Peter Green Neck Pickup

[Spence]

I am not a complete and total skeptic so I will try it for sure. From making effects I know that there are many changes that can be made to a circuit that can have a huge tonal impact that technically should have none.

But again I would think if this is such authentic information that you guys should at the very least have the impedance reading of the neck pickup. Which by the way is 8.2K as measured from the pots. This was posted by a LPF member that inspected the guitar.

Jon, this is my final post on the topic. No one who knew anything about pickups would measure impedance or resistance with the pickup still soldered in the guitar.
Lastly, you'll find as you grow older that you can't force other people to believe you just by writing forceful posts on a forum and that some other people have more experience than you have. To dismiss other's work out of hand will turn round and bite you on the ass one day. That's good advice and you should take it gracefully.

[David Schwab]

a magnet flip would have meant big volume drop issues.

So, why is that? You keep saying that but give no reason for it.

I can say painting a pickup red will make it louder, but unless I explain why that is, it's just anecdotal.

I've been installing phase switches on guitars and basses since about 1970, starting with my Sekova Les Paul copy, after discovering the effect by accident. I've also done just about every combination of flipping coils over (which reverses the wind direction) and reversing magnets.

Two pickups have to be the exact same output to get the most cancelation, and this will give you a volume drop due to the lack of low end. As soon as you vary the balance of the pickups, that changes.

So if that neck pickup was rewound, and it seems it's hotter than the bridge pickup, plus it's in the guitar backwards (which doesn't affect phase, but it does sound different, which is why Steve Howe has been turning his pickups around for years), then you will get less phase cancelation.

Here's an audio example. Here's my Tele. The bridge pickup is a stacked pickup I made. In humcancling mode it's very bright. When I take it out of hum canceling mode, by changing the phase of the bottom coil, it increases the output, and also put's it out of phase with the other two pickups, which are vintage Bill Lawrence L-250's.

Since the bridge pickup is now louder than the neck, you get the phase cancelation, but some lows come back in due to the mismatch. If I were able to mix the pickups I could get a super thin low output tone.

So in the clip, first you hear the neck pickup, then the bridge in humbucking mode, then the bridge in non-humbucking mode (much louder), then both pickups in phase, then out, in, out, etc.

http://www.sgd-lutherie.com/media/tele_test.mp3

Because the output levels of the pickups are nowhere near the same when out of phase, there's little volume drop, but the tone does get that hollow thin sound.

Pickups have both electrical phase relationships, and magnetic phase relationships. The entire humbucking effect uses both... electrically out of phase, and then magnetically out of phase, then you are back in phase.

I believe the only reason any of these things on that guitar would matter is from having four different coils at various places on the strings, so you are getting various combinations of which coil (screw or slug, neck or bridge) sampling different parts of the strings.

Make two humbuckers would exactly the same with the same wire, and with double slug coils, and then see if you get any difference with either revering the winding direction, or turning the magnet around. I say you wont.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand why you are saying that flipping the magnet makes a volume drop. It might just make the pickups more out of phase by favoring one coil combination over the other.

There's only two ways to get two pickups out of phase, reversing the magnet or the wires. (I'm not counting wind direction because it's the same as the wires reversed).

[Spence]

Where did you get the idea the neck pickup's hotter than the bridge. I've already told you it isn't. I also said I'm not posting on this topic anymore because it's degenerated into tit for tat who can shout the loudest nonsense, but out of respect I have answered this. The big issue which I have consistently answered is what happened with that neck pickup. If you can't accept that a myth has been exploded that then there's nothing else I can do. Just go away and make a set just like I've detailed and that's what Peter Green's guitar sounded like. I have also said that Peter himself has always maintained that he used a Gibson 345 for recording which has magnetically opposed pickups as standard with an out of phase switching option through the varitone. If that's the sound you associate with Peter Green then people should stop insisting that it's his Les Paul that you associate with this sound.

