Gibson 57 Classic / Classic Plus Pickups - Is Gibson Cutting Corners Here?

[AlsoRan]

Forgive me if I am becoming cynical but it appears Gibson's 57 Classics are not your Father's Gibson '57 pickups.

The more research I do, the more it appears that if I really want to upgrade my Sheraton's electronics, I may need to look at other alternatives that are possible better and cheaper.

Any comments?

For example, this conversation:
Gibson 57 classics vintage matched set - Page 2

[PTChristopher]

Deleted my post that is not in the spirit of the shopping season.

No need to argue against the fun of selecting and buying something that will very likely be perfectly competent, much like the '57.

Sorry for the noisy post earlier.

Chris

[Jimmy Mack]

Depends on a few factors. Value of your pots ??????

My Chinese Epiphone Lucille, still has the stock pots, and other electronics, but 57 Classics+ p/ups have been installed. And adjusted to perfection (necessary).

The tone is fabulous. But, your Sheraton may or may not share the build qualities of my Lucille. It depends on where and when it was made. (I have played many dud Epiphones - to the point of dismissing them altogether).

Then again, I have modded my Lucille to get better tones and response, tailpiece and bridge posts, plus I reversed the neck p/up position so that the adj. pole pieces are closer to the bridge. Great guitar now.

[monkmiles]

I'm gonna try a 57 Classic. I considered a Seymour Duncan Seth Lover since it's less expensive, but then I found a good price on amazon for a 57 which actually was a few bucks less than a Seth Lover. I think the 57 is over priced normally, but I found mine on amazon for $95 brand new gold one (which musiciansfriend sells for $160), which seems reasonable and worth it to me.

[SamBooka]

that SD thread did bring up at least one good point.
You need the right pickup in the right guitar with the right pots/caps and the right set of ears to appreciate it.

I am not really qualified to say much. My es165 had had a 57Plus installed before I got it.. played that for a couple of years and switched to a p90.. played that for 3-4 months and went to the seth lover. so far the SD has left me underwhelmed but a) a lollar P90 is a tough act to follow and b) my ears seem to be telling me 300K is not my first choice of pot for that pickup and c) I have been playing an esquire for the past month and d) I am tired from work and kids and a couple of amp building projects/refrets and other pickup swaps and half of me doesnt know my arse from my elbow anymore and the other half just isnt into it these days.

EDIT: For the record the 57 was ok but even backed off (lowered) I was missing some clarity (In my mind they were 500k pots.. not 300K. I probably would have done a pot change first had I taked the time to check)
EDIT EDIT: Not knocking the SD... I just dont think I have given it a chance to say yay/nay either way.

[Frank67]

I am not sure if i can add much. In my experience the classic 57 is an ok pickup. Probably nothing to really rave and nothing to really condemn. I guess going to a boutique pickp will make a limited improvement (e.g. Lollars or Fralins or Barenuckles or ....).

[LtKojak]

'57 Classics are a run-of-the-mill p'ups, which since thay were introduced in the '90s modeled by Tom Holms after his own recipe, they never made it to the original specs and they've been cheaped-out and dumbed-down several times along the years.

I wouldn't use'em in any of my guitars, unless is a set from early to mid '90s, time when they were still using the closest to spec available materials, including excellent american-made A2 magnets and real Plain Enamel wire.

Nowadays they use poly wire that's been dyed to LOOK like PE.

Can you say sneaky...? I call it bad faith.

IMO, the best p'ups for Jazz are the Duncan Antiquity humbuckers for the lover of smooth. For the lover of articulate, the Seth Lover set is second to none.

You can pay a lot more for boutique p'ups, but you may not necessarily get a better-sounding product.

In my case, my Jazz box is a Gibson L-5 CES copy, which has an A2 modded Duncan Jazz set. This is the most articulated p'up set known to mankind, if you ask me.

For the record, as a guitar tech, in my neck of woods the one set that I've installed the most for Jazzers is the Lollar Imperial standard wind.

