Yep, had to do it for my Ibanez RGA. Worked out.
Is it difficult? had any impact on the sound? I can PM you if that is easier. There's a guy I know that needs to "hide" an EMG in the bridge position for endorsement / sponsorship reasons...Long story. Any help that I can pass along would be appreciated.
It works, but it needs to not be very much, otherwise you’ll cut into the components.
This. It’s been several years since I’ve gone down the active path, but my favorite was always 81 or 85 in the bridge and 60 in the neck.
I don't hear what you mean? I mean, they both sound different, but I don't hear anything that jumps out as blatantly wrong about either? TBH, it's not the tone that I would go for, but I don't hear anything that jumps out as "shit"? Other than maybe the pinchies not coming out great, maybe?
Agreed. The only guitars I have left with them all are volume-only, and in those I still really enjoy them, plus they are all the trusty old-logos.
I have the 81/85 set in an Edwards LPC as well, and my findings are the same as yours - very thick and a little dull.
Ah, yeah, kinda. But that's the EMG thing. They're not mid-forward. They're basically all mids and nothing else.The pinchies are just my shitty playing in the morning
There's like a bloated midrange and lack of overall top enddefinition with the EMG's. The Fishmans basically sound exactly like I want the EMG's to sound. Small differences, just in the exact areas my preferences fall in. That and I have the perspective of sitting there dialing in that preset to work specifically with the EMG's, only got about 90% there, just to realize the Fishmans pretty much get the last 10%, especially if I dialed it in with the Fishmans originally.
is so true. I like them alright, but I really wonder how they became THE metal pickup.
Because of the low-end rolloff, they're tight. I can think of nothing tighter except the Fluence Modern Ceramic.
