Tone Talks: Pickup Magnet Types and What Do They Do to Your Sound?

Basic knowledge here... The earliest widely used guitar pickups were the P90s. They are also known as the soapbars, due to their appearance resembling a bar of soap, especially cream-coloured ones. These pickups were structurally bigger than most single coils we see today. Under the covers hid a big coil usually wound to around 8k, 6 adjustable steel screw polepieces and two long magnets powering it.

Leo had a different concept on his mind when he created the Telecaster single coils. Alnico magnet rods were used in place of steel polepieces, giving the pickups a voice which is more crisp and clear and "louder" in the treble frequencies, cementing both the pickup design and his name into the history of electric guitar. Now, there are many types of Alnico magnets. Starting from the weakest, the Alnico III, which did not actually have any cobalt content (but calling it Alni would have been weird), Alnico II, Alnico IV, Alnico V, and finally Alnico VIII. For some reason, the weakest Alnico magnet, Alnico 3 was chosen for the earliest Fender single coils. And they produce the sweetest Fender tones (in my opinion). Smooth in the midrange, not as thumpy as other magnet types and the sweetened treble makes it eardrum-friendly. I believe it was in '59 when they had revised the pickup design and switched to Alnico 5 rods in their pickups. During that period, the pickups were wound slightly hotter than the early 50's pickups to smooth out the excess treble. Leo was on a quest for the ultimate clean tone. A5 pickups had a distinctive mid scooped sound, due to the extended bass and treble response. A3 pickups were more balanced and had less ice-pick, which is important for clean tones in my opinion. Nonetheless, the A5 pickups were still being wound and they also hit the amps harder, resulting in the very popular glass-shattering "BRRAANGGGG" clean sound when paired to a Fender Blackface amp.

It's not hard for most trained ears to hear the difference between 2 identical pickups with different magnets. And this can be heard too in early Gibson PAFs, which are infamous for being very inconsistent in specs, yet each variation takes on different flavours that appeals to many. To examine the differences, let's start with the prototype PAFs made in the 1955. Seth Lover used Alnico IIs for the prototype humbuckers, and the design was the benchmark for Gibson's early tones. Read "benchmark", because although Gibson was supposed to use Alnico IIs only, they had somehow mixed in all types of Alnico magnets (in various sizes), presumably due to shortage of the perfect-sized 2.5" long A2s. It was '58 or '59 when they had slowly transitioned to using A5s, again resulting in a relatively more aggressive and brighter, scooped tone. The earlier benchmark A2 PAFs were sweet in the treble, fat and loose in the bass, which gives a very "gentle" clean sound, while the A5 PAFs were a lot clearer in a clean sound context, which was also the main aim for Gibson. In fact, all guitar and amp makers were aiming for the cleanest sound possible because country was the "in" thing back in their days. It wasn't until '61, that the pickup specs are standardised and only A5 magnets were used. Weirdly enough, some modern day pickup winders had utilised A4 magnets for the '61 inspired humbuckers, presumably learnt from their own experiences, that some '61 Les Pauls (they're SGs, I know) had A4 pickups.

Here's what I found out about each type of magnets through personal experiences and also loads of online reading....

• Alnico II - Warm and loose bass response. Smooth highs and neutral mids.

• Alnico III - Tighter bass response than A2. Slightly rounded highs, but still bright. Neutral mids.

• Alnico IV - This one's a sleeper, weirdly. It's one of those things that you think, these are the perfect magnets for PAFs. It's basically A3 with more power, or an A5 with a less harsh high end, depending on which way you think of it.

• Alnico V - The most popular magnets, regardless of single coils or humbuckers. Presumably due to the availability of it. It's a strong magnet, that emphasises in bass and treble frequencies. Mids aren't actually lowered or scooped, but the boost in bass and treble sort of creates an "illusion" of the scooped mids. 

• Alnico VIII - This one isn't that popular due to it being neither vintage nor modern. But A8 has been described by many as the best elements of ceramic and A5 blended together. Bass is tighter than A5, treble is sweeter than ceramic. Mids are strong but not as in-your-face as ceramic. 

• Ceramic - Many people associate ceramic magnets with bad pickups. I'm here to dispel that belief. Ceramic magnets tend to have a harder edge in both bass and treble. They're not actually louder, but rather stronger and hits the preamp harder as they're very overwound more often than not, to tame the highs and thicken up the overall sound. 

• Neodymium - Neodymium magnets are used to charge or uncharge all the magnets above. Need I say more? Yes, I do need to...Again, these aren't top shelf because they're too strong and dangerous to handle. But when they are used, the pickups produce a very strong tone. Bass is deep, mid is strong, treble is clear. Only few makers like GFS and Entwistle had attempted in selling Neodymium pickups, all of which I believe are made by Artec. 

Before you run out and pull the ceramic pickups from your guitar, I would like send this important message to all of you. Please take all the above arguments and explanations with a pinch of salt. Why? Because all guitars are different, as are all guitar rigs. If you like your guitar sound, there's no need for any changes to happen. If you wanted to experiment though, just follow the general rule of thumb for choosing pickups. 

