The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Modern Gretsch Guitars:

In Search of ... Dynasonic Facts, Fiction, Myth, and Truth

« » Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 1:09 a.m. Proteus:

Being a natural extension of the Dynasonic shootout thread.

This is a multi-part discussion of vintage and new Dynasonics. The following Table of Contents is for the convenience of those who'd rather not read a lot of Proteus but might still like some new information and analysis (however suspect).

Prologue: Intro to Purpose of Thread
Chapter 1: Part A, Gretsch vs Seymour Duncan Dynasonic Shootout & Discussion, with my Responses (a digest of Shootout thread)
Chapter 2: Part B, Discussion & Responses cont'd
Chapter 3: New Information: the How & Why of Modern Dynas (with information from Joe Carducci and TV Jones)
Chapter 4: The Ultimate Dynasonic?

PROLOGUE

In the current Nashville Guitar Show thread, the GDPer Known as Nobody has this to say: This is...the way in which one must investigate history, combining official reports with veteran accounts, and mixing it all with your own findings. Usually you discover something entirely new which combines the three. Sometimes you never find it. And, by the way, as a historian you are looking for Fact...not Truth. We can see Truth already in these guitars. It's the Facts we would love to nail down, isn't it?

And that's the spirit of this thread.

We know at least something of the early history of Dynasonic pickups: that the single-coil pickups we now know as Dynasonics were manufactured by Harry DeArmond's Rowe Industries of Toledo, Ohio from at least the early 50s onward, and that they were used as original equipment on guitars from various makers. We know that in 1950, the Gretsch catalog called the pickup a "built-in Gretsch mike," in 1951 it was listed as the "Grestch-DeArmond Fidelatone," and that by the mid-50s, when Gretsch electric guitars entered their first heyday, the same pickup was christened the DynaSonic.

We know that Chet Atkins didn't much care for the Dyna, and that by mid-1957, it was being replaced on Gretsch guitars by Ray Butts' Filtertron dual-coil design. To my knowledge, the transition was complete by the 1958 model year and Gretsch didn't offer the DynaSonic again till the revival of the line in the 90s.

I have nothing new to add to that early history – and I'm only condensing what I've read and understood while hanging around here.

Modern Dynasonics are the focus of this thread, though it makes frequent reference to vintage pickups. Avid Dyna fans are aware that two versions of the pickup are currently available. Gretsch manufactures one and installs it as standard equipment on all Japanese models; Seymour Duncan's Custom Shop makes another version, which is available by special order from SD, and which comes on Gretsch American Custom Shop models equipped with Dynasonics.

We know that there are slight physical and mechanical differences between these pickups, that the Seymour versions are considered to be closer in appearance and build to vintage-era Dynas, and that the DC resistance of the two versions vary appreciably. We also know they sound different; that difference was demonstrated and explored in the recent Dyna Shootout thread.

A word (or three paragraphs) about DC resistance. (I don't pretend to be a pickup scientist, so straighten me out when I get stuff wrong.) Pickup sellers and buyers are accustomed to judging how "hot" a pickup might be by DC resistance, as measured in K Ohms. It's a handy number to throw around (like horsepower for an engine): it's easy to measure, and it's arithmetically comparable. Problem is, like horsepower, it doesn't tell us enough to predict how a pickup might sound.

To do that, we'd have to talk not only about magnet composition (AlNiCo X vs ceramic, for instance), but the details of the recipe for either compound, how the magnet is treated, its hysteresis, and other magnet-specific characteristics; we'd need to know what gauge wire is used to wind a bobbin of what material, shape, and size; whether that wire is coated, how many turns are used and in what pattern. Those who know pickups from the inside out also assure me that the shape, size, and alloy of polepieces and adjusting screws matter to tone. We're told that if there's a cover or housing for the pickup, its material, thickness, and plating matter.

By "matter," I mean that if two pickups measure identically in DC resistance – but these other parameters differ – their tone can differ significantly. Yet DC resistance is the only measurement we have easy access to, so that's what we talk about. I'll talk about it a lot in this thread.

I'm going to talk about it now. The unspoken consensus, the received wisdom – at least on the GDP, if not among Gretsch enthusiasts in general – is that vintage Dynasonics measured somewhere between 11K and 13K. We know that current-production Gretsch Dynasonics (which we'll call stockers) rate in the upper 7s and low 8s.

The shootout has provided a decent demonstration of what difference that makes in tone. Now one of our questions is "why this discrepancy?" If Gretsch knows what we seem to know about the old ones, why do they persist in making the new ones "wrong"? Some of us are all but irate about this, considering that Gretsch is somehow ripping us off. Others are not so judgmental, and have our theories as to why the apparently intentional difference.

In the meantime, while we can order expensive Seymour Duncan DynaSonics wound to our personal specs, if you order from SD without specifying, you'll get pickups around 11K. According to the received wisdom here, that's considered to be more vintage-correct. Again we ask, if Seymour can do it, why can't Gretsch?

Those are the questions I set out to find answers to.
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 1:17 a.m. Proteus:

CHAPTER ONE,
being Part One of a review of the Dyna Shootout thread, with my responses.

But before I trot out what I think I discovered, I'd like to cover the background again. I know this repeats material from that thread, but bear with me.

For one thing, there were many points to agree with among y'all's comments, points which made me go "yeah, that's right!", and I want to address those individually.

For another, there's a kind of narrative here which develops a number of themes I hope to pull together in my later "chapters." My comments interspersed throughout are intended to do that – but if you're impatient or haven't time for the leisurely approach, you can skip to Chapter 3.

For convenience, these are the audio samples we're comparing:

Jet with stock Dynasonics, Fender Deluxe
Jet with Seymour Duncans, Fender Deluxe

Jet with stock Dynasonics, Fender Princeton
Jet with Seymour Duncans, Fender Princeton

And here's what y'all had to say, along with my responses.

bigalthethird was first out of the gate, and he heard it: I prefer the stock ones. They sound more jangly...more - I dunno - complex? The Duncans sound more midrangey to me I guess. Smoother for sure, but less Dynasonic-y.

That's not to say I don't like the Duncans, I like them fine. But for $450 a set, I'm expecting to hear God when I listen to the Duncans. And that's just not there.

GhostRadio: I'm going to jump in and join the stock fan club as well. They both sound great, but the Dyna's just have that extra bit of twang going for them.

All true. I like the jangle, complexity, and twang of the stockers – always did. In fact, I think I like them best. Unless I'm playing the Seymours, and then I like THEM best.

J(et)D: The stock Dynas sound more "raw" or "more on edge" than the SD's.........through the Deluxe. They sound a little less "muffled" too.

However, the SD's seem to have a "richer" distorted sound when plugged into the Princeton.

SqwareKat: Wow. To my ears, the SD's sound a LOT beefier. Kinda reminds me of the difference between TV Classics and PowerTrons. Are they worth the money? I can't say, but I CAN tell you there is a very audible difference.

We all heard that, huh? The comparison to Classics vs PowerTrons is apt as well; that fits my sense of it too.

Dr Nyl: The stock Dynas, to my ears, have more clarity, voice and as I suppose it should be, a Gretschier & more twangy sound. The SDs seem, in comparison w. the Dynas, a bit muddier and darker without sounding bad at all.

Again, I agree. But which to keep in the guitar, that's the question!

JohnnyFriendly knows himself thoroughly, so has a basis for making that decision: The Duncans sound growlier, angrier, more out-of-control. It's a pickup out looking for a street fight and this might suit my style/temperament more than the stock. They definitely sound more exciting but not necessarily "better". The stocks sound surprisingly good and,I guess, more classically Rockabilly and chimey though who can say which is more authentically Gretsch.

And that's a good question: which IS more Gretsch? Other guys will say the fatter sound is the more genuine. Our take on how Gretschy either pup is will depend on our personal experience with the guitars.

Johnny: I could never seem to get a decent tone out of my bridge pickup on the 6120 so either a) I got a dud, b) the 6120s aren't as characterful as the 6128s or c) I just ain't cut out for the Gretsch thang.

Whoah, son! Ain't cut out for that Gretsch thang?? Let's not get RASH here. My experience is that a 6120 with Dynas isn't quite as immediately characterful as the Jet - UNTIL you put flatwounds on it. Then the knock and the fat twang and it-cain't-be-nothin'-but-a-Gretsch fairly ooze out of the guitar. Don't give up till you try flats, and all the pickup and polepiece raisin' and lowerin' you have the patience for. I can't get a BAD sound out of either pickup on me 6120.

