Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
- Thread starter OdgeUK
- Start date
jmh151
Active member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I played both side to side in an SG Standard and '61 Reissue. The 498's are more modern sounding and agressive, maybe due to the alnico 5 magnets.
The '57 classic was very smooth and flat sounding with alnico 2 magnets.
I prefer agression and to be able to roll that agression off with the tone control, so I preferred the 498. Most people hate them (along with the ceramic magnet 496/500t which I like) and prefer the '57's.
I played both side to side in an SG Standard and '61 Reissue. The 498's are more modern sounding and agressive, maybe due to the alnico 5 magnets.
The '57 classic was very smooth and flat sounding with alnico 2 magnets.
I prefer agression and to be able to roll that agression off with the tone control, so I preferred the 498. Most people hate them (along with the ceramic magnet 496/500t which I like) and prefer the '57's.
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
The reason I ask is that I have an 'Orville By Gibson' Les Paul Custom. I'm sure most of you know that these are Japanese licenced Les Paul's, with the main difference being that mine is more like an old Custom as it has an all mahogany body, long tenon and Classic '57 pickups in it.
Anyway, I've compared this Custom to my friends '92 Custom and another players 90's Studio. In both cases I was a little dissapointed with the output of my guitar. I find mine to be, like you said, FLAT. The Les Pauls that I prefered had more of everything. More honk in the middle position, more attack in the Bridge, more bold and alive in the neck.
It might just be down to the lack of a Maple cap on my guitar? Or maybe I just got a comparitively lifeless piece of wood. But I'm pointing the finger at the pickups first.....
Mine does have a good Rock sound but it's just a little middy and boxy compared to the full sound of the other Les Pauls I tried. Also, there is noticibly less sustain in any pickup position. Which, with a long tenon, I am surprised at (although I do need to lower the Bridge pickup somewhat, the cover isn't far from touching the strings.....
Sound like anyone elses experiences?
The reason I ask is that I have an 'Orville By Gibson' Les Paul Custom. I'm sure most of you know that these are Japanese licenced Les Paul's, with the main difference being that mine is more like an old Custom as it has an all mahogany body, long tenon and Classic '57 pickups in it.
Anyway, I've compared this Custom to my friends '92 Custom and another players 90's Studio. In both cases I was a little dissapointed with the output of my guitar. I find mine to be, like you said, FLAT. The Les Pauls that I prefered had more of everything. More honk in the middle position, more attack in the Bridge, more bold and alive in the neck.
It might just be down to the lack of a Maple cap on my guitar? Or maybe I just got a comparitively lifeless piece of wood. But I'm pointing the finger at the pickups first.....
Mine does have a good Rock sound but it's just a little middy and boxy compared to the full sound of the other Les Pauls I tried. Also, there is noticibly less sustain in any pickup position. Which, with a long tenon, I am surprised at (although I do need to lower the Bridge pickup somewhat, the cover isn't far from touching the strings.....
Sound like anyone elses experiences?
Jeffrec
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
Seth Lovers sound great in an all mahogany guitar, but that's my own bias. I replaced the '57's in my '61 SG/LP and love them.
However, you might try adjusting the pickup height and see what you get. Both 490 and '57 Classic are good pups and have enough output, so it might be an adjustment issue.
Seth Lovers sound great in an all mahogany guitar, but that's my own bias. I replaced the '57's in my '61 SG/LP and love them.
However, you might try adjusting the pickup height and see what you get. Both 490 and '57 Classic are good pups and have enough output, so it might be an adjustment issue.
Iron Horse
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
Demon/Jazz or PG's should deal that. (without too much power for vintage stuff)
Demon/Jazz or PG's should deal that. (without too much power for vintage stuff)
jmh151
Active member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I had '57 Classics in my Les Paul Custom. I hated them. No b*lls, flat, dark sounding. I thought the guitar was dead till I gutted it and put EMG's in.
If you were to change the pickups, I'd also replace all the pots with 500k CTS pots while you were at it, or even change the pots before the pickups.
I had '57 Classics in my Les Paul Custom. I hated them. No b*lls, flat, dark sounding. I thought the guitar was dead till I gutted it and put EMG's in.
If you were to change the pickups, I'd also replace all the pots with 500k CTS pots while you were at it, or even change the pots before the pickups.
lex666
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I've had the same experience with the 57's... In the bridge of my LP I've got a 57 plus. It is kinda flat, not as much balls as I would like. In my other LP's I use C5's, so I'm really used to that kind of tone. Lots of low end and kinda dirty with plenty of highs. The 57 is really mellow in comparison. Not in a bad way, just a flat way. I do like them for the cleans, but I don't play clean that often. The 498's had more output, but I found them to be muddy at times. I plan on replacing the 57's with 490/498's until I get some new Duncans...
I've had the same experience with the 57's... In the bridge of my LP I've got a 57 plus. It is kinda flat, not as much balls as I would like. In my other LP's I use C5's, so I'm really used to that kind of tone. Lots of low end and kinda dirty with plenty of highs. The 57 is really mellow in comparison. Not in a bad way, just a flat way. I do like them for the cleans, but I don't play clean that often. The 498's had more output, but I found them to be muddy at times. I plan on replacing the 57's with 490/498's until I get some new Duncans...
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
The 498 is 14k vs 9k for the 57+. I recently swapped an A2 mag into a 498T and made it into one of the best bridge buckers I've heard; I greatly prefer it to any of the Custom line. I liked it so much I did it to another of my LPs with the same results.
The 498 is 14k vs 9k for the 57+. I recently swapped an A2 mag into a 498T and made it into one of the best bridge buckers I've heard; I greatly prefer it to any of the Custom line. I liked it so much I did it to another of my LPs with the same results.
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I guess what irks me is that the '57 Classic is supposed to be voiced like a PAF, so I'm wondering why I can't get the sounds I want using a pickup modelled on my hero's? Switching to a higher output pickup almost feels like cheating, sort of like the kid who whacks his gain up to cover up his inability to control his picking and phrasing...LOL!
I had a PG in the Bridge position of my Washburn N4. It had great pick attack and dynamics, but no balls. But then this was the N4. A tiny guitar made of alder and with no mass at all behind the Floyd rose bridge. Hardly surprising really. However, the 59 in the neck of that guitar was something special.
I've got a coverless '59B at the moment waiting to go in an Ash strat, for a Van Halen kinda guitar. Might try that to see if it yields a better tone. All suggestions welcome in the meantime though :thanks:
Thanks for suggestions so far.
PS: Are maple capped Les Pauls always better for Hard Rock and Classic Rock compared to their All-mahogany brothers? Perhaps I just have the wrong guitar? I hear people say that the All-mahoghanys are voiced better for Jazz and cleans.
I guess what irks me is that the '57 Classic is supposed to be voiced like a PAF, so I'm wondering why I can't get the sounds I want using a pickup modelled on my hero's? Switching to a higher output pickup almost feels like cheating, sort of like the kid who whacks his gain up to cover up his inability to control his picking and phrasing...LOL!
I had a PG in the Bridge position of my Washburn N4. It had great pick attack and dynamics, but no balls. But then this was the N4. A tiny guitar made of alder and with no mass at all behind the Floyd rose bridge. Hardly surprising really. However, the 59 in the neck of that guitar was something special.
I've got a coverless '59B at the moment waiting to go in an Ash strat, for a Van Halen kinda guitar. Might try that to see if it yields a better tone. All suggestions welcome in the meantime though :thanks:
Thanks for suggestions so far.
PS: Are maple capped Les Pauls always better for Hard Rock and Classic Rock compared to their All-mahogany brothers? Perhaps I just have the wrong guitar? I hear people say that the All-mahoghanys are voiced better for Jazz and cleans.
