EMG pickups - general experiences? (Active guitar pickups discussion)

juansolo · December 2014

I have the 57/66 set and they're voiced a lot more like passives, but with all the advantages of actives (no noise, super tight). I really like them. The Het Set in comparison has a lot more bottom and attack, but equally sounds a million miles away from an 81/60 set.

Oh and being a solder jockey, I hate the solderless wiring system, takes twice as long and is bloody messy.

ToneControl · December 2014

John_P said:

Interesting discussion - I'm toying with trying emg again instead of fitting the usual suhr pickups into my ce. The 81's sounds like a good combination of clarity and punch but I'm tempted by the 57/66 pair. I want plenty of upper mids to cut through a band mix live without a harsh top end and some low end thump without being woolly.

Just wading through a million clips now to try and get a feel for the different options.

bear in mind the dual purpose 89s

I think the 89R is cheaper

John_P · December 2014

juansolo said:

I have the 57/66 set and they're voiced a lot more like passives, but with all the advantages of actives (no noise, super tight). I really like them. The Het Set in comparison has a lot more bottom and attack, but equally sounds a million miles away from an 81/60 set.

Oh and being a solder jockey, I hate the solderless wiring system, takes twice as long and is bloody messy.

I've only fitted some the old fashioned way, many years ago so I'm curious about the solderless system everyone seems to hate. Definitely leening towards the 57/66 set if I can find a supplier at a nice price.

guitarfishbay · January 2015

I actually have a 57/66 pair.

I didn't want to post about them until I had a reply from EMG to confirm my findings, I wondered if they were defective because they fed back before the 81 and still before the 85, with all gain/volume/pickup height/distance from amp being equal. But apparently there is nothing wrong with them, they just need backed off from the strings (or less gain from the amp since the pickups are so hot). They sounded good, I only noticed it when playing pretty loud on a high gain patch designed originally around the stock pickups.

The 57 IMO has more output than the 81, and is thicker with some grit to the upper mids, but still way less gritty than a passive IMO. It is slightly looser in feel but really still very tight. I was under the impression that it'd have less output than the 81. I've no idea why, I can't find any description saying this so I think I just assumed it due to all the talk about PAF voicing.

It is pretty much like a warm 81 crossed with a bit of PAF, not an out and out PAF sound if that makes sense. The cleans are definitely warmer.

Tonally the 57 is thick but not tubby like the 85, plus it is still quite tight just not as surgical as the 81. It has thicker mids, a tad more bass and less of that characteristic 81 high end that you hear all over metal albums but the highs are there, they're just a bit more natural sounding.

I like it, if you think an 81 might be too cold sounding I think it is worth a look, but be aware you might need to back off the gain on your amp settings if you've come from less loud pickups. This doesn't mean you'll get less distortion, just that you need less gain to get the same level of gain as previously. I don't think I'd use them with amps with low clean headroom but I only own an Axe FX these days so I can't test that out beyond a hunch. I also don't think I'd use these on a backup guitar if your main guitar had PAFs - the volume jump is pretty noticeable and the levels of gain just don't match. However I do find I back my passives off to get their sweet spot, whereas I find EMGs work better closer - so the volume differences between EMGs and passives might be amplified for me.

As a gut feeling, the 57 sounds like what I hoped the 85 would be. If you think the 85 is too fat and the 81 too cold the 57 kind of fits a middle ground with its own character.

The weird thing is the 57 it can be a really loud pickup when you've got it closer to the strings, but it sounds more open than the louder passives I've tried. I find past a certain point most hotter passives get certain characteristics I don't enjoy. I guess this is because internally it is a low output pickup with a preamp attached. I do slightly wish it wasn't as loud as it was, though having an Axe FX makes it pretty easy to have patches that cater for it.

The 66 neck is really good actually. Out of the 81, 85 and 66, I think the 66 is closest to a traditional neck pickup. However, it still sounds and feels like an EMG. It is not as bass heavy as the 85 and has more presence in the neck position, but it is not as cutting as the 81 - which is probably a good thing if you like traditional neck pickup sounds. For higher gain leads I prefer 81 neck but for any less gain the 66 has a nicer tone.

