Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

[Boogie Bill]

I have two Les Paul Supremes from 2006. These have flame maple caps on the top and back, and the mahogany bodies are chambered. There are no access panels for the controls; every thing has to be wired through either the pickup routes or through the oversized jackplate. The appointments are similar to a Les Paul Custom, but even fancier inlays, ala a Super 400 jazz guitar, and real ebony on the fingerboard.


The stock pickups are Gibson's 490R/498T. In one Supreme I replaced them with Seth Lovers. I've never really gotten along with the stock pickups. Each one is fine, but if I want to switch pickups, the urge to walk back and readjust my amp is overwhelming. These sets just don't work together well.

Since I'm not real confident in my skills to tackle rewiring, I'm going to take it to a luthier. It'll cost me at least $100, so I want to get it right, and only do it once.

I have two sets to choose from, either a set of Pearly Gates, or Seth Lovers, both in gold.

So what would you choose? I use Mesa amps; I play clean a lot, and only moderate distortion, no metal, no chug. From Country to Blues to Jazz and Classic Rock, I need to cover a wide range of material.

I could probably swap in a set of Gibson '57 Classics, but other than that, I'd like to stick with either the Pearlies or the Seths. The Seths are the safe choice--I swapped a set into the other Supreme a few years ago, and I like them. The guitar works well for me, and Seths have a versatile, pleasing, warm tone.

With all that maple, do you think the Pearlies would be too bright? Does the bridge balance well with the neck?

Would love to hear your insights.

TIA,

Bill

 

[Nagisa]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I hope others chime in. I personally love the PGn but did not gel with the PGb which imo is brittle. Some on this forum are diehard PG fans so I guess it is up to each person and setup. They did pair up well though in terms of tone and output. I am intrigued about the Seths but haven't used them. I would vote to use what you know you like, but again I hope others can compare.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I vote you get rid of those PITA guitars.

Seriously - if you wanted to play that stuff and mess with tone with these guitars, you bought the wrong guitars. Knowing you were gonna change the pickups etc. What pots are in there? 500 or 300k? I'd want 500k pots. If 300k the PG's will not be too bright. Not excuse for a Duncan member of your stature for that. Please tell me they were so pretty you HAD to do it. You obviously didn't listen to them prior to purchase.

But like I said - that guitar is for looking at - not tone changing. Gibson told you what it should have, and you have the audacity to argue with them? Pffft. You deserve the pain you get! Seriously. Get another regular Les Paul. Sell one and get two sweet used ones..

You may also find with the PG's that the bridge/neck differences are notable. I don't have a problem, with that. PG is my PAF go to set. But if you go Seth, now you have two Seth loaded LP's. Greatrif you want the same sound out of two guitars. I'd get Pearlies in one for a different PAF sound. which is cool until you decide that you like Seth's/PG's better and want to change the other. See where this ends up.

Is there some reason you can't just use the tone control if the PG's are bright? Or are they too expensive and you don't want to wear them out by actually using them? Seriously - good luck Bill. But this sounds like a bad decision originally and instead of getting a guitar that works, you have decided to jump through invisible flaming hoops to make these work.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

PG too bright in a maple LP? Be careful because that's what I've said once on this forum, with the only result to be treated like that: :smash:

Seriously: there's not only maple in your equation. There's also ebony... :scratchch

Not that such a brightness can't be cured: when I've got this problem with a PG in a cheap anonymous set neck axe essentially made of maple, I've dealt with it by tweaking the overall "stray capacitance" of the wiring, in order to lower the resonant peak of the pickup...

Now, the simplest answer appears to be in your question itself : if you're happy with Seth's in the same guitar model and if you don't want to tweak your amp, why would you change?

Good luck in your quest anyway.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

If you are not using a ton of preamp gain and volume, I think the Seths are wonderful pickups for the range of music you want to play. The Pearlies are brighter, and potted, so if you need extra high end (and only if you did) you can go for them. But the Seths are really touch sensitive, and not EQ'd toward one side or the other.

 

[Golem]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I love Seths but we know just how awesome the Pearly Gates bridge pickup can sound when the Reverend plays them. I like the sound of brighter PAFs so hearing that some people find them too bright is an advertisement for me. I can use tone controls if needed

 

[freefrog]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I love Seths but we know just how awesome the Pearly Gates bridge pickup can sound when the Reverend plays them. I like the sound of brighter PAFs so hearing that some people find them too bright is an advertisement for me. I can use tone controls if needed

For the record, the pickups in my number one LP are actually brighter than PG's... but they are in a "real" LP, with a mid centric resonance.

For example, I wouldn't mount them in an Epi LP with an alder center block, producing a flat midrange and a bump @ 4khz: even a JB can get too bright in such guitars...

Some maple guitars are even brighter acoustically and when bright pickups are mounted in them, the sound becomes... thin - unless lowering the tone pot(s) makes it "weak", since there's initially no strenght in bass and mid ranges.

IOW and IMHO, the problem is not the pickups by themselves but how they cooperate or not with their host. EDIT: this post being a generalization and not an advice about the LP Supreme: I've already shared above my indifferent opinion about the choice for this guitar.

IME. YMMV...

 

[Aceman]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

Froggy - the guitar is not maple. It has an "extra" maple cap on the back that I would argue contributes far more to looks than tone. Maple neck - yeah - bright LP. But this is a maggot body and neck.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

Froggy - the guitar is not maple. It has an "extra" maple cap on the back that I would argue contributes far more to looks than tone. Maple neck - yeah - bright LP. But this is a maggot body and neck.

