So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
- Thread starter Open lane
- Start date
gsammo79
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
Glad you've got that guitar singing.
I went from a jb to an antiquity bridge in a samick LP copy. It was a huge output difference. My amp (hotrod deluxe) had too lousy of a drive channel to compensate for the mellowness of the antiquity bridge. Ended up selling it to a buddy of mine but I regret it since learning more about the magnet swapping options...
Glad you've got that guitar singing.
I went from a jb to an antiquity bridge in a samick LP copy. It was a huge output difference. My amp (hotrod deluxe) had too lousy of a drive channel to compensate for the mellowness of the antiquity bridge. Ended up selling it to a buddy of mine but I regret it since learning more about the magnet swapping options...
Last edited:
Chris Pile
Well-known member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I have Antiquities in my Ibanez AS-73 (335 clone). Wouldn't trade them for the world.
I have Antiquities in my Ibanez AS-73 (335 clone). Wouldn't trade them for the world.
BeKindRewind
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Isn't the whole point of antiquities the aged magnets though ?
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Open lane
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I never thought they sounded "bad." I just didn't think they sounded dif from the stock pups at all when a/b-ing them. The sound i'm getting now is outstanding. I didn't think it was necessary to change any settings because i really have a sweetspot dialed in for the p90s in my lp special. Thing definitely needed to be redialed in to get the most out of this set. I consider it a significant learning experience.
I never thought they sounded "bad." I just didn't think they sounded dif from the stock pups at all when a/b-ing them. The sound i'm getting now is outstanding. I didn't think it was necessary to change any settings because i really have a sweetspot dialed in for the p90s in my lp special. Thing definitely needed to be redialed in to get the most out of this set. I consider it a significant learning experience.
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I have a set in my 335-like Eastman. If your style depends on touch-sensitivity, and you don't need pickups to provide any compression at all, they are a remarkable set. They are pretty unforgiving with sloppy technique, though... you hear everything.
I have a set in my 335-like Eastman. If your style depends on touch-sensitivity, and you don't need pickups to provide any compression at all, they are a remarkable set. They are pretty unforgiving with sloppy technique, though... you hear everything.
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
The irony of this situation is that those who have examined a lot of vintage magnets, they have not found them to degauss at all in normal circumstances in a humbucker......of course p90's are a whole different kettle of fish. So the degaussing part of the equation makes very little sense from a PAF replica point of view. Of course modern magnets are not quite the same as vintage ones, so tonally that might have been a way to change the final outcome. But it is easy to get old magnets sampled, then made like vintage formulations now - so I'm a little stumped why the Ant's still continue to be done with the degauss method given the premium product nature of the beast.
The source of this info is James Finnerty, co author of the 'PAF: myth to reality' book.
The irony of this situation is that those who have examined a lot of vintage magnets, they have not found them to degauss at all in normal circumstances in a humbucker......of course p90's are a whole different kettle of fish. So the degaussing part of the equation makes very little sense from a PAF replica point of view. Of course modern magnets are not quite the same as vintage ones, so tonally that might have been a way to change the final outcome. But it is easy to get old magnets sampled, then made like vintage formulations now - so I'm a little stumped why the Ant's still continue to be done with the degauss method given the premium product nature of the beast.
The source of this info is James Finnerty, co author of the 'PAF: myth to reality' book.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
While Antiquities sound great in their own way, Seths are closer to what you actually would have got in a Gibson back in the day. Ants are the choice if you want low output and warmth. They are particularly excellent if your amp doesn't have much headroom (e.g. a vintage Fender Princeton Reverb or something like that), and you want to control the pickup from clean to dirty by setting your amp's volume just right and using your hand to change the amount of crunch. Go for Seths if you want more bite and output, more authentic to how most P.A.F.s would have sounded. Seths are where it's at for an affordable "pretty damned sweet" P.A.F. replica. Antiquities are a "tweaked" P.A.F. – but tweaked for lower output instead of higher, which is how P.A.F.s are normally tweaked.
Humbucker magnets do not degauss over time, so using a degaussed A2 (already a weak magnet) is not really authentic to P.A.F. pickups. It might give a favorable tone for some purposes, but it isn't exactly vintage accurate. Again, that isn't a bad thing, merely a description.
While Antiquities sound great in their own way, Seths are closer to what you actually would have got in a Gibson back in the day. Ants are the choice if you want low output and warmth. They are particularly excellent if your amp doesn't have much headroom (e.g. a vintage Fender Princeton Reverb or something like that), and you want to control the pickup from clean to dirty by setting your amp's volume just right and using your hand to change the amount of crunch. Go for Seths if you want more bite and output, more authentic to how most P.A.F.s would have sounded. Seths are where it's at for an affordable "pretty damned sweet" P.A.F. replica. Antiquities are a "tweaked" P.A.F. – but tweaked for lower output instead of higher, which is how P.A.F.s are normally tweaked.
Humbucker magnets do not degauss over time, so using a degaussed A2 (already a weak magnet) is not really authentic to P.A.F. pickups. It might give a favorable tone for some purposes, but it isn't exactly vintage accurate. Again, that isn't a bad thing, merely a description.
Discharged
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
The reason of the degaussed magnet is a clearer tone-footprint, due to the effect of less fundamental, making the 1st and 2nd harmonic more audible, compared with a fully-charged A2.
