I ain't hearing that, sorry. The peak in a JB is much higher. And I've used both pickups extensively.
Heavier "Midrange" Pickup for Neck Position...???
- Thread starter WERNER 1
- Start date
I ain't hearing that, sorry. The peak in a JB is much higher. And I've used both pickups extensively.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Do you mean resonant peak? 'Cause then, I don't think that's very subjective to evaluate. The A2P has a higher resonant peak. It may have a darker-sonding magnet, but it's got less than half the DCR. No way it's resonant peak can be lower.
Last edited:
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
I think that's the thing too. Mincer mentioned he has extensive experience with both pickups, and I don't doubt it, but I'm not sure he's had that much experience with the A2P-N in the bridge or the JB in the neck, which would be the only 100% apples to apples way to compare them both. I theorize that because of how he's expressed he doesn't like the JB, and maybe I'm just projecting since as soon as I don't like a pickup, the last thing I want to do is develop extensive experience with it. I'm just assuming, though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Mincer .
TBH, I don't have extensive experience with the A2P's since I don't like them or those sorts of pickups. But I have tried the neck one, and I felt it just sounded like a Jazz with an A2 magnet. In a sense, yes, you could argue it could be perceived as a Jazz with more mids. For me, it's just a quieter Jazz with slightly softer highs and lows. But like I said, I usually have a hard time discerning the subtleties between pickups that I don't like since I don't usually spend a lot of time with them.
But what I'm arguing is we both perceive things differently. The JB is to me, all mids. To the point where in the neck, it sounds like pure mud, which is the exact opposite experience I have with the Jazz, and both, to me, represent the exact opposide sides of the spectrum of neck pickups that I don't like..
Clint 55
OH THE DOUBLE THICK GLAZE!
Well Mincer is neck centric and you're bridge centric. You were wrong when you said the A2P is scooped, it's not scooped. Maybe you meant comparing bridge positions since the JB is ultra middy. Mincer was wrong when he said the peak is higher in the JB, maybe meaning comparing the JB in the bridge to the A2P's buttery mids in the neck. In the bridge, you're right an A2P would technically have a higher resonant peak.
Last edited:
I mean the EQ of the pickup.
freefrog
Well-known member
My understanding is that Mincer has evoked a "higher peak" in amplitude and not in frequency.
Also: in my data, the A2P has the resonant frequency expected from a conventional Gibson style HB, but a relatively low Q factor. IOW, its resonant peak is noticeably more open / flatter / broader than with a PG, for instance... and than with a JB.
Consequence: to obtain a resonant peak with the same shape (openess / broadness / flatness / roundness / softness) from a JB, it would be needed to associate it to a lower resistive load : 250k pot(s) or simply lowered tone control.
Now and regarding the idea that a SH4 is "all mids": it has more than twice the inductance of a SH2N or A2P. So, in similar conditions, it certainly rolls off higher frequencies way sooner, beyond its lower pitched resonant frequency.
In my mind, these perspectives make compatible the personal experiences mentioned above. YMMV.
Also: in my data, the A2P has the resonant frequency expected from a conventional Gibson style HB, but a relatively low Q factor. IOW, its resonant peak is noticeably more open / flatter / broader than with a PG, for instance... and than with a JB.
Consequence: to obtain a resonant peak with the same shape (openess / broadness / flatness / roundness / softness) from a JB, it would be needed to associate it to a lower resistive load : 250k pot(s) or simply lowered tone control.
Now and regarding the idea that a SH4 is "all mids": it has more than twice the inductance of a SH2N or A2P. So, in similar conditions, it certainly rolls off higher frequencies way sooner, beyond its lower pitched resonant frequency.
In my mind, these perspectives make compatible the personal experiences mentioned above. YMMV.
This is the complex version of what I was saying. Thanks for articulating it better.
Air norton is A5 and has that airy single coil top end. I think OP needs to try a ceramic neck. I didn't like the Air Norton neck.
This might be an exaggeration, but 95% of neck pickups are alnico magnet.
Last edited:
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
I like the Evo Neck as well. A lot. It's clear, not overly plinky, and not as hot as the ceramic magnet and DCR might suggest. I think it would balance well with a JB no issues.
I just like ceramic neck pickups. There are some Ibanez INF and Quantum ceramic necks I like too. Its weird that the majority of "neck pickups" I've tried with A5 have too much top end jank.
Actually, besides the Evo neck, what other branded ceramic necks are there?
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Ceramic actually has more top-end since it has less iron content and jacks the inductance up less, it's just that it's usually used in hotter winds which are darker/smoother by nature. But ceramic neck pickups are also usually better designed to go along with hot bridge pickups, and the JB is pretty hot for being A5, so I think it might work.
