Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

[LtKojak]

Hi folks!

I've made a thread about suddenly getting many orders of mag swap in Gibson p'ups with UOA5s... looks like I've found how it happened.

Seems like in one or more of the several Les Paul forums, somebody made a post on how to recognize Shaw p'ups from the rest of Gibson p'ups, vintage and not.

In the list of specs, it was listed that the Shaws were using UOA5 mags. And for some strange reason, lately Shaws, T-Tops and Pat#s are in high demand, something that goes beyond my comprehension. :eyecrazy:

Unless, the vintage market is hyping'em as real PAFs dried out and are not available anymore, which it makes sense to me.

So, I think the word started to spread and here in Spaghettiland seems I'm the one guy that ever knew about'em, let alone using'em.

I'll be soon hitting Dennis with a substantial order and this time I'll be able to afford to pay DHL rates to have'em shipped ASAP!

It'll be a pleasure to see more people get acquainted with good tone.

A lot of people 'round here uses Gibson p'ups and never question their tone as they believe that if they're GIBSON p'ups and they sound like that, that's SUPPOSED TO BE good tone!

Anyway, if this trend develops, I'm pretty sure with time, I'll get many lost souls converted to the Duncan side, as they're better sounding p'ups to start with, and most take mag swaps gracefully, specially the PAFish designs (Seths, PGs, '59s, Jazzs) and the of course the Custom family including their newborn, the Custom/'59 Hybrid.

That's my two pence of nothing at all, folks. Enjoy! :cool2:

 

[hamerfan]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

Its okay to pay 125 Euro for a late T-Top or a Shaw, while a pair of Throbaks are 450 Euro shipped to Europe IMO

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

Shaws and T Tops are getting love lately because they are amazing...

Now, I will say that the later T Tops mostly suck eggs but the early ones are quite good and the Shaws...smokin pickups!

I pulled the Shaws from my Moderne because I felt I needed to "upgrade" after spending too long on a forum but after several years the Shaws are back home where they belong.

I was never blown away by them but my issue was not with the pickups but with the stupid factory 300k pots...put in some nice 500k and the Shaws became a whole new beast!

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

Now, I will say that the later T Tops mostly suck eggs but the early ones are quite good and the Shaws...smokin pickups!

I haven't had any Shaws on my workbench that I remember, but from early and late T-Tops I haven't found any differences. Same wire (AWG #42 SPN), same magnet (short polished A5), same 65 TPL winding pattern, same quantity of turns, as all consistently fell within 0.5% of 7.5K.

As neck p'ups I don't consider'em to be something to write home about, and as bridge p'ups I find'em whiny, puny and wimpy. But lately selling them to supposedly golden-eared tone snobs seems to be a lucrative activity.

I'd like to ask you, as you present yourself as a seasoned guitar tech/luthier: did you ever encountered T-Tops with WHITE AND BLUE bobbin leads? The reason I ask is because some acquaintance of mine bragged about getting some T-Tops and the pictures he showed me the bobbin leads were white and blue and I've never encountered other than black and white and very few black and red, so they looked fishy to me. But not being very knowledgeable on Gibson p'ups I thought to just ask.

If you care to answer, I'm all ears.

 

[DonP]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

As neck p'ups I don't consider'em to be something to write home about, and as bridge p'ups I find'em whiny, puny and wimpy.

Yes, they do sound that way played through and amp with no balls.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

I haven't had any Shaws on my workbench that I remember, but from early and late T-Tops I haven't found any differences. Same wire (AWG #42 SPN), same magnet (short polished A5), same 65 TPL winding pattern, same quantity of turns, as all consistently fell within 0.5% of 7.5K.

As neck p'ups I don't consider'em to be something to write home about, and as bridge p'ups I find'em whiny, puny and wimpy. But lately selling them to supposedly golden-eared tone snobs seems to be a lucrative activity.

I'd like to ask you, as you present yourself as a seasoned guitar tech/luthier: did you ever encountered T-Tops with WHITE AND BLUE bobbin leads? The reason I ask is because some acquaintance of mine bragged about getting some T-Tops and the pictures he showed me the bobbin leads were white and blue and I've never encountered other than black and white and very few black and red, so they looked fishy to me. But not being very knowledgeable on Gibson p'ups I thought to just ask.

If you care to answer, I'm all ears.

I'm not a tech or luthier at all I know my way around doing my own set ups and small tech work but a luther I am not.

In answer to your question, no...I have never seen that but to be fair I've never looked either.

As for the rest of it, in terms of T-Top tone, I think T-tops make sweet neck pickups and I like them as bridge pickups too...being so close in DC they require some work to get a great balance from neck to bridge but so did PAF's and I don't hear guys *****ing about those very often.

All that said it is very obvious to be based on reading your posts and your habits of changing magnets, using hot pickups and 250k pots on humbuckers that you don't really favor vintage sounding stuff very much, I on the other hand do so for me T-Tops fit the bill nicely.

Shaws are different that T-Tops in a number of ways but still very good...they are also pretty close in DC from neck to bridge so they also require being creative to get a good neck/bridge balance but again I find it worth it.

