Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

[Riki Guitar]

Hi.
I'm thinking about swapping the pickups on my Gibson Explorer (mahogany body+mahogany neck+rosewood fretboard, with stock Gibson ceramics).

In my head, I'd like to get a raw, "woody" vintage and touch-responsive sound from it
I don't aim to achieve a certain "artist tone", I'm just looking for my own sound, ad described. I mostly play "dirty" blues and hard rock, and I do not like modern sounds.
If I have to give some examples, think at Billy Gibbons ("Rio Grande Mud" and "Tres Hombres" albums) or Angus Young's ("Back in Black" and "Leth There Be Rock" albums, or Jailbreak -song-) tones.

My first choices would be the Pearlygates set (PG-1n + PG-1b) or a combo made out from PG-1n + SH-5 (Custom).

Also, I'd like to get a slightly thicker sound from the bridge position - by now, it sounds a little bit too thin on the higher strings. Don't need (nor do I look for) extremely high DC Resistance values.

I mostly play on a 1985 JCM-800 (it's here the thin sound..) and on a Fender Blues Deluxe Reissue (where the stock ceramics sound ok). Different beasts.
I also play a Gibson LP R8 (Burstbucker 1 + SD '59 with rough cast A2 magnet) and a Gibson ES-335 (with DiMarzio Paf36)

What do you suggest me to look at?

Rick

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

PGs are a great set to look at–raw and raunchy but can still get sweet tones out of them. A more generic but nice raw tone would be the Gibson Ceramic Set (496R+500T) but I think you are wanting the PGs. Every guitar player is different, but he PGs gave me the best harmonics out of any pickup I've tried except for a JB.

EDIT: Completely forgot about another great pickup that I think would be a great fit: Motor City 2nd Degree Black Belts. Lots of raw power but still crystal clear.

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

PG's are a great set.

59's or Seth Lovers modified by removing the polished magnet and replacing it with RoughCast A5 from Addiction FX are also excellent.

I'm using PG's and RCA5 modified 59's and Seth Lovers in my favorite mahogany solid body guitars these days.

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Hi guys, thanks for the replies

PGs are a great set to look at–raw and raunchy but can still get sweet tones out of them. A more generic but nice raw tone would be the Gibson Ceramic Set (496R+500T) but I think you are wanting the PGs. Every guitar player is different, but he PGs gave me the best harmonics out of any pickup I've tried except for a JB.

EDIT: Completely forgot about another great pickup that I think would be a great fit: Motor City 2nd Degree Black Belts. Lots of raw power but still crystal clear.

Well, I previously had the 496R/500T combo on a Flying V, and my actual Explorer (2017 model) has 496R/496T (which should be the bridge version of the 496R, in fact they have similar DC Resistance - 8.47Kn and 8.71Kb)

Here's the specs of the 496R.

I have to say - I quite like it. It has that bottom "grit" that I'm looking for, but it is a little too scooped in the mids/bass-mids. Also a little too much defined. I do not play metal, nor do I use hi gain sounds. I was thinking about putting a polished A5 magnet in it, but I don't really want to "dismantle" it, because it's new (such a mental certainty )

PG's are a great set.

59's or Seth Lovers modified by removing the polished magnet and replacing it with RoughCast A5 from Addiction FX are also excellent.

I'm using PG's and RCA5 modified 59's and Seth Lovers in my favorite mahogany solid body guitars these days.

I had the PGb, but never tried the PGn.
I did the same swap on the '59b on my LP R8, and it worked really well with the A5 it was a little too bit compressed and "fuzzy", with the rough A2 (from addictionFX) got really better..more vintage.

The problem is, I live in Italy and buying from the USA is not that easy/convenient for us I have only 1 another rough A2 (a friend of mine gave 'am to me).

and what about the SH-5 Custom or the SH-11 Custom Custom? Does the SH-11 really have a 3/7/7 EQ? It looks thin in the bottom range, just reading the paper

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Don't bother with the EQ graphs. You are better off reading how guys that actually own them and play them choose to describe them, but pay attention to what guitars they are using them in and what amps they are using.

