psw

Me, Me...oh, pick me.... I haven't got a word in edgewise, but being 4:16 am .... I didn't do a lot of this kind of thing, but I did propose the Idea and try a few things to a lack luster response. My idea was to have a coil around a core (like now) but another coil around this coil of an opposite polatity. I think I called it an "active shield". However, others probably could see it straight away, while I took a while to come to see the falicies (ohh, is that a gay word?) ~ The outer coil or similar "active shield would require power to run it....something in short supply. ~ It would also be putting off it's own EMI potentially adding to the problem as without a core, it wouldn't be very focused ~ Probably a whole lot of other things that I can't think of at this time of day...like lowering efficiency by canceling drive forces in the driver Anyway...this is really what the dual coil ideas are doing...except, that the secondary RWRP drive coil also uses the power to drive the string and creates a kind of magnetic shield that is identical to that of the driver (as it also has a core) So...to that extent I have tried stacked coils, side coils, bilateral coils, alternating hex coils. I did try some active shields, etc... This kind of thing would likely be fundamental to a mid placed driver for instance in which there was a fair amount of work with little or no gains yet. You may find that you are simply going to have to provide adequate distance and remove the other pickups from circuit in any practicable driver or set of drivers... I still see some fundamental flaws in your experiment setup there...your driver is suspended right next to and over the neck pickup on the bridge side (so close to the middle as well) In addition to the fizz thing (in which I think col missed some more possibilities) there are other very similar effects that sound just like it or are related...many of them to do with incorrect bypassing for instance. BTW...the technical term that Sustainiac use in their manual for fizz is grunge! Col and me and most others do tend to agree that one fundamental aim is to provide completely clean sustain...so any distortion is a bad thing. So things like "fizz" is often pretty mild and completely hidden if you use any kind of distorted, even mildly crunchy amp tone...but still "not acceptable" given that aim. Clean amp headroom is a great help, but not a total solution. Also..."fizz" type disortions can sound radically different on different guitars. Most "fizz" to my ears also sounds like string rattle. Given the ferocity that you can move these strings it can often be mistaken. Many people play guitars with light strings and a very low action and don't have a problem with a bit of string rattle. Like col, my action is reasonably high with 10's...some sounds can sound a bit "fizzy" when driven to extreme's but is in fact this string rattle effects...more AGC would aid in this. I can also get fizz (especially with a low battery) but it can be avoided to a very large extent even without dual coils and complicated circuitry...but you do need to take precautions! Anyway enough from me for now...the conversations seem to be returning to something more productive and I guess we are all learning along the way. ... Oh...I did try some piezo things in working towards separate signals for each driver. However, much of my hex things worked on using all the coils simultaneously but "tuned" for each strings response as a starting point. Various reasons for that...most concepts were tested as a single string driver then expanded to six...but the physical size of the things made a big difference to performance, EMI, etc and these were getting ever increasingly more difficult and expensive to make. There were a lot of failures much of the work having to be done with a big magnifying glass! As col said...at some point you feel that chilly wind Pete

Is master builder akin to Master Bates in the Tin Tin books?

could be a short if the jack is wired back to front...switch wiring is often mistaken as well (hot and ground out confused). The diagram looks right, but it is hard to tell if you have got all those connections just right. One clue may be...does the neck pickup work when selected? Also...you may want to have a good look at the switch, often these can get worn or bent or a wire lodged in it resulting in one pickup not functioning...this is often indicated if neck works in its selection and the both pickups middle position of the switch. Otherwise, a multimeter to check things would help a lot...let us know if that is an option. pete

Get the same thing with a sustainer without declaring to the neighbors your gaiety

Hey John...since you are painting this anyway...why not use some filler to neaten up the control cavity routing so it will look like it was perfect? Also...have you tested the tuners to see if you are going to be able to effectively turn that low e...still looks awfully close! ohhh...you found one of the many obvious design flaws! So many more to come... pete

Thanks Hank...it is appreciated... Well...one thing that is in favour for hex coils (though I did not find it a solution) is that they can all be wired alternating RWRP which might help matters. EMI is unavoidable...it's what makes the strings go...the trick is to balance the power and the efficiency and the distance between the driver and pickups to get something that works under practical conditions. My hex drivers did seem to work much closer to the pickups than some things, and they also were capable of miniaturizing that helped a lot as well. Whether you are able to make something that fits your requirements can only be had by trying. I did "settle for less" in the end I suppose, but it did strike a balance of goals quite effectively and exceeded them in some areas to my satisfaction as I say. Others may want more...the commercial systems are a little more elegant and sound a bit different, and most likely a cheaper solution for many. I suspect col has o is well on the way to a similar response. There are lots of other areas to explore as well...like the harmonics thing. There will be limitations and compromises I am sure, the sustainic guitar that I encountered had a variable "mix" control that I thought was more effective and was somewhat envious of. I think my circuit could do with a much better AGC for most things. One should not underestimate techniques as well with these things...they do tend to require the development of skills to get the most out of them even when they do work! anyway...thanks and good hunting for the solutions and the explanations you seek pete