I have 3 Gibsons with Humbuckers...one with Shaws, one with T Tops and one with Duncan Antiquities...they are all 3 very sweet sounding guitars, the one with Ants was the easiest to dial in due to the calibrated pickups but once they were dialed in all of them have a great tone that works for me and my playign style!

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

Here is Joe B with his early 80's Heritage series Flying V Reissue...I know for a fact it has the stock Shaw pickups...doesn't sound thin to me at all.



Here he is with his 70's era ES-355 with stock T-Tops...again, nothing thin about this.

 

[MetalManiac]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

Wouldn't you say the T-top in the neck is extraordinarily smooth? I had a T-top, sold it , and regret it, and would like another one. In the bridge I got say I was underwhelmed like Kojak, but the neck was really sweet and syrupy like a double chocolate malt!

 

[blueman335]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

As neck p'ups I don't consider'em to be something to write home about, and as bridge p'ups I find'em whiny, puny and wimpy.

How do T-tops compare to Seths? I think it'd hard to beat Seths.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Shaws, UOA5, hype and the power of the WWW

How do T-tops compare to Seths? I think it'd hard to beat Seths.

Seth is a PAF (style)...T-Tops were all alnico 5 for starters and the winds were always in the 7.5k range save for a few odd balls that got out.

I'd say they are the same family but still different for sure...

Here is a Phil X demo of a 66 ES-345 featuring early T Tops.

There is a bit of neck alone on this.



Here is a "better" quality demo of a 66 Trini into a clean Fender amp

 

[walkyle]

I have attempted an A4 and a UOA5 in a 8.6K Antiquity connect bucker. The A4 was a plain/cleaned, and the UOA5 was an 'Illinois' type I got from Jon at ThroBak. The A4 was somewhat even over the EQ, yet I was searching for somewhat more meat to the tone.

The UOA5 sounded very peaky in the upper mids in this pickup contrasted with the A4. It is a very fat and warm pinnacle instead of the harder, more brilliant, and scooped pinnacle of a standard A5. There isn't anything I found at Shaw so no concerns folks. It really made the Antiquity connect sound (to me) like a customary creation SD Pearly Gates. Be that as it may, it likewise caused the bass in contrast to feel more fragile than previously, so I returned to the A4

 

[idsnowdog]

RCUO A5 is just another option and not necessarily right or wrong. Magnet choice seems to run in cycles and A4 is the flavor of the month.

 

[AlexR]

Like all pickups, I guess it depends on the player first and foremost as to what they can squeeze out of them.

Good player = make any pickup sound awesome.

But luckily I'm not silly enough to believe the people who don't like the 70's into 80's Gibson (and indeed Fender) stock pickups. Although not all people are like this, I find those who can't make a pickup work so much more vocal about the pickup's shortcomings. So you tend to get this battering of opinion on the negative side so much more in general.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

I firmly believe that a great amp - actually most any good amp - can be dialed in to produce great tone with just about any pickup.

Sure, they'll vary in attack character, sustain/bloom, and looseness or tightness in the lows.
But gain controls can accommodate differences in output, and tone controls can sculpt the overall sound.

That's why the early sound engineers called it equalization, after all.


That said - and speaking only for myself - I prefer pickups that don't require a reset every time I change guitars.
That gets more tricky and requires being a bit choosy, foregoing super-high-output humbuckers and extremely thin-sounding ones.

Still, it is possible.

Of course, these days my gig rack has presets. But I don't want to need banks of patches for various types of guitar.
I used the same amp and settings with many different axes for decades, before I had programs.
Anyway, I don't always bring the rack.

~~

As for Shaws, they're vintagey and complex yet crisp, clear and present - like most of the original PAFs are.
Not fat or "big" sounding, and thinner than a Duncan 59, certainly, but no more so than a Burstbucker 1 to my ear.

Original PAFs are super inconsistent in output and brightness, thanks to their random coil pairings and at least four different kinds of magnet.
A majority of the PAF types made nowadays are modeled after the better old ones, with fairly close-matched coils and a little extra power.

Tim Shaw chose symmetrical coils for his PAF clones, but they're also underwound for maximum definition & dynamics.
They read right around 7KΩ, where Duncan 59s run 7.6K neck or 8.2K bridge, and the beefiest vintage examples are 9K-ish or a bit above.

This makes the Shaws bright, sure. But it also gives them fast, chimey pick attack, nice detail, and good definition across chords.
They have a very articulate open voice: no congestion in the mids and a lot of air in the highs.
Plus great touch response.They feel good when you play them.

If there's one significant disadvantage to Shaws, it's that they aren't wax-potted - they squeal badly under gain at volume.
This is what led a lot of us - myself included - to swap them out, back in the 70s & 80s.

I still have two Shaws. One was lightly potted years ago; it's far more resistant to feedback than before, but its date stamp got smeared off.

But given today's lower stage levels, that's no longer a dealbreaker.
And now more people are getting hip to how great they sound.

 

[JOLLY]

Welcome back to 2012.

 

[Demanic]

Welcome back to 2012.

Not the greatest of years, but some might not be horrified at winding up back there.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk