|
Post by stratotarts on May 2, 2018 8:47:22 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see the curves with the treble bleed circuit in place.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Feb 1, 2018 20:27:12 GMT -5
I did some thinking about the integrator functions and levels, and managed to improve the low end so that it now reaches 100Hz quite accurately. The previous version started to drop off at 200Hz. R10 and pads K1,K2 will be deprecated because of lack of use. No changes are required to the V5.5 PCB, only component values have changed. I will be updating the main documentation site this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Oct 23, 2017 16:54:30 GMT -5
[...] I thank you for the spectrograph images, but please, I'm not being facetious - I can't hear those! If you really want to help me understand, then some audio will have to be brought forward. I surmise that with enough experience with graphs, spectrograph's and other purely technical data, one could have some idea how something sounds without actually hearing it. I do not have this ability. I am not interested in "winning" this discussion, I continue it because I'm hoping to come to a better understanding of my direct perception, and for better or for worse it seems the only way for me gain this understanding is through further direct experience. Actually, in recent threads the sound samples for these (or at least related) spectrograms were posted along with the spectrogram. So it is in fact possible to audition them.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 28, 2017 16:06:29 GMT -5
Just an update - I tried loading the sound file with the 3 strums in it again. I may have chosen the wrong option in Audacity. It looks fine now, I see no evidence of distortion. It's really easy to see clipping and there is none. I am listening on headphones and I don't hear any distortion either.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 26, 2017 12:54:51 GMT -5
I looked at your sound file in Audacity. One channel is a square wave. The other channel looks compressed - it is almost at max volume.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 24, 2017 8:18:23 GMT -5
1) The "mountain" response is the true response of the pickup, but it encumbers analysis of the response when comparing different responses, because it is harder to characterize key parameters and features. It is true that the strings themselves must overcome the mountain response that would tend to make the bass sounds weak. But the actual fundamental frequencies on a guitar don't go up beyond a few kHz (I'm not pausing to look up the high notes right now). An instrument like a sax generates large harmonics because of the non-linearity of the ombrature. I think strings produce only modest overtones, especially when not plucked at the end. So the result is a sound that is not bassy, not trebly, and very strong on mids. That is the sound that we have gotten used to, so we perceive it as "flat" because it is a baseline experience.
2) It is indeed true that piezo transducers are "flat". That results from an output voltage that is proportional to displacement, not velocity. It is why they usually are used in conjunction with an equalizer to tame the bass. An acoustic guitar also has an intrinsic high pass filter, which is the small body and cancellation of waves from the front and back of the soundboard.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 12, 2017 14:31:43 GMT -5
Nickle silver is a form of "German Silver"... so named because it was a faux silver for ornaments and so on.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 11, 2017 17:57:51 GMT -5
If you want humbucking and minimal comb filtering, I think the solution exists in tiny humbuckers, such as Bardens. I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't mistake a Barden for Fender set, but that's a mystery unto itself. Same for Lace Sensors; if it's not comb filtering that make them sound different, then what is it? The stronger magnetic pull of the AlNiCo pole pieces? I think the solution exists in single coil sized hum buckers using multiple coils. It is just my opinion, but I think the pickups described in the HiQ discussion solve essentially all the problems, and with some further development, will do the job completely. I was very impressed with that. It's just that I'm worried about manufacturability. It has a lot of parts that have to go together. Regarding single-coil sized humbuckers, I've had and liked them, but I wonder whether they need to be close to the string to work properly. I like pickups that you can back away from the string. There are a lot of trade offs to consider.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 11, 2017 17:50:42 GMT -5
Now you're tempting me to get some lipstick types to test. I would strongly expect substantial eddy current losses, because as mentioned above, they are most likely brass. The theory predicts big losses from the geometry.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 10, 2017 17:02:07 GMT -5
