Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

[Inflames626]

Hi guys,
I'm thinking about trying some EMG active SV/SAV/SLVs. The SAs and Ss are okay for when I want a metal sound out of singles, but they lack dynamics.

Rick Hunt (the main tech there--a nice guy who has helped me out for many years) tells me the main difference between the SV and the SAV is pole stagger and that this has a small effect on tone, with the staggered sounding more vintage. Opinions? I know there will be the usual "EMG sucks for tone and their passives suck too" crowd, but set that aside for a minute.

I normally play Dinky type Floyded Jacksons with 12"-15" compound radiused fretboards. I have a Jackson DK2S with a Duncan (discontinued) STK1 in the middle that is staggered and I can't say it affects the tone much. I've heard people say Jackson did staggered poles on a flat fretboard axe because they got a good deal on the Duncan STK1s, which were being phased out and Duncan needed to clear inventory.

I actually feel a little more secure with staggered pole pieces, even on flat fretboards, because I feel like the stagger puts the poles closer to the strings, like humbucker screws. I've noticed that most of my action setups tend to follow the pole staggering, even on flat necks. I also like the D and G raised because in my barre chords the D and G strings tend to not get as much pressure as the outside strings.

I'm leaning toward an SV in the neck (staggered), Lukather SLV (similar to the SAV, but overwound with flat poles) in the middle, and 81 in the bridge. They don't have an overwound in staggered for middle position. Since the strings move less the more you go toward the bridge, I figure the stagger should be at the neck where the strings will move the most, with the middle being flat.

I'm looking at these in 18 volts and the EMG HZ singles. I can't say for amps, but I like the HZs for recording in my DAW. They have the qualities of the actives without sounding as brittle.

I plan to try other pups like the Duncan APS1 at a later date, but I'm not quite ready to give up on EMG's passives and singles.

My "metal" axes in E and D standard tend to get EMGs still, while C# and below get Blackouts. Standard tuned axes seeking a Marshall sound with complex mids and a lot of tone options (split/parallel) get Duncan or DiMarzio passives. So I give everyone a shot depending on the application. Eager to try Laces too.

I still dig EMGs and Blackouts for single master volume knob, set and forget brutality though.

Thanks.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Stagger doesn't affect tone, per se. It affects the relative volumes of each string. I think that unless you are using a wound third string, you should go with no stagger. Having that G pole higher with the very quiet wound G is the only real benefit of having a stagger...especially with a relatively flat fretboard.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

That title should have been "pole stagger." I've been on the magnet swap thing too much lately.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

The SAs and Ss are okay for when I want a metal sound out of singles, but they lack dynamics.

If set-up right, both the SA and S sets have all the dynamics you need and then some.

I have a Strat with a S set and a Pac 112J with the SA set.

My only nitpick with'em is the (apparent to me) volume difference between the 4th (a bit weak) and the 3rd and 2nd strings (a bit louder than the 4th). When doing arpeggio- and chord-work, I instinctively compensate with touch, but I almost always end up adding a bit of compression (on record) to get the desired "evenness".

HTH,

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Kojak, out of curiosity, how do you feel about hum canceling passive singles?

I'm guessing if you think they're fine, you're also fine with the SA/S. I don't care for hum cancelling singles, as I've grown use to hum being part of the sound and maybe even enhancing the dynamics.

To me, the SA and S just sound like less loud humbuckers.

The older I get, the more vintage I go with singles. Currently looking at trying to Fender CS Fat 54s or some Lace Sensor Golds. When I was younger I probably would have considered these too weak sounding, but now I like the tone.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Kojak, out of curiosity, how do you feel about hum canceling passive singles?

Four years ago I had a Strat with the Lace Holy Grail set, which are passive noiseless pu'ps, made with sidewind coils, rather than stacked.

The tone was very, very good, but I was not that keen with the behaviour. They sounded very close to single coils but they behaved like normal humbuckings, and at least for me, they were lacking in the dynamics dept. Good for the studio, but for live usage, not so much.

So, I sold the instrument and I bought a SSS PRS SE EG, which to this day still hosts my custom-ordered, hand-wound-and-hand-made Zhangbucker Refin set, with three different polepiece spreads and a 5/2 bridge. www.zhangbucker.com

This set is the best-sounding vintage single-coil tone I've ever experienced with any Strat-like instrument I've ever played in 30+ years as a pro. With this one, noise is a feature!

I've used a SA set for over ten of the best years of my life as a pro musician (late' 80s to late '90s), and I've acquired both the EMG SA and the S sets as a request for a studio project.

I paid next-to-nothing for them, and when I went in the studio with'em, for me it was like I was young again, and even the project leader joked 'bout it.

I came full-circle, I suppose.

 

[Rockstar216]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Kojak, out of curiosity, how do you feel about hum canceling passive singles?

I'm guessing if you think they're fine, you're also fine with the SA/S. I don't care for hum cancelling singles, as I've grown use to hum being part of the sound and maybe even enhancing the dynamics.

To me, the SA and S just sound like less loud humbuckers.

