250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

[veryhungrycaterpilla]

A number of posters here advocate using 250 k ohm pots with a number of pups. What is the advantage/difference with that than using a 500k tone pot when you want clean brightness and then rolling the pot back to 7 (250k effectively) when you want to reign in the brightness?

 

[jeremy]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

there is no advantage. most people dont use their tone controls so they limit the top end with the 250k, if it were me id go with the 500k and roll the tone back to where you like it

 

[orpheo]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

there is no advantage. most people dont use their tone controls so they limit the top end with the 250k, if it were me id go with the 500k and roll the tone back to where you like it

+1

in fact, I even prefer to use 1 mega ohm pots!

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I know it's supposed to work mathematically, but to my ear, a rolled back 500k pot just doesn't sound the same as a dimed 250k. Particularly on a volume pot.

 

[jeremy]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

i agree about the volume pot, a 500k rolled off to 250k sounds darker or less open than a 250k full up but i dont notice the same thing on a tone pot

 

[blueman335]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

My theory is that the PU's should be EQ'd together with both tone pots on "10." I've got enough to adjust at a gig without having to dial in each PU. In bridge PU's with A5 & A4 magnets, I always have an abundance of treble left in the amp, and never need all of it. 250K's give it warmth, body, and a richer tone. I hate a thin, tinny bridge. If I'm always dialing down the treble on 500K bridge pots, then there's no point in having them...they're too bright. Out they go.

That said, with warmer magnets, like an A2, 250K's on the bridge may be too dark & compressed. I think the pot value at the bridge depends on the PU, magnet, & wood, and that it's not a hard & fast rule. The common advice of 500K's on all passive HB's regardless is too broad & sweeping; sure doesn't apply to some of us.

This is what I do; for yourself, do what makes sense to you.

 

[Vincent Vespa]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

My theory is that the PU's should be EQ'd together with both tone pots on "10." I've got enough to adjust at a gig without having to dial in each PU. In bridge PU's with A5 & A4 magnets, I always have an abundance of treble left in the amp, and never need all of it. 250K's give it warmth, body, and a richer tone. I hate a thin, tinny bridge. If I'm always dialing down the treble on 500K bridge pots, then there's no point in having them...they're too bright. Out they go.

That said, with warmer magnets, like an A2, 250K's on the bridge may be too dark & compressed. I think the pot value at the bridge depends on the PU, magnet, & wood, and that it's not a hard & fast rule. The common advice of 500K's on all passive HB's regardless is too broad & sweeping; sure doesn't apply to some of us.

This is what I do; for yourself, do what makes sense to you.

Aye. It really depends on your equipment, too. My Orange is a very dark amp and a mahogany guitar with 250k pots would just sound bleak on it.

It's a matter of what you got and what you like.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

i agree about the volume pot, a 500k rolled off to 250k sounds darker or less open than a 250k full up but i dont notice the same thing on a tone pot

On a tone pot, depending on the taper I barely hear any difference in the tone on a 500k from 10 to 7.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

^ When one says 500K tone at 7 they usually mean an audio pot. With a simple linear pot that'd be exactly 5.

As for which one, if you ever need to turn the tone pot past 7 then you need the 500k one. If you never use it past 7 then no need to have it, just get a 250 and have a better taper for what you use.

I for instance have an HSS guitar where, believe it or not NEED to keep the taper at 10 with the single neck while with the bridge HB I prefer it at around 7.

Go figure...

 

[kaligula11]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

Here comes the common topic of JB. 250 or 500? And if 250, only volume pot or all pots?

 

[veryhungrycaterpilla]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

Thx everyone. I'll stick to 500k and rolling the tone pot as needed.

 

[blueman335]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

Think that you CANNOT restore in the amp side what you previously threw in the guitar side. By using 250K pots you are throwing more high frequencies to trash (ground) that you can eventually need later (specially if you like bitting distortion tones).

Well, I've never come close to maxing out the treble on any amp. To me, that's the one thing that you always have plenty of; your tone may not have enough mids or low end, but the treble is there in droves. There's never been a need to "restore" treble. Zhang & I are firm believers in 250K's on most, if not all, bridge PU's. A bright PU location really doesn't need bright pots to jack up the treble even further (unless you're chicken pickin').

