Re: I put an A4 in my '59n...
- I believe it is because alnico 2 and 5 magnets can be degaussed to a wider variety of levels than say a 3 or 4 can.
- a few cents per magnet adds up to a LOT all things considering, especially in the long run.
- Ceramic and A5 magnets are more permanent than other alnicos, which leads to a product with more longevity. This is why Dimarzio and Duncan use almost exclusively them with some A2 exceptions.
Considering what PU's cost, a few cents more for a magnet shouldn't be an issue. They can add a few cents to the retail price. It's like Gibson not wanting to spend an extra dollar to have 4-lead HB's in their guitars (only for aftermarket!), as if their margins couldn't absorb that. Pointless scrimping that's unbefitting of a high-end guiitar maker. You wonder where else they're cutting corners (or maybe you don't want to know).
The 1950's PAF's are still working fine with their assortment of alnicos, and are the world's most sought after PU's, so there's no real justification to the 'last longer' argument. Besides, Duncan and Gibson make full use of A2's in the PAF lines, which is one of the weakest magnets (fighting with A3's for the honor), and certainly weaker than A4's. So why are A3's and A4's so rarely seen in production PU's? They have some desirable traits, just look at the current thread praising A4 '59's. Both A3's and A4's cure the bassy/boomy characteristics that haunts a number of A5 PU's (especially neck models). Fralin doesn't some great things with A4's, his magnet of choice.
As far as being amenable to degaussing, the vast majority of HB's and P-90's don't have degaussed magnets, so I doubt that's a consideration 99.9% of bulk wholesale magnet purchases.
Duncan's gradually using more alnicos (A8 in the Alt 8, and A3 in the Bonamassa signature). Dimarzio has some creative ideas in PU design, but is still regimented in their approach to magnets. No A2 PAF's! A number of PU makers are using A2's now, no dount influenced by how well they work in Duncans.
