Why do EMG's sound kinda sterile?

[Dred]

Me and Nick discussed this the other day. Then we drifted out into the Loomis territory, and that was the end of that

I think it's basically just how you use it, and what your setup is. Loomis sounds great, for one, with EMGs (see This) but that I think is purely by his setup. In that video, he's clearly playing the majority of the song through the bridge pickup (check his sweep passages). He explains his rig, and most importantly his EQ settings in This video. That explains a lot, especially when you look at how his bass-heavy amp works with his relatively bright setup (Ash body, maple/maple neck, bridge pickup preference, etc.) and that seems to be the key to making EMGs sound good- manipulating and the EQ settings.

On the other hand Alexi sounds dead and really flat(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZiEJCkE8t8).

I think it's just how you use them, and if you can apply them well, good for you. I personally dislike EMGs as they don't seem to have the distinct character that I am looking for, so I in turn prefer passives. Basically, I feel that EMGs are more of a 'pinpoint' pickup, concentrating on one specific sound, whereas passives are more broad, so if you know how to use an EMG to its full potential, you'll do just fine, if you want to experiment, try passives.

[savage]

Maybe the word sterile is not the proper word to use for emg's? They just seem very "accurate?" in that picking techniques dont seem to affect them like a duncan. This is why emg came out with the X SERIES.

[Grandturk]

On the other hand Alexi sounds dead and really flat(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZiEJCkE8t8).

He also uses the passive EMG's - the HZ or whatever they're called.

[Dred]

Maybe the word sterile is not the proper word to use for emg's? They just seem very "accurate?" in that picking techniques dont seem to affect them like a duncan. This is why emg came out with the X SERIES.

I personally would call that "vague", seeing as they don't focus on the nuances, rather than accent them. Pot-ay-to/Pot-ah-to, huh?

He also uses the passive EMG's - the HZ or whatever they're called.

May be. Sounded like actives to me, though.

[Newc]

Actually I find the HZs to have a rather distinct tone that is nothing like the 85, 81, or 89, nor like any Duncan or DiMarzio I have (JBs, 59Ns, Distortions, ToneZones, Evos, Customs, C5, CC).

With an AfterBurner/Turbocharger (whichever the old WRMGs came with - the knobbed one) on about 3, I'm hearing lead tones that remind me of Surfing With The Alien - slightly mid-boosted, almost honkish - highs and lows are oppressive but neither are they overly weak.

The 81 I find to be very tinny and high-pitched - perfect for meedly meedly but can't sing in the middle of the neck on the middle 2 strings.

I do like the 85 and 89, though. Just wish you could get the sweet jangle of a split 89 without having to take the cut in output - maybe if I wired it in parallel instead?

[toejam]

He also uses the passive EMG's - the HZ or whatever they're called.

I think Alexi uses active Duncan Blackouts now.

[MartyFriedmanIsMaster]

I think Alexi uses active Duncan Blackouts now.

But he has a signature set? I use HZ's and their ok, but I want to try out actives.

[Jacksons Shred]

I've always thought EMG's were sterile and mono toned sounding, but it's all personal preference I guess.

[toejam]

Apparently he does have an HZ signature. http://www.emginc.com/products/category/149

I thought I had seen an ad where he used the active Duncans in one of his guitars, or maybe one of his signature guitars comes with it?

[MartyFriedmanIsMaster]

Ohhh yeah, for awile his Alexi-600 had Blackouts in it... I forgot about that. It changed to HZ's fast for some reason.

[Aso]

actually i want to try the new X Series! These are said to have much better dynamics and headroom.

I have a EMG 81-X on order that is supposed to be here on Monday. Going to swap out the bridge SD Blackout I have in my model 5 and see how it sounds.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

The 81 I find to be very tinny and high-pitched - perfect for meedly meedly but can't sing in the middle of the neck on the middle 2 strings.

I do like the 85 and 89, though. Just wish you could get the sweet jangle of a split 89 without having to take the cut in output - maybe if I wired it in parallel instead?

I agree with what you're saying. I don't care for the 81 in the bridge at all; I have some guitars with 81's in the neck position and they sound reasonably good to me there, and the 85 in the bridge. Others I have an 89 in the bridge and an 85 in the neck.

Also agree about the output drop on the 89. It actually seems lower output than the SA's in my Strat, which is kind of weird. It's wired as 2 separate pickups, it might be kind of interesting to use a SPDT switch to be able to do single/both/hum on the one pickup instead of the either/or with the included push/pull.

Overall I think EMG's sound "sterile" because the output is relatively flat. They're not intended to EQ your signal, really, and there isn't a need to do that (use an EQ insted).

There is also that the sound is compressed, which you're going to get with a lot of distortion anyway.

Overall I just look at them as a good low-noise pickup for high-gain guitar.

[Zerberus]

Apparently he does have an HZ signature. http://www.emginc.com/products/category/149

I thought I had seen an ad where he used the active Duncans in one of his guitars, or maybe one of his signature guitars comes with it?

He´s back with EMG now, apparently they have deeper pockets

http://www.emgpickups.com/press/index/43

Sounds like they cooked him up an HZ / JE-1000 type combination.....

[scandoslav]

Overall I think EMG's sound "sterile" because the output is relatively flat. They're not intended to EQ your signal, really, and there isn't a need to do that (use an EQ insted).

I just happened to stumble across a post from 2005 in the SD forum which says something similar then expands on it a little:

"I find passives to be a little "dry" sounding and prone to percussive "spikeyness" if a guitar isn't played very lightly. Passives with a more even frequency response are difficult to come by due to the nature of their design (unless a very weak pickup is used). EMGs have a more even frequency response because they use weaker magnets and coils which aren't wound as much. Some people hear this as "compression" but in reality it's "less inductive spikeyness" they're hearing, not a compression. The pickups just don't make certain frequencies jump out more than others--it's not like they're compressing it though. At higher volumes, the effect is quite amazing--with the more even EQ response, the amp doesn't seem to suffer "woofy lows" or "glassy highs" as easily.

With passives, the resonant frequencies of the guitar and the pickups interact and it can be tricky finding "the right pickup for the guitar". EMGs generally don't have that problem (I imagine that's why there aren't a whole lot of EMG designs). As long as your guitar sounds good, the EMGs should let the guitar sound good. If the guitar isn't that great, then you'll get what people refer to as the "lifeless sound" which they look to passives to cure. Given that passives have that inductive spikeyness, they can make a less lively guitar sound more lively.

The 81 is probably what makes a lot of people think EMGs are overall "not very natural sounding" because it's more aimed at focus and aggression. I want a classic sound, so the 85s are going in. Although they still have high output, they have alnico magnets and a warmer overall sound. I'll probably use the volume turned down somewhat--with EMGs, this results in a naturally lower output compared to when you turn the volume down on passive pickups. And I am going to put in an EMG-RPC to tame the lows and add more "twang" to the highs when I want it."

Kind of an interesting take on it, IMHO.

[toxikdeth]

I've always thought EMG's were sterile and mono toned sounding, but it's all personal preference I guess.

Hay did you ever sell your kv2. If not maybe you should try differant pickups. Didn't it come with emgs?