I've got EMGs in both my PRS's now and they work for me better than the stock pickups. I've even gone and re-recorded parts of tracks I'm working on right now because I prefer the EMG sound to what I was getting from the stock pickups.

The solderless system really wasn't a pain in my Single Cut. The cavity is nice and large there. But in the CU22 it felt like every cable was too long and stiff. It definitely all fits, you just have to plan it out and put it together in a certain order (which I've forgotten, sorry!). The most annoying bit to fit in is the buss board.

My favourite pairing so far is....

81/66.

samzadgan · January 2015

interesting what you say about the 57.

i've had EMG equipped guitars before (81/85) and they were ok, but i prefer passives, mainly due to the coldness and lack of character that you describe on the 81.

Sometime in the future i can see myself putting together a 1 pickup jaguar/tele with an active pickup...the 57 may be a good option

guitarfishbay · January 2015

samzadgan said:

interesting what you say about the 57.
i've had EMG equipped guitars before (81/85) and they were ok, but i prefer passives, mainly due to the coldness and lack of character that you describe on the 81.

Yeah it definitely has more character and warmth than the 81. It feels different too, but still feels more like an EMG than a passive, it is just moving to a middle ground IMO.

The unfortunate thing with EMGs is that it is hard to find versatile demos of them. Most people just chug on the low strings, and play solos all over. I prefer demos where you can hear chords ring out with plain and wound strings, playing dynamics etc... But here are some of the clips that convinced me to try them :

These two clips seem to capture the differences well (quite metal).

Guitar only clips start at 2:04, you can hear the 81 is colder/more aggressive

This one compares cleans later on too, 81/81 set vs 57/66, lots of palm muting on the gain playing. Under gain they can sound a little similar with faster thrashier stuff like this but the 81 still has a more 'metal' EQ to it, whereas the 57 has a bit less aggressiveness and more warmth - you hear it more on the open notes than the palm muted ones. It shows that the 57 is still pretty tight anyway.

You can hear how much thicker the low palm mutes sound on the 57 here too. No bass guitar though.

Demo by Josh from Sylosis, probably the best playthrough I found. Contains cleans at 6:51, rolls off volume around 3:30. Rest of the demo contains lots of high gain rhythm and lead.

Non metal clips are quite thin on the ground...

Here is a guy playing some blues with the 57/66 set.

Moltisanti · January 2015

saw this today, the tune might not be to your liking but I really like the single coil EMG tones in the strat

ToneControl · January 2015

Moltisanti said:

saw this today, the tune might not be to your liking but I really like the single coil EMG tones in the strat

that's the DG20 set, I have on 3 guitars

Way more pleasant that just SAs alone

you can get more strat tones with this set than any other setup I have ever tried

All the Pulse era Gilmour is played with this set, that crisp stuff on Crazy Diamond, for example

SRV cleans are great, mid boosts are there, just nudge that control up when you go past fret 12.

Also using active bass & treble EQ gives you the same flexibility from a different direction

guitarfishbay · January 2015

@ToneControl how do you find the in between sounds on the DG set? Also if you've got any sets with a humbucker and a single coil?

-----------------

I've wired myself up an 18v harness now, but I can't figure a way to fit two batteries in my CU22 cavity. 2 Batteries easily fits in my Single Cut. I still tried 18v with the CU22 I just sat the batteries on my knee and played sat down.

I've been trying various configurations out, here are some findings.

- I prefer the 57 and 66 in 9v. I don't think 18v improves their tone, also I don't feel like I have any dynamics issues with where I have the pickups set (which is a little lower than the 81/85, and IMO the 57 is still louder than the 81). They feel better balanced in 9v to me, but YMMV.

- With the 81/85 18v increases headroom, but also seems to bring out a bit more treble on the plain strings. This may or may not be wanted, but is worth being aware of. Overall it takes a couple of minutes to wire up so it is worth trying anyway. You can get the pickups really close without feeling the compression in 18v.

- I don't agree that EMGs sound the same in every guitar. I've had 81 bridges in both guitars at the same time and A/B'd, and the Single Cut did sound fatter. I've swapped the 57 between both and I prefer it in the CU22.

