software

Like in Strats and Teles?

no......Leo Fender originally did it to give the bridge pickup more treble and bite......so it would give greater diversity in sound.....but i think i read somewhere that he had treble loss in his hearing or something......so thats why so many people think that strat bridges are kind of shrill and too trebly..... i think its fine tho

the same is not for the tele tho, tele bridge pups just kick A$$ either way

The slant works better to give the lower strings a little more beef -- the harmonic nodes farther away from the bridge have more low end because the string vibrates in a wider amplitude the farther you get from the bridge (or the nut).

If the pickup was straight up and down, the same distance from the bridge as the high E pole-piece when it's slanted, then the low (E, A, D) strings would sound intolerably thin and hollow, like mosquitoes. Or if it was straight up and down even with the low E pole-piece, the high (G, B, E) wouldn't have enough top-end sparkle.

Well, what if the middle pup were slanted? Would the middle pup alone sound better?

To my ear, the middle pickup is in the ideal spot as is to get the quot;cluckquot; or quot;quackquot; tone in the #2 and #4 positions (bridge middle, middle neck). Slant it or move it significantly in one direction or the other and the cluck is gone.

As for the middle pu by itself, this is just me but I don't think there is a way to make it sound good by itself. It's like a spice -- you add it to your food but you don't eat it separately as a meal. The middle pu spices up the bridge or neck pu wonderfully but just doesn't sound good by itself no matter what.

For that reason I got a Superswitch from Stewart MacDonald and wired my Strat so the #3 position = neck bridge, instead of middle alone.


Originally Posted by ZhangliqunTo my ear, the middle pickup is in the ideal spot as is to get the quot;cluckquot; or quot;quackquot; tone in the #2 and #4 positions (bridge middle, middle neck). Slant it or move it significantly in one direction or the other and the cluck is gone.

As for the middle pu by itself, this is just me but I don't think there is a way to make it sound good by itself. It's like a spice -- you add it to your food but you don't eat it separately as a meal. The middle pu spices up the bridge or neck pu wonderfully but just doesn't sound good by itself no matter what.

Thanks. Terrific entry. I've been considering the superswitch. I may have to give it a go.

Agreed on center strat pup with single coils- but try a blade one day and bet you will be surprised- Wonderful rhytehm and non-quacky sound if you roll off about 1/2 the 2nd blade- Covering 70's tunes, couldn't handle rhytem without it-


Originally Posted by zionstratAgreed on center strat pup with single coils- but try a blade one day and bet you will be surprised- Wonderful rhytehm and non-quacky sound if you roll off about 1/2 the 2nd blade- Covering 70's tunes, couldn't handle rhytem without it-

So are you saying that 70's strat playing is characterized by the notch positions without the quack? It's not a series vs. parallel issue regarding 70's stuff?

Guitar Toad- Good question, I tried to roll too many thoughts into one sentence-
First I completely agree with Zhangliqun's post that the middle pup is the spice that gets quack and that quack is one of most importand strat sounds and that the middle pup by itself tends to be rather colorless- Of course these are rather broad genrealizations, but overall I think he's dead on-

As far as 70's strat, there are really 2 things at work- First of all most of the strats weren't 5 way back in the dark ages, and alhtough everyone knew the ballance trick, it's wasn't easy live-

But IMHO there was another thing going on that affected the recording side- It was far more likely that someone would take the time to get quack sounds in the studio, but in a complex mix, much of this color was lost to limited bandwidth and noise floor. Althouhg there are exceptions (Gilmore and Knophler are two of my favorites), most of the strat sounds , especially rhythem , sound either bridge like (lots of Ramp;B stuff ) or slightly brighter than neck. My guess is that a lot of the slightly brighter than neck sounds are 4 position but lost the upper range in a complex mix.

As a result, when coverign the average strat sound from the 70's I find quack is too thin to reproduce the feeling and in the past found brdige or neck pup best most of the time-

But when I switched to twin coils I found that the middle pup became extremely useful for the first time outside of quack- By using a little of the 2nd coil to fatten the middle pup I found I could get a brigther than neck, but less bright than bridge sound that works really well for that 'strat in the back' kind of sound-

Still don't use it more than 20% of the time-

This making more sense?

if the reason was that leo fender had a hearing problem, why are les paul bridges slanted? so i think the answer it that there is a good reason.


