Someone must know this. I have a Fender made in Mexico wide-range p/up in my Tele. This has a bar magnet instead of pole magnets. Has anyone tried or even thought of, adjusting the threaded steel poles underneath? You cant see them but there are six and these are the passive ones. I'm sure they are meant to be adjusted, away or towards the top-otherwise they would be fixed..
Adjusting the hidden screwed poles in a Fender MIM wide range..
- Thread starter Gold star
- Start date
freefrog
Well-known member
No, screw poles underneath are not meant to be adjusted. They are the same than the screw pole pieces under the strings for convenience only. They can't be set higher under the strings, anyway, since the metal cover blocks them.
The only possible manipulation from "underneath" is to unscrew these reversed screw poles: it will put them farther from the strings, change a wee bit the inductance and increase a tad eddy currents. It's not worth the effort, IMHO. YMMV.
The only possible manipulation from "underneath" is to unscrew these reversed screw poles: it will put them farther from the strings, change a wee bit the inductance and increase a tad eddy currents. It's not worth the effort, IMHO. YMMV.
I've actually done it. That's why I asked if anyone else had. I've moved the under side screws down -away from the top, the only way they can go as you say, and so far the sound is a bit clearer with less bass. In time I may turn them slightly upwards a bit more ;they are threaded the same as those on top.
freefrog
Well-known member
Yep, the sound can get clearer when poles are farther from the strings... Now, one can do the same by modifying the height of the whole pickup thx to the height setting screws.
It's not to say that micro adjustments are not interesting: I've done comparable settings dozens of times and on a Filter'Tron, for instance, the height of the screw poles relatively to the coils can have a very noticeable effect on tone.
But I'll admit that personally, I wouldn't spontaneously pull off 6 strings and a pickup just to give a few turns to some hidden screws, at least with a conventional humbucker design.
SIDE NOTE on CuniFe Wide Ranges : it's possible to unscrew the magnetic rods and to reverse them all. That + reversing the wiring allows to select the proper coil for split mode if needed...
I managed to slide it and pickguard under the slackened strings. Those threaded poles underneath would be the passive ones. I've seen videos on You tube that showed quite clearly that The WR with the Cunife rod magnets can sound the same as a PAF style HB on a Les Paul. Other factors being the scale length between Gibson & Fender. WRHB's with the bar magnet can also sound as good as the ones with Rod magnets. It proves there was never anything dramatically different in the sound of the Wide range which was discontinued by Fender for about 10 years. It was brought back in 1999 , but it still divides opinion...
Last edited:
freefrog
Well-known member
Firstly, I'm sincerely glad for you if your MIM WR replica makes you happy!... Nothing else counts.
...Now, and as you appear to reply above to my statements in the other topic : my own conclusions about CuNiFe Wide Ranges vs Gibson humbuckers don't come from videos: I have such pickups in various guitars (with various scales, and not only of Fender or Gibson dimensions, BTW)... If I mounted a Gibson style humbucker in neck position of my US Tele instead of the CuNiFe Wide Range currently mounted in this position, it wouldn't sound the same and wouldn't deliver what I want once split. How do I know? Because I've tried.
It's not to say that I couldn't obtain similar tones from a CuNiFe WR and a Gibson style HB if I wanted to post a YT video... I've at disposal some outstandingly clear sounding vintage Gibson PU's or replicas for that. And I see how to set a rig then master a track. But it doesn't cancel objective differences between pickups designs... ;-)
Food for thought, coming from someone who has no horse in the race (since he winds his own pickups based on a totally different recipe):
https://lawingmusicalproducts.com/dr-lawings-blog/tag/wide+range+humbucker
The impedance curves showing the differences between CuNiFe and other magnetic alloys are especially instructive.
NOTE - I'm not "defending" the CuNiFe Wide Range "against" other pickups. After 43 years of tinkering on magnetic transducers, I would find such a controversy rather childish. If people like HB's with bar mags as much or more than it, that's great for them! But it doesn't harm to recall that YT videos are not necessarily the source of all Truth... <
)Firstly, I'm sincerely glad for you if your MIM WR replica makes you happy!... Nothing else counts.
...Now, and as you appear to reply above to my statements in the other topic : my own conclusions about CuNiFe Wide Ranges vs Gibson humbuckers don't come from videos: I have such pickups in various guitars (with various scales, and not only of Fender or Gibson dimensions, BTW)... If I mounted a Gibson style humbucker in neck position of my US Tele instead of the CuNiFe Wide Range currently mounted in this position, it wouldn't sound the same and wouldn't deliver what I want once split. How do I know? Because I've tried.
