Who likes actual PAFs?

[Gtrjunior]

Who likes actual PAFs?

I’d take a filtertrons over Pafs every day. Pafs are just to clunky sounding for me. I love the modern stuff too, though.

Not trying to bust your beans but....
What exactly does a “clunky” pickup sound like?

The other day I read somebody describe a pickup as sounding clunky....I was like wtf does clunky sound like?

I understand bright, dark, thin, thick, middy, flubby but clunky escapes me.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I generally like low output in the neck (usually single coils, but low output 'buckers can work), the thinner the better. PAFs fit that bill. In the bridge, I find PAF type pickups are also pretty easy to work with (but usually require use of the tone knob) and they play nicely with most effects.

The only real reason that I'd choose a humbucker with a medium or high output wind is if I'm using them either split or in parallel most of the time, with the full 'bucker sound as an occasional effect (for solos).

 

[chadd]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I've played a handful and they generally aren't my style. I've been trending away from fatter tones lately, so I may come back around on them at some point.

 

[zizyphus]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I've been trending away from fatter tones lately, so I may come back around on them at some point.

I definitely get that! I love thick fat leads as much as the next guy, but the issue is that you can't really add anything back with your guitar's controls once its gone. A brighter sound can always be fattened up by rolling back the tone knob, but you can't properly brighten up an axe that doesn't have any treble response.

I often wire my guitars with PTB tone control systems so I can thin out the low end if needed. If I don't have enough pot spots, I'll throw in a pair of stacked pots, or a modified Fender TBX pot that cuts bass clockwise and treble counterclockwise. Even so, cutting the bass just isn't quite as nice as having more treble to begin with.

I suppose I could just get with the times and use more pedals, etc., but I like having that control at my fingertips, so I can dial things in on the fly

 

[Nsatke81]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

Not trying to bust your beans but....
What exactly does a “clunky” pickup sound like?

The other day I read somebody describe a pickup as sounding clunky....I was like wtf does clunky sound like?

I understand bright, dark, thin, thick, middy, flubby but clunky escapes me.

Because I often tune below standard and use heavy strings and picks, ive found that pafs aren’t well suited. Especially in clean and semi clean settings. To describe in different words, it’s like a dark tone with a dense and flubby low and lower middle register. It’s just more in that frequency range than I personally have ever needed.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I definitely get that! I love thick fat leads as much as the next guy, but the issue is that you can't really add anything back with your guitar's controls once its gone. A brighter sound can always be fattened up by rolling back the tone knob, but you can't properly brighten up an axe that doesn't have any treble response.

I often wire my guitars with PTB tone control systems so I can thin out the low end if needed. If I don't have enough pot spots, I'll throw in a pair of stacked pots, or a modified Fender TBX pot that cuts bass clockwise and treble counterclockwise. Even so, cutting the bass just isn't quite as nice as having more treble to begin with.

I suppose I could just get with the times and use more pedals, etc., but I like having that control at my fingertips, so I can dial things in on the fly

A spin-a-split will do it.

 

[zizyphus]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

A spin-a-split will do it.

I've never gotten on with spin-a-splits

To my ears, they seem to be ALMOST all-or-nothing, like just having a binary coil split, unless you use a fairly low resistance pot. The issue I have there is that having a low-resistance pot for the spin-a-split ends up sucking treble too...

Granted, I only tried spin-a-splits twice, both on Les Pauls. Could I have been wiring it wrong?

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

Here's a video interview with Eric Johnson and he talks about how hearing Eric Clapton playing his 59 or 60 Les Paul with the Bluesbreakers in 1966 blew his mind and influenced him for ever after. That guitar would have had pafs.

For those of us who were already playing in the 1960's, hearing 50's Les Pauls with pafs through loud amps, played by players like Mike Bloomfield, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, Jimmy Page, Paul Kosoff and Joe Walsh deeply influenced many of us and that's why we like pafs. Pafs give us that tone.

I sold all of my real pafs long ago. These days I have Antquitys, Seth Lovers and Tom Holmes humbuckers in my favorite guitars.

I have three PRS SE Singlecuts that I've put Duncan pickups in and I've swapped the magnets in most of them. I have one with A4RC in a set of 59's. One with a set of Seth Lovers with stock polished A2. And one with a set of Antiquitys with A3RC neck and stock A2RC bridge.

I found that I really like a roughcast A3 magnet in the neck pickup and roughcast A2 magnet in the bridge pickup. Antiquitys come stock with roughcast A2 magnets in both pickups and I like that sound a lot too.

A4 sounds cleaner to me and a little bland but still very good.

I don't have A5 in any of my humbucker guitars anymore. I like a fuller, less trebley sound from the bridge pickup and cleaner, less bassy sound from the neck pickup.

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

Oh: Here's the Eric Johnson video:

 

[Clint 55]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

Antiquities come stock with degaussed and weathered or beat up A2s but they are smooth and not roughcast. Cool info and video.

Let's get some demos in here. Either utube videos or your own. I like the PAF sound. I've never played real ones as I am a newer player, but I like the complexity, uniqueness and old sound. I don't really like the set up of going from a warm neck to a thin bridge so I don't think I would ever use a stock PAF or PAF replica HH set but I still think they're cool.

