Pickup Magnets - How Big A Difference?

Nomad

For a given pickup, how much difference in tone can be expected by changing the magnet type?

In my case, I have Wilkinson WVC PAF replicas which are fitted with Alnico 5 magnets. These are wound with 42-gauge wire, have nickel-silver bases and covers, and the coils have the same DC resistance on each bobbin (ie, not offset). Neck is 7K and bridge is 8K.

If I were to swap the magnets to Alnico 2, which is supposed to be "sweeter" than Alnico 5, is the difference likely to be substantial, or is this something that's rather subtle and might take some time to become evident?

meltedbuzzbox

Nomad said:

For a given pickup, how much difference in tone can be expected by changing the magnet type?

In my case, I have Wilkinson WVC PAF replicas which are fitted with Alnico 5 magnets. These are wound with 42-gauge wire, have nickel-silver bases and covers, and the coils have the same DC resistance on each bobbin (ie, not offset). Neck is 7K and bridge is 8K.

If I were to swap the magnets to Alnico 2, which is supposed to be "sweeter" than Alnico 5, is the difference likely to be substantial, or is this something that's rather subtle and might take some time to become evident?

I have been told that the true difference comes from the wind not the magnet.

A magnet change will be subtle.

So I am told anyway. 

@TheGuitarWeasel is the man to ask

ICBM

Very obvious straight away.

For a good comparison, listen to the Seymour Duncan clips of the Custom, Custom Custom and Custom 5, which are all the same pickup apart from the magnets - ceramic, Alnico II and Alnico V respectively.

Forge

Check this thread for an alnico 4 modded Jaguar: http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/22917/ngd-and-modded-blizzard-pearl-fender-jaguar#latest

If you are working from a PAF type pickups you can really alter your sound with magnets. In bridge I tend to prefer Alnico 2 but for the neck position this type of magnet can lack clarity. Alnico 5 give you more definition but to my favourite there is Alnico 4 as it is between the 2: more clarity with a better balanced EQ than the A5.

Megii

I'll wait with interest for the experts on here to give their views, but my own belief, just from trying various pickups in various guitars over the years, is that if you are reasonably sensitive to tone, you should be able to hear a clear difference - perhaps subtle, but not all that subtle, I'd say. I've found I really like alnico 2 or 3 in whatever type of pickup - I think they are sweeter sounding, and don't have quite as heavy a bass response as alnico 5, which is all to my taste. Other factors involved in the final tone of course etc. etc. but this is what I'm inclined to believe, rightly or wrongly!

Adam_MD

ICBM;342341" said:

Very obvious straight away.

For a good comparison, listen to the Seymour Duncan clips of the Custom, Custom Custom and Custom 5, which are all the same pickup apart from the magnets - ceramic, Alnico II and Alnico V respectively.

+1 the difference between alnico 2 and 5 is very noticeable.

Nomad

Sounds like it's worth doing some experiments, then. Anyone used the magnets from Cermag? I ordered two each of A2,4,5, and 8 in PAF size...

http://www.cermag.co.uk/buy_guitar_pickup_magnet.html

Forge

Nomad said:

Sounds like it's worth doing some experiments, then. Anyone used the magnets from Cermag? I ordered two each of A2,4,5, and 8 in PAF size...

http://www.cermag.co.uk/buy_guitar_pickup_magnet.html

Yes, they are very good and fit perfectly.

guitarfishbay

I do not think it is subtle. I've tried the Duncan c5 and custom in the same guitar - same pickup wind but different magnet. The difference was not subtle to me.

mike_l

 Ceramics are a bit too powerful for normal guitar parts, better for high-gain stuff. IMO not great in the bridge position -too brittle.

Alnico2 are great in the right situation, so Blues-rock, Southern rock 70's pop etc Think Billy Gibbons.

Alnico5 (my favourites) are great for riff-laden rock/metal and general playing. 

I have 4 guitars with Alnico5 bridge pickups, 3 have ceramic neck pickups.

 

Van_Hayden

Cermag are very good, not vintage cast but very consistent modern magnets.


II, V and ceramic is pretty clear, but depends how tuned in you are.

Nomad

Alrighty, I think I'll try the A2 in both pickups first and see what I think. As things stand with A5, I quite like the tone of the neck pickup, but I feel the bridge is lacking - it's brighter but seems somewhat sterile.

A not-unrelated question...

The guitar is a Vintage Lemon Drop with the reversed neck pickup. On this pickup, the magnet is not reversed (both have north towards the pole pieces). The pickup wiring was reversed, and I've since changed it back to normal. Am I right in thinking that rotating the pickup so that the pole pieces are towards the neck will have no effect (or negligible) on the sound? In other words, if there's no magnetic or electrical inversion, it doesn't particularly matter which way round the pickup is?

OilCityPickups

Magnets are the broad tool for changing pickup sounds ... I use the subtlety of winds and scatter patterns to fine tune the big brush strokes.
Cermag are great, as Hayden says,for modern mags ... Addiction FX do small quantities of rough cast stuff for enthusiasts ... as do Mojotone.

ThePrettyDamned

TheGuitarWeasel;342687" said:

Magnets are the broad tool for changing pickup sounds ... I use the subtlety of winds and scatter patterns to fine tune the big brush strokes.

Cermag are great, as Hayden says,for modern mags ... Addiction FX do small quantities of rough cast stuff for enthusiasts ... as do Mojotone.

What's rough cast?

Jez6345789

The general view is rough cast smooth out the high end so best used in a bridge and can sound a bit dull in the neck depending on the other parts being equal. My ibanez super 70,s feature polished in the neck and rough cast in the bridge and they date from the super 70's :-) so not a new concept.

OilCityPickups

Okay, in the fifties they used rough, sand cast magnets that weren't ground and polished like modern ones. They are said to have softer, more tuneful characteristics. The original PAF was sand cast alnico 4 ... allegedly :-)

Van_Hayden

Don't mention the PAF word!

jpfamps

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Okay, in the fifties they used rough, sand cast magnets that weren't ground and polished like modern ones. They are said to have softer, more tuneful characteristics. The original PAF was sand cast alnico 4 ... allegedly :-)

What's the thinking behind this?

Is it due to how the flux lines emanate from the magnet surface due to the rough surface of the magnet?

I assume the magnets are magnetized after polishing, so I can't see how the polishing could affect the level of magnatization

ICBM

I think it's due to them being made like that in the 50s, therefore they must sound better.

imalone

Can imagine the crystal structure of cast versus sintered (are the modern ones sintered?) might be different.
(Yes, for once the crystal lattice may be relevant!)

What about alnico 8s? I know there are some people out there using them.

ThePrettyDamned

imalone said:

Can imagine the crystal structure of cast versus sintered (are the modern ones sintered?) might be different.
(Yes, for once the crystal lattice may be relevant!)

What about alnico 8s? I know there are some people out there using them.

Including our own @theguitarweasel...

I've nver used or seen a pickup with them, but I very nearly got a set of alnico 8's from OCP.