[NightWinder]

So many people have argued about the magnet flip, called him out and said he was wrong that he tried it and found it to be wrong. What Tim published about that neck pickup actually blew things wide open but guess what; you don't believe it, can't believe it. But if Seth Lover turned up claiming to have rewound that pickup at the Gibson factory over lunch when Peter Green was dropped off their by aliens, you'd believe that.
Gary Moore didn't have the pickup rewound either. It was done when Peter owned it. They guy that rewound it had never done a Gibson pickup before.
No big deal. People make mistakes.

Gary Moore did have push-pull pots in the guitar but the original pickups were taken out at that time.

There are no mysteries here unless you want there to be.

Hey man. Its groovy!! There is only so many possiblitys...You have to do it every way to totally get the vibe I think and appreciate what every change does. But there is only one real way to get that tone. Hats of to mills for posting Factual findings and not just poopoo. Always nice to have facts.
Funny, this little bit of info is public knowledge now, but you still can't find a turn count or Rpm speed for a PAf.....Thats funny (Yes, I have disected!)

[kevinT]

Funny, this little bit of info is public knowledge now, but you still can't find a turn count or Rpm speed for a PAf.....Thats funny (Yes, I have disected!)

To my recollection, it was 4500 to 6000 turns according to the Seth Lover Interview (if i goofed the number forgive me, i haven't read the interview in a while).

About 64 or 65 turns per layer.

I agree, the rpms as well as the tension are going to be the toughies to figure out.

[JGundry]

Spence,

You have to admit if you were coming upon this story it would all seem very suspect. You would probably be among the first to shoot it down. First we have an alias for a mystery winder by the name of Sam Lee. Maybe Sam Lee is really Peter Green? Then we have no meaningful time line. Then we don't even have the resistance rating of the current pickups, which is 8.2K neck 8.6K bridge. And then we have a question of there being a volume drop difference between a magnet flip and a simple phase switch. Maybe it is all legit information but it is far from thorough. If it is supposed to be the definitive Peter Green set-up then I would need more information before I would claim it to be such.

To be fair I have only experimented with the magnet flip, which nails the Peter Green out of phase tone IMO. I certainly will try reverse winding the coils. But every comment I have ever heard regarding the difference between the two is that the difference is very subtle. And any difference between a magnet flip and a phase switch with the same pickup is caused by the fact that if one pole of the Alnico magnet is stronger and the magnet flip will change the tone as it would switch the dominant coil. If the coils are offset this further complicates the results with a magnet flip. If you simply electronically change the phase this is not an issue.

Also Spence the live out of phase examples I listed are well documented as Peter using his Les Paul as are many of his studio recordings. I would like to see one photo of Peter Green in his prime using a ES-345. An interview would also suffice. Much of these things start as internet rumors and then become "fact". I think the ES-345 thing may be one of them. I do know of one photo of Peter in his current zombie state playing a borrowed ES-345 though.

[JGundry]

To my recollection, it was 4500 to 6000 turns according to the Seth Lover Interview (if i goofed the number forgive me, i haven't read the interview in a while).

About 64 or 65 turns per layer.

I agree, the rpms as well as the tension are going to be the toughies to figure out.

Use the 64-65 turns per layer if you want to clone a Burst Bucker.

[David Schwab]

And any difference between a magnet flip and a phase switch with the same pickup is caused by the fact that if one pole of the Alnico magnet is stronger and the magnet flip will change the tone as it would switch the dominant coil. If the coils are offset this further complicates the results with a magnet flip. If you simply electronically change the phase this is not an issue.

There you go... That's what I've been saying all along. And reversing the winding direction is exactly the same as being electrically out of phase.

My issue with this story was ONLY that it was claimed that reversed winding sounded different from just wiring the pickup out of phase, which I still say is nonsense, not whether or not Green's guitar is wired that way.

I actually couldn't care less what's in Peter Green's guitar.

[Steve A.]