Okay, here's some fun... I compared the spectra: (I reached the attachment limit, will post later) I created three separate sound files, ABC. I flipped a coin to determine the assignment of names. The three files are as follows: The challenge, of course, is to identify them! I didn't record the PAF and the SSL-5 perfectly the same unfortunately, so you can kinda figure some it out on that basis, but that aside, A must be the PAF, B is EQ filtered and C is original -1dB. I think the knocking down of particular harmonics changes the timbre in a way that a flat EQ doesn't, because the comb filtering is "dynamic" insofar as it follows the note, whereas flat EQ filtering is not dynamic in that respect, it squishes everything at a given frequency. Isn't harmonic proportionality the basis for timbre in general? Isn't that how an electric organ can be made to sound like various instrument? The idea that these differences are centered on comb filtering would certainly explain why guitarists often have a hard time nailing down how certain changes effect the tone, because they're not necessarily changing the EQ, they're changing the voice, and that's a much more difficult thing to characterize. Words like "quack" and "piano" come up - words that describe voicing, not EQ. You can't really describe a voice, you have to hear it to know it. People say "doing this increases the highs and tightens the lows" it's like they're using EQ lingo in an attempt to describe changes in harmonic proportionality that only loosely tracks with the EQ. All of the pickup height adjustment testing I've done, from the earliest stuff last year with a '59 to the more complicated stuff a few months ago with an eBow suggest that changing the pickup height changes the harmonic balance, more than it changes the EQ, and the most recent testing suggests that magnetic string pull is responsible for shifting the harmonic makeup, by magnetically attracting the anti-nodes that are closest to the magnetic field. People say raising and lowering the pickup makes the bass more or less tight, or it makes the mids more complex, whatever, the truth is subtly changes the timbre of the signal in a way that almost defies description. Though I don't fully understand it, I'm putting stock in JohnH's claim that picking location might be responsible for bringing the filtering down to the 1kHz range, because if true, we'll pretty much have an open and shut case. There would still be a lot of worthwhile testing to do even if that explains what's happening, for example, do the SSL-5 and the PAF sound more alike if you pluck very close to the bridge? Do the harmonics align more closely under those circumstances? Is any divergence pushed to a higher frequency? ...and we have a winner! I guess that was too easy. I was surprised how similar the unmodified sounds were. Myself, I can hear that there is a difference but I can't convince myself that I can identify which is which. I have noted the testing you did re harmonic balance. Harmonic proportionality is still affected by an evenly distributed equalization like a low pass, on a per note basis. Of course, in such case the proportionality does not track with the fundamental and that is the difference. But in this case the signal is the product of both the string and pickup characteristics. If you compared the same pickups again with a different string like a D, maybe it would be possible to make a good guess as to what is due to the string position and what is due to the bare pickup response (or at least the part of it that is not dependent on string characteristics). I'm interested in taking details and trying to derive useful simplifications that might fit with some kind of simple circuit mod or pickup design feature. Your adjustments to the signal were many, if I understand correctly. One interesting part of that, is what rules you followed, that could be automated. Those would have to be known in order to use a DSP to process the sound, for example. There has always been the problem with guitar, of separating the signals from the strings so that the algorithms can work properly. But hexaphonic pickups have proven to be much trickier to build than normal ones. This supports a growing suspicion in the back of my mind, that the humbucking design does have a distinct character of its own, whereas you could consider a single coil design as actually having less character or colouration, at least if it is constructed and loaded in a certain way. I'm trying to lean toward a design that offers maximum flexibility and so that character of a humbucker (which I think we are attributing to phase cancellations here) is a liability. The same character is a benefit not a liability if you are actually seeking a classic sound character that already exists - e.g. a PAF sound. It just irks me because I'm also a stickler for noise reduction, which bring a level of complexity to the table when single coils are required. Again, from my point of view, and with my jaded ears, the difference is not as much as I expected. It could explain why my Firebird pickups don't sound quite the same as singles in spite of many similarities that they have in common - magnetic poles, no steel, low losses resulting in very high loaded Q.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 10, 2017 8:32:06 GMT -5
PG vs. SSL-4 spectral response: Compensation filter:
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 10, 2017 8:25:23 GMT -5
Okay, here's some fun... I compared the spectra: (I reached the attachment limit, will post later) I created three separate sound files, ABC. I flipped a coin to determine the assignment of names. The three files are as follows: The challenge, of course, is to identify them! pickupA.mp3 (31.08 KB) pickupB.mp3 (31.48 KB) pickupC.mp3 (31.48 KB)
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 9, 2017 21:23:14 GMT -5
I loaded the sound file into Audacity, did a spectral analysis and just used visual cues to develop an equalization curve: Here is the result: To clarify, I applied the equalization directly to part 3, the SSL-5, so all parts should sound similar. This was a quick hack 5 minute job, I think it could be improved. I should measure the SSL-5's, it's just a pita to open up and test Strat compared to most other guitars, and they're tapping pickups, so it adds to the complexity. I tester the SSL-4s, which are substantially similar. Do you hear anything noteworthy from having applied the equalization? I'm not sure what I'm listening for. I'm going to do that humbucker with coil removed test, ASAP, I think that will be some good data to work with. Sorry, I should have been more clear and produced a better example. I made another one, this time it conforms to your format. The first part is the HB, the middle is the modified (equalized) SSL, and the end is the unmodified SSL. Listen to the first two parts to see whether you can tell the difference. What I hear (but other ears are definitely better qualified) is little difference between the first two, and a brighter sound in the last part. composite_equalized.mp3 (92.71 KB)
