myspace.com/grindhouseadtheband

            Comment

            Working...
            X