Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

[leevc5]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

I think this is true in the same way as "Picasso's Guernica is a painting on canvas stretched over a wood frame measuring 3.49 meters by 7.76 meters expressed in oil paint." Yes, it's true, but it also isn't exactly a complete definition either.

You've described its construction, but as we know from decades of trying, just repeating the construction does not guarantee the same result where it counts: tone. Otherwise, they are very authentic paperweights. This is why I think most people have been discussing how these pickups sound, and not their precise construction.

How do they sound?
Considering the description of the broad range of construction variables they could sound anywhere from a telecaster bridge pup to a SD 59 neck pup and all points in between.
Therefore, a description of there construction is the best answer in this situation.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Some original PAF's sound better than others, because of the random windings & coil resistances, and how they were paired up. I'd speculate '57 Classics were based off of a less-than-spectacular example.

I think the '57 is just a 'modern' production version of Seth's patent as written, e.g. the '57 qualifies as 'one embodiment' of the patent. They kept the A2 mag, dual bobbins, 2-conductor recipe, and wax potted it to deal with higher gain amps that exist now. But it's too consistent. The coils are balanced. No quirks or elements that made the good PAFs good. Though as Lew pointed out, there are players that can get the goods out of them, through the right amp, the right setup and the right technique.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

I think this is true in the same way as "Picasso's Guernica is a painting on canvas stretched over a wood frame measuring 3.49 meters by 7.76 meters expressed in oil paint." Yes, it's true, but it also isn't exactly a complete definition either.

You've described its construction, but as we know from decades of trying, just repeating the construction does not guarantee the same result where it counts: tone. Otherwise, they are very authentic paperweights. This is why I think most people have been discussing how these pickups sound, and not their precise construction.

In a way, you nailed it. A PAF is a definition of construction, not a sound. PAFs don't have 'a sound' because they were constructed so inconsistently within that definition that some may be stellar and some absolutely suck. The fact that there are threads here devoted to the affects of magnet swapping tells you how different several PAFs could sound - given that in the original production any PAF could have had any one of 4 different magnet types in them.

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

How do they sound?
Considering the description of the broad range of construction variables they could sound anywhere from a telecaster bridge pup to a SD 59 neck pup and all points in between.
Therefore, a description of there construction is the best answer in this situation.

No need to be touchy. I agree with your point about variations of install, but that doesn't necessarily support the previous description is the "best answer"--they aren't related. Ignoring that "best" is always subjective anyways, the physical construction is an accurate, but not a meaningful description in this case. Nobody wants to play it because of its physical construction. The only reason people want to have one is because of how it sounds. Just because we don't have a standard way of measuring and comparing and linguistically communicating complex tone doesn't mean it should be ignored--when it's the MOST important attribute, really sole attribute.

Again, if we go back to the light bulb analogy, watts are a way of guesstimating how much light gets emitted, but (to mirror your point) if you put it behind a shade or inside a glass cover, the actual light is different. BUT, this doesn't change the actual nature of the bulb, only the final effect of the total application. Since every application is a little different, this doesn't mean we stop talking about bright/dim or watts or lumens. Nothing is ever the same, even in the best controlled lab experiments. In fact, in recent decades the major theoretical barrier to philosophy and theory is language--because language isn't in and of itself reliable and the limits of language define the limits of what we can possible think (in a cognitive sense). That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to communicate because when I wrote "bulb" you pictured an LED bulb and I pictured an incandescent bulb and we each had separate accumulated experiences and knowledge of bulbs which are going to be unique. It's amazing any of it works, but it does so well enough. So I will again assert that musicians will make the most meaningful comparisons when they describe the sounds it is inclined to produce, more so than it's physical form. If we were engineers, then maybe I'd be more inclined to agree.

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

PAFs don't have 'a sound' because they were constructed so inconsistently...

I'll take you one further. Let's say, to me a PAF is best represented by the recordings of a couple of musicians, so I am more or less saying that I think that kind of PAF is my kind of PAF...the kind I'd like reproduced.

But you wrote something so literally true and wonderful that I don't think it can be overstated: "PAFs don't have 'a sound'". I know you meant this in terms of a recognizable character, but I think it's just as important to recognize that a pickup alone does nada. No pickup has a sound. Not only must we consider the points made previously about what kind of instrument installation is made, but also, there's the entire question of amplification.

