Old vs newer EMG 81

  • Thread starter Thread starter peterc52
  • Start date Start date
Just got two set of non-solder less EMG 81/85. One is a black back and the other a tan back. Going to compare them with the ZW set I have.
What should I expect in terms of difference between these two sets and the ZW?
 
The ZW set is long-legs right? That should be the only difference. They have the old logo if they are from late 2000s.
They switched the logo and went "full solderless" in 2011.
 
About a year or so ago I grabbed a super strat and popped a new EMG 81 and S and it just didn't hit the mark that I was looking for. I swapped it out for an EMG 85 and it still wasn't giving me that typical EMG sound. I was thinking about picking up another 85/S set or maybe trying to grab a JH bridge/S.. But if they changed the pre-amp around that makes total sense. Through my dayjob I've played a ton of EMGs and haven't jived with them, I thought my tastes have matured. Now I'm on the lookout for Pre-2017 or vintage EMGs.

I'm gonna start looking for old vs new EMG EQ curves

BuNLFUc.jpg
 
Interesting. I found a forum post of a guy measuring EQ curves of EMGs. He compared a 2012 EMG 85 to a couple fake pairs if 81/85, but here we have a 85 EQ Curve. I could have sworn EMG used to just put their EQ curves for all their pickups out there.

Source
wvivp05.png



Here's a 2012 EMG 85, (I'd assume 2012) EMG 81 and a 2020 EMG 60. Source

EXOZR4E.png



Here we have an EMG 81 (I think is the blue line starting around -20db) and an EMG 85 (orange one that peaks the most). The 81 & 85 look similar in EQ response here, but slightly different curves in the low end
Source
all-freq-response.jpg


I found a listing of some old EMG catalogs with an EMG 81, 85 and 60 EQ Curve. These jokers used to publish the EQ responses of all their pickups, now they hide them. Is it because they changed the preamp? I'm digging far down this rabbit hole. This is from a 1988 Catalog.

s-l1600 (1).jpg


EMG60.jpg


This is an EMG 60 from a 2000 Catalog, but we can't see the full picture.
s-l1600.jpg
 

Attachments

  • all-freq-response.jpg
    all-freq-response.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 122
vultures said:
Interesting. I found a forum post of a guy measuring EQ curves of EMGs. He compared a 2012 EMG 85 to a couple fake pairs if 81/85, but here we have a 85 EQ Curve. I could have sworn EMG used to just put their EQ curves for all their pickups out there.

Source
View attachment 272832


Here's a 2012 EMG 85, (I'd assume 2012) EMG 81 and a 2020 EMG 60. Source

View attachment 272835


Here we have an EMG 81 (I think is the blue line starting around -20db) and an EMG 85 (orange one that peaks the most). The 81 & 85 look similar in EQ response here, but slightly different curves in the low end
Source
View attachment 273114

I found a listing of some old EMG catalogs with an EMG 81, 85 and 60 EQ Curve. These jokers used to publish the EQ responses of all their pickups, now they hide them. Is it because they changed the preamp? I'm digging far down this rabbit hole. This is from a 1988 Catalog.

View attachment 273129

View attachment 273123

This is an EMG 60 from a 2000 Catalog, but we can't see the full picture.
View attachment 273126
Click to expand...
Killer material brother. This is really eye opening for us nerds and historians. Thank you
 
The X sounds real close to the OG IMO. I switched to those in all my new guitars. All my 20 year old ones are the old school though.
 
Bram576 said:
The X sounds real close to the OG IMO. I switched to those in all my new guitars. All my 20 year old ones are the old school though.
Click to expand...
The X was designed to mimic the OG Running at 18V. Does the X Have more low end? I Have a Les Paul Standard with Old School EMG's from 1996 & i've put Newer EMG's in it as a test & the old ones i took out sound much better, thicker, more bottom end, more clear.
 
I have 3 81-85 sets that are still in use from 1991 that sound better than any of the newer 81-85s i have played. Bought a newer 81-85 set a few years back that were pretty weak in comparison.
 
Detroit1973 said:
The X was designed to mimic the OG Running at 18V. Does the X Have more low end? I Have a Les Paul Standard with Old School EMG's from 1996 & i've put Newer EMG's in it as a test & the old ones i took out sound much better, thicker, more bottom end, more clear.
Click to expand...


Sounds plenty thick here to me.
 
Bram576 said:
Yep
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty good. I'd have to hear it through my guitar/rig. All of the older 81's sound best to me and the 85 in the bridge is my other favorite which i only started using that in the bridge in the last year.
 
Detroit1973 said:
The X was designed to mimic the OG Running at 18V. Does the X Have more low end?
Click to expand...
Yes, slightly. But also more treble. That's if you're comparing EMG's and EMG X's from the same eras.

But the X series are running on the same Opamp that they changed on the regular series. And IME, it the change wasn't just a matter of EQ. The headroom the preamp achieved was slightly different too, so the compression charactersitics changed. I think slightly more headroom, actually, IIRC. But personally, what made me think "wow, these sound like shit" is that they had a really harsh almost single-coil-like scratchy property that I hated.

But also... more low-end than... um... pretty much any passive? No. Not by a long shot.

Honestly, if anyone wants a pickup with a thick low-end, and is looking at getting any of the 81 variations (81 from whatever year, 81X, 81TW, Het Set, etc.), they're looking in the wrong place.
 
Last edited:
Rex Rocker said:
Yes, slightly. But also more treble. That's if you're comparing EMG's and EMG X's from the same eras.

But the X series are running on the same Opamp that they changed on the regular series. And IME, it the change wasn't just a matter of EQ. The headroom the preamp achieved was slightly different too, so the compression charactersitics changed. I think slightly more headroom, actually, IIRC. But personally, what made me think "wow, these sound like shit" is that they had a really harsh almost single-coil-like scratchy property that I hated.

But also... more low-end than... um... pretty much any passive? No. Not by a long shot.

Honestly, if anyone wants a pickup with a thick low-end, and is looking at getting any of the 81 variations (81 from whatever year, 81X, 81TW, Het Set, etc.), they're looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...
Did they change the OpAmp on the 85?
 
Detroit1973 said:
Did they change the OpAmp on the 85?
Click to expand...
81 and 85 have always used the same boost as each other, but I personally do not know if it was changed a few years back. If it was changed then it was on both the 81 and 85 equally I'm sure. The only difference between the two pickups is ceramic vs alnico.
 
Detroit1973 said:
Did they change the OpAmp on the 85?
Click to expand...
On all of them, AFAIK. All of them use the same preamp.

The classic series, I mean (81, 85, 60, 60A, 58, Hets, 57, 66). The X series use the same preamp with a couple of component values swapped, so I'm sure the change affected them too.
 
dave74 said:
81 and 85 have always used the same boost as each other, but I personally do not know if it was changed a few years back. If it was changed then it was on both the 81 and 85 equally I'm sure. The only difference between the two pickups is ceramic vs alnico.
Click to expand...
I don't know for certain there was an opamp change, but IME, the newer EMG's that I've bought have all sounded off.

I started a thread at the Duncan forum about, and someone gave me that information. I'll link you: https://forum.seymourduncan.com/for...8-did-emg-change-their-preamp-design-recently

*EDIT* Oh, I see you replied to the thread too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top