The placing of Thunderbird II pickup

[dadagoboi]

Now that is strange. According to your previous calculations:
276.22500 mm

And the scheme above shows that there are 10 11/16 inches (271.4625 mm) from the 12th fret to the centerline of the neck pickup.
That is a difference of 4.7625 mm. And it is the latter that made me to renew this thread (after I found that picture and compared it to results of my previous insvestigation)

Gibson mislocated the bridge by 1/4" on both the Reverses and NRs.  Are you going to do that with your build to be historically accurate?

Seriously, because of the mislocation of the bridge on both Reverses and NRs I believe the dimensions were supposed to be the same.  The discrepancy is probably due to the set neck, either where the pocket was cut or the length of the neck heel or both.  I think we've seen some sloppiness there.  With a neck through there's less of a chance for variation in dimensions, though fretboard placement could be a factor.

Let's measure ALL the NRs and do a pie chart.  Lemon meringue.

[vates]

This particular measure is from a presumably stable 12th-fret. It is a constant that does not relate to bridge re-positioning and fretboard ends' cuts. Perhaps, Gibson moved the neck pickup closer to the well neck on NRs. That is possible, because on later reverse birds it crawled even further north. However, this comment somewhat ruins such hypothesis:

Quote from: vates on July 15, 2013, 06:03:39 AM
Uwe, could you please check if the placing on your reverse-Tbird II is similar to the scheme above?



It is. Exakt dasselbe.

[dadagoboi]

This particular measure is from a presumably stable 12th-fret. It is a constant that does not relate to bridge re-positioning and fretboard ends' cuts. Perhaps, Gibson moved the neck pickup closer to the well neck on NRs. That is possible, because on later reverse birds it crawled even further north. However, this comment somewhat ruins such hypothesis:

"Presumably stable 12th fret."  Why do you presume that when you're splitting millimeters?

I'm quite aware that bridge positioning has no affect on fret to pup route distance. I used that as an example of Gibson's ineptitude at not correcting the bridge misposition when switching over from Revs to NRs. I didn't say end cuts, I was referring to placement of the fretboard on the neck which would affect 12th fret distance to a pup route.

Perhaps Gibson moved the pickup purposely but I seriously doubt it.  Do you have actual knowledge of woodworking techniques and tolerances or are you strictly a theorist?

[vates]

AFAIK, Gibson misaligned the bridge on T-Birds due to the bad engineering of the bridge design: they did not take into account the mutes (maybe that bridge was designed without mutes and then thy added mutes due to marketing reasons: I've encountered different interpretations). So they had to move the bridge a little bit further on the final blueprints.
On the other hand, the calculation of the fretboard's part of the scale were consistent: so the position of the 12th fret should be stable on all T-Birds, rev. or non-rev.

And the only thing that matters in terms of sound is the position of a pickup in relation to the scale. So we should look at the scale's constant, 12th fret. What's wrong with that?

[vates]

If you want to pick nits look at it again. If the front edge of the pickup is at 10" and the back edge is at 11 1/2" the centerline must be 10 3/4 or it is not the center line, it is the off-center line

You're right. All those measures don't correspond to each other. For example, pickups' widths are different, and their centerlines are all over the place. Gonna forget about this picture and stick to the initial data

[Dave W]

This reminds me of a very similar discussion on the Wishbass forum.

No doubt a few millimeters can make a huge difference in the nuanced tone of a Wishbass. 

Do they also discuss the effect of a tone knob that's not connected to the circuit?

[uwe]

This particular measure is from a presumably stable 12th-fret. It is a constant that does not relate to bridge re-positioning and fretboard ends' cuts. Perhaps, Gibson moved the neck pickup closer to the well neck on NRs. That is possible, because on later reverse birds it crawled even further north. However, this comment somewhat ruins such hypothesis:

This discussion is beyond the capacities of my mind but I would like to state for the record:

- I only measured to the front edge of the neck pup.

- On my Non Reverse Birds (both my 66 and my 67) that front edge is 5 mm closer to the 20th fret than on my 64 and 65 Rev Birds - it is a factor for the bassier sound that Non Revs have and are often liked for.

[dadagoboi]

AFAIK, Gibson misaligned the bridge on T-Birds due to the bad engineering of the bridge design: they did not take into account the mutes (maybe that bridge was designed without mutes and then thy added mutes due to marketing reasons: I've encountered different interpretations). So they had to move the bridge a little bit further on the final blueprints.
On the other hand, the calculation of the fretboard's part of the scale were consistent: so the position of the 12th fret should be stable on all T-Birds, rev. or non-rev.

And the only thing that matters in terms of sound is the position of a pickup in relation to the scale. So we should look at the scale's constant, 12th fret. What's wrong with that?

IMO mutes have little to do with the bridge in the wrong place.  Incompetence or indifference are the culprits.  Someone should have checked the prototype and made adjustment.

Pickup choice is going to have a lot more to do with sound than a few mm either way in location.  Will you be using Reverse or NR pickups?...they're different, in part to Gibson's inconsistency, no revolution counter on their pickup winder.  They were wound to a timer monitored by the operator and the number of winds varied according to how attentive they were.  This is well documented.  When Gibson quit winding pickups Seymour Duncan bought the winding machines and installed counters.

Then we can talk about wood choice- are you using genuine Honduras?   Big difference between that and what passes for mahogany these days and it does affect sound.  Then the finish argument, fret width, strings etc. ad nauseum.

- On my Non Reverse Birds (both my 66 and my 67) that front edge is 5 mm closer to the 20th fret than on my 64 and 65 Rev Birds - it is a factor for the bassier sound that Non Revs have and are often liked for.

-The bassier sound has a lot more to do with the overwound NR pickups which reduce high end output.  Very similar to any overwound humbucker.

[vates]

Thank you all for your suggestions! Other issues like woods, pickup type, finish etc. will be disclosed in a dedicated build thread.

Here I wanted to get the exact figure for the neck pickup position of '64 TBird II.

The most valuable info was provided already on the first page:

3 1/4" from the fretboard to the side of the neck pup on the sixties ones, 3" on the Bicentennials, 2 1/2" on the post 87 ones. It crept forward over time.

One reason I am not a big fan of the modern Thunderbird is the neck pickup placement. 3 1/4" from the base of the neck to the front edge of the pickup is the optimum location at least for me.

Voilà, from the 20th fret to the front edge of the neck pup in metric:
Sixties bird: 9,5 cm
Bicentennial: 9,0 cm
Post-87 Bird: 7,8 cm

On both of my 64s (a II and a IV): from the center of the 12th fret to the centerline of the pickup, 10 7/8" (277mm).

The centerline of the 12th fret wire.

The picture of the non-rev bird with different figures just confused everything.

[uwe]

"On my Non Reverse Birds (both my 66 and my 67) that front edge is 5 mm closer to the 20th fret than on my 64 and 65 Rev Birds - it is a factor for the bassier sound that Non Revs have and are often liked for.


-The bassier sound has a lot more to do with the overwound NR pickups which reduce high end output.  Very similar to any overwound humbucker.

You learn something new everyday. You mean sixties Non-Revs have different pups to sixties Revs?   Because my sixties Non-Revs sound bassier than my two sixties Revs. No comparison to a modern - and here so often unjustly derided - TB Plus though (whether on a Rev or a Non Rev). The love for vintage pups is inherently nostalgic IMHO, there I said it.

[dadagoboi]

You learn something new everyday. You mean sixties Non-Revs have different pups to sixties Revs? 

Yeah, that's why I got Steve to make ThunderBuckers in various specifications: '63 (Reverse) and '66 (NR).  The number of copper winds is greater on the NRs.  More winds equal darker and louder.  That may have been a conscious decision by Gibson, all the NR (chrome) pickups I've seen are hotter than the Rev ones.  Basically the bridge Rev is a neck NR and the NR bridge proportionally hotter.

Then we went on to the MAX (Scott's favorite) which is overwound as much as possible using original thin wire (over 2 miles per pickup) and hotter Alnico magnets.  Because of that a MAX is 3db hotter than a '66, twice the output.  It's old technology taken as far as it can be.

[Rob]

Then we went on to the MAX (Scott's favorite) which is overwound as much as possible using original thin wire (over 2 miles per pickup) and hotter Alnico magnets.  Because of that a MAX is 3db hotter than a '66, twice the output.
Dayum!  That is a LOT HOEER.  I have watched the discussions but didn't realize just how much overdrive there could be.

[dadagoboi]

Anything worth doing is worth overdoing!

[Highlander]

Guilty as charged...

So where does the Mudbucker figure in the overwound status of pups in general...? They are 2x15k iirc ...?

[Dave W]

Guilty as charged...

So where does the Mudbucker figure in the overwound status of pups in general...? They are 2x15k iirc ...?

Mudbucker is hugely overwound and is a different design, doesn't sound like any T-bird pickup.