57 classic or Burstbucker 1 & 2?

**jason30** · 10-30-2012, 05:48 PM

What are the tonal differences between these two pickups?
Which pickup is smoother? Which pickup will produce a thicker tone? Do hotter pickups, which usually have more turns of wire, automatically produce a thicker, fuller, beefier tone?
Thanks

**Wildcat** · 10-30-2012, 07:38 PM

I am interested in knowing the answer for this question. I know the 57s well, but the Bustbuckers not at all.

Also do not forget the Gibson 57 Plus with a resistance of 13.6 ohms. A hotter bridge pickup, which I prefer, but not as hot as the SD JB bridge pickup at 16.2.

**Ob Com** · 10-31-2012, 05:30 AM

the classic 57's are a little hotter than the burst buckers.

the 57s are darker and smoother and far better for jazz imo

they are also more consistent- the bb's are randomly wound (within parameters) in an attempt to recreate the variation found amoung the hand wound PAF originals upon which they are based- therefore bbs can be a bit hit and miss.

hth

**Jazz_175** · 10-31-2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ob Com

the classic 57's are a little hotter than the burst buckers.

the 57s are darker and smoother and far better for jazz imo

they are also more consistent- the bb's are randomly wound (within parameters) in an attempt to recreate the variation found amoung the hand wound PAF originals upon which they are based- therefore bbs can be a bit hit and miss.

hth

the 57s are darker and smoother, have more midrange.
Whether they are better for jazz or not, I think it's a matter of taste.
If you play chords the 57s have a tendency to muddiness.

I recently played a Gibson SG custom shop with Burstbucker 1 (neck) and 2(Bridge).
I was very much impressed by the sound of neck pickup, very clear, crisp,
great string definition, a bit like the Lollar Imperial Low Wind, which however I would describe like a more "polite" PU.

**Wildcat** · 10-31-2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

the 57s are darker and smoother, have more midrange.
Whether they are better for jazz or not, I think it's a matter of taste.
If you play chords the 57s have a tendency to muddiness.

I recently played a Gibson SG custom shop with Burstbucker 1 (neck) and 2(Bridge).
I was very much impressed by the sound of neck pickup, very clear, crisp,
great string definition, a bit like the Lollar Imperial Low Wind, which however I would describe like a more "polite" PU.

What are the magnet types in each? Alnico 2 or 5s?

**Jazz_175** · 10-31-2012, 12:30 PM

The 57s and the BBs 1 and 2 are both Alnico II.
You can check the description on the Gibson Website.
Pickups and Electronics - Humbucker Pickups - Gibson Store
Notice that the BurstBucker Pro instead have Alnico V

**Wildcat** · 10-31-2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

The 57s and the BBs 1 and 2 are both Alnico II.
You can check the description on the Gibson Website.
Pickups and Electronics - Humbucker Pickups - Gibson Store
Notice that the BurstBucker Pro instead have Alnico V

Typically are not the Alnico 2's more conducive for "Jazz" tone sounds?

**Jazz_175** · 10-31-2012, 01:30 PM

There is another recent thread on Alnico II and V

**Ob Com** · 10-31-2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

the 57s are darker and smoother, have more midrange.
Whether they are better for jazz or not, I think it's a matter of taste.
If you play chords the 57s have a tendency to muddiness.

I recently played a Gibson SG custom shop with Burstbucker 1 (neck) and 2(Bridge).
I was very much impressed by the sound of neck pickup, very clear, crisp,
great string definition, a bit like the Lollar Imperial Low Wind, which however I would describe like a more "polite" PU.

Hmm,

not sure I agree about muddiness- the 57s are what Gibson put in all their high end archtops- super 400, L5, 175 etc etc.

ymmv of course.

I find the BB's too rough sounding and a brittle on the top end in comparison.

**Flint** · 10-31-2012, 07:19 PM

Questions like this are always hard to get a grip on, because few of us (certainly not I) have had the opportunity to grab a dozen sets of each, set them up in a controlled environment, and do a direct comparison. Generally, these things are mounted in guitars, for one thing. So already we're looking at different guitar characteristics like weight, strings, body style.

