What exactly is the "Whole Lotta Humbucker" set?

[Guest]

I have seen quite the debate going on for this set. Originally I thought it was built for the classic 60's British rock tones from bands like Yardbirds, Zeppelin, etc. But some peeps said otherwise.

​​​​How do they compare against say.... the Seth Lover pickups? How do they differ? Thanks

 

[beaubrummels]

They are hotter and a bit warmer than Seths, though they have top end to work with. They are potted and originally used rough cast A5 magnets that smoothed out the top end a bit. I've read some now have come with polished A5 magnets, which might make them just a touch tighter and brighter. They are more like mid-70's rock pickups. They sound like an improved 59 is hotter and smoother on the top end and has a bit more mids. They also work really well in all configurations, split, parallel, series, in/out of phase, etc. Seths are unpotted and have a midrange honk to them. WLH don't have that. WLH are reasonably even with filled in mids.

 

[Aceman]

They are hotter and a bit warmer than Seths, though they have top end to work with. They are potted and originally used rough cast A5 magnets that smoothed out the top end a bit. I've read some now have come with polished A5 magnets, which might make them just a touch tighter and brighter. They are more like mid-70's rock pickups. They sound like an improved 59 is hotter and smoother on the top end and has a bit more mids. They also work really well in all configurations, split, parallel, series, in/out of phase, etc. Seths are unpotted and have a midrange honk to them. WLH don't have that. WLH are reasonably even with filled in mids.

You just sold me on a set.

 

[Securb]

I have two sets. I use them for everything from blues to old-school trash.

 

[Clint 55]

They're not made super vintage like Seths / Ants. Responds mostly modern but with some old skool mid grind and grit. There are similar bridge pickups in the line, but I think the neck really shines. Not dissing the set, but the neck is one of best hums in the line because it's voiced really well and offers some grit and cut.

 

[Mincer]

They are potted, and higher output than the Seths, and more scooped. I'd say they nail the British hard rock thing very well. The Seths are more dynamic and a little honkier (in a good way).

 

[Clint 55]

The WLH set isn't scooped, it's middy. It just doesn't have the vintage PAF texture all the way through its eq. It feels kind of like a jazz with a smooth bass, present top, but some gritty mids thrown in.

Clean at 1:35.

 

[hamerfan]

I have seen quite the debate going on for this set. Originally I thought it was built for the classic 60's British rock tones from bands like Yardbirds, Zeppelin, etc. But some peeps said otherwise.

​​​​How do they compare against say.... the Seth Lover pickups? How do they differ? Thanks

These are the copies of a humbucker set that Seymour Duncan wound in the 80ies for Jimmy Pages Number One.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

They are hotter and a bit warmer than Seths, though they have top end to work with. They are potted and originally used rough cast A5 magnets that smoothed out the top end a bit. I've read some now have come with polished A5 magnets, which might make them just a touch tighter and brighter. They are more like mid-70's rock pickups. They sound like an improved 59 is hotter and smoother on the top end and has a bit more mids. They also work really well in all configurations, split, parallel, series, in/out of phase, etc. Seths are unpotted and have a midrange honk to them. WLH don't have that. WLH are reasonably even with filled in mids.

I 99% agree with this assesment... except I don't think they are improved '59's. I like '59's better, but WLH's are cool too.

Oh, and in the grand scheme of things, yes, they are less scooped than '59's, but they are nowhere near as mid focused as some higher output offerings like the JB.

 

[misterwhizzy]

I have seen quite the debate going on for this set. Originally I thought it was built for the classic 60's British rock tones from bands like Yardbirds, Zeppelin, etc. But some peeps said otherwise.

​​​​How do they compare against say.... the Seth Lover pickups? How do they differ? Thanks

I went directly from a set of 59s in my Les Paul to a set of Whole Lotta Humbuckers, and found the WLH set slightly higher output and with a bit more upper-mid push. The neck was also noticeably less boomy with the WLH. I prefer the Custom in the bridge of that guitar to the WLH, but the neck WLH is still there.

 

[EC Strat]

I’ve had both sets and preferred the ‘59’s over the WLHs by a large margin. I never really bonded with the WLH set.

 

[Guest]

I think some people here may think I don't know anything about pickups sets because I asked for this specific set. So far I own 49 sets of guitar pickups, most of those being Seymour Duncan sets. I'm sure I've been through more. Just wanted to clarify.

The reason I was asking is because I was curious about the set and the info given for them was sparse as it was vague. Thanks to all who broke it down EQ wise which is all I needed I'll probably skip these but am putting in the Frampton Comes Alive set in the SG and then might get the Queenbucker set for a PRS.

 

[Mr. B]

I had the Whole Lotta set in and SG and a Les Paul. I ended up finding it really boring. It was one of those cases where trying to fine tune the high/lows/mid EQ simply took away most of the vintage personality. I like the 59 and A2 Pro (Especially the Slash) sets much better for that type of vibe. If I was interested in what the Whole Lotta seems to be trying to do, I would go with the Dimarzio 36th.

 

[jeremy]

love the wlh neck, but i like the bridge too, good upper mid cut for an overwound paf type pup.