What's the best string spacing match here?

[xxxsoundxxx]

I realize this has been covered a bit and I have read much about it still I can't decide what would be best in my case.
I understand Duncan's general rule is over/under 2" as the decision point but it's so close.

I have a guitar with 1.975 String spacing, I understand Duncan standard spacing is 1.929 and TB is 2.07
I made an exact scale drawing of both Standard and TB spacing and accurate pole piece diameter under my strings. (below)
Which of the two would be better for my string spacing, pole pieces a bit outside or pole pieces a little inside?

Would the standard space be better because when strings are bent it moves over the pole piece more instead of away? I'm also thinking it may be that it will make no audible difference either way and I was wondering if it would be better to have the strings inside the pole pieces rather that outside them? I'm not concerned with looks just sound / string drop off.

Thanks.

[beaubrummels]

If it were me, i'd go with standard.
Standard is only 0.045 off
Trem space is 0.095 off

[jeremy]

i doubt youd hear a difference, but id go std spacing

[Mincer]

Yes, that is so close that I don't think it would be an issue. Standard seems closer to how you'd actually bend strings, though.

[ehdwuld]

The only reservation i have with the wider trembucker spacing

Is that with a cover on it wont fit in a triple shot ring

And i like triple shot rings

Other than that
Uncovered fit fine.

Just a thought


Ahem
Get rings......

[xxxsoundxxx]

Thanks, I'm not sure what a "triple shot ring" is but I'm going to go with the standard spacing. Thanks everyone.

[Mincer]

Check it out here: Triple Shot Rings.

[marcello252]

never heard differences between std and trem spacing with the same type of pickup, for the models I tried

[hamerfan]

never heard differences between std and trem spacing with the same type of pickup, for the models I tried

The impact of String spacing is much overrated. The magnetic field above a pole piece is wider than you think. It's more of an aesthetic thing.

[ehdwuld]

The impact of String spacing is much overrated. The magnetic field above a pole piece is wider than you think. It's more of an aesthetic thing.

can i be another one of the things we can thank Eddie for?

[freefrog]

I was wondering if it would be better to have the strings inside the pole pieces rather that outside them? I'm not concerned with looks just sound / string drop off.

It's safe to have external strings OUTSIDE the pole pieces. Reason: the magnetic field is [typically] stronger above/outside both E strings but between poles, there are potentially magnetic dead spots.

It's not systematically noticeable since it depends on the position of the pickup (dead spots being more annoying with a neck PU), on the magnet used and on its charge, on strings gauge, on the style of playing (with much strings bending or not). But when it's there, it's there, and pretty annoying IME.

Now, do what you want and be happy. :-)

Related link: https://www.skguitar.com/SKGS/sk/Ima.../Magnetics.htm

[Mincer]

Of course, if you or anyone is worried about potential dead spots...get something with rails or bars!

[Teleplayer]

If you can use the standard humbucker, it’s a better option because you don’t need any special mounting hardware. In your case it’s a safe bet, so just forget about the “Trembucker”.

[beaubrummels]

It's safe to have external strings OUTSIDE the pole pieces. Reason: the magnetic field is stronger above/outside both E strings but between poles, there are potentially magnetic dead spots.

It's not systematically noticeable since it depends on the position of the pickup (dead spots being more annoying with a neck PU), on the magnet(s) used and on its charge, on strings gauge, on the style of playing (with much strings bending or not). But when it's there, it's there, and pretty annoying IME.

Now, do what you want and be happy. :-)

Related link: https://www.skguitar.com/SKGS/sk/Ima.../Magnetics.htm

FWIW I have a standard humbucker Custom Custom in my Jackson and the outside Es were weaker. I had to raise the poles on the ends like a 'smile', opposite of the neck radius, to make it even.

[freefrog]

FWIW I have a standard humbucker Custom Custom in my Jackson and the outside Es were weaker. I had to raise the poles on the ends like a 'smile', opposite of the neck radius, to make it even.

Exactly like we have repeatitively experienced weak E strings "inside" the poles. Hence our use of a Teslameter to measure magnetism above these poles then next to them. Which led to the idea that I've expressed in the post 11. The link towards the SK site just gives a confirmation "in pictures"of what typically happens with the magnetic field, for physical reasons due to the 3D shape of the magnetic circuit.

Now, what you explain of your own experience is the reason why I've been cautious in my statements... There are exceptions. The use of a short magnet, for instance, will change the shape of the field. Some magnets are charged in a very uneven way and make a pickup less or more sensitive on a side if not on both (I've here a vintage DeArmond exactly like that). And if ever for whatever reason some screw pole(s) / slug(s) is/are not physically the same than the others, it can alter the results as well.

I don't think to have kept pics of measurements done with the Teslameter. If time permits, I'll take it at home, redo a few measurements above/outside/inside external poles of several pickups and share the related pics here... My only reticence is that I don't want to feed an argument on this subject: as usual, I've initially shared info born from lab tests in order to help and not to argue. :-)

Must stop here: a working day is waiting me.