Magnet length question
- Thread starter slayest
- Start date
guitarzinc10
New member
Re: Magnet length question
I found the shorter magnet(a5?) type in a non working 1980 Gibson hb. It is also a roughcast mag.
I tried it in various pups and I do hear a subtle difference. Try the short ones, they should work somewhere.
I found the shorter magnet(a5?) type in a non working 1980 Gibson hb. It is also a roughcast mag.
I tried it in various pups and I do hear a subtle difference. Try the short ones, they should work somewhere.
LtKojak
New member
Re: Magnet length question
My P-94 and some Patent# used 2.444... they were a lot weaker and some of them couldn't hold a charge for more than three months... bad, bad mags!
I've change'em and threw'em in the garbage bin, where they belonged.
My P-94 and some Patent# used 2.444... they were a lot weaker and some of them couldn't hold a charge for more than three months... bad, bad mags!
I've change'em and threw'em in the garbage bin, where they belonged.
Zhangliqun
Questionologist
Re: Magnet length question
Whatever's wrong with them, it's not the length. I can't hear any difference between a 2.25" and a 2.50". This is because they're both more than long enough to magnetize the slugs and screws, so .056" (about half the thickness of your high E-string) shorter than 2.50" won't make any difference.
Any differences are differences you would hear even if the two mags were the same exact length.
Whatever's wrong with them, it's not the length. I can't hear any difference between a 2.25" and a 2.50". This is because they're both more than long enough to magnetize the slugs and screws, so .056" (about half the thickness of your high E-string) shorter than 2.50" won't make any difference.
Any differences are differences you would hear even if the two mags were the same exact length.
W
WGTP
Guest
Re: Magnet length question
IIRC, when SD was just getting started, and/or maybe DiMarzio, the stock gibson, post PAF, mid-60's and beyond humbuckers (I think that are now called T-tops or Patent Number) were trashed for being inferior to the late '50's PAF's because the new owners of Gibson had started making them cheaper. The SHORTER MAGNET was part of the rational along with less and different wire on the coils. This was used as justification (rightly so) for replacing them with a PAF or Super Distortion or '59 or JB.
IIRC, when SD was just getting started, and/or maybe DiMarzio, the stock gibson, post PAF, mid-60's and beyond humbuckers (I think that are now called T-tops or Patent Number) were trashed for being inferior to the late '50's PAF's because the new owners of Gibson had started making them cheaper. The SHORTER MAGNET was part of the rational along with less and different wire on the coils. This was used as justification (rightly so) for replacing them with a PAF or Super Distortion or '59 or JB.