Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Pickups => Topic started by: Markdude on January 05, 2014, 08:29:05 PM
-
I received a Nailbomb and Cold Sweat a few weeks ago, and I haven't gotten them installed yet. I'm not so handy with a soldering iron, I've never touched one in my life, and I don't want to risk messing up my new pickups and new nice LP by doing it myself, so I was going to take it to a tech. But...around the same time, my car also died and I dropped a pretty big down payment on a new one. So I'll be pretty low on funds for a while and I won't have a chance to get the new pickups installed for maybe a month or so. In the meantime, I've done some more research and I actually think low output pickups are the way to go for me. I know, I know, I'm a gear whore...haven't even tried these pickups and I already want new ones. :lol:
I think a pair of Mules might do me well. I'm only playing high gain stuff about 25% of the time, and I think I'd appreciate the open character of something like a Mule more. Especially since I know low output pickups are brighter, and I always struggle to get my guitars sounding bright enough in recorded mixes. These would be going in a Gibson Les Paul Signature T (mahogany body, maple cap), by the way.
I've dug up some samples that represent some of my ideal tones:
Pete Thorn - LP Burst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-duj8uNLdjs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-duj8uNLdjs)
(playing starts at 0:35) Although I don't do much classic-rock style riffing, this video is what really inspired me to go low output. The chimy character and the "clang" and the bright, wide open character is really something I'm after.
Oceansize - Unfamiliar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkyrRqzkIQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkyrRqzkIQ)
This is one of my favorite bands of all time and the tone and playing styles of this video are probably the closest representation to what I want. I'm sure some of those tones are single coil, but they're a 3 guitar band so I think there are some humbuckers in there too. These are pretty much perfect mid-gain and clean tones in my book.
Jimmy Eat World - Futures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8r85_JUnA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8r85_JUnA4)
I'm pretty sure this is a Tele with humbuckers, so I know I probably can't get quite as much clang, but once again, this is the kind of open, full-bodied mid-gain tone I go for.
Cave-In - Joy Opposites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnm3QJIdmhg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnm3QJIdmhg)
Quite a bit of delay on the guitars in this song, but the main riff at 0:14 is a good example of what I like. Something about the mids in this one sounds like a Tele to me as well, so I know I won't be able to nail it, but I think it showcases the open midrange quality I like.
Those previous clips showcase the kind of gain level and tone I'd use the majority of the time. I feel the thing they all have in common is a really wide-open, lively, organic vibe. They have plenty of jangle and upper end presence, but aren't harsh at all. They seem to easily come to the front of the mix and capture your attention, but aren't brash or overbearing. Tons of clarity as well. I'm hoping those are traits of low output pickups. Do you guys think the Mules would be a good choice? I should also mention that I plan on integrating coil splitting. I've heard low output may not be good for that though, unfortunately. It would be for recording only, not live playing, so if the factor is mainly the volume difference, I don't mind.
Also, I had been researching the Abraxas set but I think the Mule would be a bit better (I really want to be sure the bridge is pretty bright). However, I came across this clip of mostly the neck Abraxas and I think that's my ideal glassy neck clean. I've read that the Abraxas neck and Mule neck are really similar, but the Abraxas is a little brighter. Can the Mule neck cop the tone in this clip?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfANqu0k3qw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfANqu0k3qw)
Additionally, although I spend probably 25% of the time playing high gain stuff, here are some high gain tones I like. However, I found a couple of high gain clips Nolly made with Mules and they sound great, so I'm not too worried about that:
Gob - Bones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g4u_Cnut_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g4u_Cnut_U)
Gojira - Liquid Fire
http://youtu.be/RyWSswHrqrw (http://youtu.be/RyWSswHrqrw)
Here's Nolly's high gain Mule clips:
https://soundcloud.com/nolly/snuggles-tenzing-norgay (https://soundcloud.com/nolly/snuggles-tenzing-norgay)
https://soundcloud.com/nolly/blackmachine-b2-burl-high-gain (https://soundcloud.com/nolly/blackmachine-b2-burl-high-gain)
I've already e-mailed Ben and he said the Mules or the Abraxas would probably be the way to go. I'd just like to get the opinion of you guys, as well, before I make any kind of decision. I'm leaning more towards the Mule because the Abraxas bridge seems significantly higher output and I've heard that it's darker than the Mule, and I'd really like a bright, clear tone. Ben also mentioned that Gojira uses Nailbombs, but since I only play high gain a little bit of the time and Nolly's high gain Mule clips sound great, I'm still leaning towards low output.
