|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 8, 2012 1:11:08 GMT -5
On the other hand though. If a pickup using ceramic is designed to match the field of a alnico magnet you should not be able to hear a difference. I'm not sure this is entirely true, I believe AlNiCo magnets will also create a higher impedance than ceramic magnets, however I'm unsure of the specifics. Anyone have any ideas on this?
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 8, 2012 8:20:48 GMT -5
On the other hand though. If a pickup using ceramic is designed to match the field of a alnico magnet you should not be able to hear a difference. I'm not sure this is entirely true, I believe AlNiCo magnets will also create a higher impedance than ceramic magnets, however I'm unsure of the specifics. Anyone have any ideas on this? Impedance is directly proportional to inductance, increase the windings and you'll increase the impedance. The design parameters of the pickup would be changed to match all the parameters - I guess I left out and simply put mag field. No, the two pickups would be designed to the exact same specs, mag field, inductance, reluctance, etc.
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 8, 2012 16:24:47 GMT -5
Impedance is basically resistance and reactance.
A basic approximation of inductance is L(Inductance) = (# turns(squared) x permeability of core x area of coil) / length
I don't think impedance is related to inductance, but you could probably get a very similar sound from both alnico and ceramics if you design around them.
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 8, 2012 16:44:31 GMT -5
Impedance is basically resistance and reactance. A basic approximation of inductance is L(Inductance) = (# turns(squared) x permeability of core x area of coil) / length I don't think impedance is related to inductance, but you could probably get a very similar sound from both alnico and ceramics if you design around them. X(L) = j(2)(pi)(f)(L) So, Reduce inductance to lower the impedance... Lower inductance via L = (UrU0N^2A)/l permeability of core: Different Length: Same Area: Same So, adjust the turns to match. I'm sure the length and area could technically change, but we would want these to be constant and fit like all other HBs Theoretically, they should sound like same if the parameters are all equal - that's science. Moving from that , seemingly puts Ceramic v. Alnico in the same group as PIO vs Everything.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2012 22:57:46 GMT -5
long, Whoa there pardner! Your initial formula above looks much like the one for reactance (of an inductor), but by including the j term, you've taken it to a higher level than most of us have seen before, here in The NutzHouse! I think some further explanation might be in order, to keep the rest of the readership up to speed... if you please. Thanks! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 8, 2012 23:57:03 GMT -5
Ok, I'm very interested in this topic and would love more information, but I see some problems here. In theory you could tweak all those values around to get something that is the same or close.
When you change the number of winds, you change the area of the coil. In order to control for this you need to change wire gauges, correct? I think I see how you could change everything around to get something that would be near identical, assuming you can get the same degree and shape of magnetism in a ceramic magnet as an alnico.
So as to the original intention of the thread, let's say you replaced an alnico pole for a ceramic pole. You'd have a larger magnetic field sensing more of the string and slightly more inductance due to permeability but less impedance?
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 9, 2012 1:26:18 GMT -5
long, Whoa there pardner! Your initial formula above looks much like the one for reactance (of an inductor), but by including the j term, you've taken it to a higher level than most of us have seen before, here in The NutzHouse! I think some further explanation might be in order, to keep the rest of the readership up to speed... if you please. Thanks! sumgai Ah, it's nothing different than you've seen before - most people just omit the j, as an implied term, knowing that reactance is purely reactive. Impedance: Z = R + jX j is the imaginary term - ie, purely reactive. Or, Z = R ang(0) + X ang (90) Looking at a polar plot, the resistive term is along the x axis, and the reactance is along the y axis. I'm sure you know all this but, where the terms come in... Since Reactance is purely imaginary, Z(L) = jX (R is 0) Z(L) = jwL ; where w is the angular frequency (2*pi*f) ... I actually see that I wrote X(L) = j*w*L ... which is wrong as it should have been Z(L). If that was the point of confusion ... sorry for the needless lesson When you change the number of winds, you change the area of the coil. Incorrect actually, the area is actually the X-sectional area of the core - which would be what the coil is wrapping around. the l term, length is the mean length of the core. I believe it would be much more complicated than this due to airgaps and the arrangement of pole pieces. But, the concept is valid. Imagine the wire wrapping around a rectangular magnet. The X-sectional area of the ferrite magnetc doesn't change if you wrap wire around the entire piece, or just half of it. The impedance increased w/ inductance as shown, Z(L) = jwL I may for fun tomorrow crunch some numbers to see what the theoretical changes would be to obtain the same mag field (Alnico B-H values are standardized at least and ferrite ones are generalized). It would be a much simplified model though. Modeling a single coil or humbucker as a mag circuit it self would provide some fun entertainment! - Hope I wasn't to confusing!
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 9, 2012 1:31:26 GMT -5
Okay, so it seems like I'm doing OK with the magnets actually having great difficulty with the basic principle of what makes sound in an electric guitar.
If you noticed the other thread I'd been flaming ReTreaD on (sorry!), I've just learned that the sound is generated by the field produced by the magnetization of the guitar strings. I'd been looking at acoustic waves and the material properties of the pickup under the assumption that it was the vibration of the pickup that the solenoid sensed.
So all that is really important for a good pickup is that it's low on noise and strong on field.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 9, 2012 1:54:12 GMT -5
I'm not one who can explain any magnetic theory, but, as you are discovering, the only moving thing is the string, and the string movement , for whatever reason, causes a change in the magnetic field through the coil, and that is what generates a signal that we then amplify. I think you have your head around magnets better than me, but my reason for posting this is to tell you of a test that we do, that you may find insightful, and maybe you can explain what happens. It is the screwdriver pull off test, and it is used for testing output phase on a pickup. A screwdriver is placed flat on a pickup pole piece, then lifted up quickly, and it makes a pulse, + or -. See it here: Screwdriver pull-off testWhat is happening, in one direction, is directly analogous to the action of a string, which of course reverses its motion + and - Thought it might be of interest. John
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 9, 2012 2:25:27 GMT -5
The problem with the screwdriver pull-off test is that without knowing if it's induced magnetization of the string or vibration of the pickup the test doesn't tell you anything new. I suppose the real test would be to connect the pickup to a voltmeter and gently tap it with a rubber mallet or something. For the record, I do believe you all that it's induced magnetism in the ferromagnetic string that makes the sound, I'm just surprised.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 9, 2012 3:18:20 GMT -5
I believe that you believe, but understanding is better than believing!
Electric guitar pickups do nothing on a nylon strung guitar - so its not the actual sonic vibration that is generating the signal. Also, you can do the pull-off test without touching the pickup, so it knows nothing other than sensing a variation in the magnetic field
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 9, 2012 6:59:58 GMT -5
Low noise has always been a goal, and various designs of SC pickups are used to combat it, such as Bill Lawrence's "airgap" design. The other option is of course some sort of two-coil design to "actively" reduce hum via phase cancellation.
But the second half of your statement, that a strong magnetic field would produce a "good pickup"- well, now you've opened several cans of worms!
One can use stronger magnets and more windings to produce a pickup that is higher in output, and many manufacturers have spent years doing just that. The resulting pickups are indeed judged as "good", but only by a small cross-section of players, usually of the Metal genre. While all the sonic descriptors are subjective, one hears about "crunch" a lot with that sort of pickup.
On the other hand, many guitarists are in the perpetual never-ending hunt for the elusive "vintage tone". This, too, is subjectively described, but often the decrease in the strength of magnets over time (and thus of the resulting field) is cited as the reason why the sound of a "vintage" pickup is somehow better.
Other "vintage" enthusiasts cite to more ephemeral factors such as some supposed effect of aging on the wires of the coils, but most of this falls into the "mystical mojo" category, not science.
In short, there is no one formula to make a "good pickup", there are a lot of factors involved. But simply increasing field strength (and thus output) isn't usually going to light anyone's fire.
Bear in mind that the pickups (and guitar) is only one half of the equation- the amp is the other. We can decrease the output of the pickups and easily compensate at the amp- and thus weaker fields are often sought after.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 9, 2012 8:53:52 GMT -5
If you noticed the other thread I'd been flaming ReTreaD on (sorry!), That's mighty generous of you, considering that my behavior was atrocious. Look for my apologies in the other thread. Bygones?
|
|
col
format tables
Posts: 468
Likes: 25
|
Post by col on Sept 9, 2012 16:44:05 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I imagine that Geo just meant to refer the principle of a high signal to noise ratio being generally desirable.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 9, 2012 20:42:13 GMT -5
col, Quickly and succinctly cutting to the heart of the matter, I like it! +1 for that. I'd like to insert a couple of copper's worth of nonsense here. Tone is subjective, and that's the bottom line. newey got close, above, when he mentioned Metal players. In point of fact, no matter how we classify, signify or otherwise designate players and their chosen genres, the fact is, if one pickup was superior to all others, no one else would be making them - we'd have just the one pup, made by one company, and that'd be sufficient.... after all, it's the best, right? Right? Now we come to another factor that's often overlooked, but col dug it out of the dreck and shone the bright lights of reason upon it. I'm talkin' 'bout noise here. The sad fact is, noise is just another form of audio information, and we, nearly universally, find it objectionable. In fact, we call it "non-musical" in the extreme. (Case in point - anything ever done by Yoko Ono!) Thankfully, the ear is a wonderful thing - it can't easily distinguish between sounds of different volume levels. This phenomenon is called "masking" - the process of a louder sound covering a lower-level sound. Where desirable music is louder than undesirable noise, masking usually allows us to perceive a "good tone", free of unwanted noises (most often hum). What I'm after here is the fact that if we sit and strum a bit, and listen while we're not strumming, we can hear humming during the quiet parts, but we're hard pressed to hear it when strumming. Play a bit louder, as if you giving a public performance, and you'll swear your pups are the quietest things ever built. But stop playing, and moments later you hear that Gawd-awful hum. Why's zat? Masking, that's the answer. So, the real question is now revealed for all to see, and contemplate. We each of us have a different tolerance of hum, which tranlsates directly to col's assertion - we each of have a desire to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio of some given number. While saying "the higher the better" sounds good, that sentiment forgets the fact of compromise - you just may be lowering the pickup's tonal capabilities, possibly below your acceptable minimum level.* Between compromise and taste, there will never be any guaranteed "best" pickup, not even for a given situation, not for a given player, nor genre, not nowhere nor nohow. There may be "better starting points", but that's the best that we can hope for. After that, it's either succumb to the MarketingSpeak of the big companies, imitate the Guitar Hero of your choice (often indistinguishable from the MarketingSpeak option), or else strike out on your own, and start experimenting for yourself. But mark my words - at some point, you will arrive at your own point of acceptable compromise. So be it. HTH sumgai * You want it all? Here's cynical1's take on your "best" pickup. You can have: 1) Great tone; 2) Inaudible hum; and 3) Decent price. The kicker? Pick any two.
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 9, 2012 22:31:15 GMT -5
Although I agree with you and I'm sure we all do, this thread has moved on more from Alnico >>>1001001>>>.!!! Ceramic .. to can they sound the same? Moving away from subjectivity to the science of how a pickup works to colour the tone you hear. It's actually an interesting topic IMO b/c I love magnetics and am learning a lot my self about how pickups work.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 10, 2012 2:03:52 GMT -5
I believe that you believe, but understanding is better than believing! Electric guitar pickups do nothing on a nylon strung guitar - so its not the actual sonic vibration that is generating the signal. Also, you can do the pull-off test without touching the pickup, so it knows nothing other than sensing a variation in the magnetic field Right! My working theory had been this: The magnet pulls on the ferromagnetic string, which is oscillating. Since the string is pulling back with equal force, there's an oscillating force on the magnet, which I'd assumed was vibrating it inside the solenoid. I'd assumed this was what generated the current. In both cases you need metal strings, I'd just misjudged the strength of the induced magnetism in the strings and the magnitude of displacement in the pole piece. reTrEaD: Absolutely! Best to have the ear of as many folks as possible who know the territory. If you're ever interested in learning more general physics, I still highly recommend Griffiths' E&M book. I've never regretted learning more physics. @the subject of "best" pickup: Here I'm not talking about the pickup that sounds most pleasing to anyone's particular taste, I'm talking about the pickup that most accurately reproduces the sound of the guitar string. I imagine a stronger field in the magnet would get you better signal-to-noise. "Warmth", "crunch", and all that are terms for describing which frequencies are more prominent than others. I'm more interested in accurate pickups; ones that faithfully reproduce the sound of the strings.
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 10, 2012 4:10:09 GMT -5
Ok, you need to go low impedance. A typical pickup is a tuned antenna with a giant spike in the audible range. Reduce your windings till you have something without this giant spike. Talk to JohnH about this one as this is more his area of expertise.
Second, reduce the size of your magnetic field. The larger the field, the more of the string your reading. Ideally you would want a single point on the string. On the other hand, played aloud you hear the entire string vibrating and interacting.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 10, 2012 8:39:06 GMT -5
reTrEaD: Absolutely! Best to have the ear of as many folks as possible who know the territory. If you're ever interested in learning more general physics, I still highly recommend Griffiths' E&M book. I've never regretted learning more physics. I might be able to access Griffiths at a technical library but I won't be able to take it home. Are there any particular page(s) you suggest that would be useful regarding the discussion in this thread? @the subject of "best" pickup: Here I'm not talking about the pickup that sounds most pleasing to anyone's particular taste, I'm talking about the pickup that most accurately reproduces the sound of the guitar string. Okay, this seems reasonable. But at some point we need to examine what "accuracy" means. I imagine a stronger field in the magnet would get you better signal-to-noise. All other things being equal (they rarely are) this is true. It's not so much the field in the magnet but the field the magnet imposes on the coil and how the string modulates it. Suffice to say, we're likely to see a strong relationship between S/N and magnet strength. "Warmth", "crunch", and all that are terms for describing which frequencies are more prominent than others. I'm more interested in accurate pickups; ones that faithfully reproduce the sound of the strings. I think we might want to get "crunch" out of the discussion. That's in the amplification chain caused by the signal being so large that the output starts to become non-linear. But I think we're stuck with frequency response as being an integral component of "accuracy". Even if we design a pickup for one note on one string, we aren't dealing with a single frequency. In addition to the fundamental, we have a series of harmonics. If we alter the ratio of any of those harmonics, we lose "accuracy". A footnote in the basic alnico v ceramic debate: Let's say we wanted to design a pickup for a specific market. This market places very little importance on frequency response and are interested in high output. And they place a lot of importance on price. We certainly wouldn't be looking to Neodymium or other expensive alloys to get higher output. Ceramics are cheap, but the field strength is relatively low. So how do we increase output without expensive materials or investing in R&D for a more efficient design? Copper is getting more expensive, but in the recent past the cost was fairly reasonable. If we save on magnet cost we can afford a LOT more copper. So just add LOTS of windings to an existing design and we increase the output. Easy, right? If we ignore the fact that adding a sh :-Xt-ton of winding adds a sh :-Xt-ton of inductance (muddiness anyone?) we should be more than pleased with the result. Lots more output. Low cost. Could this be where ceramics get the reputation for sounding muddy? Not saying it is, but food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 10, 2012 16:11:32 GMT -5
This is worth a read for everyone. It is the FEM analysis on pickups that I was going to attempt already done and in much more depth. www.moore.org.au/pick/06/06_gobd.htmIt's very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Sept 10, 2012 16:15:06 GMT -5
Not that I have anything constructive to add to the discussion, but for the last 30+ years every bass pickup I've had, SD, DiMarzio, Lawrence and Peavey have all been ceramic. I don't recall ever seeing an alnico option...
Like I said, nothing constructive to add here...
HTC1
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 10, 2012 20:40:03 GMT -5
A footnote in the basic alnico v ceramic debate: Let's say we wanted to design a pickup for a specific market. This market places very little importance on frequency response and are interested in high output. And they place a lot of importance on price. We certainly wouldn't be looking to Neodymium or other expensive alloys to get higher output. Ceramics are cheap, but the field strength is relatively low. So how do we increase output without expensive materials or investing in R&D for a more efficient design? Copper is getting more expensive, but in the recent past the cost was fairly reasonable. If we save on magnet cost we can afford a LOT more copper. So just add LOTS of windings to an existing design and we increase the output. Easy, right? If we ignore the fact that adding a sh :-Xt-ton of winding adds a sh :-Xt-ton of inductance (muddiness anyone?) we should be more than pleased with the result. Lots more output. Low cost. Could this be where ceramics get the reputation for sounding muddy? Not saying it is, but food for thought. Yes, possibly and partly. Some of these pickups can be found in very cheap imports as well, with poor quality coils and wire. I found it interesting that the use of a bar magnet under metal slugs creates a less sensitive field as well. Hmm... That article is great info, thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 10, 2012 23:03:08 GMT -5
From the article: A little Myth that needs exploring: If it is not already obvious, the two side-by-side coils in a Hum Buck arrangement are not highly coupled, and in fact they are rather loosely coupled to each other and putting them in parallel does not quarter the inductance as you would expect if they were tightly coupled. The 'twang' comes from the internal inductance being lower in relation to the volume pot to how it was before and this should be a strong sign that output frequency response is heavily controlled by the load on the pickup - including the cable and amplifier input impedances. Anyone else think the author misunderstands the "myth" and where the 1/4 inductance figure comes from?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 11, 2012 6:41:59 GMT -5
Apart from the 1/4 inductance question, in discussing hum-cancelling, the author further states that: He cites to the 1955 Seth Lover patent, but he either hasn't read it or hasn't understood it. Seth Lover explained very well why his pickup was hum-cancelling, with illustration: "19. By applying the familiar right hand law of magnetism to the coil 15 it will be noted that an external magnetic field such as is indicated at 20 emanating from an electrical device such as the motor 21 will tend by induced voltage to create a current in the coil 15 in the direction of the arrow 22. However, the same magnetic field at the same instant will tend by induced voltage to create an approximately equal and opposite current in the coil 15A as indicated by the arrow 22A so that the induced currents cancel each other and cannot create a hum in the pickup and its associated amplifier" If all that were needed for hum-cancelling was two magnets that were "loosely coupled" and thus had a somewhat "constricted" magnetic filed, then such an arrangement of magnets could be used on a regular SC pickup to render it hum-cancelling, without the need for a second coil.
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 11, 2012 11:26:55 GMT -5
From the article: A little Myth that needs exploring: If it is not already obvious, the two side-by-side coils in a Hum Buck arrangement are not highly coupled, and in fact they are rather loosely coupled to each other and putting them in parallel does not quarter the inductance as you would expect if they were tightly coupled. The 'twang' comes from the internal inductance being lower in relation to the volume pot to how it was before and this should be a strong sign that output frequency response is heavily controlled by the load on the pickup - including the cable and amplifier input impedances. Anyone else think the author misunderstands the "myth" and where the 1/4 inductance figure comes from? I've tried to figure out this 1/4 inductance myth .. ie, I've never heard of it. The only thing I could think of is calculating the mutual inductance with a coupling factor of 0.5? Apart from the 1/4 inductance question, in discussing hum-cancelling, the author further states that: He cites to the 1955 Seth Lover patent, but he either hasn't read it or hasn't understood it. Seth Lover explained very well why his pickup was hum-cancelling, with illustration: "19. By applying the familiar right hand law of magnetism to the coil 15 it will be noted that an external magnetic field such as is indicated at 20 emanating from an electrical device such as the motor 21 will tend by induced voltage to create a current in the coil 15 in the direction of the arrow 22. However, the same magnetic field at the same instant will tend by induced voltage to create an approximately equal and opposite current in the coil 15A as indicated by the arrow 22A so that the induced currents cancel each other and cannot create a hum in the pickup and its associated amplifier" If all that were needed for hum-cancelling was two magnets that were "loosely coupled" and thus had a somewhat "constricted" magnetic filed, then such an arrangement of magnets could be used on a regular SC pickup to render it hum-cancelling, without the need for a second coil. I've read a few other articles on him site and I tend to agree with your conclusion. He seems to think the hum cancelling happens for a different reason. Moreover, he actually does have an article about how one can make a SC pickup hum canceling. Though, since it's from an incorrect assumption, I don't see it working. Below: Single coil, Shielded Bar Magnet - Magnetic Field
