A look inside a Lane Poor MM5.

[David Schwab]

So, if the humbuckers weren't the "sidewinders" (or the "bilateral twin coils" as Lane called them), then which were? The wide aperture pickups? Has anyone opened up one of these yet?

I'm confused as far as his nomenclature. I would think the humbuckers were the wide aperture pickups. How could he get wider than that?

And you cant have a wide aperture sidewinder, since they sense a single point on the string (unless they are Q-Tuners).

From the article Belwar posted in the other thread:

Lane classifies electromagnetic pickups into two groups, moving coil and moving magnet. Within the moving magnet variety there are four classes, single coil, humbuckers, stacked coil, and the bilateral twin coil. The bilateral has the advantage of hum cancelling, and still sounds like a single coil, the cleanest you can get.

So, it seems the bilateral twin coil is the side winder. The wides must be the humbucker, and maybe the narrow is the stack?

Also from that article:

After winding, the resulting armature is insulated with tape, the output cable is soldered into place with a brass sleeved strain relief, and the armature is entirely shielded with lapped seam 0.001" brass foil. This assembly is kept in the oven at 110, this in order to encourage rubberized epoxy to completely surround the windings. The armatures are placed in a bath of the rubberized epoxy, and evacuated to 29.33" in a Bell Jar. They cycle it 5 times to insure no bubbles remain between the wires, insuring ultra-low microphonics.

The rubberized armatures are then compressed from the sides and top, placed in the oven again, and allowed to cure overnight. These rubberized armatures are then prepared for the dedicated molding process. With less that the thickness of a guitar pick from the side of the armaure to the mold, precision is an absolute must! They attach precision cast spacers that hold the armature away from the tops and sides of the molds. They evacuate the proper amount of mixed epoxy, pour it into the molds, and then evacuate the molds for three complete cycles, at five minutes each. Then, it's back into the oven again for overnight curing.

So he used rubberized epoxy, including for the coil assembly.

[David Schwab]

OK, I went back and looked at the catalog scans.

So the wide and humbucker were two different things.

[tubby.twins]

EDIT: I retract my earlier mention of the original paperwork, since that was just posted.

Belwar's earlier dissection of a Precision style pickup shows that it seemed to be neither a narrow nor a wide aperture pickup, at least when compared to the soapbar shapes (Bart or EMG). That pickup obviously wasn't a sidewinder, but it didn't have the pole pieces that Lane also mentioned as a central component of the narrow aperture pickup.

So, it seems the bilateral twin coil is the side winder. The wides must be the humbucker, and maybe the narrow is the stack?

I'd guess that the wide aperture is the bilateral twin coil, and the narrow is either a stacked-coil or a single coil. That would match up with my earlier findings (in a separate post) using magnetic paper on my existing bass with one of each. Also, I recently had the chance to remove another pair of Lane Poor pickups (one wide and one humbucking) and noticed that the magnetic paper showed some really interesting results on the wide aperture pickup. It didn't look anything like any other pickup that I've seen. I got a better look because I had the pickup all the way out of the body this time. I'll take and post pictures.

I'm considering sacrificing these for science, but I lack the following: proper equipment to expose their innards, desire to tear apart a really sweet-sounding wide aperture pickup, and a corresponding matched set of SGD sidewinder pickups to use as replacements. Perhaps in the near future.

[David Schwab]

I still have the original paperwork that came with one pair of Lane Poor pickups which I ordered directly back in 2000. It included diagrams of all three aperture types: narrow, wide and humbucking. I'll try to get this scanned in and posted. (I thought someone had posted this on a forum some time ago, but I can't locate it now.) But in any event, it was pretty clear that there were indeed 3 types of pickups. (This excludes the dual-aperture or dual-voice MM variants.)

It's in the older thread on Lane Poor info. That's where I got the image I posted.

http://music-electronics-forum.com/t14915/

Belwar's earlier dissection of a Precision style pickup shows that it seemed to be neither a narrow nor a wide aperture pickup, at least when compared to the soapbar shapes (Bart or EMG). That pickup obviously wasn't a sidewinder, but it didn't have the pole pieces that Lane also mentioned as a central component of the narrow aperture pickup.

Yeah, well a P pickup is already a different type of configuration, so I guess it makes sense to keep them split coil.

I'd guess that the wide aperture is the bilateral twin coil, and the narrow is either a stacked-coil or a single coil. That would match up with my earlier findings (in a separate post) using magnetic paper on my existing bass with one of each. Also, I recently had the chance to remove another pair of Lane Poor pickups (one wide and one humbucking) and noticed that the magnetic paper showed some really interesting results on the wide aperture pickup. It didn't look anything like any other pickup that I've seen. I got a better look because I had the pickup all the way out of the body this time. I'll take and post pictures.

That makes sense.

I'm considering sacrificing these for science, but I lack the following: proper equipment to expose their innards, desire to tear apart a really sweet-sounding wide aperture pickup, and a corresponding matched set of SGD sidewinder pickups to use as replacements. Perhaps in the near future.

I'm curious to hear my side winders compared to the Poors.

[belwar]

Belwar's earlier dissection of a Precision style pickup shows that it seemed to be neither a narrow nor a wide aperture pickup, at least when compared to the soapbar shapes (Bart or EMG)

The MM5 was constructed physically the same way as the P. Just a longer magnet. 1/4" tall coil wrapped around ceramic magnets. Approximately same number of turns of wire.. the MM just has ALOT more wire because of the size.. The P as like 1.25k DCR and the MM was like 3.75k.

