LP lacks mids. Is that normal?

[zavulon]

Hi guys,

 

Is this a normal issue? Running a LP Classic 2006 (fully chambered) thru a VOX AC 30.

 

Some people recommended me to replace the bridge for a Faber. Some, recommended to change the amp because its not an issue but a voicing feature.

 

Some told me that its a chambering feature.

 

Whats the truth? Or even more important, how should i try to balance that before starting the sale process?

 

My current configuration is: Seth lover at bridge, 496r at neck, normal wiring, stock everything (pots, caps, tailpiece..)

 

Thanks a lot, its a very frustrating issue not to find the tone im looking for.

 

Isnt MIDS a feature of LPs? How is that a LP is lacking mids?

 

Thanks a lot, have a great week.

[Rabs]

Are you sure its fully chambered? I didn't think they started that till 2008? (but am not sure on that at all)...

 

As for your pups...

 

Have you tried just simply adjusting the pickup height? Is the pickup flat or tilted to one side?

 

Just lay your guitar on a table plugged in and then strum the guitar and move the pickup up or down on each side till you like the sound.. Could be as simple as that...

 

The chambering effect usually does add a bit of brightness to the sound of a normal LP (I think anyway) but its only a small amount.....

 

Of course theres always your amp settings.. If you want more mids turn the bass and treble down a bit? Or another more simple test.. do you have a friend with a Marshall or some other amp than you have? go take your guitar to them and try it through their amp and see what you hear.

[stein]

Lacks mids compared to what?

 

Who or what are you comparing to?

 

And also, how much "mids" are you looking to have? Are you sure it's mids you are looking for?

[zavulon]

Thanks for your replies guys.

 

Im sure its chambered, they started late 2006.

 

Sadly i dont have any friend with a tube amp to try it. I can tell you that i've tried 2 fenders and mids were there.

I did a few tests regarding pickup height and polepieces. Im not done, but both are balanced now.

 

I feel the natural EQ for this guitar is to go hard on bass and treble and leave mids behind.

Am i 100% sure? no... Still i think i cant cut thru the mix.Middle position is very muddy also.

 

This is my first LP i own. Everywhere i read i see people remarking LPs MIDrange, and the tiresome chambering debate. but honestly im starting to thing this guys were right, not about the sustain, but MIDs are missing.

[stein]

This is the first I have heard of chambered LP's lacking mids. But what do I know?

 

You can read pretty much anything on the web- doesn't make it true (or untrue). And for sure, hell if I can "hear" anything over the net by what one guy says compared to another guy.

 

At some point, a guy has to conform what he actual HEARS to what is being typed. Especially mids. That's a wide range. One guys mids is another guys thick. That can be treble OR bass. Upper and lower mids, that varies a lot too.

 

Certainly, to my ears at least, a maple-necked Strat is going to pump out some mids, especially though a cranked up amp. But another guy is going to plug a Gibby with a real hot bridge pickup that has no good treble to it, and THAT's going to be what he wants.

 

So, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing when you say "mids", or "cut through the mix".

 

But I think a lot of what you are experiencing is the difference between a Fender-type and a Gibson-type. Both require different amp settings, and react differently. Amps will perform different and sound different with these two different types, thus requiring a whole different "tweak" to the controls and volume levels.

[kidblast]

it's really all so subjective it's impossible for us to know with out hearing or .. for me I gotta play it thru my rigs... But,, if your comparing a single coil to a humbucker there is obviously a huge difference in the sonic ground they cover.

[zavulon]

Thanks for your feedback guys.

 

As stein said, it is possible that we are not talking about lack of anything but a distinctive feature between single coils and humbuckers. Im not that familiar with humbuckers as i am with sc.

 

Maybe another way to put it is: general muddines, focused on middle position and some on the neck.

 

As im still unable to find a Seth Lover pickup for the neck, i ended up with the stock 496r at neck and a Seth Lover at bridge. These are very different pickups, specially regarding output.

