60's sound

[Micko]

Hi,

 

Does anyone know whether the Burstbucker Pro pickups, can deliver a sixtieseque sound.

Looking for blues tones rather than heavy Rock 'n' Roll

 

Many thanks

 

micko

[btoth76]

Hello Micko and welcome to the Forums!

 

As subjective as the term "sixtieseque sound" is, so is my answer: yes.

 

More seriously: "Burstbuckers" and "57 Classics" are supposed to deliver vintage tone quality.

 

Cheers... Bence

[Micko]

Hello Micko and welcome to the Forums!

 

As subjective as the term "sixtieseque sound" is, so is my answer: yes.

 

More seriously: "Burstbuckers" and "57 Classics" are supposed to deliver vintage tone quality.

 

Cheers... Bence

 

 

Thanks Bence,

 

The Burstbuckers you refer to are the same mentioned Gibson Burstbucker Pro pickups?

 

I have Gretsch country gent Rickenbacker 360 12 & a nice tele. I'd like a Les Paul to complement that 60's sound

 

Thanks again

[btoth76]

The Burstbuckers are a four(?)-member pickup family: 1,2,3, and the Pro.

 

They supposed to recapture the sound and construction of the first period of original PAF pickups. Those were inaccurately wound by imprecise machines, so 1,2,3 mean how much turns of wire they get compared to each other. Obviously, 3 is the hottest with the most turns of wires on the pickup bobbins. Also, the Burstbuckers' two coils are assymetrical: one has more windings than the other (as opposed to "57 Classics" which have balanced coils).

 

"Pro" is the coil-split version of BB3 - if I am correct (not sure, with this, thought).

 

Cheers... Bence

[btoth76]

From Gibson's site:

 

"On the shop floor of the original Gibson plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the earliest Gibson “Patent Applied For” humbuckers were wound using imprecise machines, resulting in pickups with varying degrees of output and tone. The BurstBucker™ line of pickups represents Gibson’s drive to recapture the magic of the original “Patent Applied For” humbuckers. First introduced in the early 1990s, the Gibson BurstBucker™ — Types 1, 2, and 3 — successfully captured the subtle variations of true, classic humbucker tone with historically “unmatched” bobbin windings and Alnico II magnets. They produce an airy, full tone, and when overdriven they achieve a magical distortion with the slightly enhanced highs that made the originals famous. BurstBucker™ Type 1 features a lower output, excellent for the neck position. BurstBucker™ Type 2 features medium output, and is perfect for both positions. BurstBucker™ Type 3 is overwound and hot, which is typically ideal for the bridge position. None of the BurstBuckers™ are wax potted, and all feature vintage braided two-conductor wiring."

 

...and the PRO:

 

"The Burstbucker Pro Bridge Humbucker enhances the vintage "edge" of Gibson's popular Burstbucker pickups with the added feature of an Alnico 5 magnet. The Burstbucker Pro's characteristic sweet harmonic complexity and crystalline clarity derive from its slightly unmatched bobbin windings. Alnico 5 magnets are used in place of the traditional Alnico 2 yielding fatter, meatier tone with more drive and attack and provides classic Gibson "Patent Applied For" tone with a hint of attitude. Extra noise reduction keeps things quiet even in the high-gain rig."

 

So, I was wrong with the coil-split thing. Sorry for that!

 

Cheers... Bence

[Micko]

From Gibson's site:

 

"On the shop floor of the original Gibson plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the earliest Gibson “Patent Applied For” humbuckers were wound using imprecise machines, resulting in pickups with varying degrees of output and tone. The BurstBucker™ line of pickups represents Gibson’s drive to recapture the magic of the original “Patent Applied For” humbuckers. First introduced in the early 1990s, the Gibson BurstBucker™ — Types 1, 2, and 3 — successfully captured the subtle variations of true, classic humbucker tone with historically “unmatched” bobbin windings and Alnico II magnets. They produce an airy, full tone, and when overdriven they achieve a magical distortion with the slightly enhanced highs that made the originals famous. BurstBucker™ Type 1 features a lower output, excellent for the neck position. BurstBucker™ Type 2 features medium output, and is perfect for both positions. BurstBucker™ Type 3 is overwound and hot, which is typically ideal for the bridge position. None of the BurstBuckers™ are wax potted, and all feature vintage braided two-conductor wiring."

