Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum

Forum Ringside => Pickups => Topic started by: Alex on November 13, 2010, 11:59:11 AM

Title: High output vs low output
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2010, 11:59:11 AM
Dear fellow gear-nitpickers/tone freaks/guitar aficiandos!

I was wondering the following:
High output vs low output pickups!
Why are most highgain pickups always very high output, if these have strong full mids and are very compressed? Shouldn't low gain pickups be better, if they are less compressed, more open and clearer? Likewise, I often feel that the best sounds on bass guitars come from single coils - clear and punchy lows. For downtuning, I have so far not really noticed a big improvement in clarity on the low end by putting higher output pickups in my baritone.
I understand that there was a time when amps did not have the massive preamp gain they often have nowadays. On the other hand, it still seems that when people want more power and clarity, they get hotter pickups and don't dial in more gain on the amp.
So...  does the high output make sense when searching for clarity for highgain sounds? Or does a lower output pickup make more sense? How would this compare to downtuning?
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: DvE on November 13, 2010, 01:17:35 PM
Interesting thread!

I am far away of being an expert but noticed recently that I am not such a gain-junky I thought I was.
Instead I now boost my amp which results in a completely different (and much clearer!) sound than just adding gain... at least for my style and needs  :)
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Roobubba on November 13, 2010, 03:29:41 PM
Different tools for the same job, but neither is right or wrong!

I've used a black dog in my baritone, and have used a miracle man in there for recording too. Now there's an aftermath in there. You'll get easier pinch harmonics from higher output pickups, and possibly a more aggressive tone. I've not used a highly compressed pickup yet, the MM is a bit compressed, but the AM is quite open (and obviously so is the BD). The lower output pickups don't necessarily have tighter bass response and better clarity in my experience, but all the BKPs I've tried have sounded awesome in their own way.

I'd prefer to hit the front end of the amp harder and rely less on the preamp gain with my 5150-II though...

Roo
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: dave_mc on November 13, 2010, 04:36:46 PM
The lower output pickups don't necessarily have tighter bass response and better clarity in my experience,

+1

I really don't understand this. I mean, I understand that, in theory, it should work, but in practice, my experience has always been the opposite. If I want tightness under high gain (and it to actually sound the way high gain sounds in my head), I use high output (or at least reasonably high output) pickups. With lower output pickups I'm never getting the tightness or saturation I want.

:?

Yet I see loads of internet know-alls on various guitar forums who are basically saying that high output pickups are obsolete because of modern high gain amps and overdrive pedals.

I don't get it.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Twinfan on November 13, 2010, 04:41:10 PM
Hotter pickups are more focussed in my experience - you loose the very high end and the very low end.  This gives a tighter distortion.

I'm preferring hotter pickups for classic rock to classic metal these days.

Bluesy guys will always want the low output stuff...
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gwEm on November 13, 2010, 04:59:22 PM
i do prefer lower output pickups typically, with boosted jcm800 gain levels.

having said that i was using a sinner into my sansamp rig earlier today - sooo thick!!!
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Shotgun on November 13, 2010, 05:15:26 PM
In my experience the lower output pickups need more gain level on the preamp and do more noise, while the hotter pickups not need so high gain settings to do agressive distortion level and these are more silence.

The low output pickups I've tried was muddy and smooth which is great for slower rock, but for percussive modern metal tone it's not good. IMO
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2010, 05:22:09 PM
I'll quote myself from the Seymour Duncan forum which I haunt since 2004, here. :P

A guy there asked why metal guys prefer high output pickups...

Quote from: Metalblaze from SD forum
Actually it's more than just output. It's about the tightness and attack that high output pickups have under high-gain. They stay clear. I think it has to be assossiated with the high-ouput design. Some years ago I was through the phase of the super tone that low-ouput pus offer and turn the gain up to play metal. I realized that they don't cut it for me. Not enough attack to play fast. ANd the solo notes blur together. The riffs were not aggresive enough and if you were striking harder you were just getting a strange loud "ding" in the beginning of the note and then the pickup would just follow its same old loose attitude. High-ouput pickups don't do that. They are tight and equally loud all the way (compression).

