Author Topic: '58 Les Paul Tone (Read 8207 times)

rperks · « **on:** November 13, 2006, 04:08:05 PM »

Hi,

I have a fairly new Les Paul Std (50s neck) which has BurstBucker Pro's installed. After transforming my Strat with BKPs, I am thinking of doing the same for the Les Paul.

I am after a tone like recent LP Mark Knopfler. He plays a '58 and '59 LP, I believe.

What would you suggest? I am thinking Mules but open to suggestions. Also, how do they compare to BurstBucker Pros - these seem like pretty good stock pickups, what kind of difference should I expect?

I play through a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe (Tweed, Jensen speaker).

Cheers,
Rich

Twinfan · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2006, 04:22:40 PM »

For classic, good all round vintage Les Paul tone from the late 50s the Mule is where it's at.

DeanS · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2006, 04:45:45 PM »

Talking of burstbuckers I think I read somewhere that they're unpotted- is that true?

jt · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2006, 05:24:20 PM »

:D Mules or even Stormy Monday

:D 8)

Fourth Feline · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:09:10 PM »

Hi Rich,

having tried both Stormy Mondays and Mules in my Les Paul Standard, I would say they are both excellent - but recommend you go with the Mules.
The SMs are totally balanced across the frquency range, whereas the Mules are equally clear, but with a slight mid range 'hump' that sounds perfect in a Les Paul.

As for the difference you can expect, I have experienced clearer bass, sweeter treble and more 'open' all round sonic delivery over Gibson 490R and 498T pickups. As someone else commented;

"it's like taking a blanket off of your amp"

I also read somewhere that the Burstbuckers tend to have a sharper, shriller treble - whereas the top end on SMs and Mules is very sweet and rounded whilst remaining detailed and singing like a bird.
I play mostly clean, so notice these details more. They handle gain nicely though and even the soundclips in the 'Players Section' do not do them full justice - as BKPs are very three dimensional sounding. You have to hear them in the flesh to fully appreciate the difference.

Finally, I gather the Mules are built like a late 1950s PAF and the SMs are built like an early 60s Patent number pickup.

I also am a Fender amp player, in my case a 'The Twin' - so have heard them on kind of "common ground". Just a shame you don't live in Yorkshire, you could have had a test drive

The reviews on Harmony Central are (in this instance) a good guide.

Regards,

Derek. :D

jt · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2006, 07:00:16 PM »

:D I think thats the other way round. SM`s circa 50`s & Mules circa early 60`s. I`m sure Tim or one of the guys will chip in and confirm the correct order

:D 8)

Twinfan · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2006, 07:09:33 PM »

I believe Mules are late 50s PAFs, Stormy Mondays early 60s PAFs and Riff Raffs are mid 60s Patent Number pickups.

5F6-A · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2006, 12:32:55 PM »

real PAFS varied A LOT. there's not such thing as the PAF tone in the sense that some were alnico II, some alnico IV, some alnico V, some overwound, some underwound, some had nearly identical coils, some had very mismatched coils......

It's a matter of taste really.

_tom_ · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2006, 01:36:45 PM »

I use a set of Mules in my Epi LP Custom through a normal Hot Rod Deluxe at the minute (switching to Laney on monday!) and they sound really nice through it. Uploaded a video here of me just jamming around through this setup http://www.bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6121

simonp · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:57:00 PM »

I would sya the Mules too, the neck pickup allows the lovely woody tone to come through, which is a sound I have heard Knopfler get on a version of Brothers in Arms he did on Jools Holland's Later.

As commented earlier it is exactly like taking a blanket off your amp soundwise. The only downside is that al your little mistakes and string noises come through more clearly, so play cleanly!

cjpmmd · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2006, 06:34:31 PM »

Quote

the lovely woody tone

Heh-heh, heh-heh, you said "woody."

cjpm, maintaining somber maturity on this holiday weekend :P

5F6-A · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2007, 12:31:21 PM »

SMs for a cleaner sound, Mules for a rockier version and PGs for the best of both worlds

zigmund · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2007, 04:06:34 PM »

I quite like the BBs too(I've a 2002 LP Standard); any problems with "thinness" I found went away with judicious raising/lowering of pickups. No problems with beat interference("stratitis") when quite close to the strings.
(in response to Dean...I think it's some versions of the retrofitted Burstbuckers that are unpotted: I think too that fitted as "stock" to the Les Pauls they're potted well)
The problem I have found with BBs, is one of uneven response really, with the lower registers on the neck pup going a bit flabby and boomy. Now, I've not upgraded to BKPs("yet!", I hear several of you cry) but have had Mules put recently into my Yamaha(I've bored the guys silly with this) and the woods/ build is about the same. I noticed an overall increase in clarity yet quite a clear tightening of the bottom end(er....the guitar, not me...), so that there is more of a tonal balance across the strings.
From my experience(which is a spit compared to many heads here) Mules would be bang on; many LP users have felt them to have put into their Gibsons what should have been there anyway.
Put it this way, Mules in your LP will not make it worse!

5F6-A · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:50:05 PM »

a video of my BKP loaded LP through a twin reverb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhdoER_Bhlw

Author Topic: '58 Les Paul Tone (Read 8207 times)

Fourth Feline