|
Post by wgen on Mar 17, 2017 11:41:09 GMT -5
Yeah that's the same thing I thought after reading your test and having tried various "pickup width" apertures in the Tillman demo...there should be a much higher aperture to achieve a real difference I guess..! Not to say that in practice I won't be able to go lower than a certain height with pickups, trying to achieve a greater distance from the strings...so it seems to me that, for most applications, what other players hear as "a world of difference" when they talk about different pickups heights, they're mostly referring to the effects of a stronger signal of a pickup closer to the strings versus a weaker signal, which obviously may have an influence on the rest of their signal chain (overdrives clipping more or less, tubes in the amplifier compressing more or less, and so on..) I don't think this rules out tonal consequences of proximity, but it does appear that it takes any credit away from comb filtering. To my ear, there is a lot of tonal difference with pickup height. It seems that I hear 1) more bass and 2) more tonal fluctuation with time, when a pickup is closer to the strings. Maybe the reason there would be more bass when the pickup is closer is due to the higher permeability of the lower wound strings, so closer pickup = even stronger magnetized string. Maybe I should repeat this test on a lower wound string before I move on to other pole piece types. The other thing, when a pickup is closer to the strings, it sounds like the tone "evolves" more, as if a wah wah pedal was being rocked very slowly. If you look at a guitar string when you pluck it, you can see its movement pattern change with time as it decays, because when you pluck it, you pluck it in a particular direction with a lot of force, and the string rebounds from that initial vector force as it vibrates. The test above shows that when the string an pole piece and coil are all close, it has a narrower aperture. My suspicion is that the narrow aperture causes that evolving rebound movement to have a more pronounced effect on the tone, and when the aperture is wider, it has a less profound effect. I can't prove that, though. I just see a correlation at this point. Here's a video someone made in January demonstrating pickups heights. Towards the middle of the video, he lets the strings ring out longer, and I think you can hear more of that "slowly rocked wah" tone when the pickup is closer to the strings. Thank you very much, also for the link!
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 12:32:23 GMT -5
Yeah that's the same thing I thought after reading your test and having tried various "pickup width" apertures in the Tillman demo...there should be a much higher aperture to achieve a real difference I guess..! Not to say that in practice I won't be able to go lower than a certain height with pickups, trying to achieve a greater distance from the strings...so it seems to me that, for most applications, what other players hear as "a world of difference" when they talk about different pickups heights, they're mostly referring to the effects of a stronger signal of a pickup closer to the strings versus a weaker signal, which obviously may have an influence on the rest of their signal chain (overdrives clipping more or less, tubes in the amplifier compressing more or less, and so on..) I don't think this rules out tonal consequences of proximity, but it does appear that it takes any credit away from comb filtering. To my ear, there is a lot of tonal difference with pickup height. It seems that I hear 1) more bass and 2) more tonal fluctuation with time, when a pickup is closer to the strings. Maybe the reason there would be more bass when the pickup is closer is due to the higher permeability of the lower wound strings, so closer pickup = even stronger magnetized string. Maybe I should repeat this test on a lower wound string before I move on to other pole piece types. The other thing, when a pickup is closer to the strings, it sounds like the tone "evolves" more, as if a wah wah pedal was being rocked very slowly. If you look at a guitar string when you pluck it, you can see its movement pattern change with time as it decays, because when you pluck it, you pluck it in a particular direction with a lot of force, and the string rebounds from that initial vector force as it vibrates. The test above shows that when the string an pole piece and coil are all close, it has a narrower aperture. My suspicion is that the narrow aperture causes that evolving rebound movement to have a more pronounced effect on the tone, and when the aperture is wider, it has a less profound effect. I can't prove that, though. I just see a correlation at this point. Here's a video someone made in January demonstrating pickups heights. Towards the middle of the video, he lets the strings ring out longer, and I think you can hear more of that "slowly rocked wah" tone when the pickup is closer to the strings. You are describing the consequences of too strong a B field when you get too close to the string. In still stronger form this is the classic "stratitis". One reason you here more bass when you move the pickup closer to the string is that the volume goes up (Fletcher Munson). If you want to prove a real effect, you have to measure carefully and turn the volume down on the amp to compensate.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 17, 2017 13:09:02 GMT -5
I don't think this rules out tonal consequences of proximity, but it does appear that it takes any credit away from comb filtering. Why would you reach that conclusion? Also it sounds like you only use the term comb filtering as it relates to the string window, from the string itself. The other comb filtering opportunities are in the return path, and other shifted relationships between the flux and the coil, within the coil. DB and frequency response charts aren't granular enough to show that. Also FYI it might be more effective with the other pickups removed. They're providing baseline magnetism that is sort of a magnetic noise floor in your experiment. That could be affecting your numbers at the increased distances. Remove the pickups, degauss the strings, repeat. Or to establish the other baseline just remove the pole from your test pickup and check the dB to approximate the minimum contribution from those existing pickups' magnets. .
