'59 Bridge magnet question
- Thread starter Johnconk
- Start date
IanBallard
New member
Re: '59 Bridge magnet question
It really doesn't matter. They come with the "short" magnets stock, but a long A2 will work. As long as they are the right width, there's no issue. The only trick to it, is making sure you don't harm any wires removing the magnet and putting the new one in and making sure the magnet is the correct polarity/direction so you don't have phase issues with other pups.
The "long" magnets, used in the original "pre-AF's" and "PAF's" were 2.5" long until around 1961. Then they used shorter 2.25" mags. That's not a huge difference. If you want period-correct, I'd actually recommend a 2.5" rough-cast Alnico 4 magnet in the '59, since that was the most common magnet in use at that time. Sales receipts for stock of magnets, show a vastly large number of A4 "long" magnets being ordered over all others after around 1958. But an A2 will fatten the midrange and give you looser bass and less treble than the stock A5 and the A4 will even the EQ out, giving you nice tight bass, good mids and more high-end than an A2 or A3 mag. If you want the "magic of the wind" to come through, the A4 might be the ticket.
http://home.provide.net/~cfh/paf.html
It really doesn't matter. They come with the "short" magnets stock, but a long A2 will work. As long as they are the right width, there's no issue. The only trick to it, is making sure you don't harm any wires removing the magnet and putting the new one in and making sure the magnet is the correct polarity/direction so you don't have phase issues with other pups.
The "long" magnets, used in the original "pre-AF's" and "PAF's" were 2.5" long until around 1961. Then they used shorter 2.25" mags. That's not a huge difference. If you want period-correct, I'd actually recommend a 2.5" rough-cast Alnico 4 magnet in the '59, since that was the most common magnet in use at that time. Sales receipts for stock of magnets, show a vastly large number of A4 "long" magnets being ordered over all others after around 1958. But an A2 will fatten the midrange and give you looser bass and less treble than the stock A5 and the A4 will even the EQ out, giving you nice tight bass, good mids and more high-end than an A2 or A3 mag. If you want the "magic of the wind" to come through, the A4 might be the ticket.
http://home.provide.net/~cfh/paf.html
Last edited:
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: '59 Bridge magnet question
Just get 'standard' size mags. I'd recommend using an UOA5 instead of an A2. UOA5's have the warmth and rich dynamics of an A2, but also have more output, a little firmer low end, and a bit more treble for bite and cut. A2's can be a little too rounded on top and the low end can be kind of flabby.
Just get 'standard' size mags. I'd recommend using an UOA5 instead of an A2. UOA5's have the warmth and rich dynamics of an A2, but also have more output, a little firmer low end, and a bit more treble for bite and cut. A2's can be a little too rounded on top and the low end can be kind of flabby.
LtKojak
New member
Re: '59 Bridge magnet question
While this statement is absolutely true, IMO this behaviour applies mostly to NECK p'ups, the bridge ones much less so.
Anyway, I'd go for the UOA5 for this p'up... my experiences with'em are better than with A2s.
HTH,
While this statement is absolutely true, IMO this behaviour applies mostly to NECK p'ups, the bridge ones much less so.
Anyway, I'd go for the UOA5 for this p'up... my experiences with'em are better than with A2s.
HTH,
Last edited:
Similar threads
