'59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
- Thread starter Jimbojsr
- Start date
Simon_F
Super Moderator
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
I've played both in my LP Standard.
The '59 is bright and punchy, plenty of highs and a tight bottom end. Has an immediate attack.
The Seth has more emphasis on the mids. It's still quite bright, but the highs are smoother. The bottom end is softer, less prominent. The attack is softer.
Constructionally, the '59 is potted, the Seth isn't. By default the Seth has a cover and the '59 doesn't, but obviously options are available.
'59s - think Jimmy Page tone
Seths - think Paul Kossoff tone (IMO...)
I've played both in my LP Standard.
The '59 is bright and punchy, plenty of highs and a tight bottom end. Has an immediate attack.
The Seth has more emphasis on the mids. It's still quite bright, but the highs are smoother. The bottom end is softer, less prominent. The attack is softer.
Constructionally, the '59 is potted, the Seth isn't. By default the Seth has a cover and the '59 doesn't, but obviously options are available.
'59s - think Jimmy Page tone
Seths - think Paul Kossoff tone (IMO...)
Luke Duke
PRSlustologist
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Simon is right on, as always. The Seth is a clone of the earliest production humbuckers from 1955, thus the out-of-place number designation. The 59 is a later PAF. Like Simon said think Page. When I think of Seth-like tones I think of Cream's I feel Free.
Luke
Simon is right on, as always. The Seth is a clone of the earliest production humbuckers from 1955, thus the out-of-place number designation. The 59 is a later PAF. Like Simon said think Page. When I think of Seth-like tones I think of Cream's I feel Free.
Luke
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Since we're comparing the Seth and 59, I have more questions. I know some have hinted that besides the wax potting, the coils may be very similar and that the only differences are the magnets. Is this true? Are the wire guages the same? Are they both enamel? What are the component differences besides the magnets? The number of turns are about the same also. Basically my question is:
If I install an A2 in a '59, and strip its Cover, will it be my Lover, smothered with wax?
Since we're comparing the Seth and 59, I have more questions. I know some have hinted that besides the wax potting, the coils may be very similar and that the only differences are the magnets. Is this true? Are the wire guages the same? Are they both enamel? What are the component differences besides the magnets? The number of turns are about the same also. Basically my question is:
If I install an A2 in a '59, and strip its Cover, will it be my Lover, smothered with wax?
L
Lewguitar
Guest
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
The Seth always comes with a nickel cover whereas the 59 comes in black or zebra and has to be special ordered if you want a cover. That's one big diff.
The alnico 2 Seth has stronger mids whereas the alnico 5 59 has stronger treble and bass.
Lew
The Seth always comes with a nickel cover whereas the 59 comes in black or zebra and has to be special ordered if you want a cover. That's one big diff.
The alnico 2 Seth has stronger mids whereas the alnico 5 59 has stronger treble and bass.
Lew
Gutsy SG
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Bump
I also have some questions reguarding these 2 pups. I was thinking about getting a set for my Epi SG and I have it narrowed down to either the Seth or 59. I have listened to the sound clips and they both sound good. I want them to have nickel covers so they will go well with the vintage look of the sunburst finish on the Epi SG, and though it isn't a standard option on the 59, I have noticed the 59 can be ordered with covers and my dealer happens to have them in stock with covers. So now the covers issue is a non issue in my decision. I am thinking the Seth would have a little more sustain with the A2 magnets but I am a little concerened that microphonics might be a problem with the Seth since it is not wax potted. I am no shredder but I do sometimes like to play some overdriven stuff like Early Sabbath, Cream, ZZ Top, etc. I play a Crate V15 1x12 and I love it, very Marshallish and vintage sounding with a beautiful plunky, sparkly clean tone and you don't have to blow your brains out to get good overdriven tube tone. It uses EL 84's and has plenty of presence so that is another reason I am a little worried about how the Seth will blend with the amp as far as microphonics. If I wax pot Seths how will it affect the pup's tone?
For my gtr and amp setup would you recomend 59s with covers or Seths? or potted Seths?
