Proudly Klon free!
Proudly Klon free!
As for the output...Ants are not all the same, not by a long shot...they are all in the same ball park and as for original PAF's you say they were "all over the place"...not true either...they were all different but they were for sure in a range...it's not like one would be 8k and one would be 5k...they were all int eh 8k range give or take a little. Ants are the same, even in a simlar range except the necks tend to be a little lower...
Proudly Klon free!
I only know buy what the S.D. sales rep told me on the phone. I had a conversation about the Ant's and Burstbuckers and the original PAF designs. And i asked him,are they uneven wound like the original PAF's and he replied they are evenly wound with aged mags and then built like the original PAF's with the wooden spacer and so forth. If you A/B any Ant's to a Burstbucker,you can hear the difference like night and day. Gibson will tell you flat out and you can hear it flat out that thry are unevenly wound pickups. Ant's do sound vintage but they dont have that open uneven chime and openess you hear in unevenly wound pickups.
Well if there unevenly wound,then they dont have much difference between the two coils. As Seymour Duncans website states,they have a slight variations in dc output. But thats different than having two completely unevenly wound coils. They just dont have that open alive, on the edge sound. They do sound more vintage than the Seth's but A/B them to a Burstbucker and you can hear it. And Burstbuckers are unevenly wound with unpolished mags and their dc ratings are all over the place from BB1,2,and 3.
Last edited by JB6464; 12-07-2008 at 08:16 AM.
I had 57 Classics in my 1986 Les Paul Custom. I hated them, though maybe it was the poor pots Gibson used as well. They were dull, lifeless, muddy. Maybe I got a bad set. I switched to EMG's which completely solved the problem, though now I'm thinking of re-qiring the guitar with some CTS pots, orange drops and '59's.
Maybe I just have a dark toned Les Paul that needs brighter pickups- which is what the EMG's helped with
TheArchitect, PAF's are machine wound. But they where not all stoped at the same wind per bobbin. They wound them until the bobbins were full making them uneven because each person that ran the machine stoped them at a different point. Do search on PAF windings,it will come up many times. As for my info on the Seth's,its directly from the the sales rep when i called them. Gibson will even tell you this info on PAF's. And i've been through the Gibson tour's in Tn and the luthers has stated the same thing as per the original PAF's.Thats why their trying to copy the original PAF's with their Burstbuckers which are unpolished,unevenly wound A2 pickups.
FWIW both leesona winders and the slug winder that Gibson used to wind Humbucker coils in the 1950's and early 1960's had pretty accurate counters.
The concept of "uneven wound coils" is describing the extreme minority of real pafs.
I've just changed the '57 classics out of my R.I all mahogany L.P as I thought that they lacked clarity in that particular guitar... but I think they would be good in a brighter sounding L.P std.
Originally Posted by Gearjoneser
You've been hit by, you've been struck by....... Simon the Moderator
I seriously doubt there is anyone left at gibson that knows anything about the what was done in the 50's. I'm inclined to trust SD who was a personal friend of Seth Lover himself over a Gibson lackey as to what constitutes a real PAF
Considering the Seths are wound on the same machines as the real PAF's this claim doesn't really stand up.There both vintage style copies of the original PAF's but neither are right. They both have even wound coils with A2's. The original PAF's had uneven coils and sound more open and alive. Also the originals were never wound the same and the 57's and Seth's are machine wound production models. The 57's are wax potted and the Seth's are not. Unpotted pickups i think are closer to the originals.Both are great for modern vintage tones but not close enough for the real PAF tones.
If you like Burstbuckers more power to ya. Personally I think they blow
AFAIK, the winding machines used in the 50s were manually started and stopped. that's why the DC resistance readings on the PAFs were were all over the place. the machines didn't get automatic shut-off until '61. thats when the readings became consistent(around 7.5K).
2006 Gibson Custom '58 Reissue Les Paul
1991 Orville Les Paul Custom
2009 Squier Classic Vibe Stratocaster 50s
Bah, any humbucker around 8k of 42awg with an alnico 2, 3, 4, or 5 magnet is reasonably close to the PAF's. What's the point of looking at little details like whether a pickup is slightly mismatched, when potting and magnet type will make a far bigger difference anyway? Whenever someone says, "this is exactly a PAF", they automatically lose because PAF's weren't just one thing. For example, if you go out and buy a pair of Burstbuckers 1 & 2's thinking you're going to get Jimmy Page tones, that won't happen, because he used A5 PAF's.
And really, there are forum bro's on here who have owned multiple original Gibson PAF's, and who prefer Duncans to their original PAF's. So what's the point of setting up the PAF as some holy grail of tone? Many of them that I've heard haven't sounded as good as Seths, Antiquities, Burstbuckers, etc.
Last edited by wanmei1; 12-07-2008 at 11:37 AM.
What matters is that a new PAF-type HB sounds good in your guitar.