Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
- Thread starter rmcfee
- Start date
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
This topic really opens a can of worms...Clearly the intent of both companies is to make the same kind of pup based on the name. But SD & DM are two very different sets of ears/tastes/philosophies. And I know there are guys out here that have had or do have both.
This topic really opens a can of worms...Clearly the intent of both companies is to make the same kind of pup based on the name. But SD & DM are two very different sets of ears/tastes/philosophies. And I know there are guys out here that have had or do have both.
davedvdy
New member
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
You might believe that in theory, but in reality they definitely will not. SD and Dimarzio use different materials, so that would change the sound, right there, I am sure EQ wise, they will come out different. I am not sure if there is an actual audio sample of the Dimarzio PAF, but you can listen to the SD 59, on this page:
http://www.seymourduncan.com/SDToneWizard/hummer.shtml
Good luck!
You might believe that in theory, but in reality they definitely will not. SD and Dimarzio use different materials, so that would change the sound, right there, I am sure EQ wise, they will come out different. I am not sure if there is an actual audio sample of the Dimarzio PAF, but you can listen to the SD 59, on this page:
http://www.seymourduncan.com/SDToneWizard/hummer.shtml
Good luck!
Sly_D
New member
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
I'm known to be a big fan of the 59s, and I recently played a DiMarzio PAF and I have to admit they sound extremely similar. And I also have to admit that in the neck position, I prefer the DiMarzio. A lot less boomy, a lot more balanced. Less scoopped. Very woody.
But like it's been said, it's a matter of personal taste.
Honnestly, I think anyone who likes the 59 will like the PAF, and the opposite is also true.
I'm known to be a big fan of the 59s, and I recently played a DiMarzio PAF and I have to admit they sound extremely similar. And I also have to admit that in the neck position, I prefer the DiMarzio. A lot less boomy, a lot more balanced. Less scoopped. Very woody.
But like it's been said, it's a matter of personal taste.
Honnestly, I think anyone who likes the 59 will like the PAF, and the opposite is also true.
JB_From_Hell
Jomo's Nimions
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
While not really answering your question, I have a guitar with real PAFs. The '59 neck does not sound to me much like them.
I'll sell you a real one for $5k
While not really answering your question, I have a guitar with real PAFs. The '59 neck does not sound to me much like them.
I'll sell you a real one for $5k
Last edited:
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
We've had this talk before JB: No one REALLY knows how the ^%&^ that pup was wound for real, all of them were slightly to very different back then. AND yours is 40+ years old.
What you really need to compare to are Seths or antiquities or some such thing. And they would sound far more consistent thaqn any two "real" PAFs - which neither the 59 nor the DM PAF would sound like.
We've had this talk before JB: No one REALLY knows how the ^%&^ that pup was wound for real, all of them were slightly to very different back then. AND yours is 40+ years old.
What you really need to compare to are Seths or antiquities or some such thing. And they would sound far more consistent thaqn any two "real" PAFs - which neither the 59 nor the DM PAF would sound like.
Sly_D
New member
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
And remember that DiMarzio never claimed its PAF sounds like a REAL PAF. They cleary say it sounds like a PAF would have sound when it was new back in the days. There is no "aging" properties in the DMZ PAF. Just the same specs as the PAF with new components. I suppose the same is true for the 59. You like it or you don't.
I personally don't give a rat's bottom what a real PAF sounded like. To me, both the the 59 and the PAF sound great. That's enough for me
And remember that DiMarzio never claimed its PAF sounds like a REAL PAF. They cleary say it sounds like a PAF would have sound when it was new back in the days. There is no "aging" properties in the DMZ PAF. Just the same specs as the PAF with new components. I suppose the same is true for the 59. You like it or you don't.
I personally don't give a rat's bottom what a real PAF sounded like. To me, both the the 59 and the PAF sound great. That's enough for me
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
PAFs are not the "end all" of humbuckers. I've owned several real PAFs over the years. I can tell you with absolute certainty that just as there are many modern variations, reincarnations (or whatever you want to call them) of the original PAFs out there, there are just as many original PAFs having variations among themselves. Consequently, there CANNOT be one, difinitive PAF reissue out there. Also noteworthy is the fact that NOT ALL original PAFs sound great. Some of them really bite the big one. Obviously, the same would hold true with the new stuff. In terms of the tonality of what's a good one and what's a bad one, old or new, who says so? YOU, the individual listener!
An original PAF being the one and only perfect humbucker is yet another web hysteria turned into some sort of infallible dogma which as usual, defies logic. Like I said, there's way too many variations within the originals and so, the original PAF as a species cannot be THE once perfected, never to be duplicated humbucker.
Case in point: To my liking, the 59er has too much bass, not enough mids and ample but not rich highs. The DiMarzio PAF has just a tad too much bass, perfect mids and rich, but not enough highs. I wouldn't use either of them. Conversely, to my ear, the best two modern versions are the Duncan Pearly Gates and the DiMarzio Virtual Hot PAF. I use both. Again, I can't compare either to an original PAF because one single PAF simply cannot be representative of it's too varying species. Note that I no longer have any real PAFs and prefer the modern day Duncans and DiMarzios.
So what does this tell you? Everything in the prior paragraph is about subjective things: One's personal tonal requirements and how one's ear perceives it. To give a balanced presentation, guaranteed, just as there are probably hundreds of players right here on this forum who would agree with me, there's just as many who would surely disagree.