 

[papersoul]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I know it's supposed to work mathematically, but to my ear, a rolled back 500k pot just doesn't sound the same as a dimed 250k. Particularly on a volume pot.

Exactly, it is way different on the volume pot! On the tone, you can roll back the 500k for the same effect - not on the volume pot!

 

[The Usual]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I am fairly new to this subject, but IME, higher valued vol pots don't give you more highs. This is a misleading statement. It gives you more of the peak of the pickup. To me, it translates into a gnarly sound in the bridge, and can sound more open to a point, in the neck. I never heard anything that would lead me to think I was getting more high end frequencies. I only point this out, because I was one of those people who was looking for the result described by so many posters, only to find that it simply wasn't true. Could be my rig, but multiple amps and guitars tell me otherwise.

For the record, I like 250 in the bridge, and 500 in the neck of buckers. 250 in fender type stuff.

In the case of p-90s, a friend of mine swears by 1 megs rolled back. It works for him. But p-90s are in a world of their own.

 

[ImmortalSix]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I run a P90 and a Little 59 with 250's and I'm happier than I am with it than I am with any other guitar --- it's perfect.

F the naysayers! With 250's, the whole sweep of the pot is usable range.

With 500's, I'd never go above 6ish, so I had less sweep of the pot that I actually used. No reason for that.

I can fine tune my sound better this way.

 

[uOpt]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I know it's supposed to work mathematically, but to my ear, a rolled back 500k pot just doesn't sound the same as a dimed 250k. Particularly on a volume pot.

The trick doesn't work on a volume pot.

On a tone pot it will work, but there is no way to tell where exactly a 500 Kohm pot will read 250 Kohm, except by multimetering it.

The tapers are all over the place. A linear pot should have it at 5, an audio taper that is strictly logarithmic at 9, but neither turns out that way in practice.

 

[papersoul]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I run a P90 and a Little 59 with 250's and I'm happier than I am with it than I am with any other guitar --- it's perfect.

F the naysayers! With 250's, the whole sweep of the pot is usable range.

With 500's, I'd never go above 6ish, so I had less sweep of the pot that I actually used. No reason for that.

I can fine tune my sound better this way.

So you guys use 250k or 300ks on the bridge tone and volume????

What if a guitar shares the tone and volume pot?

 

[MikeS]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

See, I'm the opposite of Hunter. I prefer to have the range available. There's plenty of usable range with 500K pots if you spend the time to find the taper you prefer. For me it's audio taper on volume and linear on tone.

There's no universally right answer, but there are trends. It's safe to say that the guys playing higher gain and/or humbuckers tend to prefer a higher resistance pot than the players playing single coils and/or cleaner and low gain tones. Beyond broad generalizations is room for catering the pot selection to the tone of the guitar and the pickups chosen. So, in a round about way, I'm suggesting that there is no real great advantage to choosing 250K over 500K, unless you never use a tone pot or your guitar/pickup combination is naturally very bright.

 

[papersoul]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I am a high gain, ahrd rock, humbcuker guy and prefer 300k in the bidge. I like warm bridge tones and the ability to still use my amp's treble control. I find 500ks make the bridge to shrill and bright. Rolling a 500k down is way different than using a 300k.

 

[blueman335]

Re: 250 k tone pot or 500k tone pot rolled back to 7

I am a high gain, hard rock, humbucker guy and prefer 300k in the bidge. I like warm bridge tones and the ability to still use my amp's treble control. I find 500ks make the bridge to shrill and bright. Rolling a 500k down is way different than using a 300k.

+1. Why add the treble with 500K's on the bridge and then take it away by rolling down the tone pot? I don't need all the treble. To me that means that I haven't got the PU's EQ'd right, & have more tweaking to do in magnets or pots. I tweak until the neck & bridge are at their best on the same amp setting. I do my work up front, and then at a gig I'm not fooling around with getting the PU's balanced, on top of everything else going on.