A magnet and a coil of wire of this size by themselves don't do anything meaningful for a human ear. By the time we are evaluating any component of any electrical instrument, the soup it's in has to be the majority of what we're hearing. We all know that changing a tube or speaker or nut or cap or a hundred things changes how it sounds.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Also the 57s have been watered down, or dulled down over the ages. The original Tom Holmes spec was probably pretty good for its day, but much more by far is known about the nuts and bolts of a PAF than in the 90s.
Then Gibson has cheapened the production by changing elements of the wind and materials so it fits the pricepoint of its cheaper end rather than the early historics it originally went in.

Its fair to say though, that from the pale representaion of what it was before has now sprung some of the better PAF clone or semi clone winders, who have got into winding due to the 57 and Burstbuckers.

 

[thanaton]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Also the 57s have been watered down, or dulled down over the ages.

What did they change about them, exactly?

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

What did they change about them, exactly?

Since their inception in early 90s, number of turns, TPL and wire type.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

^ Which in winding terms equates to every aspect.

edit - the 57s now are a dubious record breaker. They manage both to be dull and obnoxiously brittle at the same time.....IMHO of course. But others share my view on this too.

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

They manage both to be dull and obnoxiously brittle at the same time.

Sounds like you had them out of phase. ;-)

It's funny, because you're talking about the pups I play almost every day, and that's nothing like my experience. My neck 57 is rich and warm without being muddy and my 57+ bridge is livelier than my lil '59er and closer to my JB, but with maybe 85% of the gain.

If you guys think they are so radically inconsistent, maybe I just lucked out and got the best ones they ever made? Right? Like that's the nature of a distribution--if they aren't great on average, some can still be very good. Or maybe they mislabeled some other pickups?

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

^ Which in winding terms equates to every aspect.

edit - the 57s now are a dubious record breaker. They manage both to be dull and obnoxiously brittle at the same time.....IMHO of course. But others share my view on this too.

+1. I've seen far more negative things about '57's here, than positive. But then, we have experience with a variety of after market PU's, we swap magnets, some of us make our own hybrids. Many of the '57 fans I've seen here haven't tried other PAF's, so it's not surprising that they'd like them better than a 498T/490R set. When their frame of reference is pretty limited, the accolades don't carry as much weight. When a PU is the best you've tried, but you've hardly tried any, how do you know there's not better out there?

If you had 5 different makes of good PAF's, and could try them all in your guitar, how many players would choose a '57 over the others?

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

+1. I've seen far more negative things about '57's here, than positive.

Of course you can just make assumptions about people who don't share your opinion. One could make the counter suggestion that (in terms of statistics) a sample of people investing time in a community discussing competing products is clearly introducing bias, and is not representative of the entire guitar-playing population.

"Huh, everyone on the SD forums thinks Gibson pups are lousy. That's weird!"
"Huh, everyone in the Metallica audience thinks dance music is lousy. That's weird!"

And yeah. I've been doing this since 1986 and I've got a box of pups. Also I've been doing audio work (recording and live) for years. I'll put my ears against most of the musicians I've worked with, many of whom struggle to realize that their instruments are out of tune.

But finally, and my last quixotic statement on this thread, you can't keep talking about this as if it's an objective thing, but you must really know it isn't, right? The best you can possibly do is reproduce as close to identical performances on different pickups and a range of original PAFS and do a computer analysis of the waveforms, which can tell you how much deviation there is. But who cares? This doesn't tell you much except that there is difference, but there will be difference between any two rigs and performances. What matters most is how they sound and if you think they sound like the PAFs you liked hearing, and if you like them in the end.

This question is just subjective opinion, and it's almost entirely like-minded people reinforcing each-other's similar opinions. This isn't information and it isn't helpful to anyone undecided.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

"Huh, everyone on the SD forums thinks Gibson pups are lousy.

No one said that. What was said is Gibson doesn't put the effort into PU's that Duncan or DiMarzio does, because their livelihoods revolve around aftermarket PU sales, whereas with Gibson it's a minor sideline. Gibson still produces some good sounding PU's in spite of their ongoing cost-cutting, but considering the price of their guitars, they should be setting the standard (having been the company that created HB's and P-90's). Gibson and Fender got complacent, and a thriving aftermarket for PU's developed.

 

[thanaton]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Since their inception in early 90s, number of turns, TPL and wire type.

Is it known specifically how these things have changed, or is that not known?

 

[Laimac]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

No kidding!

I don't use them but I've owned them and they're a fine pickup.

If you can play, the 57 Classic sounds damned good. If you can't, no pickup is going to change that.

