All Pickups Sound Dull in the Bridge - 1986 Charvel Model 3a

[EVOLVIST]

I've been grappling with this for a while now. My Charvel Model 3a from 1986. The original J-80c pups sounded dull - contrasted, obviously, to the brilliant sounding J80c pups in my Model 5 & Model 6 with the mid boost - so, I switched out the bridge pups with a Crunch Lab. Well, that sounded dull, too. Now, I put an Invader in, and it's a little better, but nothing in the bridge sounds really alive in this guitar. (note - same basswood body in all of these MIJ Charvels from this era).

I'm beginning to think the guitar is just cursed! But no, there must be a technical explanation, right? It's as if nothing I put in really shines, and that goes for the neck pup, too. I thought it might be the wood, but the guitar doesn't sound dull while unplugged.

I recently had a well respected luthier install the Invader and do a complete setup to the guitar. It plays extremely well. I'm simply wondering could it be the stock caps, the wiring, the pots, or something. They should have 500k pots in it, but maybe the Seymour Duncan YJM-500 Hi-Speed Volume Electric Guitar Pot would be more simpatico with the Invader? I really don't know, but I'm tired of paying a tech...and I've had Invaders in other guitars, and they don't sound this flat. Like I said, it's better than the Crunch Lab, but not as good as it should be.


Maybe Model 3as simply stink?

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[superpete]

it might just be a matter of finding the right pu for the guitar. I assume by the previous choices you're looking for something high output...a JB would be the classic choice for an 80s shred machine, and will be brighter than an invader.

 

[ItsaBass]

I am unfamiliar with the guitars you're talking about, but are you saying that the Model 5 and Model 6 have a mid boost element that the Model 3a does not have? If, so that would seem to be something that would make a major tonal difference.

 

[dave74]

Yes the old Jackson mid-boost was great IMO, and even better with pickups other their own j-whatever models.
I used to have a model 5a orange-crackle with poplar wings around a maple neck-thru. It was top-mount jackson floyd with one humbucker and one slanted single.

Maple neck, rosewood board, basswood body, I'm going to say a Dimebucker sh13. It's tight bright clear lively and that wood combination tends to warm it up a bit.

 

[Synapsys]

Let me add the Full Shred and the PATB-1 to the list.

 

[Mincer]

Pots of the same value wouldn't clear up the sound of the guitar. I think it might just be the pickup. The Invader isn't very clear sounding. Something like the Custom 5, Alternative 8, Dimebucker, or even Full Shred would be 'Clearer'. Lots of people go right to the Invader because they want high output, but it isn't a balanced output to me.

 

[ICTGoober]

Bill Lawrence XL-500. If that doesn't brighten up your Charvel, nothing will.

 

[ErikH]

I was gonna say to look for a brighter pickup. Hotter does not necessarily mean brighter. A Full Shred, Bill Lawrence XL-500, even the Perpetual Burn (maybe), or possibly the Custom. The Crunch Lab and Invader have the wrong EQ for that guitar from what you're saying about the sound.

 

[ItsaBass]

A bunch of pickup suggestions...but we still don't have an answer as to whether the "different" sounding pickup is the only one without a mid boost on it.

If that is indeed the issue/difference...then just add a mid boost.

 

[ErikH]

The model 3a did NOT have the mid-boost.

 

[Securb]

Maple neck, rosewood board, basswood body, I'm going to say a Dimebucker sh13. It's tight bright clear lively and that wood combination tends to warm it up a bit.

I have a Dimebucker with 1 meg pots in my Iceman. It is plenty bright without being ice-picky. It still has plenty of clear and tight mids and bass.

 

[Lewguitar]

Does that guitar have a preamp? If it does maybe the battery needs replacing.

If it doesn't and the pots are 250K, change them to 500K.

There might also be a problem with the wiring but without having the guitar in my hands I couldn't help.

Maybe there's a problem with the tone control shunting treble to ground because a ground wire is touching a terminal or something.