Thanks
Bump
I also have some questions reguarding these 2 pups. I was thinking about getting a set for my Epi SG and I have it narrowed down to either the Seth or 59. I have listened to the sound clips and they both sound good. I want them to have nickel covers so they will go well with the vintage look of the sunburst finish on the Epi SG, and though it isn't a standard option on the 59, I have noticed the 59 can be ordered with covers and my dealer happens to have them in stock with covers. So now the covers issue is a non issue in my decision. I am thinking the Seth would have a little more sustain with the A2 magnets but I am a little concerened that microphonics might be a problem with the Seth since it is not wax potted. I am no shredder but I do sometimes like to play some overdriven stuff like Early Sabbath, Cream, ZZ Top, etc. I play a Crate V15 1x12 and I love it, very Marshallish and vintage sounding with a beautiful plunky, sparkly clean tone and you don't have to blow your brains out to get good overdriven tube tone. It uses EL 84's and has plenty of presence so that is another reason I am a little worried about how the Seth will blend with the amp as far as microphonics. If I wax pot Seths how will it affect the pup's tone?
For my gtr and amp setup would you recomend 59s with covers or Seths? or potted Seths?
Thanks
Simon_F
Super Moderator
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
You will have no problems with feedback/squealing playing that kind of music with Seths. I've played AC/DC, Zep & Lizzy with Seths through a 50w Marshall Jubilee in a pub band with a loud drummer and had no squealing issues at all.
Can't really say whether '59s or Seths would suit your rig better. I personally prefer Seths, but plenty of people swear by '59s.
EDIT - I have heard it said that '59s go well in an SG, because it is acoustically more mid-focussed and less bright than a maple-topped LP. My preference for Seths is based on playing both models in an LP.
Gutsy SG said:
You will have no problems with feedback/squealing playing that kind of music with Seths. I've played AC/DC, Zep & Lizzy with Seths through a 50w Marshall Jubilee in a pub band with a loud drummer and had no squealing issues at all.
Can't really say whether '59s or Seths would suit your rig better. I personally prefer Seths, but plenty of people swear by '59s.
EDIT - I have heard it said that '59s go well in an SG, because it is acoustically more mid-focussed and less bright than a maple-topped LP. My preference for Seths is based on playing both models in an LP.
Last edited:
MattPete
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
If your Epi SG has the bridge pickup in the normal SG position (i.e. half an inch closer than on a Les Paul or other guitars), I would not get the Seth for the bridge.
I replaced the 490t in my SG with a Seth bridge and found it far too bright. I ended up putting the 490t back in. The problem is that the bridge pickup on a Gibson SG is too close to the bridge, and requires a darker pickup than other guitars to sound good.
Gutsy SG said:
If your Epi SG has the bridge pickup in the normal SG position (i.e. half an inch closer than on a Les Paul or other guitars), I would not get the Seth for the bridge.
I replaced the 490t in my SG with a Seth bridge and found it far too bright. I ended up putting the 490t back in. The problem is that the bridge pickup on a Gibson SG is too close to the bridge, and requires a darker pickup than other guitars to sound good.
Luke Duke
PRSlustologist
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
You mean the neck pup?
On the 59 vs Seth differences I can say a few things. Both are wound on the Leesona, the winder that made the originals, so the pups ooze with mojo before you even get them. The Seth's are going to have bobbins made of butyarate(sp?) Evan called it, as opposed to regular injection mold plastic like the 59's. The Seths have the original enamel coated wire, I think the 59's have a different type of enamel though.
The Seth's bobbins smell different. :dance:
No joke they really do!
Luke
MattPete said:
You mean the neck pup?
On the 59 vs Seth differences I can say a few things. Both are wound on the Leesona, the winder that made the originals, so the pups ooze with mojo before you even get them. The Seth's are going to have bobbins made of butyarate(sp?) Evan called it, as opposed to regular injection mold plastic like the 59's. The Seths have the original enamel coated wire, I think the 59's have a different type of enamel though.
The Seth's bobbins smell different. :dance:
No joke they really do!
