Floating pickup VS. built in Humbucker
Hillery
new info or updates. Im having a guitar built, and I want to keep the
acoustic properties, but i also want to be able to get the fat Kenny
Burrell sound. IM not concerned w/ feedback (i play low volume) I have
played EVERY makers guitars, but all floaters i have heard sound very
thin and weak. Some have a pleasing tone, but most are harsh sounding,
especially when cranked up (which i rarely do). I also notice that
almost EVERY guitar player (bruno, wilkins, burrell, Alden Pass
etc)who played a custom made archtop has a built in humbucker. Jimmy
Bruno told me that the floaters dont cut it for him once the drummers
start bangin. I hate to cut holes in an expensive spruce top, but want
a guitar that i will USE on gigs and not just in the living room. Are
floaters practical at all for live use or do people just buy them to
look at and strum on the couch twice a year? I would really like to
hear from PLAYERS and i hope this strikes a few nerves!
Blue Monk
Monk
On 12/11/02 8:57 AM, in article
f5fdd4c0.02121...@posting.google.com, "Hillery"
Doc
volume gigs. When I need to get loud I use 1970 Epi Casino with built in
Bartolini humbuckers. Don't cut holes in the solid top because it will loose
the nice acoustic sound. For BeBop the L-5 sounds the best. With the right
amp you can get almost any sound you want.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
Remove NoSpam to Email
"Hillery" <Hill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5fdd4c0.02121...@posting.google.com...
Robert Orr
Roberts Custom. I worked great for me, very little feedback, even with a
drummer. FWIW, the Roberts is a laminated guitar.
Robert
"Doc" <guitarm...@trimcrafters.com> wrote in message
news:at7ms7$h2q$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Steve Modica
for me. I have one on a heritage eagle.
I do have an epi zephyr regent that I can crank up. It's got a
bartolini in it. If I had trouble with the heritage, I would switch over
to that I think.
BTW, I also have a les paul that gets an incredible tone (it's a 57
reissue). I think if I really had to play with a band and could only
have one guitar, I'd have that.
Steve
--
Steve Modica
"Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day, hit him with a fish and
he leaves you alone" - me
Greg clayton
Dearmond 1100's have a nice warm top string sound but to me they lack the
punch and growl on the d and a strings. The other floaters are better but
as you say have a shrill top end. The ideal way I guess is to have both
kinds of guitars. But, the classic sound we all refer to is Humbucker with
laminated top axe.
good luck
Greg
--
....................................................................
visit www.GregClayton.com the website of Jazz Guitarist Greg Clayton
"Doc" <guitarm...@trimcrafters.com> wrote in message
news:at7ms7$h2q$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Doc
The floater I have on my L5 is a humbucker. I have a series - parallel
switch on the pickguard and in series it sounds close to a built in
humbucker in fact I like it better than all the humbuckers on all my guitars
for that old fender growl that a lot of the jazz boys before us got. I just
can't turn it up (feedback). I get compliments on the sound with every gig I
do with it. For a single gig it can't be beat. The combination of the top of
the axe singing and the mag pick up in a tube amp is awesome. I use an old
62 Fender Vibroverb with 1 15" in it for the big gigs and a Trace Elliot
Velocett (great amp)for the small ones.
> Dearmond 1100's have a nice warm top string sound but to me they lack the
> punch and growl on the d and a strings.
Dearmond 1100's pickups are different they have there own sound and if set
up properly and plugged into an old tube amp they sound real nice. I don't
like the sound they have on any of the SS amps that I have tried. I have an
L50 with a Dearmond on it.
I do agree that a floater is not for every one. Nowadays most of the pros
that I know use laminated tops with built in humbuckers so they can cover
the gig with out the feed back when they have to dig in. a lot of guys are
using solid tops also.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
Remove NoSpam to Email
"Greg clayton" <gregc...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:W1LJ9.29942$1f7.4...@wagner.videotron.net...
dunlop212
thicker tops, etc., and may not be designed to be the best sounding
acoustic guitar (ie, might be designed to be more feedback resistant).
I thnk that the area around the butt end of the neck has the least to
do with the acoustic property of the guitar; I would guess the top is
thickest there.
Differences in strings and pickups would have a lot more to do with
the sound than whether the pickup floats or is mounted in. I think if
you told your luthier that you wanted a mounted in pickup that sounds
great acoustically, he'd say no problem.
There was an old guild model that was both; it had a pickup mounted to
float in a hole.
A bridge pickup would be a different issue.
Hillery
with plywood.
So..are u saying that an L5 with a floater can be dialed in to sound
like an L5 with a built in pickup?