I can tell you that the 57s in an ES-339 played through a Fender DeVille 410 in a huge high-ceiling room at GC with half a dozen metal shredders all playing at once at the same time, seem to sound just fine. Good jazz tone. I can also testify that the burstbuckers in a Midtown Custom, played in a closed and sound-proofed room through a Peavey solid state amp, also sound just fine. Good jazz tone. I can NOT say how they differed! I'm willing to bet that neither one will sound the same in a largish club as it does in your bedroom. Not even close, even with the same amp.

(Personally, I thought the Midtown sounded better, but that's as likely to be the mood I was in as it was the playing environment.)

**stevedenver** · 11-02-2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ob Com

the classic 57's are a little hotter than the burst buckers.

the 57s are darker and smoother and far better for jazz imo

they are also more consistent- the bb's are randomly wound (within parameters) in an attempt to recreate the variation found amoung the hand wound PAF originals upon which they are based- therefore bbs can be a bit hit and miss.

hth

couldnt agree more
however,

i prefer burstbuckers - i feel they are more transparent and clear and 'musica'l through a clean amp like a twin (or for that matter through a marshall)
i would never cal lthem brittle-i use this term for gibsons 496-500 ceramic set-ultra hot-and i cannot stnad them -in any application-with any amount of tweaking and adjustment-at best, they are designed for and suited to high gain

my 57s and burstbuckers are in les pauls
i would think that in a semi or full hollow the clarity of a BB would be even nicer

i feel that with good tone pots and caps, you can dial back the tone and get great jazz tones without mud-even backing off the vol will often cut top end a bit

i also have BBs 2 and 3, and feel the same way as i do about 1 and 2-they are only slightly less bright than 1 and 2

im not sure what the OP means by smoother
i presume thicker means mid and lower mid prominence

i think that with a bit of tweaking on the guitar tone , pup height, careful pole adjustment (don underestimate the previous 2 tweaks-they can be really huge in sound changes) and the amp-you can get what you like from either
the 57s are hotter as noted and seem to have less treble end -they are imho, basically a hot 490-498-and as such being 'overwound' tend to have a bit less treble-or perhaps more mid beef
both BBs and 57s when overdriven sound nice-

i like em both, but prefer burstbuckers-cos i love clean and i love the balance
and i think i might even suggest SD seth lovers, or antiquities , or good old 490-498s too-i think they are all in the general ball park-really close
i only mention this as sometimes the latter can be found very inexpensively

careful adjsut of height to get just close enough to the string sound full but not too close

and poles-systematically marking the screw head positions as to where you start and then moving 1/4 turns to get a balance-takes some time, and you must rest your ears in between pups , but once dialed in its amazing how the adjsutment can makes pups just sing

**Jazz_175** · 11-02-2012, 05:38 PM

I'd be curious to try a BB 1 in the neck position of my 175 or 335

**Wildcat** · 11-02-2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

I'd be curious to try a BB 1 in the neck position of my 175 or 335

Wow I want to hear about that if it happens.

**jimbo53** · 11-03-2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Wow I want to hear about that if it happens.

Yeah, me too.

**peterpanico** · 11-03-2012, 05:45 PM

How to split an hair in 64 pieces,then 128...512....1024...and so on....

Hmm,

not sure I agree about muddiness- the 57s are what Gibson put in all their high end archtops- super 400, L5, 175 etc etc.

ymmv of course.

I find the BB's too rough sounding and a brittle on the top end in comparison.

But I second this all the way, the 57s on my 336 are anything other than "mud"....on chords or on whatsoever....BBs Idon't like on Clean sound,IMHO as always...on a Blues/Rock axe they deliver....

**arnie65** · 08-15-2019, 04:49 PM

A little late to the party but here's my 2 cents. The Gibson Burstbucker 1 is a low wound pickup, most are under 7k Ohms and use Alnico II magnets, these pickups are pretty much the recipe for great Jazz pickups. They are warm because of the Alnico II but still clear and focused due to the low winding just like the Lollar Imperials and the Seymour Duncan Antiquities Humbuckers. Rocker's preferred them in their Les Paul's neck position because of their thick, fat tone for blues. In my opinion, better suited for jazz. Here's a youtube clip showing a Burstbucker 1 in an archtop.

Cheers,
Arnie..

**danishbacon** · 02-10-2023, 03:30 PM

Bumping this up because of the video posted really clarified a few things. I had an idea in mind of what I’d like from the descriptions. Call it pure luck but the tone I liked the most in the video ended up being the pickup I had already considered and was leaning toward in principle.