Walter Broes is the first to utter the F-word about the stock Dynas: I hear the same Fender-like treble in the stockers I heard playing friends' guitars and guitars in music stores; I hear the same beefy twang and big midrange in the Duncans I "expect" more from DeArmonds.

I've spent almost an hour at a music store with a recent Dyna Jet, and I absolutely loved the guitar, but thought it sounded a lot more like a Tele than one of my best friends' 50's Jet, a guitar I'm pretty familiar with. Nice tone, but not the oomph and big presence I expected from a Dyna Jet, a lot more like Fender single coils.

Fair enough. There IS something Telestic about the stock Dyna Jet, which I always liked. (While wanting more.) And of course you compare that to the 50s Jet you're familiar with, and find them different.

More Walt: Almost impossible to imagine you don't have a preference - are you just trying not to influence any replies or maybe not enough time with the Duncans to have an opinion yet?

Both were true at the time. I wanted the thread to go its own way – and I hadn't decided yet. I think I have now. (This is an attempt to build suspense through this very long post.)

Were you getting good pickup balance from pickup to pickup volume and feel/wise, and was one set more balanced than the other that way? I've found the neck pickup loud/too loud on different DeArmond equipped guitars, old and new.

I felt both sets were adequately balanced from pup to pup, at least for my taste.

TomfromPA him note that With the SDs the middle strings are invited to the picnic too. The new pickups sound warmer, smoother and more articulate to me.

Yes! I hear that. With the Seymours, I hear every string almost as a distinct entity, a voice in a choir, lifted and separated with an aura around it. An attractive property.

But here comes Vinkie: Call me crazy but I prefer the stock Dyna's in these clips! The Seymours offer more mids and raunch but lose some of the clean shimmer in comparison. The stock pickups don't sound thin to me at all.

Yup, the Seymours do seem not to shimmer quite as shimmeringly, and I'd not accuse the stockers of sounding "thin" exactly. Just sometimes a bit...not so muscular maybe? Still, one doesn't want to lose that sparkle, because it articulates too.

jukebox likes the SD's on the Fender Deluxe but prefer the stock on the Princeton. The SD's sounded more raw on the Princeton, but the stock didn't sound as clear on the Deluxe.

The plot thickens! Now the stronger pickups are more muscular through the cleaner amp, and the stockers mate better with the crunchier amp. Is this a preference for generally cleaner tone?

FrequentFlyer909 is in the stock Dyna camp - I like that tidy-clean twang, as it suits what I'm trying to do more than do the SDs. If I wanted to rip, roar and growl more, the SDs would be the choice. As it is, I can save that $400.

And does it always come down just to what we each want to do with the guitar, so there can't be a single best choice? Could be. And that pesky 400.00 raises its exorbitant head once more...

Gretschmaster agrees with Walter that the stock Dynas sound similar to Fender pickups. I don't know what a "true" Dynasonic should sound like but I do know that I prefer the sound of the Seymour Duncans. Do I prefer them enough to spend $400 on them? Well that's another story... I think it just makes me less likely to purchase either because I don't want to have to pay top dollar for a guitar with pickups that I will eventually want to swap. Especially when the swap will cost me 400 bucks.

Well, who really DOES know what a "true" Dynasonic should sound like? More on that question later.

And I certainly didn't mean to CONFUSE any buying decisions. I hoped to provide light, clarity, conviction, and peace on earth. As a way of making amends, let me remind you that any hypothetical stock Dynas from any future hypothetical Dyna Gretsch you might hypothetically own in that hypothetical future will retain some monetary value even if you hypothetically replace them with Seymours! At least a couple hundred dollars' worth, I should think. Hypothetically speaking.

MarkW knows where he stands: Dump the Princeton. Ok-now back to PU's. The Dynas are good, but if you're looking for the crunch my vote is the Seymours.

I have been on the verge of dumping the Princeton a dozen times. I rarely find myself wanting that tweed sound, which is only useful to me on the verge of breaking up, and just past that verge. And this Princeton is a pristine, near-mint '57 with an original speaker. When I abuse it at volume to get that crunch, I feel like I'm going to shred the speaker.

I got the amp 25 years ago for a song, and I realize now it's worth a symphony. I rarely LIKE it, but I hold onto it just to make vintage guys jealous, as it's the only really semi-covetable overpriced vintage piece I own. I think of it as minor vintage cred.

jetboy lays out the choice: It's pick your poison! If you want a jazz, country or rockabilly sound the Dyna'a are the way to go by my ear. They sparkle. But if I am going to turn the gain up give me the Duncan's! But for $450 I think I'd just buy another guitar for that and keep the Dyna's.

And the guitar I'd get for 450.00 is an Electromatic Corvette. Dang, I could fund a whole desirable guitar with a pair of pickups! That casts this swap-o-mania in a different light, donit?

Shuie: I think the jury is still out at the moment, and I reckon we both know why. The stock Dyna's acquit themselves very well- detailed, shimmery, balanced and complex in the midrange.

They are! They are!

The Duncans sound like weightlifter versions of the same- more power in the entire spectrum, but that's it.

They do! They do!

On the minor blues the sound on both neck pickups is astonishingly close to Hendrix playing 'Red House'. That's a compliment to your sweet touch, too.

Awww, pshaw, get on with 'ya!

Astonishing, that is, until the polepiece settings in your pictures is noted. I reckon you'll be back with a new set of soundclips, very soon. Just as soon as you've raised the pickup bodies and put those polepieces where they belong- level with or a little under the top.

I have a feeling that you're just a little underwhelmed with the Duncans, deep down, but with a little height adjustment they'll probably, hopefully, please please gleam with that focused, lurid gargle we all wish them to have.

I don't know that I was underwhelmed with the Duncans. At first I thought they'd lost some twinkensparkleshimmer, which I missed.

And now this whole raise-the-body lower-the-polepieces thing comes up, to which I still don't have an answer. Haven't ordered my spacers yet. It's an experiment I want to try. And focused lurid gargle is something much to be sought, I agree.

Walter expands on the results to be expected from raising the pups: More body, yes, but "smooth" and "bridge dynasonic" together..no. You just get "more" period, not necessarily smoother, you get more "kerrang" too.

Oh man, I want more kerrangg. I want focused lurid gargle, jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth, along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang and kerrangg.

Shelton is right to the point, though he doesn't finish the thought: I think the Duncan at the bridge sounds miles and away better...The original 50s Dynas were pretty rude pickups.

But...what about the neck? Are you saying I should leave the stocker at the neck?

Synchro hears the bridge thing too: It seemed more full sounding, more authoritative. The big question, at least for me, would be whether the improvement justifies the cost.

I've already written off the cost, chalked it up to experience and the good of the GDP community. I'm SUCH a bleeding philanthropist.

I really liked your approach to Summertime Blues. Your handling of it struck me as being the missing link between Cliff Gallup and George Harrison.

Right, only not as slick, inventive, and supernaturally executed as Gallup, nor as charmingly natural in feel as Harrison.

Wishinfora(nother)Falcon is the first to note that Raising the pups on the Jet brought it into the SD territory pretty strongly in comparison to these clips. The SDs are just more output, right? Well, you get that (or the same tonal benefits) by raising the pup bodies...SDs are growlier and midrangey, but I got that when I jacked mine up. It added a bit of beef too. Just what the doctor ordered for the Jet.

Hmmm, so I could have saved that 400.00 I already wrote off ...

The Falcon on the other hand, probably due to body size, I didn't think would benefit from the spacers (or more output). It sounds so big and CLEAN and warm as it is, I thought it would kill the complexity.

Yes! I have no interest whatever in trying the Seymours in the Club or even the DSV. I feel no lack of anything, and nothing but complete aural satisfaction, when playing those guitars.

TomfromPA: My 6128TSP is a Dyna Gakki built guitar (June, 2005) and has a very thick spacer underneath the bridge pickup. Based on the photos it looks like Proteus' DuoJet came with a thin spacer.

I wonder how the guitar would sound with the top of the pickup surface mounted at 3/16 & 1/4 inch below the strings and the pole pieces set nearly flush to the pup surface as per Setzer's sketch? In my case there was a huge difference in the sound between stock DynaSonics and Seymour Duncans when both were installed at the same height specs. It wasn't subtle at all.

Can anybody think of a reason why Gretsch would be inconsistent with stock pickup mounting heights?

