The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

[JeffB]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I look at it like they are the same person in a good mood (Seths) and in a *****y mood (57 classics).


For rock and metal, I'll take the *****y mood- for blues and jazz I'll take the good mood.

One thing that is very unique about 57 classics is that they have that A2 warmth, mids, and audible pick attack, but they are much more responsive and ballsy like A5.

[Luke Duke]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I used to own a German sports car that handled.
A friend made the comment that he prefered his Toyota Celica.
I was kinda speechless.

I have Gibson Classic 57's in a 335.
Regarding your comments,
I'm again kinda speechless.

What does that mean, why are you speechless?

I've never cared for 57s in a Les Paul. The word Christian used is accurate for what I hear, a grainy sound, almost like someone poured sand in your signal.

By and large I feel like 57s work better by far in hollow/semi-hollow guitars.

One thing I don't understand is why Gibson potted them. They were originally claiming to be accurate down to the most minute detail, spacers. This little screw-up casts serious doubt on any claims they stake, IMO.

The only Gibson PAF style pups I care about these days are the Shaws in my 335.

Luke

[wanmei1]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

What does that mean, why are you speechless?

Come on Luke , I'm sure you can figure it out. Try harder.
If the analogy isn't crystal clear then that's a problem cause I can't spell it out any more cleary.... it's blatantly obvious.

I've never cared for 57s in a Les Paul. The word Christian used is accurate for what I hear, a grainy sound, almost like someone poured sand in your signal.

"someone poured sand in your signal" ??
In which frequency range did "someone pour sand in your signal" ?

By and large I feel like 57s work better by far in hollow/semi-hollow guitars.

I would suggest that in a semi hollow or hollow body they are nothing short of wonderful and in a solid body they are merely excellent.

One thing I don't understand is why Gibson potted them. They were originally claiming to be accurate down to the most minute detail, spacers. This little screw-up casts serious doubt on any claims they stake, IMO.

Well let's think about why Gibson potted them,... after all it would have been easier and more authentic not too.
Could it be that todays higher gain and wattage amps mean that the majority of players today are concerned about feedback and Gibson is aware of this marketing reality ?

The only Gibson PAF style pups I care about these days are the Shaws in my 335.

Good for you !

Luke

.

[Luke Duke]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Come on Luke , I'm sure you can figure it out. Try harder.
If the analogy isn't crystal clear then that's a problem cause I can't spell it out any more cleary.... it's blatantly obvious.

Humor me

"someone poured sand in your signal" ??
In which frequency range did "someone pour sand in your signal" ?

Across the board. All the non-burst buckers have it to some extent. The BBs in the R7/8/9s I've played I greatly prefer to the 57 classic I had in my LP Custom.

I would suggest that in a semi hollow or hollow body they are nothing short of wonderful and in a solid body they are merely excellent.

Glad you like them, you can have my share.

Well let's think about why Gibson potted them,... after all it would have been easier and more authentic not too.
Could it be that todays higher gain and wattage amps mean that the majority of players today are concerned about feedback and Gibson is aware of this marketing reality

The problem is they claim they are copies, then they pot them? Why not just market it as saying "the PAF that never was?" or "the ultimate PAF"? I've got unpotted buckers and in high gain/high volume settings I don't have problems. Maybe SD torques the baseplate screws tighter so as not to howl? I don't claim to know, but I do know I don't have problems.

Good for you !

Thank you, you should give them a try if you like the 57s.

Luke

[wanmei1]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Across the board. All the non-burst buckers have it to some extent. The BBs in the R7/8/9s I've played I greatly prefer to the 57 classic I had in my LP Custom.

Ain't no sand in my 57's.

Glad you like them, you can have my share.

Thanks I gratefully accept your generous offer of your 57's.

The problem is they claim they are copies, then they pot them? Why not just market it as saying "the PAF that never was?" or "the ultimate PAF"?

Luke, the whole music industry is full of markerting hype, decepetion and illusion.....get over it.!
Is an SD Jazz pickup named correctly ?
Is an SD Phat Cat named correctly ?
The name of the game is marketing....
The new Xtron eliminator phase 111 improved version...the World has a new ultimate rock pickup. It's the greatest mind blowing experience in rock history.
Ultimate tone......Devestating performance.

Marketing hype....get over it !

I've got unpotted buckers and in high gain/high volume settings I don't have problems. Maybe SD torques the baseplate screws tighter so as not to howl? I don't claim to know, but I do know I don't have problems.
Thank you, you should give them a try if you like the 57s.

Maybe you don't have a problem with feedback from unpotted pups but a lot of people do.
( I personally love feedback. )
Torquing screws has nothing to do with eliminating feedback...potting does.


I ain't swapping out my 57's for anything !

Luke

.

[Luke Duke]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Ain't no sand in my 57's.

Maybe you got an exceptional set.

