SD 59/Hybrid & Antq II H'bucker??

zozoe

New member
Not looking to poll the topic, or opine it, but simply the audible difference breakdown between the 2,,, mainly in the bridge pos. Just the facts, mame~ Thnx
 
The Antiquity (not 2) humbucker is clankville. I wouldn't get it unless you specifically want a clank as a tone or are going to turn up to fill it out. The hybrid is on the thinner side but has some substance to it so is a better option.
 
Last edited:
The Antiquity (not 2) humbucker is clankville. I wouldn't get it unless you specifically want a clank as a tone or are going to turn up to fill it out. The hybrid is on the thinner side but has some substance to it so is a better option.
You seem to perceive quite a few pickups as clanky. Is that because of the mids?

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
BTW, I don't hear it is clanky. It is a pickup that translates your right hand into music. Very dynamic, and very clear & vintagy.
 
The Antiquity humbuckers are not thin at all. In fact, they translate the sound of the guitar and the player very very well.
 
The op was talking about bridge position so that's what I meant. The neck pup is quite warm, the bridge is their thinnest humbucker. Vintage wind with a cover and degaussed A2. It's super vintagey. If that's what someone is going for all good, but should probably warn them because they're marketed and touted as rich.
 
It's the thinness and lack of bass, with metallic top. But all bridge pickups have a metallic top. So thin low powered bridge pickup = automatic clank.
 
It's the thinness and lack of bass, with metallic top. But all bridge pickups have a metallic top. So thin low powered bridge pickup = automatic clank.
Metallic? Oh you mean bright.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
i dont hear the antiquity humbucker as thin. i like them a lot and have them in a few guitars. they are low output and very vintage sounding, bright maybe, but not thin. it all depends on your perspective though, if youre used to a distortion then almost all vintage output pups are going to be thin sounding
 
Yeah it‘s all relative. if I switch from a vintage style single to a Vintage style humbucker they do sound fat and kind of muddy. If I start the other way round I don‘t find the humbuckers fat and muddy…
 
I went from hot pickups in everything then gradually adding some vintage ones. My Squire Strat has vintage wound A3 singles in the neck and bridge. There's a vintage wind A5 in the middle. And my Shecter Blackjack now has the Fuglies in it, and they're wound ~8k with A2's. It's nice to have different options for sound, especially when they all sound good.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
i dont hear the antiquity humbucker as thin. i like them a lot and have them in a few guitars. they are low output and very vintage sounding, bright maybe, but not thin. it all depends on your perspective though, if youre used to a distortion then almost all vintage output pups are going to be thin sounding

The bridge Ant is the thinnest hb in their line. Up to the guitarist if that is desirable or not.
 
Last edited:
Is what you hear you conflating your regard for the pickup and the actual eq and output of it? :P

I'm not trying to criticize it. It's literally built that way tho. Vintage wind, old rattly cover, demagnetized A2. Literally every parameter minimizes the strength. Touting the whole set as rich or being a vintage pup enthusiast doesn't mean the bridge pup itself isn't one of the thinnest or the absolute thinnest in the line.

 
Last edited:
The bridge Ant is the thinnest hb in their line. Up to the guitarist if that is desirable or not.

The bridge antiquity humbucker is much fuller sounding than the bridge Seth! It's not even close. The Seth can get downright piercing and shriek-y if you don't use the tone knob appropriately.
 
Back
Top