Your opinion about EMG's?

[nahfuten]

also, what size strings have you EMG guys been using?

[ztevie]

I didn't have to make space in my Schecter c1+...
I use .10-.48 strings, but why would a choice of pickup determine what string gauge you use?

[TheGZeus]

Based on that exprience, I am pretty sure that once you get together and share few hours of your lives, you would feel that it is ridiculously childish to raise voice over a little difference in opinion.

Just my two cents.

You're inferring anger.

[ranalli]

I am planning on putting the Zakk Wylde set on my LP... Is it always neccessary to drill out for the battery? Is it common to not have enough room in there?

No drilling at all. My Les Paul has plenty of room for a battery wrapped in foam in it's control cavity.

[nahfuten]

I didn't have to make space in my Schecter c1+...
I use .10-.48 strings, but why would a choice of pickup determine what string gauge you use?

I've heard 81/85 perform better with larger strings

[vinterland]

I really don't think string gauge will matter much. Its all just personal preference. I use 10-48. If you like to tune down then you may want to worry about string gauge.

[vinterland]

You didn't really read the whole thing did you?

There are wolf tones all through the audible range.
A low frequency signal and a high one that occur at the same time can cuse one to be screwed up for lack of a technical term.

Run a square sweep in cooledit. Just LOOK at the resulting waveforms in various formats.
TERRIBLE.

A sine sweep is full of wolf tones above around 10k. Slight ones but they are all over in 44.1.

If you have accuracy outside the audible range that deteriorates far above it, then you have more accuracy within it.
I'm not mastering below 96 any more if I can help it.

I'll ask this question then. How many people do you think are going to actually be able to tell you recorded in 96khz or 192khz as opposed to 44.1? Maybe a few engineers whom you point that out to? They might be like oh yeah that sounds a little clearer possibly. The point being when you have that high of a sample rate your taking up a ton of data space. Also when you are sampling that high you need extremely high end equipment for it to even matter. I've listened to audio recorded in 192khz and 96 and 88.2. It sounds slightly cleaner but only slightly to me. Theres still a debate among engineers as to whether it really matters at all to sample that high. Some say it helps with the stereo image a little others don't. So the only thing that I think makes a difference in recording is 16 bit vs 24 bit. I like 24 bit much better and its something you can actually hear. I really think you need to quit looking at your cool edit screen and just use your ears. You really need to get over your obsession with wolf tones as well. I wouldn't take a program like cool edits waveforms that seriously. I really doubt they were more focused on showing you accurate waveforms as they were trying to make sure the audio gets recorded correctly.

[TheGZeus]

I'll ask this question then. How many people do you think are going to actually be able to tell you recorded in 96khz or 192khz as opposed to 44.1? Maybe a few engineers whom you point that out to? They might be like oh yeah that sounds a little clearer possibly. The point being when you have that high of a sample rate your taking up a ton of data space. Also when you are sampling that high you need extremely high end equipment for it to even matter. I've listened to audio recorded in 192khz and 96 and 88.2. It sounds slightly cleaner but only slightly to me. Theres still a debate among engineers as to whether it really matters at all to sample that high. Some say it helps with the stereo image a little others don't. So the only thing that I think makes a difference in recording is 16 bit vs 24 bit. I like 24 bit much better and its something you can actually hear. I really think you need to quit looking at your cool edit screen and just use your ears. You really need to get over your obsession with wolf tones as well. I wouldn't take a program like cool edits waveforms that seriously. I really doubt they were more focused on showing you accurate waveforms as they were trying to make sure the audio gets recorded correctly.

Wolftones are things YOU CAN HEAR.
Why did you assume I was going by a visual assesment?
TRY IT AND LISTEN.
the fundamental is EQUAL in volume to the wolf tones at the top of the audible range.
THey're almost inaudible in 96.

If you can't hear the difference, that's not my problem.
Run a noise signal in both, tell me you can't hear the difference, and I'll have to guess you have poor high end sensetivity. In which case you probably WOULDN'T hear the difference in a recording.

However, I like accuracy and 44.1 is NOT accurate when compared to tape run at the proper speed and of the proper quality.

44.1 to 96 is like compoaring 7.5 IPS to 15 IPS.
7.5 has a presence boost making it slightly harsher.
15 sounds noticably better, but many many recordings were done at 7.5(lower budget usually)

[WICKED LESTER]

too whomever it may concern,
if you are worried about battery life simply wire two 9 volts in parallel this will not change the tone but doubles the battery time before a change is needed
you can also wire them in series this gives a more transparent tone


here read this from the EMG site,

Can I use multiple batteries?

Yes. If you've got room for multiple batteries in your guitar, you can use two batteries wired in series to power your onboard circuitry at 18 volts. The output level will not appreciably increase, but you'll have increased headroom and crisper transients. This is especially useful for percussive/slap bass styles where you can generate enormous instantaneous power levels across the entire frequency spectrum.

You can also wire two batteries in parallel to provide a regular 9 volt supply but with much longer lifespan between battery changes.

Although most of our products are rated for 27 volts, we recommend a maximum of 18 volts. The additional benefits of 27 vs. 18 volts are negligible.

