This is why I have multiple guitars with EMG and multiple guitars with all types of passives. They are all great at certain things.
+1
Starting to hate emg's/active pups
- Thread starter SwambA
- Start date
+1
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
As far as I've seen, people generally refer to pickups with abrasive high-mids & minimal low-end output as 'tight'.
crillemannen
Member
I often reach for guitars that don't have active EMG's but for metal they are really really good. And that is coming from a nightmare session where we used a quality Gibson but it was something strange going on in the pickups which i didn't hear before i started to try mixing them. Way to dynamic and as soon as you started cutting mids the high bass got boosted allot. When i tried to cut around 200hz the guitars then became to thin. Total freakin nightmare. I hate when you have to comprimise and the end product don't end up as you wished. I wished i tracked with '81's. The 81's also seems to need so little eq to sit well in the mix which i like.
Im a fan for sure. No strange frequency's and total hazzle free when it comes to metal.
Im a fan for sure. No strange frequency's and total hazzle free when it comes to metal.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
When I say "tight," I'm pretty much always strictly referring to the low-end (heyo!), making "tight" in this context the opposite of rumbly, woofy, or "whoompy"
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Hmm. Well it strikes me then that tightness is related to EQ, and you could probably get similar results by using a multi-band comp or even just a simple high-pass filter before the preamp input stage. Ah, whatever works for you guys. But I've tried EMG's a bunch of times in a variety of guitars and I couldn't bond with the sound as well as I can with passives - passives just have oodles more character ime.
I have been playing with EMGs for several years and I really loved them, but after hearing this clip I started getting more interested in passives.
Last edited by a moderator:
crillemannen
Member
Its not the same to just strap on a multiband. The problem with many passives its that the bass that comes when you played muted lies on top of the sound instead of coming underneath as they do with 81's if you understand what i mean haha?
I really like Lundgren pickups for passives. Used it on the start a fire mix and they sound awesome.
Last edited by a moderator:
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I really find this hard to believe; you don't get what 'tightness' refers to in the context of audio? It's the response of the low end after the initial transient; tightness vs sag or bloom. Think SS amp vs tube amp response to picking. It's definitely not just an EQ issue.
Or use this...
Unfortunately it is still under development... (can provide link if someone wishes to try it).
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
Excellently put and +1! (thanks for giving a more tangible definition to my onomatopoeia
)
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
My opinion lies with Jeff and Marcus. To me, tight is single note articulation and separation that a pickup possess. EMGs have very quick transient response times and very little slurring making them to passive lovers sterile. Tight also comes from the frequency response, but less to do with the fact that EMGs have less low end than passives, because that is not true, it has more to do with middle frequency, coloration and upper frequency harmonics that make them sound almost as if you have a TS in front of the amp (remember that an OD pedal pushes an amp more by boosting mids, not so much reducing lows, but it does help).
EMGs are very clinical, whether you want to call them tight or sterile is up to the end user.
EMGs are very clinical, whether you want to call them tight or sterile is up to the end user.
Harry Hughes
âââ¬â¬
- Apr 25, 2009
- 4,353
- 0
- 36
Regarding what Ermz in post #42, interestingly enough, I recall saying a while ago that I felt the EMG 81s just usually didn't sound that amazing and someone pointed me to the first Sylosis album (which I was already familiar with) as an example of great EMG 81 tone, but nope, the guitar tone on that album quite definitely has that very abrasive high mid thing to it.
It sounds kinda aggressive at first, but the novelty wears off quite quickly and it and it just sounds quite grating, especially when listening at louder volumes.
I've always VASTLY preferred the 85s and 707s to the 81s/81-7s. Just generally a bit richer sounding and a better mid range character to my ears.
Obviously you don't want a super muddy low end and lower mids (unless the musical style deliberately calls for it), but I have to call into question just how 'tight' you really need.
I think given a guitarist that knows how to play with a good sounding instrument that's well setup with a generally good engineering job, plenty of passive pickups and the 707s/85s are tight enough for ANYTHING, even the most technically demanding high tempo metal.
I suppose unless you're using a 25.5 inch scale guitar tuned down to something ridiculous like F#, then that 81 might come in handy, heh.
It sounds kinda aggressive at first, but the novelty wears off quite quickly and it and it just sounds quite grating, especially when listening at louder volumes.
I've always VASTLY preferred the 85s and 707s to the 81s/81-7s. Just generally a bit richer sounding and a better mid range character to my ears.
Obviously you don't want a super muddy low end and lower mids (unless the musical style deliberately calls for it), but I have to call into question just how 'tight' you really need.
I think given a guitarist that knows how to play with a good sounding instrument that's well setup with a generally good engineering job, plenty of passive pickups and the 707s/85s are tight enough for ANYTHING, even the most technically demanding high tempo metal.
I suppose unless you're using a 25.5 inch scale guitar tuned down to something ridiculous like F#, then that 81 might come in handy, heh.
Rex Rocker
Call me Hugo!
I can honestly think of many passive pickups that sound fizzier than the EMG 81...
... I'd say the Duncan JB is one of them.
Not to say that the open-sounding bright high-end of the JB is a bad thing, but in my experience, it is MUCH easier to get the JB (for example, many others as well like the Duncan Distortion, etc.) to fizz out more than the 81.
JMO.
... I'd say the Duncan JB is one of them.
Not to say that the open-sounding bright high-end of the JB is a bad thing, but in my experience, it is MUCH easier to get the JB (for example, many others as well like the Duncan Distortion, etc.) to fizz out more than the 81.
JMO.
IDK starting to think its my mesa 2x12 that is really bringing out those fizzy highs from the emgs or making them a lot more noticeable. Got a recto 4 x12 coming this week so will see.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Lasse Lammert
HCAF Blitzkrieg
CubanDude
not really cuban
- Nov 17, 2010
- 1,051
- 0
- 36
