Jb distance from strings, how do you like it?

[marcello252]

Just put back a JB in my strat after eons, I had it in early 90s (made a big hole with a chisel, VH style, it's almost a swimming pool... poor strat), it's some kind of a homecoming .

But, after 30 years my ears are more trained and I recognize the JB is very sensitive to the distance from poles to the bottom of the strings, I've found a measure of 2.5mm for both Es pretty good on mine, I'm sure out there measures are different.

Just curious, at what distance do you like it and why ?

 

[Rex_Rocker]

Personally, I like ALL my pickups as close as I can get them without there being functional issues like strings chirping from hitting the polepieces, the bobbins, or there being noticeable string pull. I rarely find an exception to that rule. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single one.

2.5 mm seems about right for me for an A5-power pickup. I usually have the treble side one notch closer, so if 2.5 for the bass strings, then 2.25 for the treble strings.

I have my 500T at 3mm from the bass strings, 2.75 from the treble strings, as I find that one seems to pull strings out of tune in chords more noticeably if I set it up higher. Or maybe 2.75/2.5, don't quite remember.

 

[Supernautilus]

I struggled with my JB for a long time, trying to find the right height. It was either too harsh or too weak. I couldn’t find a middle ground. Then I changed the volume pot from 500K to 250K and the problem was instantly solved. Now I can get it close enough to the strings for a nice full tone, but it doesn’t sound harsh or shrill.

 

[Inflames626]

Like Rex_Rocker , I like my pickups close to the strings.

If using a Floyd Rose guitar, I pull the strings sharp 100%. I raise up the bridge pickup until it touches the taunt strings, then back it down slightly so the strings have clearance over the bridge pickup even when pulled fully sharp.

For the neck pickup, I fret at the 22nd/24th fret on each string and raise the neck pickup until it touches the strings, then back it down slightly so the strings can clear the neck pickup when the highest notes are being played. The pickup remains as close as possible to the strings.

Basically I put the guitar in situations where the strings are closest to the pickups, then back down just slightly from there to give the strings room to move. I have maybe a dime's width when the strings are close to the pickups and maybe a nickel's width or two when at normal tension.

I then tweak from there regarding tone, string balance, volume evenness between pickups, etc.

I am used to dealing with weaker magnets like EMGs. Higher output pickups with stronger magnets might be backed into the body a bit more. A JB would definitely be a pickup I would back into the body more to offset its output, mid spike, and loose low end. A Gibson 500T is another pickup I adjust pretty low because the magnets are so strong on that pickup that they pull your soldering iron during installation (using Triple Shots here).

Also I seem to remember backing an Alternative 8 into the bridge as far as possible many years ago and still not liking it. It always felt too hot, fizzy, and close to the strings. If it's boomy or boxy sounding I back it down. I tend to adjust close because I tend to prefer EMGs, Blackouts, Full Shreds, Parallel Axis Original Trembuckers, and similar pickups that don't have super strong magnets.

Others like Aceman may disagree on pickups close to the strings, I think. Strong magnets can pull on the strings and deaden sustain. He brought this to my attention and it is a valid argument.

For me the strings near the bridge aren't going to move that much anyway. Often the neck has to be raised to better match the bridge.

It's really all about personal taste and even how much you dig in with the pick, as continually scraping it on the pickups can be annoying.

 

[Seashore]

I haven't measured it, but eyeballing, I think I have the screw poles a little less than 2mm from the strings. The screw poles are raised between roughly 1-2mm out of the body of the pickup. I feel like I get a bit more clarity while keeping the output strong that way. I keep the poles farther away from the plain strings.

​​​​​​

 

[JOLLY]

About 1/16".

 

[Aceman]

as a general rule...2/32 treble, and 5/32 bass. (or 1/16 and 2/16-ish)

But...
- Hot vs mild pickup may influence
- Action may influence
- And ultimately, my ears say where.

In my old age, a little further has been the general, but not absolute rule. YMMV

 

[marcello252]

(those imperial measures, from my european point of view, are a tough, it's even difficult to find rulers with those values here)

 

[jeremy]

1/16" of an inch is just over 1.5mm, like 1.58xx something. cant remember exactly but that should give you an idea for quick conversions

 

[marcello252]

1/16" of an inch is just over 1.5mm, like 1.58xx something. cant remember exactly but that should give you an idea for quick conversions

OT I printed a quick conversion table I often use when I read imperial measure, given the fact most of the information about guitars are US based, but it always amaze me how US and UK people can manage this values , with the International decimal metric system is waaaaaay easier to work, it's almost immediate, with fraction it's easy to get lost if you are not used on it

 

[jeremy]

yep. i grew up with it so its second nature to me, but i totally get it. its a ridiculous system but, to state the obvious, we americans can be stubborn

 

[GuitarStv]

I usually like higher output pickups pretty far away from the strings. 6mm (about 1/4 inch?) is where I start with them.

