emg 81 question???

Anonymous · #1 09-27-2001, 12:26 AM

hey.. I'm thinking about replacing the humbuckers on my rg520QSTK with the EMG 81's.. Has anyone done this? IF so, tell me what you think about it compared to the old ones. thanks

Cynic · #2 09-28-2001, 02:41 AM

I dont own the RG *but I played with one...and the EMGs are a MAJOR improvement upon the Vx pickups...if active is your thing, go for it...

pharaoh · #3 09-30-2001, 04:42 AM

you will need to replace the jack...the EMG sets come with a jack that isn't long enough to fit the RG's body...

It's called a "switchjack" I think...I don't remember the exact term, but I bought the EMG 81's and put them in, and the jack that's included is just too short to reach from the control cavity to the outside of the body where the nut secures it in place...

Cycovision · #4 10-06-2001, 09:10 PM

I would like to put an emg 81 in a sabre (When I get one). Will the battery fit in it as the body is thin???

Do you need a new jack with the sabre models too?

Noodles · #5 10-06-2001, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Quote: from pharaoh on 3:42 am on Sep. 30, 2001
you will need to replace the jack...the EMG sets come with a jack that isn't long enough to fit the RG's body...

It's called a "switchjack" I think...I don't remember the exact term, but I bought the EMG 81's and put them in, and the jack that's included is just too short to reach from the control cavity to the outside of the body where the nut secures it in place...

You should be able to use the stero jack that comes stock on the rg.

7 Dying Trees · #6 10-08-2001, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Quote: from Cycovision on 8:10 pm on Oct. 6, 2001
I would like to put an emg 81 in a sabre (When I get one). Will the battery fit in it as the body is thin???

Do you need a new jack with the sabre models too?

No, just use the existing jack, which is what I did on mine. The only problem with the sabre is that you have to wind electrical tape around the battery so it doesn't short any of the electronics, foam is not good as it's quite a squeeze to getnthe battery into the control cavity, but it is possible! Just wind a couple of layers of tape round it. And EMG's in the sabre sound excellent! I'd personally get an 81(bridge)/SA or SAV(mid)/89(neck, coil splitting too, so more possibilities).

Good Luck,

James

warmregards · #7 10-09-2001, 04:31 PM

Although I agree that the EMG's are improvements on the Vx series, I do not agree with the general direction here at all. *Have you ever played with EMG 81's? *They are very very noisy IMO...and while I am a huge treble fan, the tone on these are too scratchy...its like putting a metal zone (almost) in your guitar. *There are passive pickups which would cost you less and require no modification to your guitar that would sound better. *You'd be surprised by how aggressive some passive pickups can sound. *If you play around with some other pickups and still decide to go with EMG's, then thats cool too. *Just be sure you know what your choices are first. *

MadKeithV · #8 10-10-2001, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Quote: from warmregards on 3:31 pm on Oct. 9, 2001
Have you ever played with EMG 81's? *They are very very noisy IMO...

WHAT?? An active pick-up NOISY? *These things were made to make less noise, you know? *You probably say that because they increase the amount of signal from your guitar exponentially, and thereby kindof pre-amplifies the noise of your setup.

Though, I would not recommend the use of an EMG-81 if you EVER want to get a clean sound in that pick-up position. *That's not what it was made for.
I have an 81 in the bridge position of my Jackson Kelly, but an 89 in the neck, which can be coil-tapped to an EMG-SA. *Now THAT gives a nice sparkling defined clean sound

(Pretty nice for soloing too!)

warmregards · #9 10-10-2001, 08:10 PM

I have yet to play any EMG guitar with the fullness in tone of any stock Jem pickup. *The breeds are my least favorite jem pickup but they are still awesome compared to EMG81's. *The Jem7DBK sounds better than all of the EMG81 guitars I've ever played, which include an ESP Kirk Hammet, and a friends jackson ke-3 with 2 81's.

Well maybe some people like the tone. *I still think he should look at passive pickups too, despite what he might end up choosing.

pharaoh · #10 10-11-2001, 02:52 AM

Hey Noodles...thanx for the clarification on the stereo jack thing...

Seems I've been getting scammed. I have had this guy put EMG's in 4 of my guitars, and paid for the jacks. The guy told me the switchjacks were so that the batteries were not draining when not plugged in. Kinda like a pedal's 9-volt when left plugged in...

I asked this person about it, and he kinda gave me the "uhh...oh yeah, well you COOOULD...." so he's busted...

7 Dying Trees · #11 10-15-2001, 08:01 AM

oh man! That's such a scam! On every guitar that I've modded with EMG's (i used to switch them from guitar to guitar quite a bit) I just used the jack supplied with the guitar... Doesn't take much modification!

Go whup his ass!

ZakkWylde470 · #12 09-27-2002, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharaoh

you will need to replace the jack...the EMG sets come with a jack that isn't long enough to fit the RG's body...

It's called a "switchjack" I think...I don't remember the exact term, but I bought the EMG 81's and put them in, and the jack that's included is just too short to reach from the control cavity to the outside of the body where the nut secures it in place...

The jack that came with my EMG 85 fit my RG470 just fine.

kent · #13 09-28-2002, 06:20 AM

I would really consider the EMG 85 before the 81. It is a whole different animal. It has a much flatter response and is just generally more musical sounding to me. The 81 has some frequency boosts that are very hard to work around if you don't need them. Better yet, get an 89 which is just like the 85 but can be switched to single coil. If you are looking for that thick, fat attack, Zakk Wylde sound, the 85 can do it if your amp has enough gain. In fact, to my ears, the 85 produces a much fatter sound than the 81. Also, regardless of what model you choose, if installed properly, any EMG should be practically noise free. I've been using EMGs since they hit the market and every other pickup sounds dull and lifeless to me at this point. I've probably purchased close to 30 of them and they've been in every guitar I've ever used on a regular gigging basis. I always try to give the stock passive pickups a chance, but I go back to the EMGs every time.

Good luck.

Kent

ChrisReedSmith · #14 09-28-2002, 12:47 PM

I agree with Kent, Ive used an 85 in my bridge for a while now and Im more then happy with it. Its practically NOISE-LESS. When I talk with friends about the 85 I always say its kinda like a passive active pickup. Whereas the 81 really manipulates your tone quite a bit. The 85 has that EMG flair and power and sustain while perserving the natural sound of your guitar.

I first got into trying the 85 in the bridge instead of neck because I like to have only a bridge pickup, but I still love to play clean so I needed something that could get me a good clean sound from the bridge while tweaking my presets to sound a little more like its a neck bucker.

It really is all personal preference.

freewheeler · #15 10-09-2002, 12:58 AM

Cool topic.

However I disagree with the negative comments of V pickups. V7 and V8 are kind of lame BUT V1 and V2 ROCK!!!

I used to have in my RG550 (Lo-Pro, maplefretboard and basswood body) original V1-S1-V2 but replaced them with EMG81 (bridge)- SA (middle) and EMG 85 (neck). It sounded good BUT not great. My preamp is a Soldano Sp-77 modified(rebuilt) to a Mesa Mark IIC+ and my poweramp is Rocktron Velocity 500.
I changed back to the original Ibanezpickups and these are the ones I use when playing live as well as recording demos. I personally find the tone in V1 and V2 pickups to be really great compared to EMG, but hey thats me

!!! However when we recorded our debutalbum I used a ENGL Savage 120 head with my RG3120LTW (with ToneZone and PafPro). But that is another topic

!!!

I agree with Madwell who wrote:

Quote:

It really is all personal preference.