Jump to content


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by psw

  1. Feel free to contact me by email if you need explanation, cheers, pete
  2. The DIY thing is tricky. Certainly the basic DIY thing is not going to work with both pickups and surprised that fernandes would suggest 2cm, that sounds way over optimistic and extreme skepticalism is advised on that. It could be,k technically (here are patents) possible and have even 'heard' one in a clip that was the middle driver...but be careful what you wish for. Reality is that the sound of the sustainer when on is not the bridge pup with sustain but it's own sound as it is driving the string at the neck position. The interferances are no small thing, the only thing that really protects the interaction of magnets is the distance. I've played enough with mine to get a feel for what would be achieved and it is nothing like as great as people imagine and if it were easily possible, people would be selling them already, no? That said, the DIY model can be made pretty compact...but you need to be good at this kind of thing and wiring tends to be uber tricky.... My tele here has it's driver surface mounted and is thinner than the already thin tele SCn neck pickup it sits next to. The switching is such that regardless of the selector, when activated the bridge pup is selected and the power turned on and all coils both hot and ground are disconnected as the sustainer driver will generate signals in any nearby coil especially, even the ground plane if not careful. If you can afford a commercial unit, I'd be doing that, same with making pickups, it seems 'simple' but it's not worth it for the hit and miss results and cost a lot more to tool up to do it well. There is an art to these things and the makers know what they are doing, there is an art to such things. I'd also caution throwing everything into some 'uber guitar' project, they rarely if ever live up to the dreams and can easily become a nightmare. I just happened across this so shy away from such threads, but if you'd like some more explanation or thoughts or want to float a few ideas I can be contacted by the email or PM on this forum. I don't make these things for others, but can give some explanations as to my ideas. The sustainer project from my side developed further still, being more compact (infact invisible) and low impact on the instrument, but that like many things are not DIY projects and has for the time being been abandoned as it's simply not a cost effective commercial proposition at this point in time. There are a lot more intersting things than sustainers too, but just making a really good guitar is enough, remember a lot more can be achieved in spending the hours on developing the playing side of things than anything that these technologies can offer and always there is going to have to be compromise. Anyway, the offer is there...pete
  3. Take a washer that fits the pit, wire a ground wire to this and hwen you screw the pot into the guitar, this will ground it. Filing/sanding a bit of such parts will often make it easy to solder too, most parts will ahve some plating/grease/oxidisation that resists soldering, so doing this will make it nice and bright. If you dont have a 'washer' strip a wire right back (solid wire works best) to make a 'ring' that will fit and solder it to bnecome the ground wire.
  4. Lovecraft is sadly missed...thanks a lot for bringing back these images. I recently had to go active and the guitar now has 4-5 pre-amps in it!!! I'm sure that this will not be such a complex build. As said, got to match the impedances and a buffer on the passive to make it active too, perhaps the pot/s will also need to be adjusted (I used 100K's on the volume for instance..or what the EMG wants). GN2 is a good forum for such things as well, here is a thread on some of some other buffer options and projects... http://guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3150
  5. Many would be surprised at how 'acoustic' one can get magnetic pickups with low impedance and such, often very similar to the piezo effect. Bear in mind that piezos amped enough to be sensitive to say, the 'body wood' of a solid body guitar, is quite likely to pick up all kinds of 'handling noise'. You might want this kind of thing if you do some kind of 'percussive' guitar thing, or not. The guitar above was built to limit that in teh bridge design to pickup mostly the strings and not the body to limit that effect. It is hard to find clips that do sims and pickups justice to their potential...but bear in mind that these are running through amps set for the device or direct to recorders that can optimise the effect. The sims are essentially sophisticated filters and can't really 'add' to the sound. It is highly dependent on the sound it has to work with. Piezos too require that kind of thing to sound 'convincing'. You might be surprised at how 'acoustic like' some mag pickups could be...listen to the sound of a lace sensor clean and in such a mode...low impedance hi frequency range devices too can be effective... I think such sounds are towards the end of the clip. There are many magnetic devices that can do a 'good' job of creating acoustic like sounds. Bear in mind that the qualities in teh sustain and the way harmonics build and cancel and reinforce is a complex thing in an acoustic instrument while different in most electrics...this is not necessarily a bad thing, but they are different so anything really is a bit of a 'sim' in coparison...IMHO
  6. I've helped many with the original design. This recent video showing a test in harmonic mode of a simple "blocked" stock single coil pickup (tele neck style) and using a 'Ruby' modded as suggested (not the F/R though that would work too) shows that the design is sound and works as one would expect. Testing was done, first with a speaker to be sure the circuit is working as a low watt battery amp, then hooked to the guitar with a 'y' chord out of the output jack of a strat, one to the sustainer circuit, the other to a 'pignose' amp for testing. Testing well away from other pickups ensures there is no EMI problems, but I've found, once installed and with proper and complete bypass of all otehr pickups, it can work even better than the tests. I've always suggested testing in this way before modifying the guitar in any way to ensure that the work on the project has been successful. If built as described and to high enough quality it will work very effectively. But, it is clearly not a project that suits everyone. Hope that assists people who have, are or wish to experiement with such things.
  7. Building pedals into a guitar is nearly always a bad thing... Also, don't confuse 'piezo' with 'acoustic', it is more acoustic like certainly... The simulators are getting better but the quality of the sound is very much dependent on amplification and the type of guitar, pickups and style of play and setting the pedal appropriately. Mixing Mag pups and piezos can often be problematic due to impedance mismatches, you will need buffers and such. My latest guitar project has both mag and piezo and several different kinds of stereo and blend effects (as well as on board tuner and 4 band eq for the piezo)... But I have tried out and have perhaps the cheapest ($40 new) Behringer version the AM100 (effectively a Boss AC2 clone) and it can sound quite good. Things are improving and many multi effects pedals also include such things, I found I had a few. They are not quite 'acoustic' but some can sound better than a bad piezo system. I use it occassionally to make my acoustic with soundhole mag pickup sound a bit more 'acoustic'. The behringer does have several cool features though. It has two outputs so one can run stereo or multi amps, so can be a good splitter. It also has 4 sim types and other controls, I tend to favour the 'large' setting for my guitars. Looking for some kind of YT demo, they were all pretty bad and poorly represents what the things are capable of... I found this audio that is more impressive though...but unlike many, he clearly knows how to use it! http://www.juzp.net/Lpw2d_QOealRq But there are other options too, many...and more all the time. For most, these things may well sound as good or better in an electric guitar than the expense and work of a piezo, more options and as a pedal, can be added to any guitar. If however, either piezo or modeller, you run HB pickups say and into a conventional guitar rig set for a good electric sound and think at a push of a button or change to piezo you are going to get a gret sound, you will likely be pretty disappointed.
  8. I support the project via email due to constant trolling...if serious about it, feel free to email and will see what I can do to help. Pictures and such helps a lot, but many many have built the things successfully...while some have failed to do some important steps as DA points out. If you have a circuit and it is working with a speaker and made the coil to spec and tested that...some sustain as is pointed out really is a given so something is clearly wrong but there is not enough information here to clarify anything as it is a little vague to say the least. Most people have succeeded in this project if they have the skills, yes even with the ruby circuit or a range of other options that fit the bill. As I say, due to trolling, the project is not supported at PG or publicly now...as you can see, some animosity all round still, so I will not be playing any part in it. My email is on my members page and I can provide some more concise documentation that might help. If you insist on a public display of this topic...well then, perhaps some pictures are in order and certainly more details...best of luck...
  9. I am very interested in some of your ideas billm90, again other forums and the people that i know that could be accessed through email or myself is still on offer...I am sorry that it has come down to this again, but you knew that there was a very high risk at PG associated with this subject... I do mean it and I wish you every success. Interestingly to you, I have seen a range of these kinds of things with internal resonators being built into acoustic guitars and such, but again...this is not the place for such things it seems, or for me without attracting this kind of thing. I did not 'ignore' your post but instead again offer that invitation to correspond should or when you should wish to. Circuits and such are not that secret as people say, there are many, I offer things by email but there are several I looked up today on this very site and material that have proven successful with my driver design. As you are aware, I am working on many projects some of them innovative in nature as this approach was in it's time and have always done so, but it is unfortunate that this is not the place that one can do that any more. Yes, the plastic backed guitar, the multi tuning, the hex project...and even continued work with the sustainer still goes on. I have stated that I am working with others to clarify most of that project and to make things like supply and consistency easier. I am not obliged to, but posting anything here has been made clear that the forum owns and controls the information and my involvement attracts trolls. Better to work with a select group of sincere honest people away from this kind of thing...and I am offering circuits, there is no 'secret' as is put about. Sure, I developed many circuits and own the designs t some original work, but then that is not the DIY sustainer is it and there are otehr reasons why people seek to know how those things are done...just like the tech in the old hex sustainers or the new hex pickups based on that...such things are not DIY anyway. I am also sincere in the praise for Col's work, why he does not publish his own circuit from when he used my driver and leaves it to me is a bit of a mystery, as is that I have consistently been the one to promote his work for years now...being the first to replicate his ideas should be something he would himself promote surely? Certainly he has the chops and knows the requirements for 'non-loading' and what a generic amplifier is as do others. There is enormous merit to his ideas on forward feed compression. My approach is different and with the DIY sustainer to be a bit more approachable, but I don't like the game being played obviously and clearly some information is not correct and the personal asides, unwarranted and not what I am saying...cause it serves some other purpose I'm not privy to. So, the invitation still stands, but not here and not amongst people of ill will....anyone can track down the very many places I have helped on many ideas elsewhere, here it is not the best and I choose to contribute elsewhere. I have made many friends over the years at PG but it is a big community and still harbours and attracts a few trolls, especially on this subject as you know from your first post. There are better places and since all these things, by far the best is via email directly as I say. I wish you every success and the offer stands, I can provide info on suitable circuits, but not here... pete
