Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

[lemonman]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I'm not a Gibson pup specialist but doesn't the 57+ come with an A5 mag?

No, A2 mag with a higher wind. It has more bite in the upper mids than the regular 57, but is more rolled off on top.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I agree with a lot of what Ed Roman said about Gibson being somewhat shoddy and making its money based on name alone. But I'm playing devil's advocate here as far as their pups. They're good but not good enough to merit their expense.

Also, you could look at used gear = manufacturer desirability in two ways.

One is that most used gear you find is undesirable and that's why it comes up so often.

Another is that the used gear is popular and when people hock guitars for cash, etc., the popular used parts become common (such as SD pickups being on used gear sites). Much of it too is people buying pups to try them only to sell them.

I have a hard time finding used Gibson pickups but SD's are everywhere. You could look at that as SD's being awful and Gibsons being desirable, but we all know that isn't the case in terms of aftermarket pickups. I suspect Gibsons aren't found very often because people see LPs as collector guitars and don't want to take out the pickups. And, if aftermarket pickups are better, wouldn't you see a ton of Gibson pickups being sold used because of people replacing them?

That said, I bought my Gibsons retail because most of the used ones you see are two conductor and I wanted four conductor. I also got them because I wanted to save SD's PAF line for any Floyded guitars I have for which I want a PAF sound. And, at worst, I figured I'd only sound as bad as a stock Les Paul.

Some Gibson pickups I will take over SD's any day. Anyone who reads my posts know I hate the JB because I think the bottom is too loose and the mid spike is too obnoxious (this is from someone who uses EMGs, Duncan Distortions, and Blackouts regularly). The best rhythm guitar pickup I've tried so far hands down is the 498t, which I find to be much more even than the JB but still sounding full.

All that said, as far as the original post, I can agree with a lot of people who find the 57 muddy and kind of hollow because it lacks enough gain to saturate. I'd go with the 57+ minimum to match with the 500t. Go up any higher in gain and you might end up with something like an EMG 60--great for something like a bright chorus through a Roland JC but it lacks the warmth of a PAF.

I'm sure once I try a 59 in the neck I'll change my mind, or a Seth. But if a Jazz is already a touch too warm for me, I'm skeptical.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I still haven't played a P90 of any price range that I like better than Gibson's. The stock BBV's in my '04 Standard (which I bought new back then) are still there; I have had no desire whatsoever to change them, because I've been able to get them to do exactly what I want with careful setup and amp tweaks. I had '57 Classics in one of my SGs for about 10 years as well, and I only de-installed them when it was time to sell the guitar (I took it back to the stock pickups). The 490R and 490T set is one of the best humbucker sets made to my ear. BB 1, 2, and 3 are all outstanding sounding pickups. Even the 500T and 496R do their one thing pretty darned well.

I am really far from being a Gibson fanboy too; I despise what the company has become, and I think their build quality is terrible compared to their prices. I'm not trying to bash the aftermarket here, or to promote the Gibson company. Other companies make pickups that sound different and that do different things, and they are also great. I am just voting with my ears here, and they tell me that, in short, Gibson pickups, in the tonal sense, are FINE. They are relatively often the best all-around tools for a given application of mine. They're good sounding pickups; it would just be ludicrous to buy them for brand new retail prices. Get them used, pulled from expensive guitars by gear junky tweakers who feel they must upgrade, for whatever reason they think they have.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I suspect Gibson passes on some of its costs in guitar making to be covered through pickup sales, with the intention being aimed at getting to people like me who want a Gibson sound without the price tag of a Gibson guitar. I got each of mine nickel covered used on EBay for about $80 each. It was hard to find them for less.

Acquiring all that wood, building expensive guitars, and doing ads and endorsements must be expensive for Gibson, and it must find its way into the pricing of the pickups, which are sold based on name. Seymour has much less overhead probably because he isn't in the guitar business and thus can price his pickups more competitively.

Also, anybody remember seeing Floyd Rose make guitars briefly and now they no longer do? I suspect Ibanez and Schecter are eating everybody's lunch at the moment, at the expense of domestic guitar manufacturers. But I guess this has been going on since the 1970s.

As a last thought, does the brand of the pickup matter as much as the person who designed them? For example, Bill Lawrence designed pickups for Seymour, Gibson, and Fender. Everybody wins when the right people make pickups for a variety of companies.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

Gibson's pups are not priced to help recoup the cost of their guitar, etc. Gibson guitars are priced to recoup all of those costs. Their pups are priced to make a big profit. Gibson is all about making money, not providing quality.

I'm not particularly a Gibson basher, I own many Gibson guitars, but there are other brands on the market that are better quality and at lower prices.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

Bill Lawrence designed pickups for Seymour, Gibson, and Fender

I know 'bout Gibson, but I don't know any Fender or Duncan p'up designed by Bill Lawrence.

Would you please name'em?

