Anyone Keep Going Back To EMG?

[Crungy]

Damn, I didn't realize the 57 were that hot. There was one or two videos of a 57-7 vs 707 that just seemed a little different but it didn't seem way different to me.

Would a comparison of a 57-8 vs 808 be in the same ballpark?

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Speaking of Hets, someone was selling a set for cheap on Reverb so I'm gonna give them another shot. Not sure which guitar to put them in though. Will also see what the 24v mod does to them if I can figure out if they don't cause issues

 

[lattjeful]

Speaking of Hets, someone was selling a set for cheap on Reverb so I'm gonna give them another shot. Not sure which guitar to put them in though. Will also see what the 24v mod does to them if I can figure out if they don't cause issues

Tangentially related, I kinda wanna try some out in a baritone, just for curiosity's sake. The Hets suck below C in a standard scale guitar because they're so thick, but I wonder if a bari could clean that up.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Tangentially related, I kinda wanna try some out in a baritone, just for curiosity's sake. The Hets suck below C in a standard scale guitar because they're so thick, but I wonder if a bari could clean that up.

I'm still not sure which guitar they're going in lol but I guess I can test drive the bridge pickup in my 277.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

I think someone at EMG told me all of their stiff can handle 27v and their literature is out of date on some items. I would confirm this just to be sure, though.

 

[bmtf]

I think someone at EMG told me all of their stiff can handle 27v and their literature is out of date on some items. I would confirm this just to be sure, though.

their literature has never been the greatest.
to make things worse, the site i was using for OLD diagrams went down recently. I havent checked to see if its archived somewhere

an example is my printed instructions saying something different than the same sheet of instructions in pdf form...

i had to mess around to get individual volumes working in two very different cases just cause the wiring instructions are so skimpy. on the other hand ive given the puzzle part of my brain exercise, thanks EMG.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

their literature has never been the greatest.
to make things worse, the site i was using for OLD diagrams went down recently. I havent checked to see if its archived somewhere

an example is my printed instructions saying something different than the same sheet of instructions in pdf form...

i had to mess around to get individual volumes working in two very different cases just cause the wiring instructions are so skimpy. on the other hand ive given the puzzle part of my brain exercise, thanks EMG.

Having fun with electronic circuits!

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

So I'm enjoying the Hets a lot more than expected. Last experience with them was a bummer, but that was a long time ago with a guitar that I ended up ditching. Now they sound much better in my guitars I know sound a lot better. Funny how that works?

Tangentially related, I kinda wanna try some out in a baritone, just for curiosity's sake. The Hets suck below C in a standard scale guitar because they're so thick, but I wonder if a bari could clean that up.

Also can confirm they sound great in my PRS 277 tuned to B standard... Accidentally left my 24v clip in there too and it didn't catch fire so it works lol. It even sounds great it my 25'' CE24 tuned to C standard with the standard 9v battery. That's where they're staying.

I don't remember the Het Neck being so low output though. I guess that's the deal with the Het bridge being that much hotter than the 81 and the Het Neck being a less compressed 60?

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

So I'm enjoying the Hets a lot more than expected. Last experience with them was a bummer, but that was a long time ago with a guitar that I ended up ditching. Now they sound much better in my guitars I know sound a lot better. Funny how that works?



Also can confirm they sound great in my PRS 277 tuned to B standard... Accidentally left my 24v clip in there too and it didn't catch fire so it works lol. It even sounds great it my 25'' CE24 tuned to C standard with the standard 9v battery. That's where they're staying.

I don't remember the Het Neck being so low output though. I guess that's the deal with the Het bridge being that much hotter than the 81 and the Het Neck being a less compressed 60?

You could email EMG to confirm that is working as designed?

 

[Legion]

Damn, I didn't realize the 57 were that hot. There was one or two videos of a 57-7 vs 707 that just seemed a little different but it didn't seem way different to me.

Would a comparison of a 57-8 vs 808 be in the same ballpark?

Well, I've used the 707 a LOT and also now the 57-6. They're not the same at all. The 707 has an almost single coil like snap and twang to it. The 57 has none of that: it's straight up beef and balls and chug all hopped up on fuck-you juice.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

You could email EMG to confirm that is working as designed?

I did some A/Bing between my guitars and yeah I was right. I was thrown off by the fact the bridge is hotter than the stock 81. The Het neck is the same output as the 60, just with less compression.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

I did some A/Bing between my guitars and yeah I was right. I was thrown off by the fact the bridge is hotter than the stock 81. The Het neck is the same output as the 60, just with less compression.

Well that's good, at least!

 

[Shask]

Well, I've used the 707 a LOT and also now the 57-6. They're not the same at all. The 707 has an almost single coil like snap and twang to it. The 57 has none of that: it's straight up beef and balls and chug all hopped up on fuck-you juice.

I have been very curious about the 57/66 set lately. I have a few 81TWs, and recently changed a Fishman Modern with an old 81 I had laying around. Chug and Crunch sounds like what I look for.