You're onto something there. Film at eleven.

J(et)D: Wishin's observations are the same as mine with the spacers installed. My bridge pup gets "nastier" now, and both pups just have more "beef".

I've listened to the clips several times tonight, and I have to say that stock Dynas, with spacers, are doing the trick for me, based on what I'm getting out of the clips.

You're saying that you think the stock Dynas with spacers perform like the Seymours...without spacers? That theme emerges in the thread. But it makes me wonder, what will I get when I put spacers under the SEYMOURS? Will I be able to handle it?

More J(et)D: Maybe I was expecting a bigger difference than the clips are revealing. I've experienced the ceramic Filter vs TV Classic improvement, and it was a very notable improvement to my ears. The SD's are different, but they are not making me say OMG!

Right now, if I were to lay out $450 for a pair of anyone's pups, I would really want to say OMG, WHAT a difference. I'm not hearing it today.

Tom, my Duo is an '06 "JT" with reasonably thick plastic spacers on both pups.

But my Duo is an '06 JT with one reasonably thick spacer and one very thin one. I'm confused.

Later in the same thread, J(et)D has more to say: Ok, I've listened more, and they both sound nice, but in different ways. I see pro's and con's in both.

RI Dynas......Brighter, which may be good for a hollow body. Covers aren't grounded, but that's an easy fix. Potential for rewinding at a reasonable cost. Initial cost is reasonable.

SD Dynas.....not as bright, heavier mids. Grounded cover, but as Prot's pics shows, the covers aren't "as nice" in the fit and finish. The holes are a little "off". Reverse wind on one pup for hum reduction in the middle position. Wound to the spec YOU want. Initial cost, pretty high.

The SD's just don't make me "excited" to the point of wanting/buying a pair right now.

Someone posted earlier that the RI's sound more like a Fender single coil. I agree, and a damn GOOD Fender single coil sound too.

But still no conclusion.

otterbean hands the victory to the stock dynasonic pickups for the chime factor. Sounded like a far more versatile set of pickups. ...I also liked the variety of tones...with the stockers. Nice and complex. Seemed like the dynamics of...picking just came to life more with them than the Duncans.

If I was going for a nice rock vibe, the Duncans would take the prize...I thought the response of the pickups was far more even than the stock pickups.

Oh yes, and chime. Focused lurid gargle, jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth, along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang, kerrangg, and CHIME. Can I have it all?

Shuggie101: First listen I was inclined towards the stocks but after a short while I gravitated towards the SDs. They are obviously meatier and perhaps a touch less tight in the lows, but despite their slightly darker tone I hear more transparency and sensitivity. In other words I can really sense your fingers on the strings and the way you're hitting them with that pick.

Yeah, I sense that too. And isn't that counterintuitive, that we THINK the Seymours are darker, but still hear all the dimension and detail? By the way, TV Jones would agree that the hotter pickups sound looser in the low end.

A bit less jangle for sure, but I think you could compensate by turning up the treble on the amp. I'm not convinced you could dial in that meatiness with the stock pickups using eq.

It would depend on where exactly the pups differed in response, and at what frequencies tone controls were centered on the amp. Surely with reliable spectrum analysis and an eq that slices and dices finely enough, one could be made to approximate the response of the other. I don't think it would be easy in either direction, though.

Listening to guitars in isolation is fine, but as a sound engineer I'd also consider how they might cope when the drums are banging and the bass is pumping. My assessment is that the SDs would have more presence and power without resorting to eq and compression.

I know what you mean there, but my recording-what-if logic asks if they mightn't just mud up the proceedings, and the stockers cut through better?

But ultimately it's never just about the sound - it's also about the way the pickups, amp, strings etc etc make you FEEL when you're playing.

I get pretty much the same playing vibe from either pickup, actually. I'm aware there's a bit more there with the Seymour, but it's very much the same character. Almost, but not quite, like I'd just juiced the amp a bit. The Seymours are, however, just that crucial bit more responsive; there's more there when I put my foot in it.

Ratrod: I'm in the Duncan camp on this one. To me they sound more growly, raw and even twangier.

EVEN twangier. Consistent with some of our observations that the Seymours have mour of EVerything, but counter to other observations that the greater perceived brightness of the stockers creates more twang. I wonder what the King of Twang has to say about this?

And do you suppose we all define twang a little differently?

Danman states the reason for considering the Seymour Swap: The pick ups on my jet are a bit weak sounding and the guitar is a bright one already. So it doesn't really have the fullness I want in a guitar. I think I really could use the extra beef and more full and rounded tone the seymours give you.

Only I didn't think I was after a more full and rounded tone. I just wanted the stock tone with more gutpunch.

I can imagine that if you find the Seymours to be too full sounding, you can adjust the tone to your liking on the amp. Of course this was just one setting. And of course the sound was set to the stock pick ups. If you had done the shoot out the other way around you would get different sounds.

Weeellll...amps don't really have all THAT much tone-shaping capacity, particularly not the amps I used here. The Princeton has a single tone knob, and the Deluxe a bass and a treble. Those are "shelving" controls as well, which affect everything from a particular frequency on down to the low end of the amp's response on the bass side, and from a particular frequency on up to the high end on the treble side. In trying to shape the sound of the guitar at the amp, you may be boosting or cutting frequencies you DON'T want in order to get to those you do.

And outboard EQ – 6-band, 10-band, 31-band, parametric, what have you – are additional circuitry (which in my experience always have some effect even when not in use) AND introduce maddening complication that only help you completely de-individualize the tone of the guitar.

In this case it's true that, as far as it went, I adjusted the amps for the stock pups. But all I could do to compensate when I went to the Seymours, to make the Seymours sound more like the stock, would be to increase treble a little and perhaps back off the bass a little on the Deluxe. (It was already at 2.)

But I take your point that there's SOME adjusting to be done at the amp.

Suprdave5150 is revealed as liking his crunch extra-crispy: My ears prefer the Stock Dynas through the Princeton. I don't know but it sounds like you were having more fun playing that mix, at least to me it sounds that way.

I may have been having fun on that cut, since that's where I started, I had just figured out the "songs," and they were still fresh to me. I also remember enjoying the Seymours through the Princeton because the tone was so ballsy.

But of course I really prefer a wimpy clean sound, so I felt like an impostor.

senojnad has been down the road: My original reaction to my Duo Jet with stock Dynas was similar to yours. They seemed a bit weak or thin. I also had the hum.

In my case, changing to the Seymour Duncans made a HUGE difference, at least to my ears. As TomfromPA has said -- fuller, better articulation (especially in the middle strings, more power or kick, and VERY quiet. For me, the change was much more dramatic than my previous upgrade to TV Jones Classics on my 6122.

For my ears (and a few other folks who heard the before and after-- including my wife who does not play guitar or share my love for Gretsch guitars) the difference was not subtle. It was HUGE.

For me, it was not an easy decision to invest in the Seymour Duncan dynas. However, I have never regretted that decision, nor have I had any "second thoughts" about it.

That's what we call a ringing endorsement, guys.

cyclopssam likes his tone as cool as his beans: cool beans!, WELL.... one man's mids are a nother man's mud.i did enjoy the stocks on a whole a LOT better. i wish you could have thown in GFS newyork II'S to realy stir things up

I didn't even THINK of doing that...but don't we already know that NYIIs are like Dynas crossed with Texas shredders? Texas Twang, maybe?

Jopapa says what Shelton implied: If it were me, I'd keep the stock neck pup and put the SD in the bridge.

I've actually thought about that, and it has some appeal.

Dawg thought that the SDs had a fuller sound, but the stock PUPs sound nice too. However, when cranked a little, they lose that certain 'something'. Anyhow, I ordered a set of SDs today.

The stock ones have that great shimmery quality, but I'd also love to have that richer 'thraaaang' tone similar to what Cliff Gallup got on Gene Vincent's 'Five Days Five Days' - i'm just wondering if the volume is backed off on the SDs do they 'shimmer' a little more?

They don't seem to, no.
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 1:26 a.m. Proteus:

CHAPTER TWO,
...being more of your Dyna impressions, and my responses.

TyPierce thought they both sounded great, albeit in somewhat different ways. If money were no object, I'm inclined to say I'd stay with the stock - something about the shimmer and twang they have without coming across as thin is very honest-sounding to me. The Duncans definitely growl more, but that's totally a matter of taste.

When you factor in the cash, though, no contest. Stock Dynas, hands down.

And I vastly prefer the Tweed to the Princeton - which I didn't know going into this thread.

Well, you know, always happy when someone learns something. My parents and aunts were all teachers. I've been a teacher. Once a teacher, always a teacher.

BigAI, like most of us, likes them both, but the extra growl in the SD pickups wins it for me. The stock ones sound much smoother. And I prefer the Princeton amp.

So is that a vote for the pickups, or for a raunchier, growlling tone?

Hobie swings in from the antipodes with a succinct eval: I found the Duncans richer, and more to my liking, the Dyna's sounded, in comparison, a bit lean. But...that's a bit weird as I love the Dyna's on a hollowbody, and yet when I had a chance to play them on a Jet I wasn't that fussed by them.

Which also describes my initial response to Dynas. On hollows, it was immediately evident that they were just right (after I put flats on the DSV). On my Jet, while the sound was fascinating and even perplexing right off the bat, I had to grow into an understanding of how to work with the Dyna sound in this new context.

The Duncans are rich and opulent in comparison if I was to label what was only a small difference; more body, timbre etc. As to whether I would stump up $450 for this; well I would never have considered it in the first place given how much impressed I always have been of the Dynas on hollowbodies.

Now a blind listening would be interesting to see if we really can consistently hear the difference.

Oh, I think we would! I mean, if both samples were offered side by side. Now, could we hear a Jet in a test with a bunch of OTHER guitars and know if it had stock or Seymour Dynas on it? I'm not so sure about that.

texarock recounts that Walter the Wise said, "I've spent almost an hour at a music store with a recent Dyna jet, and I absolutely loved the guitar, but thought it sounded a lot more like a Tele than one of my best friends' 50's Jet, a guitar I'm pretty familiar with. Nice tone, but not the oomph and big presence I expected from a Dyna Jet, a lot more like Fender single coils."

Walter, you hit the nail on the head for anyone who is curious about "stock vintage" vs. "new stock". I don't have so much experience with newer guitars, but old DeArmond jets sound huge.

Remember all this anecdotal evidence for later; it will be important to a later class discussion and our final conclusions.

And JohnnyFriendly wants to know, from texarock: The big question is really this: how close to the originals do you feel the SDs sound based on Proteus's sound clip?

But texarock hasn't answered!

Synchro obvserves: I find the stock Dynas on my 6128TCG to be somewhere between Tele turf and the P-90 pea-patch. I must confess to being a bit surprised by how bright they are but I can get a lot of use from them and for any Surf aspirations I have the perfect stealth surf axe.

Well yes. There was a whole mental adjustment to be made when I got my Jet. It LOOKED like a Les Paul, and not necessarily a perfectly-proportioned one at that. But it had that Tele-P90 kinda cross sound. (In a manner of speaking.) And with the Jet's banjo-level sustain, it ought to be a great surf guitar.

(Cue video of Synchro surfing the sands of the rez, perched on his Jet.)

TomfromPA agrees that huge is probably the best single word to describe Seymour Duncans. Then you could add rich, articulate, balanced, hum free, and nasty as hell after the good girls have gone home. The SDs stay cleaner much longer with a larger amp.

OK, so let me update the lexicon: Focused lurid gargle, jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth, along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang, kerrangg, chime, meat, transparency, sensitivity, full roundedness, thraaaang, body, oomph, big presence, opulence, growl AND they are rich, balanced, hum-free, nasty as hell after the good girls have gone home – and HUGE.

That's a lot to ask of a mere aggregation of metal, plastic, and wire!

The SD Custom Shop pickups are the closest thing to the original 50's DuoJet D'Armonds that's on the market today. If you are worried about getting sufficient treble listen to Jeff Becks "Crazy Legs" album. Brian Setzer uses a vintage DuoJet through a small Supro for most of the "RockaBilly Riot" CD. A listen to Brian should give you an idea how it sounds with that style of music.

And these two examples remind me that the fatter Seymours still have plenty high-end. No one could accuse either album's guitar sound as being remotely muddy.

Danman used to own a 1954 Synchromatic. The dyna's sounded huge indeed. Very powerful and full and warm sounding. But still with bite and agression.

The Dyna's on my 1957 Jet Firebird are weaker and harsher sounding. Much more like a Telecaster.

OK, whoah! Is that a real vintage '57, or a reissue? Because that description sounds like a negative description of the current stock Dynas.

Of course a Jet is a very different guitar and they always will sound very different. But there are so many differences in vintage Dynasonics that it is hard to generalize the sound of them (although there is a typical sound to them of course). And also every guitar will sound different. I played several 50's Jets of a friend of mine and they are all very different guitars and the pick ups all sound very different.

I boldfaced Dan's last paragraph, because – while it is basic wisdom known to all guitar nerds, it turns out to be a key to the Dynasonic mystery. Prophetic in fact.

Setzer thought with (my) playing and setup that the Duncans sounded the best.

I did get a chance to play a DE a couple of years ago and those Dynas sounded great on that hollowbody. So if I got a pair or a guitar with them already mounted I would give them a chance. In the clips the stock pickups sounded to thin for me.

I agree with the others a vintage Jet with real DynaSonics sound freaking huge!

More support for the notion that the stock Gretsch Dynas might work better in the hollowbodies than in the Jet, and now I have to add "freaking" to the tone lexicon...

Creation hears a great tone in every option here, which highlights that old adage that "y'hear what y'wanna hear". I really dig every tone so I find it very hard to take this competition on board...I would find it very easy to be guided by this shoot-out either way which only goes to show it's "horses for courses."

Me...I'll stick to stock Dynas......best git I've EVER had the pleasure to play..."

Two further layers of subjectivity emphasized: what we expect to hear conditions what we in fact hear – and one pickup might be better for one purpose, the other for another. Hmmm.

seadevil liked both of the pickups pretty much equally, but I do find it appalling that the stock Dynas are not hum-cancelling. I don't think I would spend the extra money for a pair of SD's. I'd rather just raise the stock pickups and crank the bass up on my amp.

I don't understand why I'm not more knocked out by the sound of the Duncans, since I tend to prefer a chunkier sound. My favorite pickup of all time is the Charlie Christian, with Jazzmasters, P-90's, Barden Teles, and Dynas all more less tied for second place.

I would only mention that stock Dynas may not be hum-cancelling because VINTAGE Dynas weren't hum-cancelling, and they were spec'd by reference to original pups.

And I know not to take seadevil's ambivalence about the pickups here as his final word, because I've read the thread and know he takes another pass later.

seadevil is back. (I told you.) And he brought a curious and revealing screen shot from a spectrum analyzer with him. Results?

Well, now I think I like the Duncans better. I got curious about exactly what the differences were and opened both of the Deluxe clips in Bias Peak. The Duncans exhibited a noticeably larger (louder) waveform; I aslo ran a spectrum analysis plug-in with an easy-to-read display...Here's what the tonal profiles looked like:

And what are we to make of those spectrums?

The devil's in the details. While the overall shapes of the waveforms are recognizably similar, the detail differences are surprising. In listening, we think we perceive more low end in the Seymour (on the left), but the stock Dyna actually has a sizable peak around 80 Hz, a dip, and then another around 200 Hz– while the Seymour slopes up more gradually to a first peak at about 280. Both have similar tips around 280 and 380, then roughly similar patterns of peaks and valleys out to about 1K.

The Seymour does have more of a hole between 1K & 1.5K than the stocker, and that's probably where we're hearing the Seymour as "smoother" (being complimentary) or "lacking brilliance" (to insult it).

The general curve is similar again from 2K to 3K, though the Seymour actually has more and higher peaks in that range (which ought to translate to increased clarity). From 3K on out to 14K or so, they drop off similarly. While the stockers have a last peak around 6K, the Seymour is actually stronger and more consistent from there on out, and then drops off more abruptly at the high end.

These are not perfect comparisons: seadevil took snapshots of two different performances at similar, but possibly not identical points, and both the frequency and dB scale are so compressed on our screens that it's tough to make detailed analyses.

But what at least I thought I was hearing – more fat and less high bite in the Seymour – is not consistent with the picture. The stocker seems to have more going on the low end, and a overall a faster dropoff in the high end – with the exception of that apparent peak at 6K. Is that where all the shimmer in the stocker is? And is all the fat in the Seymour that lone peak around 280?

roadjunkie, just like a whole lot of others here, liked both. As much as I like my DSW I won't be changing them out anytime soon. Then again with cash in hand I wouldn't have to think twice about buying a WCST or the SD equipped Falcon! If you would have done this with the DSV it would have been more help to me. I'm curious if that thought entered your mindset at all I also want to know what you were thinking in comparing the live sound to the recording.