 

[slightly_rude]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

Fender's second generation noiseless pickups; SCN's Samarium Cobalt Noiseless

http://www.billlawrence.com/Pages/SCNHistory.htm

 

[Rockstar216]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

Fender's second generation noiseless pickups; SCN's Samarium Cobalt Noiseless

http://www.billlawrence.com/Pages/SCNHistory.htm

He helped designed them but Fender changed the design from Bill's original design and didn't want to compromise so he left. Now as for Duncan I don't know but I do know that Bill was pleased with the Dimebucker.

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

My experience with the '59 is as a neck pickup in my G&L ASAT Deluxe; 250K pots and a coil split, with a TB-4 in the bridge. I have '57 Classics in my chambered CS Les Paul Elegant, and my ES-335s. I also have the '57 neck/'57+ bridge set in my two 2007 GOTW Classic Antique Les Pauls. My Number One guitar though, is a G&L Legacy; I play through a Mesa Mark Series amp in a G/B/K/D cover band.

I find that for our "soft-rock" gigs or places where I might have an older crowd, the guitars with the mellow '57 Classics work very well. On the more ROCK gigs, I prefer to use one of my historic LPs with the BB 1 & 2 pickups--they have a little more edge to them. BTW, to my ear, the TB-4 and the '57 Classic+ sound very similar, with some mid-range emphasis and a "rock" attitude.

In comparison, and admittedly--these are very different guitars to compare--the '59 in the ASAT Deluxe is less warm, slightly more top end, more articulate and defined than what I hear from the '57 Classic. In some ways, the '57 has a definite character, rounder and "muddy" if you will; while the '59 sounds almost bland in comparison. That could be a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on your taste. FWIW, I doubt that I'll be changing ANY of the pickups in these guitars.

I hate using the word "better" when describing pickups--its all about one's taste, and finding something appropriate for the guitar and the musical situation. And then there is the issue of how the pickup reacts with the amp--a solid-state modeler is going to be different than a Fender, or Marshall, or Mesa or a _______ . A prime example of mine is the 496r/500t sets in my two LP 1960 Classics--they just had too much output for my Mesa amps, but I did like the tone. I think they would be great for pushing a NMV amp, like a BF Twin or old Marshall...but not my Mesas. I replaced them in one guitar with Antiquitys, and the Musician's Friend 50th Anniversary A2 Seth Lovers n the other guitar--and couldn't be happier.

Sorry, I won't claim any real expertise, but I hope my experience is helpful to you.

Bill

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

Gibson's pups are not priced to help recoup the cost of their guitar, etc. Gibson guitars are priced to recoup all of those costs. Their pups are priced to make a big profit. Gibson is all about making money, not providing quality.

I'm not particularly a Gibson basher, I own many Gibson guitars, but there are other brands on the market that are better quality and at lower prices.

I'd be inclined to agree with this, except Gibson probably sells way more guitars than they do pickups.

The guitars are a huge profit generator. How often do you see imitators making all mahogany set neck or neck thru models for less?

That said, Gibson still makes much of their stuff here, which means increased labor costs relative to Asian labor. Other companies like Jackson have largely outsourced their production to Asian countries except for their small yearly production of custom shop models. In fact, I'd say just about every American brand has gone from their 70s-80s custom shop made in America heyday to Asian, mass produced imitations of their classic models.

I think we all can agree, though, that the Gibson brand alone, a legacy brand, drives up cost due to name only.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I know 'bout Gibson, but I don't know any Fender or Duncan p'up designed by Bill Lawrence.

Would you please name'em?

SCN singles I think.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

As for BB's, I've never played them, but based on sound samples I've heard they sound very peaky with a lot of bite. My concern is they would be shrill doing harder rock or metal, but they might be great for Brad Paisley style major pentatonic country licks.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Gibson 57 Classic vs Duncan 59?

I'd be inclined to agree with this, except Gibson probably sells way more guitars than they do pickups.

+1. Gibson's not pricing their PU's to sell many of them. As with their guitars, there's a big profit margin built into the pricing. When you have a Gibson guitar, people can see the nheadstock and know that; with their PU's no one can tell what you have in a guitar.

All of the Gibson HB's I've bought (BB1, 2 & 3, 490R, 490T, 498T, 500T, '57 Classic, '57 Classic+) were bought used. All but one of them were stock PU's taken out of Gibson guitars. I think there's much more activity going on in the used market with Gibson HB's, than with their new ones. At the $40-50 I've paid for mine, they're good for the price. At 3 times that (new retail) there's better options. That transaltes to missed sales opportunities. If they were priced like Duncans and DiMarzios, Gibson would sell a lot more and end up with a bigger profit in total dollars. But as has been said, Gibson's a guitar company that makes PU's, and marking up their aftermarket PU prices helps justify the prices of their guitars, and guitars are priority #1. Some people think they're getting $300 worth of PU's in their Gibson; well, yes and no.