I'm considering sacrificing these for science, but I lack the following: proper equipment to expose their innards, desire to tear apart a really sweet-sounding wide aperture pickup, and a corresponding matched set of SGD sidewinder pickups to use as replacements. Perhaps in the near future.

Well you may think this is stupid, but i'll gladly do what I did to the MM for you with that pickup. I've got a couple M4.0W's and a J pickup to hack apart. Both the M4.0's I have are wide. if I could find a narrow i'd be in heaven. I somehow doubt any of the LP's are stacked or side winders now. Do you know anyone that would trade an M4.0W for an M4.0N? Do you have one?

If you sacrifice your M4.0W, and we can trade for an M4.0N, i'll sacrifice another one.

[tubby.twins]

I somehow doubt any of the LP's are stacked or side winders now. Do you know anyone that would trade an M4.0W for an M4.0N? Do you have one?

If you sacrifice your M4.0W, and we can trade for an M4.0N, i'll sacrifice another one.

I don't have a M4.0N, and I think I'm going to keep the M4.0W and M4.0HB in this current bass. They are my first set of Lane Poor pickups that I purchased (directly from Lane!) and I am a bit attached to them, so I will probably keep them here for a while.

However, I have another bass with one JB4250 (narrow aperture) and one SB4250 (wide aperture) that *may* be available for research in the future.

[David King]

I don't think Lane's "narrow" PU's were stacks. I'm guessing both the narrow and wide aperture are sidewinders but the magnet/ bobbin heights are different. The narrow having shorter coils and the wide having taller coils. Of course this coils would be on their sides.

[Sheldon Dingwall]

Fender still uses lacquer on the bass pickups.

I use vanish. I don't have a vacuum setup yet, but it does get all the way to the inside.

And vanish and plumbers taper work really well together.

Ebay is your friend for vacuum pumps. Or if you have a compressor, Harbor Freight has an inexpensive ventury pump.

What's plumbers taper?

How long are you letting the varnish cure before epoxy potting?

[David Schwab]

Ebay is your friend for vacuum pumps. Or if you have a compressor, Harbor Freight has an inexpensive ventury pump.

My friend has a vacuum pump with the bell jar and everything. But I'll probably pick up my own on eBay. I had one for many years I got from a printing plate making vacuum frame, but when I got married I had to make some room and wasn't using it.

What's plumbers taper?

Tape. That R had no business there!

How long are you letting the varnish cure before epoxy potting?

A two or three days, preferably until I can't smell it much. I used to use polyurethane, but I've been looking for something that cures faster, so I gave vanish a try. It's just as slow. CA works great, but I can't rewind the coil.

I've tried skipping the potting step before using the epoxy, and it was very microphonic. I might just start using wax, since it's quicker.

[Joe Gwinn]

I've tried skipping the potting step before using the epoxy, and it was very microphonic. I might just start using wax, since it's quicker.

Has anyone tried shellac or dilute shellac? It doesn't take much gluing effect to prevent microphonic loose turns.

Potting a waxed coil in epoxy ought to work, so long as there is a way to ensure that the waxed coil isn't too close to any surface.

Some SAW (Surface Wave Acoustic) filters are first protected with wax and then epoxy-dipped. Later, when the epoxy has cured, the assembly is heated to drive the wax off (it wicks into the porous epoxy) to leave an air-filled void.

[David Schwab]

Has anyone tried shellac or dilute shellac? It doesn't take much gluing effect to prevent microphonic loose turns.

Rick Turner uses shellac on his horseshoe pickups.

Potting a waxed coil in epoxy ought to work, so long as there is a way to ensure that the waxed coil isn't too close to any surface.

EMG pots their coils in wax before they encapsulate with epoxy.

I figured the epoxy would have gotten right into the coil, but for some reason on two pickups I tried it, it didn't, and they were extremely microphonic. I can probably talk into them.

[Joe Gwinn]

EMG pots their coils in wax before they encapsulate with epoxy.

I figured the epoxy would have gotten right into the coil, but for some reason on two pickups I tried it, it didn't, and they were extremely microphonic. I can probably talk into them.

Are you saying that the EMG pickups were microphonic? If so, that would imply that the wax potting wasn't deep enough.

[David Schwab]

Are you saying that the EMG pickups were microphonic? If so, that would imply that the wax potting wasn't deep enough.

No, two separate things.

I said EMG does wax pot their coils, and then I was referring to my earlier comment:

I've tried skipping the potting step before using the epoxy, and it was very microphonic.

On one set of pickups I didn't pot the bobbins in anything first, just filled the pickups with epoxy, and it they were both very microphonic.

[belwar]

I wonder if vacuum potting with 24hour epoxy would penetrate to the core... Probably would be too brittle over time.

[David King]

Most epoxies wick like crazy. I can't believe a epoxied vacuum-potted PU wouldn't be completely solid. Lane had a terrible time because his outer epoxy would wick way up inside the shielded wire lead and cause it to be brittle and break. He had to use a thick cast jacketed Beldon wire that was awful to work with and didn't fit down wiring tunnels.

He did finally migrate to a mogami console wire but the wicking was still a problem.