Favorite Dimarzio PAF combination?

Wesquire

Newbie
Messages
22
I've used the PAF Joe (wouldn't call this PAF though) and the PAF Master set. I like a lot of things about the PAF Masters, but the bridge is a bit too trebly for me and the neck is just too underpowered relative to the bridge. I also struggle to find a rhythm sound with it I like. That said, I'm interested in the 59s they just came out with, but the 1 conductor and no nickel cover option is a deal breaker. So.... after scouring some forums and youtube videos I'm interested in trying the 36th Anni neck in the bridge position with the Air Classic neck. Anyone done this or played the 36 neck in the bridge that cares to share their thoughts?
 
haven't installed them yet.  Individually I've played them in separate guitars.  they sound great to me.
 
On the link provided by rick2, scrolling about half way down the 3rd page:

"Bridge: Dimarzio PAF 36th anniversary Neck DP103......."

You're using a neck pickup in the bridge position?

Regarding the pup choices the OP asked about.................
I actually have a "superStrat" that I put together a few years ago.
N is a DP190 BC Air Classic Neck (BC = black/creme coils)
M is a Area 67
B is a PAF 36th Anniversary DP223 FBC (Bridge, Fender spaced, black/creme coils)
I know this isn't much help, but it sounds fine to me.
I think that the Area 67 balances well with the other two full size humbuckers, both volume and tonally.
I believe that the pots are 500K, no tone pot on the middle Area 67.
I haven't played it in a while, so now I have something else to do today.  ;>))

By the way, I have noticed over a couple of guitars that the Dimarzio Areas and the full size HBs seem to be out of phase.
And the Dimarzio Cruiser SC sized also has this problem when mixed with the Areas.
If you put together a guitar mixing full size and SC size, you may need to swap the red/green wires around.

And.........
The Dimarzio pups in general can be VERY sensitive to height adjustments.
 
Yes, I'm using a neck pickup in the bridge position.  That's pretty common if you get the pup outputs right.  This'll be fine. 
 
ejm said:
On the link provided by rick2, scrolling about half way down the 3rd page:

"Bridge: Dimarzio PAF 36th anniversary Neck DP103......."

You're using a neck pickup in the bridge position?

Yes, I was intending to do the same thing. PAF 36 neck in the bridge position. I've seen several people mention this combo on forums.
 
Using a neck pickup in the bridge position............

Not that it can't be done.
The guitar and pickups don't know and don't care what position is what.

Just curious: What are you aiming for?
Putting the PAF 36 neck in the bridge position should *theoretically* give you, looking at the charts on the Dimarzio web site:
- a slight increase in high end
- a slightly lower output

However, these differences could be so subtle as to not be detectable, especially when you start adjusting the pickup heights.

Once again, not criticizing, just curious.

By the way, I played the HSH guitar that I mentioned in a previous post yesterday for a while.
In that guitar, I think that the range of tones is fairly wide, but not super wide.
A little less top end, a little less bottom end.
Using distortion, less woofy on the neck HB, yet not piercing on the bridge HB.
Good cleans as well.
I have it wired up as N, N+B, B, B+M, M.
 
ejm said:
Using a neck pickup in the bridge position............

Not that it can't be done.
The guitar and pickups don't know and don't care what position is what.

Just curious: What are you aiming for?
Putting the PAF 36 neck in the bridge position should *theoretically* give you, looking at the charts on the Dimarzio web site:
- a slight increase in high end
- a slightly lower output

However, these differences could be so subtle as to not be detectable, especially when you start adjusting the pickup heights.

Once again, not criticizing, just curious.

By the way, I played the HSH guitar that I mentioned in a previous post yesterday for a while.
In that guitar, I think that the range of tones is fairly wide, but not super wide.
A little less top end, a little less bottom end.
Using distortion, less woofy on the neck HB, yet not piercing on the bridge HB.
Good cleans as well.
I have it wired up as N, N+B, B, B+M, M.

They expressly made them both to be used in either position. You identified the reasoning. Just a bit more brightness and to be closer in output to the neck. That said, I think I'm now leaning toward a Bluesbucker in the neck and the PAF 36 bridge in its normal position.
 
If you're looking for a scientific reason, I can't give you one.  I just like how they sound, when clean very sweet, and when, overdriven into my amp, nice and crunchy.  Plus, doing the consensus when you can explore is so boring.
 
Well, after more research I think I'm changing course again. Right now I'm thinking Dimarzio Bluesbucker in the neck and the AT-1 in the bridge, wired for coil splits. These are decidedly not PAFs, but they do seem to be more modern takes on what the PAF sound was trying to accomplish.
 
I doubt that original PAFs were attempting to accomplish any particular sound. They were made to avoid hum and happen to produce a certain ballpark sort of sound in early Les Pauls and the like. The romanticism and variations of what PAFs were or are is more of a latter day post internet thing.
 
stratamania said:
I doubt that original PAFs were attempting to accomplish any particular sound. They were made to avoid hum and happen to produce a certain ballpark sort of sound in early Les Pauls and the like. The romanticism and variations of what PAFs were or are is more of a latter day post internet thing.

No doubt that the sound was secondary to the hum cancelling goal. However, I'm just talking about them being versatile. The EQ of the AT-1 is very different than a PAF.
 
Here's a description of the AT-1
https://www.dimarzio.com/pickups/medium-power/dimarzio-1
 
The AT-1 is an all-out rock pickup.  Its not really intended to have a useful clean tone.  Perhaps its a modern interpretation of high-gain vintage tone, but its not at all similar to a vintage pickup.  The AT-1 is more like the Duncan JB that Timmons used previously, or perhaps even closer to the Suhr SSH+.
 
You might be interested in the duncan distortion.  Designed to be high output.  I like it with the nickel cover.  It sounds good quiet because of the headroom actually good for country.  Nice rich harmonics.
 
JohnnyHardtail said:
The AT-1 is an all-out rock pickup.  Its not really intended to have a useful clean tone.  Perhaps its a modern interpretation of high-gain vintage tone, but its not at all similar to a vintage pickup.  The AT-1 is more like the Duncan JB that Timmons used previously, or perhaps even closer to the Suhr SSH+.

Yes, it is very close to a JB with a 250k pot and some refining. It is also the closest option to the EVH's EBMM signature. I'm not concerned with a completely clean tone from the bridge. I will have the neck and both splits for that. Andy Timmons has one of my favorites tones for light breakup out of the bridge. Also, because of the design of the Bluesbucker, it is going to be substantially louder than the bridge when split unless the bridge pickup is at least moderate output.
 
rick2 said:
You might be interested in the duncan distortion.  Designed to be high output.  I like it with the nickel cover.  It sounds good quiet because of the headroom actually good for country.  Nice rich harmonics.

The distortion wasn't my thing but I'm interested by the Custom Custom.
 
IMO the Custom Custom and AT-1 are in the same ball park.    AT-1 seems to have a bit more harmonics and presence in the upper mids, which I prefer.
 
JohnnyHardtail said:
IMO the Custom Custom and AT-1 are in the same ball park.    AT-1 seems to have a bit more harmonics and presence in the upper mids, which I prefer.

Yep, they both seem to be going for a smoother top end and some added warmth.
 
Back
Top