EMG 81x
Comparing the standard EMG 81 with the EMG 81X, the main difference is in the preamp. The original 81 sounds slightly more saturated, with more harmonic content and clipping. The 81X is a bit more open in the highs but has less compression, fewer harmonics, and slightly lower output. In practice, the differences are small; in recordings or live playing, the distinction is minimal. At least, I didn’t hear much difference comparing my 2002 EMG 81 to my 2010 EMG 81X.
I prefer the regular 81 because it’s a bit louder and feels better when switching between hotter passive pickups and EMGs. If you want a more hybrid passive/active approach, there are better options designed specifically for that concept, such as the Hetfield set, Jim Root set, or 57/66 set.
A quick note about the active tone knob included with the EMG X Series: that circuit reduces the signal by roughly 3 dB and drains the battery faster than the pickups themselves. A regular passive tone pot works just as well, without killing your tone or draining the battery.
EMG 85
essentially an active interpretation of a hot PAF/PAF voice. More open highs and less trimmed low end compared to the 81. The 81 has more interesting midrange harmonics; the 85 is smoother and cleaner.
It works well in both bridge and neck positions. In the neck especially, I like that it avoids the usual muddiness. It stays articulate and handles fast playing very well.
Another important aspect of EMG actives is that they use weaker magnets than typical passives. As a result, the string vibration isn’t dampened as much by magnetic pull. Guitars with EMGs often have slightly longer sustain compared to passive setups.
EMG 81 TWx, EMG 89/89x
I strongly recommend avoiding some coil-splitting variants, such as the EMG 81‑TWX. While the general voicing is similar to the EMG 81, the output is noticeably lower and some of the character is lost; these pickups sound weaker and muddier.
The EMG 89/89X is okay as a neck pickup. It’s slightly brighter than the EMG 85, which it’s based on, and the ability to switch to the single-coil noiseless EMG SA is really useful. However, it lacks the body of the EMG 85 and sounds harsh and weak in the bridge position.
By contrast, I had great results with the EMG 57/66 TW. I haven’t compared them directly to the regular 57/66 set, but after testing the 57/66 TW against a good dozen passive and active pickups, I didn’t feel like I was missing anything — unlike my experience with the 81‑TWX and 89/89X.
EMG Het Set
Hetfield’s signature pickups, a very interesting set. To my ears, they really sound like a hybrid between passive and active pickups. In terms of volume, they are noticeably more powerful and lively than classic 81/60 or 81/85 sets — really loud, think Dimarzio X2N. At the same time, thanks to their “active” design, they perform much cleaner than many high-output humbuckers.
Hetfield pickups are more percussive and quick, broad sounding with more low end, more highs, and an interesting, slightly boxy midrange, making long, down-stroked riffs like Master of Puppets easier to play. One notable feature is that the magnetic structure of the Het Set is more like passive pickups (magnet + six pole pieces), whereas the 81 uses rail-style magnets. Rails generally give a smoother, more even tone, while the Hetfields’ pole pieces sound slightly rawer.
Overall, I consider this a very worthy set that deserves attention, especially if you’re not crazy about the 81 or want a different take on active pickups. They seem to favor brighter, tighter-sounding guitars. I had great results with them in my Korina Dean Cadillac tuned to C Standard, whereas I didn’t care for them in a thicker-sounding Jackson RR tuned similarly low. As a neck pickup, it’s thicker and fuller than a typical EMG 85, works well for sustaining solos, handles clean tones nicely, and doesn’t get muddy.
One thing I should mention: the bridge pickup is quite noisy — noisier than an 81 (to the point that I once returned a set thinking it was broken). To be fair, most active pickups — especially hybrid models — are actually noisier than passive pickups, assuming proper shielding and that all grounds are wired correctly
EMG JR Daemonum
Jim Root’s set seems like a mix between the 81 and Het Set, with a bit of its own character. Compared to the 81, it has a bit more raw grind—more highs, more lows—more of everything. It’s louder than the 81, but not as loud as the Hetfield set. JR are raw in a good way: nothing boomy or harsh, but not smooth either. To me, they feel like an EMG designed specifically for low tunings. Great pickups overall; they feel more percussive and a bit less “passive” than the Het Set.
Unfortunately, the bridge pickup hums like crazy (much more noticeable during pauses than the Hetfield). The neck pickup is good, but not as jaw-dropping as the bridge, which I really like. I wish they had spent a bit more time turning the neck pickup into something truly special.
raw files download link
EMG 57/66 TW
This is one of my favorite EMG sets. They sit right in that “Goldilocks” zone for hard rock and metal humbuckers. I can’t easily pinpoint a passive equivalent. The 57/66 has a PAF-like vibe, but it’s clearly much hotter.
Compared to something like the EMG 81, which has a relatively flat and focused EQ, the 57/66 pushes a lot of different frequencies at once, more like a strong passive pickup so they perceive being hotter than 81. At the same time, they retain a level of clarity that many high-output passives struggle with. There is a lot going on in the sound: they feel big but still very tight, they have some give under the fingers yet remain fast and responsive, and they stay clear without becoming harsh.
They can easily nail “that EMG sound,” but they are capable of lot mre. For anyone interested in exploring active pickups, I would strongly recommend starting with the 57/66 rather than the traditional EMG 81/85 Pickup Set. The 81/85 is a classic combination, but it is far more specific in character and, arguably, a bit dated compared to the versatility of the 57/66.
One thing to keep in mind is that they still sound like active pickups—perhaps more like a perfect hybrid, combining active clarity and tightness with a familiar passive feel.
Fishman Fluence Classic
This was my first Fishman set and I was quite pleased with it. Each pickup offers three voices.
Voice 1 (PAF)
The first mode sounds like a classic PAF, but slightly more articulate and open, with a more controlled low end. The result is a “cleaned-up,” perfected PAF without unpleasant artifacts such as excessive clank. The neck pickup also has a slight single-coil-like attack, which is typical of many good PAF-style pickups.
Voice 2 (Hot Rod)
The second mode on the bridge is a bit hotter. It has something in common with pickups like the Seymour Duncan JB or the DiMarzio Tone Zone, but it feels more controlled and balanced—closer in spirit to something like the Suhr SSH+ Humbucker.
The neck pickup in this mode reminds me somewhat of the DiMarzio Air Norton, though Fishman reinterpretation didn’t particularly impress me. Personally, I would say this neck voice is the weakest part of the set. It feels a bit too clean, a bit piezo-like, and lacks some of the chewiness and saturated character that good passive neck pickups often have.
Voice 3 (Single-coil)
The third mode is the single-coil voice. It has a nice Strat-like tone with a good balance between glassiness and body. However, despite all the Fishman technology, it still sounds somewhat like a mix between a traditional single coil, an EMG SA Single Coil Pickup, and a typical split humbucker. There is still some hum, but noticeably less than with most single coils. The bridge single-coil voice retains good body and does not sound thin or weak, which often happens with Strat-style bridge pickups. They also handle gain quite well, though they are not quite as expressive and deep as something like the Suhr V60 Single Coil Pickup.
Overall, the Fishman Classic set is very good. All three modes are genuinely usable, especially if you want a versatile guitar, although the differences between the voices are not as radical as one might expect. This is largely a matter of physics: the Fluence technology can alter coil parameters on the fly, but the magnet type, physical strength, and size remain the same.
One drawback I noticed is that all Fishman pickups seem to have a particular feel under the fingers. It is difficult to describe, but they can feel slightly more “static” and less lively than either passive pickups or some of the better versions of EMG actives.
Especially as I am getting ready to go down the pick up rabbit hole.
