| Sunrise Pickups [2] |
|---|
From: mister_dominator <mister_dominator@.no.spam.hotmail.com>
Subject: Sunrise Pickups
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:38:03 GMT
Organization: D&E Communications http://www.decommunications.com
Mister_Dominator, full of humility, asks:
I am looking at a used Taylor 415 with a Sunrise Pickup on it. The price is
fair, $999, but I am not familiar with the Sunrise pickup. Their website
says they have won some awards for 1998 and 2000, but I want to hear the
word on the street.
Anyone familiar with their pickups? Are they well-made and / or comparible
to the Fishman that comes factory installed in Taylors?
Thanks for the info.
Mister_Dominator
From: Joe Carpenter <tenntoad45@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Sunrise Pickups
Date: 4 Jan 2002 16:48:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"mister_dominator" (now there's a screen name) writes
> I am looking at a used Taylor 415 with a Sunrise Pickup on it...> Anyone familiar with their pickups? Are they well-made and / or comparible
> to the Fishman that comes factory installed in Taylors?
It really depends on the sound you're looking for. It's a mag pickup,
so you're going to get some of that mag "quack". But you can dial the
6 poles up & down for what i think is a great thunky sound. If your
familar with Leo Kottke's live sound, this will give you an idea.
Personally, I really like them & use one for my 12 string at all gigs.
Yeah, I'm a Kottke fan.
If you're interested, you can check out 2 tune samples on my web site
(the first of three samples..."Blind lemon Bernie"... is a Rare Earth
on a piece of shit 12 string, the other 2 are the Sunrise on a Taylor
12). URL below.
As for the factory installed Fishman's...it's just my opinion, but I'd
never get one. Who knows where the technology will be in a few years
or so?
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Joe Carpenter
www.joe-carpenter.com
| Seymour Duncan Mag Mic pickup... [4] |
|---|
From: dinkydog <SPAMNOTcsiamms@swbell...>
Subject: Seymour Duncan Mag Mic pickup...
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:57:11 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
has anyone on the NG tried one of these yet? I'm thinking about getting
one, but I haven't turned up one in my area yet.
Steve Smith
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Seymour Duncan Mag Mic pickup...
Date: 05 Jan 2002 02:44:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< has anyone on the NG tried one of these yet? I'm thinking about getting
one, but I haven't turned up one in my area yet.
Steve Smith
>>I had one for a brief period - I really liked it - okay I got rid of it because
I decided against the Mag sound even though i thought for that sound it was
very warm - okay so now I have a Sunrise again & wish I had the Mag Mic back.
It's a really nice sounding magnetic pickup.
IMO.
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Seymour Duncan Mag Mic pickup...
Date: 4 Jan 2002 20:22:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I have one that I've tried momentarily in my OM-18V. It didn't
immediately sound much different from the Fishman RE Blend. The
standard battery is a 9 volt in a separate holder, so it is not as
easy to transfer from one guitar to another as most soundhole pickups.
And it is noticeably bigger and heavier than the Fishman.
Fran
From: Warren <warren_wicke@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Seymour Duncan Mag Mic pickup...
Date: 5 Jan 2002 01:04:08 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Got it. Use it. Love it.
My product survey and performance-comparison when shopping for this
pickup was pretty haphazard.
From going to lots of open mikes, I discovered I really preferred the
sound of magnetic pickups. I think it's because, while they may alter
the "real" sound somewhat, they create a sound with a lot of detail
and string separation.
A recent article on pickups in Acoustic Guitar Magazine compared 6
different newly introduced pickups and I liked what it said about the
Mag-Mic.
If I recall correctly, AG said it was "a good mag pickup sound" and
provided somewhat of "a larger-than-life sound." Well, I don't play
larger than life, but I wouldn't mind sounding that way.
So I went to Gryphon Instruments in Palo Alto. They had 3 or 4 of the
more popular pickups installed in acoustics for test drives and they
have an amp room. So I was able to test the Mag-Mic thru a Trace TA50
which is what I have at home.
IMHO it was a great sound and dirt simple to tweak. The mic is subtle
but effective in sweetening up the treble notes which can sound
metallic(?) or brittle(?)with just the mag pickup. I feel it adds
wood, harmonics, overtones to the treble side and the bass strings
sound great no matter what you do.
I have received compliments specifically on the sound of this guitar
from other players who've heard it plugged in at a voice class where
I've used it.
I'm not getting paid anything by anyone for saying this, but I
recommend that anyone looking to augment their acoustic sound check
out the Mag-Mic.
There are a fair number of excellent, well-known guitar gods who like
the sound of magnetic sound hole pickups. Ex: I believe Leo Kottke is
still a big fan.
Best,
WW
| PUTW stuff at NAMM |
|---|
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: PUTW stuff at NAMM
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:05:43 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"chaya" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<3C37F653.8DF26F29@san...>...
> Well I for one wouldn't miss your booth - are you guys in the same room
> you were in last year? And where will those cute Enkes be?
>
> Now I know I'm not supposed to bring a guitar in with me, but how would
> I do it if I wanted to sneak the new McAlister in to get a PUTW?
>
> csj
I can't speak for myself, but Annie definitely falls in the cute category. I
make up for my lack of cuteness with humor. We will be in booth #1869, in
the same hall (E) as the other ruffians mentioned . We will have a new Kiso
OM, a Michael Lewis archtop and mandolin, and Boaz Elkayam classical, and a
few other assorted stringed things.
For acoustics, we will be demonstrating our new and improved #20 and #27
tactile pickups, our Air Core saddle pickups, and our new Power Pin bridge
pin pickups. We will also show our dual source upgrades that have an
integrated pickup and pre-amp that plugs directly into the microphone inputs
of all the commercially available dual source systems, and uses the existing
power supply. For electrics, we will be showing our new Poly Bridge
individual string bridges with pickups built into the base plates. These
will have separate string outputs and sound very 'woody'.
We also have been making 1/4" plugs with an additional ring connection on
them. Most endpin jacks already have a ground, tip, ring, and a fourth
contact for battery switching. By incorporating a second ring contact into
1/4" plugs, people can either run a 9-24 volt supply voltage into the guitar
for their electronics, or use the extra contact to send a THIRD signal out
of their instruments.
Annie will have some custom wooden truss rod covers, and I won't have any of
my instruments because I've been too busy to build any lately.
We look forward to seeing any and all of you that are attending. I don't
think we will be allowed to have any fine French wine in our booth, but I'll
treat anyone to a free beer from the concession stand!
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
>
> Harvey Leach wrote:
> >
> > I expect all RMMGA'rs will stop by isle 1300.....String Swing,
Ultrasound
> > and of course yours truly :^)
> >
> > Harv
> > p.s. I'll have nothing new......
> >
> > --
> > Visit http://www.leachguitars.com
> > "MAIB" <<messerabout@worldnet...>> wrote in message
> > news:IJtZ7.215091$<WW.12544469@bgtnsc05-news...>...
> > > > One which personally interests ME more is an all-solid D-18 type
> > mahogany
> > > > dreadnought.
> > >
> > > Hey, Wade... I hate to tell you this, but there's already someone
making
> > one
> > > of those. In fact, they've been making it for nearly 70 years.
(Yawn.)
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
| Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup? [6] |
|---|
From: Harris <rh128592@yahoo...>
Subject: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:57:12 -0500
This message has a few parts:
#1: I'm looking to eventually get a decent pickup for my Taylor 410 and
can't believe that a soundhole pickup can run $300 (The Fishman Rare Earth).
I mistakenly thought they were inferior to bridge pickups.
Do you find a soundhole pickup gets in your way? I like the idea of the
pickup being "right there" where it's happening, but to obstruct the sound
hole seems... well, obstructing.
I don't like the idea of a bridge pickup coming between the bone bridge and
the body on the guitar. I think it might dampen some of the resonance.
Please correct me where I am mistaken/outright wrong.
#2: I plan on running the signal though a small tube-based pre-amp to warm
it up. I hate hate hate the synthetic electro-acoustic sound. Anyone else
tried this? Does it make it sound more like a mic'd acoustic?
#3: To finally confuse this all the more, I think maybe I'd best take the
money and buy a nice condenser mic and forget this business altogether.
Given I record far more than play out, if I can't get a good pickup sound
(good = natural, warm, not tinny) then the mic seems logical.
I am planning on using this application for home recording and hopefully
some live stuff someday.
As always, your comments and thoughts are appreciated.
Harris
From: Marcos <mdswindell@home...>
Subject: Re: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:46:04 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
In article <<u8fahXalBHA.1008@cpimsnntpa...>>, Harris <<rh128592@yahoo...>>
wrote:
> I am planning on using this application for home recording and hopefully
> some live stuff someday.
>
> As always, your comments and thoughts are appreciated.
>
> Harris
Comment and thought: Don't worry about a pickup until you actually
need one. Get a nice mic and a good preamp and record. When you need
to play live, then get a pickup and be ready to compromise (or just use
the mic and and pre, if it's approptriate). No pickup I've ever heard
really sounds like the guitar it's picking up. A mic can, though, if
you get the right one and do it right. (Which isn't to say pickups
can't sound pretty darned good and be perfect for the job of live
reinforcement. But that doesn't seem to be your immediate concern.)
Marcos
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 08:20:20 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Harris <<rh128592@yahoo...>> wrote:
> Please correct me where I am mistaken/outright wrong.
> #2: I plan on running the signal though a small tube-based pre-amp to warm
> it up. I hate hate hate the synthetic electro-acoustic sound. Anyone else
> tried this? Does it make it sound more like a mic'd acoustic?
Small tube based preamps are usually not real tube preamps at all, but
solid state preamps with a tube in series and being run at what is
termed "starved-plate" voltages. It's a marketing thing. "Warm" is quite
subjective, but what those starving tubes do is go into breakup very
early, because instead of having a few hundred volts putting the glow to
'em, they're getting something from a wallwart. They exhibit poor
headroom and what to me is mediocre sound. They do not exhibit the
gorgeous headroom associated with high quality tube preamps and power
amps. So I can't recommend those as a solution to the piezo quack. What
I have found to work best with piezo (undersaddle) pickups are preamps
with very high input impedances. I still cannot say I think the results
sound like the instrument, but it is a less offensive sound to me.
One true tube instrument preamp that some folks like is the Alembic
F2-B, though I prefer mine with electromagnetic pickups.
The least expensive pre I know of w/high input impedance is the Baggs
Paracoustic DI, and among the more expensive pres I've appreciated with
acceptable instrument inputs are the Phoenix GTQ2 and the Great River
MP2-NV.
> #3: To finally confuse this all the more, I think maybe I'd best take the
> money and buy a nice condenser mic
Now you're talkin'! <g>
> and forget this business altogether.
> Given I record far more than play out, if I can't get a good pickup sound
> (good = natural, warm, not tinny) then the mic seems logical.
IMO, one can get a "good" sound from some pickup and internal mic
combos, but not a sound that is accurate in terms of the guitar's
natural acoustic sound.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 15:15:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Harris" <<rh128592@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<u8fahXalBHA.1008@cpimsnntpa...>...
> This message has a few parts:
>
> #1: I'm looking to eventually get a decent pickup for my Taylor 410 and
> can't believe that a soundhole pickup can run $300 (The Fishman Rare
Earth).
> I mistakenly thought they were inferior to bridge pickups.
most every kind of pickup has a proper application
just because it is a soundhole pick up does not make it automatically
inferior
>
> Do you find a soundhole pickup gets in your way?
no
I like the idea of the> pickup being "right there" where it's happening, but to obstruct the sound
> hole seems... well, obstructing.
the sound does not really come out the soundhole you should think of the
sound hole as a vent to allow the top of the guitar to move easier, when
there is no soundhole
you have a fixed volume of air the air inside can not pass to the outside of
the guitar making for a very inert sound now add the soundhole and suddenly
the top can flex for the air is able to move in and out of the guitar as the
interior volume of air constantly changes as the top vibrates
>
> I don't like the idea of a bridge pickup coming between the bone bridge
and
> the body on the guitar. I think it might dampen some of the resonance.
more importantly sound has not been generated there
I try to explain to people the guitar is a complicated
instrument where every asp0ect of the guitar goes into making the sound we
hear this sound can olny be picked up by a microphone after all we do not
try to stick our ears between the saddle and bridge to listen to a guitar
why would we do that to amplify a guitar?(assuming the "sound of the guitar"
is what you want amplified)
>
> Please correct me where I am mistaken/outright wrong.
>
> #2: I plan on running the signal though a small tube-based pre-amp to warm
> it up. I hate hate hate the synthetic electro-acoustic sound. Anyone
else
> tried this? Does it make it sound more like a mic'd acoustic?
why not just use a mic?
>
> #3: To finally confuse this all the more, I think maybe I'd best take the
> money and buy a nice condenser mic and forget this business altogether.
Good Idea industry standard is the neumann 184 though 700$ is more than
most people will spend on a mic
good results can be had from a Audio-technica 4033 or a AKG 535 and
acceptable though by no means stellar results can be had with a shure beta
57a
> Given I record far more than play out, if I can't get a good pickup sound
> (good = natural, warm, not tinny) then the mic seems logical.
even if you do play out a mic is essential if you want the sound you paid
for to come through
no in live the ultimate in guitar sound is not always nessesairy or even
always desirable this is where pick up are most useful to give you
feedback rejection, monitor volume, mobility on stage but you will
compromise the true sound of your guitar in doing so
>
> I am planning on using this application for home recording and hopefully
> some live stuff someday.
you will find that what works for home recording will not be the right
choice for live work and the proper live gear will not cut the mustard in
the studio 9 times out of 10
George Gleason
www.aapls.com/ggleason>
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 15:25:50 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
"Harris" wrote...
> Do you find a soundhole pickup gets in your way?
> I plan on running the signal though a small tube-based pre-amp to warm
> it up.
> Does it make it sound more like a mic'd acoustic?
> buy a nice condenser mic and forget this business altogether.
> if I can't get a good pickup sound
> (good = natural, warm, not tinny) then the mic seems logical.
I use a DeArmond 260 soundhole pickup through a Tube Works Real Tube II
preamp, and I love the sound. It's definately the sound I wan't to make,
but it definately isn't the same or anything like the sound of a good mic.
I move around a lot, and trying to use a mic does nothing but really tick
off the sound guy for me.
If you want the natural sound of your acoustic guitar, learning to play in
front of the mic is your best bet, IMO. If you want your guitar to bully in
front of a wall of synthesizers, the magnetic pickup and tube pre is a great
way to go.
Timothy Juvenal
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oh no! Another acoustic pickup question: tube pre-amp w/ pickup?
Date: 05 Jan 2002 15:34:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
You have some good advice in the newsgroup already, so most of this is a mere
echo, but here goes...
Harris asked
<< #2: I plan on running the signal though a small tube-based pre-amp to warm
it up. I hate hate hate the synthetic electro-acoustic sound. >>
As Hank Alrich mentioned, most "tube" small preamps are not the real thing.
Talk to some studio people and ask them. There are really nice tube preamps
out for reasonable prices.
<< #3: ... I think maybe I'd best take the
money and buy a nice condenser mic and forget this business altogether. Given
I record far more than play out, if I can't get a good pickup sound
(good = natural, warm, not tinny) then the mic seems logical. >>
Good! Now you're talkin'! When folks come into my studio with pickups in
acoustic guitars and want to use them, I record them, but 99.99% of the time we
throw those tracks out.
Pickups are for performance, and generally sound awful when recorded. IMO,
ymmv, of course.
No matter what medium you record to, it's tough to beat a nice mic and a good
preamp!
All the best,
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
| K & K sound vs. B-band ast |
|---|
From: Glen Eric <strum4u@msn...>
Subject: Re: K & K sound vs. B-band ast
Date: 4 Jan 2002 23:58:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I, too, am interested in hearing any critical comparisons between the
K & K systems, and the B-band AST. I have heard some sound samples of
the K & K Western Infinity system, which includes three small
discs--one for each pair of strings--as soundboard transducer
elements, plus a mini-mic that mounts to the X-brace, on their website
(www.kksound.com) The acoustic tone was as natural as I've ever
heard, and sounded comparable in tone to the same website's offering
of an audio sampling of the same guitar being recorded by a pair of
Neumann KM-184 condensor mics. The whole system is of European
design, and I'm curious to know if it's arguably the best system
currently available, but has simply yet to blossom in popularity among
the acoustic guitar circuit.
I have read many favorable things about the B-band AST, which include
its ease of installation (more forgiving than most soundboard
transducer's, as far as placement is concerned), natural tone with
good feedback rejection, an improved preamp with special EQ curve
(model# 2150), and the ability to combine a mini-mic with the AST.
The mic has been described on this forum, as being of very good
quality, with even a Joe Mills mini-mic (top of the crop)having
little, if any, edge over its level of sound quality.
Hence, if anyone out there has compared these systems, please
elaborate. I may end up getting one of the two real soon, and then
possibly the other sometime afterward, for a different guitar. If so,
I'll add my comments regarding such a comparison, in another post to
follow.
Keep Strummin'
STRUM4U (Glen Eric Sarkis)
<glade@classyguydiscs...> (glade) wrote in message news:<<c78242a.0112102205.1fdaa0c1@posting...>>...
> hi again,
>
> anyone out there have experience with both the b-band ast and any of
> the k&k sound pickup systems (pure western, ultra pure, trinity,
> etc.). still narrowing my options, and i haven't heard much about
> k&k.
>
> thanks,
> g
| LR Baggs Dual Source..easy install?? [3] |
|---|
From: William H. Smith Jr. <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: LR Baggs Dual Source..easy install??
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 10:54:22 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I have a mid 80's Alverez Yairi that doesn't have electronics. I've been
thinking about selling this guitar but have decided that I probably would
not get what I paid for it and I'll put some electronics in it. I've been
doing some research and the Dual Source by Baggs seems to be the most simple
Piezo/Mic combo system to install. Is it simple to install?? Is it a pain in
the arse to install under saddle piezos and get them to sound balanced?
Thanks,
Bill
From: bluenote <spam4bluenote@musician...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs Dual Source..easy install??
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 19:20:39 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I put one into a sixties Gibson F-25 'folk' guitar. You must be careful of
the following:
The saddle must not be too loose nor too tight. It should stay in place
when you turn the guitar upside down (strings off of course!) but should
come out effortlessly (I mean effortlessly) if you pull on it in the
slightest.
The bottom of the saddle slot must be perfectly flat.
The bottom of the saddle must likewise be perfectly flat.
Placing the micropoone is important: they recommend taping it to a coat
hanger wire and moving it around inside the body to find the sweet spot.
After dicking with that for about two minutes, I just put it in their
'highly likely to be a good spot' place across from the bridge and down a
bit.
The guitar sounds like a million bucks! EQing the mic and saddle separately
you can get a nice, well-balanced sound.
Duane
PS - Stewart MacDonald has a video on this if you're interested.
William H. Smith Jr. <<twangchief@charter...>> wrote in message
news:<u3e8aqbhk8blcf@corp...>...
> I have a mid 80's Alverez Yairi that doesn't have electronics. I've been
> thinking about selling this guitar but have decided that I probably would
> not get what I paid for it and I'll put some electronics in it. I've been
> doing some research and the Dual Source by Baggs seems to be the most
simple
> Piezo/Mic combo system to install. Is it simple to install?? Is it a pain
in
> the arse to install under saddle piezos and get them to sound balanced?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
From: William H. Smith Jr. <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs Dual Source..easy install??
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:25:49 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Thanks for the reply!!!
I understand how to flatten the saddle but how do you flatten a saddle slot?
This guitar had a barcus berry (..no pre amp) put into it by a friend of
mine but the string response was so uneven...maybe this was the problem.
"bluenote" <<spam4bluenote@musician...>> wrote in message
news:bmIZ7.323273$<ez.45715647@news1...>...
> I put one into a sixties Gibson F-25 'folk' guitar. You must be careful
of
> the following:
>
> The saddle must not be too loose nor too tight. It should stay in place
> when you turn the guitar upside down (strings off of course!) but should
> come out effortlessly (I mean effortlessly) if you pull on it in the
> slightest.
>
> The bottom of the saddle slot must be perfectly flat.
>
> The bottom of the saddle must likewise be perfectly flat.
>
> Placing the micropoone is important: they recommend taping it to a coat
> hanger wire and moving it around inside the body to find the sweet spot.
> After dicking with that for about two minutes, I just put it in their
> 'highly likely to be a good spot' place across from the bridge and down a
> bit.
>
> The guitar sounds like a million bucks! EQing the mic and saddle
separately
> you can get a nice, well-balanced sound.
>
> Duane
>
> PS - Stewart MacDonald has a video on this if you're interested.
>
>
>
> William H. Smith Jr. <<twangchief@charter...>> wrote in message
> news:<u3e8aqbhk8blcf@corp...>...
> > I have a mid 80's Alverez Yairi that doesn't have electronics. I've been
> > thinking about selling this guitar but have decided that I probably
would
> > not get what I paid for it and I'll put some electronics in it. I've
been
> > doing some research and the Dual Source by Baggs seems to be the most
> simple
> > Piezo/Mic combo system to install. Is it simple to install?? Is it a
pain
> in
> > the arse to install under saddle piezos and get them to sound balanced?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>
| Baggs LB6 [2] |
|---|
From: William H. Smith Jr. <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: Baggs LB6
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:53:49 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I've now been looking at this pickup as a possible pickup for my acoustic.
My question is ....How in the heck do you adust the saddle?
Thanks,
Bill S.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: Baggs LB6
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 10:18:45 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<u3h063bofm787d@corp...>>, William H. Smith Jr.
<<twangchief@charter...>> wrote:
> I've now been looking at this pickup as a possible pickup for my acoustic.
> My question is ....How in the heck do you adust the saddle?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill S.
Like a haircut...off the top.
If you trim too much, however, it's not likely to grow back.....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
| Schatten Archtop PU |
|---|
From: SwingDoug <swingdoug@aol...>
Subject: Schatten Archtop PU
Date: 06 Jan 2002 17:46:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Anyone tried this pickup out? I'm looking for a replacement for my Fishman that
I use on my Gretsch Constellation acoustic.
Thanks for any help you can offer...
| FS - PUTW Pickups w/ PUTW Ultrajacks [3] |
|---|
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: FS - PUTW Pickups w/ PUTW Ultrajacks
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:56:16 -0700
Bill Hoff wrote:
> ... The Ultrajacks are solid metal turned
> endpin jacks, with an RCA plug so it hooks
> right to the pick-up's RCA jack...
If your PUTW films have the RCA female jack
attached, I think that means they are the
old style. Made before David and Annie
discovered a shield mfg defect on a
few of the films.
The new style films have better shielding.
Do you know if these are the new type films
just with the old style connections?
I'm not trying to pick on you here, Bill.
But please be aware that brand new, warrantied
PUTW's with endpin jack attached (not ultrajacks)
are $100 direct from David.
lumpy
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: FS - PUTW Pickups w/ PUTW Ultrajacks
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:37:10 -0500
Organization: jazz is just a fret away
Lumpy wrote:
>
> Bill Hoff wrote:
> > ... The Ultrajacks are solid metal turned
> > endpin jacks, with an RCA plug so it hooks
> > right to the pick-up's RCA jack...
>
> If your PUTW films have the RCA female jack
> attached, I think that means they are the
> old style. Made before David and Annie
> discovered a shield mfg defect on a
> few of the films.
Were the earlier ones recalled?
If it was a manufacturing defect, I'd think they would have been
recalled.
Not being negative here, just curious.
Bob Dorgan
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: FS - PUTW Pickups w/ PUTW Ultrajacks
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:52:47 -0700
Lumpy wrote:
> > If your PUTW films have the RCA female jack
> > attached, I think that means they are the
> > old style. Made before David and Annie
> > discovered a shield mfg defect on a
> > few of the films.
Dorgan asked:
> Were the earlier ones recalled?
Maybe not in the sense that an auto mfg would
recall something. I think(?) that it was only
a problem with a handful of the items, not the
entire line at all. David has offered to replace
any of the defective films with the newer type.
The newer ones have a larger "brass thingie".
That thingie seems to be what caused a lot
of people problems in mounting, based on
what I recall from the various threads.
The new thingie makes installation
mucho easier.
lumpy
| B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?) [5] |
|---|
From: Dan <dsslemon@mediaone...>
Subject: B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:25:59 GMT
I was happy already with the 2150/AST. I have an SCGCOM which, due to its
light construction, was prone to "boxiness" with another mfg's "strip"
transducer. So I was apprehensive about another "strip".
The 2150 AST is a disc about the size of a penny. The 1470 is a strip a bit
larger than a PUTW #27, and significantly more rigid. PUTW has, I believe,
addressed this, and McIntyre I believe uses a vinyl backing. I haven't heard
new generation 27s or the feather so I can't compare. B-Band uses a
different technology so the strip design is about all these ast's have in
common anyway except function.
I made the switch, installation took me 2.5 hours, but I am very deliberate.
Most could probably install it in much less time.
Volume - very good, string balance - excellent, noise - very quiet, tone -
the best yet, for me. Much more musical and natural than the 2150. I am glad
I made the switch. In fact, I like it so much that I have a new "problem".
I think the PADI is now the weak link in my chain. I ran directly into my
Genz Benz Shenadoah 85, and the difference was striking. Even more musical,
much improved, there was a very pleasing sparkle to the tone that is getting
lost through the PADI. I'll reset the P.A.D.I. gain to see if I can improve
it's response.
I'm wondering if anyone out there who has compared the PADI with the Raven
Labs (PMB-1, I think - the master blender) could comment on what I may gain
by springing for the Raven LAbs. I maybe should have taken T.R.s
recommendation, he said the Raven was more musical. ygwypf?
Thanks. Dan.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:00:47 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article
<r_j_7.56265$<Z24.14920416@typhoon...>>, Dan
<<dsslemon@mediaone...>> wrote:
> I was happy already with the 2150/AST. I have an SCGCOM which, due to its
> light construction, was prone to "boxiness" with another mfg's "strip"
> transducer. So I was apprehensive about another "strip".
>
> The 2150 AST is a disc about the size of a penny. The 1470 is a strip a bit
> larger than a PUTW #27, and significantly more rigid. PUTW has, I believe,
> addressed this, and McIntyre I believe uses a vinyl backing. I haven't heard
> new generation 27s or the feather so I can't compare. B-Band uses a
> different technology so the strip design is about all these ast's have in
> common anyway except function.
>
> I made the switch, installation took me 2.5 hours, but I am very deliberate.
> Most could probably install it in much less time.
>
> Volume - very good, string balance - excellent, noise - very quiet, tone -
> the best yet, for me. Much more musical and natural than the 2150. I am glad
> I made the switch. In fact, I like it so much that I have a new "problem".
>
> I think the PADI is now the weak link in my chain. I ran directly into my
> Genz Benz Shenadoah 85, and the difference was striking. Even more musical,
> much improved, there was a very pleasing sparkle to the tone that is getting
> lost through the PADI. I'll reset the P.A.D.I. gain to see if I can improve
> it's response.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there who has compared the PADI with the Raven
> Labs (PMB-1, I think - the master blender) could comment on what I may gain
> by springing for the Raven LAbs. I maybe should have taken T.R.s
> recommendation, he said the Raven was more musical. ygwypf?
>
> Thanks. Dan.
Funny you should ask.
Just yesterday I was 'demo-ing' a slightly older version of the 1470, I
say 'older' because this gear has been here for 2 months and I am
finally getting around to doing some listening for my friends at
B-Band.
Before I did my test Heikki warned me that this older 1470 would have
good sound, but might also have a low level hum, something they have
corrected (the hum, not the good sound!) in the latest version. He was
right on both counts.
Quite frankly, I was amazed at how good the 1470 sounded. I have never
heard an AST (or any SBT from any manuf.) sound so warm and natural.
There was no brittle woodiness on the treble side that while helping
sound 'acoustic' can sometimes be distracting. The 2150 that had been
installed in the guitar did have this brittle nature, so I was stunned
at the warmth of the 1470.
I have always stated that AST type units were a good compliment to UST
elements, especially when replacing an internal mic in the mix of
things. This AST has me wondering if I have to review my
feelings....in the past I would use 70-80% UST and 20-30% mic or AST.
When (hopefully) B-band releases their internal pre that can handle
both UST and AST (with two pre-amps, essentially, mounted to a single
stereo endpin jack) I may end up with 70% of the mix being AST, and
blending in only enough UST to provide immediacy of 'attack.'
AND, for those that want a stand alone single source system, well, this
thing really did amaze me....and I have been testing these AST units
all along. Remember that I am an endorsing artist and friend to the
B-Band folks. They happen to make the gear that works the best for ME,
and this is the basis of the relationship.
I was doing my testing through a Fishman Performer Pro amp, via a Raven
Labs unit. I also had a PADI on hand. The PADI proved to be quite
noisey when compared to the RL, totally unacceptable, in fact. It's
not really a fair comparison, since we are talking about different
levels of functionality and different price points, but the result
bears out the cost difference.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Dan <dsslemon@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:11:28 GMT
Larry,
I said 1470 since that is the production model. The one I installed was a
1370. Not the improved 1470.
Everything you said is exactly my experience.
I should have bitten the bullet in the first place and gone Raven, Tony was
right.
Thanks.
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?)
Date: 09 Jan 2002 02:15:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Thanks for the G.A.S. Dan. ;-)
One of my goals for '02 is to check out the latest pickup options. I'm after
several things:
-accuracy with simplicity
-fidelity from a single source = or > my current dual source setup
-getting the stinkin' battery out of my guitar.
The question is, can I accomplish this with the Raven Labs pre and either the
B-Band or PUTW AST's?
Mitch
"Restore Beauty Where There Is Ugliness"
From: Dan <dsslemon@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST (report & pre-amp ?)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:09:19 GMT
Mitch,
I can't say definitively, but I can tell you my experience.
The B-Band ASTs I've installed (2150 and 1370) are directly tied into their
own internal pre-amps. I guess an easier way to say this was they are both
active systems. I've never tried to see what would happen if I didn't hook
up the battery. Maybe someone else could comment.
The PUTW I installed was a #27. I am not sure but I think PUTW has made a
few changes since then but I don't think it affects what I'm about to
relate.
It was a passive AST so no battery.
I have never tried a UST, so obviously no dual source set-up. I want to just
out of curiosity. Larry stated he likes a UST for "attack". But with this
1370, I don't know that that's even necessary.
This is one super single source pick-up. With the other end-pin jack/pre-amp
(I have the single source pre-amp installed) you have the option of adding a
UST.
I will be surprised if this new AST from B-Band is not a big newsmaker at
NAMM, it is very good.
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020108211515.26388.00000354@mb-cb...>...
> Thanks for the G.A.S. Dan. ;-)
>
> One of my goals for '02 is to check out the latest pickup options. I'm
after
> several things:
>
> -accuracy with simplicity
>
> -fidelity from a single source = or > my current dual source setup
>
> -getting the stinkin' battery out of my guitar.
>
> The question is, can I accomplish this with the Raven Labs pre and either
the
> B-Band or PUTW AST's?
>
> Mitch
>
> "Restore Beauty Where There Is Ugliness"
| Impressed by PUTW [8] |
|---|
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Impressed by PUTW
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:35:51 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I just installed a PUTW #27 into my Martin HD28, replacing a Gold
Thinline Plus. Wow! What a difference. It sounds great! I'm hearing
the actual tone of my guitar through my acoustic amp. I'm hearing
warmth, body, the sweetness of the guitar coming through, and NO QUACK!
Installation was easy too. That's saying a lot since I am not a handy
person.
Dave Enke and his cohort, Jay gave me lots of help on the phone and they
convinced me that I could actually do this myself. I followed the
directions in their manual and put the pickup exactly where the manual
said I should and it sounded great first time through.
Next, I'm going to hook up a PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my
Olson SJ and see how that turns out.
Pete
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: 08 Jan 2002 20:12:56 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:07:15 -0500, Jeff Sherman
<<jsherman@lorainccc...>> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
>Sounds cool, Pete. Man, I think I'm getting ready to join you. I'm
>assuming I can take advantage of the existing Fishman Matrix preamp
>inside my guitar. Or do you even need to do that?
>
>Here's the BIG Question:
>
>Is there no downside to PUTW, at all? Everything has a downside, right?
>
>No downside?
None that I've found yet.
I'm not Pete, but I have been known to occasionally sign a post as
Dorgan...Anyway, I've been using PUTW #27's in both of my Guilds for
over a year now, and I am still as happy as I've ever been. As long
as the element is installed properly and securely, it will sound
GREAT.
>How about feedback and volume limits?
Feedback just hasn't been a problem. Only way I've ever had either
one give me any feedback was when I either held the thing right up in
the face of the amp and cranked the hell out of it, or when I once
left the guitar on the stand in a noisy bar with amp & preamp both
cranked. (Anything will feedback if you try hard enough...many
acoustic pickup systems, though, will feedback if you look at them
crosseyed...not PUTW.)
As for volume limits, once again, I haven't run into any problems at
all. I've used mine in concert and in recording, with great results.
I use a Baggs PADI with mine, and have also used a PUTW Power Plug at
TX-2 (which is a helluva nifty little unit); you can hook up to the
Fishman preamp with just a little re-wiring.
The install is a breeze; you can do it yourself with minimal hassle.
Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like...I'll be more than happy to help any
way I can...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:10:30 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Jeff, I completely removed the old system including the preamp and I'm running
it into my PADI then in a Carvin AG1000 using the XLR input. The sound
difference is huge!
You do need a preamp to boost the signal but I know nothing about rewiring and
such. Give Dave Enke a call cuz I'm sure he's tried every combination in the
world and he could tell you how well it works.
So far, I haven't seen any downside (I've only had it one night). Here's what
I did notice:
- No matter how I strum - hard or soft, it sounds natural. I used to have to
adjust my strumming to minimize the piezo harshness.
- I could run my PADI almost completely flat. It sounds pretty much like my
guitar as is.
- You can hear the "body", the airy-ness, the breathy-ness or whatever it's
called. The sound of the air moving inside your guitar body. That quality
that only an acoustic guitar has! Whoa! Usually I'd have to turn up the
reverb or add some chorus to try and get some of that back.
- I did feedback some but I used the PADI to cutback on that frequency some
and all was fine again.
Dave Enke offers a 30-day moneyback guarantee so if you don't like it, you're
only out shipping costs.
Good luck!
Pete
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> Sounds cool, Pete. Man, I think I'm getting ready to join you. I'm
> assuming I can take advantage of the existing Fishman Matrix preamp
> inside my guitar. Or do you even need to do that?
>
> Here's the BIG Question:
>
> Is there no downside to PUTW, at all? Everything has a downside, right?
>
> No downside?
>
> How about feedback and volume limits?
>
> Jeff
>
From: Mark Pluimer <bcbpres@aol...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: 08 Jan 2002 22:25:14 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Jeff,
I like the PUTW I had installed in my CFox SJ. You definitely need a preamp,
and I opted to go with PUTW's little Power Plug. For most applications, you
will find PUTW a step above alll the UST's I have ever used (Fishman, B-Band
and LR Baggs). However, it is more prone to feedback problems that my guitars
with UST. I play in a church that has a variety of instruments. On the stage
behind me is a piano - I am next to an electric lead player and a bass player
is on the other side. I use an acoustic amp as my monitor and, because of the
level I need to turn the amp to in order to hear adequately, I have a few
problems with the PUTW. It was very bad until I called David and Jay and found
out that one end was a little loose, so I reattached it. However, whenever I
would get close to the amp (like trying to EQ it or adjust something, or just
turning the guitar in the wrong direction) it still feeds back. I have to be
so careful that I have just dropped using that guitar in that situation and now
use one of a couple other guitars that have Under Saddle pickups which have no
feedback problems at all.
I use the CFox for open mike stuff, and at other times that I am not in a high
monitor-level situation and I love it. However, consider what your prime
application is. The PUTW may not be the best in some settings. If you are in
a noisy environment that requires a louder monitoring situation, you may be
better off with something else.
Just a few thoughts..
Mark Pluimer
>From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
>
>Sounds cool, Pete. Man, I think I'm getting ready to join you. I'm
>assuming I can take advantage of the existing Fishman Matrix preamp
>inside my guitar. Or do you even need to do that?
>
>Here's the BIG Question:
>
>Is there no downside to PUTW, at all? Everything has a downside, right?
>
>No downside?
>
>How about feedback and volume limits?
>
>Jeff
>
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 1:51:17 +0000
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:25:14 +0000, Mark Pluimer wrote
(in message <<20020108172514.15066.00000568@mb-ba...>>):
>[...] I have to be
> so careful that I have just dropped using that guitar in that situation and
> now
> use one of a couple other guitars that have Under Saddle pickups which have
> no
> feedback problems at all.[...]
You don't mention having tried a parametric eq, and I think it's worth
mentioning periodically as a general point that it _is_ possible to push an
SBT up a little further into the area where you might have to use a UST, and
similiarly to push a UST a little further up into the area where you'd
otherwise be forced to use a soundhole magnetic.
One _usually_ needs to use the parametric to reduce level at the two lowfrequencies at which occur the worst feedback, i.e. the cavity resonance and
the top resonance. Knock those two back a bit and one can push the rest up.
It's another little link in the chain of tonal compromise as levels go up.
I think the Fishman Parametric d.i. is a very good one. Sure the PADI is a
really great all-rounder and I use it all the time, but the more drastic
notching options in a parametric can give you that last minute extra tweak to
get out of serious trouble with a more sensitive guitar or in a room with an
unusual resonance.
The Fishman is low consumption, runs battery or Boss PSA, has abalanced/unbalanced out, a 10Meg‡ input, ground lift, phase flip, In/Out per
channel (if you need more than two channels, then you're too far into the
next pick-up type's territory) so you can A/B each frequency separately.
And there does come a point even with a magnetic where there's nowhere left
to go but specific notching or losing serious chunks _and_ the audience.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: 09 Jan 2002 14:57:03 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 08 Jan 2002 22:25:14 GMT, <bcbpres@aol...> (Mark Pluimer) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>Jeff,
>
>I like the PUTW I had installed in my CFox SJ. You definitely need a preamp,
>and I opted to go with PUTW's little Power Plug. For most applications, you
>will find PUTW a step above alll the UST's I have ever used (Fishman, B-Band
>and LR Baggs). However, it is more prone to feedback problems that my guitars
>with UST. I play in a church that has a variety of instruments. On the stage
>behind me is a piano - I am next to an electric lead player and a bass player
>is on the other side. I use an acoustic amp as my monitor and, because of the
>level I need to turn the amp to in order to hear adequately, I have a few
>problems with the PUTW. It was very bad until I called David and Jay and found
>out that one end was a little loose, so I reattached it. However, whenever I
>would get close to the amp (like trying to EQ it or adjust something, or just
>turning the guitar in the wrong direction) it still feeds back. I have to be
>so careful that I have just dropped using that guitar in that situation and now
>use one of a couple other guitars that have Under Saddle pickups which have no
>feedback problems at all.
Mark--I've been using a #27 in both my dread Guilds for over a year
now. While I don't play in as loud of a situation as yours, I have
yet to run into any feedback problems like you describe. I have tried
the Power Plug at TX-2, and while it is a magnificent device (I want
one...correction...I want 2...), it doesn't give you any eq
capabilities right there with the guitar--and it sounds to me like
that's what you might need in this situation. I use the L.R. Baggs
PADI in my setup (my last gigging situation was the Baggs running into
both my Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and the house PA, a Crate of no
specific excellence, but it worked...usually...), and I can usually
run it flat across the board no problems. But it does offer feedback
notch, and 5 bands (IIRC) of eq that should help a BUNCH.
And as always--get in touch with David Enke. If you're not happy, he
ain't gonna be...drop him a line, I'm sure he can give you a lot more
and better tips than me...
HTH...
<snip>
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Mark Pluimer <bcbpres@aol...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: 09 Jan 2002 16:47:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Bill and Adrian,
Thank you both for the input on my output problem with the PUTW. It really is
a good pickup, but more touchy in a high volume situation than I cared for. I
do have a Fishman Pro Platinum EQ/DI that I use with my 12 string, but it's
more of a hassle and I've just skipped it with the CFox that has the PUTW.
I'll give it a try and see if I can't dial things in. Thanks again for your
contributions to the group!
Mark
>Mark--I've been using a #27 in both my dread Guilds for over a year
>now. While I don't play in as loud of a situation as yours, I have
>yet to run into any feedback problems like you describe. I have tried
>the Power Plug at TX-2, and while it is a magnificent device (I want
>one...correction...I want 2...), it doesn't give you any eq
>capabilities right there with the guitar--and it sounds to me like
>that's what you might need in this situation. I use the L.R. Baggs
>PADI in my setup (my last gigging situation was the Baggs running into
>both my Fender Acoustasonic Jr. and the house PA, a Crate of no
>specific excellence, but it worked...usually...), and I can usually
>run it flat across the board no problems. But it does offer feedback
>notch, and 5 bands (IIRC) of eq that should help a BUNCH.
>
>And as always--get in touch with David Enke. If you're not happy, he
>ain't gonna be...drop him a line, I'm sure he can give you a lot more
>and better tips than me...
>
>HTH...
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Re: Impressed by PUTW
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:38:28 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Thanks Bill,
The PUTW knocked my socks off. I haven't enjoyed myself playing amplified
like that for a long time. It sounded soooo good (the tone that is, not my
playing!).
I'm looking forward to seeing how it sounds in my Olson. The Olson is a very
lightly braced instrument so I guess the placement of the PUTW needs to be a
little different than in the Martin.
I even talked into the body cavity of my guitar and the PUTW picked it up!
Funny!
Pete
Bill Chandler wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:35:51 GMT, Pete Ngai <<nighguy@usa...>> brewed
> up the following, and served it to the group:
>
> >I just installed a PUTW #27 into my Martin HD28, replacing a Gold
> >Thinline Plus. Wow! What a difference. It sounds great! I'm hearing
> >the actual tone of my guitar through my acoustic amp. I'm hearing
> >warmth, body, the sweetness of the guitar coming through, and NO QUACK!
> >
> >Installation was easy too. That's saying a lot since I am not a handy
> >person.
> >
> >Dave Enke and his cohort, Jay gave me lots of help on the phone and they
> >convinced me that I could actually do this myself. I followed the
> >directions in their manual and put the pickup exactly where the manual
> >said I should and it sounded great first time through.
> >
> >Next, I'm going to hook up a PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my
> >Olson SJ and see how that turns out.
>
> Pete--Congrats! I had a similar experience when I put in a PUTW #27
> in my Guild 12-string. Compared the sound from that to the sound of
> the Fishman Matrix Hot in my 6-string, and dumped the Fishman for
> another PUTW.
>
> David has a great product, and is just an all-around great guy.
> (JMHO...)
>
> I think you're going to be a very happy man...
>
> -----
> "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
> ...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
> ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
| PUTW installation advice? [10] |
|---|
From: BobN <prevent@spam...>
Subject: PUTW installation advice?
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 02:08:53 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
One of the many reasons I'm kicking myself for missing TX2 is that I have a
hankering for installing a PUTW in my Larrivee and I heard about David E.
doing a land-office business there. Is anyone who knows about doing these
things going to be at EC5? Else, I could just buy one and find someone
local (between NYC and Boston) to install it (need drilling - as y'all know,
Larrivees don't have endpins). Recommendations? I know less than nothing
about pickups and such stuff.
Suppose then I'll have to buy one of them Ultrasound amps, too. Probably a
PAMM, too. Maybe it'd be cheaper to just buy a louder guitar?
Bob N.
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 09 Jan 2002 15:37:46 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 02:08:53 GMT, "BobN" <<prevent@spam...>> brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>One of the many reasons I'm kicking myself for missing TX2 is that I have a
>hankering for installing a PUTW in my Larrivee and I heard about David E.
>doing a land-office business there. Is anyone who knows about doing these
>things going to be at EC5? Else, I could just buy one and find someone
>local (between NYC and Boston) to install it (need drilling - as y'all know,
>Larrivees don't have endpins). Recommendations? I know less than nothing
>about pickups and such stuff.
Bob--The installation of the pickup itself is a breeze. The drilling
isn't really difficult, once you get past the sheer abject terror of
taking a power tool to your precious guitar. (Believe me, the first
time you do this, "sheer abject terror" describes it well.) If you're
drilling the hole without anything there already, just make SURE you
have the right size bit (check with David, or measure the jack). Take
it SLOW AND EASY. Make sure you're going straight in.
I watched David install numerous pickups at TX-2...he made it look
even easier than it really is...and it is really easy...
Feel free to shoot me a message offline, if I can help at all. I'm in
central Indiana (and I can't make EC5, unfortunately...but I'll be at
TX-3, if you can wait that long...B-{)}...), but I'll give any advice
and assist possible by email.
Or shoot David a line at <pickups@rmi...> ...he might be able to hook
you up with a GOOD installer in your neck of the woods.
Whatever you do, DON'T go to the bozo who installed Charles Park's
PUTW in his Martin originally...boy, did that jerk botch the job...I
don't remember the name of the shop, but Charles could tell you...I
watched David pull it out of the guitar, and the damned pickup element
was ROLLED...pitiful...
>Suppose then I'll have to buy one of them Ultrasound amps, too. Probably a
>PAMM, too. Maybe it'd be cheaper to just buy a louder guitar?
Hell no! Who wants cheaper, anyway? Go spend your dough! Those
Ultrasounds are GREAT...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Dadgad5651 <dadgad5651@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 10 Jan 2002 02:42:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I installed a #27 in my OM21. Had a tech do the drilling, then I installed the
putw. I don't agree that it's a breeze.
It takes a lot of messing around with sticky tape and finding hot spot, etc.
Then, once you are there, keeping it in place oveer time can be a hassle. Mine
comes loose every other month (there is that metal piece on the end of the
filmstrip that has to be sealed perfectly or else you get distortion, and the
whole pickup will eventually come loose).
The PUTW is perhaps the best sounding pickup, but for me the installation was a
real pain. for my other guitars I would think about an external placement if I
went again with the putw.
John O'Hara
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:03:50 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Dadgad5651" <<dadgad5651@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020109214231.11349.00000675@mb-fn...>...
> I installed a #27 in my OM21. Had a tech do the drilling, then I installed
the
> putw. I don't agree that it's a breeze.
>
> It takes a lot of messing around with sticky tape and finding hot spot,
etc.
> Then, once you are there, keeping it in place oveer time can be a hassle.
Mine
> comes loose every other month (there is that metal piece on the end of the
> filmstrip that has to be sealed perfectly or else you get distortion, and
the
> whole pickup will eventually come loose).
>
> The PUTW is perhaps the best sounding pickup, but for me the installation
was a
> real pain. for my other guitars I would think about an external placement
if I
> went again with the putw.
>
> John O'Hara
Hi John,
these are exactly the issues we've been working on for the past year, and
you are not the only person to have adhesion issues with PUTW's prior to the
last 6 months. What we've done to address these is to include a piece of
very high bond red tape to place over the lead attachment after the pickup
is mounted. Another thing is to replace the mounting tape after an ideal
placement is found. We have had luthiers even mount them with carpet tape,
but this seems to degrade the sensitivity to transients, and really is not
necessary. It does, however over-come the adhesion issues.
We have also enlarged the surface area of the brass piece and made it
flatter on the mounting side. Though these things work on most guitars, we
also found that some guitars have a type of oil based sealer on the
bridgeplate, and this hinders things from sticking to it. One fix for this
is to wipe the area with Naptha or a light solvent, let dry, and mount the
pickup over that. Other people have also had good results wiping the
mounting area with a very thin layer of wood glue, letting that dry, and
then mounting the pickup over that.
The other major thing we've done is to include diagrams of the three most
appropriate placements, and to encourage people to lock the pickup down
right from the start, rather then mess around with too many placements. In
90% of the cases, it was the adhesion that was causing anomalies, not the
placements.
It sounds like you are still experiencing adhesion issues, but that when
it's stuck down well, you are happy with the results. I think we have
everything you need to insure the pickup will not come loose unless you
intentionally want to remove it, and this might include replacing the pickup
with a newer one with a broader base. Give me a call, and we'll set you up.
I'd love to get you to the point where you can say with all honesty that the
mountings are now >not that bad!<.
Sincerely,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 10 Jan 2002 15:13:42 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 10 Jan 2002 02:42:31 GMT, <dadgad5651@aol...> (Dadgad5651) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>I installed a #27 in my OM21. Had a tech do the drilling, then I installed the
>putw. I don't agree that it's a breeze.
>
>It takes a lot of messing around with sticky tape and finding hot spot, etc.
>Then, once you are there, keeping it in place oveer time can be a hassle. Mine
>comes loose every other month (there is that metal piece on the end of the
>filmstrip that has to be sealed perfectly or else you get distortion, and the
>whole pickup will eventually come loose).
John--Check with David, or go to the hardware store and get some 3M
heavy mounting tape to put over the brass thingy. I used to use
mounting putty, but David had this tape at TX-2. That will hold the
end down. I had a similar problem with mine before I got the putty
and put it on, but the tape is considerably better. Mine haven't
moved a bit since October with the mounting tape in place.
As for the hotspot, I was perhaps a little all-encompassing in my
statement--but in both of my installations, I had no problem at all.
The spot I used on the 12-string was the exact spot mentioned in the
pamphlet with the pickup (right under the saddle, inside the body) and
sounded great right out of the gate. On the 6-string, I put it there,
and David moved it back at TX-2, which improved the sound...
...but overall, my experience was different from yours. For me, it
was indeed a breeze. I regret and apologize for any confusion I may
have caused.
>The PUTW is perhaps the best sounding pickup, but for me the installation was a
>real pain. for my other guitars I would think about an external placement if I
>went again with the putw.
John, I encourage you to get in touch with David Enke at
<pickups@rmi...>. He's been a GREAT help to me, and many others, with
PUTW.
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Dadgad5651 <dadgad5651@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 11 Jan 2002 01:48:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I'm not sure, but I think you guys are missing the boat here. Reading thru the
posts, after mine, it's obvious to anyone who has not installed the putw, that
it's not easy. Great pickup, but in no way in world is it an easy insall. The
easiest method is to not "search" for the hotspot. Just place it according to
instructions maybe chosing between spot a and and spot b. I have too many very
high end guitars to go thru the hassle. This should speak volumes in itself.
David, you are tops when it comes to customer service, and researching and
implementing upgrades to the various products you produce. Manufacturers
everywhere should follow your lead. Your efforts do not go unrecognized in the
web! You helped me during the install, and also the problem I thought I had
with the preamp (but I know now it was a problem on my end, not the preamp).
Having installed the 27 in the interior once (and discovering how good it can
sound), I am very interested in an external mounting for my other guitars. Now
this would be something: If you could figure a way to do an external mount, but
in such a way that the pickup can be easily removed without leaving glue or
tape marks on the guitar finish. With just one guitar, it's worth the hassle of
an interior install, but for more than one guitar I need something much
simpler. I read on the group where some folks were using the #27 but mounting
it externally. To me, perfecting that method would make it sooooo much easier
for folks with many guitars. It's not so much an issue of money, but rather
having to do various installs, and then making sure, over time, that they are
not coming loose, etc.
John
From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:52:02 -0500 (EST)
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
Bob,
Installing the PUTW is relatively easy.
I accomplished drilling the hole by running two strips of masking or
cloth tape tightly parallel to the centerline of the butt so I could mark
the tape to center th hole location, then using the nice new
multiple-drillbit set I bought. I started with the smallest bit I had,
and went through every step inbetween til I got to the correct size for
the jack. Drilling in small increments helps minimise chipping around
the edges, and I had no problem that way. Other recommend using a
reamer.
You must get a good bond between the pickup and surface to which you
mount it. Make sure the landing place is clean and free of dust and
grit. If you can convince the pickup andthe wood to become one, you will
get a wonderful sound from this pickup. Follow David's directions about
solidly anchoring the brass endpiece with red stuff and flying the wire
from the pickup to the jack.
The scariest part is drilling the hole. Messing about to find the sweet
spot takes a bit of time, but is most rewarding.
hope this helps,
donh at audiosys dot com
From: Tom from Texas <trisner52@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 10 Jan 2002 05:07:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Just got my PUTWs from David. Took me about 15 minutes to put the #17 under my
mandolin saddle and have everything ready to plug into the Ultrasound. Haven't
decided which guitar to put the #27 in. Should it be the Larrivee OM3R, the '68
Martin 000-18 or the '00 Martin D-16GT?
Sue got a PUTW mini-mike for her recorders and whistles. She's in hog heaven.
I suggested her own Ultrasound to play thru and she almost said yes.
Hey, Doc, is it okay if I wait a day or so to send the extra AG-30 back? Sue
might change her mind, yet.
Tom from Texas
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:19:55 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
FWIW, I've done two installs of a #27, one on a Gibson B-25 and one on
a J-45. Placed the pickups according to David's instructions and they
sound great. One uses an endpin jack (the B-25) and I had that reamed
out by my tech and I did the install. The other uses the microjacks
for which the only issue is getting the adhesive on the internal jack
to hold fast through plugging and unplugging (I have it mounted just
under the rim of the soundhole). Actual installation took virtually
no time in both cases. The pickups themselves have not need
additional adhesion. I anticipate installing another #27 in the
Cremona I ordered through Harvey Leach's photoshoot special -- I asked
him to ream for an endpin jack. I'll do the install.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 02:08:53 GMT, "BobN" <<prevent@spam...>> wrote:
>One of the many reasons I'm kicking myself for missing TX2 is that I have a
>hankering for installing a PUTW in my Larrivee and I heard about David E.
>doing a land-office business there. Is anyone who knows about doing these
>things going to be at EC5? Else, I could just buy one and find someone
>local (between NYC and Boston) to install it (need drilling - as y'all know,
>Larrivees don't have endpins). Recommendations? I know less than nothing
>about pickups and such stuff.
>
>Suppose then I'll have to buy one of them Ultrasound amps, too. Probably a
>PAMM, too. Maybe it'd be cheaper to just buy a louder guitar?
>
>Bob N.
>
>
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: Randal Smith <gtrplr@go...>
Subject: Re: PUTW installation advice?
Date: 10 Jan 2002 12:37:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
David, a little advice please. I have a Taylor 410Koa with a pinless
bridge, similar to Ovations. It doesn't have a bridge plate.
Currently, the PUTW is installed next to the brace on the bass side,
but I'm not quite happy with the
sound. Any recommendations? I'd like a little less mellow sound.
Randal Smith alias Smitty the Kid
<gtrplr@go...>
www.i-s-o-p.com
"We have enough Youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?"
"I'd go back to playing music for a living if I thought I could make
an income
somewhere in the high four figures. Without the decimal point."
| LB6 and PUTW thoughts.. [6] |
|---|
From: HL <sweefmy@singnet...>
Subject: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:33:28 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
Hi,
I've been wanting to change the pick-up on my guitar (Larrivee C-09). It's
currently a Fishman Matrix Natural I, with battery clip at the neck block.
The two pick-ups I've been considering are the Baggs LB6 and the PUTW. I'll
be running the pick-up through a Baggs PADI.
Some thoughts:
1) Installation - The LB6 can be done by a local (Singapore) guitar tech. He
says he's done it many times with great results. I have no idea how I will
get the PUTW installed.
2) Sound - I've heard great reviews of both pick-ups... are there any
significant differences between their sounds?
3) Usage - I play mainly in a church band (drums, electric guitars, bass and
keyboards.) It seems to me that the PUTW will have a higher tendency to
feedback, compared to the LB6. Whether it actually feedbacks is another
issue.
4) Saddle - For the PUTW, I think I can use my current saddle. If I go the
LB6 path, I'll have to use the LB6 saddle... is this a good idea?
5) Fishman Matrix - Do I have to remove it if I use the PUTW?
I'd be glad to hear your opinions.
Cheers,
John Swee
From: Icon Publications <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:32:03 +0000
in article a1h2mp$8a$<1@clematis...>, HL at
<sweefmy@singnet...> wrote on 9/1/02 9:33 AM:
> Hi,
>
> I've been wanting to change the pick-up on my guitar (Larrivee C-09). It's
> currently a Fishman Matrix Natural I, with battery clip at the neck block.
> The two pick-ups I've been considering are the Baggs LB6 and the PUTW. I'll
> be running the pick-up through a Baggs PADI.
>
>
> 5) Fishman Matrix - Do I have to remove it if I use the PUTW?
>
This is my current set-up on my Lowden O-10 - Fishman Naturix Matrix 1 with
its own preamp endpin jack, and PUTW No 27 run through the original Lowden
preamp which was in the guitar (intended for the Highlander type pickup).
Since the sound of the two is very different, they make a good pair, and can
be blended as needed. The PUTW with this preamp has about half the volume of
the Fishman with its powerjack.
The Baggs PADI was actually about the best preamp I found for the PUTW, with
or without an internal preamp added. I sold mine, which I should not have
done, and replaced it with a Trace Elliott TAP-1 since the stomp button
switching seemed more useful. But the preamp is nowhere near as good.
David
------------------------------------------
Icon magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Music CDs and tracks: http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
email - either <iconmags@btconnect...> or <david@maxwellplace...>
From: Icon Publications <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:12:04 +0000
in article a1hiu9$28g$<1@coco...>, HL at
<sweefmy@singnet...> wrote on 9/1/02 2:14 PM:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for your input. Do you run your PUTW through another jack out of the
> Lowden? Your set-up sounds (!) like it can give you a wide range of tones,
> but I'm hoping for a single-source solution - I don't have a blender and I'm
> not sure if I want 2 jacks out of my guitar.
>
> Oh OH! I just went to your website and realised that you (Icon Publications)
> are David Kilpatrick :) I like "The Last Rays of Summer" lots!
>
I'm trying to alter the situation with Icon appearing in NG posts. May not
be lucky. It looks as if I must use the company name for newsgroups, or it
won't appear on company emails (a change of service provider at my end).
I started by making up a stereo cable with an XLR on one channel and a jack
on the other. This was for my original setup which used a Miniflex
microphone and their stereo wiring suggestion. However, it just didn't work
well. The Miniflex wiring left noise and the jack connections were not
reliable, apart from having to take this special cable everywhere. So I
obtained a very neat gold-plated flush mounting jack socket (the sort which
can not accept a strap) and positioned this about 1.5 inches below the main
socket, the O-10 body is deep enough to take it. I had already done a
similar dual pickup job on a kit guitar in the past. I ran the Lowden pickup
through this. Later, I took out the Miniflex and fitted a different mike
into the Lowden preamp, and fitted the Fishman in place of the Lowden
pickup. Finally I replaced the mike with the PUTW and this seems to be the
best overall combination so far.
David
------------------------------------------
Icon magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Music CDs and tracks: http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
email - either <iconmags@btconnect...> or <david@maxwellplace...>
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:59:24 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi David,
just when it was safe to say that pickups have taken on new qualities, PUTW
has recently gotten into hardware and heavy metal. I was looking at one of
our jacks the other day, and thought that if someone made a 4-conductor 1/4"
audio PLUG, there could be three signals coming out the same instrument
jacks that we use (the third leg is usually used for battery switching). I
have searched far and wide for these plugs, but to no avail. The solution I
came to was to disassemble numerous stereo plugs, and re-assemble them with
a second ring connection on them.
Another application is to send remote power up the third wire from an
off-board power supply. This would get the batteries out of the guitars, and
enable higher headroom voltages to power on-board electronics (Yes!).
I'm going to be looking all around NAMM for someone to make these plugs. It
is really not my favorite thing to be doing because of all the metal work.
The other thing I found is that even though the 3rd contact on the jacks we
use is in the correct place, it automatically defaults to ground internally
when anything 1/4" diameter is inserted. I have since found a way to
dis-able the auto-short function in the jacks, and the third lug is now free
to do anything anyone wants it to do.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Icon Publications" <<iconmags@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:B8625494.16B8%<iconmags@btconnect...>...
> in article a1hiu9$28g$<1@coco...>, HL at
> <sweefmy@singnet...> wrote on 9/1/02 2:14 PM:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Thanks for your input. Do you run your PUTW through another jack out of
the
> > Lowden? Your set-up sounds (!) like it can give you a wide range of
tones,
> > but I'm hoping for a single-source solution - I don't have a blender and
I'm
> > not sure if I want 2 jacks out of my guitar.
> >
> > Oh OH! I just went to your website and realised that you (Icon
Publications)
> > are David Kilpatrick :) I like "The Last Rays of Summer" lots!
> >
> I'm trying to alter the situation with Icon appearing in NG posts. May not
> be lucky. It looks as if I must use the company name for newsgroups, or it
> won't appear on company emails (a change of service provider at my end).
>
> I started by making up a stereo cable with an XLR on one channel and a
jack
> on the other. This was for my original setup which used a Miniflex
> microphone and their stereo wiring suggestion. However, it just didn't
work
> well. The Miniflex wiring left noise and the jack connections were not
> reliable, apart from having to take this special cable everywhere. So I
> obtained a very neat gold-plated flush mounting jack socket (the sort
which
> can not accept a strap) and positioned this about 1.5 inches below the
main
> socket, the O-10 body is deep enough to take it. I had already done a
> similar dual pickup job on a kit guitar in the past. I ran the Lowden
pickup
> through this. Later, I took out the Miniflex and fitted a different mike
> into the Lowden preamp, and fitted the Fishman in place of the Lowden
> pickup. Finally I replaced the mike with the PUTW and this seems to be the
> best overall combination so far.
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Icon magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
> Music CDs and tracks: http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
> Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
> email - either <iconmags@btconnect...> or <david@maxwellplace...>
>
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:54:51 +0000
in article a1j3g3$cej$<1@slb7...>, David Enke at
<pickups@rmi...> wrote on 10/1/02 4:59 AM:
The solution I
> came to was to disassemble numerous stereo plugs, and re-assemble them with
> a second ring connection on them.
> I'm going to be looking all around NAMM for someone to make these plugs. It
> is really not my favorite thing to be doing because of all the metal work.
Mike Vanden sourced a multipin, shielded plug smaller than an XLR in overall
diameter, to use with his Rare Earth (Mimesis at that stage) blender pickups
plus other sources in the guitar. They had gold pins, maybe eight pins in
the socket. I don't know if Fishman took up this idea but the connector I
saw as a prototype in Edinburgh was very secure, neat and fed a multicore
cable which split into separate XLR feeds to the desk. I think it handled
either three or a maximum of four sources in the instrument.
David In Scotland
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: LB6 and PUTW thoughts..
Date: 09 Jan 2002 15:46:56 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:33:28 +0800, "HL" <<sweefmy@singnet...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Hi,
>
>I've been wanting to change the pick-up on my guitar (Larrivee C-09). It's
>currently a Fishman Matrix Natural I, with battery clip at the neck block.
>The two pick-ups I've been considering are the Baggs LB6 and the PUTW. I'll
>be running the pick-up through a Baggs PADI.
>
>Some thoughts:
>1) Installation - The LB6 can be done by a local (Singapore) guitar tech. He
>says he's done it many times with great results. I have no idea how I will
>get the PUTW installed.
Hi, John...Don't know about the LB6, but the PUTW is about as
user-friendly as they come. You can do the install yourself--it's a
breeze.
>2) Sound - I've heard great reviews of both pick-ups... are there any
>significant differences between their sounds?
Can't answer that one. I haven't A/B'd them...but I do know that I've
used PUTW #27's in both of my Guilds for over a year now, and am
insanely pleased with the sound.
>3) Usage - I play mainly in a church band (drums, electric guitars, bass and
>keyboards.) It seems to me that the PUTW will have a higher tendency to
>feedback, compared to the LB6. Whether it actually feedbacks is another
>issue.
I just read in another thread where someone had feedback problems with
a PUTW in a church band situation. I have NEVER had any feedback
problems with either of my guitars with the PUTW's; I don't play in a
band/loud situation (currently), but I tend to think the problem is
more in installation/setup/eq than inherent in the pickup design. If
it's installed right, and you use a good preamp (like the Baggs
PADI--a great unit), you shouldn't have problems. I've cranked mine
pretty durned loud, with no problems.
>4) Saddle - For the PUTW, I think I can use my current saddle. If I go the
>LB6 path, I'll have to use the LB6 saddle... is this a good idea?
Dunno about the LB6...PUTW doensn't require any changes there.
>5) Fishman Matrix - Do I have to remove it if I use the PUTW?
No. You can use them together (although I can't imagine why you'd
WANT to...).
>I'd be glad to hear your opinions.
HTH...feel free to drop me a line if you have more questions...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
| PUTW Air Core UST [5] |
|---|
From: Gordon <gordon@121mktg...>
Subject: PUTW Air Core UST
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 09:48:50 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Has anyone tried this pickup yet? I'm thinking about replacing the
Fishman Matrix thats in my Taylor 714CE. I had a B-band in it for
awhile but got fed up with string balance problems when changing
tunings so I put the B-band in my Baby Taylor since I only keep that
tuned to standard. After putting the Fishman back in, I soon realized
why I switched it out in the first place. It's WAY too quacky and thin
sounding for my taste. The B-band is a much better sounding pickup,
IMHO. I was wondering if the PUTW Air Core pickup is similar sounding
to the B-band. I also heard or read somewhere that it can work with
the Fishman OBB preamp. Any firsthand experiences out there?
GL
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Air Core UST
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:23:25 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Gordon" <<gordon@121mktg...>> wrote in message
news:<3c3c120a.133835585@ne...>...
> Has anyone tried this pickup yet? I'm thinking about replacing the
> Fishman Matrix thats in my Taylor 714CE. I had a B-band in it for
> awhile but got fed up with string balance problems when changing
> tunings so I put the B-band in my Baby Taylor since I only keep that
> tuned to standard. After putting the Fishman back in, I soon realized
> why I switched it out in the first place. It's WAY too quacky and thin
> sounding for my taste. The B-band is a much better sounding pickup,
> IMHO. I was wondering if the PUTW Air Core pickup is similar sounding
> to the B-band. I also heard or read somewhere that it can work with
> the Fishman OBB preamp. Any firsthand experiences out there?
>
> GL
Hi Gordon,
the Air Core is quite new, and has only been installed outside our area by a
few people so far. We are just now releasing them for public consumption,
and the initial reports are very good. Since most of the installations have
replaced other saddle pickups, some differences can be noted. So far they
are considered extremely 'quackless'. They also do not have any soft
material in them to dampen the saddle transmissions. Because they sense on
all four sides of the slot, they capture more of a guitar's woody
personality then most of the single sided pickups do. They also interface
into any acoustic pre-amp, on-board or off. They are very low noise, and do
not require special routing.
There have been some reviews on the 13tFret.com, but I've never tried to
search archives there, and I do not know how to do it.
We should have some more reviews coming soon, and we'll keep you posted.
We'll have a few guitars with them at NAMM booth #1869 (the year the Civil
War ended!!), and welcome everyone to come and share their opinions.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: Gordon <gordon@121mktg...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Air Core UST
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:29:44 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Well I'm following up on the Aircore. Since PUTW has a great money
back guarantee, I went ahead and ordered one last friday. I received
it today (the following Monday). Talk about fast service! This
pickup is to replace the existing Fishman Matrix in my Taylor 714CE.
The guitar is equipped with the Fishman OB Prefix preamp. The pickup
is about twice the height of the Fishman Matrix. You are definitely
going to need to take off some saddle off the bottom if you want your
action to stay the same. Other than that, switching out the wires is
a piece of cake the way Fishman designed their preamp. I didn't want
to mess with the saddle until I knew for sure I liked the Aircore
better than the Matrix.
Balance was great. The sound was similar to the B-band (which I have
in another guitar). Better bass and less quack. Unforturnately, the
Aircore has a weak output compared to the Matrix. David Enke told me
it should be hotter but it definitely isn't. I recorded with both
pickups and the output is about 10dB lower than the Matrix. Since I
now use the Yamaha AG Stomp, I need a very strong signal coming from
the pickups or else I get too much noise. The Fishman was fine but
the Aircore won't cut it even though it does sound a little better,
IMO.
Anyone here know if I'm doing something wrong before I take the
Aircore out and put back the Matrix? I won't be able to get hold of
David since he's at NAMM (although I might be going to NAMM if I can
pull a few strings). I can't really leave this pickup in my guitar
until he gets back since the high action makes it too difficult to
play (although it does sound nicer with the higher action).
Thanks.
GL
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Air Core UST
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:40:11 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Gordon,
we just arrived in Anaheim after a few days on the road. We will have
limited access on a laptop during off-hours after the shows. We do have
staff back at the ranch to handle things, and we will be getting messages
and e-mail here.
As to the pickup, is it tied to the old Fishman pre-amp?
Is the Air Core width a proper fit in the slot, not too tight or loose?
Since the saddle is currently sitting high in the slot, is it upright? Could
the string angle be putting more pressure forward rather then downward?
These things will effect the output, and in installs so far, we have not had
low output problems if these things are addressed.
We'll be checking back in this evening, and you can e-mail off-list for more
detailed answers if you like, and possibly some other suggestions.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Gordon" <<gordon@121mktg...>> wrote in message
news:<3c438e23.32030337@ne...>...
> Well I'm following up on the Aircore. Since PUTW has a great money
> back guarantee, I went ahead and ordered one last friday. I received
> it today (the following Monday). Talk about fast service! This
> pickup is to replace the existing Fishman Matrix in my Taylor 714CE.
> The guitar is equipped with the Fishman OB Prefix preamp. The pickup
> is about twice the height of the Fishman Matrix. You are definitely
> going to need to take off some saddle off the bottom if you want your
> action to stay the same. Other than that, switching out the wires is
> a piece of cake the way Fishman designed their preamp. I didn't want
> to mess with the saddle until I knew for sure I liked the Aircore
> better than the Matrix.
>
> Balance was great. The sound was similar to the B-band (which I have
> in another guitar). Better bass and less quack. Unforturnately, the
> Aircore has a weak output compared to the Matrix. David Enke told me
> it should be hotter but it definitely isn't. I recorded with both
> pickups and the output is about 10dB lower than the Matrix. Since I
> now use the Yamaha AG Stomp, I need a very strong signal coming from
> the pickups or else I get too much noise. The Fishman was fine but
> the Aircore won't cut it even though it does sound a little better,
> IMO.
>
> Anyone here know if I'm doing something wrong before I take the
> Aircore out and put back the Matrix? I won't be able to get hold of
> David since he's at NAMM (although I might be going to NAMM if I can
> pull a few strings). I can't really leave this pickup in my guitar
> until he gets back since the high action makes it too difficult to
> play (although it does sound nicer with the higher action).
>
> Thanks.
> GL
From: Gordon <gordon@121mktg...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Air Core UST
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:01:54 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Hi David,
Thanks for the quick response. Since I haven't gotten a reply from my
email yet (could be a problem with my email server), I'll post here:
>As to the pickup, is it tied to the old Fishman pre-amp?
Yes.
>Is the Air Core width a proper fit in the slot, not too tight or loose?
Yes. Maybe a little tight towards the high E string. Still, it fits
way better than the original loose fitting Fishman Matrix. Maybe I'm
not getting the maximum output with the Matrix which would mean the
Aircore has more than a 10dB drop in output?
>Since the saddle is currently sitting high in the slot, is it upright? Could
>the string angle be putting more pressure forward rather then downward?
Possible. But I didn't want to mess with the bone saddle until I knew
the Aircore would work for me. Since you mentioned to me that the
Aircore should have a hotter output, could this account for a greater
than 10dB drop in output.?
>These things will effect the output, and in installs so far, we have not had
>low output problems if these things are addressed.
Have you done an install replacing the Matrix in a Fishman OBB system?
I have been in email contact with another rmmga member who has an
Aircore in his Rainsong which also has the Fishmain OBB. He too, is
getting a lower output compared to the Matrix but he doesn't seem to
mind the lower output. This does bother me since I'm unwilling to
accept 10dB more hiss even if the Aircore does sound a little better
tonally.
Gordon
| Hypothetical PUTW Question [5] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Hypothetical PUTW Question
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 09:51:29 -0500
You're on small stage with several other musicians. Lets say no drums
(to be fair) but there's an electric bass amp right next to you. The
monitors and house system are pretty loud because its a noisy bar and
the room is loud. Most importantly, that bass amp behind you is pretty
damn loud.
Question: What's gonna be more prone to low frequency feedback from the
bass amp vibrating the top of your guitar like mad, a typical UST or a
PUTW?
Dunno why but something tells me that that amplified bass is gonna play
havoc with the putw because the putw's mounted right under the guitar's
top.
Just guessing though. Anybody?
Jeff
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical PUTW Question
Date: 09 Jan 2002 16:04:45 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 09:51:29 -0500, Jeff Sherman
<<jsherman@lorainccc...>> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
>You're on small stage with several other musicians. Lets say no drums
>(to be fair) but there's an electric bass amp right next to you. The
>monitors and house system are pretty loud because its a noisy bar and
>the room is loud. Most importantly, that bass amp behind you is pretty
>damn loud.
>
>Question: What's gonna be more prone to low frequency feedback from the
>bass amp vibrating the top of your guitar like mad, a typical UST or a
>PUTW?
That's a good question. I haven't played mine in that kind of
situation before, so I don't know...but I do know that feedback just
hasn't been a problem with my PUTW's. (Didn't have too much trouble
with the old Fishman Matrix II HOT, either...)
>Dunno why but something tells me that that amplified bass is gonna play
>havoc with the putw because the putw's mounted right under the guitar's
>top.
>
>Just guessing though. Anybody?
Guess I'm just gonna have to go play with a band and see...that'd be
cool, anyway...
I wish I knew. Any ideas, anybody? David?
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical PUTW Question
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:28:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <<3C3C58F1.5A8460E0@lorainccc...>>, Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
>You're on small stage with several other musicians. Lets say no drums
>(to be fair) but there's an electric bass amp right next to you. The
>monitors and house system are pretty loud because its a noisy bar and
>the room is loud. Most importantly, that bass amp behind you is pretty
>damn loud.
>
>Question: What's gonna be more prone to low frequency feedback from the
>bass amp vibrating the top of your guitar like mad, a typical UST or a
>PUTW?
>
>Dunno why but something tells me that that amplified bass is gonna play
>havoc with the putw because the putw's mounted right under the guitar's
>top.
>
>Just guessing though. Anybody?
>
>Jeff
My opinion is the SBT will be more sensitive then the UST. Your best bet is
to index the volume knob on the bass amp so it reads 8 but is set to 4. You
might also consider trying a PUTW under the saddles of your Strat to get an
acoustic sound. Any dings yet?
Steve Hawkins
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical PUTW Question
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:07:07 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Steve Hawkins" <<stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>> wrote in message
news:6C2%7.1131$<97.156171@paloalto-snr1...>...
> In article <<3C3C58F1.5A8460E0@lorainccc...>>, Jeff Sherman
<<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> >You're on small stage with several other musicians. Lets say no drums
> >(to be fair) but there's an electric bass amp right next to you. The
> >monitors and house system are pretty loud because its a noisy bar and
> >the room is loud. Most importantly, that bass amp behind you is pretty
> >damn loud.
> >
> >Question: What's gonna be more prone to low frequency feedback from the
> >bass amp vibrating the top of your guitar like mad, a typical UST or a
> >PUTW?
> >
> >Dunno why but something tells me that that amplified bass is gonna play
> >havoc with the putw because the putw's mounted right under the guitar's
> >top.
> >
> >Just guessing though. Anybody?
> >
> >Jeff
>
> My opinion is the SBT will be more sensitive then the UST. Your best bet
is
> to index the volume knob on the bass amp so it reads 8 but is set to 4.
You
> might also consider trying a PUTW under the saddles of your Strat to get
an
> acoustic sound. Any dings yet?
>
> Steve Hawkins
I'm going to agree with Steve that the SBT will react to the bass amp behind
you more then the UST will. In feedback tests, the PUTW usually scores about
the same as saddle pickups, but the PUTW's have been known to be more
sensitive to incursions from basses and sometimes drums if the stage setup
is not right. I play in a four piece band with a stock #27 on all my
guitars, and even with a bass player, I have not had any problems or needed
to notch anything. I do not, however, stand in front of the bass amp, and
prefer to feed most of the volume through the mains rather then require the
bass amp alone to handle all the volume.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: Jeff Hart <jhart@ipass...>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical PUTW Question
Date: 11 Jan 2002 09:29:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
the bass is usually behind me or slightly to the side of the drums. we
play mostly small places with cramped stages and we're usually almost
arms lenght from one another onstage. we're not that loud of a band as
we make a point to get the vocals out front. so if you're playing
rather loud rock, ymmv. i can only speak for what we do, so-called
americana roots music (1 acoustic guitar, one electric, one mandolin,
drums, bass, sometimes a pedal steel) folkrock or whatever people call
it these days. no problems with feedback in my putw #27 which is in my
hd-28. have never had feedback at all actually. solo or with the band.
jeff
http://www.brownmountainlights.net
"David Enke" <<pickups@rmi...>> wrote in message
> I'm going to agree with Steve that the SBT will react to the bass amp behind
> you more then the UST will. In feedback tests, the PUTW usually scores about
> the same as saddle pickups, but the PUTW's have been known to be more
> sensitive to incursions from basses and sometimes drums if the stage setup
> is not right. I play in a four piece band with a stock #27 on all my
> guitars, and even with a bass player, I have not had any problems or needed
> to notch anything. I do not, however, stand in front of the bass amp, and
> prefer to feed most of the volume through the mains rather then require the
> bass amp alone to handle all the volume.
| Frank W's Dual Source: Q? [5] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Frank W's Dual Source: Q?
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:51:36 -0500
Frank Wiewandt in another thread wrote:
>Bottom line, though, while there are probably a few really neat >high-end ways of getting multiple sources out of the guitar, adding a >second source to your PUTW PUs is a breeze & the Power Plug makes it a >really compact & streamlined system using either the active/active or >actice/passive model.
Wish I understood this stuff. I'm thinking I want a putw but I want to
keep the existing Matrix Natural I UST. Cost is an issue.
Again: Cost is an issue. Wish it wasn't but it is.