Another reason for me specifically is that I play leads finger-picking. Like that the signal is way lower and with less attack than when you play with a pick. So I need a strong compressed signal with fast attack even with the light finger-picking. That way I can play really fast and still can push the amp into high gain.

edit: actually I remember testing the 59b and the Custom side by side and the thing that is still in my mind is this: In the 59 case you could hear the sound of the pickup and above it a chaotic distortion noise covering it. With the Custom every bit of the distortion was shaped, driven by the pickup. It was like the difference between Noise and Distortion (those of audio engineering would see what I mean ).
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: FLgearnut on November 13, 2010, 07:36:32 PM
I like this thread.  It is definitely a good topic to discuss as i feel it definitely gets overlooked when tone tweaking.

For me, I run mainly RY's and PK's in the bridge of my guitars, and I have the gain dialed at 12 o' clock on my Splawn, boosted with an OD808 for that extra "oomph".  Ive tried adding more gain on the amp but it doesnt sound good to me.  It loses clarity as I add it.  Ive found that the best combo is less amp gain, supplemented with a boost for the tightest, clearest, percussive sound i want.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: dave_mc on November 13, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
Hotter pickups are more focussed in my experience - you loose the very high end and the very low end.  This gives a tighter distortion.

I'm preferring hotter pickups for classic rock to classic metal these days.

Bluesy guys will always want the low output stuff...

oh yeah, I mean I love lower output pickups too, just for stuff like blues, jazz, classic rock and the like.

My own suspicion (at least in a lot of the cases) is that the people saying high output pickups are pointless don't actually really play metal. :?
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gwEm on November 13, 2010, 09:24:46 PM
My own suspicion (at least in a lot of the cases) is that the people saying high output pickups are pointless don't actually really play metal. :?

essentially i agree, but don't forget metal is such a broad genre - with gain ranging from the highest available in the late 60s, to todays modern detuned 8string br00tals.

if you want tightness and focus, i do agree high gain is the way to go.

if a pickup is well enough designed, it should make a decent enough stab at all styles i think, with the possible exception of the very extremes. having said that - if you really want to nail a tone, then you'll need something very specific.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 14, 2010, 12:14:05 AM
As a general trend in voicing, character and response to playing, quite apart from output, longer winds/hotter pickups tend to do two things; decrease high end (but not low end) and increase compression.

That gives hotter pickups a more percussive low end and thicker sound, while lower output pickups lack 'thunk'; crank the gain on the amp till you get about the same amount of clipping and you'll have a grindier tone without as much guts to it. Its also benficial to have some compression there because of all the palm-muting us metallers do (I refer you again to 'thunk')

Go up the output scale even more and youre driving so much low end compared to high end that you start to lose definition in both. Fine for full-on-in-your-face stuff thats not too complex, but if youre breaking 200Bpm or using complex chords or arpeggios then youre going to suffer with the clarity loss.

Its not just how hard the signal is hitting the pre - its where, frequency wise, and the dynamics of it. Modern amps have $%&#loads of gain, or can do. Its true. I never take the gain on my powerball over 5. Ever. For any reason. Thats enough more than enough for anyone in any circumstance. Mostly its on 3.5-ish. I sometimes max out my pittbulls gains just because its so silly that it still sounds good with so much gain, but theres no reason to use that much on that either. I use high-ish output pickups for their voicing and how they respond to playing. Its far hard to get a sound with the right percussion and aggression in the lows and mids from a low output pickup.

Pickups like the aftermath and painkiller use powerfull magneitic fields with quite modest winds to get the best of both. Actives are another way around it.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 14, 2010, 12:16:19 AM

oh yeah, I mean I love lower output pickups too, just for stuff like blues, jazz, classic rock and the like.

My own suspicion (at least in a lot of the cases) is that the people saying high output pickups are pointless don't actually really play metal. :?

