software

I know this is a fav combo of many players, but I'm thinking it'll be too trebly in an SG. Comments?

I don't know about the JB, but I absolutely love the Jazz in my SG. I had a 59 in there before, and this works a lot better for me - it is a bit more trebly with less bass, but it's got a lot more chime and has a more 'modern' tone to my ears. If you play a lot of blues, etc, you should go with a PG or 59, but if you don't necessarily need that really fat neck tone, the Jazz is great.

go for it, i think it will sound killer

Do you think it will be too hot/high output for stuff like early Sabbath, Zep, AC/DC?

Put a cover on the JB and it will sound sweet!

Yes, I think the JB will be too nasal for an SG in my opinion, but I don't like the JB to begin with. SGs tend to have a natually snappy, thinner response than say, a Les Paul, so you may want to balance that out a bit by choosing pickups that are on the thicker/smoother side. If you're looking to play only classic rock and hard rock, I would look into lower output pickups than the JB. I bet the Rio Grande BBQ would be perfect in your SG. Nice and warm and fat but not to the point of mud. If you want to go even lower output, the AIIPro would probably be quite nice.

What about a Custom 5? It's got smoother highs than the JB, and tighter bottom end too. Should make the SG crunchy without being brittle.


Originally Posted by twoheadedboyYes, I think the JB will be too nasal for an SG in my opinion, but I don't like the JB to begin with. SGs tend to have a natually snappy, thinner response than say, a Les Paul, so you may want to balance that out a bit by choosing pickups that are on the thicker/smoother side. If you're looking to play only classic rock and hard rock, I would look into lower output pickups than the JB. I bet the Rio Grande BBQ would be perfect in your SG. Nice and warm and fat but not to the point of mud. If you want to go even lower output, the AIIPro would probably be quite nice.

I've heard that the BBQ is a really nice pup for an SG bridge. How would you compare that to a '59 bridge (my current bridge pup).

Custom 5 in Bridge and 59 Neck would sound more SG i think

For what it is worth I have a JB in the bridge and a Dimarzio PAF in the neck of my SG and it is fantastic. Not too trebly at all and still sounds brilliant clean. The combo tones are incredible with both pups on together. - Rob

For the sounds you want, I think that the 59 you already have in your axe is optimal. If you want a bit more push, go with the C5.

ARRGHHH! No tone clips for the C5 on the web site!!

I am having the same problems finding pickups for my SG Standard. The stock 490/498's sounded muddy,congested,and harsh, but I did find I could get a decent sound out of them by lowering the pickups by a LOT. They still sounded a bit muddy and in-articulate when the guitar was played solo. But actually in a band setting, they sounded fat and not too bad. But I didn't pay $1000 for a quot;not too badquot; sound.

I loved the 58/JB combo in a Hamer studio I sold to get the SG, so I thought I would try duncans for the SG. I tried a jazz neck and 58 bridge. This combo sounds much more clearer, non congested, and articulate than the 490/498 and the guitar sounds better when played solo. However, the sound is a bit too trebly for me. I already have a strat and tele for clean sparkly sounds. I need the SG to have a fat humbucker sound without the mud. The 490/498's actually had the right degree of fatness - it just had all the other negatives such as muddiness and congestedness. The JB bridge from the Hamer sounded really nice - very cutting, but I'm looking for less of the mid-spike.

Has anyone tried the A2 Pro neck and the SH-5 Custom bridge in an SG? I've heard some people who've liked the 490/498's compare these to the sh-5 custom. Do the A2 Pro and Custom have the fatness without the mud?

Oops - I mean 59 and not 58 pickups.

IMO the Custom would be a good pick for a mid-heavy, bass-lite axe like an SG. The custom it is a big meaty sound with a bit of a mid dip, nice tight lows, nice top that's present but not piercing, and good sustain. I do have the Custom in an Ibanez Artist (LP style) and not an SG, but it seems like it would fill in the lows and highs and add some sustain.

Haven't tried the A2P...yet.

I don't hear most SGs as being mid heavy. I find they tend to have an abundance of highs and high mids with a bit of bottom end thump but no low midrange punch. For an SG, you want a bridge pickup that is warm and thick, like the Rio Grande BBQ. Compared to a '59, it is a little hotter, has more low mids and is a considerable amount darker. You'll lose some of that glassy snap that you get with the '59 and you'll get a much fatter, thicker sound.

These guys know their ****. Dump the JB, keep the '59 and add custom/custom 5

I looked thru other posts using the search function and woah there are so many opinions it makes my head spin.

I have the JazzN/59B combo in an SG and I thought this was too trebly and not fat enough. Tonight, I positioned the pickups as close as possible to the strings. I hadn't thought of this before because I had positioned the 490/498 stock pickups as far as possible from the strings for a good sound. Anyways, with the jazz/59 positioned about 3/32quot; from the strings, the sound is really fat, as fat as the stock pickups but much smoother and with clarity. Sounds great clean and distorted thru my VHT45 and my little velocette. The 59 bridge has as much clang as the JB I had in a hamer (due to positioning) and it's much more balanced. With the jazz positioned close, it's not trebly at all but it's smooth and clear. The distorted jazz neck for leads also retains its definition really well.

I think I will keep these. I'm sure I don't need any fatter than this, and if I want a cleaner sound (which I prefer sometimes) I can always lower the pickups. The jazz/59 combo is really versatile. I'm finally happy with the SG - I was jammin all night. I'll report again in a week.

To the original poster, try positioning your 59 bridge as close as possible to the strings to get the sound of a JB. It worked for me.


Originally Posted by JamminJoeI looked thru other posts using the search function and woah there are so many opinions it makes my head spin.

I have the JazzN/59B combo in an SG and I thought this was too trebly and not fat enough. Tonight, I positioned the pickups as close as possible to the strings. I hadn't thought of this before because I had positioned the 490/498 stock pickups as far as possible from the strings for a good sound. Anyways, with the jazz/59 positioned about 3/32quot; from the strings, the sound is really fat, as fat as the stock pickups but much smoother and with clarity. Sounds great clean and distorted thru my VHT45 and my little velocette. The 59 bridge has as much clang as the JB I had in a hamer (due to positioning) and it's much more balanced. With the jazz positioned close, it's not trebly at all but it's smooth and clear. The distorted jazz neck for leads also retains its definition really well.

I think I will keep these. I'm sure I don't need any fatter than this, and if I want a cleaner sound (which I prefer sometimes) I can always lower the pickups. The jazz/59 combo is really versatile. I'm finally happy with the SG - I was jammin all night. I'll report again in a week.

To the original poster, try positioning your 59 bridge as close as possible to the strings to get the sound of a JB. It worked for me.Hey Joe - Thanks for the input. I have a '59 combo in my SG that's a little thin so I'm going to do this as well. I have never raised/lowered pups - is this something that can be easily done or should I take it to my local guitar tech?


Originally Posted by JamminJoe
To the original poster, try positioning your 59 bridge as close as possible to the strings to get the sound of a JB. It worked for me.

Joe - I read another post that said moving pups really close to the strings makes the sound brighter and harsher. So you didn't find this to be the case when moving the '59? The SG is harsh and nasty as it is. I want to make it fatter.

J