  10. That's the way 'mate'...
  11. Fine, well for those who can read and what information relevant to their needs if I can help, use email. It is not endlessly, I was asked too... I answered questions that Col put directly to me by name, such as the ownership of the fetzer and ruby design and their authorization of same to the author of the tutorial from which that idea came. Also, that it is a simple LM386 based circuit (a few parts missing from the manufactures applications note) and a preamp. I'm not having a go at RoG that col is enamoured by, I am agreeing with him, this is not a 'sustainer circuit' but it has been used successfully by all accounts as have others. Relevance, well, as well as answering questions put to me directly by 'name' I also suggested for the more technical minded that the pickup and driver are not in the same place along the string length and that alone will mean the phase of vibration where the signal is sensed is going to be different with every note from that it is trying to be driven (also implying that it will be different for every guitar setup and changing). Adding noise into the system by bandying about the word 'phase' without offering solutions or suggestions while taking pot shots about the frustrations with my posts or thoughts (which after all is in fact what this thread appeared to be asking for, by name) and I only knew about when the OP 'found me' on another forum where I don't find such 'noise'). But then that is a furphy because of course, when you do strip it back to basics, pete has in fact more than adequately shown that he has made these things, shown pictures that show it, sound clips where you can hear it. That pete never started out to make the whole world a 'diy sustainer' and has not been at this forum for a year at least. If someone addresses me publicly by name, contacts me at a forum on one of my threads and others ask from me by name, tells me what is relevant and does not even read the posts that answer the questions put to me, by name...well, what do you make of such an attitude? ... Col has offered a complete circuit of his ideas and photo's exist of his drivers and could just as easily if more so offer those to the people who have jumped on to this thread and yet, not been able to email me directly as suggested, with details of their guitar and skills in building things, resources or to obtain more information for what ever reason (that in itself does not bode well for their success in these things, frankly)... So, what might be of more use then is that everyone follow and quiz col on his 'drop in' DIY sustainer complete system approach, his 4 modes of harmonics, his forward feed compressor designs, his dual coil sustainers and how to use them and all that. It was fine work at the time and the guy is there to quiz publicly and there are a bunch of people over at You Tube who profess to have similar things that can be quizzed to if you prefer their approach as well, though in truth behind the 'anti-psw' diatribe (most of which had to be modified only the other month) they look and sound surprisingly similar...but it is there if people want it. Here is Col's sustainer at work... My link ... he had a different criteria but perhaps this is more the kind of thing that people are after so have at it. of course even col started somewhere, like right here tagging onto my thread and playing with my driver design himself... There you go, build that and quiz col on it all and replicate it as I have encouraged, there are a lot of fine ideas in it. That it does not meet my over all criteria means nothing, I wanted a different performance and sound than col and to his credit, he said as much of his goals from the start and set out in this to achieve it. Those that are looking to 'improve' things should follow that example and in fact, follow his work perhaps. In instead of vague notions of phase, he can explain his approach in detail in reference to this...this would of course be far more relevant than taking pot shots at me where I have offered my email and I am sure that people who do want to explore such areas can have a lot of fun with that. ... No one need 'stick to my design' they can put in the time and thought and make their own as I did in the first place but if one is going to make my design or modify it, one should at least understand what and what they are seeking to achieve and come up with some original ideas and share them openly under their own name and threads. Is it any surprise at all if you ignore the driver specs and construction techniques offered and use ad hoc circuits that it does not work as expected? The circuits were not the main issue, that is other peoples agenda....the same people as always in fact. I only came here because I was specifically invited by the OP from another forum and from another member in the second post...apparently there is a problem with that from some segments of the PG membership and so I would encourage people to save me a lot of time and effort and follow in the footsteps of Col and others who 'know better' and build that is they so desire. Others with a genuine interest know how to contact me and will have seen the pictures and the sound clips and have thoughts on that or not and make decisions on that and if I have time and feel inclined, I will help those that I can through those means as I have been doing so now for years for absolutely no reward whatsoever other than to make a few friends along the way. Goblin Guitar Link Some people respect my work, others not so much... I have plenty of deficiencies and personal flaws as does everyone, that does not diminish that I did and continue to achieve results and continue to explore ideas in my own way and very often succeed in that too. The sustainer never was the only thing that I worked on or am working on and I built these things for myself and my own use because I had a musical use and desire for them and I've been generous enough to share that journey with others and from that, others have seen from my example and tried to do the same, some with more originality than others. I'm not and was not seeking to 'sell' anyone anything as far as my work goes or promoted myself, I came here and only knew of this thread as a result of contact on another forum by the OP. I believe that the observation that his initial attempts though produced some results, were typical of deviating from the design that was shown to work and in the hope of helping him to modify the design to something that does work and to suggest that to make 'improvements' one might need to formulates some goals or criteria to aim for. Examples of the kinds of criteria that I set out to achieve was... # For the guitar to work passively when not in use. # To be compact enough to allow for a low mod install in a range of guitars. # To allow the use of the neck pickup and the guitar to work as normal without compromise from the addition of a sustainer. # In the DIY version, to be adaptable to individual needs and work from simple circuits. # To be a organic and expressive device, not just about holding a note or generating harmonics, but to be as much about the way a string is driven and initiated and decays and controllable by technique. etc, etc, and as set out very early in my work and it's success in how well it met those criteria...Is it not reasonable for the question to be asked, what is one trying to achieve and in what ways they are trying to achieve these ends? Where is the direction and 'improvement' and all, or is it just to tag along years after my work was given and make it 'their own' without the enormous amount of the real work to come up with things in the first place and give people the space and indeed motivation or encouragement to do theri own ideas. Where are all the sustainer threads from before I came involved. This is not an ego thing, it is just when I started to explore things publicly, there was little to nothing and certainly nothing like the kinds of design principles that inform my work and is largely taken for granted and exploited at times as well. Col and others can be dated to getting involved through my public posts years after I had started and succeeded and even started from where I was at at that time with this version. Now, well, apparently it is personal despite my praise for his own contributions...hmmm...one has to wonder what his motives are for not being more forthcoming, not my own! ... So, given Col's attitude and the PG environment, I think that members should in fact follow his work and his ideas and go for those results and ideas and that col should reciprocate instead of short 'vox pops' that are largely a little bit of a dig or frustration with me and clearly has not read by admission nor intends to anything of mine to answer questions put to me directly and to put words into my mouth regarding what I claim and or offer or why in fact I came here after so long to assist by request...just creating noise without any assistance and sitting on his own version without sharing or allowing others even the position from which he comes and knowledge that he could instead be offering there...so col, the floor is all yours and others, a little of his credentials and ideas and the man at hand to follow through with him his ideas and build his device. Anyone that really wants to know about my work or aspires to the kind of criteria I set and achieved and the kind of sound that it produces with the empirical knowledge that dozens of DIY'ers have succeeded in building such things based on my ideas and designs know where I can be found...but it would be a lot less work on my part if col were to do it for me...so better yet, contact him or others and follow his threads and instruction. As for me, I have my own life to lead, my own ideas to follow through on and other projects to work on than this old thing. There are plenty of the same people to ask that consider themselves to know more than me about my own designs that routinely pop up with a few ad-homily attacks and creating noise where they used to share ideas as above. Most only know of me, but then I am saying, check this guy out, ask for the details and the explanations and follow his lead if that better matches the kinds of things you seek to achieve... I have moved on to other more interesting projects for me... and better places to be... Though as I say, I went further with these things and will continue to, some may even want one or to benefit from what ever I might come up with, none of any of this actually assists me and one has to ask, what is in it for me...clearly just noise from the peanut gallery if discussed publicly and especially here, so my offer stands but completely at my discretion as I have no obligation and there is no reward in any of this...(people of ill will and under troll id's need not apply, they need more professional work than I can provide)
