Tonal diffs between SFI bridge pup placement and SFII placement

1. What are the tonal diffs of the SFI bridge pup placement (is that called "sweet spot"?) and SFII bridge pup placement?

Talking about Bisonic only Starfires.

2. Do these tonal diffs apply to the Newark Street iterations?

There is a thread that I have not looked for in which photo evidence is provided to prove that the "sweet spot" on a SF I is not the same position as the bridge position on a SF II. The last time I played a SF II, I had hair, and I have no real recollection of the tone then compared to the same pickup in a sweet spot SF I.

I also remember a discussion about whether buying a vintage SF II was worth the cost difference compared to a vintage, neck position, SF I. My conclusion was that if you liked the neck position tone there was no reason to upgrade from a I to a II. Several people said they used the neck alone or both much more often than they used the bridge alone. I also think most folks would go for a SF II instead of a neck SF I if price were not an object. At the time of the discussion I don't recall any comparison between a sweet spot I and a SF II.

From my experience with a vintage neck SF I, a vintage sweet spot SF I and a Newark Street SF I, I think the pickup drives the tone more than the location - I'll take a vintage Bisonic over a Newark Street Bisonic no matter what position it is in. However I would expect any conclusions drawn about a sweet spot SF I and a SF II to apply whether all pickups were vintage or all pickups were Newark Street.

If you are asking whether the mahogany Newark Street SF II is a tonal upgrade over a NS SF I, I'd say probably, but not from personal experience or preference.

I've had an early '66 SFI with the 'sweet spot' pickup since I joined this Forum. I am very comfortable with that placement, tonally speaking.
I think I can cut through the mix of a band better with either a bridge or sweet-spot pickup, but other people may have a different experience.

I also owned and played a very clean '67-ish SFII with Bisonics and the suck switch for about 30 minutes at one of the Texas vintage guitar shows. I hated the way it sounded, but I think it was the suck switch and the extra wire instead of the pickup placement. I sold it immediately.

I've also played '90's Guilds SF IIs, '70's JS II basses, albeit not with Bisonics. I never thought that the bridge pickup was in the wrong place on any SF bass.

If you are interested, somebody 'important' told me a long time ago that the SFI sweet spot pickup placement is in the same place (relatively speaking) on a 30" scale as the Fender Precision Bass Pickup is on a 34" scale. If that's true, that's not a bad idea.

I don't know if this will help you find what you are looking for, but I just measured the distance between the center of the 21st fret on my '66 bass and the edge of the Bisonic magnet that is closest to the fingerboard: 5 15/16ths" inches with a metal rule. Call it 6" if you want.

Get some SF II owners to tell you where their Bridge pickup is located in relation to the 21st fret and I think you'll have an idea what the approximate differences are in pickup placement.

By the way, the reason I chose the 21st fret is because everything other point of comparative measurement has variables. There is no guarantee that any other measuring spot will always be the same; bridge dimensions change, saddle intonation points vary from bass to bass and string to string, f-hole placements may vary, etc.

I'm sure you still have hair, somewhere ;-)


Pardon this Guild newbie, what what is the "suck switch", oh master?

Guildedagain said:

I'm sure you still have hair, somewhere ;-)


Pardon this Guild newbie, what what is the "suck switch", oh master?

Click to expand...

Veer. Some time in 1967 Guild introduced a switch on the neck pickup of the Starfire I and II. It had an impact on the tone, and many people said it sucked all of the tone out. Others just said that engaging the switch made the tone suck. A different circuit but similarly functioning switch was marked as the "Deep/Hard" tone switch when it was added to the JS bass line circa 1970 or 71. It inherited the "suck switch" name.

Many folks who had the switch in a Bisonic equipped Starfire have removed it and been much happier with the results. There is a thread documenting the removal from twocorgi's SF II somewhere, with pictures.

No suck.



Suck



Key things to remember are that the switch showed up in 1967 and only effected the neck pickup.

I had a BassVI once that had a switch on it that I think is similar.
Made the bass sound like it was playing through a transistor radio.
Is that what the SF switch did?
I thought that suck meant it sucked all the tone out.

lungimsam said:

I had a BassVI once that had a switch on it that I think is similar.
Made the bass sound like it was playing through a transistor radio.
Is that what the SF switch did?
I thought that suck meant it sucked all the tone out.

Click to expand...

I could argue that the way to make it sound like it was playing through a transistor radio was to suck out the tone

On the JS II (with humbuckers), the circuit is actually a treble cut. In one position it is boomy and sometimes difficult to ascribe a particular pitch to the note. I used to use it a lot when I had serious doubts about my ability to play the right notes. I was still contributing something if the thumping was appropriately rhythmic. In the other position things are much clearer and crisper. You can tell the difference between a low F and an F#.

My ignorance concerning analog circuits is well documented elsewhere and my inability to remember anything correctly is becoming legendary, but I think the SF/Bisonic circuit was intended to to the same kind of thing although it used different technology to do that with the Bisonic. I also think there was a similar switch on some contemporary Gibson basses.

there are extensive threads on the both the suck switch and the sweet spot/bridge position Bisonic. as well as the 70s Guild bass Humbucker and deep hard switch. some brief points and thoughts, based on what ive learned, as a non-expert on all levels:

-the sixties "suck switch" circuit included a "transformer/choke/something(?)" located under the neck pickup, and some additional capacitors near the pots. the transformer/choke is the part that gets bypassed to get rid of the "suck effect." beyond that, there is likely variation in what people have done, or not done, to the rest of the circuit. the "switch" itself (the button on the bass) in many cases is likely left wired up, with those extra caps in the line, and may still do "something" to the tone, especially if desired, and arranged in a way to accomplish such (ie: abandon the transformer then convert the switch to a "bright switch" which has been detailed on this forum). with that said, some people may choose to remove all of the extra caps and just wire it like a "pre-suck switch model" SF Bass altogether. my feeling is that most people simply bypass the transformer, and leave the rest alone. that appears to be what was done to mine. as such, the switch changes the tone a little when engaged, but does not "suck." without the switch engaged it is full blast, the best sounding SF Bass ive played yet, or at least equal to other 'besties.'

the 70s DH switch performs its function well. there is no transformer/choke etc.. it does not suck anyhing, just clips singnal. when dialed in, especially the amp, the 70s humbucker Guild bass can be made to sound quite good, in either position. the Guild bass humbucker has gotten mixed reviews online, but between the vintage Starfires, M-85 solids, and JS's, I think over time they have proven their value and tone to those that enjoy playing them. i know some professionals that have owned/played Starfires both with Bisonic and Humbuckers (some of u may be reading this?) and in some cases the Bisonic is just channelling too much background noise (cell phone signals, dimmer switches etc...) and the Humbucker bass becomes mandatory. if the DH switch has one flaw, it is the location on the bass, it can be switched up or down rather unintentionally while playing if youre not careful. Apples to apples though, the Bisonic has a growl and a defined "thump" that differs from the Humbucker's sound.

-there has been discussion as to the location of a "sweet spot" Bisonic vs the bridge position Bisonic of a SF-II bass. in short, in most cases the sweet spot position of a SF-I bass is a little closer to the neck than a bridge Bisonic on a SF-II bass. But, we have found some SF-II basses have the bridge pickup closer to, or possibly in, the sweet spot position. we are really splitting hairs here and talking about 1/8" in either direction. there may have simply been variation in tooling or building styles, and/or some SF-IIs may have strated life at the factory as a SF-I, converted to a SF-II prior to leaving the factory. a while back twocorgis and I each had our SF-II Bisonic basses together. mine had the bridge pickup 1/8", or possibly only 1/16"-that was probably it- closer to the neck than his. there is also a picture of Phil Lesh's first SF-II bass, with no suck switch, and his bridge pickup in the same spot as mine. But most of them appear to be like twocorgis.'

-where your fingers are located on the strings. has a huge impact imo. a SF-I with a neck position Bisonic, when played over the brigde pickup position area, will yeild more bridge-like tone. With a SF-II, the higher notes will be more clear and treble-y when played with the Bridge pickup on. Guild made a few JS-II and M-85-II basses in 1970 that had the Bisonic in the neck and a (Hagstrom) mini humbucker in the bridge, which is super cool. id say ultimately equal to (but different) than 2 Bisonics, and some would even prefer the one humbucker option for occasional noise canceling connivence (as eluded to above).

-Maple vs. Mahogany. Maple has more of a "pop." Mahogany has more of a "boom." they definitely sound a little different. but again individual play style, bass and amp settings, and the location of your hand and how close it is to the bridge, will have the most impact.

-90s Guild SF-II bass. has different (1990s) Guild/Fender/(Duncan?) humbuckers. they sound quite good! the body of the bass is also 1/4" skinnier than the vintage or Newark Street models. They also have upgraded tuners, and a very deluxe Guild hard case

i have been writing this all day in between some busy work assignments, have not read the prior posts in a few hours. if something has been repeated I apologize.

Very good review, mav'.

Have you played one of the DeArmond SF basses?

also should mention I manged to get my hands on a New Hartford made Guild GSR M-85-II bass as well, which has 2 Newark Street Bisonic pickups. the bridge pickup on that bass sounds fantastic! definetly sounds different than the neck pickup. the neck pickup sounds closer to the tone of the Newark Street Starfire bass (sweet spot) but not identicle. never tried the Newark Street M-85-I bass. honestly Guild has done well with the Newark Street Starfire bass. I played one from the first batch when they first hit the street, and even with the rounds (which I typically struggle with) and the bridge/sweet spot only pickup (expected more treble-y), the bass sounded great and played effortlessly. its tone was not vintage creme but ill say definetly "in the Bisonic family" of offshoots, in my opinion. then i got the M-85-II with the same pickups, which like i said im very happy with as well. that one also has a phase switch, or something to that effect.

gilded-just saw your post! ive never played the Dearmond Strafire bass. but they appear to have a solid reputation. someone is selling one near me with 2 Dark Star pickups, so they must have liked it quite a bit to drop those 2 suckers in there! have heard good things about the Dearmond (humbucker?) pickup though. I believe Hagmeat has owned, or played one?

