The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I'll take '57 Classics over the Seths. I've got a set in one of my Strats (Plus in the bridge). They sound incredible in that guitar. There's nothing grainy about them to me ears with my rig. They are a little brighter than typical A2 pickups but that's because they have a good mix of A2 and A5 qualities. I'm also running both of them uncovered.

Dunno know what to tell ya...truth is I have a buddy who like me is really unimpressed with Classic 57's but popped one in a Strat bridge position a while back because it was what was handy and loves it...maybe they're better suited for Fender guitars....:scratchch

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I had a set of seths in a epi les paul limited edition,rewired with orange drop caps cts pots switchcraft jack toggle switch that was very good and I just bougt a gibson les paul traditional with 57' classic and classic+.The Traditional is alot better built ...frets wood neck.I would have to pick the 57' classics by a slim margin.

An Epi with Seths and a LP Standard with Classic 57's is hardly a fair comparison...even 2 LP Standards is a hard shoot out but the Gibson and the Epi are worlds apart as-is...adding the pickup difference only makes it farther...

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Not what S.D. told me on the phone. They are even wound. You can hear it in the pu because their very even flat response pu'. Yes the originals were done on a machine too but they all had different output ratings meaning the person running the machine stop them when they thought they were full bobbins. Seymour builds his Ant's pretty close to the same output everytime. So they pretty much all sound the same . The originals would read all over the place.

I don't believe Seymore said that at all...he might have told you that they were not mismatched in the DiMarzio method (2 different wire gauges, one on each bobbin) but I am pretty sure that the boobbins on each Ant are a little different.

As for the output...Ants are not all the same, not by a long shot...they are all in the same ball park and as for original PAF's you say they were "all over the place"...not true either...they were all different but they were for sure in a range...it's not like one would be 8k and one would be 5k...they were all int eh 8k range give or take a little. Ants are the same, even in a simlar range except the necks tend to be a little lower...

 

[JB6464]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I only know buy what the S.D. sales rep told me on the phone. I had a conversation about the Ant's and Burstbuckers and the original PAF designs. And i asked him,are they uneven wound like the original PAF's and he replied they are evenly wound with aged mags and then built like the original PAF's with the wooden spacer and so forth. If you A/B any Ant's to a Burstbucker,you can hear the difference like night and day. Gibson will tell you flat out and you can hear it flat out that thry are unevenly wound pickups. Ant's do sound vintage but they dont have that open uneven chime and openess you hear in unevenly wound pickups.

 

[JB6464]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Well if there unevenly wound,then they dont have much difference between the two coils. As Seymour Duncans website states,they have a slight variations in dc output. But thats different than having two completely unevenly wound coils. They just dont have that open alive, on the edge sound. They do sound more vintage than the Seth's but A/B them to a Burstbucker and you can hear it. And Burstbuckers are unevenly wound with unpolished mags and their dc ratings are all over the place from BB1,2,and 3.

 

[ErikH]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Dunno know what to tell ya...truth is I have a buddy who like me is really unimpressed with Classic 57's but popped one in a Strat bridge position a while back because it was what was handy and loves it...maybe they're better suited for Fender guitars....:scratchch

That could be. Stranger things have happened. My bandmate has a pair in his LP Classic Antique and they sound fantastic in that too. He was thinking about putting a pair of A2P's in it instead but after a while, he decided to stick with the Classics.

 

[TheArchitect]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

There both vintage style copies of the original PAF's but neither are right. They both have even wound coils with A2's. The original PAF's had uneven coils and sound more open and alive. Also the originals were never wound the same and the 57's and Seth's are machine wound production models. The 57's are wax potted and the Seth's are not. Unpotted pickups i think are closer to the originals.Both are great for modern vintage tones but not close enough for the real PAF tones.

Those PAF's you are touting were wound on the same machines Seymour uses now

 

[TheArchitect]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

But the Ant's are evenly wound coils as well. There just aged to sound old but they dont have the open sound like the burstbuckers with uneven coils have. If you think the 57's are bright,the burstbuckers are brighter because of the way their wound. They made my all mohogany 57 LPC sound brighter than my alder strats with 59's in them. I pulled them and wont look back.

Were are you getting your info? You have already been wrong on one point (PAF's were machine wound) and I can't help but question some of your other points.

 

[jmh151]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I had 57 Classics in my 1986 Les Paul Custom. I hated them, though maybe it was the poor pots Gibson used as well. They were dull, lifeless, muddy. Maybe I got a bad set. I switched to EMG's which completely solved the problem, though now I'm thinking of re-qiring the guitar with some CTS pots, orange drops and '59's.

Maybe I just have a dark toned Les Paul that needs brighter pickups- which is what the EMG's helped with

 

[JB6464]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

TheArchitect, PAF's are machine wound. But they where not all stoped at the same wind per bobbin. They wound them until the bobbins were full making them uneven because each person that ran the machine stoped them at a different point. Do search on PAF windings,it will come up many times. As for my info on the Seth's,its directly from the the sales rep when i called them. Gibson will even tell you this info on PAF's. And i've been through the Gibson tour's in Tn and the luthers has stated the same thing as per the original PAF's.Thats why their trying to copy the original PAF's with their Burstbuckers which are unpolished,unevenly wound A2 pickups.