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 9, 2017 10:53:50 GMT -5
From the SD forum and also the jemsite, the contributions of Frankfalbo are numerous and helpful. Heck the guy is a top-notch pro, being in this business for so many years, it is a pleasure and a blessing having him here. Let's not dive into personal scientific narcissistic vanity. I know its tempting and attractive, but its so empty and negative overall. I studied comp science, I used to read (or write) papers with so many math symbols, outsiders usually stopped at the first 4 lines, but I don't expect my music experience to be a race for intelligence or smth like that. Someone called the swede as the "subject", lol, I wouldn't dare call him a subject, especially when he might have been the reason I almost quit guitar in 1983 after I listened to "no parole from rock'n'roll". Ppl cheer up. This is music, this is not 5th generation unmanned warplanes physics. Science is great, as long as the "subject" is the humanity. This is a very judgmental post. Personally, I welcome everyone's input here. I have seen some members contribute fairly lightweight commentary, technically speaking, and I didn't feel it detracted from the discussion at all. In fact, I welcome those because they add outside perspective. But if someone comes in with a lot of pointed criticism (some of it bordering on invective), the least they can do is back it up with some facts. That's all we're asking for. Otherwise the contributions are just vexatious and self serving.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 9, 2017 10:35:20 GMT -5
I loaded the sound file into Audacity, did a spectral analysis and just used visual cues to develop an equalization curve: Here is the result: composite_equalized.mp3 (92.71 KB) To clarify, I applied the equalization directly to part 3, the SSL-5, so all parts should sound similar. This was a quick hack 5 minute job, I think it could be improved.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 9, 2017 9:30:52 GMT -5
That is an interesting listen. I do wonder what results you could achieve by global, simple equalization. For example, a parametric centered on the resonant frequency to bring down the Q of the SSL. I looked to see if you had the SSL-5 in your database, but it look like not. I'm not claiming that you could get such a close match, but I'm always looking for the simple way - even if it turns out to be a flop. I'll try playing with Audacity.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 19:10:15 GMT -5
Yeah sorry Stratotarts you're just wrong. That's not what's happening at all. Sorry you can't be in the room with us while we're working. These are professionals. It's in our best interest NOT to have small things make a difference because it makes producing the pickup that much more difficult. We're not comparing "all the pickups". I'm referring to one pickup, the Fluence core(s) with whatever magnetic circuit is being used, and the changes are being made to the voicing in real time. There's no "59 vs Burstbucker". We do use shuttle guitars for calibration, and with an artist we will use their favorite guitars and/or pickups as calibration but that's not the part of a voicing session I'm referring to. Also its not true that compression and distortion mask changes in response curves at the pickup level. Sure it masks full frequency dB changes, but it also magnifies dynamic changes and shifts within the response curve at the pickup level because altering the relationships between frequency bands to one another affects the response of the compression, the harmonic multiples under distortion, etc. It's a chain reaction. Surely you're not suggesting that distortion doesn't add any harmonics to the original signal. This "voicing session" is not an experiment. You are not commenting on my arguments about bias here. You're not saying that you made any efforts to eliminate them. So it's safe to assume that you aren't following any controlled experimental procedure. Again, that makes it a demonstration or procedure rather than an experiment. It would be folly to regard any results from it as any kind of proof. With regard to the distortion, I regard it as a futile discussion unless it is conducted in technical terms. It's indisputable and well known that pickup output levels affect tone by altering the harmonic content as the signal passes through a non-linear stage. However, the claim that small differences are magnified to the point that they become audible has no basis in theory. In this case, the magnification factor would be of an order of magnitude or more. You are completely alone in this claim and so it is up to you to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 17:31:57 GMT -5