But I might be able to swing putw's power plug device.
I want the ability to have one or the other or both but I don't
understand this stuff at all so here's probably a very dumb question:
Could they somehow share the existing preamp? Its one of those barrel
things that projects into the body of the guitar from the the inside of
the end pin jack.
Jeff
Can they share a
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: Frank W's Dual Source: Q?
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:54:06 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Jeff,
sorry for not getting back sooner, we are working a little past our capacity
getting ready for NAMM.
I believe the Fishman Powerjack you have is only a mono unit, and thatthere is not an easy way to tie a second pickup to the ring connection of
its jack. I'm also unsure of the results of simply soldering a PUTW to the
same input leads on the pre-amp as the Fishman. There would be no way to
control the blend, or the volume for either pickup. (It might sound nice
though, with both pickups in phase, but I've never tried it).
We do have a lot of people use us in a dual source system with saddle
pickups, and the trick is finding the best way to control and blend the two
signals. A lot depends on what kind of gear you have. One option is a dual
channel amp (like the new Ultrasound) where you could ditch the on-board
pre-amps and battery, and use a stereo cable on the guitar end that splits
into two mono plugs at the amp end. You could also look at some of the dual
source pre-amps like the Baggs Mixpro, the Raven Labs, a PAMM, or any number
of the Fishman systems. All these take two separate inputs, pre-amp them,
and then blend them into one.
Another option would be to de-solder the Fishman circuit board from its
jack, and attach the outputs to a stereo capable jack (like what comes stock
with PUTW). You could then add a second small pre-amp chip (like the EMG
PB-1's that we sell for $25) to the PUTW signal, and run the Fishman out the
tip, and the PUTW out the ring (same deal with the stereo splitter cable
mentioned above). Both pre-amps would switch on when you plug the guitar in,
and off when you un-plug. The EMG PB-1 battery life is rated at 2400 hours,
the Fishman (I think at 1200). You would probably get about 800 hours before
needing a new 9-volt. One consideration is that at this point, you still
have two signals. This is fine for a mixer, stereo recorder, or two channel
amp, but for a single channel amp, they would need to be blended into one.
I know this must sound like a lot of stuff to wade through, but it is really
not that bad. Call me tomorrow sometime, and tell me what you have in terms
of equipment, what you want to achieve, and lastly, what your budget
warrants. We are always amazed by what we see at NAMM, and we never hesitate
to recommend products from other companies that might offer features people
need. Also, I think if budgets are a primary concern, there are ways to
incorporate equipment you already have, or trade off a little versatility
for straight up function.
I hope this helps, and I apologize for being brief due to my work load right
now, but I would enjoy learning more about what you have.
P.S.,
Thanks Bill,
you are a champ!
Sincerely,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656.
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C3C6D85.10AA42CA@lorainccc...>...
> I'm thinking Frank's application would work but the Power Plug would be
> the key: The Fishman ust goes through its existing preamp and one side
> of the stereo jack to the passive side of a power plug where it comes
> out unaffected. The putw goes thru the active side of the power plug
> where it gets . . . er, activated?
>
> But is the power plug mono out? That would be fine, I guess. The two
> knobs would give you the a,b,a&b capability. Er, I mean I think they
> would?
>
> <help?>
>
> Jeff
>
> Bill Chandler wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:51:36 -0500, Jeff Sherman
> > <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> brewed up the following, and served it to the
> > group:
> >
> > >Frank Wiewandt in another thread wrote:
> > >
> > >>Bottom line, though, while there are probably a few really neat
>high-end ways of getting multiple sources out of the guitar, adding a
>second source to your PUTW PUs is a breeze & the Power Plug makes it a
>really compact & streamlined system using either the active/active or
>actice/passive model.
> > >
> > >Wish I understood this stuff. I'm thinking I want a putw but I want to
> > >keep the existing Matrix Natural I UST. Cost is an issue.
> >
> > You don't have to remove the Fishman to install the PUTW. They can
> > coexist.
> >
> > >Again: Cost is an issue. Wish it wasn't but it is.
> > >
> > >But I might be able to swing putw's power plug device.
> >
> > It's a nifty little preamp. I want one...
> >
> > >I want the ability to have one or the other or both but I don't
> > >understand this stuff at all so here's probably a very dumb question:
> > >
> > >Could they somehow share the existing preamp? Its one of those barrel
> > >things that projects into the body of the guitar from the the inside of
> > >the end pin jack.
> >
> > ? Good question. I don't see why you couldn't solder them both on
> > there together--but I don't know how well it would work. I would
> > assume you'd lose output level from both pickups that way.
> >
> > Any more techie-inclined folks out there got any ideas?
> >
> > -----
> > "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> > looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> > --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> >
> > the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> > the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove
spamTHIS!.)
> > ...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
> > ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> > Bill Chandler
> > ...bc...
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Frank W's Dual Source: Q?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:51:02 GMT
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:54:06 -0800, "David Enke" <<pickups@rmi...>>
wrote:
>Hi Jeff,
>sorry for not getting back sooner, we are working a little past our capacity
>getting ready for NAMM.
No hurry, David. Thanks for the post.
> I believe the Fishman Powerjack you have is only a mono unit, and that
>there is not an easy way to tie a second pickup to the ring connection of
>its jack. I'm also unsure of the results of simply soldering a PUTW to the
>same input leads on the pre-amp as the Fishman. There would be no way to
>control the blend, or the volume for either pickup. (It might sound nice
>though, with both pickups in phase, but I've never tried it).
I checked the Matrix's tech specs and it turns out you can wire
Fishman's jack for stereo --- the ring connector is available for an
internal mic or, in my case, a putw. I assume that means that
anything connected there is bypassing the Matrix preamp circuitry.
Knowing that would you agree that your power plug would do the trick?
One side passive (just to let the fishman's preamped signal go thru
unmolested) and the other active to juice the putw? The two knobs on
your power plug would provide the blending capability.
But . .. . I am definitely gonna be pulling the plug on an Ultrasound
in VA this March soooooooo . . . . seems like I have several easy and
economical options.
Thanks, David.
Jeff
From: David Enke <pickups@rmi...>
Subject: Re: Frank W's Dual Source: Q?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:37:09 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Jeff,
it is good to know the Fishman has an open ring contact. I would simply wire
a #27 straight to an EMG PB-1, and run this signal to the ring on the jack.
It is also an easy affair to scavenge a little 9-volt power from the
existing pre-amp power. At that point, you could use a passive blender or a
passive Power Plug (for blending, volume control, etc.) You could also use
any type of stereo volume pedal because both signals would be amped
on-board, and resistant to degradation from other things. We have also made
some slider pots that mount with foam tape right on the underside of the
soundhole, and you could use these to adjust your levels on the guitar
without cutting any extra holes.
Hmmm.......
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c3da88d.2212883@news...>...
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:54:06 -0800, "David Enke" <<pickups@rmi...>>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Jeff,
> >sorry for not getting back sooner, we are working a little past our
capacity
> >getting ready for NAMM.
>
> No hurry, David. Thanks for the post.
>
> > I believe the Fishman Powerjack you have is only a mono unit, and that
> >there is not an easy way to tie a second pickup to the ring connection of
> >its jack. I'm also unsure of the results of simply soldering a PUTW to
the
> >same input leads on the pre-amp as the Fishman. There would be no way to
> >control the blend, or the volume for either pickup. (It might sound nice
> >though, with both pickups in phase, but I've never tried it).
>
> I checked the Matrix's tech specs and it turns out you can wire
> Fishman's jack for stereo --- the ring connector is available for an
> internal mic or, in my case, a putw. I assume that means that
> anything connected there is bypassing the Matrix preamp circuitry.
>
> Knowing that would you agree that your power plug would do the trick?
> One side passive (just to let the fishman's preamped signal go thru
> unmolested) and the other active to juice the putw? The two knobs on
> your power plug would provide the blending capability.
>
> But . .. . I am definitely gonna be pulling the plug on an Ultrasound
> in VA this March soooooooo . . . . seems like I have several easy and
> economical options.
>
> Thanks, David.
>
> Jeff
>
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: Frank W's Dual Source: Q?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:28:04 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Hey Jeff,
Wish we would have had more time last night to talk about this, but hey,
that would have cut into the fun we were having. ;-)
> I'm thinking Frank's application would work but the Power Plug would be
> the key: The Fishman ust goes through its existing preamp and one side
> of the stereo jack to the passive side of a power plug where it comes
> out unaffected. The putw goes thru the active side of the power plug
> where it gets . . . er, activated?
This is more or less the way I have mine set up, but I have a Fishman Rare
Earth Hummer instead of the UST. Basically the Fishman is "Active", meaning
it has it's own pre-amp built in (the UST's is in the jack & the RE's is
actually on the PU's body), & the PUTW is "Passive", that is, without a
pre-amp. Even though both the jack & the Power Plug are labelled "Stereo",
for our purpose it is better described as "Dual Source". The idea is that
each PU can be separated or blended at will rather than split into a
"stereo" pair of left & right channels (even though you could do this if
you wanted). I suspect your jack (being stereo) has your Fishman in the
"Tip" position, leaving the "Ring" position open to wire up the PUTW. This
is somewhat important if you want to set it up like mine because you'd want
David to make you a Passive (Ring) / Active (Tip) Stereo Power Plug. Mine
happens to be the other way around. You'd have to find out for sure so you
can order the correct configuration. If you then added this PU system to
another guitar (I did with my 12) you'd need to wire up it's jack to match,
too.
From the Power Plug out you've got a bunch of flexability. I run mine
through a stereo cable which I then split to 1/4" mono jacks. Last night I
ran both into a Morley ABY box, then ran a straight mono cable to the PA.
Normally, though, I run the Fishman to my effects pedal (DOD AcousTec), THEN
into the ABY. I run the PUTW straight into the ABY. I usually have to go
into a DI box before I plug into a snake, too, but that would be the same no
matter what. This leaves me the options to:
A - Run the Fishman RE alone through the DOD to get the most "electric"
sound & the heaviest use of effects, or
B - Run the PUTW alone for the most natural "acoustic" sound, or
C - Blend them together for what I've found to be my best "live" sound,
sometimes adding suble (the way I like them ;-) effects to the Fishman for a
very natural (did I say subtle?) mix.
> But is the power plug mono out? That would be fine, I guess. The two
> knobs would give you the a,b,a&b capability. Er, I mean I think they
> would?
Again, my Power Plug is a Stereo (read Dual Source) output. You will have
the A / B / AB mixing capability if you use an ABY box. I'm not sure why,
but mine seems to need this. I still am futzing a bit on gain balancing, but
I can make adjustment at 3 point, the dual pots on the Power Plug (which I
like to reserve for "on / off" duty & minor adjustments), the built-in
electronics on the active side of the Power Plug, & at the DOD AcousTec box.
I'm workin on it! (I also make a final adjustment @ the DI box when I switch
guitars because my 12 is louder with the same settings than my 6).
Whew! Any questions?
Later,
Frank
| Pickup for Studio Recording |
|---|
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Pickup for Studio Recording
Date: 11 Jan 2002 16:18:11 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 10 Jan 2002 07:31:50 -0800, <bercikj@junglemate...> (John Bercik)
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Are any of the Acoustic guitar pickups good enough to record live? I
>heard that the I-Beam was? Is this true? If so, how does it compare
>with properly micing? Are there any pickups better for this?
>
>Thanks,
>John Bercik
John--I've been recording with PUTW #27's in my Guilds. I think they
sound pretty darned good. My MP3.com site has 4 songs, 3 of which
were recorded with the PUTW's. Of these, I'd recommend "Different
Lives" and "Boat On The River" as the best ones to get an idea of the
possibilities.
HTH...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
| Amplify Nylon String Guitar [6] |
|---|
From: Cybertuna <cybertuna@_hotmail...>
Subject: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:47:41 -0800
Organization: usenet.com http://www.usenet.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. The #1 Usenet Service on the Planet!
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Hi, I'm looking for ideas on how to amplify a 3/4 size nylong string
classical style guitar. I've scoured the net and have found very little. I
would like to do this without modifying the guitar ideally, but not
essential. This is for home recording. Please pass on your thoughts.
Thanks,
gene
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.comUnlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:46:28 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
The PUTW (Pick Up the World) piezo film transducer seems popular, and it
sticks on the underside of the soundboard. Not inexpensive (about US$120),
and you would also need a preamp. The LR Baggs I-Beam also sticks inside the
guitar and comes with a endpin preamp at about US$190. Call or e-mail
Mandolin Bros in NY - they sell both brands and are very helpful with
customer enquiries.
Tony D
Cybertuna <<cybertuna@_hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<3c40837f@post...>...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Hi, I'm looking for ideas on how to amplify a 3/4 size nylong string
> classical style guitar. I've scoured the net and have found very little. I
> would like to do this without modifying the guitar ideally, but not
> essential. This is for home recording. Please pass on your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> gene
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:04:53 +0000
in article 2m008.70610$<HW3.65559@newsfeeds...>, Tony Done at
<tonydone@bigpond...> wrote on 12/1/02 7:46 PM:
> The PUTW (Pick Up the World) piezo film transducer seems popular, and it
> sticks on the underside of the soundboard. Not inexpensive (about US$120),
> and you would also need a preamp. The LR Baggs I-Beam also sticks inside the
> guitar and comes with a endpin preamp at about US$190. Call or e-mail
> Mandolin Bros in NY - they sell both brands and are very helpful with
> customer enquiries.
>
Remember that the PUTW does not need a preamp if you have an amplifier with
a piezo input, or a suitable channel on a mixer, or an DI box like the L R
Baggs PADI - and also that the strip can be fixed to the front of the
guitar, temporarily for the recording session, and then removed.
This is how I record one-off instruments - I keep a PUTW No 30 in the
studio, and unless the instrument is an antique with fragile varnish, I just
use this instead of a mike. I keep a roll of DS tape to replace the adhesive
from time to time, and the PUTW stands up to repeated re-use. It has been on
guitars, harps, mandolin, banjo, classical guitar, lute etc. I run it
through a Trace Elliott DI box which provides just enough gain for a natural
sounding recording.
It does not have to be installed in any instrument, it can be kept around as
a standard piece of studio equipment.
David
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:52:34 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
Thanks for the comment - I hadn't appreciated that they were so easily
reusable. I have been thinking about getting one for my prewar reso, and I
already have a good preamp.
Have you ever tried it with acoustic putty instead of DS adhesive?
Have you ever tried the I-beam?
Tony D
David Kilpatrick <<iconmags@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:B8666385.1CC3%<iconmags@btconnect...>...
> in article 2m008.70610$<HW3.65559@newsfeeds...>, Tony Done at
> <tonydone@bigpond...> wrote on 12/1/02 7:46 PM:
>
> > The PUTW (Pick Up the World) piezo film transducer seems popular, and it
> > sticks on the underside of the soundboard. Not inexpensive (about
US$120),
> > and you would also need a preamp. The LR Baggs I-Beam also sticks inside
the
> > guitar and comes with a endpin preamp at about US$190. Call or e-mail
> > Mandolin Bros in NY - they sell both brands and are very helpful with
> > customer enquiries.
> >
> Remember that the PUTW does not need a preamp if you have an amplifier
with
> a piezo input, or a suitable channel on a mixer, or an DI box like the L R
> Baggs PADI - and also that the strip can be fixed to the front of the
> guitar, temporarily for the recording session, and then removed.
>
> This is how I record one-off instruments - I keep a PUTW No 30 in the
> studio, and unless the instrument is an antique with fragile varnish, I
just
> use this instead of a mike. I keep a roll of DS tape to replace the
adhesive
> from time to time, and the PUTW stands up to repeated re-use. It has been
on
> guitars, harps, mandolin, banjo, classical guitar, lute etc. I run it
> through a Trace Elliott DI box which provides just enough gain for a
natural
> sounding recording.
>
> It does not have to be installed in any instrument, it can be kept around
as
> a standard piece of studio equipment.
>
> David
>
From: Mike Dotson <terapln@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: 13 Jan 2002 03:10:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< I have been thinking about getting one for my prewar reso, and I
already have a good preamp.
Have you ever tried it with acoustic putty instead of DS adhesive?>>
Hey Tony. Dave E. doesn't recommend a soft putty because it can dampen the
sound somewhat. I've used Elmers Stix-All which is a silicone adhesive. I
wouldn't get silicone anywhere near a decent acoustic but I've used it to put a
PUTW on a tricone T-bridge and more recently on the underside of a (routed out)
biscuit bridge. It dries pretty hard and the film is very thin.
Mike
http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Amplify Nylon String Guitar
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:15:54 +0000
in article tB608.70868$<HW3.66040@newsfeeds...>, Tony Done at
<tonydone@bigpond...> wrote on 13/1/02 2:52 AM:
> Thanks for the comment - I hadn't appreciated that they were so easily
> reusable. I have been thinking about getting one for my prewar reso, and I
> already have a good preamp.
>
> Have you ever tried it with acoustic putty instead of DS adhesive?
>
> Have you ever tried the I-beam?
>
No, the pickup must be fixed using double sided tape, it is not like a bug,
it's very flexible indeed and thinner than cellulose tape itself. The DS
tape actually gives it 'body'! If there is no dust on the instrument top,
one tape application will last dozens of uses.
No, it's not sold in the UK as far as I know. I have tried all kinds of
Schaller, Belcat, Ashworth and other 'bug' transducers and not one of them
comes anywhere near PUTW sound quality - despite sometimes costing more.
David
------------------------------------------
Icon magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Music CDs and tracks: http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
email - either <iconmags@btconnect...> or <david@maxwellplace...>
| PUTW in my Olson (long) [7] |
|---|
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:54:03 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I posted last week about installing a PUTW in my Martin HD28 (very
successful and easy) and I was going to follow that up by installing a
PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my Olson SJ.
I had to wait for my brother to come by since he's handy with a
soldering iron.
The first thing he did was solder the PUTW as primary (on the tip) and
the LB6 as the secondary (on the ring). I reinstalled the endpin jack,
and mounted the PUTW along the treble X brace per Dave Enke's
recommendation. Actually, the location Dave recommends for lightly
braced guitars is along the bass X brace but I couldn't put it there
because the wire from the LB6 comes out of the saddle right next to the
brace, so there's no room. After calling Dave for help, he recommended
trying along the treble X brace.
So after work, I mounted the PUTW and gave it a whirl. It sounded
great! But after playing it for a bit, I began to notice distortion
from the notes middle E and middle F. It fact it distorted anywhere I
played those 2 pitches on the fretboard! Weird! I tried remounting the
pickup but then it was the middle G note that was distorting. I fooled
with tape, location, etc through the rest of the evening until I gave up
and went to bed.
The next morning I got up and gave Dave another call. Help Mr. Wizard!
He figured out that either the PUTW wire was touching a bridge pin or
the wires from the PUTW and LB6 were touching. Since I know NOTHING
about electronics, I had no idea that this sort thing could cause
problems. He recommended putting a severe bend in the wire away from
the bridge pins, taping up any excess in the PUTW wire away from the LB6
wire, and finally taping the wires together at the endpin jack in case
the wires were picking up resonance from the jack.
Well that did it! I plugged it in and it sounds great! It does a great
job of picking up the tone of the Olson. I don't have a blender type
preamp yet so I've only been able to A/B the 2 pickups. Here's what I
found-
- The LB6 has much more output than the PUTW
- The PUTW sounds very much like my guitar.
- The LB6 is brighter and a tad harsher. When I play with a pick, I
have to watch how I strum to avoid the harshness. Not so with the
PUTW. I can pretty much play like I do unamplified.
- It's really amazing to hear the same tone come out of the speaker
that I hear coming from the guitar. Usually I hear the natural tone
with my right ear and my left ear hears the tone of pickup from the
speaker. With the LB6, if I tweak the PADI, I can get it close but
there's still a discrepency between what my right ear hears and what my
left ear hears. With the PUTW, I run the PADI flat and I hear the same
thing with both ears. Wow!
I've had the PUTW installed for a couple of days now and I really like
it but there is one thing that's not quite right. The PUTW is picking
up a tad too much body resonance and it sounds like there's a little too
much reverb turned on. That's not happening with the PUTW in my
Martin. The Martin sounds perfect, exactly like it does unamplified
(only louder, of course).
I tried to call Dave but he's at NAMM. I'll have to wait until he gets
back to see if he has any suggestions on how to adjust it. I like it A
LOT better than the LB6. It's definitely here to stay. If I can get
the body resonance toned down just a bit, I'd consider it near perfect.
I'd have no problem taking out the LB6 altogether. Now if I can't, then
using a blender might be the answer. A little of the LB6 signal to even
out the PUTW might just do the trick.
I read Tom Loredo's post that the PUTW sounded harsh in his Olson. I
don't get any of that at all. It sounds great and very natural. I know
Dave has made some improvements in the PUTW since then, so maybe it's
that. My Olson also has a spruce top rather than the more common cedar
but I don't know if that would have anything to do with it either. I'll
leave that for the more intelligent folks to figure out.
Pete
--
"The opportunity of a lifetime must be seized during the lifetime of the
opportunity" - Leonard Ravenhill
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:59:59 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Pete,
we have landed in L.A., and are doing our best to keep up with our tech
support from the road. Kent and Jeff back at the ranch are pretty good, but
they forward things to me upon occasion if needed. I know you borrowed your
brother's soldering iron, but the excess reverb sounds like you have too
much cable length between the pickup and the jack. If you get a sense of how
much cable you can remove, leave both pickups where they are, and bring the
jack back up through the soundhole, and cut and re-solder the wire at a
better length. You would then not need to tie up the wire, and it's own
mass/inertia will react less to body noises and internal reverb. You could
wrap a little foam tape or red tape around the wire where it exits the jack
barrel to shock mount it better. Because the pickups do pickup a lot of
'air', most people do not add reverb when they play.
I might be a little slow and over-stimulated for the next few days, but am
interested to see how this goes.
Best,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Pete Ngai" <<nighguy@usa...>> wrote in message
news:<3C43EF3A.66BBFD2F@usa...>...
> I posted last week about installing a PUTW in my Martin HD28 (very
> successful and easy) and I was going to follow that up by installing a
> PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my Olson SJ.
>
> I had to wait for my brother to come by since he's handy with a
> soldering iron.
>
> The first thing he did was solder the PUTW as primary (on the tip) and
> the LB6 as the secondary (on the ring). I reinstalled the endpin jack,
> and mounted the PUTW along the treble X brace per Dave Enke's
> recommendation. Actually, the location Dave recommends for lightly
> braced guitars is along the bass X brace but I couldn't put it there
> because the wire from the LB6 comes out of the saddle right next to the
> brace, so there's no room. After calling Dave for help, he recommended
> trying along the treble X brace.
>
> So after work, I mounted the PUTW and gave it a whirl. It sounded
> great! But after playing it for a bit, I began to notice distortion
> from the notes middle E and middle F. It fact it distorted anywhere I
> played those 2 pitches on the fretboard! Weird! I tried remounting the
> pickup but then it was the middle G note that was distorting. I fooled
> with tape, location, etc through the rest of the evening until I gave up
> and went to bed.
>
> The next morning I got up and gave Dave another call. Help Mr. Wizard!
> He figured out that either the PUTW wire was touching a bridge pin or
> the wires from the PUTW and LB6 were touching. Since I know NOTHING
> about electronics, I had no idea that this sort thing could cause
> problems. He recommended putting a severe bend in the wire away from
> the bridge pins, taping up any excess in the PUTW wire away from the LB6
> wire, and finally taping the wires together at the endpin jack in case
> the wires were picking up resonance from the jack.
>
> Well that did it! I plugged it in and it sounds great! It does a great
> job of picking up the tone of the Olson. I don't have a blender type
> preamp yet so I've only been able to A/B the 2 pickups. Here's what I
> found-
> - The LB6 has much more output than the PUTW
> - The PUTW sounds very much like my guitar.
> - The LB6 is brighter and a tad harsher. When I play with a pick, I
> have to watch how I strum to avoid the harshness. Not so with the
> PUTW. I can pretty much play like I do unamplified.
> - It's really amazing to hear the same tone come out of the speaker
> that I hear coming from the guitar. Usually I hear the natural tone
> with my right ear and my left ear hears the tone of pickup from the
> speaker. With the LB6, if I tweak the PADI, I can get it close but
> there's still a discrepency between what my right ear hears and what my
> left ear hears. With the PUTW, I run the PADI flat and I hear the same
> thing with both ears. Wow!
>
> I've had the PUTW installed for a couple of days now and I really like
> it but there is one thing that's not quite right. The PUTW is picking
> up a tad too much body resonance and it sounds like there's a little too
> much reverb turned on. That's not happening with the PUTW in my
> Martin. The Martin sounds perfect, exactly like it does unamplified
> (only louder, of course).
>
> I tried to call Dave but he's at NAMM. I'll have to wait until he gets
> back to see if he has any suggestions on how to adjust it. I like it A
> LOT better than the LB6. It's definitely here to stay. If I can get
> the body resonance toned down just a bit, I'd consider it near perfect.
> I'd have no problem taking out the LB6 altogether. Now if I can't, then
> using a blender might be the answer. A little of the LB6 signal to even
> out the PUTW might just do the trick.
>
> I read Tom Loredo's post that the PUTW sounded harsh in his Olson. I
> don't get any of that at all. It sounds great and very natural. I know
> Dave has made some improvements in the PUTW since then, so maybe it's
> that. My Olson also has a spruce top rather than the more common cedar
> but I don't know if that would have anything to do with it either. I'll
> leave that for the more intelligent folks to figure out.
>
> Pete
>
> --
> "The opportunity of a lifetime must be seized during the lifetime of the
> opportunity" - Leonard Ravenhill
>
>
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: 15 Jan 2002 12:12:37 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Pete,
I'd be curious to hear how the LB6 and the PUTW compare with respect
to feedback susceptability and quietness at high volumes. You've said
that the PUTW has a weaker output than the LB6, and I'm wondering if
that would cause noise problems. (I've found, for instance, that the
active b-band UST in one of my guitars has a weaker output and is
noisier than the passive Baggs Hex pickup in another guitar - even
when I'm using a 20 ft. cable between the Hex and a preamp. I like
the natural sound of the b-band very much, but noisiness is an issue
when one is cranking up for some quiet picking.)
In any event, I hope that you'll take the opportunity to make the
comparisons while you still have both pickups in the same guitar.
Thanks,
Gary Hall
Pete Ngai <<nighguy@usa...>> wrote in message news:<<3C43EF3A.66BBFD2F@usa...>>..
> I posted last week about installing a PUTW in my Martin HD28 (very
> successful and easy) and I was going to follow that up by installing a
> PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my Olson SJ.
>
> I had to wait for my brother to come by since he's handy with a
> soldering iron.
>
> The first thing he did was solder the PUTW as primary (on the tip) and
> the LB6 as the secondary (on the ring). I reinstalled the endpin jack,
> and mounted the PUTW along the treble X brace per Dave Enke's
> recommendation. Actually, the location Dave recommends for lightly
> braced guitars is along the bass X brace but I couldn't put it there
> because the wire from the LB6 comes out of the saddle right next to the
> brace, so there's no room. After calling Dave for help, he recommended
> trying along the treble X brace.
>
> So after work, I mounted the PUTW and gave it a whirl. It sounded
> great! But after playing it for a bit, I began to notice distortion
> from the notes middle E and middle F. It fact it distorted anywhere I
> played those 2 pitches on the fretboard! Weird! I tried remounting the
> pickup but then it was the middle G note that was distorting. I fooled
> with tape, location, etc through the rest of the evening until I gave up
> and went to bed.
>
> The next morning I got up and gave Dave another call. Help Mr. Wizard!
> He figured out that either the PUTW wire was touching a bridge pin or
> the wires from the PUTW and LB6 were touching. Since I know NOTHING
> about electronics, I had no idea that this sort thing could cause
> problems. He recommended putting a severe bend in the wire away from
> the bridge pins, taping up any excess in the PUTW wire away from the LB6
> wire, and finally taping the wires together at the endpin jack in case
> the wires were picking up resonance from the jack.
>
> Well that did it! I plugged it in and it sounds great! It does a great
> job of picking up the tone of the Olson. I don't have a blender type
> preamp yet so I've only been able to A/B the 2 pickups. Here's what I
> found-
> - The LB6 has much more output than the PUTW
> - The PUTW sounds very much like my guitar.
> - The LB6 is brighter and a tad harsher. When I play with a pick, I
> have to watch how I strum to avoid the harshness. Not so with the
> PUTW. I can pretty much play like I do unamplified.
> - It's really amazing to hear the same tone come out of the speaker
> that I hear coming from the guitar. Usually I hear the natural tone
> with my right ear and my left ear hears the tone of pickup from the
> speaker. With the LB6, if I tweak the PADI, I can get it close but
> there's still a discrepency between what my right ear hears and what my
> left ear hears. With the PUTW, I run the PADI flat and I hear the same
> thing with both ears. Wow!
>
> I've had the PUTW installed for a couple of days now and I really like
> it but there is one thing that's not quite right. The PUTW is picking
> up a tad too much body resonance and it sounds like there's a little too
> much reverb turned on. That's not happening with the PUTW in my
> Martin. The Martin sounds perfect, exactly like it does unamplified
> (only louder, of course).
>
> I tried to call Dave but he's at NAMM. I'll have to wait until he gets
> back to see if he has any suggestions on how to adjust it. I like it A
> LOT better than the LB6. It's definitely here to stay. If I can get
> the body resonance toned down just a bit, I'd consider it near perfect.
> I'd have no problem taking out the LB6 altogether. Now if I can't, then
> using a blender might be the answer. A little of the LB6 signal to even
> out the PUTW might just do the trick.
>
> I read Tom Loredo's post that the PUTW sounded harsh in his Olson. I
> don't get any of that at all. It sounds great and very natural. I know
> Dave has made some improvements in the PUTW since then, so maybe it's
> that. My Olson also has a spruce top rather than the more common cedar
> but I don't know if that would have anything to do with it either. I'll
> leave that for the more intelligent folks to figure out.
>
> Pete
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:41:52 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I've turned the PUTW quite loud (again using the Baggs PADI and the volume knob on
my Carvin AG100) and it does fine. I don't hear any noise and it comes through
pretty clean. The PUTW is more susceptabile to feedback and the PADI seems to take
care of that fairly well.
The LB6 can also cause feedback but not as soon. I'm using a 25 ft. cable between
the guitar and PADI (a high quality, shielded one) and then I use the XLR output
from the PADI to the amp or mixing board.
The PUTW output is weaker but it's still plenty for the PADI to work with. I've
noticed the PUTW in my Martin puts out more output than the one in my Olson. I
don't know why that is though.
Pete
Gary Hall wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I'd be curious to hear how the LB6 and the PUTW compare with respect
> to feedback susceptability and quietness at high volumes. You've said
> that the PUTW has a weaker output than the LB6, and I'm wondering if
> that would cause noise problems. (I've found, for instance, that the
> active b-band UST in one of my guitars has a weaker output and is
> noisier than the passive Baggs Hex pickup in another guitar - even
> when I'm using a 20 ft. cable between the Hex and a preamp. I like
> the natural sound of the b-band very much, but noisiness is an issue
> when one is cranking up for some quiet picking.)
>
> In any event, I hope that you'll take the opportunity to make the
> comparisons while you still have both pickups in the same guitar.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary Hall
>
> Pete Ngai <<nighguy@usa...>> wrote in message news:<<3C43EF3A.66BBFD2F@usa...>>..
>
> > I posted last week about installing a PUTW in my Martin HD28 (very
> > successful and easy) and I was going to follow that up by installing a
> > PUTW as a dual source with the LB6 in my Olson SJ.
> >
> > I had to wait for my brother to come by since he's handy with a
> > soldering iron.
> >
> > The first thing he did was solder the PUTW as primary (on the tip) and
> > the LB6 as the secondary (on the ring). I reinstalled the endpin jack,
> > and mounted the PUTW along the treble X brace per Dave Enke's
> > recommendation. Actually, the location Dave recommends for lightly
> > braced guitars is along the bass X brace but I couldn't put it there
> > because the wire from the LB6 comes out of the saddle right next to the
> > brace, so there's no room. After calling Dave for help, he recommended
> > trying along the treble X brace.
> >
> > So after work, I mounted the PUTW and gave it a whirl. It sounded
> > great! But after playing it for a bit, I began to notice distortion
> > from the notes middle E and middle F. It fact it distorted anywhere I
> > played those 2 pitches on the fretboard! Weird! I tried remounting the
> > pickup but then it was the middle G note that was distorting. I fooled
> > with tape, location, etc through the rest of the evening until I gave up
> > and went to bed.
> >
> > The next morning I got up and gave Dave another call. Help Mr. Wizard!
> > He figured out that either the PUTW wire was touching a bridge pin or
> > the wires from the PUTW and LB6 were touching. Since I know NOTHING
> > about electronics, I had no idea that this sort thing could cause
> > problems. He recommended putting a severe bend in the wire away from
> > the bridge pins, taping up any excess in the PUTW wire away from the LB6
> > wire, and finally taping the wires together at the endpin jack in case
> > the wires were picking up resonance from the jack.
> >
> > Well that did it! I plugged it in and it sounds great! It does a great
> > job of picking up the tone of the Olson. I don't have a blender type
> > preamp yet so I've only been able to A/B the 2 pickups. Here's what I
> > found-
> > - The LB6 has much more output than the PUTW
> > - The PUTW sounds very much like my guitar.
> > - The LB6 is brighter and a tad harsher. When I play with a pick, I
> > have to watch how I strum to avoid the harshness. Not so with the
> > PUTW. I can pretty much play like I do unamplified.
> > - It's really amazing to hear the same tone come out of the speaker
> > that I hear coming from the guitar. Usually I hear the natural tone
> > with my right ear and my left ear hears the tone of pickup from the
> > speaker. With the LB6, if I tweak the PADI, I can get it close but
> > there's still a discrepency between what my right ear hears and what my
> > left ear hears. With the PUTW, I run the PADI flat and I hear the same
> > thing with both ears. Wow!
> >
> > I've had the PUTW installed for a couple of days now and I really like
> > it but there is one thing that's not quite right. The PUTW is picking
> > up a tad too much body resonance and it sounds like there's a little too
> > much reverb turned on. That's not happening with the PUTW in my
> > Martin. The Martin sounds perfect, exactly like it does unamplified
> > (only louder, of course).
> >
> > I tried to call Dave but he's at NAMM. I'll have to wait until he gets
> > back to see if he has any suggestions on how to adjust it. I like it A
> > LOT better than the LB6. It's definitely here to stay. If I can get
> > the body resonance toned down just a bit, I'd consider it near perfect.
> > I'd have no problem taking out the LB6 altogether. Now if I can't, then
> > using a blender might be the answer. A little of the LB6 signal to even
> > out the PUTW might just do the trick.
> >
> > I read Tom Loredo's post that the PUTW sounded harsh in his Olson. I
> > don't get any of that at all. It sounds great and very natural. I know
> > Dave has made some improvements in the PUTW since then, so maybe it's
> > that. My Olson also has a spruce top rather than the more common cedar
> > but I don't know if that would have anything to do with it either. I'll
> > leave that for the more intelligent folks to figure out.
> >
> > Pete
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: 15 Jan 2002 20:28:36 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Pete,
Thanks for answering my questions. I've been considering the
possibility of combining a PUTW #27 with a Baggs LB6 or Hex pickup.
Your observations and Tom Loredo's observation (about the crosstalk
problem) have been quite helpful.
I happen to like the LB6 and Hex pickups for fingerpicking, especially
when I round out the sound a bit with some mic simulation from my
Yamaha AG Stomp. Like you, though, I find the Baggs pickups a little
harsh and brittle sounding with hard strumming. I find myself rolling
off too much treble and never quite getting the sound I want for hard
strumming. Sounds like a well-placed #27 may be the answer to that
problem.
Thanks again,
Gary Hall
Pete Ngai <<nighguy@usa...>> wrote in message news:<<3C44B029.B0EE0172@usa...>>...
> I've turned the PUTW quite loud (again using the Baggs PADI and the volume knob on
> my Carvin AG100) and it does fine. I don't hear any noise and it comes through
> pretty clean. The PUTW is more susceptabile to feedback and the PADI seems to take
> care of that fairly well.
>
> The LB6 can also cause feedback but not as soon. I'm using a 25 ft. cable between
> the guitar and PADI (a high quality, shielded one) and then I use the XLR output
> from the PADI to the amp or mixing board.
>
> The PUTW output is weaker but it's still plenty for the PADI to work with. I've
> noticed the PUTW in my Martin puts out more output than the one in my Olson. I
> don't know why that is though.
>
> Pete
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:19:50 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Peter-
Interesting report. Glad to hear you're getting a sound you like.
I'd be interested to hear if the tone changes when you remove
the LB6 from the jack. I raise the issue because crosstalk is
likely with the setup you describe. I have an LB6 in my Olson,
and at one time had it wired up to the same jack as an iBeam.
The crosstalk from the LB6 to the iBeam was incredible. This
is because both are hi impedance transducers, but the LB6 is
significantly hotter than the iBeam. So even though the
crosstalk produced a reduced LB6 signal on the iBeam wire,
it was strong enough to be comparable to the iBeam's own signal.
I could not only hear and measure the crosstalk, but motivated
by the observation did some calculations and indeed had I been
smart enough I should have predicted it---it's just what a
simple capacitive coupling calculation predicts.
Anyway, the point is that you are almost certainly getting
crosstalk; whether it is significant or not will depend on the
relative amplitudes of the LB6 and PUTW signals.
Caveat: If you are using a mono cable, forget everything I
just said! The crosstalk happens along the length of a
stereo cable, not in the guitar. Also, if you are using a
preamp right at the endpin, you similarly don't have to worry
about crosstalk. The crosstalk is an issue because the
capacitance of these transducers happens to be similar to the
capacitance of ~10 feet of standard stereo cable.
> I read Tom Loredo's post that the PUTW sounded harsh in his Olson.
To clarify this rather brief summary of many posts 8-), I found
an unacceptably harsh tone with a PUTW #27 mounted in the position
originally recommended, which is on the bridge plate under the
saddle. I tried many, many other positions, but never with any
luck. The position Pete is having luck with produced a rather
unnatural and boxy tone in my guitar. The best positions were
at the bottom edge of the bridge plate or along the bass brace,
but neither was very natural, and both (especially the one along
the brace) were remarkably sensitive to the position of my right
arm on the edge of the guitar---I could get a "wah-wah" effect
with small movements of my arm! My guess was that this was due
to the Olson's unusual bass-side brace, which goes all the way
to the bridge plate (near the B string)---I don't know of other
guitars with such a brace, so the problem with these positions may
be unique to an Olson SJ.
I must also add, as Pete mentioned, that I used an older PUTW #27
which I was originally told had been tested before being sent to
me for review, but was later told was probably from a bad batch.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: PUTW in my Olson (long)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:16:18 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Pete Ngai wrote:
>
> Thanks Tom, that's really interesting. I have a 3 foot stereo Y cord
> that I use to A/B the 2 pickups. The PUTW seems fine but the LB6
> seems to be picking up crosstalk.
3 feet isn't much and will help reduce the crosstalk. But it doesn't
make much sense that the crosstalk would be noticable in the LB6
channel and not the PUTW channel. The two pickups have similar
capacitances, so the relative amount of crosstalk is very similar for both.
But since the LB6 has the larger signal, its crosstalk into the PUTW
channel should be much more noticable than the PUTW crosstalk into
the LB6 channel. I wonder if maybe there is a problem with your
Y cord, or if perhaps you have the wiring reversed from what you
think it is.
BTW, part of why I raised the crosstalk issue is that I was
wondering if the signal you were hearing was actually
in effect a mix of significant LB6 and PUTW signals, in which
case you were using a dual source setup without knowing it---
passively mixed! That would be cute! 8-)
> So if I dual
> source my sound, then I need to have a preamp right at the jack to
> prevent the crosstalk? Did I understand that right?
As I said in my previous post, I only have the measurements with
LB6 + iBeam, so I can't say for sure what is necessary for PUTW + LB6.
Perhaps David will chime in after NAMM with some data on this.
But yes, to be safest both signals should be buffered as close to
the guitar as possible. But if you just use 3 feet of cord
before splitting the signals to two separate cables, crosstalk
should be reduced, maybe enough to not be a problem. The
crosstalk happens along the length of a stereo cable because
the two signal cables are right next to each other and act like
a long capacitor. If you can physically separate the cables
quickly, the effect is reduced.
> If I can keep
> both pickups, then I'll do that since it never hurts to have more
> sound options. But if the LB6 adversely affects the PUTW, then I'm
> okay on taking it out.
Hey, if you like how it sounds, don't worry about it! I was
raising the issue mostly just to make sure I understood exactly
what you were hearing.
> I did try the PUTW along the bottom of the bridge plate but that
> sounded the worst. It was very boxy and unnatural. The only other
> position I tried was the one I have it in now, which is along the
> treble brace. And that sounds pretty good to me.
Interesting; perhaps the newer models and new adhesive just lead to
different behavior, because this is almost the exact opposite of
my experience.
> Are you planning to eventually test the PUTW again?
No. David was kind in sending me a few units to test. But to call
the whole process an exercize in frustration would be an understatement.
I have tested/reviewed gear for many manufacturers, and in most cases
end up shelving out my own money at the end of the process to buy
something I like. But I'm not going to spend money on another PUTW.
I spent many, many hours fooling with one, reporting here every step
of the way, only in the end (after the better part of a year!) to have
all the work publicly dismissed because the pickup I was sent (said to
have been tested!) was finally said to be from a bad batch. This does
not inspire me to spend money to repeat the whole frustrating process!
In any case, just last weekend I got the latest version of B-Band's
new soundboard pickup. It's a stick-on pickup, rectangular in
geometry, along the lines of the PUTW #27 or the McIntyre Feather,
but using B-Band's EMF film technology rather than piezo film. I've
been beta testing versions of this pickup for many months now, and
most of the previous versions have shared the weaknesses I've
experienced with the other stick-ons. But the B-Band folks have
been incredibly persistant and creative, experimenting to no
end with geometry, thickness, mass loading, and (most recently)
multilayer configurations. This last one (dubbed the AST1370) is a
significant step above any such pickup I've ever tried. It sounds
very good on my Olson right in the recommended location (on the
bridge plate under the saddle)---the only such pickup to work
in that location for me (as I said earlier, I think Olsons are
particularly challenging for such pickups). It requires an
onboard preamp, but one can use the previous B-Band "Entity Front
End" preamp which can be remotely powered, so no battery is
needed in the guitar, and an internal mic can be added. Well,
I've only had a few days with it, and only one "gig" (playing at
my church through the PA), but I'm extremely impressed. Heikki
and his gang at EMF have lost a lot of sleep perfecting this thing,
but I think all the work has paid off handsomely. I'll have to live
with it a while before I have a final opinion, though. And I must
emphasize that I don't know if this is the final version, or
when it might be available. I think the B-Band folks are at NAMM,
so perhaps we'll hear more about it from the NAMM observers.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Which pickup system do you recommend? |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Which pickup system do you recommend?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:58:24 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Tim-
Unless you have an urgent need, I think right now is not a good time
to make decisions about this. The NAMM show is this weekend, and a
number of manufacturers are announcing new gear, including pickups.
For example, PUTW will be displaying their new Air Core and bridge
pin pickups, and the Larivee folks have adopted a setup with the
B-Band undersaddle pickup and the new B-Band soundboard pickup for
their guitars. I think if you can wait it might be worth it to
see how things settle out regarding the newest entries.
Also, there is a current thread started by Pete Ngai on amplifying
an Olson; check that for some ideas.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Some stuff I saw at NAMM |
|---|
From: Gordon <gordon@121mktg...>
Subject: Some stuff I saw at NAMM
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:55:29 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Just got back from my first time at NAMM.
LR Baggs has two new products. The iBeam onboard system thats a
direct retrofit for the Fishman barndoor preamps and the Feedback
Master that utilizes two adjustable notch filters to get rid of
feedback. The iBeam sounded great. They replaced the Fishman on a
Taylor 814CE and I really enjoyed the results.
Pick up the World has their new Aircore UST and bridge pin pickup.
David Enke and his wife are REALLY, REALLY great people. David is
going to do a mod on my Fishman OBB replacing the mic with his #27
film via a EMG preamp.
Taylor has new nylon string guitars. The neck feels like a Taylor. 1
7/8" nut width, radiused neck and compensated saddle. Played easy
although not as good as Sands guitar. Couldn't tell you how it
sounded since it was kinda noisy in there. A little dissappointed it
didn't have 14 frets to the body but I think Taylor wanted to keep it
somewhat traditional (this is definitely geared more towards steel
string players than classical nylon players).
Ultrasound seem to be the most popular acoustic guitar amp although
most exhibitors were using PA systems to demo their pickups or
guitars.
Thumbs down to Gibson. They would only allow Gibson dealers and
invited guests in their room/booth.
Lotsa more stuff, I just can't remember them now. Oh well, I'll just
have to go back tomorrow to see what I forgot.
GL
| Last post on PUTW in my Olson & Martin |
|---|
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Last post on PUTW in my Olson & Martin
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:18:11 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Okay, after this I'll quit and go back into lurk mode.
I've been playing both guitars every night listening to the new PUTW in
them trying to make sure I fully comprehend what I'm hearing.
So tonight I played for a while, then I decided to compare the PUTW to
an external mike. So I A/B both guitars using a Shure 58 (I know, it's
a vocal mike but it's all I have) and the PUTW.
The PUTW sounds really close to the mike but without the excess
bassiness and boom of the mike. Wow. In fact the PUTW sounds better on
the Martin because the mike picks up too much bass and much more body
resonance. The PUTW sounds like my Martin does unamplified.
Tonally, the PUTW in Olson is more on the treble side, probably because
I have the PUTW installed along the treble brace. But very close. I
thought the PUTW was picking up a little too much body resonance in the
Olson but compared to the mike, it's just fine.
I played the Martin at my Friday worship group and got rave reviews.
I'm trying to convince my buddy to swap out his Fishman for a PUTW in
his HD 28 VS. Beautiful sounding guitar. Very warm. It'd be great to
hear that warmth come out over the sound system.
Anyway, thanks for all the helpful advice, insight and for indulging my
musings. I think my next quest will be to find a good dual source
preamp.
Pete (no, my Olson is not for sale, at any price)
--
"The opportunity of a lifetime must be seized during the lifetime of the
opportunity" - Leonard Ravenhill
| Dumb Q: What's Impedance? [25] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:39:27 -0500
I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
is impedance a constant and level something else?
What are the differences between:
Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
level) info on this kinda stuff?
Sherman
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:39:43 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
No, ain't going for that. Sorry.
> Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
No.
> If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance
Sometimes, usually unfortunately.
> or
> is impedance a constant and level something else?
They're different.
> What are the differences between:
> Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
The nominal voltage required to drive the device to its rated specs.
> Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
The load presented to the source feeding the device.
> Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
Gives an idea of an appropriate load into which the device might drive,
because...
> Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
...in general, the load (destination) impedance should be on the order
of 10x the source impedance.
> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
> level) info on this kinda stuff?
The rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:44:21 -0700
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> ...if you're looking at two devices and one
> has an output level control and the other
> has an input level control, how do you know where
> to set the knobs?
Here's an answer from a definite non-expert (me).
When you have in-line devices that each have the
capability of adding gain (preamps, EQ's, FX's)
try and get the max gain out of each one before
there is distortion or over-driving the next one.
Typical passive electric guitar into amp:
Guitar vol controls are at full volume. They
are usually passive, don't add gain, no chance
of overdriving the amp. Output sounds clean, no distortion.
Add some type of preamp or EQ or sumpin with gain:
If you crank up the output gain of the preamp or EQ,
it will (at a certain point) cause the amp to sound
distorted. You're pumping too much 'lectricity into
the amp.
That's what a deliberate distortion FX pedal does.
It's a preamp/amplifier circuit that cranks the gain
up on the preamp so as to overdrives it's own amp
stage, then it reduces the amp stage's final output
so that the overall volume is similar to what it
would be if 'clean'.
So each time you add another device, you have one
more output level to think about.
In practical terms, I start at the distal end.
Set the final amp volume to something modest
and practical. Then start working backwards in
the signal chain, turning up each device output
level till there is distortion, then back off
just enough for clean sound.
George, Hank, Tom, David and the other xperts
can get more technical I'm sure (I hope they will).
They probably measure the actual voltages being
output from each device rather than the crude
way that I do it.
lumpy
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: 18 Jan 2002 11:12:36 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Jeff Sherman asked:
> Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
No.
> If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
> is impedance a constant and level something else?
Usually an input level control controls the gain, that is to say
the degree of amplification, of an amplifier circuit. It should
not change the input impedance.
> What are the differences between:
>
> Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
> Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
> Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
> Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
Nominal Input Level refers to the amount of power or voltage
that should be applied to the input of a circuit. It can be
specified using any of a confusingly large set of units.
Input impedance refers to the impedance that a circuit presents
to its input signal. (Impedance is a generalization of the
concept of electrical resistance to the realm of complex
numbers; if all of the currents were direct currents (DC), then
impedances would simplify to pure resistances, and an input
impedance of 1 Mohm would mean that, so far as anything that
you connect to the input is concerned, the circuit would look
like a 1 Mohm resistor.)
Output impedance refers the impedance that a circuit would
like for its output to see. That is, the output impedance
of a circuit should match the input impedance of the next
circuit in the signal path. If these impedances do not
match, then the mathematics of it all becomes hairy, and
bad things can happen to practical things like power transfer,
frequency response, and so forth.
Recommended Load Impedance is almost a synonym for output
impedance. It's the impedance that the designer of the
device would like for its output to see, which is not
necessarily the same as the output impedance that the
circuit itself wants to see.
> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
> level) info on this kinda stuff?
Yes, but I don't. I learned this stuff as a teenager interested
in ham radio. (I passed the Amateur Extra, First Class Radiotelephone,
and Second Class Radiotelegraph exams on my 18th birthday. That
helped to make up for having to register for the draft.) But if
Tom Laredo replies to this, you should believe him instead of me.
Will
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:39:27 -0500
I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
is impedance a constant and level something else?
What are the differences between:
Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
level) info on this kinda stuff?
Sherman
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:00:45 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> Ok, soooooo if you're looking at two devices and one has an output level
> control and the other has an input level control, how do you know where
> to set the knobs?
Since nearly all audio devices color the signal variously depending on
the levels they're receiving, the levels within them, and the levels
they're delivering (sometimes these are all the same level and sometimes
not), in the absence of metering at those points one must proceed by
ear. As coloration increases near and beyond the perimeters of a unit's
intended operating envelope, if one is seeking cleanliness one attempts
to avoid overdriving at any stage.
This is one reason why truly professional gear is more expensive because
even the simplest form of peak level or clippinp indication, if
accurate, will cost extra. Absent such you must listen carefully.
Devices with both input and output controls offer a multitude of tonal
possibilities. [By way of example, see the new Great River MP2-NV stereo
mic and instrument preamp at the GR website, and read about its
metering. See also that it has an input impedance switch to alter that
parameter to better suit certain microphones, or to alter the unit's
coloration with any given mic. (I have no $$ interest in GR, though Dan
Kennedy is a friend and I find his gear fabulous. I did just have a
first-run NV to play with for a few months and have placed it at the top
of my "to get" list. I've had an MP2-MH for several years, and am the
guy who first spec'd that particular version's output configuration,
which has since become popluar.)]
If there are level markings on the face of the unit start by putting
them where "O" is indicated. If there are no level marking, begin with
the knobs at 12 o'clock. If you are recording into a computer you can
use it as a meter to examine what the output waveforms look like at
various combinations of I/O level.
> And if the knobs change the impedance, why don't they have a graduated
> scale that tells you what you're setting it to? Because the impedance
> changes depending on what its driving so its not constant?
The knobs are not supposed to change impedance, and since most folks
wouldn't know impedance if it snuck up stole their Elliott capo, there's
no real point in indicating such. The knobs want to indicate level and
sometimes they do and sometimes they don't since real level at an input
depends on the level upstream, hence your upper level question here.
What changes relative to source and load impedances is the amount of
power that an output can deliver into a given load. In theory a lower
load will allow more power to be developed, to the point that if the
load is too low for a given output too much current will be drawn and
distortion or even failure can result - hence the 10:1 source-to-load
guideline. A higher load impedance means less power developed at the
output, and for example, is one reason many headphone drivers will not
deliver sufficient level to certain professional grade AKG headphones,
which are 600 ohms instead of the typical 30 to 50 ohms.
I also give you this caveat: I am not a technician; I am a dumbass
guitar player who has been doing recording and SR work since 1968, and
who has done a good deal of reading and spent a bunch of time hanging
around with people who are technicians. A Google search in the
rec.audio.pro archives for "impedance", and authors "Scott Dorsey",
"Harvey Gerst" and "Monte McQuire" will lead you to threads wherein this
is discussed by tech-saavy people who also manifest a real gift for
communication of such info. Google's Advanced Usenet search function is
keen for this.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Hussman <dfhussey1@attbinospan...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:30:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
All these responses were excellent, thanks to everyone I learned a lot. I
personally have problems visualizing electricity (the whole 'electron drift'
vs current etc.), so if I may add a wholly incorrect analogy chemical
engineers use to get a visual picture of resistanceresistance (a.k.a DC
impedance) .
Imagine water flowing through a pipe. The pressure at the inlet of the pipe
minus the outlet pressure right before the exit of the pipe is somewhat
analogous to voltage (it's the driving force), the volumetric flow rate of
water is somewhat analogous to the current (amps), and the characteristics
of the pipe on the inside (smooth vs rough walls, blockage, elbows, filters,
or anything else) that cause the pressure drop is somewhat analogous to
resistance, it is a property of the medium that the fluid (be it water or
electricity) is flowing through that causes the drop in pressure.
Extending this to electricity, gold and copper are smooth walled pipes,
whereas semiconductors are filled with porous filters, and insulators are
valves.
To the techies, I know, I know, it's not the same. But there are enough
analogs (no pun intended) to help people visualize the flowing of
electricity. Of course one of the problems with using this analogy for
impedance is that water cannot really flow back and forth in different
phases...
Hope this helps,
dfh
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C4841AF.4C49F5BA@lorainccc...>...
> I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
>
> Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
>
> If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
> is impedance a constant and level something else?
>
> What are the differences between:
>
> Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
> Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
> Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
> Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
>
> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
> level) info on this kinda stuff?
>
> Sherman
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:21:49 GMT
Ok, so going with the plumbing analogy, gain is like the force the
water's going through the pipe, right?
Impedance is like the fileters, valves, clogs, traps, obstructions
inside the pipe that affect the flow?
Is there an analogy to the diameter of the pipe?
Hey, you see these terms all the time too: Is 'unbalanced' always
high impedance and 'balanced' always low?
Jeff
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:30:27 GMT, "Hussman"
<<dfhussey1@attbinospan...>> wrote:
>All these responses were excellent, thanks to everyone I learned a lot. I
>personally have problems visualizing electricity (the whole 'electron drift'
>vs current etc.), so if I may add a wholly incorrect analogy chemical
>engineers use to get a visual picture of resistanceresistance (a.k.a DC
>impedance) .
>
>Imagine water flowing through a pipe. The pressure at the inlet of the pipe
>minus the outlet pressure right before the exit of the pipe is somewhat
>analogous to voltage (it's the driving force), the volumetric flow rate of
>water is somewhat analogous to the current (amps), and the characteristics
>of the pipe on the inside (smooth vs rough walls, blockage, elbows, filters,
>or anything else) that cause the pressure drop is somewhat analogous to
>resistance, it is a property of the medium that the fluid (be it water or
>electricity) is flowing through that causes the drop in pressure.
>
>Extending this to electricity, gold and copper are smooth walled pipes,
>whereas semiconductors are filled with porous filters, and insulators are
>valves.
>
>To the techies, I know, I know, it's not the same. But there are enough
>analogs (no pun intended) to help people visualize the flowing of
>electricity. Of course one of the problems with using this analogy for
>impedance is that water cannot really flow back and forth in different
>phases...
>
>Hope this helps,
>dfh
>
>
>
>
>"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
>news:<3C4841AF.4C49F5BA@lorainccc...>...
>> I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
>>
>> Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
>>
>> If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
>> is impedance a constant and level something else?
>>
>> What are the differences between:
>>
>> Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
>> Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
>> Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
>> Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
>>
>> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
>> level) info on this kinda stuff?
>>
>> Sherman
>
>
From: Hussman <dfhussey1@attbinospan...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:47:07 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Hmm, problem with engineering is you get a fair understanding of the theory
but you don't see how the technology is used in practice.
I'm not sure if I know definitely how to describe gain, I was under the
assumption it is a term describing the signal strength, perhaps directly
related to the electric current. If the electronics guys could comment I'd
appreciate it.
The diameter of the pipe is used in the calculation of the pressure drop, so
it would be part of the whole resistance term. But the thing about the
diameter is that it determines the cross sectional flow area. Knowing the
flow area allows you to calculate the maximum flow rate based on the
velocity limit of the fluid (typically 10 ft/sec for liquids, 100 ft/sec for
gases). A similar analogy works for electric current flow, the thicker the
wire (and the better the conductor), the more amps you can carry.
I don't know enough about balanced and unbalance impedance to comment, again
that's a practical thing. I'm gonna read some of the articles the others
posted.
Dennis
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c4b25f2.1354104@news...>...
> Ok, so going with the plumbing analogy, gain is like the force the
> water's going through the pipe, right?
>
> Impedance is like the fileters, valves, clogs, traps, obstructions
> inside the pipe that affect the flow?
>
> Is there an analogy to the diameter of the pipe?
>
> Hey, you see these terms all the time too: Is 'unbalanced' always
> high impedance and 'balanced' always low?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:30:27 GMT, "Hussman"
> <<dfhussey1@attbinospan...>> wrote:
>
> >All these responses were excellent, thanks to everyone I learned a lot.
I
> >personally have problems visualizing electricity (the whole 'electron
drift'
> >vs current etc.), so if I may add a wholly incorrect analogy chemical
> >engineers use to get a visual picture of resistanceresistance (a.k.a DC
> >impedance) .
> >
> >Imagine water flowing through a pipe. The pressure at the inlet of the
pipe
> >minus the outlet pressure right before the exit of the pipe is somewhat
> >analogous to voltage (it's the driving force), the volumetric flow rate
of
> >water is somewhat analogous to the current (amps), and the
characteristics
> >of the pipe on the inside (smooth vs rough walls, blockage, elbows,
filters,
> >or anything else) that cause the pressure drop is somewhat analogous to
> >resistance, it is a property of the medium that the fluid (be it water or
> >electricity) is flowing through that causes the drop in pressure.
> >
> >Extending this to electricity, gold and copper are smooth walled pipes,
> >whereas semiconductors are filled with porous filters, and insulators are
> >valves.
> >
> >To the techies, I know, I know, it's not the same. But there are enough
> >analogs (no pun intended) to help people visualize the flowing of
> >electricity. Of course one of the problems with using this analogy for
> >impedance is that water cannot really flow back and forth in different
> >phases...
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >dfh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> >news:<3C4841AF.4C49F5BA@lorainccc...>...
> >> I'm sorry I'm dumb. Believe me, I am. I can't help it.
> >>
> >> Does 'active' always mean high impedance and 'passive' mean low?
> >>
> >> If a device has an input level control does it change the impedance or
> >> is impedance a constant and level something else?
> >>
> >> What are the differences between:
> >>
> >> Nominal Input Level (e.g., -20 dBu variable)
> >> Input Impedance (e.g., 1 M)
> >> Output Impedance (e.g., 1 k)
> >> Recommended Load Impedance (e.g., 10 k or greater)
> >>
> >> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
> >> level) info on this kinda stuff?
> >>
> >> Sherman
> >
> >
>
From: bowman <bowman@montana...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:46:02 -0700
"Hussman" <<dfhussey1@attbinospan...>> wrote in message
news:fyJ28.1424$<CJ1.22363@rwcrnsc51...>...
> gases). A similar analogy works for electric current flow, the thicker
the
> wire (and the better the conductor), the more amps you can carry.
More or less. AC tends to force the current flow to the skin. Negligible at
60 hz but it becomes quite important at RF.
> I don't know enough about balanced and unbalance impedance to comment,
again
> that's a practical thing. I'm gonna read some of the articles the others
> posted.
This is reaching a bit, but to extend the hydraulic analogy, there is an
equation:
HorsePower = (FlowInGPM x PressureSquareInch) / 1714
so, 10 gpm at 30 psi has the same power as 1 gpm at 300 psi. Let's say you
have a lawn sprinkler where 30 psi is enough to reach to the edge of the
lawn, and you want to soak in 10 gpm of water. But, you've got a very
strange water system, and the hose only delivers 1 gpm at 100 psi. What you
have is an impedance mismatch, same power on both sides, but the wrong
relationship of pressure (voltage) and flow (current)
A good example of impedance matching is a horn. You have a transducer, reed,
or mouthpiece that wants to work into a high pressure with not much motion,
and you really want a low pressure, high volume wave at the mouth of the
horn. An acoustic guitar is the same deal. The actual energy in a vibrating
string is about the same on an acoustic or electric guitar, but without a
resonant soundbox to match it up to a usable form, you don't hear anything.
Of course, an acoustic instrument adds overtones and other color to the
signal to a greater degree than an electric guitar. Or, I should say, I've
never been able to hear a lot of difference in unamplified electrics :)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:32:02 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote:
>
> >So if something's passive does it still have input and ouput
> >impedance?
>
> In theory, no, kinda. It's a straight resistance box that does some simple
> summing and resistive attenuation, so it doesn't have any inductive or
> capacitive elements that react differently at different frequencies.
Actually, resistance is impedance, and even a purely resistive
impedance will significantly affect tone if the source impedance
is not resistive. In the case of piezo and magnetic pickups, the
source impedance has a large capacitive or inductive part, so even
a purely resistive load will affect the tone. So if you
are using this with a piezo pickup, you have to worry about the
impedance of a passive mixer. That's not the intended application
here, so it's not so much of an issue (which may be what Harv meant
by "kinda"!). But yes, any passive network has input and output impedances.
Z = R + jXZ = impedance
R = resistance
X = reactance
j = sqrt(-1)
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:42:40 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy-
Actually, the hydrodynamic analogy is deeper than DFH suggested.
Even some of the math ends up analogous. The proper analogy is:
pressure : volts (signal amplitude)
flow : current
And then friction in the pipes will correspond to resistance,
but it's hard to get anything useful from the analogy if you
want to talk about frequency-dependent impedance (you need
to talk about fluctuating water flow, which I don't think
we have good intuition about, so the reason for making the
analogy disappears). The analogy is mostly useful for talking
about DC electronics.
BTW, the analogy to gain (amplification) would be a pump
station, which can increase the pressure in the pipe. The
diameter of a pipe is not too fundamentally important, and
corresponds to the diameter of a wire---just like a wider
pipe has less "resistance" to water flow, so wide diameter
wires have less electrical resistance than thin wires.
Switching topics, "balanced" and "unbalanced" refer to
circuit topology (the way things are interconnected--how
many connections there are and how many loops there are, etc.).
It has no intrinsic connection to impedance. But in practice
most balanced inputs and outputs are fairly low impedance,
and most unbalanced inputs and outputs have larger impedance
(but vary all over the map).
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Earl <buffaloearl@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: 22 Jan 2002 05:58:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Tom's analogy below is accurate - to my knowledge, if the pressure
(voltage) is a constant value (DC), the force that restricts flow
(current) is resistance...But, if the pressure fluctuates (AC), the
force that restricts flow (current) is impedance and has additional
factors such as capacitance, inductance, frequency, that determine
it's actual value...
God Bless us,
Earl
> Actually, the hydrodynamic analogy is deeper than DFH suggested.
> Even some of the math ends up analogous. The proper analogy is:
>
> pressure : volts (signal amplitude)
> flow : current
>
> And then friction in the pipes will correspond to resistance,
> but it's hard to get anything useful from the analogy if you
> want to talk about frequency-dependent impedance (you need
> to talk about fluctuating water flow, which I don't think
> we have good intuition about, so the reason for making the
> analogy disappears). The analogy is mostly useful for talking
> about DC electronics.
>
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: 24 Jan 2002 11:35:53 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> I'm stuck on this impedance/resistance thing. Wire's have resistance?
Yes, but wires are usually made out of good conductors like copper so
their resistance is so small that it can be ignored. The resistance
of a wire is directly proportional to its length and (at the audio
frequencies we're talking about) inversely proportional to the square
of its radius. Thus the resistance of a wire might become important
if the wire is very short or very thin. That is one reason why long
cables ought to have thicker conductors than short cables.
> Devices have impedance and resistance too? Impedance is analogous to
> resistance but not the same thing?
Resistance is a special case of impedance. You're going to be sorry
you asked.
Consider a square root of -1, that is, a number x such that x times x
equals -1. You probably can't think of such a number. Neither can
mathematicians, so we imagine one and we call it i, for imaginary.
(Engineers call it j, for reasons I've never been able to understand.
I'm a mathematician, so I call it i.) Having imagined this number i,
we also imagine that all of the usual laws of algebra still apply,
and that we can add real and imaginary numbers together to create
complex numbers like 4+3i.
Having invented imaginary and complex numbers, we mathematicians had
no particular reason to think that they would be useful, but in fact
it turns out that complex numbers are extremely useful for extremely
many things. One of the many important uses of complex numbers is
to describe the scientific laws of electromagnetism, including the
scientific laws that describe how electrical circuits work.
For example, a pure resistor resists the flow of current according
to Ohm's Law: current equals voltage divided by resistance. Now
it turns out that Ohm's Law also describes how capacitors and
inductors impede the flow of alternating current, although the
impedance of an inductor is proportional to frequency and the
impedance of a capacitor is inversely proportional to frequency.
The amazing thing here is that, mathematically, the impedance of
a capacitor behaves like the imaginary number i, and the impedance
of an inductor behaves like the imaginary number -i. (Which is i
and which is -i is just a matter of convention, and I may have the
convention wrong, but that doesn't matter much.) We can combine
the impedances of capacitors, inductors, and resistors by following
the algebraic laws for complex numbers.
As a matter of convention, and nothing more, we say "impedance"
when we are talking about a resistance whose value is a complex
number with a nonzero imaginary part, and reserve the word
"resistance" for resistances whose value is a real number with
no imaginary part. By convention, the imaginary part of an
impedance is called "reactance". The imaginary part, or reactance,
represents the part of the impedance that behaves like a capacitor
or inductor, and the real part represents the part that behaves
like a pure resistor.
In circuits that contain capacitors and inductors as well as
resistors, there is usually a frequency at which the capacitive
impedance exactly cancels the inductive impedance, which means
that the imaginary part of the impedance becomes zero, and the
impedance becomes a pure resistance. This frequency is said to
be the resonant frequency of the circuit.
Warning: I could go on....
> Does a passive pickup with no preamp 'have' impedance?
Yes. Anything that we want to regard as an electrical citcuit
has impedance.
> If so, what's a typical number?
I have no idea. I'm a mathematician, not an engineer.
> OK, is impedance
> something device 'a' actually 'has' or is it just something that device 'b'
> 'sees?'
I'm a mathematician, not a philosopher. Speaking philosophically,
scientists and engineers find it useful to pretend that device A
actually does have an impedance, which is what device B will see
if it's connected to A.
> I have a little box called a 'resistance' mixer --- 4 knobs, 4 inputs and an
> out. No battery inside. I plug my active Fishman through it and into my
> amp and it works. I plug a no-pre-amped putw into my amp and it aslo works.
It sounds like the box is basically a variable resistor, but it
sounds a little too complicated for that. If the knobs have
labels on them, you could make it easier for us to guess what
they do by telling us what those labels say.
> But . . . . if I plug a no-preamped putw into this little resistance mixer,
> nothing comes through at all.
All electrical circuits have a resistive component to their
impedance, which implies that passing a signal through them
will result in some loss of signal when part of the signal's
energy is converted into heat. Apparently your PUTW signal
is too weak to survive the trip through your mixer in usable
form. That's why you need the Fishman preamp when you use
the mixer: to amplify the PUTW signal to a level that is
strong enough to survive the loss of signal in the mixer.
> If you keep responding I'm likely keep asking.
Oh, I think we could break you of that habit. :)
Will
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:03:22 -0500
William D Clinger wrote:
> Resistance is a special case of impedance. You're going to be sorry
> you asked.
Not sorry at all. Thanks.
> Consider a square root of -1, <snip>
> Warning: I could go on....
LOL. This'll keep me busy for right now.
> > I have a little box called a 'resistance' mixer --- 4 knobs, 4 inputs and an
> > out. No battery inside. I plug my active Fishman through it and into my
> > amp and it works. I plug a no-pre-amped putw into my amp and it aslo works.
>
> It sounds like the box is basically a variable resistor, but it
> sounds a little too complicated for that. If the knobs have
> labels on them, you could make it easier for us to guess what
> they do by telling us what those labels say.
Oh, sorry. There's four inputs and the 4 corresponding knobs are just
level controls.
> Apparently your PUTW signal
> is too weak to survive the trip through your mixer in usable
> form. That's why you need the Fishman preamp when you use
> the mixer: to amplify the PUTW signal to a level that is
> strong enough to survive the loss of signal in the mixer.
That's what I guessed but as with a lot of this stuff, my guesses often
turn out to be wrong.
The 'loss of signal in the mixer' thing: Would it be correct to say
that a 'resistance' mixer takes whatever signal it gets and gradually
decreases (resists it more) it as you turn the knob down? In other
words, in theory, at full clockwise its letting the signal pass through
undisturbed but as you turn the knob down it offers more and more
resistance and the output decreases.
Perhaps as simple as routing more or less of the signal through a
resistor right? In theory. (I know you don't even have the thing to
look at.)
Jeff
Thanks again, btw.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:12:05 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
All the talk about imaginary and complex numbers (and I'm guilty here,
too!) is obscuring the physical meaning of impedance. Complex numbers
are just a convenient shorthand for doing some of the math with
impedance when one has broken up the signal into "perfect waves"
(sines and cosines) of different frequencies. But complex numbers have
nothing fundamental to do with impedance. You can understand the
concept of impedance even if the idea of a square root of -1
makes you dizzy! 8-)
A resistor (ideally) is a circuit element that resists the
instantaneous flow of current through it. But circuits have
other kinds of elements. In particular, circuits commonly
have elements that can *store energy*. This includes capacitors
(which can store electrical energy by building up an electric
field between plates) and inductors (i.e., coils of wire, which
can store energy in magnetic fields). Since these devices
can store energy, they complicate the description of how
a circuit responds to a signal. With resistors, you just
specify what the voltage across the resistor is now to
find the current through it now. But storage devices have
a history, so the flow of current through them now depends, not
just on the voltage across them now, but also on what the
voltage was in the recent past.
Bass notes have low frequencies---their amplitude changes
relatively slowly in time compared with treble notes, which have
high frequencies. As a result, the current now through
a circuit with storage devices can be quite different for
bass notes or treble notes, because bass and treble signals have
very different recent histories.
Resistance describes the part of the response of a circuit
that doesn't depend on a signal's history---what comes out now
depends only on what goes in now. Impedance describes the
history-dependent part of the circuit's response due to
the presence of energy storage devices. You need to talk
about impedance when the circuit's response is different
at different frequencies.
This is important for acoustic guitar pickups because the
main types of pickups look (electrically) just like basic storage
elements. A piezo pickup is a an insulator (a plastic polymer
or ceramic crystal) with flat contacts on each side. That's
a capacitor! An electret pickup (like the B-Band) is
similar---an insulator (this time plastic with air bubbles)
with electrodes on each side. A magnetic soundhole pickup
is a coil of wire (an inductor!) with a magnet in it. As
a result, even if you put the simplest possible circuit
element across their output---a plain old resistor---the
current flow across the resistor will depend, not just on
how much you are driving the transducer, but how rapidly
you are driving it (i.e., at what frequency). The pickup
itself is part of the circuit, so its frequency-dependent
impedance will affect what is seen by whatever you connect it to.
The idea of acoustic preamps is to present a load to the
pickup whose impedance is constant and very large for audio signals
at all the frequencies you want to hear (i.e., it looks like a big
resistor). If it is large enough, the fractional change in
the whole circuit's (pickup + preamp input) impedance due
to the pickup's properties will be small. So you get a flat
response across the audio spectrum, even though the pickup's
impedance may be changing by a factor of 10 or more across
those frequencies.
Whew.... Well, sorry to go on so long, but maybe that helped
someone!
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> The 'loss of signal in the mixer' thing: Would it be correct to say
> that a 'resistance' mixer takes whatever signal it gets and gradually
> decreases (resists it more) it as you turn the knob down? In other
> words, in theory, at full clockwise its letting the signal pass through
> undisturbed but as you turn the knob down it offers more and more
> resistance and the output decreases.
Alas, no, it's not this simple. These mixers use resistors to
build voltage dividers. They present an approximately constant
resistance to the source, no matter what the output level setting
is. The output impedance can change a lot, though. But even
at a full setting, they are providing a resistive load to the
source. For a line-level output from a rack unit or footpedal,
this load is not a problem. For an unbuffered piezo pickup, it
is a problem, and your tone will be significantly affected even
at the full clockwise setting.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:13:43 -0500
Tom Loredo wrote:
> Alas, no, it's not this simple. These mixers use resistors to
> build voltage dividers. They present an approximately constant
> resistance to the source, no matter what the output level setting
> is. The output impedance can change a lot, though. But even
> at a full setting, they are providing a resistive load to the
> source. For a line-level output from a rack unit or footpedal,
> this load is not a problem. For an unbuffered piezo pickup, it
> is a problem, and your tone will be significantly affected even
> at the full clockwise setting.
I guess it would help if I knew what buffering means. Does a preamp
provide buffering to a piezo? Or can a piezo still go through a preamp
and remain unbuffered? In other words is buffering synonymous with
preamping?
FWIW, just as you predicted, the resistance mixer has a weaker signal at
full clockwise than with the thing not in the chain at all.
So this is a bad idea for blending, right? Even if the two sources are
active?
Thanks, Tom. Getting tired of this yet?
Jeff
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:12:31 GMT
On 18 Jan 2002 11:12:36 -0800, <cesura@qnci...> (William D Clinger)
wrote:
>Input impedance refers to the impedance that a circuit presents
>to its input signal.
Ok, here's an example/question; a practical one: I have a Fishman
Natural I pre-amp projecting inside the guitar from the end pin jack
and it has a ust connected to it. The ust has a certain impedance,
right?
I want to try a putw but not buy anything else. I want the Fishman
still available as emergency backup only. No blending right now,
maybe never. I want one or the other, never both, and I want to do
the switching by just plugging into one side or the other of a
'stereo-to-2-monos' cable. I want to plug a mono cable into the side
labeled 'ring' for the putw or into the side labeled tip for the ust.
I know this is cheesy, but that's what I want. Let's say
hypothetically.
Would installing the putw on the open ring spot on the jack and then
jumping it to the tip change the impedance to (?) for (?) into (?) the
Natutal I even though they're not being used together?
Does just having something 'there' affect anything? Is the analogy
like impedance is something input 'sees.'
Jeff
>
>Output impedance refers the impedance that a circuit would
>like for its output to see. That is, the output impedance
>of a circuit should match the input impedance of the next
>circuit in the signal path. If these impedances do not
>match, then the mathematics of it all becomes hairy, and
>bad things can happen to practical things like power transfer,
>frequency response, and so forth.
>
>Recommended Load Impedance is almost a synonym for output
>impedance. It's the impedance that the designer of the
>device would like for its output to see, which is not
>necessarily the same as the output impedance that the
>circuit itself wants to see.
>
>> Anybody know a good source for the most basic (like elementary school
>> level) info on this kinda stuff?
>
>Yes, but I don't. I learned this stuff as a teenager interested
>in ham radio. (I passed the Amateur Extra, First Class Radiotelephone,
>and Second Class Radiotelegraph exams on my 18th birthday. That
>helped to make up for having to register for the draft.) But if
>Tom Laredo replies to this, you should believe him instead of me.
>
>Will
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:05:33 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> I guess it would help if I knew what buffering means.
It means having a very high impedance input (and a low impedance
output). It's useful to distinguish it from "preamp" because
a preamp may or may not buffer, may or may not provide gain
or attenuation, may or may not provide EQ, may or may not provide
polarity ("phase") inversion, may or may not provide a balanced
output, etc.. "Preamp" means "before the amplifier," and is thus
a catch-all for many functions. The most important function you
need for a piezo pickup is buffering.
> Does a preamp
> provide buffering to a piezo?
A preamp designed for piezos will have a first stage that acts
as a buffer (and perhaps also providing gain). A preamp for
another application may not do so.
> FWIW, just as you predicted, the resistance mixer has a weaker signal at
> full clockwise than with the thing not in the chain at all.
It's not quite what I predicted. The loading will change, not just
the level, but also the timbre. Most likely it is cutting out the
low end as well as the overall level.
> So this is a bad idea for blending, right? Even if the two sources are
> active?
If the sources are active and you just have a small number of them,
resistive mixing is viable.
Peace,
Tom
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:21:29 GMT
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:05:33 -0500, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
>Jeff Sherman wrote:
>>
>> I guess it would help if I knew what buffering means.
>
>It means having a very high impedance input (and a low impedance
>output). It's useful to distinguish it from "preamp" because
>a preamp may or may not buffer, may or may not provide gain
>or attenuation, may or may not provide EQ, may or may not provide
>polarity ("phase") inversion, may or may not provide a balanced
>output, etc.. "Preamp" means "before the amplifier," and is thus
>a catch-all for many functions. The most important function you
>need for a piezo pickup is buffering.
OK, take your most basic piezo/preamp combo (an Ovation or lets say a
guitar with built in 'barn door' electronics): You plug the guitar
directly into a 1/4" input on your acoustic amp, right?
I gotta ask this 5 different ways here:
Isn't that input on the amp high impedance?
