PAF / ROLPH PICKUP TEST!

[LHakim]

You know, Rolph's argument, and your results Dewey make sense, if the its true that at Gibson in the late 1950's they weren't matching specific pups to the neck or bridge position. Heck I've read that they weren't even matching the coils to each other! Alot of those classic tones on record may be coming from guitars that left Kalamazoo w/ a bridge pup weaker than the neck one.

 

[Ed A]

Well I spoke to Rolph for the first time last night for about an hour. Definitely a knowledgeable guy. He says that he thinks Gibson put the weaker PAFs in the bridge on purpose. He says he's seen many like that. In 1960, he and a friend both bought new bursts and they were setup like that.

Well this morning I took the 7.6 that I had tried in the neck position and tried it in the lead. Damn, I like these pickups! Remember yesterday I tried the 7.2 in the bridge. It sounded great and surprisingly powerful but I would have liked a touch more mids. The 7.6 is awesome. Just as much power as my 8.3 PAF and great tone. Still a little less mids but it sounds very close to a PAF. In fact some of the tones I like a bit better than the PAF and visa versa depending on the song, area of the neck Im in etc. Im very impressed. Its a good match with the 7.8 PAF in the neck. I never thought I would like something as low as 7.6 in the bridge but I do. And as I said, its got plenty of power. But not in a non-vintage way like a 57 classic. It sounds right.

Anyway, I recorded some soundfiles that I asked Lily to put together for me. Ill post them when they are ready.

 

[plaintop]

I think the notion of putting a hotter PU in the bridge was developed by the Heavy Metal era. :dude

Less is more I am willing to try it. I need to get my order in before all you bastids tie the man up.:lol

NO DOUBLE CREAMS!!! Rolph is real worried about the Dimarzio Patent. He will not budge on this one. I think he does have some rewound PAF's though.

 

[RICH]

""I think the notion of putting a hotter PU in the bridge was developed by the Heavy Metal era.""


F**KING EH!!
:dude

 

[Ed A]

I wanna make something clear here. I was listening closely to the soundfiles. I dont want people to think that these Rolphs sound EXACTLY like a PAF. But they sound very close to me. The one I was comparing is actually a bit thicker than my PAF. But then again, all PAFs vary slightly. My feeling so far is that I probably would be fooled by one of these.

 

[RICH]

Thats scary.spin

 

[60burst]

That's good news....:dude

 

[RICH]

Sure, now that I just bought another pair of cream Aunt Dickys!:lolspin

 

[Freddy]

:lolspin :lolspin ........."Aunt Dickys".....:lol2

 

[BrianGWN]

My understanding is that the modern thinking is to have a somewhat stronger wound pickup in the bridge position because the peak-to-peak string vibration is less closer to the bridge, so a stronger bridge pickup helps to BALANCE the output of the two pups. However, if your main concern was focused on tone, and you were willing to play with the heights of the two pickups to help get a better balance, then maybe there really is something to the idea of using the slightly weaker pickup in a pair in the bridge position. In principle all other things being equal as a pickup is "overwound" it starts to lose some highs while gaining some mids...
I can recall coming across guitars with two of the same pickups, with the pickup heights either about the same or even the bridge a little lower, and the volume imbalance between the pups was an immediate annoyance to me. Once you get the neck pup lower and bridge cranked higher that would really help the balance. Hmmmmm... :umhmm

 

[hogy1]

Rolph Pickup Prices

There seems to be some confusion about the prices of the J.M. Rolph PAF type pickups. The correct suggested retail is $400.00 per pair. Jim says he will only sell direct to those who don't live near one of his dealers. If you do live near a dealer, he will refer you there. hogy