It's not to say that I couldn't obtain similar tones from a CuNiFe WR and a Gibson style HB if I wanted to post a YT video... I've at disposal some outstandingly clear sounding vintage Gibson PU's or replicas for that. And I see how to set a rig then master a track. But it doesn't cancel objective differences between pickups designs... ;-)
Food for thought, coming from someone who has no horse in the race (since he winds his own pickups based on a totally different recipe):
https://lawingmusicalproducts.com/dr-lawings-blog/tag/wide+range+humbucker
The impedance curves showing the differences between CuNiFe and other magnetic alloys are especially instructive.
NOTE - I'm not "defending" the CuNiFe Wide Range "against" other pickups. After 43 years of tinkering on magnetic transducers, I would find such a controversy rather childish. If people like HB's with bar mags as much or more than it, that's great for them! But it doesn't harm to recall that YT videos are not necessarily the source of all Truth... <
I 've had a look at that piece on the wide range. The bottom line remains 'what do they sound like?' and from what I've heard, there seem to be more similarities to a normal HB than differences. it would be interesting to see a pair fitted to a Les Paul . Unfortunately, it means cutting out wood. What I don't agree with are the ' mini' wide range p/ups that you can buy (standard size H/Bs) . They cant be wide range as - they are not wide!.. One area where Fender went wrong is they used the same base plate & cover for the neck p/up as the Bridge on many WR's which meant the poles did not line up with the strings...not sure if the new ones are any different
freefrog
Well-known member
Feel free to ask me, since I've a direct personal experience with the CuniFe model.
If it can help, I've somewhere in my data some other impedance curves and frequency response charts showing the differences between this model and Gibson style HB's when they are played in the same conditions. Any other comparison would be discussible, since many passive pickups can be set or tweaked to sound close to each others... I've even designed and built myself a passive inductive/resistive network able to change sonically a 500T in a P.A.F. clone twice less powerful, albeit these transducers are totally different initially.
About the idea of a WR in a LP: there's plenty of Gibson models or copies with a pickguard allowing to do some routing. I've passed much time in my life to do such things or... to repair the mods botched by careless owners.
Regarding the spacing between poles: no, the WR reissue is not different and it's actually not a problem when such pickups are played, even if it's esthetically discussible. Pickups whose poles spacing is narrower than strings spacing are more problematic IME.
Is there a technical reason the poles on these cant line up with the strings on a Fender in the neck position ? having gone to the trouble of re issuing them with the original magnet type, that should have been corrected. If you buy a Fender WR separately they are something like $180 to $210 each...
freefrog
Well-known member
There's a technical reason why the misalignment of strings and poles doesn't really matter, except esthetically: how the magnetic field spreads on a wider area than the surface of each pole. There's instructive screenshots about that here: https://www.skguitar.com/SKGS/sk/Images/pickups/Pickup stuff/Magnetics.htm
Regarding prices: most pickups cost very little to produce, anyway. So, to some extent, most aftermarket pickups can be considered as overpriced, except the kind of transducers sold on AliExpress (whose prices are low but whose purchase is a shot in the dark: some are very good and would easily rivail with products from big names; some others are just junk). Last but not least, the price of a CuNiFe WR RI doesn't yet reach the 4800+ dollars required to buy a vintage Gibson P.A.F. with warped butyrate bobbins...
Regarding prices: most pickups cost very little to produce, anyway. So, to some extent, most aftermarket pickups can be considered as overpriced, except the kind of transducers sold on AliExpress (whose prices are low but whose purchase is a shot in the dark: some are very good and would easily rivail with products from big names; some others are just junk). Last but not least, the price of a CuNiFe WR RI doesn't yet reach the 4800+ dollars required to buy a vintage Gibson P.A.F. with warped butyrate bobbins...
freefrog
Well-known member
Yes, of course.
freefrog
Well-known member
BTW, this effort to adjust hidden screw poles and your words above suggest to me that you weren't happy with the MIM Wide Range because of a lack of clarity and too much bass.
It's potentially inherent to the design involved: with such a "wide" footprint, the necessarily low Q factor of a Gibson HB style design with bar magnet logically risks to open to a bassy tone with blurry low mids.
There's various potential ways to diminish these issues: 1M or no load pots, degaussed magnet...
I also see how [a low impedance / high inductance choke + a capacitor to correct its frequential influence] might be added in parallel to the MIM replica, through some resistive network or trim pot allowing to "balance" the whole assembly: it would decrease a tad the output level and rise the Q factor for a clearer sound.