 

[EVOLVIST]

Pots of the same value wouldn't clear up the sound of the guitar. I think it might just be the pickup. The Invader isn't very clear sounding. Something like the Custom 5, Alternative 8, Dimebucker, or even Full Shred would be 'Clearer'. Lots of people go right to the Invader because they want high output, but it isn't a balanced output to me.

I follow, but tonally, the Invader is performing as it should. We are talking about brightness, yet it isn't an issue of dark vs. bright; 80% of our guitar's sound (roughly) is the pickup, but that other 20%? Tone wood? Bah! What would be the difference of the basswood body of a Jackson King V versus the basswood body of my Charvel 3a? There should be no difference.

To me, then, it would seem that there would be a difference in the wiring in some way, or caps, or pots. After all, there is a reason that we opt for this cap over another or this pot over another, yes?

Note, I'm not being argumentative, because I'm really at a loss; I'm merely trying to look under every stone. The Charvel with the Invader is highly usable, only it's lacking a certain je ne sais quoi, which makes me want to add extra reverb to whatever riff I'm laying down. This kind of works, but it's not optimal.

Therefore, could it be that I'm missing something within that 20%? The consensus so far is no. Still, I have a niggling feeling that something must be amiss with my Charvel if we are comparing apples to apples with other guitars stocked with Invaders, using the same wood, etc.

 

[eaeolian]

Apples and Oranges - the Model 5 and the Model 6 are both neckthru, which really makes maple your tonewood. That said, do all 3 of them have Kahlers? (a 1986 3A should have the Kahler 2520, the strat trem replacement, although I've seen a few with flatmounts - as usual for that era, the standards changed throughout the year.)

Also, the mid-boost in the 5 and the 6 will definitely make those pickups sound different. Those Jackson pickups really only work with that package, IMO. By themselves they're dull, lifeless fridge magnets.

 

[EVOLVIST]

Apples and Oranges - the Model 5 and the Model 6 are both neckthru, which really makes maple your tonewood. That said, do all 3 of them have Kahlers? (a 1986 3A should have the Kahler 2520, the strat trem replacement, although I've seen a few with flatmounts - as usual for that era, the standards changed throughout the year.)

Also, the mid-boost in the 5 and the 6 will definitely make those pickups sound different. Those Jackson pickups really only work with that package, IMO. By themselves they're dull, lifeless fridge magnets.

Right, the Models 5 & 6 are neckthru with the mid-boost, and you're also correct, without the mid-boost the pups sound close to garbage. With the mid-boost the J-80c in the Model 5 and the J-50bc in the Model 6, they are glorious pickups with a full frequency response, very lively and hot as hell. The 3a does have the Khaler 2520, yes. I only play the 1986 MIJ Charvels, with no care for the later models, unless I can get my hands on a Model 8.

But in this case I'm not comparing my Model 3a with the Models 5 & 6. That would be pointless. I'm comparing the Invader pup to an Invader in an '80s Jackson King V that a friend of mine owns. No mid-boost in the Jackson of course. But, that Jackson is a neckthru, while my 3a is a bolt-on. Might that be the difference? I've certainly held a sense of pride for my neckthru guitars, as they really do sustain better. Then again, oh how many bolt-on necks with Invaders have sounded kick ass, too? Plenty! But maybe that's the issue.

Hey, but at least the Seymour Duncan Invader sounds better than that crap Dimarzio Crunch Lab.

 

[superpete]

if there was something wrong with the wiring/pots/caps your tech should have noticed it when they were swapping out the pickups. I personally don't think it's that. If you don't want to swap pus again (and there are a lot of great pu suggestions so far), i'd buy an eq pedal and boost whatever frequencies you're missing.

 

[EVOLVIST]

if there was something wrong with the wiring/pots/caps your tech should have noticed it when they were swapping out the pickups. I personally don't think it's that. If you don't want to swap pus again (and there are a lot of great pu suggestions so far), i'd buy an eq pedal and boost whatever frequencies you're missing.

Fair enough. I recently bought a Mesa/Boogie 5 band EQ pedal that we run in the FX loop to tweak the sound through various guitars, amps and cab combos, so that Boogie pedal might work on the front end while tracking. Either that, or like I said, I've been juicing the reverb while using this guitar. It stays tight sounding, but yeah, reverb seems to add that sparkle.