Is the signal leaving the guitar high impedance?
If its high impedance then that preamp isn't buffering, right?
The piezo right out of the slot before the preamp is low impedance,
right? It goes through the on-board electronics and leaves the guitar
as high impedance, right?
Now, my active Countryman DI box is clearly providing buffering,
right? Its sending a low impedance signal out the xlr jack.
Sooooooo . . . a passive DI box also provides buffering, right?
Jeff
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:56:05 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:05:33 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
> >Jeff Sherman wrote:
> >> I guess it would help if I knew what buffering means.
> >It means having a very high impedance input (and a low impedance
> >output). It's useful to distinguish it from "preamp" because
> >a preamp may or may not buffer, may or may not provide gain
> >or attenuation, may or may not provide EQ, may or may not provide
> >polarity ("phase") inversion, may or may not provide a balanced
> >output, etc.. "Preamp" means "before the amplifier," and is thus
> >a catch-all for many functions. The most important function you
> >need for a piezo pickup is buffering.
> OK, take your most basic piezo/preamp combo (an Ovation or lets say a
> guitar with built in 'barn door' electronics): You plug the guitar
> directly into a 1/4" input on your acoustic amp, right?
No, I don't, but that's a different thread.
> I gotta ask this 5 different ways here:
This oughta be good... <g>
> Isn't that input on the amp high impedance?
Relative to what? It is high imp. relative to the output of the
instrument's internal preamp, and it is low impedance relative to the
source impedance of the pickup itself, which is amplified and buffered
into the preamp section of your acoustic instrument amp.
> Is the signal leaving the guitar high impedance?
No, because of the guitar's preamp. Absent that, then yes, the output is
very high impedance and that's why not every input labelled "preamp"
will work well with such pickups.
> If its high impedance then that preamp isn't buffering, right?
Not necessarily. What is the designed output impedance of the preamp?
Practically it will be much lower than its input impedance, but
buffering could happen without such dramatic change of impedance.
Think of buffering kind of like a damn on a waterway: juice can flow
downstream, but not up, so within geological constraints, changes of
water level below the damn do not affect the water level above the damn.
> The piezo right out of the slot before the preamp is low impedance,
> right? It goes through the on-board electronics and leaves the guitar
> as high impedance, right?
No, not if that's the output of the piezo pickup itself, taken directly,
prior to the input of the instrument's preamp. (Forgive me if I'm way
off about the signal at that point, as I do not use internal preamps
with either the old parlor gtr. or the mandolin, which are the only
acoustics here with pickups.)
> Now, my active Countryman DI box is clearly providing buffering,
> right? Its sending a low impedance signal out the xlr jack.
Yes, for the pickup-to-XLR connection, and no, for the pass-through
connection, which suggests one must be careful about what one hooks to
the pass-through if one seeks to avoid tonal degradation from loading
the pickup. If the source for the DI is from the acoustic instrument's
preamp, then the preamp provides the buffering.
> Sooooooo . . . a passive DI box also provides buffering, right?
Maybe, and maybe not, depending on how you apply it.
And, there are many different types of passive DI boxes, some active
like the Countryman, some passive like transformer-based ones, and some
really hokey ones I've seen that attempted the trick using nothing but
resistors. The latter were crap. (There's a reason wheels are round,
even if square ones would be cheaper.)
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:07:17 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> I guess it would help if I knew what buffering means.
A buffer provides appropriate impedance and sometimes level matching
between stages of a signal chain. In a console, fer instants, following
a fader there might be a little amplifier which properly loads the
output of the fader while properly feeding the input of the summing
network. That buffer will have a relatively high input impedance and a
relatively low output impedance, effectively restricting
fader-to-summing-network interaction to the level changes controlled by
the fader.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:07:22 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> FWIW, just as you predicted, the resistance mixer has a weaker signal at
> full clockwise than with the thing not in the chain at all.
Right, that's because as a passive resistive mixer it offers no makeup
gain following the summing network.
> So this is a bad idea for blending, right? Even if the two sources are
> active?
This is a cheap idea for blending. If you don't like it, it's bad. And
even if you do like it, it's not likely to be as good as even a little
Mackie mixer or something like a Rane SM26, which is what I use now to
combine instrument pre outputs and effects outputs, etc.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:09:37 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> I want to try a putw but not buy anything else. I want the Fishman
> still available as emergency backup only. No blending right now,
> maybe never. I want one or the other, never both, and I want to do
> the switching by just plugging into one side or the other of a
> 'stereo-to-2-monos' cable. I want to plug a mono cable into the side
> labeled 'ring' for the putw or into the side labeled tip for the ust.
This is viable as long as you split the cables right away (i.e., you
don't send both signals down a 10' stereo cord and just use one of
them at the other end). If you don't split them, the signal from
the Fishman (which is low impedance because it has gone thru the
Matrix preamp) is likely to contaminate the PUTW signal via crosstalk
along the stereo cable.
> Would installing the putw on the open ring spot on the jack and then
> jumping it to the tip change the impedance to (?) for (?) into (?) the
> Natutal I even though they're not being used together?
Now I'm confused---this isn't what you described above. So what the
heck are you trying to do?????????????????
-Tom
From: Rolavine <rolavine@aol...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Q: What's Impedance?
Date: 29 Jan 2002 19:39:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I'm going to put this in simple terms, directly related to the world of guitar
amplification.
Impedance is used to evaluate how well a source is able to drive a load. The
piezo in your guitar is a source (it takes mechanical energy and makes an
electrical output). The input to an amplifier (a preamp is also an amp) is a
load. The amplifier later becomes a source for the load of the speaker.
Output impedance is a measure of a sources ability to drive a load.
Input impedance rates the load that an amp or preamp is equal too.
For example if the output impedance of a piezo is 2000 ohms, that means that if
the load was also 2000 ohms the volume of electrical signal would be reduced by
half, at the junction with the amp. This would be the perfect load for this
piezo. If the load impedance was lowered our poor piezo would have to work very
hard to to try to make an electrical output signal and would suffer from low
output and distortion (mucking up the signal). If the load was very high our
piezo wouldn't have to work very hard, however, it could get sloppy and out of
balance, just like I do when I don't get regular exercise. Piezo's should be
terminated in the load the manufacture intended.
Impedance is concerned with 3 seperate aspects. These are, Resistance (load
that eats input energy but does not resist change), capacitance (load that
resists change), and inductance (load that wants to change). Most amps are
mostly resistive loads, so you don't have to worry about the other 2. Speakers,
on the other hand, are very complex loads with lots of inductance!
The output impedance of our piezo is not purly resistive. That means that
failure to provide the proper load may cause some frequencys to come out with
greater strength than others.
Magnetic pickups are very inductive loads, and also require proper termination.
I hope this helps.
Rocky
| B-Band's new 1470 AST [10] |
|---|
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:36:11 -0500
Organization: Kiva Networking
Now that B-Band has announced it's new 1470 AST and new preamps at NAMM, I
assume that the beta testers in this group are finally free to discuss these
items. What do you think of them? Tom? Larry? Anyone else?
Mike
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:21:07 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <a2ab2u$rp5$<1@topsy...>>, Mike Cloud
<<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote:
> Now that B-Band has announced it's new 1470 AST and new preamps at NAMM, I
> assume that the beta testers in this group are finally free to discuss these
> items. What do you think of them? Tom? Larry? Anyone else?
>
> Mike
Mike,
I haven't had any new experience since the last post about this, BUT I
can NOW admit to knowing about the new A2, an internal endpin jack
pre-amp where the standard B-band UST can be used in conjunction with
the latest (superb!) 1470 AST (or UST/Mic, or AST/Mic or UST/Magnetic,
etc...all with the A2!).
I haven't gotten an A2 to test, but that should change any day now.
As soon as I get one installed, I'll report...but based on my earlier
tests I am convinced that 1) I will either be going to a straight
A1/AST set-up, or 2) if I continue to use a UST/AST combo that I will
be using the AST as the predominant signal....this latter comment is a
MAJOR change, and all based on the simply spectacular results I got a
couple of weeks ago.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 04:29:53 GMT
In article <190120020737275602%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>, Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>In article <<20020119004321.13166.00002029@mb-cs...>>, TarBabyTunes
><<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote:
>
>> << Now that B-Band has announced it's new 1470 AST and new preamps at NAMM
>> ....
>> >>
>>
>> ... can we buy them yet?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> stv
>
>
>I have inquired to Heikki about 'ship dates' for the retail world, but
>have not yet gotten a response to my email.
>
>I suspect that 1) I will get an answer after NAMM is completed, and 2)
>sometime shortly after NAMM new gear will be available from the two US
>distributors for retailers (and overseas as well)....just can't say
>exactly when....
>
Pekka is saying March.
Steve Hawkins
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:49:19 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Mike-
The stuff below is from a thread I posted in last week. You weren't
listening! 8-)
To clarify some issues raised below---the model I tested is the 1370;
the final production model (1470) is the same design, but 1mm wider.
I really like it. In the past year I've been experimenting a ton
with pickups. I've been changing around my pickups every two months,
and in fact have had at least 3 signals coming out of the guitar (I
have an extra endpin jack that I have had rigged up to an internal
switchbox that let me route two of up to 4 different signals to it).
After installing the 1370 two weeks ago, I was so happy with what
I heard that for the first time in years I just ripped out everything
else---I don't even have that extra jack in my guitar now. Just
the new AST and an internal mic. Well, I'm fickle about this stuff
and maybe I'll be playing with something else soon. And the attack
is still a little too quick/bright for me (as it is with everything
I've ever tried). But I'm happier with the new AST than I've been
in quite a while. And it needs a lot less "treatment" than any
other pickup I've tried---no EQ in the onboard preamp, I run the
Entity with the pickup channel flat, and I use just a few dB of
midrange cut on my mixer. This says to me that they have done
something really "right" here---you don't have to fix a lot to get
a good tone out of it (in contrast to every other stick-on pickup
I've tried in my guitar).
In addition to the new AST pickups, B-Band has come out with several
very cute new preamps. I've only seen one of them and have yet to
give it a try, so perhaps someone else can chime in with more info on
the preamps, as Larry has.
Peace,
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In any case, just last weekend I got the latest version of B-Band's
new soundboard pickup. It's a stick-on pickup, rectangular in
geometry, along the lines of the PUTW #27 or the McIntyre Feather,
but using B-Band's EMF film technology rather than piezo film. I've
been beta testing versions of this pickup for many months now, and
most of the previous versions have shared the weaknesses I've
experienced with the other stick-ons. But the B-Band folks have
been incredibly persistant and creative, experimenting to no
end with geometry, thickness, mass loading, and (most recently)
multilayer configurations. This last one (dubbed the AST1370) is a
significant step above any such pickup I've ever tried. It sounds
very good on my Olson right in the recommended location (on the
bridge plate under the saddle)---the only such pickup to work
in that location for me (as I said earlier, I think Olsons are
particularly challenging for such pickups). It requires an
onboard preamp, but one can use the previous B-Band "Entity Front
End" preamp which can be remotely powered, so no battery is
needed in the guitar, and an internal mic can be added. Well,
I've only had a few days with it, and only one "gig" (playing at
my church through the PA), but I'm extremely impressed. Heikki
and his gang at EMF have lost a lot of sleep perfecting this thing,
but I think all the work has paid off handsomely. I'll have to live
with it a while before I have a final opinion, though. And I must
emphasize that I don't know if this is the final version, or
when it might be available. I think the B-Band folks are at NAMM,
so perhaps we'll hear more about it from the NAMM observers.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:41:36 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3C4C70BF.F1C5C39E@astro...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
<<snip>>
> In addition to the new AST pickups, B-Band has come out with several
> very cute new preamps. I've only seen one of them and have yet to
> give it a try, so perhaps someone else can chime in with more info on
> the preamps, as Larry has.
<<snip>>
Right now the big question is shipping dates, and I still have not
received any answer to this query.
The B-band website does a great job describing the new internal (and
side-mount) pre-amps, it appears that they have created the most
flexible/comprehensive pre-amps that have ever been in existence. This
is in regards to swapping in and out different types of combinations on
the A2 and A5 pre-amps. Very cool. My opinion only, of course.....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Dan <dsslemon@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:37:20 GMT
I posted my results about two weeks ago and my feelings echo Tom's. For the
record, I have a Santa Cruz OM that is very light and it's my personal
theory that this contributed to some of the resonance problems I had with
the #27. It's also been my theory that a backing material would help to
stabilize the resonance and I believe PUTW has addressed this.
I know that B-Band has. Their new "strip" is rigid. It's thin but rigid and
I believe Heikki when he says that much research and development went into
getting the thickness just right.
I am also using the 1370 and not the 1470 which will be their production
model, but the difference, I think, is negligible. I'm using the A1 pre-amp,
the single source pre-amp. I love everything about their new system except:
It has me disliking my PADI. The PADI is the weak link in my chain now. I
would not recommend it, and hope to get a PMB in the near future.
Tom, you are so picky that I look forward to your reviews more than anyone
else's. I'm glad we are in agreement.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:21:08 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi again-
Well, since opinion was sought, I thought I'd post a little more
than what I mentioned in the earlier thread. Below is some
email I sent to Heikki at B-Band a week ago summarizing my 1370
experiences, with a bit more detail than I went into in the
previous post. Over time I've come to definitely prefer having
a bit of midrange cut at the mixer, but other than that the
comments pretty much still hold.
One of the standard setups B-Band will be supporting is AST+UST
(this is possible with the new A2 and A5 preamps).
Larivee announced at NAMM that some of their guitars will ship
with this as an option (with the A5, which is a side-mount system
with knobs on the guitar). I haven't tried it, but it may offer
some of the benefits described below with AST+Mic (since I roll
off so much of the mic low end). Who knows. I think we need
feedback from users with a variety of instruments before good
recommendations can be worked out. But the beta testers have
a variety of instruments, and the AST seems to work quite well
across the board.
If you are a B-Band user with the current AST and 2150 preamp
(i.e., not the UST with Core preamp), Heikki has told me that they
plan to offer a low-cost upgrade to the new AST. Contact B-Band
directly about this if you are interested.
Finally, a few more details about the preamps (which I emphasize
I haven't tried myself). First, with the new series of pickups
and preamps, B-Band will now be selling the transducers and
preamps separately. One of the reasons for this is to allow
folks to buy their preamps to use with pickups from other companies.
The A2 dual-source onboard preamp has DIP switches onboard that let
the user configure it for various pairs of transducers, including
UST/AST, UST/MIC, UST/MAG, AST/MIC, AST/MAG (MAG = magnetic soundhole
pickup). The switches can also control gain, low end cut, and
treble boost. The A2 is replacing the Core preamp. There is
a new A1 preamp as well that is simpler; I believe it has one
high impedance channel, but you may have access to the ring (to
add a mic, for example--I'll check on this). Their hope is that
users of the McIntyre Feather or PUTW film pickups might consider
using it, as well as users of a single UST or AST pickup. The
A1 is very cute---it's incredibly small!
More details on all of this are at the B-band site:
http://193.65.242.29/new/news-8.shtml
You can download a 2002 catalog there with pictures and specs for
everything. At the main site:
you can also read about their newest endorser, Larry Carlton,
who uses a UST, and even uses it to record. (Now I just which
they'd ditch the microscopic font used at the web site!)
Peace,
Tom Loredo
PS: Yes, I'm a beta-tester and so get some of this gear for free.
But I've been so happy with it that I've purchased several $100
worth of B-band gear for my guitars and for demonstration at my
workshops over the last few years. It's worth it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prelim. report on AST1370 ~~~~~~~~~~~
I tried it first under the saddle. The new geometry is perfect; it fits
without a problem and with room for adjustment, and the angled lead is
definitely an improvement over the previous right-angle lead. The tone
in this position was the best I've ever heard from any pickup in this
position. Where other pickups (PUTW, Feather) sounded harsh here, the
1370 sounded quite good. The main negative was that the 4th string was
noticably louder than the others; also, the 3 highest strings were
somewhat soft compared to the other bass strings.
I then tried it at the bottom edge of the bridge plate, which seemed to
provide improved tone for the PUTW and the Feather. Not so for the 1370;
it sounded rather boxy and unnatural there.
I moved it back under the saddle, but angled it slightly, so it was
slightly closer to the treble string ball ends than to the bass ball
ends. That did it! The balance is great, and the tone is exceptional.
I don't know if angling it improved the balance, or if perhaps on my
first attempt I had not pressed down the adhesive evenly enough (I
believe I did, but I don't really understand what would cause the
balance problem I had at first). This is really interesting to me,
because no other pickup has ever sounded good in this location on
my guitar. I think the bracing pattern of the Olson makes it hard
for bridge plate sensors to work well. That the 1370 worked well
here suggests to me that it should work well on many guitars.
I am using the 1370 plugged into an Entity Front End and remotely
powered by the Entity. It sounds even better than a UST ever sounded in
this setup. I keep the EQ flat (bottom and edge at 0). I do add a bit
of the mic; it seems to add a sense of spaciousness to the sound, and to
remove a bit of harshness. It's almost as if (with the correct phase
setting) what's good about the 1370 is in phase with the mic, and what
little I don't like from it is out of phase, because you can hear the
tone improve as you raise the mic level, and then get bad as you add too
much mic---I can hear the part I don't like get decreased a bit and then
increase. An amazing coincidence. I have the low cut frequency set
quite high on the mic, so it is mostly adding some "shimmer" on the high
end. The 1370 has an amazingly natural and full low end.
On my mixer, I find myself using only very little EQ to tweak the
tone. In fact, I am quite happy with it just flat. A first!
If other setups resemble mine, a very simplified Entity, with
just a mic level control, phase button, and low cut control
(as a trimmer perhaps) would suffice for many users. Such an
interface could probably be made as a belt-pack and phantom powered.
The whole system is very quiet, at the level I've come to expect
from you guys. None of the hum I heard in the last prototype.
I also compared it with the previous double AST + 2150 setup
I had been using. No comparison. The 1370 is unambiguously a
significant improvement.
I used the new setup in my church this past weekend. The sound
system there is okay, but not that great, and neither my guitar
nor the other guitarist's Olson (yep, two Olsons! he uses a
Rare Earth) ever sounded that great. Acceptable, but kind of
flat and lackluster. For the first time, I heard a bit of
the "delicacy" that I like so much about my Olson in the
church PA sound---a sense of detail and a sweetness. Another
first.
From: Kerry & Deborah Brooks <dk2b@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:28:17 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Tom,
I have been following the B-band & etc. conversations for a while now,
I think that the new AST sounds like something I'd like.
I am thinking of trying one, in a very simple setup, and would like to
figure out how not
to use an internal battery; I checked the B-Band site and to me it looks
like the Entity Front End is the jack to use; It seems like the Entity Mixer
might be overkill, so I am wondering if some other simpler boxes with
'phantom
power' and a single channel (like Baggs Gig Pro or ??? ) would work. Have
you ever tried
this approach?
All experiences, ideas & comments appreciated,
Kerry Brooks
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3C4C70BF.F1C5C39E@astro...>...
<<< ... snip <<<
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:19:24 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <a2lomp$1hf$<1@nntp9...>>, Kerry & Deborah
Brooks <<dk2b@mindspring...>> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I have been following the B-band & etc. conversations for a while now,
> I think that the new AST sounds like something I'd like.
>
> I am thinking of trying one, in a very simple setup, and would like to
> figure out how not
> to use an internal battery; I checked the B-Band site and to me it looks
> like the Entity Front End is the jack to use; It seems like the Entity Mixer
> might be overkill, so I am wondering if some other simpler boxes with
> 'phantom
> power' and a single channel (like Baggs Gig Pro or ??? ) would work. Have
> you ever tried
> this approach?
>
> All experiences, ideas & comments appreciated,
> Kerry Brooks
I do not know if the 1470 AST will function with a "Front End" internal
pre-amp. The Front End was designed for use with the B-Band UST.
The Baggs Mixpro does in fact provide for possible bias power on both
the tip and ring of a stereo cable, but I only recommend it for casual
use. Not a real quiet piece of gear.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: B-Band's new 1470 AST
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:35:05 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Kerry & Deborah Brooks wrote:
>
> I am thinking of trying one, in a very simple setup, and would like to
> figure out how not
> to use an internal battery; I checked the B-Band site and to me it looks
> like the Entity Front End is the jack to use; It seems like the Entity Mixer
> might be overkill, so I am wondering if some other simpler boxes with
> 'phantom
> power' and a single channel (like Baggs Gig Pro or ??? ) would work. Have
> you ever tried
> this approach?
I haven't tried anything but the Entity, so I can't guarantee
anything else will work as well.
Larry Pattis wrote:
>
> I do not know if the 1470 AST will function with a "Front End" internal
> pre-amp. The Front End was designed for use with the B-Band UST.
As I noted in the earlier posts, I am using a 1370 with the
Entity Front End, and it is working great. It is a little noisier
than a UST (the AST puts out a somewhat weaker signal so it needs
a bit more gain --> a bit more hiss). It is still quiet compared
to other recent soundboard pickups I've tried.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Help, how to stop piezo wires from vibrating [4] |
|---|
From: Rolavine <rolavine@aol...>
Subject: Help, how to stop piezo wires from vibrating
Date: 19 Jan 2002 20:28:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
The wires that connect my piezo system together somethines start vibrating with
certain note and either make a buzz against internal wood, or seem to eat some
of the strength of the note.
I'm thinking of using some thing like rubber bands to keep them under constant
slight tension. Any one else solve this problem, I can't be the only one who
has it.
Rocky
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Help, how to stop piezo wires from vibrating
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:19:01 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Rocky,
the best way is to trim the wire at the jack after everything is in place.
You can also kink the wire at right angles to clear braces and trim and
re-solder at the jack.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Rolavine" <<rolavine@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020119152809.12076.00002210@mb-co...>...
> The wires that connect my piezo system together somethines start vibrating
with
> certain note and either make a buzz against internal wood, or seem to eat
some
> of the strength of the note.
>
> I'm thinking of using some thing like rubber bands to keep them under
constant
> slight tension. Any one else solve this problem, I can't be the only one
who
> has it.
>
> Rocky
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Help, how to stop piezo wires from vibrating
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:39:12 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> Hi Rocky,
> the best way is to trim the wire at the jack after everything is in place.
Definitely the best option if you can do it.
When I'm testing stuff (which I may want to remove and try in something
else, so I don't want to cut the wire), I have sometimes had luck by
putting a loop in the wire with a couple "twistems" holding the loop.
Once everything is installed, you can reach in the guitar and pull
the two twistems apart to tighten the loop and take up the slack.
Kinda hard to describe....
If the cable is long enough to reach the kerfing, a few of the pickup
manufacturers include little clips with their pickups that have a
bit of foam adhesive to stick to the kerfing, and a little metal hooks
that you can bend around the wire to hold it in place. You might
be able to find similar such hooks at a place like Radio Shack.
A bit of putty might also be useful, but be careful---some putties have
oils in them that can stain the wood. Check with the pickup company
to see if they have suggested materials.
Good luck, and let us know what works!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Help, how to stop piezo wires from vibrating
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:18:51 -0500
How about a little bit of velcro? Some loop folded over the wire in the
right spot so it sticks to itself and some hook stuck up along an inside
edge somewhere? Really small pieces would do it.
Jeff
Rolavine wrote:
>
> The wires that connect my piezo system together somethines start vibrating with
> certain note and either make a buzz against internal wood, or seem to eat some
> of the strength of the note.
>
> I'm thinking of using some thing like rubber bands to keep them under constant
> slight tension. Any one else solve this problem, I can't be the only one who
> has it.
>
> Rocky
| Where do *you* stick your putw? [3] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Where do *you* stick your putw?
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:52:16 GMT
I was playing around with placement postions of a putw but only on the
outside of the top in different places behind the bridge, and only
without a preamp. (Is there no point to that?)
The 4 highest strings sound really nice, almost like there's a mic on
the guitar. No quack. Wonderful stuff.
But the A and E strings sound boxy and hollow, and almost like there's
an echoing of each string going on. I couldn't get that to stop,even
with the putw shifted way over to the treble side.
Which side of the putw contacts the top? The side with the silvery
strip?
How much tape?
Anybody put theirs on the bridge plate?
Are you orienting it along the length of the body or across?
Thanks for any and all help.
Jeff
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: Where do *you* stick your putw?
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:14:35 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Jeff,
> I was playing around with placement postions of a putw but only on the
> outside of the top in different places behind the bridge, and only
> without a preamp. (Is there no point to that?)
Well, it can be fun, but ...
You might as well get on with an internal mounting if that's what you want
to end up with.
> Which side of the putw contacts the top? The side with the silvery
> strip?
Yep, not the copper site.
> How much tape?
The tape should completely cover the PU & the copper that is exposed. There
should be 100% contact between the PU & the guitar.
> Anybody put theirs on the bridge plate?
Yep, in general I think that's the most prefered spot. I angled mine with
the loose end just behind & between the B & high E strings & the end with
the brass thingy & wire lead right at the bottom (towards the endpin) of the
bridge plate. This position came as a result of a lot of experimenting with
an early model of the #27. I recently got a new version & I think the
placement of it is probably less critical, although you should still be
prepared to make a least a move or two before you settle on a "permanent"
spot. I'd start by wiping any dust off the bridge plate before mounting it
behind the pins & maybe offset towards the bass side. Plug it in & if you're
happy, don't mess with it. If you think you might do a bit better make a
move or two before you decide where the final placement will be. At this
point make sure you've got a fresh piece of tape before you stick it.
> Are you orienting it along the length of the body or across?
Like I said, I angled it, but in general it's mounted across (at right anges
to the strings) rather than along the length (parallel to the strings).
Back to the question about whether to install your PU before you have a
pre-amp. If you're just trying to find the best spot for placement & you can
get enough gain through your amp to hear what you're doing, you should be
fine. I know you're trying to work up a dual source system, though, & doing
that might be problematic without having all the pieces in place. Are you
ready to wire up the endpin jack yet? Figure out how you're gonna split &
combine your sources? How you're gonna blend the signal levels between the
two? Add some EQ perhaps? These issues will be hard to deal with until you
decide on the nuts & bolts of your PU system. Personally, I'd wire the
PUTW to your active jack in the meantime & use it by itself until you figure
out exactly how you're gonna handle the Dual Source & have all the
components in hand. Who knows, you might end up liking the sound of the PUTW
all by itself & change your mind about adding the second source.
Just some thoughts,
Frank
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Where do *you* stick your putw?
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:54:04 -0700
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> ...playing around with placement postions
> of a putw but only on the outside...
It will sound much different on the inside.
You can find a perfect spot either inside
or outside but the perfect outside spot
will prolly not coincide with the perfect
inside spot.
> ...and only without a preamp.
> (Is there no point to that?)
The preamp will boost the pickup's output AND
match the impedance (there's that nasty impedance
again) to the amp. Sound will be much improved
WITH a preamp.
> The 4 highest strings sound really nice...
> But the A and E strings sound boxy and hollow...
The preamp will help. The pickup seems to be a little
hotter on the brass thingie end. If there's not enough
bass, mount it so the brass thingie is closer to the
bass side. If there's not enough treble, mount the
brass thingie end closer to the treble side.
> Which side of the putw contacts the top?
> The side with the silvery strip?
Professor Enke says it doesn't matter.
> How much tape?
Dbl stick tape should be a tiny bit larger
than the entire footprint of the film. As
Frank suggests, you want the most contact
possible between the film and the wood.
> Anybody put theirs on the bridge plate?
Yes. I always start there. Usually stay there.
"scrub" the wood surface you intend to mount to
with a slightly damp cloth to remove dust, spiders,
mouse poop etc. Once you mount the film, "burnish"
the pickup onto the wood by rubbing over the back
of the film. You want to remove any air spaces and
try and achieve the best contact possible.
One of my PUTW's was a little too active or twangy.
I'm not sure which adjective to use. I wanted to
reduce the sensitivity a bit so I covered the
entire assembly with a piece of electrical tape,
once I had the position figured out.
> Are you orienting it along the length
> of the body or across?
Mine seem to like being at an angle. Sort
of parallel to the saddle, maybe a bit more
exaggerated.
Doing the Baglio external vibration thing
to my guitars told me a lot about where the
active vibration nodes are. That knowledge
helped me know where to start and what to
expect when installing the thing.
After all that, it's comforting to know that
you really don't have to get that scientific
about the whole thing. You can just stick it
on almost anywhere and it will work great.
Biggest caution point always seems to be getting
that brass thingie anchored well to the wood. When
it is loose, things sound odd.
lumpy
| PUTW Placement [5] |
|---|
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Placement
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:34:03 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <<3c4b0fd8.1992503@news...>>, on 01/20/02 at 06:52 PM,
jsherman@lorainccc.edu (Jeff Sherman) said:>I was playing around with placement postions of a putw but only on the outside
>of the top in different places behind the bridge, and only without a preamp.
>(Is there no point to that?)
>The 4 highest strings sound really nice, almost like there's a mic on the
>guitar. No quack. Wonderful stuff.
>But the A and E strings sound boxy and hollow, and almost like there's an
>echoing of each string going on. I couldn't get that to stop,even with the
>putw shifted way over to the treble side.
the pickup will sound entirely different when placed outside than inside.
when I first got mine, I tried it one the outside (on the bridge, behind the
pins) for a moment. I was only listening for the overtones so I really didn't
note the string balance.
do you intend to keep it outside the guitar? if so, try moving it by large
amounts all over the top, back, and sides. that should be an interesting
learning experience, and allow you to then zone-in on an area or two for fine
tuning.
if you intend to place it inside the guitar, stop screwing around and put it
inside! :->
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Placement
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:36:43 -0500 (EST)
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:16:15 GMT, Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
>Would you expect the putw will sound different/better with a preamp
>or just louder?
>
that depends upon what you are comparing (different than what? better
than what?)
I use my PUTW thru a Baggs ParaAcousticDI, primarily, and find it to be a
massive improvement in all respects (tone quality and balance,
signal-to-noise, etc) over plugging it in direct to my PA or standard
guitar amps. I have no "acoustic amp". YMMV
I hope this makes sense
donh at audiosys dot com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Placement
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:45:50 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Would you expect the putw will sound different/better with a preamp
> or just louder?
Yikes! What are you plugging it into? The main symptom of not
using a high impedance load with a piezo pickup is that the low
end vanishes. So a significant part of your low end problem may
be the absence of a preamp.
Did you read the instructions? 8-)
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Placement
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:51:31 GMT
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:45:50 -0500, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
>Jeff Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Would you expect the putw will sound different/better with a preamp
>> or just louder?
>
>Yikes! What are you plugging it into? The main symptom of not
>using a high impedance load with a piezo pickup is that the low
>end vanishes. So a significant part of your low end problem may
>be the absence of a preamp.
>
>Did you read the instructions? 8-)
LOL. No got, Tom. Got this used from a pal. My question was more
rhetorical and you and others answered it --- a preamp does more than
boost.
I'm dead in the a water on testing the ^%$#* thing anyway. After I
finally screwed up the courage to pull the Natural I tube out and
solder the putw to the ring connector as per Fishman's on-line
instructions, I found that it doesn't look like the diagram (no ring
connector spot on the circuit board). I'm thinking its an older, mono
version before they went to a stereo jack or something.
Grrrrrrrr . . . . I was all ready to tock and roll, too. Now I'm
deflated.
LOL. NBD, though. It'll be a week before I have a preamp to use
anyway and in the meantime I can find out if there's a way to attach
the Natural one circuit board to a stereo end pin jack.
I don't want do what Hank suggested and add a second jack and I'm not
ready to just ditch the Fishman completely although I was tempted to
swap the putw on there temporarily. I really want 'em both
available, blended or otherwise, so I can test and compare them
easily.
I was even thinking about a little switch just inside the soundhole.
Connect 'em both to the Matrix, ya know? Too screwy?
Thanks Tom.
Jeff
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Placement
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:37:29 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Jeff,
> I'm dead in the a water on testing the ^%$#* thing anyway.Why don't you just hook the PUTW to the active jack & save up your bucks to
get an AirCore, Stereo Power Plug, & ABY box when you can. That's really
what you want anyway. In the meantime you'll still have the sweetest
sounding 810 out there! Hey, a couple solo Barking Spider gigs & you're home
free!
Seriously, I'd be willing to bet that with very little effort the PUTW is
gonna give you the better sound all by itself. But, of course, YMMV. ;-)
> I was even thinking about a little switch just inside the soundhole.
> Connect 'em both to the Matrix, ya know? Too screwy?
Yes! You're thinking WAY too hard here.
Good luck Bud! Let me know if I can help.
Frank
| Taylor New Acosutic Pickup System [4] |
|---|
From: Christopher Niegisch <Christopher.Niegisch@Niegisch...>
Subject: Taylor New Acosutic Pickup System
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:29:05 +0100
Organization: CN-DV Consulting GmbH
Hi everybody,
a while ago I had a phonecall with Taylor and the told me that they are
developping a complete new acoustic pickup system, which should be estimated
in January 2002. Are there any informations available yet? Anyone played it?
Thanks in advance
Cheers
Chris
From: robohop <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Re: Taylor New Acosutic Pickup System
Date: 21 Jan 2002 06:53:53 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
All I gotta say is they better engineer it so it can drop in that 2
ft. wide hold they already cut in the side of my current model or I'll
be one pissed off Taylor customer.
best,
rob anderson
"Christopher Niegisch" <<Christopher.Niegisch@Niegisch...>> wrote in message news:<a2gmv5$1e1$04$<3@news...>>...
> Hi everybody,
>
> a while ago I had a phonecall with Taylor and the told me that they are
> developping a complete new acoustic pickup system, which should be estimated
> in January 2002. Are there any informations available yet? Anyone played it?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
From: David D. Berkowitz <ddb@berkowitzguitars...>
Subject: Re: Taylor New Acosutic Pickup System
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:15:26 GMT
Rob, that's why I won't install those things on my guitars unless they pay
for the guitar up-front. As technology progresses, I'm hoping technology
will evolve so that someone will develop a system consisting of a thin film
control surface that can be attached with light adhesive film and another
inside the instrument that can communicate with the control surface through
the sides without having to cut a hole there.
--
David D. Berkowitz Berkowitz Guitars 301 12th St, SE Unit 1 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 543-1806 ddb@berkowitzguitars.com http://www.berkowitzguitars.com"robohop" <<rjand@ix...>> wrote in message
news:<f9b4d395.0201210653.71daa4c1@posting...>...
All I gotta say is they better engineer it so it can drop in that 2
ft. wide hold they already cut in the side of my current model or I'll
be one pissed off Taylor customer.
best,
rob anderson
"Christopher Niegisch" <<Christopher.Niegisch@Niegisch...>> wrote in message
news:<a2gmv5$1e1$04$<3@news...>>...
> Hi everybody,
>
> a while ago I had a phonecall with Taylor and the told me that they are
> developping a complete new acoustic pickup system, which should be
estimated
> in January 2002. Are there any informations available yet? Anyone played
it?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Taylor New Acosutic Pickup System
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:56:00 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Chris-
As usual, a Google groups search would be a good idea. Some
info was recently posted on this---basically saying that, yes,
they are coming out with something soon, but they've been
keeping it heavily under wraps. They have been devoting
significant resources to it for over a year (1st email I got
about I think was Sept. 2000), and have collaborated with
Rupert Neve on some aspects of it (a big name in mic pres
and consoles, but what he might know about acoustic guitar
amplification I have no idea).
There is a lot of potential here; we'll have to see how they
live up to it!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| iBeam [22] |
|---|
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:52:59 +0000
Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: John Sorell <jsorell@infi...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:59:19 -0700
Adrian,
I did. The high E and B strings were very hot...no matter where it was
mounted. Couldn't get a satisfactory solution from Baggs. I have a passive
iBeam for sale.
John
"Adrian Legg" <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
news:<01HW.B871E9DB0002D8540C696DA0@News...>...
> Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
>
>
>
> --
> www.adrianlegg.com
>
>
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:22:45 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
Adrian Legg wrote in message
<<01HW.B871E9DB0002D8540C696DA0@News...>>...
>Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
Yes, on a Seagull S6+ Cedar. High e string is weak,
low E string weaker than adjacent strings, but not as
weak as high e. Have repositioned the I-beam
several times, but still don't have the optimal position.
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:52:59 +0000, Adrian Legg
<<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote:
>Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
I don't know of any pickup that has had such, um, "mixed"
reviews.
Jeff S.
From: G.W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:45:42 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:52:59 +0000, Adrian Legg wrote:
>Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
I have an active iBeam mounted as suggested and I haven't noticed any
problem. On the other hand I tried walking on a High Beam once and
almost broke my ass....
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: 21 Jan 2002 19:47:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
The active iBeams seem to be a lot easier to get an accurate sound from. The
passive version seems more hit or miss, depending on the instrument in
question, which, of course, you can't know until you attempt to mount one. The
passive version is also a lot more midrangey. The preamp built into the active
version compensates for those flaws.
So I'm not wild about the passive iBeam, but have gotten good results from the
active, and am hearing similar results from others.
Wade Hampton Miller
From: Hank Alinger <hoink@home...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:17:35 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Hojo2x wrote:
> The active iBeams seem to be a lot easier to get an accurate sound from. The
> passive version seems more hit or miss, depending on the instrument in
> question, which, of course, you can't know until you attempt to mount one. The
> passive version is also a lot more midrangey. The preamp built into the active
> version compensates for those flaws.
>
> So I'm not wild about the passive iBeam, but have gotten good results from the
> active, and am hearing similar results from others.
>
> Wade Hampton Miller
I recently had an active I-beam put in my englemann/brazilian OM Webber by the
Appalachian Bluegrass Shoppe. The store no longer sells the passive model because
they have had problems with it - a consistently weak signal.
The I-Beam is balanced, and sounds pretty nice, but is actually a bit "too
acoustic" to my ears (yes, strange as that sounds). I think it would work great as
a secondary source to add some acoustic "air" and realism for me- but not as a
primary source. I tend to play a fair amount of uptempo stuff and the I-beam
doesn't have enough decay for that, it just gets jumbled up in there. Of course, it
might work better for that in a dryer sounding guitar with more fundamental, like
something in mahogany or maple.
The store owner says he'll return it and swap it out (most of his customers have
been quite happy with it)- probably for a Highlander piezo, still my favorite under
saddle pick up.(I'm also a big magnetic p.u. fan, but not for this guitar.)
I'm sure for a number of folks this unit is just great- and I've heard that from a
fair number of players. Of course it's another subjective choice, just like
everything else about tone.
Hank
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 3:08:44 +0000
Organization: (Posted via) VIA Net.Works UK Ltd.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 1:17:35 +0000, Hank Alinger wrote
(in message <<3C4CBAAF.B058B074@home...>>):
>[...]
>
> The I-Beam is balanced, and sounds pretty nice, but is actually a bit "too
> acoustic" to my ears (yes, strange as that sounds). I think it would work
> great as
> a secondary source to add some acoustic "air" and realism for me-[...]
Makes sense to me, and I'd see it as a stage volume level issue too.
> Of course it's another subjective choice, just like
> everything else about tone.
Thanks Hank. My problem just at the moment is a quite objective balance one.
I've got a couple of moves left to see if it's check mate or not.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:15:53 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Adrian-
I've tried an iBeam in my Olson SJ. I think I'd have to go back
quite a few years to find a pickup that sounded as bad. I tried
it in three different locations (on the bridge plate; two in
the vicinity of the saddle, and one at the bottom edge) over the
course of a few months. Sometimes
balance was an issue, in all of the locations the tone was simply
really bad. On the other hand, a local luthier has had good luck
with one in one guitar (his only experience). There is also an
incredible rave review of the iBeam in the current issue of
*Christian Musician* magazine. My impression is that the iBeam
varies in quality from guitar to guitar more than any other pickup
I've come across. So much so that I suspect that any advice
you can get from someone will be next to useless unless they have
the same make/model of instrument that you have.
The *Christian Musician* review is a good example of one of my
pet peeves with this topic. Every pickup I've ever tried has varied
somewhat in its behavior from guitar to guitar, albeit some more
than others. When I see a review like this one suggesting a
particular system is the end-all and be-all for everyone....
Well, the hype in the manufacturers' literature is bad enough
(and Baggs---an otherwise great company, by the way; I use several
pieces of their gear---went way overboard with hype for the iBeam).
But this kind of hype from a reviewer is just irresponsible.
I have found the iBeam a huge disappointment, but am holding
on to mine. I'm going to try it in another guitar. If I'm lucky,
it may work great in it. Despite the horrible behavior in my
Olson, with the reports I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if I
ended up happy with it in another guitar.
Please let us know how you make out with it. If we
can build up data on where/when it works, perhaps we can help
guide future users.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 3:08:49 +0000
Organization: (Posted via) VIA Net.Works UK Ltd.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:15:53 +0000, Tom Loredo wrote
(in message <<3C4C8509.4427086@astro...>>):
>
>[...]
>
> Please let us know how you make out with it. If we
> can build up data on where/when it works, perhaps we can help
> guide future users.
Certainly, the relative shortage of experience and gossip is a handicap at
the moment.
One thing yet to be looked at is the flatness or otherwise of the bridge
plate. Graham's settling-in experience seems to indicate that would bear some
investigation.
My unit feels short from my balance problems - I'm assuming a longer unit
would have conflicted with a wider range of X-bracings. Tonally it's very
useable on the Creedy, though there is still a touch of high harshness in it
that I'd like to lose.
Thanks Tom, and everyone else. What an interestingly mixed bag.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Larry Sprigg <gsprigg@aol...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: 22 Jan 2002 00:50:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
None whatsoever in two guitars using the standard location with an active
iBeam.
Larry
To reply via E-Mail, please remove the "nojunk" from my address
From: Graham & Carolyn Vest <gghamvest@sprynet...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:23:53 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I have an active version in my OOO-28EC which was rather bass heavy when I
put it in (about a year ago). After a few months though it really evenedout
and I'm quite happy with it now.FWIW Graham"Adrian Legg" <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
news:<01HW.B871E9DB0002D8540C696DA0@News...>...
> Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
>
>
>
> --
> www.adrianlegg.com
>
>
From: Brent Barkow <peavey@daktel...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:29:04 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Same experience here with the I-beam active. Mine has been installed for a
little over six months. I was a little disappointed when I first installed
it, but now it sounds beautiful. I have mine installed in a maple-bodied
jumbo -- as close to the bridge pins as possible on the treble side and
backed off just a tad on the bass side. I get a lot of compliments on the
sound.
Best of luck,
Brent
Adrian Legg <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
news:<01HW.B87288380006A90B056AEBC0@news...>...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 2:23:53 +0000, Graham & Carolyn Vest wrote
> (in message <a2iiok$5uo$<1@slb5...>>):
>
> > I have an active version in my OOO-28EC which was rather bass heavy when
I
> > put it in (about a year ago). After a few months though it really
evened
> > out
>
> How odd. Any guesses why ? Top moved? Sticky tape hardened/come unstuck ?
>
> > and I'm quite happy with it now.
> >
> > FWIW
>
> A lot. Thanks.
>
>
> --
> www.adrianlegg.com
>
>
From: G.W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53:49 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:29:04 -0600, Brent Barkow wrote:
>Same experience here with the I-beam active. Mine has been installed for a
>little over six months. I was a little disappointed when I first installed
>it, but now it sounds beautiful. I have mine installed in a maple-bodied
>jumbo -- as close to the bridge pins as possible on the treble side and
>backed off just a tad on the bass side. I get a lot of compliments on the
>sound.
>Best of luck,
>Brent
Not to rehash this too much, but I contacted Baggs after installing my
active model and metioned that the sound seemed to improve over a week
or two. I was told that this is normally the case, something to do
with the adhesive hardening. I know in my case it was quite noticable.
If installing one it might be wise to wait a couple of weeks before
passing judgement. A friend likes to use my guitar for open mics
because of the pickup and she always gets positive comments on the
sound.
I'm not taking sides here, but there seem to be as many mixed comments
on the PUTW as the iBeam. The main difference, as I see it, is that
David bends over backwards to help make sure the location and
connection is perfect.
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:20:04 +0000
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53:49 +0000, G.W. wrote
(in message <<8l2r4ugbgd6o9t7cvq7efdk4a229jm8cek@4ax...>>):
>[...]
> I'm not taking sides here, but there seem to be as many mixed comments
> on the PUTW as the iBeam. [...]
I suppose twenty-five years ago we were all delighted to have anything
remotely resembling an "acoustic" tone. I don't think the principles or the
nature of the problems have changed at all, but it seems that the latest
tweaks are now producing a horses for courses type of choice that probably
means even more stuff in the last year's solutions junk drawer, at least
until we can build up some experience from which to make some general
guesses.
I appreciate the glue hardening comments, but I think we're still going to
take a small sanding block to the bridge plate.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:13:54 -0500
Organization: Kiva Networking
Graham & Carolyn Vest wrote in message ...
>I have an active version in my OOO-28EC which was rather bass heavy when I
> put it in (about a year ago). After a few months though it really evened
>out
> and I'm quite happy with it now.
>
> FWIW
> Graham
>
>"Adrian Legg" <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
>news:<01HW.B871E9DB0002D8540C696DA0@News...>...
>> Is anyone getting any balance difficulties with the iBeam ?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.adrianlegg.com
>>
>>
>
>
Graham:
I had exactly the same experience with the active model--Baggs says it
improves as the adhesive dries out--I know others who have had similar
experience.
Mike
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:27:26 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hojo2x wrote:
>
> The active iBeams seem to be a lot easier to get an accurate sound from. The
> passive version seems more hit or miss, depending on the instrument in
> question, which, of course, you can't know until you attempt to mount one. The
> passive version is also a lot more midrangey. The preamp built into the active
> version compensates for those flaws.
I have an active model. I detached the preamp and use it
externally. I measured the preamp and it has a big midrange dip
and low cut. It definitely improves the sound, and is well
designed and keeps the signal very clean despite the fact that
the iBeam itself has a very low output. However, though it
improved the sound, it was still nowhere near usable without
a ton of add'l EQ in my guitar. But I don't doubt that it
may be fine in other guitars.
I think Wade's point is worth emphasizing---unless you have a
good reason not to, go with the active model if you are trying
the iBeam. Because of the unusually low output level of the
passive pickup, it is unusually susceptible, not just to noise,
but also to crosstalk in dual-source setups. The preamp takes
care of this, and as I mentioned above, is very well made.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:16:18 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
In their I-beam installation instructions, Baggs cautions that the adhesive
strip's adhesion increases over a couple of weeks. I will attest that this
is, in fact, true! The first location I picked for my I-beam, was ALL
WRONG, although I waited a week or three before changing it.
Boy, was that transducer stuck to the bridge plate. No worries about
getting a good bond, it was there for good!
After much fighting with it, I got the transducer loose from the bridge
plate without damaging either.
The second location, was somewhat better, but still not right. This time
I changed the location of the transducer the next day, and it came right
off. I used a new adhesive strip for each installation. Baggs kindly
sent me a few extras when I inquired about the best location for
the I-beam.
The third location, which is where it is today, is the best of the three,
but as I said in my earlier post, The high "e" is about 60% volume and
the low "E" is about 85% volume, relative to the rest of the strings.
Ths "curing" of the adhesive bond may be what's causing some of
the posters' sounds to "improve with age". Either that, or they're
just getting used to the sound!! (Flames start about now!!)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:58:37 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
TarBabyTunes wrote:
>
> Let me guess... um...
>
> It's probably down between 3 and 5 db at 400 or 500 Hz as the midrange cut. It
> might go as low as 300 Hz. I won't try to guess the Q (width) of the cut...
>
> The low cut is probably -6db/octave @ 100Hz...
>
> How'd I do? <GGG>
Half right! The dip is at 1.5 kHz. The PADI has a midrange control that
is tunable over 1 kHz to 2.5 kHz, and indeed that's where I find most
undersaddle pickups need a cut. Check this out:
http://www.museweb.com/ag/amp/pickups/preamp_eq.html
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:03:19 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
John Holbrook wrote:
>
> In their I-beam installation instructions, Baggs cautions that the adhesive
> strip's adhesion increases over a couple of weeks. I will attest that this
> is, in fact, true!
Yes, I had mine on for several months in one position, and several weeks
in another. It does strengthen.
> After much fighting with it, I got the transducer loose from the bridge
> plate without damaging either.
There are instructions in the manual for removal, and for me they
worked like a charm, even after mounting for months. You basically
apply steady pressure the right way, and let time be on your
side. Nothing seems to happen at first, but slowly the pickup
comes free. No fighting necessary!
> The third location, which is where it is today, is the best of the three,
> but as I said in my earlier post, The high "e" is about 60% volume and
> the low "E" is about 85% volume, relative to the rest of the strings.
John, could you tell us what the 3 positions were? This is on
your cedar-top Seagull, right?
Peace,
Tom
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:06:28 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
Tom Loredo wrote in message <<3C4F08F7.F646C418@astro...>>...
>> The third location, which is where it is today, is the best of the
three,
>> but as I said in my earlier post, The high "e" is about 60% volume and
>> the low "E" is about 85% volume, relative to the rest of the strings.
>
>John, could you tell us what the 3 positions were? This is on
>your cedar-top Seagull, right?
Yes, on the Seagull. The first position was near the front of the bridge
plate, shifted slightly toward the treble side. This yielded a somewhat
muted sound, with very little "attack". It was quite forgettable!!
(Some might say, "What's the problem, it matches your playing
perfectly!!")
Subsequent conversation with Baggs' customer service rep had me
move it directly beneath the saddle. This position was better, but
still too much bass and extremely weak first string.
After that, I shifted the I-beam about 3mm toward the treble side,
still keeping it below the saddle. Somewhat better, but the first string
is still weak, and moving the I-beam toward the treble side seemed
to weaken the 6th string's signal.
The I-beam is the active version, and I send it through a PADI
into my Ultrasound AG50-D.
From: John Sorell <jsorell@infi...>
Subject: Re: iBeam
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:13:47 -0700
Hi Adrian,
Been out of pocket for the week. I ran it through several different
pre-amps, including: Pendulum SPS-1, Fishman Pocket Blender and a PUTW
Power Plug. Varying lengths of cords from 4 to 15 feet.
John
Adrian Legg wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:59:19 +0000, John Sorell wrote
> (in message <a2hi0u$11l6pd$<1@ID-76214...>>):
>
>
> > I did. The high E and B strings were very hot...no matter where it was
> > mounted. Couldn't get a satisfactory solution from Baggs. I have a passive
> > iBeam for sale.
>
> Thanks John, sorry to hear of a failure.
> What did you use for a buffer/pre-amp, and how long was the cord from the
> guitar to it ?
>
> --
> www.adrianlegg.com
| Did a PUTW Model Comparison [7] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:27:17 GMT
I've had the opportunity now to try out two different putw models. I
was really struggling with placement of a #27 on my 810. I connected
it to the fishman matrix circuit board because its all I have to
preamp it with right now. I know its not ideal but it was something
and I wanted to test the placemen. Got a little soldering pracrtice,
too.
I tried 3 different locations on the bridge plate and never got the
low strings to sound right. The high strings were nice. Really
natural and 'woody.' The low A and E were strange --- hard to
describe, almost rubbery (I know, sorry). They had a sort of a
booming quality, like an echo or a ghost note. Not booming exactly,
more like 'vroooming.' Very strange, like just those two strings
were running through a flanger or something.
Ok, so at midnight I tore it all open again and put the Fishman back
on the board.
But today, just for the hell of it I stuck the #20 I happen to have
here on to the top behind the bridge and plugged it directly into the
amp. No preamp. It sounds great --- every string is perfect. I
guess a preamp will make it even better, huh? (Make that "DUH!?')
I'm not ready to ditch the UST totally because quack or not, there's
something about the punchiness that I've gotten used to. Maybe one
day I will.
Bottom line: This is gonna make a great dual source set-up. Cranking
up the putw's gonna be like dialing in more wood. I'm gonna order an
in-line emg preamp from David tomorrow.
Anyway, if you've never seen a #20 its like a small postage stamp in
shape, not a strip like the #27. Don't have a clue why but it sure
seems to like the 810 better than the #27 did. Might be something to
do with Taylor's internet policies.
Sherman
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:28:45 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Jeff,
> I tried 3 different locations on the bridge plate and never got the
> low strings to sound right. The high strings were nice. Really
> natural and 'woody.' The low A and E were strange --- hard to
> describe, almost rubbery (I know, sorry). They had a sort of a
> booming quality, like an echo or a ghost note. Not booming exactly,
> more like 'vroooming.' Very strange, like just those two strings
> were running through a flanger or something.
Sounds like the brass thingy end wasn't making full contact. Or possibly the
Fishman active endpin jack didn't like it for some reason. You didn't use it
with the #20 did you?
> But today, just for the hell of it I stuck the #20 I happen to have
> here on to the top behind the bridge and plugged it directly into the
> amp. No preamp. It sounds great --- every string is perfect. I
> guess a preamp will make it even better, huh? (Make that "DUH!?')
That's terrific news! Once you get the in-line pre-amp goin' you'll be in
heaven!
> I'm not ready to ditch the UST totally because quack or not, there's
> something about the punchiness that I've gotten used to. Maybe one
> day I will.
I can hardly wait for that thread to start! ;-)
I hope we can get together & play some when you finally get set up. I'd
really like to hear the end result (well, at least for now :-) of your
quest.
Good luck,
Frank
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:36:32 -0500
Frank Wiewandt wrote:
> Sounds like the brass thingy end wasn't making full contact.
Well, I had it taped down really good, all around the brass thingie.
> Or possibly the
> Fishman active endpin jack didn't like it for some reason. You didn't > use it
> with the #20 did you?
No but I was getting that weird bass effect on the #27 when I plugged it
in directly without the preamp too. That's why I hooked it up to the
Matrix circuit board to test.
No matter, though, the #20 seems perfect.
Hey Frank, would that little behringer mixer you mentioned preamp the
putw? The website info says "2 invisible mic preamps." I wonder if
those only apply to the xlr inputs?
I still want the PB-1 so it'll be sorta moot but I was curious.
I dropped $40 on a little passive mixer that's kinda useless in
comparison. I'm thinking if the store stocks that mixer of yours I may
exchange it. For $30 more I'd have EQ on both pickups and I could do
all that stereo blend/main mix routing stuff I wrote about yesterday.
Thanks for all the tips, Frank.
Jeff
>
> > But today, just for the hell of it I stuck the #20 I happen to have
> > here on to the top behind the bridge and plugged it directly into the
> > amp. No preamp. It sounds great --- every string is perfect. I
> > guess a preamp will make it even better, huh? (Make that "DUH!?')
>
> That's terrific news! Once you get the in-line pre-amp goin' you'll be in
> heaven!
>
> > I'm not ready to ditch the UST totally because quack or not, there's
> > something about the punchiness that I've gotten used to. Maybe one
> > day I will.
>
> I can hardly wait for that thread to start! ;-)
>
> I hope we can get together & play some when you finally get set up. I'd
> really like to hear the end result (well, at least for now :-) of your
> quest.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Frank
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:22:48 -0500
TarBabyTunes wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> << > > But today, just for the hell of it I stuck the #20 I happen to have
> > > here on to the top behind the bridge >>
>
> On the -top-, on the outside, right?
Yeah. Just on the top, centered right behind the bridge.
> Or inside the guitar?
Couldn't bear the thought of pulling those strings off for the 6th time
in 2 days. The next time I do it and pull the guts out I'm hoping it'll
be the last time, hooking up the new preamp & jack.
Jeff
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:41:36 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Jeff,
> Hey Frank, would that little behringer mixer you mentioned preamp the
> putw? The website info says "2 invisible mic preamps." I wonder if
> those only apply to the xlr inputs?
Yeah, the pre-amps apply only to the inputs that have both mic & line
capability, but they work for either the mic or line sources. I just hooked
mine up through the mixer without the external pre-amp (Power Plug) on the
PUTW side, & while it was possible, it came as a result of cranking the PUTW
way up & dropping way down the Fishman RE. The resulting sound was not
the greatest. Actually, even I wouldn't find it acceptable. ;-)
> I still want the PB-1 so it'll be sorta moot but I was curious.
>
> I dropped $40 on a little passive mixer that's kinda useless in
> comparison. I'm thinking if the store stocks that mixer of yours I may
> exchange it. For $30 more I'd have EQ on both pickups and I could do
> all that stereo blend/main mix routing stuff I wrote about yesterday.
I agree that, for now, the PB-1 is gonna be your ticket, even if you get the
Behringer. If you can swing the little Behringer mixer, too, I think it will
give you a tool you can use effectively in your live setup (& probably other
uses, too). The EQ is pretty basic but you'd be getting input matching gain
adjustments between the dual sources, & outputs that you can split between
loop & live. I'm not sure exactly how to do it, but I think you could use
the EFX sends & returns to do your looping thing & eliminate the need to do
that at your amp/monitor. You'd need to get advice from others if you want
to do this, but I think this would give you better control of that whole
issue. For your solo gigs you'd also have the ability to run your mic
through it too (if you want) so you'd be able to monitor the whole enchalada
with your amp/monitor. Be great to get everything set up pretty close at
home before you gig out, too. You'd probably have to move up to the mixer
(MX802A) with 4 mic/line inputs to do all this, though. Yeah, 1 XLR input
for your mic & 2 1/4" inputs with gain & EQ for the dual source PUs. I
really think you'd be glad you got the extra mic/line inputs.
Later,
Frank
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:17:59 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Hey Frank, would that little behringer mixer you mentioned preamp the
> putw? The website info says "2 invisible mic preamps." I wonder if
> those only apply to the xlr inputs?
Jeff,
A preamp is not a preamp is not a preamp... 8-) Just the word
"preamp" is not enough in this case. The PUTW (and pretty much
any piezo pickup) needs a preamp with a *high impedance* input
stage. A mic preamp is almost the opposite of what you need
(they typically have even lower input impedance than a line
input, and so will make any problems you have with a line input
even worse).
Use a preamp designed expressly for a piezo pickup, or an
active DI that has an input impedance of at least several
million ohms. The PUTW folks sell affordable preamps that you
can be sure "mate" well with their pickups. LR Baggs also
makes some nice and affordable preamps, such as the Para Acoustic DI
and the Gigpro. And there are many others....
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: csj <chaya@san...>
Subject: Re: Did a PUTW Model Comparison
Date: 23 Jan 2002 12:58:42 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Well I had the privledge this morning of watching David install a #27
in my Baby Collings. It took him two tries to get it just right - the
first time it was too bassy. By moving it way over to the treble side,
it came out just right.
I asked him about installing them, and did he every find a guitar he
couldn't hook up to. His answer was no, but that the better guitars
have more sensitive tops, and they are harder to find just THE spot on
for the pickup. Sometimes he even has to put the pickup in two
different places and solder them together.
You are a brave man Jeff - I would never attempt to do that stuff
myself. Although you had the worst part done already - drilling a
larger hole for the pickup jack.
csj
| Wiring a Dual Source w/Older Matrix |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Wiring a Dual Source w/Older Matrix
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:59:11 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Doesn't it seem like the board could be soldered to a newer type of
> endpin jack (a 4-pin?) and the power leads shifted around somewhere?
Without the board in front of me I can't say what's possible or not.
Most such boards I've seen get soldered directly to (cut off) contacts
on the jack, and are supported by the contacts. So I would suspect
that though it is electrically possible to do as you suggest, it
may not be geometrically or physically possible without a lot of
headache. It may be a lot less headache to just put in a 2nd jack....
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Ground Lift question [7] |
|---|
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Ground Lift question
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:05:13 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
Would Tom Loredo or George Gleason or someone else with
technical knowledge please explain what "Ground Lift" means?
Is this accomplished by simply disconnecting the earth ground
connection to a particular component? If so, wouldn't this
defeat the safety aspects of having an earth ground to that
component.
I have two components (my Ultrasound amp and my mixer)
which, by themselves, are each fairly quiet. When connected,
I get a lot of 60HZ hum. Does this sound like a case where
"Lifting" the ground of one or both components would cure
the hum problem?
I'm getting tired of explaining that my gear hums because
it doesn't know the words!!
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:14:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"John Holbrook" <<jholbrok@infinet...>> wrote in message
news:3c530b60$0$35622$<4c5ecdc7@news...>...
> Would Tom Loredo or George Gleason or someone else with
> technical knowledge please explain what "Ground Lift" means?
>
> Is this accomplished by simply disconnecting the earth ground
> connection to a particular component? If so, wouldn't this
> defeat the safety aspects of having an earth ground to that
> component.
>
> I have two components (my Ultrasound amp and my mixer)
> which, by themselves, are each fairly quiet. When connected,
> I get a lot of 60HZ hum. Does this sound like a case where
> "Lifting" the ground of one or both components would cure
> the hum problem?
>
> I'm getting tired of explaining that my gear hums because
> it doesn't know the words!!
>
ground lift should only EVER mean signal ground
NEVER lift your saftey ground
Never use one of those three to two prong adapters incorrectly
the proper way is to establish there IS a ground at the center screw holding
the wall plate in place and attach the spur to that ground
If you powering for a ungrounded outlet you are playing with your life
what the ground lift swutch does is seperate the signal ground from the
saftey ground it can help in noise reduction but often the problem lies else
where
I would look at your cableing , do you use lots of 1/4 to1/4 unbalanced
connections? these CAN inject considerable noise into your rig
if you have a option replace any unbalanced in or out with a balanced in or
out
balanced is TRS 1/4 inch plug where unbalanced is a ts 1/4 plug
If these terms are not familiar please go to
www.rane.com they have excellent tutorials and glossarys
George
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:14:24 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> I would look at your cableing
And also make sure to source AC for the two units from the same power
strip, with known good ground path in the strip and at the wall.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:25:39 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
John Holbrook wrote:
>
> Would Tom Loredo or George Gleason or someone else with
> technical knowledge please explain what "Ground Lift" means?
>
> Is this accomplished by simply disconnecting the earth ground
> connection to a particular component? If so, wouldn't this
> defeat the safety aspects of having an earth ground to that
> component.
>
> I have two components (my Ultrasound amp and my mixer)
> which, by themselves, are each fairly quiet. When connected,
> I get a lot of 60HZ hum. Does this sound like a case where
> "Lifting" the ground of one or both components would cure
> the hum problem?
>
> I'm getting tired of explaining that my gear hums because
> it doesn't know the words!!
Don't lift safety grounds. You can, however, connect the components
together with a shielded cable whose shield is connected only at one end,
thereby breaking a potential ground loop. That might not be necessary
if you make sure both components derive their power (and safety ground)
from the same main socket (if they don't already), or if you strap the
chassis of both components together with a thick enough strap (so that
almost no current will flow through the shield).
Another help is to use balanced connections whenever possible.
Finally, if you're willing to open the cases, you could look at just
how the equipment in question suppresses power line noise. Probably
you will find that one or the other (or both) have capacitors between
the line and ground. Potentially (no pun intended) better alternatives
exist (e.g. ferrite cores).
Don't lift safety grounds.
Oh, did I mention? -- Don't lift safety grounds.
JMHO.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 05:52:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
I think you will find clues here as to you buzz
(rap Faq cut and paste)
Q3.8 - What is the "Pin 1 problem" and how do I avoid it?
This is a special case of "ground loop" or shared path coupling. Recently
this has been discussed in great detail and clarity by a group led by the
consultant Neil Muncy of Toronto. Suppose you have a mixer, whose balanced
output is connected to an amplifer's balanced input through a correctly
wired cable. Both units are powered from the AC mains and one or both have
some small amount of AC leakage current that travels to ground through all
available ground paths -- including the shield of the cable that connects
the two units. So far so good, no harm done because the circuit is balanced
and any common mode voltage from current flowing through the shield will be
canceled by the amplifier input. However... a small part of this leakage
current also travels through the shield of the wire going from the back
panel XLR connector to the PC board, through some "ground" traces on the PC
board, and back out through the power line ground cable. No problem so far,
except that some gain stage on that same PC board also uses that piece of
ground trace in its negative feedback loop, and some part of that leakage
signal will be added to the signal in that gain stage; it might be video, or
data, or another audio signal, or (most commonly) power.
The solution to this variant of shared path coupling is the same sort of
approach that applies to other unbalanced signals: give the leakage current
a very low resistance path to follow, and remove as many of the shared paths
as possible. Within a unit of equipment, all the XLR connectors' pin 1
terminals should be connected to ground with very low resistance (big) wire
or traces, and preferably all of the ground connections should be made at
one point, the so-called "star ground" system. A brute force approach is to
assume that the back panel is the star ground, and wire every connector's
pin 1 solidly to the panel as directly as possible, and lift all the ground
wires but one that go from the connectors to the circuitry. In this way, all
the external leakage currents (the "fox" to use Neil Muncy's term) will be
conducted through the back panel and out of the way, rather than running
them through the ground traces on the PC board where they will mix with
internal low level signals in high gain stages (the "hen house"). Individual
wires can be run from points on the circuit board that need to be at
"ground" potential to a common point on the back panel, which is designated
a "zero signal reference point" (ZSRP). Equipment that has a reputation for
being "quiet" and easy to use in many different applications is often found
to be wired this way, while equipment that is "temperamental" if often found
to be wired in such a way that leakage currents are easily coupled to
internal signal lines.
There's a simple test that can be done to check equipment susceptibility to
this problem. Connect the output, preferably balanced and floating, of an
ordinary audio oscillator to the pin 1 of any two XLR connectors on the
equipment. Now operate the equipment through its various modes, gain
settings, etc. You may be surprised to find the audio oscillator's signal
appearing in many different places in the equipment. [David]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:13:33 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi John-
I think everyone else gave great advice. Just to make sure...
John Holbrook wrote:
> Is this accomplished by simply disconnecting the earth ground
> connection to a particular component?
No.
> If so, wouldn't this
> defeat the safety aspects of having an earth ground to that
> component.
Yes, it would.
A "ground lift" doesn't lift (i.e., break, at least for DC/low freq.)
the ground connection from the power outlet to the box the lift switch
is on; rather, it lifts the ground connection along audio paths
*between devices*.
> I have two components (my Ultrasound amp and my mixer)
> which, by themselves, are each fairly quiet. When connected,
> I get a lot of 60HZ hum. Does this sound like a case where
> "Lifting" the ground of one or both components would cure
> the hum problem?
It may. The first thing to do, though, is to make sure the two
units are plugged into the same circuit (e.g., the same power
strip). If they are on different circuits (or even on the same
circuit but far apart), that alone can be the cause of the problem
and thus present you with a simple cure. Otherwise, the ground
lift might help. Or it might not! Unfortunately, grounding
problems can be tricky. The Audio Engineering Society has an
entire issue of the magazine collecting the most important articles
on grounding---it's worthwhile reading, but gives you some idea
of how subtle some of the problems can be.
Good luck, and let us know what works---it might help someone else!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Ground Lift question
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:43:29 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Because a short (fault) within a device could put line voltage on its chassis,
and without the safety ground that might not result in a fuse blowing or
circuit breaker tripping. Touching the chassis while grounded could then be
lethal.
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Along these same lines, I've seen people defeat the hum or pickup of radio
> signals in their equipment by using a 3-to-2 adapter between their power cord
> and power strip or wall outlet. Other than the obvious (doing this during a
> thunderstorm for example), why would this endanger your life, as George alluded
> to in an earlier post?
>
> Mitch
>
> "Restore Beauty Where There Is Ugliness"
| Pick-up the World review in Acoustic Guitar [2] |
|---|
From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Pick-up the World review in Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:19:57 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Hi Folks,
I'm considering installing a PUTW pickup in my Martin D-1R. I'm impressed
with the comments on how natural they sound and on their dynamic range.
However, I researched the review of 6 pickups in the Sept. 2001 issue of
Acoustic Guitar and I'm a little concerned about the hum problem mentioned
by the author. It occurred even after PUTW replaced the pickup for him.
Is this just an anomaly of his installation?
Any PUTW users out there have similar experiences?
Is the hum really all that noticeable?
Are there reasonable ways to mitigate the hum?
For reference, I'm looking to keep the costs in the $200 to $250 range for
whatever pickup/pre-amp combo I choose. I don't play amplified very often,
this is more for convenience than anything else. I play the occasional open
mic or guitar player gathering in coffeehouses and I use whatever sound
reinforcement system they have on hand. My material includes a lot of
acoustic blues played with thumbpick and fingerpicks so I need a pickup with
good dynamic range like the PUTW. I strive to use dynamics to make my
presentation interesting so that means quiet as well as loud passages in any
given piece.
Thanks in advance for your comments or advice.
All the best,
Steve Comeau
(remove anti-spam word "not" if you choose to reply directly)
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Pick-up the World review in Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:42:39 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Steve,
we just got back from NAMM, and can help explain a little what happened with
humming pickups, and how our company has responded. Because there are any
number of things that can cause 60 cycle hum (both from the sensors, and
from environments and cables, and such), we were quite stumped when people
started reporting hum problems with some of our pickups. We had not had
these problems before, and did not even test for hums. We suspected many
things before we found the cause in a batch of mis-printed films from our
supplier. By the time Teja's review came out, we had already found a remedy
that completely eliminated the problem. Since that time, we have replaced
all known defective units at no cost, and have also greatly improved our
mounting methods and increased the output considerably. We just saw Teja at
NAMM, and he was quite impressed with our latest products and improvements.
We have not had any hum problems in the last 10 months since we sent
products for reviews, and our warrantee is there to isure our customers get
the highest possible performance from our products.
I hope this helps, and feel free to contact me with any other questions or
concerns.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Steve Comeau" <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:hxX48.5576$<p5.1006779@news1...>...
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm considering installing a PUTW pickup in my Martin D-1R. I'm impressed
> with the comments on how natural they sound and on their dynamic range.
> However, I researched the review of 6 pickups in the Sept. 2001 issue of
> Acoustic Guitar and I'm a little concerned about the hum problem mentioned
> by the author. It occurred even after PUTW replaced the pickup for him.
>
> Is this just an anomaly of his installation?
>
> Any PUTW users out there have similar experiences?
>
> Is the hum really all that noticeable?
>
> Are there reasonable ways to mitigate the hum?
>
> For reference, I'm looking to keep the costs in the $200 to $250 range for
> whatever pickup/pre-amp combo I choose. I don't play amplified very
often,
> this is more for convenience than anything else. I play the occasional
open
> mic or guitar player gathering in coffeehouses and I use whatever sound
> reinforcement system they have on hand. My material includes a lot of
> acoustic blues played with thumbpick and fingerpicks so I need a pickup
with
> good dynamic range like the PUTW. I strive to use dynamics to make my
> presentation interesting so that means quiet as well as loud passages in
any
> given piece.
>
> Thanks in advance for your comments or advice.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve Comeau
>
> (remove anti-spam word "not" if you choose to reply directly)
>
>
| PUTW road trip adventures |
|---|
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: PUTW road trip adventures
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:27:01 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi all,
I am sorry to have missed helping with impedance threads and other such
on-line questions over the last few days, but the road trip to L.A. and back
was all consuming for us. Anyway, we are back safely after having many
wonderful visits with people, and a few harrowing roadside repairs and
adventures on the way.
NAMM highlights:
we were honored to have a couple of extremely beautiful Michael Lewis
mandolins in our booth, a Boaz Elkayhem classical, a Kiso-Klein OM, and a
Tom Ribbecke archtop. There was no lack of great music coming out of our
booth the whole time, as we had Tesheki Nishimoto, Radim Zenkle, Jaquie
Gipson, and a number of other great performers blessing us. We were
initially concerned because one of our neighbors was demonstrating P.A.
speakers, but after a while they let us give them a feed line, and then
amplified the people from our booth instead of plying canned disco and
competing for sound with us.
It was wonderful to see Dr. Dan, Lance, Hank, Harvey, and some of the other
RMMGA regulars once again, and the new amps and guitars were really great.
We were sorry to have missed John Pearse's booth, but we handed out some of
his case stickers left over from TX-2.
After the show, we packed up and headed for San Diego, where we spent the
day installing pickups for Richard Glick at Fine Guitar Consultants, and
then spent a wonderful evening with Susan Jurist. The next day, we visited
Carvin, and saw a nice sampling of their instruments. The Cobalt series
acoustics were very impressive, as were their semi-hollow bodied
electric/acoustics. That night, the battery in the van went south, and we
ended up in a rest area in the middle of B.F. Arizona. We got a jump, a new
battery, and off to visit Lumpy in Phoenix.
Anyway, Lumpy and his sweetheart Donna entertained us with beer, wine,
pizza, and music, and we thoroughly enjoyed visiting with them. They have
horses, some very funny dogs, and a quiet house in a great part of town.
The next day we spent at the Roberto-Venn School of Luthiery, and gave a
presentation on modern trends in amplification. The school is quite
impressive, and the staff of accomplished luthiers and inquisitive students
was very enjoyable for us. Seeing some of William Eaton's harp/lire/guitars
in person was one of the highlights of the whole trip.
After a buying new alternator in Phoenix, the rest of the trip went
smoothly, and we got back late last night.
Anyway, it's good to be back, and we look forward to catching up with you
all.
Sincerely,
David & Annie Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
| Practical Impedance Tips [8] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:33:34 GMT
Could somebody tell me a really basic, practical, important-to-know,
impedance-related fact about any one of more of the following devices?
(I don't own this stuff. I just picked them because they're common and
familiar.)
An SM58 mic.
A Fender Twin Reverb amp
A piezo electric UST element (no preamp)
Any typical stomp box guitar effects pedal.
A putw or other SBTelement (no preamp)
A typical on-board preamp (e.g., a Fishman prefix plus or blender)
A Gibson humbucking pickup.
A dedicated acoustic guitar amp (e.g, Ultrasound, TE, SWR).
Thanks for any responses.
Jeff
From: Ed <edncori@directvinternet...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 19:11:59 -0500
Organization: None here...
Someone will correct me on these...
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> Could somebody tell me a really basic, practical, important-to-know,
> impedance-related fact about any one of more of the following devices?
> (I don't own this stuff. I just picked them because they're common and
> familiar.)
>
> An SM58 mic.
low impedance balanced (can be wired for high)
>
> A Fender Twin Reverb amp
>
Very low impedance output (4 or 8 ohm)
>
> A piezo electric UST element (no preamp)
>
Very high impedance 1meg+
>
> Any typical stomp box guitar effects pedal.
>
Typically high imp. input, low output
>
> A putw or other SBTelement (no preamp)
>
> A typical on-board preamp (e.g., a Fishman prefix plus or blender)
>
Very high input for peizo element, low impedance out
>
> A Gibson humbucking pickup.
Approx. 10k ohm (EMG pickups specs)
>
>
> A dedicated acoustic guitar amp (e.g, Ultrasound, TE, SWR).
Usually high (to very high) impedance input
>
>
> Thanks for any responses.
No problem bro...
Ed
>
>
> Jeff
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:55:37 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Steve Comeau <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote:
> I'll let the folks with more equipment experience comment on your specific
> list, but one simple rule of electronics is that to get the most power
> transfer between any two devices (guitar and amp, mic and amp, mic and
> board, amp and board, etc.) you want to match the impedance (high to high,
> and low to low).
That was true back when signal transfer was power transfer, including
current, but nowadays most gear is _voltage_ transfer with little
current, and in order to properly load output stages one should attempt
to maintain a following input stage of approx. ten times the source's
output impedance. Failing to do so pulls current from the output stage
and since it wasn't designed to supply current, signal degradation
results.
> If they're not matched, there's often a transformer device
> available to slip between them to take care of impedance matching as well as
> any physical interface issues (e.g. XLR connector to 1/4" plug).
Transformer interstaging was essential once upon a time, particularly
with the very high output impedance of older tube circuitry.
Recommended reading:
http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 05:48:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
cut and pasted from RAP FAQ
George
Q3.2 - What is meant by "impedance matching"? How is it done? Why is it
necessary?
We can talk about the characteristic impedance of an input, which is to say
the ratio of voltage to current that it likes to see, or how much it loads
down a source. (You can think of this as being an "AC resistance" and you
would be mostly right, although it's actually the absolute magnitude of the
vector drawn by the resistive and reactive load components. Dealing with
line level signals, reactive components are going to be negligible, though).
In general, in this modern world, most equipment has a low impedance output,
going into relatively high impedance input. This wastes some amount of
power, but because electricity is cheap and it's possible to build low-Z
outputs easily today, this is not a big deal.
With microphones, it _is_ a big deal, because the signal levels are very
low, and the drive ability poor. As a result, we try and get the best
efficiency possible from microphones to get the lowest noise floor. This is
often done by using transformers to step up the voltage or step it down, to
go into a higher or lower Z load. Transformers have some major disadvantages
in that they can be significant sources of nonlinearity, but back in the
days of tubes they were the only solution. Tubes have a very high-Z input,
and building balanced inputs with tubes requires three devices instead of
one. As a result, all mike preamps would have a 600 ohm balanced input, with
a transformer, driving a preamp tube. Today, transistor circuits can be used
for impedance matching, although they are often more costly and can be
noisier in cases.
As a result of the expense, consumer equipment was built with high-Z
microphone inputs, and high-Z microphones. This resulted in more noise
pickup problems, but was cheaper to make. Unfortunately this still held on
into the modern day of the transistor, and a lot of high-Z consumer gear
exists. Guitar pickups are generally high-Z devices, and require a direct
box to reduce the impedance so that they can go into a standard 600 ohm mike
preamp directly.
Many years ago, the techniques that were used in audio came originally from
telephone company practice. Phone systems operate with 150 or 600 ohm
balanced lines, and adoption of this practice into the audio industry caused
those standards to be used. In the modern age where lines are relatively
short and transformers considered problematic, the tendency has been to have
low-Z outputs for all line level devices, driving high-Z inputs. While this
is not the most efficient system, it is relatively foolproof, and appears on
most consumer equipment. A substantial amount of professional gear, however,
still uses internal balancing transformers or resistor networks to match to
a perfect 600 ohm impedance. [Scott]
[Ed. note: Modern equipment works on principles of voltage transfer rather
than power transfer. Thus a standard audio circuit today is essentially a
glorified voltage divider. You have a very low output impedance and a very
high input impedance such that the most voltage is dropped across the load.