Last, but not least, if you're on a budget, the Di Marzio 36th Anns are the cheapest you can get, while still having more than decent tone for Jazz.

HTH,

[jorgemg1984]

I've had the Classic 57 on my X-500 and they were OK. A little muddy and presence / clarity lacking. Upgraded to Stormy Monday Bare Knuckles (30€ more expensive only) and it was really worth it... a lot more presence, clarity and beauty to the sound. The price difference makes it a no-brainer to me.

Tried the Lolar and honestly felt they were a little bland like the Classic 57...

PS - The 36th is a pickup I would like to try - forum member Jim Soloway and Jack Zucker know a lot about sound and highly recommend the; Sadowsky uses them on his archtops and everyone sounds great with them; and the price is just unbeatable!

[Encinitastubes]

Would Antiquities be a closer replacement for a late '50s ES-175 than the Seth Lovers?

[LtKojak]

Would Antiquities be a closer replacement for a late '50s ES-175 than the Seth Lovers?

You have to take a DC reading of the p'ups of that guitar if you want your question answered.

HTH,

[LtKojak]

I'm gonna try a 57 Classic. I considered a Seymour Duncan Seth Lover since it's less expensive, but then I found a good price on amazon for a 57 which actually was a few bucks less than a Seth Lover. I think the 57 is over priced normally, but I found mine on amazon for $95 brand new gold one (which musiciansfriend sells for $160), which seems reasonable and worth it to me.

If I have to choose between pay for a Seth Lover set and having a '57 Classic for free, I'd be more than happy to pay for the Seth Lover set.

HTH,

[PTChristopher]

Pepe/Kojak,

I will admit to having a short fuse over PU gasbag contemplation of micro-alleged differences between PU's that are purported to be more significant in practice than a minor tweak of a tone knob (if even that).

But can you nonetheless help me understand the reasoning here:

>>> You have to take a DC reading of the p'ups of that guitar if you want your question answered.

Are you 100% sure of the wire gauge, wire supplier tolerances, magnet strength (within a given magnet type) of the PU's involved?

Or are the DC resistances so hugely different that we can temporarily ignore subtleties (but then re-introduce them when it is convenient)?

Chris

[SamBooka]

take a look at the SD site you can see that they arent the same pickup (Ants and SLs).

I think they are in the same ballpark so anyone who says one is better than the other should google the word "subjective"

[PTChristopher]

Hey Drew,

Just trying to keep the PU BS level under control. OR, very possibly to learn something new about how DC resistance can tell you something about three different PU's with no other clear parameters except the morphology (shape and size of the components - coils, magnets, frame,...)

>>> take a look at the SD site you can see that they arent the same pickup (Ants and SLs).

Indeed. And one PU has one set of parameters in the "spec." while the other PU has a different set of parameters in the "specs" - with some overlap.

They do both list DC resistance, which I guess enables PU gas-baggery.

If there is a complete set of matching parameters for these two pickups AND a matching set or parameters for the PU in the "late '50's 175" - then I failed to find it.

>>> so anyone who says one is better than the other should google the word "subjective"

Sure enough, and nothing at all wrong with subjectivity.

But to suggest that measuring the DC resistance of a third PU will directly steer you to a choice between the Antiquity (in one of its sub-types) or the Seth Lover is remarkably misguided advice in my opinion.

I am interested to learn if there is anything more solid behind such a suggestion. Hoping there is, and that we expect something behind what we say around here.

I guess.

"What it is" takes some effort in info gathering and understanding. "What it means" can be just made up and offered as sage interpretation.

And then way out in orbit is regurgitated web forum "conclusions" - sort of second generation "What it means", with "What it is" a non-factor.

I do not mean this belligerently, but just hoping we are a bit above web-twaddle. OR, very possibly that I am missing some method of genuine understanding offered by DC resistance - which has the virtue/vice of being absurdly easy to measure and then mis-apply to an RLC AC circuit situation.