Well...as I've said, I'm not even tempted to try this at home with a hollowbody. For one, I'm completely satisfied with their tones; for another, I'm not hankerin' to yank an entire harness out through a pickup hole as an experiment. (That said, if I had an utterly trusted technician on-staff who would do that for me, without my having to watch the process or worry about the guitars, I might do it for the sake of a shootout.)

But y'all can do it on your guitars and post the results!

Drew Morrison installed SD Dyna-Sonics in my Duo Jet 'Cat Man' DSV reissue and to my ears they just make the guitar so much better than the stock pickups. They are full sounding and have that wooden tone that you cannot get with the stock pickups. They generate a fatter sound rather than the HI-FI signal you get with the stock pickups.

Fat. Wooden. (Oh, sigh sigh sigh.)

Focused lurid gargle, jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth, along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang, kerrangg, chime, meat, transparency, sensitivity, full roundedness, thraaaang, body, oomph, big presence, opulence, growl AND they are rich, balanced, hum-free, nasty as hell after the good girls have gone home, biting, aggressive, freaking huge, fat, and wooden.

Zuvembie goes into the details of amp tone-tweaking:

Obviously the amp settings could be adjusted to take the stock pups into the realm of the SD's (more mids and gain etc,.) The sound wouldn't be a 100% match but coupled with raised pick up height, it would be similar.....and way cheaper...maybe a shoot out where this was the aim could be useful-trying to get one model to sound like the other with a few tweaks of the amp. BTW, can someone tell me if my White Falcon G6136T-LDS has stock or SD dynasonics? I've heard that they're SD's but no info on this on the Gretsch site.

Take one of the pickups out. The Seymour is stamped "Seymour Duncan" in the black plastic of the bobbin bottom. Mine also have labels for neck & bridge.

Rock Lajoint points out that his amp only has a volume control so I can't tweak it to make the Dynas on my 6120 DSW sound more like vintage Dynas. I shouldn't need to, I feel I've already paid for that sound.

Well...we've had some empirical observations about what vintage Dynas sound like. "HUGE" is a word with a lot of impact, but we've also heard that another set of vintage Dynas sounded weak and harsh.

Again this raises the question of why don't Gretsch Dyna-Sonics sound like they used to - assuming the Duncans have the original sound. I realise that Dynas are more complicated than most but it seems that Gretsch have done a lot the hard work (all the right parts are apparently there) but skimped on the details. What would be the cost difference to them to produce Dynas to original specs? I imagine that it wouldn't be a great amount. When it comes down to it, I greatly doubt the original Dyna-Sonics were lovingly hand crafted and carefully balanced with an added sprinkling of mojo, they were engineered to a spec. I can't believe it's beyond Gretsch to produce vintage sounding Dyna-Sonics at a cost differential that would make a minimal impact in terms of percent on the pricing of expensive guitars.

Good questions, great observation about the originals...and we're on the track of why Gretsch doesn't "produce vintage-sounding Dynas." It will have something to do with just how pickups are "engineered to a spec." Stick around for the exciting conclusion!

I like the sound of my stock 6120 DSW, it sounds great for the Eddie Cochran lead stuff I like to play but it bugs me that the sound isn't quite right, for example, for Bo Diddley sounds...it seems that the Duncans give this extra dimension.

But Eddie and Bo had different guitars. With different designs. And different pickups. And, it's safe to say, utterly different techniques.

Zuvembie agrees with Rock Lajoint, it seems a bit crazy that the spec of the stock Dynas don't match the performance of the oldies. Seems like a big thing to overlook when producing an expensive instrument that could easily be improved....(assuming the SD's are the more popular choice?)

And I'm not sure the SDs emerge even from this thread as the more popular choice. Those who prefer the cleaner sparklier tone they hear in the stockers wouldn't consider it an improvement to get the Seymour sound.

do not be afraid didn't much like either through the Deluxe, but i loved them both through the Princeton, so, i guess it worked better for me as an amp shoot-out!

Good, good.

but, the Seymour Duncan Dyna'Sonics are definitely my preference: fatter, hotter, nastier, but still with plenty of attack, clarity, and TWANG! still, both sounded to me like, well, uh, Dyna'Sonics — the greatest pickups ever made!

We know they're the greatest pickups ever made, but which is the BEST greatest pickup ever made?

Remember, it must have focused lurid gargle, jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth, along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang, kerrangg, chime, meat, transparency, sensitivity, full roundedness, thraaaang, body, oomph, big presence, opulence, growl AND it must be rich, balanced, hum-free, nasty as hell after the good girls have gone home, biting, aggressive, freaking huge, fat, and wooden – with plenty of attack and clarity.

i agree that it's a shame that Gretsch doesn't get the little details right on the reissue Dyna'Sonics, but they really don't get the little details right on reissue Filter'Trons, either, or, actually, come to think of it, on their reissue guitars! yes, Fender has brought the company a long way, but there's still a very long way left to go if “buildin' 'em like they used to” is the ultimate goal!

dnba lays down the challenge! But ... like they used to, uh, on which day?

TomfromPA wants to clarify: Mark S, are you really going to play surf music on a Jet? GDP needs to take up a collection and get you to a gig at a California surf bar. The impact of "That Great Gretsch Sound" would be seismic.

I'll toss in a fiver. But, Synchro, love ya like a brother man, the Jet really doesn't look very surfy. It just doesn't.

Gretschmaster now prefers the sound of the Duncans even more so than before. I wonder how they would sound in the DSV or the Country Club. If I had a Dyna-equipped guitar I would definetly need to buy a set. Can't put a price limit on that sound...

I TOLD you, I'm not prying apart the DSV or the Club.

The votes are still coming in. atomicwash: My preference goes stock Dynas through the Deluxe. I can sure see use for either brand depending on the music you're playing. Dynas are one of my favorites, and now I won't keep wondering if I'd like the SD's more.

No ambiguity there!

Synchro surfs carefully through his curgigulum vitae: To the extent that I play in public at all I intend to use a Jet for any and all surf songs.

Right now I am gigless, I have no gigs, no band and few prospects but I am not giving up. IF . . . I can find a bassist or even IF I end up playing bass for another guitarist, you can bet that I'll be playing . . . somewhere in this desert wasteland. If I ever get to play a Surf song in public again I hope with all of my heart that it's played on my green Duo Jet through either my Twin Reverb or a Deluxe. It's the most awesome sounding Surf axe I've ever played and YES, I've played a Jazzmaster and I own a Jaguar.

But a Jet still doesn't LOOK surfy. And being of like age, I'm here to tell you, bro, if we don't at least carry the right tools of the trade, we don't have a chance with the surfer babes.

Synchro goes on to reveal that he chose a Dyna equipped Jet because I was very impressed with the sounds I heard Brian Setzer get with one. As soon as I got the guitar from the UPS driver I plugged it in and there it was, the James Bond Theme sound.

Remember that Setzer Jet reference; it's important to the story.

troy6120 thinks maybe Fender makes the RI Dynas weaker in output because they sound better that way.... I think they do. Spankier, twangier. I love 'em just the way they are.

See? Seymour does not have a landslide. But does Fender intentionally make the pups weaker than they OUGHT to be?

Long live the tone!!

(Just to remind you, that tone is a focused lurid gargle, with jangle, complexity, raw edge, beef, anger, and warmth; along with smooth articulate raunch, shimmer, rip, roar, crunch, sparkle, detail, crack, knock, twang, kerrangg, chime, meat, transparency, sensitivity, full roundedness, thraaaang, body, oomph, big presence, opulence, growl AND it is rich, balanced, hum-free, nasty as hell after the good girls have gone home, biting, aggressive, freaking huge, fat, and wooden, with plenty of attack and clarity ... and spanky.)

Crazyquilt definitely preferred the Duncans. The stocks are good, and I can see why folks like them, but I don't want another Fender single coil. With my Jet, until I put spacers in, I always felt like I was having to pull enough output from it to really get it singing. There are parts of the clips that it sounds like Prot's doing to the same thing.

Yes – there have been times with the stock Dynas where I felt I was trying to drive the Jet harder than it could go. I wanted more out of it.

