-
I have a bassist/guitarist friend who yesterday was asking me about my recently aquired Ibanez AS103 guitar and if I'd done anything to it. I said "well, I changed the pickups soon after getting it, but I usually end up doing that with any guitar". He asked why, and what was the resulting difference - so I start up with a ramble about different magnet types, how stronger magnets tend to produce a sharper, more cutting tone liked by rock guitarists, who also like the extra output for driving amps into distortion, but I as a jazzer have found benefit from using weaker magnets like alnico 2 or 3. And I was just starting out on the effects of how hot the coil is wound, and was going to go into the whole hand/scatter winding thing, when he stopped me and said "you see, I disagree with just about everything you've said".
It emerged that re the pickup magnet thing, he just didn't see how the magnet type/strength could alter the tone (he starts talking about the laws of magnetism and James Clark Maxwell). And when I did get the chance to talk about scatter-winding the coils, and mentioned coil capacitance (which I admit to not understanding brilliantly myself) he said he thought that was probably "a load of mumbo-jumbo". Basically what he said he would need before buying into any of this pickup stuff was:
a) scientific proof that different magnets/coil-winding methods affect the tone
b) a logical scientific explanation of why this is the case, and how it works
I confess I was unable to provide either. I've never bothered making before and after recordings of guitars I change the pickups on - I just think "the pickups aren't quite right" and change them, and experience with trying different pickups over the years means I have a good idea of what specs will get me where I want to be with the tone. But my friend feels it may all be in my head, and won't accept my hearsay evidence at all. He's the kind of chap who likes to have good, fairly irrefutable evidence for most things before believing in it, and of a generally scientifically inclined mindset. Nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism I suppose.
In a way I don't mind if he believes me about pickups or not, as I'm happy with what I've done and how my guitars sound. But is there anything I could point to on the internet which would convince the man?
-
03-27-2017 04:19 AM
-
Here's a simple scientific experiment for your friend to try
- Go to a guitar shop
- Plug guitars with different pickups into a single amp, and don't alter any of the settings
- Listen to see if he can hear a difference
If he can't hear a difference, then he has proved his point - or maybe he can only hear clearly in very low frequencies
More seriously, if he reads up on Maxwell, Faraday, Ampère and others he will quickly grasp that the strength of a magnetic field is a key determinant for the strength of the electrical current generated by a string vibrating over it. The strength of the current will in turn drive amp tubes more or less hard, producing in turn different degrees of crunch when the signal reaches the output stage..Last edited by Ray175; 03-27-2017 at 04:44 PM.
-
Very good points, though they may open up a can of worms: nothing on earth is stronger than the myths that both the guitar industry and the players have built around the electric guitar!
In Germany there's sort of a heretical bible on this mythical stuff, the scientific research results of Professor Manfred Zollner and his team who published himself the book "Physik der Elektrogitarre" (1290 pages) in 2014 (Buchkritik zu "Physik der Elektrogitarre" - Spektrum der Wissenschaft ).
Parts of the book can be downloaded for free: https://gitec-forum.de/GitecWP/wp-co...arre_GITEC.pdf .
The book was written in German, though they seem to get a translation: Translators Wanted! – Gitec .
The translation efforts appear not overly purposeful for some reason: 1. There was much turmoil even on the coming of the German edition, on the part of the industry and most players who may see their bucks and hopes dashed. Comparable if you would publish the truth on the mineral oil industry or any other strong pool. 2. Mr. Zollner doesn't have to make a living on the electric guitar. 3. Last, but not least, he's not able or willing to provide the necessary reworking, discussing and justifying efforts that would probably kill all of his other scientific projects.
Personally, I'm not much interested in the electric guitar and thus can't/won't chime in in the myths and science of the electric pickup. I see the much higher challenge in the (electro-) acoustic archtop guitar, the focus being on 'acoustic'. However, the mythical situation of the acoustic archtop is not so different. Myths that serve exclusively pecuniary interests have to be debunked! Really great that the US Administrations have set Volkswagen straight - in Germany VW has absolutely nothing changed by now, except for some mythical updates of the electronic control units...
Well, for fun and in turn, I could tell that some features on US top-end archtop guitars are fair to middling. Just one single example: compare the primitive shape and elaboration of the tonebars of some US archtops to German ones. Interested? How please, you're indignant now? Won't have a look at what violin and lute makers empirically found in more than five centuries, and what physicists, engineers and other scientific researchers just are beginning to confirm, against great resistance? You're a strict follower of psychoacoustics, exceptionalism, swarm fondness and myths spread and uphold by certain brands?
Well, I see... that's the reason why no serious public discussion and general improvement of the archtop guitar will ever be possible, certainly not online. That's ok; people who want to penetrate more deeply into the subject will always find a way, what the above-mentioned book is likely to prove.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 03-27-2017 at 06:40 AM.
-
The most important thing is to get a sound you like.
Nothing wrong with trying to understand the variables and factors that lead to the production of this sound. Given that archtop players will generally hear not only the amplified sound but also (and to a lesser degree) the acoustic signal - the debate will usually be futile.
Having said that, this 1994 doctoral dissertation can provide some technical insight for those who are sufficiently curious. Pages 40 and onwards make interesting reading for the technically minded
-
The proof is easy. He can buy a pickup and try it by himself. If he doesn't hear anything then it's his loss.
Seriously though, he sounds like a student in science so proud about what he learns that he believes he can logically prove everything. Except that the basis of science is not to put theory above the experiments but the exact opposite: if an experiment shows a result that can't be explained by theory, then the theory should be questioned/completed/changed. That is, ironically, how maxwell created his equations... experiments didn't match the theory.
Also it's often a very dangerous thing to oversimplify a system for the sake of understanding it: here there are a lot of factors to make it different from a simple bobbin: reaction of the amplifier to voltage. Those might not be linear with frequencies, how to model the effect of scatter, type of material, diameter of the wound,...
A good model is a model that simplifies a system and keeps the results the same... within certain error limits induced by what you neglected. If he considers a perfect bobbin he is, by design, ignoring the effects of scatter. So it's normal that his logic says that there is no effect.
So I would advise to try and to revise his definition of a scientific process: the law of physics are a description of the world and not the other way around. If the world does something and the model says it shouldn't. Revise your model, not the world.
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
-
-
Many thanks for the replies! All good stuff, and much appreciated - personally I am always interested to further my understanding of guitar electronics, even if the most important thing for me remains the results. I guess I was perhaps hoping for some easy link I could send to my pal which would win the argument there and then, and I'm not sure I really have that. But that was maybe unrealistic of me, and when I have time I will have a look through that thesis.
And FWIW, I do agree that a lot of claims are made by pickup makers on their websites, without any kind of evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny - that's not to say the claims aren't true, but I do realise in the past I've been perhaps a bit easily persuaded by these things. Nevertheless, I do think a well-made hand wound PAF type pickup, with offset coil wind, about 7K ohm, alnico 2 or 3 magnet, does produce a nice jazz tone for my taste (all other things being equal) and I won't be persuaded otherwise
.
-
I agree-my ears are empirical, sensory data. From time to time I have done a pre/post test, informally, and I have on some occasions been happy with the change, on others, I've put the original PU back in.
Originally Posted by Meggy
Many thanks for the replies! All good stuff, and much appreciated - personally I am always interested to further my understanding of guitar electronics, even if the most important thing for me remains the results. I guess I was perhaps hoping for some easy link I could send to my pal which would win the argument there and then, and I'm not sure I really have that. But that was maybe unrealistic of me, and when I have time I will have a look through that thesis.
And FWIW, I do agree that a lot of claims are made by pickup makers on their websites, without any kind of evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny - that's not to say the claims aren't true, but I do realise in the past I've been perhaps a bit easily persuaded by these things. Nevertheless, I do think a well-made hand wound PAF type pickup, with offset coil wind, about 7K ohm, alnico 2 or 3 magnet, does produce a nice jazz tone for my taste (all other things being equal) and I won't be persuaded otherwise .
Most dramatic for me was a MiK/Peerless Epiphone Broadway. I pulled the stock Epi pickup and put in a Seymour Duncan Seth Lover. It was a night/day change in that guitar's sound. Night and day. Day and Night. You are the one...
-
I "generally" don't buy a git that doesn't sound good, and at least in principle and theory I agree with the OP's opinions on sonic stability regardless of the pup magnets.
That said in the few gits I have pulled pups out of (most notably strats and teles) and a couple of semis the sound "envelope" is changed radically. In these cases there was a radical departure of the pup from single coil to HB or HB to single coil.
I do have a new / used git that the neck HB (a SD "Jazz") sounds particularly crappy for my purposes and I am planning on a marathon pup change test in it to see what is what regarding HB to HB comparisons, and record them all so my ears can compare them with a control structure.
Scientifically I don't think audio perception can be quantified. An oscilloscope can measure a waveform's rise time (rt) Peak, Peak to peak, DC offset, frequency, and fall time and coming from someone who has spent more time in front of an oscilloscope than most on the planet, I can tell you that waveform analysis from player to player with one git, kept static (no string changes or volume / EQ variance) will yield visual differences in EVERY character of a guitar's waveform outputs, so IMO "scientifically" it's not possible to prove, we have to rely on our ears, and maybe a bit of self induced wishful hearing :-)
-
The link to the doctoral dissertation should suffice. Those are reviewed, and the candidate has to stand an oral defense from faculty. And that dissertation makes it clear that no two pickups are identical, and explains how and why. If your friend won't accept that, he must be one of those people with a strong conservative viewpoint, who have been found, in peer-reviewed studies, to cling to their beliefs more strongly as more evidence is presented that they're wrong. In which case you're wasting your time.
-
Only the theory decides what can be observed. - Albert Einstein
In other words: only with the help of a fully developed theory it becomes clear which physical values can be determined experimentally and described by the theory - and which not.
Einstein continued: The observation is indeed a very complex process. The process to be observed produces any events in our measuring apparatus. As a result, further processes are taking place in this apparatus, which ultimately result in sensory impressions and the fixation of the result in our consciousness. On this long road, we need to know how nature works when we want to assert that we have observed something. Only theory allows us to infer from the sensory impression the underlying process.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 03-27-2017 at 04:12 PM.
-
that is an amazing quotation! Would you be willing to post the source? I don't doubt your citation of it, but I want to know where to find it in a literature that I'm not very familiar with. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
It's from a discussion between Heisenberg and Einstein in 1927: Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: Heisenberg Recalls a Discussion with Enstein on Observables Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
Oh right, and like those guys knew anything,... Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
I mean Heisenberg had a Les Paul in which the caps were both ceramic and paper-in-oil AT THE SAME TIME.
Talk about uncertainty,...
Oh nooooooo, wait that was Schrodinger with the duality of cap technology in the Les Paul. Heisenberg had an SG on which you could either play the correct note or play at the right time, but not both.
Sorry for the historical error.Last edited by ptchristopher3; 03-27-2017 at 05:30 PM.
-
I enjoy your posts Ol' fret
-
What, pray tell, is a tonebar? Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
When I look it up, this is what I find:
-
I scanned that--unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no discussion of different Alnico magnets in that piece. Correct me if I'm wrong. Originally Posted by Ray175
-
Anyone here have one of Pete Biltoft's pu's with the removable, change-able magnets? Perhaps sound clips with some of these might be illuminating?!
-
I am particularly interested in the difference between magnets, e.g., Alnico 2 vs 5, etc. I remember getting challenged by Patrick (RIP) some time ago, who basically asserted that any difference was marketing gobbledygook. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to get into details with him regarding this.
I replaced a stock Epi pickup with an Alnico 2 pickup some time ago and experienced a significant improvement in sound. Everything I've read suggests that Alnico 5 is brighter than Alnico 2. In fact, there is video of Seymour Duncan himself making exactly this point.
Nevertheless, I am not aware of any empirical evidence that there is a significant difference. I'd love to see someone study this.
I agree with several people above who point out the subjective nature of all of this--the operative term here is psychoacoustics. The brain works in funny ways.
-
The mentioned book by Manfred Zollner explains the differences between different Alnico alloys (and much more) from a scientific POV (chapter 4.4 - unfortunately not covered in the free download parts). I read through the text years ago and was quite impressed, may even have saved that content on an old harddisk (harddisk and not hard disk, right? Tone bar and not tonebar, sound hole and not soundhole, pickup... but who likes to have a pickup on his guitar?). Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
All I know for sure is not much... that Bill Lawrence loved Alnico VIII for getting a clear and distinct jazz tone. Which proves the fact that sometimes the brain isn't working at all: Alnico VIII is said to be more expensive than Alnico II, III or V.
Btw., that book contains the electro-acoustic guitar research of more than 15 years; Professor Zollner who is
also a guitar player, is retired now.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 03-27-2017 at 08:51 PM.
-
Thanks, Chris, for your kind words! Originally Posted by ptchristopher3
It looks as if you've understood not to take me very seriously. I'm too old (or feel too old) to be serious...
They asked me how I understand myself. I can only say: as a fool. Then it works. Only with the understanding as a fool, the old boy fool. A young fool is not interesting. He is not yet recognized as a fool. - Thomas Bernhard
-
It is more that silly posts are silly and serious posts are sometimes interesting. But a seemingly whimsical post with an enfolded (like David Bohm's Implicate Order) message is rare and great. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
Chris
-
************** Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
EDIT: Was talking with an old co-worker about this today and he pointed out that in classical stringed instruments the term "bass bar" is more common/correct, but that "tone bar" is generally more colloquial to mean any sort of top brace to some luthiers. I benefit from constant correction - as my wife often notes.
***************
A violin (for example) is "braced" with a combination of a soundpost and a single "bar" placed similarly to where a parallel brace on the bass side of an archtop might be placed.
So the treble side of the top has the soundpost and the bass side has a "tone bar".
If you want a life changing experience, re-set a soundpost for a violinist who actually makes a living playing their instrument.
Doing such a re-set and working for a day with the late Mike Elliott to prep a LARGE pile of Gibson guitars for a demo/show were the most eye-opening experiences of my early 20's.
Nothing like working for someone who needs actual performance out of you (vs. "tone" twaddle BS) is something I wish everyone could experience early in life.
It is like having Windex sprayed in your brain. It hurts but really straightens you out.
ChrisLast edited by ptchristopher3; 03-28-2017 at 06:34 PM.
-
There's a lot of misinformation out there, and like the OP's friend I'm skeptical about much of what I read about pickups unless someone has done controlled experiments and computations to back up their theories. Based on my background in physics and electrical engineering and experience with my guitars, I have no doubts that there are major differences between the tone of various pickup designs, but I'm not sure those explaining the differences always have their facts right.
As for magnet types, I think that the shape of the magnetic field is much more important than its strength. In fact, I'd argue that most of the difference between pickups can be best explained in terms of the shape of the magnetic field in each design. This is just conjecture since I don't claim to be a pickup expert.
Edit: Above, I should have said "much of the difference," not "most." The other major contributor to tone is due to the inductance of the coil and the capacitance between windings with a resulting resonant frequency. These effects are typically modeled as a simple equivalent circuit.
Bottom line: While the OP's friend is right to be somewhat skeptical of conventional wisdom on pickups, he's way off base in claiming that none of design parameters matter. Design, construction and setup all matter.Last edited by KirkP; 03-28-2017 at 11:10 AM.
-
The dissertation didn't compare different alnico magnets, but did make it clear that the strength of the magnetic field is one of the more important factors in a pickup's ability to create sound. Magnets of different alloys would presumably have different field strengths.unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no discussion of different Alnico magnets in that piece.
Reply With Quote
Thomastik Jazz BeBop 12 set - $10.
Today, 06:35 AM in For Sale