Seth Lover v. WLH

[voggin]

Hey, everyone.

I have a set of Seth Lovers and a set of WLH's in two of my guitars. I thought I might post a compare/contrast review for anyone considering these pickups for their guitar.

The two guitars are very similar. Both 2010 Gibson Les Pauls. One is a standard, the other a studio. Both are from 2010 and chambered. So I expect the pickups would sound very similar whichever guitar they were in. I'm usually playing them through a Fender HR Deville 4x10, generally getting my overdrive from pedals.

1. Seth Lover set

I have these in my Standard. Unpotted, stock magnets (A2). I replaced the burstbucker pros that came stock in the guitar with these. Nothing wrong with them, just wanted a more vintage-y sound.

I really love these pickups. Very rich, clear clean tones. The bridge is nice and trebly without any ice-pick or other harshness. The neck is smooth and clear. When you increase to modest gain, they really sound like my mental picture of what a PAF should sound like, nice and hairy with wonderful note separation. The neck in particular gives me that 60's british blues sound, while the bridge with gain is best described as really sweet (I usually have the tone control around 6-7, open it up when I want more bite). Almost single coil/P90 flavoured. Think "Stormy Monday" on the Fillmore album. Being unpotted, they are a touch microphonic, but in a good way. Very harmonic feedback-ish overtones. Increase the gain and they can get a little squeally, but it's easily controlled. They still maintain a good note separation at higher gain, no mud in the neck.

They are very responsive to touch. Subtle technique changes can really coax a lot of different tones out of them. They love a controlled vibrato. I do think their sweet spot is from clean/jazzy to mid gain blues/classic rock.

2. WLHs

I have these in my Studio. Potted, stock magnets (A5, roughcast I think?). Replaced the venerable 490/498 stock set. I liked them each well enough, but didn't like them together. Could never dial them in right with my amp. If I got the bridge right, I had a muddy neck; if the neck was right, the bridge sounded like an awful strat bridge. Anyway, the WLHs were on sale at my local store, so I thought I'd give them a go.

These sound a touch more modern than the Seths, but still within the range of PAF like tones (or at least my conception of it). Clean, they are very lively, bright in a bright-switch kind of way, not in an overly-trebly way. The neck is very round and balanced, not too much bass or mids. The bridge is very smooth, I keep the tone at around 8 just to take a little edge off, but even full-out it's not too trebly. The middle position is an amazing clean sound. I can only describe it as having a lot of presence, almost a stereo effect where you can kind of distinguish the sounds from both. If I were a clean-only player, I'd have to say the Seths would win out, but still a great set of clean tones from the WLHs.

These guys really shine with any amount of gain. At moderate gain, they have a great bark with a lot of clarity. Very later-Cream Clapton-esque. The potting definitely keeps things under control, feedback-wise. Great pinch harmonics to get that ZZ Top thing. When the gain goes up further, they handle it great. Very 70s 80s rock sounding. The bridge wide open is very classic rock, while the neck has a singing, fluid thing happening.

If I had to compare them or choose between them for an application, I'd tilt toward the Seths for clean or mid gain blues, and the WLH's for rock. But I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'd be unhappy with either set for either application (other than saying the unpotted Seths might not match with a Triple Rec as well as the WLH's). I find the Seths a little more touch responsive, but the WLH's win out on the pinch harmonics, and the WLH bridge is tighter for gainy rhythms. The WLH's also drive the amp a little harder, probably due to their output, I guess.

Both very good and well-priced pickup sets. I don't see myself replacing either set any time soon.

As a side note, I really prefer the WLH's to the BB Pros that were stock in my standard. They are both A5 PAF styles, but the BB Pros have a more hi fi/modern sound to my ears, closer to older PRS pickups than classic Gibson tones (which I assume is what Gibson was aiming for in its "modern" LP Standard design vs. the Traditional or RI's).

Obviously, my descriptions are extremely subjective. I'm not very good at discussing things in terms of frequencies and the like. I hope my descriptions made some sense, though.

 

[lemonman]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Cool review, thanks; I've had essentially the same results. I think for a lot of players, a Seth neck/WLH bridge would be an ideal combo. I really want to hear an unpotted WLHb, may have to order one sometime.

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Thanks.

Bill

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Yes, I too was wondering about that comparison.. they seem at first glance to be very different in some ways and pretty much the same in others.

 

[voggin]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Yes, I too was wondering about that comparison.. they seem at first glance to be very different in some ways and pretty much the same in others.

It's interesting how they aren't miles apart from each other, but both very distinct flavours of the formula. I'm dying to try some other SD variations on the PAF theme (antiquities and pearly gates). I have a 339 with 57's that I want to replace, and can't decide between the ants and the pearlies.

The most impressive thing to me about these is the price. Anything comparable from other winders would be a lot more. I don't mind experimenting for $200. But when prices get boutique, I'm a lot more hesitant.