Who's right? We ALL are. Under the heading of, "To each, his own", you probably have a preconceived notion in your head of what a great, old PAF sounds (or should sound) like. Listen to as many of the new offerings as you can and make your choice from there.
PAFs are not the "end all" of humbuckers. I've owned several real PAFs over the years. I can tell you with absolute certainty that just as there are many modern variations, reincarnations (or whatever you want to call them) of the original PAFs out there, there are just as many original PAFs having variations among themselves. Consequently, there CANNOT be one, difinitive PAF reissue out there. Also noteworthy is the fact that NOT ALL original PAFs sound great. Some of them really bite the big one. Obviously, the same would hold true with the new stuff. In terms of the tonality of what's a good one and what's a bad one, old or new, who says so? YOU, the individual listener!
An original PAF being the one and only perfect humbucker is yet another web hysteria turned into some sort of infallible dogma which as usual, defies logic. Like I said, there's way too many variations within the originals and so, the original PAF as a species cannot be THE once perfected, never to be duplicated humbucker.
Case in point: To my liking, the 59er has too much bass, not enough mids and ample but not rich highs. The DiMarzio PAF has just a tad too much bass, perfect mids and rich, but not enough highs. I wouldn't use either of them. Conversely, to my ear, the best two modern versions are the Duncan Pearly Gates and the DiMarzio Virtual Hot PAF. I use both. Again, I can't compare either to an original PAF because one single PAF simply cannot be representative of it's too varying species. Note that I no longer have any real PAFs and prefer the modern day Duncans and DiMarzios.
So what does this tell you? Everything in the prior paragraph is about subjective things: One's personal tonal requirements and how one's ear perceives it. To give a balanced presentation, guaranteed, just as there are probably hundreds of players right here on this forum who would agree with me, there's just as many who would surely disagree.
Who's right? We ALL are. Under the heading of, "To each, his own", you probably have a preconceived notion in your head of what a great, old PAF sounds (or should sound) like. Listen to as many of the new offerings as you can and make your choice from there.
Last edited:
JB_From_Hell
Jomo's Nimions
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
I know. I just think it's interesting to point out. Everybody who makes a PAF clone bills them as sounding like the originals. A friend of my dad's had a V that he put a PAF in, and it was WAY closer to the one I have than you'd probably think.
Metalblaze
New member
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
I have and use the DiMarzio PAF (the plain PAF) and I have used the '59 Model. In a Strat with 500k pots, I much prefer the DiMarzio in the neck or bridge. Right now mine is in the neck, which I prefer over the '59 neck model. In the bridge, the DiMarzio is just incredible. Very responsive, wide open, it has the mids the '59 doesn't. The highs are there but not overly aggressive. I like the '59 Model as well, but I think it sounds better in Strats with 250k or even 300k pots.
In Les Pauls, it's a whole new ballgame. I'd probably go '59 bridge there and Jazz neck. Although my LP has a C5/Jazz combo now.
There are so many options out there it's not funny. Any and all of them will get the job done, it's just a matter of what you prefer.
I have and use the DiMarzio PAF (the plain PAF) and I have used the '59 Model. In a Strat with 500k pots, I much prefer the DiMarzio in the neck or bridge. Right now mine is in the neck, which I prefer over the '59 neck model. In the bridge, the DiMarzio is just incredible. Very responsive, wide open, it has the mids the '59 doesn't. The highs are there but not overly aggressive. I like the '59 Model as well, but I think it sounds better in Strats with 250k or even 300k pots.
In Les Pauls, it's a whole new ballgame. I'd probably go '59 bridge there and Jazz neck. Although my LP has a C5/Jazz combo now.
There are so many options out there it's not funny. Any and all of them will get the job done, it's just a matter of what you prefer.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
I think the DiMarzio PAF (original) matches up better with more guitars..it's more even toned...less boomy, a bit more mids, and less brightness than a 59.
That said, I think the 59 has more character & sweetness. If I was looking for lower gain classic rock/blues or clean tones *only*, I'd take the 59. But for that higher gain Gary Moore/John Sykes type singing neck pup , I'd take the DiMarzio.
Ultimately, It really depends on the guitar ...in a dark guitar the 59 is great..but the mid "scoop" and brightness can get overbearing on a thin or already bright sounding piece of wood. And in a lackluster (overall) piece of wood, the DiMarzio PAF will sound just as lackluster, and the 59 would likely add some new life to your tone.
I think the DiMarzio PAF (original) matches up better with more guitars..it's more even toned...less boomy, a bit more mids, and less brightness than a 59.
That said, I think the 59 has more character & sweetness. If I was looking for lower gain classic rock/blues or clean tones *only*, I'd take the 59. But for that higher gain Gary Moore/John Sykes type singing neck pup , I'd take the DiMarzio.
Ultimately, It really depends on the guitar ...in a dark guitar the 59 is great..but the mid "scoop" and brightness can get overbearing on a thin or already bright sounding piece of wood. And in a lackluster (overall) piece of wood, the DiMarzio PAF will sound just as lackluster, and the 59 would likely add some new life to your tone.
LesPaulRules
New member
Re: Duncan 59 vs Dimarzio PAF
I really like the '59 in the bridge of a Les Paul. Big sound, but with good definition.
I really like the '59 in the bridge of a Les Paul. Big sound, but with good definition.
Similar threads