This is not an impedance-matched circuit in the classic sense of the word.
Rather, it is a "bridged" or "constant voltage" impedance match, and is the
paradigm on which nearly all audio circuits operate nowadays. -Gabe]
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:55:35 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
John Williams <<johndwilliams@qwest...>> wrote:
> SM58s are usually low impedance mics (XLR connectors are almost always low
> impedance). They can be had (or modified) in high impedance (in which case
> they would usually have a 1/4" connector).
If wired for balanced output they are low impedance; if wired for
unbalanced output, they are higher impedance. In both cases the output
conenctor on the microphone is a male XLR connector.
> The input is high impedance. If it has a line out, it's most likely low
> impedance. The speaker out is very low impedance but don't plug THAT into
> anything but a speaker load!!
> Acoustic guitar piezo pickups are almost always high impedance.
Which ones are low impedance? I don't think one can have a _piezo
pickup_ with a low impedance output, but I'm ready to learn differently.
> Their
> corresponding on-board pre amps are sometimes low sometimes high impedance.
Their onboard preamps must be very high impedance to properly load the
output of the pickup, and relative to the preamp's input, the output
will be low impedance.
> "Typical" stomp boxes are designed to plug a high-impedance guitar signal
> into, and then plug the stomp box either into another stomp box or into a
> guitar amp designed for that same high-impedance guitar signal.
> A humbucking pickup is around 7k ohms (that's high impedance).
Mulitply that by seven and we'll be closer. See Harvey Gerst's comments
about this.
> Some dedicated acoustic guitar amps have a high and a low impedance input.
> The output would almost always be low impedance, sometimes balanced. The
> speaker out would be low too but, again, like the Twin, this should only see
> a speaker load.
> In general...
> A 1/4" tip/sleeve "guitar" connector is almost always high impedance. A
> 1/4" tip/ring/sleeve is almost always low impedance and, if wired correctly
> is "balanced." An XLR connector is almost always low impedance and
> balanced.
One should not assume that a given connector configuration indicates a
particular impedance. Further, a _conncetor_ is not what determines
whether a circuit is balanced or unbalanced. While a three conductor
circuit may be balanced, it also may not. For example, the Great River
preamp's unbalanced output is via 1/4" TRS jacks.
> Balanced means there is a wire for the positive voltage and a wire for the
> negative voltage for the signal, and a separate shield/ground wire. If you
> get external noise into your wire from something like fluorescent lights or
> a computer monitor, the noise (theoretically) travels to ground through the
> isolated ground wire and doesn't affect the signal.
That is not completely correct; common mode rejection at the balanced
input is what eliminates the induced noise, as the noninverting and
inverting stages add together the noise as "plus x" + "minus x", and the
deviance from perfect summation, which would beget total rejection of
such noise, becomes the CMRR (Common Mode Rejection Ratio) spec.
> Unbalanced wiring only uses two wires. The negative part of the audio
> signal grounds itself through the shield wire. Electrical noise picked up
> by the wire goes to ground through the shared shield component of the cable
> and could (theoretically again) more easily affect the audio signal since
> the noise is traveling on part of the signal's path.
> Typical speaker cables are 1/4", tip/sleeve but are not shielded - there's a
> positive and a negative conductor only. The signal is so strong, relatively
> to mic or line level signals, that it's almost impossible to induce noise
> into a speaker cable.
It is not the signal strength alone which obviates the need for
shielding of a speaker lead, it's also that there are no active
amplification stages downstream from the cable, hence there can be no
amplification of induced noise.
I think lots of folks would help themselves by reading the rec.audi.pro
FAQ:
http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:40:41 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
You know, there is "accurate" information in the posts answering Jeff's
specific questions, but to me they only emphasize that the questions
are not well-posed. "Hi impedance" and "lo impedance" are relative
terms. The real question that one should ask is: can I plug
the output from device A into the input of device B? Unfortunately,
characterizing devices merely as having "hi" or "lo" impedances is
not enough to answer this question.
For example, one poster mentioned that typical stomp boxes have
"high" impedance inputs. They vary all over the map, with typical
values probably spanning 50k ohms to 1 MOhm. Yes, this is
a "high" impedance relative to the impedance of a typical electric
guitar pickup or the line input on a mixer. But it is low
compared to the impedance of a piezo transducer. For most
such transducers, stomp box impedances on the low end of what
I mentioned will be death to tone. For many, even the high
end (1 Megohm) will be a problem. The typical input impedance
of a preamp designed specifically for a piezo pickup is 7 to 10 Megohms.
The input impedance for some of the B-Band onboard preamps is
a billion ohms, and a B-Band pickup connected to a 10 Megohm
preamp input would sound horrible.
So I hate to say it, Jeff, but to be safe you need to know the
numbers. Also--and I know this may sound obnoxious--there is
a reason there is acoustic-guitar-pickup-specific gear around.
It's not just a marketing ploy! The gear has special properties
that suit it particularly to the task, and other gear will very
likely not perform well. You will save yourself time and headache
if you just take the plunge, buy a piece of gear meant to do what
you want to do, and then GO MAKE MUSIC! That's what we're in this
for anyway, isn't it?
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:31:35 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Hank-
hank alrich wrote:
>
> John Williams <<johndwilliams@qwest...>> wrote:
>
> > Acoustic guitar piezo pickups are almost always high impedance.
>
> Which ones are low impedance? I don't think one can have a _piezo
> pickup_ with a low impedance output, but I'm ready to learn differently.
This would be my presumption, too. But Dean Markley's "Sweet Spot"
undersaddle pickup is advertised as needing no pickup. It uses
piezo crystals (at least the early prototypes I saw did, though
I never saw the final version). Assuming it works as claimed,
I don't know how they did it. But it's been out for several years,
and I've never heard of anyone who uses one, so perhaps it doesn't
quite work as claimed. ;-) I will say that a friend of mine
brought over his Mandolin with a Markley Artist piezo pickup,
which he uses plugged into a guitar amp. I was giving him a
demo of how much a hi-Z preamp improves things for a piezo pickup.
So we plugged it right into my mixer's line input, and sure
enough it didn't sound too great. But then we plugged it into
a Baggs PADI, and it sounded worse! Well, it did the right
thing---the low end came up with the PADI---but it sounded too
muddy, and no EQ could fix it. We were actually able to do better
right into the board with some EQ than thru the PADI with EQ.
Go figure. Anyway, it makes me wonder if perhaps the Markley
stuff that claims no preamp is needed is not low impedance,
but just built in a way so that it sounds better with significant
loading. Weird if true, but just speculation.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Practical Impedance Tips
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:57:20 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Ed wrote:
>
> > No. Where you run into a problem is when it is the opposite... high
> > impedance output into a low(er) impedance input. This is one of those things
> > I undrstand but have a hard time explaining...
> >
> > If you have a 1/2" pipe running into a 1/4" pipe, there is not really a
> > problem. If you have a 1/2" pipe running into a 1" pipe, there just isn't
> > enough there to fill the pipe. If you use the 1/2" pipe to control a valve
> > that lets water flow through the 1" pipe, it'll work. Voila, we have a
> > buffer (or a preamp even). The same goes for a 1/2" pipe that goes to a 1/4"
> > pipe that controls a valve that lets water flow through a 1" pipe.
> >
> > Same analogy... the signal out of a guitar is like a 1/64" pipe. To get it
> > to a speaker, you need to control a 2" pipe. The pressure out of the 1/64"
> > is not enough to control the valve on the 2" pipe.... it isn't even enough
> > to control the 1/4" pipe. So, you send it through a series of successively
> > larger pipes. The 1/64 controls a 1/8" (the preamp) This allows it to fill
> > the cable (1/8") which goes through a series of valve controllers (preamps)
> > until it is strong enough to control the 2" output pipe (the speaker). The
> > problem comes up if somewhere along the line you try to control a valve that
> > is too big or fill a pipe that is too big. The idea is that you have a
> > smaller pipe on the input and a larger one on the output. If the input is
> > too small, it is overloaded which brings in another set of problems so you
> > try to match as much as possible the output stages to the input stages.
The fluid analogy is useful for talking about DC current and
pressure. Beyond that, it is best abandoned. The point of the
analogy is that the reader presumably has good intuition about
fluid flow, so that intuition can be "mapped" onto the electrical
analog. But I doubt many of us have any significant intuition
about variable fluid flow, or pump stations (gain stages!), etc..
There are several things wrong with the analogy above, but I
don't see much value in trying to spell them out, since the
correct fluid analog is something for which none of us probably
have any useful intuition! Roughly speaking, the correct analogy
in the above language is to always have a small pipe feed as big a
pipe as possible; that
way, the connection has as little affect as possible on what the
source wants to send through the small pipe. "Matching" in the
sense described above is not what one wants to do with
audio signals (Hank spelled this out in a previous post). It's
important if you are routing radio waves or digital audio around
(because every time there is change in "pipe" size, there can
be a reflection of the pressure from a pulse of water). But
not for analog audio.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Installing a pickup in a Larrivee LS-05 [2] |
|---|
From: rdc <rdc@magma...>
Subject: Installing a pickup in a Larrivee LS-05
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:01:12 GMT
Organization: Magma Communications Ltd.
I would appreciate the following information from anyone with fisrt hand
knowledge or actual experience installing an under-the-saddle pickup on a
Larrivee guitar. Mine is an LS-05 (auditorium, or 000 size body) but I
assume the same should apply to any Larrivee model.
My questions is: will the bridge need to be routed to compensate for the
added pickup height or is the saddle deep enough in the bridge to allow the
height compensation to be taken from the saddle. The pickup thickness is
0.100.
Many thanks for your assistance.
RC
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Installing a pickup in a Larrivee LS-05
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:24:13 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
How deep is your saddle slot, and how much saddle protrudes from the top of
the bridge?
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"rdc" <<rdc@magma...>> wrote in message news:Ydh58.843$<95.24687@ne...>...
> I would appreciate the following information from anyone with fisrt hand
> knowledge or actual experience installing an under-the-saddle pickup on a
> Larrivee guitar. Mine is an LS-05 (auditorium, or 000 size body) but I
> assume the same should apply to any Larrivee model.
>
> My questions is: will the bridge need to be routed to compensate for the
> added pickup height or is the saddle deep enough in the bridge to allow
the
> height compensation to be taken from the saddle. The pickup thickness is
> 0.100.
>
> Many thanks for your assistance.
>
> RC
>
>
>
| DM Artist Transducer Problem - It's stuck! |
|---|
From: Cybertuna <cybertuna@_hotmail...>
Subject: DM Artist Transducer Problem - It's stuck!
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:16:33 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Hi all,
I have a Dean Markley transducer stuck to one of my guitars with the gum
strip that came with it. It is stuck so tight on both the guitar and pickup
that I am hesitant to try to remove it.
Does anyone have experience with this and can offer a possible solution?
Btw, the pickup is really doing a fine job for some home recording I am
doing. I'm pleased a punch with it.
Regards,
Gene F
| Dan(Crary's)Rant from his Website [2] |
|---|
From: Peter Frey <peterfrey2000@yahoo...>
Subject: Dan(Crary's)Rant from his Website
Date: 28 Jan 2002 19:35:33 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Check out the link from his website:
http://www.dancrary.com/danrant.html
Never realized he had a website. Sure can pick though, that and his
cooking buddy Beppe Gambetta...
Peter
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Dan(Crary's)Rant from his Website
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:35:50 +0000
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 5:01:24 +0000, Tom from Texas wrote
(in message <<20020129000124.29357.00001058@mb-mi...>>):
>> Peter Frey wrote:
>> << Check out the link from his website:
>>
>> http://www.dancrary.com/danrant.html
>
> Amen, Brother. I'm printing this out and taking it to the bluegrassers I jam
> with.
Amen indeed. It's great to hear it from someone grounded so solidly in the
acoustic tradition.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
| PUTW for classical guitar? [2] |
|---|
From: Peter Colin <pcolin@colinet...>
Subject: PUTW for classical guitar?
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:38:33 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Does the PUTW work well on a classical guitar (I'm striving for a
Nashville-inspired fingerstyle sound)? Anyone tried it for that? Thanks
very much.
Pete Colin
From: Kim Strickland <kestrick@ix...>
Subject: Re: PUTW for classical guitar?
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:19:11 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I put one in my old Taurus, a good quality student instrument from the late
60s. I am using a Power Plug preamp plugged into the endpin jack. I
installed it first on the bass side under the bridge, between the second
and third fan braces from the center brace, and the sound was a little
bass-heavy. I then put it in the corresponding place on the treble side
of the bridge, and the tonal balance was a bit better. This is an
instrument that is a little treble-shy anyway. With the PUTW, it sounds
very nice through a good sound system. A good condenser mike is better,
but this is very, very good.
With the thin top on most classicals, if you sit right in front of your
amp with the volume turned up, you can induce feedback. If you need the
volume that high, you will need to use a notch filter.
The only part that might be a little tricky is drilling the hole for the
endpin jack without creating an ugly mess. I had done a similar
installation on a mandolin, so I already had a hole reamer of the correct
size from Stewart-MacDonald. Use a drill to make a hole a bit undersize,
and then use the reamer carefully to open it up big enough for the jack.
This way you have a chance of not ruining the finish with an out of
control power drill.
Kim Strickland
In article <dHp58.3393$<ks5.367752@newsread1...>>,
"Peter Colin" <<pcolin@colinet...>> wrote:
>Does the PUTW work well on a classical guitar (I'm striving for a
>Nashville-inspired fingerstyle sound)? Anyone tried it for that? Thanks
>very much.
>
>Pete Colin
--
Kim
| Small PA Question...Really! [2] |
|---|
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Small PA Question...Really!
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:48:00 -0700
So I'd like to know, from the PA experts...
Say I've got a little PA for my solo.
Maybe it's a Fender self contained thingie
or it's a gazillion buttons-n'-stuff
ultra pro board...
How do I set the thing myself when I'm
the artist? Usually one mic, one guitar pickup.
Can't stand in the audience, usually to hear
what they'd hear. Even when I can, it's colored
by me wearing the guitar live or singing myself.
How levels set please? EQ? FX?
???
lump
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Small PA Question...Really!
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:52:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message
news:a35d2p$15q4vm$<1@ID-76024...>...
> So I'd like to know, from the PA experts...
>
> Say I've got a little PA for my solo.
> Maybe it's a Fender self contained thingie
> or it's a gazillion buttons-n'-stuff
> ultra pro board...
>
> How do I set the thing myself when I'm
> the artist? Usually one mic, one guitar pickup.
> Can't stand in the audience, usually to hear
> what they'd hear. Even when I can, it's colored
> by me wearing the guitar live or singing myself.
>
> How levels set please? EQ? FX?
>
> ???
>
> lump
>
> I often (always ) have to do that for Barleywine(my act) and you just do
the best you can lumpster
george
| iBeam/power plug Rare Earth question [3] |
|---|
From: Kai Oatey <kaioatey@aol...>
Subject: iBeam/power plug Rare Earth question
Date: 30 Jan 2002 04:47:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hey everybody...
I've recently replaced an ibeam (passive) which I have been using with a PUTW
power plug, with a Rare Earth humbucker. I use a Taylor 512 through a
Ultrasound 50.
The new pickup has less gain than the ibeam/power plug combo. How can I get
the Rare Earth pickup to sound louder. It sounds very nice I think, other than
the volume loss.
Also... does anyone have a comparison between the Rare Earth and the iBeam
active??
best wishes to everyone
Dave
From: Larry Sprigg <gsprigg@aol...>
Subject: Re: iBeam/power plug Rare Earth question
Date: 30 Jan 2002 10:17:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<Also... does anyone have a comparison between the Rare Earth and the iBeam
active??>>
I tried a Rare Earth, and to no surprise found it had that magnetic/electric
kind of sound which I did not want in my acoustic. The iBeam active has a much
more natural acoustic sound that I wanted. I returned the Rare Earth and stuck
with the iBeam for one guitar.
The choice is a matter of taste or preference more so than quality.
An aside note - I prefer the B-Band over both of the above,a nd have B-Bands in
3 guitars.
Larry
Larry
To reply via E-Mail, please remove the "nojunk" from my address
From: Riddley <riddley@aol...>
Subject: Re: iBeam/power plug Rare Earth question
Date: 30 Jan 2002 16:32:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I actually did not like my Rare Earth humbucker until I fiddled around with my
Tech 21 Sansamp Acoustic DI. I leave all the tone controls all the way left (no
boost) and use the blend control (active mode of the DI) to sweeten up the mag
pickup sound. It really works well for me--into a variety of amps from
Ultrasound to Taxi. I use the microphone on the Rare Earth (I have the blend
model), from the mid-point detent or less (i.e., more mag).
But what do I know?
Gerry Rosser
| Send David Enke a Get Well Card |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Send David Enke a Get Well Card
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:37:11 -0500
The poor man spent an hour with me on the phone yesterday helping me get
my dual souce (Fishman Natural I/Putw EMG) rig under control. ;-)
(Picture shaking hands spilling ibuprofin all over a workbench.)
Seriously, I can't thank David enough. He saved me from myself (in the
hairbrained scheme department) and is going way above and beyond in his
efforts to help me out. He's upgrading an older putw and swapping me
for some stuff I already own so that he can pre-wire a rig that I can
basically drop in with just a little soldering.
Lotsa places would have just sent out my order (the wrong stuff) and
left me to founder. Plus, he gave me great advice on some other
issues.
I love this guy. He's very patient and a real gentleman.
Sherman
| PUTW Question... [2] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: PUTW Question...
Date: 31 Jan 2002 00:22:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
If I pick up (haha) a #27, will I have to ream the hole out for the end pin
jack in my Taylor? It comes pre-reamed and the Fishman and B-Band both fit.
When I tried a Baggs Double Barrel it came with E-somebody end pin jack that
was somewhat fatter than the Fish or B-Band and it wouldn't fit. What says
ya'll? Also, this thing is passive, right? No battery on the guitar, right?
mitch
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: PUTW Question...
Date: 31 Jan 2002 14:37:05 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 31 Jan 2002 00:22:18 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>If I pick up (haha) a #27, will I have to ream the hole out for the end pin
>jack in my Taylor? It comes pre-reamed and the Fishman and B-Band both fit.
>When I tried a Baggs Double Barrel it came with E-somebody end pin jack that
>was somewhat fatter than the Fish or B-Band and it wouldn't fit. What says
>ya'll? Also, this thing is passive, right? No battery on the guitar, right?
>
>mitch
Mitch--If the end pin hole is already there, you should be set. Some
of the jacks out there are smaller than others--but if the Fishman
fits, the PUTW jack should also (at least, mine did...I went from a
Fishman to PUTW on my D-16M Guild...).
The pickup is passive--no battery in the guitar. Gotta have a preamp,
though--you can use one in the guitar (and then have the damned
battery in there), or an external (I use the LR Baggs PADI, which
works GREAT).
HTH...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
| how much to buy and install RMC pickups - synth access [3] |
|---|
From: Joe Hill <jhill503@attbi...>
Subject: how much to buy and install RMC pickups - synth access
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:44:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Hi. I have a Martin D-41 and I'm toying with the idea of installing RMC
pickups in order to access some midi stuff. I've been quoted a wide variety
of prices - can anyone tell me a range of what a good competent repair shop
would charge to buy and install them?
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: how much to buy and install RMC pickups - synth access
Date: 3 Feb 2002 09:28:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Joe Hill" <<jhill503@attbi...>> wrote in message news:<47478.10069$<S06.32828@rwcrnsc...>>...
> Hi. I have a Martin D-41 and I'm toying with the idea of installing RMC
> pickups in order to access some midi stuff. I've been quoted a wide variety
> of prices - can anyone tell me a range of what a good competent repair shop
> would charge to buy and install them?
Joe,
I presume that you've already been to the RMC website and know that
the pickup(s) lists for $250 and the Polydrive II outboard preamp
lists for $350.
I believe my own guitar tech (Kurt Wright in Cleveland) has installed
at least one of these pickups, as I recall him telling me about
getting advice from Richard McClish over the phone. Kurt recently did
a great job of installing a Baggs Hex pickup for me, and as usual, he
gave me a healthy discount on the pickup. I don't know if he can get
a discount on the RMC stuff, but I know that he'll give you a fair
estimate. You can get contact info on his website:
www.wrightguitar.com
If you intend to use the RMC setup to trigger a synth, you might be
better off just buying a new or used Godin Multiac, as they are
designed for superior synth tracking (by being strong on fundamentals
and weak on overtones). You could probably get a used Multiac for
around $700, not terribly much more (I'd guess) the fixing up your
Martin will cost.
I happen to have a steel string Godin with the RMC pickup(s). I find
the pickup/guitar combination to be highly feedback resistant and
excellent for fingerpicking. Hard strumming, however, sounds very
harsh and brittle with this guitar/pickup combination. I've often
wondered how the pickup would sound, strummed, if it were in an
acoustic with a full bass, like your Martin. If you do install the
RMC pickup(s) in that guitar, I hope you'll report on the results.
Thanks,
Gary Hall
From: Riddley <riddley@aol...>
Subject: Re: how much to buy and install RMC pickups - synth access
Date: 03 Feb 2002 18:48:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I had the RMC pickups on a Breedlove Ed Gerhard, and they sounded pretty
good--I did not use them for synth access on that guitar, I just had heard they
were great just for acoustic amplification purposes.
Get the action set where you want it, because you will not be able to change it
yourself (at least at the saddle).
I have found that on my Rick Turner Rennaissance (which is set up for synth
with RMC system), I have a heck of a time getting the tone I want (now, I know,
it ain't a Breedlove or Martin), and find I use it very little in straight
plug-in mode.
Just my experience. Riddley
| LR Baggs pick-up [4] |
|---|
From: Old Geezer in Quebec <danboutin@spamvideotron...>
Subject: LR Baggs pick-up
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:58:49 -0500
I have an LR Baggs ribbon transducer, with a pre-amp and a remote control on
the side of the sound hole. Does anyone in this group have an opinion about
these pickup systems?
From: Rodney Turner <rodney_turner@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs pick-up
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:32:39 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Are you sure you have just the Ribbon Transducer??? Usually, this setup
comes with the Dual Source system that also has the internal microphone.
They do offer the remote control as an add-on to the Ribbon Transducer
system but I have not seen this done very often. Anyway, if you are not
sure...look inside the guitar and look for the mic and/or the preamp board
that would be stamped "Dual Source" on it. Either way, you have a good
system in your guitar. The Ribbon Transducer alonce is a very nice sounding
system...the mic is just an added bonus. If you pair either of them with
the LR Baggs PARA DI, you have an awesome setup!
"Old Geezer in Quebec" <<danboutin@spamvideotron...>> wrote in message
news:bt488.10462$<Oe.657079@wagner...>...
> I have an LR Baggs ribbon transducer, with a pre-amp and a remote control
on
> the side of the sound hole. Does anyone in this group have an opinion
about
> these pickup systems?
>
>
From: Old Geezer in Quebec <danboutin@spamvideotron...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs pick-up
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:44:13 -0500
Rodney,
Re-read my question. I have the ribbon transducer, the micro amp, andthe remote control. The additional internal mic.....I do not have. This is
on the dual system. I only have the RT system with optional remote control
that fits on the edge of the sound hole.
Reviews at Harmony Central say that this pickup system is great. (Thedual system is better) However, there are only 2 or 3 reviews and they all
seem to come from "worship guitarists". Anybody else have any opinions on
these pickups. The guy I bought the guitar from just said the guitar had a
pickup. He didn't know much and to prove this point, the acoustic guitar
had electric guitar strings on it. Sounded like crap and intonation was so
far off that even power chords sounded sour. I want to sell the pickup. I
only want an acoustic guitar for around the campfire etc.
Rodney Turner <<rodney_turner@earthlink...>> wrote in message
news:Xfa88.14622$<3E5.1183406@newsread2...>...
> Are you sure you have just the Ribbon Transducer??? Usually, this setup
> comes with the Dual Source system that also has the internal microphone.
> They do offer the remote control as an add-on to the Ribbon Transducer
> system but I have not seen this done very often. Anyway, if you are not
> sure...look inside the guitar and look for the mic and/or the preamp board
> that would be stamped "Dual Source" on it. Either way, you have a good
> system in your guitar. The Ribbon Transducer alonce is a very nice
sounding
> system...the mic is just an added bonus. If you pair either of them with
> the LR Baggs PARA DI, you have an awesome setup!
> "Old Geezer in Quebec" <<danboutin@spamvideotron...>> wrote in message
> news:bt488.10462$<Oe.657079@wagner...>...
> > I have an LR Baggs ribbon transducer, with a pre-amp and a remote
control
> on
> > the side of the sound hole. Does anyone in this group have an opinion
> about
> > these pickup systems?
> >
> >
>
>
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs pick-up
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:08:21 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy Geeze-
I have not tried a Ribbon myself, but personally I have never heard
one sound that great. Also, I know two luthiers who, prior to the
Ribbon, installed LR Baggs LB6 pickups for their clients. After
the Ribbon came out, every client who tried it (either swapped in
or on a new instrument) requested that it be removed and replaced
with the (older) LB6. (Same story from both luthiers.) Some of
the artists in question include Phil Keaggy and Cliff Eberhardt.
In fact, Keaggy had Baggs modify his Duet preamp so it could handle
the hotter signal from the LB6 (it usually ships configured for
the Ribbon).
That said, amplification is a very subjective business, and what
works in one instrument for one player's tastes may not work for
anothers. Lots of Ribbons have been sold, and a few people on
this group have advocated them.
You might consider doing a Google groups search on this topic.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Schatten pickup - comments? [2] |
|---|
From: Ron Campbell <ronc@ronc...>
Subject: Schatten pickup - comments?
Date: 6 Feb 2002 13:11:33 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
My dealer is recommending a Schatten RG03 for my spider-bridge Dobro.
He says it does not require a pre-amp. Anyone have any experience
with this pickup?
- Ron Campbell (The Skinny Old White Man)
http://www.ronc.net
Hear my tunes at http://www.mp3.com/ron_campbell
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kenny_Pauz=E9?= <kbjj@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Schatten pickup - comments?
Date: 6 Feb 2002 18:25:46 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<ronc@ronc...> (Ron Campbell) wrote in message news:<<37f522f.0202061311.7bce68d7@posting...>>...
> My dealer is recommending a Schatten RG03 for my spider-bridge Dobro.
> He says it does not require a pre-amp. Anyone have any experience
> with this pickup?
>
> - Ron Campbell (The Skinny Old White Man)
> http://www.ronc.net
> Hear my tunes at http://www.mp3.com/ron_campbell
Hey Ron I haven't heared them personally but rummour has it withDobro players in Canada that that they sound good, I have been in
contact with Les Shatten through E-mails, because I was contemplating
using them in my reso's, the thing i'm sceptical about is the
transducer sits under the cone, screwed to the biscuit, and a type of
caulking is between the disc shaped transducer and the underneath of
the bowl on the cone, maybe I'm wrong, but I would worry about the
acoustic sound with this set-up. Kenny
| Acoustic Guitar Amplification [7] |
|---|
From: michael jimenez <mjimenez2@hot...>
Subject: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 05:21:10 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - Texas
I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my Takamine
(w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you might
have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a "smattering" of
fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II" acoustic
effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound was
pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really clean"
tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear.
I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs Acoustic DI. (Never could
figure it out). Did I mention that I'm sadly very new to playing onstage?
I've just discovered this newsgroup and while much of it is over my head,
you seem to offer genuinely good advice when asked. I would appreciate
any/all responses to help me improve my tone/playability onstage.
Thanks in advance!
Michael
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:04:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"michael jimenez" <<mjimenez2@hot...>> wrote in message
news:a9o88.7678$<Re7.170318@typhoon...>...
> I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my
Takamine
> (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you might
> have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a "smattering"
of
> fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II"
acoustic
> effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound was
> pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really clean"
> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear.
>
> I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs Acoustic DI. (Never could
> figure it out). Did I mention that I'm sadly very new to playing onstage?
> I've just discovered this newsgroup and while much of it is over my head,
> you seem to offer genuinely good advice when asked. I would appreciate
> any/all responses to help me improve my tone/playability onstage.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Michael
>
you will find there is no one right solution to this issue
My basic premise is it all starts with the player and the instrument as a
soundman I first listen to the player and the try to make the sound as
transparent as possible
my experiance leads me to microphones whenever practical, good Condensor
microphones, but as I said many situations mics are not the right choice
then you go with pick-ups, they NEVER sound like the instrument but can
sound great esp in very loud or "artistic" type shows
I could never imagine haveing used just microphone while engineering M*****
H***** his tapping and scraping would have NEVER come through
even D** W***** uses fishman to assist in his sound
I encourage you to explore and listen critically and find your sound how
ever it comes to you
George Gleason
From: RCarnighan <advbiomed@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:48:36 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1AFD5.B5F7DF20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
George:
Assuming there is value (because of the player or venue) in having both =
a piezo type pickup and microphone, what are your thoughts on the Piezo =
Pick-up and an External Microphone, versus an Piezo Pick-up and Internal =
Condenser microphone (example: core 99 b-band combination) for best =
sound. Thanks.
Ron
Lonesome 12 String Picker (NC)
"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message =news:U2u88.177$9%<6.16219@bgtnsc04-news...>...
"michael jimenez" <mjimenez2@hot.rr.com> wrote in message news:a9o88.7678$Re7.170318@typhoon.austin.rr.com... > I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my Takamine > (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you =might
> have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a ="smattering"
of > fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II" acoustic > effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the =sound was
> pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really =clean"
> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear. > > I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs Acoustic DI. (Never =could
> figure it out). Did I mention that I'm sadly very new to playing =onstage?
> I've just discovered this newsgroup and while much of it is over my =head,
> you seem to offer genuinely good advice when asked. I would =appreciate
> any/all responses to help me improve my tone/playability onstage. > > Thanks in advance! > > Michael > you will find there is no one right solution to this issue My basic premise is it all starts with the player and the instrument =as a
soundman I first listen to the player and the try to make the sound as transparent as possible my experiance leads me to microphones whenever practical, good =Condensor
microphones, but as I said many situations mics are not the right =choice
then you go with pick-ups, they NEVER sound like the instrument but =can
sound great esp in very loud or "artistic" type shows I could never imagine haveing used just microphone while engineering =M*****
H***** his tapping and scraping would have NEVER come through even D** W***** uses fishman to assist in his sound I encourage you to explore and listen critically and find your sound =how
ever it comes to you George Gleason
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1AFD5.B5F7DF20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">George:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Assuming there is value (because of =
the player=20
or venue) in having both a piezo type pickup and microphone, what are =
your=20
thoughts on the Piezo Pick-up and an External Microphone, versus an =
Piezo=20
Pick-up and Internal Condenser microphone (example: core 99 b-band=20
combination) for best sound. Thanks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Lonesome 12 String Picker (NC)</DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"George Gleason" <<A=20 =href=3D"mailto:<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>"><g.p.gleason@worldnet...>=
</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20 =href=3D"news:U2u88.177$9%<6.16219@bgtnsc04-news...>">news=
:U2u88.177$9%<6.16219@bgtnsc04-news...></A>...</DIV><BR>"=
michael=20
jimenez" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:mjimenez2@hot.rr.com">mjimenez2@hot.rr.com</A>> =wrote in=20
message<BR><A=20 =href=3D"news:a9o88.7678$<Re7.170318@typhoon...>">news:a9o88.7678=
$<Re7.170318@typhoon...></A>...<BR>>=20
I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying=20 my<BR>Takamine<BR>> (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would =appreciate any=20
suggestions you might<BR>> have. My playing consists mainly =of=20
rhythm/strumming with a "smattering"<BR>of<BR>> fingerpicking =thrown=20
in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II"<BR>acoustic<BR>> =effects=20
processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound =was<BR>>=20
pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really=20 clean"<BR>> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue =about=20
his gear.<BR>><BR>> I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs =Acoustic=20
DI. (Never could<BR>> figure it out). Did I mention =that I'm=20
sadly very new to playing onstage?<BR>> I've just discovered this =newsgroup=20
and while much of it is over my head,<BR>> you seem to offer =genuinely good=20
advice when asked. I would appreciate<BR>> any/all responses =to help=20
me improve my tone/playability onstage.<BR>><BR>> Thanks in=20 advance!<BR>><BR>> Michael<BR>><BR>you will find there is no =one=20
right solution to this issue<BR>My basic premise is it all starts with =the=20
player and the instrument as a<BR>soundman I first listen to the =player=20
and the try to make the sound as<BR>transparent as possible<BR>my =experiance=20
leads me to microphones whenever practical, good =Condensor<BR>microphones, but=20
as I said many situations mics are not the right choice<BR>then =you go=20
with pick-ups, they NEVER sound like the instrument but =can<BR>sound=20
great esp in very loud or "artistic" type shows<BR>I could never =imagine=20
haveing used just microphone while engineering =M*****<BR>H***** =20
his tapping and scraping would have NEVER come through<BR>even D** =W***** uses=20
fishman to assist in his sound<BR>I encourage you to explore and =listen=20
critically and find your sound how<BR>ever it comes to =you<BR>George=20
Gleason<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1AFD5.B5F7DF20--
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:17:52 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
"michael jimenez" <<mjimenez2@hot...>> wrote in message
news:a9o88.7678$<Re7.170318@typhoon...>...
> I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my
Takamine
> (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you might
> have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a "smattering"
of
> fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II"
acoustic
> effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound was
> pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really clean"
> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear.
>
I see George has already responded, and I take his advice seriously. I
would add that I also used a Zoom, but the 505II for just a touch of reverb
and chorus. My acoustics are a Taylor 714ce and an Ovation 1869 depending
on what I feel like using that night. I take the signal out of the effects
box to an Ernie Ball volume pedal to a Whirlwind IMP2 passive direct. One
signal then goes to the PA and the other goes to an SWR Workingman's 10 bass
amp, which is my stage monitor, unless I am working solo where I take both
vocals and guitar to a wedge.
I discovered the fragility of the Zoom is that it's plastic jacks are
soldered directly to the circuit board, and one drunk stepping on it while
leaning in to make a request will do it in. I recently switched to a Yamaha
DG Stomp preamp/effects unit (about $300), and the clarity is amazing. I
have heard that the Yamaha AG Stomp is also an excellent unit. Since I use
the same effects when playing electric guitar with a band, I don't have any
dedicated acoustic effects. I just pick up one bag and head for the gig.
What George told you is absolutely true: you will never get a pickup in an
acoustic to sound exactly like an acoustic. What you can do is come close,
close enough for your own satisfaction and close enough to be accepted by
the audience. How close is a function of your ears, your wallet and your
back. The proximity to a pure acoustic sound is a function of more, rather
than less equipment costing more, rather than less money. You must decide
how badly you want it.
I'm sure you will receive many suggestions but no one right answer.
From: Supertech <ken@ppcila...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:28:19 -0600
Organization: Bellsouth.Net
I feel your pain, I'm kinda in the same boat. I'm a rythm strummer, too.
For accurate reproductions, a mic is the most reliable. I use the mic in my
home studio. But if you're like me, the tiny venues we play don't lend
themselves well to micing every instrument, so we use onboard pickups of
various styles/brands. To get a "really clean" sound as you put it, and I
do know what sound you are referring to, working with a really good sound
guy with a really good EQ has been my best success. In places we play
where we are responsible for our own sound, the audience just has to accept
what they get. I can move them damn sliders myself all day long and never
get it right. I use a Marshall ASR-100 acoustic amp with a line out to the
house PA, if they have one. If you come up with the magic fix, and can
bottle it, you'll be a rich geetar player my friend.
"michael jimenez" <<mjimenez2@hot...>> wrote in message
news:a9o88.7678$<Re7.170318@typhoon...>...
> I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my
Takamine
> (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you might
> have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a "smattering"
of
> fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II"
acoustic
> effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound was
> pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really clean"
> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear.
>
> I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs Acoustic DI. (Never could
> figure it out). Did I mention that I'm sadly very new to playing onstage?
> I've just discovered this newsgroup and while much of it is over my head,
> you seem to offer genuinely good advice when asked. I would appreciate
> any/all responses to help me improve my tone/playability onstage.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Michael
>
>
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: 08 Feb 2002 15:37:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi Michael. Welcome aboard. I was there just a short two years ago. Come
along way in a short time, thanks in part to this group of fine folks.
I you have a Baggs PADI (as it's affectionately called 'round here) and a Tak
with electronics, you're in good shape. If I had just one "tool" in my gig
bag, that would be it. Now just learn to use it.
It's a pretty simple design. You plug your guitar into the input on the front
(right, IIRC). Your soundman will plug a cable into the top to take your
signal to the house sound. You're set! Until you get up to speed on the
"knobology" on the PADI, just set all of them to 12 o'clock and control things
from the preamp in your guitar.
As for your Zoom pedal, plug it into the middle jack called the FX loop. You'll
need a special cable for this, but every music store has them. It's called an
"insert" cable I believe, with on TRS jack at one end and two jacks at the
other end. You plug the single end into the Baggs FX loop, plug the other two
into your Zoom. The plug marked "tip" goes to the input, the one marked "ring"
to the output. Now your FX are in your signal chain and you just do what
you've always done with it.
The output jack on the PADI can be used to go to an amplifier or powered
speaker on the stage for a monitor. That's optional. Hope I helped. Drop me
an email if you have questions. Remove the obvious spam strainer.
Enjoy the Journey!
Mitch
Mitch
From: The Jazzman <ruud.pennings@worldmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Amplification
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:48:48 +0100
Organization: Tiscali bv
I'm playing a Yamaha APX 10 NA (nylon string) running through a Boss AD3 and
a T.C Electronic M one. The whole thing goes into a Roland JC 77 or at home
my Hi Fi setup. I think that the Boss Ad 3 is great help so it's worth to
check it out some time.
Cheers
Ruud
"michael jimenez" <<mjimenez2@hot...>> schreef in bericht
news:a9o88.7678$<Re7.170318@typhoon...>...
> I've done very limited research on the net regarding amplifying my
Takamine
> (w/piezo pickup) onstage. I would appreciate any suggestions you might
> have. My playing consists mainly of rhythm/strumming with a "smattering"
of
> fingerpicking thrown in. I currently run it through a "Zoom504II"
acoustic
> effects processor, a passive DI then to the board. Thought the sound was
> pretty good until I heard a guy playing this weekend with a "really clean"
> tone. Just blew me away. Don't have a clue about his gear.
>
> I own (but don't currently use) an LR Baggs Acoustic DI. (Never could
> figure it out). Did I mention that I'm sadly very new to playing onstage?
> I've just discovered this newsgroup and while much of it is over my head,
> you seem to offer genuinely good advice when asked. I would appreciate
> any/all responses to help me improve my tone/playability onstage.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Michael
>
>
| Mic-ing an acoustic [2] |
|---|
From: Thomas Guertin <tguertin@reactconsulting...>
Subject: Mic-ing an acoustic
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:29:13 GMT
Organization: Magma Communications Ltd.
I'm researching acoustic guitar amps in preparation to make a purchase, and
this may be a silly question. If the guitar is equipped with electronics,
obviously the guitar is best plugged into the channel designed for the
acoustic. If mic-ing the guitar, I assume it's best to play through the mic
channel? If that's the case and you want to use the mic channel to do vocals
also, which mic input (normally there's two -- XLR and 1/4") should each be
plugged into -- guitar through the XLR input and vocal through the 1/4", or
vice versa. Or, should the acoustic be mic-ed through the 1/4" acoustic
guitar channel? Thanks for any input.
Tom
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic-ing an acoustic
Date: 08 Feb 2002 15:37:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <twP88.1088$<95.92921@ne...>>, "Thomas Guertin"
<<tguertin@reactconsulting...>> writes:
>I'm researching acoustic guitar amps in preparation to make a purchase, and
>this may be a silly question. If the guitar is equipped with electronics,
>obviously the guitar is best plugged into the channel designed for the
>acoustic. If mic-ing the guitar, I assume it's best to play through the mic
>channel? If that's the case and you want to use the mic channel to do vocals
>also, which mic input (normally there's two -- XLR and 1/4") should each be
>plugged into -- guitar through the XLR input and vocal through the 1/4", or
>vice versa. Or, should the acoustic be mic-ed through the 1/4" acoustic
>guitar channel? Thanks for any input.
>
>Tom
Hi Tom. Normally, the mic channel on and acoustic amp is designed for either
an external mic for the guitar, or many times there is a stereo input that
takes a dual source setup in your guitar and routes the pickup to Ch.1 and the
internal mic to Ch.2 (the mic channel). As discussed in the "Ultrasound"
thread this week, going through the preamp section of an acoustic amp for vox
isn't likely to produce a good tone for vocals, unless the maker "voiced" that
channel and its input for vocal mics.
To answer your input question, the guitar would be plugged into the 1/4" input
on channel one, and microphone in the XLR input on channel two. Hope this
helps.
Enjoy the Journey!
Mitch
Mitch
| What to do with the Fishman Rare Earth Cord? [2] |
|---|
From: Jim Hulburt <"jhulbur"@attglobal.net>
Subject: What to do with the Fishman Rare Earth Cord?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:34:27 -0700
Not wanting to ream out my end pin for a jack, I am thinking about getting
the Fishman Rare Earth Blend unit. My question to those of you using this
is, what do you do with the cord? It sort of just hangs there. Not much of
a problem when seated, but most of my use will be standing. The cord seems
like a real inconvenience. Not long enough to reach the floor and even so,
presents a real opportunity to get snagged on something. Someone suggested
using some masking tape to hold it out of the way. That to me doesn't sound
like a good idea as it may harm the finish. So, ideas and/or suggestions.
BTW, I would be interested to hear what you think about this unit after
using for a time. Like it? Hate it? It's OK but I wished I had gotten a
_____ instead? Also, what EQ/pre-amp do you like. I've looked through the
NG a bit but few recent opinions that I could find.
Thanks
--
Jim Hulburt
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: What to do with the Fishman Rare Earth Cord?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:27:53 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Jim Hulburt" <"jhulbur"@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:A5ea8.22$<zf6.148968@news...>...
> Not wanting to ream out my end pin for a jack, I am thinking
> about getting the Fishman Rare Earth Blend unit. My question
> to those of you using this is, what do you do with the cord? It
> sort of just hangs there. Not much of a problem when seated,
> but most of my use will be standing. The cord seems like a real
> inconvenience. Not long enough to reach the floor and even so,
> presents a real opportunity to get snagged on something. Someone
> suggested using some masking tape to hold it out of the way.
> That to me doesn't sound like a good idea as it may harm the finish.
> So, ideas and/or suggestions.
I use a Rare Earth Blend (REB) on my Santa Cruz FS. What I do is run the
cord tight over the cutaway curve, then around the back side of the guitar
and down to the endpin. At the endpin, I tie it off with a thick rubber
band, sort of a shock cord arrangement to help out if I step on the cord.
It's not ideal, but I like being able to remove the pickup for recording
with external mics. I'm not 100% sure that having the pickup clamped in the
soundhole really affects the sound during recording, but I take it out just
in case. I also like having the option of putting it in another guitar if I
want to.
The cord is a little annoying, yeah. One day I'm going to have the local
guitar tech install an endpin jack with an internal disconnect jack on a
cable inside the guitar, so I could still remove the pickup when I want to,
and I won't have to deal with the cord dangling. I didn't want to drill my
endpin out when I first got this guitar, but the more tiny dings it picks up
over the years ("character"), the less I care about this. It's just an
instrument.
> BTW, I would be interested to hear what you think about this
> unit after using for a time. Like it? Hate it? It's OK but I wished
> I had gotten a _____ instead?
I like my REB, but I'm usually switching back and forth between acoustic and
electric guitars, so I have a bias towards keeping things simple on the
acoustic side. I like being able to mix the magnetic and mic output right on
the guitar, and then I take a mono signal out without having to fuss with
dual-channel preamps and complicated EQ. It's not part of my current setup,
but in the past I've used the REB with a wireless transmitter on the strap.
That's something else you can't do easily with a dual-channel pickup
installation.
I know you'll hear arguments here that you absolutely must have separate EQ
for dual-channel pickups like this. But there are a lot of variables, and
pre-blended mono works for some people. It helps if you have a very good
guitar with no tonal problem areas, and good sound reinforcement setup on
the back end. With just a little EQ outside the guitar, I'm able to get a
natural sounding tone. Of course everyone has different ears, so take this
with a grain of salt.
> Also, what EQ/pre-amp do you like.
I'm running the pickup output into an old (no longer in production) T.C.
Electronics battery-operated floor box with two bands of full parametric EQ,
plus treble boost/cut and a gain knob. It's a great little unit that I've
used for over 10 years. Super clean with lots of headroom. I don't know why
they don't make these anymore, and I'm just praying it doesn't break. I run
that into a Roland VG-88 (which I also use for electric guitar), basically
as a digital reverb only. From there, the signal goes to a pair of Mackie
SRM450 self-powered speakers.
You'll need some kind of parametric EQ or notch filter to dial out the first
primary feedback note on your guitar's top. Once that's notched out, I can
push the volume levels pretty high before hitting the second feedback
point -- mic squeal. That's much harder to notch out without killing the
tone. If I need to get louder than that, I just roll back the internal mic a
little and use more magnetic pickup output. The magnetic pickup can be
pushed to ridiculous volume levels before I get any further feedback. The
drawback there is that it'll start sounding more like an electric guitar as
you back off on the condenser mic, but actually that doesn't sound bad for
some musical styles... blues or jazz guitar, for example.
> I've looked through the
> NG a bit but few recent opinions that I could find.
Yeah, you don't see much about the REB here, or magnetic pickups in general.
There must be a few old geezers hanging out here who still use Sunrise mag
pickups. I like the way mags sound in the low and lower-mid frequencies.
That's the sweet spot for magnetic soundhole pickups. It makes a nice match
with an internal condenser mic to grab the higher frequency "air" and all
the percussive stuff... fingernail sound, top-tapping, etc.
I've never had much success with undersaddle or internal contact pickup
installations. I know these systems keep getting better, but the main thing
I don't like is that they're not easy to try out on a casual basis, and swap
out if it doesn't work. What tends to happen is that you'll get one
installed, it won't sound exactly right, and then you start tweaking your EQ
to fix it up. You do this for days, or weeks, and finally convince yourself
that it sounds good. But is it really the best sound you could get? Who
knows? You end up keeping the thing because it's not easy to swap out and
try something else. If you buy a REB from a store with a good return policy,
at least you'll know if it works right away, and it's easy to return if you
don't like it.
Just my $.02, and I hope this helps.
| Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations [12] |
|---|
From: Gerry Nelson <nelson_g@hotmail...>
Subject: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: 12 Feb 2002 21:45:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Apologies in advance for bringing up the subject but I'm not sure if
this area's been covered. I've dredged up the RMMGA archives and read
through Tom Loredo's excellent faq but I'm still confused.
I'd like to play open mikes with my Ryan which currently has no
pickups of any kind. I already have a Baggs PADI and would like a
soundhole pickup that's easy to install and remove. I don't want to
ream out the endpin hole and I don't mind having the cord dangling
out. The sound should be non-electric or harsh like a cheap soundhole
pickup.
After a lot of thought, I'm considering the Seymour Duncan Pro Mag Mic
(recommended by L. Juber), the EMG ACS (recommended by Pat Kirtley),
the Sunrise (Kottke, Hedges, etc.) and the Fishman Rare Earth Blend (I
think Dick Scheider uses this). I haven't really got access to these
in Singapore so I'll need to mail order. The EMG seems to be the
cheapest of the lot but I'm willing to spend about $200 or so. Are
there any other pickups I should consider that can be easily installed
and removed?
I figure the sound ought to be good enough with these but how easy are
they to install and remove? I haven't been able to find out much from
their websites but I'm hoping a few people here have had experiences
with these. I know the Rare Earth uses two watch size batteries but
what about the others. Where is the battery stored?
Any advice, information or pointers will be gratefully accepted.
Thanks in advance,
Gerry Nelson
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: 13 Feb 2002 12:04:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Gerry Nelson wrote:
<< Apologies in advance for bringing up the subject but I'm not sure if
this area's been covered. I've dredged up the RMMGA archives and read
through Tom Loredo's excellent faq but I'm still confused.
I'd like to play open mikes with my Ryan which currently has no
pickups of any kind. I already have a Baggs PADI and would like a
soundhole pickup that's easy to install and remove. I don't want to
ream out the endpin hole and I don't mind having the cord dangling
out. The sound should be non-electric or harsh like a cheap soundhole
pickup.
After a lot of thought, I'm considering the Seymour Duncan Pro Mag Mic
(recommended by L. Juber), the EMG ACS (recommended by Pat Kirtley),
the Sunrise (Kottke, Hedges, etc.) and the Fishman Rare Earth Blend (I
think Dick Scheider uses this). I haven't really got access to these
in Singapore so I'll need to mail order. The EMG seems to be the
cheapest of the lot but I'm willing to spend about $200 or so. Are
there any other pickups I should consider that can be easily installed
and removed?
I figure the sound ought to be good enough with these but how easy are
they to install and remove? I haven't been able to find out much from
their websites but I'm hoping a few people here have had experiences
with these. I know the Rare Earth uses two watch size batteries but
what about the others. Where is the battery stored?
Any advice, information or pointers will be gratefully accepted.
Thanks in advance,
Gerry Nelson
>>IMO...& I only know about the Sunrise, Mag-Mic & Rare Earth Blend......strictly
as far as ease of installation & removal I think the Sunrise may be the
toughest - and it's not hard it's just the largest plus I think it's the
roughest on the soundhole of your guitar out of those 3. I like the sound of
the Mag-Mic & Para DI but you'll have to figure out what to do with the 9 volt
dangling unless you use the adapter thingies for the watch style batteries. But
the Sunrise sounds great also of course........and the Rare Earth Blend might
be the the easiest to get in & get out being that it's the skinniest. So in
conclusion I guess I dunno. I like the Mag-mic for the all in one mag thing if
you're not blending with something else - since it has the mic i guess -
obviously.
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness/sometunes.html
From: Scott Maxwell <swmaxwell@go...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: 13 Feb 2002 07:41:07 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hey Gerry,
I know we discussed this via email. I have another idea.
Doesn't PUTW allow one to do an external install on the guitar? I
would think the tone you'd get through a PUTW #27 mounted near your
bridge on the guitar's top and then run into a Baggs PARA DI would be
way, way better than a $200 soundhole pickup. Plus the PUTW is about
half that price.
Perhaps David Enke could comment on the practicality of using a setup
like this.
Scott
From: Scott Maxwell <swmaxwell@go...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: 13 Feb 2002 07:46:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Another idea, Gerry.
I was just reading about PUTW's micro cable, which permits you to
install the pickup inside and then run a small cable through the
soundhold. No alterations to your Ryan.
This might work okay, as long as you're careful not to tear off the
internally mounted pickup.Here's the blurb from PUTW's site:
http://www.pick-uptheworld.com/jacks.html
The Pick-up the World Micro Cable
This system allows our pickups to be mounted internally without an
end-pin jack. The Micro Cable comes in 4 and 14 foot lengths, and the
1/16th inch fine Mil Spec. Coaxial cable plugs in through the sound
hole, allowing the pickup to be installed internally with absolutely
no modification or alteration to the instrument. The male 1/8" mini
plug is inserted through the sound hole (with the strings on) to the
female mini jack attached to the pickup. The internal mini jack is
mounted with an adhesive clip inside the edge of the sound hole. All
mounting accessories are included except for a small amount of Scotch
Tape used fasten the cable away from hand movements. When pickups are
purchased with a Micro-Cable, the pickup comes wired to the 1/8" mini
jack. This is one of the simplest do-it-yourself non-invasive
installation that we offer, and it is very popular with classical
musicians.
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:09:33 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
The Rare Earth blend goes in and out fairly easy. I have large hands, and
it's a litle tricky twisting it under the strings to get into position. But
I remove mine a lot for recording and it's no big deal.
I leave the clamps set a little loose when I'm just playing at home, so I
can slide it into place or remove it without a screwdriver. As long as I'm
not too rough with the guitar, the pickup stays in place.
For gigging though, you'd want to screw the clamp down tight enough so the
pickup can't fall down inside your guitar in the middle of a song. This
makes a sound through a PA system that you don't want to hear, and it's
embarrasing to have to dig inside your guitar for the pickup. It's like
dropping a pick in the guitar, only worse.
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:05:16 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
I don't know about most of the brands you have mentioned, but I like
magnetics and make my own. The reason for this is that string to string
balance isn't always to my taste (I'm a fingerpicker), and I can make ones
that I like, a lot cheaper than I can buy them. I had a Fishman Rare Earth
single coil, which I sold without using because the B string was too hot.
Also the mounting was a bit too high for my Martin. The batteries mount on
the bottom of the pickup, which is quite deep but narrow.
David Kilpatrick, who contributes regularly, noted that PUTWs can be easily
placed on and removed from a guitar top - he apparently uses them like a
microphone for recording with different guitars. For a PUTW, you need either
a preamp, or an amp with a high impedance piezo input, and use a short lead
between pickup and preamp or amp. From what I have read them seem to be a
very good choice
You can hear one of my magnetics (a modified fender squier single coil) on
the rmmga Shenandoah project.
Tony D
Gerry Nelson <<nelson_g@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<8ba724dc.0202122145.3131934f@posting...>...
> Apologies in advance for bringing up the subject but I'm not sure if
> this area's been covered. I've dredged up the RMMGA archives and read
> through Tom Loredo's excellent faq but I'm still confused.
>
> I'd like to play open mikes with my Ryan which currently has no
> pickups of any kind. I already have a Baggs PADI and would like a
> soundhole pickup that's easy to install and remove. I don't want to
> ream out the endpin hole and I don't mind having the cord dangling
> out. The sound should be non-electric or harsh like a cheap soundhole
> pickup.
>
> After a lot of thought, I'm considering the Seymour Duncan Pro Mag Mic
> (recommended by L. Juber), the EMG ACS (recommended by Pat Kirtley),
> the Sunrise (Kottke, Hedges, etc.) and the Fishman Rare Earth Blend (I
> think Dick Scheider uses this). I haven't really got access to these
> in Singapore so I'll need to mail order. The EMG seems to be the
> cheapest of the lot but I'm willing to spend about $200 or so. Are
> there any other pickups I should consider that can be easily installed
> and removed?
>
> I figure the sound ought to be good enough with these but how easy are
> they to install and remove? I haven't been able to find out much from
> their websites but I'm hoping a few people here have had experiences
> with these. I know the Rare Earth uses two watch size batteries but
> what about the others. Where is the battery stored?
>
> Any advice, information or pointers will be gratefully accepted.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Gerry Nelson
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:16:26 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Gerry Nelson wrote in message
>After a lot of thought, I'm considering the Seymour Duncan Pro Mag Mic
>(recommended by L. Juber), the EMG ACS (recommended by Pat Kirtley),
>the Sunrise (Kottke, Hedges, etc.) and the Fishman Rare Earth Blend (I
>think Dick Scheider uses this). I haven't really got access to these
>in Singapore so I'll need to mail order. The EMG seems to be the
>cheapest of the lot but I'm willing to spend about $200 or so. Are
>there any other pickups I should consider that can be easily installed
>and removed?
>
Gerry,
I just had the Sunrise installed in my Webber... I didn't install
it, but it seems like it will be pretty easy to take out or move
around when needed. I don't know what type of music you are
going to play, but one word of caution with using a soundhole
pickup like the Sunrise - they are a little nasally sounding. I
don't have that particular problem with mine because it's being
blended with a Highlander in stereo. But without the Highlander,
I wouldn't like the sound very much...
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
--
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:47:27 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Gerry-
Another one to add to your list is the DiMarzio Reference. I haven't
tried it, but Adrian Legg recently told me that he really likes it,
and in particular commented on how easy it was get in and out.
The Seymour Duncan Acoustic Tube (SA-1) is another one that sounds
quite good (esp. considering the ~$70 price) and is very easy to
get in and out. I've been especially impressed with its string-to-string
balance, which has been very even on the guitars I've tried it on.
Of the others you mention, I've only tried the Sunrise & Rare Earth
(only the humbucker, not the blend). They sound different, but both
sound good and are in the same class in terms of quality. However,
to get the best quality out of the Sunrise you really have to use
a high impedance preamp. The Rare Earth has a preamp built in
(and thus batteries you have to worry a bit about). The Sunrise
has adjustable pole pieces; the RE does not. What has really
turned me off the RE, though, is that it is the thickest soundhole
pickup I've come across (in terms of height above the soundhole
when installed). So thick in fact that on two Olson guitars I've
tried it on, notes played on the highest 2 or 3 frets buzz out
against the pickup. Admittedly one seldom plays up there. 8-)
However, it seems to me to be a bad design decision. Other
pickups ranging from the Dean Markley Pro Mag to the Sunrise do
not have this problem.
Both the Sunrise and the Rare Earth can be removed fairly easily,
but you'll want to loosen the strings to be safe. It may appear
that the RE is much smaller than the Sunrise, but that's only
the "face on" view. The RE is actually much larger than it appears;
most of it hangs out of view under the soundboard. It's still
noticably smaller than the Sunrise and thus somewhat easier to
remove, but it's larger than it may appear in photos.
If frequent and quick installation/removal is a significant issue
for you, you might want to lean toward the pickups designed with
this in mind, including the SA-1 and the DiMarzio Reference:
http://www.seymourduncan.com/website/acoustic.html
http://www.dimarzio.com/ref_acu.html
You have mixed both pickup-only and mic+pickup selections in your
list. I'm not sure what to tell you in this regard. I've heard
the RE Blend in a few guitars, and have been very unimpressed with
what the mic "adds" to the tone (one of these guitars was Fishman's
own Martin Dreadnaught demo guitar). Mic placement is a very
instrument-dependent thing, though, so it could be that it will
work for you. Assuming you can get it right, there is the potential
to do significantly better than just a soundhole pickup in terms
of tone. However, to do this justice you should really be mixing
the two signals outside the guitar in a device that lets you
separately EQ them, adjust phase, etc.. Just my opinion. I know
there are some happy RE Blend users out there. I just haven't
heard it succeed in the few cases I've seen.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:38:22 +0000
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:47:27 +0000, Tom Loredo wrote
(in message <<3C6AD0DF.C9532418@astro...>>):
>
> Hi Gerry-
>
> Another one to add to your list is the DiMarzio Reference. I haven't
> tried it, but Adrian Legg recently told me that he really likes it,
> and in particular commented on how easy it was get in and out.
[...]
Indeed. I like it a lot. I suppose people might not like having cable hanging
outside the guitar, but it pops in and out without slacking strings or the
need for a screwdriver. That makes it an extremely viable last minute get out
of trouble solution rather than something that needs any kind of advance
prep..
So far I'm not finding any insuperable balance problems with a bronze 12s
set.'
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:00:38 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
I tried an SD acoustic tube, and as you say, it has good string to string
balance (I've seen inside one - it uses the same pole balancing trick as I
use), but, being a humbucker sounds very smooth by acoustic standards - more
like an electric IMO.
Incidentally, my favourite mount is the Schaller "spring arm" system, easy
to use and no screws, and height adjustable. My mount use a short length of
fibreglass rod which works in the same way - I've had no problems with it so
far.
Tony D
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 9:44:40 +0000
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:47:27 +0000, Tom Loredo wrote
(in message <<3C6AD0DF.C9532418@astro...>>):
>
>[...] What has really
> turned me off the RE, though, is that it is the thickest soundhole
> pickup I've come across (in terms of height above the soundhole
> when installed). [...]
I should have mentioned that I've found the Reference very easy to move up
and down and/or tilt in the soundhole. Between that facility and the
adjustable pole-pieces, I find it hard to imagine a bronze set that couldn't
be balanced.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: csiamms <csiamms@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Easy Installing Soundhole Pickup Recommendations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:47:38 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
I'm going to weigh in on this.
Gerry, I currently have two sound hole pickups in the house. One is a
Fishman RE Blend and the other is a SD Mag Mic. My wife uses the former in
a Breedlove C22 and I use the latter in a Breedlove Ed Gerhard. I personally
think that if you want an "as acoustic as I can get on planet Earth" sound
from your Ryan, then forget about sound hole pickups, period. Either buy a
good quality condenser mic and a nice tube preamp and insist on using that
at gigs or get some kind of piezo/accelerometer/pressure and or vibration
sensing element(s) combined with some kind of high quality mic and then get
a little preamp/mixer to balance it all out through and you'll be sitting
pretty. On the other hand, if you want a pretty good, no hassle, plug in and
go kind of sound that still reasonably reflects your very nice guitar, the
Fishman is not a bad way to go. If it is positioned properly in the sound
hole and the mic is aimed right, you will get a very nice sound that you
won't be ashamed of. My wife uses one of these in her C22 and it sounds
great for fingerstyle or light strumming. I think its prefiltering leaves a
little (just a touch) to be desired on the bass end, but that can be
compensated for easily. It is active, but if you run it through an
inexpensive tube preamp like an ART, it sounds exceptionally nice. It's
really about as much of a representation of the way that particular guitar
sounds as you can get with a lot less hassle and no installation needed if
you don't want to. Now on the other hand, I've had a significant change in
my philosophy concerning the amplification of acoustic guitars over the last
several years. I used to go for complete tonal purity. I wanted all of these
descriptive terms in one package: no hassle, air, edge, smooth, punchy,
warm, crisp, cutting and so on. And, of course, if you want to have enough
stuff installed in your guitar and haul around your own PA/effects rig, you
can indeed get all these terms to apply to your sound. I've decided, in
short, that once you do anything electrically related to amplify your
guitar, that all you can really hear is the equipment that you run through.
In fact, unless you're sitting in a room that perfectly reflects your sound
back to you, you're still not hearing the actual sound that your guitar is
making, only what comes back which is filtered by the surfaces that the
sound wave initially contacted, not to mention the ambient air pressure,
humidity, amount of particulate matter present in the air, wax content in
your ears, etc. So I've given up on perfection. However, I have found a
pickup that fits the bill in a lot of areas for me, and that's the Mag Mic.
Personally, I think it's everything a Sunrise wants to be when it grows up:
smaller footprint, active electronics, has a mic that works very well that
you don't have to fool with, onboard unobtrusive master volume and mic blend
controls, does not have to be permanently installed, can use N type
batteries or a nine volt, adjustable pole pieces, and a cord that is not too
thick and not too long and has a nifty loop near the end so you can hang it
on your endpin. I think it has a "bigger than life" sound that, once you
adjust the pole pieces for your instrument and find the proper mic blend, is
nicely balanced. It's only real downside is that SD seems to want to
recover its development costs, so it's a little on the pricey side. But
here's a link that will make you smile :
http://www.gtrheaven.com/pickups/sd3.htm. It's true they don't know ship
outside the US, but at that price ($198.00?!?! how do they do that?)just
have a Stateside friend buy one and mail it to you. There's my 25 cents
worth (inflation, you know). Good luck and best wishes on whatever you end
up with.
Steve Smith
"Gerry Nelson" <<nelson_g@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<8ba724dc.0202122145.3131934f@posting...>...
> Apologies in advance for bringing up the subject but I'm not sure if
> this area's been covered. I've dredged up the RMMGA archives and read
> through Tom Loredo's excellent faq but I'm still confused.
>
> I'd like to play open mikes with my Ryan which currently has no
> pickups of any kind. I already have a Baggs PADI and would like a
> soundhole pickup that's easy to install and remove. I don't want to
> ream out the endpin hole and I don't mind having the cord dangling
> out. The sound should be non-electric or harsh like a cheap soundhole
> pickup.
>
> After a lot of thought, I'm considering the Seymour Duncan Pro Mag Mic
> (recommended by L. Juber), the EMG ACS (recommended by Pat Kirtley),
> the Sunrise (Kottke, Hedges, etc.) and the Fishman Rare Earth Blend (I
> think Dick Scheider uses this). I haven't really got access to these
> in Singapore so I'll need to mail order. The EMG seems to be the
> cheapest of the lot but I'm willing to spend about $200 or so. Are
> there any other pickups I should consider that can be easily installed
> and removed?
>
> I figure the sound ought to be good enough with these but how easy are
> they to install and remove? I haven't been able to find out much from
> their websites but I'm hoping a few people here have had experiences
> with these. I know the Rare Earth uses two watch size batteries but
> what about the others. Where is the battery stored?
>
> Any advice, information or pointers will be gratefully accepted.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Gerry Nelson
| B-Band Installations [11] |
|---|
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: B-Band Installations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:20:25 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
All,
I've been reading the archives trying to find out what you folks
think about certain pickups. It seems that quite a few of you
have B-Bands installed in your guitars. With all the problems
I've had with my Highlander (and it was put in by the builder),
I'm extremely cautious about having a B-Band installed. From
what I remember from past discussions, the B-Band is hands
down the hardest pickup to get installed correctly so that you
get good balance.
If you have a B-Band (or even if you had one that you liked),
could you tell me what type of guitar and, more importantly,
who installed it. I'm willing to drive half a day one way to get
this done right (if I decide to go with B-Band that is). That
would cover the DC, MD, VA, NC, PA, WV, and KY areas...
Someone must know how to do it right in an area that large... Hopefully....
:-/
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
--
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:39:40 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Steven Dillon <<laswd@earthlink...>> wrote:
> All,
> I've been reading the archives trying to find out what you folks
> think about certain pickups. It seems that quite a few of you
> have B-Bands installed in your guitars. With all the problems
> I've had with my Highlander (and it was put in by the builder),
> I'm extremely cautious about having a B-Band installed. From
> what I remember from past discussions, the B-Band is hands
> down the hardest pickup to get installed correctly so that you
> get good balance.
>
> If you have a B-Band (or even if you had one that you liked),
> could you tell me what type of guitar and, more importantly,
> who installed it. I'm willing to drive half a day one way to get
> this done right (if I decide to go with B-Band that is). That
> would cover the DC, MD, VA, NC, PA, WV, and KY areas...
> Someone must know how to do it right in an area that large... Hopefully....
> :-/
>
> Keep Picking,
>
> Steven Dillon
>
The current B-Band UST product is perhaps the easiest of all saddle
transducers to install. All modular plugs (no soldering anywhere), and
you should get perfect string to string volume balance either right
away, or definitely after letting the UST settle within 2-3 days of
installation. I have heard of some continuing problems on Taylors that
have the curved bridge pin placement, but I haven't worked with any of
these guitars specifically, so I can't comment about them first hand.
However, if your Highlander was installed according to spec in your
guitar, chances are that you will need a new bridge to utilize any
other saddle element, or to even pull out the Highlander and simply but
your saddle back in without any UST. Proper installation of a
Highlander requires that you route out the saddle slot to a half-moon
shape so that the coaxial cable is 'cupped' the full length of the
slot. Same for the bottom of the saddle, although that is easily
replaced.
Once you determine how your Highlander was actually installed you can
procede to make some decisions about what to do next.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you visit the B-band website to look over
their new gear due out in March. http://www.b-band.com
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: 14 Feb 2002 04:45:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
My first one was installed in a Taylor 810 by a local tech (sorry, not in your
area). My second one is a dual source, also installed in a Taylor (LKSM-6) and
it was installed by me. I have had no balance problems at all. I did have a
some problems with weak output, but Heikke through Tony with FQMS sent me a new
transducer and that took care of it. Great product, especially the dual
source. It outperforms my old Fishman setup hands down.
Mitch
In article <dWGa8.5329$<St3.188830@news2...>>, "Steven Dillon"
<<laswd@earthlink...>> writes:
>All,
>I've been reading the archives trying to find out what you folks
>think about certain pickups. It seems that quite a few of you
>have B-Bands installed in your guitars. With all the problems
>I've had with my Highlander (and it was put in by the builder),
>I'm extremely cautious about having a B-Band installed. From
>what I remember from past discussions, the B-Band is hands
>down the hardest pickup to get installed correctly so that you
>get good balance.
>
>If you have a B-Band (or even if you had one that you liked),
>could you tell me what type of guitar and, more importantly,
>who installed it. I'm willing to drive half a day one way to get
>this done right (if I decide to go with B-Band that is). That
>would cover the DC, MD, VA, NC, PA, WV, and KY areas...
>Someone must know how to do it right in an area that large... Hopefully....
>:-/
>
>Keep Picking,
>
>Steven Dillon
>
Mitch
From: Michael A. Wong <mwong61@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:27:10 -0500
Steve,
I have to-date installed at least 6 maybe 7 B-Band UST's
from 2nd and 3rd generations and they been absolute no brainers.
Very easy to install and I have yet to have any balance problems
with the exception of one element that I finally damaged beyond
serviceability after yanking it in and our of 3 different guitars.
(Some experimentation I was doing).
To add to Larry's comments on the Highlander, if it WAS installed
correctly and the proper channel routed, in order to "de-install" in
correctly
you'll need to take it to a competent tech and have the bottom of the slot
re-routed flat again and then a new taller saddle needs to be cut.
Then you can install any new pickup of choice the B-Band UST only
requiring very minimal further saddle adjustment if at all.
MW-
"Steven Dillon" <<laswd@earthlink...>> wrote in message
news:dWGa8.5329$<St3.188830@news2...>...
> All,
> I've been reading the archives trying to find out what you folks
> think about certain pickups. It seems that quite a few of you
> have B-Bands installed in your guitars. With all the problems
> I've had with my Highlander (and it was put in by the builder),
> I'm extremely cautious about having a B-Band installed. From
> what I remember from past discussions, the B-Band is hands
> down the hardest pickup to get installed correctly so that you
> get good balance.
>
> If you have a B-Band (or even if you had one that you liked),
> could you tell me what type of guitar and, more importantly,
> who installed it. I'm willing to drive half a day one way to get
> this done right (if I decide to go with B-Band that is). That
> would cover the DC, MD, VA, NC, PA, WV, and KY areas...
> Someone must know how to do it right in an area that large...
Hopefully....
> :-/
>
> Keep Picking,
>
> Steven Dillon
>
> --
> http://www.stevendillon.com
> http://mp3.com/stevendillon
>
>
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:19:01 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <a4gadd$1t7l$<1@ID-74159...>>, Michael A. Wong
<<mwong61@yahoo...>> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I have to-date installed at least 6 maybe 7 B-Band UST's
> from 2nd and 3rd generations and they been absolute no brainers.
> Very easy to install and I have yet to have any balance problems
> with the exception of one element that I finally damaged beyond
> serviceability after yanking it in and our of 3 different guitars.
> (Some experimentation I was doing).
> To add to Larry's comments on the Highlander, if it WAS installed
> correctly and the proper channel routed, in order to "de-install" in
> correctly
> you'll need to take it to a competent tech and have the bottom of the slot
> re-routed flat again and then a new taller saddle needs to be cut.
This is a definite fix, and my error in not mentioning it. The tone of
the guitar may change significantly, however, the deeper you route.
And some guitars don't have as much wood there to start with, which can
be a larger problem when re-routing.
So you'll have to start by seeing what sort of installation was done,
and then you can determine if Michael's suggestion can work.
I hope it does!
> Then you can install any new pickup of choice the B-Band UST only
> requiring very minimal further saddle adjustment if at all.
>
> MW-
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: 14 Feb 2002 15:22:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <140220020719015719%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>, Larry Pattis
<<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> writes:
>In article <a4gadd$1t7l$<1@ID-74159...>>, Michael A. Wong
><<mwong61@yahoo...>> wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I have to-date installed at least 6 maybe 7 B-Band UST's
>> from 2nd and 3rd generations and they been absolute no brainers.
>> Very easy to install and I have yet to have any balance problems
>> with the exception of one element that I finally damaged beyond
>> serviceability after yanking it in and our of 3 different guitars.
>> (Some experimentation I was doing).
>> To add to Larry's comments on the Highlander, if it WAS installed
>> correctly and the proper channel routed, in order to "de-install" in
>> correctly
>> you'll need to take it to a competent tech and have the bottom of the slot
>> re-routed flat again and then a new taller saddle needs to be cut.
>
>
>This is a definite fix, and my error in not mentioning it. The tone of
>the guitar may change significantly, however, the deeper you route.
>And some guitars don't have as much wood there to start with, which can
>be a larger problem when re-routing.
>
>So you'll have to start by seeing what sort of installation was done,
>and then you can determine if Michael's suggestion can work.
>
>I hope it does!
>
>
>> Then you can install any new pickup of choice the B-Band UST only
>> requiring very minimal further saddle adjustment if at all.
>>
>> MW-
>
>--
>Larry Pattis
Can you do the Zyla Method with the clay and make a smooth surface down in the
saddle slot I wonder? (Where has John been?!?)
I didn't realize the Highlander required this kind of mod to the saddle slot
for it to work. That would knock it out of the running for me, I don't care
how good it sounds.
Mitch
From: George Reiswig <Reiswig@europa...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:26:47 -0800
Organization: Intel Corporation
Steven,
I'd be very surprised if you had any difficulty with the currentgeneration B-Band UST. They've done a lot of work on solving the balance
issue, with great success. And their new AST's are mighty nice, too!
George Reiswig
Song of the River Music
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:08:14 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Gordon wrote:
>
> I've installed a Fishman Matrix I, PUTW Aircore and B-Band UST (3rd
> generation) in my Taylor 714 and I could never could get the string
> balance right with the B-Band (didn't have a problem with the other
> two). The break angle from the saddle to the saddle holes has to be
> the same for all six strings to achieve proper string balance for the
> B-Band.
This is not true in my experience. I think there is probably
some other problem if you are having balance problems in this setting.
My Olson has a curved pattern of saddle
holes. The 1st generation B-Band required some shimming, but
it was not any more difficult to balance than any other undersaddle
pickup I've tried. The later generations, which added a thin,
compressive strip for "self-balancing," had minimal balance
problems. As Larry said, there is probably no current undersaddle
pickup around that (in general) is easier to install than the
current B-Band UST. However, every guitar is different....
Also Larry's point about your current Highlander install is very
much worth echoing: A correct Highlander install requires modification
of the saddle bottom and possible the saddle slot bottom that will
make installation of any subsequent undersaddle pickup
problematic.
Is your heart really set on an undersaddle? I currently have
the B-Band AST pickup in my Olson. To my ears it sounds significantly
better than any undersaddle pickup (including the UST). It is
also trivially easy to install if you already have an endpin hole.
(Though note that for a long time--and perhaps still--Highlander
required a nonstandard endpin jack hole size.) It sticks on
the bridge plate. Like any soundboard transducer, it is probably
less immune to feedback than an undersaddle, though so far I have
not had any problems with it. Going this route (or with some other
similar pickup like the McIntyre Feather or the PUTW) will save
you from having to mess with the saddle.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Gordon <gordon@121mktg...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:49:58 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:08:14 -0500, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
>
>This is not true in my experience. I think there is probably
>some other problem if you are having balance problems in this setting.
>My Olson has a curved pattern of saddle
>holes. The 1st generation B-Band required some shimming, but
>it was not any more difficult to balance than any other undersaddle
>pickup I've tried. The later generations, which added a thin,
>compressive strip for "self-balancing," had minimal balance
>problems. As Larry said, there is probably no current undersaddle
>pickup around that (in general) is easier to install than the
>current B-Band UST. However, every guitar is different....
Pekka Rintala, the prez of B-band told me this at the NAMM show. He
asked if I had the smiley Taylor and when I said yes, he immedieately
told me about the same break angle for all the strings. He also told
me the 4th generation B-band UST is more immune to the balance
problems than my 3rd generation because of the increase in stiffness.
I have the B-band in my Baby Taylor now which doesn't have the smiley
saddle holes and I still have balance issues although not nearly as
bad as it was in my 714CE. I know it's not the saddle slot or saddle
because both the Fishman Matrix and PUTW Aircore I've tried in my
714CE has no string balance problems. What I haven't tried and I
probably will try this week is replacing the UST. The guys at B-band
gave me a couple of extra 3rd generation B-band USTs to check if the
one I have is bad (extremely nice of them to do this).
Pekka also mentioned that I can replace the UST with their new AST and
still use my New Frontier preamp. I might go this route instead of
replacing the UST with the 4th generation UST.
GL
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:55:54 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Tom Loredo wrote in message <<3C6C0B1E.838D41BF@astro...>>...
><snip>
>
>problems. As Larry said, there is probably no current undersaddle
>pickup around that (in general) is easier to install than the
>current B-Band UST. However, every guitar is different....
>
Hello Tom,
That's very good to hear. I had only heard how damn hard
they were to get balanced.
>Also Larry's point about your current Highlander install is very
>much worth echoing: A correct Highlander install requires modification
>of the saddle bottom and possible the saddle slot bottom that will
>make installation of any subsequent undersaddle pickup
>problematic.
>
I'm not going to completely give up on the Highlander just
yet. I've still got EQ to play with and mixed with my Sunrise,
I still may be able to correct the balance issues. If I can't
get the balance right, then I'm just going to have to either 1)
sell the Webber or 2) figure out a different way of amplifying
it...
>Is your heart really set on an undersaddle? I currently have
>the B-Band AST pickup in my Olson. To my ears it sounds significantly
>better than any undersaddle pickup (including the UST). It is
>also trivially easy to install if you already have an endpin hole.
>
What do you think about running both of them together (the UST
and the AST that is)?
I'm not sure my heart is set on the UST... It's just that's all I've
ever used and I don't know how much an AST is going to change
my sound. I know this is blasphemous, but I'm not completely an
a acoustic purist.... The natural sound is good, but I love to be
plugged in...
>(Though note that for a long time--and perhaps still--Highlander
>required a nonstandard endpin jack hole size.) It sticks on
>the bridge plate. Like any soundboard transducer, it is probably
>less immune to feedback than an undersaddle, though so far I have
>not had any problems with it. Going this route (or with some other
>similar pickup like the McIntyre Feather or the PUTW) will save
>you from having to mess with the saddle.
