Anyone Keep Going Back To EMG?

[Spaced Out Ace]

I think the B stocks exist, in a lot of cases, because the casing had warped, was too large, etc., so they tossed it in a box for later. Once the box likely got massive, they started the B stock page, which is why there are pickups from 2009 apparently.

 

[gnoll]

Strangely, the 57 is ever so slightly larger than the 85X in my SL1 and does not fit in the route. It has pickup rings, so you could make it fit but I don't have the patience for this right now. Back to the 85X it is.

I was switching to it due to an annoying "chirp" in palm muted rhythms with the 85X. Have any of you had this issue with the 85X or other X series EMGs?

I have had issues with chirping but it's been with the regular 81. I think sometimes a pickup combined with a certain guitar in a certain signal chain/settings just lends itself to chirping because of how the high frequencies stack up. It also gets worse the more I let the pick glide over the string rather than doing a straight pluck. Eliminating glide takes a bit more effort from the picking but helps tame the chirp. Also using nylon jazz3s, and not keen on changing those, pick feel is too important to me.

In other news I kind of settled into the idea that I want both guitars with passives and 81/60s at hand. Two different sounds but two that I like a lot and wouldn't want to be without either.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Usually when I'm dealing with that chirping sound, it's because the pickup is too high.

 

[groverj3]

Usually when I'm dealing with that chirping sound, it's because the pickup is too high.

I was also experiencing some wimpier than desired harmonics regardless of how much I played with the gain and high end. Like there would be plenty of growl, but hit an open harmonic at 5 or 3 on a high string and it wouldn't scream the way I wanted and would die faster than expected.

I figure though, this could also be a worn-out locking nut.

 

[groverj3]

Welp, after putting it all back together the "chirp" is gone. Maybe some connection was loose. Output level also seems better.

I guess I have a spare 57 now. The 85X does sound pretty good!

 

[zw470]

Does it count if I keep going back to the 81/85 combo?

 

[slavboi_delight]

I am more a 60 than 85 guy
But that combo always has a slick look to it.

 

[Matt08642]

All the passives I've tried in my Strat haven't done it for me yet, considering throwing dual 81s in it, because why not?

 

[lewis]

All the passives I've tried in my Strat haven't done it for me yet, considering throwing dual 81s in it, because why not?

My usual go to combo
They're sick together

 

[gunch]

Dear EMG thread I still have my old 57 with the screw holes drilled out, which ever pointy guitar I end up going with (probably a JS Rhoads or Warrior but I'm looking for even cheaper shit) would the RPC circuit still work well to increase high mids and nasty for chugs AND still get decent clean tones with the volume rolled down but the RPC still on??

 

[Estilo]

Hey all, if the guitar does not produce sound without a battery connected, what are the usual culprits? The EMGs should still produce output, albeit very low right?

The set in question comes with quick connect pots and buss.

 

[MoistTowelette]

Maybe this should go in the unpopular opinions thread but 60 > 85 > 81 in the bridge. The 60 is so much fuller and less ice picky to my ears than the 81. I definitely understand why people like the 81 but it's just not for me. Planning to get some x variants to compare with what I have currently.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Maybe this should go in the unpopular opinions thread but 60 > 85 > 81 in the bridge. The 60 is so much fuller and less ice picky to my ears than the 81. I definitely understand why people like the 81 but it's just not for me. Planning to get some x variants to compare with what I have currently.

60A > 85 > 81. I've not tried a 60 in the bridge.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

I tried the 60 but I don't like he high end chirpiness it has in the bridge. I prefer the 85X when I want something more tame than the 81.

 

[gclef]

Dear EMG thread I still have my old 57 with the screw holes drilled out, which ever pointy guitar I end up going with (probably a JS Rhoads or Warrior but I'm looking for even cheaper shit) would the RPC circuit still work well to increase high mids and nasty for chugs AND still get decent clean tones with the volume rolled down but the RPC still on??

I have a 57/66tw set that I really like alot, except for the 57 bucker cleans. I have to boost them at my amp, compared to all my other guitars, just to get the sparkle I am looking for. It sounds great, don't get me wrong, but it's a pain when swapping guitars.

The 57 has a crap ton of lower mids and lacks some highs, IMO. Single mode is better, but still more middy than I would like.

While looking through the emg bass accessories, I noticed that they have a ton of eq options. They have bass and treble, mids only, 3 band eq, etc.