I can see that from many of your previous posts, even after having it pointed out to you repeatedly, you don't understand the difference between a casual A/B trial and a proper experiment with safeguards against bias. Because of this, and because you don't present details of the trials, I dismiss them. I don't think that the results of any well controlled guitar listening test is going to sit well with you. Not only is it likely that you are wrong, but from your discourse, I think that you will have trouble grasping the full import. I realize that my prediction is just a bet, as I also await results. But I'm putting my money on what I believe is a safe bet. What exactly do you believe I'm likely wrong about? I'll try to make this as simple as possible. One luxury I have when voicing pickups with artists is that everything we do occurs in real time. Like an optometrist I start with broad movements, and eventually hone in on "Which is better, A or B?" The artist is usually settled into riffs and songs they've played hundreds or thousands of times, using their own rig(s) in which they are intimately familiar with. So there is absolutely zero recall time. They are able to play through the changes I'm making. What I am telling you is that by the end, I am making 0.1 - 0.2dB movements within the response curve, and that these are noticeable to everyone in the room coming out of the distorted amplifier, and even more noticeable to the artist playing the instrument. If I took the guitar from the artist, and began playing cowboy chords at medium picking velocity through the clean Fender amp, volume on 2, bright switch off, those same A/B changes are not as noticeable, and could perhaps even go ignored. If the clean Fender on 2 was considered the "reference" amplifier it would be easy to reach conclusions such as yours. "Nobody can hear the difference" just like changes made to a car's suspension may be utterly meaningless...until you attempt to take corners at high speeds. This is why you see me take positions such that testing pickups outside of their intended use/environment is sub optimal science. So yes, I'm proving out in real time that 0.1 - 0.2dB movements within the response curve are detectable, on more than one occasion, across many different artists, engineers, and sets of ears, golden and non-golden. In this case, what is wrong is that you are interfering with the experiment. That reduces it to a demonstration. You're in a dialogue with the subject. You allude to an audience. That's even worse because then there is a 3 way dialogue between you, the subject and the audience in which "leaks" occur. An unbiased test removes all possibility of the subject obtaining information that bypasses the information channel through which they are supposed to be tested. It has been shown that verbal dialogue, body language, and other cues usually "leak" information, and that is why a "double blind" is used, where the experimenter doesn't know anything about the test material and thus cannot communicate it unintentionally. Also, do you communicate the identity of the pickups explicitly when you do your optometrist routine? Like, "now compare that '59 with this Burstbucker", or the like? Are the pickups masked or blacked out so the player can not just look at them and see the difference? Any of these problems would be death to any truth that you could get out of the procedure. "Coaxing" is another issue... do you do that? Comments like, "Did you hear how different that is?", for example. All these things bias subjects and leak information to completely ruin any chance of objective discovery. You are proving nothing. Zero.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 16:36:04 GMT -5
I would like to see a demonstration produced where 0.5dB clean amplitude change is made audible by merely clipping the same signal. I could set up such a demo myself, and it would be very easy, as many DAW's have both built in EQ and gain utilities. As much as I'd like to see this demonstrated, since I'm not the one claiming something exists here to be observed, I don't feel the burden should be upon be to conduct said experiment. You can demonstrate that. But it depends on two things - a very constant amplitude input signal, and a very very extreme non-linearity carefully adjusted to "just clipping". Neither of these conditions really exist in a guitar signal chain, though.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 16:19:42 GMT -5
Myself, yes. I can't speak for Antigua. But it would have to have the same resonant peak amplitude as well because that influences the tone. I think that by "targeting" you probably mean tweaking the turns count until the two are very close. That should be possible. As was pointed out, and a link to experiments with Strat pickups was provided, the inductance difference with the same number of turns would already be negligible. From other results, there is a strong expectation that with an identical geometry, and very close inductance, the difference in measured characteristics would also be negligible. It follows that the human ear wouldn't have much of a chance of differentiating it, as it can only detect differences of more than about 0.5 dB under the best of circumstances.I've said this to Andrew before consistently and forgive me if you've already heard me say it as well. We don't play the guitar through linear HiFi amplification. We use copious amounts of gain to compress and/or distort, we push speaker cones (and the air in front of them, and mic diaphragms) into breakup. Our amps are heavily voiced, before, in between, and after all the multiple gain stages. If you make a .1dB shift somewhere at the pickup stage, it is entirely possible that this changes the balance of tones into the gain chain, and the ability for the human ear to hear the change in isolation (whether clean HiFi or clean Fender for example) is not the only measure. It's whether or not the guitar behaves a certain way along the entire ADSR envelope. To me, analyzing pickups with clean sound clips is like analyzing paint brushes without ever dipping them into paint. Or analyzing an automobile without ever taking it on the road. So when a skilled guitar player can consistently