is it just me or do they sound a bit boomy and muddy when the chord attack is pretty hard? they definitely drive my non master volume amps with front end gain that i don't like. i will try to lower the pickups to make sure i still get the nice clarity while avoiding the boominess. they're in my 1957 RI.
gibson burstbuckers
- Thread starter esandes
- Start date
loversmoon
New member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
I personally am not a fan of
Burst buckers either. They are very muddy if you play with a heavy hand.
I personally am not a fan of
Burst buckers either. They are very muddy if you play with a heavy hand.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: gibson burstbuckers
'Heavy band' as in metal or British blues? They're not really suited for metal and massive distortion because of the A2 magnets, but they do British blues and heavy classic rock well.
BB's are far better, and less muddier than '57 Classics, which Gibson persists in putting in most of their models.
'Heavy band' as in metal or British blues? They're not really suited for metal and massive distortion because of the A2 magnets, but they do British blues and heavy classic rock well.
BB's are far better, and less muddier than '57 Classics, which Gibson persists in putting in most of their models.
VinceT
New member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
2nd best decision I ever made was to ditch the stock 57 Classics from my ES335
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
2nd best decision I ever made was to ditch the stock 57 Classics from my ES335
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
LtKojak
New member
loversmoon
New member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
Was just my option. I do like the 57 classics. It all comes down to taste and perspective
Was just my option. I do like the 57 classics. It all comes down to taste and perspective
treyhaislip
Well-known member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
I prefer the Gibson Ceramic Set over the Burstbuckers....but there are different Burstbuckers out there, do you know which one you have?
If its in a Les Paul I think the Pearly Gates Set is the best out there...very biased towards them but that would be my suggestion
Some forum members really like the Whole Lotta Humbucker sets, I haven't tried them yet but they have great reviews here.
I prefer the Gibson Ceramic Set over the Burstbuckers....but there are different Burstbuckers out there, do you know which one you have?
If its in a Les Paul I think the Pearly Gates Set is the best out there...very biased towards them but that would be my suggestion
Some forum members really like the Whole Lotta Humbucker sets, I haven't tried them yet but they have great reviews here.blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: gibson burstbuckers
+1. I've had '57's in several guitars, and they've been a major disappointment for me. I don't know how they can get a PAF made with good materials to sound so mediocre.
+1. I've had '57's in several guitars, and they've been a major disappointment for me. I don't know how they can get a PAF made with good materials to sound so mediocre.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: gibson burstbuckers
Actually, I don't see many PU's that can beat Seth's in an LP (or 335), and PG's certainly aren't one of them. In a side-by-side comparison, I can't picture anyone not choosing the Seth's. I really like A2P's, for the full bridge sound and neck with some bite to it. WLH's are very good too.
If its in a Les Paul I think the Pearly Gates Set is the best out there...very biased towards them but that would be my suggestion
Actually, I don't see many PU's that can beat Seth's in an LP (or 335), and PG's certainly aren't one of them. In a side-by-side comparison, I can't picture anyone not choosing the Seth's. I really like A2P's, for the full bridge sound and neck with some bite to it. WLH's are very good too.
treyhaislip
Well-known member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
Just depends on what you are looking for, I like a more aggressive sounding pickup (why I prefer the Gibson Ceramic Set out of Gibson Les Paul pickups) and the Pearly Gates do just that for me (although I've thought about putting an A5 in my Pearly Gates bridge pickup)
Just depends on what you are looking for, I like a more aggressive sounding pickup (why I prefer the Gibson Ceramic Set out of Gibson Les Paul pickups) and the Pearly Gates do just that for me (although I've thought about putting an A5 in my Pearly Gates bridge pickup)
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Last edited:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
If you are talking about the Burstbucker Pros, then I agree. The alnico 5 mags are a bit too strong in my opinion. '57 Classics are easier to tame IME (though I don't absolutely love them either).
If you want to make those pickups lower in output so they don't drive the amp as hard, try putting alnico 3 or alnico 2 magnets in them. I have not actually tried those magnets in those pickups; my suggestion comes from general experience swapping mags. A lot of times, replacing an alnico 5 magnet with an alnico 2 or 3 is just the ticket for slightly taming an overly hot P.A.F.-type humbucker.
That said, if you have a high wattage/high headroom amp with good, sensitive EQ controls, you can make the Burstbucker Pros sound really nice. The extra headroom handles the output well, while the good EQ controls can replace some of the anemic midrange, make the pickup less clattery on the high end, and less boomy on the low end.
If you are talking about the Burstbucker Pros, then I agree. The alnico 5 mags are a bit too strong in my opinion. '57 Classics are easier to tame IME (though I don't absolutely love them either).
If you want to make those pickups lower in output so they don't drive the amp as hard, try putting alnico 3 or alnico 2 magnets in them. I have not actually tried those magnets in those pickups; my suggestion comes from general experience swapping mags. A lot of times, replacing an alnico 5 magnet with an alnico 2 or 3 is just the ticket for slightly taming an overly hot P.A.F.-type humbucker.
That said, if you have a high wattage/high headroom amp with good, sensitive EQ controls, you can make the Burstbucker Pros sound really nice. The extra headroom handles the output well, while the good EQ controls can replace some of the anemic midrange, make the pickup less clattery on the high end, and less boomy on the low end.
Last edited:
misterwhizzy
Well-known member
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Leon Of Late
New member
Re: gibson burstbuckers
Not even, say, Billy Gibbons? I love the Seth's as well, but there are different flavors of PAF's for a reason and everyone hears things differently. I'm sure glad there is a choice of PAF's other than just the Seth's.,
Not even, say, Billy Gibbons? I love the Seth's as well, but there are different flavors of PAF's for a reason and everyone hears things differently. I'm sure glad there is a choice of PAF's other than just the Seth's.,
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: gibson burstbuckers
So am I, and I have an assortment of PAF makes and models. Most of the guys who have a PAF or two haven't owned Seth's, and might look at things differently once they have, remote as that possibility may be.
"Stick to topics you know about…"
I stand corrected. Let me better word what was going on in my head:
- "Ceramics are often preferred for metal and massive distortion because of the clarity and tighter low end, whereas A2 magnets are commonly found in PAF's, where their rich texture stands out with lower distortion."
- "Actually, I don't see many PU's that can beat Seth's in an LP (or 335). In a side-by-side comparison with Seth's and PG's, I can't picture anyone not being impressed by Seth's, although some may prefer the PG's. I really like A2P's, for the full bridge sound and neck with some bite to it. WLH's are very good too."
My apologies to anyone that was offended or got their knickers in a twist.
So am I, and I have an assortment of PAF makes and models. Most of the guys who have a PAF or two haven't owned Seth's, and might look at things differently once they have, remote as that possibility may be.
"Stick to topics you know about…"
I stand corrected. Let me better word what was going on in my head:
- "Ceramics are often preferred for metal and massive distortion because of the clarity and tighter low end, whereas A2 magnets are commonly found in PAF's, where their rich texture stands out with lower distortion."
- "Actually, I don't see many PU's that can beat Seth's in an LP (or 335). In a side-by-side comparison with Seth's and PG's, I can't picture anyone not being impressed by Seth's, although some may prefer the PG's. I really like A2P's, for the full bridge sound and neck with some bite to it. WLH's are very good too."
My apologies to anyone that was offended or got their knickers in a twist.
Last edited:
Similar threads
