Seymour Duncan Distortion SH-6 TB-6 vs EMG 81-89
- Thread starter Ognjen
- Start date
ColeJustesen
New member
Re: Seymour Duncan Distortion SH-6 TB-6 vs EMG 81-89
I would generally agree with you on this, but the preamp circuit of the amp plays a big part too. My buddy's guitar loaded with an 81/60 setup blew my mind with how effective changing the guitar volume was through my Laney GH50L. It responded like most passive equipped guitars typically do.
That being said, I agree with your first statement, tough call. Though, most of the time I lean towards passive setups.
Cole
I would generally agree with you on this, but the preamp circuit of the amp plays a big part too. My buddy's guitar loaded with an 81/60 setup blew my mind with how effective changing the guitar volume was through my Laney GH50L. It responded like most passive equipped guitars typically do.
That being said, I agree with your first statement, tough call. Though, most of the time I lean towards passive setups.
Cole
Inflames626
New member
Re: Seymour Duncan Distortion SH-6 TB-6 vs EMG 81-89
I've used both of these pretty extensively over the past 20 years.
The short answer is the Distortion will have more highs and grit. The 81 will sound like it cuts through better but that's because it's mostly mids with the extreme highs and lows rolled off (EMGs have a sharp peak around 2-2.5k and not much else). The 89 will sound much like an 85 and will sound fatter and fuller in the bottom than an 81. I tend to prefer ceramics in the bridge because I think they sound tighter, but I can see the appeal of Alnicos V like the 85 in the bridge because it has more thump and body. I've recently resorted to using them both, with the 85 on the left/rhythm side and the 81 on the right/lead side of a mix. All of my EMGs are old (non X, some are even hardwired) types that are now run in 18 volts, which especially helps the 81 to have more body and sound less anemic. 18 volt regular EMGs are identical to the X versions.
The benefit of the 89--that it splits--isn't anything to write home about, but it's better than the Distortion split. This is doubly annoying in the 81tw's case, where you have to gouge out a little bit of wood from the guitar to make the pickup cavity deep enough to accommodate the pickup. After all that, the split sound isn't worth the effort.
To get some other things out of the way that usually pop up, EMGs are not terribly hot or powerful despite marketing. If you play them and look at their output in a DAW vs. a hot passive Duncan like a Distortion you'll see about a 3 to 6 db difference in favor of the Duncan.
EMGs sound hot and powerful because they cut through and sit in a mix well. I always associate them with a brittle boosted mid sound like Slayer. Sometimes that's exactly what you need and sometimes it's terrible. Generally, they're a one trick pony, but they're very consistent and they do what they do very well if you want specifically that sound.
A Distortion has way more cut and high end (for me, that's around 5k) than an EMG 81 and you really can tell it when you play them side by side. The problem with the Distortion is a lot of this high end is fizz and harshness. I honestly get a little ear fatigue when using them for rhythm, but I think they are superior to the 81 for playing leads. They scream and get harmonics well, whereas the comparatively narrow frequency band of the 81/85/89 really chokes their tone.
I've used both of these pretty extensively over the past 20 years.
The short answer is the Distortion will have more highs and grit. The 81 will sound like it cuts through better but that's because it's mostly mids with the extreme highs and lows rolled off (EMGs have a sharp peak around 2-2.5k and not much else). The 89 will sound much like an 85 and will sound fatter and fuller in the bottom than an 81. I tend to prefer ceramics in the bridge because I think they sound tighter, but I can see the appeal of Alnicos V like the 85 in the bridge because it has more thump and body. I've recently resorted to using them both, with the 85 on the left/rhythm side and the 81 on the right/lead side of a mix. All of my EMGs are old (non X, some are even hardwired) types that are now run in 18 volts, which especially helps the 81 to have more body and sound less anemic. 18 volt regular EMGs are identical to the X versions.
The benefit of the 89--that it splits--isn't anything to write home about, but it's better than the Distortion split. This is doubly annoying in the 81tw's case, where you have to gouge out a little bit of wood from the guitar to make the pickup cavity deep enough to accommodate the pickup. After all that, the split sound isn't worth the effort.
To get some other things out of the way that usually pop up, EMGs are not terribly hot or powerful despite marketing. If you play them and look at their output in a DAW vs. a hot passive Duncan like a Distortion you'll see about a 3 to 6 db difference in favor of the Duncan.
EMGs sound hot and powerful because they cut through and sit in a mix well. I always associate them with a brittle boosted mid sound like Slayer. Sometimes that's exactly what you need and sometimes it's terrible. Generally, they're a one trick pony, but they're very consistent and they do what they do very well if you want specifically that sound.
A Distortion has way more cut and high end (for me, that's around 5k) than an EMG 81 and you really can tell it when you play them side by side. The problem with the Distortion is a lot of this high end is fizz and harshness. I honestly get a little ear fatigue when using them for rhythm, but I think they are superior to the 81 for playing leads. They scream and get harmonics well, whereas the comparatively narrow frequency band of the 81/85/89 really chokes their tone.
Last edited:
Kamanda~SD
New member
Re: Seymour Duncan Distortion SH-6 TB-6 vs EMG 81-89
Crazy price. Go buy your local machinist a 12 pack and he can make you this with scrap metal lying on the shop floor.
I would certainly blame the source first. Although I agree Youtube's audio quality is nothing to write home about, there are lots of good sounding stuff on there due to the source being well recorded and mixed. A great source down converted sounds a lot better than a crappy source down converted.
Crazy price. Go buy your local machinist a 12 pack and he can make you this with scrap metal lying on the shop floor.
I would certainly blame the source first. Although I agree Youtube's audio quality is nothing to write home about, there are lots of good sounding stuff on there due to the source being well recorded and mixed. A great source down converted sounds a lot better than a crappy source down converted.
Similar threads
