Pickup Advice from an Engineer's perspective?

[colonel kurtz]

man, i'm about to try to swindle some free EMG's from a local pawn shop...they have one of those LTD explorers over there that come stock with an 81/60 combo...they want $550 for the guitar, which is fucking ridiculous, since they're $600 brand new, and this thing is in less-than-perfect condition

anyways, i think i might go jew 'em down a hundred bucks or so, pull up out the pickups and stick 'em in the H-200, then go in there when someone else is working(they have like 20 employees) and return the bitch. if they ask any questions, the stock pickups from the H-200 say duncan-designed/ESP on them, so i figure i'll be in the clear...

 

[Manicompression]

I prefer the sound of the 85 in the bridge, personally. I've also heard good things about the 81 in the neck, of all places, so I'm tempted to try that setup as soon as I can afford another EMG and a guitar.

Jeff

I will absolutly second this notion, Ive had both the 81 and 85 in the bridge of this Epiphone les paul I have, and hands down I prefer the the 85, they both got the job done but to my ears the 85 is a bit more "midrangey" and still retains the top end sizzle I got from the 81. I made came to that conclusion long before I knew who endorsed what specific model, I just knew EMGs were sweet. As far as passives I have used, I like the JB alot.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

The nice thing is, with the newer EMGs anyway, they're not hard-wired so you can swap positions with them. I tried an 85 in my Hellraiser's bridge & hated it, FWIW. Too muddy. ...went back to the 81 & it's fine. On my Warlock, though, the 85 worked in the bridge. Experimentation is the key!

 

[Ermz]

As far as passives go I absolutely love the Seymour Duncan '59 for the harmonically rich mid and general roundness. It would be my neck pickup of choice for doing clean/slightly breaking up tones.

You've been pointed in the right direction as far as the EMGs go. They will give you a solid high-gain sound any day of the week. I've got two EMG 707's in my guitar, and have recorded a few with 81's in the bridge position. I tend to prefer the rounder sound of the 85 and 707 in the bridge, but it does come down to how the guitar itself sounds. Sometimes a heavy mahogany-laden guitar will get the right treatment from a thinner, brighter 81, other times (like my guitar) with a 707 will sound like the heaviest damn thing on the planet.

By the way, Jeff, is there any online resources where a fella might read up about the technical differences between active and passive pickups? I've always wanted to know just what it was that differentiated the two, as I always hear that same tired BS about actives being 'undynamic, colored' etc.

 

[siegfried]

If I can ask, do you really feel that pickups makes big differences? I have only stock passive (B.C. Rich BDSM) pickups in my B.C. Rich Platinum Virgo. Is it worth to replace it? (heavy rhytm guitar, Sansamp PSA1) Thank you very much for opinions.

 

[kaomao]

EMG and Duncan blackouts ect ect, will make a $200 with Actives Guitar Sound like a $4000 with actives. Great news for the Dude with the $200 Guitar

I had really a 400$ guitar with emg and it sounded like ass, bought an LTD MH-1000 (which is double the price) with 81 and 85 and it sounds so good.
I think really the opposite: cheap guitars with emgs sound like ass while a mid to high-end guitar sounds so godly with emg's.
EMG's really suck on cheap guitars.. and when I say they suck I really mean that.
It's more of a myth/legend/whatever that they sound the same on every guitar, I played a lot of guitars with or without EMG's and still think EMG's got their own great sound.
Emg's are just fuller you can hear all the frequencies so clearly while passive sometimes are muddy, anyway I'm not saying all passive pu's sound muddy, but there are quite a fews I really don't like.

 

[Machinated]

85's absolutely rule in the bridge - with the last band I worked with we ended up using my guitar as it just had the hugest palm mutes out of everything we had on offer. One of the guitarists had an 81 in the bridge and 85 in the neck, and immeadiately swapped them round after hearing what an 85 in the bridge can do. That said the 81 can sound great too, but I have heard it sound a bit thin in a few guitars (and just fine in others).