Any thoughts? It's a radical shift from what I had originally planned (the Nailbomb and Cold Sweat), but I'm thinking it might be better.
-
If you want bright in a Les Paul with still a decent amount of output I would go for the Emerald set. I fitted a set of these to a friend's LP and they sound beautiful, very open but still a lot of output.
Otherwise if you want more vintage, lower output look at the Riff Raff set.
These are just suggestions for pickups to look at more closely. It really depends on the sound you are after, but both will work well with a Les Paul
-
You can't go wrong with Mules in a Les Paul. They sound beautifully open, articulate, 3d and full, yet with a lovely crispiness. The bridge has the treble to cut through the mix. The neck is my absolutely fav, clear and refined. Bridge and neck combined sounds georgeous too. On a Fender-style amp you can even funk with it.
-
After some more research, it looks like the Riff Raff would be a great contender too. Damnit, it's so hard to choose! :lol:
-
After some more research, it looks like the Riff Raff would be a great contender too. Damnit, it's so hard to choose! :lol:
I know the problem. :) What amp(s) you have? Certain amps like brighter pickups. I noticed my The Valve 2/50 favours tele's and strats.
-
Mules and RiffRaff can do hi-gain for sure, but you'll need the right amp and the right playing technic - and even then they won't have the tightness and aggression you'd get from Nailbombs. Nailbombs (well, ABombs at least) are quite more versatile than you'd expect and playing with the volume pot can get in the RiffRaff territory, though with less chime. When it comes to clean tones, well, Nailbombs are nice - until you compare them with Mules :mrgreen:
I don't think the Abraxas would be brigther than the Mules, on the contrary (Abraxas being mostly an overwound Mule) - FWIW Mule bridge is quite bright, almost twangy.
I did not listen to _all_ the clips you posted but from what I heard and what you say, you could get by with the Nailbomb / Cold Seat, but Mules or RiffRaff would probably make you happier for clean / crunch tones and still deliver the goods for higher gain settings. Also if you feel like you miss some hi-end cut, check your pots and if they are 300K (Gibby standard), replace them with 500K ones, will make a huge difference (you might even find yourself using the tone pot).
Just my 2 cents...
Oh and yes : I've long been a hi-output 'buckers user and now find myself mostly using my Mule'd LP. There's really something to lower output pups...
-
Cool, thanks for the info, guys!
Telerocker, I usually play a Mesa Single Rectifier Rect-O-Verb, but I'm not a metalhead, haha. I run a dummy load with it and run the FX send signal into my audio interface, then use cabinet IRs. It's actually a really versatile rig, lots of tones to be had between the different channel modes. I also do a lot of direct recording with VST amp sims. And I plan on buying more preamps (used to have a Marshall JMP-1 and an ADA MP-1 that sounded great this way) to add to my "half real, half digital" recording rig.
BigB, I've actually never played with especially high output pickups before, so these were gonna be my introduction to them, I suppose. But as I get older, I find myself writing and playing with clean and lower gain tones more and more, so they're especially important to me. Sparkle, chime, and clarity are now the name of the game for me. I do like high gain stuff now and then, but my rig is a Mesa Single Rectifier Rect-O-Verb (clean boosted with a TS-9 when I'm doing gainy stuff), so it can definitely get me into metal territory and I don't think I need to rely on the pickups for that. But if anything, the feel of high output pickups would be more alien to me than lower output ones, not the other way around. I don't necessarily want a super aggressive tone when I'm doing high gain stuff, just one with more clarity and one that cuts through the mix a little better. But Nolly's high gain clips have definitely convinced me that The Mules won't be a slouch with high gain stuff (and I like the openness and slight grittiness), and pretty much everything else I've heard and read has convinced me they will be amazing for cleans and low gain stuff (which are more important to me). I think I just jumped the gun on wanting something high output, and now have realized low output would probably be more in line with the kinds of tone and playing I like.
Oh yeah, and I got BKP 500k tone pots and 550k volume pots too, along with Jensen caps. So I'm sure that'll help as well.
-
Definitly looks like a job for the Mules then.