>
Which I like the thought of... My Thompson is almost perfectly
set up right now and I really don't want to muck with that... Getting
a new saddle cut, etc. isn't something I really want at this point...
Thanks for the insights.
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
--
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Installations
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:23:34 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Gordon wrote:
>
> Pekka Rintala, the prez of B-band told me this at the NAMM show.
Yikes! Somebody had better let Heikki know that Pekka's now the
prez! (Just teasing, folks; Heikki's the head of B-Band, but
Pekka is the CFO for the USA division.)
Regarding the issue of break-angle, I've heard luthiers encounter
balance problems that are symmetric across the saddle even in
guitars with straight endpin holes; they blame them on the
curvature in the saddle. Personally, I think there are too
many variables to be able to make blanket statements.
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Still liking the B-Band AST, eh Tom. So is that the only pickup source in your
> Olson?
No; I use the AST and an internal mic. At the moment, at least! 8-)
> I'd like to go to a single source inside the guitar that would render
> the true tone of my instrument, and get the battery out and the strip out from
> under my saddle. Does your AST cover all those bases?
No. I know of no single pickup that can render the true tone of any
instrument. Actually, I have yet to hear any pickup system that can
do this. Sorry, it's just not there yet---if it ever will be.
As for the other "bases," the AST will let you remove any undersaddle
pickup if you wish, and it is possible to run it without batteries
inside the guitar using the B-Band Entity Front End preamp and
something that will externally power it (like the Entity preamp, or
I think the Baggs Mixpro works as well). In fact that's how I
use mine---AST+mic with an Entity. I don't think this is a
"recommended" setup, though, since the Entity was designed for the
UST. But everything is compatible.
> What's the optimum
> input impedance for it?
You have to use B-Band preamps. B-Band pickups are not made with piezo
materials like most other pickups. They are closer in their properties
to the capsules used in electret condenser mics. The typical impedance
of a preamp for a condenser capsule is a billion ohms, and that's
the ballpark you need for a B-Band (actually, I think 100 megohms or
a couple hundred is sufficient). This is in contrast to the ~10 megohm
number that is good for piezos. So a piezo preamp won't work well
with a bare B-Band pickup; but a B-Band preamp could work well with
a piezo pickup (depending on its output level, etc.).
Steven Dillon wrote:
>
> I'm not going to completely give up on the Highlander just
> yet. I've still got EQ to play with and mixed with my Sunrise,
> I still may be able to correct the balance issues. If I can't
> get the balance right, then I'm just going to have to either 1)
> sell the Webber or 2) figure out a different way of amplifying
> it...
When it's installed right, at least in some guitars the Highlander
can sound very good; I'm not sure a B-Band UST will be any superior
to a well-installed Highlander. That said, a poorly installed
Highlander will sound pretty cruddy. One of my bandmates has a
nice Alvarez that he had a Highlander put in at a local shop. It
sounded pretty cruddy! Then he had someone with a lot of Highlander
experience tweak the install. It sounded incredibly better, almost
like a whole different pickup. The fact that you are having
balance problems suggests to me your install was not done correctly.
If you have someone in your area who is good with Highlander
installs, your easiest solution may be to pay someone to finally
do it right. It's not trivial. I would never do it myself.
> What do you think about running both of them together (the UST
> and the AST that is)?
I find that I like the undersaddle tone (from any pickup) less and
less with time. I also think there are solid physics reasons why
it's a bad place to put a pickup (from the perspective of
getting good tone). So it's not something I have any interest in
trying myself. That said, it's a configuration B-Band is both
supporting and recommending, and I think several current AST users
use it with a UST. One of the new B-Band endpin jack preamps
specifically supports this.
> I know this is blasphemous, but I'm not completely an
> a acoustic purist.... The natural sound is good, but I love to be
> plugged in...
Don't worry, the AST won't give you a truly natural sound! 8-)
Nothing will. Anyone who offers you something simple they say does
is just not giving you the straight scoop. As for not being a
"purist," there's no need to apologize. Everything is a compromise.
Sure, a plain old acoustic guitar in a nice room sounds just
wonderful. You give up some of that simple loveliness when
you plug in. But you also get a lot of capability in return.
You can play loud enough to be heard over the drums now. You
can use signal processors to make it sound like your playing
in an intimate room for one song and in an arena for the next.
You can use delays and loopers to "compose" layered parts
on-the-fly. It's just a tradeoff.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| best external mic for live performance |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: best external mic for live performance
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:01:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Michael James Richard Brown" <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote in message
news:<3c6ba878@kastagir...>...
>
> kevinj.fitzgerald <<kevinj.fitzgerald@ntlworld...>> wrote in message
> news:W2xa8.28923$<YA2.4398151@news11-gui...>...
> > Yamaha now do an internal mic that sounds truer than an under-saddle
> > transducer. Don't know the model number or price, but played one
earlier
> > this week.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Does anyone have more information
> about this. Sounds interesting.
> Michael B
>
Internal mics are great if your main goal is to keep the mic out of your way
but they do not listen to the same guitar the audience hears.
They listen to a boxy echo chamber or six steel string strung tighter then a
sheeps ass(not that I would know anything about that;-) )
you want to get across the sound of your guitar put a mic on a stand and
play into it
Howard Emerson had the best internal mic I have heard and guess what- It
was pointed out of the guitar ! kinda at a 45 degree angle to the strings
it picked up lots of soundboard in the process
you can get A sound with the pick-up and soundhole mics just a external mic
is SO much better I can't see why one would put so much effort into such a
flawed premise
"The ends are predetermined by the means"
George Gleason
| Baggs iBeam - What't the final word... [5] |
|---|
From: PaulC <PaulC_member@newsguy...>
Subject: Baggs iBeam - What't the final word...
Date: 17 Feb 2002 11:45:17 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
I'm thinking of getting the iBeam pickup, but I want someone else to take
responsibility for whether that is the right decision or not.
Anyone get the active version and later wished they had made a different choice?
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam - What't the final word...
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:47:42 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <<a4p18d01b79@drn...>>, on 02/17/02 at 11:45 AM,
PaulC <PaulC_member@newsguy.com> said:>I'm thinking of getting the iBeam pickup, but I want someone else to take
>responsibility for whether that is the right decision or not.
>Anyone get the active version and later wished they had made a different
>choice?
I got the active iBeam, and it was better than anything I had previously tried
or heard, then I got way-curious about the PUTW product and got a sample and
the iBeam(s) went back in the box.
Some people prefer the iBeam, and of those the general consensus is the active
one is the better choice. (wanna buy a used one [or two] cheap?)
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam - What't the final word...
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:07:27 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:47:42 -0500, donh wrote:
>I got the active iBeam, and it was better than anything I had previously tried
>or heard, then I got way-curious about the PUTW product and got a sample and
>the iBeam(s) went back in the box.
I haven't had a chance to hear the PUTW, but like you the active iBeam
was way better than anything else I tried up to then. Paired with a
Baggs PADI I'm pretty pleased with it. The thing that I'm curious
about is how you got the iBeam un-stuck from under the bridge....that
puppy has been on there for a while and it's really tight.
G.
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam - What't the final word...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:35:12 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
donh wrote in message <3c701824$8$qbau$<mr2ice@east...>>...
>>Anyone get the active version and later wished they had made a different
>>choice?
>
>I got the active iBeam, and it was better than anything I had previously
tried
>or heard, then I got way-curious about the PUTW product and got a sample
and
>the iBeam(s) went back in the box.
>
I'll echo what Don said, I got the active and am not overly pleased with it.
(string balance problems) One of these days I'll try a PUTW.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam - What't the final word...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:39:46 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Paul-
Do a Google groups search to see lots of past opinions posted
here. I think it's pretty safe to say that no other recent pickup
has received such mixed (and even polarized) reviews. In some
guitars it appears to work incredibly well. In others it has
balance problems, or just plain sounds really bad (my case!).
For this reason I think the only way to get useful info about
it is to specify exactly what instrument you are using, and hope
someone has tried it *in that instrument*. The iBeam seems
to be more instrument-dependent for its success than other
pickups.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| PUTW users... [7] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: PUTW users...
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:06:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
For those of you performing solo or duo at most:
Do you use the PUTW by itself, and do you find that it reproduces the tone of
your guitar faithfully? Or do you blend it with something else? I currently
use a UST/Mic combo trying to attain some realism. It's passable, but reading
all of the PUTW comments makes me feel there could be something better.
For those of you using it in a loud, live band setting:
How does it hold up tonally when pushed hard. I know the Fishman UST I had
would turn especially harsh and brittle sounding at high volumes. My B-Band
UST is better, but still tends toward a more brittle sound at high volume.
And finally:
Can you run directly into a good board with it, or do you need something
between it and the board to match impedances? (arrrgghh!! not that word!
Sorry.)
Thanks for your help.
Mitch
"Enjoy the Journey..."
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:20:18 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <<20020218110617.02067.00001492@mb-ct...>>, on 02/18/02 at 04:06 PM,
mkarlo@aol.comspamnyet (MKarlo) said:>Do you use the PUTW by itself, and do you find that it reproduces the tone of
>your guitar faithfully? Or do you blend it with something else? I currently
>use a UST/Mic combo trying to attain some realism. It's passable, but reading
>all of the PUTW comments makes me feel there could be something better.
I find the PUTW by itself to exceed anything else I have come across, including
dual-setup stuff. there are many setups I have not yet heard, however, but I
feel no urge to add a mic to mine.
>For those of you using it in a loud, live band setting:
>How does it hold up tonally when pushed hard. I know the Fishman UST I had
>would turn especially harsh and brittle sounding at high volumes. My B-Band
>UST is better, but still tends toward a more brittle sound at high volume.
have not yet tried that, but it held up well when I pushed it hard to see how
far it went. I'm sure others will chime in.
>Can you run directly into a good board with it, or do you need something
>between it and the board to match impedances? (arrrgghh!! not that word!
>Sorry.)
you will need some kinda preamp, to add both gain and impedance-mwtching.
>"Enjoy the Journey..."
ok!
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:37:20 -0700
MKarlo wrote:
> For those of you performing solo or duo at most:
> Do you use the PUTW by itself, and
> do you find that it reproduces the tone of
> your guitar faithfully?...
I run mine (two guitars) by itself. Guitarists
in my audiences are always amazed at the sound.
> For those of you using it in a loud, live band setting:
> How does it hold up tonally when pushed hard...
I've played mine loud, as in jazz combos and rock n roll
groups. Sounds like a big ol loud acoustic guitar. One
jazz gig I did, I cranked the INternal volume trim pot
in the power plug deliberately. Fed it to the board
and kept the gain low on the board. Gave it a really
nice jazzy, dark sound. Not really distorted, but
definately edgy and in your face tone. But with the
internal trim pot at dead midrange, it's the same
sound from quiet to loud. I think the guitar and
or the amp will break up tonally before the
pickup will.
> Can you run directly into a good board with it...
I run the power plug between the guitar and the
board. It's a little too quiet without the
preamp.
lumpy
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: 18 Feb 2002 17:15:41 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 18 Feb 2002 16:06:17 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>For those of you performing solo or duo at most:
>
>Do you use the PUTW by itself, and do you find that it reproduces the tone of
>your guitar faithfully? Or do you blend it with something else? I currently
>use a UST/Mic combo trying to attain some realism. It's passable, but reading
>all of the PUTW comments makes me feel there could be something better.
Hi, Mitch...I am not currently gigging, but when I was (up until early
last summer), I was using #27's in both Guilds. No combo--just the
PUTW's. Still recording with them...they work great!
Lots of people are going to climb up on the mountain top and tell you
that no pickup will ever sound just like your guitar.
Well, notwithstanding all the "expert official reasons", lemme tell
you what I hear, and what my audiences always tell me--it sounds JUST
LIKE MY GUITAR. Only louder.
It's that simple. Flat eq on the pre. No effects.
It's really that simple.
Now all the experts can come in and tell me I don't know what I'm
hearing...B-{)}
>For those of you using it in a loud, live band setting:
>
>How does it hold up tonally when pushed hard. I know the Fishman UST I had
>would turn especially harsh and brittle sounding at high volumes. My B-Band
>UST is better, but still tends toward a more brittle sound at high volume.
Can't really help you much as far as a band setting, but I've never
noticed any brittle sound from the PUTW. I've cranked 'em a few
times, just to see how they sound...and they just keep sounding great.
>And finally:
>
>Can you run directly into a good board with it, or do you need something
>between it and the board to match impedances? (arrrgghh!! not that word!
>Sorry.)
huh-huh...he said impedance...
You need a preamp. Don't know from impedance matching, but you need
to boost the signal--it is a passive device. The LR Baggs
Para-Acoustic DI is a great unit; that's what I use.
David also has his Power Plugs, which are miniature preamps that plug
directly into the endpin jack and do the whole thing. I tried a
couple of these at TX-2, and I want one...or two...they are a GREAT
little unit.
Get in touch with David Enke. He'll make you a happy man.
(standard disclaimer...not an employee of PUTW, just a happy
customer...no sheep were harmed in the making of this post...)
>Thanks for your help.
Good luck, and let us know what you end up with!
>Mitch
>
>"Enjoy the Journey..."
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Greg N. <yodel_dodel@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:33:17 +0000
Organization: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont, USA
Bill Chandler wrote:
> Lots of people are going to climb up on the mountain top and
> tell you that no pickup will ever sound just like your guitar.
> Well, notwithstanding all the "expert official reasons", lemme
> tell you what I hear, and what my audiences always tell me--it
> sounds JUST LIKE MY GUITAR. Only louder.
I won't argue about what Bill hears with his ears from his guitars.
However, for a fascinating (contrasting) piece of information, check out
the RMMGA projects page, specifically the recordings made by Tom Loredo.
http://www.mikekellerphoto.com/rmmga/Shen/
He made an interesting experiment: He recorded his piece twice, once
with a pair of top notch external microphones, and once with a
soundboard transducer (B-Band AST 1370) combined with an internal
microphone. This system is regarded by many as a very good one, but -
check it out. While the sound is not bad, I find the experiment
documents very convincingly that a pickup does indeed not at all
sound "JUST LIKE MY GUITAR, only louder". At least in this case.
Greg N.
--
http://www.neatone.com
http://peepmatz.coolhaus.de
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:17:58 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
"Greg N." wrote:
>
> However, for a fascinating (contrasting) piece of information, check out
> the RMMGA projects page, specifically the recordings made by Tom Loredo.
>
> http://www.mikekellerphoto.com/rmmga/Shen/
>
> He made an interesting experiment: He recorded his piece twice, once
> with a pair of top notch external microphones, and once with a
> soundboard transducer (B-Band AST 1370) combined with an internal
> microphone.
Actually, it was recorded once, on three channels of a hard
disk recorder, two recording the stereo mic signal, and one
recording the pickup signal. So it's the same performance.
> This system is regarded by many as a very good one, but -
> check it out. While the sound is not bad, I find the experiment
> documents very convincingly that a pickup does indeed not at all
> sound "JUST LIKE MY GUITAR, only louder". At least in this case.
This was indeed one of the main points I was trying to make! There
is more discussion of this in the archive of the RMMGA Projects
page. If you are curious, follow the link from the Shenandoah
page above, sign on to the group, and read all about it there.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: PUTW users...
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:15:05 -0500
Are you thinking about something for that factory rejected, lemon,
810LTD of yours? It hardly matters what you do with that thing, Mitch.
Maybe just drop one toy walkie talkie in the soundhole and put a mic on
the other one. Hey, you'd be wireless, too.
Ok, seriosuly --- I'll tell ya more than you want to know and not enough
to be helpful. Sorry for the upcoming ramble but I thought you'd be
curious since we play the same make/model Taylor.
I have a putw and a Fishman on my 810, both passive, into a putw Power
Plug w/2 emg pb1's). I had a putw #20 in there or a while but I was
able to get a #27 working yesterday. I'd never mounted it properly when
I tried it the first time. Once I got the wire end secured tightly under
some tape David sent me it sounds fine. Haven't really even listened to
the #27 yet, just enough to notice that its better than the #20; less
boxy. I think its gonna be nice.
For a while I was eq-ing them separately in a Behringer 602 Mixer before
blending. Now I think I'm gonna just use the putw to blend the levels
only and send a mono out from the Power Plug. Not enough benefit for
the hassle that separate eq-ing was causing me later in the signal
chain. (Don't ask; it involves all the looping bullshit.)
Yesterday I put the Matrix's Natural One back in just to confirm for
myself that the emg is an improvement. It is --- the emg's definitely
makes a huge improvement for that Fishman.
I'm gonna use this dual source set-up live next week when I sit in with
a fairly loud non-traditional 'bluegrassy' band (more like pop/folk
w/banjo). There's always a fairly loud electric bass on stage so I
figure this will be a good test of the putw.
The putw doesn't quack. Its certainly natural enough that I can see
someone (Bill or Lumpy, for example) being perfectly happy to use it as
a stand alone. There's 'something' about it that I like a lot, too.
The #20 putw reminded me of the sound of an internal mic --- that kind
of 'boxy/hollow' effect I hear when I listen to an an internal mic on
its own. Is that a 'reverb' effect from inside the body? Anyway, a
quick check of the #27 told me that it had less of that boxiness than
the #20.
The putw picks up more 'mechanical' noise --- fingers and nails
bouncing/clicking on the guitar's top, or my wedding ring clicking along
the fretboard If I forget or don't bother to remove it.
I'm not ready to cut the lifeline to the Fishman mainly because I'm
worried about a feedback problem, especially from a bass amp on stage.
I'm also totally used to the sound of a ust. Ya know? You can get used
to hanging if you do it long enough (as somebody here once wrote when I
said that before.) Every acoustic I've ever owned had one. I've always
played solos and fills in ensembles where I want to get out on top with
some punch on the single notes. I'm not sure the putw is gonna do that
for me but I'll see. I'll know more next week, I think.
Mixed in with the Fishman the putw seems to suppress the Fishman's quack
--- blends in a more natural attack, especially on the high end. The #20
did that and I'm certain the #27 will be even better.
I'm telling you all this and I probably shouldn't be because I NEVER
know for sure what I really like in sound and tone. "Is this tone ok?"
LOL. I'll usually turn to somebody on stage at some point: "Do you
like my tone?" "I don't think I like it." LOL. Ya know, Mitch?
Am I the only one like that? People here sometimes write about their
sound and gear and set-ups like they're absolutely dead certain about
what they like. I'll tweak a knob -- is that better? I dunno. Its
different but is it better? Shit. I dunno if its better. I never
really know for sure; never totally satisfied or convinced I've nailed
the sound.
Anyway, hope you find something helpful in all that, sir.
Jeff
| koa tops and SBTs [3] |
|---|
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: koa tops and SBTs
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:59:11 -0500
Organization: Kiva Networking
I've been thinking of buying a guitar primarily for playing out, and I'm
thinking of a koa top. I like the aesthetic, and I'm wondering if the
mellower tone might work well with one of the resonance sensitive sound
board transucers that are popular these days (B-Band AST, PUTW, or iBeam).
Any thoughts out there about how koa tops work with SBTs?
Mike
From: PaulC <PaulC_member@newsguy...>
Subject: Re: koa tops and SBTs
Date: 19 Feb 2002 06:07:23 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
I don't have a Koa top, but I do have a Walnut top Leach. I have a Fishman Dual
Source setup. That is an undersaddle transducer and a mini-mike in the box. I
love this guitar and the electronics work great on it. The top is definitely
lower in volume that a spruce top, but it has its strenghts. I would not
hesitate to get another "hardwood" topped guitar, understanding that they add
their own unique qualities that spruce does not.
Paul C.
In article <a4thsi$afs$<1@topsy...>>, "Mike says...
>
>I've been thinking of buying a guitar primarily for playing out, and I'm
>thinking of a koa top. I like the aesthetic, and I'm wondering if the
>mellower tone might work well with one of the resonance sensitive sound
>board transucers that are popular these days (B-Band AST, PUTW, or iBeam).
>Any thoughts out there about how koa tops work with SBTs?
>
>Mike
>
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: koa tops and SBTs
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:49:54 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Mike,
I believe (from experience) that the stiffer the top, the easier it is to
amplify with SBT's. The biggest problem people run into with softer tops is
the center of the top heaving up and down, which creates an excess of
low-midrange resonance in an SBT signal. Koa, being more dense and stiff
than Spruce should perform very well, and be even more feedback resistant
then a traditional Spruce top (assuming the same basic dimensions).
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
"Mike Cloud" <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message
news:a4thsi$afs$<1@topsy...>...
> I've been thinking of buying a guitar primarily for playing out, and I'm
> thinking of a koa top. I like the aesthetic, and I'm wondering if the
> mellower tone might work well with one of the resonance sensitive sound
> board transucers that are popular these days (B-Band AST, PUTW, or iBeam).
> Any thoughts out there about how koa tops work with SBTs?
>
> Mike
>
>
| Amplification advise again, please. [5] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Amplification advise again, please.
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:54:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a50bo9$juq$<1@slb6...>...
>
> "foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in very helpful
> message news:Fymc8.104976$<d34.7832022@bin8...>...
>
> Lots of good advice here, but I'd like to politely clarify a few points.
>
> > Pickups have a narrower frequency range..... than an
> > external mic setup.
>
> This is true for magnetic pickups, but it is not the case for all other
> modern pickups that I am aware of. Some of the earlier piezo-ceramic
> materials lost linearity at the extremes of the frequency range, but still
> produced signals that went from 20hz up to 30Khz. The newer polymer
> materials, properly buffered, offer an extremely linear output from 5hz up
> into the gighz range.
> Being aware of the purpose of pre-amps as you are, there can be some
> limiting of the frequency response with the electronics, but properly
> designed, narrow bandwidth is not a necessary component of these circuits.
> By comparison, good consumer microphones only produce signals from 50hz to
> around 16Khz, and most are even narrower at around 80hz to 14Khz. There
are
> reference microphones like B&K and Earthworks that are flat from 20hz to
> 20Khz, but these are rarely used for live performance, and can cost as
much
> as the entire p.a.
Our B&K's cost close to 2400$ each and we only use them for analysis into
the sia smarrt
>
> > PA rigs are much better suited to external microphones. They have things
> > like parametric EQ for notching out microphone feedback......
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the case for most of the consumer level boards.
> To notch properly, you need at least one full parametric midrange e.q.
with
> separate controls for center frequency, bandwidth (or Q), and level. The
> only boards I've seen with this are well over the $1,000 price point.
The only small afforadable one i am aware of is the A&H Icon which is one
of the big reasons I am so sweet on it 8 channels of Dual fully parametric
mids with peaking or shelving hi and lows
Having
> a sweepable midrange without the bandwidth control takes out a huge block
of
> frequencies along with the feedback, and is a highly destructive way to
> control feedback.
exactly you can choose where you butcher your sound
but if you do not have Q control you are still destroying much more than
you might be aware of
>
> Thinking along the lines of the simplest, straight-path signal, a good
> pickup coupled to a good pre-amp, like a Baggs PADI running straight into
a
> powered p.a. speaker would cover all the bases, and would be an excellent
> and affordable way to amplify a guitar.
or a pretty good mic like a akg 535 into a dedicated preamp to a powered
speaker
Great post Dave
I will be in touch for a better pick up for my larrivee cause even I do not
care to deal with my mics at open mic nights and BBQ';s
George Gleason
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Amplification advise again, please.
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:21:40 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in very helpful
message news:Fymc8.104976$<d34.7832022@bin8...>...
Lots of good advice here, but I'd like to politely clarify a few points.
> Pickups have a narrower frequency range..... than an
> external mic setup.
This is true for magnetic pickups, but it is not the case for all other
modern pickups that I am aware of. Some of the earlier piezo-ceramic
materials lost linearity at the extremes of the frequency range, but still
produced signals that went from 20hz up to 30Khz. The newer polymer
materials, properly buffered, offer an extremely linear output from 5hz up
into the gighz range.
Being aware of the purpose of pre-amps as you are, there can be some
limiting of the frequency response with the electronics, but properly
designed, narrow bandwidth is not a necessary component of these circuits.
By comparison, good consumer microphones only produce signals from 50hz to
around 16Khz, and most are even narrower at around 80hz to 14Khz. There are
reference microphones like B&K and Earthworks that are flat from 20hz to
20Khz, but these are rarely used for live performance, and can cost as much
as the entire p.a.
> PA rigs are much better suited to external microphones. They have things
> like parametric EQ for notching out microphone feedback......
Unfortunately, this is not the case for most of the consumer level boards.
To notch properly, you need at least one full parametric midrange e.q. with
separate controls for center frequency, bandwidth (or Q), and level. The
only boards I've seen with this are well over the $1,000 price point. Having
a sweepable midrange without the bandwidth control takes out a huge block of
frequencies along with the feedback, and is a highly destructive way to
control feedback.
Thinking along the lines of the simplest, straight-path signal, a good
pickup coupled to a good pre-amp, like a Baggs PADI running straight into a
powered p.a. speaker would cover all the bases, and would be an excellent
and affordable way to amplify a guitar.
I hope this helps.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Amplification advise again, please.
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:46:34 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
David Enke <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote:
> This is true for magnetic pickups, but it is not the case for all other
> modern pickups that I am aware of.
It's also not the case for low impedance (stand back, Sherman!)
electromagnetic pickups of the type used by Alembic, which are flat to
slightly over 17 KHz. To my own ear, with a good repro system those
eletric guitars can sound more like an acoustic guitar than any
piezo-picked-up amplified acoustic guitar I've ever heard.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Amplification advise again, please.
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:12:10 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a50bo9$juq$<1@slb6...>...
>
> "foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in very helpful
> message news:Fymc8.104976$<d34.7832022@bin8...>...
>
> Lots of good advice here, but I'd like to politely clarify a few points.
>
> > Pickups have a narrower frequency range..... than an
> > external mic setup.
>
> This is true for magnetic pickups, but it is not the case for all
> other modern pickups that I am aware of. Some of the earlier
> piezo-ceramic materials lost linearity at the extremes of the
> frequency range, but still produced signals that went from 20hz
> up to 30Khz. The newer polymer materials, properly buffered,
> offer an extremely linear output from 5hz up into the gighz range.
> Being aware of the purpose of pre-amps as you are, there can
> be some limiting of the frequency response with the electronics,
> but properly designed, narrow bandwidth is not a necessary
> component of these circuits. By comparison, good consumer
> microphones only produce signals from 50hz to around 16Khz,
> and most are even narrower at around 80hz to 14Khz. There
> are reference microphones like B&K and Earthworks that are
> flat from 20hz to 20Khz, but these are rarely used for live
> performance, and can cost as much as the entire p.a.
Okay, so sue me... I expressed that badly. ;-)
I probably shouldn't have used the words "frequency response" because it
invites a direct comparison between transducers. That's not really what I'm
talking about here. What I should have said is that a pickup captures a
narrower and less detailed image of the guitar's full sound, compared to a
what an external microphone hears when placed a foot or two away from the
instrument.
With all due respect to the quality of PUTW amplification, the world's best
contact pickup isn't going to hear ALL the parts of the guitar resonating.
The sound is localized, and more distant parts of the guitar's sound are
attenuated. It's like rolling up a magazine into a tube and placing it on
one part of the guitar, and then sticking your ear on the other end to hear
what the instrument sounds like.
An external mic placed a foot or two away captures the whole megillah... an
integrated "guitar wave" made up of string sound, finger sound, soundboard
vibration, air resonating out of the sound hole, maybe even some neck and
headstock resonance. All of those different parts of the guitar are just
ringing their hearts out and pumping harmonics into the air. The soundboard
does most of the work, but there's a lot of other stuff going on there,
especially with a lightly-built, highly resonant guitar. Does a contact
pickup capture ALL of this, the way an external mic can? Of course not,
because it has its tiny little ear pressed up close to a small part of the
instrument. To prove my point... move a contact pickup a few inches one way
or the other, and the sound changes drastically. Move an external mic a few
inches one way or the other, and you don't hear much change in sound. You've
already got the fully-developed "guitar wave" out there.
So taking all of this into consideration... yes, I think an external mic has
a "wider frequency response" than an internal pickup, if we define this as
the ability to capture all the sound the guitar is producing <whew!>. That's
why, with few exceptions, professional recordings of acoustic guitars are
done with external microphones. And of course the other reason is that it's
just closer to what a person hears when he or she is sitting across from the
instrument.
I also think your comparison of "good consumer microphones" vs. pickup
frequency response is a bit slanted in favor of pickups. Not that I blame
you. ;-) But the SM-57 isn't the only mic people use on acoustic guitars
these days, and good condenser mics are more affordable than you think. I've
occasionally used my KM-184 (20Hz-20kHz) for live sound. That's a little
pricey at $700, but you can get a Shure SM-81 (20Hz-20kHz) for just $330.
I'm sure there are other choices out there. A good 20Hz-20kHz external
condenser mic doesn't have to cost any more than a good dual-source pickup
system.
External mic'ing for live performance isn't for everybody. I don't use it
myself because I need a combined electric guitar/acoustic guitar rig, and
it's just easier with a pickup on the acoustic. It's a royal pain in the
butt to go external mic, but the results can sound exceptional. Some people
don't mind fighting with it to get that kind of sound.
> > PA rigs are much better suited to external microphones. They have
> > things like parametric EQ for notching out microphone feedback......
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the case for most of the consumer level boards.
> To notch properly, you need at least one full parametric midrange e.q.
> with separate controls for center frequency, bandwidth (or Q), and level.
> The only boards I've seen with this are well over the $1,000 price point.
> Having a sweepable midrange without the bandwidth control takes out
> a huge block of frequencies along with the feedback, and is a highly
> destructive way to control feedback.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you could get this on inexpensive mixer
boards. I was probably thinking too much of my own setup. I use an antique
TC Electronics dual parametric EQ (floor box) for feedback notching ahead of
anything else. There are several inexpensive full parametrics or
parametric-enabled preamps you can use with a PA system.
> Thinking along the lines of the simplest, straight-path signal, a good
> pickup coupled to a good pre-amp, like a Baggs PADI running
> straight into a powered p.a. speaker would cover all the bases, and
> would be an excellent and affordable way to amplify a guitar.
Most people would want an effects loop or built-in reverb in the chain, but
yeah, I like the idea of "straight wire" as much as possible. No reason to
have a mixer unless you're doing vocals also. And I'm a big believer in
self-powered PA cabs.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Amplification advise again, please.
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:23:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> I probably shouldn't have used the words "frequency response" because it
> invites a direct comparison between transducers. That's not really what
I'm
> talking about here. What I should have said is that a pickup captures a
> narrower and less detailed image of the guitar's full sound, compared to a
> what an external microphone hears when placed a foot or two away from the
> instrument.
>
> With all due respect to the quality of PUTW amplification, the world's
best
> contact pickup isn't going to hear ALL the parts of the guitar resonating.
[snip]
This is the gospel I have been preaching for 15 years
glad to see that others feel the same
George Gleason
| Dumb Stereo to Mono Cable Question [3] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Dumb Stereo to Mono Cable Question
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:50:08 -0500
I have a putw Power Plug with a stereo TSR out from a dual source in the
guitar. I want to just blend the levels of the two pick-ups in the PP
and send out a mono signal. I know there are simple adapters for this
but adapters seem to always fail or get noisy on me.
Could I instead make a stereo to mono cable by using a stereo tsr plug
on one end of a mono shielded cable and attaching the hot lead to both
the tip and the ring terminals? Is there a ground loop issue?
Sherman
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Stereo to Mono Cable Question
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:08:50 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C73B616.E974089F@lorainccc...>...
> Thanks Steve and everybody. It turns out nothing's as simple etc. etc.
> etc. A stereo to mono adapter out of the Power Plug doesn't work --- I
> only get the tip, not the ring. Grrrrrrr. I'm clueless. Both tip and
> ring (fishman and putw) are fine when I plug them into separate channels
> of the mixer. Soooooo . . . I'm biting the bullet and shopping for a
> blender.
>
> LUMPY! How did you get yours to work? I thought you were running the
> putw only. Do you have a stereo power plug?
>
> Jeff
Hey, Ho,
sorry for being so pre-disposed. Gig-madness has taken over, and our helpers
all have the stomach flu (its really gross, and you really don't want to
talk to them!)
Actually, Mr. Lumpy has stereo PUTW pickups in his guitars, where one pickup
favors treble, the other bass (by their mounting position). When a multiple
channel mixer is not practical, passive blenders have been used to convert a
Stereo Power Plug signal to mono. I believe the adaptor you are using simply
ignores the ring contact, or shorts it to ground. Since you have a soldering
iron, you can try opening the guitar end of your stereo cable and soldering
the ring contact to the tip. If this works (it should), you can improve
performance by doing the same to the other end of the cable. If it doesn't
work for some reason, we can make you a simple plug adaptor that uses a pair
of low value resistors to passively blend the signals. This would be a small
thing that plugs into the output of the P.Plug and sums the two signals.
As for why we opted to not blend the signals at the pre-amp?
This is what everyone else does, and we wanted to be different!
Actually, the truth is, we have to concentrate really hard in order to not
be!
As many people mentioned when discussing the new Presonous Acoustic-Q
pre-amp, there seems to be a preference for treating (processing, e.q.'ing,
etc.) two pickup signals separately. By NOT blending at the pre-amp, this is
the ultimate way to go if you have two inputs into an amp or mixer. It also
comes in handy for recording.
I hope this helps, and I plan on being more available for the next few weeks
(gig break, yea!) to help with such things.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
717-742-5303
>
>
> Steve Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > In article <a4urqs$38lbq$<1@ID-76024...>>, "Lumpy"
<<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote:
> > >Sherman wrote:
> > >> I have a putw Power Plug with a stereo
> > >> TSR out from a dual source in the
> > >> guitar. I want to just blend the
> > >> levels of the two pick-ups in the PP
> > >> and send out a mono signal...
> > >
> > >> Could I instead make a stereo to
> > >> mono cable by using a stereo tsr plug
> > >> on one end of a mono shielded cable
> > >> and attaching the hot lead to both
> > >> the tip and the ring terminals?...
> > >
> > >I've done exactly that with two PUTW's
> > >and a stereo Power Plug. Worked fine.
> > >If you're using one PUTW and one XYZ
> > >pickup, I couldn't say how the interaction
> > >might bother things. But I don't see a ground
> > >loop problem, only a volume level problem,
> > >(between the two different pickups) if any.
> > >And of course, you'll have control of each
> > >pickup's volume level.
> > >
> > >lumpy
> >
> > Jeff, it sounds to me that you might be tying together the outputs of
two
> > preamps. Are you using the Stereo PP? Amplifers don't usually like
their
> > outputs tied directly together. Better ask David.
> >
> > Steve Hawkins
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Stereo to Mono Cable Question
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:56:05 -0600
Organization: Spam Free Zone
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
>I have a putw Power Plug with a stereo TSR out from a dual source in the
>guitar. I want to just blend the levels of the two pick-ups in the PP
>and send out a mono signal. I know there are simple adapters for this
>but adapters seem to always fail or get noisy on me.
>
>Could I instead make a stereo to mono cable by using a stereo tsr plug
>on one end of a mono shielded cable and attaching the hot lead to both
>the tip and the ring terminals? Is there a ground loop issue?
>
>Sherman
I would recommend that you use a blender box instead. The resulting
mono signal is usually much cleaner that way. I tried blending on the
cheap and the result was distortion.
Al
--
My email address is guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
| Godin [2] |
|---|
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Godin
Date: 21 Feb 2002 10:04:05 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Tony" <<tonybrez@yahooNOSPAM...>> wrote in message news:<a515qe$sn1$<1@news1...>>...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new here. Has the topic or concept of Godin guitars come up ?
> I'm very interested in any opinions, experience with or thoughts about
> these guitars.
>
> I've been an electric player for the first 12 years of my guitar existence
> and have been playing acoustics... steel and nylon strings for the last
> 6 years. While I played electric I acquired a Roland VG-8 guitar modeling
> processor. I would like to access this unit again with possibly a Godin.
>
> I live in the sticks and the nearest store to try out a few Godins is about
> 70 miles.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
> Tony
Tony,
My own opinion is that the nylon string multiacs sound better. I say
that as a steel string multiac (synth access model) owner who's
briefly owned a nylon string Multiac Grand Concert Duet model (Baggs
electronics, no synth access) and tried out a regular nylon string
Multiac with synth access, well as a duet model steel string Multiac,
at Woodsy's Music in Kent, OH.
My own Multiac is very feedback resistant and has a low action which
plays easily and fingerpicks well. The RMC pickups are very
well-balanced and dynamically responsive. The RMC pickup with onboard
preamp has a very strong, clean output.
I've used the guitar with a Roland GR-33 guitar synth and it does seem
to track well, but I have no basis of comparison to confirm the
often-heard comment that it has surperior tracking to a guitar fitted
with Roland's GK-2AH synth pickup.
I do have several "issues" with this guitar, however. It sounds very
brittle and harsh with hard strumming, despite considerable EQing with
a Baggs PADI. (The PADI has been more effective for me than the
BASS/MID/TREBLE controls on the guitar's preamp. The PADI has
sweepable mids {I cut generously at 1.5K}, a presence control and a
sweepable bass notch which allows one to notch down the muddy
frequecies {200-250 Hz) while cranking up the low bass.) Part of the
problem, I'm sure, is that the guitar's action is too low for hard
strumming. I tried to shim the mini saddles once (with brass shims
that Godin sent me), but the saddles were close to popping out of the
bridge slot once shimmed. I decided to leave well-enough alone and
removed the shims.
My biggest issue with the guitar is the tone (after optimum EQing).
Even when amplified, it doesn't come close to sounding like a good
acoustic amplified. I find the high end to be especially cheesy
sounding. I believe that's because the guitar is intentionally
designed to be strong on fundamentals and weak on overtones (for
better synth tracking, they say). In any event, I believe that the
nylon string Multiac comes closer to sounding like a real classical
when amplified. I wish that I still had the Grand Concert Multiac to
try with the new Yamaha AG Stomp preamp that I've been using lately.
The Stomp makes my Chet Atkins CE electric classical (another hybrid
guitar) sound very rich. It doen't doesn't do enough (to make much
deference) for the steel string Multiac, however.
By the way, if you still think that you'd like a steel string Multiac
after reading "the good, the bad and the ugly" above, mine will be for
sale soon.
Just don't believe the hype that it has a superior plugged in sound.
It's mainly useful for synth and high volume situations where one
needs an acoustic sound.
Hope that helps,
Gary hall
From: Jim McCrain <jim@mccrain...>
Subject: Re: Godin
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:12:07 -0600
Organization: Walrus Sound Productions
Gary Hall wrote:
> Just don't believe the hype that it has a superior plugged in sound.
> It's mainly useful for synth and high volume situations where one
> needs an acoustic sound.
Gary is right on with this assessment, at least in my opinion. I use my Godin Steal String
Multiac whenever I am playing in a band/group arrangement and I am not the only acoustic
guitar player. I don't like to use the Godin as a "solo" or as the only acoustic in a group
as it doesn't have a "pure" acoustic sound. Still, when blended with other instruments, it
works quite nicely.
Of course, when I add the Roland GR-33 synth to the mix, it takes on a completely different
manner and usage. If the music I am playing relies heavily on the synthesizer sounds, then
the "acoustic" sound blended in sounds fine. If the synth is just used to add "depth" to the
acoustic sounds, then I still prefer a traditional acoustic instrument.
As for the Godin tracking better than a guitar with the Roland GK2A pickup, I have to agree.
I have had both, and tried them both with the Roland GR-30 and GR-33. The Godin with the RMC
pickup works much better and is much more accurate than the GK2A.
All in all, I really enjoy using my Godin and the GR-33. I use them primarily for recording,
though, so the acoustic portion is usually recorded with a different guitar, and then the
synth is added without the "acoustic" signal from the Godin.
Hope some of this helps!
Jim McCrain
| Lump: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya? |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Lump: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:21:06 -0500
What's the scoop on this hot set up of yours? Where's the placement?
Both on the bridge plate? Separate preamps?
Sorta kidding here; mostly just curious: Why not several putws spread
around inside and hooked up in series? Like maybe one on the tailblock,
one on the back, etc. etc. Basically I was wondering what would happen
if you wired a couple of those in series to one preamp?
Jeff
| Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya? [3] |
|---|
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:16:07 -0700
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> What's the scoop on this hot set up of yours?
> Where's the placement? Both on the bridge plate?
> Separate preamps?
Here's the scoop on the stereo guitar
(Lakewood Grand Concert, Spruce/Walnut)
Pickup is a PUTW #40. That's essentially
two #20's. Each #20 is wired to a separate
connection on the endpin jack so there is
a separate output for each PUTW film.
Professor Enke just tweaked the placement
of those films, so he can comment best on
where they are mounted. He heard me play
for just a few seconds and said "Hey, there's
some phase cancellation going on there". He
moved one or both films a bit. The difference
is amazing.
Bascially, one PUTW film is on the treble side,
one on the bass side.
The endpin output goes into a stereo Power Plug.
Inside that PP, the signals are kept separate
(two separate preamp modules, two gain pots etc.).
The output of the PP is still separate on a TRS
jack. My output cable is a TRS plug on the guitar end
and two separate TS plugs on the amp end.
Following so far? Each PUTW film ends in a single
1/4" plug.
I run each separate signal into a separate channel
of my mixer. Generally I tend to set:
Bass PUTW signal clean, no FX, cut the treble EQ a little.
Treble PUTW signal with a little reverb and/or
chorus, and cut the bass EQ a little.
I'm experimenting now with where in the listener
field (is that a real term, George?) to place each
sound. If I patch things correctly, I can place the
clean bass signal dead center in the stereo picture.
And I can place the FX'd treble signal panned both
right and left. Or I can reverse that and put the
treble dead center and the bass right and left.
But it seems to sound more normal to me with
the bass centered.
When doing the above, panning/placement thing,
I sometimes goof around with ping/pong or delay
on the panned treble signals. Stereo chorus or
one channel delayed gives it a huge sound.
And of course, both the pickups are not exclusive
to either treble or bass. That is, the bass side
pickup certainly picks up some treble and vice
versa. I like that. Keeps it from sounding 'sterile'.
That's how it's setup, today. Tomorrow,
there's no telling..:-)
lumpy
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:56:07 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message
news:a53dlc$4aecn$<1@ID-76024...>...
> Jeff Sherman wrote:
> > What's the scoop on this hot set up of yours?
> > Where's the placement? Both on the bridge plate?
> > Separate preamps?
>
> Here's the scoop on the stereo guitar
> (Lakewood Grand Concert, Spruce/Walnut)
>
> Pickup is a PUTW #40. That's essentially
> two #20's. Each #20 is wired to a separate
> connection on the endpin jack so there is
> a separate output for each PUTW film.
>
> Professor Enke just tweaked the placement
> of those films, so he can comment best on
> where they are mounted. He heard me play
> for just a few seconds and said "Hey, there's
> some phase cancellation going on there". He
> moved one or both films a bit. The difference
> is amazing.
Actually, I did not want to spoil the nice evening by going into the gory
physics of it, but I knew that one of the pickup signals could be improved
by a different placement. The original Lumpo-caster guitar was one of the
first stereo rigs we did, and as such, we learned some improvements to the
mountings and to increase the spread between the two elements (further
enhancing the bass or one, and the treble of the other).
> Bascially, one PUTW film is on the treble side,
> one on the bass side.
>
> The endpin output goes into a stereo Power Plug.
> Inside that PP, the signals are kept separate
> (two separate preamp modules, two gain pots etc.).
> The output of the PP is still separate on a TRS
> jack. My output cable is a TRS plug on the guitar end
> and two separate TS plugs on the amp end.
>
> Following so far? Each PUTW film ends in a single
> 1/4" plug.
>
> I run each separate signal into a separate channel
> of my mixer. Generally I tend to set:
>
> Bass PUTW signal clean, no FX, cut the treble EQ a little.
>
> Treble PUTW signal with a little reverb and/or
> chorus, and cut the bass EQ a little.
>
> I'm experimenting now with where in the listener
> field (is that a real term, George?) to place each
> sound. If I patch things correctly, I can place the
> clean bass signal dead center in the stereo picture.
> And I can place the FX'd treble signal panned both
> right and left. Or I can reverse that and put the
> treble dead center and the bass right and left.
> But it seems to sound more normal to me with
> the bass centered.
>
> When doing the above, panning/placement thing,
> I sometimes goof around with ping/pong or delay
> on the panned treble signals. Stereo chorus or
> one channel delayed gives it a huge sound.
>
> And of course, both the pickups are not exclusive
> to either treble or bass. That is, the bass side
> pickup certainly picks up some treble and vice
> versa. I like that. Keeps it from sounding 'sterile'.
>
> That's how it's setup, today. Tomorrow,
> there's no telling..:-)
>
> lumpy
I'm also glad to hear all this, as it describes the many things that can be
done with two separate signals. Even if there is no processing, reverb, or
e.q. used, the ability to localize the naturally occurring tones within a
sound field allows a great amount of manipulation while remaining largely
'acoustic' sounding.
For anyone interested in such a system, we've also done similar things with
a pair of #27's, and it worked just as well as the #20's do, and is a bit
less placement sensitive.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:21:43 -0700
MKarlo wrote:
> So Lumpy. Which do your prefer?
> The one #27 in your Lowden or this dual
> source set-up?
No way I can answer that. The Grand Concert Lakewood (stereo)
is wonderful for quiet fingerpicking. The mini jumbo
Lowden (with the #27) is great for hard, loud, aggressive
fingerpicking (Leo style). Most of what I sing is with
the Lowden because it's tuned down a whole step. The
Lowden is definitely the gig guitar. Simple to just
plug in and play. Always gets compliments on the sound.
Huge dynamic range.
Decisions, decisions...lumpy
| Lump: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya? |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Lump: Talk some stereo putw at me, will ya?
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:31:30 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> Why not several putws spread
> around inside and hooked up in series? Like maybe one on the tailblock,
> one on the back, etc. etc. Basically I was wondering what would happen
> if you wired a couple of those in series to one preamp?
I think you'd want each pickup to see its own preamp channel, and then
to combine those according to taste via a mixer.
Otherwise the impedances will go all impudent on ya. Messy.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| Hum stops when you touch a . . . [24] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:31:48 GMT
. . . jack or some other metal part or connector.
Any thoughts on what could cause that kind of hum? I know the house
wiring is primo. Does it suggest a ground loop?
Thanks anybody,
Sherman
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:22:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"John" <<belljs@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:a5495t$oqi$<1@slb7...>...
> is there a dimmer in the circuit?
> "Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> news:<3c759edb.1122861@news...>...
> > . . . jack or some other metal part or connector.
> >
> > Any thoughts on what could cause that kind of hum? I know the house
> > wiring is primo. Does it suggest a ground loop?
> >
> > Thanks anybody,
> >
> > Sherman
> >
it suggests a internal grounding problem in the amplifier
this could be a loose grounding screw, a bad ground trace on the circut
board or possibly a poor ground on the instrument
have a real tech check out the grounding of your gear
george
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:28:48 -0500
Thanks, John. Just yesterday we finished a major electrical service
upgrade on the house. It never had a decent ground and we had some
current leaking across the hot and neutrals inside the meter socket that
was energizing all the drains and even the basement walls. Spooky.
Anyway, I was sorta waiting to see if that might make any noticeable
differences in the audio gear but it didn't seem to. I'm certainly
sleeping better. Poorer though.
Thanks again.
Jeff
John wrote:
>
> is there a dimmer in the circuit?
> "Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> news:<3c759edb.1122861@news...>...
> > . . . jack or some other metal part or connector.
> >
> > Any thoughts on what could cause that kind of hum? I know the house
> > wiring is primo. Does it suggest a ground loop?
> >
> > Thanks anybody,
> >
> > Sherman
> >
> >
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:37:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c759edb.1122861@news...>...
> . . . jack or some other metal part or connector.
>
> Any thoughts on what could cause that kind of hum? I know the house
> wiring is primo. Does it suggest a ground loop?
>
> Thanks anybody,
>
> Sherman
Sherm you might want to contact
André Huisman
New-Line licht & geluid
<huisman@new-line...>
http://www.new-line.nl
he knows as much about grounding and hums as anyone I have ever met
Thanks
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:41:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Steve Comeau" <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:czjd8.53988$<p5.8499201@news1...>...
> Simplest debugging is to swap out the cable to see if that's gone, or is
> going, bad.
>
> Got any fluorescent lights or dimmer switches in the room? They can
> introduce noise.
Dimmer and fluorescent noise will fluctuate as your position changes but
will be unaffected by the touching of the strings
George
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:23:09 -0500
Thanks George, John and Steve (but not those yahoos shrimer, karlo and
jordan). So you guys would agree that taping a wire to the barrel of a
jack and sticking the other end down my sock's not a good idea?
OK, turns out that hum stops when I use a different connection
arrangement. Don't worry; I won't tell ya the details. Its ugly.
Here's something about that hum: When I plug the putw/power plug into 2
separate mixer channels using a tip/ring Y splitter I get that hum that
stops when you touch a plug barrel. If I use just a stereo cable from
the Power Plug directly into 1 channel of the mixer (the TRS jack L side
only is mono) it doesn't hum at all.
BTW George, I've decided to impose a fairly serious sanction on shrimer,
karlo, and jordan. I know it sounds brutal but I've decided I'm going to
have to withhold my affection from them.
Tough Love in Cleveland
George Gleason wrote:
>
> "Steve Comeau" <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote in message
> news:czjd8.53988$<p5.8499201@news1...>...
> > Simplest debugging is to swap out the cable to see if that's gone, or is
> > going, bad.
> >
> > Got any fluorescent lights or dimmer switches in the room? They can
> > introduce noise.
>
> Dimmer and fluorescent noise will fluctuate as your position changes but
> will be unaffected by the touching of the strings
> George
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:06 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
In article
<c_jd8.18967$<BR3.1084047@bgtnsc04-news...>>, George
Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> Dimmer and fluorescent noise will fluctuate as your position changes but
> will be unaffected by the touching of the strings
Hmmm... that's not true for MY electric bass/amp/dimmer switches. Two
lamps on dimmers in the living room -- if I touch the strings OR turn
off the lamps, the bass stops buzzing.
My impedance must be all wrong.
--Al Evans--
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:57:06 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
In article
<t7td8.19679$<BR3.1134436@bgtnsc04-news...>>, George
Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> > Hmmm... that's not true for MY electric bass/amp/dimmer switches. Two
> > lamps on dimmers in the living room -- if I touch the strings OR turn
> > off the lamps, the bass stops buzzing.
>
> Al that is similar to the fact that most people who will get the flu this
> year have eaten carrots
Nope.
The bass hums every time. Proximity to the dimmers has a direct
influence on the hum. Every time I put my palm across the strings, the
hum stops. If you held the bass instead, the hum would stop if you put
your palm across the strings.
I think it's legitimate to conclude that there's some correlation here,
don't you?
--Al Evans--
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:18:07 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Al Evans" <<al@tbtm...>> wrote in message
news:220220020957067459%<al@tbtm...>...
> In article
> <t7td8.19679$<BR3.1134436@bgtnsc04-news...>>, George
> Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm... that's not true for MY electric bass/amp/dimmer switches. Two
> > > lamps on dimmers in the living room -- if I touch the strings OR turn
> > > off the lamps, the bass stops buzzing.
> >
> > Al that is similar to the fact that most people who will get the flu
this
> > year have eaten carrots
>
> Nope.
>
> The bass hums every time. Proximity to the dimmers has a direct
> influence on the hum. Every time I put my palm across the strings, the
> hum stops. If you held the bass instead, the hum would stop if you put
> your palm across the strings.
>
> I think it's legitimate to conclude that there's some correlation here,
> don't you?
the only connection(tin my level of understanding) would be the rfi
energizing a bad ground in your equipment
There are cleary(IMO) two seperate issues at work here that you are
connecting beacuse not enough information is available to seperate them in
your mind
I am not a expert in this type of matter and recommend a step up the
electronic food chain so we both can learn
If you have no problems with me asking my electrical engineering friends and
my RF engineering friends perhaps we can pin this down
I am willing to be wrong as long as I learn something in the process
George
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:54:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
I'll take a wack at it. Things that can cause hum.
Poor grounding - the trick is to figure out which piece of gear is the
problem.
Poor shielding - mostly cable or instrument related
Single coil pickups - your basic 60Hz antenna
Poor power supply filtering - you can hear this one yourself by putting one of
those outboard 9 - 24VDC power supplies next to your signal cables.
Gain structure of dasiy chaining effects and other stuff in your signal path -
if you have multiple amplifiers in series you will reach a point where the
signal to noise ratio degrades to where the 60Hz hum, which BTW is always
present, becomes annoying.
And there's always the power source, location, phase of the moon.... :-)
Steve Hawkins
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:04:01 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
My guitar room has ceiling overheads controlled by a dimmer too. The switch I
put in is one of those that just looks like an ordinary toggle. If it's not
in the fully on position then all the amps hum. At first I thought they just
didn't know the words.
This small room also has two old TV's (or Nintendo and Sega monitors), one of
the family computers, etc. When I built the room I tapped into to two
different circuits. Lucky I did, with everything that's plugged in there
now. Oh and one of these circuits I also tapped from this room to punch a
hole in the wall for another outside outlet where I plug in all the xmas
lights. Glad there's no energy crisis--I know that's true because Rush said
so this morning and Hannity said it yesterday.
Dick
Al Evans wrote:
> In article
> <c_jd8.18967$<BR3.1084047@bgtnsc04-news...>>, George
> Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> > Dimmer and fluorescent noise will fluctuate as your position changes but
> > will be unaffected by the touching of the strings
>
> Hmmm... that's not true for MY electric bass/amp/dimmer switches. Two
> lamps on dimmers in the living room -- if I touch the strings OR turn
> off the lamps, the bass stops buzzing.
>
> My impedance must be all wrong.
>
> --Al Evans--
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:15:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Dick Thaxter" <<rtha@loc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C767A01.77FFACCC@loc...>...
> My guitar room has ceiling overheads controlled by a dimmer too. The
switch I
> put in is one of those that just looks like an ordinary toggle. If it's
not
> in the fully on position then all the amps hum. At first I thought they
just
> didn't know the words.
Yes but if you touch them(the amps) do they stop humming ? no . that is
beacuse the way a dimmer works(or doesn't work iMO) is to chop the voltage
and dump all the excess to ground this is very diffrent that a rfi buzz
that seems to dampen when a good ground is established
this is quickly getting past my ability to articulate my experiances
Possibly Tom can shed his insights to this
Thank You
george
George
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:38:11 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hum,,,,,,
a few things could be happening here.
We have dimmers that we also turn off when we need 'dead silence'. We also
have to turn off our refrigerator when recording, because when the
compressor motor kicks on, an incredible amount of noise is imparted into
the recording equipment.
When we use stereo pickups with any two pre-amps or a stereo pre-amp and
then plugging into two separate amps, one or both amps will hum. This
happens even when both amps are plugged into the same power strip. Though
this has been cautioned against, one thing that stops it is to use one of
the 3 to 2 plug adapters on either one of the amplifier power cords.
We do not have this problem when running the same two signals into our
mixer.
This effect can vary greatly with different cables. Audio cables can be
shielded anywhere from 40% up to 100%, and in more than a few cases, the
cables have been the culprit (even if they are new and working). Check out
the stereo cables made by Hosa, TRS on one end, two 1/4" mono's on the
other. These cables are two separate cables joined at the center rather than
running two signals inside the same shield.
We've found that in most cases, there is >a little< hum present in almost
every type of signal if you crank everything up and listen closely for it.
It almost always goes away if you touch metal on the cables or the amps.
As most of you know, we struggled with hum for a long time before we traced
the problem back to a large batch of mis-printed films. In these cases, the
shield on the pickups was not complete, and we have recalled all of these
unfortunate pickups and replaced them with hum-free ones. Our solution was
to include a copper shield down one side of the pickups, and this works well
unless the pickup gets mounted and re-mounted so many times that the copper
foil fails. In these cases, we replace the pickup and hope that the
experimentation phase is complete, and that it can be mounted right off the
bat in its 'happy spot'.
Another thing that can cause this is a cold solder joint at the jack. It is
not enough to have solder holding the wire to the jack, there should be a
metal to metal joint, with the solder holding it together for stability.
This is true for all the cable connections, and the connections of the
pickups to the jack. If the joints are 'cold', especially on the ground
leads, there is resistance that causes everything upstream of the joint to
float above ground, causing DC off-sets and a susceptibility to picking up
noise, particularly, hum.
I hope this helps, and if it doesn't give me a call.
Sincerely,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:07:58 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Interesting timing, Jeff. I've had this kind of problem too, especially
with film pickups (at some level or another from all manufacturers). I
have some ideas about dealing with this, and I discussed the problem
with some engineers at the AES meeting last December; I've also raised
the problem with some of the RAP folks in the past. It's funny that
so common a problem seems to be rather poorly understood, even by
good engineers. I happened to have spent some evenings in the last
week or two studying the AES special issue on grounding & shields
specifically to try to understand this problem. I still feel
like I don't know exactly what's going on! Even in this classic
collection of papers, the problem is never directly explained.
I believe the noise is capacitively coupled low frequency noise,
and not RF, and I don't see why dimmers and flourescent lights should
be immune from producing it. I think it's especially troublesome for film
pickups because they tend to have a large area (they are big capacitors in
a sense) and have a lower output than, say, ceramic piezos. Even
so, with a well-shielded pickup, the hum should not be there if
the *whole system* properly executes its grounding. Muncy's paper
in the AES issue describes an experiment where he intentionally
inserted 100 mA of noise current (i.e., a lot) in the shields of cables
in a system that was properly grounded, and the output S/N was still better
than CD quality (i.e., hums and buzzes all over 90 dB down, even from
mic inputs with high gain). But rather simple and seemingly innocuous
changes to grounding inside just one piece of equipment
compromised the S/N by several tens of dB. So it is possible to
have audio gear work quietly in an environment with significant
sources of noise, even in the outlet grounds. But it requires that
every piece of gear in the system properly handle cable shields.
David mentioned:
> When we use stereo pickups with any two pre-amps or a stereo pre-amp and
> then plugging into two separate amps, one or both amps will hum. This
> happens even when both amps are plugged into the same power strip. Though
> this has been cautioned against, one thing that stops it is to use one of
> the 3 to 2 plug adapters on either one of the amplifier power cords.
> We do not have this problem when running the same two signals into our
> mixer.
When you have this kind of problem, where the noise is present even when
gear shares the same power, and goes away if you
plug into a different piece of gear, it is a likely indication that
the noisey gear has a classic "pin 1" problem. David, what amps were
you using? I ask because I've now seen several reports here of this
kind of hum when pickups or the output of preamps are plugged into
Ultrasound amps, and I'm starting to wonder if perhaps they have not
properly executed the input ground. All the amp circuitry has to
be surrounded by a grounded chassis, AND the input shield has to be
handled in a very specific way (Muncy's paper in the AES issue
explains exactly how). I think it may be challenging to handle the
inputs properly for hi Z sources, and I would be surprised if Ultras
have more of a problem than anyone else, but that happens to be
the reports I've seen recently (probably just because they are
such popular amps on this group!). If they use PCB-mounted 1/4"
input jacks, then improper handling of the input shields is very
likely a problem since the very construction of most such jacks
prevents proper termination of the cable shield.
Unfortunately, a "pin 1" problem is the most common and likely source
of hum problems, and it indicates a defect in design of one or more of the
pieces of equipment in the system. There is no easy good fix
other than modification of the equipment. In some cases lifting
cable shields at one end or the other of balanced cables can help,
but here we're not talking about balanced cables so there may just
not be a simple and cheap solution.
> This effect can vary greatly with different cables. Audio cables can be
> shielded anywhere from 40% up to 100%, and in more than a few cases, the
> cables have been the culprit (even if they are new and working).
This is indeed also an issue. The data I've seen so far only
carefully test balanced cable. When multiple cables are run inside
the same shield, not only the amount of shielding matters, but also
whether it is twisted in the same direction and pitch as the inner
conductors or not. I was amazed to see how much this kind of detail
mattered---even 100% foil shielded cable can be significantly
compromised if the ground drain wire isn't properly wound.
It's a messy problem, but by all means stay away from safety ground
lift adapters as a solution. That's been repeated many times here,
and appears in italics in the AES recommendations! There is probably
only a small chance of injury in most cases, but the injury could be
very serious if it does happen. If you're at a live gig, a little
hum probably won't impact the performance much; try to live with it
rather than lift safety grounds to remove it. If you're in a studio,
take the time to fix the problem without compromising your safety.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
PS: If you design systems or circuits where this stuff might be an
issue, I highly recommend study of the June 1995 issue of the J. of
the AES. It's available here:
http://www.aes.org/publications/other.cfm#5
Look in the "Journal Issues" section for "Shields and Grounds."
There are also good articles at Rane's web site on the topic (including
one from that AES issue):
http://www.rane.com/pdf/groundin.pdf
http://www.rane.com/pdf/note102.pdf
One fascinating point made in Muncy's AES paper is that proper
ground practices are well known and carefully followed in most
of the EE community. The audio sector seems to be almost unique
in its disregard for good ground/shielding practice. Strange
but true. This probably has a lot to do with the variety of
interconnects and the strength of market forces.
From: Hedberg <hhedberg@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:34:17 -0600
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:22 -0500, Jeff Sherman
<<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
>Tom Loredo wrote:
>
>Nice post, Tom. You wrote:
>
>> there may just not be a simple and cheap solution.
>
>Welllllllllll . . . . how about one end of a piece of wire stuffed down
>your sock and the other taped to the . . . ok, never mind. Sorry. Just
>trying to contribute something . . . anything. I've gotten so much
>rmmga help lately, ya know?
>
>Jeff "Desperate to Contribute" Sherman
Jeff
For what it's worth:
I had this problem with a Seymour Duncan SA2 in my Taylor a number of
years ago. For a long time, I would attach a ground strap to the
guitar's jack and ground it to my body -- viola (as they say in Paris,
Texas) no more racket. Then one day I was looking at something and
noticed that the on-board battery wasn't plugged in all the way. It
was making some contact, but just not snapped in. Snapped that
sucker in there and no more hum but then I kept picking up some
Mexican radio station in Acuña playing Len Alcamo's greatest hits 24
hours a day. (Ok, so I made that part up.). You might consider
checking all the connections to make sure that you don't have any cold
solder joints or other not-so-hot connection.
Harold
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:54:12 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
In article <MXud8.29765$<rs6.13990159@typhoon...>>, Chuck
Boyer <<news@caboyer...>> wrote:
> George Gleason wrote...
> > the only connection(tin my level of understanding) would be the rfi
> > energizing a bad ground in your equipment
> > There are cleary(IMO) two seperate issues at work here that you are
> > connecting beacuse not enough information is available to seperate them in
> > your mind
> > I am not a expert in this type of matter and recommend a step up the
> > electronic food chain so we both can learn
> > If you have no problems with me asking my electrical engineering friends and
> > my RF engineering friends perhaps we can pin this down
> >
> > I am willing to be wrong as long as I learn something in the process
> > George
>
> PMFJI, but not knowing the specifics I'll make a EE's WAG here...
>
> It does sound like two problems to me, too. First, it sounds like there's
> poor ground wiring / shielding, or maybe a wiring reversal in the pickup.
> Clearly there's some sort of imbalance that allows the external fields from
> the dimmer to couple into the audio electronics and cause the hum in the first
> place.
George and Chuck,
Actually, I just posted that to contradict a statement that touching
the strings could not make the noise go away. Obviously, in some cases
like mine it can.
I was unsurprised by it -- last time I played electrical instruments,
in the sixties, I seem to recall that most or all of them quieted down
when you touched the strings.
The electric bass in question is a 1972 Gibson EB-3, and I have no
doubt whatever that it needs rewiring. At least. Someday, I'll get
around to it.
> What happens to the hum if you wave your hand near the dimmer while touching
> the strings? If your body is acting like a shield, I'd expect it to stay
> (relatively) quiet; if it's coupling out of phase energy to the pickup, then
> I'd expect variations in the hum level.
Cool idea! I'll try it! I'm pretty sure it's RFI, because it depends a
lot on the position and orientation of the bass, and its proximity to
the dimmer switch. But I haven't tried waving my hand over the dimmer
to see if it changes. I was assuming it had something to do with my
body's capacitance or something. I'm almost completely ignorant about
these things.
--Al Evans--
From: Chuck Boyer <news@caboyer...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Cox
Al Evans wrote ...
> ... I was assuming it had something to do with my
> body's capacitance or something. I'm almost completely ignorant about
> these things.
Actually, I'm sure it does. At 60Hz wavelengths, every conductor involved is
electrically short, which makes conductors look primarily capacitive. Any
conductor, e.g. we salt-water bags, has capacitance, the other 'plate' of that
capacitor being the great ground in the sky (heh! ;-) at 'infinity'. When you
touch something in a circuit, your body capacitance gets connected to the spot
you touch, and you've just changed the circuit. Plus, your body also acts
like an antenna, so your touch will couple any electromagnetic radiation that
your body 'receives' into the circuit at the place you touch it; where you
touch redefines the 'circuit' and makes a difference in what happens elsewhere
in the circuit. The problem you described is a complex one involving various
stray capacitances, and it'd take a lot of head scratching - for me, at
least - to set up the analysis correctly... solving it's easy; setting it up
right is the hard part. ;-)
For interested lurkers, a superb reference I came across many years ago is
"Grounding and Shielding Techniques in Instrumentation" by Ralph Morrison.
I've got the first edition, but here's info on the 4th edition:
http://www.electrostatic.com/Morriins.htm
Here's something specifically related to audio applications:
http://www.rane.com/pdf/groundin.pdf
Cheers!
Chuck Boyer
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:53:32 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <3bud8.5596$<Im1.416120@bgtnsc05-news...>>, on 02/22/02 at
04:18 PM, "George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> said:
>"Al Evans" <<al@tbtm...>> wrote in message
>news:220220020957067459%<al@tbtm...>...
>> In article
>> <t7td8.19679$<BR3.1134436@bgtnsc04-news...>>, George
>> Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>>
>> > > Hmmm... that's not true for MY electric bass/amp/dimmer switches. Two
>> > > lamps on dimmers in the living room -- if I touch the strings OR turn
>> > > off the lamps, the bass stops buzzing.
>> >
>> > Al that is similar to the fact that most people who will get the flu
>this
>> > year have eaten carrots
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The bass hums every time. Proximity to the dimmers has a direct
>> influence on the hum. Every time I put my palm across the strings, the
>> hum stops. If you held the bass instead, the hum would stop if you put
>> your palm across the strings.
>>
>> I think it's legitimate to conclude that there's some correlation here,
>> don't you?
>the only connection(tin my level of understanding) would be the rfi energizing
>a bad ground in your equipment
>There are cleary(IMO) two seperate issues at work here that you are connecting
>beacuse not enough information is available to seperate them in your mind
>I am not a expert in this type of matter and recommend a step up the electronic
>food chain so we both can learn
>If you have no problems with me asking my electrical engineering friends and my
>RF engineering friends perhaps we can pin this down
>I am willing to be wrong as long as I learn something in the process George
The dimmers throw a noise-field (becasue they are chopping the AC to lessen the
voltage) and the pickups can as easily grab that changing field as they can the
moving strings. This is less rfi than just plain hum-field. Properly grounded
pickups are somewhat less able to "hear" the noise, but I've seen it even in
situations where the gear is very well-grounded, and the dimmmer is
exceptionally noisy (in that case, touching the instrument ground failed to
help). (I even had one situation where the PA was all properly grounded, but
the pipe-organ's air-duct system was not, but that's a whole different story . .
.)
When I have seen this effect, it usually can be changed (ie: the the sound of
the humm changes, either in amplitude or pitch) by moving about the area or by
rotating the instrument on one of it's axes.
It's still likely that Al's gear is less than perfect in it's ground
configuration, but whether that is by accident or design is moot. The solution
is most probably a choice between a better dimmer and turning down the bass when
it's not being played.
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:41:19 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:07:58 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
> >Interesting timing, Jeff. I've had this kind of problem too, especially
> >with film pickups (at some level or another from all manufacturers). <snip>
> Hey Tom: Is this kind of hum different from when you guys talk about
> ground loops? Does that stop when you touch a metal part?
Not usually. Groundloop hum stops when you break the connection that
lets current flow on the ground circuitry.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:57:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c7730dc.3420287@news...>...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:07:58 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi folks-
> >
> >Interesting timing, Jeff. I've had this kind of problem too, especially
> >with film pickups (at some level or another from all manufacturers).
<snip>
>
> Hey Tom: Is this kind of hum different from when you guys talk about
> ground loops? Does that stop when you touch a metal part?
>
> Jeff
Touch a main unit in a ground loop problem and you get a tingle in your
finger or complete cardiac arrest depending on how well grounded you are and
the Va present
George
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:20:59 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Steve Comeau <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote:
> I know I'm taking the discussion back a few days, but I plugged my guitar
> into my amp today and noticed a hum/buzz that wasn't there yesterday.
> Similar to Jeff's experience, the hum/buzz went away when I touched the
> metal cover of the guitar cable plug or touched the soundhole pickup.
> Thanks to the discussion on this thread, I immediately set out to find the
> source by unplugging or turning off various lights, appliances, etc.
> Long story short, it was a dimmer switch in the kitchen. Turned it off, no
> hum/buzz.
> Now, any recommendations on mitigating the problem besides keeping the
> kitchen dark? Do I have a bum dimmer or is it likely all units of the same
> model will generate this noise? For reference, it's a 600W dimmer
> controlling six, 65W interior flood bulbs mounted in the ceiling. My
> practice room is directly above the kitchen. In other words, the wiring and
> the lighting cans are right below my feet.
> Are there line conditioners that I can plug the amp into that would solve
> this problem?
That's why you won't see inexpensive household dimmers in recording
studio, but expensive rheostat types. There is little you can do but
replace the dimmer with one that doesn't cause that. C & H Surplus Sales
has surplus units for decent pricing, though it can be tough finding one
that will fit in a standard AC wall box.
Line conditioners, etc., will do nothing. Essentially, a type of radio
interference is being broadcast into your space and the signal chain
into your amp is functioning as an antenna.
A cheaper approach is to install a switch in parallel with the dimmer so
that you can turn the dimmer off and still have light. Then when you
want romance in the kitchen and aren't tryhing to pull it off using an
electric guitar you can turn off the switch and go for mood with the
dimmer.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:43:16 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Jeff Sherman <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:31:57 GMT, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
> wrote:
> >Sherman:
> >Does the hum go away if you unplug one of the "Y" ends that's feeding
> >the mixer?
> Yes. I'll check again but I'm nearly certain.
1. HOSA delivers cheap cables, and some of the even have wire inside.
(If you've ever sliced one open then you'll know I'm being only
partially funny...)
2. There is a liklihood that your HOSA is hosed.
3. HOSA offers a lifetime warranty and I've known folks to exchange
HOSERs that were a few years old. Almost nobody who buys 'em realizes
this.
4. If the shield isn't shielding on one of those "Y" legs it might cause
the trouble experienced, so firstly try another "insert" cable.
5. It could also be that for some reason, perhaps to do with the name
Behringer, ground current is flowing along the shields between the two
mixer inputs when using that cable. This should not happen, but it
might.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:10:45 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Steve Comeau wrote:
>
> I know I'm taking the discussion back a few days, but I plugged my guitar
> into my amp today and noticed a hum/buzz that wasn't there yesterday.
> Similar to Jeff's experience, the hum/buzz went away when I touched the
> metal cover of the guitar cable plug or touched the soundhole pickup.
> Thanks to the discussion on this thread, I immediately set out to find the
> source by unplugging or turning off various lights, appliances, etc.
>
> Long story short, it was a dimmer switch in the kitchen. Turned it off, no
> hum/buzz.
>
> Now, any recommendations on mitigating the problem besides keeping the
> kitchen dark? Do I have a bum dimmer or is it likely all units of the same
> model will generate this noise? For reference, it's a 600W dimmer
> controlling six, 65W interior flood bulbs mounted in the ceiling. My
> practice room is directly above the kitchen. In other words, the wiring and
> the lighting cans are right below my feet.
>
I think the problem is that for efficiency they need to switch quickly, which
generates RF hash. Slower switchers, which would be quieter, would generate
(lots of) heat -- probably too much to be dissipated in a normal switch box.
> Are there line conditioners that I can plug the amp into that would solve
> this problem?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hum stops when you touch a . . .
Date: 25 Feb 2002 01:56:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<3c78f5a3.4536888@news...>>, <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff
Sherman) writes:
>Ohhhhhhh . . . thank you guys. Light at the end of the tunnel?
>
>That hosa product isn't exactly called an insert cable but when I use
>it in the insert jack of my lil crate ca30 it works perfectly for
>sending and receiving effects. So let's say it is an insert cable.
>
>So waddyathink I should try instead? I wanna plug the stereo trs out
>of the power plug into 2 mixer channels so I can eq the two sources
>separately.
>
Well, Jeffrey. I am doing just what you describe. Hosa Insert Cable (my
definition: one TRS end to two mono ends; T goes to one side, R to the other)
from my dual source pickup (so my pickup is TRS out) to two seperate channels
on the Mackie mixer, OR to the two mono inputs on my Raven Labs blender. No
buzz; no hum; no sweat. You've got the right cable. Something else is the
problem. Plug into two seperate channels on someone else's mixer and see if
you have a problem.
mitch
| How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars? [6] |
|---|
From: AUDIOARC <audioarc@aol...>
Subject: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: 23 Feb 2002 00:48:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Saw Buddy Miller with a piezo in his guitar. Saw Mary Chapin with a piezo in
her guitar. Seen lot's of others with piezo's. I know they were piezo's for
sure (under saddle transducers. Fishman - you know the deal) Yet I can't rely
on a good sound.What gives?
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:59:57 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Heavy processing with equipment that exists at price-points the average
consumer doesn't consider?
Jon Larsson
"AUDIOARC" <<audioarc@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020222194816.11742.00000047@mb-cq...>...
> Saw Buddy Miller with a piezo in his guitar. Saw Mary Chapin with a piezo
in
> her guitar. Seen lot's of others with piezo's. I know they were piezo's
for
> sure (under saddle transducers. Fishman - you know the deal) Yet I can't
rely
> on a good sound.What gives?
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:20:37 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"AUDIOARC" <<audioarc@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020222194816.11742.00000047@mb-cq...>...
> Saw Buddy Miller with a piezo in his guitar. Saw Mary Chapin with a piezo
in
> her guitar. Seen lot's of others with piezo's. I know they were piezo's
for
> sure (under saddle transducers. Fishman - you know the deal) Yet I can't
rely
> on a good sound.What gives?
Um... a really good sound guy on the PA board?
Megabuck PA cabs?
;-)
It's difficult to draw conclusions from examples like this. And then there
is the difference between <Insert Artist's Name Here> and YOUR personal
attack and playing style. I once saw Michael Hedges play in a tiny club
where I was about a foot away from the stage, and he was using a pickup
system and PA setup that I wouldn't be caught dead with. Know what? He
sounded wonderful.
Experiment! Buy a lot of stuff (preferably used), and sell the stuff that
doesn't work on Ebay. Learn what works on YOUR guitar, and for YOUR playing
style.
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: 23 Feb 2002 01:50:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< in article <20020222194816.11742.00000047@mb-cq...>, AUDIOARC at
<audioarc@aol...> wrote on 23/2/02 12:48 AM:
> Saw Buddy Miller with a piezo in his guitar. Saw Mary Chapin with a piezo in
> her guitar. Seen lot's of others with piezo's. I know they were piezo's for
> sure (under saddle transducers. Fishman - you know the deal) Yet I can't rely
> on a good sound.What gives?
Boss AD-5. Try it.
David
>>I dunno - there's a lot of air that comes between the speakers and the
listeners ears in larger venues also which I think helps. That and the fact
that I think the whole "piezos suck" thing is overblown a little bit here also.
Well - except that they do.
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:14:01 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I remember when Ovation first came out with a production piezo equipped
guitar. Everybody went falling over nuts about how good they sounded. And
they did considering the attempts at acoustic guitar amplification that had
preceded them. It was the same when synth strings emerged. But after a
while, you start to listen more closely, more critically and eventually
become dissatisfied. (Equipment manufacturers are counting on this.)
Imagine how the first magnetic pickups on arch tops must have sounded to the
ears of those who had never heard any such thing.. They sounded nothing
like the instrument they were amplifying, yet this new sound has, over time,
come to be accepted and even sought after as "vintage".
No, piezos don't suck. They just sound different. In the right hands they
can sound wonderful
"AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
> I think the whole "piezos suck" thing is overblown a little bit here
also.
> Well - except that they do.
>
From: DEidelberg <deidelberg@aol...>
Subject: Re: How come piezo's sound so good in other people's guitars?
Date: 25 Feb 2002 17:22:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>Fishman piezos suck, no question about it...<<
I question that. I have a Fishman in my Larrivee OM10 and frankly it sounds
very good (for a piezo).
David
| Any site devoted to acoustic steel string pickups? [4] |
|---|
From: MosesTey <mosestey@aol...>
Subject: Any site devoted to acoustic steel string pickups?
Date: 23 Feb 2002 05:40:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Need to put a pickup in an acoustic for the purpose of amping over a church
context. Any suggestion or sites to visit which gives one the lay of the land
regarding the latest advancement in this area?
Thanks in advance.
Blessings,
Moses
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Any site devoted to acoustic steel string pickups?
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:19:53 -0700
MosesTey wrote:
> Need to put a pickup in an acoustic...
> ...Any suggestion or sites to visit...
No sites that I know of except manufacturer
sites. But you probably have the ears and
keyboards of the biggest user base right
here on RMMGA. Suggestions will begin...now..:-)
My recommendation -
www.pick-uptheworld.com
lumpy
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Any site devoted to acoustic steel string pickups?
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:09:09 -0700
MKarlo asked:
> Hey ya Lumpster. Just curious what other
> options you tried for pickups before
> settling on PUTW.
That is a very good question. I'm always bragging
on the sound of my PUTW, your point is very valid.
I haven't tried any of the current pickups. I played
in studios for years with simple, cheap ovations
with their undersaddles, but that was before there
was such a choice as there is today.
So my opinion is either biased or ignorant, since
I haven't sampled the others. But I do know that
I constantly get comments and queries from other
guitarists who hear my guitar. All the Colorado
animals have heard it and many of them, particulary
Mr Sorell, have tried some or all of the other
offerings. Many, if not all of them, have switched
from 'brand X' to PUTW. Maybe we were just spoiled
by having such close and excellent tech support
since David lives in Colorado too. Or maybe we just
like the cottage industry approach that David and Annie
have. Probably some of both.
I just struck gold first try, I guess..:D
lumpy
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Any site devoted to acoustic steel string pickups?
Date: 24 Feb 2002 18:12:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <a59sqi$5i049$<1@ID-76024...>>, "Lumpy"
<<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> writes:
>That is a very good question. I'm always bragging
>on the sound of my PUTW, your point is very valid.
>I haven't tried any of the current pickups. I played
>in studios for years with simple, cheap ovations
>with their undersaddles, but that was before there
>was such a choice as there is today.
>
>So my opinion is either biased or ignorant, since
>I haven't sampled the others. But I do know that
>I constantly get comments and queries from other
>guitarists who hear my guitar. All the Colorado
>animals have heard it and many of them, particulary
>Mr Sorell, have tried some or all of the other
>offerings. Many, if not all of them, have switched
>from 'brand X' to PUTW. Maybe we were just spoiled
>by having such close and excellent tech support
>since David lives in Colorado too. Or maybe we just
>like the cottage industry approach that David and Annie
>have. Probably some of both.
>
>I just struck gold first try, I guess..:D
>
>lumpy
>
Thanks Lumpy. That's helpful. I only have long term experience with the
Fishman and B-Band UST's and the B-Band dual source. The Fishman was outa
there in less than a year. After numerous recommendations on the NG, I went
with the B-Band. It's good stuff, and I can dial in a good sound with a really
nice, high end pre, but...
I guess I want it all; simple and best. I don't even care that much about
cheap, but I want my guitar to sound like, well, my guitar, without a bunch of
stuff in the signal chain, eq, batteries in the guitar, and, and, WAHHHHH!
(sniff) Oh, well. Got that off my chest. Anyway, sounds like the PUTWA with
work for me as long as it sounds true with my guitar. The big question.
mitch
***************************************************
Society for, the Excessive, Use of, Commas
***************************************************
| Help please; amping Gypsy guitar [3] |
|---|
From: Jonathan Hill <jonathanh@freeuk...>
Subject: Help please; amping Gypsy guitar
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:50:17 -0000
As in...how d'ye do it? I've used BBands thus far in Hullah & Yamaha &
Gibson; the bridge setup on a Gypsy (i.e. Selmer McCaffrey) (don't bother,
'tis but a parochial gag) style guitar obviously doesn't lend itself to that
particular option. Anyone been down this road before me & want to share
success stories?
Jonathan
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Help please; amping Gypsy guitar
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:10:09 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Jonathan Hill" <<jonathanh@freeuk...>> wrote in message
news:<3c782bf9_3@news2...>...
> As in...how d'ye do it? I've used BBands thus far in Hullah & Yamaha &
> Gibson; the bridge setup on a Gypsy (i.e. Selmer McCaffrey) (don't bother,
> 'tis but a parochial gag) style guitar obviously doesn't lend itself to
that
> particular option. Anyone been down this road before me & want to share
> success stories?
> Jonathan
Shelly Parks is a luthier in Vancouver BC and guitarist for Pearl Django who
would probably be the best source for answering that question. I don't have
any contact info off the top of my head.
JD
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Help please; amping Gypsy guitar
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:29:58 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Jonathan Hill" <<jonathanh@freeuk...>> wrote in message
news:<3c782bf9_3@news2...>...
> As in...how d'ye do it? I've used BBands thus far in Hullah & Yamaha &
> Gibson; the bridge setup on a Gypsy (i.e. Selmer McCaffrey) (don't bother,
> 'tis but a parochial gag) style guitar obviously doesn't lend itself to
that
> particular option. Anyone been down this road before me & want to share
> success stories?
> Jonathan
How about an external mic on a stand? Aside from tonal advantages, it might
lend a nice '30's vibe to the performance... especially if you use a big 'ol
tube condenser mic. .
But you may need to play at higher volumes than an external mic setup would
allow.
| PUTW question [2] |
|---|
From: <bub@home...>
Subject: PUTW question
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:48:00 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
In the early days of soundboard transducers (ie barcus-berry), I could
get a reasonably acoustic-y sound but was very prone to feedback when
used in a band situation. I know PUTW has a rep as being feedback
resistant. Can anyone explain to me how one soundboard transducer
could be more feedback resistant than another given the same preamp
and eq?
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: PUTW question
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:54:52 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy Bub-
<bub@home...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone explain to me how one soundboard transducer
> could be more feedback resistant than another given the same preamp
> and eq?
Different types of pickups pick up vibrations differently, even
though they may use the same or similar sensing materials. For
example, using either piezo crystals (probably what is in the BB)
or piezo film (what's in the PUTW and the McIntyre Feather), one
can build pickups that sense acceleration (how quickly the velocity
of the top is changing at the mounting point) or strain (how much
the soundboard is bending at the mounting point). These various
types of sensor will sound very different and have different
feedback susceptibility, all other things equal.
As if that isn't enough, all other things are seldom equal. Different
pickups have different geometries (shape, size) and different mounting
methods (glue, adhesive tape, putty), all of which affect tone and
feedback suceptibility. Finally, as mentioned above, pickups use
different kinds of sensing material (piezo crystals, piezo film,
electret film, electromagnetic pickups) which can also affect the
pickup's response.
The bottom line is that the PUTW is a very different beast from
the BB (as are many other pickups). I suspect it will sound very
different and have different feedback susceptibility than your
BB. But without more details and direct experience with the
pickups in question on the same model of guitar, the only way to
find out if it will work is to give it a try. I wish it were easier
than that, but unfortunately it isn't. One virtue PUTW has over
many competitors is that there is a no-questions-asked guarantee---
you can return the pickup in a month for a full refund if it
doesn't work for you. I personally have had better luck with
other somewhat similar pickups (Feather, B-Band AST), but I don't
know of a guarantee that matches what PUTW offers.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT? [11] |
|---|
From: Gordon <rdgwood@ptd...>
Subject: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: 28 Feb 2002 08:53:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Wondering if anyone here has had the chance to compare the PUTW#27
with the McIntyre SBT/blue?
I've been happy with the McIntyre in my Ryan but I can't help but be
tempted to try the PUTW based on all of the rave reviews.
I just saw the PUTW#27 at Shoreline music for $85.00. Not bad.
From: Jack Dotson <jdotsontx@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:57:07 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I've never heard either, but I'm seriously considering the 27, also because
of the rave reviews. Today I found a dealer that's about 150 miles north of
me listed on the PUTW website as an authorized dealer, so I gave him a call.
He carries Larrivee, Lowden, etc., so he has some decent stuff. I asked if
he had the #27 in stock and he said he stopped carrying them because they
just weren't as good as some of the others at the same price range. He said
they required a pre-amp because of their extremely low output and that while
he did think they sounded good, they were just not as good as others. The
McIntyre was one he mentioned, but he was pushing the L.R. Baggs I beam and
recommended the active model. He said in his opinion it was much better
than the PUTW.
I had made up my mind to get the PUTW, but now I'm going to hold off. He
has the I beam installed in some of his guitars so I can go up and audition
it, but I still have to find someone within driving distance that carries
the PUTW.
Guitar stores here in town have never even heard of PUTW. Good question, as
far as I can tell on this group people seem to favor the PUTW's over just
about everything else, not all, but it seems like most do?
"Gordon" <<rdgwood@ptd...>> wrote in message
news:<16ef87f1.0202280853.3f215523@posting...>...
> Wondering if anyone here has had the chance to compare the PUTW#27
> with the McIntyre SBT/blue?
> I've been happy with the McIntyre in my Ryan but I can't help but be
> tempted to try the PUTW based on all of the rave reviews.
> I just saw the PUTW#27 at Shoreline music for $85.00. Not bad.
>
From: T-bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:47:17 -0500
Organization: not today
Jack Dotson wrote:
>
> I've never heard either, but I'm seriously considering the 27, also because
> of the rave reviews. Today I found a dealer that's about 150 miles north of
> me listed on the PUTW website as an authorized dealer, so I gave him a call.
> He carries Larrivee, Lowden, etc., so he has some decent stuff. I asked if
> he had the #27 in stock and he said he stopped carrying them because they
> just weren't as good as some of the others at the same price range. He said
> they required a pre-amp because of their extremely low output and that while
> he did think they sounded good, they were just not as good as others. The
> McIntyre was one he mentioned, but he was pushing the L.R. Baggs I beam and
> recommended the active model. He said in his opinion it was much better
> than the PUTW.
>
> I had made up my mind to get the PUTW, but now I'm going to hold off. He
> has the I beam installed in some of his guitars so I can go up and audition
> it, but I still have to find someone within driving distance that carries
> the PUTW.
>
> Guitar stores here in town have never even heard of PUTW. Good question, as
> far as I can tell on this group people seem to favor the PUTW's over just
> about everything else, not all, but it seems like most do?
I don't think there's a concensus for any piece of gear.
Sure, a lot of people like them but there's a lot of people who favor
Baggs, B-band, True Tone, McIntyre, Fishman etc....
In reality, it depends on who posts more often on a given subject as to
whether or not it appears to be a concensus. For all we know there may
be 25,000 happy Fishman owners lurking about who haven't bothered to
express their opinion on the subject.
Pickups are somewhat of a mystery.
I've seen several posts touting IBeam. I've read several posts claiming
that IBeams were not too hot.
I've read PUTWs were as close to "just like my guitar, only louder" as
you can get. I've seen other people write that they couldn't get the
location set for the PUTW and gave up on them.
Who is right?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that there is no concensus.
You're doing the right thing by finding as many different setups as
possible, listening to them yourself and making your own decision.
Bear in mind that what works in one guitar, may not work in a different
guitar. Try to find guitars with the same general unplugged tone as your
guitar and see what works in them.
Keep this in mind:
Many of the positive reviews you read on usenet were written by someone
with a stake in the product. Many of the negative reviews were written
by someone with a stake in a competing product.
Bob Dorgan
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: 01 Mar 2002 15:38:23 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:57:07 GMT, "Jack Dotson"
<<jdotsontx@earthlink...>> brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
<snipped>
>I had made up my mind to get the PUTW, but now I'm going to hold off. He
>has the I beam installed in some of his guitars so I can go up and audition
>it, but I still have to find someone within driving distance that carries
>the PUTW.
Jack--You've been given some damned good advice on this thread, and I
don't have a whole bunch to add, but I wanted to make a couple of
comments. The most important thing to consider is what sounds good TO
YOU in YOUR guitar. If that's an I-beam, or Feather, or PUTW--it all
comes down to your ears.
If you can't find someone around you that carries PUTW, hood up
directly with David Enke at <pickups@rmi...>. You can order a #27
directly from him, and try it out for yourself--at no risk (a complete
money-back-satisfaction-guarantee).
>Guitar stores here in town have never even heard of PUTW. Good question, as
>far as I can tell on this group people seem to favor the PUTW's over just
>about everything else, not all, but it seems like most do?
As Bob mentioned, the concept of "consensus" on this NG is good for a
laugh at best. Some of us (like me, fer instance) are pretty vocal in
talking about what we like and what we don't like--and in some
instances, that can create an illusion of "consensus" where none
actually exists. Suffice it to say, I (and several other folks)
really like the PUTW #27, and recommend it heartily to others. I
think it is, bar none, the best sounding acoustic guitar pickup system
available. You do indeed need to use a preamp with it--you'll find
that most pickups require a preamp for the best sound.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee, or a person with any
kind of stake whatsoever in, PUTW. I'm just a very happy customer.
If I can offer any assistance in your quest, by all means, drop me a
line.
<snipped>
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@usa...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: 1 Mar 2002 09:46:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Let me chip too as a happy PUTW customer. I put a #27 into my Martin
HD-28 and it was perfect the first time. It sounds just like my
guitar. The perfect amount of "airyness" and it reproduces the tone
and character of the Martin. I couldn't be happier with how it turned
out.
I also have a #27 in my Olson SJ. This might be more applicable in
your case since you have a Ryan and the two guitars are so similar.
The installation for the Olson was a little more finicky. This is
probably because the Olson is such a resonant guitar. I had to try a
few different spots before I finally settled on the one I liked. The
PUTW does a great job of picking up the Olson's tone and character. I
have to EQ my PADI just a tad, but it really does sound like it's
miked. The PUTW picks up just a tad too much body resonance in Olson,
so I'm looking to get a blender to combine the PUTW with the Baggs LB6
I also have in the SJ. I've already got the two pickups wired in
stereo so I'm ready to go! All that stands in my way is lack of $$!
Like Bill said, Dave Enke is great to work with and very helpful and
the PUTW money back guarantee can't be beat!
Pete Ngai
From: Todd Belden <toddbelden@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: 2 Mar 2002 06:03:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I tested a PUTW #30 in my Martin D-18 in the summer before last &
ended up sending it back. Since the output of these pickups by
themselves is so low, I believe the preamp used to boost the signal is
critical. I found that to get the sound I wanted out of the pickup I
needed to boost the treble & presence frequencies which, with the
older PADI that I was using, resulted in considerable hiss. I'm
wondering if a different preamp (perhaps like the Powerplug) would
boost these frequencies more cleanly. (If I were to experiment again
with a PUTW, I would try a #27- the #30 picked up way too much bass in
my D-18, which I was able to roll off with the PADI).
tb
<nighguy@usa...> (Pete Ngai) wrote in message news:<<e83e5361.0203010946.69757cac@posting...>>...
> Let me chip too as a happy PUTW customer. I put a #27 into my Martin
> HD-28 and it was perfect the first time. It sounds just like my
> guitar. The perfect amount of "airyness" and it reproduces the tone
> and character of the Martin. I couldn't be happier with how it turned
> out.
> Pete Ngai
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 16:55:55 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On 2 Mar 2002 06:03:28 -0800, <toddbelden@yahoo...> (Todd Belden)
wrote:
>I tested a PUTW #30 in my Martin D-18 in the summer before last &
>ended up sending it back. Since the output of these pickups by
>themselves is so low, I believe the preamp used to boost the signal is
>critical. I found that to get the sound I wanted out of the pickup I
>needed to boost the treble & presence frequencies which, with the
>older PADI that I was using, resulted in considerable hiss. I'm
>wondering if a different preamp (perhaps like the Powerplug) would
>boost these frequencies more cleanly. (If I were to experiment again
>with a PUTW, I would try a #27- the #30 picked up way too much bass in
>my D-18, which I was able to roll off with the PADI).
>tb
Speaking of boosting cleanly--I have an older TC Electronics preamp,
which is amazingly transparent, and lots of boost.
I feel the need for some sort of onboard EQ, though, to have some
control over what I hear in the monitors.
Jeff S.
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:56:30 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"T-bone" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message news:<3C7F6A45.2176@fltg...>...
> Keep this in mind:
> Many of the positive reviews you read on usenet were written by someone
> with a stake in the product. Many of the negative reviews were written
> by someone with a stake in a competing product.
> Bob Dorgan
Hi Bobs,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'stake', but it concerns me by its implication
that people's opinions are biased by undisclosed financial or political
motives. I can not speak for other companies and their customers, but I can
for ours.
PUTW is a privately held corporation, with 6 local shareholders. Annie and I
hold the majority of PUTW stock, and one of our employees (who's a fantastic
musician) holds a small percentage. He has never written any reviews, and
has never been involved in any discussion forums. The other parties with
interest in our company are not musicians, and they do not participate in
forums either.
We have never paid anyone to use our products, and we have NO paid endorsers
(though in some cases we have accepted bribes from people in the form of Fat
Tires). Other then the stockholders mentioned, no-one else has any financial
or political interest in our company.
Though I have become good friends with many of our customers, these
relationships are strong enough to handle criticisms about just about
anything. I'm sure that most of our customers realize that any negative
critiques regarding our products would be a positive thing, because we would
incorporate improvements to eliminate any problem areas.
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to put their personal credibility
on the line and support something they don't like, or to hide the truth from
themselves, me, or anyone else.
If people have expensive hand-built instruments, they might be motivated to
promote the builder in an effort to keep their investment value at a high
point. But we're talking about $100 pickups here, and they simply do not
represent any significant resale value in and of themselves. I think the
only time they have any value at all is when they are being used, and if
they do not perform well in that context, then they are replaced with
something that does.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:43:56 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a5ofn9$6rg$<1@nntp9...>...
>
> "T-bone" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message news:<3C7F6A45.2176@fltg...>...
> > Keep this in mind:
> > Many of the positive reviews you read on usenet were written by someone
> > with a stake in the product. Many of the negative reviews were written
> > by someone with a stake in a competing product.
> > Bob Dorgan
>
> Hi Bobs,
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'stake', but it concerns me by its
implication
> that people's opinions are biased by undisclosed financial or political
> motives. I can not speak for other companies and their customers, but I
can
> for ours.
Hi David,
I realize that I tacked my comments onto a PUTW thread, but before you or
anyone else on RMMGA gets defensive, reread what I wrote.
I said, "Many of the positive reviews you read on usenet..."
Usenet is huge. I have no idea how many music related groups there are, but
it's safe to say that RMMGA is a minuscule piece of usenet.
I certainly was not pointing a finger at anyone on this group and had no
particular poster or company in mind. My statement was general and did not
implicate anyone.
I thought I worded it carefully enough to be clear.
When taken in that context, I stand by my statement as being a reasonable
assumption and nothing more than a friendly warning to the original poster.
Let's take this a step further:
Bill Chandler and Lumpy highly recommend your pickups and preamps. I truly
believe that they do so because they believe in the product. I have seen NO
indication that these two gentlemen are doing anything other than
recommending gear that they believe is of high quality and cost effective.
That doesn't change my opinion that a good deal of usenet reviews are
slanted in one direction or another.
I hope I've made this clear to you and all the other vendors that read it,
because I value the input the shop owners, the gear manufacturers, the
luthiers and the sales reps have added to this group and would hate to see
us lose that expertise.
Bob Taylor used to post here. Silly accusations and insults drove him away.
I'm neither insulting nor accusing anyone.
Bob Dorgan
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:30:00 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Bob,
I really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this. From a manufacturing
perspective, this issue is pretty important, as it can undermine the whole
usefulness of the internet as a resource for useful information. I think
most people strive to keep everything on the level, but if there are
conflicts of interest, then life starts to look like a big Enron scandal.
To me, free will is one of our most prized possessions, and the thought of
people being coerced or manipulated to believe certain things is as far as
one can get from what I'd like to be doing with my limited time on this
planet.
Thanks.
David (attitude is 9/10ths of the law, but perspective is everything) Enke
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: PUTW vs McIntrye blue SBT?
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:02:28 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
I have PUTW #27 transducers in a 1966 J-45 and a 1966-B-25. They work
great. No placement problems -- installed per David's written
instructions. Sound wonderful. Planning to put a #27 in the Leach
Cremona I have on order. I do use a PADI and a PAMM with an
Ultrasound 50D. You will need to use a preamp of some sort with any
of the passive transducers and a unit like the PADI does allow you to
tailor your sound as well. I've never tried the McIntyre transducers
so I can't speak to them. I have no relationship whatsoever with
PUTW, except as a satisfied customer.
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
| Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups |
|---|
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:10:46 -0600
Organization: Spam Free Zone
I am playing more mandolin these days and will be in need of a means
of amplifying it. What are those of you who play mando doing these
days to amplify it? I have a much better idea of what to do with
guitars.
Thank you for your indulgence.
Al
--
My email address is guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
| Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups [8] |
|---|
From: Greg Thomas <gjthomas@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:11:23 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
PUTW. Violin set-up, under the bridge.
<<please@nospam...>> wrote in message
news:<fivt7u0despprk25lhe12d6713486go913@4ax...>...
> I am playing more mandolin these days and will be in need of a means
> of amplifying it. What are those of you who play mando doing these
> days to amplify it? I have a much better idea of what to do with
> guitars.
>
> Thank you for your indulgence.
>
> Al
>
> --
> My email address is guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 05:05:39 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
<<please@nospam...>> wrote:
> I am playing more mandolin these days and will be in need of a means
> of amplifying it. What are those of you who play mando doing these
> days to amplify it? I have a much better idea of what to do with
> guitars.
I have a '21 A Model Snakehead with a Fishman bridge pickup; the saddle
portion exactly matched the original so installation was a breeze. Line
runs to a Carpenter jack - no internal mods. It sounds okay. Honestly, I
hear people rave about the great sound of some pickups; then I hear
something with those pickups and I wonder what was all the raving about.
YMMV
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 00:36:25 -0600
Organization: Spam Free Zone
<walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote:
><<please@nospam...>> wrote:
>
>> I am playing more mandolin these days and will be in need of a means
>> of amplifying it. What are those of you who play mando doing these
>> days to amplify it? I have a much better idea of what to do with
>> guitars.
>
>I have a '21 A Model Snakehead with a Fishman bridge pickup; the saddle
>portion exactly matched the original so installation was a breeze. Line
>runs to a Carpenter jack - no internal mods. It sounds okay. Honestly, I
>hear people rave about the great sound of some pickups; then I hear
>something with those pickups and I wonder what was all the raving about.
It's a matter of practicality. I am in a band situation switching
between three instruments. It is so much easier when I can just put
one down and pick up another and just play it. I've discovered that
if I use a mic I have to change levels with each change of instrument
and it's 'way too much to expect. I know my guitar doesn't sound like
it does acoustically when I plug in, and I know my mando won't either.
I'd like to see your mando; mine's a 1916 A4 with a fixed bridge. I
will have to get a new bridge to use most pickups. Maybe I'd be
better served with a new inexpensive mando with a pickup already
installed...
Al
--
My email address is guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: 01 Mar 2002 06:47:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I've been playing mandolin even longer than I've been playing with guitar, and
as a result have been monkeying with pickups on them for nearly that long.
I mean, I'm talking about ancient HISTORY kind of mandolin pickups: DeArmonds,
Barcus Berry blocks and Hot Dots and Super Dots, Shadow pickups and C-ducers
and you name it.
More recently I had one of those Fishman mandolin bridge pickups that Hank
mentioned, which I absolutely HATED, because on my mandolin it sounded like a
demented DENTAL tool.
My current favorites among the ones out there right now are the McIntyre old
fashioned blue pickup (since succeeded in the line by their Acoustic Feather
mandolin pickup, but still being made) and the Baggs mandolin pickup available
only from First Quality Musical supplies.
Although I haven't heard a PUTW mandolin pickup, I suspect that it will act
much like the McIntyre and also like the PUTW guitar pickup I have on one of my
dulcimers.
There are a couple of problems with contact pickups like the PUTW and the
various McIntyres.
The first is one of variable response from instrument to instrument: they're so
dependent not only on specific placement on the top, but also on how THAT
particular piece of spruce is vibrating, that it can be hard to predict how
well they'll sound from one instrument to the next.
A lot of that can be resolved through EQ'ing and experimentation with where you
place it, but not all.
The second problem that I've noticed is that, the earlier model McIntyres
particularly, but also the Acoustic Feather and the PUTW to a degree will
actually compress the sound, and if you play hard to overcome that built-in
limitation you can really get DISTORTED.
Which can be kinda cool in its own limited,
middle-aged-white-guy-who-wants-to-be-Hendrix sorta way.
But not if you're playing hard onstage to be able to hear yourself over the
banjo. The signal that gets sent out to the audience in those circumstances is
NOT the sparkling clean-as-mountain-waters type of sound most bluegrassers
STRIVE for....
So the only mandolin pickup that I can unreservedly recommend to anyone using
an arched top mandolin made in the Gibson style is the Baggs mandolin pickup,
available exclusively from First Quality Musical Supplies.
They'e simply the most all-around reliable and best-sounding ones out there
that I have encountered, particularly when run through a high quality preamp
like the Baggs Para-Acoustic DI.
I'm getting one for my new custom-order Collings mandolin, which is finally
ready and which I will pick up in a couple of weeks.
Anyone interested in this Baggs pickup should look at the First Quality
website:
Hope this helps.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:06:10 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Wade,
to clarify a couple of key differences, the PUTW model #17 mandolin pickup
uses no adhesives, and is simply compressed under the feet of the stock
bridge. The mandolin kits come pre-wired to a Carpenter jack, and install
with no modification in about five minutes. There are no placement issues,
as you simply loosen the strings and slip the pickup under the bridge feet.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
From: Tom from Texas <trisner52@aol...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: 02 Mar 2002 05:34:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I am playing more mandolin these days and will be in need of a means
>of amplifying it. What are those of you who play mando doing these
>days to amplify it? I have a much better idea of what to do with
>guitars.
>
>Thank you for your indulgence.
>
>Al
Give up mandolin, Al. Give your mandolin to The Fund. Stick with guitar and I
won't have to break your fingers and set your Collings on fire.
But seriously...or as seriously as I get, I use a PUTW under the bridge of my
Gibson and knowing how much your admire me and my flashy mando-pickin', I
thought ya might want ta know. I reproduces the actual sound in a true and
clear manner. But then considering how yall play ya might want something that
feeds a recording of me thru the amp.
Tom from Texas
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:44:22 -0600
Organization: Spam Free Zone
<trisner52@aol...> (Tom from Texas) wrote:
>But seriously...or as seriously as I get, I use a PUTW under the bridge of my
>Gibson and knowing how much your admire me and my flashy mando-pickin', I
>thought ya might want ta know. I reproduces the actual sound in a true and
>clear manner. But then considering how yall play ya might want something that
>feeds a recording of me thru the amp.
That's a couple of votes for the PUTW. The problem with any of the
proposed solutions is that I will have to change bridges. I have the
old-style fixed bridge that I would have to replace with the "modern"
(only 80 years old) adjustable kind. Did you keep your old fixed
bridge or did you get an adjustable one when you installed your PUTW?
Al
--
My email address is guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
From: Tom from Texas <trisner52@aol...>
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic: mandolin pickups
Date: 04 Mar 2002 02:19:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Did you keep your old fixed
>bridge or did you get an adjustable one when you installed your PUTW?
>
>Al
I used the original fixed bridge. The PUTW just slipped under it after I
loosened the strings. Be careful to set the bridge in the right spot after
slipping the strip under it.
Tom (YOUR hero) from Texas
| another Truetone M7 on ebay [2] |
|---|
From: JOHNPEARSE <johnpearse@aol...>
Subject: Re: another Truetone M7 on ebay
Date: 02 Mar 2002 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Great system!
I have one in my 1937 00-18H and another in my 000-28EC. Most natural sound
I've ever heard from a pickup. IMHO Chris Grener is a genius.
John Pearse.
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: another Truetone M7 on ebay
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:34:37 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"JS" <<jefsu@earthlink...>> wrote in message
news:<5k728u860jjgme4kp4gil6qa4ka88257hl@4ax...>...
> On 02 Mar 2002 17:53:56 GMT, <johnpearse@aol...> (JOHNPEARSE) wrote:
>
> >Great system!
> >I have one in my 1937 00-18H and another in my 000-28EC. Most natural
sound
> >I've ever heard from a pickup. IMHO Chris Grener is a genius.
> >John Pearse.
>
> I wonder what he's done with the bridgeplate transducer.
>
> I notice that both Trance Audio and KK systems are mounted right on
> the saddle line...for that matter, so is the I-Beam, and PUTW says
> that's the only place that works, on Breedlove or JLD equipped
> guitars.
>
>
>
> Jeff S.
Actually, the spot is right between the main truss block on the JLD, and the
round plastic sleeve that surrounds the hold down screw. Our #27's are a bit
too wide to fit in this space, so we developed the model #17 for that
purpose. I'm currently divided as to whether I would put a #17 or an Air
Core in a Breedlove or JLD equipped guitar, because the mass of the JLD
produces something akin to a wolf tone with all the SBT's we've tried. The
#17 mounted in the position mentioned does this the least, but the midrange
resonance is still there. The Air Core does not have this aspect to it, and
tonally it is very similar to our SBT's.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
800-375-2656
| Onstage amplification - Ged Foley w/Celtic Fiddlers |
|---|
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Onstage amplification - Ged Foley w/Celtic Fiddlers
Date: 04 Mar 2002 16:50:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
We just heard the Celtic Fiddlers' Tour with fiddlers Christian LaMaitre,
Johnny Cunningham and Kevin Burke accompanied by Ged Foley on guitar.
Foley's sound was so amazing that I thought I'd do a hardware inventory here
FYI, since there are lots of discussions here of pickups, preamps and such.
Foley plays a Stefan Sobell OM-type guitar, his third from Sobell, and he has
mentioned to us that he's made some modifications to the design over the three
he's had. He hasn't told me what these are, but the guitar is a very plain and
lovely OM.
The pickup and mic are "the oldest Fishman [undersaddle] pickup ever made"
(which has traveled with him thru many guitars) and a mic inside the guitar. I
believe he said the mic was a Crown, but I may be mistaken there. It is not
visible from the front of the guitar, tho I have seen him use a velcro strip on
the lower treble bout to mount a mic near the soundhole outside the guitar. (At
the last Cincinnati Celtic Fest, last Sept., he was using a mic that way w/o
plugging in a pickup from an endpin jack.)
Onstage this time, both of these ran from a stereo endpin into a Raven Labs
Master Blender (PMB-1, the red box). I believe that there was a loop to a
tuner, and the main XLR output of the PMB went to the house PA.
Some folks on the main floor thought that he had added quite a bit of low end
to the guitar, but from the balcony where I was, the Sobell sounded just like
it does in a room, but louder. THe PMB does have some EQs onboard, but I
didn't get to see, nor to ask Foley how it was set up.
The show was wonderful and all four of these veterans played splendidly and
were very funny and rather hard on one another. At one point while Kevin Burke
and Foley were doing Irish tunes, the other two fiddlers swept the stage with
big push brooms behind them... <G>
Thanks,
steveV
| How to amplify new Collings OM2H Cutaway? [2] |
|---|
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: How to amplify new Collings OM2H Cutaway?
Date: 04 Mar 2002 22:51:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Big Al wrote:
>How to amplify new Collings OM2H Cutaway?
>what amplification options do you guys suggest? I>want an installation that
requires minimal woodcutting, of course.
There are any number of options, naturally.
To my mind minimal woodcutting and tinkering with it would suggest using a
contact pickup, like the Baggs iBeam, the PUTW or the McInytre Acoustic
Feather.
The problem with any of these contact pickups is that they aren't as consistent
sound-wise, from guitar to guitar, as under-the-saddle pickups tend to be.
There seems to be more variation with the same brand and model of pickup from
one guitar to the next.
I've done this myself, put the same pickup on one guitar after another in a
sort of a "pickup shootout," and noted a surprisingly wide array of sounds,
depending on where each pickup got placed and on which instrument it got put
on.
So when you go that route it's kind of a crapshoot, frankly.
It's worth it if you find the right one for that guitar: I put a McIntyre
Acoustic Feather in my new koa McAlister concert model guitar after trying
several other contact pickups on it. Nothing else sounded as good on THAT
guitar.
But the very same pickup that I ended up putting on the McAlister sounded like
home-baked crapola pie when I tried it on my walnut Larrivée OM-03W. Similar
size and shape to the instruments, somewhat similar bracing pattern and with a
tonewood with many of the same tonal characteristics of koa. Yet it just flat
sounded like hell on that Larrivée.
If that's not the sort of chance you want to take, then I'd say go with an
under-the-saddle pickup. Baggs makes a very nice unit called the RT, and you
can combine that with either an internal mic or an iBeam contact pickup if you
like. B-Band's under-the-saddle pickups have become highly respected over the
past few years, and that's another one to consider.
So the list goes on and on.
Short version: if you're willing to experiment with placement and brand, a
contact pickup is probably the least invasive way to go. If you just want
reliably good sound, go with an under-the-saddle pickup from a respected
manufacturer.
Hope this helps.
Wade Hampton Miller, back home in
Chugiak (pron. "CHEW-gee-ack"), Alaska
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: How to amplify new Collings OM2H Cutaway?
Date: 06 Mar 2002 03:06:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
hoannibor said:
<< <hojo2x@aol...> (Hojo2x) wrote in message
news:<<20020304175130.16971.00001929@mb-bg...>>...
> Big Al wrote:
>
> >How to amplify new Collings OM2H Cutaway?
>
> >what amplification options do you guys suggest? I>want an installation that
> requires minimal woodcutting, of course.
>
>
>Pete Huttlinger performed at Winfield this year, and in addition to
observing that he was a very talented guy, I noticed that he had what
looked to me to be a Collings Om- something cutaway guitar,(could be
wrong of course) and he had in my opinion a fine amplified sound- the
proverbial "sounds like the guitar only louder". Does anyone know what
he uses?
>>I know Pete well - outstanding individual and mighty fine player. dangitt....I
know what he has, can't place it ....maybe Baggs Dual Source. I think he has a
mahogany cutaway. he teaches at Cotten Music or at least used to. haven't seen
him in awhile.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
| Onstage amplification - Ged Foley w/Celtic Fiddlers |
|---|
From: Peter MacDonald <pjmacd1@insightbb...>
Subject: Re: Onstage amplification - Ged Foley w/Celtic Fiddlers
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 03:21:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
On 04 Mar 2002 16:50:43 GMT, <tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes)
wrote:
>We just heard the Celtic Fiddlers' Tour with fiddlers Christian LaMaitre,
>Johnny Cunningham and Kevin Burke accompanied by Ged Foley on guitar.
For those who may be searching out this excellent group of musicians
on the web, the correct name is Celtic Fiddle Festival.
>Foley's sound was so amazing that I thought I'd do a hardware inventory here
>FYI, since there are lots of discussions here of pickups, preamps and such.
>
>Foley plays a Stefan Sobell OM-type guitar, his third from Sobell, and he has
>mentioned to us that he's made some modifications to the design over the three
>he's had. He hasn't told me what these are, but the guitar is a very plain and
>lovely OM.
I am very privileged to own a Sobell which was originally made for
Ged. I think it was his first Sobell, but might be the second. This
is a Model 3 guitar. There is no picture of a Model 3 at Stefan's
website (www.come.to/sobell) but the guitar-bouzouki is very similar -
just imagine 6 strings instead of 8. What makes the Model 3
insteresting is that is has 16 frets clear of the bodyand a rounded
triangular soundhole, and what makes this particular Model 3 even more
interesting is that it has ebony back and sides. This is the only
ebony-bodied guitar that Stefan has ever made, and I understand that
ebony sides are a b*tch to bend because the wood cracks so easily.
There was a stable linear crack in the back when I got it. It had
apparently remained stable for many years, but I asked my guitar tech
to cleat it just in case. Interestingly, there is a stable crack in
the top behind the bridge running toward the end block. This crack is
directly over a brace, and can't be seen or felt from inside the
guitar.
>The pickup and mic are "the oldest Fishman [undersaddle] pickup ever made"
>(which has traveled with him thru many guitars) and a mic inside the guitar. I
>believe he said the mic was a Crown, but I may be mistaken there. It is not
>visible from the front of the guitar, tho I have seen him use a velcro strip on
>the lower treble bout to mount a mic near the soundhole outside the guitar. (At
>the last Cincinnati Celtic Fest, last Sept., he was using a mic that way w/o
>plugging in a pickup from an endpin jack.)
I can well believe this. My Sobell also had a strip of Velcro inside
the treble side of the soundhole that clearly would function as Steve
describes. I currently have a Fishman Natural UST in this guitar, but
I'm not really happy with the amplified sound - I'll probably get a
B-band put in instead, since I've had good luck with those in other
guitars.
This was clearly a working guitar, since it has two (!) mono endpin
jacks. Ged was obviously experimenting with different pickup
combinations. There were no electronics in it when I got it. Of
course, stupid me - one night while doing a sound check I plugged the
guitar cable into the one jack that is currently not wired with
anything, and we had a helluva time figuring out why the pickup wasn't
"working".
>The show was wonderful and all four of these veterans played splendidly and
>were very funny and rather hard on one another. At one point while Kevin Burke
>and Foley were doing Irish tunes, the other two fiddlers swept the stage with
>big push brooms behind them... <G>
I have not seen this tour, but I did get to see Ged onstage about 3
years ago when he played here with the band Patrick Street (Ged on
guitar, Andy Irvine on bouzouki, mandolin, harmonica and vocals,
Jackie Daly on button accordion and Kevin Burke on fiddle). Ged
deserves to be better known than he is - he is an extremely
accomplished and tasteful player. As DWP replied in another post, he
is also a fine fiddler and from his work with The House Band I know
that he is an excellent player of the Northumbrian smallpipes as well.
Thanks for the report, Steve.
Peter
| Help? Will SD MagMic work for live performance - meaning no feedback problem?? cain |
|---|
From: Cain <blue_sky@knology...>
Subject: Help? Will SD MagMic work for live performance - meaning no feedback problem?? cain
Date: 5 Mar 2002 06:33:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi,
I was looking to get a seymour duncan MagMic to use with my gibson
j160e acoustic to capture it's sound to a fender twin reverb amp for
live use....
the pickup in the j160e is pretty lame sounding so felt the magmic may
sound better!!
I do have a concern since i'll be lead singer and playing acoustic
that there
could be a feedback problem thru the guitar with the floor monitors.
doesn't anyone have experience with this and magmic???
feedback problem with magmic???
any recommendations are appreciated!!!
| Help? Will SD MagMic work for live performance - meaning no feedback problem?? cain |
|---|
From: dinkydog <SPAMNOTcsiamms@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Help? Will SD MagMic work for live performance - meaning no feedback problem?? cain
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:55:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
You'll like it a lot, just don't turn the mic up too much.
Steve Smith
| Hum Problem Solved But With a Strange Twist (OT) [3] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Hum Problem Solved But With a Strange Twist (OT)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 01:30:18 GMT
I thought maybe some of you audio/electrical engineering types might
find this mildly interesting:
I was bitching about a lot of hum in my gear a few weeks ago. Well,around that time we were also having a strange electrical problem in
the house. Two electricians over a few months couldn't really solve
it. Our drains were being energized slightly so that you'd feel a
slight tingle when you touched one and a water line at the same time.
Both electricians assumed it was happening inside a wall somewhere and
the best that the 2nd one could do temporarily was to switch the
neutral and the ground at the box to carry the current away from the
drains.
A 3rd guy, and a real pro, finally traced the problem to a leaking
meter socket outside the house. Water was getting in there and it
seems the ground around my neighborhood was getting a steady dose of
volts for months. Now we have all new service inluding a never before
installed ground rod down 8 feet in the ground.
I heard the building inspector say it was likely that my neighbors
will get more life out their light bulbs from now on so I asked the
electrican if that problem could have caused electronic gear to hum
and he said "yes, AC hum." (LOL. I almost kissed the guy.)
Anyway, no more hum but it took a couple days to go away which I
thought was kinda interesting. I guess the ground held the charge for
a while or something.
Soooooo . . . I guess that wasn't even mildly interesting was it? Ah
well, what the hell.
Sherman
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Hum Problem Solved But With a Strange Twist (OT)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:54:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> I do not think we will be adding "check your electrical meter for
dielectric
> breakdown" to our troubleshooting manuals unless other people discover the
> same thing. Maybe this type of drainage is good for the economy.
Funny you should mention that
though a bit overboard for casual home or pug gigs when I set up a real ac
distro(3 phase 100-300 amps a phase usually) one of the first things I do
is measure the quality of the ground and check the buss fuses for proper
amperage
George
From: tpp <powerst@ix...>
Subject: Re: Hum Problem Solved But With a Strange Twist (OT)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:30:17 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Jeff,
You say it took a couple of days for the hum to go away. Can you associate
that with the weather? I mean, did it start raining and soak the soil, such
that the grounding rod finally had a good connection to earth? Just a
thought.
I hammered two 8' grounding rods in my backyard for my shortwave radio
antennas and I know performance improves when the soil is wet.
Regards,
Tom
| Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!! [11] |
|---|
From: Rudi Cheow <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...>
Subject: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: 6 Mar 2002 10:01:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi y'all,
I have no knowledge of acoustic guitar pickups whatsoever. I tried
running a search on the Google archives but couldn't find any
comprehensive newbie guides. So, here are some questions that I'm sure
the gurus among you can help me out with.
I have Larrivee D-09 with a strap end-pin. I want this guitar to be
amplifi-able. Not so much for projected use now, but just in case
there are situations in which amplification is a god-send.
1) I understand that most pickup systems involve the jack being placed
through the end-pin hole. Does doing this eliminate the ability to
stick a strap on it, or is the jack itself shaped in such a way that a
strap can be put on? Considering that I already have an end-pin, is it
a simple DIY affair of screwing the jack into the hole?
2) Because I would rather not have things permanent or any physical
alterations to the guitar, I like the idea of the PUTW micro-cable
system. How good is this in practice?
3) Do I need a pre-amp? Are pre-amps built into the guitar and involve
some sawdust or are they external?
4) And finally, can someone just let me know what components I need
that will form a decent amplification kit, how much I should budget,
where I can buy it (I live in the UK, don't mind international mail
order), and whether I can easily do it myself without screwing the
guitar up.
Any help much appreciated.
Rudi
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: 06 Mar 2002 18:26:51 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 6 Mar 2002 10:01:32 -0800, <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...> (Rudi
Cheow) brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Hi y'all,
>
>I have no knowledge of acoustic guitar pickups whatsoever. I tried
>running a search on the Google archives but couldn't find any
>comprehensive newbie guides. So, here are some questions that I'm sure
>the gurus among you can help me out with.
Now you've done it...
>I have Larrivee D-09 with a strap end-pin. I want this guitar to be
>amplifi-able. Not so much for projected use now, but just in case
>there are situations in which amplification is a god-send.
Well, that's good. Always good to have a guitar to begin with.
Amplifying an air guitar is problematic at best. (It's a bitch to get
the pickup to stick on those bad boys...)
B-{)}
>1) I understand that most pickup systems involve the jack being placed
>through the end-pin hole. Does doing this eliminate the ability to
>stick a strap on it, or is the jack itself shaped in such a way that a
>strap can be put on? Considering that I already have an end-pin, is it
>a simple DIY affair of screwing the jack into the hole?
You most certainly can use a strap on the end-pin jack; you might need
a bit larger hole in your strap. You will NOT, however, be able to
use a strap-locking system (like the Schallers, which I use). Not a
really big problem in my experience, though--the strap stays on pretty
well due to the size of the jack.
Now, as to the DIY aspect--I've put end-pin jacks in both of my
Guilds. Once you get over the gibbering terror of taking a power tool
to your guitar, it really isn't difficult. Just make SURE you have
the right size reamer, and don't enlarge the hole too much. There's
already a hole there, if you have any sort of end-pin at all--you're
just going to be enlarging it. Don't try to do this with a standard
drill bit--you need to use a reamer. IIRC, Stew-Mac has a great one
that sells for around $40 or $50 (US)--I've seen this tool in action,
and it works wonders, but unless you're going to do this a lot, that's
a pretty hefty investment for one use. I got a reamer at the hardware
store several years ago that cost me three or four bucks, and it did
the job on both Guilds just great.
Take the job slowly--constantly stop to measure--keep it
straight--imbibe freely before you start, to keep your hands from
shaking...B-{)}...you'll do fine.
>2) Because I would rather not have things permanent or any physical
>alterations to the guitar, I like the idea of the PUTW micro-cable
>system. How good is this in practice?
I haven't tried the micro-cable, but I can tell you from 2
installations that the only alteration you make in a permanent
internal PUTW install is that end-pin jack. There's already a hole
there, as we've discussed--so there isn't a whole hell of a lot of
alteration involved. I personally don't think I'd want that thin wire
running out of the soundhole of my guitar--I know I'd just wind up
catching it on SOMETHING. Find the sweet spot, and install it
internally. It's generally pretty easy. Some folks have had problems
with the install, though--it isn't always as simple as it was for me.
I had no problems at all with either installation.
>3) Do I need a pre-amp? Are pre-amps built into the guitar and involve
>some sawdust or are they external?
You can get them either way. Since you've already got the guitar, I'd
strongly recommend an external preamp, such as the Baggs PADI or the
PUTW Power Plug. These involve NO alteration to the guitar. (And
it'd be an icy day in the seventh level of hell before I'd let anyone
cut a hole in the side of my guitar for a preamp.)
As for whether you need one? Probably. Most pickups are going to
sound better with a preamp. The PUTW pickups are passive, and most
definitely need a preamp.
>4) And finally, can someone just let me know what components I need
>that will form a decent amplification kit, how much I should budget,
>where I can buy it (I live in the UK, don't mind international mail
>order), and whether I can easily do it myself without screwing the
>guitar up.
As for what you need--get a PUTW #27 element, either a Power Plug or a
Baggs PADI, and a good amp (I use a Fender Acoustasonic Jr., but would
really rather have an Ultrasound...they sound GREAT...). The pickup
and preamp are both available direct from David Enke at
http://www.pick-uptheworld.com ; I don't know about local stores in
the UK, or shipping, or anything, but drop David a line at
<pickups@rmi...> --if he can't get it arranged, it can't BE arranged.
Pickup and preamp together will run around $200 - $250 US; the Fender
amp new is about $450 US. Not sure how much the Ultrasound is...but
it's worth every penny of it...
>Any help much appreciated.
>Rudi
Hope this helps.
Standard disclaimers apply: not an employee, just a happy
customer...some settling may occur in shipment...colors may not be
exactly as shown...professional driver on a closed course...close
cover before striking...all models are over 18...no animals were
harmed in the creation of this post...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Thomas Guertin <tguertin@reactconsulting...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 02:38:22 GMT
Organization: Magma Communications Ltd.
Thanks for posing the question, Rudi. I was close to exploring these exact
same issues. Thanks to you too Bill, for the detailed and informative
response. I'm considering buying a Taylor 814c, and before following this NG
in recent weeks, I most certainly would have bought it with the on-board
Fishman electronics. I now understand why it makes sense to have the
flexibility to try different pick-ups/pre-amps over time, let-alone buying a
guitar that hasn't been 'defaced'.
Thanks again.
Tom
Bill Chandler <<drink@yourown...>> wrote in message
news:<vjmc8uc2hlvtquvbcbb63gnf2d04e1f6bn@4ax...>...
> On 6 Mar 2002 10:01:32 -0800, <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...> (Rudi
> Cheow) brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
> >Hi y'all,
> >
> >I have no knowledge of acoustic guitar pickups whatsoever. I tried
> >running a search on the Google archives but couldn't find any
> >comprehensive newbie guides. So, here are some questions that I'm sure
> >the gurus among you can help me out with.
>
> Now you've done it...
>
> >I have Larrivee D-09 with a strap end-pin. I want this guitar to be
> >amplifi-able. Not so much for projected use now, but just in case
> >there are situations in which amplification is a god-send.
>
> Well, that's good. Always good to have a guitar to begin with.
> Amplifying an air guitar is problematic at best. (It's a bitch to get
> the pickup to stick on those bad boys...)
>
> B-{)}
>
> >1) I understand that most pickup systems involve the jack being placed
> >through the end-pin hole. Does doing this eliminate the ability to
> >stick a strap on it, or is the jack itself shaped in such a way that a
> >strap can be put on? Considering that I already have an end-pin, is it
> >a simple DIY affair of screwing the jack into the hole?
>
> You most certainly can use a strap on the end-pin jack; you might need
> a bit larger hole in your strap. You will NOT, however, be able to
> use a strap-locking system (like the Schallers, which I use). Not a
> really big problem in my experience, though--the strap stays on pretty
> well due to the size of the jack.
>
> Now, as to the DIY aspect--I've put end-pin jacks in both of my
> Guilds. Once you get over the gibbering terror of taking a power tool
> to your guitar, it really isn't difficult. Just make SURE you have
> the right size reamer, and don't enlarge the hole too much. There's
> already a hole there, if you have any sort of end-pin at all--you're
> just going to be enlarging it. Don't try to do this with a standard
> drill bit--you need to use a reamer. IIRC, Stew-Mac has a great one
> that sells for around $40 or $50 (US)--I've seen this tool in action,
> and it works wonders, but unless you're going to do this a lot, that's
> a pretty hefty investment for one use. I got a reamer at the hardware
> store several years ago that cost me three or four bucks, and it did
> the job on both Guilds just great.
>
> Take the job slowly--constantly stop to measure--keep it
> straight--imbibe freely before you start, to keep your hands from
> shaking...B-{)}...you'll do fine.
>
> >2) Because I would rather not have things permanent or any physical
> >alterations to the guitar, I like the idea of the PUTW micro-cable
> >system. How good is this in practice?
>
> I haven't tried the micro-cable, but I can tell you from 2
> installations that the only alteration you make in a permanent
> internal PUTW install is that end-pin jack. There's already a hole
> there, as we've discussed--so there isn't a whole hell of a lot of
> alteration involved. I personally don't think I'd want that thin wire
> running out of the soundhole of my guitar--I know I'd just wind up
> catching it on SOMETHING. Find the sweet spot, and install it
> internally. It's generally pretty easy. Some folks have had problems
> with the install, though--it isn't always as simple as it was for me.
>
> I had no problems at all with either installation.
>
> >3) Do I need a pre-amp? Are pre-amps built into the guitar and involve
> >some sawdust or are they external?
>
> You can get them either way. Since you've already got the guitar, I'd
> strongly recommend an external preamp, such as the Baggs PADI or the
> PUTW Power Plug. These involve NO alteration to the guitar. (And
> it'd be an icy day in the seventh level of hell before I'd let anyone
> cut a hole in the side of my guitar for a preamp.)
>
> As for whether you need one? Probably. Most pickups are going to
> sound better with a preamp. The PUTW pickups are passive, and most
> definitely need a preamp.
>
> >4) And finally, can someone just let me know what components I need
> >that will form a decent amplification kit, how much I should budget,
> >where I can buy it (I live in the UK, don't mind international mail
> >order), and whether I can easily do it myself without screwing the
> >guitar up.
>
> As for what you need--get a PUTW #27 element, either a Power Plug or a
> Baggs PADI, and a good amp (I use a Fender Acoustasonic Jr., but would
> really rather have an Ultrasound...they sound GREAT...). The pickup
> and preamp are both available direct from David Enke at
> http://www.pick-uptheworld.com ; I don't know about local stores in
> the UK, or shipping, or anything, but drop David a line at
> <pickups@rmi...> --if he can't get it arranged, it can't BE arranged.
>
> Pickup and preamp together will run around $200 - $250 US; the Fender
> amp new is about $450 US. Not sure how much the Ultrasound is...but
> it's worth every penny of it...
>
> >Any help much appreciated.
> >Rudi
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Standard disclaimers apply: not an employee, just a happy
> customer...some settling may occur in shipment...colors may not be
> exactly as shown...professional driver on a closed course...close
> cover before striking...all models are over 18...no animals were
> harmed in the creation of this post...
>
> -----
> "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
> ...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
> ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 03:26:59 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Another point to consider is that acoustic guitar amplification technology
is improving at a rate far faster than the guitars themselves. There are few
things sadder than to see a good old guitar that's finally getting broken in
right with an obsolete piece of shit preamp grafted into its side.
JD
"Thomas Guertin" <<tguertin@reactconsulting...>> wrote in message
news:yoAh8.3481$<f5.142457@ne...>...
> Thanks for posing the question, Rudi. I was close to exploring these exact
> same issues. Thanks to you too Bill, for the detailed and informative
> response. I'm considering buying a Taylor 814c, and before following this
NG
> in recent weeks, I most certainly would have bought it with the on-board
> Fishman electronics. I now understand why it makes sense to have the
> flexibility to try different pick-ups/pre-amps over time, let-alone buying
a
> guitar that hasn't been 'defaced'.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Tom
>
> Bill Chandler <<drink@yourown...>> wrote in message
> news:<vjmc8uc2hlvtquvbcbb63gnf2d04e1f6bn@4ax...>...
> > On 6 Mar 2002 10:01:32 -0800, <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...> (Rudi
> > Cheow) brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
> >
> > >Hi y'all,
> > >
> > >I have no knowledge of acoustic guitar pickups whatsoever. I tried
> > >running a search on the Google archives but couldn't find any
> > >comprehensive newbie guides. So, here are some questions that I'm sure
> > >the gurus among you can help me out with.
> >
> > Now you've done it...
> >
> > >I have Larrivee D-09 with a strap end-pin. I want this guitar to be
> > >amplifi-able. Not so much for projected use now, but just in case
> > >there are situations in which amplification is a god-send.
> >
> > Well, that's good. Always good to have a guitar to begin with.
> > Amplifying an air guitar is problematic at best. (It's a bitch to get
> > the pickup to stick on those bad boys...)
> >
> > B-{)}
> >
> > >1) I understand that most pickup systems involve the jack being placed
> > >through the end-pin hole. Does doing this eliminate the ability to
> > >stick a strap on it, or is the jack itself shaped in such a way that a
> > >strap can be put on? Considering that I already have an end-pin, is it
> > >a simple DIY affair of screwing the jack into the hole?
> >
> > You most certainly can use a strap on the end-pin jack; you might need
> > a bit larger hole in your strap. You will NOT, however, be able to
> > use a strap-locking system (like the Schallers, which I use). Not a
> > really big problem in my experience, though--the strap stays on pretty
> > well due to the size of the jack.
> >
> > Now, as to the DIY aspect--I've put end-pin jacks in both of my
> > Guilds. Once you get over the gibbering terror of taking a power tool
> > to your guitar, it really isn't difficult. Just make SURE you have
> > the right size reamer, and don't enlarge the hole too much. There's
> > already a hole there, if you have any sort of end-pin at all--you're
> > just going to be enlarging it. Don't try to do this with a standard
> > drill bit--you need to use a reamer. IIRC, Stew-Mac has a great one
> > that sells for around $40 or $50 (US)--I've seen this tool in action,
> > and it works wonders, but unless you're going to do this a lot, that's
> > a pretty hefty investment for one use. I got a reamer at the hardware
> > store several years ago that cost me three or four bucks, and it did
> > the job on both Guilds just great.
> >
> > Take the job slowly--constantly stop to measure--keep it
> > straight--imbibe freely before you start, to keep your hands from
> > shaking...B-{)}...you'll do fine.
> >
> > >2) Because I would rather not have things permanent or any physical
> > >alterations to the guitar, I like the idea of the PUTW micro-cable
> > >system. How good is this in practice?
> >
> > I haven't tried the micro-cable, but I can tell you from 2
> > installations that the only alteration you make in a permanent
> > internal PUTW install is that end-pin jack. There's already a hole
> > there, as we've discussed--so there isn't a whole hell of a lot of
> > alteration involved. I personally don't think I'd want that thin wire
> > running out of the soundhole of my guitar--I know I'd just wind up
> > catching it on SOMETHING. Find the sweet spot, and install it
> > internally. It's generally pretty easy. Some folks have had problems
> > with the install, though--it isn't always as simple as it was for me.
> >
> > I had no problems at all with either installation.
> >
> > >3) Do I need a pre-amp? Are pre-amps built into the guitar and involve
> > >some sawdust or are they external?
> >
> > You can get them either way. Since you've already got the guitar, I'd
> > strongly recommend an external preamp, such as the Baggs PADI or the
> > PUTW Power Plug. These involve NO alteration to the guitar. (And
> > it'd be an icy day in the seventh level of hell before I'd let anyone
> > cut a hole in the side of my guitar for a preamp.)
> >
> > As for whether you need one? Probably. Most pickups are going to
> > sound better with a preamp. The PUTW pickups are passive, and most
> > definitely need a preamp.
> >
> > >4) And finally, can someone just let me know what components I need
> > >that will form a decent amplification kit, how much I should budget,
> > >where I can buy it (I live in the UK, don't mind international mail
> > >order), and whether I can easily do it myself without screwing the
> > >guitar up.
> >
> > As for what you need--get a PUTW #27 element, either a Power Plug or a
> > Baggs PADI, and a good amp (I use a Fender Acoustasonic Jr., but would
> > really rather have an Ultrasound...they sound GREAT...). The pickup
> > and preamp are both available direct from David Enke at
> > http://www.pick-uptheworld.com ; I don't know about local stores in
> > the UK, or shipping, or anything, but drop David a line at
> > <pickups@rmi...> --if he can't get it arranged, it can't BE arranged.
> >
> > Pickup and preamp together will run around $200 - $250 US; the Fender
> > amp new is about $450 US. Not sure how much the Ultrasound is...but
> > it's worth every penny of it...
> >
> > >Any help much appreciated.
> > >Rudi
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Standard disclaimers apply: not an employee, just a happy
> > customer...some settling may occur in shipment...colors may not be
> > exactly as shown...professional driver on a closed course...close
> > cover before striking...all models are over 18...no animals were
> > harmed in the creation of this post...
> >
> > -----
> > "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> > looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> > --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> >
> > the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> > the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove
spamTHIS!.)
> > ...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
> > ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> > Bill Chandler
> > ...bc...
>
>
>
From: - Scott <fromusenet@wiman-removeme...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:35:10 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I put a PUTW 27 in my old Takamine a week ago and I can attest: Bill
covers it all. I've have no real woodworking expertise, but i got
a reamer, pulled the pin out of the guitar (yours is probably just
pressed in, pops out with little effort). And followed the
directions.
I got a Baggs PADI.
I have a brass saddle in there, and man, does it ever sound sweet. It
sounds better than my buddy's Taylor A-15 with a fishman under-saddle.
In fact, it sounds exactly like my guitar, only amplified. It's a
perfect, simple, inexpensive set up.
You can do it yourself. Just go slow and make small adjustments.
The hardest part was getting my arm in there to work around inside the
guitar. It would have been nice to have an extra joint in my arm
between my wrist and my elbow. If I get into guitar repair, perhaps
i'll talk to a surgeon.
The PUTW should sound great in your larivee.
- Scotty
On 06 Mar 2002 18:26:51 GMT, Bill Chandler <<drink@yourown...>>
wrote:
>On 6 Mar 2002 10:01:32 -0800, <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...> (Rudi
>Cheow) brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
>>Hi y'all,
>>
>>I have no knowledge of acoustic guitar pickups whatsoever. I tried
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:18:05 -0700
Mullin 285 wrote:
> I can just see myself playing and having
> the new self-installed endpin come
> flying off 'n a goin' one way whilst
> my favorite guitar goes a flyin' the
> other...Save me will ya man?
Installing an endpin is about as simple
as threading a nut onto a bolt. If you're
not comfortable with enlarging the existing
endpin hole, virtually ANY professional
guitar technician or luthier can do it
for just a couple bucks. But regardless
of who does it, the chances that something
will 'fly apart' are virtually nonexistant.
> Whadabout batteries and pre amps and such...
> I don't want 'em. Do I need 'em?...
You nearly always do need a preamp, to get a decent sound
out of a pickup. The PUTW power plug or the line
driver that David Enke sells (pick-uptheworld guru)
are self contained preamps that don't live
inside your guitar. They simply plug onto
the end of your guitar cord. They are tiny.
As others have mentioned, hardest part about
the installation is getting your arm inside
the soundhole.
lumpy
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: 08 Mar 2002 14:39:55 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 08 Mar 2002 03:33:29 GMT, <mullin285@aol...> (Mullin 285) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>On 3/7/02 1:41 PM Eastern Standard Time Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
>happened to catch my ear with the following line:
>
>>You're much more likely to do a good job on your own instrument than
>>someone who doesn't care about it.
>
>Bill
>
>I'd say I'm about halfway between being totally fearful of putting a pickup in
>and crazy enough to try it. Be careful you could push me over the edge!!!
>The thing I worry most about is the endpin. Ain't that a bit tricky? Don't ya
>need some special tool[s]?
>I can just see myself playing and having the new self-installed endpin come
>flying off 'n a goin' one way whilst my favorite guitar goes a flyin' the
>other.
>Save me will ya man?
[fx. grunting and pushing noises] Ahoy, there, matey, over the edge
with ye!! B-{)} (how does one do a smiley with an eyepatch,
anyway???)
Well, ok. The deal with the endpin is not as terrifying as it seems,
really. It had me scared shitless the first time I did it--but you
just have to make sure you have the right size reamer, and take it
slow and easy. Like I said in the other post, Stew-Mac has a big
reamer that is ideal for the job, but expensive. The reamer I got
(probably 13 or 14 years ago) at the hardware store cost me about $3
or $4, and worked fine on the two that I've done. I just took the
jack with me to the store, and made sure that the reamer at its widest
wasn't wider than the endpin jack.
The endpin jack (at least the one you get with a PUTW, and the old
Switchcraft I've had for years) is a very sturdy device--quite
frankly, I think it's much stronger and more stable than the little
plastic jobbies most of the manufacturers use in the first place.
Once you've got the hole reamed out to the correct size (NOT TOO BIG!!
It is impossible to over-emphasize this. Make SURE your reamer is the
right size--and DON'T REAM OUT THE HOLE TOO MUCH!!), you're past the
worst of it. As you're doing the job, stop periodically and try the
end-pin in the hole. Once it fits all the way in, you're done
reaming. (Bear in mind--you have to go all the way through the
end-block, into the body of the guitar. There's about an inch or so
of wood to ream through. Don't be shocked if you've reamed the
outside, and find you can't get it all the way in on the first
try--just ream deeper. Not wider...) Then you attach the wires, run
the whole shooting match in through the hole, and put the washers and
nuts on the threaded area of the jack. The new ones have a hole in
the outside shank that you can stick an Allen wrench or something in,
to hold it still while you tighten the nut. Make sure it's good and
tight, and you're set.
This is the procedure for the PUTW, anyway. You do want to make sure
the wires are attached before you mount the thing...it's a certified,
chromium-plated bitch to do this stuff through the soundhole,
especially if you've got big arms, like me...I'm not an
obstetrician...
>Whadabout batteries and pre amps and such... I don't want 'em. Do I need 'em?
...Sadly...Yes, you'll need a preamp. That doesn't mean you need to
put one in your guitar, though. I despise those battery packs in the
guitar--and I had one with the Fishman. Hated it.
With the PUTW, I use an L. R. Baggs Para-Acoustic DI. That's an
external box, using a 9-volt battery. I've used 2 batteries in the
almost 2 years I've had the box, and most of the first year I was
gigging weekly. (Some might say weakly.) Cable from the end-pin jack
to the PADI, and a cable to the PA and my amp.
Worked beautifully.
>I've been leaning toward BBand a bit. Have you tried the BBands?
I haven't tried them, but many folks speak very highly of them. I
think Larry Pattis just mentioned that they've come out with a new
model--sounds like he's really pumped by it. Judging from the sounds
Larry gets, they must be a pretty damned good product. (Of course, I
think Larry could make a Framus sound . . . well, even better than it
already does...)
>Anyways, it certainly sounds cheaper to do it yourself [if successful, that is
>:) ]. Did you have problems installing yours?
Not at all. It's much cheaper (obviously), but to me, the real
advantage is in knowing my guitar better. Any work that I'm
comfortable with, I do myself--and I know exactly where my guitar is
at, and I feel more confident in taking care of them.
That's just me, though. Many folks are a lot more comfortable taking
their guitar to a trusted tech. (For heavier work, so am I.) So
don't jump in and do it just to save money, if you're not really
comfortable with doing the job yourself. It isn't a hard task at
all--but if you aren't confident you can do it, don't risk it. If you
do it wrong, you can damage your guitar, possibly irreparably. That
certainly isn't worth saving a few bucks over.
I hope this helps. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail if you want to
discuss further offline.
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:05:13 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Bill has given some good advice here, but things have changed a bit since he
installed his PUTW. It sounds from his description that he has an EMG
Ultra-jack. These tighten in the hole by inserting an allen wrench into the
jack hole from the outside. They use a full 1/2" inch diameter hole in the
tail-block. We offer these jacks as an upcharge accessorie, but our main
market for them is archtop guitars and internal mandolin installations where
accessing internal hardware is nearly impossible otherwise. As Bill
mentioned, there is soldering involved with this type of jack, but its not
really serious as long as you keep the hot soldering iron tip away from the
sensor.
Our standard PUTW pickups come pre-soldered to four conductor Woodsome
endpin jacks. These use the industry standard 15/32" diameter holes, and
being a 32nd" shy of a half inch, will probably not be easy to install with
the normal over the counter 1/2" reamers. You could, however, put the reamer
in a drill, and file the last bit of it down to 15/32" and it would work
fine. Most shops have the Stew Mac reamers and can do a clean job with the
hole for a few bucks.
I hope this helps, and thanks for helping too, Bill.
--
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"Bill Chandler" <<drink@yourown...>> wrote in message
news:<7vhh8uk46g2e5cf5rlldqsusuck65cstmr@4ax...>...
> On 08 Mar 2002 03:33:29 GMT, <mullin285@aol...> (Mullin 285) brewed up
> the following, and served it to the group:
>
> >On 3/7/02 1:41 PM Eastern Standard Time Bill Chandler
<drink@yourown...>
> >happened to catch my ear with the following line:
> >
> >>You're much more likely to do a good job on your own instrument than
> >>someone who doesn't care about it.
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >I'd say I'm about halfway between being totally fearful of putting a
pickup in
> >and crazy enough to try it. Be careful you could push me over the edge!!!
> >The thing I worry most about is the endpin. Ain't that a bit tricky?
Don't ya
> >need some special tool[s]?
> >I can just see myself playing and having the new self-installed endpin
come
> >flying off 'n a goin' one way whilst my favorite guitar goes a flyin' the
> >other.
> >Save me will ya man?
>
> [fx. grunting and pushing noises] Ahoy, there, matey, over the edge
> with ye!! B-{)} (how does one do a smiley with an eyepatch,
> anyway???)
>
> Well, ok. The deal with the endpin is not as terrifying as it seems,
> really. It had me scared shitless the first time I did it--but you
> just have to make sure you have the right size reamer, and take it
> slow and easy. Like I said in the other post, Stew-Mac has a big
> reamer that is ideal for the job, but expensive. The reamer I got
> (probably 13 or 14 years ago) at the hardware store cost me about $3
> or $4, and worked fine on the two that I've done. I just took the
> jack with me to the store, and made sure that the reamer at its widest
> wasn't wider than the endpin jack.
>
> The endpin jack (at least the one you get with a PUTW, and the old
> Switchcraft I've had for years) is a very sturdy device--quite
> frankly, I think it's much stronger and more stable than the little
> plastic jobbies most of the manufacturers use in the first place.
> Once you've got the hole reamed out to the correct size (NOT TOO BIG!!
> It is impossible to over-emphasize this. Make SURE your reamer is the
> right size--and DON'T REAM OUT THE HOLE TOO MUCH!!), you're past the
> worst of it. As you're doing the job, stop periodically and try the
> end-pin in the hole. Once it fits all the way in, you're done
> reaming. (Bear in mind--you have to go all the way through the
> end-block, into the body of the guitar. There's about an inch or so
> of wood to ream through. Don't be shocked if you've reamed the
> outside, and find you can't get it all the way in on the first
> try--just ream deeper. Not wider...) Then you attach the wires, run
> the whole shooting match in through the hole, and put the washers and
> nuts on the threaded area of the jack. The new ones have a hole in
> the outside shank that you can stick an Allen wrench or something in,
> to hold it still while you tighten the nut. Make sure it's good and
> tight, and you're set.
>
> This is the procedure for the PUTW, anyway. You do want to make sure
> the wires are attached before you mount the thing...it's a certified,
> chromium-plated bitch to do this stuff through the soundhole,
> especially if you've got big arms, like me...I'm not an
> obstetrician...
>
> >Whadabout batteries and pre amps and such... I don't want 'em. Do I need
'em?
>
> ...Sadly...Yes, you'll need a preamp. That doesn't mean you need to
> put one in your guitar, though. I despise those battery packs in the
> guitar--and I had one with the Fishman. Hated it.
>
> With the PUTW, I use an L. R. Baggs Para-Acoustic DI. That's an
> external box, using a 9-volt battery. I've used 2 batteries in the
> almost 2 years I've had the box, and most of the first year I was
> gigging weekly. (Some might say weakly.) Cable from the end-pin jack
> to the PADI, and a cable to the PA and my amp.
>
> Worked beautifully.
>
> >I've been leaning toward BBand a bit. Have you tried the BBands?
>
> I haven't tried them, but many folks speak very highly of them. I
> think Larry Pattis just mentioned that they've come out with a new
> model--sounds like he's really pumped by it. Judging from the sounds
> Larry gets, they must be a pretty damned good product. (Of course, I
> think Larry could make a Framus sound . . . well, even better than it
> already does...)
>
> >Anyways, it certainly sounds cheaper to do it yourself [if successful,
that is
> >:) ]. Did you have problems installing yours?
>
> Not at all. It's much cheaper (obviously), but to me, the real
> advantage is in knowing my guitar better. Any work that I'm
> comfortable with, I do myself--and I know exactly where my guitar is
> at, and I feel more confident in taking care of them.
>
> That's just me, though. Many folks are a lot more comfortable taking
> their guitar to a trusted tech. (For heavier work, so am I.) So
> don't jump in and do it just to save money, if you're not really
> comfortable with doing the job yourself. It isn't a hard task at
> all--but if you aren't confident you can do it, don't risk it. If you
> do it wrong, you can damage your guitar, possibly irreparably. That
> certainly isn't worth saving a few bucks over.
>
> I hope this helps. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail if you want to
> discuss further offline.
>
> -----
> "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
> ...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
> ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: 12 Mar 2002 14:21:44 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On 12 Mar 2002 02:28:02 GMT, <mullin285@aol...> (Mullin 285) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>Thanks Gents [I assume yur all gents...] for the encouragement and information
>about DIY pickups.
>Yep it's the endpin that has me most nervous... funny though it's not so much
>putting a new endpin in but ... TAKING THE OLD ONE OFF.
>
>How do ya get those things off? That's a trick I'd like to learn.
>
>Then again maybe it's really a SNAP. :)
>
>Man if I could do that maybe a could put a strap pin on the heel too? Hmmm...
>
>Thanks again...
Chris--you should be able to pull it out, if it's one of those
standard-type plastic pushed-in things. It's just in there with
friction. A pair of pliers (with something to protect the guitar's
finish) should take it right out.
HTH...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:05:49 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Bill Chandler wrote:
>
> Chris--you should be able to pull it out, if it's one of those
> standard-type plastic pushed-in things. It's just in there with
> friction. A pair of pliers (with something to protect the guitar's
> finish) should take it right out.
Yup. But sometimes they are glued. A good twist with the pliers
may free it, or break the end off. But that's okay---just drill
through what's left of the pin to make a hole for the reamer.
Peace,
Tom
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Help!! I'm an acoustic pickup virgin!!
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:22:06 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3C911A0C.E7009C71@astro...>...
> Mullin 285 wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the additional tip. Would it help to apply some heat with a
small
> > flame thrower or dip the guitar in vinegar?
>
> 8-)
>
> Actually, I dimly recall seeing some installation instructions somewhere
that
> start off having you saw off the endpin with a small coping saw or
> jeweler's saw (staying maybe 1/8 from the body to make sure you don't
> scratch it), and then drilling the endpin. Maybe this was recommended
> because gluing in endpins is more common than we may think. It would
> be nice to have luthier readers chime in on this.
>
> Peace,
> Tom
I always try to pull them out with my fret nippers (modified end-cutters).
If the pin is not glued, it will come out cleanly with no fuss. If it is
glued, the nippers will cut the head off, and then drilling is in order.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
| Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)... [15] |
|---|
From: Twangchief <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:38:26 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I want to put in an older Alverez Yairi of mine. The guitar has never really
sounded that well acoustically but it plays well. I've heard that all of the
subject pickups don't have that 'honk' that typical under saddle's pickups
do. I know that the LB6 needs a preamp so that will be my most expensive
option. I have a Baggs Duet in one guitar but it doesn't really sound the
way I want. Probably due to many years of playing unamplified.
Has anyone installed the I-Beam on thier own? What about the LB6? How far
into the saddle is the elements embedded? I have a rather low action set up
on my guitars and I don't want to start grinding into one of them if I end
up with the LB6.
I'm probably looking for the most forgiving as far as installation ease.
Thanks,
Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: 07 Mar 2002 21:48:40 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:38:26 -0500, "Twangchief"
<<twangchief@charter...>> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
>I want to put in an older Alverez Yairi of mine. The guitar has never really
>sounded that well acoustically but it plays well. I've heard that all of the
>subject pickups don't have that 'honk' that typical under saddle's pickups
>do. I know that the LB6 needs a preamp so that will be my most expensive
>option. I have a Baggs Duet in one guitar but it doesn't really sound the
>way I want. Probably due to many years of playing unamplified.
>
>Has anyone installed the I-Beam on thier own? What about the LB6? How far
>into the saddle is the elements embedded? I have a rather low action set up
>on my guitars and I don't want to start grinding into one of them if I end
>up with the LB6.
>
>I'm probably looking for the most forgiving as far as installation ease.
>
>Thanks,
>Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
Bill--Have you considered PUTW? It doesn't have any piezo "quack" or
"honk" at all. And if I can install two of 'em without screwing up
royally (and I'm here to tell you, world-class klutz is a kindly
understatement when you're talking about me...), anyone can.
Shoot me an email if you'd like to discuss offline.
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Matt Hayden <matthayden@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:55:42 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
PUTW installation is easy and the pickup sounds wonderful.
You'll need a preamp -- a Baggs PADI or Fishman Pro EQ Platinum
works well.
mh
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:51:34 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020308115700.24736.00000255@mb-mv...>...
> Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
> From: "Matt Hayden" <matthayden@hotmail...>
> Date: 3/7/2002 6:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time
> Message-id: <<bab15b81470214c080c72b73c5a0fb50.26622@mygate...>>
>
> PUTW installation is easy and the pickup sounds wonderful.
>
> You'll need a preamp -- a Baggs PADI or Fishman Pro EQ Platinum
> works well.
>
> mh
>
>
> Here's a wacky question. Forgive me if this is a stupid idea. Just asking.
Is
> it possible to wire the PUTW to the internal preamp of my Fishman
"blender" so
> that I still have onboard control? That would be a trick thing to offer
for all
> the many users with the Internal Ashtray Fishman Blenders.
>
> If not, can I still add a PUTW to my guitar that has the Internal Fishman
> Blender and bypass the Fishman altogether?
>
> Thanks!
> Gary
Hi Gary,
you can tie any PUTW pickups into the transducer input on the Fishman
on-board pre-amps, and they work pretty well. We've had success making a
small powered buffer circuit so that you can plug PUTW's into the microphone
input on Bagg's on-board blenders, but the design of the Fishman's makes
going into the microphone input impossible. This is unfortunate, as the PUTW
and the internal microphone are kind of redundant, tone-wise. I have heard
good things about the new-to-be released Baggs side-mount pre-amp, and this
matches the Fishman profile. The Baggs unit should be more compatible and
flexible as far as using other pickup sources with it is concerned.
Answering another question, I believe Jeff Sherman pulled the Fishman endpin
pre-amp all-together, because it is difficult to tie in a second pickup to
them aswell. In his case, the Fishman Matrix and the PUTW #27 are wired
straight to the output jack, and get pre-amped off-board.
Though there have been many jokes passed around about converting the holes
left over from removing 'barn door' pre-amps into beer holders, my wife
Annie has made some really beautiful solid wood covers for them. She is a
wonderful inlay artist, and can personalize the covers to whatever woods and
designs a person would want. She has had a rash of orders for custom truss
rod covers too. There are photos and such on our website.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:16:37 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On 08 Mar 2002 16:57:00 GMT, <trek5200cs@aol...> (Trek5200CS) wrote:
>
>Here's a wacky question. Forgive me if this is a stupid idea. Just asking. Is
>it possible to wire the PUTW to the internal preamp of my Fishman "blender" so
>that I still have onboard control? That would be a trick thing to offer for all
>the many users with the Internal Ashtray Fishman Blenders.
>
>If not, can I still add a PUTW to my guitar that has the Internal Fishman
>Blender and bypass the Fishman altogether?
>
>Thanks!
>Gary
>
I have a PUTW Aircore wired into the Fishman ashtray. There is NO
comparison between the Aircore and the quackstick--I am VERY pleased
with it. Full review when I have some time.
The connection is a solderless one, takes a mini flatblade
screwdriver. The Fishman preamp doesn't have all that much gain; some
may perceive the Aircore has having lower output because of this.
Still plenty when you're playing out--I've had no complaints from
soundpersons around here, and several compliments on the tone of the
guitar.
I'm checking on the price for the new Baggs retrofit preamp. I wish
it were possible to fit the entire circuit of a PADI into/onto the
ashtray hole.
The entire Fishman sytem, with the mic, will be FS as soon as I have a
replacement preamp in my guitar. Only three months old, and used only
in nonsmoking environment (still digging playing out in CA!)
Jeff S.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:03:08 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<u8fnihb83cunf1@corp...>>, Twangchief
<<twangchief@charter...>> wrote:
> I want to put in an older Alverez Yairi of mine. The guitar has never really
> sounded that well acoustically but it plays well. I've heard that all of the
> subject pickups don't have that 'honk' that typical under saddle's pickups
> do. I know that the LB6 needs a preamp so that will be my most expensive
> option. I have a Baggs Duet in one guitar but it doesn't really sound the
> way I want. Probably due to many years of playing unamplified.
>
> Has anyone installed the I-Beam on thier own? What about the LB6? How far
> into the saddle is the elements embedded? I have a rather low action set up
> on my guitars and I don't want to start grinding into one of them if I end
> up with the LB6.
>
> I'm probably looking for the most forgiving as far as installation ease.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
Bill,
I just today received some new gear from B-Band.