Luke
MattPete
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Nope: I found the Seth to be too bright in the bridge of an SG. I think in any other guitar it would have been fine for what I was looking for. Heck, if SG's had their bridge pickups in the "normal" position, I bet it would have sounded great. But in my SG, it was just too bright, so I put the 490t back in.
Luke Duke said:
Nope: I found the Seth to be too bright in the bridge of an SG. I think in any other guitar it would have been fine for what I was looking for. Heck, if SG's had their bridge pickups in the "normal" position, I bet it would have sounded great. But in my SG, it was just too bright, so I put the 490t back in.
MattPete
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Whoops, I see what you're getting at. Yep, the neck pickup is closer to the bridge on an SG, but so is the bridge pickup. It's hard to see, but it's maybe a screwhead's width closer to the bridge than on other Gibsons:
Luke Duke said:
Whoops, I see what you're getting at. Yep, the neck pickup is closer to the bridge on an SG, but so is the bridge pickup. It's hard to see, but it's maybe a screwhead's width closer to the bridge than on other Gibsons:
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon_F
'59s - think Jimmy Page tone
Seths - think Paul Kossoff tone (IMO...)
Who is Jimmy Page?
Is he like, Paul Kossoff's father or guitar teacher or something?
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon_F
'59s - think Jimmy Page tone
Seths - think Paul Kossoff tone (IMO...)
natew73 said:Come on, this kid doesn't know who Paul Kossoff is.
Who is Jimmy Page?
Is he like, Paul Kossoff's father or guitar teacher or something?
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
MattPete
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
Dunno. I gave up and stuck with the 490t.
To step back a second, let me evaluate the sound of the stock pickups. The 490t sounded pretty darn good. Could it be improved upon? Yes. But it had a pretty good sound, and it was very much in the ballpark of what I was looking for.
The 490r, on the other hand, was complete mud. An amp setting that made the 490r sound good, made the 490t sound shrill.
I ordered a set of Seths. The neck was an improvement, but the bridge was way too bright. I put the 490t back in, and that solved it. I still wasn't happy with the Seth neck, so I swapped the 300k volume pot for a 500k pot. That helped, and the Seth is a lot closer, but I'm still not completely happy. It's good enough for now.
If you are looking for a vintage sound, I would stick with the 490t. You need a bridge pickup with some body. Some people sugget the 59, but I wonder if it isn't too scooped? I would think that a Blues Saraceno Trembucker would work better than the 59.
Gutsy SG said:
Dunno. I gave up and stuck with the 490t.
To step back a second, let me evaluate the sound of the stock pickups. The 490t sounded pretty darn good. Could it be improved upon? Yes. But it had a pretty good sound, and it was very much in the ballpark of what I was looking for.
The 490r, on the other hand, was complete mud. An amp setting that made the 490r sound good, made the 490t sound shrill.
I ordered a set of Seths. The neck was an improvement, but the bridge was way too bright. I put the 490t back in, and that solved it. I still wasn't happy with the Seth neck, so I swapped the 300k volume pot for a 500k pot. That helped, and the Seth is a lot closer, but I'm still not completely happy. It's good enough for now.
If you are looking for a vintage sound, I would stick with the 490t. You need a bridge pickup with some body. Some people sugget the 59, but I wonder if it isn't too scooped? I would think that a Blues Saraceno Trembucker would work better than the 59.
Gutsy SG
New member
Re: '59 or Seth lover? What's the difference, exactly?
I have heard the 490's. The 490's were just okay pups to me, nothing special. I thought they were better than the 498s. My SG is an Epiphone G-400 Deluxe. It has the stock Epiphone pups not 490's. The stock Epi pups are sort of vintage sounding but a little too harsh and bright in the bridge. Since SG's are sort of mid focused, the more scooped 59 might be a good match, or maybe a Rio Grande BBQ.
I have heard the 490's. The 490's were just okay pups to me, nothing special. I thought they were better than the 498s. My SG is an Epiphone G-400 Deluxe. It has the stock Epiphone pups not 490's. The stock Epi pups are sort of vintage sounding but a little too harsh and bright in the bridge. Since SG's are sort of mid focused, the more scooped 59 might be a good match, or maybe a Rio Grande BBQ.