Last edited:
jmh151
Active member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
The maple cap is suppose to add brightness to the warm, dark mahogany. If you do indeed have an al mahogany Les Paul, I'd put some brighter pickups in there, like a ceramic magnet Duncan Distortion. I've also heard that the all mahogany Les Pauls are better for Jazz and cleans as well.
Or you could try the ceramic magnet Gibsons- the 496/500T combo. Go to a music store and try out a Gibson Explorer- that all magogany guitar should give you an idea what your Les Paul will sound like with those pickups
The maple cap is suppose to add brightness to the warm, dark mahogany. If you do indeed have an al mahogany Les Paul, I'd put some brighter pickups in there, like a ceramic magnet Duncan Distortion. I've also heard that the all mahogany Les Pauls are better for Jazz and cleans as well.
Or you could try the ceramic magnet Gibsons- the 496/500T combo. Go to a music store and try out a Gibson Explorer- that all magogany guitar should give you an idea what your Les Paul will sound like with those pickups
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I must be in the minority. I love the '57 Classics. I've played 'em in Les Pauls, V's, SG's and someone's Strat. IMO, they're a great rock and blues pickup. I've been tempted to toss a Classic Plus and a Classic in my Frankenstrat for a while.
They are PAF's. They are reproductions of the PAF's that Gibson made back in, take a guess, 1957, hence the name. When people hear them, they expect them to sound like what a real '57 would sound like now rather than what they sounded like back then at that time. They are not aged so they have the sound they would have back in the late 50's.
I must be in the minority. I love the '57 Classics. I've played 'em in Les Pauls, V's, SG's and someone's Strat. IMO, they're a great rock and blues pickup. I've been tempted to toss a Classic Plus and a Classic in my Frankenstrat for a while.
They are PAF's. They are reproductions of the PAF's that Gibson made back in, take a guess, 1957, hence the name. When people hear them, they expect them to sound like what a real '57 would sound like now rather than what they sounded like back then at that time. They are not aged so they have the sound they would have back in the late 50's.
Iron Horse
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
Brighter pups and/or smaller caps is what you need!
300 K should work, or 250 K.
And for the pups: bridge, higain: DD, Demon, JB, Custom, Full Shred, PG. And neck pos. go for: Jazzn(or bridge model)/PGn /DiMarzio: HFH(BRIGHT!)
Brighter pups and/or smaller caps is what you need!
300 K should work, or 250 K.
And for the pups: bridge, higain: DD, Demon, JB, Custom, Full Shred, PG. And neck pos. go for: Jazzn(or bridge model)/PGn /DiMarzio: HFH(BRIGHT!)
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
Well, I think they are Jap pots rather than CTS. Can't see a value on them in the last pic I took of the wiring. I'll have to open her up again. The caps are orange, rectangular and look like little boiled sweets. Not sure if that indicates a certain value.
One thing I noticed for the first time this week...when I have both pickups engaged and turn the volume down to 0 on one of the pickups, I lose all output!!
Is this an indication that my guitar has the 50's wiring?
Well, I think they are Jap pots rather than CTS. Can't see a value on them in the last pic I took of the wiring. I'll have to open her up again. The caps are orange, rectangular and look like little boiled sweets. Not sure if that indicates a certain value.
One thing I noticed for the first time this week...when I have both pickups engaged and turn the volume down to 0 on one of the pickups, I lose all output!!
Is this an indication that my guitar has the 50's wiring?
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
If you're unsure about the pots, you can always take one out and measure it with an ohm meter. Sometimes you may see "A 300k" or "A 500k" or even "B 300k" or "B 500k" on them near the 3 lugs. The A meaning analog and the B meaning linear. Analog is what you want to for volume and either analog or linear for tone.
The cap color is just how the manufacturer made it. Sounds like it *might* be a Spraque Orange Drop. The value would be written on it, 223 for .022uf and 473 for .047uf.
