|
|
Post by antigua on Feb 4, 2018 21:43:36 GMT -5
Mfg product URL: shop.fender.com/en-US/accessories/pickups/pure-vintage-65-jaguar-pickup-set/0992238000.htmlThe Fender Jaguar came out in 1962, eight years after the Stratocaster. It was meant to be more upscale than the Stratocaster or Telecaster, and according to the promotional material at the time, intended for "surf music". The pickups are very much like Strat pickups, but without flanged flatwork, and with a steel shielding that covers the long sides and bottom of the pickup. The pickups are very much like Strat pickups, but without flanged flatwork, and with a steel shielding that covers the long sides and bottom of the pickup. Fender used dark red enamel coated 42AWG wire for the bobbins. The bobbins are gray bottom / black top. As can be seen in the pictures below, the fiber bobbin layout is almost identical to what is seen with the Seymour Duncan SSL-5, which omitted the flange so that the pickup could be mounted in guitars that were not routed to fit the flange. The eyelets for the lead wires are at the far ends of the flatwork, instead. These pickups can be used as Strat pickups, if you remove the shielding and pickup cover, and replace the cover with a regular Stratocaster pickup cover with 51mm pole piece spacing. The regular 52mm cover can be coerced on there, but it will look a little off. The shielding is made of steel, and it is magnetic, so in addition to serving as an electrostatic shield, it also helps to carry the magnetic flux around the perimeter of the coil. Without the steel shield in place, the flux reads 1050G at the pole piece tops, like a regular Strat pickup, but with the shield in place, it jumps up to around 1150G to 1200G, so the shielding does make the magnetic field a bit stronger. Unfortunately it would require a tedious and time consuming test setup to determine how much additional voltage is produced by having a more complete magnetic circuit, but my guess would be that it's not a boost that you couldn't duplicate with a Strat, by simply raising the Strat's pickups closer to the strings. As an electrostatic shield shield, it's probably fine, but since it's not a humbucker, it's still susceptible to electromagnetic noise, and which of the two dominates depends on the environment you're in. The steel also has inductive and capacitive consequences that are analysed below. The cross section of the Jaguar pickup is very similar to a Lace Sensor pickup, which has a similar steel shield below the plastic covering, but the Lace Sensor's steel shield encompasses the whole perimeter, and the Lace Sensor has a much smaller coil that is set close to the guitar strings, which surely improves the signal to noise ratio a fair good amount. Therefore a Lace Sensor is essentially an improved Jaguar pickup. Electrical measurements:
Fender '65 Jaguar
Bridge
- DC Resistance: 6.37K ohms
- Measured L: 3.414H (2.975 without shielding)
- Calculated C: 112pF (122 - 10)
- Gauss: 1150G with shield, 1000G without
Neck
- DC Resistance: 6.42K ohms
- Measured L: 3.484H
- Calculated C: 121pF (131 - 10)
- Gauss: 1150G with shield, 1000G without
Bridge unloaded: dV: 11.9dB f: 7.81kHz (black)
Bridge loaded (200k & 470pF): dV: 5.2dB f: 3.40kHz (red)
Neck unloaded: dV: 11.3dB f: 7.46kHz (green)
Neck loaded (200k & 470pF): dV: 5.2dB f: 3.36kHz (gray)
 Though one pickups is intended as a bridge and the other as a beck, both pickups are essentially the same. The loaded peak of 3.4kHz is darker than the average Strat pickup, which is closer to 4.0k on average. They're rather close to Telecaster bridge pickups, which average around 3.4kHz. The primary reason these pickups have a lower peak frequency, despite having a modest 6.4k ohms of wire, is that the steel shielding increases the inductance by about 450mH. Another factor that sure increases the inductance a bit is that, unlike a staggered Strat pickup, each pole piece is rather tall at 18.35mm, and each pole piece extends out the bottom of the bobbin as well as out the top, making for a more substantial core. The capacitance measurements of 112pF and 121pF is similar to that of a Stratocaster pickup. The plots below show the difference made when the steel shield is removed, or disconnected, using the "bridge" as the test pickup:
Fender '65 Jaguar pickup shielding analysis
Normal: dV: 11.7dB f: 7.90kHz
Shielding disconnected: dV: 11.7dB f: 8.17kHz
Shielding removed: dV: 15.9dB f: 8.36kHz It can be seen that disconnecting the ground connection from the shield only increases the resonant peak by 270Hz, which calculates out to 101pF capacitance, which is only a difference of 11pF, very small, similar to the difference seen by the metal cover of a P.A.F. or a Tele neck pickup. They put holes in the bottom of the shielding, and though I'm not sure what the intentions was, the lack of electrical contact means the AlNiCo pole pieces don't become capacitively couple with the coil, which is a good feature. Removing the shield all together causes the Q factor to jump a bit, showing that is causes some modest eddy current losses. Fender '65 Jaguar pickup shielding analysis, with 470pF 200k ohms load
Normal: dV: 5.2dB f: 3.43kHz
Shielding removed: dV: 6.7dB f: 3.64kHz  This loaded plot shows that the resonant peak frequency climbs to 3.64kHz with the steel shielding removed, about 200Hz, which is small but would be audible. At 3.6kHz, these come closer to regular Strat pickups. The loaded plot also shows that the cover causes the resonant Q amplitude to drop by only 1.3dB (6.7dB - 5.2dB), which is a trivial amount. It also strangely shows a higher overall amplitude with the shielding removed, though again, the difference is around 1dB, a trivial amount. I'm not sure about the cause. Pics:    |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 10, 2019 16:58:45 GMT -5
I picked up this stock/used Fender Jaguar set for a project, so I thought I would get some quick numbers before installing them, to add to the body of pickup measurements, but I'm not making a big thing out of it since they aren't readily available on the free market. All I know is that they're from a "Crafted in Japan" Jaguar, which puts them at ten to twenty years old. Fender Japan (CIJ) 66RI Jaguar
Bridge (white/black)
- DC Resistance: 6.47K ohms
- Measured L: 2.540H
- Calculated C: 146pF
- Gauss: 1000G AlNiCo
Neck (yellow/black)
- DC Resistance: 6.34K ohms
- Measured L: 2.586H
- Calculated C: 176pF
- Gauss: 1050G AlNiCo
 
|
|
|
|
Post by aquin43 on Mar 23, 2019 7:59:12 GMT -5
Where do you measure the flux density? Do you have a standard height above the pole?