Oh yeah, and I got BKP 500k tone pots and 550k volume pots too, along with Jensen caps. So I'm sure that'll help as well.
Indeed. You may want to ask your tech to wire your tone caps 50s style so you won't loose too much hi-end when rolling down the volume pots - works wonder with the Mules, they really clean up amazingly even at very high gain settings : https://soundcloud.com/monalisa-overdrive/lp-mule-bridge-volume-pot (https://soundcloud.com/monalisa-overdrive/lp-mule-bridge-volume-pot) (out of tune and sloppy playing sorry but that's not the point anyway).
-
riff raffs
I love the mules better a little better for low gain stuff, but the riff raff is the twang king and retains all the clarity under any amount of gain, while the mules tend to blend things quite a bit on high gain (in a pleasant way, actually, but it does lose clarity in comparison to the riff raff)
unpotted mules should be a little clearer and brighter, more like the Pete Thorn video
-
theres something really cool about the open crunch of low output pickups. makes you dig in more and its really satisfying.
in terms of actual *output" if you dig in with Mules you quickly find you can get your transients as high as something like a Miracle Man without too much effort. The difference is the tone is generally less open/saturated. you can get more saturation with a pedal of course.
the scatterwinding/materials of BKPs generally mean you keep alot more definition under high gain than main stream low output pickups.
-
I've just done a very similar sort of thing in my ESP Eclipse - out go the Crawlers and in come a brand new set of Mules (ordered yesterday).
-
Gaaaaaah. Still can't decide between a Mule bridge or Riff Raff bridge! Seems like the Riff Raff would be better for any kind of rock stuff and the Mule would be better for clean and low gain stuff (I'm one of the few players who actually DOES like to sometimes use a bridge humbucker for clean stuff...usually slow fingerstyle with a very light touch, and twang isn't all that desirable in that context, but twang provides the clarity with gain, so I guess it's always a tradeoff). I can't choose because both of those styles are equally important to me. :lol:
Also can't decide if I want to go potted or not. Like I mentioned earlier, I record direct usually (with a real amp's FX send), and even with high gain stuff and the monitors pretty loud, it's really difficult to get feedback even if I do actually want it. And I don't plan on playing this guitar live. If I ever do get a real band together again and play live again, I'd probably buy a cheaper guitar to gig with, so this one will probably be a studio axe only. I'm thinking because of the recording situation (i.e. usually can't even get musical controlled feedback, let alone microphonic feedback), I could get away with unpotted. But I've never played unpotted pickups before, and even though I hear people rave about them, I can't really find any good representations of what the difference sounds like. Hmm...but I'll probably play it high gain with real cabinets occasionally (jamming with friends), so I guess I'm leaning towards potted just to be safe.
-
It seems to me that while you clearly like vintage pups, you're also drawn towards trying things that are a bit hotter otherwise you wouldn't have ordered the Nailbomb. The ideal middle ground to me is an Emerald set. Bright, clear and open but with enough juice to really start cooking with a valve amp. Mules would be my second suggestion, closely followed by Riff Raffs but I think you'd really like the Emeralds. The neck is widely known as an incredible pickup but the bridge is much underated and offers a hell of a lot to the discerning musician.
-
The Mule can handle a decent amount of gain. Anything up to and including 80s rock levels is easily fine. I think Metallica levels of gain are a little too much, but still ok.
If you are worried you could go with some kind of combination. For example a Riff Raff bridge and a Mule neck, or even a Stormy Monday neck.
Sounds definitely like you would be better to go potted.
-
You want low output but you still want that hot sound and feel, go for the Emerald Set and crank up your amp.
-
The Mule can handle a decent amount of gain. Anything up to and including 80s rock levels is easily fine. I think Metallica levels of gain are a little too much, but still ok.
If you are worried you could go with some kind of combination. For example a Riff Raff bridge and a Mule neck, or even a Stormy Monday neck.
Sounds definitely like you would be better to go potted.
Nolly pulled of some ripping metal with a Mules-loaded Blackmachine. But any of the combinations gwEm mentions will work. Since the OP said he's plays highgain for 25% of the time on a gainy amp like the Rectoverb, he can stick easily to low output pickups. Potted for sure. Don't worry, potted Mules or RR's have plenty of mojo!
-
Sounds like potted will be the way to go! I wish I could find a good comparison clip between potted and unpotted pickups though, but I've had no luck. I'd really love to hear the difference since everyone seems to rave about unpotted ones.
I think I've narrowed it down to Mule set or RR bridge/Mule neck. I just can't pick! Time to do some more forum searching I suppose! Ah, first world dilemmas.
-
Yeah, the potted, unpotted thing is a hard topic. From what I gather you can describe it a bit like this: When comparing BKPs to other pubs you notice that certain mojo, air, sparkel, 3Dness, depth, etc. Whatever you might call it. When comparing unpotted and potted you get even more of that, of all that goodnes. In turn you are more vurnerabel to feedback and microphonic problems. Therefore unpotted is usually prefered for lower gain applications. They can also be taken higher gain, but precautions are then recommended (propper shielding, etc). I have heard clips of unpotted Stormys do great things.
I dunno, I might even say go for unpotted. For a studio axe and with vintage pots it seems like a good way of maximising all that mojo to me.
I must declare however that I have not tried unpotted yet. My 10th anniversary are unpotted, but I have not fitted them as I do not have a worthy axe yet. However I am 100% that I would get unpotted for a guitar with only vintage HBs. That is me however.
-
I think I've narrowed it down to Mule set or RR bridge/Mule neck. I just can't pick! Time to do some more forum searching I suppose! Ah, first world dilemmas.
The Mesa is not an overly bright amp, so the RR would fit very well. I'm a big fan of the Mule, but don't go blind on my preference in this case. The RR is certainly a good option.
-
The Riff Raff might make more sense, now that I think about it. IME, it's easier to use post-EQ to tame a bright sounding guitar tone than it is to make a dark one brighter (without sounding unnatural). Plus the Recto's EQ controls are a little strange. It seems like the lower you turn the treble, the thicker the tone becomes (all of it, not just a general cutting of treble). That's desirable to give the tone some body, but it's a tricky balance act getting the treble setting where the tone has enough body but also cuts well. Sometimes it seems if it has a good amount of treble, everything else is a little bit anemic. It's a really delicate balance. Perhaps a RR would be a good option for it since it would allow me to run the treble setting lower (giving more body), but the cut would be provided by the pickup's natural treble.
Plus, I saw a few posts from Nolly advocating a RR bridge and Mule neck as a killer combo. One even said "there's nothing an LP can't do with a RR bridge and Mule neck", and he mentioned he was going to have that combo in an LP-style guitar he was ordering (but that was a few years ago and I'm a pretty big fan of his, and I don't recall him ever getting that guitar after all). Even though he's primarily a metal player, he's got one of the best ears for tone (and just recording/mixing/sound in general) and I trust his judgement a lot.
-
Gaaaaaah. Still can't decide between a Mule bridge or Riff Raff bridge! Seems like the Riff Raff would be better for any kind of rock stuff and the Mule would be better for clean and low gain stuff
The Mule bridge is IMHO as good as the RR for rock stuff. FWIW, while the RR bridge / Mule neck is one of Tim's (and Nolly's) favs, I think the reverse combo would be very interesting too, at least if you do like a bright neck pup.
-
The Riff Raff might make more sense, now that I think about it. IME, it's easier to use post-EQ to tame a bright sounding guitar tone than it is to make a dark one brighter (without sounding unnatural). Plus the Recto's EQ controls are a little strange. It seems like the lower you turn the treble, the thicker the tone becomes (all of it, not just a general cutting of treble). That's desirable to give the tone some body, but it's a tricky balance act getting the treble setting where the tone has enough body but also cuts well. Sometimes it seems if it has a good amount of treble, everything else is a little bit anemic. It's a really delicate balance. Perhaps a RR would be a good option for it since it would allow me to run the treble setting lower (giving more body), but the cut would be provided by the pickup's natural treble.
Plus, I saw a few posts from Nolly advocating a RR bridge and Mule neck as a killer combo. One even said "there's nothing an LP can't do with a RR bridge and Mule neck", and he mentioned he was going to have that combo in an LP-style guitar he was ordering (but that was a few years ago and I'm a pretty big fan of his, and I don't recall him ever getting that guitar after all). Even though he's primarily a metal player, he's got one of the best ears for tone (and just recording/mixing/sound in general) and I trust his judgement a lot.
