Re: Vintage Pickups: Long pole? Short pole? None?
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:32 pm
I disagree. I think the flat poles sound great!
Rickenbacker Forum, Amplifier, Bass and Guitar Register
https://www.rickresource.com/forum/
+10000000000000!billydlight wrote:I disagree. I think the flat poles sound great!
I can tell you that my '67 360 has a short-pole neck pickup, and a long-pole on the bridge. From day one I thought this was the norm, reasoning that the longer magnets on the bridge PU were intended to help equalize the volume between the bridge and neck PUs. Not until these very helpful online forums came to be did I learn that this was yet another "Rickanomaly". Is there no end to these inconsistencies from Santa Ana? A part of me hopes there isn't - keeps things interesting!apossibleworld wrote:Interesting. What I'm really curious about is the change that occurred in the mid 60s, when they made the poles shorter on the underside of the neck pickup, so that they don't have to route the body in a weak point. That's why some of the earlier 60s guitars have bad neck angles, because of that structural weakness -- they've collapsed over time. And yet the earlier pickups supposedly sound better, which is what the original post was asking about. Anybody know exactly when that change occurred?
I never said otherwise! They're all classic sounds.billydlight wrote:I disagree. I think the flat poles sound great!
I am going to reiterate this:jps wrote:+10000000000000!billydlight wrote:I disagree. I think the flat poles sound great!
(sigh) And the short pole tone with the same number of windings is exactly what I like in a neck pickup, also, in both guitar and bass.sys700 wrote:I recently sold a late 66 short pole pickup 12-string for this very reason. The long pole pickups sound more aggressive and louder.