Acoustic-Only Properties of Charlie Christian Pickup

[Dennis D]

...Does anyone know what the acoustic properties may be of a Charlie Christian Pickup unamplified? In other words, would it be about the same as a Humbucker, or does that extra hardware take away more of the sound when you don't amplify it ? I'm still dreaming about having an archtop built w/ that pickup. Thanks. Dennis

[kid deluxe]

Jason Lollar makes small CC pickups... dont know about acoustic properties..

Charlie Christian Pickups

[mongrel]

Originally Posted by Dennis D

...Does anyone know what the acoustic properties may be of a Charlie Christian Pickup unamplified? In other words, would it be about the same as a Humbucker, or does that extra hardware take away more of the sound when you don't amplify it ? I'm still dreaming about having an archtop built w/ that pickup. Thanks. Dennis

You must be referring to "string pull", the phenomena of the pickup magnetys exerting downward force on the ferrous strings attenuating their vibration. With a conventionally mounted built in humbucker, adjustment screws allow altering the distance of the pickup from the strings so that string pull can be eliminated or at least minimized. The CC pickup is bolted to the top so that the distance is fixed and the only way to change height is to raise the action. Although the resistance of these pickups is very low compared to modern pickups, the magnetic strength of the originals and copies seems to be very high. Those are some humongous cobalt magnets in those things. But I doubt that many players would buy a guitar with one to play it unamplified. I know I woundn't.

[Dennis D]

...That's exactly what I was wondering. I am trying to duplicate that Charlie Christian ES-150 or 250, on a budget, in a blonde. So, I thought maybe I could have one built. I found a luthier, who would make a really good acoustic archtop -- but then, because I just 'have to have' that CC pickup, I'm afraid the acoustic properties go away. I am not a pro, so I'd just use it around the house. Either way, thanks for the insight ! Dennis

[oldane]

Originally Posted by mongrel

The CC pickup is bolted to the top so that the distance is fixed and the only way to change height is to raise the action.

That is not true. The original CC PU is fixed with three screws/bolts to the top, but they are mounted in threads in the huge cobalt magnets inside the box and has springs between the magnets and the underside of the top so the PU can still be adjusted up and down much like a HB by turning the screws on the top.

How do I know this? Well, I have an original 1938 CC PU retrofitted to an old 1934 Gibson L37 and it's mounted the mentioned way.

To the OP:

The original CC is noisy and may not be well balanced for volume between the strings. That surely goes for my sample - humming and unbalanced (the low E string much louder than the others). I addition, the mounting scews tends to come loose, so the shims between the top and the screw heads will rattle and buzz (may be fixed with stronger springs and/or rubber shims instead of the steel ones). For that reason my old axe is more a museum piece than a utility guitar for me, though the tone quality of the PU as such is great.

Jason Lollar has three versions of his take on the CC: With the original mounting (but still with modern smaller Alnico V magnets), with a mounting like a Strat PU and in a square HB design fitting into a nomal HB mount.

Pete Biltoft of Vintage Vibe also makes a CC like PUs for Tele mount, Strat mount and standard HB mount. The advatage of his CC PUs in HB mount is that they are can be delivered with easily replaceable magnets in varying strengths of your choice (Alnico II, III, V and ceramic 8), thus allowing you to experiment with and fine adjust the tone from mellow and almost HiFi like (Alnico II and III) to more raw, bright and punchy (ceramic 8).

Despite the holy grail status of the original CC, I'd say if you want a practical instrument for problem free playing, go with one of the modern CC lookalike alternatives. They are much less noisy and have a better balanced sound. Personally, I'd also go with the versions for HB mount, since a HB mount is much more flexible. There is hardly any type of PU that doesn't come in HB disguise these days, so it will be much easier if you later should want to try out say a P90, Double blade, HB etc. Apart from that, original CCs are hard to come by and they are expensive.

A mounted PU with leads and pots will always dampen/change the acoustic character of an archtop. Floating PUs are often used with acoustic archtops made from solid carved woods, but IMHO they are not optimal and doesn't sound as good as a body mounted PU. For that reason I have ended up with having acoustic guitars for acoustic playing and electric guitars for electric playing. That way, I can also have them each set up and strung optimally for their respective use (lower action and nickel strings for amplified playing, higher action and bronze strings for acoustic playing). Many players prefer a laminated archtop to a carved instrument - maybe also with a shallower body depth - for electric plying due to the better feedback resistance. Many also like the amplifed tone of the laminated guitar better than that of a carved solid wood guitar. For acoustic playing, the carved top and back instrument is of course the best chioce.

[Bill C]

As mentioned in other threads you can get replica CC's here ... Charlie Christian Pickups - CC Pickups

[SamBooka]

well put oldane...