Mesa's can be difficult to dial in. The eq interacts. Pumping up the treble has an effect on the mids too. The RR could be the right pickup to retain cut while keeping enough fundament.
Nolly is really an expert since he played the whole BKP-range for the clips on the site. Besides that he's an amazing player.
-
I never get tired of the riff raff/mule combo in my '73 les paul custom (the one in my avatar)
the riff raff does literally anything with the proper amp and pedals
I use a single channel modded '73 50w marshall jmp lead with master volume controls and extra preamp gain with shared input triodes
I can get amazing clean tones with the guitar knobs rolled off a bit, great classic, grunge, alternative and punk rock tones with gain half way, monster doom-like tones by using more gain, and cutting modern metal tones with a proper overdrive booster to cut the low end and add some upper mids
I can also get telecaster-like sounds by using a parametric or graphic equalizer in front of the amp, and I don't even have a coil split
if they can do that much with a single channel amp, you shouldn't have a problem with a rectifier
-
I can't imagine a world in which unpotted would be a viable option. I have to stand three feet away from my amplifier at all times even with potted pickups and shielded cavities :D
-
The Riff Raff / Mule combo is an excellent one, I have it on my 2002 PRS McCarty.
You can read detailed reviews from the sticky 'review collection thread', but here's my take on the pickups. With the BKP caps and pots especially, it's an amazing combination. https://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29247 (https://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29247)
Btw, Riff Raff / Mule is very close to Page's LP (I remember reading that) and Pete Thorn played quite a few Zeppelin riffs on that video :)
-Zaned
-
Okay, really close to pulling the trigger but I'm still hesitating based on a few concerns.
I think I'm going to take a chance and go with unpotted. Since this guitar will be used for direct recording 95+% of the time (I'm gonna buy a Kemper within the next few months, as well) at pretty low volumes, I think (or at least hope) I could get away with them. In fact, about the only thing I dislike about the state of direct recording these days (it's come a long way) is that it's harder to get feedback when you want it. I'm a big fan of sustained chords occasionally fading into musical feedback. It just makes the vibe of the song more exciting. I haven't been able to get feedback unless I crank the monitors and put the guitar right up next to them, and I really would actually like to get more "accidental" (but still pleasant) feedback (I guess 'happy accidents' would be a good term) when recording, which I currently can't get. Would going unpotted increase the chances of musical feedback in that environment? Or do they only contribute to undesirable microphonic feedback?
Another question I have about unpotted pickups is how it affects the frequency response of the pickups vs. potted pickups. I've heard they really open up the top end, which sounds great, but do they affect the lower frequences at all? For instance, do they make the bass any looser? Or do they pretty much just improve the high end and add harmonic content?
And lastly, I've almost decided on a Riff Raff bridge and Mule neck, since I've heard the RR is a little brighter and punchier, which would be good for cutting through a mix nicely. However, since I've heard unpotted adds a bit of treble and presence, would an unpotted Riff Raff be maybe TOO bright? If I'm going unpotted, would a Mule set be better? I saw Eric Hellstyle mention that an unpotted Mule would sound a lot like the Pete Thorn video (first one in my original post), and I really love that tone. The main reason I'm leaning towards the Riff Raff is actually because I actually envision it being close to that tone because people say it's bright, open, and punchy...but does going unpotted change the equation enough that a Mule would be a better fit?
-
I am very likely going to have an unpotted mule neck pup up for sale shortly (I was hoping to have it swapped out by now but the replacement still hasn't turned up)... Raw nickel cover with the box and wotnot. £65 to you sir.
-
Okay, really close to pulling the trigger but I'm still hesitating based on a few concerns.
I think I'm going to take a chance and go with unpotted. Since this guitar will be used for direct recording 95+% of the time (I'm gonna buy a Kemper within the next few months, as well) at pretty low volumes, I think (or at least hope) I could get away with them. In fact, about the only thing I dislike about the state of direct recording these days (it's come a long way) is that it's harder to get feedback when you want it. I'm a big fan of sustained chords occasionally fading into musical feedback. It just makes the vibe of the song more exciting. I haven't been able to get feedback unless I crank the monitors and put the guitar right up next to them, and I really would actually like to get more "accidental" (but still pleasant) feedback (I guess 'happy accidents' would be a good term) when recording, which I currently can't get. Would going unpotted increase the chances of musical feedback in that environment? Or do they only contribute to undesirable microphonic feedback?