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 14:27:27 GMT -5
I don't think this rules out tonal consequences of proximity, but it does appear that it takes any credit away from comb filtering. To my ear, there is a lot of tonal difference with pickup height. It seems that I hear 1) more bass and 2) more tonal fluctuation with time, when a pickup is closer to the strings. Maybe the reason there would be more bass when the pickup is closer is due to the higher permeability of the lower wound strings, so closer pickup = even stronger magnetized string. Maybe I should repeat this test on a lower wound string before I move on to other pole piece types. The other thing, when a pickup is closer to the strings, it sounds like the tone "evolves" more, as if a wah wah pedal was being rocked very slowly. If you look at a guitar string when you pluck it, you can see its movement pattern change with time as it decays, because when you pluck it, you pluck it in a particular direction with a lot of force, and the string rebounds from that initial vector force as it vibrates. The test above shows that when the string an pole piece and coil are all close, it has a narrower aperture. My suspicion is that the narrow aperture causes that evolving rebound movement to have a more pronounced effect on the tone, and when the aperture is wider, it has a less profound effect. I can't prove that, though. I just see a correlation at this point. Here's a video someone made in January demonstrating pickups heights. Towards the middle of the video, he lets the strings ring out longer, and I think you can hear more of that "slowly rocked wah" tone when the pickup is closer to the strings. You are describing the consequences of too strong a B field when you get too close to the string. In still stronger form this is the classic "stratitis". One reason you here more bass when you move the pickup closer to the string is that the volume goes up (Fletcher Munson). If you want to prove a real effect, you have to measure carefully and turn the volume down on the amp to compensate. I know what you mean by string pull causing Stratitus, but I think I hear more bass even with weaker pickups that have weak magnetic pull. At this point it's just something I believe I've observed, I haven't proven it with an FFT plot (though with the ebow on hand, it's not too hard of a test to perform) so I'm not able to press the point much further. I don't think it's Fletcher Munson related, because the effect seems to remain, even if the amp's volume is adjusted after the fact. This is another tedious type of test to perform, but I'll try to get to it also.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 14:55:12 GMT -5
Why would you reach that conclusion? As I said, according to the Tillman calculator, if you play with the pickup width parameter, and see how wide it must become before it starts taking a bite out of content below 5kHz, it comes out to about 1 inch, a lot wider than with area we're dealing with. In the test above, I see -44dBm or greater with an offset distance of 12mm. Assuming the aperture width is 1 inch, 12mm off center would roughly represent the boundary of the 1 inch (25mm) window. Also it sounds like you only use the term comb filtering as it relates to the string window, from the string itself. The other comb filtering opportunities are in the return path, and other shifted relationships between the flux and the coil, within the coil. DB and frequency response charts aren't granular enough to show that. I believe there is a tone shift that corresponds to pickup height, but the return path seems like an unlikely avenue only because the strength of the return path is somewhat weaker than that of the primary path. We know it will have to be a weaker effect, but not how much weaker. There's just not enough data or information to go on there. Testing for return path specific contribution is extremely difficult, and might only truly be possible with computer modelling. We might not find an answer to that, but we can find answers to a lot of other things in the mean time. Also FYI it might be more effective with the other pickups removed. They're providing baseline magnetism that is sort of a magnetic noise floor in your experiment. That could be affecting your numbers at the increased distances. Remove the pickups, degauss the strings, repeat. Or to establish the other baseline just remove the pole from your test pickup and check the dB to approximate the minimum contribution from those existing pickups' magnets. . Actually I made the mistake of not charging the AlNiCo pole initially, because these ones come uncharged, and there was absolutely no measurable signal from the string. I charged it with a large neodymium magnet, and I was back in business.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 17, 2017 15:48:22 GMT -5