The package consisted of their latest (4th generation, perhaps) UST,
their brand new 1470 AST, and a "G2" internal endpin pre-amp (internal
battery required) that runs both the UST and AST through separate
(stereo) channels for output. The other dual-source internal pre-amp,
the A2 unit will handle AST and Mic, or AST and UST (either
combination). The G2, I believe, is for the AST/UST combo only.
I had asked the good folks at B-Band to provide this combo unit,
because although in an earlier AST test I was blown away by the sound,
I still wanted to be able to do a compare/contrast test having both
elements to listen to at the same time, and then also to be able to
'blend' them with my Raven Labs unit.
I honestly don't have time for an in-depth review, but I will say this:
The new B-Band AST is the best sounding single-source pick-up I have
ever heard. It is better even than the B-Band UST, which in my mind
had everything else beat.
I will likely continue to use a dual-source set-up, since that is what
is now installed in my guitar. For folks that want to keep it simple,
and even for those sophisticated enough to demand the qualities of a
dual-source set-up, I will say strongly to give the 1470 AST from
B-band their full consideration.
Gotta run....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:09:41 -0500
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:38:26 -0500, Twangchief wrote:
>Has anyone installed the I-Beam on thier own? What about the LB6? How far
>into the saddle is the elements embedded? I have a rather low action set up
>on my guitars and I don't want to start grinding into one of them if I end
>up with the LB6.
I installed an iBeam in my Larrivee. It was really quite easy. They
supply you with a well thought-out jig that positions it quite well,
and it's easy to reposition it if it's not quite right. You can tweak
the location all day but (IMO) the suggested location works fine. I'm
pretty happy with it, but it replaced a Martin Thinline and was such
an improvement I never tried anything else. If you get this I'd
suggest getting the active version. The battery pouch mounts with
velcro so that's easy too. My iBeam is good as is, better with a Baggs
PADI. I suppose that depends on the system you play it through, but
the PADI gives you a lot more flexability.
Just one final thought: You said the sound of the guitar isn't that
great acoustically, so I wonder if one these sound board transducers
is really the right choice. I've picked up a few Takamine's that sound
pretty poor unplugged, but great plugged in with their UST's...
G.
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:33:21 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"George W." <<whaler_17@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<5urf8ukp1elhnud1pg6bc9ndcnl3jk3ub1@4ax...>...
> Just one final thought: You said the sound of the guitar isn't that
> great acoustically, so I wonder if one these sound board transducers
> is really the right choice. I've picked up a few Takamine's that sound
> pretty poor unplugged, but great plugged in with their UST's...
>
> G.
This is correct advice about soundboard transducers, which when properly
done, sound like the guitar does acoustically.
There are two posts on Acoustic Guitar from people who pulled 3rd gen.
B-band UST's and put our Air Core saddle pickups in their place. Both stated
a noticeable improvement in sound, and no string balance issues. The Air
Cores also do not require a pre-amp on-board, so they are simpler and
cheaper to install. Another thing they have going for them is that they have
no compressible soft material in them to dampen the energy transmission
through the bridge. Since they are a new product, many people here have not
tried or heard them yet. To help get people more familiar with them, we are
going to offer them to RMMGA'ers this month for a buy direct price of $80.
The normal buy direct price is $100, and suggested retail is $120, and they
come with a total satisfaction guarantee.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: 8 Mar 2002 09:11:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Twangchief" <<twangchief@charter...>> wrote in message news:<<u8fnihb83cunf1@corp...>>...
> I want to put in an older Alverez Yairi of mine. The guitar has never really
> sounded that well acoustically but it plays well. I've heard that all of the
> subject pickups don't have that 'honk' that typical under saddle's pickups
> do. I know that the LB6 needs a preamp so that will be my most expensive
> option. I have a Baggs Duet in one guitar but it doesn't really sound the
> way I want. Probably due to many years of playing unamplified.
>
> Has anyone installed the I-Beam on thier own? What about the LB6? How far
> into the saddle is the elements embedded? I have a rather low action set up
> on my guitars and I don't want to start grinding into one of them if I end
> up with the LB6.
>
> I'm probably looking for the most forgiving as far as installation ease.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
Bill,
I have LB6s in several guitars and must warn you that they can get
fairly quacky with hard strumming. IMO, the LB6 is more of a
fingerpicker's pickup. The main advantages are good string balance
and high resistance to feedback. They also provide more of the body
sound, as opposed to the stringier sound of the Fishman Matrix.
According to the LB6 instructions, "We recommend that the final
finished height of the pickup be 1/4". It's possible, however, to
shave the saddle to within 1/16" of the chassis for very low profile
bridges, but lateral positioning and string spacing then becomes more
critical."
The LB6s have been good, dependable pickups for me, but I'm going with
a new generation PUTW or b-band pickup for my next steel string guitar
pickup experiment. (Baggs Hex for the classical.) I've tried an
active iBEAM, but found it "problematic" in the particular guitar that
I placed it in.
Gary Hall
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:01:22 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Trek5200CS wrote:
>
> Here's a wacky question. Forgive me if this is a stupid idea. Just asking. Is
> it possible to wire the PUTW to the internal preamp of my Fishman "blender" so
> that I still have onboard control? That would be a trick thing to offer for all
> the many users with the Internal Ashtray Fishman Blenders.
If you try this, keep in mind that some of Fishman's internal preamps
have hard-wired EQ curves that might not be a good match for the PUTW
(or other pickups for that matter). I'm not sure if the onboard Blenders
fall into this category, but I know that the onboard preamps provided
with Matrix pickups do some equalization. So a pickup could sound
good in a test (e.g., with flat EQ, which I believe is what PUTW
recommends) but sound different with another company's onboard preamp,
with the fault being with the preamp's builtin EQ, not the pickup.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tony Rairden <TRairden@NopSpamStrategicPlan...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:37:44 -0500
Organization: BELLSOUTH.net
B-Band's gone to considerable trouble to make ALL of their new preamps
compatible with ALL of their new transducers (AST, UST, and mic) and with
all their old transducers except the original AST, which requires the 2150
preamp.
We're expecting the new B-Band gear in another week or two. We also have the
current stuff (No fleas on it!) on sale at 10% off our regular pricing.
The new stuff is sold on a "mix-and-match" basis-- the preamps and the
transducers are priced separately by B-Band, and you roll your own combo.
(We'll have some standard configurations pre-defined, with some modest
savings over the separate components.)
BTW, our new Spring Update to the catalog is going into the mail, phased
over three weeks. If you don't want to wait, you can download it at
http://www.fqms.com/download.htm. (It's a 778K PDF, best suited for a
high-speed connection.) The update doesn't include the new B-Band gear,
since we didn't have final pricing when we went to press, but we'll get it
up on the Website shortly after it arrives.
tr
Tony Rairden
First Quality Musical Supplies
www.fqms.com
"Larry Pattis" <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote in message
news:070320021503089516%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>...
(Snip of Bill Smith's message...)
>
> I just today received some new gear from B-Band.
>
> The package consisted of their latest (4th generation, perhaps) UST,
> their brand new 1470 AST, and a "G2" internal endpin pre-amp (internal
> battery required) that runs both the UST and AST through separate
> (stereo) channels for output. The other dual-source internal pre-amp,
> the A2 unit will handle AST and Mic, or AST and UST (either
> combination). The G2, I believe, is for the AST/UST combo only.
>
> I had asked the good folks at B-Band to provide this combo unit,
> because although in an earlier AST test I was blown away by the sound,
> I still wanted to be able to do a compare/contrast test having both
> elements to listen to at the same time, and then also to be able to
> 'blend' them with my Raven Labs unit.
>
> I honestly don't have time for an in-depth review, but I will say this:
>
> The new B-Band AST is the best sounding single-source pick-up I have
> ever heard. It is better even than the B-Band UST, which in my mind
> had everything else beat.
>
> I will likely continue to use a dual-source set-up, since that is what
> is now installed in my guitar. For folks that want to keep it simple,
> and even for those sophisticated enough to demand the qualities of a
> dual-source set-up, I will say strongly to give the 1470 AST from
> B-band their full consideration.
>
> Gotta run....
>
> --
> Larry Pattis
> LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
>
> http://www.larrypattis.com
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 19:00:45 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <gydi8.25524$<Yd.1107094@e3500-atl1...>>, Tony
Rairden <<TRairden@NopSpamStrategicPlan...>> wrote:
> B-Band's gone to considerable trouble to make ALL of their new preamps
> compatible with ALL of their new transducers (AST, UST, and mic) and with
> all their old transducers except the original AST, which requires the 2150
> preamp.
>
> We're expecting the new B-Band gear in another week or two. We also have the
> current stuff (No fleas on it!) on sale at 10% off our regular pricing.
>
> The new stuff is sold on a "mix-and-match" basis-- the preamps and the
> transducers are priced separately by B-Band, and you roll your own combo.
> (We'll have some standard configurations pre-defined, with some modest
> savings over the separate components.)
>
> BTW, our new Spring Update to the catalog is going into the mail, phased
> over three weeks. If you don't want to wait, you can download it at
> http://www.fqms.com/download.htm. (It's a 778K PDF, best suited for a
> high-speed connection.) The update doesn't include the new B-Band gear,
> since we didn't have final pricing when we went to press, but we'll get it
> up on the Website shortly after it arrives.
>
> tr
>
> Tony Rairden
> First Quality Musical Supplies
> www.fqms.com
Tony,
Thanks for a correction on this. I realized after I made my post that
the "G2" internal pre-amp I had received was not a production unit.
The internal pre-amp that can be matched with any combination of
UST/AST/Mic is the "A2".
I think this mix-and-match of components is a terrific idea. One dual
channel internal pre-amp, and your choice of pick-ups....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:57:54 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy Bill-
The four pickups you list are each incredibly different from the
other. It shouldn't be hard to make a choice once you learn about
the differences. You might want to check more at the manufacturers'
sites as well as look at archived posts (e.g. via Google), because
the differences are pretty dramatic. I have used all of these
(and several others) in one or another of my guitars (in fact I've
used all four of these in my main guitar, an Olson SJ).
Before saying anything further, I have to emphasize that pickups
can respond quite differently from instrument to instrument, so
you have to factor that into any advice anyone offers you.
The LB6 is one of the best piezo undersaddle pickups (despite it
being fairly old technology). It has a high output level (which
translates to low noise), and is designed in a way that minimizes
feedback (a possible issue if you play in a loud band setting).
On the downside, it has some of the "quack" and crispiness that
undersaddle piezos have become known for, though less so in most
cases than other more popular piezo undersaddles. The other downside
is more serious---installation is not trivial, and must be left
to a pro. This is because the LB6 is not really an undersaddle
pickup, but a *replacement saddle* with pickup crystals built into
it. So as a bare minimum you will have to cut and shape the
saddle (equalizing it for your guitar's intonation). In addition,
it's made of rather thick saddle material, thicker than the
factory saddles on many guitars, so in many cases it requires
that the saddle slot be routed to hold the LB6.
I have an LB6 in my Alvarez Yairi classical guitar. I have to
confess that I never liked it, and have almost never used it. On
the other hand, I have one in my Olson SJ, and it sounds better
there. I prefer the tone of the B-Band UST (and much prefer the
tone of the B-Band AST), but the LB6 is in the ballpark of the
best saddle pickups (e.g., B-Band UST, Highlander) in my opinion.
It was the foundation for my amplified setup for the first several
years that I owned that guitar.
The iBeam is a soundboard pickup that sticks on the bridge plate.
It's a plastic unit that holds the sensing material (which appears
to be piezo film used as an accelerometer) about a half inch
below the top, with vibrations communicated through the mount.
Installation is simpler than any undersaddle pickup. It has
a low output, but the active version comes with a good preamp; if
you try it, I strongly recommend the active version. On the
downside, I have never seen reviews so mixed for any recent pickup.
Players and builders whose opinions I trust have gotten good tone
from it; and others will opinions I equally trust have complained
strongly about its tone. In my own case, it sounds simply horrible
in my Olson SJ. So unless you know someone who has had luck with
one in your specific model of guitar, trying one is a bit of a
gamble.
The B-Band UST pickup is probably the easiest UST pickup to install.
This is because it is so thin that you will likely not have to
alter your existing saddle (your action will go up only a few
hundredths of an inch at the 12th fret---you will probably be
able to notice it if you play in high positions, but it likely
will not be trouble, and in any case you can at least try the
pickup this way without shaving your saddle). Other undersaddle
pickups (e.g., Fishman Matrix, Baggs Ribbon, PUTW AirCore,
products by Markley & EMG, etc.) are thick enough that the
saddle must either be shaved or replaced. The B-Band is a very
quiet (i.e. no hiss) pickup with a good basic tone, though still
with the rapid, crisp attack that is characteristic of the
undersaddle location. You do have to use it with an onboard
preamp, which may be a downside. Some of the others I mentioned
can be used with an external preamp. (This is possible with
a UST, but only with the B-Band Entity system, which is a somewhat
pricey option.)
The B-Band AST is a new pickup so it doesn't yet have a proven
track record. That said, as an owner and user and (unpaid) beta
tester, it's the one that I would most broadly recommend; I am
very impressed by it so far. Installation
couldn't be easier (just peel and stick the thin sensor to the
bridge plate). In my limited experience, it also requires the
least fidgeting to get a good tone---it works quite well in my
Olson SJ at the recommended location (whereas a large amount
of experimenting with location of other similar stick-on pickups
never produced as good a tone for me---talking about the PUTW #27
and McIntyre Feather here).
In my opinion every single-source setup I've heard leaves something
noticable to be desired in the tone, and dual-source setups give
a noticable improvement. But it's usually straightforward to
install just one of these pickups in a way to allow adding a second
source later. Keep that in mind when making your purchase. Your
ears will "learn" and become more discriminating with time; something
that makes you happy now may disappoint you a bit later on, but
if you've left room for "growth" (e.g. adding another pickup or
internal mic), your initial investment won't have been wasted.
Currently I am using a B-Band AST and a B-Band internal mic as
my setup, and I'm happy with it. It gives a good tone with
relatively minor tweaking.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:39:22 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Tom,
could you enlighten us a bit on the new B-band AST?
I talked at great length with Pekka from B-band at the Great Midwest Guitar
Show, and shared with him that I thought the metal backing on their first
version was causing undue resonance, and most likely a drop in sensitivity
to subtle dynamics (one of the first things we learned while in our design
stages).
Around the time of the show, we had also introduced a broader metal brass
thingy that gives more flat mounting surface, and started including some 3M
clear mounting tape to put over the top of the brass piece. This tape is
great, and locks everything down very well (one of the biggest sources of
tone variables for us). It is about 1mm thick, and has a red backing on it.
Is this what the B-band affixes to the soundboard with?
We've never tried using it as a mounting tape, but it does seem to be dense
enough to transmit energy pretty well, and I know the grab strength is
higher then the machinist tape we normally use, and the strength of this
bond is critical. I also think it would be more forgiving to slight porous
imperfections in the surface of the bridgeplate.
Anyway, I'm also curious that since they can stamp their own film, why they
didn't choose an elliptical shape, as that has been stated by some to have
sonic benefits?
Any thoughts?
Also, if you'd be curious to try a different approach on your Yairi, we'd
love to hear your impression of our Air Cores.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Can't decide on LB6, I-Beam, B-BAND UST(or AST)...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 21:48:56 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi David-
In article <a6bi76$m4v$<1@slb5...>>, "David Enke"
<<putw@mindspring...>> wrote:
> I talked at great length with Pekka from B-band at the Great Midwest Guitar
> Show, and shared with him that I thought the metal backing on their first
> version was causing undue resonance, and most likely a drop in sensitivity
> to subtle dynamics (one of the first things we learned while in our design
> stages).
Actually, adding mass to an accelerometer increases rather than
decreases the sensitivity (below resonance, which is where one had
better be looking!). There is a cost to this, though, as you
identified---the resonance frequency (which one wants to be ultrasonic
so it doesn't affect audio response) decreases with load mass. But the
resonance comes in from the high frequency end as you increase the load
mass, so what happens is that you get excessively sensitive to high
frequency stuff (which is usually what most people mean by
dynamics/transients). The original AST preamp had to cut the high end.
The the new AST uses a flat preamp, and a higher resonance frequency
may be playing a role in this.
The geometry also greatly affects the tone---the old AST was small
and tried to sense what happens at a particular point on the top.
The new AST is larger and averages over a significant area. But
you know this aspect of the problem as well as anyone---kind of
like a PUTW #20 vs. a #27. I have some other small-area accelerometers
(Oceana piezo crystal accelerometers, and MSI piezo film
accelerometers) that have flat responses in the audio range,
and they sound quite similar to the old AST, so my suspicion
is that geometry is more of a factor than resonance in the
different tone of the new AST, but it's hard to say.
> Around the time of the show, we had also introduced a broader metal brass
> thingy that gives more flat mounting surface, and started including some 3M
> clear mounting tape to put over the top of the brass piece. This tape is
> great, and locks everything down very well (one of the biggest sources of
> tone variables for us). It is about 1mm thick, and has a red backing on it.
> Is this what the B-band affixes to the soundboard with?
No; it's just a very thin but strong clear (or possibly black---the film
under it is black) adhesive strip. It resembles the machinist tape
you originally used, but it comes with a white protective strip that has a
green checkerboard logo (perhaps a 3M logo, I don't know).
> Anyway, I'm also curious that since they can stamp their own film, why they
> didn't choose an elliptical shape, as that has been stated by some to have
> sonic benefits?
They have tried a variety of sizes, though mostly sticking to
rectangular and disk shapes. Regarding possible sonic benefits
of a "elliptical" shape, I assume you're referring to the tapered
shape of the McIntyre Feather here. But that's a different material
and likely working in a different mode (e.g., perhaps as a combination
of strain sensing with some accelerometer action due to the
loading tape---just guessing). It doesn't follow that what would
work for PVDF film would work for EMFi electret film. But it's
worth a try, I suppose. I'd guess that Carl M. ended up exploring
the tapered shape because simpler things didn't work as well as
he hoped. In the B-Band case, the simpler thing seems to work
fine (it's not quite so simple as it seems; they also had to experiment
with other aspects of the film). It'll be interesting to see how it
behaves in more instruments once it becomes widely available.
Peace,
Tom
| Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question [7] |
|---|
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:28:24 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
If I buy this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1520154626
Then I don't need this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1519805625
correct?
I'm trying to find the best way to add a pickup to a Guild Mk I all mahogany
nylon string guitar.
I already have a b-band core 99 w/ ust & condenser mic, but wasn't able to
get it to work in the Gretsch Hawaiian at all - no bass in the ust, and
howling bass & no treble in the condenser mic. I think I might have
squashed the microscopic lens-shaped gas bubbles (tm) in the ust. Don't
know if it's a bad core 99 or mic - I'm sure the ust is shot - maybe it was
just the wrong pickup for the deep-bodied Gretsch. At any rate, I'm not
anxious to buy a new ust to try it in the Guild just to be disappointed
again.
The M7 looks like it would do the job.
Any suggestions or advice appreciated.
Timothy Juvenal
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: 08 Mar 2002 15:58:06 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:28:24 GMT, "vibrajet" <<juvenal@juvenal...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>If I buy this:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1520154626
They call THAT a non-invasive installation? (Aside from the fact that
they took the top off of the guitar...)
Timothy, you know what I'm going to say...PUTW.
With which you WILL need this:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1519805625
You don't necessarily need the Baggs PADI, but it is a damned fine
unit--I've been very happy with mine. The Power Plug is another great
option.
I don't know anything about the M7, other than it looks pretty damned
complicated and invasive for a "non-invasive" installation. I think
your Guild would be very happy with a PUTW. Both of mine are...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:49:32 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Timothy,
I think if I were going to outfit a classical, I would use one of our new
Air Cores. These are the absolutely 'woodiest' sounding saddle pickups
around right now, and work very well on classicals. They do not have the
typical biting attack that most UST's do, and they are quite tolerant of
slight imperfections in the saddle slot. Because this unique design actually
senses on all sides, they really capture the unique tone of the guitar, not
just the strings. They are also very feedback resistant.
The other option is either one or two model #20's, and though our newest
versions are very easy to mount, there can still be that proverbial 'can of
worms' finding the best placement, and this is even more true on classicals
because of the way they are braced.
We are also having a month long RMMGA special on the Air Cores, and are
offering them direct for $80. All our usual guarantees apply. If interested,
send us the width and length of your saddle, and we'll make sure the fit is
exact for your guitar.
I hope this helps, and appreciate your interest.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"vibrajet" <<juvenal@juvenal...>> wrote in message
news:Ru6i8.1624$<3j.201979@nnrp1...>...
>
> "Bill Chandler" wrote ...
> > Timothy, you know what I'm going to say...PUTW.
>
>
> I've been wanting to e-mail David and ask which PUTW he'd recommend for a
> mahogany-topped nylon string guitar.
>
> YO DAVID!! You within earshot?
>
> I should prolly pick up the Baggs 'cause that looks like a good price. I
> want to get all this gear together so I can build a pedalboard and be done
> with it.
>
> Timothy Juvenal
>
>
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:04:09 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
> I think if I were going to outfit a classical, I would use one of our new
> Air Cores. These are the absolutely 'woodiest' sounding saddle pickups
> around right now, and work very well on classicals.
The Guild has a much more smooth, mid-rangey sound than a standard
classical, due to the mahogany top. Since I use it for jazz, or jazzed
classical, I'm really looking for that smoooth tone. That's why I like this
ugly little guitar so much.
The saddle is .1232" x 1 3/8", so an 1/8" would fit fine. THe webpage says
the pickup has a height of 1/16" inch and doesn't compress, yet says the
saddle doesn't need to be trimmed. Wouldn't this raise the saddle height by
1/16"?
Timothy Juvenal
From: Rich McCarthy <rmccarthy001@rogers...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:31:56 GMT
This installation looks similar to my baggs mic+saddle sensor
installation. You can do all the work through the soundhole. The
illustration would be from the manufacturer's literature.
Rich McCarthy
On 08 Mar 2002 15:58:06 GMT, Bill Chandler <<drink@yourown...>>
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:28:24 GMT, "vibrajet" <<juvenal@juvenal...>>
>brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
>>If I buy this:
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1520154626
>
>They call THAT a non-invasive installation? (Aside from the fact that
>they took the top off of the guitar...)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:21:03 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Bill put his pickup newbie hat on again and remarked:
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:28:24 GMT, "vibrajet" <<juvenal@juvenal...>>
> brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
> >If I buy this:
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1520154626
>
> They call THAT a non-invasive installation? (Aside from the fact that
> they took the top off of the guitar...)
> ...
> I don't know anything about the M7, other than it looks pretty damned
> complicated and invasive for a "non-invasive" installation.
Sorry, but having shared a workshop stage with a True Tone rep
when the M5 system debuted (the M7 came out a couple months later),
and knowing Chris Grener (who invented the thing) personally, I
can perhaps be forgiven for being a little defensive about this
system. 8-)
Firstly, you all should know that there is NO ONE in this business
who knows the ins and outs of amplification better than Chris
Grener. He has contributed to the design of numerous devices
sold by manufacturers whose names you know well (Baggs, Fishman,
Crown, etc.), and has done custom installs for a list of
well-known guitarists that would knock your sox off if he were
allowed to publicize it (which he isn't, for complicated reasons
not all of which I am privy to). He continues to be very active
in the amplification business despite the unfortunate situation
of True Tone, and does custom installs of a wide variety of
systems. If Timothy or anyone else is seriously interested in
the M7 or a similar system, then by all means contact Chris.
He will come up with a system for a client that best suits the
client's instrument, playing style, and needs. He can offer systems
much like the M7 even though they are not currently available
from True Tone. But he isn't married to that system, and will
gladly recommend and install other equipment, as fits the
client's needs. Drop me a line for his contact info if you
need it. I'm sure he'd also be happy to discuss the suitability
of a used M7 for any particular guitar and playing style.
About the M7... It is indeed noninvasive, in the sense that
it can be installed without any drilling (except for the endpin
jack), and can be removed leaving no trace of the installation
(again, except for the endpin jack). This was a major design
goal for the M7 (Chris has a lot of clients who own vintage
instruments that they did not want to "hurt"). In fact, Chris
also designed a custom mini endpin jack that has the same
cross section as a standard endpin, so if you wanted you could
order the system in a way that would let you completely
restore your instrument to the pre-pickup condition---no big
hole for the endpin jack.
To compare the M7 to a PUTW (or any other single-transducer
setup--not picking on PUTW here)---well, I'm dumbfounded.
The M7 gives you a high quality bridge plate accelerometer,
and two mics with tuned frequency responses. You get an
internal preamp that allows very flexible mixing of the three
transducers, including some phase and EQ control, all accessible
at the soundhole (no holes in the side of the guitar). You also
get a specially designed battery compartment that mounts on
the top near the soundhole and allows you to change the battery
without loosening strings---and you can even do it one-handed
with a little practice! Think about how much capability that
is---all inside the guitar, easily removable, and not visible
to the audience or the camera. There was nothing like it before,
and there hasn't been anything like it since.
To give a little perspective---at the workshop where Doug (from
True Tone) demoed the M5, I was using a 3-transducer setup
with a custom preamp I designed that took up 3 rack spaces
(well, it does a heck of a lot, and included a 4th channel,
e.g., for an external mic or vocal mic). Doug was getting
a tone in the same ballpark of quality as I was---with
not a thing outside the guitar, and in fact nothing visible
but the cord coming out of the endpin. It was amazing.
And humbling!
Is it for everyone? No. I've personally heard two guitars
with an M system. Doug's Breedlove sounded very good with it.
A smallbody Gibson that a local luthier with a lot of pickup
expertise installed it in sounded pretty mediocre with it.
A friend of mine who also gives amplification workshops used
one and loved it for several months, but eventually swapped
it out because it required a lot of constant tweaking in his
guitar. I think it can work really well for some instruments
and some tastes, and perhaps less well in other cases. Also,
the idea of having all that stuff on the soundboard bothers
my sensibilities a bit (the preamp module is incredibly light,
but there's also the battery). But it's an amazing concept,
and is, indeed non-invasive in the important sense described
above.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pickup/Preamp Question
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:41:04 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Bill Chandler wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:05:33 GMT, <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff
> Sherman) brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
> >I guess as long as someone else does the installing and it works well
> >you'd forget about the rig. You might shake your head once in a while
> >when you look inside but what the hell.
>
> Yeah, I guess so. That one is certainly beyond ME.
No, it isn't. If you can install a PUTW, you can install that.
It's just a bunch of stuff that sticks to the top. Nothing very
tricky about it. It's certainly easier to install than an undersaddle.
Now, whether you can actually work it once it's in, that's another
story! 8-) It offers the user quite a few variables to tweak,
which can help you get a good tone---or help you dial yourself
into a hole real quick!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| K and K Sound Transducers [4] |
|---|
From: PaulC <PaulC_member@newsguy...>
Subject: K and K Sound Transducers
Date: 8 Mar 2002 10:32:20 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
With all the posts on the iBeam, Fishman, Baggs, bBand, etc, I rarely have seen
anyone ask about the under the bridgeplate, triple transducer system from K and
K Sound (www.kksound.com). I think it is called the "Pure Western". I have it,
as well as a Fishman Dual setup and a PUTW setup. I like the K and K system the
best of the three. It is hot enough to not need a preamp booster and has a
terrific, naturally acoustic sound.
Not much said about it here, but I very much like mine.
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: K and K Sound Transducers
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:07:39 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <<a6b03k02k3b@drn...>>, PaulC <<PaulC_member@newsguy...>> wrote:
>With all the posts on the iBeam, Fishman, Baggs, bBand, etc, I rarely have seen
>anyone ask about the under the bridgeplate, triple transducer system from K and
>K Sound (www.kksound.com). I think it is called the "Pure Western". I have it,
>as well as a Fishman Dual setup and a PUTW setup. I like the K and K system the
>best of the three. It is hot enough to not need a preamp booster and has a
>terrific, naturally acoustic sound.
>
>Not much said about it here, but I very much like mine.
>
I have a K&K setup in my Goodall that sounds very good. It sounds great
through a Baggs PADI.
Steve Hawkins
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: K and K Sound Transducers
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 04:14:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Ditto on the K&K. I have one wired stereo in a Tippin OMT with aJoe Mils condenser. Sounds great, as far as internal systems go.
External mikes, however, are a quantum leap beyond.--
Stephen T. Boyke
PaulC wrote:
>With all the posts on the iBeam, Fishman, Baggs, bBand, etc, I rarely have seen
>anyone ask about the under the bridgeplate, triple transducer system from K and
>K Sound (www.kksound.com). I think it is called the "Pure Western". I have it,
>as well as a Fishman Dual setup and a PUTW setup. I like the K and K system the
>best of the three. It is hot enough to not need a preamp booster and has a
>terrific, naturally acoustic sound.
>
>Not much said about it here, but I very much like mine.
>
From: Hedberg <hhedberg@swbell...>
Subject: Re: K and K Sound Transducers
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:25:12 -0600
On 8 Mar 2002 10:32:20 -0800, PaulC <<PaulC_member@newsguy...>> wrote:
>With all the posts on the iBeam, Fishman, Baggs, bBand, etc, I rarely have seen
>anyone ask about the under the bridgeplate, triple transducer system from K and
>K Sound (www.kksound.com). I think it is called the "Pure Western". I have it,
>as well as a Fishman Dual setup and a PUTW setup. I like the K and K system the
>best of the three. It is hot enough to not need a preamp booster and has a
>terrific, naturally acoustic sound.
>
>Not much said about it here, but I very much like mine.
Gruning has the K&K with mic in his seven string Guild F50 and it
sounds pretty good. Lots of bass, but what do you expect?
Harold
| DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup [6] |
|---|
From: Al Schlimm <dvresearch@earthlink...>
Subject: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:30:28 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Has anybody tried this pickup? My guitar tech thinks it's a nice
alternative to reaming a hole in my new Collings OM2H.
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:01:56 +0000
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:30:28 +0000, Al Schlimm wrote
(in message <UWqj8.14621$<Vx1.1201493@newsread1...>>):
> Has anybody tried this pickup?
Yes, with bronze-wound 12s. I think it compares very well indeed with all the
other soundhole pick-ups I've used - including Sunrise and back to the
DeArmond in the Stoned Age
> My guitar tech thinks it's a nice
> alternative to reaming a hole in my new Collings OM2H.
I think that's absolutely right. The D.R.'s inoutability is a joy - one can
do the onstage honk but can have one's nice acoustic back right afterwards.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:51:11 +0000
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:56:49 +0000, Tony Done wrote
(in message <39sj8.10002$<uR5.16574@newsfeeds...>>):
>[...]
>
> How is the string to string balance with pb's?
Tweakable 3-point mounting, plus adjustable pole-pieces, the second of a less
ferrous material. I'm getting r.h. roll based patterns balanced ok.
>[...]What guage were
> you using?
12/15/25/34/44/54 bronze, then 12/15/24/32/44/54 - still putzing with a new
brand over tension issues.
[...]
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Violindave <violindave@aol...>
Subject: Re: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: 12 Mar 2002 18:04:23 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I've got one and I think it's pretty nice, hard to tell for sure because I have
it in a Takamine that is not so hot, but it seems to be crisp and clean. I saw
a post not too long ago by Adrian Le or something like that saying he uses and
likes it
dave
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:04:21 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:34:25 GMT, "MK" <<m.w.keller@Xverizon...>>
wrote:
>Um, would you like to expand on this business of making your own pickups?
>From scratch?
The Carvin strat-type pickup works well:
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/jefsu_63139/vwp?.dir=/soundhole+pickup&.dnm=soundhole+pickup.jpg&.src=ph&.view=l&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/jefsu_63139/lst%3f%26.dir=/soundhole%2bpickup%26.src=ph%26.view=l
There's a multitude of polepieces; I removed the ones underneath the
B & E strings.
Jeff S.
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: DiMarzio Acoustic Reference Pickup
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:10:38 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
No, not from scratch.
I use s/h fender squier pickups, which are plentiful and cost about US$10
each, and have friction fit pole pieces and a decent ceramic magnet. I
remove the 2nd pole completely and in the most recent one, the 1st pole is
replaced by a fairly short adjustable screw. Before that, I shortened the
pole to about half length, and had it sitting level with the other poles. I
sometimes raise the 3 and 4 poles slightly, depending on the guitar.
I use kitchen foil (earthed) as shielding inside the case and around the
magnet, held in place with double side adhesive tape. The mount is made of
wood, and is held in the soundhole with a spring made of fibreglass rod.
This has a button on the end made of dowel turned in an electric drill. The
pickup adjusts as in an electric, to alter bass-treble balance and distance
from the strings.
These pickups have no protection on the underside, and are intended for
semi-permanent mounting, but it wouldn't be difficult to organise this.
I think they sound very good for acoustics, being slightly microphonic - no
feedback problems tho. I have used other pickups, such as Cimar types, but I
like the squiers as much as any. Resistance is about 3.6k, moderate output.
You can hear one on my "Shenandoah" recording, mounted in an Epiphone
"Biscuit" wood body national style reso. Just run thru a preamp to boost
output into the mic input of the computer, tone set flat.
I also made a very flat pickup with a 7K coil salvaged from an ancient
Japanese no-name, but the output is more "explosive", with less overtones.
E-mail me if you want more info
Tony D
"MK" <<m.w.keller@Xverizon...>> wrote in message
news:B6Tj8.12947$<vH1.6236@nwrddc01...>...
> Um, would you like to expand on this business of making your own pickups?
> From scratch?
> =============
> Tony Done <<tonydone@bigpond...>> wrote in message
> news:39sj8.10002$<uR5.16574@newsfeeds...>...
> Adrian,
>
> I'm always on the lookout for good soundhole pickups, and in the past
couple
> of years I have resorted to making my own, due to dissatisfaction with
> either the sound or the cost of the commercial products I've tried.
>
>
>
>
| Installing a Highlander Under Saddle Pickup [2] |
|---|
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troubleman@starpower...>
Subject: Installing a Highlander Under Saddle Pickup
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:31:03 -0500
I recently hear a Bourgeois OM with a Highlander pickup system (pickup and
microphone). I must say, it beat the livin' hell outta anything piezo and
may have bested my gold standard for undersaddle pickups, the B-band Core99.
When I asked the owner how tough it was to install he developed a strained
face and told me it was absolutely hellacious. I know the guy to be fairly
adept at instrument repairs and installations. I haven't posed the question
to my guitar tech yet (there be a Collings CJ-A in my mind's eye), but
thought I'd ask the folks here - any tales or woes regarding the
installation of a Highland system?
peace,
jb
From: Robert <rtmca@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Installing a Highlander Under Saddle Pickup
Date: 13 Mar 2002 16:07:34 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Troubleman \(Jay Brown\)" <<troubleman@starpower...>> wrote in message news:<a6nh9f$bsm$<1@bob...>>...
> I recently hear a Bourgeois OM with a Highlander pickup system (pickup and
> microphone). I must say, it beat the livin' hell outta anything piezo and
> may have bested my gold standard for undersaddle pickups, the B-band Core99.
I agree about its tone. I use one. I've wondered howmuch the
highlander absorbs the sound, being softer than the original bridge.
Any thoughts out there?
Robert McArthur
| REVIEW: AUDIO-TECHNICA ATW-601G GUITAR WIRELESS SYSTEM [2] |
|---|
From: MikeY <mikefred46@hotmail...>
Subject: REVIEW: AUDIO-TECHNICA ATW-601G GUITAR WIRELESS SYSTEM
Date: 13 Mar 2002 23:22:35 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
AUDIO-TECHNICA ATW-601G GUITAR WIRELESS SYSTEM
First off , let me say I am NOT a technical kind of guy. I have no
patience, and I demand perfection out of my gear and my playing. That
said, I am here to say that Audio-Technica has come up with the perfect
wireless guitar system for guys like me who just want to plug in and get
playing.
I have never used a wireless system before, and had no idea what went
where or how to tweak the system. I recently purchased the ATW-601G
wireless system and in literally less than 7 minutes I had it working and
sounding great (I had a timer on just to see how long it would take). Marc
Lee Shannon, an Audio Technica rep told me to ³be sure to read the
instructions² (Marc and I used to play in a band together back in the 70¹s
so he knows how I am and I am sure he realized that I had no intention of
cracking the instructions open).
After getting the system to where it would actually work, I found the
signal was distorted. I tired another channel (there are 10 channels to
chose from) and also slightly adjusted the ³Trim Control² in the battery
pack. The next thing I knew, the system was working flawlessly! Clean,
crisp tones with no outside noises such as buzzing, or humming were heard.
I then proceeded to walk thru my house where several appliances were
running and again, no outside noises. Even thru the walls there was no
loss of signal. As a final test, I stood in front of my TV and there was
still no buzzing or other unwanted noise.
The front of the ATW-601G Receiver Box has 3 easy to see LED lights for
the Power, RF, and AF Peak so the user can see exactly what is going on
with the unit in low light conditions. Two sturdy antennas (one is for
signal the other for ground) can be positioned for fine adjustments as
needed. The Uni-Pack Transmitter runs on a 9-Volt battery and also has a
very cool feature. The LED on the Uni-Pack will blink once when first
turned on and then dim. As the battery weakens, the LED¹s glow will
increase alerting the user it is time to change the battery out. No
guessing when the battery is getting weak and that is an option a guy like
me needs to have!
After getting the AGW-601G up and working I finally opened the manual to
see if I had missed anything. I found a list of ³10 Tips To Obtain The
Best Results² and there was really nothing I had not covered on my own.
How is that for quick, easy, user friendly equipment with high quality
performance?
This is the first product I have owned made by Audio-Technica, and if they
make anything else that I want to use, I can guarantee you that I will buy
it from them. The ATW 601G has a list price of $379, but I have seen them
retailing for $230-250 range. At that price, the Audio-Technica ATW-601G
is well worth the money.
Mike Fred
--
GET "WASATCH BOULEVARD" MikeY's first solo CD!!
FINGERSTYLE GUITAR WEB PAGE:
http://www.concentric.net/~mikekeo/ updated 03/12/02
From: MikeY <mikefred46@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: AUDIO-TECHNICA ATW-601G GUITAR WIRELESS SYSTEM
Date: 15 Mar 2002 21:54:43 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Tom;
> Are you using this with your acoustic? You just reviewed the
> Raven Blender, so I'm wondering how you handle a stereo signal
> from the guitar with the wireless unit.
>
> Or have you dusted off the Zion at last? 8-)
To answer your questions...."yes". I am using ther wireless thingY for the
acoustic, but I have not figured out how to get the stereo signal from it.
If I used it, I cannot use the the Raven Labs unit. I also used it with
the "MightY ZION" as well and it works very well for that too! Now if I
could only play these "dadgad" geetars of mine!
I called Audi Technica and they were not sure how to use the Raven Labs
and get a stereo signal out. Perhaps that wil be their next upgrade! :-)
MikeY
--
GET "WASATCH BOULEVARD" MikeY's first solo CD!!
FINGERSTYLE GUITAR WEB PAGE:
http://www.concentric.net/~mikekeo/ updated 03/12/02
| OT- sorta Electric Guitar DI box [4] |
|---|
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: OT- sorta Electric Guitar DI box
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:58:31 +0000
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:14:10 +0000, foldedpath wrote
(in message <Cutk8.200$<dh.27268@bin2...>>):
>[..]
> Okay, I might as well mention the Roland VG-88.
>
> To use the VG-88 you need a hex pickup on the guitar, either a Roland
> GK-2 (which I don't love) or an RMC (which is very nice).
Imho the GK-2 might be a more reliable bet. A repairer pal has had some less
than good experiences with the RMC, and I found it popped quite badly if I
snapped a string back against the fingerboard. There's ample individual
string gain swing on the VG-88 to deal with the lousy radius on the GK-2
>[...] It does
> a reasonable nylon string guitar sound,
To be honest, I thought that one was atrocious, but the demo speakers weren't
doing anything any favours either.
>[...] I don't want Roland to drop this product or
> stop development on the next version!!
I'm certainly with you there, but on the basis of the two good clean sounds I
could find, plus the fifty fuzz-boxes and a couple of whistling farts, I
think its current incarnation needs approaching somewhat circumspectly.
I suspect the biggest thing against it is retailer cluelessness. My first one
plugged it in a Laney tube combo, pissed off and left me to it, the second
plugged it into a cleaner rig but with very peaky speakers and though game,
didn't really have a clue how to set it up. I suppose nobody's going to spend
much time training staff on a slow seller.
I'd vote for the DG too, but with a midi back up of tweaked user settings for
safety, and an expression pedal.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: OT- sorta Electric Guitar DI box
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:19:21 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Adrian Legg" <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
news:<01HW.B8B82D1700106844092167E0@News...>...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:14:10 +0000, foldedpath wrote
> (in message <Cutk8.200$<dh.27268@bin2...>>):
>
> >[..]
> > Okay, I might as well mention the Roland VG-88.
> >
> > To use the VG-88 you need a hex pickup on the guitar,
> > either a Roland GK-2 (which I don't love) or an RMC
> > (which is very nice).
>
> Imho the GK-2 might be a more reliable bet. A repairer
> pal has had some less than good experiences with the RMC,
> and I found it popped quite badly if I snapped a string back
> against the fingerboard. There's ample individual string gain
> swing on the VG-88 to deal with the lousy radius on the GK-2
Hmmm... interesting. I haven't had that popping problem, but maybe my
technique or guitar setup is different.
The main thing I like about the RMC (or the Baggs, for that matter,
although the RMC has less crosstalk) is that the sound is piezo
instead of magnetic. Since the VG-88 uses that sound as a baseline for
the COSM models, I think the acoustic patches sound better with hex
piezos instead of hex magnetics. You can bypass all the COSM stuff
completely and just bring up a little piezo tone under your standard
mag pickups, like a PRS with the piezo bridge option. Or, you can go
the other way.... blend in your standard magnetic pickup sound
underneath the piezo COSM-modeled stuff, by plugging your guitar's
1/4" mag pickup output into the VG-88's guitar input. I just think you
have more flexible tone options with a piezo hex pickup, instead of
having all-magnetic sounds to work with. YMMV, of course. :-)
> >[...] It does
> > a reasonable nylon string guitar sound,
>
> To be honest, I thought that one was atrocious, but the
> demo speakers weren't doing anything any favours either.
That's the unfortunate story of most people who try this thing out in
a guitar store. You can't tell anything about the potential in the
nylon string sound from the factory patches. I spent a lot of time
developing a nylon string sound by modifying one of the factory
patches, even switching to a dfferent guitar to get the sound right
(semi-hollow electric vs. solidbody). And it does help to hear it
through either good recording monitors or a very clean, tight PA
setup.
> >[...] I don't want Roland to drop this product or
> > stop development on the next version!!
>
> I'm certainly with you there, but on the basis of the two
> good clean sounds I could find, plus the fifty fuzz-boxes
> and a couple of whistling farts, I think its current incarnation
> needs approaching somewhat circumspectly.
It's all in the patch editing. It's like a synthesizer that way -- a
user who dives under the hood and edits the patches can get great
sounds. Almost all the factory patches are overdone and buried under a
wash of excessive effect processing. It can do much more than that.
> I suspect the biggest thing against it is retailer cluelessness.
> My first one plugged it in a Laney tube combo, pissed off
> and left me to it, the second plugged it into a cleaner rig but
> with very peaky speakers and though game, didn't really
> have a clue how to set it up. I suppose nobody's going to
> spend much time training staff on a slow seller.
Roland should be marketing this by giving away demo audio CD's or
putting up MP3's on their web site, with great sounds by great
players, instead of just throwing it on the floor at the local Guitar
Center. But they've never been smart enough to do that.
BTW, the guitar you use makes a big difference too. I started with a
Godin LGX-SA as a driver, and it's not bad, but the Baggs pickups had
a little crosstalk which caused some glitching in the pitch shifted
patches. And the solidbody tone didn't help the acoustic models. Then
I got a set of RMC's retrofitted to my Gibson Pat Martino (semi-hollow
smallbodied electric), and it's almost a night and day difference. All
the acoustic patchs sound much warmer and more natural now. I had to
spend a month re-editing and tweaking all my patches for the new
guitar's tone, but it was worth it.
> I'd vote for the DG too, but with a midi back up of tweaked user
settings for
> safety, and an expression pedal.
The DG might not be a bad choice, for someone who didn't want to get
too deeply into this stuff.
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: OT- sorta Electric Guitar DI box
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 1:56:48 +0000
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 0:19:21 +0000, foldedpath wrote
(in message <dcwk8.4300$<dh.200789@bin2...>>):
>[...] I just think you
> have more flexible tone options with a piezo hex pickup, instead of
> having all-magnetic sounds to work with.
I think that's absolutely right, and a much more consistent attack transient
too. For me it's a question of finding a really stable pick-up that'll give a
tone I like straight into the fx/pa, and so far I haven't seen one that I'd
risk dumping my existing bridge unit for. I did notice a couple of tracking
glitches using the GK-2 that I suspect a piezo might have got around. But -
those pops were pretty nasty, and my pal also passed on some gossip of
considerably less than encouraging warranty support from RMC.
>>> [...]
> BTW, the guitar you use makes a big difference too.
I'm sure you're right. However, my resistance to guitar midi and modelling
kit so far has been based on my not being prepared to jettison existing
instruments. It's always seemed like far too much commitment to something
that has so far shown little more potential than as a subsidiary
tonal/textural dodge. Istm if one has to compromise the instrument, one might
as well go the whole hog and do the logical thing much more efficiently by
using keyboards. Or in my hamfisted case, by hiring a keyboard player :-)
There are signs that things are moving, the GR-33 is a much less finnicky
beast than its predecessors if one sticks to softer attack patches. I still
have the sense that it's very much an also-ran product for Roland.
>[...]I had to
> spend a month re-editing and tweaking all my patches for the new
> guitar's tone, but it was worth it.
I'd feel more sanguine about editing if I could use Sound Diver. I wonder
what the chances are of a patch ? eMagic picked up on the GR-33 quite
quickly, and though the synth's response to computer requests is non-existent
even via their Unitor 8 or mt4, the off-synth patch editing is excellent.
Istm there are quite a few edits that can be done in Sound Diver that are
impossible via the synth buttons, and I find the graphic layout much more
comprehensible.
Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: OT- sorta Electric Guitar DI box
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:12:33 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Adrian Legg" <<commercial-free@speech...>> wrote in message
news:<01HW.B8B856E0001A39EF0C43CFC0@News...>...
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 0:19:21 +0000, foldedpath wrote
> (in message <dcwk8.4300$<dh.200789@bin2...>>):
>
> >>> [...]
> > BTW, the guitar you use makes a big difference too.
>
> I'm sure you're right. However, my resistance to guitar midi
> and modelling kit so far has been based on my not being
> prepared to jettison existing instruments. It's always seemed
> like far too much commitment to something that has so far
> shown little more potential than as a subsidiary tonal/textural
> dodge.
You don't have to ditch your existing instrument. I had a local guitar
tech put RMC saddles on my Gibson Pat Martino, and the only other
thing he had to do was rout a hole in the lower side for the DIN-13
jack. There are no onboard electronics. The whole thing is passive,
and connects to an outboard RMC Polydrive II preamp, which is just a
small battery-operated floor box. The only way you can tell it's a
"Roland ready" guitar is if you spot that additional DIN-13 jack in
the guitar. Otherwise it looks like a stock Pat Martino. You can do
this on any guitar, as long as you're willing to cut just one extra
jack output somewhere.Or just slap on a GK-13 and let the cord drop
off the instrument. That's the easiest installation of all.
BTW, I agree about the tonal/textural dodge bit. I don't use things
like synth pads or strings in my own music, so I've avoided going into
the full-blown Midi guitar stuff. But the VG-88 isn't in that Midi
world. It doesn't use Midi to trigger internal patches like the Roland
GR-33. The patches are just digital transforms of the original wave
coming off the pickup, so all your touch dynamics on the instrument
are still there. I'm not sure I could relate to that "one step
removed" feel you get on a Midi triggering guitar.
> Istm if one has to compromise the instrument, one might
> as well go the whole hog and do the logical thing much more
> efficiently by using keyboards. Or in my hamfisted case, by
> hiring a keyboard player :-)
Well, if you have the luxury of hiring a keyboard player, then go for
it. :-)
I have to say though, that it's an absolute gas to patch in a Hammond
B3 sound (one of the few non-guitar sounds the VG-88 does fairly
well), and play "Green Onions" or "Stormy Monday Blues" on the guitar.
I'm no threat to Jimmy McGriff on the organ, and it's tough trying to
sound like an organ player with all those pedal tones and other held
tones, while other voices are moving around. But it's still a lot of
fun. It's a distraction from what I SHOULD be doing on the guitar,
which is improving my basic guitar chops. But I've always been easily
distracted. :-)
> There are signs that things are moving, the GR-33 is a
> much less finnicky beast than its predecessors if one
> sticks to softer attack patches. I still have the sense
> that it's very much an also-ran product for Roland.
They sell a few, but the guitar synth world is very small, compared to
the millions of guitar players out there. The gear is complicated and
expensive, and you have to get into a computer geek (or keyboard
player geek) mindset to deal with it. So that limits the popularity, I
guess.
We're getting a little OT here from the original post, but from what
I've been able to find out over the last year or two, the way to go if
you want to do true Midi triggering, is a hex pickup running into an
Axon pitch-to-Midi converter (roughly $1000), and then into any Midi
sound source you want. The Axon does a much better job than the Roland
GR-33 for triggering external Midi sound modules. The advantage of the
GR-33 is that it's inexpensive, and Roland has tweaked it so the
triggering is reasonably fast on the internal sounds. But the tracking
on the GR-33 isn't so hot for driving outboard Midi sound sources.
If I ever get seriously into Midi guitar, I'll get an Axon converter
and some good outboard sound sources, like an Akai hardware sampler,
or GigaStudio samples running on a computer. Have you heard the
Gigastudio acoustic upright bass, or the GigaPiano? It's incredible! I
would love to trigger that from a guitar. Meanwhile I'm having fun
fooling around on the VG-88.
> >[...]I had to spend a month re-editing and tweaking all my
> >patches for the new guitar's tone, but it was worth it.
>
> I'd feel more sanguine about editing if I could use Sound Diver.
> I wonder what the chances are of a patch ?
I don't know.... that would depend on the developer, I guess. There is
a simple shareware computer editor utility you can get for editing the
VG-88 patches, with Sysex transfers back and forth. So that's another
way to go, if you don't want to mess with the small LCD readout on the
unit.
P.S. do you think any of the acoustic guitar players here are still
reading this part of the thread? ;-)
| Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation [5] |
|---|
From: Chuck Fulcher <chuck.fulcher@gte...>
Subject: Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:39:55 GMT
Friends,
I have a Sigma DM-18 Acoustic guitar that I've been playing for about20 years. I want to have a pickup installed in this guitar so that I can
run it through chorus or detune effects.
I'm not looking for cheap, e.g. I am willing to pay a few bucks to geta great sound.
I would appreciate any recommendations or words of wisdom from the community
of guitar gods out there.
Many thanks in advance.Chuck chuck.fulcher@gte.net
From: - Scott <fromusenet@wiman-removeme...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:51:14 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Chuck, go to http://www.pick-uptheworld.com and have a look at David
Enke's offerings.
Many of the pickers in this group use his pickups and he's a regular
contributor to the discourse here. He'll let you return it if you
don't like it. I doubt if he has to take many of them back.
The Model #27 is one damn-fine sounding pickup for a hundred bucks.
I just put one in my old Takamine and run it through an LR Baggs PADI
preamp. (You will need an external preamp). You can install it
yourself without much effort.
- Scotty
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:39:55 GMT, "Chuck Fulcher"
<<chuck.fulcher@gte...>> wrote:
>Friends,
>
> I have a Sigma DM-18 Acoustic guitar that I've been playing for about
>20 years. I want to have a pickup installed in this guitar so that I can
>run it through chorus or detune effects.
>
> I'm not looking for cheap, e.g. I am willing to pay a few bucks to get
>a great sound.
>
>I would appreciate any recommendations or words of wisdom from the community
>of guitar gods out there.
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Chuck <chuck.fulcher@gte...>
>
From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:12:27 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Hi Chuck,
There's been a lot of discussion on this topic in the past 6 months. You
should do a google search in rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic on "pickup".
That said, I settled on a Fishman Rare Earth Humbucker soundhole pickup for
my Martin D-1R. Street price is around $150. I play fingerstyle acoustic
blues with a thumbpick and metal fingerpicks. What style of music do you
primarily play? Do you strum with a pick? Flesh and nail fingerstyle?
You'll find that there's lots of viable choices out there. Most common
categories are soundhole, under the saddle (UST) and sound board transducers
(SBT). Also, there are systems that include internal microphones as well.
Each has it's advantages and unique characteristics.
All the best,
Steve Comeau
"Chuck Fulcher" <<chuck.fulcher@gte...>> wrote in message
news:fi6l8.6476$<9F2.2567@nwrddc02...>...
> Friends,
>
> I have a Sigma DM-18 Acoustic guitar that I've been playing for about
> 20 years. I want to have a pickup installed in this guitar so that I can
> run it through chorus or detune effects.
>
> I'm not looking for cheap, e.g. I am willing to pay a few bucks to
get
> a great sound.
>
> I would appreciate any recommendations or words of wisdom from the
community
> of guitar gods out there.
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Chuck <chuck.fulcher@gte...>
>
>
From: Christopher Niegisch <Christopher.Niegisch@Niegisch...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:39:19 +0100
Organization: CN-DV Cosnulting GmbH
Hi Chuck,
I play a Taylor 714CE with stock Fishman Blender. I changed the pickups from
Fishman to an LR Baggs Hextsring Pickup and an onboard DeLuxe preamp. The
sound is just marvellous.
The only thing about it is that you´ve got to find a luthier installing the
pickup - it´s pretty hard work.
Cheers
Chris
"Chuck Fulcher" <<chuck.fulcher@gte...>> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fi6l8.6476$<9F2.2567@nwrddc02...>...
> Friends,
>
> I have a Sigma DM-18 Acoustic guitar that I've been playing for about
> 20 years. I want to have a pickup installed in this guitar so that I can
> run it through chorus or detune effects.
>
> I'm not looking for cheap, e.g. I am willing to pay a few bucks to
get
> a great sound.
>
> I would appreciate any recommendations or words of wisdom from the
community
> of guitar gods out there.
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Chuck <chuck.fulcher@gte...>
>
>
From: John Fitzgerald <john@perrettaguitars...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Pickup Recommendation
Date: 21 Mar 2002 07:06:01 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
As a builder/repairman I have installed and replaced several different
types and brands of acoustic pickups. For my $ the Fishman Rare Earth
Humbucking or the Baggs LB6 with either onboard Deluxe Acoustic Preamp
or an outside buffer such as the Gigpro or Para DI are both excellent
choices. They are both reliable, easy to use, and one doesn't have to
monkey around with the installation to find the "best placement." One
can get a great sound direct to PA or using a "voiced for acoustic"
amp such as Trace and Ultrasound. I've even run these pickups thru a
Deluxe Reverb with good results.
John
www.perrettaguitars.com
| Baggs iBeam construction? [6] |
|---|
From: gmc <gmc@intlog...>
Subject: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:25 GMT
Organization: none
Hi Folks,
Aanyone know the technology involved in the L.R. Baggs "iBeam" pickup
- eg is it a microphone with 6 "heads"/"inlets" - if so,
magnetic/condenser - something else?
Anyone taken one apart?
Best,
Gervais Currie
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:42:11 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"gmc" <<gmc@intlog...>> wrote in message
news:<3c9a646d.7507426@news...>...
> Hi Folks,
>
> Aanyone know the technology involved in the L.R. Baggs "iBeam" pickup
> - eg is it a microphone with 6 "heads"/"inlets" - if so,
> magnetic/condenser - something else?
>
> Anyone taken one apart?
>
> Best,
>
> Gervais Currie
I'm a little curious why you want to know, but my understanding is the
I-beam uses a polymer film transducer material set up in an 'accelerometer'
format. This implies that the film is held on one end, and a small weight is
added to the other. When the sensor is moved, the film flexes and causes a
voltage output. I have never taken one apart, but you could research
'accelerometers', as there are many forms of them.
David Enke
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:34:22 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <a7e5ua$d02$<1@slb4...>>, on 03/21/02 at 07:42 PM,
"David Enke" <putw@mindspring.com> said:>"gmc" <<gmc@intlog...>> wrote in message
>news:<3c9a646d.7507426@news...>...
>> Hi Folks,
>> Aanyone know the technology involved in the L.R. Baggs "iBeam" pickup
>> - eg is it a microphone with 6 "heads"/"inlets" - if so,
>> magnetic/condenser - something else?
>> Anyone taken one apart?
>> Best,
>> Gervais Currie
>I'm a little curious why you want to know, but my understanding is the I-beam
>uses a polymer film transducer material set up in an 'accelerometer' format.
>This implies that the film is held on one end, and a small weight is added to
>the other. When the sensor is moved, the film flexes and causes a voltage
>output. I have never taken one apart, but you could research 'accelerometers',
>as there are many forms of them.
>David Enke
in addition: Baggs' support guy says that they are horizontal-motion sensors,
and are designed with an intent to reject vertical-motion in an effort to fight
feedback. I believe this would tend to support the above.
Having sampled both an unadorned film pickup and the iBeam in two different
guitars, it feels/sounds to me like the iBeam is weighted/constrained a bit.
Since I have had no offers to take these two off my hands, perhaps I should
dremel one apart just to look........
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:28:08 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Gervais-
gmc wrote:
> Aanyone know the technology involved in the L.R. Baggs "iBeam" pickup
> - eg is it a microphone with 6 "heads"/"inlets" - if so,
> magnetic/condenser - something else?
I'm not sure how it works, but between the cracks in the housing you
can see what looks like a strip of thin film (presumably shielded
piezo film). I've been presuming it works along the lines David
Enke mentioned (accelerometer), but never quite understood the
reason for the strange mounting. Don's comments about horizontal
sensing have given me something to ponder in this regard.
> Anyone taken one apart?
Nope, but considering that so far I haven't found mine useful as
a pickup, maybe it's worth considering. 8-)
More seriously, you might look to see if Baggs has the iBeam patented.
Patents give inventors protection for their ideas, but the "price"
for this protection is disclosure, so a patent has to explain how
the device works and how it is manufactured in a reasonable amount
of detail. On the other hand our patent system is so screwed up
that I'm not sure how much one can rely on what's in a patent
document! (*Technology Review* has been running a very revealing
column on patent issues recently; if you hadn't already come to
the conclusion that the patent system needs a complete overhaul,
reading these columns might push you over the edge.)
Peace,
Tom
From: gmc <gmc@intlog...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:01:51 GMT
Organization: none
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:42:11 -0700, "David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>>
wrote:
>
>"gmc" <<gmc@intlog...>> wrote in message
>news:<3c9a646d.7507426@news...>...
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Aanyone know the technology involved in the L.R. Baggs "iBeam" pickup
>> - eg is it a microphone with 6 "heads"/"inlets" - if so,
>> magnetic/condenser - something else?
>>
>> Anyone taken one apart?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gervais Currie
>
>I'm a little curious why you want to know,
Well - I'm... curious :-)
but my understanding is the>I-beam uses a polymer film transducer material set up in an 'accelerometer'
>format. This implies that the film is held on one end, and a small weight is
>added to the other. When the sensor is moved, the film flexes and causes a
>voltage output. I have never taken one apart, but you could research
>'accelerometers', as there are many forms of them.
>
>David Enke
>
Thanks for that David, interesting stuff
Pickup-wise I think I have found the best for me at the moment - did a
gig the other night with my new Taylor 310 (ARRGGHH ! I LOVE IT! - see
*) with a Fishman rare earth humbucker along with AKG C1000 pointed at
where the neck joins the body (about 6" away) . On the mixer 60/40 in
favour of the mic.
Sounded just like the thing, but bigger !
Best,
Gervais Currie
*:
http://www.intlog.demon.co.uk/bedtime.jpg
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Baggs iBeam construction?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:11:39 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
sportee wrote:
>
> Are they hard to install?
If you already have a hole drilled for an endpin jack, they are
very easy to install, and to remove. Full instructions are included
with the pickup. And if you don't have a hole for an endpin jack,
that's not too hard to do yourself, either, but it may give you the
willies to take a reamer or drill to your guitar....
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| looking for info on pick-up technology [4] |
|---|
From: HL <sweefmy@singnet...>
Subject: looking for info on pick-up technology
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:08:54 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
Hi,
I'm writing an short paper for an undergraduate module (Science of Music)
that I'm taking. I would like to write on pick-up technology for acoustic
guitars and am looking for information such as its history and today's
technology/products available and how they work.
I need more info than is available on the various companies' websites. Can
anyone point me to good sites or send me some info for starters? I'm pretty
keen to focus on the PUTW as I'm still trying to convince myself to spend
S$200 on it... :)
Cheers,
John Swee
From: HL <sweefmy@singnet...>
Subject: looking for info on pick-up technology
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:08:54 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
Hi,
I'm writing an short paper for an undergraduate module (Science of Music)
that I'm taking. I would like to write on pick-up technology for acoustic
guitars and am looking for information such as its history and today's
technology/products available and how they work.
I need more info than is available on the various companies' websites. Can
anyone point me to good sites or send me some info for starters? I'm pretty
keen to focus on the PUTW as I'm still trying to convince myself to spend
S$200 on it... :)
Cheers,
John Swee
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: looking for info on pick-up technology
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:22:52 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"HL" <<sweefmy@singnet...>> wrote in message
news:a7qk45$bh8$<1@violet...>...
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing an short paper for an undergraduate module (Science of Music)
> that I'm taking. I would like to write on pick-up technology for acoustic
> guitars and am looking for information such as its history and today's
> technology/products available and how they work.
>
> I need more info than is available on the various companies' websites. Can
> anyone point me to good sites or send me some info for starters? I'm
pretty
> keen to focus on the PUTW as I'm still trying to convince myself to spend
> S$200 on it... :)
>
> Cheers,
> John Swee
Hi John,
I would be happy to share all I know in this matter, short of disclosing the
technology behind my future projects. I've been building musical sensors for
over 20 years out of just about everything under the sun. In the process,
I've worked with magnetic, inductive, ceramic piezo materials, polymer films
and cables, accelerometers, microphones, and almost everything in between.
During this process, I also worked as a very busy instrument technician, and
installed just about every third party system available in all sorts of
instruments, and combinations of them as well.
I have also been following the recent studies on music therapy,
psycho-acoustic consciousness expansion, physical/emotional healing with
frequencies and vibrations, and bone conduction applications.
Feel free to contact me off-line to discuss anything of interest, or if
people show an interest here in this group, we can discuss things openly
here. Tom Loredo has quite a background on the subject too, and most people
I know have boxes of old, obsolete pickups they might be willing to send you
for evaluation (and, or) dissection.
We (PUTW) also have pickups that for one reason or another are not suitable
for retail sales, and we frequently provide these at a severe discount to
people for experimentation, education, or other philanthropic purposes.
David (lost my mind, but came back to my sensors) Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: looking for info on pick-up technology
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:36:34 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
John-
I responded by email. Not sure about the email address (I hate it
when folks mangle their email addresses in a futile attempt to
prevent spam, for just this reason). So if you don't get anything,
drop me a line with the right email address.
-Tom Loredo
| Foot Board? [5] |
|---|
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Foot Board?
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:28:55 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Rebecky" <<featherov@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<d57fdfdd.0203280849.3c846f85@posting...>...
> Thanks for the responses -- what is Porch Board Bass?
Here's the description from Elderly Instruments (and they want $210
for it):
"Unique floor bass system is made from a 10"x 25.5"x 1.75" board
(clear, natural finish pine) with a low frequency proximity sensor
installed. Bass is played by tapping your foot (or feet, if your good)
on a tap bar which triggers the sensor. These really do sound GREAT
and add an amazing amount of depth to the music, especially solo or
duo acts. Low frequency amp required / bass amp recommended."
> So a simple contact piezo on your shoe will do the trick --
> guess have a board handy in case there's carpet. Who'd
> have thunk it. Makes me want to sprinkle sand on the floor.
Of course now we have to get into all the sound variations between
rubber soles, Vibram hiker soles, leather soles, wooden clogs, etc.
It's a big topic. ;-)
Although the contact pickup would actually work, something like a
handmade foot board (especially if it's hollow, for a little
resonance) or that Porch Board Bass thing, will probably sound better.
There is a percussive click sound from a contact pickup on your shoe
that you may or may not like, and you'd need some heavy EQ to get it
to be more of a "thump."
> Now, if there's any way to hook the
> Bodhran into this setup . . . . .
Get a kick pedal from a drum set, clamp the Bodhran to the pedal, and
stick up a microphone? :-)
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Foot Board?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:02:20 +1030
On 27 Mar 2002 14:21:05 -0800, <featherov@yahoo...> (Rebecky) wrote:
>Any experience/advice on a foot board? I've read that John Hartford
>hooked a Barcus Berry contact pickup to a piece of plywood -- is that
>the best way to go?
I don't know how well it would work, but I've just bought a cheap
pickup that fits with a rubber suction cup (well plastic actually). It
is very sensitive, and I tried it on my classical guitar with moderate
success. It's called a "Rebel" and it cost $15 Australian. It is
rather microphonic, which could be a problem for a footboard, but at
the price it's worth trying. Michael B
From: EHHackney <ehhackney@aol...>
Subject: Re: Foot Board?
Date: 29 Mar 2002 05:53:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I have been experimenting with the same thing. I made a platform of 3/8
plywood about 14x24 inches, raised up an inch or so, spray painted it black,
and attached a "Schatten Soundboard Transducer" from Stewart-McDonald. I'm
still messing with it. It sounds a little too boomy for me, and I will
probably need some sort of equalization - maybe some gain, too.
I didn't get into the string on "shoes." but I think they are important, too. I
want to get leather soles to give you that snap.
'Haven't practiced with it or had the guts to use it on a gig yet.
I have read about a thing called "the porch." It's beautiful wood, and pretty
pricey. I think it's made to be "boomy."
Hack
--//--
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Foot Board?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:50:38 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"EHHackney" <<ehhackney@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020329005315.04337.00000768@mb-bh...>...
> I have been experimenting with the same thing. I made a
> platform of 3/8 plywood about 14x24 inches, raised up an inch
> or so, spray painted it black, and attached a "Schatten Soundboard
> Transducer" from Stewart-McDonald. I'm still messing with it. It
> sounds a little too boomy for me, and I will probably need some
> sort of equalization - maybe some gain, too.
>
> I didn't get into the string on "shoes." but I think they are
important,
> too. I want to get leather soles to give you that snap.
>
> 'Haven't practiced with it or had the guts to use it on a gig yet.
>
> I have read about a thing called "the porch." It's beautiful wood,
> and pretty pricey. I think it's made to be "boomy."
I think you're going to need an EQ on any of these ideas to get the
sound you want. And you also need a PA with very good low end
performance, or a bass amp. I guess we might all have different ideas
of how to use this, but my idea would be to get a real solid,
chest-thumping "thud" in there. Not a pitched sound. If it's high
enough to register as a pitch, then it might fight with the song key.
You want it to be like a kick drum, low and with a vague, undefined
pitch.To do that, you need EQ and a good, self-powered low frequency
speaker. A fairly cheap home stereo subwoofer could probably do the
job.
From: EHHackney <ehhackney@aol...>
Subject: Re: Foot Board?
Date: 29 Mar 2002 14:48:06 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Actually, what I'm looking for is a foot TAP, not a thud - more like the sound
that flamenco players get. When I have seen Paco DeLucia he has performed on a
wooden stage and has had his foot miked.
What little experimenting I have done, I have needed to turn up highs or
presence, and cut the lows back to zero. I have played a little with moving
the pickup around so I don't get a note.
Hack
--//--
| Dual source with PUTW [17] |
|---|
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:46:22 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both sides of
my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic sound and
I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one each
side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
JD
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:09:19 -0700
JD Blackwell wrote:
> Any suggestions as to what to use with a
> PUTW #27 to fill up both sides of my AP13...
> ...I'm considering following Dave Enke's
> suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one each
> side of the bridge plate...
I've got a pair of PUTW #20's in my Grand Concert,
one on each side of the bridge plate. Sounds
GLORIOUS. Separate stereo outputs, one channel
clean, other with a little fluffy poo. Really
expands the sound.
lumpy
--
www.digitalcartography.com
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:35:27 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message
news:a85io6$pfauv$<1@ID-76024...>...
> Lumpy wrote:
> > > I've got a pair of PUTW #20's in my Grand Concert,
> > > one on each side of the bridge plate. Sounds
> > > GLORIOUS. Separate stereo outputs, one channel
> > > clean, other with a little fluffy poo. Really
> > > expands the sound.
>
> JD wrote:
> > Glorious? I like the sound of that.
> > What kind of pre are you using.
>
> Stereo power plug from David. Basically
> two separate preamp modules in one tiny
> box. Two in, two out.
>
> lump
Allegedly, one of my AP13 channels is supposed to be good only for mic's
or magnetics. I've never heard any evidence of this when I've dual sourced
but maybe someone else has a little insight into this.
JD
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:35:35 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <2Knp8.484818$<pN4.34205011@bin8...>>, JD
Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
> Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both sides of
> my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic sound and
> I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
> considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one each
> side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
> internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
>
> JD
>
>
I would be interested in hearing about the PUTW soundboard material on
one side of the AP-13, and their new "Air Core" saddle element on the
other side.
This would give somewhat of a resemblance to the new B-Band gear that I
am using, which is the A2 internal pre-amp, which combines their 1470
AST (acoustic soundboard transducer) along with their B-Band UST
(under-saddle transducer). I have never heard a better sound out of a
guitar than what I am using right now, so it's too bad we can't make a
head-to-head comparison, JD. maybe we'll get that chance if we pull
off the possible show up your way....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:48:13 GMT
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:46:22 GMT, "JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>>
wrote:
>Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both sides of
>my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic sound and
>I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate.
I don't have a pro ear for this stuff so grain of salt and all but I'm
using the 27 with a fishman ust and I'm kinda happy with it. Not
advocating it, just sharing my experience.
I cut some of the ust's highs where the quack really blows and then
replace it by boosting the 27's highs where I think the latter really
shines. The 27 on my 810's a little boxy in the low end so I do the
reverse there. Could you test that combo without committing too much
effort?
Never spent much time experimenting with the 27's placement, though,
so I don't know about the boxiness. Not sure if 'boxy' is even the
right word but its something I think I hear in other sbt's.
Anything that even hints of what disappointed me about the very first
Barcus Berry I ever heard (1972?) is 'boxy' to me. A hollowness and a
very slight delay on the low string attack, or something.
Anyway, a ust's got some kinda 'punch' that I'm heistant to give up so
I'm getting a satisfying compromise with that combo. Good luck on the
quest.
Rare Earth doesn't look too bad to ya, does it? You could get used to
it, probably. Minor annoyance when you notice it but you notice thngs
less and less as time goes on.
Jeff
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:39:46 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote in message
news:2Knp8.484818$<pN4.34205011@bin8...>...
> Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both sides of
> my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic sound
and
> I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
> considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one
each
> side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
> internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
>
> JD
The person you mention is probably referring to a Joe Mills microphone, and
these are probably the best small condenser mics on the market right now.
As for dual sourcing a #27 with an Air Core, Jaquie Gipson has these systems
in all three of her performance/ recording guitars. She originally had Baggs
Dual Sources in all of these instruments, and after A/B ing them, she
started by replacing the internal microphone with a buffered #27 into the
microphone input on the onboard Baggs electronics. When the Air Core came
out, she A/B'd them against the under the saddle Baggs Ribbons, and
preferred the Air Core by a significant margin. She also noticed a marked
improvement in the acoustic dynamics, because the Air Core does not have
soft material in it to absorb or dampen string energy. Since she already had
the Baggs electronics installed, she kept them, and ended up with a hybrid
system she is quite pleased with. Her instruments are a custom Taylor 610, a
Taylor 12 (not sure the model), and a Breedlove.
These systems can be run directly to endpin jacks without the electronics
onboard, but would then rely on the gain from the AP13, and a good stereo
cable from the guitar to the pre-amp.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:19:36 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a857v4$gmt$<1@slb5...>...
>
> "JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote in message
> news:2Knp8.484818$<pN4.34205011@bin8...>...
> > Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both sides
of
> > my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic sound
> and
> > I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
> > considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one
> each
> > side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
> > internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
> >
> > JD
>
> The person you mention is probably referring to a Joe Mills microphone,
and
> these are probably the best small condenser mics on the market right now.
> As for dual sourcing a #27 with an Air Core, Jaquie Gipson has these
systems
> in all three of her performance/ recording guitars. She originally had
Baggs
> Dual Sources in all of these instruments, and after A/B ing them, she
> started by replacing the internal microphone with a buffered #27 into the
> microphone input on the onboard Baggs electronics. When the Air Core came
> out, she A/B'd them against the under the saddle Baggs Ribbons, and
> preferred the Air Core by a significant margin. She also noticed a marked
> improvement in the acoustic dynamics, because the Air Core does not have
> soft material in it to absorb or dampen string energy. Since she already
had
> the Baggs electronics installed, she kept them, and ended up with a hybrid
> system she is quite pleased with. Her instruments are a custom Taylor 610,
a
> Taylor 12 (not sure the model), and a Breedlove.
> These systems can be run directly to endpin jacks without the electronics
> onboard, but would then rely on the gain from the AP13, and a good stereo
> cable from the guitar to the pre-amp.
>
> David Enke
I'm not certain that my dislike for UST's stems from compressability but
rather the acoustic properties of something foriegn in the vibration chain.
A titanium saddle wouldn't be terribly compressibile but I don't think it
would have the warmth and "woodiness" of something more conventional. I
still have a hard time with the idea of a UST.
JD
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:58:49 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote in message
news:cKrp8.176513$<2q2.14272044@bin4...>...
> I'm not certain that my dislike for UST's stems from compressability but
> rather the acoustic properties of something foriegn in the vibration
chain.
> A titanium saddle wouldn't be terribly compressibile but I don't think it
> would have the warmth and "woodiness" of something more conventional. I
> still have a hard time with the idea of a UST.
>
> JD
I have had a hard time with UST's too, and figured that there were enough of
them around already to not warrant another introduction to the market. As I
was building some of our new bridgepin pickups one day (which wrap film
around a hollow metal core which is then inserted into the pins), I got the
idea to build the Air Core around the same contruction principal.
Standard design UST's sense only vertical pressure changes, and can be
difficult to balance. The coaxial pickup in the Highlander senses radially,
but the downside is the need for complex slot and possibly saddle routing.
Also, the material is definitely soft. The film used in the Air Core is the
same as our other pickups, and it responds to subtle vibrations very well.
Since it is fitted precisely to the width of the slot, it senses equally on
all sides, and this gives it a very woody quality. Most people who heard it
at NAMM could not believe it was a saddle pickup.
In all cases where a different saddle pickup was being replaced by an Air
Core, the acoustics improved. In cases where the Air Core was the first
pickup installed in the saddle, no-one so far has noticed any acoustic
degradation (if there was a compromise this way, I wouldn't build or
recommend them). As long as they are centered under the strings, we have had
no reports of string ballance issues, or the need to 'tweak' either the
saddle or the slot.
The downside is that they are a little taller than some other UST's. In most
cases, you can remove material from the bottom of the saddle, rather then
rout the slot deeper.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:01:30 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:19:36 GMT, "JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>>
wrote:
>
>I'm not certain that my dislike for UST's stems from compressability but
>rather the acoustic properties of something foriegn in the vibration chain.
>A titanium saddle wouldn't be terribly compressibile but I don't think it
>would have the warmth and "woodiness" of something more conventional. I
>still have a hard time with the idea of a UST.
>
>JD
>
I roundly hate USTs myself, and I'm using an Aircore.
Jeff S.
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:42:34 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Francis Guidry" <<fguidry@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<572c0189.0203302011.69be4e2d@posting...>...
> David, you recently mentioned a new preamp design with lower noise
> than the EMG chips you're using now. How's that coming along?
>
> Fran
Honestly, it is very good. I have not, however, been able to figure out the
current draw short of hooking up a signal generator and looking at the
battery current draw over time. The gain is variable up to 60db, and I'm
shooting for 1,000 hours off a nine volt alkaline.
I'm using low noise discreet transistors, metal film 1% resistors, and
polypropylene capacitors. The circuit footprint is the same dimensions as
the PB-1 chips, but is slightly taller due to the larger components and not
using SMT. After the basic circuit comes out in about a month, I'm going to
add a few things that allow it to run off of 12-48 volt phantom power either
up a standard cable or a balanced line (like a microphone).
David Enke
"Don't worry about me, I'm not mental or anything" -Mike Meyers, Wayne's
World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
> "David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:<a857v4$gmt$<1@slb5...>>...
> > "JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote in message
> > news:2Knp8.484818$<pN4.34205011@bin8...>...
> > > Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both
sides of
> > > my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic
sound
> > and
> > > I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
> > > considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one
> > each
> > > side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
> > > internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
> > >
> > > JD
> >
> > The person you mention is probably referring to a Joe Mills microphone,
and
> > these are probably the best small condenser mics on the market right
now.
> > As for dual sourcing a #27 with an Air Core, Jaquie Gipson has these
systems
> > in all three of her performance/ recording guitars. She originally had
Baggs
> > Dual Sources in all of these instruments, and after A/B ing them, she
> > started by replacing the internal microphone with a buffered #27 into
the
> > microphone input on the onboard Baggs electronics. When the Air Core
came
> > out, she A/B'd them against the under the saddle Baggs Ribbons, and
> > preferred the Air Core by a significant margin. She also noticed a
marked
> > improvement in the acoustic dynamics, because the Air Core does not have
> > soft material in it to absorb or dampen string energy. Since she already
had
> > the Baggs electronics installed, she kept them, and ended up with a
hybrid
> > system she is quite pleased with. Her instruments are a custom Taylor
610, a
> > Taylor 12 (not sure the model), and a Breedlove.
