unpotted pickups = more acoustic tone?

[Hjalmiz]

Maybe , try taking the pu-covers of and do the tap-test. I have a unpotted Burst bucker in the bridge position (it sucks) and the duncan @ the neck. They respond very diffrent to the tap-test. I think its a matter of frequensy response and not microphonics. But u could be right Jack ! /H

[iim7V7IM7]

i don't agree. If you tap the pickup on a classic 57 there's virtually no click through the amp. Do it on an unpotted pickup and you can clearly hear the click through the amp. I agree that all pickups are slightly microphonic but the potted ones are effectively silent in that regard for all practical concerns.

I guess the amount of potting is all relative.

I just tried what you suggested (tapping on the pickup cover while plugged in to an amp) on my Lollar Imperial Low Winds. I am guessing that the wax is light enough to allow for some winding movement, because I hear the "click" loud and clear. I tried it on my Kent Armstrong Handwound Floater and I heard nothing at all.

[PTChristopher2]

In my opinion, there is no genuine dichotomy of potted/unpotted.

Sure if a given maker offers a product with his idea of "potting" and also offers the same product "un-potted", then one may possibly hear a difference.

AND, in my observation there is often a specific tendency toward a microphonic response in weakly-potted, or un-potted PUs.

But there is a staggering amount of variation from one wax-potted PU to another, even from the same maker.

Pull enough PUs apart and the idea that "potting" would have a specific meaning gets a bit hard to swallow. Nevermind dogmatic TGP statements about "potted" PUs sounding consistently different from un-potted. In my observation, there is insufficient consistency to say something like this unless one is very given to suggestibility.

And how about PUs that are beloved for their preservation of acoustic character, but are (rather more truly) potted in a liquid resin?

Some PUs have almost no pick-click response, but can sound very acoustically charactered (for any of a number of reasons). Others sound very magnetically isolated, but click like crazy when struck.

"Microphonic" can also be a bit too much of a generalization. Some combinations of PU materials, very inconsistent "potting", and various mounting methods can yield unexpected results.

Its a big wide PU world, and any TGP dumb-down to a single very inconsistently applied parameter such as "potting" is misleading at best.

Again, if one compares a single makers PU that is available potted or un-potted, then it may be reasonable to characterizer a reasonably consistent difference.

In my opinion.

Chris

[Hjalmiz]

Yup !

In my opinion, there is no genuine dichotomy of potted/unpotted.

Sure if a given maker offers a product with his idea of "potting" and also offers the same product "un-potted", then one may possibly hear a difference.

AND, in my observation there is often a specific tendency toward a microphonic response in weakly-potted, or un-potted PUs.

But there is a staggering amount of variation from one wax-potted PU to another, even from the same maker.

Pull enough PUs apart and the idea that "potting" would have a specific meaning gets a bit hard to swallow. Nevermind dogmatic TGP statements about "potted" PUs sounding consistently different from un-potted. In my observation, there is insufficient consistency to say something like this unless one is very given to suggestibility.

And how about PUs that are beloved for their preservation of acoustic character, but are (rather more truly) potted in a liquid resin?

Some PUs have almost no pick-click response, but can sound very acoustically charactered (for any of a number of reasons). Others sound very magnetically isolated, but click like crazy when struck.

"Microphonic" can also be a bit too much of a generalization. Some combinations of PU materials, very inconsistent "potting", and various mounting methods can yield unexpected results.

Its a big wide PU world, and any TGP dumb-down to a single very inconsistently applied parameter such as "potting" is misleading at best.

Again, if one compares a single makers PU that is available potted or un-potted, then it may be reasonable to characterizer a reasonably consistent difference.

In my opinion.

Chris

[jzucker]

I guess the amount of potting is all relative.

I just tried what you suggested (tapping on the pickup cover while plugged in to an amp) on my Lollar Imperial Low Winds. I am guessing that the wax is light enough to allow for some winding movement, because I hear the "click" loud and clear. I tried it on my Kent Armstrong Handwound Floater and I heard nothing at all.

it also depends in whether the coil was dipped and later the cover was put on or whether the wax bonded to the cover

[iim7V7IM7]

it also depends in whether the coil was dipped and later the cover was put on or whether the wax bonded to the cover

I have never removed them so I have no idea what Jason does. They do seem to be microphonic though...:-)

[feet]

i feel both smarter and way dumber than i did when i started this thread.

to state my positions a little further: i certainly don't want more pick noise-- less or none would be best, and that currently isn't much of an issue, nor do i hit the pickup often. and i'm not entirely displeased with the current pup's sound, but i was curious about a pup that was sort of optimized for the acoustic idiosyncrasy of my guitar.

however, jack's clip got me thinking. once the single note part started, it did seem pretty "acoustic" to me. perhaps too much so? can't say. but i like that the byrdland has that set in, electric sound and want to preserve that. not trying to turn it into a floater. just wondering about bringing out some of the guitars many natural quirks, some of which seem "acoustic" in nature, for lack of a better term. and certainly, its pretty loud unplugged, too. maybe a different "higher quality" pup might also do the trick. maybe with a different kind of wind or different magnet or something.

perhaps most disheartening about this thread are the reasoned, thoughtful discussions that ensued instead of the forcing of agendas and the dropping of names, brands and prices. and you guys call yourselves guitar players. for shame.