[MikeS]

Oh yes. I just started wiring up the Emg stuff together with my uncle. I'm just waiting until i get to make the pickguard and get a nut, and then it's going to be rock 'n' roll all the time!

Thanks alot by the way, MikeS! It's always nice to hear an intelligent and helpful review (im not implying that you other ones are stupid, i really appreciate your help too!).

I'll post clips as soon as i can!

Cheers,
-Erlend

Erland, should have clarified... the pickups are wired similarly to any other pickup in terms of the braided wire going to the back of a pot. If memory serves, the ground wire gets disconnected from teh bridge, unless you are mixing actives and passives. As always, be sure to read and follow EMG's diagrams and warnings. I'm going off memory here, so don't take my word as the only means of direction.

[vinterland]

Wolftones are things YOU CAN HEAR.
Why did you assume I was going by a visual assesment?
TRY IT AND LISTEN.
the fundamental is EQUAL in volume to the wolf tones at the top of the audible range.
THey're almost inaudible in 96.

If you can't hear the difference, that's not my problem.
Run a noise signal in both, tell me you can't hear the difference, and I'll have to guess you have poor high end sensetivity. In which case you probably WOULDN'T hear the difference in a recording.

However, I like accuracy and 44.1 is NOT accurate when compared to tape run at the proper speed and of the proper quality.

44.1 to 96 is like compoaring 7.5 IPS to 15 IPS.
7.5 has a presence boost making it slightly harsher.
15 sounds noticably better, but many many recordings were done at 7.5(lower budget usually)

I assumed you were going by visual cause you kept talking about how terrible the waveforms look! In my 5 or 6 years of being an engineer I've never heard anything referred to as a wolf tone. I've never heard any other engineer or anyone talk about a wolf tone. Are you talking about aliasing or imaging? I mean what the hell is a wolf tone? A thing I can hear? that really clears things up. You know wolf tones are those things you can hear.

[TheGZeus]

You've never heard of wolf tones?
....That's shocking considering the time you're claiming to have spent as an engineer.
But then the people I learned the term from have been doing it for 40 years, so maybe the term goes back further.
Wait, 'stratitis' is wolf tones caused by string pull.
classical instruments are often rejected due to wolf tones. Not easy to play an instrument that suddenly doubles in volume or sounds dissonant one cent above c#.
unnatural dissonances and resonances.
Sounds similar to ring modulation, but only affect certain frequencies.
Blown horns often exhibit them as well.
If you run a sine sweep, tones of a frequency different from the fundamental will rise and fall irregularly. tones containing harmonics like a square wave or triangle will lose the fundamental entirely at a certain point, and multiple wolf toens will cross each other over and over again.

I'm guessing you didn't work with many professional violinists or cellists, as they would have known exactly what I meant...

[ex-250]

this really has nothing to do with EMGs anymore does it

[TheProphet]

this really has nothing to do with EMGs anymore does it

No it seems to have turned into a pissing contest

[MikeRocker]

this really has nothing to do with EMGs anymore does it

Back on topic:
I personally don't like active pickups for guitar, but YMMV. Passives sound too good.

[ex-250]

normally i dont mind going off topic, but none of that stuff being talked about probably made any sense to more than 3 or 4 people here, and im sure as hell not one of em

[Fusion1]

I'm guessing you didn't work with many professional violinists or cellists, as they would have known exactly what I meant...

I was going to say the same thing. An ex gf played the Cello for less than a year and even she knew what a wolf tone was.

That said, I'm staying out of this argument...

[nepalnt21]

People that say EMGs are sterile, or are completely artificial sounding don't really know what they're talking about. EMGs do impart alot of their personality onto a guitar but then again so does a JB. EMGs are the clearest sounding high output buckers I have ever come across....not to mention the quietest.

Play some nice mellow leads with an EMG60 in the neck then tell me they are sterile and not versatile.

Sorry.....but EMGs are GREAT pickups. The 81 *can* be a bit brash in some guitars/setups but hell...so can any pickup. What EMG really needs is more tonal options that work with more setups IMO.

And David Gilmour uses EMGs.....tell me his tone is sterile.....yeah.....

And one battery will last a LONG TIME in your guitar....who cares if you need to put a nine-volt in their guitar....does it really matter?


With all that being said, I do think the EMGs excel at high gain stuff and I would rather use Duncans or Dimarzios for lighter vintagy type stuff. But EMGs do completely fine for hard rock as well....they're a little more than a one trick pony.

this is an example of a subjective answer. to say people dont know what they are talking about because they are stating OPINION is nonsensical. i think we can all respest your opinion, so i think you should do the same.

[TheGZeus]

Back on topic:
I personally don't like active pickups for guitar, but YMMV. Passives sound too good.

The Korean actives I've heard have been very pure and musical.

Probably more modern and simple circuit. EMGs use 1970s technology and alot of internal voicing.

These are alot less compressed less grating and overall encompass everything EMGs CLAIM to be ithout any of the things people often complain about.
I can hardly wait until I have a guitar to put some Korean active singles into.

[Imp]

i think EMGs are best for bass. it'd take something pretty goddamn special to replace my 35P/J set, and im a picky SOB when it comes to bass tone

tom