The older I get, the more vintage I go with singles. Currently looking at trying to Fender CS Fat 54s or some Lace Sensor Golds. When I was younger I probably would have considered these too weak sounding, but now I like the tone.

The noise doesn't increase or decrease dynamics it just makes it noisy which like you some don't mind. If your looking for noise free singles that are as good as a true single I've heard great things about Kinmans offerings and also Bill Lawrence offerings. Also I've read on the Bills forum that his true singles are super quiet not noise free but very very quiet.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Counterintuitive as it seems, flatpole on Strat or Tele pu's gives the best string balance, regardless of fingerboard radius. I learned that the hard way when making the Loootenant's set he describes above. If I recall right, he wanted the stagger to match the radius, which I think was 9.5". (That was you, wasn't it LT?)

Stands to reason, very logical, but when I made a prototype with the rods radiused at 9.5", it was a disaster in the sound test. You could hear only the D and G clearly, A and B were weak, and the E's almost completely disappeared. Then I read somewhere of a few reputable winders saying flatpole was best. I was skeptical for a moment but then remembered that years before I'd had some flatpole Strats and didn't remember any problems with string balance.

I can't remember whether I ended up making the Loootenant's set flatpole or a soft vintage stagger (he can fill us in on that) but I then made a couple of flatpole Strats and discovered that the wisdom of these other winders was very sound. So to this day I tell folks that if you're not married to the vintage look and you want the best string balance, go flatpole-flatpole-flatpole. And if that doesn't work, try flatpole.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Counterintuitive as it seems, flatpole on Strat or Tele pu's gives the best string balance, regardless of fingerboard radius. I learned that the hard way when making the Loootenant's set he describes above. If I recall right, he wanted the stagger to match the radius, which I think was 9.5". (That was you, wasn't it LT?)

That was indeed me, David. Yes, sir!

Stands to reason, very logical, but when I made a prototype with the rods radiused at 9.5", it was a disaster in the sound test. You could hear only the D and G clearly, A and B were weak, and the E's almost completely disappeared. Then I read somewhere of a few reputable winders saying flatpole was best. I was skeptical for a moment but then remembered that years before I'd had some flatpole Strats and didn't remember any problems with string balance.

I can't remember whether I ended up making the Loootenant's set flatpole or a soft vintage stagger

It's a very soft, matched-by-ear, non-traditional stagger. I don't have access to that guitar right now to confirm it, but I *think* it looks like this: neck and middle p'up: Flat - flat - (+1mm) - flat - (-1mm) - flat. Bridge p'up: all-Flat.

(he can fill us in on that) but I then made a couple of flatpole Strats and discovered that the wisdom of these other winders was very sound. So to this day I tell folks that if you're not married to the vintage look and you want the best string balance, go flatpole-flatpole-flatpole. And if that doesn't work, try flatpole.

You forgot to add flatpole.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

Evidently I asked a good question, because I'm getting all sorts of opinions!

Rockstar, I suppose I meant that true vintage singles to me seem more receptive to soft touches because they are so susceptible to extraneous noise, including hum. One needs more control to cut down on this, but I feel like the increase in dynamics pays off. I feel like I lose some of that with an active or hum cancelling passive, and that these pickups do a better job of replicating bright 60s coils, instead of the 50s warmth. Just my subjective view.

I mostly record, so my noise is low. If I turn away from the PC monitor especially, the hum is almost gone. I feel like the trade off in noise for tone is worth it, but I'd be nervous around lighting rigs and other things in a live environment.

Kojak, I hope I enjoy the Golds or the vintage spec S100s. There seem to be a lot of 80s Fender Laces still going around the used market, and even Lace's new stuff is reasonable. I'm thinking Gold/Blue/Deathbucker.

Glad I could encourage a reunion.

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

That title should have been "pole stagger." I've been on the magnet swap thing too much lately.

Actually, on a traditional single coil, the poles ARE the magnets (and quite possibly on the SA and SAV, too), so both expressions are synonymous in this case

As has been said, the stagger doesn`t affect tone directly, but the string to string balance.

And ironically, this actually causes an issue for many players... Allow me to elaborate.

in teh 50s when Leo designed the Strat SC, a "light" set of strings was 11-52, with a wound g. The wound g has the thinnest core of the entire set, and as a result needs it`s corresponding poles to be closer to achieve the same output as the rest of the set.

However, 2 things happened over the past half-century, both primarily stemming from a desire for speed, but also from players wanting easier bending.

Lighter strings, and flatter fretboards.

Modern string sets 10 and under (as well as some 11s) have an unwound g string. This string, unlike the wound equivalent, has teh THICKEST core of the entire set. Meaning it`s poles need to be FAAAAR away.

This is further compounded by teh flatter fretboard radii skewing teh relationship between strings and Pickup by having the poles follow a vintage 7.25" curve, while the strings match the fretboard at between 10 and 20" radius. This puts the outer strings disproportionately far away from the poles and as a result their low volume becomes a problem, while the G is even closer to the poles in relation than on a vintage strat.

These 2 factors combined lead (even in more moderate cases) to a G string that is completely overbearing, while at the same time not being able to hear either e string clearly.

