HRW vs SD 59s: does anyone have a A/B comparison?

[Number8]

Please share if so. Thanks.

[michaeljames]

IMO ~ Duncans are more 'period correct' re: PAFs ~~ HRWs, to me, just don't have the 'balls' ... however, I don't think there is a better pup for a hollowbody/semi than the HRWs...just not my fav's for H150 solidbody growl.

[Number8]

IMO ~ Duncans are more 'period correct' re: PAFs ~~ HRWs, to me, just don't have the 'balls' ... however, I don't think there is a better pup for a hollowbody/semi than the HRWs...just not my fav's for H150 solidbody growl.

That is precisely the dilemma I'm dealing with as I do my homework on the interwebs. I actually like the growl of the 59s in my Prospect and I don't think I want to disturb that.

[mtpatty]

I liked the HRW's, esp if you were going to use them in a hollow or semi hollow body- i thought they were very smooth pickups...but I agree they didn't have the balls I was looking for in a solidbody- I have always thought that the '59 was awesome as a neck pickup, but it too didn't have the balls I needed for a Bridge pup... depends on how much money you want to spend- even for a hollow body/semi, i would think that a set of Bare Knuckle Stormy Mondays or a set of Mules would be nice...the Mules even would be great in an H150! I really like the BK pups, but I have found that there are some excellent Dimarzio's and Seymour Duncan's too- and never forget Bill Lawrence pups, they have balls for sure...

[Guest HRB853370]

I think this "PAF idealism" is way too overcooked. Who in this forum has even heard an original PAF? Perhaps some, but I would bet its a minority. The pickup manufacturers are great at marketing, calling their pickups "59's" or "Seth Lovers" or "PAF's", all of which is nothing more than marketing jargon. What matters most is how your ears perceive the pickup in your own choice of guitar. If the HRW's (or Modified Schallers if you will) sound right to you, well who cares if they are "so called" PAF's or not?

 

Just my cheap .02.

[Blunote]

HRWs lack balls?

 

HRWs are pretty hot. Many of us crank them down away from the strings to get more crystal cleans. If you want metal -you could probably coax that out of the bridge pickup too. I've head the bridge pup criticized as too harsh, and hot, but never heard anyone suggest they lacked power, or 'balls'.

 

I've got a SD59 Neck in my H150P and it's combined with an SD Pearly Gates bridge. In my view; a great combination for that guitar.

 

I have a set of Seth Lovers in my H150 Ultra Deluxe. Of all my guitars, that one is the closest to the vintage PAFs. The Seths are unpotted and have a bit of a growl that I like. The Seths also sound stellar clean. Before I put the Seths in the 150 Deluxe, it had SD59s, which I liked. However the SD59 didn't have quite vintage character or growl like the Seths -maybe that's because Seth Lovers are unpotted. All I know is I'm very glad I put them in. They sound great in that guitar. I think Kuz and Yoslate will both attest to that.

 

My other two Heritages: A Millennium Std Ultra, and an H535 both have HRWs. They have some of the sweetest clean creamy tones and can produce some really snarly stuff too. Between the super smooth neck and the bridge, there's a very wide range of tones available to tune in. To my ear, the 535 sounds a bit more open, or bright; and I guess it makes sense being that it is a semi-hollow guitar. The Millennium which is technically a semi-solid, has a more mellow tone and produces some of the creamiest sounds through a Fender DR or twin I've ever heard.

 

The luthier I took my 535 to for a set up, hears a lot of pickups. When he strummed the the strings to balance neck/bridge volumes, he looked up at me, smiled and said, "Wow!, what did you say these were? They sound like really high quality pickups".

 

I've no doubt that the 59's would be good in that Prospect. That said, I think the HRWs would work better.

 

 

 

[Gitfiddler]

With all of the controversy about HRW's vs. ??? on this forum, it begs the question.

 

Are HRW's consistent from pickup to pickup??

 

I have them in my 150, 157, 555 and 575 and they each sound different from one another...even comparing the 150 to 157.

 

Maybe that's the source of all of the differing opinions. Maybe Ren made them all a little different?

