How are Seths Under Gain?

[jonnymangia]

Guys,

I'm thinking of plunking a pair of Seth's in my SG Standard, replacing two 59's.
I'm trying to get a warmer, fatter sound for hard blues and rock (think "Fresh Cream") but I also want to play hard rock with gain. How do they sound dirtied up? The heaviest would be some punk, GNR, etc.

J

 

[gripweed]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

I think you'd be okay. The potting issue is overdone with the Seths IMHO. Unless you're doing super high gain I think it'll be okay. Many players notice not enough bass with Seths in an SG though

 

[JeffB]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

Many players notice not enough bass with Seths in an SG though

Thats what I was thinking. Might be too middy and not enough "beef" in an SG.

 

[Jeffrec]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

I don't normally use a lot of gain (just a nice grind and plenty 'O volume), but the Seths in my SG hold up nice under higher gain. I agree with Gripweed, the non-potting thing is overblown. Go for the Seths. You won;t be sorry.

Jeff

 

[jonnymangia]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

I don't normally use a lot of gain (just a nice grind and plenty 'O volume), but the Seths in my SG hold up nice under higher gain. I agree with Gripweed, the non-potting thing is overblown. Go for the Seths. You won;t be sorry.

Jeff

What about the issue with them not having enough low-end, as Jeff wrote about in one of the earlier posts. That's my biggest issue with the SG - the lack of bottom end. I thought they would be more bass heavy than the '59's, but if they are going to sound thinner, I have to avoid them like the plague.

 

[TheArchitect]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

What about the issue with them not having enough low-end, as Jeff wrote about in one of the earlier posts. That's my biggest issue with the SG - the lack of bottom end. I thought they would be more bass heavy than the '59's, but if they are going to sound thinner, I have to avoid them like the plague.

Thinner can mean different things. If you want thump from the very lowest freq. then the 59's are better than the seths. If you want mid fatness then Seths or A2Pro's are a better choice.

 

[Jeffrec]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

What about the issue with them not having enough low-end, as Jeff wrote about in one of the earlier posts. That's my biggest issue with the SG - the lack of bottom end. I thought they would be more bass heavy than the '59's, but if they are going to sound thinner, I have to avoid them like the plague.

I've never noticed anything "thin" sounding about the Seths. They've got low-end, at least enough for my tastes. I hate pups that are too bright & have minimal low end, and I find that the Seths are just right. Listent to the sound sample on the Duncan site.

I agree with Architect, A2P's are another option. I would add Antiquities to the list. They're my all around favorite.

Jeff

 

[Thames]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

I've never noticed anything "thin" sounding about the Seths. They've got low-end, at least enough for my tastes. I hate pups that are too bright & have minimal low end, and I find that the Seths are just right. Listent to the sound sample on the Duncan site.

I agree with Architect, A2P's are another option. I would add Antiquities to the list. They're my all around favorite.

Jeff

+1 on the comment about the Seth. -1 about Antiquities in a SG, tried 'em, too weak. Sounds fine in my LP and much better in my 335.

 

[jonnymangia]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

+1 on the comment about the Seth. -1 about Antiquities in a SG, tried 'em, too weak. Sounds fine in my LP and much better in my 335.

What about the A2Pro's versus the '59 in an SG?

 

[Jeffrec]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

+1 on the comment about the Seth. -1 about Antiquities in a SG, tried 'em, too weak. Sounds fine in my LP and much better in my 335.

With the Ants in an SG, you might have to play with the height. SGStrat has them in his '65 SG (I know the wood has aged and all, but), and it sounds incredible. Very rich and plenty 'O output.

Jeff

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

If you want more balls out of your bridge pickup, with plenty of bass, just swap the 59B for a C-5. I love Seths too, but they're very much in the vintage realm. the C-5 still has a vintage character, but hits the amp a little harder.