The way your pots are wired is normal. They are coupled together when the selector switch is in the middle. It's perfectly fine that way.
If you're unsure about the pots, you can always take one out and measure it with an ohm meter. Sometimes you may see "A 300k" or "A 500k" or even "B 300k" or "B 500k" on them near the 3 lugs. The A meaning analog and the B meaning linear. Analog is what you want to for volume and either analog or linear for tone.
The cap color is just how the manufacturer made it. Sounds like it *might* be a Spraque Orange Drop. The value would be written on it, 223 for .022uf and 473 for .047uf.
The way your pots are wired is normal. They are coupled together when the selector switch is in the middle. It's perfectly fine that way.
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
Ta! So, when both pickups are 'on' and I roll off the volume of one of those pickups to zero, you would expect me to lose all sound? Rather than just hear the remaining pickup? I've only had Les Paul copies before and they didn't behave like that....
Ta! So, when both pickups are 'on' and I roll off the volume of one of those pickups to zero, you would expect me to lose all sound? Rather than just hear the remaining pickup? I've only had Les Paul copies before and they didn't behave like that....
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
That's how Gibsons are wired and that's how the Epi LP Standard I had is wired. It can be changed, but one drawback is that the signal is never cut off 100%. You can still hear sound through the pickups faintly with the volume all the way down. It's an easy change, just swap the middle lug wire that goes to the switch with the pickup wire on lug 3 (outter lug) on both volume pots. I'd move the tone control wire to the middle as well to the middle lug.
Which brings up the 50's mod. The 50's mod in your current wiring would be taking the wire to the tone pot from each volume and moving it to the center lug.
The middle position with both volumes "coupled" gets some neat sounds. Leave the bridge up and roll back the neck, then do the opposite. There is a difference in the sound. Plus, it's easier to use the toggle as kill switch with it wired the way it is now. You just have to jump to the middle position from the bridge or neck with one volume rolled down all the way.
That's how Gibsons are wired and that's how the Epi LP Standard I had is wired. It can be changed, but one drawback is that the signal is never cut off 100%. You can still hear sound through the pickups faintly with the volume all the way down. It's an easy change, just swap the middle lug wire that goes to the switch with the pickup wire on lug 3 (outter lug) on both volume pots. I'd move the tone control wire to the middle as well to the middle lug.
Which brings up the 50's mod. The 50's mod in your current wiring would be taking the wire to the tone pot from each volume and moving it to the center lug.
The middle position with both volumes "coupled" gets some neat sounds. Leave the bridge up and roll back the neck, then do the opposite. There is a difference in the sound. Plus, it's easier to use the toggle as kill switch with it wired the way it is now. You just have to jump to the middle position from the bridge or neck with one volume rolled down all the way.
Last edited:
dr.barlo
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
It seems to me that you would really like a C5. Basically it is quite similar to a 498T but with less lowermids. In your case, I think it will match the wood for what you want.
For the neck I'd get a Jazz. Very clear, and as alive as it can be.
Also mod the pots to CTS500K's, that'll open up the tone a bit as well.
Good luck,
B
It seems to me that you would really like a C5. Basically it is quite similar to a 498T but with less lowermids. In your case, I think it will match the wood for what you want.
For the neck I'd get a Jazz. Very clear, and as alive as it can be.
Also mod the pots to CTS500K's, that'll open up the tone a bit as well.
Good luck,
B
Pete Galati
New member
Re: Les Pauls: 498T vs '57 Classic
I think the pickups that Gibson sells as aftermarket pickups have 4-conductor cables. The 490/498 set that came in my Les Paul Junior/Special has a single conductor shielded cables, which is what I prefer.
Pete
I think the pickups that Gibson sells as aftermarket pickups have 4-conductor cables. The 490/498 set that came in my Les Paul Junior/Special has a single conductor shielded cables, which is what I prefer.
Pete