In order to balance them, i had to lower the neck pickup a lot so both pickups sound even.

 

Could that be the cause of the muddy sound? I do not notice that issue while using just the neck and thats the strange thing.

 

Cheers

[pippy]

Forget about the 'chambering' thing.

Chambered LP's still sound like LP's. Usually (as Rabs mentioned) a tad brighter but still LP-esque in the essentials.

 

As I'm sure you are already aware the 496R is a very hot ceramic-mag'd pickup built for (essentially) high-gain loving players.

It CAN be tamed a bit but even wound down a few notches there is still a trace of lint present.

At least I have a 496R/500T combo in one of my own Lesters and this has been my experience.

 

The Seth Lover, as I'm also sure you know, is a (relatively) low output p'up designed specifically to emulate the original PAF.

In humbucking terms this is the polar opposite of the 496R.

 

You have, as can be seen, a very mis-matched set of p'ups.

Whichever amp settings you can dial-in for one p'up (and you WILL be able to get ONE sounding right if you experiment with your amp-settings enough) will probably not work for the other p'up.

Bear in mind that the Seth Lover especially will (or at least should) be very sensitive to any adjustment of not just the amp tone knobs but the LP's vol/tone settings, too.

The ceramic (IMX) shouldn't be quite so fussy.

 

I almost never advocate swapping p'ups as a tone-problem-resolution but in this case IMO it's probably a good idea just to get some basis of tonal common-ground.

Without knowing who you most want to sound like (apart from yourself, of course) I'd say for more blues tones go Seth neck; more Heavy Rock / Metal go 500T bridge.

 

Good Luck.

 

P.

[stein]

I notice, on LP's, I find I have to lower the neck pup real low to get the sound I want. On an LP, there isn't a lot of room to go down, being as the fingerboard is flat with the body. The Bridge position doesn't have that issue.

 

Having said that, I am not all familiar with these two pups. I don't know what the outputs are for them. But if you have a brighter sounding bridge pup and are dialing in the guitar and amp for that sound, yea, you are going to get muddy in the neck position if the neck pup is a "darker" sounding pup.

[masliko]

I notice, on LP's, I find I have to lower the neck pup real low to get the sound I want. On an LP, there isn't a lot of room to go down, being as the fingerboard is flat with the body. The Bridge position doesn't have that issue.

 

Having said that, I am not all familiar with these two pups. I don't know what the outputs are for them. But if you have a brighter sounding bridge pup and are dialing in the guitar and amp for that sound, yea, you are going to get muddy in the neck position if the neck pup is a "darker" sounding pup.

I know a few people with chambered LP's(me being one) and they or i have no problem with mids,& these guitars are brutal(or as charming) if you use them right!

Its the best LP i own(07)and would never sell it.I also have a 72,78,13,the others could go,but not the 07.Try moving your pups and turning up louder!

 

I agree with the poster above,you seem to have a mismatched set.(although there are no rules really)

[brantobrien]

Forget about the 'chambering' thing.

Chambered LP's still sound like LP's. Usually (as Rabs mentioned) a tad brighter but still LP-esque in the essentials.

 

As I'm sure you are already aware the 496R is a very hot ceramic-mag'd pickup built for (essentially) high-gain loving players.

It CAN be tamed a bit but even wound down a few notches there is still a trace of lint present.

At least I have a 496R/500T combo in one of my own Lesters and this has been my experience.

 

The Seth Lover, as I'm also sure you know, is a (relatively) low output p'up designed specifically to emulate the original PAF.

In humbucking terms this is the polar opposite of the 496R.

 

You have, as can be seen, a very mis-matched set of p'ups.

Whichever amp settings you can dial-in for one p'up (and you WILL be able to get ONE sounding right if you experiment with your amp-settings enough) will probably not work for the other p'up.

Bear in mind that the Seth Lover especially will (or at least should) be very sensitive to any adjustment of not just the amp tone knobs but the LP's vol/tone settings, too.

The ceramic (IMX) shouldn't be quite so fussy.

