Newbie Q: PRS SE - McCarty 594 4 knobs vs DGT 3 knobs

[PTL]

As In my first post in this forum, I'm a total newbie to electrics, hence this basic question.

I've narrowed down my 1st electric to be likely either the PRS 594SE or the DGT SE.

The first has 4 knobs, the latter has 3 knobs.

Why? Does the 4 knobs 594 provide more functions?

I'm sure that this is laughably basic a question but as I noted, I'm a total newbie. I did go to my local GC yesterday but they did not have either in stock or I would have found out there.

Thanks.

[xjojox]

On two-pickup humbucker guitars, many folks favor subtle blending of the two pickups to get various colors. When David Grissom worked with PRS to have his signature guitar made, they started with his McCarty Trem as a template (which has one volume, one tone). He wanted two volume controls, one for each pickup so he could do that. He decided he only needed one tone control. There are some other tweaks, the DGT neck shape is a tad narrower and a tad deeper than a McCarty wide-fat, and the DGT has bigger frets.

All things being equal, i like having a tone control for each pickup in addition to a volume. Sometimes (rarely) I need a darker tone for one pickup and a brighter for the other. But the DGT is a nice guitar and is deservedly popular.

Buy the one that speaks to you.

[Steve DeRosa]

Things can sometimes get confusing, especially for a beginner - this should help:

[PTL]

Thank you to you Both in so patiently explaining my very basic question. Clear now. SUPER super grateful. On the acoustic guitar front, I've walked many a newbie through the permutations as they shop for guitars, knowing how confusing things can be to them - though they are so obvious to me that I don't even think about it. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I so appreciate the bit of hand holding.

Two more follow-up questions:

1. Looks like it is Tremolo on the DGT vs a few more positions and more granular control of the tone.

Do the extra positions matter much? Grissom does not seem to think so... But sould some selecte the 594 precisely for the increase in tonal options? Or are the differences so slight that it does not matter in practical use.

I've not used a Tremolo and it seems that perhaps I should try that too.


2. Why do I need the Position 1,2,3 switches?

I thought the treble and bass volume control how much signal is output from the treble and bass humbuckers. So if I put 0 on the treble and max on the bass, is that not equal to position 3 humbucker where only the bass is active? So it must mean something different from what I understand.

**************

By the way, chatting with a large dealer, the rep said they get more inquiries on the 594 than the DGT. More models of the 594 than the DGT too.... Not sure if this means anything

[bleedingfingers]

My perspective, as someone relatively new to electric also

1. Think of it as personal preference — are you a “less is more” or a “more is more” person? If you have time on both, you may find going from more granular to less leaves you feeling like you’re missing options, or you may find you appreciate the simplicity of fewer options. Right now with no experience with either, you’ll probably be happy with either set of controls, once you get used to how they work

And then one day you won’t be, or will want different tones, and then your electric guitar collection will grow

To me the bigger differences on paper (I’ve not played either, just looking at the specs) between the two are scale length and tremolo

There again, it’s personal preference whether you like a shorter or longer scale, and whether you want a tremolo or not. Many people never use a trem, and deck or block it to disable if their instrument has one — others actively use it and would miss it if handed an instrument without one

2. You are thinking about it logically, but are missing a quirk of Les Paul wiring with volume. The volume knobs are often wired in a somewhat dependent fashion. The practical meaning is if you have middle (both pickups active) position on the selector switch but either volume rolled to 0, you get no sound. I assume PRS follows that practice?

It might make more sense to you if you think of the position 1, 2, 3 switch as “which pickup is turned on” and then the volume controls being more about shaping the sound (or controlling the relative mix from each pickup, if both are on) once you’ve decided which pickup(s) to use

Position 1 - treble (bridge) pickup only
Position 2 - both pickups
Position 3 - bass (rhythm / neck) pickup only

Then, use the volume and tone to shape that selected pickup’s sound and to decide coil tap or humbucker

As an aside, those diagrams PRS does of their controls are awesome. A lot clearer than Fender’s (sometimes incorrect) word jumbles about their controls

[xjojox]

The idea of splitting coils on humbucking pickups is to mimic the sound of single coil pickups. The problem is, each individual coil of a humbucker is in most cases far less powerful than an actual single coil pickup, unless the humbucker is super hot (powerful, loud). “Vntage” style tend to be less powerful and sweeter sounding, but as a result are very anemic sounding when split. On the DGT (and possibly now the 594) PRS does some trickery where they leave part of the other coil on when the pickup is split, which lessens the volume drop, keeps noise down, and makes the split sounds more appealing. But do they sound more like “real” single coils? Not really, in my opinion, but the sounds are more useable.

On a guitar with two humbucking pickups, the classic sounds are each pickup alone or both in at the same time. With both on, you can mess with the blend to get subtle changes. The additional sounds you get from partially or fully splitting coils and/or throwing coils into parallel versus series or out of phase with each other, those to me are “extra” sounds. I don’t use them a lot. I just bring two guitars, so when I need a Fender versus a Gibson sound I don’t need to fake it.

Regarding the trem, that’s a personal call. I personally love the PRS trem system, but it’s designed to float, so if you break a string everything goes out of tune. The PRS trem can probably be decked to the body (meaning flush to the body so you can push down on it but can’t pull up) but I’ve never seen anyone do that…most keep it floating. For reasons of tuning stability, I’d never gig with just a guitar with a floating trem, I always have a hard tail or a guitar with a decked trem on hand. In fact, I rarely play with a floating trem unless I need to do some 80’s shreddy stuff.

They are both nice guitars so you’re gonna be ok either way.

[PTL]

Thanks to both of you for your follow-up comments after my last post . I'm reading and re-reading.

I'm a 'more options, the better' kind of guy in general - as long as the complexity is purposeful. But I also like shorter scales in acoustics - but then I'm talking about 24.9" 12th fret bodies. The DGT's longer scale is 25" - so the 594 is even shorter. I do feel that the 594 has sweeter natural tone? Not sure if I heard correctly.

But I also would like to try a Tremolo just in case it is helpful.

This is where I'm confused. Going on youtube, a bunch of instructionals states that 'Tremolo' is variation in volume, not pitch. 'Vibraty' is variation in pitch. Yet I think the tremolo on the PRS varies pitch right?

And currently, I use my fingers for vibrato which allows a huge range of vibratos. But the Tremolo pitch change seems less 'natural' - the few samples I heard seem a bit more mechanical than organic compared to finger generated vibratos? Am I wrong?

Thanks again to all for your help.

[xjojox]

I lived in Maryland when Paul Reed Smith started out. Almost bought a prototype (who knew, LOL).

Paul’s original idea was to straddle Gibson and Fender sounds, something in between and new. So the construction was based on mahogany bodies with or without a maple cap (more Gibson), neck glued-in (more Gibson), the electronics were closer to Gibby (humbuckers) but the scale length of 25” was in between Gibson (24 3/4”) and Fender (25.5”), the bodies were thinner than a Les Paul, and the guitars mostly had a Fender-style six-point floating tremolo. The result was a guitar with humbuckers that had a brighter, snappier tone than a Gibson despite looking more like a Gibson than a Fender.

Many loved this, but guitarists are a tradition-bound lot, and there were many folks who squawked about how they didn’t sound like (and ergo not as good as) a Gibson, kinda missing the point that they weren’t supposed to sound like a Gibson. They saw a guitar with two humbuckers and in their minds it should sound like a Gibson.

The McCarty was supposed to be a more “Gibson-ish” PRS, named for Ted McCarty who was at Gibson in the early days of the Les Paul. Thicker body, heftier neck, pickups similar to vintage PAF humbuckers….but two knobs instead of four and still with a 25” scale. Closer, but still snappier.

As an aside, a few McCartys were made with trems. I had two of those over the years. They were really special guitars, a personality all their own. David Grissom loved his, so as I noted above, that became the basis for the DGT.

Back to the McCarty….to many players, the problem was the scale length. The 25” scale length imparted a different feel and tone, a bit snappier in the upper mids. Folks still wanted the “sweetness” of the shorter Gibson scale.

Turns out that many early Les Pauls had a scale length a tad shorter than 24 3/4”…..it was 24.594”. Thus the “594”. So that guitar is the most “Gibsony” PRS.

Folks spend oodles of dollars on recreations of ‘57-‘60 Les Pauls, most expensive being the ‘59’s of course. But what if you want that sound but some more modern features? Bigger frets, slightly different neck profile, some body contours, pickup ring heights that make sense…so, there is a cottage industry of “better mousetrap” Les Pauls. Guitars that tweak the classic formula. I have a Grosh Set Neck and a Knaggs Kenai, both of which do that (and both of which I prefer to my ‘57 and ‘59 reissue Les Pauls). Terry McInturff, Ruokangas, and a number of other builders have similar products. The 594 is just that, a PRS Les Paul. For that reason…I prefer the singlecut 594 to the double cut.

