Covered humbuckers
- Thread starter WhoFan
- Start date
Schecter006Elite
New member
Re: Covered humbuckers
Do the covers make a differnce, even slightly, is it auditory noticable, because the hotness of my pups (DD) is a huge part of my tone. I want to cover them for looks and bcause of noise? Will this help, or hurt more?
Do the covers make a differnce, even slightly, is it auditory noticable, because the hotness of my pups (DD) is a huge part of my tone. I want to cover them for looks and bcause of noise? Will this help, or hurt more?
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: Covered humbuckers
I would seriously doubt if 95% of players/music fans who heard an A/B of the SAME pup (covered vs having cover removed) in the SAME guitar through the SAME amp with the SAME settings could tell any difference. (And I think I'm being generous with saying that 5% COULD tell the difference).
Get either covered or uncovered, whatever suits your taste in looks the most, and play. That's my advice.
I would seriously doubt if 95% of players/music fans who heard an A/B of the SAME pup (covered vs having cover removed) in the SAME guitar through the SAME amp with the SAME settings could tell any difference. (And I think I'm being generous with saying that 5% COULD tell the difference).
Get either covered or uncovered, whatever suits your taste in looks the most, and play. That's my advice.
BlueGuitar
New member
Re: Covered humbuckers
I understand that the covers used today are supposed to be very "transparent", but back in the 60's and 70's one of the guitar fads was to remove the covers from your humbuckers, and it really seemed to increase the output a little bit, for a rawer rock sound.
FWIW when DiMarzio and SD started selling aftermarket humbuckers, most of them were uncovered, presumably so that we could hear the "pure tones" of the pickups we just bought.
I think that with the covers off you can get the pickups a little bit closer to the strings, without having them hit anything.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but just wondering if there was a different metal used for the hb covers back in the 60's and 70's, a metal that wasn't as transparent as what is used today.
Jeff_H said:
I understand that the covers used today are supposed to be very "transparent", but back in the 60's and 70's one of the guitar fads was to remove the covers from your humbuckers, and it really seemed to increase the output a little bit, for a rawer rock sound.
FWIW when DiMarzio and SD started selling aftermarket humbuckers, most of them were uncovered, presumably so that we could hear the "pure tones" of the pickups we just bought.
I think that with the covers off you can get the pickups a little bit closer to the strings, without having them hit anything.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but just wondering if there was a different metal used for the hb covers back in the 60's and 70's, a metal that wasn't as transparent as what is used today.
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: Covered humbuckers
It's an interesting question Blueguitar, and one which may not have a definative answer. I have book called "50 Years Of The Gibson Les Paul", and there is a small section about Seth Lovers humbucker design that mentions the covers. Here is what it says:
"Additional screening for Gibson's original humbucking pickup was provided by a metal cover, as Lover explained. 'The cover helps shield away electrostatic noises from flourescent lamps and so forth,' he said. 'I needed a material with high resistance so it wouldn't affect the high frequency response, and I considered non-magnetic stainless steel. But you can't solder to it. German silver has high resistance, and you could solder to it, so I used that.' "
I can certainly see it acting as a shield, but with wax potting today I wonder what real difference even that makes anymore? I think the point that you can move the pup a little closer to the strings without the cover is valid, and that may allow for certain frequencies to be accentuated. It's a lot of fun playing around with the small differences for sure.
Cheers.
It's an interesting question Blueguitar, and one which may not have a definative answer. I have book called "50 Years Of The Gibson Les Paul", and there is a small section about Seth Lovers humbucker design that mentions the covers. Here is what it says:
"Additional screening for Gibson's original humbucking pickup was provided by a metal cover, as Lover explained. 'The cover helps shield away electrostatic noises from flourescent lamps and so forth,' he said. 'I needed a material with high resistance so it wouldn't affect the high frequency response, and I considered non-magnetic stainless steel. But you can't solder to it. German silver has high resistance, and you could solder to it, so I used that.' "
I can certainly see it acting as a shield, but with wax potting today I wonder what real difference even that makes anymore? I think the point that you can move the pup a little closer to the strings without the cover is valid, and that may allow for certain frequencies to be accentuated. It's a lot of fun playing around with the small differences for sure.
Cheers.
