JoeAArthur

Personally, I love the story of the Santa Ana Housewife pickup winder myself. I just can't figure out how her pickups always seemed to wind up (pun intended) in only those guitars of people we praise for tone. Of course the guy that spent a decade or so un-winding pickups and checking their magnets with a gaussy-meter is a close second. I may have to revaluate though - never thought of the concept of a pickup "recipe". I do so totally believe that some pickup makers have an amount of special pixie dust they sprinkle over their creation, so the concept of a pickup recipe may be too far away from the level of my hype detector. But outside of that, my primary thought is that the Peavey amp has more to do with the sound on those video clips than the pickups.

DC resistance in and of itself means absolutely nothing and cannot be compared in a direct relationship to any other pickup. It don't mean output, it don't mean tone. All it is... is a relationship between the number of turns in the coil AND the gauge of the wire AND it's resistance per foot.

It goes to the strings. It might also need to go to the body IF you have the body cavity shielded, and in that case you're really grounding the shielding, not the body.

Try this link: http://www.emginc.com/support.asp

Actually, using a cap to split a humbucker is a technique that dates back to the 1970s. It gives a single coil sound as expected by splitting the humbucker, but keeps most of the humbucking effect. It goes in and out of style every 10 years or so.

I think I understand what you are asking. These pots are wired normal - meaning that a clockwise rotation increases the volume. This is correct for a log or audio taper pot. If you set the wiper in the middle of it's rotation, from the wiper to the "right" lug (as drawn) should be a lower resistance value than from the wiper to the "left" lug.

I think what he means relates to that "fifth" control in the normal Ric wiring. You can easily separate the pickup signals.

Wasn't Andy's last name Summers... and not Sumner?

So... what kind of 3-way switch are we talking about? The Tele or the Gibson kind?

The tone switch is a different style switch from the pickup selector. All it does is tie a different capacitor across the output from the pickup selector in the outside positions. Center position is no capacitor. http://www.gretschguitars.com/resources/schematic2.pdf

A buzz in one pickup is almost always a grounding problem. Check your solder joints, or maybe a missing connection on the neck vol pot to ground. It's ain't a brand name of pickup problem!!

So, if I get this correctly... more BS + more BS = more BS? Ain't this what you were trying to prove didn't exist all along?

Acoustic feedback on any full volume guitar body is always a possibility - it doesn't matter where or what kind of pickup is used. That goes for thinline electrics as well.

Steel strings are not necessary, nor is grounding the strings. Maybe he is reading the delusion going on in the string as magnet thread?

Mike, No. Read again - Erik is the one that claimed the string was the conductor. In a pickup, the coil would be the conductor. The string just disturbs the magnetic field of the pole piece. By subtracting out the magnetic field of the pole piece there would be no magnetic field to cut the wires of the coil and generate a voltage. Sure, you can do it with a model, but it's ignoring reality. Look at it this way - you are eliminating the cause and claiming that the effect still exists independently without it. Joe, you are ignoring the physics. The field of the pole piece induces magnetization in the part of the string that is over it. This magnetization produces a magnetic field. When this field changes from the motion of the string, it induces a voltage in the coil. This is one way of analyzing how the original field is disturbed. There are some limitations to the concept of "cut the magnetic field lines, get a voltage". Suppose we have a loop of wire with a volt meter in it. Suppose we put this loop in a magnetic field pointing through the loop. Assume that the field is constant in space. No matter how you move the loop there is no voltage induced around it as long as the orientation of the loop remains constant. This is because the magnetic flux remains the same. If you rotate the loop about an axis perpendicular to the field, you do get a voltage. In this case the magnetic flux through the loop changes. Suppose the field is not constrant in space. Now if you move the loop, even keping the orientation the same, you do get a voltage because the flux changes. This is a direct consequence of the law of induction; this is also one of Maxwell's equations. If you do not agree with this, please refer to a source that explains the physics as you see it. The coil of a pickup is wound perpendicular to the magnetic field of the pole piece. When the field of the pole piece changes due to the motion of the string, it induces a voltage in the coil. There is only one point of disagreement - where is the magnetic field. You insist it's in the string, I say it's in the pole piece. Most people know where it is, and do not have to pretend it goes into the string and somehow produces a primary magnetic field stronger than the pole piece. Whatever tangent you want to go off into is fine with me. I really don't care what fantasy you care to believe.

It's a case of backward premises as I tried to point out. Mike's needs the magnet - as the string being a magnet, to be moving and therefore inducing the voltage. If that were correct, then yes, Mike would be right assuming that the field would fall off with distance. That is the only way that the field would be altering the field at the top of the pole - if the field were not "in" the pole to begin with. But the magnetic field is in the pole and not the string. Instead of pickups, let's flip it around. Wind a small coil around your 12" pole - something shorter than 12". Put a current through it and create an electromagnet. Will the strength of the electromagnet be any difference depending on the position of the coil along the pole - as long as all of it remains on the 12" pole? No - because the primary poles of the electromagnet will be the ends of the pole. Flip it back, and you have it - the magnetic lines of the pole must cut the coil regardless of the position of the coil on the pole. As long as the coil remains on the pole. That's why you can raise individual pole pieces on a pickup, without moving the coil, and still get a stronger signal. The lines of flux are moved closer to the string and are more easily disturbed by it. The lines of flux from the pole still cut the coil as long as it remains on the pole.

