Seth Lover set q's...

[mikeyp]

I put a set in my Ibanez semi hollow, ags83bbg. Might not be an "s" in there. Its bubinga for what its worth. How I use pups generally is neck for cleans, middle if I need a little more treble, almost never use bridge pups for clean. On the dirty channel I play what I call mid gain, classic rock kinda gain and try to use settings that allow me to use the neck pup without it being mud. In a perfect world this setting does not fall on its face when I switch to the bridge.

At first listen I was a bit skeptical of the bridge Seth(with dirt). This of course was at home at lower volume. At my occasional pretty loud jams though, this pup is smooth and cuts nice while still having balls. Its somewhat woody too. Kinda reminds me of Dicky Betts tone. The neck clean was and for the most part is still a very nice clean. Dirty is another story. Kinda flubby without much definition. I tried lowering the bass side a little, still a little meh. I use ghs nickel rockers on most guitars because they usually tame some of the highs that annoy me. Thinking about trying a set of boomers on this one tho.

So anyway, what are some opinions as far as adjustment go? Or is this the nature of the beast? Is this why for instance, the stew mac folks prefer an a5 in the neck of their parsons street humbuckers? Would it make that much of a difference?

Thanks :scratchch

 

[blueman335]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

With A2's, there's always an element of 'flubbiness.' Comes along with the good qualities. With A5's you get a firmer, but bassier low end (sometimes boomy), scooped mids, and a sharp high end that you don't always want. A2's also have more dynamics and a more organic sound than A5's. The closest magnet to an A2 is an UOA5, which you may want to consider. It's basically an A2 mixed with some A5 qualities.

I've tried a number of A2 PAF's, and Seth's are my favorite.

 

[Mr. B]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Yeah, you aren't going to be able to throw as much gain at the Seth neck as you would something like the Pearly Gates neck. I do think the Seth set is absolutely perfect for what it was designed for though. There are some pickups that I am constantly slightly unsatisfied with for one reason or another (the entire stock "Custom" family for instance) but I would not change a thing about the Seth set.

 

[Natman]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Ironically the PG is also A2. +1 to what the other guys said -it's the nature of the beast. I will point out that the Seth neck is THE best clean tone I have ever heard from a humbucker. I haven't tried them all, but it's quite exquisite. I'm not partial to Ibanez, and you have to remember that not every pickup will match every guitar no matter what but overall that pickup sounds muddy under gain. Listen to Cream-era Clapton when he was using Gibsons. Those were Patent # buckers (essentially PAFs) and though Gibson used differetn grades of alnico, many would have used A4. Furthermore, all recordings are compressed, and a lot of people love that tone and I suspect the A2 gets closer to that sound (my opinion, not substantiated). My point is that you can hear his neck position tone as being pretty muddy and it only really works well for "liquid" lead tones that don't require much definition.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I put a set in my Ibanez semi hollow, ags83bbg. Might not be an "s" in there. Its bubinga for what its worth. How I use pups generally is neck for cleans, middle if I need a little more treble, almost never use bridge pups for clean. On the dirty channel I play what I call mid gain, classic rock kinda gain and try to use settings that allow me to use the neck pup without it being mud. In a perfect world this setting does not fall on its face when I switch to the bridge.

At first listen I was a bit skeptical of the bridge Seth(with dirt). This of course was at home at lower volume. At my occasional pretty loud jams though, this pup is smooth and cuts nice while still having balls. Its somewhat woody too. Kinda reminds me of Dicky Betts tone. The neck clean was and for the most part is still a very nice clean. Dirty is another story. Kinda flubby without much definition. I tried lowering the bass side a little, still a little meh. I use ghs nickel rockers on most guitars because they usually tame some of the highs that annoy me. Thinking about trying a set of boomers on this one tho.

So anyway, what are some opinions as far as adjustment go? Or is this the nature of the beast? Is this why for instance, the stew mac folks prefer an a5 in the neck of their parsons street humbuckers? Would it make that much of a difference?

Thanks :scratchch

Do you know what pots you have into that guitar? Are good quality american pots or the stock ones you're using? If it's the latter, you may be strangling that Seth neck out of its tone.

HTH,

 

[mikeyp]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Do you know what pots you have into that guitar? Are good quality american pots or the stock ones you're using? If it's the latter, you may be strangling that Seth neck out of its tone.

HTH,

I did replace the pots with cts, 500k. Well I guess I could try a little less gain. Its not the end of the world if I have to just use the bridge pup with overdrive, it sounds pretty damn good.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I've had Seths in my guitar for over a year and I've installed many Seth sets and never, not once, the neck p'up was nowhere near "muddy". I think the p'up setup is not optimal...

I've even written in the past that you couldn't get a Seth neck to mud up, not even on purpose! Well... I didn't know you then!

Jokes apart, I'd REALLY like to see some pictures of your guitar taken in a way I could assess the height in relationship with the strings and the polepiece array. That could help me to maybe see something you're missing, setup-wise.

Also, the kind of music you play, if you're using any OD pedals and a brief description of your rig might also help.

