Replacing Humbucker covers

**stoneground** · 03-12-2016, 10:27 AM

I am intending to swap the gold cover on a Classic '57 for a nickel one and would welcome any advice on the subject as I have not done this before. There appear to be lots of Youtube clips on this and it seems a straightforward enough procedure although there are a number of different opinions out there on techniques and the pros and cons of wax potting. I understand the Classic '57s are potted.
From a jazzer's point of view does this potting matter at all? I expect it was done just for the benefit of the high volume players for whom microphonic pickups could be a problem. If I disturb any wax between the top of the pickup and the cover is it really necessary to re-introduce some wax when re-assembling with the new cover?
I would also welcome the opinions of jazz guitarists on the tonal effects of potting and covers since most of the info out there seems to be related to rock players who will be playing many times louder.
Apologies if this has been covered before.

**kenbennett** · 03-12-2016, 10:59 AM

Potting is mainly to secure the wires of the coil in place. If your pickup is already potted I wouldn't worry about added more wax. If it's not potted I wouldn't worry about that either as long as the new cover is fully attached. The trickiest part of the job is that it takes quite of lot of heat from the soldering iron.

**jads57** · 03-12-2016, 11:17 AM

I believe there is a Youtube video by Motor City pckups about doing this correctly. One thing is to make sure the cover is secure by putting a drop of adhesive to attach it. This is the main culprit of feedback squeals at high volume.

**Bezoeker** · 03-12-2016, 12:51 PM

Hi Stone,

A few things:

- Yes there is the theoretical possibility of squeal if the top of the cover can vibrate relative to the PU body. In my opinion you can completely ignore this in practice.

- Potting is done to reduce the microphonic behavior of the PU by preventing the relative vibration between PU components. In principle, the slight microphonic effect of an un-potted pickup can contribute to the sound. In my opinion, some tonehounds feel it is very important to them that they feel they can perceive this.

- Keep the total heat applied to the PU to a minimum. A significant home-brew error is to use a low power iron to remove the cover. Ironically (get it?) a low power iron will require heating the PU body much more than a high power iron. A high power iron gets the solder work done quickly with limited conducted heat elsewhere. Use a 40 watt minimum iron.

- If you want to do a great job, then do not use an iron to remove the old cover. Instead, cut the old solder blobs by slotting them with a dremel tool cutting disk most of the way through, then inserting a screwdriver in the slot and slightly twisting. Fast, easy, no heat applied.

- Score the inside of the new cover where the solder will be applied. Just a little file work or even sandpaper will do it on this very small area.

- Soldering on the new cover is easy, but still use a 40 watt minimum iron. This allows you to get-in / get-out quickly with very little heating of the PU body.

- OH, and use a very new, very clean, very soft cloth under the PU. It is remarkably easy to scratch the face of the new gold cover when working on the upside down PU.

I am sure you can do this extremely well.

BZ

**Gilpy** · 03-12-2016, 01:26 PM

Great advice in the previous post. I have found that the holes in the top of a replacement pickup cover do not always match up exactly with the polepieces of the pickup. So, when buying a replacement pickup cover, try to get exact measurements for the hole spacing.

**Stringswinger** · 03-12-2016, 03:47 PM

Don't forget to change the screws as well....

**stoneground** · 03-12-2016, 05:57 PM

Many thanks to you all for the very helpful and detailed replies. I now feel fairly confident about attempting the swap. Gilpy and Stringswinger : I have, I think ordered the correct hole spacing and polepiece screws, they are on the way to the UK as I write. I may post a picture of my es165 gold to nickel conversion if successful!

**stoneground** · 03-19-2016, 05:49 PM

As promised, here is a picture of the completed conversion to nickel hardware on my es165. It won't make me a better player but I'm very satisfied with it. It's taken me twenty one years to get round to making these modifications. If Gibson had offered a single pu 175 in nickel back in 1995 they would have saved me the trouble. The extra expense has probably meant that I have spent nearly as much as a 175 would have cost but I'm unlikely ever to sell it.

Thanks again to all who gave advice on the humbucker cover swap. Removing the original was a little more difficult than I anticipated owing to the stickiness of the generous wax potting on the Classic '57.

**lawson-stone** · 03-19-2016, 05:55 PM

Nice guitar. I have a Herbie myself and am utterly and completely nuts about it. Love it. I hold it and feel like Joe Pass. Sometimes a note or two come out that remind me of the same note when Joe Pass played it. Just a note or two.

Gotta work on more of those notes.

I see yours has the set-in pickups. I thought those were 490R's, not Classic '57's.

Was yours changed out for the C57? What year was it made?

Mine, which has, I think the 490R, has a somewhat different, though not radically different, sound from my 1959 VOS ES175. I always thought it was because the 165 had the 490R.

**stoneground** · 03-19-2016, 06:10 PM

Hi Lawson,

The guitar is a 1995 and you are are quite right, it did come with a 490R which I changed because I couldn't get the classic 175 sound from it. It was a good sound in its own right but changing the pickup instantly made the guitar sound like a 175 with much more 'thunk' than before. If I had known at the time that I would eventually swap out the tailpiece and other gold hardware then I would have bought a nickel plated version and avoided the cover swap. From other threads on here I understand that the VOS sounds less "dark" than a 175 with set in pickups from this period. A 165 with 490R might well resemble the VOS in tone although there are constructional differences - the VOS being lighter and more resonant. Unfortunately I haven't had the good fortune to compare them myself.

**lawson-stone** · 03-19-2016, 08:28 PM

Thanks! I actually love the 165's tone with the 490R and since the 59 Re-issue has tons of thunk I'll be keeping the 165 as-is. Thanks for clarifying.

**kenbennett** · 03-19-2016, 09:22 PM

I don't care very much about the guitar. I want to see a picture of your solder joint. Did you take one of that? Gold, chrome, nickel, whatever.... Doesn't matter. It's the hidden solder joint that reveals the quality of your work.

**neatomic** · 03-19-2016, 09:24 PM

haha..spoken like a true tech!!

cheers

**LtKojak** · 03-20-2016, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by kenbennett

I don't care very much about the guitar. I want to see a picture of your solder joint. It's the hidden solder joint that reveals the quality of your work.

And I thought *I* was the nerdiest techie around here...

Respect!

**lawson-stone** · 03-20-2016, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by kenbennett

I don't care very much about the guitar. I want to see a picture of your solder joint. Did you take one of that? Gold, chrome, nickel, whatever.... Doesn't matter. It's the hidden solder joint that reveals the quality of your work.

In my day-job I do a lot of reading of ancient inscriptions and in Egypt, especially, there are cuts and surfaces on stone structures that are so fine, so perfect, but utterly unnecessary and in a place in the structure where no human would ever see them once the stone is in place. They really believed the gods and the spirits of the dead would see and know if the cut and fit were perfect. The craftsmen wanted perfection where it would never be seen by the living.

Soldering for the gods, and for the dead.

Now there's a marketing slogan!

**kenbennett** · 03-20-2016, 08:15 AM

Actually, I love that guitar. Classic look. If I ever buy another guitar, it will be some version of a 165/175. An old one with a P90 would be best for me. But, stoneground, you have a beautiful guitar there!

**stoneground** · 03-20-2016, 10:21 AM

Hi KB,

I am relieved that you do actually like the guitar, for a moment I thought that not taking a photo of my solder joint was an unforgivable oversight! Actually, my son did the solder as he has a steadier hand than I and I think it's an acceptable job, possibly not up to the standards of the unseen Egyptian inscriptions mentioned by Lawson but I'm not taking the pickup out again just so that people can pass judgement on it!
On a more serious note, I may have to revert to my gold-plated ABR-1 bridge for a while. I took the guitar out on a gig last week and felt that the tone was a lot brighter and more metallic than it was before the changes. I couldn't think what was causing this (and doubted that it was the quality of my solder joint) so I changed the bridge back to the original and the guitar sounded great again. I would not have credited before that two tune-o-matic bridges could sound so different. The most obvious difference is that the ABR-1 has much less wood in the base than the nickel replacement although it's possible that I haven't sanded the feet of the bridge accurately enough. I have read that the more wood there is - the more sound is absorbed by the bridge rather then being transmitted to the body of the guitar. I now have a choice of polishing the gold off the ABR-1 or buying the metal bits in nickel - this may have to wait as I think I've exhausted the guitar budget for this month. When I've sorted this the guitar will finally be finished - I think.....

**kenbennett** · 03-20-2016, 03:38 PM

I was sort of joking about the solder joint. My iron is not quite hot enough for that job, so the last one I did was a little messy. The joke in the electronics industry is "the bigger the blob, the better the job".

Speaking of steady hands, I'm 62 years old, and about 12 years ago I was working at a guitar company putting inlays into fretboards while two guys in their early 20s were watching me and commented on how steady my hands were. One of those was the guy who installed the electronics. I've seen him solder. He picks up the iron, and as he's moving it towards the work piece the tip of the iron is oscillating from side to side about 2 inches. But then he lands on the perfect spot and holds it there as long as necessary to get a great solder joint, then when he pulls the iron away it's flying back and fourth in the air again. It was amazing that he could do the job. But I was noticing recently that my hands are steadier than ever. Not sure why. I think meditation helps.

I'm thinking that perhaps you could use the base of your original bridge, since it is already trimmed and fitted, and just mount the nickel hardware in it. For best sound, the feet of the bridge need to be pretty thin and fitted nearly perfectly to the top. That's unnecessary work if you already have one.

**neatomic** · 03-20-2016, 05:19 PM

yes thought same thing..use same wooden base...just switch bridge and turnscrews

cheers

ps- just take note of your height settings before you go switching...action affects tone

**stoneground** · 03-20-2016, 05:32 PM

Hi KB,
That was a nice anecdote regarding 'steady hands'. I borrowed a 50w iron for the job but even with this it was a bit fiddly to make a neat join.

Thanks for the suggestion of using the original base, which does indeed have very thin feet. Unfortunately, the Gotoh nickel replacement has rather wider posts and holes and is therefore a loose fit on the old base. Whether this would matter or not when under string tension I don't know. It might well do as a temporary solution until I get hold of a nickel ABR1.