Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

[avereste]

I've always heard that parallel sound are louder than split ones, but in this forum I've read just the opposite...
I've come to the conclusion that one or other works better depending on the pickups, so what would better with a pair of duncan 59's in the 8k range?
Drop volume concerns me more than hum cancelling.
I would do it leaving the slug coils on, so I suppose this will work:

 

[avereste]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

I don't know what's happening...
I've follow the above duncan scheme and the coils active seems to be the outer! the one with the screws.
If touch them with a screw driver I hear that percusive sound, while the slug ones remain quiet.

 

[freddarl82]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

Just for clarity (reference the thread title):

On a normal humbucker, aren't the two coils wired in series rather than parallel? Series vs. Parallel can make the same humbucker sound different. When you coil tap (or coil split), one coil is being grounded and deactivated.

 

[avereste]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

that's it

 

[metlking]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

I like taking a hot pickup and switching it to parallel, rather than splitting it. I have a Duncan Custom in the neck of my Les Paul and I do just that, switch to parallel. It's a bright, chimy, clean sound.....almost piano like at times. Don't know if you could achieve simular results with a 59'.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

You get more volume drop when doing it in parallel. No doubt.
BUT, necks in parallel retain a lot of volume, since they are in a position that is loud by itself so, it gives some CLEAN humbucker sound and the volume drop doesn't seem so aparent.

In bridge, usually (but not always), split works better.

+1. With a high output bridge, parallel can work, but with a PAF, you're dropping pretty low in resistence (1/4 the ohms). I prefer coil cut myself, as you still get some flavor & bite to the sound. Parallel can be pretty puny & lame, especially in the bridge.

 

[avereste]

Re: Parallel vs split with duncan 59's

Problem solved. the point was that I have tone push pulls, not volume.
I now prefer the tone of split over parallel.
The volume it's similar, but the balance it's much better.
I mean, it's lesh harsh but with more twang, so it translates into a more crispy tone, while the treble doesn't become ice picky. It's similar to that fender sound of wound strings.
By the way, haven't noticed the hum at the rehearsal, sure it was there, but It didn't catch my attention. I will be listening next time.
I loved my parallel sounds, so imagine how happy I am now.