Thanks for this insightful thread. My strat has Texas Specials for N and M, so I watch out for discussions about them. They have a anecdotal rep for being somewhat 'harsh'. I don't find this myself, but the usual forum advice is to lower them to smooth out the tone. This could be considered consistent with Tillman's theories of 'sensing width' combined with the offset tests above, showing a more concentrated sensing at higher/closer pickup positions. Here is a calculated envelope plot. It shows a Tx Sp (6.2k) neck pickup, plucking string 1 only, with sensing width varied from 6mm to 25mm. It is Tillman, modulated by harmonic smplitudes of string vibration,fed through the electrical filter of the pickup, strat wiring and cable. It shows a few db of difference at higher frequencies, but is it enough to explain the effect or is there more? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 16:10:57 GMT -5
You are describing the consequences of too strong a B field when you get too close to the string. In still stronger form this is the classic "stratitis". One reason you here more bass when you move the pickup closer to the string is that the volume goes up (Fletcher Munson). If you want to prove a real effect, you have to measure carefully and turn the volume down on the amp to compensate. I know what you mean by string pull causing Stratitus, but I think I hear more bass even with weaker pickups that have weak magnetic pull. At this point it's just something I believe I've observed, I haven't proven it with an FFT plot (though with the ebow on hand, it's not too hard of a test to perform) so I'm not able to press the point much further. I don't think it's Fletcher Munson related, because the effect seems to remain, even if the amp's volume is adjusted after the fact. This is another tedious type of test to perform, but I'll try to get to it also. I am not saying that the strength of the magnetic field causes more bass; I just mean the sort of "wowing" sound.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 17, 2017 16:12:15 GMT -5
Why are you considering 5kHz a significant benchmark?
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 16:14:13 GMT -5
Thanks for this insightful thread. My strat has Texas Specials for N and M, so I watch out for discussions about them. They have a anecdotal rep for being somewhat 'harsh'. I don't find this myself, but the usual forum advice is to lower them to smooth out the tone. This could be considered consistent with Tillman's theories of 'sensing width' combined with the offset tests above, showing a more concentrated sensing at higher/closer pickup positions. Here is a calculated envelope plot. It shows a Tx Sp (6.2k) neck pickup, plucking string 1 only, with sensing width varied from 6mm to 25mm. It is Tillman, modulated by harmonic smplitudes of string vibration,fed through the electrical filter of the pickup, strat wiring and cable. It shows a few db of difference at higher frequencies, but is it enough to explain the effect or is there more? I think lowering the pickup makes the sound less harsh because you are pulling on the strings less. The window is too narrow in either position to affect the sound very much.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 16:16:45 GMT -5
I don't think this rules out tonal consequences of proximity, but it does appear that it takes any credit away from comb filtering. Why would you reach that conclusion? Also it sounds like you only use the term comb filtering as it relates to the string window, from the string itself. The other comb filtering opportunities are in the return path, and other shifted relationships between the flux and the coil, within the coil. DB and frequency response charts aren't granular enough to show that. Also FYI it might be more effective with the other pickups removed. They're providing baseline magnetism that is sort of a magnetic noise floor in your experiment. That could be affecting your numbers at the increased distances. Remove the pickups, degauss the strings, repeat. Or to establish the other baseline just remove the pole from your test pickup and check the dB to approximate the minimum contribution from those existing pickups' magnets. . What do you mean by "comb filtering opportunities are in the return path"? I do not know of any such effect.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 16:23:23 GMT -5
I know what you mean by string pull causing Stratitus, but I think I hear more bass even with weaker pickups that have weak magnetic pull. At this point it's just something I believe I've observed, I haven't proven it with an FFT plot (though with the ebow on hand, it's not too hard of a test to perform) so I'm not able to press the point much further. I don't think it's Fletcher Munson related, because the effect seems to remain, even if the amp's volume is adjusted after the fact. This is another tedious type of test to perform, but I'll try to get to it also. I am not saying that the strength of the magnetic field causes more bass; I just mean the sort of "wowing" sound. But, I believe I observe the wowing sound even with PAF style pickups, which have very weak magnetic pull, showing a flux at the pole piece of no more than 300 gauss, compared to a Strat with A2 of ~700G , or A5 poles with 1050G. I strongly suspect the effect is due to geometry, and not damping factors.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 16:29:55 GMT -5
Thanks for this insightful thread. My strat has Texas Specials for N and M, so I watch out for discussions about them. They have a anecdotal rep for being somewhat 'harsh'. I don't find this myself, but the usual forum advice is to lower them to smooth out the tone. This could be considered consistent with Tillman's theories of 'sensing width' combined with the offset tests above, showing a more concentrated sensing at higher/closer pickup positions. Here is a calculated envelope plot. It shows a Tx Sp (6.2k) neck pickup, plucking string 1 only, with sensing width varied from 6mm to 25mm. It is Tillman, modulated by harmonic smplitudes of string vibration,fed through the electrical filter of the pickup, strat wiring and cable. It shows a few db of difference at higher frequencies, but is it enough to explain the effect or is there more? It's so very hard to work with terms like "harsh" because it can mean so many things. My theory on the Texas Special thing is that the stagger takes a lot of the blame; you have a lower resonant peak putting an emphasis in the lower 3kHz range, and then two tall pole pieces giving dominance to the D and G strings. With ~4kHz Strat pickups, I think the G and D prominence is mitigated by the greater harmonic content afforded by the higher 4kHz resonant peak. Looking at your diagram, the 25mm width shows an attenuation past 4kHz, and based on RLC modelling, this would be the tip top of what a Strat pickup can deliver, and a bit outside the range of a Texas Special, I showed loaded peaks of 3.43kHz, 3.68kHz and 3.85kHz guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7732/fender-texas-specials-analysis-review , you need a low capacitance guitar cable to reach into that 4kHz range. Even still, it appears that 25mm is too generous a window size, that corresponds to 12.5mm offset from pole piece center. In the test I just did, for a pickup height of 6mm, the dBm drops from a high of -33dBm at center to a low of -46dBm. Even if a person thinks my test on page 2 is imperfect for one reason or another, it's unlikely that any oversight would change the outcome with respect to overall amplitude by distance and offset. I'm not strong with the math, but I know that Tillman's math assumes that the window has homogeneous sensitivity, and so I think in reality that comb filtering would be dramatically lower for the 25mm simulation you show using his math.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 16:34:45 GMT -5
Why are you considering 5kHz a significant benchmark? Two reasons, 1) many, maybe most guitar speakers have a response curve that drops off around 5kHz 2) not many pickups have a resonant peak that allows for much transfer of sound above 5kHz. Filter'trons are the only ones I know of. Most Strat type pickups attenuate between 3.5kHz and 4.5kHz, and PAFs between 2kHz and 3kHz, as a result of inductance values that are typical to those models.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 18:53:41 GMT -5
I am not saying that the strength of the magnetic field causes more bass; I just mean the sort of "wowing" sound. But, I believe I observe the wowing sound even with PAF style pickups, which have very weak magnetic pull, showing a flux at the pole piece of no more than 300 gauss, compared to a Strat with A2 of ~700G , or A5 poles with 1050G. I strongly suspect the effect is due to geometry, and not damping factors. True, but you are pulling in two places rather than just one.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 17, 2017 19:33:04 GMT -5
Why are you considering 5kHz a significant benchmark? Two reasons, 1) many, maybe most guitar speakers have a response curve that drops off around 5kHz 2) not many pickups have a resonant peak that allows for much transfer of sound above 5kHz. Filter'trons are the only ones I know of. Most Strat type pickups attenuate between 3.5kHz and 4.5kHz, and PAFs between 2kHz and 3kHz, as a result of inductance values that are typical to those models. That's where you lose me. Pickups are won and lost between 5k-25k. Between 5 and 15 especially. Treating it like it's marginalized because it's 3/6/12/24/48dB is ignorant of the gain chain. Even frequencies above 20kHz will alias down into the audible frequency range under gain.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 20:54:09 GMT -5
Two reasons, 1) many, maybe most guitar speakers have a response curve that drops off around 5kHz 2) not many pickups have a resonant peak that allows for much transfer of sound above 5kHz. Filter'trons are the only ones I know of. Most Strat type pickups attenuate between 3.5kHz and 4.5kHz, and PAFs between 2kHz and 3kHz, as a result of inductance values that are typical to those models. That's where you lose me. Pickups are won and lost between 5k-25k. Between 5 and 15 especially. Treating it like it's marginalized because it's 3/6/12/24/48dB is ignorant of the gain chain. Even frequencies above 20kHz will alias down into the audible frequency range under gain. First, if a pickup has a resonant peak of 4kHz, then that comb filtering in excess of 4kHz is lost information. It gets attenuated by the capacitance of the pickup and cable. Clipping doesn't restore lost information, the noise the clipping produces in excess of 4kHz is new information, born out of that sub 4kHz information. Second, you can see studio speakers are designed to sound flat as possible well past 10kHz, such as the Yamaha HS8 Compare that to the Celestion G12M Greenback, see how it takes a dive past 5kHz: The reason for the response seems to be two fold; it's easier to make a tougher speaker when you don't have to worry about high frequency response, and distortion sounds raspy and shrill if it's allowed to exceed 5kHz. This response curve is conducive to "crunchy" clipping.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 20:58:00 GMT -5
Two reasons, 1) many, maybe most guitar speakers have a response curve that drops off around 5kHz 2) not many pickups have a resonant peak that allows for much transfer of sound above 5kHz. Filter'trons are the only ones I know of. Most Strat type pickups attenuate between 3.5kHz and 4.5kHz, and PAFs between 2kHz and 3kHz, as a result of inductance values that are typical to those models. That's where you lose me. Pickups are won and lost between 5k-25k. Between 5 and 15 especially. Treating it like it's marginalized because it's 3/6/12/24/48dB is ignorant of the gain chain. Even frequencies above 20kHz will alias down into the audible frequency range under gain. By "aliasing" do you mean the production of sum and difference products, that is, intermodulation distortion? Small signals produce small intermod products while the larger signals below 5KHz make larger products which are more important. Also, such high frequency string harmonics are small and die out very quickly because they are highly damped.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 21:15:28 GMT -5
Regarding the return path, here are some pictures to illustrate: Over the pole piece we see 188 gauss south: The spot were the flux path is perfectly perpendicular to the axis is 10mm of axis: And the maximum reading in the return path is about another 10mm further, maxing at 15 gauss north: All in all, I don't see the return path of the pole piece having the potential to produce any substantial voltage. It's a two way trip from the pole piece to the string, back to the pole piece, and it reads 15 gauss at only the half way point of this round trip. The sum flux change imparted by the return path, back at the coil, would be next to nothing.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 17, 2017 22:06:25 GMT -5
Then why doesn't every guitar amp and/or pedal begin with a 5K brick wall filter? Or 10K even? If those frequencies are meaningless why are they allowed? If you ignore 5-25kHz your conclusions suffer. If you promulgate it you're guilty of the same misleading propaganda the likes of which you've accused the marketing charlatans and profiteers.
As for the return path, that meter isn't going to tell you anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 17, 2017 22:24:44 GMT -5
Then why doesn't every guitar amp and/or pedal begin with a 5K brick wall filter? Or 10K even? If those frequencies are meaningless why are they allowed? If you ignore 5-25kHz your conclusions suffer. If you promulgate it you're guilty of the same misleading propaganda the likes of which you've accused the marketing charlatans and profiteers. As for the return path, that meter isn't going to tell you anything about it. If something is to small to matter, why would you go to the trouble of filtering it out? Consider 15KHz. To get it down to 3KHz to have to intermod it with 12KHz or 18KHz. Both terms of the product are small in either case, and so the resulting product is doubly small. I think these products are insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 17, 2017 22:34:44 GMT -5
Then why doesn't every guitar amp and/or pedal begin with a 5K brick wall filter? Or 10K even? If those frequencies are meaningless why are they allowed? If you ignore 5-25kHz your conclusions suffer. If you promulgate it you're guilty of the same misleading propaganda the likes of which you've accused the marketing charlatans and profiteers. As for the return path, that meter isn't going to tell you anything about it. I'd actually read this elsewhere, but I later corroborated the claim: www.proaudioland.com/news/why-guitar-speaker-size-matters/The frequency spectrum that the electric guitar resides in is roughly between 70Hz and 5kHz so guitar speakers aren’t really required to reproduce any frequency outside of that range. It’s no coincidence that 12-inch speakers are popular for guitar since most of them fall within those parameters. The Celestion Vintage 30 is a perfect example. - See more at: www.proaudioland.com/news/why-guitar-speaker-size-matters/#sthash.a4nILDz5.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by wgen on Mar 18, 2017 4:46:52 GMT -5
Then why doesn't every guitar amp and/or pedal begin with a 5K brick wall filter? Or 10K even? If those frequencies are meaningless why are they allowed? If you ignore 5-25kHz your conclusions suffer. If you promulgate it you're guilty of the same misleading propaganda the likes of which you've accused the marketing charlatans and profiteers. As for the return path, that meter isn't going to tell you anything about it. I don't exactly know what a brick wall filter is in this context, but I can tell that, especially tube amps, have large grid stopper resistors, parallel R C networks to ground, plate bypass capacitors, not to mention the Miller capacitance, all of these effects are there just to do what you're saying. Generally speaking, the more the amp is suited for high gain capabilities, the more low pass filtering you'll see. On the Ampbooks web page there are various popular amplifiers stages to be analysed, search for the SLO for example and you'll see. Some of these low pass networks are used with effects pedals, too. Many solid state amplifiers haven't almost any of that, so they're referred to dry, thin sounding amplifiers, even if they have a pretty similar tonestack to other amps they're trying to simulate, they won't achieve the same "warm" character, not just because they lack the harmonics of the tubes compressing, but also because they lack these tone shaping tools. A typical example of this is the Fender Frontman series versus a Deluxe Reverb or a Twin Reverb when compared...they're not nearly the same thing if you A/B them at any setting, and keep in mind that we are talking about some of the brightest amplifiers, too, which provide just a minimum of low pass filtering
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Mar 18, 2017 8:49:22 GMT -5
Then why doesn't every guitar amp and/or pedal begin with a 5K brick wall filter? Or 10K even? If those frequencies are meaningless why are they allowed? If you ignore 5-25kHz your conclusions suffer. If you promulgate it you're guilty of the same misleading propaganda the likes of which you've accused the marketing charlatans and profiteers. As for the return path, that meter isn't going to tell you anything about it. If something is to small to matter, why would you go to the trouble of filtering it out? Consider 15KHz. To get it down to 3KHz to have to intermod it with 12KHz or 18KHz. Both terms of the product are small in either case, and so the resulting product is doubly small. I think these products are insignificant. I agree. There are some good characteristics of amplifiers that are merely fortuitous. Their presence doesn't imply a necessity for all the advantages they yield. It would be a good idea for Falbo to present some experimental data to support his claims. He hasen't yet explained how he arrived at his conclusions about the 5-25Khz signals. Theorizing is great for establishing new directions and uncovering clues. But without verification, there is too high a risk of delusion or running in circles.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 18, 2017 9:54:04 GMT -5
If something is to small to matter, why would you go to the trouble of filtering it out? Consider 15KHz. To get it down to 3KHz to have to intermod it with 12KHz or 18KHz. Both terms of the product are small in either case, and so the resulting product is doubly small. I think these products are insignificant. I agree. There are some good characteristics of amplifiers that are merely fortuitous. Their presence doesn't imply a necessity for all the advantages they yield. It would be a good idea for Falbo to present some experimental data to support his claims. He hasen't yet explained how he arrived at his conclusions about the 5-25Khz signals. Theorizing is great for establishing new directions and uncovering clues. But without verification, there is too high a risk of delusion or running in circles. Yes. There is another factor here, too, which might apply. When large levels of lower frequencies overload an amp, in addition to creating harmonics and intermits, they also can tend to suppress lower level high frequency content initially present in the signal. There is a good discussion of this here: music-electronics-forum.com/t43845/. An overly simplified way of looking at this is that while the amp is saturated to one side, the incremental gain to small signal components is very low. This incremental gain is only significant as the amp changes to saturation to the other side, but before it gets there.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 18, 2017 13:04:30 GMT -5
Look, we all know where this is headed. I work for companies and I'm not posting graphs or screen shots, or going down too many rabbit holes with you guys. There are uninformed and downright false claims made in the name of science emanating from these kinds of homebrew experiments, and dismissive unbelief in other areas. You run these flawed experiments and then sprint to the nearest pickup forums to blast your newfound knowledge as if it's canon.
It's killing me to watch some of you take this hobby of yours and turn it into a crusade. It's like I'm watching a kid first learn what salt and pepper taste like, and then they proceed to describe everything as "salty" or "peppery" to the entire world...until they learn about garlic.
You pick and choose what you will listen to, such as an article by a dealer that says 5k+ doesn't matter in a guitar speaker, but you refuse to consider return path issues because the gauss meter zeros out at some point. Well, zero isn't zero on that meter. That meter is a bull in a china shop for what you're trying to determine. No, it's a bull in a dollhouse. It's Godzilla.
If you think 5k is a cutoff, stick a 31-band EQ in the effects loop of your Mesa Triple Rectifier and boost 16kHz and see what freaking happens. Does nothing happen? Is the cabinet deaf to 16k? Map out the Q of the 16k fader and see how low it goes.
The FACT is, I work with pickup technology where I can literally touch a button during the R&D process and toggle <1dB at 10kHz and everyone in the room hears the difference, and has an opinion about it. Of course It does different things with different amps, but for example I can pinpoint the exact moment on a Marshall where it goes from ear candy, to crashing the preamp. Yet some of you want to take what I'm saying as a lie, or as "unproven" because you're not on my R&D team and you didn't see it for yourself?
I've done the string window studies. There are flaws in what you're going to conclude from this. You can either keep going and ignore what I'm trying to tell you, post up counterpoints to every one of my points, or consider them.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 18, 2017 15:19:06 GMT -5
Look, we all know where this is headed. I work for companies and I'm not posting graphs or screen shots, or going down too many rabbit holes with you guys. There are uninformed and downright false claims made in the name of science emanating from these kinds of homebrew experiments, and dismissive unbelief in other areas. You run these flawed experiments and then sprint to the nearest pickup forums to blast your newfound knowledge as if it's canon. It's killing me to watch some of you take this hobby of yours and turn it into a crusade. It's like I'm watching a kid first learn what salt and pepper taste like, and then they proceed to describe everything as "salty" or "peppery" to the entire world...until they learn about garlic. ff - I know you are respected in this field and we would value any positive input that you can make. We are a small friendly forum, and this area of it discusses aspects of the technical performance of pickups for which the public do not have the benefit of detailed technical information from manufacturers to enable them to properly understand the products they are invited to buy. I for one have learned an enormous amount by reading these threads. Testing may not be perfect but I see only honest attempts to discover here. If you have anything you are able to share from your experience then we would welcome it. But if it only frustrates or even kills you then I suggest you would be better to refrain.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 18, 2017 16:31:19 GMT -5
Look, we all know where this is headed. I work for companies and I'm not posting graphs or screen shots, or going down too many rabbit holes with you guys. There are uninformed and downright false claims made in the name of science emanating from these kinds of homebrew experiments, and dismissive unbelief in other areas. You run these flawed experiments and then sprint to the nearest pickup forums to blast your newfound knowledge as if it's canon. It's killing me to watch some of you take this hobby of yours and turn it into a crusade. It's like I'm watching a kid first learn what salt and pepper taste like, and then they proceed to describe everything as "salty" or "peppery" to the entire world...until they learn about garlic. You pick and choose what you will listen to, such as an article by a dealer that says 5k+ doesn't matter in a guitar speaker, but you refuse to consider return path issues because the gauss meter zeros out at some point. Well, zero isn't zero on that meter. That meter is a bull in a china shop for what you're trying to determine. No, it's a bull in a dollhouse. It's Godzilla. If you think 5k is a cutoff, stick a 31-band EQ in the effects loop of your Mesa Triple Rectifier and boost 16kHz and see what freaking happens. Does nothing happen? Is the cabinet deaf to 16k? Map out the Q of the 16k fader and see how low it goes. The FACT is, I work with pickup technology where I can literally touch