What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

[kziss]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

uOpt wrote:

I have a pickup test harness with all kinds of different controls on rotary switches. It has another Lawrence Q filter. I should really put it into a bigger housing and then have a 12-point rotary switch for different capacitor values and use a potentiometer instead of just a resistor.

I also use a box with switches and potentiometers to control the various inductors, capacitors and resistance values.
It is much better to use a potentiometer instead of a fixed resistor value.
kziss.

 

[freefrog]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

... there's also the misnamed "Torres mid boost" (that I've bought once 15 years ago: expensive for what it does)…

... not to mention the old Gresco tone Qube, if memory serves me.


Kziss,

If you want to simulate the effect of a Q filter among other passive circuits, here is something that you might find useful:

http://guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3627

I've used the v3.0 a few times some years ago. It was faster to set than a similar simulation with 5spice and gave me a few nice curves, not too far from reality.


Regarding LCR filters, FOOTNOTE to my previous posts with a testimonial for any reader...

A few years ago, 4 or 5 of my guitars had various iterations of this circuit: I liked the fake acoustic tone obtained with such devices. Reason why I had also included a LRC network in an acoustic simulator pedal with onboard preamp. I had even tried a LRC mid filter in one of my tube amps – yikes!

Then, on stage, I’ve realized that passive LRC filters were difficult to set properly “on the fly”. Furthermore, it was sometimes hard to cut the mix because of the related mid dip and volume drop…

For home recording it was better but there’s other ways to obtain “Q filtered” tones in this case.

That’s why I came back to the cruder circuit evoked in one of my posts above: with a HIGH inductance filter (6H) + a resistor (without cap), I obtain realistic DCR/ inductance measurements and resonant peaks. It flattens the mids and shifts the resonance higher in the spectrum BUT there’s not too much drop in output level… and such a filter is actually able to INCREASE the harmonic richness of a pickup (!)

Personally, I find this idea more useable than low inductance LRC filters.

As usual: FWIW. YMMV…

 

[kziss]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

.
Regarding LCR filters, FOOTNOTE to my previous posts with a testimonial for any reader...

A few years ago, 4 or 5 of my guitars had various iterations of this circuit: I liked the fake acoustic tone obtained with such devices. Reason why I had also included a LRC network in an acoustic simulator pedal with onboard preamp. I had even tried a LRC mid filter in one of my tube amps – yikes!

Then, on stage, I’ve realized that passive LRC filters were difficult to set properly “on the fly”. Furthermore, it was sometimes hard to cut the mix because of the related mid dip and volume drop…

For home recording it was better but there’s other ways to obtain “Q filtered” tones in this case.

That’s why I came back to the cruder circuit evoked in one of my posts above: with a HIGH inductance filter (6H) + a resistor (without cap), I obtain realistic DCR/ inductance measurements and resonant peaks. It flattens the mids and shifts the resonance higher in the spectrum BUT there’s not too much drop in output level… and such a filter is actually able to INCREASE the harmonic richness of a pickup (!)

Personally, I find this idea more useable than low inductance LRC filters.

As usual: FWIW. YMMV…

Hi Freefrog.
Thank you for the link to the guitar frequency response calculator.

With my own LCR box I can select inductor values ranging from 1.5 Henry (Kent Armstrong Tone Choke), or 1.8 Henries ( Bill Lawrence "Q-filter for guitar") or 3 Henries (Bill Lawrence Q-filter for bass), or 6 Henries (two Bill Lawrence" Q-filter for bass" inductors wired in series ).
I may add a third Bill Lawrence Q-filter for bass 3 Henries inductor in order to be able to go up to 9 Henries.

The set up 3 with the 6 Henries inductance and a 47 nf capacitor and the depth potentiometer makes the PAF style pickups sound close to P90 pickups , or to produce a vintage sounding thick sweet semi-hollow Jazzy/ Bluesy sound when playing clean.

kziss.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

A handful of my thoughts on the original question/s:

1. It probably varied. There is probably no one definitive answer.

2. The best way to find out for sure is to sacrifice a wide sampling of original covers for testing. Doing that would be altering rare historical artifacts just for the pursuit of entirely useless knowledge.

