LPStudio 2014

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
Howdy. This LP has 490R & T. I like them a lot and have a sound that I really like however I do find the treble strings to be a bit piercing.
I've reduced Presence and Treble where I could without taking away from the sound I want and have not solved the problem.
I'm thinking I have to raise the strings or lower on the treble side the pick ups.
Any suggestions and experiences that could be shared much appreciated.
Thank you.
BP
 

TheDams

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
36
Reaction score
31
Howdy. This LP has 490R & T. I like them a lot and have a sound that I really like however I do find the treble strings to be a bit piercing.
I've reduced Presence and Treble where I could without taking away from the sound I want and have not solved the problem.
I'm thinking I have to raise the strings or lower on the treble side the pick ups.
Any suggestions and experiences that could be shared much appreciated.
Thank you.
BP

You sure can lower the treble side a tad (to your taste) and... use tone pots :cool:
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
You sure can lower the treble side a tad (to your taste) and... use tone pots :cool:

Thank you TD. Yes sure I've got the tone pot down a few notches but don't want to lose the over all character of the sound.
So your suggestion would be to lower the pick up a tad as opposed to raising the strings.?
BP
 

musicmaniac

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
9,647
Reaction score
4,947
Lower the pup or if you haven't adjust the pole pieces that may work.
 

scozz

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,659
Reaction score
6,139
Lower the pup or if you haven't adjust the pole pieces that may work.


Some combination of these two adjustments should do the trick.

Did you mean to say the pickups are 490r/490t or do you mean 490r/498t?
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
Some combination of these two adjustments should do the trick.

Did you mean to say the pickups are 490r/490t or do you mean 490r/498t?


The 2014 Studio is equipped with 2 x 490's ( T & R )
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
I am not convinced that the lowering of the pick ups on the treble side worked enuff.
I can lower them some more I guess. Was wondering if smaller gauge strings would help to solve that problem? Currently use 9's and was thinking about using Rev Willy's 7's.
Do you think that would lower the treble dominance?
 

PAPADON

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
355
Reaction score
593
What speakers are you using. I used to have lot's of "ice pick" tone issues with my guitars and tried everything from pickup adjustments to beam blockers and amp settings to no avail. Finally out of desperation and after having done some research I decided to try some speaker swaps. Eminence "Texas Heats" in my Twin and "Ragin Cajun" in my Blues Junior and Super Champ XD. Problems solved all around.
 

T22

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
186
Reaction score
84
I have the same thing with my Studio '16 T. Its due to the modern weight relief IMO. I don't have the issue with my Studio '04 which is Swiss cheese weight relief.

I tend keep the PU switch in the middle position and turn down the rhythm PU, instead of switching to 'Treble.'
 

Jymbopalyse

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
8,071
Reaction score
18,308
Another solution might be to change the tone capacitor. A while back I read a post somewhere else that I thought explained the "theory" of using different cap values excellently. I'll paste it here for you.

>>>>
Lower value caps = less treble rolloff as you turn down...or, rather, a rolloff of higher and higher frequencies, making it so as you go down in value, less and less of the midrange is lost when you turn down the pot.

Imagine a graphic equalizer with 20 bands, low frequencies on the left and high frequencies on the right. For sake of illustration, let's say a 0.047mF cap causes the tone knob to pull down sliders 9-20, leaving 1-8 unchanged. Then a 0.022 cap would change it so that the tone knob only pulls down sliders 13-20, leaving 1-12 unchanged. And a 0.01 cap would only pull down sliders 17-20, leaving 1-16 unchanged. See what I mean? As you go farther down with cap value, the cutoff point for what frequencies the pot will affect is shoved to the right.

That is why I prefer lower values for the most part. They make so your tone knobs pull out only the higher frequencies, while leaving the lower ones unmolested. The tone knob becomes more like a treble reducer than a treble and midrange reducer.

It's a matter of trial/experimentation to find what works for you. I keep going lower with cap values until I get tones at both 0 and 10 that I might actually use from time to time. That places my "normal" tone somewhere in between the two.

250K pots and 0.047mF caps might work OK in some twisted electronics tech's mind, but not in reality IME. IMO it is too much rolloff, even for something like a '50's wind Strat bridge pickup. It makes your tone pots practically unusable for anything but a heavily muffled jazzy tone. I just realized that that dumbass combo came stock in my Aerodyne Tele, and got rid of it. I went to 500K pots, and tried 0.022 caps, but still too much rolloff for me. I can use the tone controls down to about 5 (which is an improvement), but anything lower is too muffled. 0.01's are the next step, and I would have gone straight to them if I had had them lying around instead of the 0.022's. But at any rate, the guitar actually has a usable neck pickup now!

My favorite combo for most humbucker equipped guitars is a 1Meg pot and a 0.01mF cap, and 500K/0.01mF for Fender single coils.

<<<<<<<

This is much better than I could have explained it.
 

ttbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
848
Reaction score
420
I wouldn't change your string height or string gauge to get rid of that. Too much of a compromise, in my book. I also have found that smaller gauge strings sound tinnier which would be worse. I have the opposite problem with my neck pickup and have played with the height and such, but it is still not exactly what I want. I plan to change out the pickup, one of these days. I use a modeler, so I have more adjustments and options than people using stand-alone amps, so I have been getting by with creating presets.