I'm sure I read James Murphy, Soilwork and Killswitch use 85's in the bridge too....

 

[James-Doolan]

85's absolutely rule in the bridge

+1

 

[Metaltastic]

I don't understand putting an 85 in the bridge. I've never been an "EMG user" (had a Charvel Custom years ago with an 81 in the bridge), but I do know that the guys that made EMG's famous, IE- James Hetfield, Kirk Hammett, Kerry King, Zakk Wylde, and a many, many more have ALL used the 81 in the bridge. Some guys back in the day did use the 89 in the neck, but I have no reference or opinion on that. I do, however, see the 85 as a neck pickup. I think the 81 in the bridge is the "constant". All the top guys use setups like 81/85, 81/81, and the aforementioned 81/89. I don't get this new 85-bridge fad. And yes, I do absolutely think it's a silly FAD.

Rather than trying to address any of your specific points, or point out the logical futility of a statement like "all the top guys use the 81," all I'm gonna say is: don't knock it 'til you try it. The 85 is an Alnico pickup while the 81 is ceramic/alnico, so think of it as, say, a JB vs. a Duncan Custom. To me, I prefer a fuller sound for the bridge pup and a more cutting sound for the neck, so reversing the "classic" (uggghh) Zakk Wylde set makes more sense and sounds better to me in my bright Ibanez RG (but not in my all-mahogany EC-400), simple as that.

 

[GhostUnholy]

Hey guys, thanks again for all your advice
While I love KSE's tone, my guitar is all mahogany and quite dark and full sounding and so I think the extra roundness/fullness of the 85 might be too much for some of the thrashier and tech death stuff I play? E.g. my band has some songs that go up to a 280 tempo, etc and any muddiness at all would be a huge problem, so if the 81 is tighter and cuts more I think that would be right for me. If I go 81/85 though I'll try swapping them back and forth.

But basically I just need some advice on the neck. Has anyone here used the 89 in the neck? If so how did you find it? The neck pickup on this guitar is kind of irrelevant to me really since I don't like the feel of my LP for playing leads versus either PRS and I love doing cleans with the vintage bass neck pup on my PRSs, unless i get some kind of really special tone in the neck or something... Is the 85 good sounding in the neck for leads anyways? etc etc. i just need some feedback on what people like in the neck and i'll be good to go.

And thanks again guys!

 

[Metaltastic]

The 85 and the 89 are the same pickup, just the 89 has coil-splitting capability. Maybe they have some other differences (like how the 6505 and 6505+ or 2-channel and 3-channel Rectifiers sound different even though they're supposed to be the same), but I've not heard of them. And I really hated the 85 in the neck of my RG, which is the brightest guitar I've ever played (5-piece maple/walnut neck-thru body & core with mahogany wings) - sounded too woofy/tubby/wooly, and if it had that sound in that guitar, I can't imagine it being any better in a darker one! So for you, Ghost, I'd definitely say 81 Bridge/81 neck (which is what I have in my EC-400), but I've also heard good things about the 60 in the neck, though not tried it myself.

 

[GhostUnholy]

Yeah that is actually what i remember thinking 5 years ago which was the last time I actually heard an 85 in person, it was in the neck of an ESP EC-1000 and i remember thinking it was too boomy/bassy/etc. or as you describe it woofy. I remember liking the 81 in the neck. That said I was not a particularly great player at the time, and didn't really ever play leads, and now i don't usually use my neck pup on any guitar for anything except soloing, except playing cleans coil tapped on my prs's neck... so i figured so many people like it in the neck that it must have just been my playing/memory haha. I'm always leery of putting the same pickup in both the bridge and neck though, i've never tried it though so i cant say, does the position make that big a difference that its not redundant to have two 81s?

EDIT:
I was just reading reviews on the duncan jazz/59 in the neck position and most of the reviews describe the two pickups in a similar way... can anyone speak to the tonal differences between the two?