 

...and the PRO:

 

"The Burstbucker Pro Bridge Humbucker enhances the vintage "edge" of Gibson's popular Burstbucker pickups with the added feature of an Alnico 5 magnet. The Burstbucker Pro's characteristic sweet harmonic complexity and crystalline clarity derive from its slightly unmatched bobbin windings. Alnico 5 magnets are used in place of the traditional Alnico 2 yielding fatter, meatier tone with more drive and attack and provides classic Gibson "Patent Applied For" tone with a hint of attitude. Extra noise reduction keeps things quiet even in the high-gain rig."

 

So, I was wrong with the coil-split thing. Sorry for that!

 

Cheers... Bence

 

Cheers... Bence

 

Thanks for all your info. I had a 1980 Les Paul Custom which I stupidly sold, am looking at a 2004 Standard, which I'm hoping to pick up. The great thing about Gibson is that although there are of course good & not so good guitars. There consistancy is amazing, which is a lot more than you can say of CBS fenders!! Thanks again

 

Micko

[btoth76]

I would recommend You to visit a shop if You can, and try Les Pauls with those pickups.

 

Also, it worth to check out ones with the "57 Classics". ;)

 

Best wishes... Bence

[capmaster]

The "numbered" Burstbuckers 1, 2 and 3 with AlNiCo II magnets differ in the number of winding turns. BB 1 means slightly underwound with more treble edge, BB 2 comes close to the '57 Classic but with more unbalanced coils, and the slightly hotter BB 3 comes close to the '57 Classic Plus but also features less balanced numbers of winding turns to mimic the early handwound PAF tolerances.

 

The Burstbucker Pros come in a neck and a bridge version. They feature AlNiCo V magnets which were used by accident for the late 1950's PAFs as well as AlNiCo IIs. The BB Pro neck comes with BB 1 coils, the BB Pro bridge with BB 2 coils. One of these comes reverse wound/reverse polarity which allows for humbucking coil split when used together.

 

Burstbuckers 1, 2 and 3 should come unpotted whereas the '57s and BB Pro coils are waxed.

 

All the pickups mentioned above are in my arsenal, and I never replaced one with anything else.

 

As for the 60's sound, many famous players used flatwound strings then. Besides others, they contribute a lot to the tone of Beatles, Yardbirds, Them, and Byrds recordings, and to most of the Motown releases these days, too. This applies to guitar and bass as well.

[milod]

I saw this new on the "new topics" set of headlines on the forum.

 

On the technical side, Cap is far, far ahead of my knowledge and background except for his point about flatwound strings which I, and so many others, used in those days.

 

However, I think that the tech side attempting to match a "sound" is only part of the equation, perhaps half.

 

Here's the difficulty: "We" know the music of the '60s only through recordings or memory. I can guarantee that even with "live" performance recordings, that's not quite what was going on in terms of sound.

 

As one who also has done more than a little study of music in prior eras, not so much as an academic, but as a "living history" presenter, I think that even the timing and phrasing of music of a given era and the technique of that era, plays as much of a role as the equipment - the instruments - of that time period.

 

That's about as significant IMHO as the equipment.

 

m

[Sgt.]

Hi,

 

Does anyone know whether the Burstbucker Pro pickups, can deliver a sixtieseque sound.

Looking for blues tones rather than heavy Rock 'n' Roll

 

Many thanks

 

micko

I may be reiterating what's already stated but I own BB pros and have an opinion to share. These are the most expensive Gibson PAF's you can buy. they are alnico 5 mags and for me are very hot, so much so that I had to lower the pickups from factory standard and I still have a noise issue with the tones rolled all the way up ... they're HOT. I like em' a lot. got a pair with a 2011 studio lp. during the rosewood debacle I think Gibson subbed good pickups on the studio for lack of rosewood fretboard ... it's baked maple. good choice though, value wise. they were 480's before and I hear people complain about them. truth is nowdays, and it's been stated in this thread that post war, I guess metals that make up alnico (which were only thing going), like cobalt (aluminium, nickel, cobalt) were scarce and expensive and they often substituted what ever was lying around in the shop for pickup mags like alnico v with alnico II's and those lucky mismatches made some of the most desirable pu's ever. so enough with the holy grail paf myth, it's been debunked. there were one of a kind's and today the manufacturing process is more uniform. BB pro's are excellent for classic rock and blues.