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 11, 2012 14:15:49 GMT -5
.... ok >_< While he is wrong using the term humbucking, this will most definitely reduce hum. For those unfamiliar with Lace Sensors www.lacemusic.com/sensors.phpThese are quite a bit more complicated than sticking a metal plate to the bottom of a pickup, but pretty much the same idea with much better execution. About the induction... 2H + 2H = 4H or (2H x 2H) / (2H + 2H) = 1H
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 11, 2012 14:46:25 GMT -5
About the induction... 2H + 2H = 4H or (2H x 2H) / (2H + 2H) = 1H Bingo! +1 I've tried to figure out this 1/4 inductance myth .. ie, I've never heard of it. The only thing I could think of is calculating the mutual inductance with a coupling factor of 0.5? Nah, it's a lot simpler than that. No doubt there is a "mutual inductance" that we need to be concerned with if two coils are closely coupled. And it would matter if how the clockwise and counter-clockwise ends are connected (think transformer if that helps). But I suspect what author view as a "myth" is actually a misunderstanding of (fairly simple) fact. If there in no coupling, the calculations are simple. For two inductors in series, just add. Just like you do for resistors. For two inductors in parallel, use product over sum. Just like you do for resistors. Two (identical) coils in series would have twice the inductance of one coil. 1+1 = 2 Two (identical) coils in parallel would have half the inductance of one coil. (1x1)/1+1 = 1/2 Hence... Two (identical) coils in parallel would have one quarter the inductance of the same two coils in series.The "quarter inductance" isn't one quarter the inductance of an individual coil. It's one quarter of the what the inductance is when the same two coils are in series.
|
|
|
Post by long813 on Sept 11, 2012 14:59:35 GMT -5
[ Two (identical) coils in series would have twice the inductance of one coil. 1+1 = 2 Two (identical) coils in parallel would have half the inductance of one coil. (1x1)/1+1 = 1/2 Hence... Two (identical) coils in parallel would have one quarter the inductance of the same two coils in series.The "quarter inductance" isn't one quarter the inductance of an individual coil. It's one quarter of the what the inductance is when the same two coils are in series. Right on, total inductance. Wasn't thinking in that direction! Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 11, 2012 23:36:39 GMT -5
reTrEaD: Absolutely! Best to have the ear of as many folks as possible who know the territory. If you're ever interested in learning more general physics, I still highly recommend Griffiths' E&M book. I've never regretted learning more physics. I might be able to access Griffiths at a technical library but I won't be able to take it home. Are there any particular page(s) you suggest that would be useful regarding the discussion in this thread? Okay, this seems reasonable. But at some point we need to examine what "accuracy" means. All other things being equal (they rarely are) this is true. It's not so much the field in the magnet but the field the magnet imposes on the coil and how the string modulates it. Suffice to say, we're likely to see a strong relationship between S/N and magnet strength. "Warmth", "crunch", and all that are terms for describing which frequencies are more prominent than others. I'm more interested in accurate pickups; ones that faithfully reproduce the sound of the strings. I think we might want to get "crunch" out of the discussion. That's in the amplification chain caused by the signal being so large that the output starts to become non-linear. But I think we're stuck with frequency response as being an integral component of "accuracy". Even if we design a pickup for one note on one string, we aren't dealing with a single frequency. In addition to the fundamental, we have a series of harmonics. If we alter the ratio of any of those harmonics, we lose "accuracy". First off (not cited): Great point for the alnico/ceramic question. For Griffiths': It's a very comprehensive text on E&M, personally I recommend just taking it cover-to-cover (even the crazy stuff towards the end is interesting if you don't apply it). When I say "accurate" I mean microphone-like. An "accurate" pickup faithfully reproduces the sound of a guitar string as I hear it, harmonics and all. And yes, good catch, crunch doesn't belong in that list.
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 12, 2012 4:56:03 GMT -5
Ok, again, low impedance. Here's what I mean, most pickups have a Q tuned to oh... something like this(on the lower end) A low impedance pickup has something more like this: Now how much of a difference is the magnet going to make vs inductance/impedance. A lower inductance pickup may need a boost if you plan on mixing it with normal pickups or for some amps. That aside, a ceramic magnet may have more high end harmonic content or rather an alnico may have less. I guess my answer would be technically the 'more accurate' magnets are ceramic, but 99.9% of pickups are designed to have that spike in the high end so what's the point of being 'accurate' magnetically? I believe the position of the magnet also greatly effects the outcome from a non a/b perspective.
|
|