I wouldn't worry about the weight relief on your guitar... Look at the electronics.
 

Dash

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
115
Reaction score
109
Try lowering the individual pole pieces on the treble side of the pickup a little bit at a time until you get what you are looking for. Also experiment with different combinations of settings with the volume and tone knobs.
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
What speakers are you using. I used to have lot's of "ice pick" tone issues with my guitars and tried everything from pickup adjustments to beam blockers and amp settings to no avail. Finally out of desperation and after having done some research I decided to try some speaker swaps. Eminence "Texas Heats" in my Twin and "Ragin Cajun" in my Blues Junior and Super Champ XD. Problems solved all around.

Thank you Papadon. No not a speaker issue. Using the WGS ET65
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
I have the same thing with my Studio '16 T. Its due to the modern weight relief IMO. I don't have the issue with my Studio '04 which is Swiss cheese weight relief.

I tend keep the PU switch in the middle position and turn down the rhythm PU, instead of switching to 'Treble.'

Ah the modern weight relief you figure. Well yes I guess it could be. Interesting solution you have there. So you turn the neck pick up completely off, leaving only the bridge p/u engaged and you have found that the prominent treble is lessened to some degree?
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
I wouldn't change your string height or string gauge to get rid of that. Too much of a compromise, in my book. I also have found that smaller gauge strings sound tinnier which would be worse. I have the opposite problem with my neck pickup and have played with the height and such, but it is still not exactly what I want. I plan to change out the pickup, one of these days. I use a modeler, so I have more adjustments and options than people using stand-alone amps, so I have been getting by with creating presets.

I wouldn't worry about the weight relief on your guitar... Look at the electronics.
Thank you ttbit. When you say electronics you are referring to what precisely? Pick ups, pots, caps ?
I'm pretty sure an EQ pedal will solve my problem just by lowering the high end frequencies but I hesitate to spend the money on one if there is a more basic fix.
What's your opinion on the EQ solution?
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
Try lowering the individual pole pieces on the treble side of the pickup a little bit at a time until you get what you are looking for. Also experiment with different combinations of settings with the volume and tone knobs.

Thanks Dash. The knob solution is going to affect my overall tone which I do not want to do.
Pole pieces may be the solution though.
 

BanditPanda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
449
Reaction score
301
Another solution might be to change the tone capacitor. A while back I read a post somewhere else that I thought explained the "theory" of using different cap values excellently. I'll paste it here for you.

>>>>
Lower value caps = less treble rolloff as you turn down...or, rather, a rolloff of higher and higher frequencies, making it so as you go down in value, less and less of the midrange is lost when you turn down the pot.

Imagine a graphic equalizer with 20 bands, low frequencies on the left and high frequencies on the right. For sake of illustration, let's say a 0.047mF cap causes the tone knob to pull down sliders 9-20, leaving 1-8 unchanged. Then a 0.022 cap would change it so that the tone knob only pulls down sliders 13-20, leaving 1-12 unchanged. And a 0.01 cap would only pull down sliders 17-20, leaving 1-16 unchanged. See what I mean? As you go farther down with cap value, the cutoff point for what frequencies the pot will affect is shoved to the right.

That is why I prefer lower values for the most part. They make so your tone knobs pull out only the higher frequencies, while leaving the lower ones unmolested. The tone knob becomes more like a treble reducer than a treble and midrange reducer.

It's a matter of trial/experimentation to find what works for you. I keep going lower with cap values until I get tones at both 0 and 10 that I might actually use from time to time. That places my "normal" tone somewhere in between the two.

250K pots and 0.047mF caps might work OK in some twisted electronics tech's mind, but not in reality IME. IMO it is too much rolloff, even for something like a '50's wind Strat bridge pickup. It makes your tone pots practically unusable for anything but a heavily muffled jazzy tone. I just realized that that dumbass combo came stock in my Aerodyne Tele, and got rid of it. I went to 500K pots, and tried 0.022 caps, but still too much rolloff for me. I can use the tone controls down to about 5 (which is an improvement), but anything lower is too muffled. 0.01's are the next step, and I would have gone straight to them if I had had them lying around instead of the 0.022's. But at any rate, the guitar actually has a usable neck pickup now!

My favorite combo for most humbucker equipped guitars is a 1Meg pot and a 0.01mF cap, and 500K/0.01mF for Fender single coils.

<<<<<<<

This is much better than I could have explained it.

Thanks for that Jy. Much appreciated !!
 

ttbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
848
Reaction score
420
Thank you ttbit. When you say electronics you are referring to what precisely? Pick ups, pots, caps ?
I'm pretty sure an EQ pedal will solve my problem just by lowering the high end frequencies but I hesitate to spend the money on one if there is a more basic fix.
What's your opinion on the EQ solution?

I think an EQ would be a good start. It would be nice if you had an EQ to use so that you could find out the frequency that is bothering you. I am amazed at how just a little adjustment at a time in an EQ makes a big difference. Oh, and by electronics, I meant all of the above you mentioned.
 

Latest Threads



Top