David...With all due respect...I am not sure if you were around at the time of zfrittz6 but his circuit and drivers (at least to good extent) were tried and failed. His response was that the circuit had error, in fact as presented these errors failed for it to work as an amplifier at all. As I recall his results were not all together verifiable...but for all we know maybe it worked in a fashion once the bugs were worked out. I have already explained how the switch idea while clever may in fact have fundamental problems and as far as I am aware failed to be built or shown to actually work! However, what would be most instructive would be if you were to attempt to replicate his work and prove it for us. Otherwise, I am putting on the patronizing attitude I can tell...some of your suggestions are really wishful thinking. I often do this, and I come up with ideas and even experiment with them. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the ebow for instance or aspects that keep getting overlooked. Scaling the device up for instance means scaling up everything including the distance between the internal driver and pickups...that could be up to six times the size of a conventional ebow right there! You will find somewhere my attempt to build an ultra miniture ebow with one of my single string hex drivers and a similar thing as an internal driver and an off board or surface mounted circuit and battery box for instance. Not bad ideas, worth you having a go at them too if that is what you are seeking...personally I cam up with a lot of problems and shelved the idea in favour of pursuing the direction I did (no point having a successful sustainer and such a device really). I was particularly taken with the idea at one point as exploiting one of the aspects of one of my hex driver approaches that created harmonic effects depending on alignment. The intention was that in a hand held device such harmonic effects may well be created by simply twisting the little ebow in relation to the string. But honestly...there are significant problems to be overcome, practicalities involved and all kinds of issues. That does not mean that these things couldn't be solved...but it would take a lot of time and dedication, and motivation to do so. The whole sustainer to my mind is deceptively simple. At it's most basic it really is just regenerating the signal into a coil that excites the strings...but always the devil is in the details...and this is where the real work and challenges are. It is a bit of a balancing act. One way of getting a feel for some things is to take things to an extreme. For instance, a completely sealed driver would potentially eliminate all EMI (this was part of zfrittz6's tin can enclosed drivers) but in doing so, it could completely eliminate the EM forces that drive the string! Another approach would be to create something that focuses the field...dual coil drivers are a strategy but can suffer from a lack of projection...one way to help this as col is doing is to widen the gap between the coils. A sound idea, but enlarging the driver. Perhaps it is a better way, or something similar (bi-laterals, alternating hexs) but with some other sacrifices. Col and the commercial guys have taken or embarking on this route and in part overcome the sacrifices by allowing the driver to act also as a pickup...either through pre-amplification or transformers to help with impedance matching. Not a bad idea at all really, perhaps a low impedance driver could be built to equal or better the tone of an active or passive pickup (the sustainac I heard wasn't at all "bad")...but for others the need to always have power for the guitar to work and no choice of neck pickup might be too much. That's not an advertisement of my approach, I too have made many compromises, it does what it does in that form. To take it further, you will see that I have had to resort to things like multicoils and magnetic shielding...the mid pickup attempts for instance. ... So in short it can come off as patronizing or "shooting your ideas down in flames" when someone, usually myself, tries to show the shortcomings in them. Then I find my comments (which with all due respect have a fair bit of practical experience behind them) are dismissed in quotes from other unacknowledged parties, and then their apparent shortcomings dismissed as off hand remarks. pete