In my opinion.

Chris

[Jimmy Mack]

Like your opinion PT.
I've read peoples' reports saying the ANT's and SL's are the same p/up!
Yet, good writer/reviewers have spelled out their diffs. ??????

To me, DC resistance seems to be used (not by everyone) as a means of guaging how a pickup will sound. Yes, it is a factor, but not in a way general way that some guys throw it around! like it's the first thing to consider ?

[Encinitastubes]

I asked the question about Antiquities and Seth Lovers. I was interested in buying a stripped 175 so I have nothing to compare new pickups to, DC or otherwise, and just wanted a traditional 175 sound. I've tried a lot of pickups in other types of guitars and keep coming back to Seymour's. I don't have much experience with humbuckers so I thought I'd ask.

[PTChristopher]

In my view, DC resistance is an artifact of how the coil is made.

For example:

44 gauge wire is narrower than 42 gauge.

44 gauge has more resistance per meter (or foot or whatever).

Yet,...

A 44 gauge coil can be narrower AND have fewer winds, which under most circumstances would yield a brighter PU. But this same coil can have a higher DC resistance.

And if one PU has a DC resistance of 7.8K, and another of 7.2K we still know nothing about the magnet type, the magnet strength (NOT necessarily determined by type), or the purportedly arcane (and arguably way-silly) world of the characteristics of how the magnetic strength is distributed on the bar (in the case of a basic HB).

It is probably worth noting that the Antiquity PU's have a strong appeal in the modern age of artificial wear, and relic appearance. I have no idea why SD can not simply include a superset of the specification data on the Antiquity PU's and the normal chart they have on the site.

>>> good writer/reviewers have spelled out their diffs. ??????

Oh yeah? What is the resonant peak of the Antiquity of which we speak here?

What is the gauss of the SL? (And can someone clarify the spread in the Antiquity spec?)

Has anyone, anywhere actually said anything in comparing these PU's that includes something other than DC resistance, personal subjective feelings, or regurged web-lore?

Please remember how long (in decades) it took to get people off the idea that coil plastic color made a difference, and how awkwardly opinions and interpretations can drift beyond subjective into mystical, yet "authoritative".

All in my opinion.

Chris

[jorgemg1984]

Like your opinion PT.
I've read peoples' reports saying the ANT's and SL's are the same p/up!
Yet, good writer/reviewers have spelled out their diffs. ??????

To me, DC resistance seems to be used (not by everyone) as a means of guaging how a pickup will sound. Yes, it is a factor, but not in a way general way that some guys throw it around! like it's the first thing to consider ?

It's a good question... it's good that this forum does not go TGP style; you should not expect a pickup to save your life.

Then some people, like Chris, believe the differences between PAFs are subliminal. Others, like me, can hear the difference (or think they can).

And then is up to you to decide

[PTChristopher]

>>> some people, like Chris, believe the differences between PAFs are subliminal.

Hi Jorge,

I have the opinion that there are genuine differences between PAFs based on the variables involved (coil, magnet type, magnet strength, etc.).

There is also a potential mechanical difference based on potting. A completely and effectively potted PU will have less microphonic response, and this will affect the sound, to some small degree based on the guitar, ambient conditions, and overall volume.

Where I diverge from many common views is on the actual importance of the very small differences between one competent PAF and another. These differences are small. It takes quite a bit of effort to isolate other variables to hear these differences. It is easy to easily overwhelm these differences with minor changes to other parts of the system, like a minor tweak of a tone control at the guitar or amp - or a minor change of the passive control components on the guitar (specifically the pot or cap values, or added bleed components).

I also have the opinion that the actual practical differences can be so subtle that many, many descriptions fall off the rails and become highly imaginative. So instead of a simple description of a minor change in resonant peak (or whatever), we end up with "mojo", "expressive voice of the attack", or other secondary (at best) suggested effects that can often be easily changed in many other places in the system. Or we get descriptions of possible differences of such subtlety that the motivation to find and expertly interpret and describe these difference may get the better of a person's objectivity. We make stuff up.