tell you "A is different from B" then as far as I'm concerned, its not good science to create a test that doesn't go deep enough to expose what it is that they found. To create a test that shows A and B sound the same, simply means the test wasn't effective. What you have there concerning the effects of amplification on a signal is essentially an unproven theory. I doubt it. For one thing, a side effect of distortion is compression. So already any amplitude difference is less. Also, the guitar signal is not constant, but follows an ADSR envelope. Thus whatever effects there are, operate over a wide range of amplitudes as well. I can think of no reason why your theory would hold for fractional dB differences. So I reject it. If you want to present some solid evidence, then I will listen. I have changed my mind when presented with it, in the past. Again, what you have said and what you will say, is just rhetorical hand waving unless you back it up with some data. In this post you have presented both an unproven technical theory in the first paragraph, and the results of an anecdotal, uncontrolled experiment as if it proves anything in the second paragraph. You continue to present only pleadings and arguments. The last sentence is called, "begging the question", because the premise is that a certain thing is true, when in fact the truth of it is unknown - which you then try to turn around to prove the premise - like a dog chasing its tail. It is common for "true believers" in something to attack the basis of an experiment that put their beliefs in doubt. But that is not a mature response. A much more intelligent and revealing approach is to undertake an experiment that actually proves what they believe. However, it is possible to address both of your concerns in a listening experiment. In a way, there are too many overlapping claims to do it any other way. A listening test is an end to end test. So it will detect "the weakest link". In this case, if it "fails", i.e. nobody can tell the difference, it proves an "unbroken chain", i.e. no aspect of the signal chain makes any difference between A and B. It is not impossible to design a good test, although it can be expensive to perform properly. I can see that from many of your previous posts, even after having it pointed out to you repeatedly, you don't understand the difference between a casual A/B trial and a proper experiment with safeguards against bias. Because of this, and because you don't present details of the trials, I dismiss them. The Swedish golden ears, for example. I can be almost 100% sure that the identity of the pickups was "leaked" to him in some way. The most troublesome aspect would be that there would be a "golden ears" complaint - that the test subject's ears just weren't good enough. So you have to pay Swedish golden ears to fly to your location and so on and so on. This was the purpose of the Randi $1,000,000 prize. It defeats that argument on the premise that anyone who could actually pass a test would buy a plane ticket and hotel accommodations themselves because they would be a small price to pay for a cool million. To get Swedish guy to fly to the US or somewhere for an experiment that will make him look like a fool, is obviously not possible. Instead, he will ignore the whole thing or, if pressed, mock "those electrical test wizards" or whatever. I don't think that the results of any well controlled guitar listening test is going to sit well with you. Not only is it likely that you are wrong, but from your discourse, I think that you will have trouble grasping the full import. I realize that my prediction is just a bet, as I also await results. But I'm putting my money on what I believe is a safe bet.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 8:38:24 GMT -5
Let me pose the question this way: Are you two suggesting that, you could wind two otherwise identical humbuckers, one with 42 single build poly and the other with 43 single build poly, and by targeting the same resonant peak frequency you could make the two pickups sound indistinguishable to one another? Myself, yes. I can't speak for Antigua. But it would have to have the same resonant peak amplitude as well because that influences the tone. I think that by "targeting" you probably mean tweaking the turns count until the two are very close. That should be possible. As was pointed out, and a link to experiments with Strat pickups was provided, the inductance difference with the same number of turns would already be negligible. From other results, there is a strong expectation that with an identical geometry, and very close inductance, the difference in measured characteristics would also be negligible. It follows that the human ear wouldn't have much of a chance of differentiating it, as it can only detect differences of more than about 0.5 dB under the best of circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 8, 2017 8:03:17 GMT -5
