What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

[WDeeGee]

I read that A4's are chemically very, very similar to A5's, like 1% difference in the alloy. A4 is always unoriented, A5's usually oriented.
Unoriented A5's are also available, are said to be in between A2 and A5 sonically, but so is A4, sonically.

I feel A4 is very defined, note definition seems very clear, unlike A2, but I have no experience with UOA5's.

Any wordsmith here who can expound on the sonic differences between A4 and UOA5's to dispell the fog of ignorance that engulfs me? Note definition, freq. spectrum, dynamics?

Seriously, I hate swapping out magnets only to be disappointed by fruitless fiddling, I'd rather be playing.

Thanks!

 

[Clint 55]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

A5 but squishy bass and mid and more vintage. About the same top.

 

[Teleplayer]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I don't think unoriented-A5 is similar to A4. Perhaps the field strength may be similar but to me the tone is different.

I find that Unoriented-A5 sounds very much like regular A5, just with less output due to lower field strength. I think UO-A5 is useful to get more mids because it allows you to put the pickup closer to the strings. IMO the tone change is due to sensing the strings differently and not due to intrinsic properties of the magnet, although YMMV!

From my perspective, A4 is like an improved version of A2. Whereas A2 can be a bit too smooth and polite sounding, A4 has more brightness and more personality.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

If A5 is Coca Cola, I think of A4 as Diet Coke.

Less output, less treble than A5...but causes the pickup to behave more like an A5 powered pickups than it does like an A2 or A3 powered one.

UOA5 isn't all that different than A5 IME. Just because it's unoriented does not mean that it is degaussed. It just means the field has a slightly different shape. It still causes most of the output of A5, but just a slightly less focused high end. It is still causes a brighter tone and stronger over-all output than A4.

IME, A4 leads to more clarity than UOA5, even though UOA5 leads to a bit more high end than A4.

Use UOA5 if you want to slightly soften your top end without losing much output. Use A4 if you want to dial treble and output back a notch.

 

[AlexR]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I see A4 as neutral. It has no push in anything, but moderate power in gauss. In all the swaps I have made, it seems to impart no characteristic of its own seemingly, but tend to make whatever the wind is doing more prominent. In many generic pickups the result is dullness.

A5 has always been brittle and sharp for me where it has been used in bridge positions. In the neck every time I have used it, it makes the pickup unusably muddy and/or dull.
Short A5 is actually different, especially with composition of metal that is more vintage accurate. This has a deal of complexity and depth, but still with a great top end.

 

[hamerfan]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

Just to add my $ 0.01: Its my fave set for a Les Paul with an A4 neck and an UO A5 in the bridge. Good clarity and no mud in the neck, growl with still enough bite in the bridge.

 

[EmiAba]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I have an A4 in the neck of one of my les pauls, swapped to avoid the boominess of the 59. I have a good improvement. Yes the A4 seems to have a flat EQ, but it hallows the tone of wood to come out. it pairs very well with the A8 I have in the bridge.

 

[blueman335]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I see A4 as neutral. It has no push in anything, but moderate power in gauss. In all the swaps I have made, it seems to impart no characteristic of its own seemingly, but tend to make whatever the wind is doing more prominent. In many generic pickups the result is dullness.

With other magnets having an EQ push in one or two directions, A4's seem flatter in comparison. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. A4 makes a good neck magnet when an A5 is bassy.

To me, UOA5's are close to an A2, but with with a little more high end and a little less mids. It has a richer A2 texture that typical A5's don't. It is not at all like an A4.

 

[WDeeGee]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

sonic differences between A4 and UOA5's?

So to answer the question myself after trying both:

UOA5 don't reallu sound like A5's. They have more midrange, less bass and treble. Frequency-wise UOA5’s are situated halfway between A2 and A5, like a more midrange sounding A5 or a more modern sounding A2. Not mellow like A2, but rather hard sounding mids when gaining up with decent note definition.

A4 sounds different. Very defined, superb note separation, flat frequency response.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

Here's my take on them.

I find A4 to be both crisp and snappy. It has brightness but not harshness. Plenty of mids there, vintage sounding yet with a tight controlled feel in the low end. Nice response to nuances of touch. It gives back what you feed it, bigger but natural - no added thump below or raggedness up top. I concur with others here who feel that A4 imposes less of its own character on the sound than A5 or A2. This can take some getting used to, but with a good wind in good wood it's just wonderful. If the wind is lackluster or the guitar needs its tone scooped or pushed in a certain direction, A4 may not be the best choice (especially for bridge). It has worked quite well at the neck every time I've tried it.

UA5 is warmer and a bit fuller, still in a crisp way. Also vintagey, with slightly wilder personality and a looser feel than A4. Compared to A5, it's less aggressive in the treble and less boomy in the bass, yet not thin - doesn't have the slightly restrained lows of A4. UA5 has become my go-to mag for bridge pickups; it's been just the ticket in four different guitars now. Doesn't sound a lot like A5 to me, though the output seems close - I'd expected a significant volume drop when I first tried it, but haven't noticed that. Maybe that's due to having less mid scoop - the A2 usually seems nearly as loud as A5 despite much lower strength and some say that's because the mids help it "punch above its weight."

Just to be clear, my experience with these mags has been in humbuckers - no encounters with them in singlecoils. I have a number of humbuckers which came with A4s: one of my Wizz sets, a pair of PRS McCarty pickups, a Sin A4 set, and a Zhangbucker pure handwound A4 Duanebucker that's truly exceptional.

The only humbuckers I have that came with stock UA5 are my early-80s Gibson Shaw humbuckers. They have very low winds (7K & slightly under) and their tone is absolutely great. But they also require extra gain because of their relatively low output, and have a tendency to squeal at volume since they're unpotted. I had to remove them from a couple of guitars back in the 80s because of high volume levels onstage.

 

[WDeeGee]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I find A4 to be both crisp and snappy. It has brightness but not harshness. Plenty of mids there, vintage sounding yet with a tight controlled feel in the low end. Nice response to nuances of touch. It gives back what you feed it, bigger but natural - no added thump below or raggedness up top. I concur with others here who feel that A4 imposes less of its own character on the sound than A5 or A2. This can take some getting used to, but with a good wind in good wood it's just wonderful. If the wind is lackluster or the guitar needs its tone scooped or pushed in a certain direction, A4 may not be the best choice (especially for bridge). It has worked quite well at the neck every time I've tried it.

UA5 is warmer and a bit fuller, still in a crisp way. Also vintagey, with slightly wilder personality and a looser feel than A4. Compared to A5, it's less aggressive in the treble and less boomy in the bass, yet not thin - doesn't have the slightly restrained lows of A4. UA5 has become my go-to mag for bridge pickups; it's been just the ticket in four different guitars now. Doesn't sound a lot like A5 to me, though the output seems close - I'd expected a significant volume drop when I first tried it, but haven't noticed that. Maybe that's due to having less mid scoop - the A2 usually seems nearly as loud as A5 despite much lower strength and some say that's because the mids help it "punch above its weight."

You, sir, are a poet and I absolutely agree with this wonderful description which reflects everything I hear myself.

A4 is a hit or miss in the bridge, has always been a winner in the neck.

 

[Demanic]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

One of my favorite pickup combos is an A4 59n paired with a RCUOA5 JB.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

All of the UA5s I've used have been rough too, and the A4s were polished.

 

[Demanic]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I have a rough A4 in a Distortion n and it fits very well. Especially split.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[Teleplayer]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

I'm using both A4 and UOA5 in the Jazz SH-2n. Both work well and they are installed in different guitars. To put it simply, A4 is warmer and has more mids.

 

[freefrog]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

So to answer the question myself after trying both:

UOA5 don't reallu sound like A5's. They have more midrange, less bass and treble. Frequency-wise UOA5’s are situated halfway between A2 and A5, like a more midrange sounding A5 or a more modern sounding A2. Not mellow like A2, but rather hard sounding mids when gaining up with decent note definition.

A4 sounds different. Very defined, superb note separation, flat frequency response.

During some lab tests stored in my archives, UOA5 had also a sonic effect not noticed with ANY other AlNi(Co) alloy: when the coils were excited by a fixed testing signal, UOA5 was giving a noticeably slowest attack (while the speed of the attack with A4 was roughly the same than with A2: A4 changed the EQing compared to A2 by it was dynamically similar in this case; and with regular A5, the attack was the fastest).

FWIW.


SIDE NOTE - Some day I'll try to share the sum up of a comparative test done here a few years ago : a batch of AlNi(Co) bars had been systematically tried in a machine wound HB, a hand wound HB and a P90. Some results were expected while some others were somehow surprising...

 

[Cdwillis]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

What do you mean by attack with the constant signal, freefrog? When I think of attack I think of the initial sound when something is picked.

 

[freefrog]

Re: What's the difference between A4 and UOA5?

What do you mean by attack with the constant signal, freefrog? When I think of attack I think of the initial sound when something is picked.

I was talking about impulse response tests. By "fixed testing signal", I was meaning that the electrical stimulus used for IR was always the same. Sorry if it sounded ambiguous