3. Those who have tested original covers have probably not used a large sample, but only that one cover. Their results are therefore just one piece of information, not a complete and definitive answer.

4. Those who have paid for such testing probably have a decent financial interest in keeping the results private. Nobody who "knows" will probably tell us anyhow.

5. Tonally speaking, it really doesn't matter, as long as you get somewhat close to what the original materials probably were (i.e. don't use brass or something). Knowing the answer wouldn't help you "nail" any particular tone.

6. There are such things as amps, outboard equalizers, and studio and live sound equipment and manipulation that can easily adjust for any differences that do exist due to materials (and then some). You can "nail" your sought after tones much better by simply being good at operating an e.q. than by chasing such information.

 

[kziss]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Hi Itsabass.
Thank you for your reply.
I have several metal humbucker covers in a box including raw unplated nickel covers, nickel plated brass covers, chrome plated brass covers, chrome plated copper covers and raw brass covers.

I was hoping to know what the actual covers used on the 1950's and 60's Gibson guitars were so that I could then choose the closest equivalent metal covers from my collection for my guitars which will have covered PAF style pickups.

Of course the effect on the tonality by the pickup cover is only a relatively small part of the tonal equation, and rolling off the guitar Tone control produces a far more noticeable effect on the tonality, however the metal covers do have an audible effect so therefore they are a small factor in the 1950's and 60's Gibson PAF sound, and the metal covers of different metal construction are a cheap and simple way to affect the tonality without needing to buy expensively priced "vintage mojo" metal covers.

I have a Marshall JTM-45 amplifier and a 1970's Marshall quad box with two 1967 Vox branded Celestion G12 speakers with an alnico magnet, and two Celestion "The Vintage" G12 speakers with a ceramic magnet, and I also design and build my own preamp and overdrive circuits voiced after the old Marshall, Fender and Vox etc amplifiers as well as the 1960's fuzz boxes and treble booster units so therefore these allow me a very wide range of EQuing and tonality that realistically produce the typical 1960's and 70's tonalities.

One crude and simple and non destructive way to get an approximate idea about what metal the covers are made of is by getting a sharp knife and then scraping away small section of the nickel or chrome or gold plating on the inside wall of the metal cover in order to see what metal is behind the plating.

If anyone who has an actual 1950's or 60's or 70's Gibson or Epiphone metal cover is willing to do this scrape test but they are worried about the resale value of the vintage metal cover, then a good place to carefully do this scrape test is the small section where the solder normally goes so that the small scraped section could then be covered up with a new layer of solder and therefore it would no longer be visible.

Of course this scrape test is not the same as a destructive scientific metalurgical test, but it gives some approximate idea of what kind of metal the cover is made of.

I have done this scrape test on several of my own pickup covers, and most of them have a yellow coloured metal behind the plating which I assume is brass. A few have an orange coloured metal which I assume is copper, and others including my Gibson and Seymour Duncan covers and also the raw nickel covers have a silver coloured metal which I assume is nickel or German nickel silver or nickel steel.

Most of my metal covers including my raw unplated nickel overs are not attracted to a magnet but a few including some of the Gibson covers do have a light attraction to a magnet.

It would be good if someone who has an original 1950's, 60'sor 70's Gibson metal cover also tested it with a magnet to see if it is attracted to the metal.

There is a website about PAF pickups which says that "Most PAF pickups have a brass cover with nickel plating. The earliest 1956 models are known to have a brushed stainless steel cover." however a few days ago I came across a mylespaul forum thread where it was stated by someone who has examined 1950's PAF pickups that the website was in error to claim that the the PAF covers were nickel plated brass and he said that there was no brass in the 1950's PAF metal covers because Seth Lover knew that brass reduces the treble response, and instead the covers were in fact nickel in order to be as transparent as possible.

kziss.

A handful of my thoughts on the original question/s:

1. It probably varied. There is probably no one definitive answer.

2. The best way to find out for sure is to sacrifice a wide sampling of original covers for testing. Doing that would be altering rare historical artifacts just for the pursuit of entirely useless knowledge.

