Potted Mules, Duncan 59 set comparison?

[dsguitar1]

I have a set of potted Mules and a set of Duncan 59s (vintage blues) I have swapped them in and out of two separate Gibson Les pauls. I like both they are obviously both in the same ballpark being in the low output paf style of humbucker.

The 59s are alnico V (so more bass and treble) the Mules alnico iv so more even eq.

Anyone else tried these two sets in a Les Paul that can explain what they are hearing between the two sets?

[JJretroTONEGOD]

not tried in a les paul but I have been using the mule for 18 years and still love it, I think of alnico V as being more compressed and a bit less open sounding, I would not recommend split coil wiring with the mule, my guitar has that but I hardly ever use it, the output is too low. I'd imagine getting two mules would be very close to a vintage les paul type sound, it could also be worth looking at stormy monday's.

[timmy_pix]

The Duncan 59 still sounds like a relatively "modern" pickup to me - immediate attack, slightly compressed, slightly scooped, rolled off high end.

The Mules have more presence, richer mids and harmonics, more clarity and a crunchier attack, for want of a better phrase! I like the 59, it's a very versatile pickup and avoids the honk that a lot of higher output Seymour Duncans have, but the Mule, to me, is the sound of a classic Les Paul distilled.

The Mule splits can be weak but do fundamentally still sound good. I've got into sticking partial splits on my Les Paul and it makes them much more useable.

[b.gandt]

Timmy hits it.  I’ve not played either in a LP, but I have in similar guitars.

The Duncan 59 set is decent, but the Mules take it to a different level, IMO.  It’s obvious to me, but as always, YMMV!