Truth_David Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) One was the desire to have a DIY piezo pickup in my guitar. For a while the sustainer strat did have a piezo in the neck pocket, but I never got around to a full install and removed it as the wires hanging out eventually got to me. In pictures of the guitar you will see two extra knobs...one of these was for the piezo. Sorry, forgive me being dense, but what do you mean by 'neck pocket'? What kind of piezzo? So...the hex driver had many reasons for being. Compact surface mounting, no coil winding, it used every possible lateral thinking device possible to limit EMI and increase efficiency. A single string driver was able to operate within 2cm from a true single coil. However they were difficult to make and have significant quirks, especially to do with alignment. When I was speaking of piezzo pickups, I should have been more specific, because I realize that not every brand of piezzo bridge has individually wired piezzo for MIDI as well as pseudo acoustic sound, so effectively if I understand the concept correctly this type of bridge is also functioning as a hex pickup, although not the type made famous by Bartolini (his was a humbucker type of double coil affair). And it is this type of piezzo pickup (bridge mounted) I was talking about with regard to the development of the piezzo sustainer - precisely because it already has separate outputs for each string apart from the Godin Sustainiac. I say that because for example the piezzo pickups mounted beneath the bridge of an acoustic are for the most part just a single strip for all the strings. Acoustic guitars with bronze strings will always be a problem to magnetic sustainers because of the low amount of magnetic material in those wound strings. The only solution really is to use electric guitar strings I would think. Yes, but it was even slow on the 1st and 2nd strings which admittedly were also bronze...yet I was surprised that it worked at all with bronze strings. As for the twin drivers...I imagine that you could use a single circuit but the simultaneous switching of pickups and drivers and the avoidance of combinations...and the problem of noise of course, could be pretty steep. Sounds complicated.... As for humbuckers...yes, it is difficult to return to them once you have been playing single coils. My new strat has a great sound from it's neck and middle alnico squier single coils, and it's bridge "Duncan Designed" JB sounds good too, but not entirely to my liking and the two types of pickups are quite out of balance volume and tone wise. Still...a humbucker is noiseless and you have to like that. And, I do think Col's style of twin coil driver could be built on top of one in a manner similar to my own device. Yes, but the Kinmans and Lace Sensor Holy Grail and several stock Fender single coils are now also (claim to be) noiseless. I would like the facility to get the tone of a humbucker in a single coil format, then be able to switch back and forth between single coil and double depending on the sound I want. Now whether any of the Seymour Duncans or other makes that produce single coil sized humbuckers and stacked humbuckers meet their claims of having that potential, I will only find out through trial and error. In my case though, although at this point I could choose any pickup configuration for my project guitar, I have to be very careful to choose the right sort of pickup. This is because the body will be hollow or chambered, like the Allan Holdworth Carvins, and so will produce a very fat sound, especially with a mahogany body and maple top. Humbuckers, especially full sized ones could well make the guitar sound too muddy like those fitted on my Ibanez Custom Prestige. That is one reason for choosing an SSS configuration over an HSH. That way, I can always go to a standard vintage s/c strat layout. But once you have HSH you are pretty well stuck with it, unless you choose to fit a pickguard - mine is going to be rear mounted, and have the pickups screwed directly into the body, which will help reduce vibration from the sustainer once it is fitted. But right now I really need some help in deciding which type of pickup to mount the sustainer driver on. I need someone to please answer my previous questions....especially how to go about uploading files from my HD to the forum. Speak soon Pete, David Edited January 28, 2007 by Truth_David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 What kind of files are you talking about? If they are pictures, use photobucket or some other similar picture hosting service. Also, be sure to review the picture posting rules. Also, the neck pocket refers to the pocket routed in the guitar body in which the neck is bolted into. There are piezo pickups that can be inserted between the body and the neck in that pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 What kind of files are you talking about? If they are pictures, use photobucket or some other similar picture hosting service. Also, be sure to review the picture posting rules. Also, the neck pocket refers to the pocket routed in the guitar body in which the neck is bolted into. There are piezo pickups that can be inserted between the body and the neck in that pocket. Hi Primal, yes, thank you, they are image files, so now I will look for a hosting service and get the pickup photos online. I understand now what you meant by the term 'neck pocket', but never having heard it before I was unsure, especially as I did not know that a piezzo pickup could be mounted in that way. I know that there are humbucker format hex pickups, such as the Bartolinis I mentioned in my previous post. I also remember having read somewhere about mounting simple piezzo pickups on or behind the headstock in order to pick up the sound of the vibrations from behind the nut...I believe Allan Holdsworth might have experimented with that at some point, but don't quote me as having said so, that might not be correct information. OK, in my next post I hope to make the photos available so that you will understand my questions better..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 OK, I have uploaded the images to photobucket, but when I try to paste the html tags to the forum I get the following message: Sorry, dynamic pages in the tags are not allowed On the photobucket page there are three options: Url link, html tag and IMG code. Logically I tried using the IMG code next, but no image appeared, whereas it did appear when I pasted the html tags into the post - until it was rejected. Someone please help with this, as I cannot upload these photos, and I am sure they will be helpful to someone..... Thanks. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted January 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'm not entirely sure what dynamic pages are...but if you have posted a picture in your photobucket account... copy and paste the image location name from photobucket into the insert image box (three back from the quote tool) on the forum reply. you want your pictures to be jpeg's so if they aren't convert them in paint or something... here is the rules...picture posting rules make sure they aren't too large and perhaps provide a link to the pic links with the URL link tool. ok...so good luck with that... I understand now what you meant by the term 'neck pocket', but never having heard it before I was unsure, especially as I did not know that a piezzo pickup could be mounted in that way.Well...you don't know till you have a go! I don't know if I am the only one to think of doing it, in fact I am sure I'm not, but it is an alternative to bridge systems. I just put a buzzer piezo in there (the bolt on join of the neck to the body, or neck pocket)...no fancy hex things. It pics up the sound of the vibrations of the strings through the body and neck. It works quite well. I wanted to try this out and to see if the piezio could be a better source for the sustainer at the same time. Also...the sustainer strat was built for a range of ideas and still has a bunch of stuff from pickup switching to hollowing the thing out! Yes, but it was even slow on the 1st and 2nd strings which admittedly were also bronze...yet I was surprised that it worked at all with bronze strings. Bronze wound strings are wound over a steel core. The ebow has an internal magnet but also uses the magnets of the pickups magnetic field. I would like the facility to get the tone of a humbucker in a single coil format, then be able to switch back and forth between single coil and double depending on the sound I want. There really isn't anything quite like this at all. Single coils and humbuckers are quite different. Kinmans and others can be more convicing as they are stacked. mini humbuckers have quite a different magnetic field...everything is slightly different. A split humbucker will never sound quite like a single coil as it still has a north/south magnetic structure even with one coil shorted out (or "split"). Originally I came here with the intention of developing pickup ideas and during this thread I did make a pickup winder and explore the use of rare earth magnets and do quite a bit of research into pickup designs. Still intend to do some work in that direction but got distracted by the sustainer project which I never intended would turn into this! Kinman and the like have set out to make pickups that sound like the original fender single coils but without the noise and have been pretty successful in that direction. Making a pickup that is as versitile as you dream though is not really possible. As modeling progresses I would imagine that that kind of versitility will lie in that direction (as with the variax and V roland systems). There is still room for some originality in magnetic pickup designs, P90's (a large thin and wide single coil) have become popular with some, but again a convincing noiseless version is elusive. A lot of this has to do with the magnetic structure, once you start messing with that, things change... Anyway...falling asleep here, so must be off...good luck with the pics and hi to everybody... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) I'm not entirely sure what dynamic pages are...but if you have posted a picture in your photobucket account... copy and paste the image location name from photobucket into the insert image box (three back from the quote tool) on the forum reply. you want your pictures to be jpeg's so if they aren't convert them in paint or something... here is the rules...picture posting rules Thanks Pete, now I understand the problem, my pics were too large, so I am going to just post links to them on the photobucket server alongside their relevant comments; this way I will also not be potentially infringing the one photo per post rule. Well...you don't know till you have a go! I don't know if I am the only one to think of doing it, in fact I am sure I'm not, but it is an alternative to bridge systems. I just put a buzzer piezo in there (the bolt on join of the neck to the body, or neck pocket)...no fancy hex things. It pics up the sound of the vibrations of the strings through the body and neck. It works quite well. I wanted to try this out and to see if the piezio could be a better source for the sustainer at the same time. Also...the sustainer strat was built for a range of ideas and still has a bunch of stuff from pickup switching to hollowing the thing out! OK, now I understand....that was ingenious of you to think about mounting it in the neck pocket. I had thought about mounting one just behind the nut either on or behind the headstock, but then you need a way to connect the wires without running them along the neck somewhere. Designing an instrument from scratch one could maybe run the wires beneath the fingerboard.... Another option that would also provide a kind of reverb effect would be to mount a buzzer piezo in the tremolo cavity, behind the springs - anyone tried this? I imagine if the springs are noisy it could be pretty awful, but if not it could be interesting....I believe this is my people started leaving the cover off - I have even sometimes twanged the springs during solos in order to get them to resonate through the pickups, in the same way as one can rub moist fingers on the back of the body or neck in order to create feedback by setting up sympathetic vibration in the wood and strings, which the pickups then capture. There really isn't anything quite like this at all. Single coils and humbuckers are quite different. Kinmans and others can be more convicing as they are stacked. mini humbuckers have quite a different magnetic field...everything is slightly different. A split humbucker will never sound quite like a single coil as it still has a north/south magnetic structure even with one coil shorted out (or "split"). Edited January 30, 2007 by Truth_David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted January 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ok...I'll post a pic...My sustainer strat again... right...just copy the URL link (first option) and paste into the insert image box here... Roland has done some adventurous stuff with guitar synthesis...they produce artificial tones that are triggered by the signals of each string. My understanding of the Variax and other modeling systems is that it is a modeling system...extreme signal processing of the guitars actual signals, not a synthesiser. There are big differences, but they are getting closer as digital power and it's software processing is getting bigger faster and more sophisticated. So...the difference in synthesis and modeling (processing) is significant but the lines are blurring and the technology is getting better. This is truly an oversight on their part. They have proven that they are dedicated to a policy of continually updating the software, and can be seen to be constantly improving upon the products, thus it would make great sense to have the hardware installed on a suitable project guitar, knowing that as the technology affords more improvements, one would be able to simply download new firmware and software updates in order to benefit from these advances. That would assure them of the custom of many many players, I am sure. But from the moment that they insist upon only providing the system on their own guitar designs, they are losing the market of anyone who does not feel that the Variax guitars themselves are as good as their favourite axe. And I am one of those. I, and many others here can sympathise...but there is another perspective and a similar problem to sustainer technology. The "project guitar" market is tiny. The profits on the circuitry is small compared to that of an entire guitar. Look at the difficulties people have with this project or installing commercial sustainers. A variax system requires far more significant modifications...the circuitry and bridge stuff is huge! Incompetent installations would only detract from the "product" and the cost of after sales help on a case by case basis for a small market would be massive, as would the cost. Selling an instrument solves this problem and provides the profits to continue to develop the system and provide a user base. Fernandes has only recently offered their sustainer system separate from their guitars for the same reasons...sustainiac strongly recomend the system be installed by their techs at some necessary expense. What I'd like to work towards with this project is something that can be fitted in a way with the least amount of work and modifications. Hence things like the mid-driver...but we are really talking about a system dedicated to a particular type of guitar....probably a strat, maybe only a traditional 3xSC version (fortunately the most popular guitar)... Imagine a mid pickup/driver that could be slotted into the mid position of a strat and used as a driver alone with a pot to switch it on (like col's) or some similar low mod option. Or, a low profile cool looking box that mounts onto the guitar like Tim and Emre envisioned (page 30's)... But there are limitations to technology and limits to what a "business" can offer as a product profitably to tiny markets like custom guitar builders. What something like this project may offer is a different approach to this conundrum by bringing back the idea of DIY for customised projects and bringing the technology a little further along. The same kind of thing could be done by interested parties for pickup designs or anything really... Anyway...must run again... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 1# This is the bad drawing I was talking about of the Lace Sensor Holy Grail. Note the laterally mounted coils. This is the best candidate I could find for mounting a thin driver on top, because of the amount of space with this design. However I don't know whether it would be possible to remove the pickup cover without damaging the coils. I will send other possible pickup choices I have found one at a time in separate posts. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well...I don't think you have to got to that extreme... Mounting a single coil driver on top of this kind of thing would be no different to the operation of the sustainer than mounting it on top of a traditional single coil as I have done with my prototype guitar...and has been repeated with success by CurtisA and others... (see the pictorial for photos of the pickup taken apart and how it ended up...) Remember, our thin drivers are only 3mm deep. On my single coil it had a 3mm screw pole mounting plate that I was able to remove. That, and cutting the top out of the cover and having a very thin bobbin top allowed for no increase in the depth of the pickup itself. The cover cut out could save as much as 1.5mm. The advantage of a pickup like this lace is that as a dual coil design it is humbucking. Again, a novel design that tries to emulate the sound and look of a traditional single coil. You can get a similar effect with the coils stacked on top of each other like a kinman or similar. There are quite a few adequate cheap knockoffs of this style...my sustainer strat has one in the bridge that retailed for about A$30. It is noiseless and would be fine as a centre or neck pickup for instance. This type of pickup would work in a similar way with our single coil driver as the magnetic polarity is the same as for a single coil. The problem with all these scenarios is that although the pickup is noiseless...the driver is not as it is a single coil. Fine for a neck driver with the bridge only...but probably not our mid driver...for this we will probably need to get a little more clever. Enter the rail driver concept. This is a mini humbucker with two coils side by side and both Nth and Sth polarities facing the string. This results in far less string pull. Col has shown that two 4ohm coils, only 2mm thick BTW, in a standard humbucking format will work...at least in the neck position...and may, most likely, reduce our EMI "fizz" problem. Now, I offered several suggestions showing how a rail pickup could be modified to make bilateral or full rail driver coils. My problem with them is that, if it is a single coil sound you want, most are not going to fit the bill. However, most do a reasonable imitation of a humbucker in a single coil format. Part of the reason at least is that they are typically overwound. Shawn kindly donated one to me for experimentation. He has taken a completely different approach by running a powerful PA amp throuhg the actual pickup with some success....even in the mid position apparently. So...If it is a pickup/driver combo that is being looked for...the pioneering work here has achieved that, in the neck position. A dedicated, non pickup driver is most likely possible with multi coils and shielding. A bilateral rail driver with very thin driving coils may work. There may well be other ways...only experimentation will tell. In it's present state it is a very worthwhile device. It may be considered adding another couple of pickup options. But for more versitility and easier installation, the mid driver offers no need for bypassing (at least if there is no pickup in the mid position) as well as the potential for sourcing the signal from either the neck or bridge pickups. To fully realize the power of these options, we come back to switching power again. If there is a mid pickup involved you will need the same bypassing as the present system (4pdt switch). To take advantage of the possibility of driving, say the neck pickup position with the bridge driver or vis-a-versa will take a lot more. You could easily take the source directly from one pickup or from the selector so that the signal will switch with the pickup selection. Even with switching