unpotted pickups = more acoustic tone?

**feet** · 02-28-2014, 07:47 PM

i've heard this (here?) before and wanted some thoughts. i was traditionally afraid of unpotted pickups because of the possible effects volume and gain might have on them. but the idea of a more "acoustic" sound in intriguing when it comes to archtops- my byrdland specifically. it doesn't sound horrible now, but it does have a very distinct and, one might say, "acoustic" tone and feel. might be interesting to find a pickup that could help the guitar sound more like itself.

so what say you, fellas? seth lovers, right? what else is out there? what could go terribly, terribly wrong?

i should note that from time to time, volume, gain and effects happen to the byrdland. that isn't it's main purpose in life, and i have more appropriate things for that, but, you know...

**jzucker** · 02-28-2014, 09:28 PM

yes it's definitely true that they yield more acoustic properties instead of just the magnetic properties of potted pickups.

The whole squealing thing is blown out of proportion IMO. Unless you're running through a very loud setup with a fuzz, wah and overdrive it's a non issue.

Not sure about the seths though. I've heard mixed things about them.

**Laro** · 03-01-2014, 03:46 AM

Here

http://www.stewmac.com/shopby/product/6408

Stewmac sells amazing sounding unpotted pickups for a reasonable price...

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 06:12 AM

I am interested in this too... I am re-defining my puckup system and wondering if I should go with a unpotted Stormy Monday this time. More acoustic and more clarity would be great if it's true.

**iim7V7IM7** · 03-01-2014, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by jzucker

yes it's definitely true that they yield more acoustic properties instead of just the magnetic properties of potted pickups.

The whole squealing thing is blown out of proportion IMO. Unless you're running through a very loud setup with a fuzz, wah and overdrive it's a non issue.

Not sure about the seths though. I've heard mixed things about them.

Isn't that an artifact sympathetic coil vibration (pre-microphonic level) from the sound of the amp more than mechanical vibration from the guitar that you associate with "acoustic properties"?

Some players sometimes call this "airiness" perhaps what you describe as acoustic properties. Some players like this and others prefer the more focused sound of potted pickups. I have played Seymour Duncan Antiquities and Seth Lovers both of which are unpotted. Both sounded good to me and neither squealed on me. That being said, I am very very happy with Jason Lollar's potted pickups.

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Isn't that an artifact sympathetic coil vibration (pre-microphonic level) from the sound of the amp more than mechanical vibration from the guitar that you associate with "acoustic properties"?

No.

By the way, everyone on all the gear forums love to spend hundreds of dollars on pickups but the unpotted schaller pickups on my heritage are as good sounding as any boutique pickups I've ever used in any of my guitars.

IMO, there's a huge amount of hype surrounding the whole replacement pickup phenom...

**iim7V7IM7** · 03-01-2014, 09:12 AM

What is the Zucker hypothesis?

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 09:53 AM

as i've said a few times, the potted pickups tend to pick up mainly the magnetic disturbance created by the string vibration whereas the unpotted pickups are like microphones. They pick up acoustic properties of the instrument. In some extreme examples I've sung into unpotted pickups and you can hear the voice through the amp.

So for *ME* there is no doubt that on a jazz axe the unpotted pickups will sound more acousticy than a potted pickup. On my personal guitars, I just happen to have unpotted schallers on my carved archtop and potted pickups on my other two plywood archtops. All 3 sound good. One of the potted pickups is a '57 classic and another is an '88 gibson paf which probably is similar to the '57 classic. I know they would sound better with an unpotted pickup but I'm probably not going to change them out.

I have also had pickups potted. Everytime I have done this, the pickup sounds "worse" IMO. I have never experienced squealing unless doing the hendrix thing with a fuzz into an overdrive and playing excessively loud. Even then, the squealing is part of the formula.

**iim7V7IM7** · 03-01-2014, 10:30 AM

Interesting, you believe the mechanical energy of the instrument is moving the wire coils in the magnetic field adding what you perceive as "acoustics". I had always assumed it was more to do with the mechanical energy from the amp speaker moving the wire (hence the squeal at high volumes). Perhaps its a bit of both.

Thanks

**Phil in London** · 03-01-2014, 11:04 AM

interesting thread. I agree with the result, unpotted pups are more acoustic and 'direct'. I use unpotted pups on a vintage Hofner and they even transfer clearly when my pick hits the pup-cover... 'click'... they sound great, very woody (playing music, not the click)...

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Interesting, you believe the mechanical energy of the instrument is moving the wire coils in the magnetic field adding what you perceive as "acoustics". I had always assumed it was more to do with the mechanical energy from the amp speaker moving the wire (hence the squeal at high volumes). Perhaps its a bit of both.

Thanks

i'm sure it is a bit of both but if you tap on the pickup you can hear it so that tells me the pickup is acting partially as a microphone.