A JCM will take the beef out of many humbuckers, depending on cabinet and speakers. My Pearlies are bright, so I wouldn't have thought of that for the problem you are trying to solve - I think you'll end up having to keep the tone rolled off to 7-8. 59s are not scooped to me (as I've read many others say on this forum) and 59s are a bit darker on the top end compared to Pearlies, so my first thought for a bridge would have been 59. The Pearly neck, however, is better than the 59 neck out of the box. An even better choice for a 'Gibson'-like neck might be a Jazz. My Jazz neck is bright and chimey in my Les Pauls, but in my all-mahogany SG is was tamed and evened out quite a bit. Seth neck is also an excellent alternative.

To be honest, at first while reading your description the 500T/496R set came to my mind, but you said you don't like those. To my ears, there's nothing modern about the 500T/496R set. They sound like most any Gibson 'PAF'-ish humbucker, only louder, meaning they can drive an amp a little more without a boost pedal. But sound-wise, they should do what you are describing (Angus, dirty blues, hard rock, but maybe not quite Gibbons touch-sensitive - the Pearlies would give you pinch harmonics and more texture to work with for that).

 

[EDX]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

if i were you i would go with a custom shop pearly gates set wound by MJ with a degaussed rough cast a5 on the neck and a degaussed a8 on the bridge with the bridge bucker wound up to 9k and antiquity treatment, you wouldn't get more raw and vintage than that

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Don't bother with the EQ graphs. You are better off reading how guys that actually own them and play them choose to describe them, but pay attention to what guitars they are using them in and what amps they are using.

A JCM will take the beef out of many humbuckers, depending on cabinet and speakers. My Pearlies are bright, so I wouldn't have thought of that for the problem you are trying to solve - I think you'll end up having to keep the tone rolled off to 7-8. 59s are not scooped to me (as I've read many others say on this forum) and 59s are a bit darker on the top end compared to Pearlies, so my first thought for a bridge would have been 59. The Pearly neck, however, is better than the 59 neck out of the box. An even better choice for a 'Gibson'-like neck might be a Jazz. My Jazz neck is bright and chimey in my Les Pauls, but in my all-mahogany SG is was tamed and evened out quite a bit. Seth neck is also an excellent alternative.

To be honest, at first while reading your description the 500T/496R set came to my mind, but you said you don't like those. To my ears, there's nothing modern about the 500T/496R set. They sound like most any Gibson 'PAF'-ish humbucker, only louder, meaning they can drive an amp a little more without a boost pedal. But sound-wise, they should do what you are describing (Angus, dirty blues, hard rock, but maybe not quite Gibbons touch-sensitive - the Pearlies would give you pinch harmonics and more texture to work with for that).

In fact, I'm looking for thoughts rather than images
The JCM is plugged into a Marshall 1960 Classic with 4 Greenbacks (UK made), but it rarely plays at high volumes (it's a beast...).
I always play with tone rolled to about 7-8; so I do with both volumes, too.

The '59 in my Les Paul got really better with the A2 magnet. Maybe, it's just a matter of magnets for the stock pickups, too. (A5 for both, or A5 neck and RCA2 bridge)

if i were you i would go with a custom shop pearly gates set wound by MJ with a degaussed rough cast a5 on the neck and a degaussed a8 on the bridge with the bridge bucker wound up to 9k and antiquity treatment, you wouldn't get more raw and vintage than that

Then, I'll have to sell the guitar in order to pay the pickups

 

[Mincer]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

From your description, the Pearly Gates or Saturday Night Special set would be my choices. If your guitar is on the mid or bassy side, go with the Pearlies.

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Well the Explorer isn't exactly the bassier Gibson on this planet, but it's "full", meaning that it rings well on the whole spectrum without "preference" for high or low frequencies.

The Les Paul 1958 Reissue is much more deeper in sound (still not muddy!), that's why I didn't like the '59 in the neck and put on again its Burstbucker 1 (A2). It also has much more volume.

Stock Gibson pickups on the Explorer actually feedback and drive the amp very good, though they have only 8.47 and 8.71 in K value. I'll try again that magnet swap.

What about the Custom and the Custom Custom? They're hotter in output but that doesn't bother me - that's what volume pots are made for!