 

[wanmei1]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I think the Classic 57 is a so, so pickup at best...they are overly bright in a not very musical way to my ears plus there is this grainy character to them that can't be dialed out...A Burstbucker 1, 2, or 3 is a FAR better pickup IMO than a Classic 57 but the Seth smokes the Burstbuckers by an even larger margin and wghiule we're at it I think that the Pearly Gates or Antiquities are even better sounding than Seths...

I used to own a German sports car that handled.
A friend made the comment that he prefered his Toyota Celica.
I was kinda speechless.

I have Gibson Classic 57's in a 335.
Regarding your comments,
I'm again kinda speechless.

 

[claytonc]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

FWIW both leesona winders and the slug winder that Gibson used to wind Humbucker coils in the 1950's and early 1960's had pretty accurate counters.

The concept of "uneven wound coils" is describing the extreme minority of real pafs.

 

[d1dsj]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I've just changed the '57 classics out of my R.I all mahogany L.P as I thought that they lacked clarity in that particular guitar... but I think they would be good in a brighter sounding L.P std.

 

[Thunder]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Here's a REALLY good interview of Seth Lover, conducted by none other than Seymour D. himself in 1978.

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/pickups/2468-1978-seth-e-lover-interview.html

Some interseting points he goes over are that none of the production PAF pickups were wound by hand. They'd do one-offs and repairs by hand, but not the production runs, so some of them were but not the bulk of them. It's not to say that they were identical, but close anyway.

Maybe it's the few that were wound by hand that gave the rest the mystique:scratchch

The other is that the neck pickup on Gibsons was a bridge model so they wouldn't have to make two toolings.

SWD= Seymour Duncan

Great article!

 

[TheArchitect]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I only know buy what the S.D. sales rep told me on the phone. I had a conversation about the Ant's and Burstbuckers and the original PAF designs. And i asked him,are they uneven wound like the original PAF's and he replied they are evenly wound with aged mags and then built like the original PAF's with the wooden spacer and so forth. If you A/B any Ant's to a Burstbucker,you can hear the difference like night and day. Gibson will tell you flat out and you can hear it flat out that thry are unevenly wound pickups. Ant's do sound vintage but they dont have that open uneven chime and openess you hear in unevenly wound pickups.

So your basis of real PAF tone are the Burstbuckers? Wow is that a mistake. I am impressed with all of the trade secrets they seem to be sharing with you though ...:notworthy:wrf:

I seriously doubt there is anyone left at gibson that knows anything about the what was done in the 50's. I'm inclined to trust SD who was a personal friend of Seth Lover himself over a Gibson lackey as to what constitutes a real PAF

There both vintage style copies of the original PAF's but neither are right. They both have even wound coils with A2's. The original PAF's had uneven coils and sound more open and alive. Also the originals were never wound the same and the 57's and Seth's are machine wound production models. The 57's are wax potted and the Seth's are not. Unpotted pickups i think are closer to the originals.Both are great for modern vintage tones but not close enough for the real PAF tones.

Considering the Seths are wound on the same machines as the real PAF's this claim doesn't really stand up.

If you like Burstbuckers more power to ya. Personally I think they blow

 

[bryvincent]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

FWIW both leesona winders and the slug winder that Gibson used to wind Humbucker coils in the 1950's and early 1960's had pretty accurate counters.

just curious, where did you get that info?

AFAIK, the winding machines used in the 50s were manually started and stopped. that's why the DC resistance readings on the PAFs were were all over the place. the machines didn't get automatic shut-off until '61. thats when the readings became consistent(around 7.5K).

 

[hanumanlangur]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Bah, any humbucker around 8k of 42awg with an alnico 2, 3, 4, or 5 magnet is reasonably close to the PAF's. What's the point of looking at little details like whether a pickup is slightly mismatched, when potting and magnet type will make a far bigger difference anyway? Whenever someone says, "this is exactly a PAF", they automatically lose because PAF's weren't just one thing. For example, if you go out and buy a pair of Burstbuckers 1 & 2's thinking you're going to get Jimmy Page tones, that won't happen, because he used A5 PAF's.

And really, there are forum bro's on here who have owned multiple original Gibson PAF's, and who prefer Duncans to their original PAF's. So what's the point of setting up the PAF as some holy grail of tone? Many of them that I've heard haven't sounded as good as Seths, Antiquities, Burstbuckers, etc.

 

[wanmei1]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

I've just changed the '57 classics out of my R.I all mahogany L.P as I thought that they lacked clarity in that particular guitar... but I think they would be good in a brighter sounding L.P std.

Lacked clarity ?
good in a brighter sounding LP?

Short of a single coil or ceramic you ain't gonna get a PAF any clearer or brighter or with any more sustain than a Classic 57.

Did you adjust the EQ and height and tilt ?

 

[Laughing Kookaburra]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

pcorn:

 

[blueman335]

Re: The Great debate 57 Classic Vs. Seth Lover

Bah, any humbucker around 8k of 42awg with an alnico 2, 3, 4, or 5 magnet is reasonably close to the PAF's. What's the point of looking at little details like whether a pickup is slightly mismatched, when potting and magnet type will make a far bigger difference anyway? Whenever someone says, "this is exactly a PAF", they automatically lose because PAF's weren't just one thing.

+1. PAF's are really a broad range of PU's, made long before the uniform manufacturing standards of today. Collectors say that some PAF's are perfection, others are dogs, and some sound good in one guitar & lousy in another. Any definition of a PAF has to be pretty broad.

What matters is that a new PAF-type HB sounds good in your guitar.