(Re)Introduction

[PFDarkside]

What's up? I'm finally making it back full circle to the first internet forum I ever visited... way back in 1998. I posted then as Aaron S. helping out where I could... Let's see, who do I remember... Butch Snyder, for sure and Kellie the mod? I think Kellie got a promotion somewhere along the line...

Anyway, I'm still playing the same LP with a JB/APII and Strats with APII's and Hot Rails. I've got a few questions again...

The JB is getting old, too much upper midrange and the AP2 is too muddy. I'm thinking a set of '59s would actually fit the bill, but is there something with a bit more "umph" than a 59 bridge with the same overall tone? Custom? CCC? (I remember when you had to make one of those yourself... )

I also recieved a copy of the Jimmy Page schematic a long time ago and I think it might be time to wire it up when I get new pickups. Does anyone have clips of how the different modes sound? Just a few ideas to see if I like it before I buy all new pots and spend an afternoon wiring it all up.

Thanks, it's good to be back!

 

[jeremy]

Re: (Re)Introduction

welcome back to the forum!!

robert s. has the page mod in at least one les paul so he might be the one to ask about that.

the c5 (i still call it a ccc too) has the same basic eq curve as the 59 with a little more mids, a bigger bottom, a little smoother top and a decent amount more output. it matches up well with either a 59n or pgn in the neck

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: (Re)Introduction

A Pearly Gates set kills in a Lester, if you don't need high output from the bridge, but if you do, a C5/PGn combo is great too.

I personally don't like the 59n in a LP. Too many lows and highs and not enough mids. :burnout:

 

[JeffB]

Re: (Re)Introduction

welcome back to the forum!!

the c5 (i still call it a ccc too) has the same basic eq curve as the 59 with a little more mids, a bigger bottom, a little smoother top and a decent amount more output

Jeremy..(or anyone else) I notice in the "tone guide" charts here, the C-5 shows *less* mids than a 59? I had contemplated the C-5 as it has the magnet and output I want, but the lack of mids (according to the tone chart) scares me a bit...how would you say it compares to a Custom (SH5) for mids?

 

[jeremy]

Re: (Re)Introduction

the custom has some pretty aggressive mids where the c5 has its mids scooped a little bit. those tone guide numbers are a little arbirtary but a good general guide.

the c5 has a similar eq curve to the 59, more bass and treble than mids but i wouldnt say either is thin sounding. the c5 sounds really nice in the bridge of a gibson

 

[Butch Snyder]

Re: (Re)Introduction

welcome back to the forum!!

robert s. has the page mod in at least one les paul so he might be the one to ask about that.

the c5 (i still call it a ccc too) has the same basic eq curve as the 59 with a little more mids, a bigger bottom, a little smoother top and a decent amount more output. it matches up well with either a 59n or pgn in the neck

Yes, I was going to say about the same thing before I read Jeremy's post. I can't really add anymore except to say welcome back!!

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: (Re)Introduction

Hmm... the Pearly Gates... I kind of forgot about that gem!

How would you compare the PGn vs. the '59n? It sounds like until I get another Paul the C5 would be the perfect balance between vintage and high output. Thanks for the help guys!

(Check out the soon-to-be-Strat thread)

 

[LesStrat]

Re: (Re)Introduction

Welcome back.