[clip!!!] I have also said that Peter himself has always maintained that he used a Gibson 345 for recording which has magnetically opposed pickups as standard with an out of phase switching option through the varitone. If that's the sound you associate with Peter Green then people should stop insisting that it's his Les Paul that you associate with this sound.

The cover of "Blue Jam In Chicago" clearly shows Peter Green playing a Les Paul during the recording sessions at Chess Records.

EDIT: However, I do agree with you that the sound on the 2 LP set at Chess and the Otis Spann "Colossus" album recorded shortly after are different from Peter's earlier work- the out-of-phase sound is a bit more extreme, and not like the more subtle O-O-P like sound that you can get from a Varitone. I thought that the early Peter Green recordings sounded like B.B. King, who has been playing an ES 345 with all of its variations for many years now. For that matter, you can hear a difference between the earlier B.B. recordings (pre-varitone) and the later ones.

Thanks

Steve Ahola

P.S. In discussing "out of phase", you can flip the magnet and you can reverse the wiring- but there is also a third type of "out of phasiness", and that would be like the notch positions on a strat. While not technically out of phase, the audio signals from the two pickups have enough of a phase difference to get that "quacky" sound. For that matter, any EQ adds some phase distortion to a signal. So I guess that the Varitone works along those lines... or do I need to see a proctologist to remove my head from my ass? LOL

[David Schwab]

P.S. Since you are not posting on this thread any more perhaps someone else can explain to me how the varitone circuit can reverse the phase of the pickups- i just thought it was an inductor wired in series with resistors and capacitors...

It can't. The Varitone on the 345 is an inductor/capacitor (LC) notch filter.

The last position does a really low notch, and it can make a humbucker sound kind of like a single coil. I had one on my Paul, and it really got a bright jangle out of the thing. But it's not out of phase.

Gibson lists the following frequencies for each position:

Position 1--> no cut
Position 2--> -5db at 1950hz
Position 3--> -12db at 1100hz
Position 4--> -16db at 620hz
Position 5--> -18.5db at 360hz
Position 6--> -21db at 120hz

Some people mistakingly call the rotary pickup selector on the L-6S, L-9S Ripper, and the EB-3 a Varitone, and the first two do have out-of-phase settings. They even call the impedance selector on the Les Paul Signature/Jack Cassidy bass a Varitone.

Those three pickup Les Pauls and SG's had an out of phase setting when the middle pickup was brought into play. I once swapped the middle and neck pickups on an girlfriend's SG Custom because she didn't like that tone, and I couldn't rewire the pickup (or flip the magnet) because it was epoxy potted.

[kevinT]

Use the 64-65 turns per layer if you want to clone a Burst Bucker.

Aren't the Burstbuckers Gibson's replicas of PAFs? I would of thought Gibson took many PAFs apart in researching the burstbucker to obtain the specs.

What kind of tolerance levels are you giving the Leesona? I'm going to go on the limb and say 10%. Therefore, I think it would be safe to say if you're within the mid to high 50s TPL to a low 70s TPL you would be within a solid representative spec.....IMO that is.

I haven't had the pleasure of dissecting a PAF to determine it myself. However, i got the 64 TPL number from a highly respectable source (pickupmaker). Just my take on it.

John, if you don't mind me asking and i don't want to put you on the spot...How many PAFs have you dissected? And of those, did they all have the same exact TPL count?