I really appreciate all of the responses!

 

[Pa11]

Hey,

I have had 2 guitars that sounded like the tone control was at 50%. both were too dark sounding to actually grab pinch harmonics reliably. one was a charvel and another was a Jackson.

I spent a long time swapping pickups and playing with different things but in both cases there was no fix. the guitars were just that dark. I had to offload them. I even wired pickups (active and passive types) direct no tone volume etc.

I even tried eq pedals before the amp etc, and it just exaggerated the noise floor. the treble simply wasn't there.


your experiences might be different (I hope!). but in the end I couldn't get it to sound as I like.

Patt

 

[Mincer]

I had a very mid-heavy guitar (a Music Man), and until I got a pickup set the guitar needed, vs what I wanted, I was unhappy. I ended up with a Custom 5 (which has very little mids) and it cured the issue.

 

[freefrog]

Right, the Models 5 & 6 are neckthru with the mid-boost, and you're also correct, without the mid-boost the pups sound close to garbage. With the mid-boost the J-80c in the Model 5 and the J-50bc in the Model 6, they are glorious pickups with a full frequency response, very lively and hot as hell. The 3a does have the Khaler 2520, yes. I only play the 1986 MIJ Charvels, with no care for the later models, unless I can get my hands on a Model 8.

But in this case I'm not comparing my Model 3a with the Models 5 & 6. That would be pointless. I'm comparing the Invader pup to an Invader in an '80s Jackson King V that a friend of mine owns. No mid-boost in the Jackson of course. But, that Jackson is a neckthru, while my 3a is a bolt-on. Might that be the difference? I've certainly held a sense of pride for my neckthru guitars, as they really do sustain better. Then again, oh how many bolt-on necks with Invaders have sounded kick ass, too? Plenty! But maybe that's the issue.

Hey, but at least the Seymour Duncan Invader sounds better than that crap Dimarzio Crunch Lab.

Hello,

IME, the brass roller saddles in Kahler bridges tend to soften the acoustic resonance...

I've mounted once an old Kahler Flyer on a partcaster with a basswood body that I had routed and I would also qualify the sound obtained as "dull" with passive pickups... Only a Bill Lawrence USA L500 made a difference in this case. Not that I liked this pickup : it was simply harsh enough to compensate the "natural" dullness apparently due to basswood + brass roller saddles.

A bit of this acoustic dullness is present in my own 1986 Charvel model 4 but it's less noticeable. I attribute that to the absence of springs cavity.

In my understanding, a preamp was added in our old Charvel's partly because of that: it keeps electronically an amount of high frequencies that a passive electronics might loose because of stray capacitance... and it compensates perfectly the softening effect of Kahler's.



BORING FOOTNOTE THAT READERS ARE FREE TO IGNORE- That said and actually (at least IME), this Charvel/Jackson preamp is a paradoxal device. Yes, to some extent, it maintains some "detail" in the high range... but it's also designed to mimc the resonance of passive pickups through a relatively long / high capacitance cable, whatever is the position of the mid control. If memory serves me, there's a 1nF capacitor to do that on the preamp chip and my measurements certainly show a relatively low pitched resonance in ALL settings - just low enough to give some beef in the high mids without reaching the ice pick 3khz area... and it feeds a hi-mid presence rather than a full frequency response, to my ears. IMHO THAT's what gives to the preamp most of its tonal profile.

A consequence is that I wouldn't compare my Charvel model 4 to any guitar plugged through a low capacitance or medium capacitance cable. The signal of the guitar with passive pickups would have to be ALSO filtered by an overall stray capacitance of 1nF - IOW, I'd plug my passive pickups through a 20ft / 6m standard guitar cable... Or with a 10ft/10m cable, I'd add some 680pF capacitor between the hot and ground of the output jack (note: I'm NOT saying that it would solve any dullness since added capacitance diminishes high frequencies; but at least it would locate the resonant peaks of the pickups @ the same place than with the Jackson preamp, giving the same kind or "voicing")...