  12. Yep, as has/was said The circuit remains generic and with specific modification tips to assist people to better tune such simple circuits for the driver as described. Over many years I have presented many different driver and circuit designs, at length and the opportunity has always been there and encouraged to make variations, but the variations that are usually done have been variations on the F/R but more commonly, as in this threads example, significant variations on the driver (which is very well documented) and will run on very simple amplifier circuits, but not just any old amplifier I had lying around as evident here also. My criticism of 'folks' is only that there is no point starting another 'psw sustainer does not work' thread or making vague comments on 'phase' and such without solutions or suggesting that I owe anyone anything in regards to their wishes to replicate my work...as is the case here. I've not heard anyone ask to replicate you work, though I have actively encouraged that...though in another forum the 'same guy' was slamming you on your circuit that closed down every thread here under various guises. The reality is in fact that I have not contributed on this subject for some time and far from wanting to promote this publicly, or in any way, I have specifically and generously offered to help people privately...and I think the last half decade and this forums wishes would have been enough to convince people that this is a better solution. I think this conversation supports that notion too. Instead of knocking for years on end, what would be more appropriate, if there is anything that someone with such skills that promote themselves in that way, might think to offer an alternative that address those issues rather than just throw rocks into the wishing well. The reality is pretty clear that I have my devices working since 2004, the original and more contemporary sound clips attest to that and are pointed to here I believe and here is a picture of the thing sustainer strings... You can clearly see the G string moving well and in fact the open high e that has been suggested to be difficult and impossible with my approach... I may not be 'giving away' the specific circuit there, especially in the face of multiple people with the clear intention to replicate it or something similar and sell it on ebay. Similarly, my work should not be used in that way, though it is if you wanted to look around for it. There is no 'it' as far as circuits go as as been said and explained above, the whole driver is designed to be run on fairly generic circuits and this it has proved to do. I never suggested that this project is easy either, clearly the idea of winding in glue or the correct wire specification is not used and the results speak for themselves in countless 'I could not get it to work' threads...this has nothing to do with circuits at all is it...even though there too it is coupled with "Oh, I just used whatever was at hand' and it still did not work. All I am suggesting is, that if you are wanting this thing to do what I claim, then it has to be close (within a very wide margin) to what is intended for it to function as intended. Pretty much universally this is the case. All I am is suggesting is, contact me and I will give the means to do what is required for free with generous assistance. Is there some problem with that, is that not 'anti-public-promotion'? Are there any other similar devices on offer for DIY? Anyone else wish to throw their own 'hat into the ring' with some original work? My only advice here really has been to suggest that if people really want to follow the work I have done for their own purposes then they should contact me without the interjection of naysayers who don't even start their own thread and I will do what I can from the perspective of not only someone who came up with the thing, but has built many and assisted many more to success. What often happens 'publicly' is that instead of helping anyone, there is a lot of 'noise' that only confuses and does nothing to assist at all, and from people who generally have never built the thing itself let alone seen one first hand. My impression col was that you were the 'exception' in that regard, though it is unclear. Have you ever made the driver as described by me? Have you ever tried to run it on a suitable guitar with a fairly basic buffered LM386 like circuit with a 100uF output cap? Did in fact it work, what were the deficiencies, what improvements have you too offer knowing as much as you do and with the tools to design such circuits in detail? Anyone would get the impression that it did not work. Noise like 'other guys got it to work with a different wire' I am only seeking to clarify as been a very common reason why it does not work...if trying to get the results from it that I do. I even built the illustrated driver see through to show that that is all that is in it and the quality that one should aim for and provided links to others to show that others can do it and how. I don't see this offered by anyone else frankly. These kind of requests, and I understand where you are coming from (though you yourself appear to have no interest in making one, so what is there to offer really), very often come close to not a DIY project but that psw does the thing for you project and with countless hours helping people, that is an easy thing to feel. I've supported, not promoted this concept and assisted and continue to do so privately and have been conspicuously quiet for a long time now...the length and style of my prose is a complete 'straw man' and not worthy of you col. Any contribution is voluntary here, as is the compulsion to read such things. I was asked, so I responded, as a result, others have contacted me and seemed to be grateful for the help and clarity offered in those exchanges. I am considering helping people in even greater ways and am actively working on a range of things to address that, I don't see others doing that for this or really, any other guitar building project at PG, why is there an expectation that I should? Or that when I do, this is some how contentious? One simply does not get threads that start off with some new fangled bridge design for example and suggesting that they could not be bothered/thought it was cooler/had some better idea for no particular reason that did not allow for intonation and then complain about the guitar being impossible to tune...and that people start into Pythagoruas for it. I recently made a bridge for instance... Am I by showing the above picture suggesting that I have an obligation to help countless others for almost a decade now on this project everything about it or replicate it...no, no one expects that and anyone who were to ask such a question or make such a suggestion of an alternate 'intonation' is likely to get the reply that I offered, that , err, those adjustments are there for a reason, etc...just as I sugest that it might well be that if you vary the design, you will not get the results that I have suggested. What, one wonders with the implication of 'conspiracy theories' implied is my motivation? I get no financial reward, it costs me. I've not been here for a year and have made it quite clear that these kinds of things are not welcome in this forum, how have I 'constantly promoted' anything? Why is it always the 'circuit' that is the 'issue' when the whole point of the design from the very start was to do this thing with the simplest and generic thing and leave open for improvements by others areas in that aspect to make things to taste and response? Is there honestly a suggestion that I faked these sound clips and perpetrated a deception for almost a decade, really? Is the suggestion that it 'cant work' being put forward again, even in the face of such evidence from many who have done this, photos and audio that back it up as well? It is not an 'easy project' but it certainly does do what I claim for it to do and can be replicated for personal use and I have from the very start encouraged the input of others to make variations that are workable and share them with people..this is not been the case and really, am I at all obliged to either? No, but I do. The email is open, other forums are better suited for such discussions and the invitation is there. I'm not selling things at this stage, but I am considering it, precisely because a lot of people have problems getting things (as i the OP here yet again) and it would likely be easier and cheaper and more consistent if people were to get it from me. But, I've not and am not at this stage offering that, it is likely to cost me. I have suggested that I am with others been compiling a concise PDF illustrated with other peoples successful step by step pictures that will be available privately...anyone got a problem with that, or is that some kind of 'self aggrandisement' too? Honestly, I offered to this forum and many members a lot over many years, promoting PG and thanking them for allowing a place to discuss things and things changed. Now, I am here to assist one person who had a query and another who specifically asked for me by name and after at least a year, I explain a few things like 'the wire gauge matters to the design' (as if it has not been said enough) and now we have the suggestion that I am by doing this promoting the project or myself publicly and implications that I am withholding information and fuelling some kind of 'conspiracy theories' about that aspect without any input from people who aspire or in fact do know about these things. Phase, you have everyone using a different guitar, a different scale length, and particularly different pickups as a source signal...can you really say that there is a 'universal' circuit if you are going to get all concerned about phase relations to that level of detail and be successful in the overall aims. Well, perhaps you can, I did not need to go that far and if people can or have worked circuits that would address such things, as is implied, then they certainly are not publicly or freely offering it. Anyway...have email, avoid noise. This can be a tricky project, you do need to have quite some skills in wiring, building circuits, arts and crafts and ingenuity in building a driver to spec and a bit of patience. Some gratitude for the time I offer 'privately' and for offering this up at all. I most definitely am not 'misleading people' in that it is a DIY sustainer concept and design that has been DIY'ed over and again. I never claimed a 'step by step' instruction or... I started a thread on a guitar forum, my very first introduction to the internet in fact and the second post ever made on the thing. That thread does not start, here is my design for a DIY sustainer now does it? Did I start or endorse the oft followed 'based on my design but failed because i did not follow the directions' tutorial of Gmike? No, I am not misleading people, but tried to correct others who have with my own project, often under the pressure of real life and snide personal insinuations. I do have a sustainer design, it has been independently verified and details have been offered, it is simple enough for suitably skilled people to make and yes, explore. I said that the driver design was not at all followed in the response to this OP, not the circuit. I designed this and many driver designs, true. I designed it to run off fairly generic circuits, true. I showed that it worked with very basic non-phase compensated circuits of several types, true. I detailed several ways of integrating the device to work with other pickups and switching and in various formats from 'piggybacking' on top of a pickup or as a compact driver with the same design criteria, true. I have extensively detailed time and again the mods that I have used for a simple LM386 circuit to improve performance for use with my driver, true. I've offered links to others who have built these things, true. I have demonstrated for years what the device sounds like and the fact that id does work, true...etc, etc, etc... What has anyone done that is equivalent and what have people done in return or for me? Read the first posts from me and realize that I have never said that this is something that I have an obligation to spoon feed anyone or ever suggested that this was a project for anyone buy some advanced or at least attention to detail skills, most people should not have anything to do with this kind of thing frankly. This is not a one size fits all, plug'n'play project at all, never, ever said it was. I do claim and the facts support it that it is possible to DIY and that it will run successfully on a multitude of very basic circuits and not a "one" circuit. I offer advice on such choices to those who ask nicely and this forum does not need more discussion on this subject at all, especially if the only thing offered is to criticize things from a position of complete ignorance...and never even bothered to replicate and verify... Email and alternative forums, much better for me, less 'public' and attracting personal asides, as always, reading my posts or taking from my work is completely optional...doing one's own or offering an equivalent contribution to the subject conspicuously absent and that in itself speaks more volumes than even I can speed type. I've not been offering anything in a very long time other than privately and that is the opposite of 'mis-leading...I never claimed it to be what is now suggested that "it is", so how the %^5 is that misleading anyone?