Yes, I had got it.

And I'v reacted to the fact that the guitar has also an ebony fretboard, which contributes to brightness IME.

Now and to be clear: I don't know how bright is acoustically the LP supreme evoked above. On the basis of my own experience, which may differ from others, I was just stating that IF this guitar is naturally bright, a PG might not be the optimal choice.

Once again, YMMV.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

Pearly Gates. More versatile, can do more styles. If it's too bright, you have a woman-tone control on board.

 

[David Garner]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

You already have Seths. I’d get the Pearlies.

And learn how to solder.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I'd sell both of the lookers, get two easy to work on used LP's and a new amp! Plus pickups.

Pics and I might change my mind - fronts and backs...

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

If you're gonna choose Seths, you might as well just sell one of the Supremes. No point having two guitars from the same run with identical specs throughout.

As for maple sounding bright, I don't think that has ever been proven, and I've never noticed it, myself. I wouldn't think along those lines. Think about the pickups, IMO.

PGns are thicker and more aggressive than Seth necks, but not to the extreme. They are still well within the P.A.F. range.

Seth bridges are thicker and warmer than PG bridges.

PGn, Seth bridge is a great mix IME. You already know how your bridge pickup sounds. This mix-matched set will simply add a little more output and aggression to your neck pickup. A matched set of PGs will give you the same thing on the neck, and more brightness and clarity in the bridge position. A matched set of Seths...you know what that gives you.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I don't find the PGs thicker than the Seths at all. The PGs are brighter, though.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I don't find the PGs thicker than the Seths at all. The PGs are brighter, though.

I said neck PG is thicker (and more aggressive) than neck Seth, and bridge Seth is thicker than bridge PG.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

As for maple sounding bright, I don't think that has ever been proven, and I've never noticed it, myself.

Well, if it wasn’t off topic, I’d recall the ol’ story about LP prototypes having a maple body and being too bright:




Some people seem to have the same experience than me, too:

https://forum.seymourduncan.com/sho...-BODY-GUITAR&p=3694584&viewfull=1#post3694584

Now, I find logical to read variable testimonials : there's several kinds of maple, wood is only a component among others in guitars, each chunk of wood is unique and so on. It certainly allows opposite experiences for us.

I don't find the PGs thicker than the Seths at all. The PGs are brighter, though.

FWIW, the PG b has a higher inductance than a Seth b… and more inductance = more “meat”… BUT the PG has also a higher “Q factor”: its resonant peak is narrower, pointier, closer to the resonance of a single coil...
So, the PG has altogether the capabilities to sound thicker AND brighter than a Seth, according to the capacitive / resistive filtering due to the wiring and… to the frequencies promoted by the guitar hosting it.
IMHO/IME.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

^ Yes. "Thicker" does not mean less trebly, i.e. more "warm." I was referring more to output...which in turn, affects how your amp receives the input from the guitar, i.e. how much distortion you get.

That said, the Seth bridge seems meatier than the PGb to me (and less trebly).

As for maple being bright, it has not been my experience that any wood across the board sounds dark or bright or balanced or whatever, in an electric guitar. I've played dark and bright examples of any type of common guitar wood there is. There's too much variance, and not enough proper study/testing, to make such statements.

I think a lot of the "maple is bright" simply comes from a combination of parroted wives tales over the generations, and, sadly, the color of the wood. I also believe that some maple guitars can indeed be very bright. But some can also be very dark.

To clarify, I do personally believe (anecdotally) that the properties of the wood can affect the way an electric guitar reacts. I just don't believe that it is very predictable, controllable, or consistent thing based on selection of a wood species. I would be more inclined to say that it can be controlled and predicted based on the properties of individual wood blanks, rather than by general lumber selection based on species.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I don’t remember to have claimed that “maple is bright” generally speaking. The example of my old friend luthier and the guitars that I’ve built myself would dissuade me of such simplifications.

I might have said that “guitars made of maple can be very bright”, if it was the subject discussed here. Because that’s my subjective experience, and appears to be the experience of a few other people. It was the whole meaning of my previous post – and the picture of a page borrowed to Dave Hunter was meant to be recreative rather than argumentative, BTW.

That said, I stay away from the online debate about tonewoods: too polarized and not factual enough for me… not to mention that all this online fuss tends to hide some interesting researches published here and there. Example: https://www.ahvenainen.org/publications

To come back on topic, I’d like to know what the owner will have finally put in his famous LP Supreme… and if he’s happy with a set of PG in it, I’ll simply be glad for him.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I had an all-maple Steinberger that was super bright, so that probably helped my opinion along. No pickups I bought would compensate for that. I eventually traded away that guitar.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Seths or Pearlies in a Les Paul Supreme?

I don’t remember to have claimed that “maple is bright” generally speaking. The example of my old friend luthier and the guitars that I’ve built myself would dissuade me of such simplifications.

I might have said that “guitars made of maple can be very bright”, if it was the subject discussed here. Because that’s my subjective experience, and appears to be the experience of a few other people. It was the whole meaning of my previous post – and the picture of a page borrowed to Dave Hunter was meant to be recreative rather than argumentative, BTW.

That said, I stay away from the online debate about tonewoods: too polarized and not factual enough for me… not to mention that all this online fuss tends to hide some interesting researches published here and there. Example: https://www.ahvenainen.org/publications

To come back on topic, I’d like to know what the owner will have finally put in his famous LP Supreme… and if he’s happy with a set of PG in it, I’ll simply be glad for him.

You did not state that. The OP did.