The Duncans sound more like I recall my Jet sounding, after I put spacers on -- but even moreso, and with a just generally more aggressive & fat character, but without losing any twang. I can only wonder if that translates into a better feel.

So again: does a shimmed-up stocker work like a Seymour? And, yes, I find the Seymours seem more responsive to inputs, from delicate to driving.

To me, the SDs sound more interesting, while the stocks sound more predictable & familiar. All that being said, it's still a hard comparison to call because tweaking amps & pickup heights would no doubt have a significant effect on both clips.

Synchro agrees that's a very important point. Back-to-back tests with no changes and settings are very useful for comparing the sound of pickups etc but let's not forget that adjustments are available on the guitar and amp.

Yeahbut.

While I can see obvious differences between the stockers and the SDs I'm going to have to experience the Duo Jet not cutting the mustard before I cough up $450.

We know, you're of the Scotlike persuasion. That and you can't help blowing up transmissions.

Setzer says the Duncan Dyno covers and bobbins are correct vintage shape and the cover is thicker like a vintage example. Also that is why the mount holes will not line up on a RI Gretsch.

And there are reasons behind the reasons, which will be revealed in season.

do not be afraid 'd like to hear a comparison between Seymour Duncan and Gretsch Dyna'Sonics wound identically! because i'm pretty sure the difference isn't just Gretsch not putting enough turns on the bobbin, and that their pickups overall just aren't anywhere near as well made (or as “vintage correct”) as the Seymour Duncans.

Well hold on there, young feller! That would be an interesting comparison, but you'd still have to analyze the specific source of any remaining difference.

Walter agrees that for what it's worth the Duncans look a lot more like the real thing from what I've seen.

and...

J(et)D unfortunately doesn't have any vintage Dynas to compare them to. I've only been around the RI pups, so for good or bad, that's all my ears have really ever heard one on one.

Important clues! All of us have heard only the guitars we've heard – some have heard more vintage examples and some more reissues. Not so many have had their hands on extensive selections of both.

Wishinfora(nother)Falcon reminds that Dynas are pretty simple pups. Is there a way to make them more "well made"? I'm guessing the ONLY difference is output. If there is more to the story, I'll bet it's minimal.

Well...it is and it isn't.

Stay tuned for Chapter 3.
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 1:30 a.m. Proteus:

But first, a short announcement.

The Shootout was not intended to be a survey, but it seemed natural for guys to weigh in with their preferences.

Of the 40 guys I count responding with comments and expressing a preference, stock Gretsch Dynasonics got 17 "votes," the Seymours got 20, and five liked both equally well. (I know that adds up to 42; if someone both couldn't decide and then expressed a preference anyway, he got counted twice.)

That's:

Stock Dynas: 17
Seymour Dynas: 20
Undecided: 5
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 1:34 a.m. Proteus:

CHAPTER THREE: What I've Learned

With all that in mind, at last some answers – possibly even new information.

Enquiring minds wanted to know why Gretsch winds their modern Dynas to different specs than vintage Dynas, why those pickups look a little different than Seymour Dynas, and how things got this way. We wanted to know when TV Jones is going to bring his rumored Dynas to market.

Instead of entirely speculating, I bothered Joe Carducci and TV, and they both graciously gave me a half hour or so of their time. The narrative that follows combines information from both guys. None of it quotes them directly, and I take responsibility for anything in which I've misunderstood or misinterpreted them. Corrections and expansions may be expected.

When Fred fired Gretsch up again in the early 90s, he had to locate not only a factory to build the guitars (Terada), but contractors to build the specialized components he would need – among them, pickups. Tokiwa, near Matsumotu, became the pickup manufacturer. (Joe's coverage from Japan of Tokiwa and Dyna manufacture back in November is on pages 21 & 22 of this thread.)

I don't have the definitive early story, but we know that someone provided Tokiwa with specs and measurements to build DynaSonics. We know that among those advising Fred during the early 90s was long-time Gretsch employee Duke Kramer. It's reasonable to surmise that the specs given Tokiwa came from measurements of vintage Gretschs available to Fred and Duke. Was it an average of many, of several, or simply of a single favorite guitar? Dunno.

But it seems unlikely that anyone just pulled specs from mid-air, and I can't imagine that Tokiwa began building Dynasonics without having original samples to work from – which they surely would have measured.

In any case, as far as the people I've talked to remember, reissue Gretsch Dynas since the 90s have always measured somewhere in the 7K - 8K range. (I'm curious if this is borne out by measurements in the field. Pre-FMIC and post-FMIC Dyna owners, get out your multi-meters and respond to the Single Coil Impedance Registry thread.)

When we "know" that old Dynas rated in the 11K - 13K range, how could this have happened?

Here's where Fender's experience in recreating their own old designs – and then Gretsch's – provides context. Joe tells me that when, in the early 80s, he was told the company was going to start building the guitars "like they used to," he wondered to himself, "yeah, on what day?"

Those who were there during the vintage era know that variables were so many, the machinery was such, and productions pressures were such that the kind of tight control which would guarantee compliance with specs every time simply wasn't possible.

The myriad of small variations that could creep into an instrument from literally every component, dimension, and process meant that some guitars were magic, some were abominations, and the rest were spread along a continuum between. In other words, it's a combination of many physical and human factors – and not the Mystic Mojo Fairy – which blesses some guitars and curses others.

Nonetheless, starting with the 1982 '62 Reissue Strat, Fender forged ahead to recreate the past, hoping to employ the mojo fairy on every one.

The company has immediate access through employees, collectors and dealers, and their many artists to many good examples of any vintage model they want to "recreate." Begging, buying, borrowing, and or stealing those instruments – then analyzing them – is where the process of recreating the past begins.

And in every case – Fender or Gretsch – they've found that out of a half dozen examples of any given model, each guitar will be different. Vintage instruments are simply all over the map in nearly every specification.

So one of the company's challenges has been to create tight specs for instruments which never had them in the first place. Those specs may derive from averages of instruments from a particular era, or from a particular magic instrument. In every case, the latter-day recipe for an old dish has to be validated by the market – by players and buyers who know old instruments and agree that the reissue is consistent with their experience, and/or by those of us who are not familiar with a range of vintage instruments, but find the reissues good enough to buy.

In 25 years, Fender has built considerable expertise in this process. Some reissues have been more successful than others, leading to continual evolution in the reissue side of Fender's business. Our perception that they've gotten better and better at mining their own past recognizes the company's skill in spec'ing and building new old guitars.

In this sense, FMIC was uniquely qualified to develop Gretsch reissues – which they've done through the same process of evaluating numbers of vintage guitars in order to develop an average or "ideal" specification for each reissued model.

And the consensus which has grown up on the GDP that old Dynas were all "hot" doesn't hold up to FMIC's tests of old guitars.

Remember that there was no such thing as a pickup-winding machine in the late 40s and early 50s when DeArmond, Fender, Gibson, and others began manufacturing pickups. Electric guitars were also an experimental item in a relatively small industry, and no one was building specialized machinery to make components for them. Early pickup winders were modified sewing machines; wind counters, when present, were mechanical; wind tension was determined by the technique of the operator; each operator had his or her own "style" of winding.

These mechanical and human factors guaranteed that even a particular operator could not be consistent. Figure in Monday-Friday issues, absenteeism, employee turnover, and variation in material supply, and you have a recipe for something like potluck even in pickups "built to a spec."

So why are the Gretsch-Tokiwa Dynas wound for 7.5K - 8K impedance, while Seymour Duncan Dynas are wound much hotter? Because in the vintage era, Dynas were built all over that range. Fred and Tokiwa apparently chose something around the low end of the historical range; Seymour Duncan, possibly to differentiate his product or in accordance with his experience (and possibly in response to customer preference), chose something near the high end.

We also have Mike's general statement that between 2002 and 2004, nearly every spec on every Gretsch was changed. I have to think Dynasonic output was reviewed at that time by comparison to vintage examples.

So which is the right spec? Your perception of that will depend on which old Dynas you've played – and we've seen testimony for both ends of the range. Since they are within the vintage range, the specs for Tokiwa's Dynasonics are not "wrong," and so far there's been no compelling argument to change them.

But forget what's "wrong" or "right" ... what's best, and is there an Ultimate Dynasonic spec? Our own responses to the shootout show almost equal preference for the stockers and for the Seymour hotties. As in most things guitar-related, it appears to be a matter for personal taste.