 

Just my .005 cents (adjusted due to the pending fall off of the fiscal cliff.)

[Blunote]

With all of the controversy about HRW's vs. ??? on this forum, it begs the question. Are HRW's consistent from pickup to pickup?? I have them in my 150, 157, 555 and 575 and they each sound different from one another...even comparing the 150 to 157. Maybe that's the source of all of the differing opinions. Maybe Ren made them all a little different? Just my .005 cents (adjusted due to the pending fall off of the fiscal cliff.)

Possible.

 

The two sets I have sound very similar in tone except that the set in the 535 seems a bit more open sounding to me. I guess I attribute that to the guitar they're in. In general though, they have a lot of clarity and a more piano-like ring to them when played clean than the SD or Schaller pickups I've had.

[Guest HRB853370]

With all of the controversy about HRW's vs. ??? on this forum, it begs the question. Are HRW's consistent from pickup to pickup?? I have them in my 150, 157, 555 and 575 and they each sound different from one another...even comparing the 150 to 157. Maybe that's the source of all of the differing opinions. Maybe Ren made them all a little different? Just my .005 cents (adjusted due to the pending fall off of the fiscal cliff.)

And if he did, that was exactly the case with the original PAF's made at Gibson, they all had a little variation in them, but who knows if it was audible or not!

[kidsmoke]

I think this "PAF idealism" is way too overcooked. Who in this forum has even heard an original PAF? Perhaps some, but I would bet its a minority. The pickup manufacturers are great at marketing, calling their pickups "59's" or "Seth Lovers" or "PAF's", all of which is nothing more than marketing jargon. What matters most is how your ears perceive the pickup in your own choice of guitar. If the HRW's (or Modified Schallers if you will) sound right to you, well who cares if they are "so called" PAF's or not?

 

Just my cheap .02.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. But in the case of SD Seth Lovers....he designed and oversaw production of the originals, and less than 25 years later was sitting down with Seymour to re create the same thing for his operation. To me, branding them as such is carry's some weight.

[High Flying Bird]

With all of the controversy about HRW's vs. ??? on this forum, it begs the question. Are HRW's consistent from pickup to pickup??

I don't think the Schaller's are so uniform in sound. That might have a difference in the tone from pick up to pick up with the HRWs. I didn't care for them so much. But the man in the tutu can't be wrong.

[bolero]

I think this "PAF idealism" is way too overcooked. Who in this forum has even heard an original PAF? Perhaps some, but I would bet its a minority. The pickup manufacturers are great at marketing, calling their pickups "59's" or "Seth Lovers" or "PAF's", all of which is nothing more than marketing jargon. What matters most is how your ears perceive the pickup in your own choice of guitar. If the HRW's (or Modified Schallers if you will) sound right to you, well who cares if they are "so called" PAF's or not?

 

Just my cheap .02.

 

I agree with Slammer; however in my experience the best sounding humbuckers all happen to be PAF derived designs...that's what does it for me, anyway

 

so I have naturally gravitated, or sunken, as gravity is more irresistable than flying for this carbon based biped....to using them

[Blunote]

Maybe someone can enlighten me here: What makes a humbucker a PAF style?

 

Aren't they all dual bobbin, reverse wound?

 

Is there a specific output range, or looseness/tightness of wiring? Is it the magnets used? Is it the enamel on the wire or some magic combination of all of that?

[AP515]

I'm certainly not an expert but I think it has to do with the type of magnet (not ceramic) and the output (around 7.5K).

[JackBaruth]

Our very own Jon Gundry understands better than any living human being what makes a PAF a PAF.

 

Start with this:

 

http://home.provide.net/~cfh/seth.html

 

then move on to what Jon's written about reproducing the PAF.

 

To my mind there are two ways to reproduce a PAF, and I think I'm repeating what I've already written on this board.

 

Way #1 is to build the PAF exactly the same way Gibson did. That's what Jon does, as far as is humanly possible.

 

Way #2 is to build using modern (meaning, cheap and Chinese-sourced) raw materials and tune for a similar sound to your own ears. That's what everybody else does. Sheptone is my favorite out of that group by far.