 

[ehdwuld]

I use 3 mm or 1/8 inch for my bridge pickups and the JB was the one that made that my go to setting

when fretted it may be 2.5 mm

but yeah once the JB is in that sweet spot, its ON!!!

:beerchug:

 

[Inflames626]

OT I printed a quick conversion table I often use when I read imperial measure, given the fact most of the information about guitars are US based, but it always amaze me how US and UK people can manage this values , with the International decimal metric system is waaaaaay easier to work, it's almost immediate, with fraction it's easy to get lost if you are not used on it

The other side of this is it's very easy to be off by one digit due to an arithmetic error (.001 vs. .0001), whereas it is harder to be off with fractions of an inch. The bad part of fractional inches is sometimes it is not obvious what is the next larger or smaller size when using tools.

That said if I am measuring very small distances I prefer mm to fractional inches.

I suppose metric countries use decimeters for shorter lengths but when you are used to using a foot as a standard unit of measure (just over 30 cm) a meter seems overly long. A meter is very close to an imperial yard, which is used for intermediate distances.

The Brits also use imperial measurements we don't use here in the States. A British gallon and pint are larger than an American gallon and pint. They also use rods and furlongs for length, which we rarely use except probably in surveying. They also use stone for weight which we pretty much never use (1 stone = 14 pounds = 6.35 kg).

 

[marcello252]

mind-blowing
(we usually don't use Decimeters here, it's meters, centimeters and millimeters, with the Kilometers we are pretty much OK for measures, but it's all on base 10, so it's very easy to manage)

 

[Rex_Rocker]

(those imperial measures, from my european point of view, are a tough, it's even difficult to find rulers with those values here)

Same, LOL. The ruler that I used to measure string and pickup height has one side that's imperial, but it's in 10ths of an inch.

 

[Inflames626]

mind-blowing
(we usually don't use Decimeters here, it's meters, centimeters and millimeters, with the Kilometers we are pretty much OK for measures, but it's all on base 10, so it's very easy to manage)

I did not even think about just using cm instead of decimeters but it was the only unit I could think of smaller than a meter but bigger than a centimeter.

We are taught metric but it is saved for scientific use. Kilograms are easy. 2.2 pounds. A yard stick is just very inconvenient to carry around to measure most things.

Milliliters are a little trickier. I am American but I spent some time in university in Canada where they use imperial and metric (mainly Celsius and kilometers but everything else is imperial). Sometimes in Canada things like soda are sold based on milliliters (12 fluid ounce can in US = about 255 ml can in Canada). In such a case I would just remember 255 ml is just over 12 ounces. Or that 22 Celsius is around 72 F...room temperature. Usually cans have both imperial and metric listed on them but as of 2004 I don't remember Canadian beverages having imperial units listed.

For other things Canadians are more metric. They sell gasoline by the liter but US by the gallon. Basically divide the liters by 4 to get the gallons. (1 US gallon is about 3.89 liters.) And yet gas in the U.S. is actually sold in 9/10s of a gallon. It is a long story.

They have tried to go metric in the U.S. and Canada since the 1970s. Canada adopted it more. In the U.S. soda is often sold in 2 liter plastic bottles, so by now people have a good idea of how much 2 liters is. Gallon milk jugs have the liter equivalent. Just about everything has imperial and metric listed on it.

 

[Inflames626]

Same, LOL. The ruler that I used to measure string and pickup height has one side that's imperial, but it's in 10ths of an inch.

My 43 year old eyes are getting worse at seeing the length of the slashes on an imperial ruler. Once it gets down to 16ths or 32nds of an inch (I think I have a steel rule that goes to 64s of an inch) it gets hard to tell what fraction I am looking at based on the line length.

Another reason I prefer mm for very small distances.

 

[Inflames626]

Also with automobiles until the 1990s or so there used to be "domestic" vehicles (mainly GM, Ford, and Chrysler) that used imperial sized tools and "foreign" vehicles (mainly Toyota and Honda) that used metric. Sometimes they would use both systems.

I think now in the U.S. nearly all cars use metric size tools.

 

[Inflames626]

I do remember getting in a Canadian friend's Honda Civic hatchback in 2004 and seeing the speedometer go to 200+.

On older analog dials in the States we have miles per hour on top in very large numbers and smaller kilometers per hour below. In Canada it is the reverse.

So for about 2-3 seconds I thought he had a Honda that could go 200+ mph (about 321+ kph) until I remembered his top numbers were kilometers. To this day I ask if he still drives the "world's fastest Honda."

On newer cars like my 2020 Corolla it is a digital display and you can change between miles per hour and kilometers per hour. Multiplying miles by 1.6 to get km or dividing kilometers by .625 (5/8) to get miles will get you in the ballpark.