Well...I am glad that you plugged it in and also that you tried running a properly preamp/amp circuit from the actual guitar's signal (bridge pickup) into your driver and got good results. The TDA7053 was one of my previous suggestions when this was being discussed and something I did try and held (and still do) hold hopes for to replace the venerable LM386. Without meaning to be patronizing , by doing this (plugging the guitar in, trying the guitars output and a good stable circuit (your very simplified lm386 thing didn't include zobel or other stabilization suggestions for the chip)) you seem to have come up with similar results as I have described. One could extrapolate that if your driver were bigger and trying to cope with the complexities of multiples strings (or if you were running six of them), that there might be less efficiency and greatly increase EMI effects which may cause some concerns or require extra measures. Again, this would be pretty much the kind of effect that the more simplified approaches seem to exhibit. I sincerely meant that while sustain is possible acoustically, you will not be aware of the side effects of EMI and related issues till you plug it in and so risk false positives. It was for this reason that I abandoned signal generator experiments...as I was trying to say...in my own unfortunately offensive way ... Good question... hmmm...people may have to speak for themselves...how much have you missed? Col is working on current amps using the LM386 in this way and a new HB sized dual coil driver to match this kind of thing. Hank is pursuing the "ultimate" sustainer by actively experimenting with single string drivers with a view to a hex system. David has several different approaches that he is conceptually exploring or discussing...personally I think there are a number of things being overlooked that would scuttle these ideas practically. Donovan has been having trouble with high string response with converted single coil pickup drivers. A couple of members have been having trouble with faulty fernandes sustainers...so there is some work to fix and understand them a little better. I appear to be engaged in digging my own grave in an attempt to contribute or help, and largely failing at that! I continue to promote the simple single coil driver and simple circuit as a practical and workable way of producing sustain and harmonics....others have a different approach, desires or doubt the results perhaps. A little further back MRJ posted a layout for the F/R circuit with improvements that are advisable for better performance. Some internal magnet driver building techniques were demonstrated by Al that look promising. ... In this summary am I in anyway trying to speak on their behalf, just my understanding of what seems to be at play and why the thread is so active at the present time. There have been some healthy (and perhaps unhealthy) debate along the way as has often been the case from time to time. Just offering the summary as a bit of a catch up, I see there has been a lot of non-menber visits and it is a bit confusing I'm sure! pete

I know this has been explained before... An ebow has a pickup and driver very close together...it is able to do this because it needs less power to drive a single string, is extremely close to the string, and they make a feature of the pickup hearing the driver as it gets closer. They also use other precautions like both the pickup and driver encased in a metal sleeve. You would expect that an ebow big enough to vibrate all strings would have 6 times the output. To cope with that, it would reasonably be assumed that you would need six times (at least) the distance between the driver and the internal pickup. Coincidentally, this is very much the distance between the bridge pickup and a neck driver! This needs to be considered also with a Hex system where it is trying to drive all six strings of course.

Hi Chad and fellow aussie You are not likely to be able to inlay it on a fretboard...have a look at my recent tele driver (see blue link in sig). On such a coil the blade is just wider than the width of the string spread...but the coil needs to go around that...much like and for the same reasons that a pickup is wider than a neck. There would be other problems implimenting it as well if you think through how you would go about this... pete yes...completely agree col...

I am familiar with the pickup makers forum, and them with my work. Although not fully credited, way back I supplied the links to Micheal Brooks and some of the Sustainer history stuff (on yet another forum)...what they missed was the really old sustainer patents...like this one from 1892... Each string of a piano effectively fitted with it's own ebow and predating transistors of course. ... http://www.vibesware.com/ Interesting...like an ebow on a stick! There is a lot that's not being said I suspect....what happens if you wanted to play high up the neck with a standard guitar with a neck pickup...the device would need to be forward of the fretting and so essentially over the pickup...hmmm I don't follow this...Uli is sustaining harmonics it would seem...but all the sustainers including mine create harmonics "on demand"...the only caveat is that the harmonics generated, while completely predictable, are not selectable...the "mix" control comes a little closer perhaps. Maybe like ebow and us, they are going to offer the opportunity to reverse the signal to create harmonics (more likely) or a variable filter (so effectively a wha as in the "mix" control...but their advantage is that they can move the driver along the string. This is of course exactly what I recommend people do for the testing of the DIY devices before installing them...test the system well away from the pickups so that you know that it works. ... As for the "definitions" I don't really agree about them really...I think col might have come up with the term "fizz" but is a part of EMI effects as is the string flux idea which is one way that a drivers signal might be sensed by a pickup. Speaking to the "problems" with my simple design and those of sustainiac and fernandes and similar (ebow does suffer the same things but it is treated as a feature btw) there are assumptions or misunderstandings I think about perceived problems with this approach. I am not advocating it as perfect by any means, there are reasons to pursue the hex drive idea if that is the direction you are prepared to go...as far as I can see largely to do with a quest for improved polyphonic drive and perhaps less manual muting. EMI and "fizz" problems only exist where the system is not working properly or you intend or like that effect (as with an ebow for instance where the driver gets close to the pickup itself). The device works by emitting electromagnetic radiation causing the strings to vibrate. If this radiation gets into the pickup it will create oscillation feedback (squeal) or cancellation effects, or distortions and howls. Move the driver right away (over the neck) and these will not exist. So, the challenge is to have the EM radiation focused enough to drive the string and not get into the pickups. Where it does, EM interference occurs. EMI can leak through by magnetic coupling, there is no doubt that the strings will be magnetized by the drivers signal and this can be sensed by a pickup if it is enough to travel along the string to the sensing coils...ie string flux...you can see it in the models, you can set up experiments to hear the effect. "Fizz" is a friendly term for mild distortions that can creep in, yet not have undue effects on the sustaining of the strings. This occurs when there is excessive drive signals (so my circuits and the F/R can display this at the higher gains quite easily...cols heavily AGC things far less if at all I suspect). I generally set my circuits to a gain that is just shy of squeal and then manually control drive. I also note that in my guitars, the weakening of the battery creates more of a fizz effect...so, distortions created by a diminishing headroom seems to make this a lot worse. This and other experiments lead to the idea that clean headroom is one strategy to at least minimize or eliminate possible fizz effects. Others may actually find "fizz" not that objectionable, more like and ebow and completely masked by a dirty sound...and actually seek out these extreme driving effects. Other things not discussed and a concern of cols as I recall at one point...is the artificial way in which the driver tends to excite the strings...to some ears it can lack the character of the original guitar. I used to worry more about that kind of thing, but having played the things for a few years now, I kind of expect it to sound like that...and to my ears it sounds just like natural loud amp feedback that also locks on to a particular mode of vibration. ... I just want to put out there that people like myself and col do have sustain on all strings, that it is polyphonic (but the response is not even and one string will tend to predominate in a chord (typically the lower strings) over time...and even that can be controlled a little with creative damping) that EMI is not an issue with a successful system except in the form of "fizz" and this "fizz" is only an issue if you drive the strings hard with a lot of power, the driving amp is struggling or distorted, and there is no limiting (like AGC) to tone things down. As for the LM386...maybe it is not the ideal amp...enough pages have been spent debating and looking into alternatives. However, it is a solid, cheap, easily obtainable and dependable design for what it does and these are the reasons that it is still around and the darling of the DIY crowd and powers the ebow. But just one of very many approaches that people could take. ... Again...I am more than happy to post clips of my guitar's characteristics...what it can do, the limitations, what "fizz" sounds like on my guitar at higher settings, what a sustained chord sounds like...you name it! ... Basically, we all have different aims and aspirations for the thing...mine sounds a bit different from a sustainiac and gives a more powerful and raw feedback like effect, but with a lot of control. That's what it is designed to do, that's what it does. Problems of "fizz" and other EMI are intrinsic in this project, balancing it all to create the effect that you desire is the challenge. Sustainiac, Fernandes, Brooks, Col, Me and a lot of people over the years through this thread have been able to produce sustain and predictable harmonics on all strings to their satisfaction, or at least in a musically useful way. pete ps...i might add also, that something that sounds like "fizz" on my guitar is that even with a medium action and a low drive, the strings do vibrate hard enough to crash into the frets quite a bit..lower strings more than others...the proof that this is what is being heard is that you can hear it "acoustically" and it is less or not at all on higher strings or on highest frets.

Still Ugly...mind you getting interesting with two being made like this. The stubby head thing just looks "wrong". And, I'm not sure how you are supposed to get to the low end tuner. Not sure, but you may also come into problems with the length of string behind the bridge. Effectively you have an extended fenderish six in line back there and like leo you may find you require string trees or something to keep pressure on the bridge and to stop unwanted resonances back there...just a few things to consider! pete

Thamks for the info on the fernandes "mystery" transformer. I had kind of assumed this function as such transformers also feature in things like the Lace alumitones and even the LP recording as I recall. Great to see a good circuit drawn out, I'm sure it will be a valuable reference for many and stimulate ideas. Not sure how much help I can be with it, but as fortune has it, you and Leppard84 could perhaps compare stuff on this one. For instance, a suitable replacement might be found if the working transformer was measured from his. I dare say something similar even if it has to be wired hanging off the board might suffice...I can't see any reason you could harm anything by trying. Interesting to note they require a 4pdt like mine for the on off and bypassing functions...but perhaps people with more knowledge and skills can take apart the diagram and explain it more fully. With any luck we'll have fixed at least 2 of these things and provided information for future reference as it is not the first time this kind of thing has come up, and probably not the last. Thanks... pete

Aluminium is a better choice...as an easier alternative...check out auto parts shops...I've seen plastic chromed stuff that looks like checkerplate and a range of other materials like carbon fibre. Much lighter, self adhesive, cuts with a knife, reversible, probably cheaper, lighter, etc...

