Hawkesman Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 OK, I've done some homework on this site (and others) and I'd appreciate your views. I love my SG Special, and it's superb in every way except that the bridge 490 pup sounds weak and 'thin' for the sort of 'old school' 70's and 80's heavy rock I play. I've tried it at different heights but it doesn't help. This is a common problem, I know, and is probably due to i) the pup being close to the bridge (certainly closer than any of my other guitars), and ii) that the 490's output is relatively low. So, in researching this I have narrowed the field down to 5 pups which might sort it out: 1) 500T (works well in my Explorer, but there's a lot more wood there, and it's further from the bridge) 2) 498 3) Seymour Duncan SH5 4) Dimarzio Tone Zone 5) Dirty Fingers Please don't suggest any more! It's taken me long enough to whittle it down to these (I'm on a budget too!). The bottom line is that I need a thicker and heavier sound, so your comments would be much appreciated. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiamondJig Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 OK, I've done some homework on this site (and others) and I'd appreciate your views. I love my SG Special, and it's superb in every way except that the bridge 490 pup sounds weak and 'thin' for the sort of 'old school' 70's and 80's heavy rock I play. I've tried it at different heights but it doesn't help. This is a common problem, I know, and is probably due to i) the pup being close to the bridge (certainly closer than any of my other guitars), and ii) that the 490's output is relatively low. So, in researching this I have narrowed the field down to 5 pups which might sort it out: 1) 500T (works well in my Explorer, but there's a lot more wood there, and it's further from the bridge) 2) 498 3) Seymour Duncan SH5 4) Dimarzio Tone Zone 5) Dirty Fingers Please don't suggest any more! It's taken me long enough to whittle it down to these (I'm on a budget too!). The bottom line is that I need a thicker and heavier sound, so your comments would be much appreciated. Many thanks. I like the 498T this is the pu that was in the pre 2013 SG standards it's not as hot as the DF or 500T and I'm more a fan of Alnico V mags than Ceramic. Can't say anything about the SD & Dzo pu's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocked Wah Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Ah that damn-dreaded bridge pickup! I feel you. I always seem to be searching for that "perfect" one as well. Higher output doesn't nesacerily mean thicker and heavier from what I've tried. I found the output of the dirtyfingers to be too sterile and compressed sounding and way too extreme. The higher outputs will push everything way more and in my case not in a pleasant way. I dig much more on lower output pups than all those. Go better with fuzz pedals too! And if you dig on 70s rawk (as do I) I bet most of the bands/guitarists you are into probably didn't play with such extreme output pups in the first place. I have an old 70s Ibanez/maxon? PAF copy in the bridge of my '80 SG that tonally nails those sounds (thick and heavy but also sweet as hell) and it reads 7.99k. I just found that in a parts guitar and never looked back. Been in my SG for 6 years now. If you are set on your list I would go with the 498. But I guess if you are talking about the VH sound or something like that then you may not want to listen to my opinions on pickups.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 Thanks guys. I've also got an Ibanez Destroyer II DT50, and it's always had exactly the sound I need, but the neck just isn't right for me any more. Anyhow, I was already leaning towards the 498T, so you've just about clinched it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Classic 57, or 57 plus! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon S. Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 IMO the 498T and 500T are both great for heavier 70's/80's rock tones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well, I received the 498T today, and dropped it in this evening. Wow, what a difference! The guitar now sounds like it always should have, and like I thought it would when I first bought it. I'm now a 498T convert, as it's added a depth and breadth to the sound that I really like. I reckon that maybe a 500T would have overpowered the SG, because although it works well in my Explorer I think that's because it's a heavy beast and can absorb and use the power it generates. The SG, being much lighter, seems very happy with the 498. Mind you, I had to play around with the pup height and adjust the pole screws to get the sound just right, but it was worth it. Makes you wonder why Gibson doesn't fit 498's as standard to the Special? Surely it's not just a production cost issue? Anyhow, thanks for all your posts. They've really helped me solve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErickC Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I use 490R rhythm pickups and 498T treble pickups on (almost) all of my humbucker guitars, and this is the combination that came standard with my SG. I find that the slightly higher amount of treble afforded with the 498 versus a straight PAF type pickup such as a 57 Classic or what-have-you improves articulation when playing full chords with distortion, which sums up most of my playing. The 498 also avoids the problems associated with the massive output of active pickups, or pickups with ceramic magnets, such as the awkward silence that comes with giving a Rat too much gain. If there's too much treble for a given situation... we've got a knob for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 Sorry to bump this, but despite my hopes that I'd solved the problem, I've still not been entirely happy with the sound. In my view, the bridge pickup on these SG's is too close to the bridge for the heavier, thicker sound I want. Since the original posts I've tried a lot of pups, including a 500T, a couple of different SD's, and even a good old DiMarzio, but at any height they still sounded a bit too weedy. So I decided to do something radical, and move the bridge pup forward to the same relative position as my Explorer and V. I made a new 'bat-wing' scratchplate (identical to the original one) from a 3-ply blank, and repositioned the pup holes (up 5/16" for the T pup, and up 3/16" for the neck one). I had to shave a little wood from the top of the bridge pup cavity (only 1/8" or so) to make the neck pup fit, but none from the neck position (which is just as well, because there's damned little wood up there holding the neck on. No wonder they're so prone to breakage!). 