- Right now I've got an 81/66 set in my Single Cut, and it has a good balance of tight bridge pickup and warm neck pickup, which suits what I want from that guitar. I had a problem with the previous pickups (should be stock #7s, but they say 'M' treble/bass, but predate the actual \M/ pickups, they're covered so what are they?) sounding quite dull in the lower tuning, the 81 definitely remedies that.

- In my CU22 I have a 57/81 set. The 81 bridge is on the edge of being too bright in that guitar, it does sound good, but I think the 57 balances better. I really quite like the 81 neck in that guitar, it has so much clarity under gain but doesn't sound like a bright 'zingy' single coil like I was concerned it might. I don't really think the 81 neck sounds anything like a passive neck pickup, but I really like it for what I'm using it for.

- Based on my findings I'd suggest an 81 bridge is better for a darker guitar, or for lower tuning with thicker strings. I reckon I'd pick a different EMG for the bridge (85, 57, not tried any others yet but I'd assume 89) for a brighter guitar but YMMV.

- They have a different feel and sound to passives. I like it, but if you expect them to be like passives with a different sound then you might be disappointed. I feel like the 57/66 gives a bit more in the passive direction but they're still more like an EMG than they're like a passive set.

ToneControl · January 2015

guitarfishbay said:

@ToneControl how do you find the in between sounds on the DG set? Also if you've got any sets with a humbucker and a single coil?

I like the inbetween sounds, especially if you ramp up the bass and treble (scooped)

I have a strat with 2 x SA and an 89, with active bass and treble

It's so flexible

I tihnk the SA is a better output match with an EMG HB than many passives SCs are with a HB, since the SA is not as weedy

For those with 2 HBs I'd recommend an 89R on the neck

guitarfishbay · January 2015

Thanks.

I've got a single humbucker pick guard on the way for my Strat so will try everything out there, starting with the 85 since it is currently spare and if anything I think it will sound best in the strat, the PRSs were probably too fat sounding for it in the tuning I'm using.

At a later date I might add more pickups but I've not decided what way I'll go yet. I'm thinking 1 strat, multiple guards is a good idea though. I don't fancy having multiple strats and it really doesn't take too long to switch out an entire wired pick guard.

guitarfishbay · January 2015

Time for a couple of pics

CU22 57/81. I also committed double heresy as I've switched out the phase 2 locking tuners for.... non locking Schaller M6 Minis. I'm much, much happier now. Phase 2s really struggle beyond a .056 string, my experience with .059 and .060 strings was that removing them after locking is extremely difficult, the string gets a slight kink then it is basically stuck. The other thing is that it seems impossible for me to get it to grip the low string properly without using a screwdriver which caught me out at rehearsal one time. I'd rather just have less potential points of failure and string it normally (and have the option for thicker strings, currently running a .059 as that is what I have but I want to try a .062 for the low

. Thanks to @ICBM for pointing out the Schaller M6 Minis are a straight swap!

SC with 81/66 (recently fitted a 3" Levy's strap which helps negate some of the weight difference between it and the CU22).

And US Strat with 85/81. Separate tone controls seems very useful with that combo - otherwise the neck 81 ends up being brighter than the bridge 85 which doesn't make sense. Honestly I think the 81 might be my favourite high gain neck pickup ever, I really enjoy how chords come out. This had a callaham block and saddles fitted many years ago. There was an issue with stock availability for the single humbucker guard, so I went dual instead! I'm really itching to try this guitar out at rehearsal, I really love the neck on it and with the black guard against the white guitar I think it looks mega now. I think it is the black/white/black guard that sets it off from looking too black.

Group photo.

As an aside - one benefit of running the EMGs closer to the strings for high gain playing (so you can feel a bit of compression) is it lets you really lighten up your technique. So I've found myself dropping from using 1.0 and .88 nylon picks to either using a .73 or a .50 T3, which has helped a lot with keeping the guitar sounding in tune for recording heavy passages.

The result you get from picking hard on an EMG and picking hard on a passive is different - I find in general passives get quite bitey and aggressive in the high end (as well as getting the smack of low end thump) which is very cool for a lot of things and is a lot of what people call 'character', I think. But I find the EMGs just get bigger and still stay quite even, so a different result, that in some cases might actually be preferable.