Mike, No. Read again - Erik is the one that claimed the string was the conductor. In a pickup, the coil would be the conductor. The string just disturbs the magnetic field of the pole piece. By subtracting out the magnetic field of the pole piece there would be no magnetic field to cut the wires of the coil and generate a voltage. Sure, you can do it with a model, but it's ignoring reality. Look at it this way - you are eliminating the cause and claiming that the effect still exists independently without it.

Mike, Your model depends on the string becoming a magnet itself and producing it's own unique magnetic field instead of merely influencing the field of the pole piece. Your model ignores the fact the the pole piece is a magnet. Therefore, your model is faulty which is why it doesn't explain anything. Can you take a nail and magnetize it in some way so that both ends are north poles? If not, what mechanism allows a string to have multiple poles along it's length - or width? Can you show me any magnet where one side has multiple poles which are opposite to the other side of the magnet? Like this: N S +---------------+ S N That has to be possible before your string as magnet theory has any chance. Am I wrong about that, or are you admitting that the string doesn't actually become a magnet?

You guys keep going in the same circle because your basic premise is in error. That premise (seems to) state that the string must become a magnet, and having done so becomes the primary means of generating a voltage in the coil. This explanation also requires the string to have the magical ability to instantly de-magnetize when removed, and to somehow form "multiple magnets" of apparently different poles along it's length (otherwise how would guitars with multiple pickups ever work). Going back to basic basics, all that's necessary for a magnetic field to generate a voltage in a conductor is a relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor. Relative motion does not have to be physical motion, and I'm thinking that a unconscious need for some kind of physical motion is what's really behind this "string is the magnet" theory. After all, the string being in motion is pretty obvious - and therefore it "must" be the magnet. One thing Peter proved with his experiment is that the magnetic field of the magnet (i.e. pole piece) extends from one end of the magnet to the other. You should know that already, from the elementary school experiment where you get to sprinkle iron filings on a sheet of paper covering a bar magnet. Magnetic conductive material (material that will be attracted by a magnet, and not necessarily material that "becomes" a magnet) will deflect the magnetic field of the magnet. In other words, the magnetic field - the lines of force - the "flux" will move into a new location. Each line will still extend from one pole to the other - a line of flux is not "firmly attached" at one end, and only capable of being deflected at the other. In a pickup, the varying deflection of the magnetic field of the pole piece by the vibrating string provides the relative motion necessary for the magnetic field to "cut" the conductor of the pickup coil to generate the signal voltage. Peter's experiment also proved that this action of relative motion of the magnetic field is consistent along the length of the polepiece/coil. Instead of counting on the "fall off" of the strength of the "string as magnet" field to explain a stacked coil pickup, wouldn't it be much simpler to not have the same pole piece extending through the second coil? - also justified by Peter's experiment.

Smartest thing I've heard so far... And it applies to this instant string magnet myth as well.

Well, first of all, it's not like Rickenbacker is the only company that offers guitars with stereo capability. Gibson and others have done it for years. And there is no one particular way to use one. During the mid-60s B.B.King plugged his into both channels of a twin reverb. Gave him a neat out of phase sound. Two different sounds coming out of two different amps is simply going to sound different. Put a slight delay on one it will sound like two different players. Spread the amps apart and the sound will get more spacious. This is a physical sound thing - not an "I love rickenbacker" thing. And seriously, rickenbackers in stereo or otherwise is probably not going to sound good to someone that wants perfect intonation on all strings - most of the rickenbacker sound is based on the pairs not being perfectly intonated.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - a computer model that ignores the magnetism of the pole piece pretending that it magnetizes the string and a "magnetized string" takes over from there. Hey, how about the strings and the coil forming a capacitor? Bet I could model that. Doesn't mean it has any basis in reality - like this model. Make the pole piece a magnet like it's meant to be... and then see what happens. You might surprise even yourself.

Often the brdige pickup has more turns of wire to make up for the fact that there is less string amplitude near the bridge, but I believe standard strats have all three pickups the same. On newer strats, the middle pickup is often reverse wound and reverse polarity (RW/RP) so that the combined positions produce a humbucker effect to reduce noise.

Check your bridge pickup tone control. The lug where the capacitor is connected. You'll probably find that lug has a direct path to ground - like maybe the lead of the cap is pressed up against either the shielding or the body of the tone control. Glad it worked out!!

Wow... this has risen from a slight sniff of bs, to full blown BS - amazing!! Cool. Can't wait to see how it develops!! Only problem is the people that might be buffaloed into thinking it really means something because of all the psyco-non-technical-babble. If you can't provide a reasonable and easily understandable explanation - then it is hype. Please continue Mike - sorry for the interruption.