So the DGT is intentionally more like the original PRS Trem McCarty, with the 25” scale and the six-point trem, whereas the 594 is closer to a Les Paul. Different strokes, and to me those differences matter far more than the differences in switching capability.

[bleedingfingers]

Originally Posted by PTL

But I also would like to try a Tremolo just in case it is helpful.

This is where I'm confused. Going on youtube, a bunch of instructionals states that 'Tremolo' is variation in volume, not pitch. 'Vibraty' is variation in pitch. Yet I think the tremolo on the PRS varies pitch right?

And currently, I use my fingers for vibrato which allows a huge range of vibratos. But the Tremolo pitch change seems less 'natural' - the few samples I heard seem a bit more mechanical than organic compared to finger generated vibratos? Am I wrong?

Thanks again to all for your help.

You’re right to be confused. “Whammy bars” on guitars produce vibrato effects (pitch variation). Yet they’re generally called tremolos (which should mean volume variation)

It’s an accident of history. Leo Fender called it a tremolo when he added it to the Stratocaster, which popularized it. And the name stuck as others copied it. He usually gets the credit for the misnomer, though he was actually copying others who had already introduced vibrato effect mechanisms and called them “tremolo effects” — “tremolo” units to do mechanical vibrato on guitar have been around since the 1930s

And mechanical vibrato as done with a whammy bar is a different sound than finger vibrato. Think Hendrix dive bomb for a example of “oh that’s why mechanical vibrato can be interesting”

Also, not all whammy bars are created equal. Some bend down only, others up or down. And they also vary in how much the can bend the pitch. And in how stable they leave the tuning after you use one

They’re all just tools for giving you more sounds at your fingers…

[Rolph]

I've been playing PRS since 1997. Their tremolo systems are the best/most stable I've ever used. Good luck, the DGT is a great guitar.

[PTL]

Thanks to all. Helpful to know that my confusion is rooted in reality.

And the back history of how the 594, DGT, and Les Paul are related is very very helpful. For some reason, I like to know the foundations to how things came into being.

And good to hear that the PRS Trem is very good. Interestingly, I see quite a few 594 being reviewed without the Trem installed. Apparently many players don't use it even if available.

I see that there is also an all mahogany 594 SE without a maple cap. Would that make a tonal difference - perhaps warmer but less sustain? They are lighter than the maple capped version, and also about $130 less just for that difference.

https://prsguitars.com/electrics/mod..._standard_2023

Thanks all!

[AX17609]

The comments by xjojox are right on target. The only thing I can think to add is that Paul Reed Smith, himself, says that he likes the fat clarity of P90 pickups. The original guitar he tried to give to Carlos Santana had P90s. But it made too much noise on stage, so Carlos rejected it. Since that moment, Paul has been trying to create a humbucker that sounds like a P90.

So, to the issue of whether a McCarty 594 sounds like a Les Paul, the answer is "yes" if the Les Paul you're thinking of is a '58 (or earlier) with P90s. It does not sound like a '59 burst.

The maple cap on the 594 is so thin as to not make a difference, except in appearance.

[PTL]

Thank you for all insight to help me with a crash course on the PRS and electrics in general.

Contacted PRS today and they recommended the 594 for a 1st electric as the 'Tremolo can be a bit finicky to set up. After you get used to your first electric, then you can try out the Tremolo.' So a 594 it is. And in truth, as I listened online, I tend to prefer the 594's tone by a small margin and I like the idea of a slightly wider neck coming over from wide neck acoustics. So no tremolo for me for now.

Thanks again! Feel free to keep the comments coming as I would be glad to keep learning.

[J.R. Rogers]

Originally Posted by xjojox

I lived in Maryland when Paul Reed Smith started out. Almost bought a prototype (who knew, LOL).

Paul’s original idea was to straddle Gibson and Fender sounds, something in between and new. So the construction was based on mahogany bodies with or without a maple cap (more Gibson), neck glued-in (more Gibson), the electronics were closer to Gibby (humbuckers) but the scale length of 25” was in between Gibson (24 3/4”) and Fender (25.5”), the bodies were thinner than a Les Paul, and the guitars mostly had a Fender-style six-point floating tremolo. The result was a guitar with humbuckers that had a brighter, snappier tone than a Gibson despite looking more like a Gibson than a Fender…….

Excellent post. Thanks for that background. I’ve never seen a McCarty with a trem before. Sounds interesting. Post a picture if you can.

JR