WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
- Thread starter matt239
- Start date
Simon_F
Super Moderator
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
The best way I can describe it is that the WLHs are like '59s with more mids and slightly more output. Depending on the guitar '59s can sound a bit mid-scooped, and in a Les Paul the neck pickup can be too bass-heavy. The WLHs address that with a more even tone and a little more output. They are perfect in a Les Paul for jazz and blues through classic rock to hard rock. Others here have reported great results in SGs and semi-acoustics too.
I see the '59s are 6-3-8 on the tone chart. I hear my WLHs as more like 6-5-8.
The best way I can describe it is that the WLHs are like '59s with more mids and slightly more output. Depending on the guitar '59s can sound a bit mid-scooped, and in a Les Paul the neck pickup can be too bass-heavy. The WLHs address that with a more even tone and a little more output. They are perfect in a Les Paul for jazz and blues through classic rock to hard rock. Others here have reported great results in SGs and semi-acoustics too.
I see the '59s are 6-3-8 on the tone chart. I hear my WLHs as more like 6-5-8.
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
But I was really surprised when I saw the Duncan mV readings that show that the WLH has less output than the '59. It could be that the perceived increase in output is just due to the change in the frequencies as opposed to an actual increase in volume.
This is how I have heard it. It has been a while since I used a '59, however.
But I was really surprised when I saw the Duncan mV readings that show that the WLH has less output than the '59. It could be that the perceived increase in output is just due to the change in the frequencies as opposed to an actual increase in volume.
Snake Aces
Singlecut Slut
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
Just adding a quick tone chart edit showing the two side by side
Just adding a quick tone chart edit showing the two side by side
Simon_F
Super Moderator
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I haven't even looked at the mV readings :smack:
I agree it could just be down to the increase in mids. In any case there is not a lot in it output-wise. I have some '59s in an SG and I love them there, but I could never get on with them in a Les Paul. Another way of thinking about the WLHs is that they are like a '59 set that has been optimized for a Les Paul!
I haven't even looked at the mV readings :smack:
I agree it could just be down to the increase in mids. In any case there is not a lot in it output-wise. I have some '59s in an SG and I love them there, but I could never get on with them in a Les Paul. Another way of thinking about the WLHs is that they are like a '59 set that has been optimized for a Les Paul!
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
SH-18n Whole Lotta HB Neck 382
SH-18b Whole Lotta HB bridge 440
SH-1n '59 Model 572
SH-1b '59 Model 593
The mV readings provided by Duncan indicate that the WLH set is one of the lowest output HB's that they make (at least in terms of volume). However, they don't perform that way AT ALL in my experience.
Thanks. For the sake of comparison here are the mV readings that I spoke of:
SH-18n Whole Lotta HB Neck 382
SH-18b Whole Lotta HB bridge 440
SH-1n '59 Model 572
SH-1b '59 Model 593
The mV readings provided by Duncan indicate that the WLH set is one of the lowest output HB's that they make (at least in terms of volume). However, they don't perform that way AT ALL in my experience.
Snake Aces
Singlecut Slut
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
Interesting. I have not tried the WLH set yet but one day I will in the right Les Paul for sure.
I am very familiar with the 59, Jazz and Alnico II Pro sets though. I definitely prefer lower output humbuckers but in the right guitar I could dig the WLH even if it is not lower output.
Interesting. I have not tried the WLH set yet but one day I will in the right Les Paul for sure.
I am very familiar with the 59, Jazz and Alnico II Pro sets though. I definitely prefer lower output humbuckers but in the right guitar I could dig the WLH even if it is not lower output.
Chris of Arabia
Desert RATT
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
That's my perception too. I've got a Screamin' Demon in one of my Strats, and the WLH in my PRS Korina SE sounds way more powerful than that does.
That's my perception too. I've got a Screamin' Demon in one of my Strats, and the WLH in my PRS Korina SE sounds way more powerful than that does.
Last edited:
F
Funkfingers
Guest
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
Why, I said, why are you shoutin', boy?
CYT
Why, I said, why are you shoutin', boy?
CYT
LLL
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I don't know anything about the differences between either (because I've never owned either), but I'm seeing mention of the WLH having more mids, and someone else mentioned that they're not as high output. And it seems there's a conundrum with that.
Along these lines, the one thing I do know is the human ear perceives midrange the easiest.
If you were mixing a song with several tracks, for example, you could make a certain track louder than the others simply by boosting the midrange... without touching the actual volume (fader). Perhaps this is why this phenomenon with the WLH exists.
So, while the WLH may have less output, the fact it has more midrange can easily make up for it in the audio (not specs) output perception realm.
That's my theory, anyways.
I don't know anything about the differences between either (because I've never owned either), but I'm seeing mention of the WLH having more mids, and someone else mentioned that they're not as high output. And it seems there's a conundrum with that.
Along these lines, the one thing I do know is the human ear perceives midrange the easiest.
If you were mixing a song with several tracks, for example, you could make a certain track louder than the others simply by boosting the midrange... without touching the actual volume (fader). Perhaps this is why this phenomenon with the WLH exists.