 

[AniML]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

I have a WLH set in my LP Studio and love them - most of the time. Occasionally I have passing thoughts that they are too bright, especially with the volume turned down. it can even sound a little nasally / out of phase. But if Im not liking the brightness, I just roll the volume back up and they roar again.

I've had a brand new Seth bridge sitting in the box for a long time. I have to pair that up with a Seth neck or a 59 and give it a go. I've also been contemplating the idea of hybriding a Seth with a WLH (Seth bridge /WLH neck?) and trying out the resulting pair, but not the cheapest experiment in the world

 

[Drunken Bowling]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

If you had to guess, how would WLH's sound in an SG?

 

[voggin]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

If you had to guess, how would WLH's sound in an SG?

Just judging from my experience with Gibson pickups in both Les Pauls and SGs, I would bet they would have the same qualities but a little livelier, if you know what I mean. I find SGs are always a little brighter in the neck, so the smooth bridge WLH would probably be about the same as in a Les Paul, but the neck would be maybe a bit toppier? But in a good way, you know. I think Eric Clapton's "fool" SG was a PAF with A5's set up, which was pretty awesome.

Lewguitar here on the forum is kind of the expert on that era of magnets/pickups. Maybe PM him or maybe he'll see this thread and post.

 

[Drunken Bowling]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

I see what you're saying. Thanks!

 

[Mincer]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

I like this review...I think it might help a lot of people. I agree, though. The Seths win for me for most things, unless what I did was mainly classic rock (it isn't).

 

[AniML]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Update to post #6...

I now have a pair of Seths in my PRS Korina SE singlecut. If I had to pick, Id say I like the Seths better for their complexity and sweetness. The WLH set are tighter and not quite as round, as I would expect. But Im not sure if its the difference between the SLs and the WLHs alone or also how much the difference in the guitars they are in - thinner Korina bodied PRS vs maple capped LP. What I didnt expect is that the PRS has more roar. I cant come up with anything the WLHs do better than the Seths but they dont disappoint in any way. Overall I think for me, the Seths are the better set. To be thorough, I should try Seths in the LP and WLHs in the PRS and compare apples to apples.

 

[darthphineas]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

The Seth set has a lot more going on than to be expected. I've had no problem getting 80s riff-rock out of mine.

 

[voggin]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Update to post #6...

I now have a pair of Seths in my PRS Korina SE singlecut. If I had to pick, Id say I like the Seths better for their complexity and sweetness. The WLH set are tighter and not quite as round, as I would expect. But Im not aure if its the difference between the SLs and the WLHs alone or also how much the difference in the guitars they are in - thinner Korina bodied PRS vs maple capped LP. What I didnt expect is that the PRS has more roar. I cant come up with anything the WLHs do better than the Seths but they dont disappoint in any way. Overall I think for me, the Seths are the better set. To be thorough, I should try Seths in the LP and WLHs in the PRS and compare apples to apples.

Good point about the complexity of Seths. I wonder if the fact they are unpotted has a lot to do with it?

 

[hydro]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Just judging from my experience with Gibson pickups in both Les Pauls and SGs, I would bet they would have the same qualities but a little livelier, if you know what I mean. I find SGs are always a little brighter in the neck, so the smooth bridge WLH would probably be about the same as in a Les Paul, but the neck would be maybe a bit toppier? But in a good way, you know. I think Eric Clapton's "fool" SG was a PAF with A5's set up, which was pretty awesome.

Lewguitar here on the forum is kind of the expert on that era of magnets/pickups. Maybe PM him or maybe he'll see this thread and post.

I have wondered about this also. My SGs are 70s ones with tarbacks and I wouldn't ever change them but I have a newer SG that I considered WLH in.

I have WLH in a 335 and they are great. Occasionally a little shrill on the bridge but I put that more on me than on the pickups.

My instincts tell me that WLH are great for "complex" sounding guitars like LP and 335s/339. SGs are great ( I own 4 and they are my warhorse guitars) but I always felt they were more just straightforward rock&roll guitars, missing some of the richness and harmonic overtones and so on... thinner bodies, more uniform wood and construction. Or maybe I am just high....

 

[Laughing Kookaburra]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Appreciate the thoughtful review, Voggin. Looking at replacing the 490/498 set myself in a Lester, and the Seths are on my list of interest.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Without wiring the full Jimmy Page wiring for split, parallel, out of phase and series, you are really missing out on where the WLH excel. They are the only pickup that sounds good no matter which way you wire them and they keep their level fairly consistent when split. As a side note, I had WLH and JP wiring in my SG standard for over a year and about 90% of the time I kept the neck in parallel coils or split to single to mix with the bridge.

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Good point about the complexity of Seths. I wonder if the fact they are unpotted has a lot to do with it?