power...you would be looking at a complicated switching system... I think it is best to keep looking for simple solutions with practical outcomes.... Before getting too carried away with the more complex radical next steps...make the first step. As I understand it, before col for instance developed his circuit he tried our more conventional solution. As I recall, he also built a single coil driver too...that's how he knows that his twin coil driver produced a better result for what he wanted it to do. CurtixA on the other hand, started with a system almost idential to my approach and although has the skills to follow col with his approach, was pleased enough with the results that he has even gigged with the thing...quite an endorsment. Some of it has to do with the effect you are looking for in the device. Col has far more control and an even response...mine managable, but has a more of a runaway feedback effect. Now...it could be that the mid-driver has a completely different response and running it from different source pickups another layer again. Dizzy made a mid driver which sourced it's signal from the selected pickups which produced different effects. It did not have the harmonic effect as such, but achieved something like it by the selection of pickups...or so it would seem...could be he just never tried this option. This device followed the sustainiac idea with a similar bilateral driver and no mid pickup. The mid-driver may take a bit of work and the outcome is unknown at this point in time anyway. My interest in the mid-driver is that it may offer, in strat type guitars particularly, a means to forgo the mid pickup and fitting the system, perhaps with a rotary control, with assurity and the least amount of modifications and controls and still have some pickup selection versitility (much as I love the mid-neck combination)...not for the pickup selection feature as a top priority. If the device can be built on top of or integrated into a pickup design, all the better, but it would only work when the device is off. There is still a lot that can be done with two pickups afterall. What would be really cool is a single bridge pickup with extreme versitility, perhaps with some kind of active circuitry so that a guitar need not have multiple pickups at all...the variaxe though has moved one step further already of course with thier modeling technology, so perhaps even that is obsolete. If the variax is the future and is convincing at pickup emulation from it's piezo output, then the problem of interferance from any driver and it's position is solved! Anyway...just random thoughts...it will be a while before such guitars become the norm. Sustainer guitars will be an oddity for a long time to come yet, even with this emerging technology. It is a device that's effect is almost impossible to emulate though, so it is not likely itself to become obsolete anytime soon, at least as a concept. In fact, as recording and modeling become more important and people are playing less through loud, high powered amps, there is probably more of a need for such devices...like col says, his reasoning is that it emulates the feel and response of a very loud guitar. Infinite sustain is a bonus feature, in itself it has limited musical value, but the harmonic function, response and touch control are far more important... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onelastgoodbye Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well...I don't think you have to got to that extreme... Enter the rail driver concept. This is a mini humbucker with two coils side by side and both Nth and Sth polarities facing the string. This results in far less string pull. Col has shown that two 4ohm coils, only 2mm thick BTW, in a standard humbucking format will work...at least in the neck position...and may, most likely, reduce our EMI "fizz" problem. pete the dual rail driver does work in the mid position, you know... it's a little hot and on the verge of feedback, but nowhere near as 'screamy' as what I experienced with my single coil drivers. I'm wondering how the magnet configuration is on those lace pickups....might interfere with the 'classic' approach of putting a driver coil on top and using the pickup's magnet. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well...I don't think you have to got to that extreme... Enter the rail driver concept. This is a mini humbucker with two coils side by side and both Nth and Sth polarities facing the string. This results in far less string pull. Col has shown that two 4ohm coils, only 2mm thick BTW, in a standard humbucking format will work...at least in the neck position...and may, most likely, reduce our EMI "fizz" problem. pete the dual rail driver does work in the mid position, you know... it's a little hot and on the verge of feedback, but nowhere near as 'screamy' as what I experienced with my single coil drivers. I'm wondering how the magnet configuration is on those lace pickups....might interfere with the 'classic' approach of putting a driver coil on top and using the pickup's magnet. Tim I was also thinking about how the magnetic field of the lace 'tank' pickup would effect the function of a driver. As far as the dual rail driver, as has been stated many times, it does have a dramatic effect on EMI and feedback, I decided to use it in the neck position which allowed me to totally erradicate fizz, but it could be used in the mid position if you don't mind some fizz, and the circuit and pickup are not too sensitive. I would urge anyone who has tried the fetzer/ruby with a basic single blade driver and wants to go further to build a dual rail driver, try it with the fetzer ruby, and also try a build of my circuit. It is likely that my AGC circuit will not give fizz/feedback free service without a dual rail driver, but the combination works very well, and keeps going throughout the life of the battery. @Zfrittz, how are things going with your build ? any likelyhood of some demos soon? @Truth David, you seem desperate to build the perfect system first time with pickup driver combos, fancy circuitry etc. Why not just build a basic single core driver and fetzer/ruby. You won't really be able to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the system until you've had a chance to play with it and tweak it. You might be pleasently surprised ! @Pete, great to hear that things are finally turning around with respect to housing and Legal issues. I hope you will be able to get back to some practical tinkering really soon . I want to find out how you get on with Spazzies rail pickup and all the recent(ish) developments in drivers and circuitry. I am really busy with non-guitar related stuff right now, but am still thinking about sustainers, and I'm still very interested in the driver configuration proposed by Radiotrib. Col Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm still very interested in the driver configuration proposed by Radiotrib.Are you talking about this? I was away at the time... Hoi Onelast .. Yes - I have seen Q-tuners - sexy pickups, but when I heard their bass models they just sounded way the too "crisp" for me ... Anyway, that isn't really the idea I was putting forward. My suggestion was based something I vaguely remember, that a ferro-magnetic plate with a large area to thickness ratio, in close proximity to a magnet, confines the magnetic field (i.e. shields) by sort of "sucking" the flux in towards it, but one which is actually in contact with the magnet causes the flux to stay within the plate, and exit only(ish) via its edges. If this was actually the case, my idea would work something like this (cross section) ... focusing and containing the field, but producing a strong flux between the edges of the plates, and very little stray field except that transmitted by induction in the guitar string. (which is also an iron core inside a coil ...) This is very much along the ideas of the fernandes system, but they took it further by having a central core and two coils with like polarities facing the centre coil...much like the lace pictured by david in effect. The strategies used are coil and polarity orientation (different from the pickups) and active shielding (in effect)... It is an interesting and attractive idea...however... I does not lend itself to the modification of an existing pickup and you may have problems getting it into a conventional pickup slot (the fernandes SC sized drivers were rectangular vs oval in shape). Although we advocate a thin drive coil, following my model, this type of coil orientation takes no advantage of the savings in depth that a thin coil has because it is now on it's side. As a dedicated driver, you could make something pretty thin and add a lot of shielding to the sides in the manner Zfrittz describes...laminates are more effective, as is powder ... It is intriguing to see that such an idea was developed into a "product" but now seemingly dropped. Similarly, Lace who have some really innovative design patents for pickups (they have some that use fridge magnet material as I recall) seem to have dropped this approach too. If we were also in the business here of radical pickup design, perhaps we could come up with a new type of pickup scheme that could combine the two devices in one...but then we are moving way beyond DIY and technology is already moving in other directions anyway in this regard. The Q-tuner's guy, Erno Zwaan's ecletic book "Animal Magnetism for Musicians" (which I have a copy here) has some interesting ideas in a number of areas. The book is in two parts, the first is about DIY bass pickup ideas and the second half about building fretless basses. Of interest is the use of epoxy casting to make professional looking end-products and the many different types of designs and his assesments of them for these applications. Also, the use of commonly available materials to make the designs. There are 5 different designs demonstrated...single coil blade, single coil screw pole, dual coil side wound, dual coil stacked design and, coil per string (4 coils as is for a bass) design... Anyway... I was thinking...is there an effect of our thin coil being on the very edge of the magnetic cores. With mine, the core is level with the top of the pickup...does it matter if there is an amount of core above the coil, how much is too much? I had no success at all with ideas to mount the coil below the pickup for instance. I am still not sure if the stacked driver is a no go area either...a little experimentation would be required, but it doesn't look too hopeful conceptually... I am not yet convinced that the secondary, lower coil is acting purely as a dummy to the upper coil. I want to find out how you get on with Spazzies rail pickup and all the recent(ish) developments in drivers and circuitry.The rail driver is interesting. This holds a lot of promise and I was not fully aware that Tim had tried it. Using a single coil sized rail pickup as it's base could yield some improvements in the concept. My reservations with it are that the pickup itself may not be sonically the type of thing I'd want in either the neck or mid position, being more of an overwound humbucker. It could solve some of the problems of balance between the pickups that my new guitar suffers, but at the loss of that spanking, stratocaster sound! Still, as a proof of concept, it would be worthwhile and it would be interesting to see how this design would preform if rewound with conventional wire and a lower impedance. As stacked coils appear to be more the norm these days (fender noiseless, kinman, dimarzio, lawrence) I may try something like this with a cheap version...but then we are looking at something similar to the basic single coil driver due to the magnetic structure. @Pete, great to hear that things are finally turning around with respect to housing and Legal issues. I hope you will be able to get back to some practical tinkering really soon Thanks Col...things are changing and that is good, life is moving on and so am I...however, there is still a ways to go and I substantially lost in my bid to have dual custody of my children...so a little sad. Also, the assets will be divided in the near future and I am not holding much hope there either of any windfall. All this of course takes a lot of time and angst...not to mention adjusting to all the changes and responsibilities that all this entails. Still, there are lots of times where I am at a loose end and with nothing else to do, it is good to keep occupied and distracted... Really, I should probably put my mind to more useful things that guitar sustain devices...solar powered air conditioners or something (it is getting hot and the climate is changing dramatically...plus my house is hot and my living standards have dropped substanially). One can only hope that from adversity, disappointment and struggle, something positive will emerge...let's hope! Meanwhile...playing a bit of guitar and enjoying that...getting back to the reason we do this anyway, a love of the act of guitar playing...not just the ideas technology and eye candy... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm still very interested in the driver configuration proposed by Radiotrib.Are you talking about this? I was away at the time... ... It is an interesting and attractive idea...however... I does not lend itself to the modification of an existing pickup and you may have problems getting it into a conventional pickup slot (the fernandes SC sized drivers were rectangular vs oval in shape). Although we advocate a thin drive coil, following my model, this type of coil orientation takes no advantage of the savings in depth that a thin coil has because it is now on it's side. As a dedicated driver, you could make something pretty thin and add a lot of shielding to the sides in the manner Zfrittz describes...laminates are more effective, as is powder ... Yes, thats what I'm talking about - I agree that it's not somthing that can be made 'thin', and it may not work if made narrow either because that will reduce the height that the flux is projected towards the strings (also a factor in a dual rail driver - remember mine has a large gap between rails !). It does however offer another advantage that Tumura picked up on - its much easier to balance the flux for each string because you can adjust plates that are on the outside of the device - could even be fairly straightforward to have one adjustable while installed. If the driver can be carefully balanced in situ then it will be easier to stop one or two strings dominating - so individual chord tones will ring much longer. It is intriguing to see that such an idea was developed into a "product" but now seemingly dropped. Maybe for good reason, maybe not ! Remember, they will only have had finite R&D time and money - its possible they gave up - or some internal politics caused that idea to be shelved and other companies didn't pick it up because of the patents. Maybe using a smaller coil with finer wire similar to your driver would help... I also dont really understand why they have used 3 plates and two opposing magnets - seems overly complicated. When I get the time and have the energy, I may have a go at making a side driver.. the 1magnet/2 plate version should be different enough from the patent Anyway... I was thinking...is there an effect of our thin coil being on the very edge of the magnetic cores. With mine, the core is level with the top of the pickup...does it matter if there is an amount of core above the coil, how much is too much? I had no success at all with ideas to mount the coil below the pickup for instance. I am still not sure if the stacked driver is a no go area either...a little experimentation would be required, but it doesn't look too hopeful conceptually... I am not yet convinced that the secondary, lower coil is acting purely as a dummy to the upper coil. I think that the problem you had trying the driver coil under the pickup coil may have been caused by the pickup coil rather than the distance between driver coil and strings - Tim has experimented with moving the driver coil up and down the core, heres what he said (in the same post - #2261 - he also discusses using a dual rail in the mid position) "There's probably a considerable loss of efficiency for just that reason, but I'm not gonna glue the cores down yet, as having (re)movable cores allows me to experiment with a few things: By sliding the (laminated iron) cores up and down the coils, I've found that the distance of the cores to the strings has far greater effect on it's efficiency than the distance of the coils to the strings. If the cores are further away from the strings, there's a definite loss in power. If the cores stay in the same position, but the coils are moved back, there's little to no difference. Some furter testing is needed to verify how the proximity of the magnet to the strings comes into play." Meanwhile...playing a bit of guitar and enjoying that...getting back to the reason we do this anyway, a love of the act of guitar playing...not just the ideas technology and eye candy... pete yeah, I mostly play acoustic around the house when I have a little spare time - fingerpickin' country blues - blind blake, Mississipi John Hurt, Gary Davis etc. here is my effects chain: Bare fingers -> steel -> wood -> air -> ears... nothing to hide behind - a far cry from high tech sustainer wailing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onelastgoodbye Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 There's probably a considerable loss of efficiency for just that reason, but I'm not gonna glue the cores down yet, as having (re)movable cores allows me to experiment with a few things: By sliding the (laminated iron) cores up and down the coils, I've found that the distance of the cores to the strings has far greater effect on it's efficiency than the distance of the coils to the strings. If the cores are further away from the strings, there's a definite loss in power. If the cores stay in the same position, but the coils are moved back, there's little to no difference. Some furter testing is needed to verify how the proximity of the magnet to the strings comes into play." Thanks for finding that post for me, Col. I didn't realize I haven't posted pics of my rail driver. Expect some tonight as I'm at work right now. Bassicaly it's the dual coil version of my realy thin driver. works really well with the little gem, it would make a killing with an acg circuit. I have been trying to find a tda7824, but no luck...looks like I,ll go for the Col-pressor after all; but it might take a few weeks. I have done some experimenting to see how the proximity of the magnet comes into play; the thing is the magnet (and it's field) is so big in relation to the size of the coil, there's no real discernable performance difference between putting it, say 1mm or 10mm from the strings. It's a ceramic bar magnet from a single coil. If anything, the magnet is way too big, and I suppose there's some efficiency to be gained (and emi reduction) by using less powerful, tiny internal magnets (though I'm not sure if rare earth magnets that close to the string are a good idea, strenght-wise). You probably only need a small saturated field, anything more is overkill. That explains why it doesn't help much if I stick more magnets underneath the driver, as the field is already saturated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiotrib Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Going back to my twin-plate, single core idea, I have to admit, wasn't really aiming at pairing it with a pickup. My eventual goal would be to mount it as the "last 2 frets" on a fretless bass fingerboard. Slightly protruding (1 mm or so) above the surface of the board. If it was sufficiently robust, it would double up as both a sustainer, and a place to pop'n'slap (something almost no fretless basses do well). I imagine wide, fairly deep "frets" with marrower parts passing through the main part of the fingerboard, and the coil/magnets buried in the body below. I'll try to get a concept drawing up when I get time at the weekend P.S. I just with couldn't help posting this - I hope you don't mind ... Here's what a sustained fretless bass can sound like - Michael Manring - a bass master, and a master of the e-bow - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Remember, our thin drivers are only 3mm deep. On my single coil it had a 3mm screw pole mounting plate that I was able to remove. That, and cutting the top out of the cover and having a very thin bobbin top allowed for no increase in the depth of the pickup itself. The cover cut out could save as much as 1.5mm. Thanks Pete. Although Zfrittz6 is making some for me that are only 2mm high, the problem is that some of these types of pickup seem to be potted and sealed in their cover. There is nowhere here where I can check any of these pickups out before buying, this is Spain lol. But I cannot afford to make expensive mistakes. I would have liked to get my hands on one of the Carvin pickups, which despite not claiming to be noiseless, are offered both in humbucker and single coil format in single coil size: http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/tr...las_html_7f.jpg http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/tr...las_html_m6.jpg I was also interested in some of the Seymour Duncans of this type: http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/tr...las_html_29.jpg or this: http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/tr...llas_html-1.jpg But again, I don't think that I would be able to get away with cutting out part of the top of the cover. I am also interested in the Fender noiseless pickups, especially the model designed for Jeff Beck. I have found somewhere reasonably cheap for this particular model, the only problem being that they are 'hot' pickups, and I am not sure I am going to like the sound. This type of pickup would work in a similar way with our single coil driver as the magnetic polarity is the same as for a single coil. The problem with all these scenarios is that although the pickup is noiseless...the driver is not as it is a single coil. Fine for a neck driver with the bridge only...but probably not our mid driver...for this we will probably need to get a little more clever. Enter the rail driver concept. This is a mini humbucker with two coils side by side and both Nth and Sth polarities facing the string. This results in far less string pull. Col has shown that two 4ohm coils, only 2mm thick BTW, in a standard humbucking format will work...at least in the neck position...and may, most likely, reduce our EMI "fizz" problem. That would probably be the way to go with the Carvin dual coil.... Now, I offered several suggestions showing how a rail pickup could be modified to make bilateral or full rail driver coils. My problem with them is that, if it is a single coil sound you want, most are not going to fit the bill. However, most do a reasonable imitation of a humbucker in a single coil format. Part of the reason at least is that they are typically overwound. I actually don't mind too much as far as the neck pickup goes, because I am after a warm jazzy sound that is not so easy to obtain with a single coil. Shawn kindly donated one to me for experimentation. He has taken a completely different approach by running a powerful PA amp throuhg the actual pickup with some success....even in the mid position apparently. PA amp? I'm sure you can't mean what I know as a PA amp, so what does it mean in this context? In it's present state it is a very worthwhile device. It may be considered adding another couple of pickup options. But for more versitility and easier installation, the mid driver offers no need for bypassing (at least if there is no pickup in the mid position) as well as the potential for sourcing the signal from either the neck or bridge pickups. I like the middle strat pickup.....I don't want to sacrifice it, there is no other way to obtain that 2/3 and 4/5 switch position sound that I know of. Coil tapping is not the same. To fully realize the power of these options, we come back to switching power again. If there is a mid pickup involved you will need the same bypassing as the present system (4pdt switch). To take advantage of the possibility of driving, say the neck pickup position with the bridge driver or vis-a-versa will take a lot more. You could easily take the source directly from one pickup or from the selector so that the signal will switch with the pickup selection. Could you please talk about the switching in more depth, as well as perhaps providing a basic diagram or photo of a ready wired circuit showing the switch in particular? Even with switching power...you would be looking at a complicated switching system... Such as? I think it is best to keep looking for simple solutions with practical outcomes.... Before getting too carried away with the more complex radical next steps...make the first step. As I understand it, before col for instance developed his circuit he tried our more conventional solution. As I recall, he also built a single coil driver too...that's how he knows that his twin coil driver produced a better result for what he wanted it to do. CurtixA on the other hand, started with a system almost idential to my approach and although has the skills to follow col with his approach, was pleased enough with the results that he has even gigged with the thing...quite an endorsment. Well, until I know what pickups to buy, I cannot even begin....I see no point in going to the trouble of mounting the driver on my present neck pickup if I know I am not going to use it... Some of it has to do with the effect you are looking for in the device. Col has far more control and an even response...mine managable, but has a more of a runaway feedback effect. Now...it could be that the mid-driver has a completely different response and running it from different source pickups another layer again. Zrfittz is making the circuit for me with the AGC control with both harmonic modes, so I will have that circuit with the 2mm thin driver(s) which should produce a more uniform controllable feedback... What would be really cool is a single bridge pickup with extreme versitility, perhaps with some kind of active circuitry so that a guitar need not have multiple pickups at all...the variaxe though has moved one step further already of course with thier modeling technology, so perhaps even that is obsolete. If the variax is the future and is convincing at pickup emulation from it's piezo output, then the problem of interferance from any driver and it's position is solved! Some time back I remember seeing a spate of designs incorporating DIP switches on top of the pickup itself....could be an interesting way of reconfiguring a pickup for different sounds. In his day, John Birch was designing modular interchangable pickups, much along the same lines as the Seymour Duncan Convertible amp, which did the same, only with different pre-amp tubes. I think that such ideas have a lot of merit, provided that you did not need to change pickups from song to song . But in case you never saw the guitars in question, they were designed with a rear rout access to the pickups, and you could literally pull them out and replace them with another, just by plugging them in. From what I have read, the Variax circuitry still suffers from what spoilt the VG-8 (Roland) - that is to say that it produces very faint sound anomalies that most people do not hear - but they drive me nuts - a little like a digital distortion at the point at which the note starts to trail off, like when a noise gate starts to eat away at the decaying note....hard to describe but distinctly unmusical. But once that is eventually ironed out, the modeling itself should easily be good enough to fool even the best ears. Amp and effects modeling is already very close to being able to do that. Anyway...just random thoughts...it will be a while before such guitars become the norm. Sustainer guitars will be an oddity for a long time to come yet, even with this emerging technology. Yes, mostly because they are priced beyond the average musician's income. The work being done on this forum will in practical terms only be likely to impact a tiny segment of the proportion of musicians out there, and those without access to this resource will remain as always at the mercy of the companies marketing commercial sustainers. This has a lot to do with how they perceive their market. At present the market is seen to be primarily composed of the elite professional musician who is financially in a position to be not have to worry over such expenditure. This is the same market to which the custom guitar makes cater, which is why their prices are so outrageous. And even when the big companies like Roland, Yamaha Korg etc., undertake such development, they still do so with the same mindset, because they do not realize the appeal that these technologies hold for nearly every guitarist out there. That is where the guys at Line 6 score - they know that the market exists for these technologies, and therefore price their products accordingly. All right, I still think that the majority of their products are overpriced, especially the high end Variaxes, but they will presumably base their future pricing on the sales achieved, which will show them which part of the market to aim for, especially when rival companies eventually decide to bite the bullet and come up with competitive products, probably for less money. It is a device that's effect is almost impossible to emulate though, so it is not likely itself to become obsolete anytime soon, at least as a concept. I see no reason why the effect could not be digitally modeled eventually, as part of the same technology that models pickups, mikes, amps and speakers. If you look at some of the results of non-guitar based modeling technology, such as Yamaha's VL-1, you will realize that even back in the '80s the technology was already capable of extremely complex and powerful physical modeling, not only of existing instruments, but those which would be physical impossibilities. The VL-1 was designed to be used with their version of a wind controller, and as a result was extraordinarily expressive. So when the VG-8 came out, it was touted as being the guitar version of that technology, but it came nowehere near its potential, and lacked the high quality AD converters of he VL-1, so actually sounded terrible. In fact, as recording and modeling become more important and people are playing less through loud, high powered amps, there is probably more of a need for such devices...like col says, his reasoning is that it emulates the feel and response of a very loud guitar. Infinite sustain is a bonus feature, in itself it has limited musical value, but the harmonic function, response and touch control are far more important... The point is that all this is much easier to produce in the virtual domain, using a computer for processing. The problem is that they have to find a way to put that processing power into a small package, which to a point has been done with stuff like the Pod XT, but then there is no way of obtaining the onscreen graphic in depth tweaking within the device itself, so I believe that inevitable such devices will be developed either with a connection to a TFT screen or large touch screen, or with a specialized computer interface with some sort of wireless component to avoid dangling wires everywhere......at last!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keyboard players and programmers have long been supplementing their equipment with computer processing power, we guitarists have always been technologically far behind them. Just look at the onboard electronics that most of us have to put up with! A couple of volume controls, tone controls, pickup selector, maybe coil taps and possibly an active circuit, maybe piezzos and MIDI (although apart from the now defunct Synthaxe there is still no interface that really works well with MIDI).....and now thanks to you guys, sustainer circuitry - but still nowhere near the arsenal that keyboard players have at their disposal. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 I have done some experimenting to see how the proximity of the magnet comes into play; the thing is the magnet (and it's field) is so big in relation to the size of the coil, there's no real discernable performance difference between putting it, say 1mm or 10mm from the strings. Thanks, this is something I really did not realize - that is why I was so preoccupied by the overall distance of the pickup and driver coil from the strings. However, the fact remains that the pickup does need to be physically close enough to the strings. It's a ceramic bar magnet from a single coil. If anything, the magnet is way too big, and I suppose there's some efficiency to be gained (and emi reduction) by using less powerful, tiny internal magnets (though I'm not sure if rare earth magnets that close to the string are a good idea, strenght-wise). Also important in order to reduce 'Stratitis'...... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth_David Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Well...I don't think you have to got to that extreme... Enter the rail driver concept. This is a mini humbucker with two coils side by side and both Nth and Sth polarities facing the string. This results in far less string pull. Col has shown that two 4ohm coils, only 2mm thick BTW, in a standard humbucking format will work...at least in the neck position...and may, most likely, reduce our EMI "fizz" problem. I was also thinking about how the magnetic field of the lace 'tank' pickup would effect the function of a driver. As far as the dual rail driver, as has been stated many times, it does have a dramatic effect on EMI and feedback, I decided to use it in the neck position which allowed me to totally erradicate fizz, but it could be used in the mid position if you don't mind some fizz, and the circuit and pickup are not too sensitive. Hi Col. The fizz you describe, would it be akin to the sound anomalies I mentioned with reference to the VG-8 and Variax - a sort of digital noise as the note decays, or are you talking about fuzzy distortion? I heard a lot of anomalies on the sound samples I downloaded, and many of those my ears tell me are due to poor action resulting in string buzz on the high frets, as well as quite probably stratitis, with the pickup or driver magnets pulling the strings toward them, also contributing to string buzzes. If you try an e-bow on an acoustic guitar, it becomes easier to define the various factors that contribute towards this buzzing - nearly always it is a result of coming too close to the strings or actually clipping the string while playing with the side of the e-bow. Even on the acoustic this is interpreted by the ear as distortion. I would urge anyone who has tried the fetzer/ruby with a basic single blade driver and wants to go further to build a dual rail driver, try it with the fetzer ruby, and also try a build of my circuit. It is likely that my AGC circuit will not give fizz/feedback free service without a dual rail driver, but the combination works very well, and keeps going throughout the life of the battery. Unless I am mistaken, Zfrittz6 is using the AGC circuit with a single multi-layer shielded coil driver with good results - I have not actually heard any sound samples, but that is what he has told me. @Truth David, you seem desperate to build the perfect system first time with pickup driver combos, fancy circuitry etc. Why not just build a basic single core driver and fetzer/ruby. You won't really be able to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the system until you've had a chance to play with it and tweak it. You might be pleasently surprised ! Not really desperate, but so much hinges on pickup choice, that I am hampered with the rest of the project, which involves rebuilding the whole guitar around a Warmoth hollow or chambered body. The problem is that my guitar already has the RMC piezzo midi circuitry built in (if that is what you were referring to), so I really have no choice other than to try and connect both circuits together. If I had a cheap second guitar I could probably experiment with a basic version as you suggest, but I don't. The only other guitar I have is going to have to replace my main guitar while I do the customisation. Then it will have to be sold in order to finance the project guitar. And Zfrittz has already built me the thin drivers and AGC circuit, so it will just be a matter (not necessarily simple, lol) of finding out how to put everything together and get it working, but I cannot afford to have the guitar out of commisssion for a long time - it's a vicious circle. He is about to send me the driver coils and circuit, so I really need to order the pickups soon....I am now thinking of going for the Fender custom noiseless Jeff Beck hot pickups, as they seem to be the best I can get on my budget. David PS on another tack, probably off topic I am afraid.....this might sound like a stupid question, but would it be practical and possible to redesign a circuit designed on a single large circuit board, and split it into two smaller ones? The reason for the question is that I have a circuit board that I intended transferring into a 19" rack format. It is a stereo guitar amplifier which originally came in two parts - a master and slave, and in my infinite wisdom (stupidity) I decided to try and rebuild both into a single 3U 19"rack fomat. But now I realize that the circuit board of the master amp is more like 18" long and so will not fit in the case, which is only about 17". The rest of the components are relatively small, and I am pretty sure everything else will fit. There is no possibility of cutting the sides of the board either, as the printed circuit is etched right to the edge all round. Any advice anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) ... I like the middle strat pickup.....I don't want to sacrifice it, there is no other way to obtain that 2/3 and 4/5 switch position sound that I know of. Coil tapping is not the same. You have to be realistic - this is not a complete of the shelf product, its a DIY project. The exisiting fully complete commercial units cannot do what you are asking. If you don't want a sustainer enough to be willing to either have a second guitar with a sustainer in it, or lose some of the pickup options on your guitar, then you should probably wait a few months or years until things have moved on (or until you change your mind).... OR, start building drivers and circuits so you can either prove to yourself that you are asking too much, or discover a 'better moustrap', and take the technology as step further. Well, until I know what pickups to buy, I cannot even begin....I see no point in going to the trouble of mounting the driver on my present neck pickup if I know I am not going to use it... Why not temporarily remove you neck pickup completely, replace it with a stand-alone driver and try a basic neck driver / bridge pickup setup. It doesn't make sense to jump in at the deep end - there are so many variables that you are unlikely to hit on the right combination for YOU at the first attempt. At least if you set up a simple basic system to try out, you will have some means of making reasonable value judgements about your more complex ideas. Zrfittz is making the circuit for me with the AGC control with both harmonic modes, so I will have that circuit with the 2mm thin driver(s) which should produce a more uniform controllable feedback... Have you heard/seen Zrfittzs setup ? please tell us how it sounds and what the response is like, If its good, I would like to build it myself, but I'm not going to try that until I have some evidence . Yes, mostly because they are priced beyond the average musician's income. The work being done on this forum will in practical terms only be likely to impact a tiny segment of the proportion of musicians out there, and those without access to this resource will remain as always at the mercy of the companies marketing commercial sustainers. This has a lot to do with how they perceive their market. At present the market is seen to be primarily composed of the elite professional musician who is financially in a position to be not have to worry over such expenditure. This is the same market to which the custom guitar makes cater, which is why their prices are so outrageous. And even when the big companies like Roland, Yamaha Korg etc., undertake such development, they still do so with the same mindset, because they do not realize the appeal that these technologies hold for nearly every guitarist out there. That is where the guys at Line 6 score - they know that the market exists for these technologies, and therefore price their products accordingly. All right, I still think that the majority of their products are overpriced, especially the high end Variaxes, but they will presumably base their future pricing on the sales achieved, which will show them which part of the market to aim for, especially when rival companies eventually decide to bite the bullet and come up with competitive products, probably for less money. Sustainers are expensive because they are a niche product. The vast majority of players are not and never will be interested - at least