Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

[allstarrme]

Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

I got a newer Les Paul, the burstbucker pro’s are nice but not as hot as my 339 with a2p/custom 8 or my SG with 490/496 & 498/500 hybrids. I could run a boost pedal in front to even it out but I was wondering what people thought.

I don’t mind the neck pickup but it’s a little quiet, I could put the bridge pickup in the neck and put a 498t A8 in the bridge that’s in my drawer. Or try a ceramic in the bridge burstbucker. I love the c8 in my 339.

Otherwise I’m really thinking about the fishman fluence classics, but I haven’t seen enough online reviews to be sold on them. They seem like what I want, at least on paper.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

For the neck, have you tried raising it? They may get the volume where you want it.

I like the regular BB's (A2), haven't owned any BBP's. If I had a set, I'd put an A2 or UOA5 in the bridge.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Moving the bridge to neck and dropping the other A8 bridge you have sounds like a fine, ready-made solution. Worth trying what you have before spending money.

 

[chadd]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Some models came with a BB2 in the neck, that's just your bridge pickup with an A2 magnet. I'm sure what you have in mind would work.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

If you were going to swap mags in the bridge, you might consider an A8. IMO ceramic could be a little harsh in it considering the coil offset and the BB2's relatively light wind.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

I agree that you should try some pups that you already have before buying anything else. Put the BBP bridge pup in the neck and the 498T A8 in the bridge. At the very least it will give you some better direction of where you need to go.

 

[allstarrme]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

I was thinking about it earlier, I have a 57 Classic + I could try in the neck as well. That might be closer to what I want with a 498t A8. I could even try an A4 or 5 in the 57 if it’s too soft but I like the A2pro in my 339.

I pulled Epiphone pro buckers out of my 339 for the same reasons, they were good but not great.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

I could even try an A4 or 5 in the 57 if it’s too soft but I like the A2pro in my 339.

Two very different PU's. I like A2P's a lot, but '57 Classics are the worst-sounding PAF I've owned.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Hey Blue,

What is it specifically that you hate so much about the '57? You realize, of course, that there is no such thing as..."the worst-sounding" pup, only..."I don't like it because...".

What may sound bad to you may sound great to someone else, and what doesn't work in one situation may be perfect in another.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Hey Blue,

What is it specifically that you hate so much about the '57? You realize, of course, that there is no such thing as..."the worst-sounding" pup, only..."I don't like it because...".

What may sound bad to you may sound great to someone else, and what doesn't work in one situation may be perfect in another.

Obviously, worst sounding to my ears. Most of what we say here is opinion, and it really can get redundant for all of us to qualify every one of those with 'In my opinion' or 'To my ears'. I've had several '57 sets, including '57+; the first was purchased intentionally when I still believed "if it's a Gibson PU it has to be great." The other two sets came with guitars. In the first one, the guy had put them in as aftermarket, and then sold the guitar. He apologized for how poor they sounded and unloaded the guitar at a fairly low price. Turns out he was right. The last set was in an LP Tribute that I got very cheap because of a cracked neck at the headstock, but the way the crack was, tension on the strings pulled the neck together, instead of apart. Easy fix with glue (the only neck repair I've ever done). Those unfortunately also sounded the same as the other sets of '57's I'd had. I gave '57's a shot, but they're not for me.

There's a muddy quality to them to my ears, which I've seen other members mention here, that I initially assumed went with having A2 magnets. That turned me off on A2's for a while, until I got curious and tried a pair of Seth's... and loved them. Then I realized it wasn't A2's, it was the wind. The most annoying thing in my opinion is the high end. In all three sets, the bridge had a dull 'ribbony' kind of sound to my ears that I don't like at all. I'd add a lot of treble to get some bite to it (with 500K's) and the treble seemed stay in the background and not sharpen it. I haven't run into that with any other PU.

I'm a big PAF fan, my first Duncans were '59's, and I've had a variety of other manufacturer's PAF's. It's my favorite category of PU's. Maybe that's why I'm disappointed in '57's, as they seem to me to be a half-hearted attempt, basically so they don't have to buy them from someone else. Obviously some players like '57's, and some of those people are knowledgeable about PU's, although I think the majority of players who like them haven't tried any other PAF, especially any of the top aftermarket ones. Kojak said that Gibson has changed specs on '57's a few times, so it may be a moving target and the ones I've had may be different than yours. But I'm done with '57's, there's too many better PAF's made by passionate people who make PU's solely for their living, and aren't just going thru the motions. I like BB's and would like to try the other PAF's Gibson introduced several years ago in a creative spurt, so Gibson is certainly capable of producing what to me are very good PAF's. I look at '57's as I do the 498T/490R set: something disappointing that they haven't bothered to remedy. But that's just me.

 

[Perry go round]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Interesting. I didn't know they have changed specs on 57s. That may be the reason why there are so syrngly divided oppinions on them. I replace them from my LP for the opposite reason you didn't like them. I found the 57+ on the bridge having too much of a harsh treble content. Neck was ok, but I found myself receiveng a set of WLH so I replace the whole set. WLH feel more open and less compressed to my ears, with a sweeter and nicer high end, but retaining the power (I didn't like Seths because of being too tamed for my taste). 57s were nice anyway, just a bit harsh to my ear.