I have never heard ANYONE even come close to the L5 built in sound
with a floater. Can u post some sound files?
hill
Lawren Daltroy
I may strike a few nerves when I say this, but here goes. I'm a hobby
player, but have been playing paying gigs every month or so (living
rooms to clubs to baseball fields, duo to 8-piece band) for 35 years,
the last 15 jazz (before that it was acoustic folk and then rock &
roll). I got a Heritage custom Eagle (carved spruce top) around 1997,
and tried three different floating pickups on it, but was never
satisfied with the fullness of the tone. finally, I had the top routed
and installed a Gibson 57 PAF humbucker. The luthier did not have a
problem with the bracing, which had been a concern. The sound is
gorgeous - just what I always wanted. It can sound like Kenny Burrell,
but also has retained an excellent, open acoustic sound. I've never
regretted cutting into that top.
Regards,
Lawren
Doc
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
Remove NoSpam to Email
"Hillery" <Hill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5fdd4c0.02121...@posting.google.com...
art...@invalid.co.uk.invalid
lawren....@verizon.net (Lawren Daltroy) wrote:
The assumption being made in this thread is that the funadamental
difference between a floating and a built in pickup is the floatingness
vs the built-inness.
I would humbly submit that there are other differences that might be of
significance. Those that spring immediately to mind are the spacing of
the pole rows, the physical size of the coils, and the resonant
frequency. The physical movement of the built in pickup I would tend to
discount with modern non-microphonic designs because the pickup movement
is very small compared with the string movement. The addition of the
pickup mass to the soundboard is another question - since the movement
of the soundboard near the neck is small, the added mass _may_ not be
all that important.
It is worth considering that the makers of the floating pickups are
catering for a clientele that has different acoustic expectations than
the users of built in pickups and so may have designed their products
accordingly.
Remember also that many of the jazz guitar legacy sounds were produced
using single coil floating pickups (DeArmond etc) on acoustic archtop
guitars.
I am not in any way questioning the results that you have achieved,
merely spectulating that achieving similar results might be possible in
a less invasive way _if we players understood and were more in control
of the pickup parameters_
As an example, I would assert that the floating pickup on a Gibson
Johnny Smith doesn't sound thin or weak.
Arthur
--
Arthur Quinn
real-email arthur at bella dash cat dot demon dot co dot uk
Ken Rose
JazzCat that sounds pretty good. Here's a link:
http://www.manzer.com/resultsmusic.tmpl?cmd=search&db=lmedia.db&var1=lmedia.
db&eqmediatypedata=wav
Ken Rose
"Hillery" <Hill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5fdd4c0.02121...@posting.google.com...
Scott McLoughlin
> using single coil floating pickups (DeArmond etc) on acoustic archtop
> guitars.
> As an example, I would assert that the floating pickup on a Gibson
> Johnny Smith doesn't sound thin or weak.
So how do they get such a nice thick tone? Is there a definitive
answer on this?
Trying to get a "clean BUT not harsh BUT thick BUT round/smooth
BUT distinct/clear" tone is not like falling off a log. In fact, it's
pretty easy to get a crappy sound.
So how did the heroes of yesteryear pull it off so consistently?
Some half assed theories :-)
(1) Underwound (by today's standard) pups were'nt so harsh
as many of today's pups. Better woody tone, etc.
(2) Smaller Fender Deluxe and GA-15 type amps were actually
overdriven slightly on the recordings and this thickened things
up quite a bit.
(3) Good EQ work from the recording engineers.
Just some ideas. Any vintage gear/recording buffs here on
the list? Inquiring minds want to know :-)
--
Scott McLoughlin, Chairman
The Adrenaline Group, Inc.
Greg clayton
Johnny Smith doesn't sound thin or weak.
IMO[through several vintage tube amps] compared to a real paf or
60's humbucker the JS sounds anemic. [ And I have one on a 62 JS]
Regarding the Dearmond 1100, I stand by my asertion[tested on brown
and black face fenders]
I've been experimenting and comparing like mad of late and have
found NONE of the current floaters to be in the ballpark. The old JS and
DA 1100 are best for me but depend very much on the guitar being used as
someone else suggested.
Even vintage pafs are quite different from one to the next but
they all seem to give the classic jazz guitar tone . I did find that the
pre 60 paf's had the best bass though[no boom]
greg
--
....................................................................
visit www.GregClayton.com the website of Jazz Guitarist Greg Clayton
<art...@invalid.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:50f561a3...@rpc700.net...
Robert Orr
> > As an example, I would assert that the floating pickup on a Gibson
> > Johnny Smith doesn't sound thin or weak.
>
> So how do they get such a nice thick tone? Is there a definitive
> answer on this?
Don't forget about the pick, and the angle of the stroke, and the area in
which the string is picked. A thick pick used at an angle right over the
neck pickup produces a much different tone than the same guitar played with
a light pick played more toward the bridge. Just by listening, one can
pretty much tell that Johnny Smith and Kenny Burrell picked very close to
the neck pickup. This always produces a more mellow fat tone. I have been
able to get fat tones out of an Ibanez GB10 with a floating mini humbucker
by picking it this way.