I guess what's depressing about what I see here is that when one is enthusiastic about the science of something, generally speaking the inquisitive mind is focused on digging deeper and deeper to find out what makes things unique and different. Instead, it seems the focus (for some of you) is to figure out why an expensive pickup is not materially different from a cheap Asian made high volume factory pickup. Or why silver wire can't possibly make a difference, rather than why it did. Discovery seems traded for cynicism. When I read comments like "wire gauge doesn't matter", I internalize that as confirmation bias, while ironically that is one of the most common accusations here. #allwiresmatter It's not unusual for individual scientists to have an agenda. They can be heavily invested in their beliefs but they know that at the end of the day, they must defer to the objective reality of facts obtained by systematically objective experiments and observation. A certain amount of interpretation is required on the cutting edge of science but the program is designed to subsume it by demanding a demonstration of both internal consistency and coherence with external reality. In this way, it allows the ego, competitiveness, or blind enthusiasm of individuals to function positively towards an objective truth. Sometimes non-scientists can't see why certain things don't interest a scientist. I will explain two of these. One is the necessity of the elimination of multiplicity. Some people get very excited about strange things (don't we all?) - like flying saucers. So they wonder, why don't scientists spend more time investigating them? It's because scientists are practical folk, interested in successful proofs. If there is a phenomena of weird lights in the sky, they will scratch their heads a bit, think about the existing body of atmospheric science and so on. They don't start by wondering if the lights come from an alternate dimension or another galaxy. That is because they are using Ockham's razor, often paraphrased, "the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation". In fact, the original version translates more like, "don't expand the number of explanations beyond necessity". This does not dictate the endpoint of the investigation, but the start. The motivation for Ockham's razor is that there are effectively infinite explanations which would consume the scientists resources until they run out of time and die before achieving anything. But the inventiveness and creativity of the human mind produces many such ideas. Sometimes creative ideas are knowingly or unknowingly tools of profit, as people crave new ideas and find them exciting. Sometimes people seize on ideas because they are insecure or afraid, rather than just looking for excitement. Those are a valuable part of culture and human experience but they are not helpful in achieving valid experimental results. Since people are imaginative and sometimes are not keen observers, the scientist wonders if the simplest explanation is that people see the lights of an airplane, or Venus near the horizon, or any number of other things that can create the impression of a flying saucer. Not an interdimensional creature or something like that. They wonder how, if it is really a spacecraft, it could have overcome the vast distances of space and found us, and so on. They observe that no spacecraft has been captured and examined. In this way, they are opinionated. But they are not precluding anyone else from attempting to prove the existence of flying saucers. They are simply making a personal choice. They often make appeals to enthusiasts to come up with proofs themselves, such as the million dollar prize of James Randi. Behind the experimental results of science is a world view that the only things that are factual, are those that have been verified by scientific methods. It is not a view that those are the only things that matter, or the only things that are true. It only draws a line around what kind of things you should be making a factual claim about. When an enthusiast considers the possibility of proving their beliefs in a scientific way and sees that it is not going well, they will begin to go down a list of what are essentially escape mechanisms - rationalizations. One I will call "the psychic's complaint". This says that scientific methods can't, or shouldn't measure the claim. "Of course there are no pictures of ghosts - ectoplasm doesn't vibrate at earthly frequencies", or "I can't perform my mind reading under controlled circumstances, it displeases the spirits that guide me", etc. Another is "the body of lore" - a collection of stories about things that happened, "Uri Geller bent a spoon with only his mind". These stories are almost without exception anecdotal, unverifiable and exploit some appeal to authority. The purpose of double blind, statistically valid, controlled experiments is not to dictate what people like or dislike, or how they experience things. It is to set a boundary around what should be justifiably claimed as fact. This "new school" of pickup research is a small undertaking, perhaps an unimportant one in the big picture. It is the strong insistence on hard data that distinguishes it from the vast majority of other research that is publicly accessible. I think that the proprietary knowledge on the subject must be extremely hampered by the limitations of manpower and lack of community that can happen in an open online community. But the uniqueness of this opportunity would be significantly watered down if we didn't respond actively to enthusiastic beliefs masquerading as scientific facts. It's about where the lines are drawn. There isn't anything I have expressed here, or on some of the other boards that I have posted related information on, that isn't based on objective data. There is nothing wrong with subjective things, but they have to be tied to objective, scientific data to fit with the program that is happening here.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 6, 2017 19:47:42 GMT -5
You honestly believe that wire gauge "makes no difference"? Makes no difference to what exactly? I mean, I'm honestly curious as to what pickups you'd play and say that they sound "the same" or that the difference "doesn't matter". Like, is the Alnico II Pro and the Pearly Gates the "same pickup" to you? Or the 59 and the Custom 5 is maybe a better example. Do you think they sound the same? I think the statement was made in the manner of "all other things being equal". Are the pickup pairs you mention identical in all respects including turns count, except for wire guage?
