Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

lazyfinger

lazyfinger

Member
I know that the WLH are getting great reviews, and pretty good for nailing some of Page's LP tones. But... I also came across some reviews where players are saying it's better for his modern tone than some of his early 1970s stuff. If you tried the WLH, (particularly the bridge pup) vs something like 59 or other Duncans, would you say that WLH or other is closer to his early tone?

To me this is more amazing (I am splitting hairs I know):



than:



Thanks for your input.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

So much of that is down to the amps too. Page has a much larger effects rig now than he did in the old days as well. The new pickups I think get you more of his original PAF tone and somewhat that T-top tone. They seem to have a nice body to them. Play them straight in and use the amp to naturally overdrive. Not a high gain set up either. They'll more than do the job.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

I'm reading that apparently didn't get the overwound alnico 5 duncan thrown in until the late 70s early 80s, so maybe for his earlier live stuff the WLH might not be IDEAL. But chances are you will get the tone with it anyway with some tweaking, like with whatever else you decide on. I think it'll work great. Otherwise it would've been a stock pickup, so the 57 from gibson would probably be the closest. It should also be noted that the majority of his studio tone early on was done with a tele.

That being said gibson's quality control in the late 50s and early 60s was astoundingly random, leading to pickups with various alnico magnet types winding, wood densities, labor, and other plastic and hardware. While the 57 classic and the standard burstbuckers were DESIGNED to replicate the tone of those guitars they used an alnico 2 mag, but Page and Clapton's Les Pauls had alnico 3s, Bareknuckle has evidence that the most common mag used during that time was alnico 4, and duncan for the 59 uses an alnico 5 and an alnico 2 for the seth lover, all degaussed at different levels. And since the pickup assemblers would wind the pickups "until they were full", winding differences were abundant. So 2 Les Pauls that came right off the assembly line from 1957-60 could and did sound WORLDS different. So while a 57 classic or a burstbucker might be the safest bet to getting what he was using, there is a very good chance it might not even come close.

Just the right amount of twang, crunch, smoothness and sustain would be tricky to find. I'd vouch the WLH won't do you wrong.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

Page often used lighter strings on his Gibson than most people.

A lot of the sounds on LZ 1 are Telecaster. (Less so on LZ 2.) To my ears, THE over-ridingly dominant sound of early Page is his fuzz pedal.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

Is there such as thing as P. A. S.? Want! :D
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

blueman335 said:
I can't see that. '57's have pretty rounded high-ends and their tones overall aren't as good as many other PAF's made today. Overpriced and overrated.
Click to expand...

not from the clips i've listened to. the gibson 57 classic pickup is a force to be reckoned with. solid tone and a good sensitivity to attack.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

You know what I'd use to sound like Page if I ever were in a Zep cover band? LP Standard w/ WLHs > Xotic EP boost > Hiwatt amp.

The EP boost is based off the Echoplex thing, which I was told is what Page used with his Hiwatt. I can't comment on pickups, but that's what I would try.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

IMO, the Catalinbread RAH video demo performance of "We're Gonna Groove" nails the sound.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

I thought the comparison videos above were interesting to see the effect 37 years has, but I don't think they say much about pickup choice at all. There are just too many variables in there that can't be determined with sufficient accuracy to say what, if any, part any one of them played in the transition from one to the other. Guitars, pickups, amps & settings, effects, microphones, venue acoustics, recording techniques, studios, producers, engineers, changing preferences of the band, their hearing... these and many more things beside will have played greater or lesser effect on what eventually ended up on YouTube. Just the sound quality of YouTube alone introduces a huge variable as it crunches bits down to a less dynamic end result. Trying to pick out the marginal effect of one magnet or coil wind from that melange, must be nigh on impossible, yet that's what this discussion seems to be about. Is that cork I smell burning?

And for the record, I prefer the sound on the 1970 version too.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

Good posts all around! Thanks everyone! I'll check out the pedal, and it seems to get some good opinions. I didn't think this thread would get any traction, but I'm glad it has.

Chris of Arabia said:
I thought the comparison videos above were interesting to see the effect 37 years has, but I don't think they say much about pickup choice at all. There are just too many variables in there that can't be determined with sufficient accuracy to say what, if any, part any one of them played in the transition from one to the other. Guitars, pickups, amps & settings, effects, microphones, venue acoustics, recording techniques, studios, producers, engineers, changing preferences of the band, their hearing... these and many more things beside will have played greater or lesser effect on what eventually ended up on YouTube. Just the sound quality of YouTube alone introduces a huge variable as it crunches bits down to a less dynamic end result. Trying to pick out the marginal effect of one magnet or coil wind from that melange, must be nigh on impossible, yet that's what this discussion seems to be about. Is that cork I smell burning?

And for the record, I prefer the sound on the 1970 version too.
Click to expand...

Very good point! While I agree with you overall, but if trying to figure out the subtlety wasn't name of the game, then what are we doing at this board? Seymour would've just made 1 pafs and called it a day, or distortion bucker for the metal heads, and that's it. Everything would then rely on getting the right amps, pedals, etc, combo to get different tones. And that means no more EVH threads or 20 different pickups designed to nail his early tone or his late and whatever in between, one would've sufficed.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

esandes said:
not from the clips i've listened to. the gibson 57 classic pickup is a force to be reckoned with. solid tone and a good sensitivity to attack.
Click to expand...

Have you played guitars with '57's in them? Big letdown for me. I thought that they'd be something special. I had a couple sets and sold them. They not as good as A2 Burstbuckers, and can't compare to Seth's. A number of production and boutique PAF's have better tones.
 
Re: Q: So that ol' Pagey LP tone

blueman335 said:
Yes, you contradicted yourself about '57's being the closest and then saying they may not come close. You lost me there.
Click to expand...

Not a contradiction, my point was ON PAPER it would be close as the 57 or BB would be the closest sound to the stock pafs on gibsons back then, BUT I also mentioned that stock gibson pickups sounded radically different from each other back then and while the 57 and BB are designed like the pickup that would've been stock, the actual stock pickup could've sounded different. I then went on to recommend the WLH. This is called context.

Also who knows, maybe Page got most of his treble from the amp instead? Could happen.

Edit* I have found a lot of sources saying that he actually did keep his treble on his marshalls in the early 70s at 9 or 10, so fully cranked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top