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 23, 2019 10:39:47 GMT -5
Where do you measure the flux density? Do you have a standard height above the pole?
Arthur
No distance, point blank. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 23, 2019 12:41:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 24, 2019 13:36:32 GMT -5
"The comparison between the calculated transfer function (HUv chapter 5.9.3) and measurement with a laser (chapter 5.10.5) show a slight treble loss (Fig. 5.4.40), the cause of which quite surely is the special magnet aperture. I am not convinced. The right hand plot shows that the secondary maxima are about 26 db down. This a factor of 20 down. There are two, and so at most the voltage dips to .9 times the value with no secondary maxima. This is a bit less than1 db, not greater than 2 db as the left hand plot shows |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 24, 2019 19:37:12 GMT -5
"The comparison between the calculated transfer function (HUv chapter 5.9.3) and measurement with a laser (chapter 5.10.5) show a slight treble loss (Fig. 5.4.40), the cause of which quite surely is the special magnet aperture. I am not convinced. The right hand plot shows that the secondary maxima are about 26 db down. This a factor of 20 down. There are two, and so at most the voltage dips to .9 times the value with no secondary maxima. This is a bit less than1 db, not greater than 2 db as the left hand plot shows That's true, I noticed those relative amplitudes looked off when I saw it, but I wasn't exactly sure how. |
|
|
|
Post by aquin43 on Mar 25, 2019 3:33:01 GMT -5
"The comparison between the calculated transfer function (HUv chapter 5.9.3) and measurement with a laser (chapter 5.10.5) show a slight treble loss (Fig. 5.4.40), the cause of which quite surely is the special magnet aperture. I am not convinced. The right hand plot shows that the secondary maxima are about 26 db down. This a factor of 20 down. There are two, and so at most the voltage dips to .9 times the value with no secondary maxima. This is a bit less than1 db, not greater than 2 db as the left hand plot shows That's true, I noticed those relative amplitudes looked off when I saw it, but I wasn't exactly sure how. Isn't at least part of the problem caused by both the curves being normalised to 0dB at low frequencies? The plot including the secondary apertures should really start nearly 1dB above the other. Also, it is probably the areas under the curves, rather than just the peak heights that should be considered; the main lobe is far from square at the top.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 25, 2019 6:32:14 GMT -5
That's true, I noticed those relative amplitudes looked off when I saw it, but I wasn't exactly sure how. Isn't at least part of the problem caused by both the curves being normalised to 0dB at low frequencies? The plot including the secondary apertures should really start nearly 1dB above the other. Also, it is probably the areas under the curves, rather than just the peak heights that should be considered; the main lobe is far from square at the top.
Arthur
The normalization is OK since the issue is the frequency response, that is, the high frequency response each case has relative to its own low frequency response. Yes, it is the integrated effect that counts, and the shapes of the side lobes and main lobe are not the same, but they do not look so different either. |
|
|
|
Post by aquin43 on Mar 25, 2019 7:32:13 GMT -5
Isn't at least part of the problem caused by both the curves being normalised to 0dB at low frequencies? The plot including the secondary apertures should really start nearly 1dB above the other. Also, it is probably the areas under the curves, rather than just the peak heights that should be considered; the main lobe is far from square at the top.
Arthur
The normalization is OK since the issue is the frequency response, that is, the high frequency response each case has relative to its own low frequency response. Yes, it is the integrated effect that counts, and the shapes of the side lobes and main lobe are not the same, but they do not look so different either. The maximum effect of the side lobes is twice their face value because the signal from them can subtract as well as add, depending on the wavelength. So at low frequencies they add 10% or so to the main lobe, but that is normalised away, then as the frequency rises, they subtract 10%. At about 7kHz they cancel each other, etc. That would make 1.74 dB variation, based on the peak values alone.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Post by ms on Mar 25, 2019 12:43:33 GMT -5
The normalization is OK since the issue is the frequency response, that is, the high frequency response each case has relative to its own low frequency response. Yes, it is the integrated effect that counts, and the shapes of the side lobes and main lobe are not the same, but they do not look so different either. The maximum effect of the side lobes is twice their face value because the signal from them can subtract as well as add, depending on the wavelength. So at low frequencies they add 10% or so to the main lobe, but that is normalised away, then as the frequency rises, they subtract 10%. At about 7kHz they cancel each other, etc. That would make 1.74 dB variation, based on the peak values alone.
Arthur
Thanks, you are right. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Mar 25, 2019 12:50:16 GMT -5
Does the -2dB attenuation look realistic then? If the side lobes can add or subtract, doesn't that cause an averaging to occur rather than a -2dB attenuation of treble?
|
|