Joe Finn
>
> So how do they get such a nice thick tone? Is there a definitive
> answer on this?
I've said this before. Tone comes out from under your fingers. That's the
long and the short of it.
> Trying to get a "clean BUT not harsh BUT thick BUT round/smooth
> BUT distinct/clear" tone is not like falling off a log. In fact, it's
> pretty easy to get a crappy sound.
I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. Again, for some this may be a subtle
point but there is a big, big difference between the sound of a guitar
amplified and the sound of an "electric" guitar.
> So how did the heroes of yesteryear pull it off so consistently?
> Some half assed theories :-)
>
> (1) Underwound (by today's standard) pups were'nt so harsh
> as many of today's pups. Better woody tone, etc.
None of my beginner or intermediate students could pick up a vintage,
un-tampered with Gibson 175 and get a sound anything like that of Hall, Pass
or Kessel. The beauty of these vintage instruments [and the better ones of
today for that matter] is the fact that they are in the main, transparent.
This transparency is what allowed Jim to be Jim, Joe to be Joe, and Barney
to be Barney. When I hear those old records their sound is instantaneously
recognizable to me.
> (2) Smaller Fender Deluxe and GA-15 type amps were actually
> overdriven slightly on the recordings and this thickened things
> up quite a bit.
>
> (3) Good EQ work from the recording engineers.
>
> Just some ideas. Any vintage gear/recording buffs here on
> the list? Inquiring minds want to know :-)
Every now and then I have checked in with the guys at rec.audio.pro to get
help with various technical questions. It's a nice group and I've gotten
some valuable advice there for free. ........joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jeff Richards
Greetings,
Hey, Why not a full sized floater? You may be presenting yourself with
a false delema, you can have your cake and it eat too. I have a Lindy
Fralin full sized floater that was developed by Bill Comins. I have it
on my Concert Model and it is really awesome. It is really versatile.
It can get plenty dark but if you want it can also brighten up a lot.
I think this is achieve by unequal coil wraps. I think it also has no
magnet underneath, the pole pieces must be the magnets and that is why
it is not too deep to float. It also has a coil tap so I can get a
single coil sound. The single coil sound is thinner and less powerful
but has it's own unique vibe. I use it a lot. Mine is potted in Ebony
so I do not have any adjustments. I don't need any. It has a nice rich
sound with pleny of definition. You might contact Bill Comins
www.cominsguitars.com if you have any questions about the pick up and
if your in the market for an arch top his are as good as anyone elses.
You might also look into Kent Armstrong pickups. I think he makes a
full size floater also.
Good luck! Fun problem to have,
Jeff Richards
Willie K.Yee, M.D.
<ken...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>Linda Manzer has a clip on her website of a Kent Armstrong floater called a
>JazzCat that sounds pretty good.
I have the JazzCat installed on my Artist Award (warning: requires a
new pickguard, at least on older AA's). It has plenty of energy. Rich
Raezer said it seemed a rather hot pickup to him which I was
auditioning cabs. It does not sound harsh or shrill.
Whether it is "as good as" a humbucker sound, I can't say, but nice
enough for me, and worth the minimal tradeoff to have the full
acoustic sound of the instrument available.
As I have said before, routed humbuckers probably always have a more
complex tone, because they _move_ with the top, vibrating on their
own, and adding all kind of phasey stuff to the signal coming from the
string.
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
Jay Carlson
PAF type (Seymour Duncan Seth Lover) put into a custom carved guitar. I'm
very happy. I'll never know what the difference would be without the pickup
in the top, but it sounds great acoustically. With just one pickup, I don't
think there's all that much loss in the sound. At home I mostly play it
unplugged, and at gigs (amplified) it is very sweet and natural sounding. I
wouldn't change a thing.
Having said that- there are two important points to remember:
1. What Joe said- the sound comes from under your fingers, at least that's
where the sound starts, which is the most important part of the sound.
2. You could always start with a floater, and put a pickup into the top
later, but you can never go back the other way.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Kent Burnside
Joe is dead right here; the real tone comes from the player. Certain
elements--pick thickness and material, string gauge and type, solid or
laminated top--do make it easier for a player to get the sound he
hears in his head, but a serious player is going to sound like himself
or herself no matter what.
As to the original question of floating vs. built-in pickups: I have a
Gibson Johnny Smith that I use on every jazz gig, everything from solo
guitar up to big band. By plugging the f-holes I've minimized the
feedback problem. The tone is a bit harsh when I really turn up, but
I suspect that may be coming from the amp (Polytone MBII).
Really, a good guitar with a floating pickup can do pretty much
whatever you need it to do (IMHO), but the differences in top
thickness and bracing do require more attention to feedback control.