 

I almost never advocate swapping p'ups as a tone-problem-resolution but in this case IMO it's probably a good idea just to get some basis of tonal common-ground.

Without knowing who you most want to sound like (apart from yourself, of course) I'd say for more blues tones go Seth neck; more Heavy Rock / Metal go 500T bridge.

 

Good Luck.

 

P.

 

Almost positive this is exactly what's going on. Before you go ditching your LP, swap out the neck pickup and give it a shot.

[zavulon]

Thanks for your insights, really helpful.

 

Would you think that a dimarzio 36th paf can be a good match for the seth lover bridge? or i should buy the seth lover neck?

 

Here the $ difference between these two is exactly x2.. and i cant even find a nickel model for the seth lover.

[pippy]

Would you think that a dimarzio 36th paf can be a good match for the seth lover bridge?...

I'm sorry to say I have no personal experience of the 36th Anniv. but I've just had a read at a couple of dozen reviews (as well as the spiel on DiMarzio's own home page) and, from what I've read, it seems like it should be a good match for the Seth Lover.

 

One or two of the reviewers marked the p'up down (almost everyone else gave it 5 stars) but notably none of these players were using them in a Gibson never mind in a Les Paul. This might not seem important but it did catch my eye and I thought I'd mention it.

 

The 'output' (DC resistance) of the "36th" (approx 7.3Kohm) should balance nicely with the SL and on the DiM site (FWIW) a graphic showed that the mids were marginally more pronounced than either the treble or bass response so that seems to be what you were after in the first place.

 

P.

[masliko]

I'm sorry to say I have no personal experience of the 36th Anniv. but I've just had a read at a couple of dozen reviews (as well as the spiel on DiMarzio's own home page) and, from what I've read, it seems like it should be a good match for the Seth Lover.

 

One or two of the reviewers marked the p'up down (almost everyone else gave it 5 stars) but notably none of these players were using them in a Gibson never mind in a Les Paul. This might not seem important but it did catch my eye and I thought I'd mention it.

 

The 'output' (DC resistance) of the "36th" (approx 7.3Kohm) should balance nicely with the SL and on the DiM site (FWIW) a graphic showed that the mids were marginally more pronounced than either the treble or bass response so that seems to be what you were after in the first place.

 

P.

[pippy]

That's a lovely clip of some very tasty playing, Masliko.

 

 

I thoroughly loved his stuff - seriously - and I'm sure I'll check out his other clps when I have some time.

 

I was wondering why you had posted it as it seemed to have nothing to do with the p'ups we were talking about but at the 4:03 mark he mentions it's chambered so I'm guessing that's the connection? In which case I'm slightly confused...

 

You see, at the very start (0:10) he says;

 

"This is a brand new guitar. I thought I'd see what it could do..."

 

...but as far as I can tell without knowing more (the serial number would help!) it appears to me to be a reissue of sorts - either an R8 / R9 / R0.

It has an ABR-1, sharp-cornered trapezoid inlays, a straight-cut edge to the p'guard and an historic style TRC. It also seems to be in VOS finish. All of this says 'Re-issue'.

Now; there have been re-issues which have been chambered (CR serial numbers - the so-called 'Cloud 9' guitars) but in very few numbers and AFAIK for a very short time-frame and not for a long while.

 

So what is that guitar and when was the clip made?.......the clip raises more questions than it answers.

 

 

P.

 

EDIT : The CR Cloud 9 R-I's were available from 3 dealers from 2004. Anyone here have any idea for how long and how many were made?

EDIT pt 2 : Found this pretty good site for those of us interested in the CR's; http://www.chambered-reissue.org/

[zavulon]

+1 pippy.

Liked the clip but i dont see how this applies.

 

i've installed the Seth Lover neck (gold.. i hate that). Still... lots of muddines on middle and neck pup.

 

It just seems like im playing with the tone knob full off, but its wide open.. As soon as i move the tone down it goes worse.

