How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Discussion of newer designs, copies and reissue offset-waist instruments.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wavedash
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:33 pm

How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by Wavedash » Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:34 am

Have a set coming to me replacing stock '65s.... how do they fare with 1 meg pots?

User avatar
peterjh85
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by peterjh85 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:12 am

I hear they are p90ish in design. I like 250K pots with my p90s.
My Offsets:
Fender Cyclone - 1x Vintage White, 1x Pewter
Fender Mod Shop Jazzmaster - Fiesta Red

User avatar
kingmedicine
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:45 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by kingmedicine » Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:17 am

I put a set of these in a JM recently-ish (I've had them in there for about 2 months now). They sound great, maybe a little more hi-fi in a way than my other JM pickups.

They are pretty bright though, I found them too spikey with 1meg pots (and I have 1megs on my other JM). I went down to 500k and it helped quite a bit, but I still find myself rolling the tone back a little on the bridge pickup.

User avatar
Wavedash
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:33 pm

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by Wavedash » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:19 pm

are they brighter than the stock '65s with 1 meg pots?

User avatar
kingmedicine
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:45 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by kingmedicine » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm

I don't know if they sound brighter (they seemed comparable there with 1 meg pots), but they sounded more harsh with 1 megs than 65AV pickups. The bridge especially, is a tad thicker and has a slight bit more midrange than the 65, but with the 1 meg pots its like it accentuated it and it sounded more harsh and boxy.

I imagine you'd be fine if you just kept the tone knob rolled back though. I exchange some a couple emails with Tim and he pretty strongly recommended 500k pots, so I just decide do to test them out (I had only tried 1 meg up until this point, so who knows, maybe I just prefer the 500k pots in general).

Curious how you like them compared to your JM-Fat when they come in (at least I think I saw you installed one in another's thread).

User avatar
Wavedash
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:33 pm

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by Wavedash » Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:22 pm

kingmedicine wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm
I don't know if they sound brighter (they seemed comparable there with 1 meg pots), but they sounded more harsh with 1 megs than 65AV pickups. The bridge especially, is a tad thicker and has a slight bit more midrange than the 65, but with the 1 meg pots its like it accentuated it and it sounded more harsh and boxy.

I imagine you'd be fine if you just kept the tone knob rolled back though. I exchange some a couple emails with Tim and he pretty strongly recommended 500k pots, so I just decide do to test them out (I had only tried 1 meg up until this point, so who knows, maybe I just prefer the 500k pots in general).

Curious how you like them compared to your JM-Fat when they come in (at least I think I saw you installed one in another's thread).
Hmm I would switch to 500k pots, but worried 500k would make the McNelly neck darker than '65 with 1 MEG Pot. (prefer bright neck pickups)
I never really got a chance to test out the Jm-FAT, it had the wrong polarity and I returned it for a refund.

I originally wanted just a bridge pickup to beef up just a bit from the '65, and bought the McNelly set after a reviewer said he preferred them to novak jm-fat/jm-v, lollars, and '65s. Maybe I'll stick with 1 megs and see if the bridge pickup tone is ok with just the tone knob rolled down a lot.

User avatar
kingmedicine
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:45 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by kingmedicine » Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:29 pm

Ah yeah, if you like bright neck pickups, sticking with 1 meg is probably good. Switching to 500k took out the bridgework harshness, but the neck is definitely darker now than the 65 neck was.

User avatar
oid
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 834
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:19 pm

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by oid » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:34 pm

You can just stick a 1Meg resistor on the bridge pickup to ground, it will be in parallel to volume pot making them act like a 500k. This will leave the neck pickup alone tone wise but the resistor will be in circuit in the middle/bridge positions and will darken things up there. It may give a slight change in volume, depends on your style, but tweaking the pickup heights will remedy that.
Logic gates based on billiard-ball computer designs have also been made to operate using live soldier crabs of the species Mictyris guinotae in place of the billiard balls.

User avatar
Musickbox
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 pm

Re: How are the McNelly 46/58's?

Post by Musickbox » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:24 am

I recently put in a pair in my JMJM and they're on the bright side. I'm using 500k pots and I"m considering swapping them out for something warmer (p90 maybe?) or replacing the pots to 250K. They sound nice, just too bright for what I'm looking for. Also, I did remove the rhythm section so it's possible that is contributing to brighter sound.

Post Reply