  13. RoG... If I am wrong in the assumption that they 'designed/developed' and claim to own rights on their circuits, then my apologies. The whole "fetzer ruby" thing came out of the blue with no corresponadance with me or any other working on the project at the time... ROG seems to have known and authorised the use of this by GalagaMike and I made my reservations about it clear from the start. It had faulty information, was never fully implemented and deviated in many was from my design, was not designed either by the author nor for this application. It was published without the peer review of the thread or myself and it failed (poor magnets, bad circuit, ss core, etc). That people continued to use this design, was not of my doing nor introduction...I of course, when one reads the words of both Gmike and RoG have every reason they are responsible for and claims over these things...why would I assume not and where is it said that this is not the case? The "fetzer/Ruby' was not suggested by me nor endorsed by myself, I have not built the things but there have been those that have run it successfully using that circuit and with more success if they used the widely publicized modifications suggested by me to such designs. My mantra has always been that 'less is more' and don't need to run a LM386 at 200x but that this is the highest gain possible from this chip. I've always suggested the minimum possible gain from the circuit used and efficiency of the driver to be effective at the lowest gains...some of those modifications have been mentioned earlier in the thread, like the 100uF output cap to a typical LM386 circuit... The DIY versions of my work have been replicated many times over successfully and obviously sound clips of my devices have been available since 2004 and still are. This to me indicates that it can work and does do what it is claimed to do. Anyone can do come up with their own approach, but in generally what is seen are knock-offs of the driver principles if not the entire driver rational and this continues to be the case with a 'few tweaks' here and there and no detailed information at all. The reality is, that no matter how specific I am regarding things, the more people choose to 'deviate' to make it their 'own' and generally with detrimental effects to my standards and aims. I've left the circuit things more open precisely so that those who claim and possibly do know better could improve on things...I never offered up the F/R nor poached from the designs of others, I have no problem with RoG designs (or whomever uncredited design they offer and seek compensation for) but they nor I suggested that they are optimised for this kind of high demand application. ... But this topic has been closed down time and again, including all tutorials on the subject in the past. If someone wants to do their own thing, that's great. My message about such things seems to get lost and then so be it. If someone were to genuinely want to build my design, they should contact me for such details. But I am under no real obligation to defend it other than to point out and too the evidence that clearly shows it works. If there is another "DIY Sustainer design" available that does not resemble mine, then great, link to that, promote that on it's merits and build on that if you prefer. Have the skills to do better, go to it and create a genuinely new approach. I set my criteria and goals, many of them I met, some exceeded and in other areas, failed to achieve those goals. The basic DIY Sustainer though, built 'right' has been shown time and again to be capable of what it claims. Col's would appear to work, his dual coil designs for drivers typically much larger, I don't recall them ever being used with multiple pickups, the circuits larger and more complex than mine, the range of effects possibly larger, but they have a different aim and sound to what I was aiming for, from the sound clips I heard, less dynamic and intentionally so. If that is what people want, that is an avenue to follow and has been available for some time, I myself have even credited and republish that work with recommendations for some time across forums...but yet, I have never seen anyone attempt it other than the designer himself...yet the interest in this design seems to be never ending and continuous. I can't answer that question, on the matter of sustainers, I have publicly been mute for some time. One would have thought that this would leave open the pathways for others to step up and offer something even more appealing and open but it simply not has happened for all the criticism of this simple DIY version and it's creator over an extended period of time. Can anyone answer why this is so, because I honestly don't know! But obviously, this kind of thing goes nowhere and this forum not a place to discuss anything of this nature, especially for me and by extension anyone that might be wishing to build a device modelled on the work I have done. For sure, start one's own thread detailing all the circuit and driver details and construction techniques and discuss how the 'phase relations' and such were addressed if you people wish...especially good to hear would be actual clip[s of the devices working and the criteria by which things are judged to be 'superior' to the basic version for a fair overall comparison. Clearly the device has been successfully made by myself and many others, that in itself speaks volumes I would suggest. I've always maintained the driver/s to be paramount in my approach and the circuit to be fairly incidental. A driver similar to mine was attempted in this thread and run from various different amplifies and did apparently get some sustain on some strings in some fashion. My clips and experience with helping others tends to indicate that the closer to the intentions I set out, the closer people can get to the results that I obviously get. And sure, over the years, I was working on more 'advanced' less DIY versions...such as that "Tom Morello" guitar and perhaps circuit variations that were smaller and had various features that I liked, I have no obligation there to provide information surely? The DIY thing is simply that, a way to make a device that will provide sustain on all strings and capable of creditable performance on all strings that I have offered for free home use and at considerable cost and generosity on my part. The 'issue' of the circuit is largely a furphy, suggestions noted time and again, photos of many circuit types and chips have been liberally photographed and discussed over many years...my perspective is very much based on the "eBow" patent in which it is clear that it could be made with any number of circuits, but it is the overall design and criteria that is the real question and novelty. For all the years of people suggesting that they could do better, especially in terms of circuitry which they choose to focus on ignoring the originality of my overall design as being 'incidental' (cause it seeks their personal aims) rather than at the heart of it as I ahve continupously claimed...where are these alternatives?, where are the results?, where are the specifications and the posts in answer that actually show the way rather than focusing on my project or my words...or indeed at times my character? Other than col's ideas and specific designs and approaches (which don't fulfil my personal criteria in application or performance, many of which are largely subjective anyway) I've just not seen anything specific like that. I have very deep respect for that, but I've not seen any independent replication of those things. I would though suggest that anyone interested in 'improved' approaches, study that approach and perhaps replicate that work which deserves to be done and to contact and credit col for that work and skill and knowledge that he brings to the table in that regard. It is fine work. I started a thread to experiment with ideas and encouraged others to join with me in this progress but there was never any suggestion that this was in an effort to provide others with a DIY sustainer, though I presented one simple what that was successful in that. What is absent by enlarge are the many alternatives that I obviously hoped would come out of those discussions and from which I could learn, with a few exceptions, this failed to emerge. I suggest that a wall wart power supply can provide a regular power supply in voltage, but the current can be substantially higher depending on the demand of the circuit, but i bow to people who have more knowledge than me to design a circuit that will work as mine clearly do to achieve those aims, there are an infinite number of things that could do the job. For the capacity of a battery, you limit the amount of power one can get out of the current it can provide, this limits the gain and is so in part a 'limiter' of sorts...but it is not some magic bullet and of course one can use such a power-supply if one chooses...it violates much of the criteria that i set, but perhaps the criteria of others, which is rarely/never published (this would help prevent the continual moving of the goal posts and give a means to judge success on any designs merits). It is not unreasonable for one to set out their 'goals' when embarking on a project...perhaps as I recall Col wanted, was a more even lighter constant controlled sustain. But, that was not mine, I wanted a more expressive organic evolving sound, that is what I aimed for and achieved to a very large extent. So did col, but the results are not directly comparative. If one ants that kind of very controlled sound, go more towards some of cols ideas, if you like the kind of things that I aimed for and soucn d like, well got that direction...or, come up with one's own criteria, or purchase a commercial units...they are very good at what they do...but also fail my overall criteria for my work and results. Publicly, I've received a lot of derision yet still this old design is being replicated and the promise of many detractors to offer and better solution has not been forthcoming. But then, I never claimed that there is one way and certainly not that the simple DIY sustainer was anything other than that, a simple solution that achieves the basic aims described and demonstrated. Many others have suggested that they 'can do better' but this has not been forthcoming and noting published by them... I have an email, people genuinely interested in discussion things with me know where to find me and I certainly do not wish to continue those kinds of discussions that is typical and fruitless on these matters, and in particular at PG that I thought was clear and stated at the outset in this thread to be contentious and in terms of that administration, not wanted nor tolerated. The more I openly publish, the more I need to defend it and to correct all the failed attempt and misguided ill informed 'tinkering' that only dilutes the message...that the things can work can be clearly heard, if one does not like that 'sound' and response then they should seek elsewhere for inspiration perhaps, but I've not seen much really and nothing that is as freely available and 'open', proven and replicated and refined as what I have offered. I publish "a circuit" and all of a sudden, people take that to be "it" and make deviations like a different amp of buffer stage or whatever it might be and lay claim to the entire design. I've used many circuits with success, it is designed around the whole notion of a driver that can work with the most basic amplification...no, an LM386 alone can not run it, it requires at least an appropriate buffer stage to prevent loading the signal of the entire guitar...but have I not always said so? Yes, all those things are worthy of consideration, such as phase compensations...but it is simply empirically wrong to suggest that my design needs it to work, because clearly it does not. It should also be noted that although I personally do not and never have supported the F/R 'solution' even that has from all reports shown to run these devices and at least in it's own way met the basics of a basic non-loading amplifier design. Anyway, feel free to meander how one chooses in this intriguing subject, I've not had the rewards in many years of further knowledge and development that I hoped might result and as far as I can see, in this forum and the public arena generally, the public discussion and further development has not arisen as I might have hoped...instead, people tend to come to or call on me...I speak for my own designs and ideas and can discuss all manner of interesting things with many who chose to have such conversations without the risk of interjection from any passing multi-named troll that should seek to elevate themselves by attacking me or my work. Better that people stand up and say they have some cool idea to improve or achieve the aims, this is how and why, can someone input into this and replicate what I have done and confirm, etc...the kinds of things that I always set out to do but something that can no longer be done in open forum and especially in this forum as evidenced by the number of closed threads...if such open discussion can even be done again without reference to my work seems unlikely, certain impossible here, but sure, it would be interesting to see something new and if billm90 or anyone has some cohesive ideas for such progress and the skills to do it, that will be great to see. I sincerely wish people well in what they seek to do and will help those of good will that want to replicate my work or approach and build themselves a sustainer to that design and within the limits of their capabilities. If their capabilities exceed mine, all the better, but do they really need me then to assist?
