best current production PAF

[EdA]

Hey Charles as far as your question about using a full strength magnet in an Antiquity and then it will be the same as a Seth:

Is that really the only difference? There is no difference in materials used or winding techniques? If so, then Im surprised because I remember the Seths I had sounding different. I dont have them anymore so I cant do an A/B comparison. What I do remember is that the Seths had a lot less clarity and a lot more mud on the bottom. Now that doesnt mean Im bashing Seths! I think they were smooth and buttery but not what I was looking for. I think the Antiquities even with a bit stronger magnet are cleaner on the bottom. But I dont have those side by side so I cant say for sure.

LHakim. I didnt bother with trying the Alnico V because I was happy with the results of using the full strength Alnico II. I think the V would have been harsher than what I was looking for. I should have tried but I was too lazy. Plus that 58 reissue is gone now and Im just using the '59 with the PAFs anyway.

-Ed A

 

[toni]

EdA

so Antiquity's are cleaner. but what happened specifically when you put full strenght magnet Alnico II.
could i get a more present warm bass response ( stock Antiquity"s seems to lack some warm bass)

 

[EdA]

WIld Bill, I think this is a matter of us taking peoples comments a little farther than we should. I hope I didnt sound like I was bashing Holmes pups, I think I said they were great pickups, and yes Toni I did rave about them on Harmony Central a few years ago. Maybe I can clarify:

Back then in '97 I had an R9 and was trying different pickups. I was looking for a lead pickup that had bottom end and volume that would keep up with my neck pup. I remember trying Seths and Van Zandts at the time but they didnt give me what I was looking for. I bought a 4500 Holmes (read about 8.5k) and after I put it in I swear I was doing cartwheels. Big fat bottom, ballsy mids and sweeter top than the '57. It was the best I tried AT THAT TIME. Let me also say that Tom Holmes is a great guy and I wouldnt bash him for a minute. I think I went through 3 or 4 of his pickups trying different outputs, he was great to deal with.

Then I took my R9 to a local luthier who had one of the original bursts in the BOB book for many years. He currently has an R9 with real PAFs in it. I played mine next to his and there was a big difference. I thought wood could have something to do with it, but wasnt sure. He let me try the PAFs because he was thinking of selling them. To my ears there was NOT a lot in common with the Holmes. I know that doesnt make a lot of sense because I too have heard the Holmes uses the most accurate material available. The PAFs were much sweeter on the top end, a completely different character and much cleaner on the bottom with a hollow mid. And they were quite a bit wimpier too. To tell you the truth, PAFs can take some getting used to, I returned them because I liked the balls of the Holmes much more and wasnt ready to give that up. But I listened to a rehearsal tape we had done (Bluesbreakers/Clapton version of Steppin Out) when I was using the PAFs and damn I was blown away by how they had THAT sound Ive heard on record so many times. I compared it to earlier tapes of the same song with the Holmes and while it was a cool sound it wasnt THAT sound. Somewhere along the line I tried Antiquities too and to my ears they had much more of that PAF tone. The best way to describe it is clean, clear bottom with sweet, bright singing top. I find Holmes and 57 classics to be almost the opposite. Muddy bassy bottom with harsher, less harmonic top end. But they are great pickups for certain uses and their sound is right in the range of PAF type tones. Of course it has to be, its not a 16k ceramic!

But I didnt like Antiquities much the first time either, when your used to a certain tone, they really can sound weak in comparison. But I didnt force myself to like Antiquities and real PAFs. I played them for a while and found myself having to have that tone. If I tried to go back, I felt I was missing something.

This is all just another opinion, take it for what its worth. Now that I have real PAFs I cant go back to Antiquities either because there is that certain something that they dont replicate that good PAFs have, and its not subtle. Im not bad mouthing any of these, there are a lot of great pickups out there. Besides, some people may prefer the sound of Holmes over Antiquities or even PAFs, we all have different tastes.

-Ed A

 

[EdA]

There was a slight but noticeable difference. They kicked the amp a bit harder and overdrove slightly more and I do think the bottom fattened up a bit, but I thought they still sounded like and Antiquity bigtime. It might be interesting to try the Alnico V in one for even more balls and bottom.

 

[60burst]

Hey EdA, I am enjoying this story of your discovery of PAFs. :dude It's a good read....:60burst

 

[toni]

OK ED
I understand perfectly because i like the thinner sound of my 59/1999 equiped with Antiquities (7.35 and 7.75K)
but i like the warm bass response of my 58/2001 equiped with stock Classic 57...but sadly, the bass get greasy when i set the PU at full volume.

I would like the Antiquities's sound with a little more warm tight bass !
do you think i could get Alnico II from Classic 57 or must I order them from Duncan ?
will i lose the sweet hight and hollow ?

Toni

 

[EdA]

Toni, the Alnico II full strength will make just a subtle difference and I dont think you would lose much in character. But I wonder if it will be enough of the bottom youre looking for. Have you tried the Seths? I think they would be inbetween the Antiquity and the '57. The '57s definitely have a lot of mud on the bottom, very thick, more than the Seths.

Then again, it wouldnt hurt to try first your alnico IIs from the '57s if you dont mind taking them apart. Im sure those magnets are a lot stronger than the Antiquities. And it wont cost you anything! Let me know what happens, Im curious. -Ed A

 

[Ed Rafalko]

If you're not into having the EXACT pickup, and can deal with a Dimarzio, I have heard nothing but really good things about the Dimarzio Virtual Vintage PAF- and you can get it in double cream!
(Hey! STOP THROWING THINGS!)

 

[toni]

Ed A
I'll try it !

Ed R
never heard about them...and not able to find them on their site...

 

[LHakim]

Paf magnets

Ed A, I'm thinking a slightly aged alnico V (rather than a full-strength V) in the antiquity might get one closer to that "something" good sounding original pafs have, but then I wonder how different a full strength II magnet would sound from an aged V magnet in the same pup??? Remember Tim Shaw's research on original pafs while he was Gibson? I think he found some late Pafs did in fact use alnico V magnets, and he also stated unoriented alnico II magnets (which he also found in some original pafs) sound like alnico V magnets.

 

[mikeyg00]

Do most people replace their stock 57's?

I love the tone of mine.

For what reason do people switch to Antiquities or Holmes?
I heard a complaint about the stock 57's being to muddy in the bass. Not so with mine, I get a very sweet, singing tone.

I just picked up a Gary moore this weekend. It's pups are burstbuckers. I'm trying to find some info about the wiring of these. They don't seem to have as much high-end as my 57s. The salesman told me they are higher output than 57s?
Anyone?