The Seths spec out at 7.4K and 8.3K. The WLH specs at 8.2K and 8.78K.

So there's more turns of wire around the bobbins of the WLH set...it's a hotter set with more output compared to the Seth lovers.

The 8.2K neck pickup in the WLH set is sort of like using a 59b as a neck pickup!

But the other reason the Seths sound so different compared to the WLH is that the Seths use a polished A2 magnet and the WLH use a roughcast A5 magnet.

If you put roughcast A5 magnets in the Seths they would sound a lot more like the WLH.

When I replaced the polished A5 magnets in a set of new 59's with roughcast A5, and then replaced the polished A2 magnets in a set of Seth Lovers with roughcast A5, and then compared them, the two sets started to sound almost identical.

Duncan used to use roughcast A5 in the 59. I think they changed it to polished A5 because the 59 sounded too good and made more expensive sets like the WLH seem overpriced.

Marketing.

I'd like to try a set of the WLH pickups, but I'm concerned that the neck pickup would seem a little overpowering...as it does in a lot of the Gibson guitars I've owned from the 50's and 60's.

The neck pickup in my Custom Shop Pearly Gates pickups is around 7.8K and to me, that's getting a little too hot for jazzy clean tones. I kind of like the regular 7.3K PGn better.

 

[AniML]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

Lew I find the WLH neck pup to be very well mannered. The WLH pups trade off the open airiness of the Seths for articulation, but are still plenty touch sensitive. The WLH are not quite as honky and lean a bit more towards the modern side of vintage, but still very much a vintage charactered pickup.

The more I read WLH vs Seth the more I want to hybrid a SLb with a WLHn, since they seem to have a lot in common and perhaps different enough for an interesting blend. My gut says the SL screw coil with the WLH slug and A2 mag go into the bridge slot and the remaining parts to the neck. They might play very nicely together.

 

[Studioplayer]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

I have the Seths in my Les Paul and they are complex sounding in a way that my Duncan '59 pair was not. I don't known firstbhand experience on the Whole Lotta' Humbucker set, so cannot compare the two. D.C. resistance is only one measure-ment. The resonant peak of a given pickup is a help also. The resonant peak according to Duncan for the WLH pair is (N) 6.4 KHz and (B) 6.14 KHz. The Seths measure about (N) 8.14 KHz and (B) 5.9 KHz. My pairm of Seths have a DC measurement of (N) 7.2 and (B) 8.2. I don't know about my Seth set resonant peak though.

Duncan's tone chart show the Whole Lotta' set balanced across the bass/mids/treble and the Seths show less bass and mids than treble. My own Seth pair are great sounding with my Orange amp and speak cab. They are staying in my guitar for a long time.

Studioplayer

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Seth Lover v. WLH

The Seths spec out at 7.4K and 8.3K. The WLH specs at 8.2K and 8.78K.

So there's more turns of wire around the bobbins of the WLH set...it's a hotter set with more output compared to the Seth lovers.

The 8.2K neck pickup in the WLH set is sort of like using a 59b as a neck pickup!

Only on paper. IME in practical use in an SG, a WLH neck is more like a smoother, flatter sounding Pearly neck. I just removed a set of WLH from my SG and replaced with a 78-model bridge and Seth neck. Where previously I had the guitar neck volume rolled to 8-9, I simply keep it on 10 now to balance for the change to Seth.

Duncan used to use roughcast A5 in the 59. I think they changed it to polished A5 because the 59 sounded too good and made more expensive sets like the WLH seem overpriced.

Marketing.

As was covered before in another thread, it's more likely they changed to polished to ease assembly. It's pretty far-fetched to suggest that Duncan would decidedly make their bread-and-butter pickups sound worse in order to make their boutique pickups sound better.

I'd like to try a set of the WLH pickups, but I'm concerned that the neck pickup would seem a little overpowering...as it does in a lot of the Gibson guitars I've owned from the 50's and 60's.

The neck pickup in my Custom Shop Pearly Gates pickups is around 7.8K and to me, that's getting a little too hot for jazzy clean tones. I kind of like the regular 7.3K PGn better.

IME the Seth neck is the flattest, most even neck; the WLH has a touch more top end, though not bright at all, just a bit of chime; the Pearly has even more top and is chimey but a touch less mids in comparison - pretty much as the top gets brighter/chimey the mids seem to get turned down. As far as output, the Seth neck is a bit the lower than the others; the WLH and the Pearly necks are almost identical. Because WLH seems flatter, the WLH neck seems a little lower in output, despite the specs on paper. The WLH just sounds like a differently EQ'd, flatter more polite Pearly set, in my experience. The WLH bridge sounds like Angus when distorted but not quite much else. The neck isn't quite a stereotypical Gibson neck chimey sound. IME the real benefit of WLH is when switching from humbucking to split and from series coils to parallel coils.