EMG response curves

[antigua]

I ordered a set of SA and SA-X EMG Strat pickups, but so far only the SAX set has arrived and the SA's are heavily delayed, so I'll measure those when they arrive. I have an EMG-85 that came OEM in a guitar I bought several years ago, and I have a new EMG-81 coming soon. I'll post plots of the others soon as they're on hand. There's not as much to say, since it's an active set with low impedance remove concern about performance with respect to cable capacitance or resistive load. 

EMG-SAX



The Gauss strength at the center top of the pickup is about 350G. 

"SA" presumably stands for "Strat AlNiCo, there is an AlNiCo 5 bar under the hood rather than a ceramic magnet. The "X" stands for "expanded", but EMG is vague about what has been expanded specifically, so I'm looking forward to receiving the "SA sans X" to sew what difference exists, if any. 

As expected, it has a flat, non-resonant curve, with a slight low end attenuation, and a soft knee roll off at about 4kHz. I haven't installed them yet, but I'm guessing they will sound very clear and even. As far as passive pickups go, it probably comes closes to a ceramic / steel poled pickups, here is one example of such a set, the stock pickups in a Mexican Fender Strat:



While both show a diminished or non-existent Q factor with load, the SAX's rate of attenuation past the peak frequency is much more gradual. 


EMG-85





The Gauss strength at the centers of the two coils are about 350G also.

These vintage style EMG's have two ceramic bars in the coils. Compared to the SAX, the 85 has a huge mid hump with a center around 650Hz, with significant attenuation in the sub 200Hz range, and above 2kHz. I know of no passive pickup that comes anywhere close to showing a response curve like this. 

[antigua]

Analysis of the VLPF and SPC active tone controls... 

I installed the SE-X set in a Strat along with the included "VLPF" active tone control (high end roll off) www.emgpickups.com/active-tone-vlpf.html and the "SPC" active mid boost  www.emgpickups.com/spc.html . They sound very flat, as the plots suggested they should, they don't have quite the snap and shrillness of passive pickups with audible resonance and a steeper roll-off, but they make up for it with clarity that almost sounds like a peizo-magnetic pickup blend. The active high end roll off and mid boost are both very pronounced, it feels like a true buffered EQ, with a very linear behavior, like what you might expect from a multi-band EQ pedal. 

I wired my Strat up as is shown in diagram #8 www.emgpickups.com/pub/media/Mageants/s/p/spc_rpc_0230-0160a.pdf and this PDF also has bode plots of the SPC on the very first page that looks very much like the plots I've created below,  and in the pickup installation PDF they list detailed spec points that agree with my own measurements www.emgpickups.com/pub/media/Mageants/s/x/sx_0230-0111rd.pdf so EMG has been very good both in terms of documentation for the laymen as well as the techie who wants to know the specifics. 

Both these active controls can be used with passive pickups, whereby they will double as a buffer and a tone control.

This plot shows the action of the VLPF active tone with the SA-X Strat pickup, it keeps content below 300Hz within 3dB, but the roll off above that point is substantial, with an odd kink in the middle. 



This plot shows the SPC control, mid booster, from 10 down to zero. Also in agreement with their own specs, it shows a 15dB boost around 1000kHz witha pronounced exclusion at 50Hz and a soft roll of up to 10kHz.




Finally, the VLPF tone control behavior with the SPC at "10":




I'll see how these perform with a passive Strat pickup as well. Amazon it selling 9 volt batteries that can be charged via USB cable, which means that you don't even have to take the battery out of the guitar necessarily, you can simply to run a micro-USB to an embedded battery




The Fender Aerodyne Strat I installed these into has a shorter control cavity than a typical Strat, so I had to dismantle the stock EMG selector switch, which would touch the bottom of the typical Strat cavity, and solder it to a shorter, PCB style selector:

[antigua]

EMG advertises that the SPC active mid boost can be used with regular pickups as well as their own active pickups. Here are some plots of the EMG SPC with a Seymour Duncan SSL-1 as the test pickup. 



without load:


with dummy load:


The green plot line is the pickup-only plot, with the SPC out of the circuit, the others are with the SPC at 0, 5 and 10. It looks like exactly what you would expect to have happen if you buffered the pickups at the guitar side with a low input impedance; the resonant peak remains very high, but the Q factor tanks. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but of course EMG doesn't make it clear that by using these active tone controls, you're significantly changing how the pickups will sound, no matter what setting the tone control is set to, in effect making them sound more like active pickups. 

