Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

LtKojak

New member
Hi fellow SDUGF forumites:

in the illustrated series I made about modding the Epi Alnico Classic Probuckers (I call it a "Boutique Conversion™" to be precise, where I take all the cheap parts and components and replace'em with the same parts and components most "Boutique" winders use in their products) that came with my ES-339, I've published this picture:


This is how the polepieces look when they're tweaked for even volume between strings IN THE NECK p'up. I used the bridge p'up to do it because it was easier for me to take the picture.

Today as I was watching this excellent video showing Larry Carlton gear which I heartly reccomend to all gear buffs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfZwva-v64

At about 1:20 this picture of Larry's #2 came up and I took a screen shot,


'cause something caught my eye, and there it was: the polepiece radius in the neck p'up was almost like a carbon copy of mine! And as I also then said that this polepiece radiusing in the bridge p'up is not as important, you can also see that the radiusing in bridge p'up in the same guitar looks almost flat.

Of course it helps that Larry and I use similar string gauges. He uses D'Addarios XL 10-52 and I use D'Addarios XL 11-52s, BTW.

Another thing to notice is the p'up height: it's a LOT lower and slanted in the lows on his #2, compared with the setup of his #1.

Taking count that his # 1 it was bought new, off-the-shelf in a music store in 1969, one can take an educated guess and think that those are most probably T-Tops with short, full-charged A2s, judging by the somewhat "darkish" tone and extremely dynamic range shown through that Bludotone of his.

It's not because I want to toot my own horn, mind you; it's that I just wanted to share with you people the nice feeling I got, by seeing my biggest guitar hero of all time how took a cherry-picked original PAF set and adjusted the same way I always do, meaning that maybe I'm not as brain-dead and/or tone-deaf as some would like to make it appear.

So guys: if you've ever had doubts about doing this, I think it's time to try it and hear by yourselves what good it may bring to your beloved instrument. It might turn something that already is very good to something flat-out great. You'll never know until you try it, right? ;)

Yours very truly,
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

Good job, Pepe,
Let me run this by you. In use a floating trem, strat, so 10's are too much for my finger strength. Even after a lifetime of playing, I still am not comfortable with anything but a 9 in a strat and a 9.5 in a Gibson style length. So, as my lifetime hero J.Beck uses 9,11,16,28,38,52 IIRC, and he rarely goes out of tune, I figured maybe something about a heavy bottom set helps with strings, tension, the whole physics ball of wax.
So I went 9,11,16,24,36,46. That's about as heavy on the last 2 strings as feels comfortable. That being noted, by sheer string size, I have been removing the low E screw, lowering the A screw a few turns into the bobbin, and the D close to flat. The rest look like yours. I have done this to keep what *my* ears tell me is a good balance for all the strings sounding equal in volume.
I think your philosophy is if it works for you, go for it ( I think ). So as a master craftsman, do you think Beck has such a bigger bottom than his top for reasons of tuning stability, and I DO NOT HOLD WITH ANGLED CLAW B.S. (IMHO). So no snake oil here, or is that not the case at all, and he just likes real big strings on the bottom for a bigger sound, or some reason NOT related to tuning stability?
BTW, thanks for saying it was the bridge pickup you used as that was the first thing that caught my eye, so you saved yourself a lot of unneeded explaining on that one from others, I suspect.
Nice to hear from you again, you remain one of the most reliable and knowledgeable folks on the forum along with some other members whose opinions and suggestions I value strongly. No *ss kissing just thought I should mention it if I haven't already. That is why I asked the question, not to hijack your thread at all, but it brought up a question I have been meaning to ask. Again, good job on the Carlton thing, your ears must be validated to see that. Him being on the short list of all time great tone.
Steve B.
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

awesome, i will be trying thiss on one my guitars soon, to see how it reacts.

on side note, i m also having this duo slug coil humbucker that came in my beginner guitar. and i m also havin couple of magnets un-employed (A2 and A5 both short). the humbucker came stock with double-thick ceramic magnet which i ve no use for. because of the extra magnet thickness, i have plenty of excess slug length beneath the bobbins. now, do u think, that if i radius (move slugs in approximation) in this fashion that i ll be fittingly rewarded likewise. also since there are two rows of slugs, do u think both rows should be radiused in similar fashion.
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

One of my ALWAYS pickup adjustments is to radius the poles to the strings as a starting step.
- high/low E's height adjust
- radius poles

And then I go form there….

Cool. You and Larry C have the same ears!
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I always adjust pole pieces based on the frequencies I want to enhance/subdue
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I think one of my instructors did the same to his neck pups as well. He is a Jazz guy as well.
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

The only thing I ever do with the neck pu is drop the low E pole to get rid of some of the boom. The D might could use a little help so I'll take it under advisement...
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

he just likes real big strings on the bottom for a bigger sound, NOT related to tuning stability?
This ^^^^^^^^

Nice to hear from you again, you remain one of the most reliable and knowledgeable folks on the forum along with some other members whose opinions and suggestions I value strongly
Thank you for the much too kind words, Steve. Noticing the polepiece radiusing detail on my all-time hero's guitar gave me such a nice feeling that I just had to share it.

Yours very truly,
 
Last edited:
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I do this, but more subtle than in that photo.
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I do this, but more subtle than in that photo.
Well, it depends on the fingerboard radius, of course.

LC and mine have both 12". In a 9.5" is more pronounced and in a 16" is a lot less.

You set it with the cleanest sound you can get from your rig and let your ears be the judge.

HTH,
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I find adjusting the pole pieces are useless when you are bending strings... I don't like Fender's Staggered pole piece idea. To me the best sounding pickups are flat poles, like on most humbuckers and can be found on some single coils I think the original intent was to match the distance between the strings and the poles on many guitars because of string thickness and fretboard radius. Since most modern day guitars are rather flat, the overly compensated adjusted or staggered poles are actually a bit useless.
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

I find adjusting the pole pieces are useless when you are bending strings... I don't like Fender's Staggered pole piece idea. To me the best sounding pickups are flat poles, like on most humbuckers and can be found on some single coils I think the original intent was to match the distance between the strings and the poles on many guitars because of string thickness and fretboard radius. Since most modern day guitars are rather flat, the overly compensated adjusted or staggered poles are actually a bit useless.
Your assumptions are ill-informed, to say the least, but... you're not required to understand how a p'up works to play a guitar, so I won't hold it against you. ;)

Also, if you never play clean, and/or never use the neck p'up, you wouldn't even know what we're talking about here... so it's all ok. :cool2:
 
Last edited:
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

Kojack do you only adjust the poles or the height as well? Such as do you lower the bass side lower than the treble side or vice versa or keep them both level and straight?
 
Re: Polepiece radiusing: if it's good enough for Larry Carlton...

Kojack do you only adjust the poles or the height as well? Such as do you lower the bass side lower than the treble side or vice versa or keep them both level and straight?
Depends on both the instrument and the p'ups as well.

I have several semi-hollows and a big Jazz box, so I had to slant the neck p'up a little bit on the bass side on the Jazz box to prevent the mud to accur. Two others are quite straight, but in my ES-339 the bridge p'up is slightly slanted on the treble side because it was a bit too bright for my taste.

HTH,
 
Last edited:
Back
Top