3. Those who have tested original covers have probably not used a large sample, but only that one cover. Their results are therefore just one piece of information, not a complete and definitive answer.

4. Those who have paid for such testing probably have a decent financial interest in keeping the results private. Nobody who "knows" will probably tell us anyhow.

5. Tonally speaking, it really doesn't matter, as long as you get somewhat close to what the original materials probably were (i.e. don't use brass or something). Knowing the answer wouldn't help you "nail" any particular tone.

6. There are such things as amps, outboard equalizers, and studio and live sound equipment and manipulation that can easily adjust for any differences that do exist due to materials (and then some). You can "nail" your sought after tones much better by simply being good at operating an e.q. than by chasing such information.

 

[AlexR]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Between ItsaBass's reply there, and my reply in the very first post the answer is Throbak. And like my first reply and Itsabass' too, it really isn't necessary to get the absolute precise same thing, as your pickups are nowhere near a PAF anyhow (and I'd guess too that they're not going in a late 50's burst either).
Throbak is very tonally transparent (the most important element), and you can pretty much guarantee that Jon has done all the work needed to make sure the plating is as thin and as close to the originals as you'll get.

 

[kziss]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Hi AlexR.
Yes it is true that in order to get the truly 100% authentic sound I would need a 1950's Gibson Les Paul guitar along with a 1950's PAF pickup or an as accurate as possible PAF clone.

Even with genuine 1950's PAF pickups, my two Gibson Les Paul guitars would still not sound 100% 1950's authentic because they are not made of the same stocks of the lightweight resonant Honduras mahogany or the African mahogany that Gibson had available during the 1950's.

In order for my Les Paul guitars to come closer to the 1950's sound, the PAF style pickups might possibly need to be wound differently in order that their frequency response will be able to compensate for the different sound produced by the denser mahogany wood and thus come closer to the 1950's sound.

Interestingly the Seymour Duncan Slash signature pickups are specifically designed to make the modern typically heavier and denser Gibson Les Paul guitars sound more like what Slash Hudson's lighter and more resonant sounding Derrig Les Paul guitar with the Seymour Duncan Alnico Pro 2 humbuckers sounded like.

My 1992 Gibson Les Paul Standard and my 1988 Gibson Les Paul Custom are made of a heavier, denser Honduras mahogany.
My 1992 Les Paul Standard weighs a little below 10 pounds whilst my 1988 Les Paul Custom weighs a little above 10 pounds, whilst the several of the 1950's Les Pauls that are regarded as being particularly good sounding weigh below 9 pounds.
Apparently Billy F Gibbon's 1959 "Pearly Gates" Les Paul is particularly lightweight in the 7-something pounds region.

It is impossible for me to buy a 1950's Gibson guitar or a 1950's PAF pickup, and I cannot afford the expensive prices for the accurate PAF clones and metal covers such as those made by Throbak and others.

I am a pragmatic practical person instead of a purist so therefore I use what guitars and pickups and metal covers that I actually do have in my collection, and I have enough PAF style pickups in my collection to allow me a wide variety of different PAF tonal approximations ranging from lower wind PAF to hotter wind PAF approximations, and I do get very good musically pleasing sounds that from a practical perspective do come close enough to the sounds of the 1960's and 70's recordings to be perfectly adequate for my needs.

However I am interested in knowing about all the factors that create the tonality of the 1950's and 60's Gibson guitars because these are the benchmark for the sounds that I like.

kziss.

Between ItsaBass's reply there, and my reply in the very first post the answer is Throbak. And like my first reply and Itsabass' too, it really isn't necessary to get the absolute precise same thing, as your pickups are nowhere near a PAF anyhow (and I'd guess too that they're not going in a late 50's burst either).
Throbak is very tonally transparent (the most important element), and you can pretty much guarantee that Jon has done all the work needed to make sure the plating is as thin and as close to the originals as you'll get.

 

[freefrog]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Most of my metal covers including my raw unplated nickel overs are not attracted to a magnet but a few including some of the Gibson covers do have a light attraction to a magnet.