[antigua]

Here are plots for the EMG VLPF active tone control:

no load


with load


Once again the true resonant peak of the pickup is preserved by the isolation of the dummy load from the pickup itself, which is effectively a flat response in the operating range of the musical rig, so it doesn't matter much that the pickup's self resonance is loaded down by the load input impedance of the VLPF control. The attenuation curve looks very similar to that of a passive tone control, minus the usual resonant bump at zero. I'd say that in a passive context, this product is probably a waste of time, but then again I wasn't sure from the get go why a person would want a battery powered version of something that can be accomplished without any battery. 

[frets]

Antigua, your results are interesting and helpful. Just out of the box, have you ever tested any of the Active Artec Tone Controls?

[antigua]

May 25, 2020 17:54:40 GMT -5 frets said:

Antigua, your results are interesting and helpful. Just out of the box, have you ever tested any of the Active Artec Tone Controls?

I haven't, but I'm interested. I only tested these because they came with the EMG's.  

[antigua]

I bought this 24 volt harness to fit a 9 volt battery slot www.ebay.com/itm/24-VOLT-ACTIVE-PICKUP-MOD-for-EMG-81-85-60-Inc-2-batteries-FREE-SHIPPING/124180322948?hash=item1ce9b95a84:g:Q3IAAOSwrzhbHwLe . EMG's supposedly operate up to 26 volts, so the 24 volt harness is meant to approach, but stay under that limit. The idea is that the pickup shouldn't compress, or hard limit, if there is more voltage available to the op amp. 



I still only have the SA-X set for the Strat, and a loose EMG 85, so that's what I have to test against. 


First off, with the EMG-85, the frequency response showed now changes whatsoever with the 24 volts. The output wasn't even greater. Thus all the 24 volts is offering is potentially greater head room, and no inherent gain. To people familiar with how the circuitry works, all of this probably comes as no surprised. 



Next, I set the EMG 85 over some guitar strings, about 4mm above the strings, and strummed vigorously with the 9v and 24 volt batteries. I really saw no difference, at the distance of 4mm it was impossible to strum the string hard enough to observe clipping. 




So I got the EMG really close to the strings, about 1mm, sometimes the strumming would cause the strings to hit the top of the pickup, and only under these circumstances was I able to see a higher output, from a max of 4 volts up to 6 volts, peak to peak. Overall, I find it hard to believe that in a real like situation, that the voltage limits of the EMG 85 would ever noticeably manifest, and it certainly wouldn't contribute the the ordinary output of average strumming or guitar soloing. 





For the most extreme test, I tapped on the top of the pickup with a neodymium magnet to induce a strong voltage, and in that case the hard limits were easy to observe, with VPP values coming close to the voltage of the respective batteries, 8.2 volts with the 9 volt, and 21.5 volts with the 24 volt. 









With the SA-X Strat set, the X series is supposedly lower output in addition to flatter in the response. The overall output is definitely lower. Though it's a single coil instead of a humbucker like the EMG 85, hard strumming with the EMG 85 produced up to 4 volts, but with the SA-X, the voltage didn't eclipse 1 volt, with either the 9 volt or the 24 volt battery. 

 



In conclusion, I don't really believe the older EMG design really has a compression problem with the 9 volt battery. It's a claim that is made, but I don't see much of any hard limiting with hard strumming and reasonable distance between pickup and strings. But they do have a particular frequnecy response curve with a distinct resonant peak, it's possible that the peculiar response is mistaken for compression, especially because that response curve probably serves to soften transient harmonics which are caused by the guitar pick interacting with the guitar strings. High output pickusp in general are often described as "compressed", and they too attenuate transient harmonics.  

The SA-X, which is advertised to have a flatter response and a lower output, but wider dynamic range, seems to live up the the promise. 

EMG deserves a lot of credit IMO for being accurate in how they describe their products, as well as providing lots of technical specifications, far more than any other company currently selling aftermarket guitar pickups.  

[antigua]

So I got the set of "EMG 81" and 85 in the mail, ordered from here www.ebay.com/itm/EMG-Electric-Guitar-Active-Preamp-Pickups-Humbucker-Set-81-85-Wiring-Pickups/153894516501?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 ,






So I mreasured the 81, the 85 and the 85 I already had from another guitar, and the results were surprising:




The two very flat response plots are the newly received "81" and "85", as you can see they're nearly identical, and they have a very flat response. The large, arching curve is the first EMG-85 I measured in the first post, it has the class EMG curve that has been measured by other people on the Internet. The low end curve is at 50Hz, and high end roll off is at about 10kHz, for all intents and purposes, these are as flat as a pancake. I did some searching on "fake EMGs" and it turns out these are definitely fake EMGs. I'm curious to know what circuitry differences account for the different response curve, but I have a feeling that, these being cheaply priced knockoff, the coils are probably grossly underwound.

The flux density measured at the top of both 85's, real and fake, are about 300 gauss, which should have AlNiCo bars within, and for the fake 81 I measured closer to 400, consistent with ceramic bars. 

This set was real cheap, $95 for the 81, 85 and all the pots and wires needed to install. EMG 81 and 85's list for as much as $350, so I knew it was a good deal, but I had no expectation of them being counterfeit goods. I'm interested in hearing what they sound like, but I think ultimately I will buy some real 81's and 85's and pay the higher price they demand. 

[antigua]

Another question I had, one that comes up in practical consideration: are active pickups higher output than passive?

I added two plots, a Seymour Duncan JB and Jazz:



The magnetic flux is about the same for all of these pickups, a little stronger for the EMG's, but the magnetic coupling and flux fields are about equal all around.

The real EMG is about 7dB louder than the JB and about 10dB louder than the Jazz. The fake EMG's are about equal to the JB, and a 3 to 4 dB higher than the Jazz. Therefore there is still some advantage to be had with the fakes over using passive pickups; broader frequency response for the same output level. In fact I would bet the fake EMGs have a similar response to the EMG 81/85 X series, which like the fakes, boast a lower output voltage, higher dynamic rand and a flatter response. The specs say the X series pickups peak out well below 10kHz though. 

[antigua]

I was re-reading this blog post about the EMG-81 circuit www.electrosmash.com/emg81  in order to see what it would take in order to produce a flat response, as seen in both the fake EMGs, and it looks like the low pass effect of real EMG's comes from a high inductance in the coils, and the high pass comes from "22nF C1 and C2 coupling caps" that are in series with the coils. SO in order for the fakes to show a flat response, they probably just had to omit the series capacitors, and under-wind the coils so that the resonant peak would be very high. That could also explain why the overall output is lower.

[guitarnerdswe]

Jun 4, 2020 21:13:31 GMT -5 antigua said:

Another question I had, one that comes up in practical consideration: are active pickups higher output than passive?

I added two plots, a Seymour Duncan JB and Jazz:



The magnetic flux is about the same for all of these pickups, a little stronger for the EMG's, but the magnetic coupling and flux fields are about equal all around.

The real EMG is about 7dB louder than the JB and about 10dB louder than the Jazz. The fake EMG's are about equal to the JB, and a 3 to 4 dB higher than the Jazz. Therefore there is still some advantage to be had with the fakes over using passive pickups; broader frequency response for the same output level. In fact I would bet the fake EMGs have a similar response to the EMG 81/85 X series, which like the fakes, boast a lower output voltage, higher dynamic rand and a flatter response. The specs say the X series pickups peak out well below 10kHz though. 

Interesting. I've had an EMG 85, Duncan JB, and a Dimarzio 36th Anniversary PAF in the same guitar. The JB was louder than the 85 to my ears. I've never experienced EMGs to be high output, rather more medium. Louder than a PAF, but not louder than a JB, Super Distortion, Suhr SSH+ etc.

[antigua]

Jun 12, 2020 18:02:59 GMT -5 guitarnerdswe said:

Jun 4, 2020 21:13:31 GMT -5 antigua said:

Interesting. I've had an EMG 85, Duncan JB, and a Dimarzio 36th Anniversary PAF in the same guitar. The JB was louder than the 85 to my ears. I've never experienced EMGs to be high output, rather more medium. Louder than a PAF, but not louder than a JB, Super Distortion, Suhr SSH+ etc.

The EMG response rolls off below 200Hz , that's could definitely impact the overall perceived loudness, especially if you're strumming open chords. For the test I placed the exciter coil in a same place, in between the coil and oriented sideways, so the result should be fairly accurately representative of the output. The exciter coil is not an actual guitar string, but the magnetic field strength of the EMG was more or less the same as a PAF type, 300 to 400 Gauss. 

[guitarnerdswe]

Jun 13, 2020 1:02:32 GMT -5 antigua said:

Jun 12, 2020 18:02:59 GMT -5 guitarnerdswe said:

Interesting. I've had an EMG 85, Duncan JB, and a Dimarzio 36th Anniversary PAF in the same guitar. The JB was louder than the 85 to my ears. I've never experienced EMGs to be high output, rather more medium. Louder than a PAF, but not louder than a JB, Super Distortion, Suhr SSH+ etc.

The EMG response rolls off below 200Hz , that's could definitely impact the overall perceived loudness, especially if you're strumming open chords. For the test I placed the exciter coil in a same place, in between the coil and oriented sideways, so the result should be fairly accurately representative of the output. The exciter coil is not an actual guitar string, but the magnetic field strength of the EMG was more or less the same as a PAF type, 300 to 400 Gauss. 

That could very well be it. The 85 is basically one big smooth mid boost, whereas a passive bucker has more low mids/low end, high mids, plus a sharp resonant peak in a frequency range where human hearing is more sensitive. I usually determine perceivable output by comparing how much a pickup breaks up a clean amp that's just about to start clipping. Might be that the flatter low end and prominent resonance peak of a passive bucker pushes the amp more, even though the 85 might be measurable hotter. My other go to just a super clean tube preamp into EQ (no cab), although that's less realistic because that's rarely the kind of tone you'll use.

Is there some other way to measure these things? I seem to remember you having a "string plucking" mechanism, and then measure the results in mV?

[antigua]

Jun 13, 2020 8:05:29 GMT -5 guitarnerdswe said:

Jun 13, 2020 1:02:32 GMT -5 antigua said:

The EMG response rolls off below 200Hz , that's could definitely impact the overall perceived loudness, especially if you're strumming open chords. For the test I placed the exciter coil in a same place, in between the coil and oriented sideways, so the result should be fairly accurately representative of the output. The exciter coil is not an actual guitar string, but the magnetic field strength of the EMG was more or less the same as a PAF type, 300 to 400 Gauss. 

That could very well be it. The 85 is basically one big smooth mid boost, whereas a passive bucker has more low mids/low end, high mids, plus a sharp resonant peak in a frequency range where human hearing is more sensitive. I usually determine perceivable output by comparing how much a pickup breaks up a clean amp that's just about to start clipping. Might be that the flatter low end and prominent resonance peak of a passive bucker pushes the amp more, even though the 85 might be measurable hotter. My other go to just a super clean tube preamp into EQ (no cab), although that's less realistic because that's rarely the kind of tone you'll use.

Is there some other way to measure these things? I seem to remember you having a "string plucking" mechanism, and then measure the results in mV?

Yeah the guitar string plucker device works also, but it's a lot more dependent on particulars, such as the note of the string, the size of the string, and even the harmonic content of the string. It's also a little more work to capture the transient for an FFT analysis. The intensity of the pluck is comparable to the voltage of the driver coil. The driver coil bode plot is less like-for-like, but it's much easier to collect data with it. 

[antigua]

I ordered a real EMG 81, but the seller cancelled the order, so I went ahead and installed the fake EMGs. This is the guitar that originally came with an 81/85 set, so it was already conditioned for active pickups.

I was expecting a thin crappy sound from pickups with a super flat response from the fake EMG's, but to my surprise they're very pleasant sounding, and they deliver a unique sound from a solid body guitar. They sound like the magnetic pickups that mount into sound holes of acoustic guitar. The neck pickup yields an acoustic guitar like tone. The bridge pickup sounds complex because it's as wide as a humbucker, but without the low resonant peak that's typical of a humbucker. Filter'trons and Lace Alumitones also have broad response curves, but eddy currents cause both to roll off the high end. With these fake EMG's, I think the linear top end lends itself to a very acoustic guitar like sound. 

The drawback is that EMGs are known for being used for metal, and that acoustic guitar like tone has never been positively associated with overdrive and clipping, except maybe in the special case of Nirvana performing "Man Who Sold The World". These are interesting clean pickups but I'm not expecting they will do heavy sounds too well. I also have a suspicion the might be microphonic at high volume, because they pick up a fair about of knocking sounds, but I haven't had a chance to lay on the volume yet. 

[straylight]

I've got a real emg81, if you've got txt/csv i can combine. My raw numbers aren't integrated but I can drop you some integrated numbers into velleman output if that helps?

Or if you're in the UK i can just post you the 81, it's a bit of a mess but it works. I can't remember which of the usual suspects on here have revealed location but I think more than one of us is UK. The brief verdict is it humps much like the 85 and it's a lot like playing through a really humpy boost pedal. I'll see if I can pull out a chart.

[antigua]

Aug 13, 2020 18:18:55 GMT -5 straylight said:

I've got a real emg81, if you've got txt/csv i can combine. My raw numbers aren't integrated but I can drop you some integrated numbers into velleman output if that helps?

Or if you're in the UK i can just post you the 81, it's a bit of a mess but it works. I can't remember which of the usual suspects on here have revealed location but I think more than one of us is UK. The brief verdict is it humps much like the 85 and it's a lot like playing through a really humpy boost pedal. I'll see if I can pull out a chart.

Yeah I'm sure that's the major difference, mid hump versus no mid hump. I wonder if the Chinese counterfeits are based on the X series, which have a flatter response. The mid boost apparently owes to some caps that are in series and parallel, so it could also be the case that they just cheaped out and omitted components, or they misplaced a zero when they were copying the values. The quality of the construction differs enough that I would have a hard time believing they're assembled in the same factory. 

The funny thing is  though, I think I prefer the flat response of the X series and these counterfeits. The clean sound is really killer. 

[straylight]

I'm tempted to try some of the counterfeits

[antigua]

There are at least two distinct producers of fake EMGs, I have some examples of both. It could also be one producer who made two production runs with variances between them, but I received two of one kind two years apart. 


- One type has a rougher plastic texture, a label on the back with a single serial number that is used for all this whole run of fakes (which is common of fakes in general) , and a plastic retainer on the three prongs.

- The other has a smoother plastic, no label and no retainer on the prongs, which consequently tend to be a little bent out of shape when I see them. This is the kind I received about two years ago.


The bode plots are very different. The first type, "with label", has a very mid focused EQ, even attenuating the lower fundamentals, rolling off at 2kHz. It's more characteristic of a class EMG, but even regular EMGs have less attenuation than these, they're more EMG than EMG.

The non-label type has a very flat response, like an EMG-X. The reason EMGs are ever not flat is because they have caps around the op amp that attenuate lows and highs, and so because this "no label" has no curve at all, my guess would be that the circuit inside is even more simplistic, no caps involved for the purpose of tone shaping. There appears to be a resonant peak at 10kHz with no Q factor, which suggests there are probably steel cores rather than AlNiCo or ceramic bars. Since the coils are likely connected in parallel, a 10kHz resonant peak with no cable capacitance suggests the coils are probably standard 4000-ish turn PAF type. It looks suspiciously like they just took a PAF copy, wired it to an op amp, and poured epoxy on it. One day I will cut one open, but I actually have a use in mind for these pickups. For my purposes, the "no label" fake EMG with the flat response is much more desirable, better for cleans, acceptable for high gain. 