I'm guessing so. I dont know so, but its reasonable. If your ears not attuned to and you arent used to playing it then youre probably just going to hear 'lots of clipping' and go 'there, metal tone!', and be horribly wrong.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 14, 2010, 12:20:05 AM
I was always under the impression that pickups, like most other things to do with guitar, are always a compromise. Lower output pickups generally give a richer and more organic tone while more powerful pickups drive the amp better but lose some of that ultimate tone. I may be wrong but that was always my understanding of the situation.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Telerocker on November 14, 2010, 01:37:04 AM
That's is why pickupmanufacturers make low-, medium- and highoutput pickups. Metalplayers required highoutput-pu's in the '80's. Since that time the ho-pu's have developed to real monsters like the Warpig. From the clips I heard on the forum, highoutput-pu's deliver the tightness and grunt, especially for detuned guitars. I heard a lot of really good tones. Personally I am more into vintage-hot, but I don't think low or high is better, the music dictates what kind of gear you use. Besides that, my experience is that an amp sounds tighter with a lot of mastervolume and not to much pregain.  
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Keven on November 14, 2010, 06:27:18 AM
I'm an odd beast for metal tones. i like my pickups organic and dynamic. i like my black dog more than my cold sweat. i feel the CS doesn't reward me for grinding harder. both of my guitars are quite different so i don't really feel the low end response so far. just the lack of dynamics. my BD is in an ash and maple 7 string and my CS is in a full mahogany 8 string. so each pup's inherent EQ seems to work really well for both guitars. the gain levels are different. even if i beat the hell out of my CS, it sounds the same as when i play soft. on the BD however, i really feel the different textures when banging hard and when not.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: LP_LOVER on November 14, 2010, 12:26:48 PM
Good thread.

Like Twinfan I prefer hotter pickups for classic rock and metal.

I've used low output, medium output and high output BKP's and they were all good for what they did. The lower output models (especially the ones with AIV neck pickups #Mules/Mississippi Queen) sound more woody and open, which makes up for a 'bigger' clean tone thats especially great for blues and jazz (think 'Need your love so bad'). However, most of this 'bigness' has to do with the guitar as well (Les Paul in this case). Yeah, you really want to play blues with low output BKP pickups, at least I do. The hotter these pickups become, the more compressed the tone becomes.

BUT, in many ways you'll always have the tone you had before, no matter if you're using Mules or Painkillers (ok, that's kind of an extreme comparison, but still)...remember it's the guitar that has the tone, not the pickups. We should know that pickups have an influence on the tonal balance (certain frequenties) of the guitar, but they don't really change the tonal characteristics of the guitar. It the guitar wants to bite or scream, it will always do that (no matter if you're using Mississippi Queens or Rebel Yells). That's a tonal character the guitar has or not. For one particular Les Paul I went from Mules to Rebel Yells, to Holydivers and finally to Cold Sweats. They fit the guitar like a champ and they do exactly what I want them to do, no matter if it's clean or distorted. The guitar just needed that extra output (and probably the ceramic magnet in the bridge) to sound at its best and it's a great screaming LP tone that's still open and sensitive to your playing. It sounds warmer and more fluid in the neck position. Some amazing pickups just fight with a particular guitar, it's just the way it works. Rolling down the volume knob can easily give that classic attitude with the higher output models, depending on the guitar as well.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gordiji on November 14, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
my low output hb'ers sound great clean(sm neck, vhii bridge). all other hb'ers i've owned have been higher output
and without exception have sounded poor clean, straight into amp.they've all sounded good (enough)driven, hi or lo.
this is why i prefer low output hb'ers.
good overview from MDV above.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: LP_LOVER on November 14, 2010, 01:02:32 PM
Gordiji,

So, what do you exactly mean with a 'poor' clean tone? Generally speaking, I think this 'issue' has a lot to do with the playing and personal picture of what's a good clean tone. For instance, with the Cold Sweat set in my 88' Les Paul, there's a clear difference between the two pickups, with that nice blend in the middle position; it's far from undefined (always with both tone knobs around 8.

Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gordiji on November 14, 2010, 05:04:18 PM
lp lover, a tone that is instantly pleasant to the ear without having to fiddle about tweaking trying to find something that isn't really there.most hard rock players don't really need this, but if you like all styles of guitar good clean tone
needs to be the starting point.(i think). it's hard to make unpleasant sounds with a clean strat for example.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: dave_mc on November 14, 2010, 05:26:13 PM
essentially i agree, but don't forget metal is such a broad genre - with gain ranging from the highest available in the late 60s, to todays modern detuned 8string br00tals.

if you want tightness and focus, i do agree high gain is the way to go.

if a pickup is well enough designed, it should make a decent enough stab at all styles i think, with the possible exception of the very extremes. having said that - if you really want to nail a tone, then you'll need something very specific.

yep, sure, I realise it's a broad range of tones. Good points in the rest of your post, too. :)

I'm guessing so. I dont know so, but its reasonable. If your ears not attuned to and you arent used to playing it then youre probably just going to hear 'lots of clipping' and go 'there, metal tone!', and be horribly wrong.

yeah, that's the only way I can explain it. :?