[Blunote]

I read that article a few years ago and it seemed then that there were a lot of things that could be vary, but the basic construction was the same for most humbuckers then and now. I'm sure most humbucker producers today have recipes that could approximate what they built in the 50s. However some are considered PAF style, and some aren't.

 

here are some of the main variables:

• # of windings (varied)
• Wire gauge (varied)
• wire insulation (no difference according to SL)
• Bobbin material
• Magnets (Alnico)
• potted/unpotted?
• covered or not
• Other?

Of all the variables which ones are responsible for the PAF character?

[goSteelers]

I was fortunate enought to be able to perform the A/B comparison -- actually A/B/C comparison -- you're looking for. Around 3 years ago, I spent hours at Jay Wolfe's store in Florida, just playing different Heritages. (I would highly recommend a trip to Wolfe's to anyone -- lots of great guitars, really nice guys who spent a lot of time explaining things to me, even though they knew I was in "tourist mode" and probably wouldn't buy anything). I was able to play three practically identical 535s, the only difference being the pickups -- Duncan 59s, Seth Lovers and HRWs. I had always wondered how they compared, and I had a chance to see, so I spent a lot of time doing just that.

 

My philosophy is that, if you want that "vintage sound", you need to achieve it in the guitar. If you do, you can then get just about any other sound using your amp and effects. But if you don't get that sound with the guitar, you won't be able to get it any other way. So that's what I look for when listening to a guitar. And I have a pretty good point of reference, as I've also been fortunate enough to have a couple genuine 50s Les Pauls available to me over the years.

 

After a lot of going back and forth, the hands down winner (for achieving the truest vintage tone) to my ears, were the Seth Lovers. So much so that I would replace the pickups in all my guitars with them, if I had the time and money. They all sounded good. The 59s, which I have in some of my guitars, had that vintage tone too, but I thought the Seth Lovers sounded substantially better, significantly more true of a vintage tone.

 

Everyone says that you need to be careful with Seth Lovers because they are not potted and will therefore tend to squeal at high volumes -- I cranked them a lot louder than I would ever play on any stage - not a peep. And this was in a 535.

 

The HRWs are different birds altogether. Hot! I had always thought that they came up with them to try to achieve some special vintage tone, but after that day, I remember thinking that they came up with to appeal to people that like hot pickups -- and there are a lot of them out there. They sounded good, and I can see putting them in a guitar that will be used primarily for harder rock, but no where near the Seth Lover type tone. But to my ears, I think you can lose some tone as you make the pickups hotter.

 

This is all subjective, of course, and these are just my opinions -- but after spending a lot of time just going back and forth from one to the other, it was pretty clear what my ears preferred.

 

The other thing I learned during my time at Wolfe's was that there can be a substantial difference in neck profiles going from one heritage to another. I like a thin neck, and many Heritages just don't have one. So much so, that I remember thinking I would never buy one unless I could first play it. As there are no Heritage dealers near where I live, that makes it a bit difficult. I have purchased one long distance since then, but only after asking a bunch of questions about the neck. And that can be iffy too, since terms like "thin" are subjective. The Warmoth site has a good graphic on neck profiles, giving dimensions, etc, but many sellers aren't that motivated to provide that much detailed info. I own three now, and I woud like to pick up a couple more -- so that may mean another trip to Jay Wolfe's.

 

I hope this information is useful. Like I said, these are my opinions, and your mileage may vary.

 

MK

[Number8]

That's a great reply. Thanks.

 

I actually just got a Millennium which had Seths in it. I played it, it sounded awesome, and then I had them removed because I promised them to someone else and I had plans to put HRWs in. Once the HRWs were in, I initially regretted it because they didn't have the growl of the Seths; however, it turned out there was an issue with the bridge pot and after that everything was nice and hot.

 

Having heard all three sets that you mentioned in my own guitars, I think you nailed the assessment. As I don't have any guitars with Seths, I think my next purchase will be a G&L Bluesboy with a Seth Lover in the neck...but that's going to have to wait for now.

[Blunote]

That's a great reply. Thanks.