Fake "with label" , curves more like a real EMG, but more mid focused.


Fake EMG "no label", very flat response. 

[stratotarts]

One thing I'm curious about - I tested non-active plastic housing HB's a while ago. Those were direct purchase from Asia. One huge disappointment about them, in spite of epoxy potting, they were horribly microphonic. When I cut them open I found incomplete potting. My question - are these fakes subject to the same flaw?

[antigua]

Feb 27, 2022 13:32:13 GMT -5 stratotarts said:

One thing I'm curious about - I tested non-active plastic housing HB's a while ago. Those were direct purchase from Asia. One huge disappointment about them, in spite of epoxy potting, they were horribly microphonic. When I cut them open I found incomplete potting. My question - are these fakes subject to the same flaw?

I've only used the one set of the non-label fakes, and they're not microphonic at all. The ones with the label, I probably won't use them, so I'll never know. I think that in order to be microphonic, the have to not be air tight, but all of these seem to be air tight. Construction quality and everything seems really good, at least on the outside. 

[stratified]

Hi, all,

New here as a member, but I've been reading/lurking for a while. I've been using EMG pickups since 1980 (a mini humbucker) which is my favorite pickup. I haven't been able to get along with an EMG-81 and still trying to get the EMG-85 to work for me. I don't follow some of the most technical parts of your discussions, but I'm learning by trying to understand. A few questions that this thread raises in my mind:

1. The frequency curve for the EMG-85 in this thread, and the curve for the EMG-81 on the Electrosmash webpage (if I interpret it correctly) look similar (is the scale is labelled a little differently?). My interpretation is the EMG-81 seems more weighted on the treble side compared to the EMG-85 due to a slower roll off of the high frequency.  Otherwise, the frequency curve of the EMG-81 doesn't appear to be particularly scooped, or weighted towards the high frequency. Any comment on whether these are fair conclusions?

2. Since the EMG-85 frequency curve is a huge mid frequency hum, would an EMG EXG be useful to give it a more traditional frequency response? (see the EXG requency curve here: www.emgpickups.com/pub/media/Mageants/e/x/exg_0230-0164rb.pdf). Anyone have experience with the EXG? I own 2 EMG-85's and I find the top end is missing an air-y-ness that my EMG mini humbucker has.

BTW, In the late 70s, EMG advertised their mini humbucker as being versatile, with a guitar company (Steinberger) using as an OEM bass pickup (my original intended use). I never built that bass, so I've been using it a Strat since then. I emailed EMG about 10 years ago with a pic of my pickup about my mini humbucker for any info (frequency response, alnico or ceramic magnet). They replied, "Wow, blast from the past. We have no idea about the construction of the pickup, but thanks for sharing."

[antigua]

Nov 25, 2022 11:46:48 GMT -5 stratified said:

Hi, all,

New here as a member, but I've been reading/lurking for a while. I've been using EMG pickups since 1980 (a mini humbucker) which is my favorite pickup. I haven't been able to get along with an EMG-81 and still trying to get the EMG-85 to work for me. I don't follow some of the most technical parts of your discussions, but I'm learning by trying to understand. A few questions that this thread raises in my mind:

1. The frequency curve for the EMG-85 in this thread, and the curve for the EMG-81 on the Electrosmash webpage (if I interpret it correctly) look similar (is the scale is labelled a little differently?). My interpretation is the EMG-81 seems more weighted on the treble side compared to the EMG-85 due to a slower roll off of the high frequency.  Otherwise, the frequency curve of the EMG-81 doesn't appear to be particularly scooped, or weighted towards the high frequency. Any comment on whether these are fair conclusions?

2. Since the EMG-85 frequency curve is a huge mid frequency hum, would an EMG EXG be useful to give it a more traditional frequency response? (see the EXG requency curve here: www.emgpickups.com/pub/media/Mageants/e/x/exg_0230-0164rb.pdf). Anyone have experience with the EXG? I own 2 EMG-85's and I find the top end is missing an air-y-ness that my EMG mini humbucker has.

BTW, In the late 70s, EMG advertised their mini humbucker as being versatile, with a guitar company (Steinberger) using as an OEM bass pickup (my original intended use). I never built that bass, so I've been using it a Strat since then. I emailed EMG about 10 years ago with a pic of my pickup about my mini humbucker for any info (frequency response, alnico or ceramic magnet). They replied, "Wow, blast from the past. We have no idea about the construction of the pickup, but thanks for sharing."

The 81 and 85 both have large rounded peaks around 650Hz, I dont know why the curves look a little different, but I'd guess they're probably the same. I'd read somewhere that the only difference between the 81 an 85 was that one had ceramic bars and the other AlNiCo. 

I prefer flatter responses for sure, I think the mid bump is probably what make the EMG popular for metal, but I think a flatter response makes a guitar suitable for all genres and gives it a more expansive sound, like a mix between and acoustic and an electric guitar. Good for a mix with just one guitar, but the lack of a mid bump can cause it to get lost in a crowded mix. A flat output makes for really great clean tones.

I've never used the EXG knob or the full sized EMG-X series, but it sounds like EMG has taken multiple approaches to try to get away from just being known for the mid boosted 81/85 sound. Their single coil models are already rather flat, so you're encouraged to pair them with the SPX mid boost to add mids back in, and that's what I do, and I really like the versatility. I hate to admit it, but I like those Chinese knock-offs enough that I haven't bought any full sized EMGs beside the 81/85 that came stock in a guitar.  Fake or real, they're all by far the quietest pickups I've ever used. 

[dako]

May 25, 2020 14:31:07 GMT -5 antigua said:

Here are plots for the EMG VLPF active tone control:

no load


with load


Once again the true resonant peak of the pickup is preserved by the isolation of the dummy load from the pickup itself, which is effectively a flat response in the operating range of the musical rig, so it doesn't matter much that the pickup's self resonance is loaded down by the load input impedance of the VLPF control. The attenuation curve looks very similar to that of a passive tone control, minus the usual resonant bump at zero. I'd say that in a passive context, this product is probably a waste of time, but then again I wasn't sure from the get go why a person would want a battery powered version of something that can be accomplished without any battery. 

Hi Antigua, great information! From the plot, I see that the VLPF retained the high frequency signals and flattened the peak. In the past, I have tried 1M vol pot without tone pot for both single coil and humbucker. While this wiring retained more high frequency signals, it also makes the resonant peak too high and the treble harsh, I believe. You mentioned what VLPF does can be accomplished by passive circuit, could you elaborate on that? I am not aware of a way to retain high frequency signal while tame down the peak like what VLPF does here.

[antigua]

Mar 1, 2023 18:34:58 GMT -5 dako said:

May 25, 2020 14:31:07 GMT -5 antigua said:

Hi Antigua, great information! From the plot, I see that the VLPF retained the high frequency signals and flattened the peak. In the past, I have tried 1M vol pot without tone pot for both single coil and humbucker. While this wiring retained more high frequency signals, it also makes the resonant peak too high and the treble harsh, I believe. You mentioned what VLPF does can be accomplished by passive circuit, could you elaborate on that? I am not aware of a way to retain high frequency signal while tame down the peak like what VLPF does here.

I was just referring to the fact that it rolls off the treble. It has the upside of buffering the pickup(s), but you could just use some sort of buffer besides, and use regular tone controls instead. 


Personally, I use a wireless transmitter when I play, the kind from Boss and Line 6, which removes the guitar cable capacitance, so I get a nearly unloaded resonant frequency that way also. 

[dako]

Mar 7, 2023 6:53:02 GMT -5 antigua said:

Mar 1, 2023 18:34:58 GMT -5 dako said:

Hi Antigua, great information! From the plot, I see that the VLPF retained the high frequency signals and flattened the peak. In the past, I have tried 1M vol pot without tone pot for both single coil and humbucker. While this wiring retained more high frequency signals, it also makes the resonant peak too high and the treble harsh, I believe. You mentioned what VLPF does can be accomplished by passive circuit, could you elaborate on that? I am not aware of a way to retain high frequency signal while tame down the peak like what VLPF does here.

