Seths or Ants?

Push to Shuv

New member
I was set on getting a seth set for my Schecter c-1+ (mahogany body, flamed maple top). I read something recently that the Seths have a tad bit less output than the Ants and can sound kind of weak. Which one has more output (i know they are close)? Which one has a more "complex" and "hollow" sound? Please a/b them for me. I will mainly use the bridge pickup but occasionally the neck too.
 
Re: Seths or Ants?

I'll say this...I think that the bridge Ant might be a tad (and I mean a small tad) hotter than a Seth bridge, but I think that the necks are about the same. I am hearing that the Ants are far more complex in the mids, also hollow and have a more 3d clean tone!
 
Re: Seths or Ants?

I don't hear much diff output wise between the two. I do think the Seth might have the fuller, thicker, fatter tone of the two though, so maybe it is slightly stronger output wise? It's been a year or so since I compared them in the same guitar. As TGWIF mentioned, the mids in the Antiquity have a little more texture and space or "hollowness" to them. Lew
 
Last edited:
Re: Seths or Ants?

I find the SLb slightly fatter than the Antb but no big difference.
Pinch harmonics come easier and are nicer with the SLb .

About the neck PUs , there 's more difference. The ant is more open, more acoustic than the SL.

The SLb is my favorite PU and I think it will always be. I use it in my PRS and couldn't be happier.
I prefer the Ant.b in LPs , tried it in lighter axes but then prefered the SLb.
The Ant neck is the best sounding neck PU. It sounded great in every axe I tried it.
 
Re: Seths or Ants?

I found the Seths hotter than the Ants, definitely.

Much more a SL afficionados than Ants. The SL bridge has that bite and bold tone I really like. Very sensitive to pick attack. The Ants are also very sensitive, but kind of lower "reacting point"... I mean, seems like the SL have a wider "reactive spectrum"... does that make sense ? :22:
 
Back
Top