 

[Clint 55]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I've never gotten on with spin-a-splits

To my ears, they seem to be ALMOST all-or-nothing, like just having a binary coil split, unless you use a fairly low resistance pot. The issue I have there is that having a low-resistance pot for the spin-a-split ends up sucking treble too...

Granted, I only tried spin-a-splits twice, both on Les Pauls. Could I have been wiring it wrong?

That's why you use a low resistance pot and then convert it to no load. So you have the full bucker on 10 and a good sweep of variable split in the rest. 50k will give you skanky partial split fuller bucker from 9-5 and mostly split from 5-1 and 25k will mostly get you right in to single coiley sounds when turned down.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

The best sound samples are recordings done when the pickups and guitars were new(er).

John Mayall and the Bluebreakers with Eric Clapton

Fresh Cream

The James Gang Rides Again

Super Sessions - Mike Bloomfield, Al Kooper, Stephen Stills, et al

any older Larry Carlton recording

Les Paul and Mary Ford (late 50’s early 60’s period)

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

Antiquities come stock with degaussed and weathered or beat up A2s but they are smooth and not roughcast. Cool info and video.

Let's get some demos in here. Either utube videos or your own. I like the PAF sound. I've never played real ones as I am a newer player, but I like the complexity, uniqueness and old sound. I don't really like the set up of going from a warm neck to a thin bridge so I don't think I would ever use a stock PAF or PAF replica HH set but I still think they're cool.

Which is why I removed the covers of one set of Antiquitys and put an A3RC magnet in the neck pickup. It still sounds warm but more open, a little more "flutey" and seems to have a little less output. That puts it in better balance with the stock bridge Antiquity which now sounds thicker compared to the A3 neck Antiquity.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

The best sound samples are recordings done when the pickups and guitars were new(er).

John Mayall and the Bluebreakers with Eric Clapton

Fresh Cream

The James Gang Rides Again

Super Sessions - Mike Bloomfield, Al Kooper, Stephen Stills, et al

any older Larry Carlton recording

Les Paul and Mary Ford (late 50’s early 60’s period)

I could argue that the reason for that is because the guys played better back then. Sure there's a difference between the sound of new and old PAFs, but it's not nearly as much as the difference in how the players sound changes over the course of their career.

 

[Wattage]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

if you've ever played a set of originals that have that great, almost 3D sound you know what the hype is

not many pickups I've used otherwise have nailed that

 

[Mincer]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

The sound of both Robert Fripp with 19669-1974 King Crimson, and ES-175-playing Steve Howe were using PAFs, and didn't really have any blues in their style, yet the PAF wind sounded great. I love how that wind tends to really emphasize the skill and style and sound of the individual player.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I could argue that the reason for that is because the guys played better back then. Sure there's a difference between the sound of new and old PAFs, but it's not nearly as much as the difference in how the players sound changes over the course of their career.

I don’t see how playing better changes the sound of a PAF. It’s harder to find more recent recordings of real PAFs because there aren’t as many real PAFs in instruments now. I pointed to older recordings simply because there was prevalent use back then that is easy to find and listen to now.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I don’t see how playing better changes the sound of a PAF. It’s harder to find more recent recordings of real PAFs because there aren’t as many real PAFs in instruments now. I pointed to older recordings simply because there was prevalent use back then that is easy to find and listen to now.

It doesn't is my point. The tone we hear on those records is the sum of more than just the pickups. You cannot make a valid comparison of two different songs recorded decades apart with different amps, pedals, studio engineers, and different tonal goals in mind. There's no comparison.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I love how that wind tends to really emphasize the skill and style and sound of the individual player.

That's really more up to the rest of the signal chain and the genre I'd say. There were plenty of proto-punk and punk records recorded on PAFs and you can't sometimes tell if even hitting the right strings or not.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Who likes actual PAFs?

I’d take a filtertrons over Pafs every day. Pafs are just to clunky sounding for me. I love the modern stuff too, though.

Ironically, there's also “Patent Applied For” Filter'Trons: those wound between 1958 and 1960. And they have the same aura than Gibson P.A.F.'s (“PAF” without dots being a name patented by DiMarzio for his P.A.F. replicas BTW).

Regarding the idea that P.A.F.’s = inconsistency…
A vintage DiMarzio DP103 and a modern one are simply different pickups under a same name.
There’s also obvious differences between pre-Duncan SH1’s & recent ones… or an old Bill Lawrence XL500 compared to a modern Wilde / a BL USA.
But a few things could be found in all P.A.F.'s - butyrate, PE, RC mags, threaded baseplates…
So: is there really more inconsistency in P.A.F.’s than in pickups generally speaking?...


About the tone of vintage Gibson HB’s…
In the vid below, I don’t hear the bridge PU’s as too thin sounding nor the neck ones as too warm, nor any of them as “clunky”.
But I surely hear this tone of yesteryears that I was evoking in my first post.
YMMV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCNwQnRa9b8