As a pertinent example, Joe's favorite guitar, the one that feels like "home" to him, is an '06 JT 6128T, with stock Dynas at their stock height, with the polepieces at factory positions. He's played old ones and Seymours, and he likes the new ones.

Does Fender intentionally underwind because they sound "better" that way? It doesn't appear so, though about half of us think they do.

Is it because it's cheaper to build them that way? As Mike Lewis memorably says, it's just as expensive to build something wrong as it is to do it right. Especially when we're talking about more thin wire around a bobbin, the difference in cost to wind hotter would be negligible.

Neither FMIC nor Fred before them seem to be cynically equipping guitars with what they know to be intentionally non-vintage-spec pickups. From the perspective of those who spec and build the guitars – from their direct experience with vintage examples – there simply is no single ideal Dynasonic spec.

Dynasonic Q & A
Paraphrased from conversations with Joe & TV

Q: Why do vintage Dynas set up with their bodies closer to the strings, and their polepieces lower in their bodies – while the reissues are normally lower, with higher polepieces?

A: Again, among the vintage Gretschs FMIC has examined, this pattern does not hold universally true. During 50s & 60s production, neck pitch varied more from guitar to guitar than is now the case. This would have led to pickups at varying distances from the strings, and – depending on the individual situation – installing spacers to compensate for this would have led to still more variation.

And even on the best-documented vintage guitars, it's impossible to say that pickups – and particularly polepieces – have not been adjusted to personal preference down through the years. Combine vintage pickups of inconsistent construction (with varying resistance), varying neck pitch, and varying adjustments on each guitar: how would any of us go about establishing a definitive spec for Dynasonic installation?

Q: In current and recent production, why do some Dynas come with spacers putting them closer to the strings than others?

A: This may go back to the source factory. During the FMIC era, Jets have come not only from Terada (JT in your serial number), but Fuji Gen (JF). Fuji Gen examples differed in construction detail such as neck pitch and the neck attachment cantilever. The two factories may also have used different specs for spacers to adjust Dyna height. (In the last couple of years, all Japanese Gretsch production has been centralized at Terada because they "get" Gretsch, and get Gretsch right.)

In any case, given the variability in vintage guitars, there seems no compelling argument for FMIC to insist on one setup or the other. Dynasonics are now installed at Terada to allow maximum player adjustability. We've seen that some guys prefer the brighter, "weaker" sound of a low pickup. If the pups are cranked up close to the strings, those guys have difficulty getting what they want. Keeping the pickups lower also minimizes the likelihood that excessive magnetic pull against the strings will cause Stratistic "wolf" tones and complicate intonation.

We've seen testimony that raising the pickups with spacers and adjusting polepieces has a similar effect to installing hotter pickups. It's a small expense and a bit of hassle to do so – but not all THAT big a deal. Maybe FMIC could ship the guitars with extra spacers in the cases, to facilitate these adjustments.

Q: What about the other Dynasonic components – the case, the polepieces? They "look" more vintage-correct on the Seymours. Why can't Gretsch get them right?

A: I'm told that Dyna cases from any source are not deep-drawn in a metal press, but vacuum-formed. As far as can be determined from the evidence, they've always been made that way, from DeArmond on. It's an expensive process. We're sure Tokiwa is manufacturing new cases and other Dyna components in Japan; we have only speculation as to where SD sources their cases and parts. They don't come from Tokiwa.
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 2:11 a.m. Proteus:

CHAPTER FOUR: Is That All There Is?

There's no ultimate Dyna spec? It can't be optimized to suit everyone?

Well...maybe it can. Once again, it's TV Jones to the rescue – specifically, his experience and his research.

For those who don't know, a bit of review. TV made his reputation in pickups by figuring out what really made vintage Filtertrons tick (or sparkle), particularly by comparison to the ceramic-magnet 'trons Gretsch was installing in the '90s.

He figured it out and then custom-wound pickups for Brian Setzer, who was Very Happy. Fred Gretsch got interested in this quiet, intense builder from California, and starting in 1998, TV began consulting and designing pickups for Gretsch. His first project was the Setzer Hot Rod Filtertron. Some of his designs are built by Asian factories for use in Gretsch guitars; we're more familiar with those he makes under his own brand.

When FMIC began its relationship with Gretsch, Mike Lewis spent a couple of days in Washington (where TV had since moved), downloading what he could of TV's pickup enlightenment. He took a great deal of TV's advice, for one thing immediately spec'ing AlNiCo magnets for Gretsch Filtertrons instead of ceramic – because TV said it mattered.

TV has made his own study of Dynasonics. (It's probably safe to say he's made his own study of pretty much every pickup out there.) He too has seen vintage Dynasonics measuring across the ranges we've seen.

But the ones that sound best to him (and boy do I trust TV's ears) weigh in somewhere in the middle-9K range. To him, they have the sparkle and definition, they have the punch, and the low end stays tight.

Remember Brian's Silver Jet which has figured in these discussions as one benchmark for great Dyna sound? TV knows that guitar well; he's played it. He agrees that it's a magic-sounding Jet, and has measured those pickups; he also rewound the bridge. The exact figures are documented in his notes – and they are in the middle 9s.

Having just done the shootout, and listened and thought my way through the differences between 8K and 12K, 9-10K makes intuitive sense to me.

Particularly given the range of adjustability available with the pickups and spacers, that wind ought to be very versatile, likely satisfying most who prefer the stockers and most who prefer the hotties.

And I suspect it would retain what I like about the Seymours while laying to rest my nagging sense that I've left something behind in the stock wind.

Be an easy spec change for Tokiwa.

It's also easy to specify a wind when ordering from SD.

But is TV going to make Dynas? Yes, BUT. He reports no plans to build Dynas in Dyna casings. There are already two sources for such Dynas, and it's a limited-market pickup.

What he's going to build is Dynas in all his current standard mounts. Easy retrofit for humbucker- and Filtertron-equipped guitars. (P90 cases too?) He's finished with development of the pickup itself – his magnet formula (not all AlNiCo V is created equal), his wind and pattern, the polepieces and adjuster screws.

He's still fighting with the mounts: where Filtertron mounting screws are positioned, they want to go right through a Dynasonic bobbin.

He'll figure it out, but he doesn't know when.

So - an Ultimate Dyna Spec? Dunno – but I smell a rewind in my future.
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 3:06 a.m. Gretschmaster:

Ok, this was a long read. Well worth it though. The word 'audiophile' keeps jumping out at me.

I cannot really weigh in with much knowledge or experience because, frankly, I have a slight bit more than none of either. All that I know about dynas is what I have learned in the past couple of years of reading this forum. I have not even played an electrified dyna equipped guitar. The closest thing I have played is a historic series cats-eye-f-hole-pre-Fender Gretsch equipped with DeArmond 2ks or 2000s. It really sounded great though and I thought it sounded a lot better than the pre-Fender filtertron-equipped Tennessee Rose that I had played a moment before. This piqued my interest in dynas (I thought that the 2ks or 2000s [whatever] were dynas at the time) and hearing about them being "the best pickups ever" over and over again on this board has done nothing to reverse that. Now you've got me really gassin' for some variation of a guitar with dynas, whether it be hollow or chambered.

As for this write-up, thanks. It's great to hear your personal responses to each of our comments and the comments from the Gretschmeisters that you most likely hounded for info. I also really like the organization of the article. Well thought out format and easy to navigate. Thanks!
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 3:19 a.m. Proteus:

Yes, bordering on insanely long!

I'm relieved the structure makes sense at least to one reader – I've given a good deal of thought over several days to how best to present it.
- Rated: 51 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 3:29 a.m. bigalthethird:

I really don't have much to add except:

and

That was a brilliant read, and I can't imagine how much time that took you. So thank you very much.
- Rated: 37 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 4:17 a.m. seadevil:

CAUTION:OFF-TOPIC Surf guitar derailment:

I just want to say that I play in a surf band, and I play my 6120-1957 (EC model) quite a bit in this band.I've also been using the CC a lot in practice. My main guitar is a parts Telecaster with a Charlie Christian in the neck - and a Bigsby, of course. I have two original Jazzmasters and an original Jaguar, but I like the other guitars better.

The drummer and I actually got, um, picked up (sort of) by two lovely female fans at our last show, and there wasn't an offset-waist guitar in sight. So fish-sticks to your theories about the "right guitars" for surf and the effect of such instruments on the fairer sex! Most women don't give a damn about such things, and most of the rest of the audience don't seem to care too much either. If it sounds good, it is good!

