Crusader

Same here, I can see now how what I said can be taken the wrong way but I think we're all saying the same thing, just choosing different words A picture paints a thousand words so I put this together Its not exactly to scale but portrays that higher frequencies have less amplitude/displacement than lower order harmonics. Some of the diagrams I've seen on the net show them all having the same amplitude, which is a bit misleading/confusing This diagram represents the Fundamental, 2nd Harmonic and 8th Hamonic The bridge pickup is located where the 8th Harmonic has its maximum Displacement (1/16th the scale length) Many bridge pickups are placed around this area At this point the first Harmonic displacement is greatly reduced, resulting in less volume from that mode of vibration but the 8th Harmonic is still in full swing, resulting in a brighter sound Thats my theory (now) Later I might show some ideas I had a few years ago

I think I've got this Higher frequencies have less amplitude than lower frequencies, all along the string. While the lower frequencies decrease in amplitude closer to the bridge So a bridge pickup sounds brighter because the higher frequencies still achieve full amplitude, while the lower frequencies have less amplitude And a neck pickup sounds warmer (and louder) because the amplitude of higher frequencies remains the same, while the amplitude of lower frequencies is greater Given the same pickup

I'll second that motion, actually I didn't realise anyone else was reading this So I will continue If the distance the string moves across the pickup determines volume. That would explain why the neck pickup is louder than the bridge (Given the same pickup) because you can clearly see the string moves more there But why does the bridge pickup sound brighter?

Wow I'm finding out more than I thought I would Particularly this; So; If you play the first string at the 5th fret (A=440) The string vibrates 440 times a second, creating a current that alternates 440 times a second in the coil, and The distance the string travels from side to side determines the magnitude, (i.e. volume) Have I got it right?

Yes its obvious when you think about it

By the way I found this which was very interesting http://www.amplifiedparts.com/tech_corner/basic_electric_guitar_circuits_1_pickups I didn't know the pickup creates Alternating Current

Thats interesting, all I knew is that Condenser mics need Phantom power But getting back to my first question "does the amp send voltage to the guitar?" The answer is no, but how come when you touch the input jack it makes the speakers pop? (i.e. when plugging in) the pickup isn't even connected yet

Ah yes, active pickups are yet another kettle of fish "transduced"...lol, will have to look that one up!

Thanks for your replies Looking at my question now I think I could have chosen better words. I did High School Physics where we made a simple electric motor and we learnt about Faradays Law and all that. I know the string vibrating through the magnetic field creates a signal in the coil. I just wasn't sure if there was already a small current going through the coil I got my Multimeter working tonight and the amp seems to read 1.5 millivolts. (I don't know if I'm getting an accurate reading btw) But Curtisa you say "In 99.999% of situations the guitar is the only thing that will generate a voltage that goes down the cable" It just seems amazing that the vibrations of the string can create enough current. I thought the system might work like a Condenser mike but with less voltage Am I completely wrong there?

Hi there, I was wondering how a pickup actually works. I know a few basics like Faraday's Law but after Googling I can't find a clear answer to a few simple questions. I have a few but here are the first two First of all, does the amp send voltage to the guitar? Or does the vibrating string create all the potential?

Just for the record I sprayed a piece of off-cut with the Feast Watson Sealer and the Becker Acroma Nitro. Its been a few days now and there hasn't been any adverse effects

Thanks Curtisa, yes I was a bit surprised when I opened the can that it's a grey/purple translucent mixture. I've read a lot of arguments "for" and "against" using Sealer but I haven't heard that one I managed to talk to the supplier of the Nitro just now and he said "No you can't use a Turps-based Sealer under the Nitro Lacquer" He said to use the Lacquer as its own Sealer. A lot of people strongly recommend using a Sealer for Mahogany and its the traditional way, so thats why I thought I needed it

I'm finally getting around to finishing my LP which is made of the usual materials Mahogany and Maple I've got Feast Watson Sanding Sealer (which is Turps-based) and on the can it says to Top-Coat with Varnish. But I want to Top-coat with Nitro Lacquer (which is Thinners-based) It raises a couple of questions, is "Varnish" different to "Lacquer"? and can a Thinners-based Nitro Lacquer go over a Turps-based Sealer? Thanks in advance for any replies

Voodoo sprinkles LOL Well it arrived today and so far I'm very happy with it, and yes it came with its dose of voodoo sprinkles! I've just been measuring the frets and the best match I can get is 24 3/4" using the old 1/18 Rule with some compensation at the Nut

From what I hear these particular guitars are notorious for having issues with QC, like sawdust in the case etc. but I think I can deal with that. In fact I will be disappointed if mine doesn't come with its complimentary dose of sawdust!

I like Gibbies I paid for it today, should be here next week. Here's a photo taken at the shop http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/uploads/gallery_35046_51_22680.jpg

Its good to hear comments from other fields, btw I like the Double Bass. Because it tunes the same way as a guitar I can play it without having to learn anything So the way I see it, the 'after length' changes the perceived tension in the string, it behaves like the string is longer. Whereas with Fanned Frets the string is actually longer The article on the HR tailpiece pointed out that its hard to get good intonation on the lower strings. I know this from experiments I did a while ago. It seems impossible to get a 54g string to intonate all the way up. Howard Roberts is a Jazz player and those guys use heavy gauge strings. I'm getting the picture that the Frequensator tailpiece was a "bolt-on" solution. These days there are alternatives to production-line made guitars I'm not sure I'm using the most accurate words, but there's a heap of things I have to do, I gotta get going

Thanks for that I didn't know you could actually call Gibson. It helps a lot

Thanks guys Yeah straight after I posted this question I found a more in-depth explanation but yours was easier to grasp They said it improves intonation and tone - Interesting. Seems like a different way of achieving the same goals as fanned frets!

Malcolm Young's Grestch has a rather short scale length too, and he uses very heavy gauge strings. So it would be interesting to know what Ted uses I haven't had a '54 but the difference between the other Gibson scale lengths is minute. I've had both and measured them fanatically. The scale length of the 137 that I've seen is noticeably shorter, but not that much. Btw I've got stout fingers too, LOL D. Stout

Hey its all good I followed the link and once there I looked around. I opened up the specs on a few 335s and some were 24" and others 24.75" Now I'm pretty sure all 335s would have the same scale length, so I think its a misprint I have seen one ES-137 and know for sure its a bit shorter than a Les Paul, probably 24.5" I just wish it was a colour I like

Hi, does anyone know about the "Frequensator tailpiece" and the Howard Roberts Jazz Fusion guitar? They say having less/more string from the tailpiece to the bridge changes the tension on the string. How is that possible? If a certain gauge string is tuned to a certain pitch, it must have the same tension..?