Based on this I wouldn't recommend EMGs to everyone, just like I wouldn't recommend certain passives to everyone, but personally these are working great for me.

ToneControl · January 2015

I thought everyone using 81/85 put the ceramic 81 in the bridge, and the alnico 85 in the neck?

guitarfishbay · January 2015

ToneControl said:

I thought everyone using 81/85 put the ceramic 81 in the bridge, and the alnico 85 in the neck?

That is the classic pairing as EMG suggests it.

But quite a lot of guys run them the other way around too, especially people who find the 81 too thin in the bridge, and guys looking for the Killswitch Engage kind of tone which for years was 85 + tubescreamer + high gain head + Mesa Cab. The 85 does work quite well with a boost or EQ cut to the low end before it hits the amp but even cutting away some lows it still keeps a fatter sound to it than the 81. The nice thing for me with the 81 is I don't even use a boost... I know I'm using an Axe FX and using a boost or not is inconsequential in terms of practicalities, using a boost does change the tone, running a pickup straight to the amp does sound different.

For me, from my experience swapping the pickups around in the PRSs I just find the 85 neck too thick and fat, whereas the 81 neck has less flub in the low end and the notes in a chord cut through more. I'm tuning to drop B with fairly thick strings which will influence the results I'm getting.

Having the neck tone control about 7-8 makes the 81 neck balance well with the 85 bridge in terms of high end. When I had this combo on a shared tone pot in the CU22 I didn't like it.

So far it works in the strat. It only takes a couple of minutes to switch it around anyway.

I have GAS to try the Hetfield bridge, and AHB3 Mick Thompson blackout, but unless either comes up used I'm going to stick with what I've got (or that is what I'm telling myself for now anyway!)

guitarfishbay · February 2015

Ok update -

I have actually sourced a used set of Hetfields and here are my thoughts -

I've got them installed in my strat, which previously had 85/81. Still tuned to drop B and using an Axe FX 2/Matrix/Mesa 2x12 cab etc.

The bridge pickup is quite powerful, definitely louder than an 81. It also has a bit more bass, low mids, less high mids, and more treble. The more I play the 81 the more I realise that actually, it doesn't have a lot of highs, it has a lot of high mids but the highs aren't really there and I guess this is why it can sometimes sound stuffy and sharp at the same time with the 'wrong' signal chain. The Het bridge is tight, and sounds tighter than the 57 in my CU22, but it seems to have a bit more low end to it, not sure if that is just the guitar. Vs the 85 bridge the Het bridge has more brightness and tighter bass.

The neck pickup is really awesome actually. Quite deep sounding, it has a fair amount of bass and is a little scooped sounding, but has a fat high end. I've not owned a 60, but from what I've read it is pretty much a beefed up 60. Again the neck pickup is quite loud but it balances with the bridge pickup. Sounds great for cleans and is really deep and fat sounding for single note lead work.

I don't find I need to use the tone controls to balance the Het neck and bridge together, it feels like they're well matched already.

I feel like they're more aggressive sounding than the 57/66, but not as 'sharp' as an 81 is. The Hets have a bit more 'crunch' to them than the 81/85 IMO, but like the 57/66 what passive flavour they have is still outweighed by the sound and feel still being recognisably EMG.

Again, the Het set is louder than an 81 so any youtube A/B comparisons you've heard are probably flawed unless you're aware of that.

I feel like the 57/66 set is louder than the Hetfields.

---

Also, I decided to go 57/66 in the CU22 and 81/81 in the SC. Running 57/81 and 81/66 did sound good but having spent a lot of time messing with pickup heights I think that EMGs sound sub-optimal for higher gain tones (IMO) when run lower.

Since the 57/66 are super loud, to balance them with an 81 you need to back them off a fair bit. They still sound good like that, but IMO they do sound better a bit closer (more fatness in the low end and more brightness up top). I still run the 57/66 slightly further back than the 81/81.

