banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A2 JB and 59N

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A2 JB and 59N

    Ive always liked the idea of what an A2 brings to the party, so sat down Friday eve and swapped out the A5 dor RC A2sin both a JB and a 59n I have in my LTD M1000.

    59n I think is a definite improvement for me, really like the sweetness it adds to the pickup. Need to do a bit more tweaking to get it just right, between height and amp/modler settings.

    JB, I think I like it, need to spend more time with it. It does lessen that mid hump that everyone either loves or hates. I need to play with the pickup a bit more and tweak it a bit before deciding to keep it pr swap back to the og A5. It does bring some 80s goodness to the party.
    1994 Ibanez IC500 Iceman reissue
    Jackson Soloist 7 string
    ESP LTD M-400
    Original Marshall Silver Jubilee 2553

  • #2
    I didn't think an A2 changes the JB that much.
    Administrator of the SDUGF

    Comment


    • #3
      I love the A2 JB and 59n. They're super fat. I didn't find that A2 lessens the mids in the JB, it just shifts em down a bit.
      The things that you wanted
      I bought them for you

      Comment


      • #4
        I've always been curious about the RTM, but I'm not sure I'd dig what A2 would do to the JB. The JB is already stuffy in the low mids as it is stock, and it doesn't have all that much going on high up either.

        Comment


        • #5
          The JB2 is pretty popular. Tames the spikes grating high, keeps the mid punch, and softens the bass a little. 2 out of three ain't bad...
          Originally posted by Bad City
          He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...

          Comment


          • #6
            My JB/A2 is definitely different from both my newer production JB and my old Seymour-JB. My JB/A2 sounds like a really loud Whole Lotta Humbucker.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aceman View Post
              The JB2 is pretty popular. Tames the spikes grating high, keeps the mid punch, and softens the bass a little. 2 out of three ain't bad...
              the bass on a standard JB are not the punchiest of the bunch, still I have to try one of these days this comb, I have a JB in the drawer piling dust

              Comment


              • #8
                Nearly every JB combo is covered thru the Custom Shop and well known. The JB2 is part of Seymours personal guitar called the Concept Set. I own two JBJ and one of them was my testfield. In the wildest times i used a JB alnico 8 in the bridge with a JB alnico3 in the neck. Up to now is the 35th anniversary JB is my favorite blend of typical JB sounds with less spikes. It uses an unoriented A5 as magnet.
                I get the feeling the A8 will blow your skirt up more so - Edgecrusher

                Smooth trades with Jerryjg, ArtieToo, Theodie, Micah, trevorus, Pierre, pzaxtl, damian1122, Thames, Diocletian, Kevinabb, Fakiekid, oilpit, checo, BachToRock, majewsky, joyouswolf, Koreth, Pontiac Jack, Jeff_H

                Comment


                • #9
                  Has the internet hivemind reached a consensus as to whether or not "roughcast" is a reliable designation for a magnet? I personally have tried a roughcast and sintered cast A2 from the same source, both of which were polished, and couldn't determine a meaningful difference
                  You will never understand How it feels to live your life With no meaning or control And with nowhere left to go You are amazed that they exist And they burn so bright
                  Whilst you can only wonder why

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chistopher View Post
                    Has the internet hivemind reached a consensus as to whether or not "roughcast" is a reliable designation for a magnet? I personally have tried a roughcast and sintered cast A2 from the same source, both of which were polished, and couldn't determine a meaningful difference
                    IME roughcast is not polished.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chistopher View Post
                      Has the internet hivemind reached a consensus as to whether or not "roughcast" is a reliable designation for a magnet? I personally have tried a roughcast and sintered cast A2 from the same source, both of which were polished, and couldn't determine a meaningful difference
                      If it was "polished", then it WASN'T roughcast.
                      Originally Posted by IanBallard
                      Rule of thumb... the more pot you have, the better your tone.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GuitarDoc View Post

                        If it was "polished", then it WASN'T roughcast.
                        Well you can polish any magnet, regardless of how it's made. The roughcast magnet is clearly rough on the sides and clearly polished on the top. The polished magnets have a slightly lighter tint on the faces. These were from Stanford (not Sanford) Magnets. They were leftovers from a magnetism experiment at work and were slightly thicker but shorter than a standard humbucker pickup.
                        You will never understand How it feels to live your life With no meaning or control And with nowhere left to go You are amazed that they exist And they burn so bright
                        Whilst you can only wonder why

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chistopher View Post

                          Well you can polish any magnet, regardless of how it's made. The roughcast magnet is clearly rough on the sides and clearly polished on the top. The polished magnets have a slightly lighter tint on the faces. These were from Stanford (not Sanford) Magnets. They were leftovers from a magnetism experiment at work and were slightly thicker but shorter than a standard humbucker pickup.
                          For the purposes of guitar pickups and magnets made for guitar pickup applications, roughcast remain rough when installed and polished are polished before install. So what you had were not magnets manufactured for guitar pickups, ergo a different definition, apparently.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I guess, but the means of manufacture makes a much bigger difference than the surface of the magnet. Sintered has slightly weaker magnetism as a trade off for cheaper production and stronger mechanical properties. Polishing the magnet doesn't change that
                            You will never understand How it feels to live your life With no meaning or control And with nowhere left to go You are amazed that they exist And they burn so bright
                            Whilst you can only wonder why

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chistopher View Post
                              I guess, but the means of manufacture makes a much bigger difference than the surface of the magnet. Sintered has slightly weaker magnetism as a trade off for cheaper production and stronger mechanical properties. Polishing the magnet doesn't change that
                              Both have their place and their effects on tone are slightly different.
                              Polishing the magnet may not have much of an effect on a sintered mag, but it will completely change the effect of roughcasting a mag.
                              Originally Posted by IanBallard
                              Rule of thumb... the more pot you have, the better your tone.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X