Agreed with your other post too :)
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: LP_LOVER on November 14, 2010, 09:44:23 PM
Gordiji,

I also believe that a good clean tone is the starting point, even if you'd only care for hardrock or metal.

'Problem':

All BKP's sound articulate and well defined in a quality guitar....I just make my choices based on what the guitar needs, period (not on what my amp needs). If the guitar needs more compression, then I'd stay away from the low output models. If it already sounds compressed from nature, then low/medium output pickups might be the better choice. Every guitar has a voice of its own; you just need to choose the right pickups for it. Generally speaking I can't really say whether I prefer low output or high output pickups, as it really depends on the guitar you're putting them in.

Cold Sweats just sound right in my 80's LP Custom, whether it's clean or distorted. Mules didn't cut it (too thin, not balanced). Rebel Yells and Holydivers already came closer to what it should sound like. Cold Sweats were like: yeah, exactly the right amount of bass, mid and treble. For instance: my Standard Faded sounded great with Mississippi Queens, while my LP Studio was a beast with BKP Black Dogs.

Each guitar needs something different to sound right/most balanced.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Alex on November 15, 2010, 12:09:25 AM
Well one of the things that made me consider this question was in fact the Black Dog. I feel it doesn't mush out with lots of gain, but sounds very heavy if needed. On the other hand I also feel it lets more of the guitar's tone - the wood and the vibrations - through when dialing back on the gain.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Keven on November 15, 2010, 03:38:43 AM
in all honestly i've usually treated pickup selection in a couple of distinct steps

first of all the amount of compression you need. honestly i think it can vary depending both on the player or the guitar. sometimes some pieces of wood just need more/less compression than others. then i think hotness and compression kinda go hand in hand. is there a low output compressed pickup somewhere?

hotter is also warmer, or bassier. cooler winds can be clearer but you can also loosen the bass with magnet types. alnico and ceramic. i guess weaker magnets have looser bass. and then you wind the coils depending on the amount of bass you need. tightness and dB level maybe?

and then there's the eq curve from the wind itself. as what is pretty much generally known, a longer wind has more DCR, but that can vary depending on the gauge of the wire itself. or the lenght of the wind. I never really knew though, a wind with a thin wire has more resistance than with a thick wire right?

anyway. it comes down to amount of gain you want (how hard you hit the amp), how compressed the waveform seems to be, and then the EQ. i try to balance out the guitar's own characteristics. i won't put a Riff Raff in a maple body. nor will i put an alnico warpig into a les paul. that's all personal and it worked for me so far.

that's not to say a black dog which is a kind of dark but also clear pickup doesn't work in a les paul. I mean, black dog, the name is just les paul into a marshall. I guess happy experiments can sometimes be quite surprising!

personally, as a rule of thumb, bright pickup into dark guitar. warm pickup into bright guitar. then there's so many variables, that all seem to depend on playing styles and amp tones and everything. that's where the lines blur IMHO
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: dave_mc on November 15, 2010, 03:50:43 PM

I also believe that a good clean tone is the starting point, even if you'd only care for hardrock or metal.


I don't think I agree with that. I've heard people say similar things about amps, and in my experience the opposite is true- that you almost want the opposite characteristics for good cleans as you do for good distortion.

I mean if you look at most amps renowned for cleans, they're not really known for their distortion, and vice-versa. And that's before you even look at cabinet and speaker types.

Same thing goes for pickups, if you ask me. Obviously it depends on what you mean by "clean" and "distortion".
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 15, 2010, 06:09:46 PM
+1

I've never seen anything to suggest that theres a connection between good cleans and good distortion. Often the opposite. A more sterile clean sound often retains more clarity and tightness when subjected to the torture of the clipping and distortion of a modern high gain sound.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: dave_mc on November 15, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
exactly :)
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: ratspeak on November 15, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
+1

I've never seen anything to suggest that theres a connection between good cleans and good distortion. Often the opposite. A more sterile clean sound often retains more clarity and tightness when subjected to the torture of the clipping and distortion of a modern high gain sound.

Indeed. Why do people use ceramic magnets in their pickups if a good clean=a good distortion?
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Pale Rider on November 16, 2010, 02:29:06 AM
Yeah a good unplugged sound is a good starting point instead. The clean and distorted ones are not related to each other.

Actually high output pickups have a fast attack but not that strong (because the whole note is equally strong - compression). Low output pickups have slow attack but a stronger one (because the note fades out faster). That's why they have better clean sounds. They have that distinct ding in the beginning of the note the acoustics have.