[Phil in London]

i feel both smarter and way dumber than i did when i started this thread.

...

however, jack's clip got me thinking. once the single note part started, it did seem pretty "acoustic" to me. perhaps too much so? can't say. but i like that the byrdland has that set in, electric sound and want to preserve that. not trying to turn it into a floater. just wondering about bringing out some of the guitars many natural quirks, some of which seem "acoustic" in nature, for lack of a better term. and certainly, its pretty loud unplugged, too. maybe a different "higher quality" pup might also do the trick. maybe with a different kind of wind or different magnet or something.

perhaps most disheartening about this thread are the reasoned, thoughtful discussions that ensued instead of the forcing of agendas and the dropping of names, brands and prices. and you guys call yourselves guitar players. for shame.

I can change that impression - the pickup with by far the most acoustic behaviour (in a jazz guitar) that I ever came across is the Lollar Charlie Christian. I have this pickup in a modded Epi JP, and it has completely changed the character of the guitar. Incredible response and acousticness, if there is such a word. Neck position, and still lots of treble, crisp, articulation, etc, and - no pick noise! ;-)

[Phil in London]

here is an example, finger picked...

[feet]

interesting indeed. i had seen that video before and very much liked the tone. it kinda made me want to investigate a splittable pup, as i do like that single coil sound, but don't want to lose the full hum sound, either. i even considered a second guitar for it, but that isn't a good idea. i sort of enjoy that old school-y tone, but it isn't the primary reason i play that guitar. if i could switch it off and on that would be awesome. then again, a split hum wouldn't sound like a charlie christian all that much, i would imagine. a humbucker that you could somehow dial down to a single would be neat, but sort of non extant, to my knowledge.

also like what i've heard of dynasonics, especially how they relate to being acoustic-y sounding, too.

[Phil in London]

Just to clarify, for some reason the Lollar CC does not sound like a single coil, in the sense of a P90, or a Fender type of pup. It has far more body than that. My experience with it is that you dont miss the humbucker at all, when you play it.

If you want a humbucker, then you will quite likely not have the acoustic type of sound quality that you were refering to.

PS: I have no business interest whatsoever in Jason Lollar's operation...

[bluemusic4us]

i have the lovers in my Heritage eagle and I just lower them a few 16ths of an inch and never hit them with a pick or fingers.

By the way the unpotted schaller pickups on my heritage are as good sounding as any boutique pickups I've ever used in any of my guitars.

Ok I'm confused.

[jzucker]

Ok I'm confused.

it's a typo. The schallers are in my eagle.

[Phil in London]

seems like 2 Heritage(s)

[jzucker]

seems like 2 Heritage(s)

no, i have one heritage and it has schallers in it. Now the floating pickups they use are absolutely horrible (or at least they used to be). They were noisy and extremly low output.

But I like the schaller pickups in my eagle better than classic 57 or lollar imperials. Sometimes the pickup just fits the guitar too.

And sometimes you can fix a bright guitar with a dark pickup or visa versa but sometimes the guitar just sounds a certain way and if you try to combat it with a pickup who's characteristics are counter to what the guitar sounds like you end up with an electronic, muddy tone.

When I was on a quest with my PM-120 to get it to sound brighter, I replaced the pickups with classic 57 pickups. It was still dark. I then called Kent Armstrong about getting some custom pickups made. Kent told me to go into a small bathroom and play the guitar and tell him whether it sounded bright or dark. I did that, came back and told him the guitar sounded dark acoustically. He told me that no pickup is going to make that guitar sound like a bright, spruce top guitar an to just live with it or sell it.

Very astute advice, IMO

[jads57]

There seem to be a lot variables at play here. First the actual guitar as mentioned in above post by Jack Z, which seems to most important factor. Then the actual pickup materials and build itself probably contribute next down the list of importance. And then probably potting comes next and how it was done.

[hoosier1981]

I actually swapped my pickups in a hollowbody (Eastman AR372CE) and went unpotted. I put the Parsons Street PAF in the bridge but went with a Bare Knuckles HSP90 Manhattan in the Neck.
If I tap on the Parsons Street with my pick, I can hear the acoustic sound through the amp.
However - the Bare Knuckles Manhattan does not do this. If it's truely unpotted wouldn't I be able to hear it? If I hit it really hard with a pickup and crank the volume up I can hear a TINY bit.
-I'm considering just getting the parsons street neck to match the volumes a little better. Not decided yet.