Just got the Apaches. But...

[elavd]

...I am not 100% sure that their sound is what I am looking for.

Of course they are GREAT low output pickups (as I wanted), but after I tried them on my strat, I have the suspicion that maybe the Mother's Milks would be closer to what I was looking for.

The Apaches sound to my ears, a little "rounded" while still retaining the clear and acoustic character that I wanted.
But I think that I wanted a more scooped sound with less midrange and clearer 2 & 4 positions (with more quack).

Do you think that I should contact Tim and replace the set with a MM set instead?

PS: My guitar is a 62 style strat. It has an alder body and rosewood fingerboard (if this means something anyway...)

[Elliot]

I think Apaches are more 'rounded' in tone than Mother's Milk but i'm not sure what 'scooped' means in relation to normal output strat pickups.  I associate scooped with the thrash metal EMG sound, but I would say that Mother's Milks have more of 60s strat quack to them than Apaches - so it might be worth doing the swap.

[elavd]

I think Apaches are more 'rounded' in tone than Mother's Milk but i'm not sure what 'scooped' means in relation to normal output strat pickups.  I associate scooped with the thrash metal EMG sound, but I would say that Mother's Milks have more of 60s strat quack to them than Apaches - so it might be worth doing the swap.

When I say "scooped" Ι mean less midrange. I have in mind a more "airy" sound, crystal clean sounds, but without being harsh (especially on the bridge pickup*) or "weak" sounding.


=============
*Until now, I haven't found a useful sounding bridge pickup on a strat. Almost all the bridge pickups that I've heard or used, were too bright for my taste.

[AndyR]

How much do you use the tone control(s) on a strat elavd? I always convert mine to a master tone so that it works on the bridge... and then I use it a LOT.

With old style tone controls (ie none on the bridge) I couldn't use the bridge pickup most of the time.

Having said that, my ITs have given me the first bridge pickup that I've ended up using a lot (including tone full open).

I can't really comment on the Apaches v Mother Milks, but I am watching with interest - I was under the impression that MMs gave you more mids than Apaches?? So if I was going for what I'd call an "airy" sound, my first choice would have been Apaches... :lol:

I'm wondering, have you tried adjusting pickup heights much yet? In my experience, closer to the strings = thicker, further away = clearer. Miniscule changes in height seem to make similarly miniscule changes in tone, that once put in a playing perspective seem to make a HUGE difference to feel and perceived tone.

Oh, and last question - is your middle pickup RWRP? My IT middle is, and the impression I have now (again, not founded in any practical comparitive experience :lol:) is that a standard middle would give more clarity for positions 2 & 4, but slightly less "quack". I suspect that's actually what I want, but I like what my IT'd strat is doing at the moment - so I'm not messing with it :D

[elavd]

How much do you use the tone control(s) on a strat elavd? I always convert mine to a master tone so that it works on the bridge... and then I use it a LOT.

With old style tone controls (ie none on the bridge) I couldn't use the bridge pickup most of the time.

I use the tone control, but I haven't a master tone. I use the standard (vintage wiring) so I can't control the brightness of the bridge pickup...

I'm wondering, have you tried adjusting pickup heights much yet? In my experience, closer to the strings = thicker, further away = clearer. Miniscule changes in height seem to make similarly miniscule changes in tone, that once put in a playing perspective seem to make a HUGE difference to feel and perceived tone.

I have adjusted by ear (as I always did with all my pickups), but to tell you the truth I haven't really experimented too much with the pickup height.
Do you really think that it would change so much the overall sound? I think that the character of every pickup set is apparent from the very first moment (having set them in a basic height). The pickup adjustment, is in my opinion, a fine tuning to the overall sound but cannot dramatically change the "soul" of the pickups.
Am I wrong?

Oh, and last question - is your middle pickup RWRP? My IT middle is, and the impression I have now (again, not founded in any practical comparitive experience :lol:) is that a standard middle would give more clarity for positions 2 & 4, but slightly less "quack". I suspect that's actually what I want, but I like what my IT'd strat is doing at the moment - so I'm not messing with it :D

Yes, the middle pickup is RWRP. Do you think that a non RWRP would increase quack?
I have heard also that the volume drop on RWRP pickups is greater, which is not good for me, if it's true...