The fast yet weak (in comparison with the rest of the note volume) attack of the high output pickups gives a blunt (as the attack doesn't quite separate itself from the rest of the note) clean sound lacking dynamics. But that same weak fast attack gets sharp and cutting when under high gain while the slow stronger attack of the low output pickups gives that loose feeling.

Scientifically speaking, tightness is compression and compression is tightness. That doesn't mean that compression means bad sound. The timbre of the pickup is controlled by other factors (at the frequency domain). You can have very good sounding compressed pickups if you know the art of winding. ;) This is actually the kind of pickups I like to use...
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: ratspeak on November 16, 2010, 03:28:55 AM
Scientifically speaking, tightness is compression and compression is tightness. That doesn't mean that compression means bad sound. The timbre of the pickup is controlled by other factors (at the frequency domain). You can have very good sounding compressed pickups if you know the art of winding. ;) This is actually the kind of pickups I like to use...
I <3 my C-Pig.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 23, 2010, 06:47:28 PM
This thread has really got me thinking about my own preferences in pickups. I play Rock based covers from Free to Black Sabbath and Metallica and I generally push the gain further than on the original song so typically I'd play Thin Lizzy with more Metallica like gain levels.

As a result, I've only ever looked at pickups from the contemporary section and always gravitated towards ceramics because I like a very articulated sound and no mush, however, I used to own a Richie Sambora Strat that I loved the tone from and I'd always assumed it was a Super Distortion in the bridge (hot ceramic) but in actual fact, it was a DiMarzio PAF Pro (low output Alnico V). It seemed to play some great distorted tones that were rich, warm and defined, even through an amp significantly worse than the one I have now. This got me thinking about guitarists whose tone I like. Sure, I like the tight distortion of bands like Bullet for my Valentine, but the core tone they have is a little too generic and sterile for me. Conversely, I love the tone of Santana, Orianthi, Slash, Gary Moore and John Sykes, even though I'd want to use that tone with more gain while keeping it tight. These artists would seem to suggest something slightly more vintage so now I have no idea what to look at in pickups; contemporary or Vintage Hot? Ceramic or Alnico V? Is there a pickup that does everything I've just mentioned? The Miracle Man seems a popular choice in my guitar but perhaps it's not for me. Maybe Holy Diver or is that too bassy to remain articulate? Crawler? Emerald? I have absolutely no idea anymore so I think I'll have to go away and give it some careful thought  :(
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 23, 2010, 07:10:01 PM
Paragraphs, dude, paragraphs.

If I were in your boat would actually go with the lower output pickup through high gain amp thing. Then you have the more open and lush sounds of the lighter stuff youre after, but you can still get the "Woahh, lots of clipping!" off the gain of the amp, even if the lower output pickups dont have a voicing/dynamics thats well suited to metal.

I'd be looking at Mules at the bottom end of the power to nailbombs at the top. I'd keep it A5, too. Doesnt do precision metal as well, but is better at keeping things a bit more open and smooth while still having the cut and grunt to metal up.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 23, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. It sounds like I'm looking for something that has a bit of a vintage PAF feel to it but with the most cut and definition I can get from a non-ceramic pickup. The Mule seems to be Alnico IV and I don't think the Riff Raff is what I'm after but clips I've heard from the Emerald sound tasty, the Crawler seems pretty sweet and I know Antag raves about a Holy Diver in an SL3 too. I thought I'd read a thread somewhere that suggested a Nailbomb wouldn't be ideal in an SL3 but I may be wrong in that.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 23, 2010, 11:22:28 PM
I havent used mules.

I've used nailbombs and crawlers pretty extensively though. Both are versatile enough as hot-pafs. The nailbomb is much more of a metal pickup that 'can also do....' where the crawler sounds more authentic on old-school bluesy rock but can also do metal.

I'd beware its REALLY mid heavy and somewhat tailed off top end voicing though. I dont imagine its to all tastes.

