Article on Beefing Up Single Coils with Metal Baseplates

[rjb]

I just stumbled upon this article, thought it interesting enough to share.
(Of course, the old pros already know this stuff, but it is explained here simply & clearly).
Beefing Up Single Coils

[cbarrow7625]

So, I know nothing about making pickups (getting that out of the way) but I found myself asking why nobody has ever made a pickup with an adjustable baseplate? I would love the opportunity to dial in my single coils for various amps and conditions.

I assume the vibration and squealing mentioned in the article could be managed with a very thin gasket installed on the plate between itself and the magnets. Other issues I can think of are overcoming the pull of the magnets and making sure it doesn't wobble in any direction. Both seem like solvable issues to overcome for anyone with just a bit of mechanical knowledge.

Does a baseplate only work if it is in direct contact with the magnets? Ibam assuming that there is some small range of adjustment just shy of full contact that will still disrupt the magnetic currents.

Can you put a baseplate under just a couple of strings or is it all or nothing? How about tilting it used to side for a progressive effect from high strings to low strings? While I'm wondering; would different shapes of the baseplate allow a pickup maker to fine tune the amount / effect of the plate? I could even imagine it possible to incorporate different types of metals in various positions, shapes and thicknesses so that the maker could guarantee a truly useful, pleasant and predictable range of adjustments.

Thanks in advance. Can't wait to hear how far off base I am!

[Mark Hammer]

One of the things that most of the 60's Japanese pickups have, like the "gold foil" or those from other Teisco, Kawai, Kent, or similar guitars, is a steel baseplate. In a great many instances, it was simply to provide a bed for a ceramic magnet located under a slug that adjustable screws went into, as well as to provide a means for inserting height-adjustment screws at the sides. But, I suppose these same baseplates provided another function of changing the inductance on what was otherwise usually a much lower-impedance pickup that what you'd find on a Fender.

Rarely discussed is the possibility of partial baseplates. That is, something placed on the underside of polepieces for, say, just the unwound strings. I could see someone deciding to use a lighter gauge of unwounds, for bendability, and compensating for frequency response by sticking a baseplate under the polepieces for those strings.

Or am I talking through my hat here?

[rjb]

I dunno.

So, (getting this out of the way) my experience is limited to having repaired a few of my own commercially produced pickups.
I posted this to the Beginner/Hobbyist Pickup Makers forum, and am not sure why it was moved to the Guitar Tech section.
I guess building a pickup with a baseplate is pickup making, but adding a baseplate to a pickup is guitar teching . Shrug.

My sense is that you may be able to, say, tame a shrill pickup with an aluminum or brass baseplate (through eddy current loading) or beef up a wimpy pickup with a steel baseplate (by focusing the magnetic field and increasing the coil inductance to lower the resonant frequency), but the effect would not be pronounced enough to warrant trying to use the bp for tone control by mechanically manipulating its position. The bp has to be pretty close to have noticeable effect. For example, folks who have a factory-installed brass baseplate behind their PBass pups (presumably for shielding) say they detect no tonal difference with the plate removed. If used partially for shielding, tilting a baseplate would defeat its purpose.

On using a bp behind the unwound strings only: I guess that might work- but really have no idea.
It would certainly be easier than the DeArmond Rhythm Chief method of balancing signal strength by wrapping more wire around one group of strings.
(With the RC, the wound strings were wound hotter; in string sets with a wound G, the B string tends to be disproportionately loud because it is thicker than the core of the G string.)

Well, that's all I know (or think I know).

[Steve A.]

I have not read the article yet but Lindy Fralin has been selling back plates for his strat pickups for at least 20 years which is when I bought several for bridge pickups. I thought it made them sound a little like tele bridge pickups. In any case I thought that they resulted in a stronger lead tone but YMMV...

Steve A.

[John_H]

Rarely discussed is the possibility of partial baseplates.

Shhh... Don't talk about that!

I experimented with this on strat pickups. The differences can be very subtle. I used two guitar's, and an A/B for direct comparison.

IDK why this is in "Guitar Tech". This is solely about pickups.

[big_teee]

I've tried them in the past, and I always liked them better without the baseplates.
I made my own baseplates from sheet steel.
And they can be microphonic if you don't stick them on good with wax.
You need to drill out the pickup screws, like on a tele bridge pickup.
I always opted for a bridge pickup with more turns of wire, Instead of the baseplate.
But, Give it a try, you might like it.
T

[Steve A.]

IDK why this is in "Guitar Tech". This is solely about pickups.

I could move this thread if you like but it does apply to end users (the guitarists) as well as pickup makers since the baseplates can be easily added later. Here are instructions from the Lindy Fralin site (they are $10 and used for strat bridge pickup giving them a 10% bass boost- according to LF.)

Welcome to Lindy Fralin Pickups: Installing a Baseplate on the Finest Guitar Pickups Available Today!

[big_teee]

I put it over here, because it is just an accessory, that can be installed by most guitar users.

[rjb]

I could move this thread if you like but it does apply to end users (the guitarists) as well as pickup makers...

As the OP, I can see the reasoning for putting the thread in either category- but don't have a strong opinion either way.

But I do have a suggested procedure for times when a thread seems appropriate for more than one forum category.
I'd do it myself, but for fear of ticking off the moderators (something for which I seem to have a special knack).

Here goes:
> Navigate to Category 1; Start a new thread with an appropriate title; Enter your initial post.
> Navigate to Category 2; Start a new thread with the same title; Enter some boilerplate, something like
"Please do not post here. This thread was initiated in Category 1. To read the thread, click here."; Enter a link to the first thread.

Now, the thread is listed in 2 categories, but all discussion "should" be contained in one thread.

Alternate suggestion:
Don't worry about it; leave it alone.

Later,
-rb

[Steve A.]

As the OP, I can see the reasoning for putting the thread in either category- but don't have a strong opinion either way.

But I do have a suggested procedure for times when a thread seems appropriate for more than one forum category.
I'd do it myself, but for fear of ticking off the moderators (something for which I seem to have a special knack).

Here goes:
> Navigate to Category 1; Start a new thread with an appropriate title; Enter your initial post.
> Navigate to Category 2; Start a new thread with the same title; Enter some boilerplate, something like
"Please do not post here. This thread was initiated in Category 1. To read the thread, click here."; Enter a link to the first thread.

Now, the thread is listed in 2 categories, but all discussion "should" be contained in one thread.

Alternate suggestion:
Don't worry about it; leave it alone.

Later,
-rb

A duplicate thread pointing to the discussion in a different forum could be closed to prevent any replies but it would soon scroll off the topic list although it would show up in site searches.

IMO pickup modifications that can be performed by the end user (like magnet swaps in hb's and P-90, or copper foil shielding of sc pickups) fit the Guitar Tech category the best.