Maybe you are right Hank...my motivation has never been to patronize and I have gone to great lengths to try and help and to point out that I haven't covered all angles...I only spent a year on the hex things before I made the thin driver (around page 40 from memory)...but that means nothing as no one can do everything. A lot, if not most of the Hex things worked, there were many designs, they would not be easily "replicable" no matter what I disclosed about their workings and construction. A lot of what I was working towards was perhaps overly ambitious. A lot of was fulfilled by the simpler designs and compensated in other areas by being compatible with standard guitars, compactness, ease and cost of replication. People pass through this thread after years of presence generally if you have a good look. Others pass through because they fail or don't have the skills or confidence, others come just to ask me specifically if I will make one for them (for which I get weekly emails), LK passed through because he died others stayed for a year or so and then went on with careers, study and other projects. There is no obligation. A very many people come because they are interested and never post nor are even members of PG. About a thousand views have occurred in the last 2 weeks alone. The Hex era was also heavily subscribed to with innovative work being done by many for quite some time. As far as "my model"...the thin coil design has a proven track record as one design that works, that's all. I "push" it because it has been replicated by me in various forms on the same principle (thin, ultra thin, piggyback, etc) and by a very many others with success. This thread exists as the title suggests to discuss all sustainer ideas, that's why I set it up, that's what it does. The bigger frustration is that it doesn't have a short prescriptive answer. To address this, one member decided to jump the gun and present his work as a tutorial (G-Mike) bring the F/R circuit before he had achieved a complete success. I followed with a pictorial of my driver winding process and the piggyback idea as well....and continued developing these simplified forms because they were easily replicable and fulfilled the needs of many here and made a good starting point, if not an end to itself. Still...I can understand how I can come off as 'objectionable' perhaps...a cross I guess I have to bear. It is not my intention but to engage in discussion to further and help. Clearly in that I have and am failing for you. Clearly there is enough information here to show that I have "been there and done that" in many respects (eg. page 2 single coil driver described in full...page 7 use of signal generator to produce drive). Although in recent times I have not been doing "the work" that I used to do, I certainly put in the time and effort and thought into these things. I don't know if there is anything that I could say or offer to you that wouldn't come off as patronizing. If I can through personal experience see flaws in the experimentation, I am over complicating things if I try and work around EMI and phase issues I am being too simplistic....when I present a design that works and a ridiculous amount of support to help others replicate it I am pushing my own barrow. So...pointless to defend myself really, just digging my own hole in doing so. pete

There is the effect that as you fret higher, the string is pushed closer to the driver in the neck position that gives a stronger drive higher up the fretboard. As well as tension, a large part of it seems to be in the amount of ferrous material the driver has to work with. For instance, on my tele if you let the thing play itself, eventually one string tends to predominate. As you would expect that string is generally the low E, if you damp that, the A string, if you damp these two it is generally the G string (although this is probably on a par with the A, the B and D strings have a similar response, and the high e last. A lot seems to be about the mass of the inner core, not the outer windings. I use 10-46 strings...both sustainiac and fernandes recommend this kind of gauge to give the device something to work with. Light 9's may make high b and e strings unresponsive although I may try a set on the tele as it has quite a powerful drive. Part of my approach to the Hex thing in lieu of a fully hexed driver and pickup was the aim of making the drivers compensate fore each string, so a little more drive for the high e and such, even though they were to be chained together in a mono unit. I've always felt that the tension plays a part. I have though tuned strings down a fair bit (while remaining tense and of course the tremolo can produce this effect) which should benefit drive by a lower pitch and less tension...but the string (core) gauge seems to be the bigger factor to the response. ... One other thing that really kills high string response seems to be "fizz" ...if there is grunge in the signal this will effect the ability for the high string to respond. Another factor that I would be looking at in donovan's work is very long driver leads. If you consider that these leads are extending the driver coils for no drive effects is one aspect. Another thing to consider the effect of capacitance and such of these long leads. A long guitar lead will for instance roll off the highs and this kind of effect is probably also detrimental to high string performance. pete

I'd like to see some pics and details on their driver. As for the board, you are not the first to have trouble with the trim pots and there are a few posts on fixing them around the electronics section as I recall that you might want to search out. Sorry you didn't get the project to work, both fernandes and sustainiac make good products...personally I have a bit of a bias for the sustainiac as it seems a bit more flexible in the installation and aftermarket support and as I say, yours is not the first one that has trouble with the trim pots. pete

Yes...but you are not hearing any fizz or EMI issues...the noise doesn't come from the string, the string can be sustaining away very vigorously and still have massive amounts of fizz and EMI and things like the leaking of such things through the ground connected pickup coils (if such things occur as suggested) may be very important to your future plans, or at least put those things to rest. But carry on... pete