[JGundry]

Hi Kevin,

I'll bite a little on this one. Gibson has not made a dead on accurate copy of any vintage Gibson product including Burst Buckers. The unwinds that I have done do not indicate a 65 TPL for a PAF. I have heard 65 TPL as a possible number for Pat. sticker pickups by a prominent maker but not for PAF's. But I have also unwound both early and late Pat sticker pickups and none of those were 65 TPL. The only Gibson pickup I have unwound that has 65 TPL is a Burst Bucker. But is it possible that 65 TPL could have been done for a PAF? I suppose it is possible, Gibson had two Leesona 102's and maybe one of them was set up for 65 TPL but I have seen no in hand evidence to support it. If you ever do decide to unwind any vintage Gibson pickups here are some tips. First be prepared to trash the pickup. You have to unwind quite a bit to get a reliable number. Very often the winding pattern is so sloppy that you might think that the pickup is hand wound. But if you keep unwinding it is apparent that it is a completely repeatable pattern. Getting the turn per layer count can be tricky because of the erratic wind. If you are not careful you might come up with a number that is off by 25% or more. So what I do is count the turns per layer for the entire travel from the bottom to the top of the bobbin and then back down and divide by two. Then I do do it over and over again to confirm the results and establish what kind of quirks are in the wind of that particular pickup. Then when you think you finally have the number wind a bobbin with the results you came up with and then unwind it to confirm.

As far as the Leesona 102 goes the tolerance variable is not in the number of turns per layer. The turns per layers is very solid and would not vary at all through the wind unless the clutch slipped which I don't think is too likely with 42 AWG wire. This is why it is essential to have a computer or machine controlled winder if you want to duplicate a PAF wind. You just can't do it by hand. The tolerance issue is in the traverse movement. At a 3" traverse the tolerance variable is way, way below 10% but when the traverse is brought down to 1/4" that same tolerance is now way, way above 10% relative to the 1/4" traverse. Plus the cam that controls the travel of the traverse adds it's own thing to how the wire is guided on the Leesona 102.

I am right now rigging a method of accurately recording the exact traverse of the Leesona 102 so I can program it into my computer controlled winder. I am recording a 20hz tone on a reel to reel recorder and then clipping the tape and pasting a portion to the traverse rod of the Leesona 102. I am then going to read the playback through the frequency analysis software I use for violin plate tuning. Since I already know the ips of the recorded 20hz tone I can calculate the traverse speed and all of it's speed variations over the entire traverse from the playback frequencies over the entire event. I can then program those results into my computer controlled winder to precisely duplicate the traverse quirks of the Leesona 102. If anyone has an easier method to do this I'm all ears.

[David Schwab]

Aren't the Burstbuckers Gibson's replicas of PAFs? I would of thought Gibson took many PAFs apart in researching the burstbucker to obtain the specs.

Well also the '57 Classic Humbuckers.

Gibson says this:

Gibson began redesigning the humbucking pickup to bring it back to legendary "Patent Applied For" specs. The '57 Classic, as it was named in 1990, recreates the classic sound of the late '50s Gibsons.

And then later:

In the new millennium Gibson's BurstBucker broadened the range of classic "Patent Applied For" sounds and illustrated Gibson's continuing commitment to providing the finest pickups for every style of electric guitar.

I read somewhere Gibson said the '57 Classic was wound with a machine pattern, while the Bustbucker simulates hand winding.

Built to Gibson’s exclusive specs, the ’57 Classic replicates the exact patent of the original Gibson humbuckers, and features punchy low-end and round mids, with a distinctive sparkle on the high-end. The Burstbuckers, on the other hand, are Gibson’s painstaking recreation of how those specs were actually built in the late ’50s on Gibson’s Kalamazoo, Michigan shop floor—beautifully replicating Gibson’s traditional hand-wound process. Less precise in the windings than the ’57 Classics, the Burstbuckers pack a gritty, vintage wallop—a touch darker, and a little less hi-fi.

So the '57 Classic Humbuckers use a machine wound pattern and the Burstbuckers are more handwound.

[Spence]

I'm not bothered about be un-memorable but I posted that bit about the classic '57's and the burstbuckers. I seem to recall, probably because it was me who posted it that everyone said it was a pile of shit.

[JGundry]

Dave and Spence,

Burst Buckers are machine wound. Hand winders should get together and sue Gibson for misrepresenting Burst Buckers as hand wound or more hand wound whatever the hell that means. Unwind a Burst Bucker and make up your mind for yourself.