enough to put up the extra dosh either for an after market install or for a built in version. So for a company to pay for wages, R & D, marketing etc. and then make a profit, the price has to be high. Most folks start playing because of their heroes... how many heroes used a sustainer ? WE know that in reality, its esier to get a Hendrix feedback wail at reasonable volume with a sustainer, but no marketing department is going to say "buy our guitar and amp - its just like what Hendrix used... oh but to get an authentic sound, you'll need a sustainer..." it just doesn't work - remember, its dreams not reality that they are selling I see no reason why the effect could not be digitally modeled eventually, as part of the same technology that models pickups, mikes, amps and speakers. If you look at some of the results of non-guitar based modeling technology, such as Yamaha's VL-1, you will realize that even back in the '80s the technology was already capable of extremely complex and powerful physical modeling, not only of existing instruments, but those which would be physical impossibilities. The VL-1 was designed to be used with their version of a wind controller, and as a result was extraordinarily expressive. So when the VG-8 came out, it was touted as being the guitar version of that technology, but it came nowehere near its potential, and lacked the high quality AD converters of he VL-1, so actually sounded terrible. You are confusing processing with generation - line6 products take an existing signal generated by the guitar/pickup and process it - they use very clever Digital waveguides and filters combined with a precisely designed custom pickup to turn the raw sound into a reasonable emulation of an 'authentic' guitar/effects/amp combo... Yamahas early physical modelling synths create the sound from scratch - then put it through similar digital waveguides and filters (developed at stanford btw, its fascinating stuff, and 'fairly' easy to understand roughly how it works. Although it very quickly gets VERY difficult due t the math involved) ... So the problem is that for line6 type moddeling to work, the string has to be vibrating - when the string stops, the sound stops... so you cannot use that tech to 'model' a sustainer. The sustainer works at a more fundamental level than digital modelling - alhtough they could complement each other very well. The point is that all this is much easier to produce in the virtual domain, using a computer for processing. The problem is that they have to find a way to put that processing power into a small package, which to a point has been done with stuff like the Pod XT, but then there is no way of obtaining the onscreen graphic in depth tweaking within the device itself, so I believe that inevitable such devices will be developed either with a connection to a TFT screen or large touch screen, or with a specialized computer interface with some sort of wireless component to avoid dangling wires everywhere......at last!!!!!!!!!!!!! As far as a sustainer, it's impossible - see above. For modelling pickups, mics, amps etc. It's not easier, its MUCH more difficult, however, once you've got it working its much cheaper to mass produce. Btw, if you want a modelling interface that uses a PC/laptop then it's been around for a while - Native Instruments 'Guitar Rig' Keyboard players and programmers have long been supplementing their equipment with computer processing power, we guitarists have always been technologically far behind them. Just look at the onboard electronics that most of us have to put up with! A couple of volume controls, tone controls, pickup selector, maybe coil taps and possibly an active circuit, maybe piezzos and MIDI (although apart from the now defunct Synthaxe there is still no interface that really works well with MIDI).....and now thanks to you guys, sustainer circuitry - but still nowhere near the arsenal that keyboard players have at their disposal. Keyboard players took to digital because of the practical problems of analogue synths - temperature sensitivity, expense, stability etc. Also the fact that a keyboard is basically just a row of switches which translates well int simple instructions for a computer, so there is no need to modify playing styles and techniques... oh and of course the sounds - Analogue sounds are great, but compared to digital, the range of sounds available/possible is pretty limited. Guitar is a different beast altogether - it's a very organic thing.. and the sound is the sound of a real instrument made from natural materials (usually). Combine that with the romance factor and the iconic image.. its always going to be difficult to convince people that anything new could be anywhere nearly as good. There have been many attempts to control synths with guitars... not all expensive - remember the G-Vox ? a bolt on synth controller for very low price that had a great trick where it could adjust for the usual tracking lag so your midi recordings were magically auto matically fixed ? it didn't last long at all - it worked well, was marketed widely, was cheap and had good reviews... what more could you ask for? the reality is that there is no mass market for such things, they are niche. From a different perspective, guitarists are not behind at all from a technological perspective, it's just different technology thats being researched and developed. It is becoming more and more widely accepted that digital sucks for guitar, and there has been much analysis to explain why... the real push is in guitar tech has been in analogue, valve amps and analogue effects - and its not been the big commercial companies. There are many websites devoted to building modifying and more importantly analysing and understanding traditional guitar effects and amps... geofex is a good place to start. Go take a look at www.runoffgroove.com. They design analogue amp simulators that are easy and cheap to make, and can knock a POD into a cocked hat as far as sound quality is concerned... but you can't beat a small (ideally 1 or 2 watt) classA valve amp cranked through a high quality speaker... go looky here I guess its that compromise thing again - which do you choose? two or three great sounds? or a vast selection of so-so ones? Col Edited February 2, 2007 by col Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Hi Col. The fizz you describe, would it be akin to the sound anomalies I mentioned with reference to the VG-8 and Variax - a sort of digital noise as the note decays, or are you talking about fuzzy distortion? I heard a lot of anomalies on the sound samples I downloaded, and many of those my ears tell me are due to poor action resulting in string buzz on the high frets, as well as quite probably stratitis, with the pickup or driver magnets pulling the strings toward them, also contributing to string buzzes. If you try an e-bow on an acoustic guitar, it becomes easier to define the various factors that contribute towards this buzzing - nearly always it is a result of coming too close to the strings or actually clipping the string while playing with the side of the e-bow. Even on the acoustic this is interpreted by the ear as distortion. Its not the same as the VG8 style anomalies, the fizz I'm talking about is a type of clipping distortion, not unlike a fuzzbox effect. It is caused (we think) by the guitar pickup 'sensing' the driver signal.. so if the driver signal is at all distorted, this distortion will be heard in the background as fizz. It gets worse the closer the driver is to the pickup. If you are talking about the sound samples I uploaded, then yes, there are lots of crackles and clicks... As I explained more recently, that was caused by an earthing problem in my home made speaker simulator.. which is now fixed. (have a look at the waveform in an editor, it is badly clipped on one side - very asymetrical - it was noticing that that helped me solve the problem). My sustainer can function with a clean guitar tone without adding any fizz, fuzz crackle, pop or any other distortion !. The only time I get any annoying artifacts is with a brand new battery - the circuit was tuned for 9v, and many Alkaline cells start as high as 9.5v so I get a little fizz on low notes, and a little string/frett rattle on the D and G strings. I could go and tweak the trimpots to deal with this, but then it wouldn't work as well with an old battery... more compromises . My guitar has a medium action - I don't like a low a action - no good unles you are a 'shredder'. A medium or higher action with heavier strings gives much better tone and gives you more control of finger pressure to really make bends and vibrato sing. Unless I am mistaken, Zfrittz6 is using the AGC circuit with a single multi-layer shielded coil driver with good results - I have not actually heard any sound samples, but that is what he has told me. Yes, thats what I thought, he started with my circuit, but had a few problems - probably because of the single coil driver - and mostly because of the language barrier, he gave up and went down a different route. The main reaosn I want to hear his system is because one of his criticisms of my setup is that it doesn't respond fast enough - i.e. sustain/harmonics don't kick in quickly enough. Now that is due to the way AGC works with the sustainer system, so any working AGC circuit will have a similar delay before sustain and harmonics bloom. If there is no delay with his system then the AGC is not doing much and the battery will drain quickly... or there has been another babelesque misunderstanding. Not really desperate, but so much hinges on pickup choice, that I am hampered with the rest of the project, which involves rebuilding the whole guitar around a Warmoth hollow or chambered body. The problem is that my guitar already has the RMC piezzo midi circuitry built in (if that is what you were referring to), so I really have no choice other than to try and connect both circuits together. If I had a cheap second guitar I could probably experiment with a basic version as you suggest, but I don't. The only other guitar I have is going to have to replace my main guitar while I do the customisation. Then it will have to be sold in order to finance the project guitar. And Zfrittz has already built me the thin drivers and AGC circuit, so it will just be a matter (not necessarily simple, lol) of finding