gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 11, 2022 9:29:17 GMT -5
I've put together an analysis of 2 different models, the Seymour Duncan JB and Custom Custom. From research before, I had assumed that the difference between standard and F-space was just the length of wire around the bobbin, but the turns were matched to create the same inductance. These numbers may be off due to manufacturing differences, but it seems that the numbers are more varied than I expected. See below: Seymour Duncan JB | Standard | F-Space | | DCR | 16.4 | 17.82 | | Inductance | 8.29H | 8.54H |
Seymour Duncan Custom Custom
| Standard | F-Space | | DCR | 14.1 | 14.9 | | Inductance | 8.49H | 8.7H |
So it seems that the inductance numbers are actually decently different. The frequency charts are even more different, see below. F-space appears to have a shallower peak, as well as a lower resonant frequency. Does this line up with anyone else's research? They seem to be doing a similar thing in each example. It may be the case that since F-space is a different shape, these can't really be compared against each other. I'll need to perform a sound example to see if they actually sound different in practice, but I would have expected these to line up much closer.   |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 11, 2022 14:26:41 GMT -5
The inductance would be higher because the area of the coil is greater. That's something that didn't cross my mind before. The plot shows enough difference so as to be audible, +2dB and maybe another 150Hz on the peak.
I can't explain why the Q is lower for the F-space, are the screws on the underside of the pickup the same length? In theory, if the amount of conductive material in the core is smaller, relative to the proportion of air, the Q should be higher, because it's closer to being an air core. It could be the higher DC resistance of the F-space, but that doesn't see too likely.
|
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 11, 2022 15:39:15 GMT -5
The inductance would be higher because the area of the coil is greater. That's something that didn't cross my mind before. The plot shows enough difference so as to be audible, +2dB and maybe another 150Hz on the peak. I can't explain why the Q is lower for the F-space, are the screws on the underside of the pickup the same length? In theory, if the amount of conductive material in the core is smaller, relative to the proportion of air, the Q should be higher, because it's closer to being an air core. It could be the higher DC resistance of the F-space, but that doesn't see too likely. The screws are the same size. The only major difference I can tell is that the baseplate is clearly different. In the images below, the top row are F-spaced, the bottom are standard. Other than that, the bobbins are clearly wider.   |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 11, 2022 18:53:01 GMT -5
That's a mystery. The next step would be to start removing things, like the screws, or the coils from baseplate, and then measure them partially disassembled, for that's probably too much work to figure out where there is a trivial difference. That looks like a loaded plot, do you have an unloaded bode plot too?
|
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Apr 11, 2022 19:39:59 GMT -5
Assuming the wire gauge and baseplates are the same, maybe different magnets are affecting the Q? In any case, having a lower Q and weaker magnets for the F-spaced is possibly better for brighter sounding Fender style guitars (maple vs mahogany necks). Good idea to include 3 mounting holes as well. Every HB should have that. Tilting a pickup even ~1 degree can have an audible effect on note timber, as does adjusting pole screws. Not that anyone would notice in a band mix, and it matters less with high inductance pickups, but it's one of those fine points that affect playing satisfaction. I discovered how much pickup tilt matters on the bridge with the baritone "Jagcaster" build I just completed. The T-style 3-screw pickup mount allows for tilt. At the height I like it, 1/8th a turn on the center screw, and 1/8th on the treble side screw alters the 1st string timber enough to make or break it for me.
|
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 11, 2022 20:02:59 GMT -5
do you have an unloaded bode plot too? Here are the unloaded plots. The loaded ones were at 250k/470pF.   gckelloch - the magnets are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 12, 2022 3:45:14 GMT -5
I don't suspect the base plates are involved, because I've tested different materials of base plates, nickel silver versus brass, and it tends to make a very small difference in the q factor. On the other hand I don't know what else could explain this. Maybe one has electrical continuity between the slugs and the base plate and the other doesn't?
I've also never seen a difference this large with different types of bar magnet. Although swapping the magnets between the two pickups would not be too difficult.
|
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 12, 2022 21:53:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Apr 13, 2022 1:14:56 GMT -5
In a quick back and forth of ~7 secs for each clip, to allow my ears to adjust to each clip between silence, the differnce I first noticed in the DI clip is that the F-spaced has a slighly more percussive/punchy transient. That would indicate that at least one of the coils is slightly closer to the strings on at least the bass side than either coil of the G-spaced.
I did hear the difference in Q in all the clips, but I may not have perceived any difference, or what that difference was, if I had not known of it. Both pickups sound very good to me, but a even a strong ~2kHz peak is generally unoffensive to the human ear. A 3.2kHz peak would be a different story.
The F-spaced sounds fuller/richer in the Lead With Backing track. I can hear the idividual notes better. That would support the closer coil idea. The G-spaced sounds thinner and more edgy. Again, would I report the same difference if I hadn't known of any?
|
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 13, 2022 10:14:20 GMT -5
I can hear the idividual notes better. That would suppurt the closer coil idea. I actually use a 3D printed spacer that is 4mm tall on the bass side and 3.5mm on the treble side, and I used that to match the pickup heights before the tests. Any difference in height should be eliminated. Maybe what you're hearing has to do with the pole pieces lining up better on the low and high E. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 10:56:51 GMT -5
Lower resonant peaks result in a punchier sound, because the transient is harmonic rich, lots of higher harmonics with a relatively high amplitude for the first and possible the second cycle of the waveform. Editing out some of the burst of harmonics with EQ filtering changes the texture of the attack. When talking about the sustained wave, the EQ consideration can be talked about in terms of bass/mids/treble, but when it comes to the transient, words like muffled, compressed, punchy, piano-like, piercing, glassy, come into play, in roughly that order.
It also has some overlap with whether or not you use fingers or a pick, fingers won't induce the higher harmonics like a guitar pick, and neither as much as if you pick with something metal, like a coin, so the choice of plectrum is similar to EQ filtering insofar as both dictate the higher harmonic content in the transient, the plectrum through physical means and the pickup through electrical means. The crazy transient harmonics fade fast because the guitar string is stiff in the very shorts increments of length, but flexible in the longer increments, and if you have a violin bow, with the coarse horse hairs, you can keep the more of the transient harmonics alive beyond one or two wave cycles, until you reach the end of the bow.
|
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 13, 2022 11:20:24 GMT -5
Lower resonant peaks result in a punchier sound, because the transient is harmonic rich, lots of higher harmonics with a relatively high amplitude for the first and possible the second cycle of the waveform. Editing out some of the burst of harmonics with EQ filtering changes the texture of the attack. When talking about the sustained wave, the EQ consideration can be talked about in terms of bass/mids/treble, but when it comes to the transient, words like muffled, compressed, punchy, piano-like, piercing, glassy, come into play, in roughly that order. By lower resonant peak do you mean a lower frequency, peak db, or shallower Q factor? I think muffled is a good description of what I hear in the 53mm DI track vs the 50mm, just ever so slightly. When it's through an amp though, especially with gain, it seems like the amp is removing so much of the high end on its own to render those differences minimal, at least between these two pickups. My takeaway from this test is that audio is really necessary to combine with these charts, because even when the charts looked incredibly different, the sound was still 95% the same. If someone wanted a JB for their F-spaced guitar, I wouldn't sweat the differences unless I really needed that 5% difference. It should be driven more by the desired sound rather than worrying about which pickup is "correct" for that string spacing. But I find this whole test fascinating that they really are different. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 11:48:27 GMT -5
Lower resonant peaks result in a punchier sound, because the transient is harmonic rich, lots of higher harmonics with a relatively high amplitude for the first and possible the second cycle of the waveform. Editing out some of the burst of harmonics with EQ filtering changes the texture of the attack. When talking about the sustained wave, the EQ consideration can be talked about in terms of bass/mids/treble, but when it comes to the transient, words like muffled, compressed, punchy, piano-like, piercing, glassy, come into play, in roughly that order. By lower resonant peak do you mean a lower frequency, peak db, or shallower Q factor? I think muffled is a good description of what I hear in the 53mm DI track vs the 50mm, just ever so slightly. When it's through an amp though, especially with gain, it seems like the amp is removing so much of the high end on its own to render those differences minimal, at least between these two pickups. My takeaway from this test is that audio is really necessary to combine with these charts, because even when the charts looked incredibly different, the sound was still 95% the same. If someone wanted a JB for their F-spaced guitar, I wouldn't sweat the differences unless I really needed that 5% difference. It should be driven more by the desired sound rather than worrying about which pickup is "correct" for that string spacing. But I find this whole test fascinating that they really are different. Lower frequency. If the Q factor is higher, it tends to accentuate that texture, it makes the harmonics at the resonance stand out more than the harmonics below that point. I think you will find that most pickups sound the same in audio testing, so long as the resonant peaks are within about 250Hz of one another. What anyone calls "the same" is relative, though. A lot of people on forums will say they can hear the smallest differences, and the specs and bode plots at least speak to whether there is any potential to hear a difference, or if it's likely to have been imagined. I've tested a lot of things, like the base plates on Tele bridge pickups and the bode plots suggest that perceived differences are likely imagined. A lot of the boutique pickup makers have three general sets of Strat pickups, "vintage", "vintage blues hot", and just "hot", where the inductance of the vintage will be around 2.4 henries, the blues hot will be closer to 2.8 and the hot will be somewhere beyond 3 henries, and that ends up in resonant peaks that are 300Hz or more apart, and I suspect that if they make sets that are any closer together than that, they risk having a customer reject one of their sets only to find them next set sounds the same. With PAF's, it's a similar spread, you have a vintage neck around 4 henries, a hot bridge around 5 henries, and a "hot" humbucker around 7 henries, resulting in a spread of resonant peaks 3.0kHz, 2.5kHz and 2.0kHz. And strangely, people have said the "JB", a generic PAF clone aside from having a resonant peak around 2kHz, sounds "too bright", but also has a higher Q factor because it almost never has a cover and is almost always paired with 500k pots, which goes to show that the Q factor can make a pickup seem too trebly even it the resonant frequency is lower. Some suggested pairing the JB with 250k pots and sure enough that will lower the Q factor and solve the problem. They can get the same result by turning the tone knob, but guitarists tend to like their pots full open. |
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 13, 2022 13:00:56 GMT -5
I suspect that if they make sets that are any closer together than that, they risk having a customer reject one of their sets only to find them next set sounds the same. The major companies (SD, Dimarzio, BKP) all seem to make way more models in between these 3 categories, but it's likely that nobody ever cares because they don't ever try the next closest models to see if there's any real difference. For instance the Jazz and 59 neck have an inductance of 3.93H and 3.97H respectively from my testing. The charts are basically identical. I should do an audio test with those next to see what the difference is. I know that comparison has been talked about frequently. I'm excited to get these audio examples out in the open, I think it's going to provide a lot of clarity that can't be ignored. The charts are fantastic, but from my experience, there's a lot of skepticism with them. You can't ignore it once you compare to the audio. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 13:51:41 GMT -5
I suspect that if they make sets that are any closer together than that, they risk having a customer reject one of their sets only to find them next set sounds the same. The major companies (SD, Dimarzio, BKP) all seem to make way more models in between these 3 categories, but it's likely that nobody ever cares because they don't ever try the next closest models to see if there's any real difference. For instance the Jazz and 59 neck have an inductance of 3.93H and 3.97H respectively from my testing. The charts are basically identical. I should do an audio test with those next to see what the difference is. I know that comparison has been talked about frequently. I'm excited to get these audio examples out in the open, I think it's going to provide a lot of clarity that can't be ignored. The charts are fantastic, but from my experience, there's a lot of skepticism with them. You can't ignore it once you compare to the audio. You have to consider the other differences. The Jazz and the 59 neck might seem identical now, but back in the 80's the Jazz was a compliment to the JB, basically a '59 neck to pair with a JB bridge. The difference with the Jazz was four conductor wiring, plastic spacer, no metal cover, presumably not wound with the Leesona winder, maybe more. Nowadays you can get either pickup with either arrangement of features, so it's blurred, but it wasn't meant to be blurry to begin with. Many of their other pickup sets only differ in the type of magnet, like the Custom Custom and the APH-2. Sound samples are too prone to error, that's a main reason I haven't bothered with them. I tried a bunch some different string plucking devices guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/8001/string-plucking-mechanism-consistent-testing to just get a consistent string vibration from a pluck, and hard to believe, it was seemingly impossible to consistently pluck even a single string, even with a rigid, very simple setup. The differences could be seen in the recorded waveforms. This came after trying to use actual guitar picks and having worse result. And I did it for this same reason, to look for differences that might not be seen with purely electrical testing. You might set the pickup heights the same, you might even strum over the same location, but the where you hold the pickup in you fingers, how many cups of coffee you've had and other things thing influence how you hit the strings, and you might think you hear a different in the pickup when it's really the human factor. So if you have two pickups with identical bode plots and magnets, and magnetic strength as measured from the top, but you still think you hear a difference, then I'd have to ask why it would make sense to conclude that it's more likely that the pickup has mysterious unexplained properties, than it is that human imperfection is causing the variance. The real problem with the skepticism is how little people are skeptical of their own biases, despite mountains of evidence that such bias is at play, and the skepticism against principles of physics, despite the mountain of evidence that physical models accurately describe the world we live in. When it comes to life or death matters of health, people seem quick to "trust the science", but when it's a matter of entertainment, like guitar and music, then the cold and lonely truth seems to take a back seat to imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by ms on Apr 13, 2022 15:31:46 GMT -5
The real problem with the skepticism is how little people are skeptical of their own biases, despite mountains of evidence that such bias is at play, and the skepticism against principles of physics, despite the mountain of evidence that physical models accurately describe the world we live in. When it comes to life or death matters of health, people seem quick to "trust the science", but when it's a matter of entertainment, like guitar and music, then the cold and lonely truth seems to take a back seat to imagination. I think the last two years have shown that lots of people do not trust the science on health, even when life and death are involved. But I think you are right, the number trusting it on making music is certainly less. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Apr 13, 2022 18:00:49 GMT -5
I can hear the idividual notes better. That would suppurt the closer coil idea. I actually use a 3D printed spacer that is 4mm tall on the bass side and 3.5mm on the treble side, and I used that to match the pickup heights before the tests. Any difference in height should be eliminated. Maybe what you're hearing has to do with the pole pieces lining up better on the low and high E. Sorry for the previously unaddressed typos in that post. Oh yeah, note timber can be greatly affected by string position over a pole piece. You may be aware that the note fundamemtal may not even be represented if the string is centered and only virating perpendicular to the pole? It becomes a makeshift 2nd harmonic. The result would change dramatically if the string is not centered over the pole. It's also posible that although the intitial coilc heights were the same, the G-spaced tilted slightly when the spacer was removed. It's near imposible for it to be even with only having the two height screws. The neck pickup on my Jagcaster is presently tilted slightly toward the neck. Pushing the top back 1~2mm so both sides of the coil are evenly spaced to the strings does make a consistantly audible difference in note timber -- sounds slightly warmer, and I imagine the relative change in the coil sides height is more a factor than the more slight change in the pole screw edges height. I may fix that next string channge if it's caused by the wires or routing underneath. The perception of punch may be partly the Q-factor, but I do think relative coil heights and/or pole alignmemt are involved in the slight difference I hear in lower harmonic strength. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 18:43:40 GMT -5
Sorry for the previously unaddressed typos in that post. Oh yeah, note timber can be greatly affected by string position over a pole piece. You may be aware that the note fundamemtal may not even be represented if the string is centered and only virating perpendicular to the pole? It becomes a makeshift 2nd harmonic. The result would change dramaticalky if the string is not centered over the pole. If it were really true that position over the pole piece "greatly affected the tone" then string bending would sound a lot more interesting than it does. The best work I know of on the topic is this www.physics.princeton.edu//~mcdonald/examples/guitar.pdf , which shows that the second and fourth harmonic additions are really small. Having the string slightly off center of the pole piece doesn't make much difference, because the string is still moving in a circular sort of pattern over the pole piece, with a X-Y component, which is easier to think of as "side to side" and "near to far", no mater where the string is over the pole piece, you always have some amount of "side to side" and "near to far" in action. The fundamental would be suppressed if the string moved only perpendicular over the pole piece, but that's not something that ever happens. Because the second harmonic is so small, talk about the harmonic difference between pole pieces and rails, where with a rail you have no second harmonic distortion, is a dry well. If a blind test, a person would not be able to tell you if a pickup had pole pieces or a rail, I can promise you that. It's true that variations in harmonics are the essence of timbre, so if you add 2nd and 4th harmonic, then you've changed the timbre, technically, but it's not a significant difference, as compared to the difference between the harmonics makeup of the bridge, middle and neck pickups, where the harmonic balance varies substantially in both sequence and volume, due to the harmonics nodes and anti nodes along the guitar string. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Apr 13, 2022 19:40:55 GMT -5
Sorry for the previously unaddressed typos in that post. Oh yeah, note timber can be greatly affected by string position over a pole piece. You may be aware that the note fundamemtal may not even be represented if the string is centered and only virating perpendicular to the pole? It becomes a makeshift 2nd harmonic. The result would change dramaticalky if the string is not centered over the pole. If it were really true that position over the pole piece "greatly affected the tone" then string bending would sound a lot more interesting than it does. The best work I know of on the topic is this www.physics.princeton.edu//~mcdonald/examples/guitar.pdf , which shows that the second and fourth harmonic additions are really small. Having the string slightly off center of the pole piece doesn't make much difference, because the string is still moving in a circular sort of pattern over the pole piece, with a X-Y component, which is easier to think of as "side to side" and "near to far", no mater where the string is over the pole piece, you always have some amount of "side to side" and "near to far" in action. The fundamental would be suppressed if the string moved only perpendicular over the pole piece, but that's not something that ever happens. Because the second harmonic is so small, talk about the harmonic difference between pole pieces and rails, where with a rail you have no second harmonic distortion, is a dry well. If a blind test, a person would not be able to tell you if a pickup had pole pieces or a rail, I can promise you that. It's true that variations in harmonics are the essence of timbre, so if you add 2nd and 4th harmonic, then you've changed the timbre, technically, but it's not a significant difference, as compared to the difference between the harmonics makeup of the bridge, middle and neck pickups, where the harmonic balance varies substantially in both sequence and volume, due to the harmonics nodes and anti nodes along the guitar string. Again, sorry for the missed typo, but you'll notice that I said the note timber, not tone, would change. So, what exactly in my statement was incorrect, or are you just looking for something to argue about? Would you be willing to admit if/when your ego is contributing to being excessively persnickety? I made a point to say that the elimination of the fundamental could only occur if the string vibrated perpendicularly. What correction is needed there? You make an assumption that you can "promise" no one could tell the difference between a rail or pole piece pickup of equal spec. That's a rather bold statement considereing such a test would be extemely difficult to create. Why do you feel the need to make such statements? Where did I even imply differences in pole piece centering are as significant as pickup position? That said, I dare suggest the polepiece vs rail note timber difference would be more significant on the lower frets at the bridge than the neck pos, and the difference would be more noticable when some gain is applied and the string harmonics are more leveled out. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 20:02:19 GMT -5
If it were really true that position over the pole piece "greatly affected the tone" then string bending would sound a lot more interesting than it does. The best work I know of on the topic is this www.physics.princeton.edu//~mcdonald/examples/guitar.pdf , which shows that the second and fourth harmonic additions are really small. Having the string slightly off center of the pole piece doesn't make much difference, because the string is still moving in a circular sort of pattern over the pole piece, with a X-Y component, which is easier to think of as "side to side" and "near to far", no mater where the string is over the pole piece, you always have some amount of "side to side" and "near to far" in action. The fundamental would be suppressed if the string moved only perpendicular over the pole piece, but that's not something that ever happens. Because the second harmonic is so small, talk about the harmonic difference between pole pieces and rails, where with a rail you have no second harmonic distortion, is a dry well. If a blind test, a person would not be able to tell you if a pickup had pole pieces or a rail, I can promise you that. It's true that variations in harmonics are the essence of timbre, so if you add 2nd and 4th harmonic, then you've changed the timbre, technically, but it's not a significant difference, as compared to the difference between the harmonics makeup of the bridge, middle and neck pickups, where the harmonic balance varies substantially in both sequence and volume, due to the harmonics nodes and anti nodes along the guitar string. Again, sorry for the mised typo, but you'll notice that I said the note timber, not tone, would change. So, what exactly in my statement was incorrect, or are you just looking for something to argue about? Would you be willing to admit if/when your ego is contributing to being excessively persnickety? I made a point to say that the elimination of the fundamental could only occur if the string vibrated perpendicularly. What correction is needed there? Not at all. it's simply not true that the position of the string over the pole piece has a "great" impact on the timbre. The PDF I linked shows how the second harmonic is many dB below the fundamental, and the string offset from the pole piece only alters the amplitude of the second harmonic by some fraction, so we're talking about a fraction of a fraction. I'm not interested in arguing, I just don't want someone to walk away thinking "oh, the string offset over the pole piece must explain the sound difference" where in reality, it's not plausible that is actually explains any sound difference. That's kind of how these myths get started, one person says "f space pickups have a different sound" and before you know it we're back here again, doing some experiment to disprove this belief that is out in the wild. You make an assumption that you can "promise" no one could tell the difference between a rail or pole piece pickup of equal spec. That's a rather bold statement considereing such a test would be extemely difficult to create. Why do you feel the need to make such statements? Where did I even imply differences in pole piece centering are as significant as pickup position? That said, I dare suggest the polepiece vs rail note timber difference would be more significant on the lower frets at the bridge than the neck pos, and the difference would be more noticable when some gain is applied and the string harmonics are more leveled out. Well I have a lot of Strats, a lot of them have pole pieces and a lot of them have rail pickups, some DiMarzio, Seymour Duncan, as well as other non pole types like Lace Sensors, Lace Alumitones and EMGs. The rails are wired to do split and parallel, so I've heard them in a variety of different inductances / peak frequencies, a broad cross section, and I'm saying that I've never noticed any characteristic difference in tone between them, one to where I could say "all the ones with rails have a particular sound". As a point of interest, the Mojo Quiet Coils are actually rail pickups with fake pole pieces on top, it's a rail pickup designed to give the impression of a quiet single coil with pole pieces. I've done experiment with Adobe Audition, which has a utility that lets you see the harmonics in an FFT view, and selectively increase and decrease their harmonics, here's an example of what it looks like:  so I have an idea of what sort of affect it has on the sound to increase any given harmonic by a small fraction of where it starts out, and I could even create a wav file demonstrating this difference, but I don't think it's really worth the effort to demonstrate something which shouldn't be controversial in the first place. Why are you certain that such a small increase in the second harmonic would have a big impact on the tone? |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 13, 2022 21:16:53 GMT -5
This is actually pretty easy to test by ear, string to pole piece alignment, just select the neck pickup, fret a string somewhere in the middle of the neck, then play a little, then bend the string so that it's either off to the side of it's pole piece, in between two pole pieces, or anywhere in between, and then play again, and see if, aside from the variation in pitch, if you can perceive a variation in timbre.
|
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Apr 14, 2022 3:58:58 GMT -5
This is actually pretty easy to test by ear, string to pole piece alignment, just select the neck pickup, fret a string somewhere in the middle of the neck, then play a little, then bend the string so that it's either off to the side of it's pole piece, in between two pole pieces, or anywhere in between, and then play again, and see if, aside from the variation in pitch, if you can perceive a variation in timbre. I will try that and take some SPL averages to see how much difference there is. Again, I said the dramatic timbre difference would be from the loss of note fundamentals in nearly pure perpendicular string movement with regard to string alignment over a pole piece. How could I have made that more clear? Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I have now stated 3X?! |
|
gpdb
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 66
Likes: 5
|
Post by gpdb on Apr 14, 2022 9:20:58 GMT -5
Sound samples are too prone to error, that's a main reason I haven't bothered with them. They're prone to error if your goal is to be consistent with every note strum, however that isn't my intention. I'm trying to capture major differences, not the tiny ones. If two performances sound identical, then they are more the same than different. The goal of my site and demos is to help people realize, "I shouldn't worry about whether or not I'll like the Jazz or 59 better, because now I know they're essentially the same." You don't need exact performances to make that happen, since no performance is ever exact. As long as you have enough audio, you can hear the character of the pickup. The bigger things are making sure everything past the performance is identical (guitar, pickup height, amp, etc). Plus, since I'm the same player playing both, it would be difficult for me not to play both parts very similarly. It's also posible that although the intitial coilc heights were the same, the G-spaced tilted slightly when the spacer was removed. I can't 1000% guarantee this didn't happen, but I don't believe it did. I didn't notice any tilt, and any tilt caused to one pickup would have happened to the other given I was using the same hardware and pickguard. The only difference would have come from the baseplate tabs being warped, but I didn't notice that either. I spoke with a pickup builder that confirmed he thought the charts were correct due to the extra inductance, caused by more wire, caused by the wider spacing, caused by equaling turn count between the 50mm and the 53mm. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 14, 2022 9:47:05 GMT -5
This is actually pretty easy to test by ear, string to pole piece alignment, just select the neck pickup, fret a string somewhere in the middle of the neck, then play a little, then bend the string so that it's either off to the side of it's pole piece, in between two pole pieces, or anywhere in between, and then play again, and see if, aside from the variation in pitch, if you can perceive a variation in timbre. I will try that and take some SPL averages to see how much difference there is. Again, I said the dramatic timbre difference would be from the loss of note fundamentals in nearly pure perpendicular string movement with regard to string alignment over a pole piece. How could I have made that more clear? Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I have now stated 3X?! Off axis string movement doesn't result in near-perpendicular string movement, nor does it cause the pickup to only receive magnetic change of perpendicular movement, and therefor doesn't cause a loss of fundamental. If it did, then with the experiment I mention above, you'd hear a substantial decrease in bass and overall output volume when bending the string off-axis of the pole pieces, since that fundamental component is the harmonic of the lowest frequency. Even if it did suppress the harmonic, I wouldn't call that a fundamental change in the timbre, I'd say it's a reduction of low end in the tone, since all of the higher harmonics would be untouched. I think you're picturing a magnetic field over the pole piece that points straight upwards, like a narrow window, and if the string exits that window, then the pickup sees nothing, but in fact the magnetic field extends out in a concentric pattern, so the area "above the pole piece" works out to be a wide area gradient that has no hard "cut off" which could facilitate a harmonic distortion by itself. |
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Apr 14, 2022 10:16:49 GMT -5
Sound samples are too prone to error, that's a main reason I haven't bothered with them. They're prone to error if your goal is to be consistent with every note strum, however that isn't my intention. I'm trying to capture major differences, not the tiny ones. If two performances sound identical, then they are more the same than different. The goal of my site and demos is to help people realize, "I shouldn't worry about whether or not I'll like the Jazz or 59 better, because now I know they're essentially the same." You don't need exact performances to make that happen, since no performance is ever exact. As long as you have enough audio, you can hear the character of the pickup. The bigger things are making sure everything past the performance is identical (guitar, pickup height, amp, etc). Plus, since I'm the same player playing both, it would be difficult for me not to play both parts very similarly. I think you will run into trouble when the differences between two pickups are actually so small that variation in your playing is the only thing that sets the recording apart, and you are having faith that people will conclude the pickups sound the same, but your playing made them sound different, when experience tells me that a lot of people will be more than likely to attribute variation in your playing to the pickups. people don't have a way of knowing where the pickup stops and the player starts. And there's some good reason for that, like I'd mentioned above, the effect of playing finger-style can sound a lot like a pickup having a lower resonant peak, since both can have the effect of suppressing higher harmonics. |
|
yanyan
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 52 
Likes: 2
|
Post by yanyan on May 26, 2022 10:49:08 GMT -5
I think it would be very interesting to analyze 7-string pickups too! And going further, to compare 7-string versions to their 6-string originals. I know Dimarzio makes a lot of 7-string versions of 6-string pickups, for example the Crunch Lab 7, Evolution 7, even a Super Distortion 7, etc. More selfishly, i'd really be interested in analyses of the Ibanez Quantum 7 neck and bridge pickups.
|
|
yanyan
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 52
Likes: 2
|
Post by yanyan on May 26, 2022 12:08:45 GMT -5
I will try that and take some SPL averages to see how much difference there is. Again, I said the dramatic timbre difference would be from the loss of note fundamentals in nearly pure perpendicular string movement with regard to string alignment over a pole piece. How could I have made that more clear? Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I have now stated 3X?! Off axis string movement doesn't result in near-perpendicular string movement, nor does it cause the pickup to only receive magnetic change of perpendicular movement, and therefor doesn't cause a loss of fundamental. If it did, then with the experiment I mention above, you'd hear a substantial decrease in bass and overall output volume when bending the string off-axis of the pole pieces, since that fundamental component is the harmonic of the lowest frequency. Even if it did suppress the harmonic, I wouldn't call that a fundamental change in the timbre, I'd say it's a reduction of low end in the tone, since all of the higher harmonics would be untouched. I think you're picturing a magnetic field over the pole piece that points straight upwards, like a narrow window, and if the string exits that window, then the pickup sees nothing, but in fact the magnetic field extends out in a concentric pattern, so the area "above the pole piece" works out to be a wide area gradient that has no hard "cut off" which could facilitate a harmonic distortion by itself.
Antigua, if i may, could you please show readings of your gauss meter positioned 1) dead center on the 1st string (high E) pole piece, and 2) right at the outer edge of the same pole piece, and 3) 5mm away from the outer edge of the same pole piece?
|
|
|
|
Post by antigua on May 30, 2022 19:29:41 GMT -5
Off axis string movement doesn't result in near-perpendicular string movement, nor does it cause the pickup to only receive magnetic change of perpendicular movement, and therefor doesn't cause a loss of fundamental. If it did, then with the experiment I mention above, you'd hear a substantial decrease in bass and overall output volume when bending the string off-axis of the pole pieces, since that fundamental component is the harmonic of the lowest frequency. Even if it did suppress the harmonic, I wouldn't call that a fundamental change in the timbre, I'd say it's a reduction of low end in the tone, since all of the higher harmonics would be untouched. I think you're picturing a magnetic field over the pole piece that points straight upwards, like a narrow window, and if the string exits that window, then the pickup sees nothing, but in fact the magnetic field extends out in a concentric pattern, so the area "above the pole piece" works out to be a wide area gradient that has no hard "cut off" which could facilitate a harmonic distortion by itself.
Antigua, if i may, could you please show readings of your gauss meter positioned 1) dead center on the 1st string (high E) pole piece, and 2) right at the outer edge of the same pole piece, and 3) 5mm away from the outer edge of the same pole piece?
With an SSL-1, the high E pole piece, holding the probe perpendicular to the top of the pole piece, dead center is 1000 gauss south, edge is 700 gauss south, at 5mm it read 25 gauss north. Interestingly it's zero gauss at about 4.5mm off the edge of the pole piece, so the lines of flux are parallel with the probe at that location. If I turn the probe 90 degree in that same location, so that the flux line is passing through the Hall sensor loop, it measures about 200 gauss south. |
|
yanyan
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 52
Likes: 2
|
Post by yanyan on Jun 15, 2022 4:31:52 GMT -5
Antigua, if i may, could you please show readings of your gauss meter positioned 1) dead center on the 1st string (high E) pole piece, and 2) right at the outer edge of the same pole piece, and 3) 5mm away from the outer edge of the same pole piece?
With an SSL-1, the high E pole piece, holding the probe perpendicular to the top of the pole piece, dead center is 1000 gauss south, edge is 700 gauss south, at 5mm it read 25 gauss north. Interestingly it's zero gauss at about 4.5mm off the edge of the pole piece, so the lines of flux are parallel with the probe at that location. If I turn the probe 90 degree in that same location, so that the flux line is passing through the Hall sensor loop, it measures about 200 gauss south.
Thank you for the findings! Very interesting. There's quite a drop between dead center and the polepiece edge.
|
|
