Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:18 am
i poop on your eyebrows, sir
I played the '72 RI Thinline quite a bit a couple of months ago and thought it sounded great. I've read comments criticizing the WRHBs for sounding muddy, but I never felt they sounded muddy at all.mezzio13 wrote:I went and tried out a '72 re-issue Tele Custom with two new WRHB's in it. I talked to the guy and asked how they stacked up to the originals, to which he replied he never played one. So I did a little thinking, the purpose of those was to be able to get a quality humbucker sound and yet dial it in to a nice strat single sound. That is what the new pup did. Was it 100% authentid? No idea, but it did do what they said it was designed to, and more so, it was a very pleasing pup in both positions. In fact, I can speak highly enough about them, and still really want that guitar.Mike wrote:Literally noone has played a real WRHB, and yet everyone is constantly posting about them and lusting after them. It's completely bizarre.
Mojo George, Mojo.George wrote:I'm curious to know what real WRHBs play like.
I always thought it was that you had to be slapped across the breasts and called "babycakes" to wind a humbucker properly, none of which is acceptable in the workplace today.Fran wrote:Mojo George, Mojo.George wrote:I'm curious to know what real WRHBs play like.
The magnets in the originals were sourced from the mountains in Tibet. They were'nt wound with copper wire either, the early ones were wound with angel hair. You just cannot compare the RI's to the originals, the originals come from a time when guitar players were guitar players and did'nt rely on Line 6 or Devi Ever for tone.
That guy was/is a massive cockend.MikeG wrote:We should bring Telenator back out of cryogenic storage to educate us on his magic fairy dust WRHBs.
ekwatts wrote:That guy was/is a massive cockend.MikeG wrote:We should bring Telenator back out of cryogenic storage to educate us on his magic fairy dust WRHBs.