That is very true. I read that SRV's #1 was actually a bit of a dog to many (of the few?) who got to try it. The guy who sold me my first axe actually brought tears to my eyes when playing it in front of me (hence why I bought it - turns out it was and still is a dog). Sometimes, it just fuses, or you have good enough hands that whatever you play will sound good (especially to eager, unexperienced teenager ears). But that does not mean the stuff is good. It just doesn't.
For many of us, the point is getting pickups that sound good in our hands, not getting our hands to make all pickups sound good. That is the reason why we try different guitars, amps, pickups, speakers, etc. to find our own sound, something that sounds good when we play it the way we play, not having to coax something out of it that will sound decent. Yes, some of us end up with the best gear they thought they could get and have to make do with it, and that is actually the story of many of the best players in history: they got amazing sound out of the worst piece of crap because that is all they had.
But does it mean that is a reference, that because X or Y makes this or that brand sound good, it should be the holy grail? I think not. And having myself scoured the SDUGF before changing the pups in my LP Studio (57s yes), I came to the conclusion that maybe they could sound good if I forced myself to use them for a couple of years, but the reality was, like many before me, I DID NOT LIKE THEM. And I came to that conclusion because I read countless reviews from a variety of players (some more, some less experienced) who found fault with them. Personally, I felt the bridge was very thin/brittle and neck too boomy, which matches a few review. I also read reviews of guys who loved them, for sure (mostly prospective Epi buyers TBH, which is not derogatory - they probably felt those were better than the Epi pups).
If you can really play, most everything will sound decent to good, even a cheap 90s strat knockoff with a two bit amp, but that doesn't mean it's good quality, only you're a great player. So, congrats, you are either one of the players who gel with 57s or just an amazing player on its own. No criticism intended.

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

No one said that. What was said is Gibson doesn't put the effort into PU's that Duncan or DiMarzio does, because their livelihoods revolve around aftermarket PU sales, whereas with Gibson it's a minor sideline. Gibson still produces some good sounding PU's in spite of their ongoing cost-cutting, but considering the price of their guitars, they should be setting the standard (having been the company that created HB's and P-90's). Gibson and Fender got complacent, and a thriving aftermarket for PU's developed.

"Huh. Someone said my comic characterization was not accurate, and then wrote a paragraph that detailed why it was." I'm hoping I'm in layers of satire I no longer recognize. ...and I can't find my way home.

 

[Southbound Suarez]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Also the 57s have been watered down, or dulled down over the ages. The original Tom Holmes spec was probably pretty good for its day, but much more by far is known about the nuts and bolts of a PAF than in the 90s.
Then Gibson has cheapened the production by changing elements of the wind and materials so it fits the pricepoint of its cheaper end rather than the early historics it originally went in.

Its fair to say though, that from the pale representaion of what it was before has now sprung some of the better PAF clone or semi clone winders, who have got into winding due to the 57 and Burstbuckers.

I personally felt that this review of Gibson pups is fairly accurate especially with regards the the 57' Classic humbucker...

http://www.legendarytones.com/vintage-style-pickups-explored-2/

I believe it was Tom Holmes that said when working for Gibson, that Gibson didn't want to spend $2 extra dollars for a spool of wire that (is/was) more accurate for the build of the 57' Classic humbucker. That was a very telling fact about Gibson.

 

[Southbound Suarez]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

Sounds like you had them out of phase. ;-)

It's funny, because you're talking about the pups I play almost every day, and that's nothing like my experience. My neck 57 is rich and warm without being muddy and my 57+ bridge is livelier than my lil '59er and closer to my JB, but with maybe 85% of the gain.

If you guys think they are so radically inconsistent, maybe I just lucked out and got the best ones they ever made? Right? Like that's the nature of a distribution--if they aren't great on average, some can still be very good. Or maybe they mislabeled some other pickups?

In the middle position both pups will be out-of-phase and sound thin with both pup volumes at 10 until one or the other is rolled back slightly to balance.

AlexR's comment of, "They manage both to be dull and obnoxiously brittle at the same time" is entirely accurate for my 05' Gibson 57' Classic humbucker set installed in my Gibson CS 61' Les Paul RI guitar.

Maybe you've adjusted the hell out of your 57' set in order to gain more compliancy. I believe the Legendary Tones article nailed it when it was said that the 57' Classics are geared more towards the metal or hard rock players. For the vast majority of jazz, blues, and country players they may not necessarily be the ticket.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

But finally, and my last quixotic statement on this thread...

You promised, and yet you're still here.

 

[The Convert]

Re: Why do Gibson pickups cost so much?

You promised, and yet you're still here.

Indeed! "last" and "quixotic" don't really go together, do they? Thanks for pointing it out though.