a button during the R&D process and toggle <1dB at 10kHz and everyone in the room hears the difference, and has an opinion about it. Of course It does different things with different amps, but for example I can pinpoint the exact moment on a Marshall where it goes from ear candy, to crashing the preamp. Yet some of you want to take what I'm saying as a lie, or as "unproven" because you're not on my R&D team and you didn't see it for yourself? I've done the string window studies. There are flaws in what you're going to conclude from this. You can either keep going and ignore what I'm trying to tell you, post up counterpoints to every one of my points, or consider them. You do not understand the physics of magnetic pickups at the level you claim. That is obvious from what you write. There also is no coherent motivation for you joining this discussion. You make some absurd claims, refuse to explain what you mean, and then call everyone incompetent hobby fools. You need to understand why you did this.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 18, 2017 17:25:35 GMT -5
Please isolate the absurd claims so I can try to clarify them for you. If one absurd claim is that a narrow Q boost at 16kHz into a guitar cabinet is audible, it's not absurd, just so it. If one absurd claim is that a less than 1dB shift above 5 or even 10k is audible through many typical real-world guitar rigs, it's not absurd, it's a real life occurrence.
So if I tell you something like this, and you are open to accepting it, then it alters the conclusions you might otherwise draw from an experiment that supposedly predicts that an incremental change in string window, so long as the total is less than 1" is having "no discernible impact" on the user experience of the final product.
I am telling you things that, if contemplated, could make an experiment more productive; more accurate.
If youre thinking my comments about the gauss meter are ridicule or belittling they are not. No part of this is me condescending to someone lacking the tools I've had the luxury of benefitting from. Rather, I'm trying to point out why something I say exists, might not look like it exists.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Mar 18, 2017 17:40:24 GMT -5
John, "kills me" is a figure of speech. Ascribe the minimum drama to it possible. The ad hominem attacks flow over from here to other forums, as do the incomplete and inaccurate conclusions reached when the parameters of the experiment can not and will not reveal differences that we in the pickup business have proven to be there. The result is not only the character of decent people being called into question, but valid and repeatable user experiences as well.
I'm here in the event that I might be able to lead horses to water. If you prefer it remain an echo chamber just say the word and I'll show myself the door.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 18, 2017 18:08:58 GMT -5
Please isolate the absurd claims so I can try to clarify them for you. If one absurd claim is that a narrow Q boost at 16kHz into a guitar cabinet is audible, it's not absurd, just so it. If one absurd claim is that a less than 1dB shift above 5 or even 10k is audible through many typical real-world guitar rigs, it's not absurd, it's a real life occurrence. So if I tell you something like this, and you are open to accepting it, then it alters the conclusions you might otherwise draw from an experiment that supposedly predicts that an incremental change in string window, so long as the total is less than 1" is having "no discernible impact" on the user experience of the final product. I am telling you things that, if contemplated, could make an experiment more productive; more accurate. If youre thinking my comments about the gauss meter are ridicule or belittling they are not. No part of this is me condescending to someone lacking the tools I've had the luxury of benefitting from. Rather, I'm trying to point out why something I say exists, might not look like it exists. "Compound that by the comb filtering associated with one lone pole..." A lone pole piece does not produce comb filtering. It causes an attenuation of the higher harmonics in the string motion as determined by the pattern of string magnetization that it excites, and the component of the resulting flux along the coil axis. Who are you to decide which statements that you make are the ones I consider absurd? That is a rhetorical technique as subtle as Trump on twitter. You avoid answering legitimate questions about what you write, and claim that is because you are a working professional. Then what are you doing here if you cannot actually say anything?
|
|