  14. Thanks DA I've always tended to use my real or consistent names and appreciate you interest and comments. I have most likely spoken too much already publicly on these things but the offer to anyone to contact me directly is open to anyone and limited only to the intent of the builders and my available time. There have always been people seeking help in this regard and manner and there have been many proposed ways devised to assist further. I am currently working on just such things including a professional and concise illustrated PDF and some proposals for various kits that should alleviate the problems associated with locating parts and building circuits and the wire and likely end up being 'cheaper' for most. This is not the place to proffer such things, but if there are enough people interested in such a proposal, I may be more encouraged to follow through with those ideas. ... And thanks too for the interest in some of my new ideas, they are coming along as well as my new acoustic electric, multi tuning, alternate material, triple pickup system (piezo,mag,hex,)concept guitar and the trio of LP, Strat and of course the blueteleful tele sustainer guitar. I am hoping to avoid a repeat of the 'sustainer saga' in the hex things, but it is something that may well of interest to many. It is based on the 'secret' technology developed for the old 'hex sustainers' of 2004 and coming along fairly well. In my simple incarnation, this pickup system will allow for the separate output of selected string sets to be processed in various ways along side the other guitar pickups and systems. So, in my case, I can say pitch shift the low two strings to create a following bass, or add delay or other effects and processing to the high strings...others might wish to have distortion on the lower strings and clean tones on the higher perhaps. But this is the simplest application of such a new concept in compact string sensing. ... The sustainer things, well, that is a long saga, almost a decade now, and I certainly have made a lot of mistakes and got burnt quite badly in the whole thing in so many ways. For some reason, I do feel some responsibility to assist where I can. I think what people can see though, that when building the design I created here, that things are very sensitive to the specifications and other area's and workmanship and mainly, the main threads once this design had been adopted, were from people who were having problems and all of those problems are easily traced back to not following the design or a lack of workmanship. There have no doubt been those that chose to chime in for reasons of their own to discredit something that they have never seen nor attempted (and me personally) and largely citing the evidence of people having problems from not building the things properly to support this view. A few of them have gone on to continue this strategy to this very day. However, I try to innovate and create new things. The sustainer was just a small area of interest that got a lot of attention and early on some great discussion and interest, but it is not the 'greatest things since sliced bread' and in many respects, not what people think it is either. On my new guitar, the ability to retune every string to three pre-sets at the flick of a lever is I suggest at least as cool, if not cooler LOL. The hex thing has many potential applications and there is interest from some people with some very clever ideas 'if oly they could get an independent signal from each string'. Just a completely new magnetic pickup that surface mounts, is only 10mm wide and 5mm deep in itself is at least 'interesting', for developing genuinely new guitar ideas, there is a lot in just that. Ah, but this is not the forum for such things... ... Again thanks to Billm90 and DarkA and anyone else of interest in such things and hope to learn from the things that perhaps you create or could inform my own ideas... pete
  15. Just remember... Painting it green, changing the amp chip, installing an LED or otherwise exploiting my generosity and years of work does not imply ownership or 'invention' of the design any more than sticking a chevvy engine in a model-T ford of an HB in a strat makes you 'henry' or 'leo'...all you are making is a 'green' version of a psw sustainer. It takes a lot of work and energy and determination to come up with this kind of thing and it is original in concept. If one wants to make something of their own or even improve the design and explore the area...and of course, doing so on the back of my work demands credit and disallows profiting without reward. Really though, as I did and most designers do, you need to set out some goals, what is it that you want to do... How many 'sustainers' can you personally use? What skills and research can you honestly offer at this stage? I ask this because like many before, this thread started out by detailing almost every possible and naive and seemingly 'lazy' excuse for not adhering to the design and then turning to others, and by that it follows me, for the answers why. There are reasons this elegant and simple design works and they have been specified over and over. Yes, you need to glue the coil, yes you need a suitable circuit, the LM386 is not a 'magic chip', the driver design is at the heart of things, the wire gauge does matter. When you vary these things, you will get different results...like your high strings wont work...is that really a surprise? If you use my design as the basis for things, then you raise ethical and moral and legal questions if you seek to profit from it or aspire to make it 'your own'. But, I am not stifling creativity in this, anyone can buy pre-made necks and bodies and build themselves a strat, they can not suggest they 'created it' nor create a company called 'bender' and seel the things or claim the invention...even if you do have a novel colour scheme or wiring scheme. Any 'path' you take really should be taken because you have a destination in mind, some goal you are trying to achieve. There is typically a distinct absence of this kind of thing it is safe to say. Col, is a notable exception in much of his work and approach, his aims were a little different in the response he sought, he wanted, at one time, a clean and very controlled sustain. Worked on developing dual coil designs to cut back EMI (my approach in this basic DIY design is to address that through a powerful but compact design)but more specifically a fair degree of creative work and design skills to make forward feed compression and the like (the circuit is available). Without the considerable work and research and knowledge to understand what one is doing on many levels, to be able to answer for oneself questions like 'how thick do I need to make the core' then it is like the many who claim proprietary rights over this thing because they used a different glue than that recommended for the average DIYer and shown to function better than most proposed alternatives or stuck some other amp chip in there, usually cribbed from designs that they have cobbled together from other peoples work. One really should, I believe, give credit where credit is due and this is standard practice and expected whether writing an essay say to add citations or in the patent process to cite all related sources. However, many seem to want to vary this design purely to make 'something different' and call it their own, or even specifically to profit from my work, even as they require my or others assistance or draw directly from the published material. There are many examples of this about the web and on you tube and the like where there are no 'significant changes' really, other than they made it themselves. Now, of course that if fine and I am flattered and pleased that someone personally got this to work and I am extraordinarily generous in my ideas and time and only published and offered these things so that people can take it further. But in the almost decade since that, have we really seen anything other than variations of this design anywhere? Did anyone replicate Col's original work a circuits which have some great ideas and shown to work? ... Otherwise, the device does work when made as described and as I say many people have succeeded and I have spent countless hours helping people achieve that goal. A complete document is being prepared to assist people to successfully build for their own use a successful sustainer to the basic design. If people have ideas for improvements or goals that are not covered by the design or other work I have shared, well then, do share. Those that do claim such attributes have conspicuously not been forthcoming by enlarge with any details and many are asking for money in exchange for 'unknown' products with significant flaws...many of them creating confusion and making wild claims against this design in an effort to justify their actions and used the public calls for assistance when the thing does not work for them as a justification for claims that I, personally, am promoting something that does not work, is deficient, and even can not work all the way to being a 'fake' despite all the evidence to the contrary. In this thread, we see plenty of examples of this kind of thing... Yes, some guys, and we know who those guys chiefly are and why they choose to make a minor alteration and then have to use excessive mains sourced power to run the thing, find heat from the driver excessive and fail to disclose that the circuits are shutting down. These would be the same guys or supporters that go on you tube to personally name me and had to have altered only last month as an extension of the kinds of things that specifically stopped all public discussion of my design? Who are you going to believe, why not track down those guys and see if they can provide the help required...or, perhaps ignore them, stick to the design principles and make yourself a fully functioning working sustainer that you can be proud to own and use and to have built? Be aware that many of these 'guys' were in fact the same person under different names and have followed me with the same BS across every forum that I have contributed to on this subject for years now...I can give you his contacts and aliases if you want to quiz him on such aspects. But, you know, it is a good place to start with something that works, but just keep in mind that tweaking it does not make it your own and this project is offered as an open source thing, but not for commercial application. The base line is that you make this thing as described and up to the ultimate performance that it offers, no claims of 'improvements' can be made until you at least achieve that. From my perspective, most of which is now done privately of course now, those that do that, no longer seek 'improvements' because those are largely born from the faulty perception that the design is deficient, they make the things and they work and they use them for what they are intended and get the desired results. There are different ways to create such things, dozens have been illustrated that I myself have built for consideration, an infinite circuit variations that will run them that are essentially the same things...but what exactly are people looking to achieve. My criteria was quite open and went about achieving many of those goals, some I failed along with everyone else (like centre mounted drivers, external boxes, etc) and many that I rejected as they did not meet the criteria even if they did work. There is some requirement I believe, to set out some ideas for what and why you are seeking alternatives and a deeper understanding of the principles underlying things in order to meet those goals. Anyway, reading my posts are of course optional (for those prone to migraines, this is probably not a field one should enter perhaps) and as I say, not here to 'start' another flame war nor encourage it. I have an email address, I suggest that the opportunity is there to get assistance should I chose to assist and that the public exposure of this topic, especially with my involvement (which was invited here and is about my area of expertise as the designer) is only likely to create unwanted attention and the forum does not want anything of that nature to occur and I respect that, there are other forums and at this stage, private correspondence is the best option as their is just too much misinformation and bad advice about with a range of motives. Many people have continued to correspond with me and brain storm ideas for years now and who I value highly, this is an option. I work on many things and of course took the sustainer thing even further than the public has access to, yes, I have and there is no obligation to 'tell all' and many times I feel that all I have gotten from sharing is...well, you can see for yourself the way things panned out there...hmmm I wish you all success and if people follow the original design specifications, they will achieve it. I can warn you or others (many people follow these threads and so address the wider viewers) of what lies down many of these 'paths' and every right to try and correct and protect my own work as anyone is to repeat my many mistakes and frustrations in taking many of these alternate routes. Even if to the extent of making your own, I am more than generous...I can take donations, but I don't recall anyone ever offering any rewards LOL...
