"Modern" vs. "Vintage" high gains

adam_swapp · Post by **adam_swapp** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:18 am

I was reassembling an '88 610 this evening, and I noticed that the high gain that came with the guitar (which may not be original) differs from my new one (aside from the 1" leads and missing magnet

). The outer two pole pieces on the older pup are on 1-13/16" centers. On the new one, the outer two pole pieces are on 2" centers. On this guitar, the pole pieces on the older pup align with the strings, while the ones on the new pup don't. The obvious solution is to use the old pup if cosmetics are that important, but there's that missing magnet thing again.

However, that leads me to a few questions:
- What is the difference in sound between an old and a new high gain?
- Can I just stick the magnet from the new pup on the old one?
- Has the string spacing changed on all models, or do the new pups just "fit" some models better?
- How do you lose a magnet, anyway? Anybody have an extra?

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:11 am

Hi Adam. To answer your four questions:
- A new high-gain pickup is hotter and less clear-sounding than an old one;
- Yes, the magnet on a new-style high-gain is similar to that on an old-style high-gain;
- I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but I believe the new pickups fit some models better, as you say;
- Well, I don't know how you lose a magnet. Yes, I can provide one original Rick magnet. If you're interested, you can have it for free.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:55 am

Would there be a difference in the pole spacings for neck and bridge pickups? I have my 1981 460 BG here with me at work; I'll get it out later, take measurements, and post the results.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:11 am

The distance between the first and sixth poles on the bridge pickup of my 460 appears to be about 2 mm greater than that of the neck pickup. I'll look into this further.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:44 am

Yes, string spacing over the treble pickup is slightly greater than over the bass pickup. Actually I can't think of a guitar (or bass) that does not follow that rule.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:58 pm

Thanks for clarifying that, Sérgio! But now that makes me wonder about the humbuckers on my 1967 Gibson ES-335TDC ...

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:44 am

What about them?

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:07 pm

Whether the poles are spaced like that, wider on the bridge pickup. I plan on getting it out tonight and take measurements. Just curious.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:34 pm

Well, not to suggest that G****n would skimp on the design of their pickups, but I'm sure that polepiece spacing on both humbuckers on your 335 is exactly the same. I also am sure that since string gap over the bridge pu is slightly greater than over the neck pu, sometimes either the high E or the low E string on their guitars is bound to be out of alignment with the respective polepiece on either the neck or the bridge pickup.

tomerbe · Post by **tomerbe** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:52 am

The polepiece spacing on my 68 Gibson Trini Lopez is varied properly (humbuckers). I would guess that they did the right thing on the 67 ES335 as well. They certainly were making both bridge and neck sized pickups at that point.

Here's a photo of one...
http://www.williesguitars.com/Pages/67335cl.html

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:04 am

The two humbuckers measured the same on my ES335TDC. The strings don't quite center on all of the pole pieces, but I guess that just adds to the "identity" of this particular guitar.