| Author |
Topic: Interesting Rickenbacker vs. Supro tone comparison |
Paul Hoaglin
|
Posted 15 Nov 2014 7:15 am |
|
Just the other day I finally had my Rickenbacker 100 (I think - early '60s) and Supro lap steels together and and out and playable for the first time ever, and decided to compare the two side by side. Very interesting. I knew that the Rick seemed to have a "mellower" tone than I would have imagined, but boy, compared to the Supro (which I know is unfair because the pickup designs and body materials are so drastically different), it's like a hollowbody Gibson on the neck pickup compared to a Tele on the bridge! I remain very surprised that the horseshoe has such a mellow tone - I have extensive experience with one in a Ricky bass from my past life as a mediocre (but somehow professional) bassist, but it sounds way different in this guitar than that.
The output is nice and loud, so I don't think the magnets are losing charge, but if recharging them might help add a little bite to it, I'm all for it. I also wonder what the body is actually made of (seems to be be some sort of composite) and think that might be another big factor, if not in fact the biggest one. I thought the bakelite bridge and nut were also partial culprits, but I had an aluminium bridge from a parted-out 8-string and swapped it in, and the difference in tone and feel was negligible. (It's staying on for now, though.)
I will say, though, that the Rick makes me want to push myself toward learning the "real" Hawaiian styles and tunings, since it does have a sound very conducive to it. (I even changed strings and put C6/A7 on it, and that's going to be a lot of fun to play around on - up to now, I've only ever really played in a rock/blues slide-type style on lap steel.) But I know that Jerry Byrd, for instance, got more bite out of his various Rickies than I'm getting out of mine, and there's no way I could do David Lindley-style on it, even with a fuzzbox. I guess subconsciously that's why I hung on to the Supro all these years! But I'd really love to get more top end and attack out of the Rick without having to add some sort of pedal.
Heretical as it sounds, I'm considering at least trying a different pickup in the Rick. (No, I'm not going to sell the horsie!) But I do want to see how much of a role it's playing vs. construction. The other crazy idea I had was to build a new identical body out of a nice tone wood, or even out of something else, and transplant everything onto it. Just when I thought I had a rough idea about what factors influence tone, I realise how little I really do know.... |
|
|
|
chris ivey
From:
california (deceased)
|
Posted 15 Nov 2014 1:04 pm
|
|
my 38 rick is so 'bitey' it's hard to tame. very loud sharp tone.
i need a small warm tube amp...(for free) |
|
|
|
John Limbach
From:
Billings, Montana, USA
|
Posted 15 Nov 2014 2:39 pm
|
|
Chris:
I love my 1950 B6D but unless I roll the tone pot nearly all the way back, it is, as you say, "bitey". Very, very bitey. There is only a very, very small sweet spot on the tone pot between "bitey" and "muddy". |
|
|
|
Paul Hoaglin
|
Posted 15 Nov 2014 3:28 pm
|
|
Veddy interesting. I'm starting to think it's the body more than the pickup. Bakelite would logically be more "bitey". (Also the 1.5" magnet versus the 1.25" maybe.) And mine is the "great speckled bird" finish, and I swear that under there it's more like MDF than real wood. Hard to tell, because the finish covers everything except the screw holes, but everything inside those holes looks suspiciously uniform and un-wood-grain-like.
I tried an experiment just now of swapping in the magnet from a "hi-gain" Rick bass pickup, and it might have added a little bit of top and/or gain, but certainly not a whole lot. I'm too lazy to switch it back yet, so I may live with it for a little while and see how I like it, but the horseshoes will very possibly go back in - or maybe something completely different if I can whip something up.
Too bad I don't have the resources to pony up for a "Panda"!  |
|
|
|
chris ivey
From:
california (deceased)
|
Posted 16 Nov 2014 10:04 am
|
|
| john..i'm glad you mentioned that sweet spot because mine's the same. treble rolls off quickly to bass, and there is just a small spot that is right. |
|
|
|
Todd Clinesmith
From:
Lone Rock Free State Oregon
|
Posted 16 Nov 2014 10:34 am
|
|
I suggest getting the magnets re zapped before trying a new pickup. I bet those magnets are at 1/2 charge by this time in it's life.
I or Rick Aiello offer these services.
Those Bakelite guitars can take a bit of right and left hand control to get you to sound good. When I got my first Bakelite it taught me a lot about right hand technique.
Todd |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 17 Nov 2014 6:31 am
|
|
Circa 1960's ....
A couple things immediately come to mind ...
#1 ... The magnets are poor quality ... The good cobalt steel NOS 1.25" from the mid '40's ... By far the most consistent and high quality hardened cobalt steel magnets (aka "T-logo" ) ... Was gone ... And the "Hall era" steel used for the magnets in the 60's (steel guitar and bass guitar magnets) were ... Crap 
#2 ... The magnet wire used was 42 AWG ... To get more of the "Fender Sound" which became the "standard sound" of steel guitars in that era ... Moving away from the 38 AWG that made Rickenbacher, Bigsby and early Gibson Charlie Christians steel guitars famous ...
I have a late 50's SW6 ... A wood body 1.25" horseshoe equipped steel that is "stellar" sounding ... 255 gauss magnets ... 1.65 k Ohm coil ... It' "hang" with any frypan, Bakelite of Silver in my arsenal ...
But I've also redone many late 50's/early 60's steels ... Particularly the big "wooden box" double/triple necks ... That had these "sub-par" horseshoe pickups (magnets and coil) ... Especially, 8 or 10 stringers from the "Hall Era" ... That just can't be lumped in with frypans, bakelites, etc ... From the early 30's to the mid 50's ...
Don't feel bad, if you have a unit that's not "up to par" .. Some prewars were inferior also ...
In terms of horseshoe magnets themselves ... There are a lot of prewar 1.5" horseshoes that were not cobalt steel ... Which "saturated" at about 130 gauss (probe place mid gap) ... Where the good cobalt ones were in the 230 gauss range ... The best were the "T-logo" 1.25" from the mid 40's to early 50's ... Which consistently measure in the 250 gauss range when fully charged ...
38 AWG of course .. DC resistance around 1.5 k Ohm for a six stringer ...
You can't judge a "Rickenbacher" just because it is a "Rickenbacher" .. .. There are too many "incarnations" that existed between '31 and '58 ...
Hope that helps  |
|
|
|
Tom Pettingill
From:
California, USA (deceased)
|
|
|
|
Paul Hoaglin
|
Posted 18 Nov 2014 4:15 pm
|
|
Thanks, Rick and Todd - not sure how to objectively measure the magnets, but I threw them into a bass with a 7.5k coil just to see how they'd do, and it sounded wonderful to me, and good and hot (but then again I have a very specific criteria for "horseshoe tone" in a bass - bass-cut cap in place, split in stereo, Rotosound roundwound strings, the whole Chris Squire nonsense). The magnets also pick up and hold small ferrous-metal objects with little or no problem (like larger-size hex wrenches). But it's possible that they're down in magnetism quite a bit from what's ideal in a lap.
It's good to know about all those changes that went into the "Hall era". I'm not too attached to the bobbin either per se, and the fact that the tone didn't change too terribly much with a different magnet tells me that maybe it's not the right bobbin for me either. But a lot of it, I swear, comes from the guitar itself - it just "feels" weird and resonant, and in not a particularly good or "toneful" way, purely acoustically. The trick is to get the best combination of electronics to turn a seeming disadvantage into an advantage. Still mulling all that over - makes for a good project while my health slowly recovers! |
|
|
|