But at this point, the expense in time, materials and lab measurements wouldn't be necessarily more interesting than buying a CuNiFe WR (or rebuilding the MIM reissue by swapping its magnetically inert screw poles for some rod magnets).
FWIW. Hope this helps...
It wasn't so much too much bass, more a lack of clarity clean or overdriven. Some tweaking to all the screws lowering the height etc, means it's ok now. The MIM , which came out in 1999 is often seen as inferior to the WR's with Rod magnets. I don't think so - just different. You get a sweet tone on the treble strings and overdriven, in my opinion, is better. I mentioned demos on You Tube, featuring the original spec Tele Deluxe, 72 Custom ,Thin line and with the CuNIFE rods, the staggered 3 & 3 layout can create a certain dissonance-that's how it sounds to me. You may think otherwise !. With overdrive, you cant beat a good standard HB . I have a pair of Seymour Duncan 1959's on an SG and they are very good clean or distorted...
freefrog
Well-known member
What I think is that YT is a double-edged sword.
In 2012, on mylespaul.com, some online videos made me win a free set of boutique humbuckers, in a blind-test, because I had recognized several models among 17 sets of P.A.F. clones. I won't complain about that. ;-)
But the same year, I've also cancelled the online demos that I had myself on YT, because they betrayed my tone and recording...
IME and IMHO, pickups can't be really evaluated through online samples: playing them directly can be satisfying or not, regardless of their price, but appears to me as the only way to really know if we and our gear bond with them.
The rest is a question of personal opinions that I won't discuss, exactly like I avoid to promote my subjective feelings as a truth when I post on the Net.
Last edited:
yes I understand your point. Unless you happen to own or have access to a certain instrument, on line videos are all you have unfortunately. You mentioned pot values earlier. With something like a 72 Tele Custom , a WR at the neck and standard Tele single coil at bridge, I remember Fender fitting 250k pots and .22 caps for tone & volume and the Deluxe was no different. This can change over time of course. This is what I have It's not overly dark or bass heavy. I had the magnet in my WR, which is A2, re charged as it had degaussed over time and maybe lack of use....
freefrog
Well-known member
A2 or not, Magnets don't degauss that easily over time and certainly don't suffer to stay unused. Who told such fables to you?...
Also, the value of pots in original Tele Deluxe's is discussible. scroll down in this page to see what I mean: https://www.fuzzfaced.net/telecaster-wirings.html
EVEN if we consider that original Tele Deluxe's had 250k pots, anyway, they were fitted with CuNiFe Wide Range's, having as I said a higher Q factor. IOW: a pointier and narrower resonant peak. IOW: more high frequencies, more focused.
So, if one wants to compensate the lower Q factor (flatter resonant peak) of a Gibson style HB in order to make it closer to a "real" Wide Range, it seems logical to use higher resistance pots, whose action is precisely to narrow and elevate the resonant frequency.
Here is what pots resistance does to the resonance of any passive magnetic pickup: http://www.jocidapark.com.au/circuits/GN2/pots1_zps8eb38254.gif
Now, here is the difference of resonances between MIM/Gibson style and CuNiFe Wide Range's:
See how changing the resistance of the pots would make pointier the black curves above, making them closer to the red curves of the CuNiFe?...
It's not even needed to change the pots for that. Opening an modifying each tone control to make it "no load" would take a few minutes then the guitar would behave as if it had 500k pots, with the possibility to come back to the initial 250k tone controls once their pots set @ 9/10 or below.
How to DIY a no load pot: https://www.tdpri.com/threads/making-a-no-load-tone-pot.283492/
FWIW (= useful only if such explanations are took in account).
Also, the value of pots in original Tele Deluxe's is discussible. scroll down in this page to see what I mean: https://www.fuzzfaced.net/telecaster-wirings.html
EVEN if we consider that original Tele Deluxe's had 250k pots, anyway, they were fitted with CuNiFe Wide Range's, having as I said a higher Q factor. IOW: a pointier and narrower resonant peak. IOW: more high frequencies, more focused.
So, if one wants to compensate the lower Q factor (flatter resonant peak) of a Gibson style HB in order to make it closer to a "real" Wide Range, it seems logical to use higher resistance pots, whose action is precisely to narrow and elevate the resonant frequency.
Here is what pots resistance does to the resonance of any passive magnetic pickup: http://www.jocidapark.com.au/circuits/GN2/pots1_zps8eb38254.gif
Now, here is the difference of resonances between MIM/Gibson style and CuNiFe Wide Range's:
See how changing the resistance of the pots would make pointier the black curves above, making them closer to the red curves of the CuNiFe?...
