has anyone tried an emg60 in the bridge

[FlyingSkull]

I read that a long time ago, but has anyone ever heard James play rhythm with his neck pickup? I'm pretty sure he only uses it mainly for clean tones, and his solo in Nothing Else Matters.

Yes that is a very good point, although for some reason I recall reading somewhere about a guitar he used that had a 60/60 config? Hmm I have been known to be bad with numbers.

[toejam]

I don't recall him ever using a 60/60. I believe he used the 81/81 when he first got EMGs.

[FlyingSkull]

Yeah that sounds right.

[jdr94]

i think he also used an 89 at some point.

[metalchurch79]

I didn't know 1meg could be used for actives. I do know that 100k is used on the active Duncan Dave Mustaine Livewires.

Maybe I got that confused with passives? But for some reason I think that there's another value of pot that's usable with actives.
Regardless, the high end could be tamed with different value capasitors, so all is not lost.
Can't wait to hear the review.

[toejam]

25k and 50k I believe are usually for actives. Even though Jackson's pickups are passive, didn't the active electronics used with them have a 50k pot?

[themisfit138]

i think he also used an 89 at some point.

I know Kirk does, but I don't know about James.

[toejam]

I believe Kirk did use an 89 in at least one guitar, but he's usually 81/81. In his '85 Custom Rhoads, he uses the H in the neck (single coil in humbucking housing) and the 81 in the bridge.

[jdr94]

yeah the jackson active electronics used a 50k

[customshopkv1]

I had a dinky reverse with an 81 and a 89. The 89 sounded good clean.

[jdr94]

ok so i finally got the time to swap out my pickups......
the change was from a duncan distortion to an emg60 in the bridge position.
the emg is alot bassier(which i like). harmonics were about the same, maybe a little bright with the emg(still a good thing). clean i liked the emg better cause the highs werent overwhelming like with the duncan distortion.
so i would have to say yes you can use an emg60 and it sounds great. the 81 was way to bright and thin sounding to me. tried the 85 and though it was better, it was still a bit edgy for me. keep in mind i'm a rhythm guitarist. i play simple solos every once in a while, but mostly i'm chunkin it up and doin some melodic grinds.
i'll have more to say once i try it with my halfstack.............

ok well didnt get to the real test yet, but i played it for an hour and after really hearing it. it sounds great clean, but a little muddy distorted still i like it better than the sh-6. harmonics are actually easier to do on the sh-6, but brighter on the 60..........

[jdr94]

ok so after playin thru my halfstack at about 50 % vol. i have come to the conclusion that the emg 60 sucks in the bridge position. it sounded ok on a practice amp, but thru a real amp.....just dont do it. who's the idiot that thought this might be a good idea.....oh yeah. it was me

[bfloyd6969]

ok so after playin thru my halfstack at about 50 % vol. i have come to the conclusion that the emg 60 sucks in the bridge position. it sounded ok on a practice amp, but thru a real amp.....just dont do it. who's the idiot that thought this might be a good idea.....oh yeah. it was me

The only way you were going to know how it was going to work was to try it. Now you know and thanks for letting us know. Live and learn.

[Partial @ Marshall]

I never said it was great, but it was fuller than the 81 and 85....

[jdr94]

I never said it was great, but it was fuller than the 81 and 85....

oh i know. my idiot comment wasnt directed towards you in any way. it does sound fuller and probably great for blues, jazz, or country, but not for super high gain metal.