 

[jonnymangia]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

If you want more balls out of your bridge pickup, with plenty of bass, just swap the 59B for a C-5. I love Seths too, but they're very much in the vintage realm. the C-5 still has a vintage character, but hits the amp a little harder.

I heard the CC is a beast also. Can you get vintage tones from her?

 

[gripweed]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

I've never noticed anything "thin" sounding about the Seths. They've got low-end, at least enough for my tastes. I hate pups that are too bright & have minimal low end, and I find that the Seths are just right. Listent to the sound sample on the Duncan site.

I agree with Architect, A2P's are another option. I would add Antiquities to the list. They're my all around favorite.

Jeff

I agree that there is plenty of bass with the Seths. However the guitar that I have them in is a *beefy* sounding guitar with plenty of low end. Ymmv. I was simply voicing concerns that I've heard others voice in response to an SG.

 

[Thames]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

-1 on the C5, at least, in the SG I had.

 

[JeffB]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

It's not terribly "vintage" (nor "modern"), but I think A SH5 Custom would be a very good versatile match for a SG in the bridge...lots of tight low end..strong low, mid, and high mids, and defined but not overly bright high end which helps in an all mahogany guitar.

Just the output may be too much for you. I don't think it does cream or even AC/DC that well as it's a bit too compressed (not overly so, but the compression is there ) but it will do classic Thin Lizzy and beyond.

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

Seths sound killer under gain. If you've heard Eric Clapton on Fresh Cream or any recording of vintage 57 or 58 Gibson Les Pauls or ES 335's, you've heard the alnico 2 paf humbuckers that the Seth is an exact clone of. Lew

 

[jonnymangia]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

Seths sound killer under gain. If you've heard Eric Clapton on Fresh Cream or any recording of vintage 57 or 58 Gibson Les Pauls or ES 335's, you've heard the alnico 2 paf humbuckers that the Seth is an exact clone of. Lew

Lew, I understand that the Seth has that Fresh Cream vibe in an LP, but the SG is a much different animal, don't you agree? The bridge is a pain in the @%! if you like that fat, warm tones.

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

Lew, I understand that the Seth has that Fresh Cream vibe in an LP, but the SG is a much different animal, don't you agree? The bridge is a pain in the @%! if you like that fat, warm tones.

You know, I think a vintage humbucker in an SG or a Les Paul is not THAT much differant sounding...especially when you're playing with alot of distortion or overdrive. Eric Clapton got his signature Gibson tone with pretty much any Gibson guitar he'd play, be it a Les Paul, a SG or a ES-335. (He could even do it with a minihumbucker in a Firebird!) And Eddie Van Halen put a humbucker in a Strat to emulate Clapton's tone. The guitar makes a diff and alters the tone a little, for sure...but truthfully, I think a humbucker makes pretty much any guitar sound like a Gibson. Lew

 

[JeffB]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

The SG 61 Reissues sound VERY fat to me..for an SG that is. They have alnico II 57 classics in them.

Jonny have you a/b'ed your SG against any others?, cos I'm starting to wonder if you just have a not so great piece of wood in your axe.

 

[jonnymangia]

Re: How are Seths Under Gain?

The SG 61 Reissues sound VERY fat to me..for an SG that is. They have alnico II 57 classics in them.

Jonny have you a/b'ed your SG against any others?, cos I'm starting to wonder if you just have a not so great piece of wood in your axe.

I know it's not the axe. I took it to GC and plugged into some amps and it was definitely rocking. The thing though is that the SG has more of a snarl, whereas sometimes I want to get that fat, warm sound like Clapton did on the solo in "Sleepy Time Time" or that the Reverend gets on the first ZZ album. I like the neck pup (59) on my SG, it's just that the bridge sometimes sounds too twangy and trebly, like a Strat. I love the SG, it feels so damn good in my hands that I just don't want to trade it in for a Paul. I know I can get a fatter, yet vintage tone from the bridge. I'll get it!!!!!

And re: 57's, I thought they sounded kind of thin in the 335 and SG RI I played through. Maybe I'll try em again.