It's not even needed to change the pots for that. Opening an modifying each tone control to make it "no load" would take a few minutes then the guitar would behave as if it had 500k pots, with the possibility to come back to the initial 250k tone controls once their pots set @ 9/10 or below.
How to DIY a no load pot: https://www.tdpri.com/threads/making-a-no-load-tone-pot.283492/
FWIW (= useful only if such explanations are took in account).
A2 or not, Magnets don't degauss that easily over time and certainly don't suffer to stay unused. Who told such fables to you?...
Also, the value of pots in original Tele Deluxe's is discussible. scroll down in this page to see what I mean: https://www.fuzzfaced.net/telecaster-wirings.html
EVEN if we consider that original Tele Deluxe's had 250k pots, anyway, they were fitted with CuNiFe Wide Range's, having as I said a higher Q factor. IOW: a pointier and narrower resonant peak. IOW: more high frequencies, more focused.
So, if one wants to compensate the lower Q factor (flatter resonant peak) of a Gibson style HB in order to make it closer to a "real" Wide Range, it seems logical to use higher resistance pots, whose action is precisely to narrow and elevate the resonant frequency.
Here is what pots resistance does to the resonance of any passive magnetic pickup: http://www.jocidapark.com.au/circuits/GN2/pots1_zps8eb38254.gif
Now, here is the difference of resonances between MIM/Gibson style and CuNiFe Wide Range's:
See how changing the resistance of the pots would make pointier the black curves above, making them closer to the red curves of the CuNiFe?...
It's not even needed to change the pots for that. Opening an modifying each tone control to make it "no load" would take a few minutes then the guitar would behave as if it had 500k pots, with the possibility to come back to the initial 250k tone controls once their pots set @ 9/10 or below.
How to DIY a no load pot: https://www.tdpri.com/threads/making-a-no-load-tone-pot.283492/
FWIW (= useful only if such explanations are took in account).
hi..One aspect of the WR is that it wont fit most guitars without extra routing, removal of wood that many don't want to do, especially if it's an expensive instrument. What some have done in recent years is come up with scaled down Wide range p/ups, normal humbucker size. They are sold as wide range but I don't see how they can be as they are not 'wide', don't have the same coils or even magnet material. Have you seen these ?
freefrog
Well-known member
Hello,
Yes, I've seen these and I even think there was one of these PU's in neck position of a borrowed offset Tele, that I've played on stage a while back... but I've not tested it with lab gear. Just played some classic tunes with the guitar through a Boss Katana amp.
Now and generally, scaled down pickups tend to sound a bit differently because of how they comb-filter harmonics, as illustrated by the already mentioned Tilman applet: https://till.com/articles/PickupResponseDemo/
Coil geometry also changes parms like the Q factor. For instance, a normal Burns TriSonic has a flatter and wider resonance than a Strat-SC sized TriSonic or DiMarzio Brian May.
I've routed once a Tele for a "real" Wide Range in neck position and cut a dedicated pickguard for it. Wasn't a big deal. But I understand that it might appear as lot of work just to change a pickup...
freefrog
Well-known member
Sunday morning add - Checked what was the aforementioned guitar: it was a blonde Fender FSR Offset Tele, fitted with the down-sized Wide Range below in neck position (and that I had took at first glance for a normal WR : it was late at night, I was not there to inspect the instrument... I had just distractively noticed how it looked and played it):
https://reverb.com/item/69069499-fe...up-american-professional-tele-deluxe-usa-7-5k
Now that I rethink to it, I remember to have said to myself that the supposed Wide Range didn't sound as I expected. I had attributed that to the rig used.
The inductance mentioned in the Reverb link is lower than for a full sized WR, FWIW. As is the DCR. The proportion between these two values suggests a design fitted with an A2 bar but it might be A2 rods with an inductance plate under the coils...
And to come back on topic: in a CuNiFe WR, the exposed magnetic screws must be set flush to the cover for more clarity. If they protude, the pickup will sound thicker... ;-)
https://reverb.com/item/69069499-fe...up-american-professional-tele-deluxe-usa-7-5k
Now that I rethink to it, I remember to have said to myself that the supposed Wide Range didn't sound as I expected. I had attributed that to the rig used.
The inductance mentioned in the Reverb link is lower than for a full sized WR, FWIW. As is the DCR. The proportion between these two values suggests a design fitted with an A2 bar but it might be A2 rods with an inductance plate under the coils...
And to come back on topic: in a CuNiFe WR, the exposed magnetic screws must be set flush to the cover for more clarity. If they protude, the pickup will sound thicker... ;-)
Similar threads