 

[Metaltastic]

Absolutely dude, the bridge and neck pickups sound way different because of how much the strings vibrate over each of them, not because of which pickup is in that particular position. The 81 just happens to rule in both, IMO.

 

[GhostUnholy]

Awesome, I will try that setup then. Thanks for the really prompt replies too man, this is by far the most helpful forum i've ever been on.

 

[Rex Rocker]

I'm not engineer whatsoever, but I really liked the DiMarzio Super 3. I've also liked the Tone Zone and D-Sonic as bridge pickups and the PAF Pro has been, hands down, my favorite neck pickup. I'm curious to try the X2N and the bridge D-Activator X.

Just my point of view, but I've never been a fan of the Seymour Duncan voicing. Most of them seem to have this higher-mid/treble enphasis I've never quite liked. They always kinda sounded harsh to me, especially the ever-so-popular JB. I've always prefered smoother/fatter guitar tones.

That being said, my favorite bridge pickup is the EMG 85 and I don't really dislike the 60 in the either, so I think the 85/60 is a good combo. At the risk of getting flamed, I've always liked the EMG HZ H-1 in the neck, It gives away really nice bright, tight cleans with a decent overdriven tone for leads, IMO.

 

[JBroll]

As far as passives go I absolutely love the Seymour Duncan '59 for the harmonically rich mid and general roundness. It would be my neck pickup of choice for doing clean/slightly breaking up tones.

You've been pointed in the right direction as far as the EMGs go. They will give you a solid high-gain sound any day of the week. I've got two EMG 707's in my guitar, and have recorded a few with 81's in the bridge position. I tend to prefer the rounder sound of the 85 and 707 in the bridge, but it does come down to how the guitar itself sounds. Sometimes a heavy mahogany-laden guitar will get the right treatment from a thinner, brighter 81, other times (like my guitar) with a 707 will sound like the heaviest damn thing on the planet.

By the way, Jeff, is there any online resources where a fella might read up about the technical differences between active and passive pickups? I've always wanted to know just what it was that differentiated the two, as I always hear that same tired BS about actives being 'undynamic, colored' etc.

"Active" in music terms just means active (i.e. powered, for our intents and purposes) electronics - an active pickup just has a preamp as part of its structure. That's about it.

Jeff

 

[zakky]

im not sure where i read it but some guy was saying that emg has its own kind of eq anyway im using seymour duncan livewires on my strat which sound different from emg my friend has emg 85 in the bridge sounds kind of tight and compressed its a matter of taste i guess passives sound more organic to me just my opinion.

 

[Josh Burgess]

I really wish emg's could be wired for coil splitting to get a single coil sound out of a 5way switch like passives... that's always been something holding me back from using them... I like atleast 3 sounds from a guitar.... bridge humbucker, neck humbucker, and then a thinner/singlecoil-ish sound for cleans

edited. haha.

 

[JBroll]

This rant, once more...

COIL SPLITTING IS NOT COIL TAPPING.

There IS a difference.

Unless you've gone out of your way to get coil tapping, which (given the average guitarist's grasp of technology) is very unlikely, what you have is COIL SPLITTING.

Calling it coil tapping should be grounds for being beaten with a large stick. In the absence of a large virtual stick that can transmit beatings over the internet, however, I will have to settle for a simple FAIL.

Once more: COIL TAP =/= COIL SPLIT, under penalty of FAIL.

Jeff

 

[Josh Burgess]

This rant, once more...

COIL SPLITTING IS NOT COIL TAPPING.

There IS a difference.

Unless you've gone out of your way to get coil tapping, which (given the average guitarist's grasp of technology) is very unlikely, what you have is COIL SPLITTING.

Calling it coil tapping should be grounds for being beaten with a large stick. In the absence of a large virtual stick that can transmit beatings over the internet, however, I will have to settle for a simple FAIL.

Once more: COIL TAP =/= COIL SPLIT, under penalty of FAIL.

Jeff

What does coil tapping mean?