P-J reverse configuration?

[BottomEndian]

It seems that all the P-J basses out there have the P pup at the neck and the J at the bridge. Just out of curiosity, has anyone come across one that did it the other way round?

[gary mac]

No never encountered that.

I suspect that Leo probably tried it all those years back though, before settling on the configuration that we all know

[Mr. Foxen]

I made mine kind of like that. P in normal place and J right at the neck. Can't pic from here though.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='433437' date='Mar 13 2009, 11:43 AM']I made mine kind of like that. P in normal place and J right at the neck. Can't pic from here though.[/quote]
That sounds awesome. The J must be instant dub-land. Pics ASAP please! You'd probably have room to stick another J in at the bridge too...

Hold on! Surely John Paul Jones must have experimented with a J-P-J configuration, if only for the name?

[Old Horse Murphy]

I think one of the Fender Stu Hamm or Urge or something basses had a JPJ configuration

[MythSte]

[quote name='Old Horse Murphy' post='433458' date='Mar 13 2009, 11:56 AM']I think one of the Fender Stu Hamm or Urge or something basses had a JPJ configuration[/quote]

Yes indeedy, but i too would be interested to see a P at the back and j in the "normal" position. Humm...!

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='MythSte' post='433475' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:08 PM']Yes indeedy, but i too would be interested to see a P at the back and j in the "normal" position. Humm...![/quote]
Me too (obviously). Whenever I've played a Jazz (which is admittedly only three times), I've always gravitated towards the neck pickup, and I'd be really interested to hear the extra "bite" from a P at the bridge. My guess is that you'd have to swap the P's coil positions (E-A unit closer to the bridge than D-G unit) to avoid the D and G strings being too twangy.

[The Funk]

Warwick do the Buzzard which I think has two Ps - and the one at the bridge might be in reverse. Would be interesting to hear a J-P!

[Shaggy]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='433484' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:16 PM']I'd be really interested to hear the extra "bite" from a P at the bridge. My guess is that you'd have to swap the P's coil positions (E-A unit closer to the bridge than D-G unit) to avoid the D and G strings being too twangy.[/quote]
I've seen "mirrored" dual P p/u's like that (Warwick Stryker?), but BC Rich - who have been using mainly dual P DiMarzios on their basses for 30+ years, leave them in standard configuration and get a lovely punchy sound.

[Shaggy]

[quote name='The Funk' post='433534' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:46 PM']Warwick do the Buzzard which I think has two Ps - and the one at the bridge might be in reverse. Would be interesting to hear a J-P![/quote]
Just beat me to it!

[MoonBassAlpha]

The 80's Vox Standard has a Dimarzio P at the bridge. Sounds good in a Jaco-esque way.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Shaggy' post='433536' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:48 PM']I've seen "mirrored" dual P p/u's like that (Warwick Stryker?), but BC Rich - who have been using mainly dual P DiMarzios on their basses for 30+ years, leave them in standard configuration and get a lovely punchy sound. [/quote]
Interesting! Do you use the bridge pup on its own?

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' post='433553' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:58 PM']The 80's Vox Standard has a Dimarzio P at the bridge. Sounds good in a Jaco-esque way.[/quote]
Weird! To me, the Jaco tone's all about the J pickup, but maybe it's just the positioning.

[Shaggy]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='433556' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:59 PM']Interesting! Do you use the bridge pup on its own?[/quote]
Personally, very rarely on [b]any[/b] dual p/u bass - I find combined setting is generally where the tone is at, or neck p/u only for a darker tone (eg; for R&B / blues). The bridge p/u on my Eagle certainly gives a fatter sound than on my P/J precision, but I guess the big advantage of P/P is that the output of the p/u's is better matched than with P/J.
A lot of it is aesthetic too - a J / P would just somehow look "wrong"!

[Telebass]

Even Fender have done a P-P ( oo-er!) in the early -80s Elite IIs...

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Shaggy' post='433712' date='Mar 13 2009, 02:36 PM']a J / P would just somehow look "wrong"![/quote]
Or is that just the way we're conditioned by what we know and love?

[mrcrow]

the historical progress from single coil at the scale/6 position to split coil to twin single coil to full humbucker nearer the bridge never took in the P/J configuration
imho its a bit of a marketing thing for those who want a P and a 'J'
for pups in those positions to really be matched one would need to look at rickenbacker
small thingy at the neck and a robust one at the bridge...single coils
when you do that you dont really need the neck one though
just a 3 band eq to manipulate the bridge pup...which should be a humbucker wired parallel


anyone find that interesting...you ray owners

Edited March 13, 2009 by mrcrow

[Dan_Nailed]

Doesn't look half bad actually...couldnt be arsed putting the same configuration on a P body it's more work. Think that might not look as good, the offset J shape allows a lot of permutations - i.e. double humbucker's Jazz's look pretty dang nice!

[mr pablo]

Tomahawks bassplayer has a bass in the god hates a coward video with that config see [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt856_nRxQk"]here[/url]

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='433452' date='Mar 13 2009, 11:53 AM']That sounds awesome. The J must be instant dub-land. Pics ASAP please! You'd probably have room to stick another J in at the bridge too...

Hold on! Surely John Paul Jones must have experimented with a J-P-J configuration, if only for the name? [/quote]

Kinda hard to make out with black pickups in a dark scratchplate, also, twin P on my Mockingbird:

[Paul_C]