Guys, if you think Proteus' playing is incredible through a 4 inch computer speaker, hook up a good set of headphones and listen again. Tim, INCREDIBLE job brother! Very expressive, flawless... loved it even more the second time around.
And you can hear the differences between the pickups better too.
Hey Tom! I have a pretty nice surround sound system on this desktop and so no shabby sounds here. Still I need to hear the SDs in a hollowbody! Hope someone posts some clips.
Nice work Proteus!
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. Thanks!
TomfromPA said: [A]re you really going to play surf music on a Jet?To the extent that I play in public at all I intend to use a Jet for any and all surf songs. (OK, I'm spending too much time having to think like a lawyer even though I ain't one.)
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 and played through either my Twin Reverb or a Deluxe Reverb. It's the most awesome sounding Surf axe I've ever played and YES, I've played a Jazzmaster and I own a Jaguar.
Ok, I've listened more, and they both sound nice, but in different ways.
My '08 guitar project is to get a pair of Dynas for my 6120DEO that "lost" its' original pair.
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.
I'm sure that either would sound very good in my DEO, but I'm looking at either $250/set for RI's or $450 for the SD's new.
A used set of RI's is an option, so is a used set of vintage, at about the same cost of the new SD's.
I've got to sit back and let things develop. The SD's just don't make me "excited" to the point of wanting/buying a pair right now.
Both sound good, just in different way. 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
I guess that the next step for me would be to see how my Duo Jet does in a public performance. I find that the proof of an instrument comes in the heat of battle so to speak. I love Strats but they tend to either get lost in the mix or they can be too shrill. I have found ways around this but they are a bit more finnicky than other guitars I've owned. I wonder if the "Fender-ness" of the Dyna equipped Jet may lead to the same problem.
I 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. Will it hold up among a band? There's only one way to tell.
If it doesn't than a set of SDs would probably be high on my list of possible fixes. Till then, who knows????????
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, and I'm usually the "grass is greener" kind of dude.
Long live the tone.
Mark Synchro said: If it doesn't than a set of SDs would probably be high on my list of possible fixes.
I'm tellin' ya, start with the spacers. If that doesn't satisfy you THEN move on to the SDs.
Long time, no read (thanks to the long-time slow read rate here....)
Very helpful, as always, Tim. Not to mention great playing -- also as always.
I only listened to the tweed clips; that's all I'm playing these days.
I 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.
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.
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.
Crazyquilt said: 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.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. When I first got my Duo Jet I started on the bridge pickup only and it wasn't so much twangy as it was bright, like a Tele. When I switched to both pickups I found the sound I was looking for.
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.
JD, 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. Thought you would like to know.
you know what i'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.
dnba, for what it's worth the Duncans look a lot more like the real thing from what I've seen.
If I have the time for it, I might post a comparison between the original DeArmond lead pickup in my '61 Guild Starfire, and a rewound new Gretsch Dyna reissue in the same guitar. The original is a little over 12K, the reissue's rewound to 12K. Might be a while, because I'm going to be really busy for some time, and I don't have any recording software on my P.C. right now.
Thanks Setz. Unfortunately, I don't have any vintage Dynas to compare them to.
Appreciate your input on this. 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.
Thanks again
DNBA said: 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.
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.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14kd8_poco-indian-summer_music
The "production" is as "square" as can be.
The opening guitar on this song is what I think of when the words Dyna and Jet come together.
Paul Cotton makes this old Jet just sing
Give it a listen and see what you think
That's the sound J(et)D. It's perfect and hard to mistake for anything else.
Yep, that's it. Pretty Cool!!
Mine'll do that, yessir, with a dollop of compression. Certainly recognizable.
And I assume our vee jay bases his approach on the theory that if we were around when the song came out, we're probably so old and fried we need to be treated patiently and calmly like children watching Mr. Rogers.
But then we require constant meaningless swirling visual stimulation to keep us both conscious and tractable?
Could you re-post this with some meaningless swirling visual stimulation please? I'm getting cranky. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; we must now allow video editing equipment to get into the wrong hands. The fate of civilization rests on the outcome.
It's hip to be SQUARE
This thread has the word pedal in it so I gotta say...
Keeley Java Boost > Keeley modified BD2 > Keeley Compressor would give Proteus a sound to die for.
Chonny, my usual setup includes a Barber Tone Press comp, a Keeley-mod BD2 (which is better than it can possibly be), and a Barber Launch Pad clean boost. Close enough? The middle of the chain includes a George Dennis Vol/Wah, a Seymour Duncan Twin Tube Classic, a Keeley-mod Boss Trem, and a delay. But those are rarely used.
Are you saying you compress after overdrive?
What a response to this test! There's a lot to digest here, and a lot to respond to. It indicates a surprising level of interest in Dynasonics in general, and raises a lot of questions about differences among varieties of Dynas, as well as their performance in various guitars.
There's no doubt we all hear the difference between the pups in the test – and most of us hear it in much the same way. Where we part company (when we do) is in which we personally prefer. A bunch of us like BOTH so well we hardly know what to decide. (In those cases, I suspect money can determine the outcome.)
A couple other themes emerge, beyond simply the comparative sound of the pickups: what were Dynas like back "in the day," what's different with the new versions, and why? I wanted better than speculative answers to those questions, so I did some research (OK, I called Joe and TV), and got some good new information.
That will all covered in a new thread (which also summarizes this one and responds to your comments); that thread is right here.