HD looks like a fair bet on paper and from descriptions, but I've never tried one in the bridge. Certainly the neck fits the bill.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 23, 2010, 11:27:23 PM
Any ideas what the Emerald would sound like in the bridge of a maple thru-neck with alder body wings? The clips I've heard sound fantastic but they're invariably in a Les Paul. I love the sound of a Les Paul (Slash, Gary Moore, John Sykes) but I just don't like playing them.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: MDV on November 23, 2010, 11:30:21 PM
Not a clue, sorry.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gwEm on November 23, 2010, 11:57:34 PM
I used to own a Richie Sambora Strat that I loved the tone from and I'd always assumed it was a Super Distortion in the bridge (hot ceramic) but in actual fact, it was a DiMarzio PAF Pro (low output Alnico V).

i find the paf pro pretty sterile clean though, surprisingly.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: _tom_ on November 24, 2010, 12:04:38 AM
I am finding myself gravitating to slightly higher output pickups now. Seems to work better with my amp - the gainier output seems to give a better feel than lower output pickups. I compensate with the gain levels on the amp so they sound around the same, it's just that the preamp is being driven a little harder by one set which seems to make a difference. Or maybe I'm imagining it.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: gwEm on November 24, 2010, 12:11:48 AM
I am finding myself gravitating to slightly higher output pickups now. Seems to work better with my amp - the gainier output seems to give a better feel than lower output pickups. I compensate with the gain levels on the amp so they sound around the same, it's just that the preamp is being driven a little harder by one set which seems to make a difference. Or maybe I'm imagining it.

maybe you aren't - i really like the sound of miracle men with mid levels of gain for example
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 24, 2010, 07:18:57 AM
I certainly think that I need something more powerful than a PAF Pro these days but possibly not as hot as a contemporary ceramic. I guess I'm looking for a pickup that has the best of both worlds so I can get that lovely vintage PAF-type tone but still retain a cutting bass response so it stays articulate. Reading about the possible candidates on this forum, and I've read loads of threads, I'm inclined towards either the Emerald or Crawler but I'm also looking at a Holy Diver based on Antag's enthusiasm for that pickup in an SL3. The problem of course is that maple neck-thru guitars with an alder body and OFR with either Emeralds or Crawlers are pretty thin on the ground here  :( so when the time comes it will have to be down to Tim's opinion. Fortunately I have 100% faith in him  :D
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Pale Rider on November 24, 2010, 11:02:14 AM
The Holy Diver can give you John Sykes tone, like in 1987. Think of Children of the Night etc. For Slash it might be a bit tight but then again if you like a rocking sound with tightness, that's what it is.

I was in the exact same situation as you are now about the tone of PAFs and the feel of contemporaries. I can totally hear you there. Testing Duncans, DiMarzios and Bill Lawrences back and forth. High output, low output. PAFs, Hot PAFs, Virtual PAF Hots, the Duncan Custom, Custom 5.....................I finally found BKPs which are contemporaries that sound and feel f___ing incredible. ;)

I thought I was after the PAF sound but in fact I was after the scatterwound/mismatched coil sound...it took me 7 years to find out.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: BigB on November 24, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Any ideas what the Emerald would sound like in the bridge of a maple thru-neck with alder body wings?

Not the slightest clue - but I know how a Crawler bridge sounds like on a maple thru-neck (rosewood fretboard) with maple wings, and I find the "mid-heavy" and "somewhat tailed off top end" actually helps on this guitar - at least if you like thick (yet still sharp) crunchy riffs and warm singing leads.

My 2 cents...
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 24, 2010, 03:49:19 PM
That sounds very encouraging  :D

So that's both Nuke and Antag rate the Holy Divers very well and clearly the Crawler will also work well so it would appear that my interpretation of the threads I've read are accurate. I can only imagine that the Emerald would also be a good choice in that case. I'm really grateful that this thread has made me question my own preconceived ideas about pickups and the sound I want. I was recently going to pull the trigger on a Miracle Man and Trilogy Suites but had to postpone the purchase due to the inevitable pressures of Xmas. I was gutted at the time but now it feels like it's the best thing that could have happened. Now all I need is to start saving again and email Tim as soon as I have the money and see what he thinks.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Telerocker on November 24, 2010, 10:02:43 PM
Crawler works very well in my swampash-strat. Thick, warm, emphasis on the lower mids, smooth topend, but not dull. I guess a Holy Diver would do fine too.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Alex on November 24, 2010, 11:25:24 PM
I feel the Holy Diver has a very hot signal, but also quite clear. It sounds powerful because it is fat and has many mids, driving the preamp, but really isn't that hot.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Pale Rider on November 25, 2010, 06:18:25 AM
Actually the Miracle Man is going to be the pickup in the custom build I'm going to order once I have enough money for the order :P. From every clip/video I can hear it can give the deep/tuby low mid tone I want. Also master Tim said so.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Roobubba on November 25, 2010, 05:27:54 PM
It does that deep mid/low grunt thing like no other pickup! :)
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Pale Rider on November 26, 2010, 02:37:57 AM
 PDT_015
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Nolly on November 28, 2010, 11:03:05 PM
Interesting thread topic! In my opinion there isn't a single humbucker in the BKP range that can't "do" metal (and very few from the rest of the range that can't either), but you'd struggle to get a convincing classic blues rock tone from, say, a Miracle Man.

