59,T Top and the old 490r/t

[Sam SG]

So after playing my LP JR for a couple gigs and jamming on it last night. I switvh back to my SG and realized i missed the clarity of the P90.
Anyway I have in my parts box a late 70s T Top neck pickup and a SD 59 neck.
Im really thinking on putting these in my SG to replace the 490s.
#1 will the poles of a neck pup lineup in the bridge
#2 I know Jimmy Page used a T Top in the bridge and PAF in the neck of his LPs. But im inclined to think the 59 would make a better bridge pup.
Im waiting for them to warm up to room temp to DC them right now( they were in my junk box in a cold cold closet)
Ive been really thinking on putting the T Top in the neck for awhile. The 490T i like, but could see a bit better note seperation and clarity........and I have this 59...?
Or another thought is...T Top in neck and put the A5 magnet from the 59 in the 490T
Thoughts?

 

[jeremy]

neither would be my first choice, but either would work. pick one and give it a try!

 

[beaubrummels]

If those are the choices, I'd put the 59 neck in the bridge, and put the T-Top neck in the neck. 59 neck is tubby on the bottom end which doesn't sound great to me in the neck, but that bottom end helps fill it out in the bridge position giving it a bit of girth.

If I could choose whatever I want that's similar/in the ball-park, I'd put a Jazz set in there. (Which is what I have in my SG.)

To tell if the pole pieces line up, have to know what year your SG is. Somewhere around the 80s-90s Gibson when to a wider bridge, not quite Fender wide, but in between. But FWIW I had a 59 neck in the bridge of my mid-2000s LP Studio and it played fine. I didn't have significant problems with the balance of hi-lo E.

Another way to get some clarity out of 49X pickups is to raise the screw poles just above the covers.

 

[Sam SG]

True i havent played with the poles on this guitar.
I did my other SG 490s...but my buddy has been borrowing it for 5mo....so cant compare.
Maybe ill mess with poles on the 490t befor i swap it. I mean i like it...just could use a little srperation/clarity.
I do recall the other SG having more clarity compared. Actually i did the poles on the P90 in my Jr too...maybe thats why it sounds so good.
Then if that works ill throw the T Top in the neck

 

[jeremy]

thinking about this, i think id go t-top bridge. late 70s probably has a strong magnet, you can always swap an a4 into the 59n to clean up the bottom if its boomy

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I once got a '59B that I highly suspected was a mislabeled '59N, and I hated it. It sounded so tinny, weak, and with no oomph whatosever.

YMMV, but I don't recommend a '59N in the bridge if you like your bridge pickup to pack any hint of punch, honestly.

 

[freefrog]

I'd just try the various configurations available with an open mind. There's no obligation to solder the pickups in order to try them: twisting the leads can be handy. ;-)

Now, a few thoughts, randomly:

-a now retired local luthier / pickups maker for whom I've worked offered a set with twice the same PU but the neck unit was wired with poly insulated wire and the bridge with PE...
-it's not only because of acoustic resonance that a P.A.F. / T-Top duet in a SG is something else than in a LP: the difference of parasitic capacitance between wiring harnesses is often forgotten and might have a clear effect on the perceived EQing of passive pickups...
-with such passive pickups, fortunately, there are many ways to tune the resonant peak (of a too bright bridge unit, for instance): lower pot resistance (or lowered tone pot) if one wants it flatter, low value cap from hot to ground to shift down its frequency and makes the sound warmer - this last trick being something that I always evoke but which is most often ignored, albeit Duncan FAQ evoked it as an advice a few decades ago...

Do what you want and let us know what made you happy.

 

[beaubrummels]

I once got a '59B that I highly suspected was a mislabeled '59N, and I hated it. It sounded so tinny, weak, and with no oomph whatosever.

YMMV, but I don't recommend a '59N in the bridge if you like your bridge pickup to pack any hint of punch, honestly.

If you're entertaining a T-Top in the bridge, a 59N isn't that far off. You just get your gain from the amp.

 

[Cdntac]

When you already have the pickups, it’s different from trying to decide what model to buy and possibly waste $$ if you don’t like the sound.

But since you already have the pickups, heat up your soldering iron and see what happens.

It’s fun to discover what pickups provide different sounds.

Don’t forget too that if you find one a bit dark you can unsolder the cap from the volume pot and see how much that affects the sound.

It’s an easy mod. You may what you hear; you may not. I don’t have a cap on the bridge pickup (SD 78) of my old SG.

 

[freefrog]

Instead of desoldering the cap of a tone pot (which neutralizes it totally), it's possible to change the tone control in a no-load pot (which keeps it usable from 0 to 9/10 and takes it out of the circuit @ 10/10):

How To Make A No Load Tone Pot

In this guide we demonstrate how to modify a standard log (audio) taper pot to make it function as a blender pot (similar to a no load pot). Blender pots are most commonly used in the popular Strat blend wiring mod which replaces the second tone control on a typical Strat with a blend control -...

sixstringsupplies.co.uk

Now, using no-load pots to brighten the tone or lowering pot resistance to darken it is always and only a way to correct the amplitude of resonant peaks.

Another way to tune the tone is definitively to vary the capacitive load, which changes the frequency of resonant peaks and makes the sound darker/brighter in a different way. Reminder (knowing that lenghts of cable can be swapped for simple cheap low value caps from hot to ground):

 

[jeremy]

Don’t forget too that if you find one a bit dark you can unsolder the cap from the volume pot and see how much that affects the sound.

It’s an easy mod. You may what you hear; you may not. I don’t have a cap on the bridge pickup (SD 78) of my old SG.

i cant imagine a t-top or 59n in the bridge being too dark, but ymmv

 

[Sam SG]

Well i messed with the 490t poles last night. Seems better so far. Gonna play on it couple days first.
Think the 490r s days are numbered though.Think im gona try the T Top in the neck still. I may try unsoldering the tone cap and or adjust poles. But its pretty dark.
The 490t was almost there to begin...not si much the r.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I like the 490R, but I remember the first thing I did with my Modern Lite was remove the neck tone pot off the circuit, and that immediately opened it up.

What I recommend is either a no load tone pot if you use your tone pot a lot with the 490R, a 1M volume pot, or both.

My reasoning is I generally like the 490R's smooth character, but it can get a bit wooly, especially in contrast to vintage-y bridge pickups. But you can get it to open up a tad with pot values if you're like me who generally likes it, but just wants to get a bit more chime an open-ness without going all plink plink scratch scratch like many other lower-wind neck pickups.

 

[hamerfan]

I use a 490r in the neck, but i swapped the A2 to an A5 and an A4. Much better, with the A5 have a bit more bass and the A4 less bass and maybe a bit rounder highs.

 

[Aceman]

Just sell the T-Top and get:

A Jazz set
A Whole Lotta set
A Jazz neck and a Whole Lotta bridge

 

[Sam SG]

Well I adjusted the poles on the 490r. The treble strings got much better. But the lowend is just loose on these. Poles up the low strings with OD on sound almost like a fuzz pedal type lowend. In a thats kinda cool but when the hell would i ever use it sorta way.
BUT with poles adjusted on both pickups Im getting some really good middle switch sounds blending volumes.
Next ill try disconnecting the tone on the 490r I also have a .015 wax capacitor I may try on the 490r tone circuit