 

[TheBolivianSniper]

I have been very curious about the 57/66 set lately. I have a few 81TWs, and recently changed a Fishman Modern with an old 81 I had laying around. Chug and Crunch sounds like what I look for.

I say this every time the 57 comes up, but the EMG marketing is so fucking wrong. They say it's a PAF and idk what they've been smoking or pafs they've been playing but the thing is more gnarly than an 81 and probably about the nastiest thing you'd want on the active side.

Only thing that really outdoes it for a really crunchy distorted tone is a really high output passive but it still does good cleans and the crunch tones are nice. I just wouldn't try and play tech death or run it into like a lower gain mid forward amp.

I haven't played one in years so correct me if I'm wrong, I would love to have a 57 guitar again though.

 

[Crungy]

Is the 57 hot enough that you could lower it and it sound decent? Or would it sound like ass?

I have no hands on experience with 81's but I thought I've read closer to the strings is better with those and I'm not sure if that applies to the 57's.

 

[Shask]

I say this every time the 57 comes up, but the EMG marketing is so fucking wrong. They say it's a PAF and idk what they've been smoking or pafs they've been playing but the thing is more gnarly than an 81 and probably about the nastiest thing you'd want on the active side.

Only thing that really outdoes it for a really crunchy distorted tone is a really high output passive but it still does good cleans and the crunch tones are nice. I just wouldn't try and play tech death or run it into like a lower gain mid forward amp.

I haven't played one in years so correct me if I'm wrong, I would love to have a 57 guitar again though.

From videos, in comparison to the 81, it sounds like it has some more bass, and a bit less of the upper keerang mids.

I LOVE the 81, but I also love the non-polished sound of passives. If the 57 has a bit more of that non-polished sound, that would be awesome also.

 

[gclef]

After a year and a half with my 57/66tws, I agree with the 57 not being very paf like at all. The 66? Yep I can see that one being paffy. There is a huge difference in output between the 2. More gain than volume to my ears. The 66 is CLEAN in comparison. It's a nice contrast.

My biggest gripe is/was the sound drop off when I switch to my emg guitar. A nice warm emg blanket is what I experienced.

I just recently got a boss gx100, and have been playing with different signal chains and stuff.
I finally figured these darned things out!! My solution will make sense once I say it.

I used a graphic eq in the "effects loop". I bumped up the bass below 125hz, and added about 3db at 4k hz.
I believe this counteracts the flatter response that emgs have. I always thought they were middy and low mid thick, with fat but not deep bass, and a lesser high end than my passives.

The GEQ now goes on when I play the emg guitar. So simple! They sound super detailed now, like a shimmery jb/59 or something. Naturally, my passives sound like crap thru the GEQ.

With the EQ, I am finally happy with these.

I also keep mine set to a height where they approximate the output of medium to high powered passives, so not very high compared to what most normally do.
I knew these puppies needed to be Eq'd differently. The sparkle and thump were what was missing.

Give it a try if you can. It completely changed my attitude towards them.

They're killer pickups.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

After a year and a half with my 57/66tws, I agree with the 57 not being very paf like at all. The 66? Yep I can see that one being paffy. There is a huge difference in output between the 2. More gain than volume to my ears. The 66 is CLEAN in comparison. It's a nice contrast.

My biggest gripe is/was the sound drop off when I switch to my emg guitar. A nice warm emg blanket is what I experienced.

I just recently got a boss gx100, and have been playing with different signal chains and stuff.
I finally figured these darned things out!! My solution will make sense once I say it.

I used a graphic eq in the "effects loop". I bumped up the bass below 125hz, and added about 3db at 4k hz.
I believe this counteracts the flatter response that emgs have. I always thought they were middy and low mid thick, with fat but not deep bass, and a lesser high end than my passives.

The GEQ now goes on when I play the emg guitar. So simple! They sound super detailed now, like a shimmery jb/59 or something. Naturally, my passives sound like crap thru the GEQ.

With the EQ, I am finally happy with these.

I also keep mine set to a height where they approximate the output of medium to high powered passives, so not very high compared to what most normally do.
I knew these puppies needed to be Eq'd differently. The sparkle and thump were what was missing.

Give it a try if you can. It completely changed my attitude towards them.

They're killer pickups.

I wish they'd offer a bridge 66.

 

[WillyTheMLGPro]

Figured this would be a good place to ask, looking at buying some EMGs to put in my Squier bass vi tuned octave below drop D.
Going to go with a HS setup and currently eyeing an 81 and S combo.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Figured this would be a good place to ask, looking at buying some EMGs to put in my Squier bass vi tuned octave below drop D.
Going to go with a HS setup and currently eyeing an 81 and S combo.

The standard 81 kills for pure brutal chuggery. Had an 81-8/85-8x loaded 8 string that was absolutely monstrous

The 57 if you want a bit more variety