They make a 2 pot (stacked) system that does bass and treble on one pot, and a sweepable frequency mid eq on the other. It works for guitars too. It's +/- 10db sweep on each band.

My take on the rpc is that it cuts bass as it adds highs, which I don't want.
The 3 band appears to be able to kill that low mid bump via the mid sweep, and able to add some bass and highs as needed.

I am hesitant to drill another hole in my guitar to try it out. I guess I could just wire it up and try it out with one stacked pot hanging from the control cavity.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

I have a 57/66tw set that I really like alot, except for the 57 bucker cleans. I have to boost them at my amp, compared to all my other guitars, just to get the sparkle I am looking for. It sounds great, don't get me wrong, but it's a pain when swapping guitars.

The 57 has a crap ton of lower mids and lacks some highs, IMO. Single mode is better, but still more middy than I would like.

While looking through the emg bass accessories, I noticed that they have a ton of eq options. They have bass and treble, mids only, 3 band eq, etc.

They make a 2 pot (stacked) system that does bass and treble on one pot, and a sweepable frequency mid eq on the other. It works for guitars too. It's +/- 10db sweep on each band.

My take on the rpc is that it cuts bass as it adds highs, which I don't want.
The 3 band appears to be able to kill that low mid bump via the mid sweep, and able to add some bass and highs as needed.

I am hesitant to drill another hole in my guitar to try it out. I guess I could just wire it up and try it out with one stacked pot hanging from the control cavity.

Semi off-topic but your comment reminds me of what I always thought about the TW/split series; they arent 1:1 compared to their non-splittable counterparts. For some reason they have more lows/low mids and a smoother high end. Like it's gotten to the point to where if someone complains about the 81 being too harsh and thin, I tell them to try the 81TW.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

I have a 57/66tw set that I really like alot, except for the 57 bucker cleans. I have to boost them at my amp, compared to all my other guitars, just to get the sparkle I am looking for. It sounds great, don't get me wrong, but it's a pain when swapping guitars.

The 57 has a crap ton of lower mids and lacks some highs, IMO. Single mode is better, but still more middy than I would like.

While looking through the emg bass accessories, I noticed that they have a ton of eq options. They have bass and treble, mids only, 3 band eq, etc.

They make a 2 pot (stacked) system that does bass and treble on one pot, and a sweepable frequency mid eq on the other. It works for guitars too. It's +/- 10db sweep on each band.

My take on the rpc is that it cuts bass as it adds highs, which I don't want.
The 3 band appears to be able to kill that low mid bump via the mid sweep, and able to add some bass and highs as needed.

I am hesitant to drill another hole in my guitar to try it out. I guess I could just wire it up and try it out with one stacked pot hanging from the control cavity.

I wish someone smarter than I would give a breakdown of how to create pedals with their stuff. I'd like to have the T/B and sweepable mid you are referring to in a pedal I can use with all of my guitars if I want to.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

I wish someone smarter than I would give a breakdown of how to create pedals with their stuff. I'd like to have the T/B and sweepable mid you are referring to in a pedal I can use with all of my guitars if I want to.

Yknow, thinking about it; it shouldn't be too hard if you have soldering experience and a drill. Since EMG stuff already runs on 9v, I feel like you can get away with using a 9V pedal power supply. All you'd need is a 1590 enclosure (or smaller), a couple of mono jacks, and a barrel jack for power.

Ty Tabor used to do something similar. He took the preamp of one of his Fender Elite Strats, put it in a 1U rack unit, and just had some jacks and whatnot installed so he could have the Elite Strat pre in any guitar he used (He was endorsed by Zion at the time).

Although I'm sure if you look around you can find clean boosts or parametric EQs that already do all that.

 

[Crungy]

Maybe a JHS Haunting mids?

 

[gclef]

I wish someone smarter than I would give a breakdown of how to create pedals with their stuff. I'd like to have the T/B and sweepable mid you are referring to in a pedal I can use with all of my guitars if I want to.

Omg, this is so simple!

Buy the pedal box and switch.

Install the components. It's super easy. In a guitar, you would plug the eq system between the volume pot and jack, in a master tone kind of thing.

So, in a pedal, you would use a stereo jack for the input. 3rd lug runs to the foot switch and then to the battery for on/off control. The other 2 connect to the input of the eq.

Connect the eq output to the output jack. Done! You could also sub in a 9v jack so it could be powered by a wall wart or power supply.

While it sounds like a worthwhile good idea in pedal form, I like the idea of on the fly, at your finger tips adjustment.