A theory about the Gibson ES-175 Neck Pickup

[Longways to Go]

I gotta say that the James Culberson comments via Vinnyv1k strike me as close to a definitive inside Gibson position on the intentionality and intended function of the design. There is probably more to the story as well. But for me, this pretty much settles the question of on purpose vs accident.

I know that many here prefer the flat to the slanted pickup, and understandably so, and some are quite passionate about their preference. That's all great. It's just an interesting topic of friendly discussion.

[Ren]

I gotta say that the James Culberson comments via Vinnyv1k strike me as close to a definitive inside Gibson position on the intentionality and intended function of the design. There is probably more to the story as well. But for me, this pretty much settles the question of on purpose vs accident.

I know that many here prefer the flat to the slanted pickup, and understandably so, and some are quite passionate about their preference. That's all great. It's just an interesting topic of friendly discussion.

LtG,

You know, I never realized the pup on my 175 was slanted until I read this thread. Thanks! Also made me realize that the top on the 175 near the end of the neck slopes down a lot more on the treble side, I guess to meet the sides in the cutaway. Whereas the slope is symmetric on either side of the neck on the L5, which is thicker in the cutaway. I bet that has something to do with the angle of the neck pup.

Ren

[lawson-stone]

Lawson,

I guess what I'm trying to say, respectfully, is that I don't agree that the neck pup locations on the 175 and L5 are the same relative to the 24th fret harmonic location. On the 175, the 24th fret lies over the pole pieces, whereas on the L5, the 24th fret is at the center of the pup. I'd love to know why this design difference exists. I checked some pics of old 175s and L5s with P90s, and the same difference is there. BTW the L4CES has the same scale length as the 175, and you can see that the neck pup is closer to the neck on the L4 compared to the 175.

Ren

That's true, but the difference between the pole pieces and the center of the pickup is what, about a quarter-inch? I also agree with you that the L4ces shows a different location, and no, I can't rein that into the idea of 24th fret location. I'm not bothered much by the ES1x5 vs. L5ces difference, but the L4ces is definitely doing something else.

I'm not especially passionate about this, it's just an interesting design question and I was surprised that both my 5 ES1x5 type guitars (2 Epiphones) and my L5ces had the pickup oriented, one way or another, to the 24th fret position. I doubt you or I will lose any sleep over this!

Cheers, and have a great New Year!

[John A.]

I'll re-check my own L5ces.

I also totally agree with your comment about the value (or not) of that principle of placement. The point, though, is that at least for the ES1x5 vs. L5ces, the issue apparently wasn't to move the pickup closer to the neck for "warmth" but simply to apply the same principle--proximity to the 24th fret harmonic--to differently proportioned bodies, scale lengths, and fretboard lengths.

I also wonder if these were originally set with P90's in mind, where the "center" of the pickup was also the location of the pole pieces, and they simply did not change the tooling when they went to humbuckers?

The electro-magnetic field is bigger than the pole pieces, so I'm not sure the pole-piece placement vs overall pick-up placement makes that much difference vis a vis the 24th fret. Also, once you've fretted a note, the pick-up is no longer under the 24th fret anyway. So I think it's really about warmth vs brightness, and Gibson had that in mind in deciding where to place the pick-ups. Re: P90 vs humbucker, the holes cut into the tops are different dimensions, so they would have had to change the tooling for that. In for a penny, in for a pound, so I think the humbucker placement was most likely on purpose.

John

[vinlander]

Just for clarification, I never reversed the pickup ring on my Tal, it came this way; I just set it straighter to the strings using the half pick trick.
I don't question whether or not a crooked pickup might have an effect on tone, but it had one on my esthetic OCD that's it

[rio]

Just for clarification, I never reversed the pickup ring on my Tal, it came this way; I just set it straighter to the strings using the half pick trick.
I don't question whether or not he a crooked pickup might have an effect on tone, but it had one on my esthetic OCD that's it

I’ve done the same thing often when I get a pickup rattling. It’s one of the only reasons I keep medium picks actually other then my pick hoarding habit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[gggomez]

Just had a Lindy Fralin P90 in a humbucker put in my 175. Oh my it is sweet.

The guy that did the work took it upon himself toe swing the pick up mount around so that it is intuitively correct (or maybe naively)and .... dam my plectrum hits it all the time. It has to go back to the Gibson way.

Oh and the pole pieces are in the middle of the pick up and it sounds did I say it sounds sweet? A big step towards that Kenny Burrell sound without sounding like a clone. Love it.

[stoneground]

In Adrian Ingram's book on the ES175 (1994), Chapter III the PAF Models 1957-64, he quotes Gibson's instructions and diagrams for humbucking pickup adjustments. These specifically state that the distance from the underside of the string to the top of the pickup when the string is depressed on the last fret of the fingerboard should be approximately 1/16 inch. Should you change the action height by adjusting the bridge or by changing string gauge then you should re-adjust the height of the pickup.

No mention of pole piece adjustments!

More significantly for this thread regarding pickup tilt, the accompanying diagram shows the top of the pickup to be absolutely parallel to the strings.

All this seems a far cry from what we see on the more recent 175s with their peculiarly angled pickups.

It would be nice if Gibson issued updated instructions explaining their new philosophy and what occasioned their change of heart.

The cynic in me suspects that the new arrangement is by accident rather than design.

I've a feeling that all this has already been mentioned in one of the many threads on 175 neck pickup placement but I can't seem to find it now. Apologies if I am repeating what is common knowledge.

[jazzjames]

There has GOT to be a reason why Gibson assembles them this way. It would make more sense if a percentage of them came like this, and the consensus was that it was just careless assembly and shoddy QC. But every one?!? That must be intentional. But WHY??? WHY?!?!?!?!?!

Could it be that someone looked at an old photo of a guitar from the 60s that happened to have the ring mounted backwards accidentally - and then instructed, without realizing that it was incorrect, to assemble them that way? The way these are assembled just makes absolutely no sense. It HAS to be intentional. AFAIK, this is the ONLY guitar with pickup rings that is put together like this. MY theory is that they do it like this because it puts the front coil of the pickup closer to the strings and that results in a warmer tone. But I don't know. I just reversed mine. It looks so much more "correct" - and I don't think the tone difference, if any, is profound (although I did change string gauge and brand at the time) and it is SO much better esthetically. . . and YET - it's friggin' gnawing at me! I'm messing with some secret, unknown Gibson magic tone formula. I'll probably cave in at the next string change and switch it back! Where the hell is Eric Johnson when you need him. Why isn't there a Federal investigation into this? I bet it has something to do with the aliens. They are secretly flipping the rings around.

I think Gibson uses the same pickup rings on every archtop guitar (including their biggest seller the Les Paul...) and that is what they get now. I personally would like to the rings fitted to the top but my 2008 ES-175 sounds great and I just say "whatever". The way the 175 is arched has changed over the years. The 50s tops look pretty dramatically different from the modern tops. To get the height adjusted properly I have to sight the neck from the bridge and judge height by the end of the figerboard to make sure there is no dramatic difference in height from the treble and bass sides. From playing position, an even height looks wonky because the ring is uniform and the top isn't. Just for full disclosure I turned my ring around too and the pickup still was not parallel to the strings. I think the ES-175 is a factory guitar. My L-5 is PERFECT. The price reflects it as well.

[sgosnell]

The pickup ring can be adjusted. Some sandpaper on the guitar top does the job, and the ring can be moved on it to make the bottom match the guitar top, at any desired angle. It's work though, and too much work for many people, including me for most guitars. I do have a couple that I've made the effort to match, and they look better for it. I don't notice any difference in the sound, though.