hey, do some research into that 60's sound you want. ceramic mag speakers and pickups were the new thing and some of the best music of the latter bit of that era were from ceramic mags, zeppelin, Hendrix. I was just thinking about that point of vintage the other day and recalled reading that lite sets of strings for electric guitars were not available and players used to sub a banjo string for the high e and mismatch a lite set together from there. I'm using pure nickel strings on the lp and have just switched to the d'addario med. balanced tension on a hollowbody with med. ceramic pu's. things like that today eg. using banjo strings or mismatched magnets has really become more uniform and I guess if you experimented to find a one of a kind truly unique sound you could do all sorts of things, like use alnico speakers, pio caps, pure nickel strings, bone nuts, germanium pedal transistors, nos tubes .... to make the best of the vintage sound. I personally think due to price and availability of the nos stuff, that today's instruments are technologically sound compared to the original lp's. ceramic speakers and pu's can do the job of high volumes better now than the old alnico's. as far as caps, the cheapo pink ceramic disc's do the same job as the expensive luxe bee's at the same cap value. now i'm not a big fan of the printed circuit boards, it makes swapping pu's a cinch but try upgrading caps or pots ... uggggh! i'm as happy with a new material corian nut that mimics bone than I would be with real bone. see the point. the old style sixties used what materials were available to them at that time. today we have made vast technological improvements, cost and quality wise. but you can always argue that they don't make em' like they used to and that's true enough.

[capmaster]

I saw this new on the "new topics" set of headlines on the forum.

 

On the technical side, Cap is far, far ahead of my knowledge and background except for his point about flatwound strings which I, and so many others, used in those days.

 

However, I think that the tech side attempting to match a "sound" is only part of the equation, perhaps half.

 

Here's the difficulty: "We" know the music of the '60s only through recordings or memory. I can guarantee that even with "live" performance recordings, that's not quite what was going on in terms of sound.

 

As one who also has done more than a little study of music in prior eras, not so much as an academic, but as a "living history" presenter, I think that even the timing and phrasing of music of a given era and the technique of that era, plays as much of a role as the equipment - the instruments - of that time period.

 

That's about as significant IMHO as the equipment.

 

m

Very good points in my humble opinion, I am tempted to say, as always when reading your comments, Milod.

 

I believe the recording point is often underestimated. As far as I know, George Martin was the first who intended translating the very tone when producing The Beatles. He even "dared" to use high-performance condenser mics like Neumann/Telefunken U 47 in front of VOX AC-30 amps. Most mics used for amp recording were and partly still are dynamic ones which tend to capture the magnetic speaker coil signal, too. This creates a trebly sound with a harsh edge when using distorted settings or overdriving power amps. To avoid this, the mics must be angled off the speaker axis to a certain extent, causing comb filtering and loss of clarity, and/or severe EQing has to be applied. A condenser mic is not affected by magnetic fields and may be positioned right in front of the dome and fully on axis. This will transduce the full tone, and that's what George Martin decided to do. He also went with using EQs in a HiFi attitude, very uncommon among pop producers then.

[capmaster]

...

So, I was wrong with the coil-split thing. Sorry for that!

 

Cheers... Bence

Sad but true, you are right. :( They only offer the BB Pros with four-conductor wiring for the aftermarket although some limited runs were featuring splittable BB 1 & 2 pickups stock like my 2011 Quilt Top LP Standard.

[milod]

Some good points here...

 

But I guess as one who was playing music in public in that era, I keep thinking that we're seeking a "holy grail" that never existed.

 

Frankly I think in ways we had audiences more because in those days, audiences didn't know what a "good sound system" was.

 

Nobody came close to sounding the same as recordings if "tone" was to be the criterion of "60s sound." And I did hear some of the artists in live venues as well as on record when I was doing rock. Heck, when I was doing folkie stuff.

 

I think sometimes that the old swing era habit of the band quieting down and vamping behind the vocals did continue as long as it did because PA systems were overall poor.

 

Again, as recording equipment and studio environments had improved, the "record" really was increasingly different from the live performance potentials. I'm personally convinced that's why the TV shows had so much lip sync stuff.

