Charlie Christian Pickups (UK)

[oldane]

Just looking at Daniel's website it appears there may be someone else in the mix making pickups, but he doesn't sell parts

He had CC pickups in UK make a special edition with adjustable polepieces which he used on the guitar he made for Pat Metheny. One of our forum members has the sister guitar to Metheny's but I don't remember if it has the PU with the adjustable pole pieces or the normal blade version.

One thing to consider is that the original CC PUs were made for guitars with the necks set low and with the fretboard directly on the top (ES150 and 250), while on most newer guitars (among those the ones you made) there's a neck extension setting the strings higher above the top. Depending on the guitar it may or may not be a problem getting a CC PU close enough to the strings on a guitar with a neck extension but when the magnets are pulled tight up against the underside of the top it can't go any higher. That has to be taken into account when designing and building the guitar and/or when making the PU. I have an original 1938 sample retrofitted at some point in an old L34 and I'm not sure it would work in say the guitar you made for me.

As I have written before on this forum, based on personal experiences, I am not too keen on the original way of fixing the CC PU and I believe there was a reason Gibson left it after only a few years in favor of a P90 like design. The PU effectively sits at the end of a lever (so to speak) and the whole unit is heavy which makes the three screws holding it come loose so the shims under the screw heads buzz and rattle. Tightening the screws only works for a short while. Without the shims the screw heads would dig into the soft spruce top with time. Someone more tech savy than me (for example you) may have a solution for that but for me, for ordinary utility use, I prefer a PU in humbucker mount like the Biltoft HCC which is much more hassle free (and hums less). It doesn't sound quite like the old original CC but it sounds great in its own right. And who knows what a CC pu really sounded like when it was new 80 years ago. As written above, the cobalt steel magnets have aged and weakened by now. In addition, the recording technique back then don't allow for a good assessment of the sound. Finally, one has to use an amp like the old ones to get that old sound. FWIW, my 1938 sample doesn't sound anything like Charlie Christian on the recordings when played through a modern amp. There's nothing of the honking midrangy tone one hears on the old records - the sound is much more spread and mellow though still with punch.


Sendt fra min SM-T810 med Tapatalk

[Fred Archtop]

He had CC pickups in UK make a special edition with adjustable polepieces which he used on the guitar he made for Pat Metheny.

Actually there are 2 special editions of the CC PU made by CC PU UK upon Daniel's request. One is, as you say, the version with adjustable polepieces (Metheny's guitar). The other one is the version I have on my DS 250 (ES 250 rebuilt by Daniel) or my L50 converted into ES-150. This second version has non-adjustable individual polepieces which are conceived to give an optimal sound with a 12-54 set of strings. And it works great ! Here are pics' of my DS 250 and L50/ES-150 CC PUs.

And who knows what a CC pu really sounded like when it was new 80 years ago. As written above, the cobalt steel magnets have aged and weakened by now. In addition, the recording technique back then don't allow for a good assessment of the sound. Finally, one has to use an amp like the old ones to get that old sound. FWIW, my 1938 sample doesn't sound anything like Charlie Christian on the recordings when played through a modern amp. There's nothing of the honking midrangy tone one hears on the old records - the sound is much more spread and mellow though still with punch.

Let me humbly put forward a different viewpoint. I think it's easy to figure out what was the sound of a real CC PU back in the days. I agree that Charlie himself may have suffered poor sound recording techniques but there are other players from the same era who were very well recorded with an ES-150, ES-250, L5 equipped with CC PU etc.. Think about Oscar Moore, T-Bone Walker, Tal Farlow, Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, later René Thomas etc. I read somewhere that the life of the CC PU original magnet is #210 years. So, in the late 50s the original CC PU had degaussed of roughly 10% which is insignificant to give a different sound as to the original tone. Today these original CCs are 80 years old, so they have degaussed roughly of about 1/3 of the original value. If I am correct, Daniel Slaman told me that CC PU UK proposes 2 different magnets, one fully charged as it was in the 30s', a second is degaussed as for an original CC PU that would have reached us today. It's up to you !

I'd like to insist on the fact that there is not a single CC PU sound. I am myself more into Jimmy Raney and Barney Kessel music then Charlie Christian himself. CC PU are quite versatile depending on how you set your volume knob and the type of amp you are using.

From a technical viewpoint, I read that there were several reasons that made Gibson change for (the great !) P90s. One major was the cobalt/nickel composition of the magnet that was difficult to maintain. Back in the 30's, this PU was more like a "blue-print" project designed at bringing a quick response to the rising electric guitar market (see Beauchamp-Rickerbaker contemporary works). And Gibson did great with this CC PU. As Daniel Slaman says: "once you're used to play with a CC PU, the others mics' are of no longer interest to you" (which I only partially agree considering the great P90s that came just after).

Cheers.

[Tom Painter]

He had CC pickups in UK make a special edition with adjustable polepieces which he used on the guitar he made for Pat Metheny. One of our forum members has the sister guitar to Metheny's but I don't remember if it has the PU with the adjustable pole pieces or the normal blade version.

One thing to consider is that the original CC PUs were made for guitars with the necks set low and with the fretboard directly on the top (ES150 and 250), while on most newer guitars (among those the ones you made) there's a neck extension setting the strings higher above the top. Depending on the guitar it may or may not be a problem getting a CC PU close enough to the strings on a guitar with a neck extension but when the magnets are pulled tight up against the underside of the top it can't go any higher. That has to be taken into account when designing and building the guitar and/or when making the PU. I have an original 1938 sample retrofitted at some point in an old L34 and I'm not sure it would work in say the guitar you made for me.

As I have written before on this forum, based on personal experiences, I am not too keen on the original way of fixing the CC PU and I believe there was a reason Gibson left it after only a few years in favor of a P90 like design. The PU effectively sits at the end of a lever (so to speak) and the whole unit is heavy which makes the three screws holding it come loose so the shims under the screw heads buzz and rattle. Tightening the screws only works for a short while. Without the shims the screw heads would dig into the soft spruce top with time. Someone more tech savy than me (for example you) may have a solution for that but for me, for ordinary utility use, I prefer a PU in humbucker mount like the Biltoft HCC which is much more hassle free (and hums less). It doesn't sound quite like the old original CC but it sounds great in its own right. And who knows what a CC pu really sounded like when it was new 80 years ago. As written above, the cobalt steel magnets have aged and weakened by now. In addition, the recording technique back then don't allow for a good assessment of the sound. Finally, one has to use an amp like the old ones to get that old sound. FWIW, my 1938 sample doesn't sound anything like Charlie Christian on the recordings when played through a modern amp. There's nothing of the honking midrangy tone one hears on the old records - the sound is much more spread and mellow though still with punch.

Quite right, the neck angle might have to be increased slightly and the overstand reduced to get things lined up properly with the CC pickup.

In regards to the screws working loose, a dab of locktite might be the ticket.

I actually prefer Barney Kessel's tone on the plywood 350 over Charlie Christian's. The tone he gets on "Soaring" is one of my favorites. I'm pretty sure he was using solid state Walter Woods amps in that era.

[customxke]

Actually there are 2 special editions of the CC PU made by CC PU UK upon Daniel's request. One is, as you say, the version with adjustable polepieces (Metheny's guitar). The other one is the version I have on my DS 250 (ES 250 rebuilt by Daniel) or my L50 converted into ES-150. This second version has non-adjustable individual polepieces which are conceived to give an optimal sound with a 12-54 set of strings. And it works great ! Here are pics' of my DS 250 and L50/ES-150 CC PUs.
.

Isn't that the stock ES250 style? That's how Gibson made them for the ES250, and have always been available from CCpickups.

[Fred Archtop]

Isn't that the stock ES250 style? That's how Gibson made them for the ES250, and have always been available from CCpickups.

Not exactly. The stock ES-250 PU has individual but non ajusted polepieces (i.e. they have all the same height).

Here is one I've tried 3 years ago:


Cheers.

[oldane]

Let me humbly put forward a different viewpoint. I think it's easy to figure out what was the sound of a real CC PU back in the days. I agree that Charlie himself may have suffered poor sound recording techniques but there are other players from the same era who were very well recorded with an ES-150, ES-250, L5 equipped with CC PU etc.. Think about Oscar Moore, T-Bone Walker, Tal Farlow, Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, later René Thomas etc. I read somewhere that the life of the CC PU original magnet is #210 years. So, in the late 50s the original CC PU had degaussed of roughly 10% which is insignificant to give a different sound as to the original tone. Today these original CCs are 80 years old, so they have degaussed roughly of about 1/3 of the original value. If I am correct, Daniel Slaman told me that CC PU UK proposes 2 different magnets, one fully charged as it was in the 30s', a second is degaussed as for an original CC PU that would have reached us today. It's up to you !