Hmmm...looks like I have missed a couple of posts there between col and donovan. I'll restrain myself at 1am! I do note that both are talking about non-sine wave signals and again, much of this was also discussed along with some debunking (perhaps) of phase issues and patent reading by LK and more between page 2 and 7 and beyond! I think the ideal signal may well be the undistorted signal of the strings real vibration, in perfect phase! But, I did wonder if a saw tooth wave might help with any phase concerns back then and worth a shot. As I recall, with experiments very similar to hanks, there was little driving difference whatever signal I used, they all worked! The problem was the EMI and fizz that could result should these signals get into the source pickup, which is a whole different ball game. FEMM is limited, it's 2D and the way I used it pretty crude. I am kind of with donovan, although I think you are talking about similar things in relation to the alternating reducing enlarging, fields...this is where I talk about "speed" and everyone hates me saying that. Basically, you need to establish a field (or enlarge the existing one), overcome this enlargement (this produces a lag) and then release or reduce the field "fast enough" for the vibration of the string. When we looked at square and half wave approaches (someone referred to this as "pinging" the string) I came to a conclusion that you needed an opposing signal to collapse or reduce the field (it won't want to release unless it is pulled the other way). This is most apparent with the higher strings which are vibrating a lot faster. No...I do not think that the long magnets make much difference. You have a permanent magnetic field and you are manipulating it, the shape of it may make a difference to EMI issues, but not so much if it will drive the string I suspect. In relation to the thin coil and the piggy back driver. The piggyback thing was an afterthought...this was not the intention of the design, the design was created as the most efficient in comparison with others (deeper coils, etc) and not what I set out to do. The piggyback concept was not the aim. The recent tele thing was probably more what I had in mind, but even that was because the most effective design that I could come up with could be utilized in a very compact form. The compact form came about as a direct result of the hex things which became ridiculously small, when challenged I offered a DIY-able working version of the kind of things I was working on fully expecting to return to the hex things. In trying various things, I came to the idea that one of the reasons I was getting some superior results in EMI reduction may well not be from some of the exotic materials and magnetic orientations, but simply because they were so small and focused. This thought made me seek out something that was as compact as possible to exploit this as much as anything. But this is something I have explained before. We all have different desires I guess and different roads to travel to get there. I have included in my itinerary a wide range of things...simple enough to DIY (my hex things were way over the top for that), compact enough to allow choice of pickups, low modification of existing instruments (the piggyback driver, the tele surface mount driver), simplified basic circuits...but most of all something that would produce "the" effect, or something close to it! Perhaps I have been seduced by the results and not taken it "further" as I had once so enthusiastically tried. Maybe I have just been doing this too long. So much has changed in all these years. In fact, i get quite emotional recalling those times compared to now. I had a house where I could do these things, I had days in which a baby slept and time to tinker. All those things have gone, I haven't seen either of my kids (my son hadn't even been born when this started) and I haven't seen either of my children for a year this month. I have a house inspection again today that may see the sale of the house I rent and some permanent changes, perhaps even a complete enforced retirement from this kind of thing...so there are a lot of "issues" at play here. All I can say is that I am sorry if that jaded negativity is to the fore and go back and read the words of encouragement that others offered from the beginning on all these issues and more, see the kind of things I was doing back then and the amount of work that was behind those things. These days I am acutely aware that I am no longer active in creating these things, but as the only one who has traveled the whole journey of this thread, believe me that I did an enormous amount of work to back up those early threads, much the same ideas that are being discussed here again and my posts read uncannily like those of donovans and hanks today. enough...i will try and sleep... pete

My apologies...Hank I had a longer post typed, then i went back myself to page two where I gave very accurate description of the coil (12mmx4mm on a ferrite bead with 4 ohms of 0.2mm wire). No pics at that satge, photobucket didn't exist, I was taking "photos" with a scanner (you can still see some of the hex things that have a babies nappy over them!) as I didn't have a digital camera. I realize looking through those threads that I sounded just like you hank, and was doing similar kinds of things as best I could... By the middle of page 7 I posted this... There was "lively" conversations back then as now, but perhaps I am short on the encouragement that was shown me in the beginning...a lot has happened since those days. Much of what people are discussing was being explored and discussed back then and probably is well worth a read I guess for others embarking along a similar road. I am curious from your vid though hank...what happens when the guitar is plugged in? pete