out how to put everything together and get it working, but I cannot afford to have the guitar out of commisssion for a long time - it's a vicious circle. He is about to send me the driver coils and circuit, so I really need to order the pickups soon....I am now thinking of going for the Fender custom noiseless Jeff Beck hot pickups, as they seem to be the best I can get on my budget. Ah, I didn't realise that you had even bigger plans for this project... I am a little worried for you now :-| Not only do you want a sustainer to beat all sustainers, but you want to put it in a guitar alongside a guitar to midi interface ? That seems like a huge number of things to debug if/when it doesn't work quite as expected. How are you planning to power the two circuits? are you going to have enough space? (with your pickup/sustainer switching requirements, you will need loads of extra room for wiring, switches and/or switching circuitry) What will you do if it doesn't work out? Which is more important to you, the midi interface or the sustainer ? whichever it is, I would get that all setup and working then see if the other will work along side - if it deosn't, it may need some real electronics expertise to debug it. Can't you go and buy a cheapo crappy used strat copy from a junk shop to do frankenstrat experiments on to get all your fancy techy ideas worked out on before you start routing good wood and shelling out good money on pickups etc. Then at least if it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world ? personally I would definately go for one sustainer guitar and one seperate midi controller guitar - the midi controller could be any cheapo piece of crap with a playable neck - just spend some time setting it up... doesn't need a great natural tone if its just for switching midi signals. OR learn to play keyboards (this is probably the main reason why guitar to midi is still niche - people prefer to learn to play keyboards) anyway good luck - and pleeease consider simplifying your ideas and lowering your sights just a little ? Col Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Everything Col has said... You have some overwhelming problems here... # ambition # inexperience with electronics and guitar building # undeveloped and untried Technology # lack of local supply and support # very tight budget # unrealistic expectations... # etc, etc... Zrfittz is making the circuit for me with the AGC control with both harmonic modes, so I will have that circuit with the 2mm thin driver(s) which should produce a more uniform controllable feedback... Have you heard/seen Zrfittzs setup ? please tell us how it sounds and what the response is like, If its good, I would like to build it myself, but I'm not going to try that until I have some evidence wink.gif. Now long term followers of this thread will remember a notorious incident with a certain spanish speaking "contributor" who also ran an aggressive campaign for a while on this thread. He claimed on another thread to have a bridge mounted sustainer running from 3v...and that my work was a fake, and that he knew how it worked anyway and that the hex drivers weren't such a secret....blah, blah, rant rant... Anyway...later he put up a GOTM with a sustainer not very different from what I have been proposing here. Typically with such things...no details were given about how he had achieved this and he disappeared (though changed his name many times and I believe is still here, somewhere...) I am not suggesting that Zrfittz is this person or has not achieved the results proposed, but we do not know what has been achieved... This is the first we have heard about this transaction, and you will be in the position of judging what has been achieved. As far as I can see from the last diagram I saw, it was a dual coil device with substantial shielding (1cm of laminated steel)...this could well work as a dedicated driver... Each of us have different ambitions for the device. For a long time I was way over ambitious, both of my abilities and what I was trying to achieve. Now...pickup selection is one thing. Col is content with a single pickup, and this is a very valid approach and most achievable. Huge tone variation can be achieved with a single pickup through technique...look at EVH for one...especially with the processing power now available with stompboxes and modeling boxes. I want to have pickup selection because I like to play a diverse range of sounds and I don't want a lot of guitars to get them. But, I also want an identifiable sound as an artist. The problem with a lot of the compressed, noisegated, preset boxes around is that there is too much choice and to much of a uniform sound. Few spend the time to program unique sounds into their digital processors, sticking to the tricked out presets... The artists I admire have an incredible identifiable "tone" and the guitarists who become known tend to do something unique way with only a few different sounds, sometimes only one. Mark Knophlers early dire straits sound, EVH's brown sound, Pat Metheny's "chorused" sound, Holdsworth's distorted lead and crystiline rhythm sound, BB king, Albert King, SRV, even guys like Hank Marvin... A lot of generes have a particular sound; classic rock, metal, country, classical... The best guitarists have found a way to marry their tools and tones to their technique and phrasing and use it with incredible versitility. They have not done it with chameleon type tone producing machines like the variax or synth or midi machines...in many ways they couldn't... So...that is where I am aiming at, a versitile sound that allows me to use the techniques and stuff to play the kinds of stuff that I like to play. Ideally, I want to be recognisable... (for me that means a clean sound with a little echo...occasionally a little light distortion) I used to love bands like the police...but even there where synth guitars were used, a telecaster and basic effects to spice it up, made by far the bulk of the sound and the most recogniable part os Andy Summer's sound. Anyway...think about it...trying this out on cheap guitars can provide a valuable proving ground for this device. My strat was rediculously cheap and allowed me to do all kinds of experiments with it...hollowing it out, sustainer stuff, switching, piezos... I was even able to make stuff that I found to be useful and simple (I have three phase switches on it, but pickup selection is via a simple gibson style 3 way selector, for instance)... The main point about the sustainer is that it is an organic part of the guitar and how it plays...such devices can not be modeled. Whether it is to keep the string physically vibrating infinitesly, play harmonics, or simulate the feel of a loud feedbacking guitar...these things can not be processed or modeled. Anyway...perhaps when you get a hold of the Zrfittz setup, well get to understand a little more about it... pete ps...I have never offered to do similar things with this project to date because I could not guarantee the results for any particular guitar...plus, I still have that pop and I don't think that I really have a "product" as such. Instead I provide as much support as I can and facilitate this discussion to attract people to do further research (through making their own) and people with different approaches and skills than me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donut Man Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Hey guys, I'm just diving in again with a quick, unrelated question. Ive got a 7 string guitar with an EMG 707 at the bridge. I was wondering, Do I still need a ruby/gem preamp thing to drive a driver? Or can I just split the signal from the EMG and have 1 going to the output jacks/pots and one to a driver at the neck? /noob question cheers Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donut Man Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) oh dear...looks like I double posted too. Edited February 2, 2007 by Donut Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Hey guys, ... Ive got a 7 string guitar with an EMG 707 at the bridge. I was wondering, Do I still need a ruby/gem preamp thing to drive a driver? Or can I just split the signal from the EMG and have 1 going to the output jacks/pots and one to a driver at the neck? The ruby/gem thing that has been used around here is the 'fetzer/ruby'. Probably not optimal, but the key feature is that it has a preamp AND a power amp section. It's possible that using existing pre-amp circuitry you might be able to drop the fetzer pre-amp stage (assuming enough electronics know-how), but you are still going to need the LM386 based power-amp section, thats where the power comes from to driver the strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Probably not optimal, but the key feature is that it has a preamp AND a power amp section. Ahhh...but it is simple and we know it works. Tim uses EMG's and I would include the fetzer part of the circuit...it's only a few extra components. You wont be able to build a driver on top of an EMG in the neck though. If this is the only pickup and you want to put a driver in the neck slot, it should work out fine. It would be a first to have a seven string sustainer on here and I know some would be interested. There should not be a problem driving seven strings as the low B has a lot of mass in it. Be aware though, that light strings (lower than .10) will be a problem driveing the high strings... PA amp? I'm sure you can't mean what I know as a PA amp, so what does it mean in this context? Yes...a PA amp!!!! Shawn/spazzy's approach is radically different from ours and requires a significant amount of power...appears to work in it's own fashion...but perhaps it is a magic amp ! I like the middle strat pickup.....I don't want to sacrifice it, there is no other way to obtain that 2/3 and 4/5 switch position sound that I know of. Coil tapping is not the same. Me too...but do I want that sound with feedback? Maybe, possibly not! The fact is you can't have everything, the mid driver offers at least some selection and other options. You would need many switches to get all the combinations of drivers and pickups with this system. My aim is for something that can be easily fitted, becomes a natural extention of the guitar, requires few controls and...well...works... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts