Unoriented A5 too thick and round, solution?

[Hydra19]

I have a bridge Seymour Duncan Antiquity, in which the degaussed A2 weren't cutting it so I tried an unknown polished A5 in there, which sounded better, but a lot like a 59'.

I tried an unoriented A5, which looks like it's polished, and it's great for leads, but on chords it's too thick in the lower mids, they take over the treble and it sounds great for heavy rhythm but I'd like to be able to bring out the highs a little bit more.

Would a roughcast A5 or an A4 bring back some treble bite? If anyone had an experience when a UOA5 in the bridge was too thick, what did you do? Thank you

 

[Zoobiedood]

I would think that the polished A5 would have the most treble short of a ceramic magnet. A roughcast A5 won't add more treble, but sort of changes the mids a bit.

 

[Hydra19]

I would think that the polished A5 would have the most treble short of a ceramic magnet. A roughcast A5 won't add more treble, but sort of changes the mids a bit.

Thank you, I'm trying them out through different amps, but think I'll bite the bullet and just try it. I don't think the UOA5 doesn't have treble, but more like the mid and low-mids overpower it so maybe a change in the mids will help. I do prefer the UOA5 to the A5 so far

 

[hamerfan]

I do a lot tinkering with pickups and had great results with Ants (i have two pairs, but not a single one with stock mags.) I would recommend polished A4 or/and 1022 screws. The A4 cuts the bass, which brings out the mids and highs, while the higher carbon content of screws boost the treble.
RC A5 has very little to none difference to a polished A5 imo.

 

[ReWind James]

Specifically on rough/polished magnets:

Polishing (which is really surface grinding) a magnet isn't going to change its sound. Folks like me use rough cast magnets because that's what Gibson used but, honestly, there's no advantage, other than to the foundry who has to do less work. They can be more difficult to work with, as they are less consistent in size/shape. Gibson had the same problem, also, and many of the magnets in PAFs and later humbuckers are technically rough, but ground flat on several edges to bring them into spec, making them essentially polished.

Rough magnets can make a sonic difference if the surface is rough on one of the polar faces. We see this in the first bar magnets Gibson used in lap steel pickups, then later in P-90s. Because one side of the magnet faced the outside of the pickup, touching nothing, and only the South side touched the keeper bar in the middle, connected to the pole screws, there was no need to spend resources polishing the North face, as it contacted nothing. This could make a difference in some of those early (and also some very rare later ones I've seen) PAFs which ended up with these magnets in them. In that case, the rough polar face does contact the slugs. If it's rough enough, it will essentially create an air gap, which will change the sound. This situation is seriously rare in vintage Gibson, though. Most times, those magnets with only one (South) polar surface ground flat were reserved for P-90s, because the rough North face of the magnet would create tolerance/fit issues in humbuckers. Gibson either ground that North face flat to use in a humbucker or left those magnets for single coils.

Just trying to educate a bit here - the reason for using rough cast magnets, versus ground/polished, in modern PAF reproductions is the same reason for using maple or mahogany spacers, versus plastic. Vintage-accuracy. If you're messing around with non-PAFs and non-PAF-replicas, there's no reason to fuss over the surface texture of a magnet. You'll have a much easier time working with the smooth ones that all fit the same.

Now, AlNiCo magnets will often sound different depending on the source foundry. Different foundries use different methods, tolerances, and elemental mixes within a spec, and heating/cooling treatments for their magnets. Some of us specify those to achieve certain physical traits and sonic voicings in pickups. Shopping for various magnets based on their source - that does make sense as not all A5 or A2, etc. sounds the same, or even close.

 

[ReWind James]

@Hydra19 - are you saying you didn't like the long oriented A5 or the long unoriented A5 but you want something that sounds in the middle of the two? - if that's the case, you might get there with a different charge on one of those two magnets you already have or by another foundery's / supplier's A5. A short A5 will be a little warmer than the long version of the same alloy/treatment/charge.

I had a little trouble following your question, so sorry if I missed the mark, there.

IN GENERAL (and like I said above, not all A5, A4, etc. magnets are equal and can sound VERY different from one supplier to the next) A4 will have more midrange, less of that crisp upper-mids/lower treble, and a punchier/tighter and more dynamic sound than A5 types, with about the same output.

 

[jlee]

I have a long unoriented Illinois A5 from Throbak. I don’t find it too thick in the lows or mids at all and it has a nice treble response. It’s in the MHS bridge pickup in my ‘63 ES335 RI.

Part of the equation could be the guitar. I had a Tokai that was an absolute T-Rex and was hard to tame. Some low wind pickups probably could have helped, but there was always a low and low mid emphasis there regardless of which pickups were in there. A4s did help quite a bit to tame some of the excessive lows, but I’m not sure if it was the whole package(Shed Supernaturals) or just the A4s.

In my experience they tend to accentuate the upper mids. The Wizz set I had in a semi hollow really accentuated the upper mids in that guitar, which leaned toward the brighter side of things. My OX4 set in a LS80 also has a brighter upper midrange tone, but I don’t find them as ear fatiguing as the Wizz.

 

[hamerfan]

What cooljuk and AbbeS said. If its treble what you want, try the 1022 screws.

 

[ReWind James]

Here's a 1960's Gibson "rough cast" magnet:

As you can see in the one above, some of the magnets had to be ground pretty aggressively on all sides (even the ends) to reduce the size to spec, leaving the surfaces nearly perfectly smooth. This is an extreme example, and not the average look, but many are like this.



On the other hand, you can see some magnets like this from a very early No-Deacal 1957 PAF were not ground flat on the North polar face at all, as they were originally destined for P-90s where this side made no contact.

 

[Hydra19]

Thanks. I put in a roughcast A5 and I like it more than the polished or unoriented A5. To my ears there is a difference in sound with the roughcast and polished mags but I also did not buy them from the same supplier, one came with the pickup.
Anyway, the sound lost some of the low mid thickness and is more rock n rolly, with the treble cutting enough. The UOA5 had a very unique lead tone, dynamic, and warm. This is a bit sizzlier, not as warm but at least cuts through enough.

I also have a roughcast A2 to try in the future, but for now, i really think this Ant sounds the best with a roughcast A5. Now I want more Les Pauls so I can have one with each alnico grade

 

[ReWind James]

I don't think it got mentioned earlier so it's also worth mentioning that one could take three A5 magnets that are exactly the same, from the same foundry/batch, and charge them to different strengths and have three different sounding magnets.

Likely, when one experiences a difference in sound between a polished magnet and a rough cast magnet of the same type/size the differences in sound are because they magnets came from different foundries that used different elemental mixtures, processing methods, tolerances, or the magnets are simply not charged to the same strength. Two polished magnets, or two rough cast magnets, each from different foundries, would most certainly also provide different sounds.

Glad you got some sounds you like from the pickup! Magnets are fun, indeed! Always have been for me. I never grew out of that fascination.