Another question I have about unpotted pickups is how it affects the frequency response of the pickups vs. potted pickups. I've heard they really open up the top end, which sounds great, but do they affect the lower frequences at all? For instance, do they make the bass any looser? Or do they pretty much just improve the high end and add harmonic content?
And lastly, I've almost decided on a Riff Raff bridge and Mule neck, since I've heard the RR is a little brighter and punchier, which would be good for cutting through a mix nicely. However, since I've heard unpotted adds a bit of treble and presence, would an unpotted Riff Raff be maybe TOO bright? If I'm going unpotted, would a Mule set be better? I saw Eric Hellstyle mention that an unpotted Mule would sound a lot like the Pete Thorn video (first one in my original post), and I really love that tone. The main reason I'm leaning towards the Riff Raff is actually because I actually envision it being close to that tone because people say it's bright, open, and punchy...but does going unpotted change the equation enough that a Mule would be a better fit?
I don't know how much a difference potted and unpotted make, but it can't be miles away. I think you can adjust things with the amp-eq and the height of the pickup (which can make a dramatic difference with scatterwound pickups).
-
Okay, really close to pulling the trigger but I'm still hesitating based on a few concerns.
I think I'm going to take a chance and go with unpotted. Since this guitar will be used for direct recording 95+% of the time (I'm gonna buy a Kemper within the next few months, as well) at pretty low volumes, I think (or at least hope) I could get away with them. In fact, about the only thing I dislike about the state of direct recording these days (it's come a long way) is that it's harder to get feedback when you want it. I'm a big fan of sustained chords occasionally fading into musical feedback. It just makes the vibe of the song more exciting. I haven't been able to get feedback unless I crank the monitors and put the guitar right up next to them, and I really would actually like to get more "accidental" (but still pleasant) feedback (I guess 'happy accidents' would be a good term) when recording, which I currently can't get. Would going unpotted increase the chances of musical feedback in that environment? Or do they only contribute to undesirable microphonic feedback?
Another question I have about unpotted pickups is how it affects the frequency response of the pickups vs. potted pickups. I've heard they really open up the top end, which sounds great, but do they affect the lower frequences at all? For instance, do they make the bass any looser? Or do they pretty much just improve the high end and add harmonic content?
And lastly, I've almost decided on a Riff Raff bridge and Mule neck, since I've heard the RR is a little brighter and punchier, which would be good for cutting through a mix nicely. However, since I've heard unpotted adds a bit of treble and presence, would an unpotted Riff Raff be maybe TOO bright? If I'm going unpotted, would a Mule set be better? I saw Eric Hellstyle mention that an unpotted Mule would sound a lot like the Pete Thorn video (first one in my original post), and I really love that tone. The main reason I'm leaning towards the Riff Raff is actually because I actually envision it being close to that tone because people say it's bright, open, and punchy...but does going unpotted change the equation enough that a Mule would be a better fit?
I don't know how much a difference potted and unpotted make, but it can't be miles away. I think you can adjust things with the amp-eq and the height of the pickup (which can make a dramatic difference with scatterwound pickups).
True, I was just wondering if unpotted might be inherently looser in the bass since they seem to be attributed to more vintage tone. I like the open, bright character of vintage tones but I've gotta be able to tighten up the bass for some circumstances (but that's not too hard with a Tube Screamer).
Anyone have any insight on whether unpotted pickups have more tendency to provide musical feedback too? Or just microphonic feedback?
-
Unpotted pickups are more prone to squeal, but Tim playes unpotted Mules with quite a bit of gain without troubles. Never had unpotted pups, so I can't tell you exactly how much ampvolume/gain they can handle without any squealing.
-
Unpotted pickups are more prone to squeal, but Tim playes unpotted Mules with quite a bit of gain without troubles. Never had unpotted pups, so I can't tell you exactly how much ampvolume/gain they can handle without any squealing.
That's actually something I'm kind of interested in. :D
Well, I don't want them to squeal microphonically, but since I've heard the nature of their design makes them more prone to interact with speakers, maybe I'll be able to obtain 'good' (musical, from sustained notes/chords) feedback at somewhat low volumes (from studio monitors). I don't know a ton about pickup design, but it seems kinda plausible in my mind, haha. I could be totally wrong though.