 

Caps on a LP Classic from 2006 should be 500k right? Should i test it ? Another ideas to try out?

Yesterday my amp configuration was like this: Treble on 3/10, bass full off, tone cut at 2/10.

[pippy]

Caps on a LP Classic from 2006 should be 500k right? Should i test it ? Another ideas to try out?

Yesterday my amp configuration was like this: Treble on 3/10, bass full off, tone cut at 2/10.

Just to clarify matters;

You have installed the SL - which was originally at the bridge position - in the neck and it is still muddy; is that right?

Have you put the 496 in the bridge to see how that sounds?

 

If the SL sounds muddy in both positions and the 496 sounds clean at the bridge - albeit lacking in the mids - then could it be that the SL is faulty?

 

I had wondered about the caps and pots but if all you are swapping is the position of the p'ups and the 496 sounds OK-ish then that takes the ancillaries out of the equation.

My 1960 Classics have both got 500k caps but they are both from the first half of the '90s. I'm not sure whether Gibson went to 300k at any time but if the above holds true then it's immaterial anyhow.

 

Bit of a drag, I know, but could you beg/borrow a spare p'up (of any type) to swap with the SL just to see if things improve?...

 

FWIW my own - and admittedly unusual - amp tone settings tend to be;

Treble Boost - On.

Treble - 10.

Mid - 0.

Bass - 0.

Bass Boost - Off.

Amp is a circa '77 Music Man 2x12 Sixty-Five.

With these amp settings I can go from the typical 'Woman Tone' (muddiness...) through to piercing treble just using the tonal range of the guitar's knobs.

 

My LPs have the following p'ups;

1991 '1960 Classic' - 496R / 500T.

1993 1959 Re-Issue - '57 Classics in both positions.

1995 '1960 Classic' - Seymour Duncan Antiquities (matched set R + T).

1995 1960 Re-Issue - '57 Classics in both positions.

 

P.

[zavulon]

Pippy thanks again for your help.

 

Im sorry about the confusion.

I bought the SL for the neck, so i do have the SL set.

The only position that doesnt sound muddy is the bridge with the tone knob on 7+

 

How is your neck pup knob?

Do you have any audio i can listen to? :)

gday

[pippy]

...How is your neck pup knob?.......Do you have any audio i can listen to? :)......

Not really....but years ago I did a very short demo as a request for some friends on another forum which is all I can offer-up. Don't know if it'll help any but I'll post it FWIW...

Recorded just with my DSLR and the built-in mic(!) so hardly top audio quality - but it is shot in HD!....lol!

Just a noodle, you understand. Plinking about at home with the amp master vol at around 2 1/2 and channel vol around 6 1/2.

Amp tone settings as in my previous post.

Playing through the neck p'up of my R0 (therefore '57 Classic); Vol starts at 9.5 but I put it down to about 8.5 right after the start; Tone was probably at 2 1/2 or thereabouts;

 

 

Pip.

[capmaster]

The only chambered one of my LPs has by far the lowest midrange level. Midrange sustain is not affected, the mids are just quieter. Immediately after string attack, the midrange energy seems to transform into lows. The fundamentals rise for a second or two instead of decaying. The neck is a 60's Slim Taper, long tenon, bridge is an ABR-1, tailpiece is an aluminum lightweight stopbar, pickups are '57 Classics, all parts are stock.

 

My 2013 Traditional is quite the opposite. The midrange is yelling, lows are quieter but still with a nice sustain, although some overtones last longer than the fundamentals across all the strings and all along the fretboard. Features are massive body, late 50's neck with short tenon, Nashville bridge, retrofitted TP-6 finetuning stopbar which doesn't affect the tone compared to the stock ZAMAK stopbar, '57 Classic neck and '57 Classic Plus bridge pickup.

 

The other LPs of mine, two Modern Weight Relieved and one Alex Lifeson Axcess without weight relief, can be assumed roughly as soundwise being somewhere in between. All of my hardtail guitars are strung with the very loud and bright Optima Chromes 11 - 50, my vibrato guitars including the Alex Lifeson Axcess with Optima Chromes 10 - 46.