 

I actually just got a Millennium which had Seths in it. I played it, it sounded awesome, and then I had them removed because I promised them to someone else and I had plans to put HRWs in. Once the HRWs were in, I initially regretted it because they didn't have the growl of the Seths; however, it turned out there was an issue with the bridge pot and after that everything was nice and hot.

 

Having heard all three sets that you mentioned in my own guitars, I think you nailed the assessment. As I don't have any guitars with Seths, I think my next purchase will be a G&L Bluesboy with a Seth Lover in the neck...but that's going to have to wait for now.

I love both the HRWs and the Seth Lovers. I also agree that the Seths capture the vintage tone better than any other p'ups I've played. In my H150 Deluxe, they provide a certain growl that says 60s blues-rock to me. It may be because they're unpotted. Even played clean, it's a bit like walking a mean dog on a leash.

 

The HRWs are hot -for a passive pickup. So if you want a lot of distortion, it's there for you. But played clean, they're capable of some really creamy rich piano like tones. They just need to be set up correctly. Most of us who own them prefer to have them cranked down closer to the level of the pickup rings. Otherwise they're in-your-face hot.

[pushover]

I have 59's in my 157, and in my 535. I have HRW's in my milli-DC. So comparing the 535 to the milli is about as close as I can get to a decent A/B comparison. The 59's sound different in my 157 than they do in my 535, a darker, beefier sound. The 535 is my most versatile instrument, and can do a broader range of sounds, and sound good at them. I think I credit the 59's for part of that.

 

I like both PuP's in different ways. If I'm going for that classic rock sound, crunch, and drive I think the 59's are better. The HRW's are a more tone-full pickup and I think notes ring through better with more harmonics (but it might also just be the guitar that's the different, so what do I know). When I'm playing clean, or something with a bit more of a jazzy ring to it, for me it's always the HRW's. For whatever reason I don't tend to use a lot of gain with the HRW's. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm sure I have a reason, and now you've made me curious to go try it out some to remember why. That's sure to piss off the misses.. If I'm allowed, I'll see if I can do a more direct comparison between them, and I'll report anything additional to what's above if appropriate.

 

Whatever you do, don't drive yourself nuts trying to focus on minute little differences between PuP's. I did this when choosing which PuPs to put in my 157 (I chose the 59's in the end, with Phat cats a close 2nd for me, and sometimes I still wonder what if..), and it's not worth it. Unless you try them out in the same exact guitar, it's not a real A/B comparison anyway. Also, there are so many other variables to play with: amps, knobs, effects, strings, speakers, and of course your own abilities that can be factors in getting exactly the sound you might want. So just play and have fun.

[Blunote]

Pushover, I've got the HRWs installed in both my 535 and Millie. They sound much the same, but there's a smoother, darker character to the tone in the Millie that I really like.

 

HRW's have great jazz tones. I think they work well with more electric or Chicago style blues. Bluegrass would be another outstanding genre for them.

[gpuma]

If I were an alien trying to understand what HRWs sound from this thread I would learn that:

 

- they lack balls

- they are too hot

- they are excellent for heavy distortion

- they have wonderful creamy sound as clean

 

I would add that I have them in a very solid body 10.5 lbs H150 and they sound stellar, so here you go:

 

- they are good only in a hollow/semi hollow body

- they are great in a solid body

 

Everyone seems to agree that Seth Lovers have a vintage tone but I am afraid that nobody really knows what it is. Or better, everyone knows exactly what it is but each personal perception of "vintage sound" is different.

To each his/her own. The world is beautiful.

[Number8]

The world is also ugly sometimes.

[gpuma]

not when you are talking about heritage guitars, my friend

[noonesperfect]

As a newcomer to electrics, I can't comment on subjective terms like "ballsy", but I have two 535's, one with stock Schallers and one with HRW's. The HRW model is definitely louder at lower amp volume settings, and has more distinct high tones. It distorts at lower volume settings, especially with a little gain. I have never cranked up the volume beyond bedroom levels, so I have no idea what it would be like under gigging conditions.

 

All things considered, I like both versions of the 535 for different reasons. I would bet that the OP would be happy with either pickup being considered, depending on the type of music being played, or even the mood he was in at the time.

 

Bad