[AndyR]

I'd highly recommend the "master-tone" mod - but I do realise it loses you the ability to have different tone settings on neck/middle when using the 4 position (or 2, depending on which way you number them!). I switched to master tone on strats in 1983 and never looked back, so I don't really know what I'm missing!

On pickup heights "changing the soul of the pickups", I don't think you're wrong, but I've learnt over the last year that you do have quite a bit of lee-way with any pickup to change it's tone using height adjustment. We're talking minor changes though, that the average listener probably won't hear, but we, as players, will get a sometimes hugely different reaction out of our instruments (effecting how we play and use the tone controls).

Eg - I've got ITs in rosewood board, alder body strat. They do the job advertised. I'm also using pure nickel strings at the moment, which seem to round the tone a bit, making it slightly thicker and more mellow. Now I've got a hankering to achieve more vintage, "airy" strat sounds... I've been wondering about more strats with different BKPs, but I can't justify it... So a while back I did some tinkering with pickup heights - now I've got a nice compromise, I can get the more airy sound as well... from the ITs. (Btw, where you pick in relation to the bridge also affects it, as does how hard you pick  - I knew this from years ago, but I had to "relearn" it recently, I was just plonking away, just past the middle pickup towards the neck - now I'm getting a lot more inventive and I get loads more tones...)

This quack and RWRP thing I'm not so sure about... I've got Texas Specials, and my ITs, both of which are RWRP, and my original JV Squier pups, which are not.

Now, as I understand it, the advantage of RWRP in the middle means (in positions 2 and 4) - hum-cancelling (I'm not bothered about this at all :lol:) and more "quack". The thing is, what do we all mean by "quack"?! I see it as more mids, and my experience on the pups I have seems to bear this out. The downside as I see it, is that the 2 and 4 position seem less bright and airy to me with RWRP... Personally if I was buying a new set I would definitely go "standard" on the middle, I'd happily sacrifice some of the quack I'm getting to get that slightly extra "clarity" back - BUT, it's not a big enough deal for me to think about changing my existing ITs, as I believe the difference is very slight...

Hope that helps :D

[38thBeatle]

Just to add to what Andy has said, the pickup height is quite important in my experience.Whilst, as you rightly pointed out, the character of the pickup is not affected, the tone is affected and minor changes can make large difference. Finding the sweet spot is the key-apologies if you already know all this.
As for the "quack"-I find it more pronounced and usable on the Slowhand set than I do on the Apache set. It isn't a sound I use a lot though. I like Andy's ideas of wiring it to a master tone. One of my Strats, with the Apaches, has a push/pull volume pot which allows me to have the neck and bridge ( which I like for clean chord playing) and therefore when I use the in between setting I get all three-having said that, I rarely use it.

[elavd]

Thanks guys for the input...
Today I tried to tweak the pickup heights but this wasn't enough to convince me that the Apache have the exact sound that I've got in mind.

I called Tim some hours ago and discussed this issue.

I think that I'll give the MMs a try...

[Philly Q]

I'd highly recommend the "master-tone" mod - but I do realise it loses you the ability to have different tone settings on neck/middle when using the 4 position (or 2, depending on which way you number them!). I switched to master tone on strats in 1983 and never looked back, so I don't really know what I'm missing!

Of course you can always mod the wiring so bridge and middle share a tone control and the neck keeps its own - which is how American Standards have been wired for the last 20-odd years!  :)

[elavd]

Of course you can always mod the wiring so bridge and middle share a tone control and the neck keeps its own - which is how American Standards have been wired for the last 20-odd years!  :)

I know this, but I have a suspicion that this mod sacrifices some (valuable) frequencies in the bridge-middle position.
I think that I've read this from Carl Verheyen too, but I am not 100% sure.

[Philly Q]

Ah, I haven't got ears like Carl Verheyen!  :lol:

More like Carl Froch I think.  And if you've heard him play guitar...

[elavd]

Ah, I haven't got ears like Carl Verheyen!  :lol:

:lol:
Check this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnQt9yiBMg

Carl Verheyen shares some tips about Strats ;)

[Philly Q]

Check this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnQt9yiBMg

Carl Verheyen shares some tips about Strats ;)

That's a great clip, and a lovely Strat!  You don't see many of those maple neck, 3-colour sunburst models - I guess it's a '58 or '59?

I never thought of fine-tuning the spring claw like that before, that's a cool tip (although I can never decide if I like trems, I really prefer hardtails).