Burstbucker I Height ?

[Studioplayer]

My 18' Traditional has Burstbuckers I & 2. as the stock pickups. I have no trouble establishing the bridge BB 2
to work with my Orange Dark Terror under medium gain, but the neck B 1 is a puzzle to get it to sound good alone and in the middle position. For those using this exact pair of pups, what have you decided as the ideal heights for use with an amp set for a fair amount of gain.....not Heavy Metal type gain?


Studioplayer

[jeremy]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

id start with it about flush with the top of the pup ring and adjust to taste. what are you not getting out of it that you want?

[Studioplayer]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

I wanted to get the neck BB1 as clear as I'm able to get it. Right now with he bass side of it just below the ring, it's a bit too dull oR muffled sounding. I'm going to try and raise it to nearly what Gibson recommends and see if that does not get it clearer sounding. The high e-string side is 4/64” between the pole screws and the string when that string is fretted at the last fret. Low e-string is below the ring.

Stratstrangler

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

If you raise the bass side it should give you better definition. Or try raising just the pole screws on that side.

It's sort of counterintuitive but I often wind up setting the treble side of humbuckers a little lower than the bass side.

[Studioplayer]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

If you raise the bass side it should give you better definition. Or try raising just the pole screws on that side.

It's sort of counterintuitive but I often wind up setting the treble side of humbuckers a little lower than the bass side.

The keyword being counterintuitive! Exactly. From the height that I set the neck BB 1, which was just below the ring, it did not make sense (to me) to raise it above the ring for thinking that the entire volume balance (strings 1-6) would not be even in volume. It now appears that it's not exactly the case. I did gain some low string definition and without a perceived volume increase. if or any volume increase can be e.q.'d out at the amp. I'm going to give this a complete workout today when time permits, but from my quick test test yesterday, it appears to go a long way towards more clearness in the neck Burstbucker. It seems strange to me, but I believe my notion about lowering the pickup was faulty.


Stratstrangler

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

It seems strange to me, but I believe my notion about lowering the pickup was faulty.

Not necessarily. Keep the body of the pup low, but raise the poles high above the pup body. You will get much better clarity if that's what you're after.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

I wanted to get the neck BB1 as clear as I'm able to get it. Right now with he bass side of it just below the ring, it's a bit too dull oR muffled sounding.

Does it have metal covers? If so removing the cover will greatly open up the top end.
This is why players started removing the covers.

If it’s uncovered then it’s just a dull sounding pickup. If you want to remove some mud you can try putting like a .02 uF or smaller cap (down to .005) in series to roll off some low end.

Lowering the pickup will make it darker sounding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Studioplayer]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

Yes. These Burstbuckers are covered. I think I have resolved the dullness issue. The neck BB #1 was just a bit too low to get much clearness from it. The way I have it right now is at 4/64” on the high e-string when that string is fretted at the highest fret and the low e-string is 8/64” measured the same way.


Stratstrangler

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

I don’t care for the tone of metal covers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Burstbucker I Height ?

Still worth raising the pole screws under the wound strings IMO.
Try it - if you don't like the result, it's easily reversible.