I had one, thought it was a good bass. I just thought if you'd played one, you might write a bit about it.

While researching the Newark St. Starfire I and Starfire II, I drove myself nuts looking for good comparison audio to get a sense of how much more the II was capable of or how much difference the "sweet spot" made.

While imperfect, the best I could find were the product pages on Thomann.de for the Starfire I and Starfire II, which have recordings of several musical "styles" played more or less similarly. At least they both specified they'd been captured through the same amps and recording gear, if I recall correctly.

Personally the single pickup just has a certain something that I prefer in those recordings, and for a variety of other reasons I ordered a Chris Hillman that popped up not long ago. But I'm still on the fence about whether I'm giving up too much by not having the 2nd pickup. Still have 6 days in my return window to agonize about it, so that's something...

Anyway I hope these sound clips are interesting to anyone who hasn't heard them yet.

Thanks for the links. The engineer/scientist in me is never going to be satisfied with the answer but more data is always good.

There is a good argument to be made that the double pickup version is more versatile, but I don't think you can get it to sound exactly like an SF I, because the pickup all always be in a slightly different place.

Personally, I love the SF I sound. If I wanted to sound more versatile, I'd have a 34" scale Fender Bass handy, in addition to either Guild.

gilded said:

There is a good argument to be made that the double pickup version is more versatile, but I don't think you can get it to sound exactly like an SF I, because the pickup all always be in a slightly different place.

Personally, I love the SF I sound. If I wanted to sound more versatile, I'd have a 34" scale Fender Bass handy, in addition to either Guild.

Click to expand...

Most of the time I can get the sound I want from any of my single pickup bisonics. If I need more versatility I go to the two PU Pilot with 34" scale and hope I can still stretch my left hand.

That said, the widest variety of sounds I ever got out of one bass was the B4 when plugged in. You got several variations on the acoustic guitar sound and playing with the Fishman started approaching a Bisonic equipped Starfire or the "thud" of the JS II. Even then, though nothing sounded like the Pilot.

fronobulax said:

Veer. Some time in 1967 Guild introduced a switch on the neck pickup of the Starfire I and II. It had an impact on the tone, and many people said it sucked all of the tone out. Others just said that engaging the switch made the tone suck. A different circuit but similarly functioning switch was marked as the "Deep/Hard" tone switch when it was added to the JS bass line circa 1970 or 71. It inherited the "suck switch" name.

Many folks who had the switch in a Bisonic equipped Starfire have removed it and been much happier with the results. There is a thread documenting the removal from twocorgi's SF II somewhere, with pictures.

Click to expand...

I'll take credit for coining the term "suck switch". Sometime in the 80s or 90s. My intent was a description of the sound of the bass - it sucked.

mgod said:

I'll take credit for coining the term "suck switch". Sometime in the 80s or 90s. My intent was a description of the sound of the bass - it sucked.

Click to expand...

And we will gladly give you credit, sir!

Now, didn't I once read that Guild was not alone with that abomination? I have a faint memory that some Gibsons were equipped with something similar? My vague recollection is that back in the late 50s/early 60s there was something called the ticcy-tak sound or something like that. The suck switch was there to produce that (much-sought after) tone.

Yes Frono, I should have taken the time to do a websearch before posting .... so I just did:

http://therecordshopnashville.com/how-to-get-the-tic-tac-bass-sound/

https://www.talkbass.com/threads/tic-tac-bass-the-style.433009/

with the vintage Bisonic SF basses, if I am not mistaken, the SF I bass has 250K tone and volume pots, and some SF II basses have 500K tone and volume pots, while other SF II basses have a 200K tone pot for the neck pickup, with 500K volume pots and 500K bridge tone pot. The capacitor values in the circuit changed as well for the "suck switch era," so even with the suck coil/choke bypassed (where applicable) there is some variation in tone in the oldies for sure. But they all sound similar and can be made to sound essentially identicle, is my though. the way you play, where you play (closer to the bridge, etc), how you dial in the amp, type of strings and such would all likley make a bigger difference in tone than anything. with that said, the higher notes played with the bridge pickup on a SF II bass do sound a little funkier than the neck. At least in my experieince. In my brief time spent with the NS SF I bass with the reissue pickup in the "sweet spot" it seemed more well rounded and not so far off from a neck pickup sound. The factory strings may have had something to do with that- it sounded very good.

I believe that Gretsch's "mud" switch (on guitars) deserves a passing mention in this tone-sucking conversation.