6 hours work, but well worth it. It now sounds like it ought to, and gives the Explorer a run for its money in terms of grunt, but with a little more subtlety. Anyhow, just thought I'd share this in case it was of interest to anyone else having the same problem I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10K-DB Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 PAF,,,PAF,,and did I mention? PAF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Noted, and maybe you're right. But in IMO I don't believe that any pup can compensate for the short amplitude caused by the close proximity to the bridge. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 "I had to shave a little wood from the top of the bridge pup cavity (only 1/8" or so) to make the NECK pup fit"... Sorry, I meant BRIDGE pup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaygl Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 +1 on the 498T...killer pickup.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 My 490s in my BB King are nice. I us usually play both of just neck. Never really cared for just the bridge pup. I like that beefy tone. I have the stock 490s in mine and I couldn't ask for anything more. I've owned mostly les pauls, but when I got an SG (free with broken headstock-score) and tried for the first time, the 490s worked perfect!!! Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Well, considering that I physically moved the bridge pup position forwards towards the neck, I'm surprised that I haven't had more cries of 'Sacrilege!', and 'How dare you!'. I appreciate that the sound I'm after (i.e. thick, heavy tone) may not be what everybody wants from their SG, but I bet that there are quite a few people out there who do. What I did works well, and it's better than the way Gibson designed it, at least for the sound I want. Thoughts, people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 As for me, I guess I wouldn't have moved any pickup's position, but here's my opinion on the PUs you suggested. First, I don't have any experience with the DiMarzio Tone Zone, but in case you want more bottom, I would rule out any AlNiCo magnet PUs here. Ceramic magnets usually contribute to a tight bottom end, and so for me it goes around 500T, Dirty Fingers, or Seymour Duncan SH5. The latter which I use in a Japanese LP copy with set neck made in 1980 is pretty well described by Seymour Duncan as a "PAF on steroids" and bore "Duncan Custom" within its name then. It is close to a 498T but with more bottom and top end, I guess due to the ceramic magnet. Both the Gibson 500T and Dirty Fingers have three ceramic magnets giving them even more bottom end. I think this is the reason why they don't scream as much within the midrange as the 498T does. The 500T provides a fatter tone due to its slug coil/screw coil design whereas the Dirty Fingers with two screw coils offers a cleaner, less prominent midrange. Despite of its name, the Dirty Fingers also is an awesome pickup for clean, jazzy tones. When played with a clean amp setting, the Government Series II Explorer from my avatar is the "jazziest" sounding guitar I own, that's no lie. To my taste she blows all of my Les Paul guitars with that. Perhaps I should add that all of my Les Paul guitars have AlNiCo pickups in the bridge position. All in all I think my choice would be the Dirty Fingers, but this is just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Hela Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Well.. This ain't gonna be popular, but.. The EMG active pickups will dial you in absolutely any and every tone you want. They're as silent as a lake at 3am and sound incredible. I have a pair on my Telecaster. They look like crap, but if tone versatility is what you're after.. <runs for cover and puts helmet on..> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treedroppings Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 A2/A5 mag in a 498 or SH5!Boy that magnet combination sure sounds thick in my Firebird, maybe that sound is better in my Firebird's neck pickup. I think that was a Keef/Jones era sound that I got! One can swap the magnets back if one doesn't like the sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treedroppings Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Well.. This ain't gonna be popular, but.. The EMG active pickups will dial you in absolutely any and every tone you want. They're as silent as a lake at 3am and sound incredible. I have a pair on my Telecaster. They look like crap, but if tone versatility is what you're after.. <runs for cover and puts helmet on..> +1 Maybe the James Hetfield EMGs are prettier. My Jackson "strat" with emg bridge and a Boogie Mark 3 with Graphic EQ (I used a left to right upward slope on the graphic). I could get metal and thrash no problema, but a couple shows my leads were in the same tonal territory as the band (if only I had known how to eq for that medium hall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted August 25, 2015 Author Share Posted August 25, 2015 Capmaster - I agree with you in the main, but only if we're talking about Explorers and other guitars that already have the bridge pup further from the bridge than the SG. I have a 500T in my Explorer, and as you say it's very versatile. But flat-out it's like Zeus on steroids through my very slightly modded JCM 800 2204 and a quad of 1970's G12H 30's! However the standard position for an SG bridge pup is way closer to the bridge than on an Explorer, and that is the key difference that I've been trying to address. Amplitude is so important, and my solution of moving the pup position worked perfectly for the sound I want, and I can't recommend it enough. In fact I wonder if it might have worked almost as well if I'd kept the original 490T! Cheers, H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.