You get the same effect using fully-charged A3 magnets, although the feeling is a bit stiffer, which may or may not be desirable.
YMMV.
/Peter
The reason of the degaussed magnet is a clearer tone-footprint, due to the effect of less fundamental, making the 1st and 2nd harmonic more audible, compared with a fully-charged A2.
You get the same effect using fully-charged A3 magnets, although the feeling is a bit stiffer, which may or may not be desirable.
YMMV.
/Peter
hamerfan
Well-known member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
Not many of the real PAF have mags that are degaussed like the recent made 'Dunaged magnets'. In the real world PAF and P90 owners charge their old and tired magnets. But those dunaged mags can't be charged.
The true value of the Ants is that they are fine made pickups with the right materials and no potting. With two rough cast A4s or Unoriented A5s you are nearer to vintage PAFs that with the stock mags imo.
Not many of the real PAF have mags that are degaussed like the recent made 'Dunaged magnets'. In the real world PAF and P90 owners charge their old and tired magnets. But those dunaged mags can't be charged.
The true value of the Ants is that they are fine made pickups with the right materials and no potting. With two rough cast A4s or Unoriented A5s you are nearer to vintage PAFs that with the stock mags imo.
David Garner
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I rolled magnets in mine to the point that I nicked the coil on the neck and had to send it to the Custom Shop for a rewind. I prefer the stock magnets over all others. A4s were too crisp, UOA5s were good as were fully charged A2s, but the stock magnets just work. I'd wager that's because they're what the wind was developed around.
I rolled magnets in mine to the point that I nicked the coil on the neck and had to send it to the Custom Shop for a rewind. I prefer the stock magnets over all others. A4s were too crisp, UOA5s were good as were fully charged A2s, but the stock magnets just work. I'd wager that's because they're what the wind was developed around.
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
Honestly, I'd say that the '59 and Seth set are both great for this as well.
Honestly, I'd say that the '59 and Seth set are both great for this as well.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
'59s and Seths are almost complete opposite ends of the Duncan [standard production] P.A.F. spectrum. Seths are nearly the weakest (only Ants are weaker). '59s are the strongest.
IME, the '59 is far too powerful for what I described when using a Princeton Reverb. If you move up to a cleaner (which usually means more powerful) amp, then yes. '59s in combination with a Deluxe Reverb (or other Fenders in that general size/power range), or a Super Reverb, for example, are a match made in heaven.
Seths are great for this through my 12–15 W 1x combos. Ants a bit better, though.
'59s and Seths are almost complete opposite ends of the Duncan [standard production] P.A.F. spectrum. Seths are nearly the weakest (only Ants are weaker). '59s are the strongest.
IME, the '59 is far too powerful for what I described when using a Princeton Reverb. If you move up to a cleaner (which usually means more powerful) amp, then yes. '59s in combination with a Deluxe Reverb (or other Fenders in that general size/power range), or a Super Reverb, for example, are a match made in heaven.
Seths are great for this through my 12–15 W 1x combos. Ants a bit better, though.
Last edited:
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I use a '59 neck and Seth bridge in the same guitar. While I agree that the '59 is a bit more powerful, there is not a huge difference in output between the two. I've got the seth about 2 mm from the strings and the '59 about 3 mm away. They balance well (no volume change) when switching between pickups, they both cause my amp's clean channel to distort when full up, and both are very clean with the volume rolled back.
I adjusted the pole pieces slightly differently to control the bass on the '59 and the highs on the Seth.
I use a '59 neck and Seth bridge in the same guitar. While I agree that the '59 is a bit more powerful, there is not a huge difference in output between the two. I've got the seth about 2 mm from the strings and the '59 about 3 mm away. They balance well (no volume change) when switching between pickups, they both cause my amp's clean channel to distort when full up, and both are very clean with the volume rolled back.
I adjusted the pole pieces slightly differently to control the bass on the '59 and the highs on the Seth.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
In other words, you put the underwound (i.e. neck) variant of the stronger model with the overwound (i.e. bridge) variant of the weaker model. Of course they balance OK with some setup.
Compare a Seth neck to a '59 neck in the same position, and a Seth bridge to a '59 bridge in the same position, and you'll see what I mean. The '59s are significantly stronger than the Seths.
In other words, you put the underwound (i.e. neck) variant of the stronger model with the overwound (i.e. bridge) variant of the weaker model. Of course they balance OK with some setup.
Compare a Seth neck to a '59 neck in the same position, and a Seth bridge to a '59 bridge in the same position, and you'll see what I mean. The '59s are significantly stronger than the Seths.
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Re: So, i didn't really dig the antquities (until now)
I agree with you, the A5 makes the '59 a tad stronger than the A2 in the Seth. I was just pointing out that they're certainly not miles apart . . . and the neck version of either will easily balance with the bridge version of either. (Actually, if you put an A5 in a Seth bridge, you should actually get a bit more output than you would from a stock '59.) As far as the cleaning up with the volume control thing . . . I'd wager that any low output pickup will do that reasonably well.
I agree with you, the A5 makes the '59 a tad stronger than the A2 in the Seth. I was just pointing out that they're certainly not miles apart . . . and the neck version of either will easily balance with the bridge version of either. (Actually, if you put an A5 in a Seth bridge, you should actually get a bit more output than you would from a stock '59.) As far as the cleaning up with the volume control thing . . . I'd wager that any low output pickup will do that reasonably well.
