J90C spec question

[BadHorsie01]

Hi all,

I've been browsing and checking out the pickup threads, but haven't been able to find this specific question about the J90C pickup yet, so here goes.

Has anyone been able to do an analysis on it similar to the spec on the Seymour Duncan Tone Comparison chart? Like this?:

Name---------Cable ----DC Resistance --------Resonant Peak ----------Magnet --------EQ B/M/T

Pearly Gates Four Con.---Bridge: 8.35 k --------Bridge: 6.5 KHz ---Alnico II Bar ----6 / 5 / 9
I'm specifically interested in the resistance and the eq qualities. I have a PG that I'm going to try in my 475 to see if it fits the bill. It may or may not.
Considering the J90C is not exactly common over here I'd like to be able to come close to reproducing its sound if the PG isn't the ticket. I don't want a Distortion style pickup though.

:think:

[peedenmark7]

j90c

these specs are taken from the 1985 jackson pickup spec sheet.


J90C :
description: similar to J-90 but uses ceramic magnet for "clearer" distortion.
SR [in KHZ] 4.88
Z [@ SR in MOhms] 5.6
INDUCTANCE [in henries] 9.8
Q [@ SR] 18.8
OUTPUT LEVEL [@ SR] +51.1db
MAGNETIC STRUCTURE ceramic
RESISTANCE [in K Ohms] 15.93


the J90:
description: Ultra high output distortion class accentuated low frequency,
bridge position humbucking, ideally suited for heavy bodies.
SR [in KHZ] 4.70
Z [@ SR in MOhms] 6.1
INDUCTANCE [in henries] 10.5
Q [@ SR] 19.6
OUTPUT LEVEL [@ SR] +51.7db
MAGNETIC STRUCTURE ALNICO V
RESISTANCE [in K Ohms] 15.93

you dont see many J90C pickups during the dimas era. they are there but you tend to see moreJ80c's during this time frame. expecially in rhoads guitars.

later when they began covering the pickups with the thick plastic cover you see more J90c pickups, likely to make up for the plastic cover which at least to me altered the tone some.

find one of each and decide for yourself...
I prefer alnico magnets , but a ceramic magnet has its applications.
it comes down to amp, its speakers, guitar wood, your amp settings and how you play the guitar.

the jackson rule of thumb "for the most part" stands true.
heavy guitar use a J-90

lighter body use a J- 80

J-50B pickups can be nice as well, especially in a higher gain amp. you'll find the distortion per say to be clearer and individual notes better heard in comparison to the above distortion class pickups.

I dont care much for the j50BC unless it is covered. theyre a bit brittle , but again this depends on what your amp is. you see more C designated pickups after '86 into late '88.

I've always been a fan of these pickups and have done quite a bit of research as well as experimentation with them in different charvels and jacksons.

hope that helps .

[phill_up]

good morning peedenmark7 The JJP says hi! I play the hell out of that thing. I changed the pickup to a black F-spaced dp100 other than that its just like it was.

Merry Christmas! er... uhm... Happy Holidays!
Phillip

[Dave L]

I have the J90C in an all-maple Collen PCS, and I would say that it´s a "distortion class" humbucker and not in the "hot PAF" category. It´s got high output, decent clarity and a cool, almost compressed feel to it. Works great with high gain... it´s not harsh or trebly, has good punch in the mids for leads and walks the right side of the fine line between being nicely loose and juicy in the bottom end and being flubby.

What was the question, though? Do you have a J90C you want to replicate the sound of with another pickup, or do you want to know how it compares to a Pearly Gates?

[BadHorsie01]

Thanks peedenmark7 & Dave L. Very helpful

[BadHorsie01]

I have the J90C in an all-maple Collen PCS, and I would say that it´s a "distortion class" humbucker and not in the "hot PAF" category. It´s got high output, decent clarity and a cool, almost compressed feel to it. Works great with high gain... it´s not harsh or trebly, has good punch in the mids for leads and walks the right side of the fine line between being nicely loose and juicy in the bottom end and being flubby.

What was the question, though? Do you have a J90C you want to replicate the sound of with another pickup, or do you want to know how it compares to a Pearly Gates?

Hi Dave,

To clarify, I'm in the process of replacing the original preamp & pickups in my 475 and bring it more in line with my 375 output wise. I've bought the PG as it was on ebay with a BIN I couldn't refuse. I'm going to try it in the 475 to see how it sounds. If it's good I'll keep it.

If not, I'll be looking for something else, and that's the reason for this thread. The 375 sounds great and I'd like to try to get near that sound with the 475.

[DonP]

I think the PG couldn't be farther from the J90C. Closest IMO is the Duncan Distortion. I have a Charvel Fusion Deluxe with a J90C, and a 750XL (string thru) with a DD. Both are similar sounding, even though they are very different guitars.

[peedenmark7]

phill_up , glad to hear you love that JJP, it is a very nice guitar indeed... I was just looking at pictures of it the other day, and of course wondering if a wineberry colored one will ever surface for me !! avery merry christmas to you and yours as well...


I'd have to agree with donp on the duncan distortion being the closest thing to a J90C.
very similar..
should you need the J80 specs for comparison, I can post those as well.

[Black Shadow]

j90c

these specs are taken from the 1985 jackson pickup spec sheet.


J90C :
description: similar to J-90 but uses ceramic magnet for "clearer" distortion.
SR [in KHZ] 4.88
Z [@ SR in MOhms] 5.6
INDUCTANCE [in henries] 9.8
Q [@ SR] 18.8
OUTPUT LEVEL [@ SR] +51.1db
MAGNETIC STRUCTURE ceramic
RESISTANCE [in K Ohms] 15.93


the J90:
description: Ultra high output distortion class accentuated low frequency,
bridge position humbucking, ideally suited for heavy bodies.
SR [in KHZ] 4.70
Z [@ SR in MOhms] 6.1
INDUCTANCE [in henries] 10.5
Q [@ SR] 19.6
OUTPUT LEVEL [@ SR] +51.7db
MAGNETIC STRUCTURE ALNICO V
RESISTANCE [in K Ohms] 15.93

you dont see many J90C pickups during the dimas era. they are there but you tend to see moreJ80c's during this time frame. expecially in rhoads guitars.

later when they began covering the pickups with the thick plastic cover you see more J90c pickups, likely to make up for the plastic cover which at least to me altered the tone some.

find one of each and decide for yourself...
I prefer alnico magnets , but a ceramic magnet has its applications.
it comes down to amp, its speakers, guitar wood, your amp settings and how you play the guitar.

the jackson rule of thumb "for the most part" stands true.
heavy guitar use a J-90

lighter body use a J- 80

J-50B pickups can be nice as well, especially in a higher gain amp. you'll find the distortion per say to be clearer and individual notes better heard in comparison to the above distortion class pickups.

I dont care much for the j50BC unless it is covered. theyre a bit brittle , but again this depends on what your amp is. you see more C designated pickups after '86 into late '88.

I've always been a fan of these pickups and have done quite a bit of research as well as experimentation with them in different charvels and jacksons.

hope that helps .

Good points all. I personally like the J50BC, but only when paired with the JE1200 or EMG SPC for the slight boost it needs. I like it far more for lead than rhythm playing. Through my Mesa Marks, it has a sort of shrieking/shredding quality that I really like on the upper strings, and my first '90 Charvel 475 still has and will always have the original pickups, just to have a reminder of that sound that I discovered and loved so long ago. The 375 was my first good guitar, and the 475 my first GREAT guitar, and was the one I was playing when I really felt like I had bonded with electric guitar.

Really aggressive/fast thrash rhythm I sometimes play isn't done easily with any of the classic Jackson pickups IMO, although I still value them for '80s Maiden/Priest sounds.

[CaptNasty]

Wow that is one helluva necro revival... 12 years!

[metalhobo]

I always thought it unhelpful how jackson published the peak output AT SR of the pickups, where the total wideband rms output would have been a much more useful measure of power. of course this comment is more than 30 years too late.