Maynehead · February 2015

Yeah I have the Het Set in my LTD MH300 and it definitely has more bass and treble. It's a very wide range pickup, compared to the very focused high mids of the 81. But because it has a lot of everything, it could sound a bit looser and less cutting in the mix, but only for specific types of music (I'm thinking high gain modern metal). For other stuff like 80s rock/metal, and cleans, they sound a lot better. Fatter and more natural sounding than the 81.

The neck is just like a beefed up 60 like you say, specifically with some boosted mids. The 60 has quite a scooped sound which makes it great for cleans but less ideal for soloing.

The output is definitely more, comparable to Seymour Duncan Blackouts. This is partly due to the exposed pole pieces which are actually quite highly magnetized alnico V as opposed to the traditional EMGs. This also means that the pickup height should be adjusted more like regular passive pickups instead of the "get them as close to the strings as you can" method for traditional EMGs.

I find that they sound best between 2-3 mm from the strings (pressed down at last fret). Any closer then you'll get too much output and they start getting muddy.

I still think the good old 81 has its advantages over the newer EMGs. It can't be beaten for tightness and articulation of individual notes under high gain. However, it's always great to have more variety to choose from when it comes to active pickups.

guitarfishbay · February 2015

Yep I have them around 3mm (57/66 a hair lower IIRC), my 81 is around 2.5mm measured that way at the minute, I've tried higher but I like it there. The 81 still comes out quieter than both Het and 57/66 sets despite an extra .5mm - and .5mm makes a big difference to EMGs IMO.

What Blackouts have you tried @Maynehead ? I'd like to try the Mick Thompson ones, I'm worried the original Blackouts would have too much low end considering I'm tuned to drop B. Though in the one A/B test I've heard between them and the Het set I preferred the Het set.

The regular 81 is definitely still the tightest of the EMGs I've tried even if you account for the output differences it still has less bass and more upper mid push than either the 57 or Het bridge. If I only played metal I reckon I'd just use 81s and call it a day.

I really like the 81 neck for high gain soloing too but it has the weaker clean tone when compared to the Het neck or 66 neck.

guitarfishbay · February 2015

Forgot to clarify that I've only tried the Het set in 9v, but so far having tried 81/85/57/66 pickups all in 18v and 24v I prefer their 9v tone so I don't feel like I'm missing out. You do get some more punch on the lower strings with higher voltage but the plain strings get a slight hardness to them that I don't enjoy the tone of. I actually do use my plain strings quite a lot.

Maynehead · February 2015

I had the original Blackouts in my Charvel DS-1 which I've since traded away. If I'm being honest, and it's difficult for me to admit since I'm a huge Metallica fan, I think the Blackouts sound better than both the Het Set and the 81/xx. They are the best active pickups I've used, with a perfect balance of deep low end range, dominant mid range cut (lower frequency mid peak than the EMGs), with highs that are pleasing to the ear rather than out of control fizz (which can be a problem on the Het Set if they're set too high).

Voicing wise they are like a SD Distortion on steroids, tighter, punchier and higher output, but at the same time keeps the feel of passive pickups. They don't have the cold "digital" sound of the 81s or the harsh "in your face" sound of the Het Set. Played clean they are warm and dynamic, and very full sounding.

I haven't tried the Mick Thompsons, but as I don't really play any drop tuned metal, I wouldn't benefit from the extra tightness they give you. For what I did play using the Blackouts I thought they were great, included 80's hard rock (Whitesnake, Ozzy Osbourne) and metal (Iron Maiden, Metallica). They could easily handle heavier stuff too. Best thing is that they really cut through the band mix well, and the first time I brought the guitar to rehearsals everyone commented on how awesome they sounded, and to this day they still think it's the best sounding guitar I have used.

guitarfishbay · February 2015

Cheers @Maynehead

I think the biggest difference between the original Blackouts and the Mick Thompson Blackouts is the fact there is more low end removed on the Mick Thompson version to keep them tighter with lower tunings. From what I can find out it doesn't seem that they drastically altered the pickup in any other way. I reckon I'd prefer the tighter Mick Thompson ones given my tuning.

Again I'm just going to wait and see if I can snag a used set, they seem quite thin on the ground but hopefully a set will turn up at a decent price.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

EMG pickups - general experiences? (Active guitar pickups discussion)

Comments