I feel like the Nailbomb is a good place to start if you currently use high-output ceramics and want to experiment. It has the old-school mid-heavy voicing, open top end and dynamic response you generally find in the vintage-hot range, but with a contemporary output.
As you decrease in output from there, the bottom end tightens up simply as a result of the lessening amount of power to reproduce the bass frequencies (the Stormy Monday is somewhat ferociously tight, despite the AII magnet). Something like the Black Dog or Riff Raff can sound every bit as raucous as the most brutal of the contemporaries, and the leaner low end is a godsend for metal players who layer up many rhythm guitar tracks - you can keep adding tracks almost ad infinitum without the bottom end flubbing out.

Any ideas what the Emerald would sound like in the bridge of a maple thru-neck with alder body wings? The clips I've heard sound fantastic but they're invariably in a Les Paul. I love the sound of a Les Paul (Slash, Gary Moore, John Sykes) but I just don't like playing them.

Somewhat bright! The Emeralds are aimed squarely at 70s rock tone - lots of treble, decent midrange but quite little bottom end beneath it.
The Crawler would definitely give you a slice of classic-voiced pie to try out. It's a warm and full sound that will help approximate the LP sounds you're quoting.
Holy Diver is definitely warm and fat, but much more of a hard rock/hair metal voicing IMO, not the classic open sound you're seemingly intrigued to try out.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Doadman on November 28, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
I was afraid the Emerald would be bright in my guitar! The clips sound fantastic with a lovely rich tone and very tight bass but it was always a concern that it wouldn't perform in the same way in my guitar. Your description certainly suggests it won't.

It's a knotty problem as I really have a foot in both camps. My desire for a highly articulate pickup with very tight bass response obviously suggests a ceramic and in that, the Miracle Man would be ideal but if I consider all the guitar tones I really like, it always seems like more of a vintage hot tone, albeit with more distortion. At the moment I usually use a Hardwire Metal Distortion pedal through the clean channel of my amp with the gain set at about 12. If I need a heavier tone than that I use an MXR Super Compressor with the sensitivity and output almost maxed out and the attack almost at zero. My current bridge pickup is a Seymour Duncan JB. That should give you some idea of how heavy I go but as I'm in a covers band, not all the songs use that much saturation. I think in our current set I play 'Children of the Sea', 'Underdog', Ace of Spades', 'Doctor Doctor', 'Jailbreak' and 'Whisky in the Jar' using those settings. Certainly the two Thin Lizzy songs need 'chug' as I play them far more like Metallica than Thin Lizzy. Whatever pickup I end up getting it needs to stay tight at that kind of distortion but also have a rich and organic tone with fat, open leads. When I play the JB or listen to clips of things like the Miracle Man I always feel like it's got great articulation but the tone is a little two dimensional and sterile, not like the warm and rich distortion you get from a heavily overdriven Les Paul.

In my last guitar (Ibanez RGT42) I used Cold Sweats and they certainly gave it a far more Les Paul type tone but I think they'd be too bright in the Soloist. It's also very difficult to tell based on clips. When I listen to clips of a Holy Diver it always sounds a bit flubby at the bottom, unlike the Emerald clips that always sound super tight, yet I've read enough threads to know that's not so. The Crawler sounds like it has potential and I can't make my mind up about the Nailbomb at all.
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Nolly on November 28, 2010, 11:50:17 PM
If you're running a compressor on your rhythm sounds you can get away with a really very low output pickup.
I think a Black Dog would be an interesting pickup for you to try - it's very tight and defined, and really snarls and roars under gain. It'd be a rather pleasant experience for you, I imagine.   :)
Title: Re: High output vs low output
Post by: Telerocker on November 30, 2010, 09:10:05 PM
I think the Crawler is certainly in the range you're looking for, as is the Black Dog, like Nolly suggests. Maybe I am wrong, but what about Mules for Thin Lizzy-sounds?