  16. Hello again... Sorry, did not configure this thread for email replies...however... Salient observation. I generally help one or two people do this project by email, so you know, the world does not need another mega wide ranging sustainer thread really. Plus, I am still getting personal stuff thrown about, these days on you tube, so... anything could offer up unwanted attention. I support my design and the specifications of that are crucial to success with it. The symptoms described are those typical of variations. The build quality is crucial as well, especially the glue wound coil. That is of course a necessary criteria, however I have never endorsed the F/R design and have alternatives that are easier to build and show to be successful that are similar. I am considering offering more advanced pre-built circuits but as yet, unable to gauge interest and costs to make that worth while...perhaps even other related stuff or a complete kit...but as I say, not yet and we will have to see...as always, email is a better option unfortunately. As to common recommended designs, yes I have always recommended a 100uF output cap, but there are other mods that are more in line with the high gain applications of the data sheet that the offerings of RoG omit to keep such circuits happy. The driver is the key component of my design as I have often stated. How thick is thick, how slim slim? I have generally used 3mm ordinary steel cut and ground to size and rounded on the ends. The blade is not a necessary design feature but certainly makes things easier to construct and has a few advantages in that way. The individual poles are fine, you will notice that when you bend a string there is no sudden drop in output from a pickup, the magnetic field between poles merge of course and so too with a sustainer driver. The core is a vital part of the project and too slim is not advisable, 3mm has always worked for me but of course there are alternatives that 'might' work...and obviously individual poles, even magnetic strat type coils work an inclusive of the design. ... The easiest most reliable and recommended approach is to block and rewind a single coil strat type pickup. This gives you the bobbin, the magnets, the poles and the whole thing is invisible inside the cover and looks like a pickup obviously...it also of course has an adjustable mounting. Here is a decent tutorial that shows a great example of exactly that of my design... http://diy-fever.com/misc/diy-sustainer/ MDF, as far as I know, is likely to be 3mm thick and hence, the thickness of the entire driver coil...not a good idea. It contradicts the design which is to put as much of the coil as close to the string as possible and within a small condensed area to cut back on EMI dispersal. The winding pictorial shows my original made from the plastic cut from a folder that is less than 1mm thick and demonstrates how to keep this from flexing when winding..if one must make your own bobbin. For all kinds of reasons, for hand bobbin winding, PVA glue is advisable and the recommended method, you will notice that Bane's driver is made exactly to spec with that glue and is exceptionally neat, this is the kind of quality one should aim for to be successful. Beware HB pickups, the magnetism needs to run through the core, HB pickup magnets are such that the ploes are on the thin edge, you can not stick the magnet to the bottom a a blade and expect that to work. Many other ideas that seem to be logical need to be thought through, but there are numerous design ideas and expressed in typical single coil pickups like fenders or P-90's that will achieve those ends. Do not be tempted by rare earth magnets or attempt to cut any magnets, particularly the former. This is a bad choice of magnet, more magnetic strength is detrimental to the sustainer and the intonation and performance of the guitar itself, so think things through, "less is more". This also applies to circuitry and noise in the guitar, any noise, an driver or circuit deficiencies will be amplified by up to 200x with a basic LM386 and one should aim to run these things with as little power to get the results required. "More power=more problems". Others may tweak a design to pretend to be 'different' and concentrate on the circuits and offer up alternatives, I have documented many alternatives over the years but any 'specific' circuit is not part of the 'design', any circuit that is suitable is the design (for a comparison of this, read the ebow patent which takes the same perspective). The same people who need more power through a change in wire gauge or a bias against the DIY friendly LM386 have had a lot of heat problems and have failed to disclose important information in this regard about modern chips that offer more power through things like BLT and other methods. They are not intended to carry the continuous power of a sustained note nor run a coil like this. Not only does the coil heat up, so too the circuit. Such chips have inside as standard an auto cut off that shuts everything down to cool off and protect itself...not so the LM386 which is pretty indestructible and easy to use and why I still use and recommend them for the DIYer. Of course other circuits can work, I know these things, cause I tried them and know what is not being said there. By slightly altering the design specs of the recommendations they have had to go to using remote AC sourced power, extensive limiting and compression (in one case, the guitar has two whole stomp box compressors built into the thing) and still the chip has a flaw in it too 'shut down' which I note is never mentioned, but it typically is there or at least a risk to any performance with the things...but sure, go that way but be informed. As far as I am concerned, if you are making my design but do not follow the design parameters which are pretty generous and advice personally and freely available, you can not expect it to work and the answers are clear...follow the design, take the designers advice, contact the designer personally if clarity is needed. If you would prefer to make someone else's 'claimed' look alike design and take their advice, well, contact them. You will, I believe, generally find no help there and a lot of bad mouthing about me and this design...then a suggestion that you can buy 'his' design when he is able to get it going properly (which has not happened despite you tube advertising) in years of such claims...for reasons amongst many...see above! ... Bad idea, many people have tried and I know of only one that has been successful (dizzy1) and few details exist. I can tell you that it was largely a clone of the sustainiac patent on such a device with a large bi-lateral driver and sophisticated and secret circuit with a lot of phase compensation. I've made a few different attempts, some have been better than others, none have been satisfactory. After toying with the idea and building other more successful devices like the 'wafer coil' or even the telecaster surface mounted versions of the DIY thing, the perceived benefits of that configuration is simply not there. Many people feel that their bridge pup is not the sound they would like with the sustainer or that they want the variety of a neck pickup...whatever the reason, it seemed to me to be misplaced...in fact, the sustainer as described, takes the signal from the bridge and you can only use the bridge pickup with the sustainer on, but it is driving from the neck position and as such has quite a diverse range of sounds all of it's own and sensitive to technique and controls. If a more mellow tone is desired, use of the tone control can be used to provide even more range. These kinds of things was demonstrated in some of my now old sound clips and little improvised tunes that can be found here... Blueteleful1 sund clips of sustainers and tele The first two tracks was a 'jam' direct to the computer with headphones to a drum machine and demos the tele for which there is a timed comentary if interested... Blueteleful 1 at GN2 For a track that demos a more mellow tone from the original 'sustainer strat, the river of which is featured in the pictorial and made in 2004 along with these clips...this guitar featured a strat style bridge pickup and used on all other clips on that page... tunes like 'the yearning' and 'aire' display a more 'woodwind like' tone for instance, the tune beckistan was the first thing I played and still stands fairly well, all three tunes are using the very basic cheap strat of 2004 and direct ton the computer wiht a bit of echo, beckistan with a bit more 'warmth to it and generally a bit of delay because I was using a little digital AX1G into the soundcard and audacity. The tele clips were recorded on a BR600 and transferred by playing that through the sound card but all are very clean and unedited on takes to demonstrate things without any kind of editing or trickery of distortion to mask or enhance performance. The bass on the first track was added later and all tracks feature just one guitar as I say, there is no overdubbing of multiple guitars. No. It is a significant problem to do and the desire perhaps misplaced. By putting it that close to the source pickup, perhaps two, you will have to have performance and EMI suppression that is clearly not a feature of the DIY project offered by me, nor anyone else. I tried a few things, multiple coils and the like as did others but that was not really enough and while I am not saying it is 'impossible' it is extremely difficult and beyond an average person's skill set to construct. Details of circuits therefore is mute, but I would suspect one might need to use calibrated phase compensated circuits and limiting at least to drive whatever kind of driver that could possibly work that close to the source pickup...so for me at least, not desirable and a bit of a lost cause. One other aspect of my design. of which there are many, but generally over looked. The battery is an important part of my circuits and the simple circuits generally used. t has often been commented that most of my circuits do not have limiting, but the power of the battery is the limiter by design, use a wall wart or other power source and you are defeating this aspect and will likely need to have limiting and compression and other methods to reduce the power required. There are many unique and desirable features of this design, even over commercial offerings. I have never claimed it to be the only possible way and have personally made many working sustainers as have others over many years to prove that.As can be heard though, even the very first one provided creditable performance and displayed the 'problems' that people claim of it. A lot of that was malicious and clearly false to the evidence that had already been there for a long time but the perception was propagated by a preponderance of threads and comments that the design does not work I am having problems, all entirely a result of not following the design criteria and not the design or the designers (me) fault. The reality is that dozens have been made successfully and many with consultation with me and that of course I have made and demonstrated for almost a decade this fact. ... So there you go, but as I say, and billm90 acknowledged, any threads on the sustainer things publicly are at least contentious and from me attracts attention I don't need and this forum does not want and I don't intend to 'poke that hornets nest' here nor any intention to. As I say, I allow email contact and support my design for personal use...not proposed commercial ventures or claims of some minor 'improvement' to suggest that the basic design elements and specifications are no longer mine and don't warrant credit in exchange for the wealth of information I provided. I do not see people replicating other designs and any I have seen that is almost successful' is not offered as DIY nor can deny the lineage directly to design principles on record from before 2005 in this forum and elsewhere. ... However, col has presented an interesting alternatives with dual coil designs and more complex circuits that might be of interest. For me, that approach did not meet my overall design aims, in that case the use of a neck pickup, nor really the response and performance I personally prefer from the things, all of which is subjective) and I'd be happy for people to do that or develop things that completely ignore and do not borrow from my design...go at it, I had already moved on to things like the wafer coils by then. If wanting to build something like col's design, his appearance here is an indication of an ongoing interest and one of the few who genuinely did explore alternative dual coil designs and innovative circuitry. My designs were always designed to be run from pretty generic basic circuitry and a driver that works under those conditions and can be easily DIYed and has been successfully replicated independently many times with success. ... If interested, I still develop things with several interesting project at the moment including a radically different pickup design that is 'divided' to provide a range of options that are unique, such as separate signals for each string or a stereo spread...but very much in the prototyping stages, expressions of interest can find me at GN2 perhaps along with a thread on my multi-tuning concept guitar and several other guitars in the gallery there. Again, and for obvious reasons noted, email is best, find that link in my profile....cheers...
