Midrange of a PRS?!?!

[papersoul]

Guys, another topic that has been bothering me is the PRS = excessive mids issue. I hear guys on other forums say that they basically record with Les Pauls and I assume Strats for variety because their PRS guitars have way to much in the way of midrange! True? My ears are not the best so I thought I'd ask the experts. One guys on a forum said that when he went to a recording session in a studio, he could not dial out the irritating midrange with his PRS McCarty. He picked up a Les Paul to finish the tracks and said it was obvious why LPs are so popular. Some guys also say that they will only use LPs in the studio while their PRS remains in the case.

What gives!!

ps

[Benjy_26]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!



I've never ran into problems like that. I actually bought my Paul over a PRS (CU22) because of the lack of low mids on the PRS. Maybe it's the rig these guys are running through.

[papersoul]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

Lack of low mids on the PRS? I ended up buying a McCarty because it is closer to an LP in tonality which I like compared to the CU22. The LP is my favorite singlecut and I am enjoying the McCarty which I find warmer than the CU22 with more low mids and bass. Plus, look at all the pros and amateurs who use PRS live and recording.

I think this guys issue was the upper mids.

[Benjy_26]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

I couldn't get my hands on a McCarty to try

Wish I had though. I found the CU22 a bit too thin for what I wanted to do with it. Another issue might be the electronics. They CU22's come with hotter pickup than the McCarty, right?

I still wish I had tried a McCarty...

[papersoul]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

The McCarty pickups are not as hot, correct! or...correctamundo!

Seriously, I think they are thick and rich, but lack some aggression. Apparently PRS makes a similar pickup in the #10 which is a tad hotter, edgier, clearer, while remaining creamy. I may try it.

The McCarty body is also a little thicker. Maybe you tried a CU22 with the thin neck??

[Benjy_26]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

Yep, thin flat neck (or is it Wide-thin in PRS speak), Dragon pickcups (so I'm told) and the wonderful PRS trem. I enjoyed the guitar, but I already have my Carvin which would overlap too much with the PRS to justify the purchase.

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

The McCarty stock pickups are some of the most toneful I've heard. Way better than the 498/490 in a Les Paul Std. But, like you said, they aren't real aggressive sounding. They do sound sweet though.

The midrange issue, from my experience, was usually with the original PRS's, since they had a thinner body, which exentuated the nasally mids. I think Ted McCarty fixed that, and proved to Paul R. Smith that his guitars should be thicker, and with a bigger heel and increased headstock angle. Ted McCarty may have been a retired older gentleman, but he knew guitar physics better than most, since he was the President of Gibson throughout their glory days.

To me, the McCarty and Singlecut just sound like more articulate Gibsons. With Duncans, you can tailor the sound anyway you want. I put a zebra C-5/59 on one of mine, and it made it bigger and angrier sounding than my stock one.
I'd really like to see what a set of Antiquities with a potted bridge would sound like in a McCarty. That would be my next move.

[papersoul]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

Yep, thin flat neck (or is it Wide-thin in PRS speak), Dragon pickcups (so I'm told) and the wonderful PRS trem. I enjoyed the guitar, but I already have my Carvin which would overlap too much with the PRS to justify the purchase.

That was the problem...you tried a trem equipped CU with the thin neck. That is a worl of difference fro mthe McCarty or the hardtail CU22 with fat neck.

[papersoul]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

The McCarty stock pickups are some of the most toneful I've heard. Way better than the 498/490 in a Les Paul Std. But, like you said, they aren't real aggressive sounding. They do sound sweet though.

The midrange issue, from my experience, was usually with the original PRS's, since they had a thinner body, which exentuated the nasally mids. I think Ted McCarty fixed that, and proved to Paul R. Smith that his guitars should be thicker, and with a bigger heel and increased headstock angle. Ted McCarty may have been a retired older gentleman, but he knew guitar physics better than most, since he was the President of Gibson throughout their glory days.

To me, the McCarty and Singlecut just sound like more articulate Gibsons. With Duncans, you can tailor the sound anyway you want. I put a zebra C-5/59 on one of mine, and it made it bigger and angrier sounding than my stock one.
I'd really like to see what a set of Antiquities with a potted bridge would sound like in a McCarty. That would be my next move.

Gear, the guys on the PRS forum are highly recommending the PRS #10 pickup for my McCarty so I may go that route in the future. My amp has all the gain I want so I can use the guitar stock for now. Have you checked out the new Gibson Burstbucker Pro pickups? Nice.

[aleclee]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

Guys, another topic that has been bothering me is the PRS = excessive mids issue. I hear guys on other forums say that they basically record with Les Pauls and I assume Strats for variety because their PRS guitars have way to much in the way of midrange! True? My ears are not the best so I thought I'd ask the experts. One guys on a forum said that when he went to a recording session in a studio, he could not dial out the irritating midrange with his PRS McCarty. He picked up a Les Paul to finish the tracks and said it was obvious why LPs are so popular. Some guys also say that they will only use LPs in the studio while their PRS remains in the case.

I'm confused. Do you think your PRS has too excessive mids? If it's doing the job for you in terms of playability and tone, who gives a toss what other folks say about 'em?

[Benjy_26]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

That was the problem...you tried a trem equipped CU with the thin neck. That is a worl of difference fro mthe McCarty or the hardtail CU22 with fat neck.

I've not been able to play the McCarty's around here (they're like gold dust!). I did play a Standard 22 with hardtail and a Wide-Fat neck, but found it to be kinda dull sounding, maybe I played a dud, or the lack of a maple cap took away more detail than I would have preffered.

Do you think a CU 22 with a trem and the big neck carve would have a fatter voice? The reason I ask is because I do like that trem a lot!

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Midrange of a PRS?!?!

As far as options on PRS's, I know for a fact that the thicker bodies, wide/fat neck, bigger heel, and vintage headstock angle made PRS guitars sound better than before.

As for the hardware, it's a personal preference. The PRS trems are darn near perfect, and the stopbar tailpieces sound great, but can be a pain to intonate. To my ears, a PRS with an adjustable Tonepros or PRS bridge is the best one.
They now have about 4 different types of tuners, and all seem fine to me.
I'd be curious about trying a hotter PRS bridge pickup like a #6, #7, or #10.
If you swap a PRS pickup for a Duncan, you've got to change both, since there's a phase difference between some PRS pickups and Duncans.