Originally Posted by zionstratGuitar Toad- Good question, I tried to roll too many thoughts into one sentence-
First I completely agree with Zhangliqun's post that the middle pup is the spice that gets quack and that quack is one of most importand strat sounds and that the middle pup by itself tends to be rather colorless- Of course these are rather broad genrealizations, but overall I think he's dead on-

As far as 70's strat, there are really 2 things at work- First of all most of the strats weren't 5 way back in the dark ages, and alhtough everyone knew the ballance trick, it's wasn't easy live-

But IMHO there was another thing going on that affected the recording side- It was far more likely that someone would take the time to get quack sounds in the studio, but in a complex mix, much of this color was lost to limited bandwidth and noise floor. Althouhg there are exceptions (Gilmore and Knophler are two of my favorites), most of the strat sounds , especially rhythem , sound either bridge like (lots of Ramp;B stuff ) or slightly brighter than neck. My guess is that a lot of the slightly brighter than neck sounds are 4 position but lost the upper range in a complex mix.

As a result, when coverign the average strat sound from the 70's I find quack is too thin to reproduce the feeling and in the past found brdige or neck pup best most of the time-

But when I switched to twin coils I found that the middle pup became extremely useful for the first time outside of quack- By using a little of the 2nd coil to fatten the middle pup I found I could get a brigther than neck, but less bright than bridge sound that works really well for that 'strat in the back' kind of sound-

Still don't use it more than 20% of the time-

This making more sense?That's good stuff. And yes it does make sense. I guess that I think of Clapton and Blackmore as the 70's strat sound and having a thicker more mid-rangy, less bright sound. I could probably get it with the right amp set up with my JV strat as is, but the rail middle pickup is an interesting idea for fattening up the strat tone. Thanks for that great post Zionstrat.


Originally Posted by nepalnt21if the reason was that leo fender had a hearing problem, why are les paul bridges slanted? so i think the answer it that there is a good reason.

I always thought that was for intonation, but you may be right. Anyone know more about this?


Originally Posted by YJM_RocksI always thought that was for intonation, but you may be right. Anyone know more about this?

huh. maybe it is. well they are adjutsable by a small amount.


Originally Posted by nepalnt21huh. maybe it is. well they are adjutsable by a small amount.

I think it's a little of both, but unless you find the ancient Gibson gurus all we can do is speculate.

Luke


Originally Posted by nepalnt21if the reason was that leo fender had a hearing problem, why are les paul bridges slanted? so i think the answer it that there is a good reason.

The reason LP bridges are slanted has nothing to do with tone but with tuning, i.e., intonation. The lower strings need to be slightly quot;longerquot; to intonate properly, so the LP bridge is slanted in favor of lengthening the lower strings. Without this difference in length, you may have problems with the lower strings intonating a little sharp, especially farther up the neck.

Most TOM-type bridges (regardless of manufacturer) are slightly slanted for this reason, but even on bridges that are lined up perfectly straight, you will see that on a properly intonated guitar, the general pattern of the saddles on the bridge are shorter on high strings and longer on low strings.




Originally Posted by gripweed

But, There are a lot of slanted comments in this thread

oyi!

the slanting of a pup does change the tone a little, im actually in the process of building a reverse slant esquire. tighter spankier lows and a little less brittle highs. should be cool but who knows... could be brutal


Originally Posted by jeremyoyi!

the slanting of a pup does change the tone a little, im actually in the process of building a reverse slant esquire. tighter spankier lows and a little less brittle highs. should be cool but who knows... could be brutal

My Tele has a reverse slant bridge, and I love that tone! Trust me, you will be VERY happy.

Personally, I think Leo got it backwards when he put that slant in his bridge pups, and my friend Mr. Hendrix agrees with me!


Originally Posted by jeremyoyi!

the slanting of a pup does change the tone a little, im actually in the process of building a reverse slant esquire. tighter spankier lows and a little less brittle highs. should be cool but who knows... could be brutal

Well, it worked for Hendrix...