I was just referring to the fact that it rolls off the treble. It has the upside of buffering the pickup(s), but you could just use some sort of buffer besides, and use regular tone controls instead. 


Personally, I use a wireless transmitter when I play, the kind from Boss and Line 6, which removes the guitar cable capacitance, so I get a nearly unloaded resonant frequency that way also. 

Thanks for the reply, antigua. That makes sense. Except for this active tone control, is there other product can act as a buffer in the guitar?

[antigua]

Mar 11, 2023 19:07:57 GMT -5 dako said:

Mar 7, 2023 6:53:02 GMT -5 antigua said:

I was just referring to the fact that it rolls off the treble. It has the upside of buffering the pickup(s), but you could just use some sort of buffer besides, and use regular tone controls instead. 


Personally, I use a wireless transmitter when I play, the kind from Boss and Line 6, which removes the guitar cable capacitance, so I get a nearly unloaded resonant frequency that way also. 

Thanks for the reply, antigua. That makes sense. Except for this active tone control, is there other product can act as a buffer in the guitar?

Something like this reverb.com/item/1792639-creation-audio-labs-redeemer-transparent-guitar-output-buffer-install-version

[dako]

Mar 11, 2023 21:21:56 GMT -5 antigua said:

Mar 11, 2023 19:07:57 GMT -5 dako said:

Thanks for the reply, antigua. That makes sense. Except for this active tone control, is there other product can act as a buffer in the guitar?

Something like this reverb.com/item/1792639-creation-audio-labs-redeemer-transparent-guitar-output-buffer-install-version

Thanks antigua. Another thing worth mentioning is that, on the emg website, the emg 85 has a resonant freq of 1.87k, which is very far from what people measured here. How do you think Emg is measuring their pickup so that the number is so different?

[antigua]

Mar 12, 2023 8:49:01 GMT -5 dako said:

Mar 11, 2023 21:21:56 GMT -5 antigua said:

Something like this reverb.com/item/1792639-creation-audio-labs-redeemer-transparent-guitar-output-buffer-install-version

Thanks antigua. Another thing worth mentioning is that, on the emg website, the emg 85 has a resonant freq of 1.87k, which is very far from what people measured here. How do you think Emg is measuring their pickup so that the number is so different?

The EMG 81 and 85 should have nearly the same curve, the only difference afaik is ceramic versus AlNiCo magnets, and the response is dome shaped when plotted out, with the top of the dome being in the area of 2kHz, so 1.87kHz could be about right. Given the low Q factor and the dome like profile, the resonant peak of an EMG isn't as significant as it is when comparing passive hi-Z pickups. When people say EMGs have a modern sound, that dome like response curve is likely to blame, and I think EMG has newer models which I haven't looked at, which more closely mimic as passive high Z pickup, and it would be interesting to observe the resonant peak of those pickups, to see what sort of passive pickup spec they aim to sound like.

[dako]

Mar 12, 2023 14:55:59 GMT -5 antigua said:

Mar 12, 2023 8:49:01 GMT -5 dako said:

Thanks antigua. Another thing worth mentioning is that, on the emg website, the emg 85 has a resonant freq of 1.87k, which is very far from what people measured here. How do you think Emg is measuring their pickup so that the number is so different?

The EMG 81 and 85 should have nearly the same curve, the only difference afaik is ceramic versus AlNiCo magnets, and the response is dome shaped when plotted out, with the top of the dome being in the area of 2kHz, so 1.87kHz could be about right. Given the low Q factor and the dome like profile, the resonant peak of an EMG isn't as significant as it is when comparing passive hi-Z pickups. When people say EMGs have a modern sound, that dome like response curve is likely to blame, and I think EMG has newer models which I haven't looked at, which more closely mimic as passive high Z pickup, and it would be interesting to observe the resonant peak of those pickups, to see what sort of passive pickup spec they aim to sound like.

Wait, I don't understand. From the below graph, should I assume the resonant freq of EMG 85 is 643Hz instead of 1.87k? Thanks.