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jul 5, 2017 21:20:37 GMT -5
Great reference, thanks. It's useful to link to.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 21, 2017 23:45:26 GMT -5
The inter-coil cancellation is very interesting. Where else is anybody digging into things like that an publishing it? Nowhere, that's where. Keep up the great work, I wish I could contribute but I'm too busy these days. I do always come back here to read up on what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 21, 2017 23:25:38 GMT -5
I don't know, wind a bunch of 5TPL microcoils? Conduct a test where you record transient signal independently from each one? Analyze them separately, as well as summed in and out of phase? OK, keep going.. I have five little coils, I pluck a string above them, or induce a magnetic pulse, I records them all, perhaps with a multitrack recording setup, what do you hypothesize that I will find upon doing so? I even have some stacked humbuckers on hand, I could tap into each coil, and record their respective signals as a stereo recording. Even though this would be a relatively easy test to configure, I'm still reluctant to do it, because I have such little faith that it will do anything other than what physics dictates will happen. It's such an easy set up that even you should be able to find time to do it, if you really care about finding and sharing these truths. It seems to me, that claims that apply to a broad category of devices can't fall under the disclosure restrictions of IP concerning a proprietary device. If a claim really concerns every device in a broad category, an experiment should be able to be constructed that will demonstrate it without the use of any proprietary technology. If it cannot be demonstrated without the proprietary technology, then it almost certainly does not apply to other similar devices at large. That would be an indication that the claim only manifests itself in the proprietary device. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it does not follow automatically that a technique to eliminate or enhance it must simultaneously be demonstrated. Thus a reticence to demonstrate such a phenomenon convincingly, has the appearance and character of hand waving.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 7, 2017 8:33:33 GMT -5
I think what you're seeing there is because the test field "footprint" is wider when the coil is more distant from the pickup, so includes fewer of the lossy elements (partial slots) that are side by side with the lossless elements (full slots). I can't be sure but that is my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 4, 2017 23:52:49 GMT -5
My 50 turn coil should have about 210uH inductance, according to an online calculation. So the inductive reactance at 20kHz is about 25 ohms. I'm using a 100 ohm current limiting resistor in series with the test coil, so I figure it's doing a reasonable job of providing a current source at lower frequencies. Even at 20 kHz, that's not too bad. A larger resistor and greater drive voltage could be used, but it never seemed necessary.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on May 30, 2017 15:59:26 GMT -5
The unloaded plots reveal an interesting effect, whereby the responses show a distinct dip in the mids. Others such as Helmuth Lemme have also noted it. But this feature cant be predicted by tbe simple LRC models of pickups, even if more damping is added. We think it is a secondary inductive effect caused by eddy currents. Anyone else have insight? I think the dip in the middle occurs when there is enough steel so that the pickup has eddy current losses beginning at a fairly low frequency. Then the pickup resonance brings that response back up. (In at least one of the more extreme pickups that Antigua has tested, the roll off starts very low and the resonance hardly has any effect at all.) Yes, and the size and/or type of steel of the components can change it. For example here I replaced the filister screws in a Fidelitron with Hex screws from an industrial supply house. You can see those losses and how they were reduced.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on May 29, 2017 16:05:07 GMT -5
I'm wondering about the string balance on your implementation. It's clear that the bulk response is transparent, but I'm worried about individual poles. The G string slot clearly has no conductive path, but from an individual pole point of view, the A string for example, does. It's possible for currents to travel in the side wall and circumvent the slot. I wonder if you could compare the G with the A using your small test coil to confirm or deny this? I have one more brass cover to butcher, and it will be a while before I can get more. I want to make the next experiment count. If there's any tonality or string amplitude difference because of the slot location, then there might be some interesting experimentation to be done with different number, location, and even depth ( less than full depth top-to-bottom slots ). Bill Lawrence was of the opinion that eddy currents are like seasoning in cooking, and aren't entirely bad. If you're on to something here where you can potentially not just eliminate, but selectively introduce, eddies up to maybe even a string-by-string basis, you just might have something really cool to further investigate. Might be worth experimenting a bit more to find out. -Charlie Indeed you can. For the humbucker slots, since they have been tested short and long, I am pretty sure you that you could tune each string individually in that way. Depth has already been ruled out by experimentation. I tried cutting partway through until bumps were visible on the chrome side, but there was no effect that I could see. Location is pretty much guided by the poles. You can find a strong indication of that in my research document - look for the "offset loops".
|
|