I really like the Black Winter Neck, but that one is REALLY hot to go along with the blisteringly hot BW-B.
The Distortion Neck I used to really like, but I've kinda grown past it. It's a cool neck pickup, just kinda bland. It's not as smooth as the Evo, nor as hot as the BW-N. It's not bad, but it kinda sits in between a place that I don't love.
The DiMarzio Super 2 is kinda like you took the 496R and just gave it more of everything. It's super hot, but it's also kinda harsh and scooped. To me, it just hast an over-the-top kinda cheap pickup vibe. Not my thing.
And well, you got the EMG's. The 60 is pretty cool. The 81 also makes for a good neck pickup for leads.
Last edited:
I like the Super Distortion as neck with a really hot bridge like X2n.
I disagree that ceramic has more highs. Two pickups I used to play alot, the Evolution and the Full Shred. They are similar pickups, but the Full Shred is A5. The FS just doesn't have the same focus as the Evo, imo. The A5 magnet gives it some air and more "hi fi", but its just not as focused for soloing. I still really like the FS. Most of these pickups work for me. I just have gnerally been disappointed with alot of the medium output A5 pickups I've tried in the neck. I'm like, I'll just keep the stock ibanez in there..
I disagree that ceramic has more highs. Two pickups I used to play alot, the Evolution and the Full Shred. They are similar pickups, but the Full Shred is A5. The FS just doesn't have the same focus as the Evo, imo. The A5 magnet gives it some air and more "hi fi", but its just not as focused for soloing. I still really like the FS. Most of these pickups work for me. I just have gnerally been disappointed with alot of the medium output A5 pickups I've tried in the neck. I'm like, I'll just keep the stock ibanez in there..
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Never tried the Super Distortion as a neck pickup. I have an X2N lying around, but I hate that pickup. So dark and bassy. I did pair it with an Evo Neck, and the Evo Neck was the star of the pair. I also really liked the BW/Evo combo.
The thing about comparing the Evo (either bridge or neck) to the FS is they're more different pickups than what the looks might suggest. The Evo has a brass baseplate (higher inductance), the allen polepieces are different, it has asymmetrical coils woud to who knows what geometry or DCR each, etc. Not apples to apples. But I can bet you if you put a Ceramic magnet on something A5 that's already bright like a Jazz N, it would just become even more harsh and unberable.
Take the Custom and Custom 5 as an example. Those are more apples to apples comparison. The Custom 5 is not dark, but the Custom is definitely brighter.
IMO, the custom 5 is brighter than the custom. I just did this comparison a couple years ago when I got a guitar with a custom 5. The custom is thicker with more mids. The C5 is scooped and more harsh on top.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Not my experience. I guess we might perceive things differently.
My experience agreed with this shootout. Neither had "thick" mids at all. The C5 was slightly spongier/looser. It wasn't dark, but not airy/twangy/PAF-like. The Custom was drier and more immediate, but the top end had more grind and scratchiness. In the end, I didn't like either because both had a more rumbly/loose low-end than I like. Then again, at that time, I was EMG 81 or die. I bet I'd like the Ceramic Custom nowadays.
freefrog
Well-known member
FWIW, I share below the spectrum of a bridge pickup that I've built on the basis of a Duncan Custom and mounted in a Superstrat (Alder body, maple neck, Floyd Rose trem).
Guitar played in chords direct to the board. Nothing changed except the magnet: orange line = ceramic, blue line = A5. Should give an idea of what objectively happens to EQing curves in such a case.
Now, a player might have a subjective perception at the opposite of this picture, if ever the sound of the guitar is heavely filtered by the sonic chain after it - effect(s), amp(s)... and of course these things with their own frequential peaks and dips, much more complex than guitar pickups when it comes to EQing, and that we name "loudspeakers" (including those paired to our computers). ;-)
Guitar played in chords direct to the board. Nothing changed except the magnet: orange line = ceramic, blue line = A5. Should give an idea of what objectively happens to EQing curves in such a case.
Now, a player might have a subjective perception at the opposite of this picture, if ever the sound of the guitar is heavely filtered by the sonic chain after it - effect(s), amp(s)... and of course these things with their own frequential peaks and dips, much more complex than guitar pickups when it comes to EQing, and that we name "loudspeakers" (including those paired to our computers). ;-)
What is interesting is that the Custom and Custom 5 sound completely different, yet that graph would suggest that they only differ a small amount in EQ. And of course the ceramic is considerably hotter. Is the difference in the graphs because the ceramic has more output?
Last edited:
