LPblaster Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I have a question which has sparked my curiosity. When you look at a Les Paul (or some other Gibson guitars as well) head-on with the headstock to the top and body towards the bottom, you can see that the nickel-plated-cover humbucker pickups are mounted differently on the neck than on the bridge - this is noticeable because the neck pickups are oriented with the line of magnets on the upper edge and the pickup at the bridge is mounted the other way around, with the line of magnets towards the bottom. Therefore, if your guitar has two pickups of exact same model, one happens to be mounted on the guitar "upside-down" in relation to the other pickup. Can anyone elaborate on the reasoning behind this? Pardon my ignorance, any insight on it would be much appreciated! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Without getting into anything overly-detailed, it's physics. A wave has nodes and anti-nodes. The node is the location on the wave where there is no motion, the anti-node is where it is furthest from the "0" mark. When this is translated to physical strings, the nodes are at halfway points. For an open string, the nodes are at the bridge, the 12th fret, and the nut. The pickups, in order to get the "best" sound, need to be closest to nodes. The nodes change position as you fret notes, of course, but there's no way around that. By putting the pole pieces of the "active" coil closest to the node, you get the best sound you can. Ideally, the pickups would be directly under the bridge and 12th fret, but that's not always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 When Paul Reed Smith first sat down with Ted McCarty (look him up) to pick his brain about all things Gibson, that was one of the questions he asked. Ted's answer was pretty straight-forward - they thought it looked best. Anything beyond that is a little too esoteric for my meager mental capacity or less-than-perfect ear. It is the widely accepted norm though, as you have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 When Paul Reed Smith first sat down with Ted McCarty (look him up) to pick his brain about all things Gibson' date=' that was one of the questions he asked. Ted's answer was pretty straight-forward - they thought it looked best. Anything beyond that is a little too esoteric for my meager mental capacity or less-than-perfect ear. It is the widely accepted norm though, as you have seen. [/quote'] I guess that's acceptable, also. I can't actually test the theory I wrote out, as I don't own any humbuckers. It just makes sense to me. If you really want to get into it, why did Fender use an angled pickup at the bridge and not the neck, a split pickup for his Precision Bass, and even more split pickups when they started building G&L guitars? I don't know enough to answer those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Ted is also quoted as saying the adjustable poles on humbuckers were a marketing decision and aren't really all that effective or necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I have the neck pickup flipped on my guitar and can not tell any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I have the neck pickup flipped on my guitar and can not tell any difference. Unless the magnet itself is flipped ( change polarity) theres no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpplayer Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 When Paul Reed Smith first sat down with Ted McCarty (look him up) to pick his brain about all things Gibson' date=' that was one of the questions he asked. Ted's answer was pretty straight-forward - they thought it looked best.[/quote'] Seth Lover pretty much said the same thing. There was no rhyme or reason at all- thats just the way they were put on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Not much to add except a tid-bit of trivia. On the cover of Gil Hembree's (excellent) book "Gibson Guitars - Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948-1966" (snappy title) the front cover shows a '55 Gold-Top with two plain-covered humbuckers. Hembree, a collector and guitar historian, was approached by a dealer who knew of his interest in vintage instruments with an interesting Les Paul. Hembree bought the guitar and, after some research which included meeting Ted McCarty himself, it turned out to be the Gibson mule which had been fitted with a pair of prototype hand-made humbuckers for evaluation purposes. These were the second and third humbuckers ever made (the very first was later given as a present by McCarty to Seymour Duncan). Who amongst us wouldn't love to have the very first humbucker-equipped guitar ever made!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yes, the screws were a cosmetic after-thought . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.