My CURRENT list of top PAF's

[freefrog]

The outsider, and it's quite strange to me, is the 57 classic. An old forumite described the 57 classic as dull and uninspiring in one old thread. I don't know if this is a too much excessive opinion. I simply don't care

Like most if not all long life models (including SH1, DP103 etc.), "the" 57 Classic changed along the years. AFAIK, the first ones were built according to the original Tom Holmes design... Then Gibson modified the recipe, like they always did and do. So, IMHO, it's not a question of excessive opinion. To me, it's due to the fact that a same label ("57" here) potentially refers to variable physical realities (whose variability seems even stronger when one thinks that a very same pickup can give totally different sounds in two different instruments).
YMMV and I'll understand if you don't care about this answer. ;-)

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Duncan 59's in the neck...but that's about it really. I prefer higher output pups..

 

[gsammo79]

On the largely shared idea that all (vintage Gibson) P.A.F.'s sound(ed) different...

The use of different winding machines in Gibson factories would explain that if needed.

Now, coils wound on different machines could/would still be paired with parts made of same/similar materials and through the same process... giving a common tonal character to most vintage P.A.F.'s or at least some common tonal features among a list of recognizable ones. I've shared my indifferent thoughts about that in the post 35.

But I must admit that I like Duncan humbuckers for... their Duncan character and not as replicas. Even in the very first SH1's Seymour had started to improve the recipe to avoid some Gibson flaws (like bobbin warping due to the softness of butyrate and that early 59's avoid thx to a specific bobbin molding with clever "redans"). To me, such personal design decisions go with a kind of tone that I hear with Duncan and not with other brands. Even a Seth, to my ears, blends the honky vocal mids of P.A.F.'s with a less raw sound / nicer smooth dimension that I identify with Seymour's idea of good tone... And that's what I love in 'em.

That's another reason why I'm reluctant to use the "PAF" acronym trademarked by DiMarzio when it comes to talk about the Duncan line. ;-)

What are the old Duncan '59s like?

 

[freefrog]

What are the old Duncan '59s like?

Those that I've owned or still own were loaded with A5 but sound(ed) closer to A2 loaded pickups - albeit without fat low mids : creamy but tight. Warmer and softer than expected from an A5 loaded PU but still bright and harmonically rich. Polite in their attack but in a pleasing way...

More later maybe. I've a bunch of experimental notes about these puppies but I've to decide what I feel authorized to publish or not.

 

[beaubrummels]

Those that I've owned or still own were loaded with A5 but sound(ed) closer to A2 loaded pickups - albeit without fat low mids : creamy but tight. Warmer and softer than expected from an A5 loaded PU but still bright and harmonically rich. Polite in their attack but in a pleasing way...

More later maybe. I've a bunch of experimental notes about these puppies but I've to decide what I feel authorized to publish or not.

I believe the old ones had roughcast mags which could account for the differences you cite.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

What do y'all consider PAF-type pickups?

For me, PAF-types are 42AWG wire enamel coated, Alnico magnets, screw/slug setup on the coils... um... that's it? Maybe nickel silver baseplates too.

But that would rule out half the DiMarzio offerings that are labeled "PAF" like the original old DiMarzio PAF and the PAF Pro.

Honestly, I don't even think DiMarzio make any traditional PAF's at all. Even the newer ones. Those claim to be scatterwound, which is not the way PAF's were made.

Not to say they're bad, though. I love the PAF Pro and the PAF 36th Anniversary. But I wouldn't add the PAF Pro to this thread, probably because even at first sight it doesn't even remotely look like it's trying to be a PAF, LOL.

 

[freefrog]

I believe the old ones had roughcast mags which could account for the differences you cite.

Yes, I've mentioned earlier in this topic their "dark blueish rough cast magnets".

Now, transplanting one of these old bars in a recent PG1N, for instance, didn't change its basic profile.

The whole magnetic circuit differs in the old SH1's that I mentioned. It's instructive for instance to put the probe of a Teslameter directly on their magnets then above the screws poles, which leads to think about the kind of magnetic alloy used for such parts.
Winding tension was different too, obviously (making old unpotted coils fragile, sadly). As is the ratio between measured inductance and DCR , wether it's due to turns count or to the precise AWG used in this case.

Non limitative list.

IOW and as often, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, to apply old words to old pickups. ;-)

 

[freefrog]

What do y'all consider PAF-type pickups?

For me, PAF-types are 42AWG wire, preferably plain enamel coated, Alnico magnets, screw/slug setup on the coils... um... that's it? Maybe nickel silver baseplates too.

If we're talking about P.A.F.'s (with dots): that's it but is it necessarily all? ...

I'm not thinking only to unpotted coils, threaded baseplates, maple spacers. Materials and building process of yesteryears made differences, more than aging IME/IMHO (and I've evoked earlier in this thread what I consider as tonal consequences of these differences).

Hence the use of NOS materials by some winders to make small batches of P.A.F. replicas.

NOTE - I'm not "recommending" such products nor claiming they're "better" (which is totally subjective and depends on the needs of players: if memory serves me, Gary Moore prefered DiMarzio's to the real P.A.F.'s in Greeny at one point of his carreer). Just stating that IME they differ from many current PU's made with supposedly identical parts.

But that would rule out half the DiMarzio offerings that are labeled "PAF" like the original old DiMarzio PAF and the PAF Pro.

Honestly, I don't even think DiMarzio make any traditional PAF's at all. Even the newer ones. Those claim to be scatterwound, which is not the way PAF's were made.

Not to say they're bad, though. I love the PAF Pro and the PAF 36th Anniversary. But I wouldn't add the PAF Pro to this thread, probably because even at first sight it doesn't even remotely look like it's trying to be a PAF, LOL.

Agreed. Even the old DP103's weren't vintage correct with their brass BP. And having played this model on stage in the early 80's, I don't remember the same kind of experience than later with vintage Gibson PU's or more accurate clones...

A side note about scatterwound coils: they are not necessarily hand wound. Machines can do that too. AFAIK it was the case with the Geo Stevens winders used by Gibson in the 50's, for example.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

If we're talking about P.A.F.'s (with dots): that's it but is it necessarily all? ...

Exactly!

The thing is there a lot of ground as to what people can refer to as P.A.F.-types. I've even read people describing the Suhr Aldrich as "a very hot P.A.F." For me, that's kinda ridiculous at 17K, but I mean... if it sounds P.A.F.-like to anyone... that's like his opinion, man. LOL.

But I guess I was indirectly referring to the debate on wether the Jazz/A2P are P.A.F.-types. To me they aren't. Nor are T-Tops. But that's just me.

 

[freefrog]

But I guess I was indirectly referring to the debate on wether the Jazz/A2P are P.A.F.-types. To me they aren't. Nor are T-Tops. But that's just me.

Maybe you remember a recent topic of mine, where I explained how close a "Jazz" can get to a T-Top IME/IMO after a few mods.

In my mind, Seymour did design the SH2 as an improved T-Top: a few more turns of wire for the bridge PU + longer A5 bars for a wee bit more inductance / Wider magnetic field for fuller bass / less risk of demagnetization with time.

Regarding P.A.F.'s and T-Top's: there's some overlaping between 'em and early T-Top's differ from more recent ones... but I also see 'em as different animals (not only because of the transition from PE to poly or from long to short magnets but also because coils weren't wound no more on the previous Geo Stevens or Leesona machines, apparently).

I find the following comparison illustrative of this difference as I perceive it. The dude who shared this has also left there some tracks showing the typical "double tones" obtained from some P.A.F.'s, a few experiments with various magnets etc. I wish he kept posting such samples...

https://youtu.be/5a_pG2G1BsQ?si=r7xPK8xfiqFPs91j&t=23

 

[Aceman]

Interesting question: What are the PAF characteristics?

I mean, sure, there was wire, winds, and magnet variation. But what was the "prototypical PAF?

Obviously Duncan thinks it was a 59. Larry says PAF.


But a roughcast A5 magnet, with 42 AWG wire, screws and slugs, wound to about 7.8k-is or so, symmetrical coils(?). The EQ is maybe 5/4/7 BMT perhaps? Something like that.

The Custom is a Ceramic wound to ~17k with vaguely that EQ. NOT a PAF....

 

[AdrianSD]

Custom is around 14kohm

 

[freefrog]

It's funny to remember that a PU with the same number or turns than a 8k P.A.F. but wound with AWG45 would weight not far from 14,9k... but still with the same inductance than a P.A.F. and the related tone - minus a bit of output and bass.

I've measured my share of cheap Asian Gibson style humbuckers like that, in the 10-12k range: DCR was their only difference with generic P.A.F. clones, just because they had been wound with thinner wire. Copper was apparently too expensive to allow the use of AWG42...

 

[Aceman]

Custom is around 14kohm

Apologies. It's early. Still way to loud for PAF IMO.

 

[EmiAba]

Like most if not all long life models (including SH1, DP103 etc.), "the" 57 Classic changed along the years. AFAIK, the first ones were built according to the original Tom Holmes design... Then Gibson modified the recipe, like they always did and do. So, IMHO, it's not a question of excessive opinion. To me, it's due to the fact that a same label ("57" here) potentially refers to variable physical realities (whose variability seems even stronger when one thinks that a very same pickup can give totally different sounds in two different instruments).
YMMV and I'll understand if you don't care about this answer. ;-)

No no, I care about your reply, because there is always knowledge in every reply. And in your there is a bit of history I ignored. I care not too much about the 57 classic. A while ago I borrowed a les paul traditional from a friend of mine loaded with 57 classic/57 classic +. And I found them "ordinary". A good pickup for sure but with no character. But it's me. I know a lot of people they like them.

 

[EmiAba]

In my case, even though I've tried others, Pearlys and Seths and 59s ended up staying in my guitars in some combination far longer and more than any of the other unique offshoot brands or variants. Really all the ones I tried were very good and excellent pickups. But in the end, I was able to make far more music with the ones on my list.

And the same happens to me. And I am trying to figure out why.

 

[Hiwatts and Gibsons]

For anybody looking outside the traditional Gibdon PAF style the TV Jones Powertron is a damn good option. It shares a lot of ground with them tonally sitting somewhere inbetween the Gibson '57 Classic, the Burstbucker I, and a vintage style Filtertron in my opinion. It's equally at home in roots, blues, classic rock, hard rock, and even more vintage style metal tones. It also rips for gritty slide tones.

 

[Mr. B]

Seth Lover set
Duncan 59 set (in an SG)
Alnico II Pro

 

[timtam]

You can test whether you can actually hear a difference, blinded, between popular PAF clones (SD, Throbak, Kloppmann, Amber, Haussel) with GITEC's test ...
http://paf.gitec-forum.eu/paf-home.html
(in German, but Chrome's right-click Translate to English does a good job)


And here are the accumulated results of those listening test ratings, along with objective measurements (bode plots for resonant frequency/Q factor):

(youtube's Closed Captions auto-translated to English works quite well; "cartridge" = Tonabnehmer = pickup)​

 

[freefrog]

You can test whether you can actually hear a difference, blinded, between popular PAF clones (SD, Throbak, Kloppmann, Amber, Haussel) with GITEC's test ...
http://paf.gitec-forum.eu/paf-home.html
(in German, but Chrome's right-click Translate to English does a good job)


And here are the accumulated results of those listening test ratings, along with objective measurements (bode plots for resonant frequency/Q factor):

(youtube's Closed Captions auto-translated to English works quite well; "cartridge" = Tonabnehmer = pickup)​

Thx for sharing and welcome onboard: I read and appreciate your posts among others on various forums for a long time now and periodically evoke here the impressive work(s) of Manfred Zollner (it's a bless to have at disposal the examples that he shared online instead of having to dig our crowded local archives).

Now and to put things in perspective: I wish the GITEC shared some comparisons involving vintage pickups as a reference and not only clones.