Luke, the whole music industry is full of markerting hype, decepetion and illusion.....get over it.!
Is an SD Jazz pickup named correctly ?
Is an SD Phat Cat named correctly ?
The name of the game is marketing....
The new Xtron eliminator phase 111 improved version...the World has a new ultimate rock pickup. It's the greatest mind blowing experience in rock history.
Ultimate tone......Devestating performance.

Marketing hype....get over it !

What do you mean get over it? Are you my dad? Saying that something is exact in every single last detail and then having a glaring difference has nothing to do with marketing man.

Maybe you don't have a problem with feedback from unpotted pups but a lot of people do.
( I personally love feedback. )
Torquing screws has nothing to do with eliminating feedback...potting does.

I would think the tighter your pup is the less it would squeal, so if you made a "tight" pup then it would have a lower probability of squealing.

I ain't swapping out my 57's for anything !

Did someone say you had to? I never claimed to be the oracle of tone and be in total disbelief that someone didn't agree with me. I mean do you really expect the SD forum to be the home of Gibson 57 classic lovers? Personally I think the classics are marginal, if you like them more power to you but that doesn't mean I'm right or you're right. I'd also consider the SDs the German sportscar and the 57 classics a modern day malibu.

Luke

[wanmei1]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

What do you mean get over it? Are you my dad? Luke

Have a nice day.
(don't forget to tighten up your pups base screws to stop feedback.)

[Luke Duke]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Have a nice day.
(don't forget to tighten up your pups base screws to stop feedback.)

I don't have feedback problems, remember I use Seymour Duncans.

[The Usual]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I've used Seth's that had feedback problems in the past.

I ended up taking the cover off, throwing a little masking tape in there and clamping it on real tight before soldering. I also replaced the mounting screws with rubber. These things helped, but I could still get them to feedback in a non musical way if I wanted.

I have other non potted pups that don't give me any trouble. On this subject, I consider it a total crap shoot as to whether any non-potted pup will feedback or not.

No, I don't play high gain. High volume will do it just as well.

The biggest thing I don't like about the Seths for my gear, is the way the non potting effected their tone. It adds what I'd describe as a little reverb to the attack that will not go away. That being said, in a hollow body, I think it's a nice thing. But for a more versatile pickup, I didn't like it. Nice overall tone though.

[blueman335]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I mean do you really expect the SD forum to be the home of Gibson 57 classic lovers? Personally I think the classics are marginal, if you like them more power to you but that doesn't mean I'm right or you're right. I'd also consider the SDs the German sportscar and the 57 classics a modern day malibu.Luke

Hey, I drive a Malibu.

Actually there have been a number of favorable posts here about '57 Classics, which is what spiked my curiosity. I'm pleasd with mine & think they're about the best Gibson makes. With magnet swaps I get some great tones from my 498T's, 490T's, & 490R's too. The quality's there, the magnets & pairings aren't always the best.

And while I own more Duncan PU's than any other brand, there certainly are SD models I would never want. Every one isn't a "German sportscar" to my ears. But then, no manufacturer is going to please everybody. Where Duncan & Dimarzio clearly beat Gibson away is in the variety they offer.

[ErikH]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

And while we're on that subject, I have one guitar that has a Duncan in it, and it's not one I play a lot either. My main gigging guitars have Gibsons, Fenders and DiMarzios. Why? Because that is what sounds best to me in them. I still love Duncan pickups, at least the ones that actually work for me, but I also love other brands as well.

I've said it before, I'm really happy with my '57 Classics and have actually been a fan since they came out. I've never looked at them as being a marketing hyped up faithful recreation of the original PAF's from the late 50's. What I have looked at them is the modern interpretation of the classic PAF design, wax potted for the modern player that uses more distortion than years past.

[Zerberus]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

....Also the originals were never wound the same and the 57's and Seth's are machine wound production models. ....

For the record, every PAF style pickup Duncan makes is wound on the EXACT Leesona winder that was used to wind the original PAFs, whether it be a lowly 59 or a Custom shop creation

[St_Genesius]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I kinda like the grainy sound of 57s. The first 335 I ever played had them in it and the graininess was one of the things I liked best about that guitar. I've got zero interest in how "authentic" a PAF it may be, but I think it's a pretty cool sound nonetheless.

[JB6464]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

For the record, every PAF style pickup Duncan makes is wound on the EXACT Leesona winder that was used to wind the original PAFs, whether it be a lowly 59 or a Custom shop creation



Yes thats correct but the originals did'nt all have the exact same dc output rating like S.D. does on thier production models. They stopped the machine when the original winder thought the bobbins were full. If you measure most S.D. production models there all pretty close to the same dc output for each pickup design. Even the Gibson Burstbuckers today are not the same dc output from BB1,BB2,or BB3. They will all vary in dc output.

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I had a '57 classic in the neck of my les paul classic and it only stayed in there for about 3 weeks. The tone was amazing but the pickup was WAY too bassy......almost to the point of muddyness, so i took it out.