 

Even today, I refuse to believe that what an audience hears from my solo performance on stage and what might emerge from a recording are all that close. So let's assume Cap, for example, wants a guitar tone "just like" mine. Good luck even with the same equipment. Why? First, his technique isn't identical to mine and secondly, he would be chasing a "tone" from a recording on a set of speakers that both have potential of coloring the tone. Now, is Cap capable of coming awfully close thanks to his technical knowledge? Yup. But that's close to what? The recording?

 

m

[capmaster]

Some good points here...

 

But I guess as one who was playing music in public in that era, I keep thinking that we're seeking a "holy grail" that never existed.

 

Frankly I think in ways we had audiences more because in those days, audiences didn't know what a "good sound system" was.

 

Nobody came close to sounding the same as recordings if "tone" was to be the criterion of "60s sound." And I did hear some of the artists in live venues as well as on record when I was doing rock. Heck, when I was doing folkie stuff.

 

I think sometimes that the old swing era habit of the band quieting down and vamping behind the vocals did continue as long as it did because PA systems were overall poor.

 

Again, as recording equipment and studio environments had improved, the "record" really was increasingly different from the live performance potentials. I'm personally convinced that's why the TV shows had so much lip sync stuff.

 

Even today, I refuse to believe that what an audience hears from my solo performance on stage and what might emerge from a recording are all that close. So let's assume Cap, for example, wants a guitar tone "just like" mine. Good luck even with the same equipment. Why? First, his technique isn't identical to mine and secondly, he would be chasing a "tone" from a recording on a set of speakers that both have potential of coloring the tone. Now, is Cap capable of coming awfully close thanks to his technical knowledge? Yup. But that's close to what? The recording?

 

m

Very good points again, Milod. To my experience any chase for any of the multiple imaginations of a "holy grail" is fouled up by too much "technique." I believe the very and only real point of the entire "holy grail" thing is keeping it simple. The advent of enhanced multitrack recording and heaps of effects devices gave way to overproducing recorded music. As a result, the gap between records and live performances grew wider and wider.

[Sgt.]

Very good points again, Milod. To my experience any chase for any of the multiple imaginations of a "holy grail" is fouled up by too much "technique." I believe the very and only real point of the entire "holy grail" thing is keeping it simple. The advent of enhanced multitrack recording and heaps of effects devices gave way to overproducing recorded music. As a result, the gap between records and live performances grew wider and wider.

Yeah keep it simple ... i hate even fooling with pedals when I play. set it and forget it. i can't handle switching effects on pedals all the time through songs. If i had my choice for sound i'd chose loud and clean tube amp. the KISS (keep it simple stupid) applies to like AC/DC ... all you need is the marshall and the SG. I was surprised at how different players approach sound. A band was playing dry (no reverb on vocals) with solid state amps ... but it worked for Nirvana! I lean on reverb clean and dirty with a tube amp with blues, classic rock, although it doesn't always need it, it's the way i like to hear it.

[milod]

To me...

 

... as a rock picker in the mid to late '60s, I have to chuckle a bit at young players with incredible options at their fingertips trying to emulate what they perceive to be the sound "we" put out in the olden days. We had comparatively few choices of equipment regardless of our cash supply.

 

We tended to play flats because that's what were played on electric guitars - or at least that was at the time the "accepted knowledge" of the era.

 

We didn't have 8,000 stompboxes to choose among, in order to attempt to emulate what we were playing straight through this or that tube amp that we bought because it was what was available and loud enough for our gigs.

 

The bottom line here is that we tended to play what was available among a tiny number of choices, and "we" were the cutting edge of figuring how to play loud enough that we could shake out teen dandruff and not have our sound turn to mush. Often it was mush.

 

It wasn't what you hear on records - at least not any of the bands I was hearing at the time live, and that includes some of the "names" of the time period.

 

So... I'd say the timing of the music is far more important than equipment, even including our strings. "We," and I include the Beatles and Rolling Stones and whatever, were still raised on swing and '50s pop, jazzified hillbilly and cowboy combined into "country," and a hint of country and electric blues.

 

That made the sound, IMHO.

 

Spend all the money you want to "emulate" what was, and you make a lotta manufacturers and sales folks happy.

 

I'll add that I hope it makes "you" happy too. Me? I'll just keep pickin' and singin' mostly with a guitar or bass, the same basic mikes for vocals, an amp and a PA... just as I did 50 years ago. And as the better and more famous folks did.

 

Anybody wanna emulate what?

 

m