The upside, however, is that you get much better acoustic tone, and
you don't have to make all those cuts in a beautiful piece of spruce.
Also, guitars with floaters generally seem to be lighter in weight,
given the minimum of electronic components and the reduced wood mass
in the top.
Kent Burnside
daniel marti
I am not a bi time player, and have just enough Jazz Box experience to think
I can pose and occasional question or insight.. so here goes... OBTW.. I
too agree that your sound comes from your hands because put a great player
on a crappy instrument, and it will sound great, and the players style comes
through.. Technique and body physics have much to contribute to your
sound..
That being said, two things peak my interest in this discussion: 1. The
Feed control back issue, and the use of technologically different
floaters.
If plugging up the F holes helps to control feedback, why not use an
instrument without F holes.. I have seen many of the Luthier models.. like
Brad Nickerson et al, making thick body, hollow guitars, but no F holes??
Would that kind of guitar be classified .. "electric"? and therefore there
is no acoustic tone? Yet you can hear them and they sound very nice
unplugged?
Second, when I refer to newer technology, I am thinking in particular to the
four point floater that Heritage advertises..
TIA... Peace,
Dan
"Jay Carlson" <j...@viaccess.net> wrote in message
news:uvh08ph...@corp.supernews.com...
George4908
pretty much the same on one guitar as I do on another, but I don't. Now my
playing style, that's one thing, that comes through in any case, and I'm pretty
recognizably the same player on various instruments. But it seems like the
definition of "tone" these days has been expanded way beyond, well, I don't
know what, the "sound produced by the gear," or something, to the point where
it includes all manner of stylistic influences, such as touch, timing, even
note selection and bending. While those will have some impact on the total
"tonal" output, it just seems to make sense to distinguish those from "the
sound gear makes." Bill Frisell still sounds like Bill Frisell whether he's
playing clean or highly distorted, but the tone (in the narrowwer and, I think,
more useful sense) is completely different. I would never sound "like" Bill
Frisell just by using his gear because I'm a different player in a hundred ways
(alas), but I'll bet I could pretty much cop the same "tone" if he handed me
his guitar for a few minutes. Maybe a beginner couldn't, but a reasonably
competent player could.
This is also sort of a pet peeve of mine. "Tone" is way overrated in a lot of
discussions. Sure, I like to pick up a guitar and feel that it's singing. It
makes a difference. But who hasn't picked up an old beater, with gunk on the
strings and a plinky sound, and within a few minutes you're making music and
digging it? You're way past the "tone" at that point. Good notes trump good
tone every time.
Scott McLoughlin
But frankly, it's totally OBNOXIOUS to bring up this crappy folk wisdom "old
saw" every time someone asks a question about gear. Give us all a break and
give it a big rest for once and for all.
If someone doesn't have a legitimate answer to a gear question being asked,
they should just politely refrain from responding. If people don't like gear
discussions, then just stay the hell out of them. Go tell the mailman or
whoever about the tone and fingers thing, if people just can't resist the
urge to spread the good word.
It's just common courtesy.
--
Scott McLoughlin, Chairman
The Adrenaline Group, Inc.
"George4908" <georg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021212142424...@mb-fc.aol.com...
smoy
and had a Dearmond 2000 Fender reissue single coil routed in pickup
installed.This was done initally as an experiment.Turns out that with
the single coil I am able to get a lot out of the gtr in terms of
feel, response, and roundness in tone. I find that this gtr's reaction
to touch is bit more sensative and allows me to play with a greater
degree of dynamics.The trade off is a bit of hum even after careful
shielding, which by and large I can live with.I understand that a lot
of the tone is due to the carved top, but nevertheless Its easily
turning into one of my favourite gtrs and is actually fun to play on.
I've also been using a Buscarino floating pickup on another archtop
,which in itself is very nice but I'm finding does not give me quite
the sensativity as the Dearmond 2000. John claims that his new dual
field pickup sounds somewhat in between a dearmond and P90 without
the hum which I am tempted to try out as a floater.Anyone try it out
yet ?
I have also swapped a Tom Homes humbucker in and out of several of my
laminated gtrs and found that the pickup is very sweet sounding, quite
even and balanced without the bass boom in the low strings. I prefer
this pickup over the Classic 57 series, or SD series of pu's that I
have tried.
Some of the vintage P90's I've tried recently on a friend's 60'ish
ES-330 also sounded great.
Skip
"Greg clayton" <gregc...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<2WSJ9.34365$1f7.4...@wagner.videotron.net>...
Keith Freeman
@posting.google.com:
> Turns out that with
> the single coil I am able to get a lot out of the gtr in terms of
> feel, response, and roundness in tone.
That has been my experience too, with a Kent Armstrong single-coil floater.
It seems humbuckers don't only buck hum, they also buck dynamics.
-Keith