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Phil in London

interesting thread. I agree with the result, unpotted pups are more acoustic and 'direct'. I use unpotted pups on a vintage Hofner and they even transfer clearly when my pick hits the pup-cover... 'click'... they sound great, very woody (playing music, not the click)...

Does this mean the pick attack becomes too proeminent?

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by jorgemg1984

Does this mean the pick attack becomes too proeminent?

not IMO. Here's the unpotted schaller pickups in my eagle.

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 11:43 AM

It's actually too prominent for me and I pick much closer to the pickup... Guess I will have to cautiously consider this move.

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by jorgemg1984

It's actually too prominent for me and I pick much closer to the pickup... Guess I will have to cautiously consider this move.

Remember that all the guitarists in the 50's , 60's , '70s and '80s played without potted pickups.

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 12:24 PM

Remember we're in 2014

More clarity and a more acoustic sound appeals to me. More sound of the pick no...

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by jorgemg1984

Remember we're in 2014

More clarity and a more acoustic sound appeals to me. More sound of the pick no...

as usual we agree to disagree. The sound of the pick *IS* the guitar. It's like eliminating the sound of breathing from vocals. It's what makes the guitar sound like a guitar. Otherwise, you might as well be playing keyboard or synth. A huge part of metheny and benson's tone is the pick! A huge part of Martijn van Iterson's tone is the pick. I huge part of wes' tone is the thumb.

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 12:38 PM

I have nothing against the sound of the pick on other players (well sometimes I have but only if it's VERY strong). I just like my attack sound to be soft and kind of muted. Others choices don't necessarily influence mine.

A big part of Benson's sound is the pick but not a kind of sound I want. I like Metheny's sound but his attack his pretty subtle. Same for Martin (and P90s change this picture quite a bit) And a big part of Rosenwinkel's sound comes from absence of pick attack, for example (and some others). There's room for all choices.

**Phil in London** · 03-01-2014, 12:47 PM

not sure if I made myself clear... the pick hitting the string is not a problem... maybe slightly hearable... but when the pick hits (accidentally) the neck-pup, the one can hear the clack through the amp, much more than with a potted pickup...

personally, I prefer the unpotted pickups, playing is more 'organic', if that word is meaningful in the context...

**jorgemg1984** · 03-01-2014, 12:49 PM

Thanks for the clarification Phil.

**kenbennett** · 03-01-2014, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Interesting, you believe the mechanical energy of the instrument is moving the wire coils in the magnetic field adding what you perceive as "acoustics". I had always assumed it was more to do with the mechanical energy from the amp speaker moving the wire (hence the squeal at high volumes). Perhaps its a bit of both.

Thanks

jzucker basically has it right. Unpotted pickups can be microphonic (in a random sort of way), picking up and amplifying vibrations from the guitar (obviously more in a mounted pickup than a floater). So the mechanical energy adds or takes away from the magnetic sound produce by the magnetic energy (in a random sort of way). And a microphonic pickup can produce feedback, the squeal, in which case it is picking up and amplifying vibrations in the air coming from the speaker.

It's all kind of random though. So you could buy unpotted pickups, then if they don't sound good or if they feedback too much, have them potted.

**iim7V7IM7** · 03-01-2014, 01:14 PM

I have been very happy with humbuckers from Kent Armstrong and Jason Lollar and single coils from Jason as well. All are potted. I never really noticed much difference between the non-potted Duncans when I played my friends instruments with them. They just sounded like good clear humbuckers to me.

:-)

**Hjalmiz** · 03-01-2014, 02:19 PM

First , every pickup is different ! Unpotted pu's varies as much as potted.

Second , all pu's are more or less microphonic. I dont think thats the thing. I use Duncan antiquitys . They have a cluncy midrange , firm bas and actually a bit bright sounding. However they are low output and they are not piercing and hard sounding. They have a voicing that i Would say goes in line with what people refer as accoustic properties.

Dont worry about pick attack issues. Thats a Setup and pickup depending issue . Not a wax problem (-:

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Phil in London

not sure if I made myself clear... the pick hitting the string is not a problem... maybe slightly hearable... but when the pick hits (accidentally) the neck-pup, the one can hear the clack through the amp, much more than with a potted pickup...

personally, I prefer the unpotted pickups, playing is more 'organic', if that word is meaningful in the context...

i always keep my pickups low. About 3/16 to 1/4 under the strings so I don't hit my pick on it. If you play something like a GB10 that can be a problem but normally it's fine.

**jzucker** · 03-01-2014, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Hjalmiz

First , every pickup is different ! Unpotted pu's varies as much as potted.

Second , all pu's are more or less microphonic. I dont think thats the thing. I use Duncan antiquitys . They have a cluncy midrange , firm bas and actually a bit bright sounding. However they are low output and they are not piercing and hard sounding. They have a voicing that i Would say goes in line with what people refer as accoustic properties.

Dont worry about pick attack issues. Thats a Setup and pickup depending issue . Not a wax problem (-:

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.