[zavulon]

thanks mate

i can do a couple of things to improve this situation, but in the end i cannot add a frequency the guitar does not seems to have.

i can get an EQ, change the amp, change pots to 1m, idk.

 

if im able to sell this guitar (here in argentina is almost impossible) i'll get a tribute or studio + am stratocaster, sit back and enjoy.

 

ps: i can just play the LP unplugged as it has a nice sound tho.

Honestly i though a chambered would be a nice adition as i was playing a 339 before.

[stein]

thanks mate

i can do a couple of things to improve this situation, but in the end i cannot add a frequency the guitar does not seems to have.

i can get an EQ, change the amp, change pots to 1m, idk.

 

if im able to sell this guitar (here in argentina is almost impossible) i'll get a tribute or studio + am stratocaster, sit back and enjoy.

 

ps: i can just play the LP unplugged as it has a nice sound tho.

Honestly i though a chambered would be a nice adition as i was playing a 339 before.

If the guitar has a good sound unplugged, then you CAN get a good sound plugged in, it's just a matter of what pups and wiring to use.

 

In fact, when I would buy a guitar, I would always judge it on the accoustic sound. Pups can be swapped.

 

What we have is a mystery. As far as I can tell, you have done everything "right" that this here thread has.

 

A couple things maybe: Dump that neck pup down as far as you can. See how that works. Also, maybe check the wiring, see that everything is hooked up correctly.

 

I don't have great computer skills, so I can't link a wiring diagram, but you can find them easily on the web.

[Rabs]

This page has loads of great wiring diagrams :)

 

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/tonefreaks/558-wiring-library.html

[capmaster]

If the guitar has a good sound unplugged, then you CAN get a good sound plugged in, it's just a matter of what pups and wiring to use.

 

In fact, when I would buy a guitar, I would always judge it on the accoustic sound. Pups can be swapped.

 

...

Evaluating a guitar's potential tone through pickups by playing unplugged may lead to surprising results, the more "solid" the guitar, the less consistent and significant. This applies to piezos as well as magnetics.

 

Here's why: What you hear, depending on guitar and listening positions as well, is the share which is dissipated and thus lost for the string vibration. The acoustically quiet share is what your pickups will potentially get to pick up. When about piezos, they will get it all, only depending on fretting and picking position. Magnetics are restricted to the tuning of each string, pickup mounting positions, magnetic field apertures, and the electrical resonances built up by pickup inductances, pickup capacitances, cable capacitances, and dampening through resisitive loads of pots and the following inputs.

 

The experiences with my hybrid guitars are stunning. Equipped with same make Graph Tech Ghost Floyd Rose bridge and electronics, my Alex Lifeson Les Paul Axcess and the two of my Ghost and Noiseless SSS modded Fender Floyd Rose Stratocasters allow for A/B/C comparisons of the piezo signals. It is amazing how close the results are in general, but with lots of subtle differences in tone colour and sustain. The Alex Lifeson LP has the strongest lows, ringing highs and most sustain from the bottom to the top, my medium-weight alder/maple top Strat with one-piece maple neck offers most midrange, and the rather heavy alder Strat with rosewood neck offers the smoothest, most balanced piezo tone. Magnetics are 496R/498T, Fender SCN, and Fender Vintage Noiseless, which makes a valid comparison of the magnetic tones impossible. The only thing I can say is that the pickups of the Fenders support the differences nicely.

 

Last but not least to the point here - the "really acoustic" tones, not through piezos but unplugged, are as follows: The Alex Lifeson Les Paul sounds thinnest, the alder/maple top/OPM neck Strat has the most balanced tone, and the alder/RW neck Strat has a distinctively prominent midrange. All in all, just the opposite compared to plugged in!

[stein]

CAP...that's deep, man.

 

I'm gonna have to read that later. These concepts require a lot of brain besides just the read.