In the meantime, this post rhapsodizes about my current relationship with the Jet and the two different sets of pickups.
More than any other guitar I've had, the Dyna Jet fascinates me tonally. I don't settle into it instantly when I pick it up as I do with the Dyna Country Club: that guitar also has fascinating, complex, utterly satisfying tone, but it's not a mystery to me. I understand its vocabulary and response (insofar as I can make it speak). I love its tone, it always pleases me, but it's not so elusive.
When I pick up the Jet, it always takes me several minutes to adjust to its acoustic response – and that's with any bridge, even the beloved bar. Then its tone amuses and amazes and involves me. I sit and play the thing for hours, completely engrossed just in the way it sounds ... yet I never feel I've got to the bottom of it. There remains something indefinable and elusive about it.
That was true with the stockers, and it remains true with the Seymours. The mystery may have much to do with my having met the Jet very late in my playing life, and the expectations I had coming to it from the Club & the DSV, as well as the guitar's appearance. Let's be honest – if we haven't known Gretschs all our lives, and discover the Jet 35 years after meeting the Les Paul, at first we think it looks like a slightly ungainly Lester. Maybe our brains expect it to sound something like that.
That's where I was when I first plugged in my new Dyna Jet, with the stock pickups. But what did I hear? Something like a cross between a very light Paul w/P90s and a Tele, with the acoustic response curve of a banjo. That was NOT what I had expected, it caught me by surprise – the disconnect between the way the thing looked and the way it sounded – and it took me awhile to sink into the magic.
But I was hooked right away, got used to the guitar with the stockers, and came to appreciate the banjo-Tele aspect of their tone. That tone may not be what 50s Dynas are supposed to be about, but I liked it for what it was. The stockers have something almost delicate about them, or at least lean, which I enjoy. Still I wondered if maybe the guitar might benefit from a bit more mass, more muscle, more edge.
So came the Seymours, which took the guitar in a Les Paul w/P90s direction. If that's the first way I'd heard a Jet, I'm sure I would have embraced that new sound immediately. It just caught me off-guard. Now when I think about it, I got the mass and the muscle I hoped for (when it's working hard)...but by comparison I felt I'd lost a little edge, a little krrrrackkk, a little snap.
At the same time, I know vintage Dyna Jet is all over Beck's Crazy Legs and Brian's Rockabilly Riot – not to mention Cliff Gallup in the Vincent stuff – and none of those sound by any means too muddy or too fat. So did I lose anything or not?
Well, I've played the Seymours for many hours now, through a variety of amps and effects, across the styles I butcher, and I have to conclude that the Seymours are everything we've mentioned in this thread: fatter, richer, smoother, punchier – but still articulate and detailed.
And I'll say that the more I've played it, the more I enjoy it. Probably the biggest single difference from the stockers is that I often overplayed them – I whanged too hard, pushed them past what they could give. Made me feel the guitar was wimping out, that it needed heavier strings, that it just needed MORE something. I don't get that with the Seymours. They seem to accommodate everything I push through them; they don't bottom out or stop responding.
Before, there would be moments in a lead, in a picking pattern, or in a chord where I felt the guitar fail me, or felt myself fail it – a note wouldn't speak as I intended, or would die off without saying anything, would feel like a dead end. With the Seymours, that hasn't happened. I can't put my finger on what's different, on how it really sounds different, but I trust the guitar more. It's more ... supportive or something. It's there for me, man. It feels my pain.
Yet I still wonder about those tonal attributes it seemed at first I was missing. Have I lost shimmer, high-end definition, a certain glassy sparkle? Then I listen carefully, and it seems it's still there; it's just accompanied by more body beneath. Well OK, is it all muddy and thick in the midrange now, does it sound sloppy? Then I listen, and no ... I'm hearing everything, maybe even more than before.
The Jet has become the guitar I can't wait to get out and play, always wondering if I'm finally going to see through the illusion – but at least so far (and it's early innings yet), the enchantment seems durable. So yeah, I like the pickups. They might be perfect, and I'm just too deaf to hear when I've got there.
But I'm not to where I am on the Country Club, that place where I never even wonder if it could possibly be better. I know I'm not done toning around with the Jet; I want to put the bar bridge on it, and play with the spacers and pickup/polepiece height.
But regardless which pickups, bridge, or tweak, maybe the Jet will continue to seductively both reward and elude me indefinitely. Lasting romance: that's actually a great thing for a guitar to provide.
Proteus, congrats once again on some great research. I gotta tell ya, I'm sorely missing my '57 Jet Firebird. Should I thank you for that??
It wasn't until a couple of years ago at a vintage guitar show that I first got to plug into a modern dyna Gretsch (a 6120 DSV). My first response is still where I'm at with them...."well, they got the top end right!" There's nothing not to like about the twang of the new'ns. I think they'd be swell for recording.
My current dyna guitar is a DeArmond T400 loaded with old Martin Dynas (art-deco covers). It has its moments, but it's no replacement for a Jet. Your clips had me saying, "that's the tone I've been missing!" Both with the stock p-u's and the Seymours I was hearing that thang I used to get out of my old Jet. The guitar itself does have a great influence on the overall tone. I'm thinking those art-deco DeA's would look great on a modern Jet Firebird...
By the way, your playing definitely puts the shine on the whole presentation! The end of the Seymour/Tweed Princeton clip sure reminded me of Billy Gibbons' old minor blues on a tune called "Blue Jean Blues"---and to me that's a very good thing.