So, while the WLH may have less output, the fact it has more midrange can easily make up for it in the audio (not specs) output perception realm.
That's my theory, anyways.
El Supremo
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I'd suspect the lower output has to do with the roughcast magnet in the WLH. I agree with the previous statements that an increase in mids will come across as louder perceived volume.
One thing that I really like about the WLH in comparison to the '59 is the string to string balance. The '59 can sound a bit too fat/muddy on the wound strings and too thin on the plain ones simultaneously. The '59 does the woody jazzy neck tones a bit better though imo.
I'd suspect the lower output has to do with the roughcast magnet in the WLH. I agree with the previous statements that an increase in mids will come across as louder perceived volume.
One thing that I really like about the WLH in comparison to the '59 is the string to string balance. The '59 can sound a bit too fat/muddy on the wound strings and too thin on the plain ones simultaneously. The '59 does the woody jazzy neck tones a bit better though imo.
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
Ha! Sorry, I just did that for the title, then pasted it into the text. - Didn't mean to shout.
Ha! Sorry, I just did that for the title, then pasted it into the text. - Didn't mean to shout.
51501984
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I 2nd that , Ive got the WLH in a Strat and the Demon in another and the WLH does sound a lot more powerful and a lot better
I 2nd that , Ive got the WLH in a Strat and the Demon in another and the WLH does sound a lot more powerful and a lot better
superpete
Active member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I swapped out a set of 59s in a LP for the WLH and my experience was pretty much the same as everyone's here. More mids and I perceived it as a hotter pickup. I found the 59 bridge to be sterile and boring, the WLH really was nicer. The neck was 50/50. I love the WLH in the neck, and a lot of my friends rave about how good it sounds, but i also really liked the way the 59 sounded in the neck.
I swapped out a set of 59s in a LP for the WLH and my experience was pretty much the same as everyone's here. More mids and I perceived it as a hotter pickup. I found the 59 bridge to be sterile and boring, the WLH really was nicer. The neck was 50/50. I love the WLH in the neck, and a lot of my friends rave about how good it sounds, but i also really liked the way the 59 sounded in the neck.
Jimig
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I think there is no better sounding pickup in the neck than a 59 and superpete is right sterile in the bridge ordered a set of 59's for my LP had to send them back to much bass in the neck and bridge just didn't cut it . In return I received pearly gates little sterile also I think . Would love to get a 59 without all that bass . So I went with dimarzio's paf 36th Anniversery like them a lot . Tried a couple other dimarzio pickups didn't like them
I think there is no better sounding pickup in the neck than a 59 and superpete is right sterile in the bridge ordered a set of 59's for my LP had to send them back to much bass in the neck and bridge just didn't cut it . In return I received pearly gates little sterile also I think . Would love to get a 59 without all that bass . So I went with dimarzio's paf 36th Anniversery like them a lot . Tried a couple other dimarzio pickups didn't like them
ItsaBass
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
That's a good description.
To my ears, they are the pickups that fix everything that's wrong with the '59's, while accentuating everything that's right with them.
That's a good description.
To my ears, they are the pickups that fix everything that's wrong with the '59's, while accentuating everything that's right with them.
Snake Aces
Singlecut Slut
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
59s really are not good for Les Pauls, they really shine in guitars like Strats, Teles and SG's though. I find the Jazz and Alnico II Pro humbuckers to be perfect for Les Pauls. I imagine the WLH is great too, but I can't comment as I have not tried them yet.
59s really are not good for Les Pauls, they really shine in guitars like Strats, Teles and SG's though. I find the Jazz and Alnico II Pro humbuckers to be perfect for Les Pauls. I imagine the WLH is great too, but I can't comment as I have not tried them yet.
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
I have two LP Supremes; couldn't stand the 490R/498T set. I replaced those with Seths in one of the guitars, and that was a big improvement. I haven't got around to replacing the pickups in the other Supreme, but I've kicked around the idea of another set of Seths, or perhaps Pearlys, in that guitar.
This thread has got me to thinking that a set of WLHs in that guitar might be a better choice. I'm looking for something that can do classic rock, blues, jazz--a great all around vintage-style pickup.
Any thoughts on Seths vs. Pearlys vs. WLHs in a chambered LP Supreme? The Supreme is basically a chambered, fancier Custom, with a maple cap front AND back.
Bill
I have two LP Supremes; couldn't stand the 490R/498T set. I replaced those with Seths in one of the guitars, and that was a big improvement. I haven't got around to replacing the pickups in the other Supreme, but I've kicked around the idea of another set of Seths, or perhaps Pearlys, in that guitar.
This thread has got me to thinking that a set of WLHs in that guitar might be a better choice. I'm looking for something that can do classic rock, blues, jazz--a great all around vintage-style pickup.
Any thoughts on Seths vs. Pearlys vs. WLHs in a chambered LP Supreme? The Supreme is basically a chambered, fancier Custom, with a maple cap front AND back.
Bill
Chickenwings
Alnico 6/8
Re: WHOLE LOTTA HUMBUCKER TONE VS. '59 TONE ??
Great pickups. You wont be disappointed.
Great pickups. You wont be disappointed.