As a result, unstaggered and "modern staggered" pickups were introduced. Unstaggered is obvious, I think, while the modern stagger (for ex. on old Jackson J-100 pickups) is both flatter and tailored to modern string sets.

As you can see, the stagger is much less extreme to compensate for the flatter board, and most importantly the G string pole is nowhere near as high as it is on a vintage style pickup.

Unfortunately, the "modern stagger" never really caught on and is more of a boutique /niche thing.

As far as the STK-S1 /jackson deal goes: Jackson started using the STK-S1 on USA Soloists and Dinkys in the mid 90s and continued for quite a while after it was discontinues most likely because they, like all large manufacturers, don`t buy their pickups 1 by 1 (especially not for standard models), but very literally by the pallet. Were talking hundreds or even thousands of the same pickup. For example, just for normal batches of 12 USA Select SL-1 production for one year, assuming a more or less even split among models, they would have needed around 500 STK-S1 pickups and 250 JBs. For many years, the DK1 was also HSS with the same loadout. So, that`s already 1000 STK-S1s and 500 JBs. Not counting custom orders, or dealer small runs, or NAMM pieces, or endorsee instruments, or....

So it`s entirely possible that someone at Jackson simply said: "Hmm, ok, we still have 500 of these.. so until NAMM the SL-1 stays teh same and we`ll introduce the updated one then".

Unfortunately, I`ve kind of lost my train of thought at this time, so I`m not even sure anymore if any of this is actually helpful anymore, or just informatiove, sorry

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

It's a very soft, matched-by-ear, non-traditional stagger. I don't have access to that guitar right now to confirm it, but I *think* it looks like this: neck and middle p'up: Flat - flat - (+1mm) - flat - (-1mm) - flat. Bridge p'up: all-Flat.

Neck and middle would be a soft vintage stagger except for the G which is lower than the D. The lower G in an otherwise vintage stagger (soft or true vintage) is what I call the Zhang Stagger and is done for the reasons Zerb gives above.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Magnet stagger--tone difference, or just cosmetic?

So, the STKS1 is "modern stagger," and the EMG SV/SAV would most likely be similar to that? And modern stagger is an acceptable compromise between flat and true vintage stagger?

Here's the SV for reference.

http://www.emgpickups.com/guitar/single-coil/strat/sv.html

Actually, on a traditional single coil, the poles ARE the magnets (and quite possibly on the SA and SAV, too), so both expressions are synonymous in this case

As has been said, the stagger doesn`t affect tone directly, but the string to string balance.

And ironically, this actually causes an issue for many players... Allow me to elaborate.

in teh 50s when Leo designed the Strat SC, a "light" set of strings was 11-52, with a wound g. The wound g has the thinnest core of the entire set, and as a result needs it`s corresponding poles to be closer to achieve the same output as the rest of the set.

However, 2 things happened over the past half-century, both primarily stemming from a desire for speed, but also from players wanting easier bending.

Lighter strings, and flatter fretboards.

Modern string sets 10 and under (as well as some 11s) have an unwound g string. This string, unlike the wound equivalent, has teh THICKEST core of the entire set. Meaning it`s poles need to be FAAAAR away.

This is further compounded by teh flatter fretboard radii skewing teh relationship between strings and Pickup by having the poles follow a vintage 7.25" curve, while the strings match the fretboard at between 10 and 20" radius. This puts the outer strings disproportionately far away from the poles and as a result their low volume becomes a problem, while the G is even closer to the poles in relation than on a vintage strat.

These 2 factors combined lead (even in more moderate cases) to a G string that is completely overbearing, while at the same time not being able to hear either e string clearly.

As a result, unstaggered and "modern staggered" pickups were introduced. Unstaggered is obvious, I think, while the modern stagger (for ex. on old Jackson J-100 pickups) is both flatter and tailored to modern string sets.

As you can see, the stagger is much less extreme to compensate for the flatter board, and most importantly the G string pole is nowhere near as high as it is on a vintage style pickup.

Unfortunately, the "modern stagger" never really caught on and is more of a boutique /niche thing.

As far as the STK-S1 /jackson deal goes: Jackson started using the STK-S1 on USA Soloists and Dinkys in the mid 90s and continued for quite a while after it was discontinues most likely because they, like all large manufacturers, don`t buy their pickups 1 by 1 (especially not for standard models), but very literally by the pallet. Were talking hundreds or even thousands of the same pickup. For example, just for normal batches of 12 USA Select SL-1 production for one year, assuming a more or less even split among models, they would have needed around 500 STK-S1 pickups and 250 JBs. For many years, the DK1 was also HSS with the same loadout. So, that`s already 1000 STK-S1s and 500 JBs. Not counting custom orders, or dealer small runs, or NAMM pieces, or endorsee instruments, or....

So it`s entirely possible that someone at Jackson simply said: "Hmm, ok, we still have 500 of these.. so until NAMM the SL-1 stays teh same and we`ll introduce the updated one then".

Unfortunately, I`ve kind of lost my train of thought at this time, so I`m not even sure anymore if any of this is actually helpful anymore, or just informatiove, sorry