-
I used a hair drier to remove some of the wax potting when I took the cover off my neck mule
also did it to my riff raff, although I put the cover back for the weird coolness (I love unmatched looks)
the difference isn't huge, but I can tell the mule now sounds more open and airy (it already was, anyway), but I removed cover AND a lot of wax (not only from the top and sides, but from the coils as well)
I have a friend that used to do that with his gibson 500t pups
the difference is definitely audible
both riff raff and mule are amazing rock pickups
they are both bright and open sounding, but the riff raff is edgier and middier, while the mule is warmer and juicier, but still retains some of the glassy top
hard to make a decision indeed, but it's a win/win situation
-
I think I'll just bite the bullet and go RR/Mule, both unpotted. :D If there are any problems, I suppose I could just get them potted later.
Is it true that having a cover on unpotted pickups can increase the chances of squealing? I've read that the cover vibrates more and that it's preferable to have no covers if you're going unpotted. But now I've kind of grown accustomed to the look of covers on this guitar. Damnit, I can't win. :lol:
-
Just go for it. BKP has a return policy.
-
I wouldn't go unspotted unless you really really really really think they will make a difference to your sound and you can control your feedback
-
I wouldn't go unspotted unless you really really really really think they will make a difference to your sound and you can control your feedback
Well, like I was saying, I actually want feedback! :lol: I record direct and it's hard to get any kind of feedback from studio monitors unless they're cranked uncomfortably loud and I put the guitar right next to them. So I'd actually like something that interacts with the speakers as much as possible. This guitar would be for studio (direct) use only, so I'm not really worried about live squeals. I'd gig with a cheaper guitar.
I've done a lot of searching but it looks like I'm the only person on the web who has pondered the potential use of unpotted pickups for controlled feedback in low volume studio recording. I'm actually kind of surprised...I've done some REALLY heavy searching and haven't been able to find a single other person with this idea. So I guess I'm probably just going to have to be a guinea pig. :P I know BKP has a return policy, but I've already changed my mind once (outside of the return period and took a loss on selling them, but that's what I get), plus I'm in the US, so if I ordered something and changed my mind again, it'd be quite a long turnaround. I'd prefer to do as much researching and question asking as possible beforehand this time (at the expense of probably annoying the hell out of the forum :lol:).
I'm making progress though. I feel confident in picking the RR bridge and Mule neck, whereas before I felt very overwhelmed with the choices. I also feel like unpotted might be worth trying because if I don't like it, I can always just get them potted later. But if I went potted from the start I'm sure I'd always wonder "what if". I guess my last concern is just whether having a cover on an unpotted one would be a bad idea.
-
Well you can hardly annoy us as we have all been here. If you completly ignore what we tell you at one point it might happen, but having doubts and conciderations is normal mate, all good ;) My first thread here was even worse I feel^^
I personally agree with the PU choice you have made and the thoughts of potted unpotted. Makes sense in my head (not that that says anything xD).
-
This forum is full of patient and helpful people so you can annoy us for a while more.. :lol:
-
I can get lots of harmonic feedback from my potted BK's, including the Stormy Mondays. I do have unpotted SM's in my 335, and they sound great, no squeal. I believe BK do pot the magnet even on the unpotted, so it is just the coils which are not dipped.
-
I've had a lot of BKPs over the years, including the Mule and Abraxas sets.
The Abraxas neck is clearer than the Mule on the wound strings, but not quite as 'flutey' if you want that Slash thing on the neck pickup.
The Abraxas bridge is deceptive with the high output specs - it's voiced like a 'fuller' PAF, not dark/smooth imo - still plenty of cut in the top end, but the bass and mids are fuller. I thought the Mule was underpowered for what I like (broadly classic rock).
I found the Abraxas set could turn its hand to many styles, here's some clips I did way back...
Abraxas neck and bridge (clean)...
http://youtu.be/zzYzVdtZuYU (http://youtu.be/zzYzVdtZuYU)
Abraxas bridge (dirty)...
http://youtu.be/yDQ2twawdIk (http://youtu.be/yDQ2twawdIk)
-
I think those clips above were the reason i finally ordered the Abraxas for my Gibson Les Paul Standard.
Fuller mids than the Mule, but definately not as much highs as the Mule. But a slight turn on the amp treble knob would fix that. Mules really have a vintage output compared to most pickups.