Well...it's not unusual to have trouble with the high E and B strings...although, the b string is one of my better responding strings. I have found that long driver leads are a bit of an impediment...remember, these are effectively an extension fo the driver coil itself. I can't really speak to a lot of complex circuits, but have you tried something like a F/R as MRJ has posted or an equivalent? Without seeing, hearing and knowing what is being done my opinions may well be worthless. If you have built a driver as described, then it has proven to work under the right conditions. As far as seeing these things, yes it's tricky...but some of us have played with FEMM simulations...col more advanced than others...at least to get a visual feel for things like magnetic shapes. Alnico is what is typically used in fender style magnetic poles and are metalic. All the same, very prone to demagnetization (although they can be re-magnetized easily enough and are supplied that way from stew mac and others). What we call "fizz" is the source pickup hearing and amplifying the signal coming out of the driver. The ebow also does this by the way which is often misunderstood. Worse case this produces squeal (oscillationary feedback) but even if power is low enough to stop that, the pickup may still pickup the magnetic variations coming from the driver as a signal. If that signal is distorted then that distortion will also be amplified...other effects may include phase cancellation and such that may make this distortion somewhat ugly. If the signal were "clean" (a big ask once mangled through the driver I imagine) it would be considerably less of a problem, most likely drive the string more effectively, resulting in less power being needed before fizz and as a result, less EMI and so less "Fizz". I think that your driver may well be effective...maybe there is something else getting in the way. A lot of fizz will definitely stop things working as it should, the first thing to go is high string response. Sustainiac and fernandes are good products...a little different in response than mine. We have pics of a completely taken apart drive and measurements of the coils. Some of the details are in the patents (though unreliable) but there are some "secret" epoxy coated stuff, especially in the fernandes and not enough detail. You clearly have tried a few things, but I'd be looking at short leads, a simple low power amp, battery not power supplied (can introduce noise), disconnect completely all pickups bar the bridge for testing, take the signal directly from the bridge pickup before the controls and send us lots of details ...it sounds like you have been getting close... pete

Well...it's so good to here you excited and it is producing some results. You may be getting some false impressions still...i know, I am sooo negative!...but my earliest experiments along these lines were very similar, small coils and thinner wires and the use of signal generators and such. Yes you can hit a resonant frequency with very little if an phase lag by tuning the string and the generated note through amplified sound card...but ultimately you need to be able to run it on any note, fretted anywhere and on any string from the guitar's own signal..and that's where things like wire guage and driver design (simple as it is) seems to have more influence. The reason I stopped (around page 10 i guess) using these kinds of things is because while I got similar results, it wouldn't transfer to the "real world" which is far more complex. As a result there may require more amplification (although i think col doesn't have the higher gain and mine is adjustable) and things like the zobel network to help things remain stable. I used signal generation signals because I was wondering if there was a preferential driving signal (like sine, triangle or square wave signals) for instance. But the input signal and preamplification is quite different from the signal of a real guitar, through pickups, generated from a different string sample and all the rest. Theoretically, if you could generate something of just the right resonance, it should take hardly any power at all to sustain, but this is very much an idealized situation that is very hard to transfer to the "real world"...if only for the fact that fretting in relation to driver placement must always change. Some of my hex designs also tried to simulate a more side to side or balanced kind of drive with novel magnet orientation...this caused them to be extremely sensitive to alignment. I was hoping that I could perhaps mount something in or just in front of a bridge...that is where the hex things were ultimately aiming, but I just couldn't achieve that. But I am glad that you did try the more basic approach so that you will be getting more of a handle on the device and the various "issues" and perhaps come to your own conclusions or at least inform your further adventures. There is always something magical when you do get those strings vibrating though...one of the happiest moments in my life was when my daughter got to play with it and the look on her face as this thing drove the string as if by magic will always be precious to me... keep reporting in... pete ps...400 turns seems a lot, must be a pretty small coil? Thinner wire offers more resistance so the number should be less. It seems very much like my original (page 2) 10mm single string driver on a ferrite core and similar wire gauge...that looked like it was going to vibrate the strings right off the guitar...it didn't scale up until I worked out a different wire gauge and gave it more power. The result did encourage me to attempt to make six of them, but then the EMI and power requirements were also multiplied of course!

No...I don't think so...not in my experience anyway...look at the pickup/driver things or how others have successfully converted single coils. Typically magnetic poles are alnico by the way, but if you really wanted to they could be pushed down with a vice or something. If the coil isn't good enough, better to pull it apart and start again...another benefit of PVA for potting...easily comes undone. Perhaps part of what happens is that the signal drives the string and kind of lets go...or at least, attenuates the drivers magnetic field with the strings caught in it's sway.The shape of the field may not be relevant to the "phase" much at all. There may be no real difference as far as fizz. Potentially less if the longer magnets are attracting the field down into the guitar more than along the strings perhaps. The ideal is to have something that works efficiently enough that the minimum amount of power is required. Minimizing power obviously minimizes the amount of EMI coming out of it. One reservation with some dual coil designs may be that they lack the projection and need to compensate with increased power...but that is just conjecture and based on miniture designs with close RWRP poles. Nothing will eliminate the risk of fizz, a clean signal is probably a better strategy so that any fizz that might appear is at least not unattractive and distorted. Another reason to conserve clean headroom by lowering the power requirements to run it. I am not saying that the single coil is a better or even more efficient driver btw...but I am suggesting that it can be good enough to have minimal EMI and drive the strings quite hard, certainly hard enough. If you have made drivers...what has been the problem so far with the testing of them? You need to test them well away from other pickups if you have not completely bypassed them as in an installation (at least in my experience)...maybe yours are fine but the circuit or the installation is suspect...or maybe you are reaching beyond the capabilities of the simple version of the project (like avoiding rewiring and bypassing). pete

I think col can speak more about the dual coil designs than I can. It should be noted that col's current driver is effectively a dual coil pickup with thin coils about the size of an HB and the newer proposal driven by a current mode amp is in fact made from a full sized HB with many more turns and full thickness coils (as described in a recent post). Dual coils are working like a reverse HB pickup...the improved EMI is from the generation of equal but opposing magnetic signals but with reversed magnets. The down side is that typically, these signals are most attracted to their opposing poles as much as the strings...whereas a typical SC design throws the signal up and around to reach the reverse side and opposite pole of the driver....i.e. projection. This kind of thing needs to be considered in such designs, moving the dual coils apart (as col was eluding to previously) may create more of an arch and improve projection while a compact rail like design like I tried, may have very little projection requiring it to be placed very close to the strings. The bilateral design like sustainiac uses addresses this a bit and is worth considering in this context. It is something that may well affect Hex design also, many of mine had alternating polarities. Generally, having the coil as close to the strings seems to help a lot...I did hypotheses about whether the coil being on the edge of the magnetic field has some effect, but I have made coils with protruding poles that work. Single coil designs tend to have a fair amount of projection though compared to dual coil devices so this may be something to consider more with such a design. Cutting magnets can always be tricky. Typically ceramic pickups have metal poles which could be filled down. Alnico too can be shaped (although there are dangers with magnetized fragments)...the main risk is that heat (from grinding and cutting) and other factors seriously effect the magnetism and generally they will need to be re-magnetized. Ceramics are extremely difficult to shape and pose much higher risks...the material is generally extremely resistant to shaping and cracks very easily. Much better to find or adapt made magnets, combining multiple magnets or attaching magnetic materials to size. I do need some extra bucks...unfortunately, I received another phone call yesterday with a view to sell the house I am living in...this may make for a radical change in circumstances and perhaps even a halt to any construction and a loss of internet access as well. While things are so "unstable" it would not be wise for me to embark on promises that I couldn't keep. Typically, the time and effort to had craft such things outstrips the preparedness of people to pay for the work. Making them yourself can be very inexpensive but even with a coil made by me, the effectiveness of it may well rely on how it is put to use, the circuit and the installation...things outside of my control. But perhaps if things settle down, I don't have to move, I can get some employment, this divorce is finalized, and I can get over the loss of both of my children and pull myself out of this funk I'm in...I may well get interested in building these kinds of things again. Anyway...yes some interesting work going on, perhaps my efforts will be surpassed by such activites and who knows, perhaps I will be involved with other activities and projects. I had for some time being messing with piezos and such... pete

No...that wasn't the point I was making...it has p-90-alikes on it that could just as much account for the different tone. I had a processed sound and what sounded like room echo. I was just commenting from a sales position, that these are comparisons and what they may hear without variation is what the guitar lacks in comparison, not it's features. It was really a response to this claim... ...which is a risky sales pitch if it doesn't deliver! The ergonomics are almost entirely in the light weight which is admirable, it's lack of countouring and thickness of the body undermine some of this. These features have been offered before in the market place such as in Fenders Robben Ford model (designed to sound like a smaller 335) and many others, this is what fender tried... A more convincing demo video and explanation is this from which you have largely drawn inspiration I'd suggest (and which I don't hear a lot of reference to)... Here's some specs...link...retailing at $719. The rear cutout on yours looks a lot like a reversal of the carvin and the internals less "designed" perhaps by comparison, this model of yours looks better than previous designs on the concept but with a stock fender neck, you are only inviting comparison with fender. Carvin's headstock is a custom design and a 20" radius board. I would expect that the guitar may well have superior articulation and note separation (compared perhaps to an LP), and that this might be heard better with some chordal work. I guess the real testimony if it's features and unique sounds were compared with fenders and gibsons and like guitars to better prove the "concepts". Price and comparison with the carvin should probably be given too as this appears to be the real competition in your commercial venture and that so many features that you promote were developed in this instrument (note dual rear strap buttons previously mentioned as a unique feature). pete