Enviado desde mi HUAWEI SCL-L01 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Zombiwoof]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Most of the time when a player says his production Gibson pickup sounds muddy, I figure it's because of the 300k linear pots Gibson uses in them. Swap them for known 500k audio's as they should have in the first place (IMO) and I bet that muddiness goes away.
Al

 

[blueman335]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Interesting. I didn't know they have changed specs on 57s. That may be the reason why there are so syrngly divided oppinions on them. I replace them from my LP for the opposite reason you didn't like them. I found the 57+ on the bridge having too much of a harsh treble content. Neck was ok, but I found myself receiveng a set of WLH so I replace the whole set. WLH feel more open and less compressed to my ears, with a sweeter and nicer high end, but retaining the power (I didn't like Seths because of being too tamed for my taste). 57s were...just a bit harsh to my ear.

As I tried more of the Duncan PAF-types (Seth's, A2P, WLH) I realized that Seymour had put more effort into crafting the tones of his PAF line. He had to. Players have to justify pulling out existing stock PU's and paying a good price for Duncan's, plus they usually have to pay a tech to do it. They won't spend that kind of money if there's not an audible improvement in tone. When someone buys a Gibson they're buying a complete guitar and a name on the headstock; the PU's that happen to come in them aren't of interest to most purchasers. Gibson knows this. To me, that explains my preference for Duncans (I have more of them than any other brand) and why Gibson's PU's seem to be hit or miss. I don't understand them putting '57's or the 498T/490R set in guitars that cost several thousand dollars. There are so many better aftermarket PU's more deserving.

Actually, I think that Gibson has helped out Duncan quite a bit over the years. I've seen many posts form players buying Duncans for their Epiphones, most of which definitely do need a PU upgrade. Also from players with Gibson's American-made line, maybe partially because of Gibson's seemingly cavalier attitude towards their own PU's.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Rick, I totally understand about "my opinion", I just wasn't sure about the specifics of the tone/performance you don't like.

I think the thing I personally like about the 57 is what you don't like about it. I've never tried it in the bridge and never tried the 57+ model, only the 57 neck. I like the soft, smooth, mellow, violin-like A2 character in the neck. I reserve my bridge pup for the biting tones. It's just my style. But then, I also like the Pearly in the neck, and I love the Demon there as well. And I totally love P-90s anywhere.

Absolutely agree about Duncans, I easily own 10 times more than any other brand. There are very few that I don't love. I admit that I only "like" the 59 (even though I love it as a hybrid with a Custom), and I don't care for the Custom with ceramic mag, but totally love it with other mags, especially A8.

Every pup has its place and Duncan has a pup for every taste.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

It's just a difference in taste, Doc. I much prefer neck HB's with some high-end bite, so they're closer to the bridge tone, but fuller sounding. Most of my hybrids are in the neck slot for that extra shot of treble. Just don't care for warm, rounded neck PU's, which is why '57's, PGN's, and Phat CatN's (in their stock form) don't appeal to me, too smooth. I've even put 1 meg pots on neck HB's in LP's, to milk out a little more high-end.

Kind of funny, I want a brighter neck PU than the average player, but a warmer, middier bridge than most. I guess I go for the middle ground and don't find the extremes to be as useful.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Well, I'm so glad we all have different tastes. Much of the music I love so much is because it sounds so different than anything I could ever imagine writing. Variety is definitely the spice of life.

It's interesting that we (our tastes) are so much the same about so many things, but so different about this. And I'm good with that.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

Re: Burstbucker pro’s mod or replace?

It's just a difference in taste, Doc. I much prefer neck HB's with some high-end bite, so they're closer to the bridge tone, but fuller sounding. Most of my hybrids are in the neck slot for that extra shot of treble. Just don't care for warm, rounded neck PU's, which is why '57's, PGN's, and Phat CatN's (in their stock form) don't appeal to me, too smooth. I've even put 1 meg pots on neck HB's in LP's, to milk out a little more high-end.

Kind of funny, I want a brighter neck PU than the average player, but a warmer, middier bridge than most. I guess I go for the middle ground and don't find the extremes to be as useful.

I'm about the same.....

Most bridge pickups in the low output range already have a lot of bite due to the position and the wind, and most necks have a thick tone due to position. It is therefore unnecessary to have a dull neck pickup wind, or indeed a biting bridge pickup as the position already gives you this.

The 57's seem to give both. They seem to me (and many others I've come across) as annoyingly shrill in the bridge which can't be dialled out until the pickup is undefined.......then dull and flat in the neck that of course no tone knob can remedy.

Of all the people who like the 57's I've come across over many forums, a VERY high percentage of them have not tried anything else yet.
And of course statistically there has to be at least the odd guitar here or there where they might actually be the best option. I certainly know the much maligned 490R has done that in a couple of my guitars - even beating out clearer and more lively options.....but with a short A5 mag.