 

[Mincer]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

The Custom Custom certainly has a ton of mids, and if you replace the magnet with a ceramic one, you get the regular Custom, so it is like trying out 2 different pickups. The Custom is like a PAF that is twice as loud, so if you like a PAF voicing, but just louder and more of everything, then the Custom will work. I love the sound of a Custom Custom in a Strat, but never tried in an Explorer. You might not dig the mids or the 'squishy' bass.

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Hey Mincer,
Yeah, I'm a PAF-guy...and I always keep the mids present, not cranked up but...I like to cut in through the mix
The Explorer is way "lighter" in bass frequencies rather than the Les Paul, so I don't it will get muddy..

So, the combo PGn+Custom would work, as well..maybe as hotter combination rather than the PG set.

Does the Custom clean up well with the volume pot?

 

[dystrust]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Hey Mincer,
Yeah, I'm a PAF-guy...and I always keep the mids present, not cranked up but...I like to cut in through the mix
The Explorer is way "lighter" in bass frequencies rather than the Les Paul, so I don't it will get muddy..

So, the combo PGn+Custom would work, as well..maybe as hotter combination rather than the PG set.

Does the Custom clean up well with the volume pot?

Mine cleans up pretty well. It still sounds like a hot humbucker, but it's possible to play clean with the volume rolled off. I've had a Custom / Jazz set in my Explorer (ebony board) since 2003.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Well - I think a PG set is an obvious answer for what you want.

If you are going to 'hybrid' with a custom I might try an A2P/Custom instead of a PG/Custom

And...can't believe no one put PGn Whole Lotta Humbucker out there yet....

And the 500t sounds like a loud PAF? It's a freaking Duncan Distortion for all practical purposes! I think the Custom, while a PAF on steroids pup is ok, it's hardly raw and open tone wise when chilled out with the volume. It's tight and, well, tight. Wide range - sure. But low volume reveals the ceramic character IMO.

 

[Rand-O-Monium]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Yeah,WLH and/or SNS came to mind...

 

[Mincer]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

The Custom does clean up well, but it is at a lower position on the volume knob than a regular PAF, since the sound is more compressed. If you want a less compressed pickup, the 59/Custom Hybrid reacts like a normal PAF, with a little more power. It has a great balance of vintage/modern sounds.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

And the 500t sounds like a loud PAF? It's a freaking Duncan Distortion for all practical purposes!

Off topic for a bit: You might be using a different way of setting up the guitar and using a different amp/cab set up, who knows - maybe even a different way of playing / string gauge / touch with the strings. If you set up the 500T/496R combo in a Gibson guitar according to Gibson factory specs, and are running through a Marshall into a 4x12 Celestion cab (or equivalent rig that sounds as close as possible) dialed a touch above the edge of breakup when dimed, the 500/496 tone isn't that much different from lower output humbuckers, PAF or not, and IME it's one of the better Gibson humbucker offerings, particularly the neck 496R - I realized why the 500T/496R were in the Gibson Jimmy Page Les Paul from the 1990's as soon as I tried them in my Les Paul Studio with a stock setup. They will do AC/DC and dirty blues and most of the music cited, and while not dead-on perfect, they will also survive crappier amp situations better than some more dead-on ideal pickup combos. Only for the La Grange-type pinch harmonics something more dead-on ideal like Pearlies or 78 model or Custom Hybrid might be needed. But the 500T will be thicker than a PAF when playing single notes higher up, which was one of the problems cited. Rolled back and used with the neck, in the middle position, keeps it bright and clear when clean.

And for what it's worth (since you mention it being like a Duncan Distortion), using the same setup (Gibson factory-spec pickup height -> Les Paul Studio -> Marshall -> 4x12) with a Duncan Distortion and the tone rolled off to 6, the DDistortion did the best Led Zeppelin IV sounds (Black Dog, Rock and Roll) that I've ever gotten out of that guitar, though not much else I tried sounded like a famous recording (note I don't play metal these days, so didn't try it on songs it's likely ideal for). It was too bright (I had to keep the tone rolled down to 6) and fuzzy/buzzy on the low end - kind of loose Black Sabbath bottom end. It doesn't sound like a 500T in my Les Paul Studio at least. With everything dimed, the Distortion was like a Bass-8 Mid-5 Treble-11 while the 500T was like a Bass-6 Mid-7 Treble 6, for lack of a better way to compare in a description.

