2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

For anything specifically about Burns guitars

Moderators: David Martin, dave robinson, Iain Purdon, George Geddes

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby dusty fretz » Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:06 pm

Apologies for sidetracking this thread by referring back to the query concerning the Ultra-Sonic pickups on the four-pickup Burns Bison. These were indeed low impedance and the circitry incorporated the necessary transformers, as on the subsequent three-pickup version.
dusty fretz
 

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby Bill Bowley » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:23 pm

dusty fretz wrote:Apologies for sidetracking this thread by referring back to the query concerning the Ultra-Sonic pickups on the four-pickup Burns Bison. These were indeed low impedance and the circitry incorporated the necessary transformers, as on the subsequent three-pickup version.


Paul,

I respectfully bow to your excellent knowledge as the world recognized guru on Burns history! Please note that I said 'I don't think they were low impedance', as I wasn't 100% sure ( I've misplaced my circuit diagrams for the early Bisons by the way). :)

'Roach,

There's your answer! ;)

Added Correction: I said 'believe', not 'think' - similar though. BB.
Last edited by Bill Bowley on Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Bowley
 

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby cockroach » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:40 am

Thanks Paul and Bill!

I would guess that Jim Burns (early Bisons, TR2?) and Les Paul himself were the only folk trying low impedance pickups back then- Les always swore by them.
Gibson later made a few different Les Paul models with Low Impedance pickups and circuitry around 1969- to mid 70's. I think the Alembic pickups were/are also LI.
cockroach
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Australia
Full Real Name: john cochrane

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby dusty fretz » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:55 pm

Hi Bill,
I'm sorry if my post came across a bit brusque and/or brow-beating in any way. That certainly wasn't my intention, I was only trying to keep my comments as economical as possible - just for a change!
dusty fretz
 

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby Bill Bowley » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:42 am

Paul,

I'm even sorrier if my reply to you seemed a bit 'agro' or disrespectful -that was not my intention either! Please accept my heartfelt apologies if I have given you the wrong impression. :roll: I meant what I said about you being the 'guru', I have a copy of 'The Burns Book' at arms reach at all times as I find it a 'must have' reference. And, many years ago I did exchange correspondence for a while with you by 'snail mail' concerning the 'one piece Marvin S scratchplates' at the time you were writing 'The Burns Book', and was aware of the depths you were going to at that time to ensure the end result would have all available information included, so you are definitely not a stranger to me in that respect. I would always welcome any advice or information that you give with respect and open arms, believe me! :)
Bill Bowley
 

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby dusty fretz » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:46 pm

Hi Bill,
I think all this mutual grovelling should stop before it causes complaints!
dusty fretz
 

Re: 2004 Anniversary Marvin compared to an original

Postby Bill Bowley » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:42 am

Paul,

Too much of a good thing, etc........!

Bye for now! ;)
Bill Bowley
 

Previous

Return to Burns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests

Ads by Google
These advertisements are selected and placed by Google to assist with the cost of site maintenance.
ShadowMusic is not responsible for the content of external advertisements.