HTH,

 

[blueman335]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I've had Seths in my guitar for over a year and I've installed many Seth sets and never, not once, the neck p'up was nowhere near "muddy". I think the p'up setup is not optimal...

+1. Or amp set up, or something. Seth's sound so good.

 

[atreidesheir]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I always think of it like my seth neck sounds like Carl Wilson, the bridge sounds like brian.

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Lower your pups. Maybe try heavier strings too.

 

[mikeyp]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I've had Seths in my guitar for over a year and I've installed many Seth sets and never, not once, the neck p'up was nowhere near "muddy". I think the p'up setup is not optimal...

I've even written in the past that you couldn't get a Seth neck to mud up, not even on purpose! Well... I didn't know you then!

Jokes apart, I'd REALLY like to see some pictures of your guitar taken in a way I could assess the height in relationship with the strings and the polepiece array. That could help me to maybe see something you're missing, setup-wise.

Also, the kind of music you play, if you're using any OD pedals and a brief description of your rig might also help.

HTH,

I can try and get some pics but it could take a while. Would measurements help? Basically classic rock amounts of gain. Or think Warren Haines. Maybe Skynyrd. I've mostly been playing through a Mesa f100 (I own an f50). These amps imo are fairly bright on the dirty channel, which is where I'm haaving this issue. Dont have this with any of my other humbucker guitars which is why I'm blaming the pup.

@ blueman335, you did mention there is a certain amount of flubbiness. That may be what I'm calling the lack of clarity. Not so much muddy...well maybe a little.

So lowering it might help? A little worried that I would have to lower the bridge pup to equal out the volume as it sounds sweet where it is. Guess its worth a shot, I mean its not like I'd be worn out from turning some screws.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

@ blueman335, you did mention there is a certain amount of flubbiness. That may be what I'm calling the lack of clarity. Not so much muddy...well maybe a little.

Maybe you're not used to A2's. Do you adjust your amp settings when you play the Seth's thru them? Maybe you have to tweak them a bit. It's worth it. You can't expect every guitar to sound it's best on the same settings.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

You can't expect every guitar to sound it's best on the same settings.

+ 1.

Word!

HTH,

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

In the OP, the phrase that caught my attention was the choice of string brand/type to tame the treble. Consider changing string type. Maybe even mix nickel and stainless steel types to get the overall sound that you desire.

 

[Gypsyblue]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

The term "rubbery" is an exaggeration to make a point, but, IMO alnico 2 gives a pickup a little bit of a rubbery quality, similar to the rubbery quality that cathode bias can give a guitar amp.

I like that quality a lot. It lets an accomplished and sensitive player squeeze those notes out and shape the tone. The price might be a little looseness to the bass response but it's a price worth paying.

Without knowing how accomplished of a player the OP is, it's difficult to know whether there's really a problem with the Seth Lover, or if the problem is with the player, the player's expectations or the player's set-up - including the way the amp is set-up.

I really like the Seth Lover set. But I really like the sound and feel of alnico 2, when it's in a great pickup like the Seth.

I'd make the polepieces of both pickups match the arch of the fingerboard, with the two E string polepieces flat with the surface of the cover and the rest higher and adjusted in an arch.

Then just experiment with overall height of the pickups.

If your guitar has 300K or 250K volume and tone pots switch to 500K for more clarity and less mud.

 

[Gypsyblue]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Find that thread from Joe Gore here on the forum about 50's Style Wiring too. You could do it to your neck pickup only but I do it to both. It clears up the tone when you turn the volume of the guitar down and: IT WORKS! It has to do with the way the tone controls are attached to the volume controls. Here's a couple of diagrams:

 

[mikeyp]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Thanks for the suggestions.

@ Gypsyblue, I wouldn't say I'm the cleanest player around and I have noticed these pups are a little less forgiving. Even when strumming you have to really make sure one string isn't plucked harder or it will be more obvious than it would be with other pups. I'm aware and the hope is I will get better because of it.

I will definately start tweeking.

What about a no load tone pot for the neck?

 

[mikeyp]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I did some measurements and adjustments. At present all neck pup poles are 5/32 away from strings and bridge poles are 3/32 strings pressed at the last fret. I think I might need to lower the bass side a little.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the neck Seth must just be a little bass heavy, at least in my semi hollow, and I will just have to start really dropping the bass on my amps.

Curious where other Seth users set theirs...

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

Yeah, you aren't going to be able to throw as much gain at the Seth neck as you would something like the Pearly Gates neck. I do think the Seth set is absolutely perfect for what it was designed for though. There are some pickups that I am constantly slightly unsatisfied with for one reason or another (the entire stock "Custom" family for instance) but I would not change a thing about the Seth set.

Wow, that was specific...

"absolutely perfect", "unsatisfied", "would not change a thing".

Just a little back-at-you touche. Sorry, I couldn't resist. All in good sport, ha.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Seth Lover set q's...

I will just have to start really dropping the bass on my amps.

Curious where other Seth users set theirs...

Custom all-valve p2p Blackface tonestack: bass: 3.5 - mids: 5 - treble: 5.5

These are the settings I've used with my #1 guitar, an all-maple, rosewood fingerboard MIJ 335 copy when it had a Seth Lover set.

HTH,