Remember, Telecasters, Strats, ES-175's, and 335's were the dominant session guitars in the surf days, and a LOT of that playing was done by session players. Richie Podolor, Steve Strange, Glenn Campbell, Tommy Tedesco, and a handful of others played a huge amount of the surf sounds committed to wax, and Campbell was the only one to use a Jag or a JM (mostly on stage with the Beach Boys). Paul Johnson and Eddie Bertrand both favored Strats, as did a certain half-Lebanese left-handed Bostonian. Nokie Edwards himself would record with a Tele more often than not, even during the Mosrite endorsement days. It's not as cut-and-dried as the revivalists think.
- Rated: 22 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 5:19 a.m. Dawg:

Proteus

A truly great read. Gotta say - complete respect for going to such lengths.

Thank you.
- Rated: 8 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 6:09 a.m. Rock Lajoint:

Proteus, This is an excellent distillation of the comments in the other thread and an excellent analysis and investigation of the points raised. Thanks very much for your time and efforts.

RLJ
- Rated: 47 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 7:33 a.m. yettoblaster:

No mojo fairy?

I'm crushed.

I still believe though. Especially when things are distilled.
- Rated: 108 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 7:58 a.m. wenzel:

FYI, in the dyna comparison thread, I preferred the stock dyna's, but I also think that the amp settings had a lot to do with that. In the comparison, the SD pickups had too much overdrive without that clean tone that twangs the way they should. Could that have been the amp settings? Who knows, I am just saying that I think that the softer tone of the stock dyna's in that clip sounded more vintage correct to me. I also didn't like the tweed tone at all of the SD pickups. Way too overdriven sounding even clean. I wasn't there, so I can't say, but the SD's didn't sound like Duane's guitars to my ears. The stock dyna's were closer. So, stick that in your pipe, smoke it and let me know if you think I'm way out in left field somewhere...

Nice obsessive report Proteus! I love it that you are as obsessive as I am, only I don't obsess enough to want to write a novel on the topic since I own zero dynasonic guitars and personally prefer filtertron's. I did enjoy playing my brother's dyna equipped duo jet, but I wouldn't sell the farm to buy one yet. The decision is still out on that one.
- Rated: 15 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 8:28 a.m. augie1:

Proteus -

This was the single best "edutational" thread ever posted to this Forum, in my view. Excellent work, and thank you so much.

Of course, now I'm thinking - When I get my Jet, do I go with the Magnas or wait until TV comes out with HIS Dynas
- Rated: 23 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 8:39 a.m. Shuie:

Would it be fair to conclude that-

Fender spec's the Dyna's to have an output roughly equivalent to a Gibson Humbucker, a pickup most players and amps can comfortably cope with. Enough muscle and character for most applications, most of the time.

Seymour Duncan's Dyna, despite being wound by the light of a full and silvery moon is ultimately compromised by the law of diminishing returns.

It's been a great read. Proteus, you put your money where most of our mouths are.
- Rated: 47 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 10:08 a.m. Ratrod:

That was a very informative read. Vintage pickups vary alot in specs. That's why there's no such thing as a definative PAF sound.

Can we assume that both Gretsch Dyna's and Duncan Dyna's are equally 'vintage correct' in terms of the materials used?

where does the magic come from? I think it could be the winding method. Modern Dyna's are probably machine wound. The vintage ones were hand wound. Duncan also offers hand(scatter)winding. And yes, there is a difference. I have some scatterwound pickups. You can hear they're more lively and you can feel the difference too when you play them.

Why did Gretsch choose to keep the output in the lower realms of vintage? I think it's because of feedback. Imagine playing a DSV through a modern amp with 12K unpotted single coil pickups. Gretsch does a lot to prevent feedback. Thicker tops (than Brian Setzer likes), trestle bracing etc.

Is 450 bucks too much? It is a lot of money. I've spent much on boutique pickups and found it worth every buck. However, the clips haven't convinced me to spend that kind of money. But what if I went to Prote's house and compare the pickups in the flesh?

One last note. Amp settings. It might sound fair to keep the amp settings equal but that might not be the case. Higher output pickups sometimes need a little less bass and presence to make 'em sound perfect.

Where do I stand at the moment? If I had a Dyna equipped guitar, I would have the stock Dyna's rewound (scatterwound) to the specs I would like and wax potted.
- Rated: 25 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 10:25 a.m. Wishinfora(nother)Falcon:

WOW!! That was great work Pro. How do you find the time? Thank you so much.

I also have to say that I call my Silver Jet "The Silver Surfer" I get great surf tones out of it and I think it LOOKS totally "Surfy" with the sparkle and all. So There!! Maybe I'll even have the humpblocks carved into waves....hmmmm!! I'm looking hard for a clear and white Silver Surfer sticker for it
- Rated: 23 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 10:31 a.m. Shuie:

Nice one Ratrod- feedback control on a hollowbody. That's as good a reason as any to keep the output on the low end of the Dyna spectrum.
- Rated: 195 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 10:32 a.m. Proteus:

(Youse guys know I'm kidding about typecasting soif guitars, right?)
- Rated: 25 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 10:36 a.m. Wishinfora(nother)Falcon:

Of Course. No cryin' here!!
- Rated: 9 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 2:35 p.m. JohnnyFriendly:

This essay's easily the best thing I've ever read on the history of electric guitars. Thank you for your kind effort.

Tell you the truth, I'm now more excited about the prospect of you writing a history of Gretsch guitars than finding out what my 6120 DSV is going to sound like when it comes back from the shop with the Duncans installed.

"Focused lurid gargle, Kerrangg and Chime: The History Of Gretsch Guitars" - yes, I can see it on the coffee table right now...
- Rated: 37 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 4:45 p.m. seadevil:

Surf guitarist Johnny Fortune
- Rated: 82 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 5:39 p.m. Mark Synchro:

Thanks Proteus, this really brings a lot of information together in one place. Sometimes people forget that as with most things in life, very little about our guitars is absolute. The task of creating specifications for a reissue of any vintage guitar must be daunting indeed and even if you do it perfectly you will probably never please much more than half of the people, because even if we all like the same thing tend to like different facets of the same things, especially guitars.

My first experience with a Duo Jet (aside from the occasional, very casual look 'n' see) was nearly three years ago and just by chance it happened to be the very guitar I ended up buying. At the time I noted the Tele-like character of it but I also felt that it had something else, something that goes beyond a Tele and takes a step towards P-90 territory.

Seeing Brian Setzer's Silver Jet on the Montreal DVD brought the Duo Jet to the foreground of my consciousness. The sound he got in the James Bond theme stopped me dead in my tracks, it was a sound I wanted to add to my arsenal. Now that I have it I'm perfectly satisfied with the results. It gives me another flavor of Gretsch to work with, a worm-hole that leads me directly back to the earliest days of Rock 'n' Roll and forward throughout the era before full-on distortion, all the time, became the order of the day.

I still hope to wring out my Duo Jet at volume with a band. It sounds great at home, especially through my Twin, but will it comethrough the mix when other instruments are present and kranging away? I know that Strats can sound great at a practice and even better on a recording but at times they melt into the mix completely on a gig, leaving you with a white hot, trebly sound that is too loud in the audience and inaudible on stage. Only time will tell if the Duo Jet will display the same tendencies. If that were to happen you could be sure that I'd be looking into the SDs.
- Rated: 47 ↑
Feb 11, 2008 5:46 p.m. yettoblaster:

Not to derail (too much) but I have looked for a Country Club with Dynas since a way earlier post of yours Proteus (featuring yours).

I just scored a mint used '06 in sunburst with a solid spruce top (s/b's are no longer offered this way: the newer s/b ones are maple laminate).

Since I put on a proper set of NICKEL wound T.I Be-Bops in 12, the sound is just glorious!

I think they had plated steel slinkies on it. Even with slinkies the bass strings were too much. With nickel wrapped: just right!

The pickups must be mounted in the right zone on this particular ax (for height), because with a bit of adjusting the polepieces for balance and sweet spot, it bloomed like a rose and I can get Duane Eddy twang AND a nice lively and interesting so-called "Jazz" tone I like a whole bunch.

Yessssss!!!

Proteus, your sound posts here really helped me go in the direction I thought would work, and it turned out to be so. Thanks buddy! You saved me moo-lah!

I be a happy fellow! I never thought I'd find a spruce w Dynas CC.