After a few of these highly imaginative and interpretive discussions, it seems that some can come away ready to offer seemingly technical views and analysis (sight unseen, or rather sound unheard) that is really just a personalized development of a mis-described variable from some other experience.

So in my opinion there are genuine differences, they often (or very often) do not amount to more that you would get from very small tone control change, or from opening or closing one window curtain in the room in which you are playing. And these small changes are often mis-attributed to mis-interpreted variables. No harm. If one is happy with the new pickups, who cares why?

But when we develop a bit of seemingly objective or technically-based advice or "information" from some of this deeply interpretive stuff, it can get pretty silly.

In my opinion.

Chris

[jorgemg1984]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for clearing things up and sorry for being inaccurate.

As I said, now it's for the people here asking questions to "choose" what to believe

[PTChristopher]

Definitely. In my opinion the idea is to state your view, be open to changing it, and understand that a player making choices that helps them enjoy playing more (for whatever reason) is more than good enough.

Nobody owes an explanation for what works for them. And certainly nobody has to agree with me for me to enjoy their playing - or for me to enjoy the subjects here.

Chris

[monkmiles]

If I have to choose between pay for a Seth Lover set and having a '57 Classic for free, I'd be more than happy to pay for the Seth Lover set.

HTH,

Wow, that's strong and making me reconsider trying the Classic 57. Do you just feel like the 57 is junk relative to a Seth Lover? Do you hear specific tonal differences between the two which you prefer? After seeing your responses and researching a little more, especially on the Les Paul forums, I'm seeing similar feelings of the current 57.

**EDIT** I cancelled my 57 order so I can think this over and potentially get the Seth Lover instead!

[2bornot2bop]

I've owned SL SH-55's and a SD '59. Both excellent choices in my experience.

[rpguitar]

In my case, my Jazz box is a Gibson L-5 CES copy, which has an A2 modded Duncan Jazz set.

I do find it amusing that you shun "run of the mill" Gibson pickups, but you're happy to play a fake L-5.

I have actual 1957 PAF pickups in an ES-175, and Gibson '57 Classics in a couple of other guitars. They are both fine humbucking pickups. I'm sure that Duncan Antiquities are fine, too. But I think the hunt for demons in the '57 Classic pickup bin is a red herring.

[Patrick2]

Realizing the subjectivity of the whole . . . Classic '57s are great pups vs Classic '57s suck . . . and everything in between, I'm in agreement with Roger on the matter. I have a 1994 L5CES with Classic '57s and I find them to be wonderful! They're a bit hotter than my SD Seths . . but, more clarity and greater definition than the SD '59s I have in one of my Super Eagles.

But, like so many other things with tone .. sometimes ya just gotta work with it.

I recently bought a Super Eagle that had been bounced around quite a bit . . with pretty much each of the three previous owners in agreement that the pups sounded terrible. The guitar is "The Rose" that was wonderfully illustrated in photos here by 2bop. When I first plugged it in to my Pro Reverb, I too was less than impressed. I noticed that the neck pup was sitting pretty low . . too far away from the strings. I also noticed that the poles (screws) were all at factory height . . perfectly flush with the pup cover. I raised the neck pup to a more appropriate height for the Schaller pup, which is a relatively low out put humbucker. Then, I dropped the B string pole below the pup cover by approx 1/32" . . . raised the two E string poles above the cover by about 1/32" . . raised the A string pole by about 1/16" above the cover . . raised the D string pole a bit more than the A . . . and raised the G string pole a bit more than the D. The guitar now sounds fantastic! Only complaint I have is that the treble fades a bit too much when I roll down the volume. Linear pot expectations . . but, more so than what is typical. I'm considering a treble bypass . . . but, I'll just live with it for a while