  17. Good to see you are still about Col. I still support the project and design via email helping 2-3 people at any one time and dozens have been successfully built and working well. A person I am helping now in fact is condensing everything into a PDF as he builds his own and seems to be going well, but not ready yet. I don't really discuss things online too much for obvious reasons, but it is sensitive to variations in the design and I can only really vouch for what I know to work and work on that, not that there are not any number of variations that can work too of course. Col is right about the details and knows more about that side than me on design parameters, all I can say is that my design, as exemplified in my tele, drives all strings on all frets in both modes with an LM386 based circuit with 100uF output cap... The above picture shows the driver which being clear shows the kind of wind of 0.2mm wire that one should aim for, you can clearly see that left to sustain on it's own without plucking any strings, on this guitar the g string is most active, followed by the high e, then the B and D strings. The blade is completely optional and the easiest approach is to just wind the driver on the top 3mm of a standard single coil pup stripped of wire, the end result will look exactly like a normal SC pup...here's a tutorial that shows one way to achieve this... http://diy-fever.com/misc/diy-sustainer/ This one (not wound by me, but following my design) is wound to spec, 0.2mm wire, 8 ohms, PVA glue wound, normal single coil pickup bobbin and magnets...the whole lot will be covered b the normal pickup cover and is the easiest and neatest way of building such things. ... I happen to use 10-46 strings on my electrics, but sustainiac and fernandes recommend the same as there has to be sufficient metal to work with...on wound strings, this is mainly in the core and in a light D string, that too has little metal in the core of it. I've not tried it myself, but I suspect that my tele would drive 9's but then a lot of that is about the quality of the build. Many people experience problems it seems because they start off with a noisy guitar, this pretty much works against a SC bridge pickup which tends to be inherently noisy though a stacked or rail noiseless SC size works well. Any noise in the system will find it's way into the circuit and be output through the driver and work against it's function and could cause all manner of other problems. A well made efficient driver to spec should not require much power to run, the aim is always to run the things at the minimum power and still get the results required from it. If one tries to compensate a problem driver by increasing the power into it, you tend to find that you are only amplifying the problems and going to drain a battery too fast to be practical. In this case, less is more. Anyway, as I say, I support my design offline if assistance is needed. I don't personally make sustainers these days, but have made dozens of course (if not more) over the years on numerous guitars and refined things even more along the way. It seems I can now reveal that some time ago the prototype of the more developed version was made into a guitar now owned by Tom Morello and built in the states with electronics by me...the wafer coil driver sits on top of a custom made Seymour Duncan strat type neck pickup and functions both as a driver and passive pickup. I'm still creating and at present working on a new type of compact pickup that I think is pretty exciting and may have numerous applications and heavily influenced by the 'hex sustainer' drivers worked on back in 2004...so nothing is wasted I guess. Best of luck and hello to all... pete
  18. will do, if you say so. Just thought it was a way to alert people to this situation effectively and didn't see that it was against the rules, but I as always bow to your decisions regardless. I have no connection to this web site other than have used it as a resource. At the very least, perhaps this thread and the link given, will direct people who so desire it to the information on offer at the new address.
  19. Guitar Wiring Site, Domain Name Theft...and New Address For 12 years, Wolf (best known at the great "Guitar Nuts 2" guitar wiring site) has had the internet domain name 1728.com but it was recently hijacked and lost (for now). This site contained a great number of ideas and clear instructions and principles. While trying to recover the original name, you can find details on guitar wiring like this here... 1728.org guitar wiring basics and check on details HERE and HERE and a GN2 discussion thread here... GN2 1728.org Thread I'm not sure it will be possible for Wolf to get back the original domain name, there are lessons to be learned for anyone who is exposed or might intend to have their own internet address. Fortunately though, the great information is not LOST (though clearly by stealing the name, they have stolen the reputation, good will, search profile and traffic it had accumulated over 12 years) and can be found at the new address 1728.org. A bit of a community service announcement...PLUS...if you have an interest in guitar wiring, Wolf's information is fantastic and has been of use to me many a time...so perhaps check it out for that alone! Best of luck Wolf
  20. Yes...like a battery itself...that's a limited power source...or a driver so efficient at driving all the strings that you can turn the gain way down on the amp so it runs cleaner and less hard... But really...the AGC is not there to save power but to even out the response and compensate in some cases drivers that have a high variance across different strings,,, If considering potential AGC strategies though, cribbing audio processors limits your choices and benefits. Ideally you don't "hear" this 'amplifier' at all...it only functions to drive the string which have a physical momentum. Things that would be totally unacceptable in an audio processor ("pumping" or even intermittently turning off the entire amplifier to control gain) could well have big benefits in this application The tests and discussion about distortion went on for a long time and the consensus really did fall pretty conclusively on the side of aiming to provide the driver with a clean-ish signal most like the physical vibrations of the physical string trying to be driven... Really, the basic sustainer presented here and trying to be replicated by this thread and many like was envisioned as a fixed six string ebow and adheres to the principles of that device. An Ebow, if you check the patent, like this project states, uses any suitable "amplifier circuit known to the art"...in their case an LM386 and input and output coils impedance matched to the input and output of the amp. There is no AGC or even a buffer. In this project though, one has to at least match the high impedance guitar pickup to that of the circuit to prevent loading...this is a minimum requirement to make a "suitable" circuit in this application. Now, if you want a different sound or you have a driver that has a different response characteristic you are going to need to compensate for that in the circuitry...however, as in this case, you design the driver to the application (a non-loading basic circuit and big enough to span all the string and fit on the guitar in a practical way)...it does work and the limits of the power it can draw on (the battery) or the power of the amp (small and adjusted for gain) it does in fact work...just like an ebow 'works'... Of course, if like col whose criteria sought a very even response...you are going to want perhaps a more sophisticated AGC control to produce that effect. But, I did not seek to reproduce the sustainiac 'product' but use this technology to explore other options and sounds. For me, I like the dynamic sound, still controlled but that can play soft and loud and build and where the harmonics bloom and change with time and it is highly responsive to technique rather than automatically controlled by the circuitry...but that's my criteria... There has never been any secret to that nor a judgment in it. All that matters really is for every individual you have a vision of what you are after and do the work required to achieve that...if you are after a very controlled even sustain you are going to want to go with more sophisticated circuitry....if you want or need to run it with a lot of power, you are likely to require a driver design (probably with multiple coils or some kind of magnetic shielding) so that you get drive without the EMI effects... There is nothing "magical" about an LM386 at all as has been often repeated (any suitable amplifier circuit), and certainly if one hits the front end of the thing hard with excessive pre-amping...but that applies to any amp...it will distort, not increase the output...same with running it hard...I don't recall anyone who knows suggesting they run any of these things to their limits is advantageous. Without proper precautions it wont be stable, no amp can be. As I recall Col used an LM386 on the very lowest gain setting...20x when the LM386 is capable of running up to 200x..so you know...it can run clean enough at those kinds of powers and obviously also consume less power as well. But that isn't the 'reason' for it, he was looking for a particular controlled response and eliminating EMI effects and having to run more processing circuits. But this thread was about a given design and strategy none of which features overt AGC or complex circuitry to work...it is and needs only be, simple...like an eBow...but one could take that basic project and tinker with it to your hearts content to get something that more closely matches your own personal criteria...
  21. Big Hmmm with that one. Can you define efficiency here? In the light of FreshFizz's quotes from earlier on in this thread, I've just gone back to read in full - I agree with Wasp's comments...efficiency (certainly where a battery is involved), to most would mean optimum sustain with the least battery current draw - is that your take on efficiency too? If it is, then to claim 'efficiency' wrt driving of all strings must mean you've collected current draw data while conducting your tests? So what kind of current draw are you seeing with you driver coil? No...not to do with battery drain. It is to do with the ability of the driver design and construction to be capable of driving all strings effectively with basic amplification...ie, no variable phase compensation, no AGC circuitry, no squeal and none or minimal distortion. Obviously if you can do that "efficiently" you are likely to also draw less power as a consequence, but that was not the aim. The aim was to efficiently drive the strings with the least amplification and circuitry and keep things as simple as possible...run the amps as cleanly as possible and reduce power to reduce the effects of EMI in the system. An "ultimate sustainer" is not necessarily as 'wasp' would have it, the one with the longest battery life. There is no "ultimate' but regardless, it should be about performance within a given criteria...if long battery life is a part of that criteria or top of the list...then perhaps that is "ultimately" the most important thing for him. Most have traditionally aimed for producing the effect they are after above those aspects. As stated though, mine is still going on the same battery with the intermittent use I give it for months now...the commercial units can not do this because they require a battery for the whole guitar to function at all...my guitars only draw power or need it when the sustainer is on. So, it can not be compared directly with commercial units and the point is mute...as are the statistics asked for. Besides, FF and others whatever the name they choose, don't have power to be even a factor in their criteria so what does that aspect even matter at all in that case? If my designs have good battery life, it is simply a factor of requiring very little circuitry, only running when in use, no preamp gain and using the minimum possible gain to produce the effect. My later designs do use an LM386 but these things are adjustable in gain from 20-200x amplification...mine do sustain as did cols on even the lowest gain setting...on my tele I can run the LM386 to max...the range of "effect" changes, response and sound. But there is nothing "magical" about the LM386, I have shown many alternate circuits that I have used and tested over the years. You could use two LM386's in BTL for instance on a very minimal gain and even less "circuitry" in many ways...or any number of other chips available should you choose. There are far more basic circuits "littering the internet" than there are driver designs and most are based on the simple one developed here or are evasive in the specifications making it difficult to replicate. That you seem to think you need a CNC machine to avoid "ugly" CD case bobbins...automatically takes such a proposal out of the average DIY territory...just as the jigs required to align the magnets in my hex designs left that out of contention with that criteria. And in that quote, please note I am referring to my simple single coil driver and specifications...any design that significantly differs from this can work, but it is of course going to require developing the specifications. You could even change the specifications and develop circuitry to compensate, perhaps more power or whatever...I can only speak to having tried numerous variables with a basic theme and amplification that best suited the simplicity and practical nature requested for DIY construction at a time when I was developing far more complex hex designs and circuits beyond the DIY scope that people here were looking for. The proof is in the fact that it works and the independent verification of those replicating it...and to some extent the failures of those who have varied from it and got similar results (such as poor or no high string drive, distortion or squeal EMI effects, etc) But really..."Iranian moderation style"...new here...well then, where have you been reading up on all this if not here at PG then?
  22. There is nothing "magical" about an overdriven LM386, any amp chip could run it...one tries to avoid overdriving the things, their gain is adjustable and as explained, the "preamp" is only required to prevent loading on the guitars pickup. An ebow uses am LM386 with very little else because it has a separate pickup coil in it that matches the LM386 input impedance. The basic sustainer that I presented is simply a six string fixed ebow and has similar ambitions and results. My "criteria" were put forward and developed in collaboration many, many years ago and published here...other people may have different criteria...other than Col, I don't recall them being put forward. The commercial units use frequency variable phase compensation circuits...the "resistor and cap" thing is purposely superficial...the floyd rose patent is quite clear...a circuit senses the frequency of the input and adds "resistor and cap" style compensation of different values according automatically varying with the incoming signal. I don't know where the idea that an AGC is there to to 'save power'...it has always mainly been about controlling the performance and response of the effect. There is often a power saving in some designs because excessive drive is reduced when the string is sustaining as desired, similarly 'fizz' and squeal thresholds are controlled because the feedback loop curtailed instead of continuing to build. Col for instance sought a very controlled even response...while I desired a more dynamic "organic" effect...both are equally valid and put forward and achieved. Power might be saved by AGC but some designs may well take up more power to run the circuitry...but this might not matter if the criteria set does not require a battery anyway....so you could run as much circuitry as you can fit in the guitar! There are many ways that one could develop AGC for both response and power saving....shutting down the entire poweramp periodically, for instance, is likely to produce both effects...just a thought. The tacking together of other signal processing circuits as is being suggested is no different from the F/R and is not moving towards a dedicated circuit for this application IMHO. The battery can be an effective AGC component...it ultimately limits the power available...but there is not the need implied that you need a lot or any 'preamp power' over a buffer or even to run something like an LM386 at full power. Few of mine other than the tele could take that much power before squealing. But certainly there is nothing magical about an LM386 or any other amp chip. Anyone who puts a circuit up that even contains an LM386 will only attract and goad the troll...or at lease give the impression that the LM386 is some kind of magical thing...this has of course been strongly resisted...just like the ebow that it is modeled on; "any known amplifier" is capable of doing the job. Perhaps other successful "eggheads" and proponents of AGC might like to pass on to those calling for answers the details of alternate designs to mine...the specs of a dual coil driver, the circuitry, the installation and the criteria...maybe some sound. For all anyone knows, we may be comparing chalk and cheese. I didn't set out to produce a "sustainiac" or replicate that sound and response, I only set out to please my own criteria...everyone else may have different criteria and certainly different guitars, source pickups, installations and abilities to build and or design circuits and drivers effectively. This is a DIY project after all, not a "product" and the design on offer can be built and clearly works for many with very simple circuits and driver specs...as far as the basic sustainer is concerned, that is a part of it's criteria. Things like my hex drivers and some circuit ideas were beyond that criteria and so not 'disclosed' because what would be the point if it couldn't be replicated effectively by others. No one complains that an ebow only has a basic LM386 circuit and no AGC or more complex circuitry...I don't see why it should be of such a concern for others other than beyond the most basic forms of this kind of thing. If people can't make even the most basic proven design work, adding more isn't likely to make things better till one does.
  23. Because the basic DIY sustainer was conceived as a static six string ebow and as such. An ebow runs of an even simpler basic amp than the fetzer ruby. It is an elegant simple solution and like the ebow patent..."any known amplifier circuit known to the art" (of electronics) is specified. The basic driver then was designed, along with the limiting of the battery (as a crude AGC in itself) as a total system that works in this manner with any such basic low powered circuits. Other than the addition of a buffer stage to prevent loading on the guitar itself, it is remarkably like the classic ebow circuit, even down to the LM386. I wonder why people feel the need to make it so much more complicated as it needs to be? Perhaps since the BB or whatever he will call himself next isn't asking for your circuit FF...perhaps a few pics and the criteria that informs it and some sound clips would help gauge the more complex is better side of the debate. If people really want to build "their own" sustainer, perhaps they need to be the kind of person that, like me, can do some solid research and experimentation and show some actual results...and prepared to stand by it.
  24. The thing about the basic 'diy sustainer' is that it is designed very much like a fixed six string ebow...very simple...and so the the circuit is very much exactly like that of the ebow and the performance much as you'd expect from such a device. The driver is designed to work from that system. The fetzer-ruby was never my suggestion nor recommended by me or many others. It was always poor in that it lacked the essentials for high gain LM386 applications that the data sheet requires and the biasing that is recommended...but how many have offered alternatives specifically and especially for "this thing". Hardly anyone has the same criteria or prepared to put that out there, let alone the circuits that they use in any real detail. I've always said i didn't like it, always provided the minimum to "fix" it and always pointed out that I was getting success with a number of generic basic non-loading amp designs...it was just not the determining factor in the basic success of sustain and harmonics on all strings. But the F/R could work and even has in the basic form...for the "ebow like" ethic...all that is needed is a non loading section to avoid problems with the host pickup and a power amp...usually a bit of biasing to taste and response. As most people who have trouble building even the F/R successfully and often the drivers are suspect as well...it is no wonder that some have problems with the enterprise. If you get things to work efficiently and find the right balance at low power, you will automatically have AGC as the circuit will reach it's maximum power running off a battery limiting itself....there is not an imperative to get over complicated about it. No one would accept a given circuit anyway. Col's circuit is still available yet no one has replicated it ever...one wonders why. Obviously these circuits do work and provide the basics as it has been done time and again and sound clips are available. But lets face it....the people who would seek to debate it all have different driver designs...FF, Col both use different unspecified dual coil designs for instance and hardly anyone has tackled the multi pickup difficulties. And where are the circuits and criteria required...what size are these things...how easy would it be to replicate for the DIY'er...where are all the "instructables" from others who have found their own way over the years? It's all very well for people to sign in under a name to poke at not being spoon fed these things and at the originator...but that was never the intention nor my responsibility alone...but it certainly comes across that way as if I want to be considered "clever" when I'd really like to see some clever solutions on offer from others and the criteria that support them and from which to measure their success. All the original sustainer designs were based on the "ebow assumption" with basic amplification...the drivers were built to these circuits. They were built from generic preamp kits and LM386 data sheet kits with a bit of a mod to the output cap to 100uF to suit my tastes and driver designs and source pickups. The F/R came later and others picked up on this despite all the mods and warnings about it as being a bit clunky. Lovecraft was right from the earliest days...design the driver to the basic amplification and ignore the patents and phase circuitry and AGC...consider the ebow! Now...a bit of AGC might refine things...listen to cols and you will see it has a different performance criteria...always wanted a very controlled and fundamental sustain especially in low notes and his circuit achieves that. For me, I wanted a far more dynamic sound and liked the 'bloom' especially in the low notes. For both of us, battery power was essential as was a smallish circuit. For me, I needed to have all pickups available and no compromise to the host guitar...for most it seems that a single pickup guitar is adequate. If there is too much diversion in the driver...you might get more "power" but a completely different resonance say in the low frequencies or like sustainiac and all others, the need to compensate for phase and such. If this is the road you are on, then your circuits will need to be more sophisticated...but is the added performance there to warrant it, i can't tell. Gmike used a slightly different wire and a bad choice of magnets and core...and got poor high string response...the tutorial presented before it was truly successful or even installed. Mine at the same time, and what it was based on, built to spec with generic amps worked ok...and I believe even Primal's with the F/R as is worked straight out of the box in an LP. For some reason the F/R is somehow associated with me...but I was always concerned not to 'steal' the work of others like RoG and that such a circuit was ideal for the application. It just depends on your criteria and philosophy about these things...the ebow patent specifies "any suitable amp known to the art", and so that is what I suggest and tested many different basic amp designs and chips...that in fact they have and always used LM386's says something but purely incidental to it's function. Based on the same principle...so to the basic DIY sustainer. Ive used op-amp buffers and JFETS and push pull transistors and all manner of things, all easily available and widely known...even a full on compressor limiter at one stage...but in the end, to meet my criteria it had to be simple and compact and work and worth the effort. I've made dual coil drivers, even hex drivers...but they have not stood that test for me...a lot more work, no more gain...harder to meet the other criteria...usually losing a pickup along the way. But the whole "circuit" thing is a furphy if one considers the ebow as the starting point and work up from the most basic working model and perfect that. There is no "ultimate" or "perfect' sustainer except within the personal criteria of the builder and performer and the particular guitar and application. Since everyone is a bit shy to lay even their criteria on the table let alone the detail of their designs (mine was laid out in the early 30's of the main thread)...it seems that I cop the flack as if I have any responsibility any more than others do. And lets face it, there are people who claim more expertise and equipment than I ever have and nothing much has come of all this at all in years of trying...just more elaborate pseudonyms to push the circuit side of things...and pretend the driver or even the battery don't matter or arre not intrinsic parts of the circuit and 'system'
  • Create New...