Of course you are right. We do indeed know very well how the CC pu sounds in more modern recordings and with more modern amps. I for one know it first hand as I have a 1938 CC (complete with 80 years of degaussing) in a guitar. When I wrote my comments, I still had the recent thread about getting Charlie Christians sound ringing in my ears and it was that search for Charlie Christians sound I was referring to. By rereading my post I can see that I was not specific about that.

One thing I have wondered is whether the degaussing of the magnets are linear or follows an enponential decay with a half life (like radioactive substances or excretion of pharmacological drugs). That would mean quite a lot for how much of the magnetism is left at a given time.

It seems that different kinds of magnets degauss at different paces depending on their composition. It also depends on the surroundings in which they are kept. Other nearby magnets tend to disrupt a given magnets strength (and can also magnetize steel and iron). It may be wise not to keep the guitar top leaned against the front of an amp when it's not in use (?). A nephew of mine wondered why his mechanical wrist watch couldn't keep time despite regulation. He works a lot with huge speakers and often has his hands close to the strong magnets of these. I advised him to have the watch demagnetized and regulated and then not wear the watch when working. After that it kept good time.

I'd like to insist on the fact that there is not a single CC PU sound. I am myself more into Jimmy Raney and Barney Kessel music then Charlie Christian himself. CC PU are quite versatile depending on how you set your volume knob and the type of amp you are using.

Agree completely. The tone is very dependent on many more factors other than the pu and most pu's can be pushed in a lot of directions with proper EQ settings. It is in fact my belief that the importance of the having a particular pickup is often quite overrated.

As Daniel Slaman says: "once you're used to play with a CC PU, the others mics' are of no longer interest to you" (which I only partially agree considering the great P90s that came just after).

Well, like you I think other kinds of pu's are of merit too. There are videos on YouTube where Barney Kessel plays guitars with humbuckers and he sounds very much like himself - maybe with a little less punch - but I wonder if I would have noticed it if I had not seen the guitar but just heard the sound.

I have very much enjoyed you videos (keep them coming!) where you compare various guitars with various pu's. You play very well and the recording quality is excellent. However, I noticed how little difference there is - at least to my ears - between different guitars and different iterations of the "CC pu" when they are played by the same person through the same amp. There's not much that can't be levelled out with a minor turn of an EQ knob. I would have been lost if it was a blindfold test.

What I like about CC pu's is the clarity and good note separation combined with the quite spread sound. P90s also have clarity but are more midrangy. Some humbuckers (not all) tend to become muddy in the buttom when the treble notes are dialled in (and I'm not at all a "tone-control-on-zero" kind of player). I know that many people rave about original PAFs and they sell for big money - but the PAFs in my 1961 ES175 suffer from that buttom muddiness.

[customxke]

Not exactly. The stock ES-250 PU has individual but non ajusted polepieces (i.e. they have all the same height).


Cheers.

AHHHH....gotcha. That one seems like it'd be a winner.

[neatomic]

very easy to regauss a magnet!!!...a 1939 pup magnet can be brought back to life easy


dont forget, when the cc pup was introduced, that cobalt mag was the strongest there was..and it still needed two huge plates


alnico magnets blew it wide open...a strong magnet in a small footprint...thats how pickup technology advanced!!..suddenly all kinds of smaller (than cc) alnico single coil pickups...

till the humbucker! hah..(thats another story)

cheers

[Tom Painter]

The UK CC pickup arrived last week and I've been playing it in the frankenguitar since.




I could go on and on about how much I love this pickup, needless to say I'm making a finished instrument especially for it.

[Stefan Eff]

I‘ve stumbled over this thread because I‘ve got a communication problem with CC pickups.uk…

3 weeks ago I‘ve orderded Bakelite knobs from them. The last thing I‘ve heard was „I’ll ship thdm tomorrow“ after my paypal was done. No tracking id. Since communication with them is darn poor, two questions:

• is CC pickups.uk trustworthy?
• Or does shipping from the uk to germany take that long???

I‘m asking because I don‘t get an answer from them but on the other hand I really need the darn knobs