November 3rd, 2006, 02:49 PM
I'm posting a lot of questions about H/B's, I want to get all the facts straight so bear with me.
Can anybody tell me what the difference is between covered and non-covered humbuckers? Is there a difference in tonal quality and the tone produced? Which would be better to use if I wanted to replace the neck pickup on my Tele and use it for rock lead?
November 3rd, 2006, 04:51 PM
Covered, a humbucker has slightly less highs.
Some pick-ups sound better covered, some uncovered (SD Pearly Gates) some sound great but different the same, and some sound like s#*t no matter what.
If you want a humbucker for lead in the neck I'd go with the cover ON
That's because you don't need that much highs, expecially with a generally bright guitar like a tele if you want to go lead, and without you may sound a bit harsh. You may like the extra sparkle of the uncovered for rhitmics though.
It's up to you to decide, anyway adding or removing the cover is a matter ov very little work and time.
November 3rd, 2006, 07:48 PM
I equate covering a humber to permanently turning your tone control to 8.
you lose some highs, and a tiny bit of output (unless the cover is a magnetic material)
November 4th, 2006, 11:42 PM
After reading this post, I don't feel so bad about my ES-335 having uncovered SD 59's. My guitar is Tobacco sunburst (small shaded area in the center; like a 30's Gibson archtop), and the p/u's are black. It doesn't look right to me.
I read somewhere that Eric Clapton had a preference for uncovered HB's tone-wise.I couldn't stand the tone of my ES-335's stock "Dirty Fingers", so I switched the stock ceramic/high-output p/u's with aftermarket SD 59's.
PS: Nickel covers look better to me.