**bluejaybill** · 02-10-2023, 03:52 PM

Interesting video, I think they all work pretty well. The second Ibanez and the BB sound maybe a bit dark for my taste.

I probably like the T-top the best, which surprised me! I have usually heard that they more top end. I happen to have one of them lying around, I ought to try it in something.

**Jimmy Mack** · 02-10-2023, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ob Com

Hmm,

not sure I agree about muddiness- the 57s are what Gibson put in all their high end archtops- super 400, L5, 175 etc etc.

ymmv of course.

I find the BB's too rough sounding and a brittle on the top end in comparison.

I don't care WTF Gibson put in their top of the line boxes. If they sounded like crap, they sounded like crap. And then you have to deal with their crappy pots that are so "out of spec" because they were cheap crap. Gibson didn't care, for a time there.

My L5 needed a TONE rescue, so out came the crappy pots, and the muddy pickups. Now I have an exquisite sounding L5 CES. Thank you me, Pete Biltoft, and Seymour D's Seth Lovers. Had a few 57's Classics. Pass.

**jorgemg1984** · 02-11-2023, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Jimmy Mack

I don't care WTF Gibson put in their top of the line boxes. If they sounded like crap, they sounded like crap. And then you have to deal with their crappy pots that are so "out of spec" because they were cheap crap. Gibson didn't care, for a time there.

My L5 needed a TONE rescue, so out came the crappy pots, and the muddy pickups. Now I have an exquisite sounding L5 CES. Thank you me, Pete Biltoft, and Seymour D's Seth Lovers. Had a few 57's Classics. Pass.

I've also not had the best experience with Classic 57s. Did yo end up with the Seth Lovers or a Bilfot on your L5? Thanks.

**Jimmy Mack** · 02-11-2023, 11:16 AM

Pete B wiring harness with 500K pots, stock switch and jack, and new Seth Lovers. Also tried a SD '59 in the neck that was nice. The p/ups that were in the guitar from 1981, were the Shaw h/bers of that time period. The values of the pots were quite wide, although the shielding of the pots and jack was stupendous with those shielding "cans". Some people say they were unnecessary??
I had a CS '57 RI Les Paul Custom with '57's. Meh, but some of the pots died soon after purchase, and again, the values of the pots were wide, one of them around 100K !

**jorgemg1984** · 02-11-2023, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Jimmy Mack

Pete B wiring harness with 500K pots, stock switch and jack, and new Seth Lovers. Also tried a SD '59 in the neck that was nice. The p/ups that were in the guitar from 1981, were the Shaw h/bers of that time period. The values of the pots were quite wide, although the shielding of the pots and jack was stupendous with those shielding "cans". Some people say they were unnecessary??
I had a CS '57 RI Les Paul Custom with '57's. Meh, but some of the pots died soon after purchase, and again, the values of the pots were wide, one of them around 100K !

Cool, I've been happy with a SD Alnico Pro on my archtop, but I'm always curious about other options.

**rolijen** · 02-12-2023, 11:21 AM

It likely doesn’t make a difference for playing Jazz at reasonable volume with an archtop, but the Burstbucker 1, 2, 3, and 60s are unpotted (only the Pro is wax potted). Whereas the ‘57 classic definitely is potted. I tried two different Burstbuckers a few years back and they both squealed like a banshee at higher gain/higher volumes making them unusable on a multi genre gig where some grit was required. I’ve never had that happen with ‘57s. Again, probably not a concern for many. On the other hand, the Duncan Seth Lovers are also unpotted, but I haven’t had issues with microphonics with them. Not sure why.

**Jimmy Mack** · 02-12-2023, 06:48 PM

Maybe because they are well-made ? How are you using them now?

**rolijen** · 02-12-2023, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jimmy Mack

Maybe because they are well-made ? How are you using them now?

I currently have '57 Classics in my Gibson archtops. I've given several Epiphone Broadways new life with sets of Seths as well as a couple of Ibanezes (LGB30 and AF85). Marked improvement in each case. I have a set of Seths in my Les Paul and they are superb for all genres from jazz to blues to heavy rock. I've been impressed with how well made they are and the covers appear to be extremely well sealed. Maybe that has something to do with me not having noticed any squeal with the Seths cranked.