... not to mention that Gibson chrome covers increase the inductance (while buffered brass and copper covers tend to diminish it). It suggests a different recipe when it comes to ferrous content...

That said, I've Gibson chrome covers on my Stephens Design's and they still sound P.A.F.ish enough to my ears.

[If I 've insisted on things like screw poles in my first posts above, it was not to post off topic: it's because the parts of the magnetic circuit are far more important IME and IMHO than covers.

When Dave Stephens, in a friendly way, has sent me new screw poles (although I had bought his VL1's as second hand PU's), it has helped me to fine tune the tone of his pickups to my liking much more than covers would do. And I won't even evoke things like wire and magnets 'cause it would feed a new looong discussion. ) ]

+1 about Throbak covers. There's also http://www.re-wind.net/Accessories.html

James @ Rewind is not only a talented winder but also a fantastic guy.

 

[kziss]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Hi Freefrog.

not to mention that Gibson chrome covers increase the inductance (while buffered brass and copper covers tend to diminish it). It suggests a different recipe when it comes to ferrous content..

The fact that the Gibson chrome covers increase the inductance seems to make sense considering that they are attracted to magnet whilst the brass and copper covers are not attracted to magnets.


That said, I've Gibson chrome covers on my Stephens Design's and they still sound P.A.F.ish enough to my ears.

The consensus in this thread is that the metal covers are not so high on the list of the important factors that affect the pickup tonality so therefore as long as the pickup covers are nickel without brass or copper or without being too thick, then they are OK.

If I 've insisted on things like screw poles in my first posts above, it was not to post off topic: it's because the parts of the magnetic circuit are far more important IME and IMHO than covers.

I am interested to know about all the factors that audibly affect the tonality so therefore it is definitely not off topic to this thread write about the screw poles, the magnets , the wires , the base plates , the wires or the pickup cable type etc.

kziss.

 

[AlexR]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

You're way better off going for a really nice amp and some complimentary speakers. If we talk tonal relevance this would be 40-50% right there. The pickups would be in the 30-40%....and so on down. Covers, screws, baseplates would be in the sub1% category. The wind and the magnet have way more influence....thats why a good set of PAF clones is really important - they have the wind and will combine with the magnet the winder has chosen to make the accurate tone.

Duncan covers are ok, and I'll give a shoutout to James from ReWind too. I have a set of his PAF 1 pickups (he won the MLP Canadian PAF shootout with this wind). They are great pickups with lots of singlecoil-esque clarity, which says a lot for the covers.

 

[freefrog]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

Covers, screws, baseplates would be in the sub1% category. The wind and the magnet have way more influence....

Although the second sentence matches what I've noticed, the first one doesn't translate my own experience...

In a recent topic on MLP about the importance of magnets, a winder was estimating the influence of metal alloys to 15% (of the pickup tone ALONE, of course : I understand and admit that in a whole sonic chain, it's way less critical... albeit a pickup reacting to our liking appears to me as important for our feeling).

On the basis of my experiments with slugs, screws and keeper bars, I'd venture to repeat that such components can alter the voicing of a pickup more than a mag swap in some cases. In several situations, these things have even been the "missing link" between the tone of a pickup and the sound in my head. YMMV.

 

[AlexR]

Re: What was the metal composition of the 1950's and 60's Gibson humbucker covers ?

I think you're right there........ you can get a good change with small parts - but within a framework of a pickup which is already good and 'alive'. I think the more subtle and nuanced the pickup is, the more you notice tiny things like the alloys. Certainly the alloys in magnets and the 'included extras' as impurities are of paramount importance. James from ReWind has sold me 2 sets of vintage long mags, and the difference these have made to the pickups they are in was quite interesting (One was an A2 set in the guitar above, the other he estimates as an A5, which went into a set of Wizz PAF clones). I also have put Throbak magnets into a set of Zhangbuckers which really helped them (and I'd had the same grades in at times before but from a different source).

Also if you remember that test I think by Wolfe on MLP with the two different screw alloys - there were some interesting tonal differences there. But would the difference have been as noticeable with a generic humbucker??