Back on topic: that's all water under the bridge - to get all that tonal range plus harmonic complexity needed, Pearlies and other suggestions made would be even better, giving more accuracy and range in tone.

And...can't believe no one put PGn Whole Lotta Humbucker out there yet....

That would be a great combination.

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

Well - I think a PG set is an obvious answer for what you want.

If you are going to 'hybrid' with a custom I might try an A2P/Custom instead of a PG/Custom

And...can't believe no one put PGn Whole Lotta Humbucker out there yet....

And the 500t sounds like a loud PAF? It's a freaking Duncan Distortion for all practical purposes! I think the Custom, while a PAF on steroids pup is ok, it's hardly raw and open tone wise when chilled out with the volume. It's tight and, well, tight. Wide range - sure. But low volume reveals the ceramic character IMO.

Well, I actually do not have a 500T - newer Explorers come out from the factory with 496R/496T.

Never tried the WLH and the SNS, here in Italy are not so diffused in the IInd hand market, also dealers don't usually stock them.

Usually I don't like ceramics for the way of dialing with the volume pots..

The Custom does clean up well, but it is at a lower position on the volume knob than a regular PAF, since the sound is more compressed. If you want a less compressed pickup, the 59/Custom Hybrid reacts like a normal PAF, with a little more power. It has a great balance of vintage/modern sounds.

..and I work a lot with the volume pot, plus I do not like compressed sounds. Up next

Off topic for a bit: You might be using a different way of setting up the guitar and using a different amp/cab set up, who knows - maybe even a different way of playing / string gauge / touch with the strings. If you set up the 500T/496R combo in a Gibson guitar according to Gibson factory specs, and are running through a Marshall into a 4x12 Celestion cab (or equivalent rig that sounds as close as possible) dialed a touch above the edge of breakup when dimed, the 500/496 tone isn't that much different from lower output humbuckers, PAF or not, and IME it's one of the better Gibson humbucker offerings, particularly the neck 496R - I realized why the 500T/496R were in the Gibson Jimmy Page Les Paul from the 1990's as soon as I tried them in my Les Paul Studio with a stock setup. They will do AC/DC and dirty blues and most of the music cited, and while not dead-on perfect, they will also survive crappier amp situations better than some more dead-on ideal pickup combos. Only for the La Grange-type pinch harmonics something more dead-on ideal like Pearlies or 78 model or Custom Hybrid might be needed. But the 500T will be thicker than a PAF when playing single notes higher up, which was one of the problems cited. Rolled back and used with the neck, in the middle position, keeps it bright and clear when clean.
[...]

Back on topic: that's all water under the bridge - to get all that tonal range plus harmonic complexity needed, Pearlies and other suggestions made would be even better, giving more accuracy and range in tone.

That would be a great combination.

You're right, the 496R is a good pickup, I quite like it (a magnet swap would fix everything, I think).
It's somehow rough, which is a good think, not muddy..just a bit thin when lowering the volume by the pot.
The bridge version is a bit low in volume, I like the 496R at a certain height...and if I try to balance the volumes, the 496T becomes too thin.

 

[Riki Guitar]

Re: Great raw vintage combo for Gibson Explorer ?

I replaced the small, stock ceramic magnets of my 496R/496T for a polished A5 mag. in the neck (496R) and a rough cast A2 in the bridge (496T).
No changes in the DC resistance, but they both sound fuller and became more touch-responsive.

The 496T became less harsh, still trebly but not "ice-picky" ad with the ceramic magnet. Also a little rounder, overall.
The 496R gained in depth and roundness, and it got a bit more open in both sides of the spectrum (bass-treble). A little more scooped in the mids, I think..a little "'59-ish", I'd say.

I still have to play enough in order to get proper height adjustments and more defined impressions

I also removed a little of wax, I like to have a little bit of feedback to manage while playing...plus, they were too much waxed (I had to dismantle them entirely in orde to be able to pull out the magnets!)