Of course, do not base your search on only one factor like, certain magnets, a 7.8k winding, unbalanced coils etc. Remember, the sum of all parts is greater than the whole. A PAF pickup sounds like what it is because every structure and material matters. A humbucker won't sound like a PAF by just adding an A2 magnet, nor will changing the A2 for a ceramic make a PAF turn to a modern gain monster. 

Make sure you do plenty of research before you proceed in the tonal direction you want. Some pickups are tricky. Ceramic humbuckers like Dimarzio Super Distortion may sound bright, but the treble is rounded. Dimarzio Tone Zone and JB may have A5 magnets, but they're not scooped sounding in any way. Just throwing it there to muddy the waters hahaha....

Anyway, pickups matter, and they are what's keeping tone snobs like us on our feet. The purpose of this post was to show how by understanding your pickup magnets, you can find out what you are after in your tone pursuit, and if you're handy with electronic jobs, you sure can try replacing magnets for different flavours. However, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO SWAP IN/OUT NEODYMIUM MAGNETS. One little careless mistake can cost you your finger(s). That's how strong Neodymium magnets are. Peace out!

The Maple vs Rosewood Debate: When Will It End?

The reason why Leo Fender used maple wood to make the earliest Fenders was simple. Maple was abundant and easily obtained around the area Leo had set up his factory. And that production method had continued into the late 50's, where rosewood and maple fingerboards were made available as an option for the customers. Thick rosewood boards appeared on 1959 Strats (most famously played by Rory Gallagher), hence the term "slab board". Towards the end of Leo's ownership of the company (which CBS bought over Fender in 1965), Leo had experimented with laminating the rosewood onto the maple fingerboard, giving it a round-radiused bottom as well as being very thin, hence the term "round-lam board". Wait, you're confused about the terms and years... so where does that bring us? Back on the debated topic, of course.

Let's base these ideas off the fact that Leo Fender is no guitarist, and that he knows nothing about "tone", but rather playability, durability, cost, everything you can imagine of from a business standpoint. Now, maple was and still is, the most commonly used wood. Tell me, how often do you see maple-necked guitars, regardless of it being rosewood-boarded, ebony-boarded or just plain 1-piece maple, it's all still a maple-based neck. All the Strat/Tele-styles that you can think of out there, whether it's made in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico etc, they're mostly fitted with maple necks. Back in the 40's though, not many guitars come with maple necks "fitted". Leo Fender thought it'd be a smart idea to bolt-on a neck instead of setting it in with glue. This saves manufacturing cost and labour hours. But the very popular mahogany wood during that time is a medium density wood which will not withstand being screwed in and unscrewed many times (which was supposedly the proposed function of a bolt-on design), so Leo had to choose a harder, higher density wood. Leo doesn't pick wood based on tone, he picks them based on how much do they cost, how easy is it to obtain them. So maple became the right choice of wood.

Along the way, Leo received some complaints from his customers, saying the pale colour of the maple gets worn and dirty-up very easily (as seen on many maple-boarded vintage Fenders), which led Leo to come up with another solution --- the tried and true rosewood fingerboard. By gluing on a slab of rosewood on the neck, there's no way for the fingerboard to look dirty and gunky anymore from far away. Just as Leo Fender thought he had solved the problem, there comes the complaints.

It appears to some customers' ears that the rosewood had dulled the treble frequencies a bit, resulting in less clarity and cut. They wanted the rosewood board to conceal the fingerboard mess, but still wanted the "tone" of the maple fingerboard. The year 1962, is the year Leo started implementing the round-laminated rosewood board. The thin layer of rosewood "shields" the maple neck from dirt, and at the same time, is too thin to have any effect on the tone.

However, the very thin round-lam boards weren't found on most modern Fenders anymore because at some point in the 70's, nitrocellulose lacquer was ditched and replaced by polyester finishes, not because they were better but rather because of the car industry changes. Car bumpers were made to flex upon impact, and nitrocellulose will crack even under the lightest tap from a car accident. Polyesters were able to absorb some minor shock and still maintain the surface gleam after flexing, so it worked for the car industry. Not for the guitar industry though...Guitars in the 70's were claimed to be "tone-suckers", although it's not entirely the finish's fault. The guitars seen in the 50's collected battle scars like nobody's business, but the 70's Fenders don't even dent at all unless abused hard. Which is also the reason why round-lam boards were gone. Polyester-finished maple necks won't get worn and dirty, and even if they do get grimy, a simple wipedown will get rid of the gunks. No more dirty-board woes. So naturally, only the slab rosewood and one-piece maple neck camp still existed.

So the next time you hear a difference between a maple fingerboard/rosewood fingerboard, check and see if it's a round-lam or a slab board. Check and see if you've been tricking your own mind with the "rosewood = darker/warmer" perception. Are you really hearing the wood, or does this particular guitar sound brighter/darker? Or is it the pickup doing it's own thing? You'll be surprised how a rosewood 'board guitar can be brighter than a maple 'board guitar. Been there, done that, and got my preconceptions thrown out of the window. AND have been preaching this truth to my friends ever since.

Pickups matter more.

This is Bernard signing out from my first post of 2016!