> > These systems can be run directly to endpin jacks without the
electronics
> > onboard, but would then rely on the gain from the AP13, and a good
stereo
> > cable from the guitar to the pre-amp.
> >
> > David Enke
> > Pick-up the World
> > www.pick-uptheworld.com
> > <pickups@rmi...>
> > 719-742-5303
From: Glen Eric <strum4u@msn...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: 1 Apr 2002 02:39:42 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
David,
What is the current outlook on using one of your "Aircore" pickups in
place of the Baggs Ribbon Transducer, with regard to Baggs' Dual
Source Systems? Specifically, do the complaints from those who
substituted the Matrix with the Aircore (in Fishman systems)and
experienced approx. 10 db less gain, also hold true when substituting
the Baggs Ribbin transducer with the Aircore?
I've read in one of your posts that your company has developed a
buffer that facilitates plugging the aircore into the microphone input
of the Baggs Dual Source preamp. Does this mean that it wouldn't be a
viable option to plug an Aircore into the Baggs "Pickup" input jack?
Would any type of modification or added component be necessary to do
this (e.g. buffer, resistor, capacitor, smart switch, etc.)? Or would
one simply need to solder the signal and ground lead wires from the
Aircore to the tiny Switchcraft plug that is needed for the Dual
Source input jack?
Also, would you kindly clarify the signal routing of your PUTW
components as they interface with the Baggs Dual Source Preamp--in
Jaquie Gipson's guitar-- as you briefly mentioned in this post. Am I
correct in surmising that this guitar now has a PUTW #27 plugged into
the "mic" input of the Baggs preamp, with a PUTW Aircore plugged into
the "pickup" jack of the Baggs preamp?
And finally, as you also referred to the Joe Mills
mini-mic(Nashville)in this post, which is widely touted as being the
best mini-mic for acoustic guitar, would the Mills mic be able to plug
directly into the "mic" input jack of the Baggs Dual Source preamp?
The reason I ask all this is that I have a Baggs Dual Source, and I've
never been too happy with the Ribbon Transducer's sound, and I usually
try to blend in as much mic signal as possible to mask the "quack."
inherent in the Ribbon Transducer's sound. I think the Baggs mic does
a prety good job, though it does make the back of the instrument very
sensitive to body movement, and feedback, and I'm sure that a Mills
mic mounted below the soundhole would avoid some of these negative
consequences, while providing the superior sound of a miniature
"cardiod," rather than a pressure sensitive "FET," microphone, as is
the case with the Baggs mic.
Thanks for your return comments. I'm sure your reply may also help
many others who may wish to improve the performance of their Baggs
Dual Source Systems.
Regards,
Glen Sarkis
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message news:<a86438$jfb$<1@slb0...>>...
> "Francis Guidry" <<fguidry@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:<572c0189.0203302011.69be4e2d@posting...>...
> > David, you recently mentioned a new preamp design with lower noise
> > than the EMG chips you're using now. How's that coming along?
> >
> > Fran
>
> Honestly, it is very good. I have not, however, been able to figure out the
> current draw short of hooking up a signal generator and looking at the
> battery current draw over time. The gain is variable up to 60db, and I'm
> shooting for 1,000 hours off a nine volt alkaline.
> I'm using low noise discreet transistors, metal film 1% resistors, and
> polypropylene capacitors. The circuit footprint is the same dimensions as
> the PB-1 chips, but is slightly taller due to the larger components and not
> using SMT. After the basic circuit comes out in about a month, I'm going to
> add a few things that allow it to run off of 12-48 volt phantom power either
> up a standard cable or a balanced line (like a microphone).
>
> David Enke
> "Don't worry about me, I'm not mental or anything" -Mike Meyers, Wayne's
> World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <pickups@rmi...>
> 719-742-5303
>
> > "David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
> news:<a857v4$gmt$<1@slb5...>>...
> > > "JD Blackwell" <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote in message
> > > news:2Knp8.484818$<pN4.34205011@bin8...>...
> > > > Any suggestions as to what to use with a PUTW #27 to fill up both
> sides of
> > > > my AP13. I don't like what undersaddle pickups do to the acoustic
> sound
> and
> > > > I've never seen a magnetic that wasn't cosmetically inappropriate. I'm
> > > > considering following Dave Enke's suggestion of using 2 #27's, one one
> each
> > > > side of the bridge plate. Someone (I can't remember who) mentioned an
> > > > internal mic from somebody in Nashville.
> > > >
> > > > JD
> > >
> > > The person you mention is probably referring to a Joe Mills microphone,
> and
> > > these are probably the best small condenser mics on the market right
> now.
> > > As for dual sourcing a #27 with an Air Core, Jaquie Gipson has these
> systems
> > > in all three of her performance/ recording guitars. She originally had
> Baggs
> > > Dual Sources in all of these instruments, and after A/B ing them, she
> > > started by replacing the internal microphone with a buffered #27 into
> the
> > > microphone input on the onboard Baggs electronics. When the Air Core
> came
> > > out, she A/B'd them against the under the saddle Baggs Ribbons, and
> > > preferred the Air Core by a significant margin. She also noticed a
> marked
> > > improvement in the acoustic dynamics, because the Air Core does not have
> > > soft material in it to absorb or dampen string energy. Since she already
> had
> > > the Baggs electronics installed, she kept them, and ended up with a
> hybrid
> > > system she is quite pleased with. Her instruments are a custom Taylor
> 610, a
> > > Taylor 12 (not sure the model), and a Breedlove.
> > > These systems can be run directly to endpin jacks without the
> electronics
> > > onboard, but would then rely on the gain from the AP13, and a good
> stereo
> > > cable from the guitar to the pre-amp.
> > >
> > > David Enke
> > > Pick-up the World
> > > www.pick-uptheworld.com
> > > <pickups@rmi...>
> > > 719-742-5303
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: 01 Apr 2002 12:46:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< And finally, as you also referred to the Joe Mills
mini-mic(Nashville)in this post, which is widely touted as being the
best mini-mic for acoustic guitar, would the Mills mic be able to plug
directly into the "mic" input jack of the Baggs Dual Source preamp?
>>I know that the Joe Mills will work with that Pre- as far as "directly plug
in"..guess it depends on the connector you're using but i think that pre will
power it voltage-wise...
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:29:09 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Glen Eric" <<strum4u@msn...>> wrote in message
news:<80dfa8e5.0204010239.35b1adae@posting...>...
> David,
>
> What is the current outlook on using one of your "Aircore" pickups in
> place of the Baggs Ribbon Transducer, with regard to Baggs' Dual
> Source Systems? Specifically, do the complaints from those who
> substituted the Matrix with the Aircore (in Fishman systems)and
> experienced approx. 10 db less gain, also hold true when substituting
> the Baggs Ribbin transducer with the Aircore?
No. Raw Air Cores have roughly the same output as the Ribbon. The Matrix is
an extremely 'hot' pickup, and needs only a few db of gain from the Fishman
pre-amp.
> I've read in one of your posts that your company has developed a
> buffer that facilitates plugging the aircore into the microphone input
> of the Baggs Dual Source preamp. Does this mean that it wouldn't be a
> viable option to plug an Aircore into the Baggs "Pickup" input jack?
Plugging an Air Core into the pickup input works great, as the active
materials and voltage outputs are similar.
> Would any type of modification or added component be necessary to do
> this (e.g. buffer, resistor, capacitor, smart switch, etc.)? Or would
> one simply need to solder the signal and ground lead wires from the
> Aircore to the tiny Switchcraft plug that is needed for the Dual
> Source input jack?
No mods other than the plug that you mention.
> Also, would you kindly clarify the signal routing of your PUTW
> components as they interface with the Baggs Dual Source Preamp--in
> Jaquie Gipson's guitar-- as you briefly mentioned in this post. Am I
> correct in surmising that this guitar now has a PUTW #27 plugged into
> the "mic" input of the Baggs preamp, with a PUTW Aircore plugged into
> the "pickup" jack of the Baggs preamp?
Yes. The #27 is wired directly to the input of an EMG PB-1 pre-amp, and the
output is tied to the + voltage side of the pre-amp input with a .1mf film
capacitor. The power supply to the pre-amp is direct coupled to the +
voltage side of the Baggs connector. The PB-1 is then taped or Velcro'd onto
the top of the Baggs pre-amp. If we get the connector, we can build the
system ready to plug directly into the Baggs microphone input.
> And finally, as you also referred to the Joe Mills
> mini-mic(Nashville)in this post, which is widely touted as being the
> best mini-mic for acoustic guitar, would the Mills mic be able to plug
> directly into the "mic" input jack of the Baggs Dual Source preamp?
Yes, they are the same configuration.
> The reason I ask all this is that I have a Baggs Dual Source, and I've
> never been too happy with the Ribbon Transducer's sound, and I usually
> try to blend in as much mic signal as possible to mask the "quack."
> inherent in the Ribbon Transducer's sound. I think the Baggs mic does
> a prety good job, though it does make the back of the instrument very
> sensitive to body movement, and feedback, and I'm sure that a Mills
> mic mounted below the soundhole would avoid some of these negative
> consequences, while providing the superior sound of a miniature
> "cardiod," rather than a pressure sensitive "FET," microphone, as is
> the case with the Baggs mic.
You might experiment with shock mounting the Baggs microphone a little
better. Try some open cell sponge material to secure the capsule in a good
position.
> Thanks for your return comments. I'm sure your reply may also help
> many others who may wish to improve the performance of their Baggs
> Dual Source Systems.
>
> Regards,
>
> Glen Sarkis
My pleasure,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:26:10 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
JD Blackwell wrote:
>
> Allegedly, one of my AP13 channels is supposed to be good only for mic's
> or magnetics. I've never heard any evidence of this when I've dual sourced
> but maybe someone else has a little insight into this.
Hi JD-
The piezo and mic channels have completely different input circuitry
(Rane has the schematic on their web site so you can verify this for
yourself). It's not just the same basic circuit with a different
impedance on each side; the piezo side actually has a different op
amp type, chosen to minimize distortion for high impedance sources.
The mic channel impedance is only 20k, which will make most plain
piezo sources sound pretty bad, and will even load some magnetic
pickups excessively. The piezo channel impedance is 5 Meg
according to the data sheet (but 30 Meg according to the schematic--
not sure what's up with that; they may have changed component values
since the schematic was drawn, to reduce noise). This should be
fine for pretty much any piezo pickup.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:32:39 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Larry Pattis wrote:
>
> I would be interested in hearing about the PUTW soundboard material on
> one side of the AP-13, and their new "Air Core" saddle element on the
> other side.
>
> This would give somewhat of a resemblance to the new B-Band gear that I
> am using, which is the A2 internal pre-amp, which combines their 1470
> AST (acoustic soundboard transducer) along with their B-Band UST
> (under-saddle transducer). I have never heard a better sound out of a
> guitar than what I am using right now...
FWIW, I was recently discussing various dual-source configurations
with Chris Grener, and lately he's been doing several installs with
a saddle transducer (Baggs LB6) and a bridge plate transducer (his
piezo accelerometer, made by Oceana), and he thinks this particular
pairing (saddle plus top) is an especially good "generic" setup to
get a really big sound without feedback problems.
Personally, I dislike the tone from all undersaddles more and more
with time, and it's not the way I would go. I think it's just
the "wrong" place for a pickup, if you're after a tone that's as
natural as possible. On the other hand, the quick-attack undersaddle
tone is now part of the "acoustic" plugged-in sonic vocabulary, and
this configuration is a good way to keep some of plugged-in tone
but also have the more natural tone from a soundboard pickup. It
also buys you some feedback immunity.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:41:39 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> I'm using low noise discreet transistors, metal film 1% resistors, and
> polypropylene capacitors.
For the nontechnical among you, this is how someone with some audio
electronics design experience says "high quality." 8-)
Kidding aside, this sounds like a really nice device in the works.
BTW, David, in your experience what pickups need near 60 dB of gain?
I've never added it all up, but perhaps for film pickups the sum
of the onboard preamp gain and the 1st stage gain at the board is
in the 60 dB vicinity, and if so it would be smart move to put more
of it earlier in the chain, if you can do it without distorting.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dual source with PUTW
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:04:06 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3CA8B7F3.3E87A953@astro...>...
> David Enke wrote:
> >
> > I'm using low noise discreet transistors, metal film 1% resistors, and
> > polypropylene capacitors.
>
> For the nontechnical among you, this is how someone with some audio
> electronics design experience says "high quality." 8-)
>
> Kidding aside, this sounds like a really nice device in the works.
>
> BTW, David, in your experience what pickups need near 60 dB of gain?
> I've never added it all up, but perhaps for film pickups the sum
> of the onboard preamp gain and the 1st stage gain at the board is
> in the 60 dB vicinity, and if so it would be smart move to put more
> of it earlier in the chain, if you can do it without distorting.
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo
Hi Tom,
part of the idea is for the pre-amp to be capable of creating up to a line
level signal (if needed). One can always back off the gain on the circuit if
it is too much. Some people appreciate that Takamanie, Ovation, and a lot of
the Fishman setups only need the amp on '1' to be really loud. Personally,
I've never needed more than about 30db of boost into the older, lower gain
Ultrasounds or my Mackie p.a., but having the extra level at the front end
is a good thing. I am also working on some hybrid polymer/magnetic
hexaphonic pickups that might benefit from the hotter pre-amp design. Our
Power Pin (bridgepin pickups) already need more gain then most pre-amps
deliver, and the new design will match well with them.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
| PUTWs Parlours? [3] |
|---|
From: Donna Browne <donna@digitalcartography...>
Subject: PUTWs Parlours?
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:49:11 -0700
Hi,
Wow, I got a great offer from David Enke to put a PUTW in my new Larrivee
Parlour. All we gotta do it drive to Colorado in June. Sounds like a great
deal to me.
I've read alot of discussions about putting PUTWs in large guitars. Anyone
have experience with PUTWs in Parlours?
donna
From: <chaya@san...>
Subject: Re: PUTWs Parlours?
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 03:22:25 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - West
Donna -
When David came through San Diego after NAMM, he put a PUTW in my Baby
Collings - with all the electronic stuff Lumpy has, I can't believe we
forgot to plug it in. Anyway, I love it - it adds more bass, which is
the one thing thatt is missing from the little guy. Go for it.
Also the best part is that David does the installation. Perfectionist
that he is, he doesn't quit till it is just right.
csj
From: donh <spam.is@the...>
Subject: Re: PUTWs Parlours?
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:27:15 -0500
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing the UseNet
In <a8adhf$qqm1f$<1@ID-76024...>>, on 04/01/02 at 12:49 PM,
"Donna Browne" <donna@digitalcartography.com> said:>Hi,
>Wow, I got a great offer from David Enke to put a PUTW in my new Larrivee
>Parlour. All we gotta do it drive to Colorado in June. Sounds like a great
>deal to me.
>I've read alot of discussions about putting PUTWs in large guitars. Anyone
>have experience with PUTWs in Parlours?
>donna
It worked great in Chelsea's Larrivee Parlour
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
| need pickup help... a bit long [4] |
|---|
From: Buz Busby <pick.six@verizon...>
Subject: need pickup help... a bit long
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:18:01 GMT
Folks,
I need some input on my journey to output...
A few years back I had a Baggs Ribbon System installed in an old HD-28
copy, the guitar was handmade with Brazilian B/S and rosewood neck. The
thing sounds great plugged and unplugged. This is good!
I got ready to wire up my Goodall Grand Concert, IR/Eng. I was advised
by Baggs to install a Double Barrell. I have never been happy with the
thin and uneven sound. And yes, I use a PADI. After much conversation
and work... new micarta saddle, as the bone one is a "known" felon to
good sound, I still wasn't happy. I just decided "screw it"... I'll just
mic the guitar.
Recenty I purchased a Lowden Special Edition and like it so much that
there are 8 guitars that , mostly, keep their cases happy. I thought
that it would be nice to wire it, so I make multiple calls to Baggs and
FQMS... hoping to accomplish 2 things.
1) Get a Ribbon System preamp for my Goodall, as Baggs says there is a
difinite circuitry/eq difference...
2) Find a viable way to wire my Lowden without a great deal of
modification. Lowden was kind enough to pre-drill both slots anf ream
the tailblock while building the guitar.
Everyone I talked to at Baggs & FQMS raved on about the Active I-beam...
so much so that I bought two... one for each guitar. According to Baggs,
James Goodall is using these things in ALL his guitars. I thought a guy
who could make a living building guitars and live on an island would be
smarter.
So... I take out the Goodall to use for my test guitar. I know what
you're thinking... how many fools use a Goodall as a crash dummy!
Anyway, I pull all the Double Barrell stuff out and take painstaking
steps installing the Active I-beam. I go plug the thing into my preamp
and listen through near-field monitors. IT SUCKS!! At every finger
stroke the cones about jump from the speaker enclosures... kinda like be
exposed to a heavy metal snare drum assault... only from the inside.
This is from a guy with a very, very light touch! So I move the Beam...
and move the Beam... ad nauseum. I will admit, I haven't tried the
tailblock yet!
I am left with these, printable, thoughts. Maybe James Goodall builds a
guitar that can't be wired for sound... maybe I should go buy a Samick
and be happy with the kindling that I have purchased... maybe this is
the way wives punish us for buying nice guitars.. Needless to say, I can
assure you of a few things...
1) I am not a happy camper
2) I haven't attempted to place this abomination in my Lowden
3) I have written to manufacturer & vendor
4) I AM LOOKING FOR A FIX... whether I have grossly miscalculated the
installation and/or worth of this marvel... OR I need to get my money
back and find a better product.
I don't post here very often, only when I think that I can help or have
a viable question or comment. I trust that you won't hold my lack of
posting against me... I get quite the hoot reading the Lumpy, Norman,
T-Bone wars!
If you have any advice that may help me in my quest will be most deeply
appreciated. Maybe David Enke can jump in here...
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Happy Picking,
Buz
--
Buz Busby
<pick.six@verizon...>
<busby@tampabay...>
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: need pickup help... a bit long
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:18:36 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Buz Busby" <<pick.six@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:<pick.six-06EBAE.17143707042002@news...>...
Hi Buz,
<snip>
> I am left with these, printable, thoughts. Maybe James
> Goodall builds a guitar that can't be wired for sound...
C'mon, you know that isn't true. You've just run into a pickup that
doesn't work with that particular guitar.
> maybe I should go buy a Samick and be happy with
> the kindling that I have purchased... maybe this is the
> way wives punish us for buying nice guitars..
No, wives punish you in other ways.
I can get away with more than most folks, because my S.O. plays a
Yamaha grand piano (classical music, mostly). To match what she spent
on her axe, I can collect a few guitars and indulge my recording
habit. I just wish she was a classical violin player, because then her
axe would be worth more than our house, and I could really spend some
money on guitars.
<further snippage>
> If you have any advice that may help me in my quest will be
> most deeply appreciated. Maybe David Enke can jump
> in here...
Everybody who owns a pickup that has worked for them, will tell you to
get that pickup. That's the problem with pickup advice. So take the
following with a grain of salt.
Long ago, I gave up on contact pickups of any kind... undersaddle,
under the top, whatever. To my ears, they all accentuate noises I
don't want to hear. I've never met a contact or undersaddle pickup
that didn't need the EQ rolled off on the high frequencies. And if you
think about it... isn't there useful information up there? I've also
been very dissatisfied in the bass response of contact pickups.
Disclaimer: I've never tried the more recent systems like PUTW or
I-Beam. I just have a general bias against these things. Apply more
salt as needed when you read on.
I have two suggestions for you. First, try using a good external mic,
preferably a small diaphragm condenser. If you're on a low budget,
check out what Shure has to offer these days. You can get a Shure <I
forget the model name here> for the cost of a decent contact or
undersaddle pickup system. If you have more bucks to spend, try a
Neumann KM-184. I use those for recording, but they make a terrific PA
mic if the rest of the system is up to snuff (parametric EQ for
feedback notching, etc.).
If you can't use external mics due to feedback problems, or you need
to cut through a band, then I recommend a Fishman Rare Earth Blend.
This has two big advantages. First, no installation hassles because it
sits in the soundhole. Buy it from a store with a good return policy.
If you don't like the sound, you can just return it.
Second, it has a nice balance of bass from the magnetic pickup and
treble from the internal gooseneck mic. Nothing captures bass
frequencies on an acoustic guitar like a magnetic pickup, and the tiny
condenser mic fills in on the highs. You can blend the two with the
built-in preamp, and send a mono signal out of the guitar. It's a
nice, simple system. If you feel the need to EQ both signals
separately, they can be split out as a stereo signal. But then you
have to get into the whole external preamp/blender thing. My personal
opinion is that sound reinforcement is complicated enough. I just want
something that is simple and sounds good, and that I can remove from
the guitar completely if I'm recording in my home studio with external
mics.
The other nice thing about the REB is that you can buy one and use it
in more than one guitar, as long as you don't mind a cord dangling out
of the soundhole.
Okay, that's the end of the sales pitch. There are many options out
there (too many). I just wanted to mention two options you might not
have thought of. Good luck in the quest!
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: need pickup help... a bit long
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:43:20 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
hi Buz,
welcome to the pickup monkey house. Thanks for inviting me to jump in. As
most people here know, amplification is one of my favorite topics, though
many times I feel like I'm riding on the back of a large hairy flying dog in
the Never Ending Story.
I'll try to help with your specifics as you mention them.
"Buz Busby" <<pick.six@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:<pick.six-06EBAE.17143707042002@news...>...
> Folks,
>
> I need some input on my journey to output...
>
> A few years back I had a Baggs Ribbon System installed in an old HD-28
> copy, the guitar was handmade with Brazilian B/S and rosewood neck. The
> thing sounds great plugged and unplugged. This is good!
>
> I got ready to wire up my Goodall Grand Concert, IR/Eng. I was advised
> by Baggs to install a Double Barrell. I have never been happy with the
> thin and uneven sound. And yes, I use a PADI. After much conversation
> and work... new micarta saddle, as the bone one is a "known" felon to
> good sound, I still wasn't happy. I just decided "screw it"... I'll just
> mic the guitar.
By 'uneven sound', are you reffering to the string ballance or the tone? By
thin, I think you are refferring to a 'one dimensional' quality to the
sound, excessive stringiness, or overtones lacking from the output? Is this
thinness something that the microphone of the double barrel helps? (Knowing
that you can't push the volume much on them, just wondering if it was still
thin sounding with the microphone)
> Recenty I purchased a Lowden Special Edition and like it so much that
> there are 8 guitars that , mostly, keep their cases happy. I thought
> that it would be nice to wire it, so I make multiple calls to Baggs and
> FQMS... hoping to accomplish 2 things.
>
> 1) Get a Ribbon System preamp for my Goodall, as Baggs says there is a
> difinite circuitry/eq difference...
> 2) Find a viable way to wire my Lowden without a great deal of
> modification. Lowden was kind enough to pre-drill both slots anf ream
> the tailblock while building the guitar.
>
> Everyone I talked to at Baggs & FQMS raved on about the Active I-beam...
> so much so that I bought two... one for each guitar. According to Baggs,
> James Goodall is using these things in ALL his guitars. I thought a guy
> who could make a living building guitars and live on an island would be
> smarter.
>
> So... I take out the Goodall to use for my test guitar. I know what
> you're thinking... how many fools use a Goodall as a crash dummy!
> Anyway, I pull all the Double Barrell stuff out and take painstaking
> steps installing the Active I-beam. I go plug the thing into my preamp
> and listen through near-field monitors. IT SUCKS!! At every finger
> stroke the cones about jump from the speaker enclosures... kinda like be
> exposed to a heavy metal snare drum assault... only from the inside.
> This is from a guy with a very, very light touch! So I move the Beam...
> and move the Beam... ad nauseum. I will admit, I haven't tried the
> tailblock yet!
I have tried the tailblock with a few different pickups, and it sucks too.
There are a few things that could cause what you are experiencing, but it
would be wise to not rule out having a defective pickup. I would try to get
a replacement to see. The other things that can effect performance would be
1) string balls hitting the side of the pickup, 2) loose pickup mounting, 3)
the output wire touching braces, etc., 4) loose contacts on the battery
terminal, 5) loose hardware around the jack, 6) a bad output jack, 7) bad
luck.
> I am left with these, printable, thoughts. Maybe James Goodall builds a
> guitar that can't be wired for sound... maybe I should go buy a Samick
> and be happy with the kindling that I have purchased... maybe this is
> the way wives punish us for buying nice guitars..
This is an interesting idea to me. Perhaps you should dust for her
fingerprints inside just to make sure :)
> Needless to say, I can
> assure you of a few things...
> 1) I am not a happy camper
> 2) I haven't attempted to place this abomination in my Lowden
> 3) I have written to manufacturer & vendor
> 4) I AM LOOKING FOR A FIX... whether I have grossly miscalculated the
> installation and/or worth of this marvel... OR I need to get my money
> back and find a better product.
I have heard comments plus and minus about I-beams, but have not heard them
described as sounding like snare drums. This does sound more like an
electrical/mechanical problem, then it does a sonic quality of the pickup.
Perhaps you have a good technician nearby who also is a Baggs dealer, and
they can check everything and try a replacement pickup and see if that
solves the problem for you.
> I don't post here very often, only when I think that I can help or have
> a viable question or comment. I trust that you won't hold my lack of
> posting against me... I get quite the hoot reading the Lumpy, Norman,
> T-Bone wars!
I have yet to see the scientific description for T-bone tofu, so I think you
are safe for now.
> If you have any advice that may help me in my quest will be most deeply
> appreciated. Maybe David Enke can jump in here...
I think it is great when people are passionate about their amplified sound,
and hope your quest does not stop by getting too frustrated with the
process. Many times there are variables involved that are not immediately
obvious, and as technology moves forward, all sorts of discrepancies can
emerge that product designers cannot imagine at the outset of their designs.
Personally speaking, my (PUTW) designs were initially accepted by very
critical people as offering a plugged in tone comparable to studio
microphones but with much less feedback. After much refinement and beta
testing, we marketed and guaranteed them based on this premise, but that's
just the beginning of when things became interesting. What we then found was
a huge variety of bracing designs that required specially sized pickups or
mounting placements, guitars where the bridgeplate was finished with
something slippery so the pickups wouldn't adhere properly, guitars with JLD
systems that added a resonant mass/frequency that caused wolf tones in the
amplified signals, guitars where the bridge, bridgeplate, bracing, and the
entire center of the soundboard is built so lightly that it heaves up and
down and creates massive over-resonance's in the lower registers, and then a
whole other set of variables created by introducing a new type of pickup
that people aren't used to installing.
If that isn't complicated enough, we offer that people install them
themselves so they can 'fine tune' the placements through their own systems
rather than depend on the subjective opinion of a technician plugging into a
practice amp in their shop (who is usually concerned only with whether there
is an output, and if the strings are balanced).
All of these things have made our lives very interesting, and the forward
moving evolution of our products really is the result of everyone's
contributions, both positive and negative. Personally, I am glad that we
didn't design something that worked most of the time, and then hired a
flashy marketing department to convince people that it was good despite the
variables that people encounter with them. I can't begin to tell you how
many of our pickups have been replaced, only to find there was a previously
undetected loose brace in the instrument causing the problem.
The best things is that we love what we do, and have met and become friends
with some incredibly wonderful people and musicians in the process. It
really is the Never Ending Story, and I hope you continue your quest so that
we don't end up dissolving into the 'nothingness'.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: allen watsky <awatsky@nj...>
Subject: Re: need pickup help... a bit long
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:36:57 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
FWIW, some folks can't get with the pickup thing. I am acquainted with a
fellow who has installed ,literally every pickup system in his guitar at one
time or another. He has hated them all. He will never be happy with a
pickup, unless the technology changes entirely. He does not like the way
they sound.Period end of story.
Not everyone has this problem.Thank God. The products you mention are not my favorites, different strokes etc. Idislike micarta saddles for instance.Whateva......Cordially, Al Watsky
"Buz Busby" <<pick.six@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:<pick.six-06EBAE.17143707042002@news...>...
> Folks,
>
> I need some input on my journey to output...
>
> A few years back I had a Baggs Ribbon System installed in an old HD-28
> copy, the guitar was handmade with Brazilian B/S and rosewood neck. The
> thing sounds great plugged and unplugged. This is good!
>
> I got ready to wire up my Goodall Grand Concert, IR/Eng. I was advised
> by Baggs to install a Double Barrell. I have never been happy with the
> thin and uneven sound. And yes, I use a PADI. After much conversation
> and work... new micarta saddle, as the bone one is a "known" felon to
> good sound, I still wasn't happy. I just decided "screw it"... I'll just
> mic the guitar.
>
> Recenty I purchased a Lowden Special Edition and like it so much that
> there are 8 guitars that , mostly, keep their cases happy. I thought
> that it would be nice to wire it, so I make multiple calls to Baggs and
> FQMS... hoping to accomplish 2 things.
>
> 1) Get a Ribbon System preamp for my Goodall, as Baggs says there is a
> difinite circuitry/eq difference...
> 2) Find a viable way to wire my Lowden without a great deal of
> modification. Lowden was kind enough to pre-drill both slots anf ream
> the tailblock while building the guitar.
>
> Everyone I talked to at Baggs & FQMS raved on about the Active I-beam...
> so much so that I bought two... one for each guitar. According to Baggs,
> James Goodall is using these things in ALL his guitars. I thought a guy
> who could make a living building guitars and live on an island would be
> smarter.
>
> So... I take out the Goodall to use for my test guitar. I know what
> you're thinking... how many fools use a Goodall as a crash dummy!
> Anyway, I pull all the Double Barrell stuff out and take painstaking
> steps installing the Active I-beam. I go plug the thing into my preamp
> and listen through near-field monitors. IT SUCKS!! At every finger
> stroke the cones about jump from the speaker enclosures... kinda like be
> exposed to a heavy metal snare drum assault... only from the inside.
> This is from a guy with a very, very light touch! So I move the Beam...
> and move the Beam... ad nauseum. I will admit, I haven't tried the
> tailblock yet!
>
> I am left with these, printable, thoughts. Maybe James Goodall builds a
> guitar that can't be wired for sound... maybe I should go buy a Samick
> and be happy with the kindling that I have purchased... maybe this is
> the way wives punish us for buying nice guitars.. Needless to say, I can
> assure you of a few things...
>
> 1) I am not a happy camper
> 2) I haven't attempted to place this abomination in my Lowden
> 3) I have written to manufacturer & vendor
> 4) I AM LOOKING FOR A FIX... whether I have grossly miscalculated the
> installation and/or worth of this marvel... OR I need to get my money
> back and find a better product.
>
> I don't post here very often, only when I think that I can help or have
> a viable question or comment. I trust that you won't hold my lack of
> posting against me... I get quite the hoot reading the Lumpy, Norman,
> T-Bone wars!
>
> If you have any advice that may help me in my quest will be most deeply
> appreciated. Maybe David Enke can jump in here...
>
> Thanks for your time and consideration.
>
> Happy Picking,
>
> Buz
>
> --
> Buz Busby
> <pick.six@verizon...>
> <busby@tampabay...>
| LB6 vs......? [2] |
|---|
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: LB6 vs......?
Date: 07 Apr 2002 20:29:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
So I have this nifty Bourgeois Dread with a Fishman Natural 1 & Joe Mills into
Raven Labs..........it sounds pretty nifty(no quack remarks..I know all about
it)..anyway played a gig straight up against someone with a Martin D35 with LB6
into Baggs Para DI(mine)......I don't know if I liked the tone bettter but it
was way, way more in your face.......my question will I hear a difference
acoustically by pulling the bone saddle & sticking an LB6 in there to combine
with the Joe Mills..I'm bored. I know I'll hear a difference but will I get
over it?
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: LB6 vs......?
Date: 8 Apr 2002 07:21:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Andy,
I recall that Wade Miller once mentioned trying out an LB6 in a
Martin, but removing it because the guitar's acoustic tone was
noticably better with a bone saddle.
I personally have LB6s in three guitars. I don't notice a big
difference (between the LB6s and synthetic saddles) in the guitars'
acoustic tones, but I suspect you'll find a bigger difference going to
an LB6 from a bone saddle. The last time I had a bone saddle put in a
guitar, it made a noticable improvement in the guitar's volume and
acoustic tone, but also seemed to increase the piezo quack when
amplified.
I still have a Fishman Matrix in one guitar and can definitely say
that I prefer the LB6 to that UST. The LB6 has a woodier sound, and
is probably more feedback resistant. (The Baggs folks claim it's the
most feedback resistant piezo, though {as I understand it} the RMC
pickups use a similar method of discouraging feedback.) To be honest,
though, the LB6 does have some piezo quack and I'm always looking for
something better.
The Baggs Hex pickups that I have in one guitar have a much hotter
output than the LB6, and a better dynamic response. The Hex is
terrific for fingerpicking, but I've found the guitar/pickup setup to
sound very brash/quacky with hard strumming. (To be fair to the
pickup, it's a pretty trebly guitar {Tacoma EM9C} that's more suitable
for fingerpicking.)
I currently have a new generation B-Band UST on order, as the B-Band
folks claim that it has a hotter output, better dynamic response and a
better signal to noise ratio than the older generation B-Band USTs.
Aside from some noise problems, my old generation B-Band UST is the
most natural sounding UST that I've found to date. If I like the new
generation B-Band UST, I'll probably end up with a B-Band UST/AST
setup in that guitar. I'm also considering trying a Baggs LB6/PUTW
#27 combination in another guitar. The pickup fun goes on and on!
Gary Hall
<amost2001@aol...> (AMost2001) wrote in message news:<<20020407162958.16917.00002284@mb-mh...>>...
> So I have this nifty Bourgeois Dread with a Fishman Natural 1 & Joe Mills into
> Raven Labs..........it sounds pretty nifty(no quack remarks..I know all about
> it)..anyway played a gig straight up against someone with a Martin D35 with LB6
> into Baggs Para DI(mine)......I don't know if I liked the tone bettter but it
> was way, way more in your face.......my question will I hear a difference
> acoustically by pulling the bone saddle & sticking an LB6 in there to combine
> with the Joe Mills..I'm bored. I know I'll hear a difference but will I get
> over it?
>
>
>
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
| FS Split saddle fishman/plus other info |
|---|
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: FS Split saddle fishman/plus other info
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:51:41 +0100
My Lowden O-10 was suffering from too many wire, clips and tape inside - I
had a Pickup the World rigged up through its old preamp, and a Fishman
Acoustic Matrix 1 with a separate battery and more cables... etc.
I just decided to experiment with the original Sanox pickup, which I took
out because the trebles were hopelessly weak and the wound saddle strings
much too hot. I took the whole lot out and restored the guitar back to its
factory condition. The trebles were still hopeless after refitting the
Sanox, so I just clipped half an inch off the end of the Sanox with with
fret clippers and reinstalled it pulled along a bit! It now works superbly.
Of course, if I had known I could cut the coax to length and reinstall it
moved along a bit, I would never have swapped out for the Fishman (there is
really not a lot to choose between them in sound).
And despite my liking for Pickup the World, I got fed up with the need to
constantly get inside the guitar and press it back it again or put extra
tape on the end, so I have put a twin Belcat type ultra-cheap piezo bug rig
in instead, with no preamp since I do not want all those extra wires. I am
back down to just a couple of tiny clips on the top wood and one battery.
Surprise: the Belcat sensors (about £15/$22) are superb. They need an
external preamp or amp piezo input, and plenty of gain, but they don't have
any hiss and they sound very natural. I only wanted them to allow percussion
on the guitar top, but actually they are just as good as the PUTW for
recording. I'm very surprised indeed. Previous attempts to use these have
been disappointing (except in bouzoukis or mandos where they seem the best
option by far). I placed one bug on the top wood near the treble end of the
bridge, in the crook of the brace and the tone bar; the bass bug went on the
very back corner of the bridge plate at the bass side. The balance is just
right. Perhaps I just found exactly the right places to put them.
So I've got a Fishman split saddle Acoustic Matrix 1 (non-quacky version)
available which will convert any non-electrified Lowden and various
Takamine, Ramirez models with the same saddle. I can keep it in case I get
another guitar or sell it on to anyone who wants one. My comments about too
much wiring would not apply with just this installed. My guitar had wires
taped to wires - things kept going astray and touching the top, or whatever,
and making noises. Now it has fewer wires and they are all 'aerially'
suspended. I am quite pleased to have sorted the original factory installed
pickup too.
David
------------------------------------------
Icon magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Music CDs and tracks: http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
email - either <iconmags@btconnect...> or <david@maxwellplace...>
| PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help [14] |
|---|
From: Kurt <anderson@snet...>
Subject: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:36:38 -0400
Hi folks,
Looking for some quick help.
I recently installed a PUTW (#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could
be amplified at receitals, etc. He has a receital coming up this
weekend so I decided to check things out, levels, etc.
Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?). I know it
has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
how to solve it.
I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing
the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If
my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the
ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be
grounded.
Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar
(Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?
Anyone else run into this??
Help!
Kurt
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:05:22 GMT
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:36:38 -0400, Kurt <<anderson@snet...>> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>Looking for some quick help.
>
>I recently installed a PUTW (#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could
>be amplified at receitals, etc. He has a receital coming up this
>weekend so I decided to check things out, levels, etc.
>
>Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?). I know it
>has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
>how to solve it.
>
>I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
>If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing
>the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If
>my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the
>ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be
>grounded.
>
>Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar
>(Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?
>
>Anyone else run into this??
>
>Help!
>
>Kurt
Bummer, Kurt. I know how frustrating that is. I had a bad hum
problem that ending up being caused by the house wiring, not the gear.
Have you tried any other circuits?
Jeff
From: Kurt <anderson@snet...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:29:01 -0400
>>
>>Help!
>>
>>Kurt
>
>Bummer, Kurt. I know how frustrating that is. I had a bad hum
>problem that ending up being caused by the house wiring, not the gear.
>Have you tried any other circuits?
>
>Jeff
>
Jeff,
Yea.. didn't seem to make a difference. Plus, not a problem using the
Wingert/I-Beam combo.
Kurt
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:56:57 GMT
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:29:01 -0400, Kurt <<anderson@snet...>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Help!
>>>
>>>Kurt
>>
>>Bummer, Kurt. I know how frustrating that is. I had a bad hum
>>problem that ending up being caused by the house wiring, not the gear.
>>Have you tried any other circuits?
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>
>Jeff,
>
>Yea.. didn't seem to make a difference. Plus, not a problem using the
>Wingert/I-Beam combo.
>
>Kurt
Is this putw all by itself? I had some hum using one in a dual source
set-up with a ust. When I reversed which one was on the tip and
which one was on the ring the hum got better.
Either way, got a clean, new jack laying around?
David will help you out if you call him.
Jeff
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:58:22 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Kurt, send us your address and we'll send another one. No telling what might
have happened to yours, but there are a few things that can cause this. It
is not normal.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"Kurt" <<anderson@snet...>> wrote in message
news:<dku5bu4l5tia8lkjlhu7tk6tkbl7phf7tj@4ax...>...
>
> >>
> >>Help!
> >>
> >>Kurt
> >
> >Bummer, Kurt. I know how frustrating that is. I had a bad hum
> >problem that ending up being caused by the house wiring, not the gear.
> >Have you tried any other circuits?
> >
> >Jeff
> >
>
> Jeff,
>
> Yea.. didn't seem to make a difference. Plus, not a problem using the
> Wingert/I-Beam combo.
>
> Kurt
>
From: Doc West <docwest@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:10:22 -0400
Organization: BELLSOUTH.net
Might be a bad cable. Might be a bad PUTW. Or a faulty mount, especially
around the "brass thingy". Start by isolating the problem. Get
methodical, and take notes.
1. PADI with no input > AG50. Find a cable that won't hum.
2. PUTW > AG50, no PADI. Test with known working cable
3. If PUTW hums with known working cable, check mount of brass connector
on PUTW.
4. If problem is truly narrowed to PUTW. call David Enke.
I had an unsolvable hum with a very early model 27. Mr. Enke has been
perfect at after-sale support. As far as I know, the bad film that hurt
some early PUTW product has been solved, and your recent purchase should
work. Try mounting the brass thingy with 3M Mounting Tape.
Kurt <<anderson@snet...>> wrote:
> I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
> If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing
> the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If
> my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the
> ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be
> grounded.
>
> Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar
> (Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?
From: Ron @ AdvBiomed <advbiomed@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:23:05 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1E04F.A3679F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I read an article comparing the B-Band with PUTW (#27?). The tester =
noted a hum in the PUTW pick-up. He sent it back and received a =
replacement. The hum was a lot better but still there. I think the =
article was on the Acoustic Guitar or Shoreline Music web page.
Ron'
Lonesome 12 String Picker (NC)
"Kurt" <anderson@snet.net> wrote in message =news:<3ak5buc24p64bmcf00jh20g4knj1saatjq@4ax...>...
Hi folks,Looking for some quick help.I recently installed a PUTW (#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could be amplified at receitals, etc. He has a receital coming up this weekend so I decided to check things out, levels, etc.Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?). I know it has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to solve it.=20I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50. If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be grounded.Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar (Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?Anyone else run into this??Help!Kurt------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1E04F.A3679F80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>I read an article comparing =
the B-Band=20
with PUTW (#27?). The tester noted a hum in the PUTW pick-up. He sent it =
back=20
and received a replacement. The hum was a lot better but still there. I =
think=20
the article was on the Acoustic Guitar or Shoreline Music web =
page.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>Ron'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Lonesome 12 String Picker (NC)</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Kurt" <<A =href=3D"mailto:<anderson@snet...>"><anderson@snet...></A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20 =href=3D"news:<3ak5buc24p64bmcf00jh20g4knj1saatjq@4ax...>">news:3ak5buc24p6=
<4bmcf00jh20g4knj1saatjq@4ax...></A>...</DIV>Hi=20
folks,<BR><BR>Looking for some quick help.<BR><BR>I recently installed =a PUTW=20
(#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could<BR>be amplified at =receitals,=20
etc. He has a receital coming up this<BR>weekend so I decided to =check=20
things out, levels, etc.<BR><BR>Well, all of a sudden, I have =horrendous hum=20
(buzz/hum?). I know it<BR>has to be a ground issue, but for the =life of=20
me I can't figure out<BR>how to solve it. <BR><BR>I'm running the PUTW =thorugh=20
the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.<BR>If I run another cable to =the=20
ultrasound, and step on it while playing<BR>the guitar, I can kill the =hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If<BR>my son plays =and I=20
hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the<BR>ground loop. It =will=20
still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must =be<BR>grounded.<BR><BR>Where do=20
I start??? I don't get the same problem using another =guitar<BR>(Wingert with=20
an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?<BR><BR>Anyone else run =into=20
this??<BR><BR>Help!<BR><BR>Kurt<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1E04F.A3679F80--
From: Mike Dotson <terapln@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: 10 Apr 2002 22:06:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I had a bad hum in my #20/Line Driver. Turned out to be the POS cable I was
using between the guitar and preamp.
Mike
http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
From: Al Jacobs <adjacobs@mnsi...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: 10 Apr 2002 16:08:05 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi Kurt,
> I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
I tried this setup too!
> Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?).
Yep, I have this same issue - low frequency hum right?
> has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
> how to solve it.
Neither can I.
I can sympathize with your problem... what I ended up doing was installing
a Baggs active I-Beam into this guitar. This solution worked well for me;
I think both of these pickups are in the same league in terms of sound but
I couldn't make the PUTW work for me. I also found that I had to unscrew
the bottom cover off the PADI to crank up the gain which is a hassle when
you have a second guitar with a hotter pickup system.
Al
Kurt <<anderson@snet...>> wrote in message news:<<3ak5buc24p64bmcf00jh20g4knj1saatjq@4ax...>>...
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking for some quick help.
>
> I recently installed a PUTW (#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could
> be amplified at receitals, etc. He has a receital coming up this
> weekend so I decided to check things out, levels, etc.
>
> Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?). I know it
> has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
> how to solve it.
>
> I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
> If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing
> the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If
> my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the
> ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be
> grounded.
>
> Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar
> (Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?
>
> Anyone else run into this??
>
> Help!
>
> Kurt
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:14:19 GMT
The current model PADI has the gain adjustment on the outside.
On 10 Apr 2002 16:08:05 -0700, <adjacobs@mnsi...> (Al Jacobs) wrote:
>Hi Kurt,
>> I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
>I tried this setup too!
>> Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?).
>Yep, I have this same issue - low frequency hum right?
>> has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
>> how to solve it.
>Neither can I.
>
>I can sympathize with your problem... what I ended up doing was installing
>a Baggs active I-Beam into this guitar. This solution worked well for me;
>I think both of these pickups are in the same league in terms of sound but
>I couldn't make the PUTW work for me. I also found that I had to unscrew
>the bottom cover off the PADI to crank up the gain which is a hassle when
>you have a second guitar with a hotter pickup system.
>
>Al
>
>
>Kurt <<anderson@snet...>> wrote in message news:<<3ak5buc24p64bmcf00jh20g4knj1saatjq@4ax...>>...
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Looking for some quick help.
>>
>> I recently installed a PUTW (#20) in my sons' Baby Taylor, so he could
>> be amplified at receitals, etc. He has a receital coming up this
>> weekend so I decided to check things out, levels, etc.
>>
>> Well, all of a sudden, I have horrendous hum (buzz/hum?). I know it
>> has to be a ground issue, but for the life of me I can't figure out
>> how to solve it.
>>
>> I'm running the PUTW thorugh the Baggs PADI, into an Ultrasound 50.
>> If I run another cable to the ultrasound, and step on it while playing
>> the guitar, I can kill the hum. So I know it's a grounding issue. If
>> my son plays and I hold the other cable, it doesn't complete the
>> ground loop. It will still hum. Hence, whoever's playing must be
>> grounded.
>>
>> Where do I start??? I don't get the same problem using another guitar
>> (Wingert with an active I-Beam). Should I bag the PUTW?
>>
>> Anyone else run into this??
>>
>> Help!
>>
>> Kurt
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: Mike Dotson <terapln@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: 11 Apr 2002 21:44:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Do you have PUTW's in your slide guitars, Mike? >>
Yes I have had one on my electric resonator for awhile but just installed a #20
in my steel body and will put another in my '33 wood body National El Trovador
next. I Have put them in metal tricones (great sound) and I think in my wood
bodied tricone I'll use a #40, One #20 on the bride and another other on the
floor of the soundwell.
In my electric one I have a Fishman volume control/pre-amp and it doesn't have
enough juice, the Line Driver works great and is very handy for all the
instrument swapping I do at a gig.
Mike
http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
From: Mike Dotson <terapln@aol...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: 11 Apr 2002 22:01:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< and another other on the floor of the soundwell. >>
Uhh that should be one fewer other. (or is that another?)
Boy my typing sucks :o)
Mike
http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
From: Tony Rairden <TRairden@fqms...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:08:58 -0400
Organization: First Quality Musical Supplies
For the last year or so, Baggs has had an external knob for the gain trim
pot, making adjustment much easier.
Tony Rairden
First Quality Musical Supplies
www.fqms.com
"Al Jacobs" <<adjacobs@mnsi...>> wrote in message
news:<977c7baf.0204101508.6ca788e7@posting...>...
> Hi Kurt,
(SNIP)
>
> I can sympathize with your problem... what I ended up doing was installing
> a Baggs active I-Beam into this guitar. This solution worked well for me;
> I think both of these pickups are in the same league in terms of sound but
> I couldn't make the PUTW work for me. I also found that I had to unscrew
> the bottom cover off the PADI to crank up the gain which is a hassle when
> you have a second guitar with a hotter pickup system.
>
> Al
>
(SNIP)
From: Chris Beeson <cbeeson@cix...>
Subject: Re: PUTW / PADI / Ultrasound --> HUMMMM Help
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:34:49 +0100
Organization: Nextra UK
Don't know if this is relevant, but I had a similar problem running a
piezo usp through a battery preamp into a Korg D8 HD recorder. In this
case, the problem turned out to be that the recorder wasn't earthed. It
wasn't designed to be; it just floated from its power supply. The
solution was to run a wire from the chassis of the recorder to the
mains earth (don't know if this makes sense to US readers - your
electricity seems like black magic to me!). Anyway, is the Ultrasound
earthed (grounded?)?
Chris Beeson Preston, Lancs UK
| PUTW #27 and Martin D-40 [4] |
|---|
From: Gary <gary.rodgers@rcn...>
Subject: PUTW #27 and Martin D-40
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:56:58 -0400
Ok, I'm caving in and going to put a pickup in my new Martin D-40. From all
I've read, the PUTW #27 is what I need (along with a preamp - but that's not
what I'm worried about here).
So, how exactly does the transducer attach to the body? I mean, I know how
an under-the-saddle one attaches, but I don't want to go that route.
Other than using a reamer to enlarge the endpin hole, is there anything else
invasive? Is this something I should be comfortable installing on my own?
Thanks!
Gary
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: PUTW #27 and Martin D-40
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:02:36 -0700
Gary wrote:
> ...going to put a pickup in my new Martin D-40.
> From all I've read, the PUTW #27 is what I need...
> So, how exactly does the transducer attach to the body?...
The transducer looks something like a band aid.
It is thin and flexible (like a bandaid) with
a tiny cable coming out of one corner.
It sticks to the underside of the top (or it
can mount on the external side of the top).
> Other than using a reamer to enlarge the
> endpin hole, is there anything else
> invasive? Is this something I should
> be comfortable installing on my own?
Other than the endpin, nothing else invasive.
You can do it on your own. Buy a couple sets
of strings, you'll be tuning your existing
set up and down a lot so you can reach inside
the soundhole.
Install it in (first) the recommended position.
Evaluate, change if needed. Contact David Enke
if you run into snags or questions. He may already
know of tricks and snags with installation in
your particular guitar model.
lumpy
From: - Scott <fromusenet@wiman-removeme...>
Subject: Re: PUTW #27 and Martin D-40
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:28:29 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:56:58 -0400, "Gary" <<gary.rodgers@rcn...>>
wrote:
>So, how exactly does the transducer attach to the body? I mean, I know how
>an under-the-saddle one attaches, but I don't want to go that route.
>
>Other than using a reamer to enlarge the endpin hole, is there anything else
>invasive? Is this something I should be comfortable installing on my own?
>
{snip}
Gary, it will sound great. I just put one in my old tak D18. It
sticks on the bridge plate (or anywhere else for that matter) with
sticky tape. It's simple to install. Just stick it on, bore the
endpin hole and pick away. You'll need an external pre-amp. The LR
Baggs PADI is outstanding. PUTW also sells some highly rated preamps
and electronics.
You'll be pleased. If not, David will give you your money back. I
doubt if he has to do that very often.
- Scotty
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: PUTW #27 and Martin D-40
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:05:02 +0930
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:56:58 -0400, "Gary" <<gary.rodgers@rcn...>>
wrote:
>Ok, I'm caving in and going to put a pickup in my new Martin D-40. From all
>I've read, the PUTW #27 is what I need (along with a preamp - but that's not
>what I'm worried about here).
>
>So, how exactly does the transducer attach to the body? I mean, I know how
>an under-the-saddle one attaches, but I don't want to go that route.
>
>Other than using a reamer to enlarge the endpin hole, is there anything else
>invasive? Is this something I should be comfortable installing on my own?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Gary
>
I've just installed a PUTW #27 in my HD-28V, and am very happy with
it. I used a special reamer (which David was kind enough to order and
include with my package, about $45 US) to fit the endpin jack, and it
couldn't have been easier. The pickup sticks to the bridgeplate inside
the guitar, so the only thing seen is the endpin jack. I also use
David's Endpin plug in preamp. Michael B
| L.R. Baggs IBeam Onboard Systems |
|---|
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: L.R. Baggs IBeam Onboard Systems
Date: 10 Apr 2002 07:56:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Christopher Niegisch in the Vaterland wrote:
>does anyone have some experiences with the new IBeam Onboard System
>(Retrofit for the Fishman Blenders) yet.
Not personally, but I've spoken with several people who have, and they are
extremely pleased with both the preamp and the pickup when run through this
unit. I would go so far to say that the overall reaction to this combination
has been better than for the iBeam with its various other preamp options, even
though those have been favorable, as well.
I also just heard about another option for an iBeam setup: there's now a Baggs
Micro EQ onboard preamp designed for the iBeam.
I was speaking with Tim at LR Baggs this afternoon, and he told me that it was
Gregg Allman of the Allman Brothers Band who really insisted on that
combination. So it's in production now.
I have always favored the Baggs Micro EQ, because it has the best sound with
the smallest "footprint" of any of the adjustable onboard preamps. You don't
have to carve a huge hole in the side of the guitar, and it gives you all the
controls at your fingertips that you can really use effectively while onstage.
So, Christopher, if you've got a guitar with a Fishman Prefix or Blender preamp
already onboard, the Baggs system you asked about is an excellent option. But
if you just want something to have on a guitar that doesn't already have a
built-in preamp, I think the iBeam Micro EQ is a better idea, personally.
It's sort of an underpublicized product at this point, what Baggs calls a "side
product." There's no listing of it in the catalog or on the website, but it is
available upon request.
I have one on order, and will post a review of it once I get it installed in an
instrument.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
| how to amplify an acoustic guitar [21] |
|---|
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:53:53 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I want to amplify my Martin D18, but I don't want to use a pickup..I
think.
I had the occasion to use a friends Taylor which had a built in
pickup at a jam and as I tend to be a bit percussive, the booming
sound that resulted was quite ugly.
While I've been playing for 30 years, I have not yet had the occasion
to amplify the Martin , but now I have the need...any suggestions? I
have no idea what my options are short of using an external mic. But
I see that there are some internal mics too...do these work like
pickups?
Is the Shure SM57 a reasonable mic if a mic is my best choice for
amplification?
Thanks
Jerry
From: Peter MacDonald <pjmacd1@insightbb...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:39:09 GMT
Organization: Insight Broadband
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:53:53 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
wrote:
>I want to amplify my Martin D18, but I don't want to use a pickup..I
>think.
>I had the occasion to use a friends Taylor which had a built in
>pickup at a jam and as I tend to be a bit percussive, the booming
>sound that resulted was quite ugly.
Welcome, Jerry. It would help us to know what kind of pickup is in
your friend's Taylor that you found unsatisfactory.
>While I've been playing for 30 years, I have not yet had the occasion
>to amplify the Martin , but now I have the need...any suggestions? I
>have no idea what my options are short of using an external mic. But
>I see that there are some internal mics too...do these work like
>pickups?
You will probably get about a bazillion responses to this from members
of this newsgroup, all different and all worth considering, but here's
my take.
As I see it, there are five different basic kinds of amplification
systems for guitar: They are frequently mixed and matched as people
seek their own "ultimate" sound.
1. Undersaddle transducers (UST).
2. Soundboard transducers (SBT).
3. Magnetic pickups.
4. Internal mics.
5. External mics (I'll address this one later).
USTs are fitted under the saddle and are very good at rejecting
feedback in loud amplification situations. The downside is that they
can sound "quacky" and unnatural. The most respected makes here are
Fishman, Baggs and B-Band. Personally, I have not tried Baggs, but
have Fishman and B-Band USTs installed, and I prefer B-Band.
SBTs attach directly to the top of the guitar, inside or outside, or
on some part directly contiguous with the top, such as the bridge
plate. Placement can be tricky, but the sound is very good if they're
in the right place. They do tend to pick up guitar body noises, so if
your style is percussive, you should be careful with these. Popular
brands here include Pick-Up the World (PUTW) and the McIntyre
"Feather". I have not tried these personally.
Magnetic pickups sit in the soundhole of the guitar and pick up the
strings more than the body. They are often combined with internal
mics. Popular brands include Sunrise and Fishman Rare Earth. I have
never tried Sunrise, but I have a couple of guitars with the Fishman
Rare Earth Blender (includes internal mic) that produce good results.
Internal mics are almost never used by themselves, they tend to sound
too boomy. However, they can add a good ambience when coupled with
another amplification method.
>Is the Shure SM57 a reasonable mic if a mic is my best choice for
>amplification?
An external mic will give the most "natural" sound, but is also the
most prone to feedback. The SM57 is a good workhorse mic for acoustic
amplification of many instruments. If you can spend a little more , I
like the AKG C1000S. Don't point the mic at the soundhole, though or
you'll get that boominess again. Try pointing it at the neck/body
join or at the lower bout of the guitar.
Hope that helps. Other regulars, chime in.
Peter
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:23:48 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Thanks Peter
I will report the specific on my frirends Taylor
And very very very important thing I forgot to mention is that I do
not want to drill any holes or make any permanent change nonsense to
my instrument. This is a '65 D-18 that has much sentimental value
Also, what prompted me to make this inquiry is that while a mic seems
like the best solution, use of a mic sort of makes the performer stay
in one place, too. I'd like the freedom of a pickup or an internal
mic. I'm not thinking of significant amplification either. Small
coffee shop sized rooms most likely, 20-40 people....ambience music
mostly.
Thats why I was thinking of wireless voice mic too...any suggestions
for that, too??
Jerry
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 09 Apr 2002 16:22:59 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:23:48 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Thanks Peter
>I will report the specific on my frirends Taylor
>And very very very important thing I forgot to mention is that I do
>not want to drill any holes or make any permanent change nonsense to
>my instrument. This is a '65 D-18 that has much sentimental value
>
>Also, what prompted me to make this inquiry is that while a mic seems
>like the best solution, use of a mic sort of makes the performer stay
>in one place, too. I'd like the freedom of a pickup or an internal
>mic. I'm not thinking of significant amplification either. Small
>coffee shop sized rooms most likely, 20-40 people....ambience music
>mostly.
Jerry--PUTW. http://www.pick-uptheworld.com is the website--check it
out. I've been using them in both of my Guilds for a couple of years
now, and am insanely happy with the sound (you can hear examples of
them at my mp3.com site; the URL is in my sig). Long story short--I
had an ancient Shadow stick-on piezo in my Guild D16-M...feedback
factory, hated it, but it was all I could get back then. Upgraded to
a Fishman Matrix UST...a quantum leap...so much better, but it had
that piezo quack...then I got my 12-string, and was looking for a
pickup, and I hooked up with David Enke (<pickups@rmi...>), and
discussed the PUTW. Got a #27, installed it myself, hooked it up with
a Baggs Para-Acoustic DI, and entered Heaven®.
I've posted extensively on this topic (as have many others...), and
even incurred the wrath of the High Killfiler because of it...but I'm
just a very happy customer. My guitars sound GREAT with PUTW. It
just sounds like my guitar, louder.
I'm in a similar boat, as far as mics go--I don't stand (or sit) still
enough to play into a mic. (Ask anyone who has seen me play...)
Installation of a PUTW can be done by you--I've installed 2 of them,
and haven't had a problem. I certainly understand your feeling toward
your D-18...You can put a PUTW in the guitar, and have no alteration
to the guitar at all; you can ream out the end-pin hole and put in an
end-pin jack, with minimal effort. There's a hole already there; all
you do is ream it out to fit the end-pin jack. I've done this myself
on both of my Guilds. After you get past the gibbering terror of
taking a power tool to your guitar, it really isn't that bad.
That is also a job that can be done by a tech, for not too much cash,
if you prefer.
Get in touch with David Enke, he'll make you a happy camper. Or
please feel free to email me (my munged address is in my sig, as well)
offline, and I'll give any help I can. It is a really great product,
with a bullet-proof guarantee.
Ob.Disclaimer: I am not an employee of Pick-Up The World, nor am I a
stockholder. Just a very satisfied customer.
I don't have any Enron stock, either.
<snip>
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:13:01 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Okay
My friend has a Taylor 714c.
For pickup, it has a Fishman Blender system
which includes a piezo pickup under the bridge and a small
microphone inside the guitar.
I did not like this when I tried it, but I will try it again and play
with it a bit more. He's running it through some kind of rack
amplifier with Peavy cabs. Maybe he has is adjusted for his style
(more bluesy) than mine
Jerry
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 09 Apr 2002 22:22:49 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:13:01 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Okay
>My friend has a Taylor 714c.
>For pickup, it has a Fishman Blender system
>which includes a piezo pickup under the bridge and a small
>microphone inside the guitar.
>
>I did not like this when I tried it, but I will try it again and play
>with it a bit more. He's running it through some kind of rack
>amplifier with Peavy cabs. Maybe he has is adjusted for his style
>(more bluesy) than mine
Hmm...could be the amplification, too. Is the system primarily an
electric rig? If so, it's not going to really give you a good idea of
how the guitar will sound amplified properly (i.e., through a PA or a
good acoustic amplifier).
Can you try it with a PA or acoustic amp?
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:27:10 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Uh oh
You mean I can't just run an amplified acoustic through a "regular"
amp? I know, whatever that means. I have a VOX Buckingham , and I
wasn't going to use that one, but I can pick up a Fender Twin cheap
and I thought that might do the trick to amplify the acoustic.
So if I'm going to amplify voice and acoustic guitar, it sounds like
I'd be better off with a PA amp ?
Oh my...do I have a lot to learn.
Thanks
Jerry
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 09 Apr 2002 22:39:48 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:27:10 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>Uh oh
>You mean I can't just run an amplified acoustic through a "regular"
>amp? I know, whatever that means. I have a VOX Buckingham , and I
>wasn't going to use that one, but I can pick up a Fender Twin cheap
>and I thought that might do the trick to amplify the acoustic.
>So if I'm going to amplify voice and acoustic guitar, it sounds like
>I'd be better off with a PA amp ?
>Oh my...do I have a lot to learn.
Jerry--It isn't as bad as it may sound at first! B-{)}
Electric guitar amps are by and large NOT going to give you a good
sound for amplified acoustic guitar. They're not designed for it.
Fender makes the Acoustasonic line, which are pretty good amps--I use
the Acoustasonic Jr., a 40-watt job with a channel for guitar and one
for voice. It works pretty well for my purposes.
Ultrasound makes some FINE amps--a whole bunch of different models,
for different applications. If you can afford a Twin, I'm betting you
can afford something that will work a lot better for your acoustic
(and I'd love to get my hands on a Twin again--not knocking it for a
SECOND...I loved my old Twin...sigh...they just aren't good ACOUSTIC
amps).
A PA is great...if you have the cash and the ability to cart the
damned thing around.
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:45:57 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Bill
Only $250 for the Twin
But I'm getting it NOT because its so cheap, but because I want it for
my electric Gretsch, and I want a Fender again (had one as my first in
the early 60's; don't know why I sold it)
Okay, though, I'm getting it now.
If I use a mic or a good pickup (Fishman, PUTW, etc) to amplify the
acoustic I should run it through an acoustic amp or a PA amp
Let me follow up on that, and try out my friends guitar under some
other conditions
Thanks
Jerry
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 10 Apr 2002 00:27:59 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Ok, Jerry. Here's the BIG caveat in the whole thing. It goes YMMV (Your
Mileage May Vary). I've had a soundhole p/u, a Fishman UST, a B-Band UST, a
B-Band dual source UST/Infernal Mic, AND most recently a PUTW.
The soundhole pickup, no way. Was not natural at all to my ear. The Fishman,
OK but harsh and quacky. Could be somewhat remedied with a good preamp.
And this is what I mean by the "YMMV" part. Many rave about the PUTW. It did
not work for me in my particular guitar, after several placements and following
all the directions. I did not get a sound "like my guitar only louder." I
tried it because I wanted to experiment with a single source with no battery on
my guitar and see if it would sound as good as the B-Band. It did not. Not
even as good as the B-Band UST by itself.
The B-Band UST/Mic combo has been the best sounding setup for me, by far. The
UST does well for me in it's own right. It has an internal preamp, so requires
a 9V battery in the guitar.
So the point is, among all of the high quality pickups out there (PUTW, B-Band,
Highlander, Baggs, Fishman, et al) none has emerged as The Answer for
amplifying acoustic guitar. When/if that ever happens, you better know this
group will make somebody very rich. Enjoy the journey.
Mitch
From: Rudi Cheow <newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 9 Apr 2002 00:11:32 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I am no pickup expert, but I think many will concur with me on this
one:
If the reason you do not want to use a pickup as a means of
amplification is because your friend's Taylor sounded "boomy" when
amplified in this manner, then you may be going down the wrong road. I
am not saying that pickups are the best way to go, but I would
seriously consider it and not let one bad experience taint the
options. The pickup placement and/or the pickup itself in his Taylor
might not have been very good, the sound system/amp could've been
lousy, the preamp could've been crap, the string gauge could have been
too heavy (??) etc etc.
Of course being a a Taylor, much of my argument is nullified (at least
I would hope so), but nontheless not all guitars are perfect.
There are many relatively inexpensive fantastic-sounding pickup
systems on the market. Our resident pickup-pro, David Enke (who
manufactures and sells Pick-Up-The-World pickup systems), might be
able to offer some help.
All styles of music on all types of guitars have been successfully
recorded using a pickup, so don't dismiss the idea just yet.
On the other hand, plenty of people also use mics as a very effective
amplification solution. PUTW makes an internal mic system, which is
supposed to sound good. And on stage, I guess any decent
uni-directional mike pointed straight at the soundhole offers good
enough sound. I haven't heard a Shure make a guitar sound bad before,
so your choice might be a worthwhile bet.
Rudi
From: Edward Bianchi <NOSPAMej@bianchiNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:53:32 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I have looked into this myself some, and while I am not an expert, I
think if I were getting a pickup it would be a PUTW (pickup the world
pickup), and not drill any holes, just have a wire coming out the
soundhole (at least not until I was sure of it). I think you can do
that with that pickup.
Even so, I don't think that will sound as good as a good Microphone
with a good amplification system (pre-amp etc). The Shure SM57 works
well, but some condenser mics will do better. Shure makes a good
conderser instrument Mic (forget the model number - SM81?). I use the
Marshal 603s mics - inexpensive and natural sounding. However, I am
almost positive they are not as durable as the Shure mics.
If you do use a Mic, try pointing it at the 12th fret, about 12 inches
away from the fretboard. In this position, the bass boom is reduced
and it catches the trebles more clearly. For single mic'ing, I think
this provides good sound. But experiment with the Mic all over to see
where it suits you best.
Hope this was helpfull...
-Ed B.
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:53:53 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
wrote:
>I want to amplify my Martin D18, but I don't want to use a pickup..I
>think.
>I had the occasion to use a friends Taylor which had a built in
>pickup at a jam and as I tend to be a bit percussive, the booming
>sound that resulted was quite ugly.
>While I've been playing for 30 years, I have not yet had the occasion
>to amplify the Martin , but now I have the need...any suggestions? I
>have no idea what my options are short of using an external mic. But
>I see that there are some internal mics too...do these work like
>pickups?
>
>Is the Shure SM57 a reasonable mic if a mic is my best choice for
>amplification?
>
>
>Thanks
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 09 Apr 2002 16:05:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I did some A-B testing recently with the Shure SM57's. I found the Shure Beta
57 to be a wonderful improvement in sound quality. Much clearer, and equally
good if not better feedback rejection than a standard SM57. I use the Beta57
every week at an open mic jam and it acquits itself time after time. Very good
sounding. I usually take a direct feed from guitars having onboard UST's and
also use the Mic. Then I dial the pickup down and dial the Shure Beta 57 up.
The Beta 57 usually sounds better.
Except for a James Olson guitar with a Dual source B-band pickup plugged into a
B-Band Entity external Preamp. That was the most exquisite amplified sounding
pickup I have ever heard.
Gary Roberts
>I have looked into this myself some, and while I am not an expert, I
>think if I were getting a pickup it would be a PUTW (pickup the world
>pickup), and not drill any holes, just have a wire coming out the
>soundhole (at least not until I was sure of it). I think you can do
>that with that pickup.
>
>Even so, I don't think that will sound as good as a good Microphone
>with a good amplification system (pre-amp etc). The Shure SM57 works
>well, but some condenser mics will do better. Shure makes a good
>conderser instrument Mic (forget the model number - SM81?). I use the
>Marshal 603s mics - inexpensive and natural sounding. However, I am
>almost positive they are not as durable as the Shure mics.
>
>If you do use a Mic, try pointing it at the 12th fret, about 12 inches
>away from the fretboard. In this position, the bass boom is reduced
>and it catches the trebles more clearly. For single mic'ing, I think
>this provides good sound. But experiment with the Mic all over to see
>where it suits you best.
>
>Hope this was helpfull...
>-Ed B.
>
>
>On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:53:53 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
>wrote:
>
>>I want to amplify my Martin D18, but I don't want to use a pickup..I
>>think.
>>I had the occasion to use a friends Taylor which had a built in
>>pickup at a jam and as I tend to be a bit percussive, the booming
>>sound that resulted was quite ugly.
>>While I've been playing for 30 years, I have not yet had the occasion
>>to amplify the Martin , but now I have the need...any suggestions? I
>>have no idea what my options are short of using an external mic. But
>>I see that there are some internal mics too...do these work like
>>pickups?
>>
>>Is the Shure SM57 a reasonable mic if a mic is my best choice for
>>amplification?
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>>Jerry
>>
>
>-Ed Bianchi
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:50:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020409120547.04407.00004371@mb-fi...>...
> I did some A-B testing recently with the Shure SM57's. I found the Shure
Beta
> 57 to be a wonderful improvement in sound quality. Much clearer, and
equally
> good if not better feedback rejection than a standard SM57. I use the
Beta57
> every week at an open mic jam and it acquits itself time after time. Very
good
> sounding. I usually take a direct feed from guitars having onboard UST's
and
> also use the Mic. Then I dial the pickup down and dial the Shure Beta 57
up.
> The Beta 57 usually sounds better.
I would agree with this the beta 57a is a good instruments mic the reg 57
just isn't voiced right for acoustic instruments
I have some very strong opinions on amplifying acoustic instruments I
believe they are all available at www.google.com
but the jist of it goes great mic( feeding a good to great pa) on the
sweetspot of the instrument from about 6 to 18 inches moderate compression
to allow movement will give you a fighting chance at recreating the sound
of your guitar to the room
pick-ups not requried though if you like very loud monitors they will give
you the volume(at the expense of tone)
some pick up systems actually do work pretty good but they cost several
times what a good mic costs
George
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:05:00 +0930
Though I've not played it for an audience, I've tried my HD-28VC /
PUTW #27 / Endpin preamp through my Marshall 30th Anniversary 100w
combo, on the clean channel, and it sounds pretty good. I've no doubt
that a good "acoustic amp" (ain't that a funny term) would sound
better, but the Marshall ain't bad. Nice warm all valve sound. Michael
B
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:14:29 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Jerry-
Peter's post was a really nice quick summary of the options. For
more on this (some of it a bit haphazard and out of date) check
the AG web site:
Look in "Technology:Amplification."
Mitch also chimed in with some real solid advice that rings true
with my own experience:
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Ok, Jerry. Here's the BIG caveat in the whole thing. It goes YMMV (Your
> Mileage May Vary). I've had a soundhole p/u, a Fishman UST, a B-Band UST, a
> B-Band dual source UST/Infernal Mic, AND most recently a PUTW.
I have all of these---and (unfortunately?) many others as well!
> And this is what I mean by the "YMMV" part. Many rave about the PUTW. It did
> not work for me in my particular guitar, after several placements and following
> all the directions. I did not get a sound "like my guitar only louder." I
> tried it because I wanted to experiment with a single source with no battery on
> my guitar and see if it would sound as good as the B-Band. It did not. Not
> even as good as the B-Band UST by itself.
I had the same experience.
> The B-Band UST/Mic combo has been the best sounding setup for me, by far. The
> UST does well for me in it's own right. It has an internal preamp, so requires
> a 9V battery in the guitar.
Every guitar is different, different playing styles sometimes suit one
pickup more than others, and different players have different tastes.
That said, if you would like an undersaddle pickup, the B-Band UST is
the best "general purpose" option in my opinion. I don't know of
another saddle-type pickup that generally produces a better sound.
The ones that are competitive (tonewise) with the UST are the Baggs LB6
and the Highlander. Both of these are difficult to install. The
UST is very likely the easiest saddle pickup to install. This is
because it is the thinnest---installing it will raise the action
at the 12th fret by only a few hundreths of an inch, so many
players find they do not need to adjust or replace their present
saddle to use it.
There's also a new undersaddle pickup by PUTW called the Air Core.
I haven't tried or heard that one, so I can't speak to its tone.
It is relatively thick, so you will have to shave or replace your
saddle to use it. But perhaps its tone is superior.
Speaking for myself, despite having both an LB6 and UST in my
guitar, I use neither. Over time I've come to dislike the
saddle pickup tone more and more; I think that's just the
wrong place for a pickup, for various reasons. So I've been
trying a lot of the newer soundboard pickups (iBeam, PUTW,
Feather, B-Band AST). Of these, the B-Band AST has been far
and away the stand-out in my guitar, both in terms of tone and
ease of installation. But I still like to pair it up with
another source for the best tone. I use it with an internal
mic; but an increasingly popular combination is an undersaddle
pickup + a soundhole pickup. To support this, B-Band sells
the UST, AST, and preamps separately, so you can mix and
match what you'd like. One of their preamps will handle
the UST+AST combination (I think it's the A2).
> So the point is, among all of the high quality pickups out there (PUTW, B-Band,
> Highlander, Baggs, Fishman, et al) none has emerged as The Answer for
> amplifying acoustic guitar. When/if that ever happens, you better know this
> group will make somebody very rich. Enjoy the journey.
Again, Mitch nailed it on the head. Nothing out there will provide
an amplified tone "like your guitar but louder." Maybe one day.
In the meantime, though going "plugged in" sacrifices some tone,
it does make many other things possible---being heard in a big
room; being heard in a loud band; being able to play one song
with small room intimacy and the next with arena-like ambience
(via reverb); being able to accompany yourself and compose
multipart pieces on-the-fly (with loopers/samplers); etc.. It's
fun, as long as you have realistic expectations.
"Enjoy the journey"!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:10:38 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Again, Mitch nailed it on the head. Nothing out there will provide
>an amplified tone "like your guitar but louder." Maybe one day.
>In the meantime, though going "plugged in" sacrifices some tone,
>it does make many other things possible---being heard in a big
>room; being heard in a loud band; being able to play one song
>with small room intimacy and the next with arena-like ambience
>(via reverb); being able to accompany yourself and compose
>multipart pieces on-the-fly (with loopers/samplers); etc.. It's
>fun, as long as you have realistic expectations.
So Tom, and all that contributed to this thread, it seems like the
best option for a solo player in small gig situations is an external
mic to a PA or an acoustic amp.
I had the chance to see Dave Grisman, John Hartford, and Mike Seeger
about 2 years ago in Wilmington DE doing their Retrograss (and retro
other stuff too) (2nd row, center). All acoustic with mics...no
pickups. It was fabulous...
Maybe this is the way to go !
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: 11 Apr 2002 09:33:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I think Tom is correct that no internal transducer will make the
guitar sound as it does to your ear thru the air. Close, but not the
same. I think that for live work thru a PA, one can get a reasonable
sound with much of the acoustic quality but it will never really work
alone for studio recording without external sources, and good ones at
that. Larry Pattis' recent opus was recorded with Neumann external
mics.
I have been playing with my Miniflex 144 int mic (top line of their
mics now sold thru GHS, I think) and the Headway saddle peizo in my
Froggy H12c. After much fiddling with position of the int mic (it is
on a flex gooseneck with a right angle transducer that is rotatable
360degr), I have come up with a fair but not pure sound; bass is boomy
in places, mid is a bit weak. Flat EQ, thru a behringer 802 to my G3,
mostly Miniflex with a bit of Headway blended. Gain is poorly set but
you might like to have a listen. Apologies for the rough guitar
playing. It's at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lowden-L/files/Sound%20Files/
Click Bu-re-6.mp3 and it will download a 4MB file.
hans
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:34:52 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Anybody know if they'll warranty an owner installation? I don't think
> Baggs does.
I don't think anyone officially warrants owner installations except
for PUTW. But that's "officially." Unofficially, as has been
reported here on many occassions, the folks at most reputable companies
go out of their way to make customers happy. This is certainly true
of B-Band, as well as Baggs, Fishman, etc.. But I'm not sure if
you can get a full refund if you just don't like it and want to
return it.
Jerry Ranch wrote:
>
> So Tom, and all that contributed to this thread, it seems like the
> best option for a solo player in small gig situations is an external
> mic to a PA or an acoustic amp.
If you want the most natural possible tone and can live with the
limitations of an external mic (limited motion, somewhat limited
volume depending on how you're monitoring and how good your
sound engineer is!), a mic to the PA is simply unbeatable with
present technology, in my opinion.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Chris Beeson <cbeeson@cix...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:34:48 +0100
Organization: Nextra UK
In article <CRFs8.18831$<QC1.1172563@bgtnsc04-news...>>,
George Gleason wrote:
> the jist of it goes great mic( feeding a good to great pa) on the
> sweetspot of the instrument from about 6 to 18 inches moderate compression
> to allow movement will give you a fighting chance at recreating the sound
> of your guitar to the room
My experience of this is that it's fine if you've got a sound man, but there
are too many variables that can shift too much after you've set up your
amplification - small changes in your position relative to the mic make a
big difference to the sound. An on-board system at least has the benefit of
being repeatable and stable.
Chris Beeson Preston, Lancs UK
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: how to amplify an acoustic guitar
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:43:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Chris Beeson" <<cbeeson@cix...>> wrote in message
news:<VA.000002c2.023f1e5f@cix...>...
> In article <CRFs8.18831$<QC1.1172563@bgtnsc04-news...>>,
> George Gleason wrote:
> > the jist of it goes great mic( feeding a good to great pa) on the
> > sweetspot of the instrument from about 6 to 18 inches moderate
compression
> > to allow movement will give you a fighting chance at recreating the
sound
> > of your guitar to the room
>
> My experience of this is that it's fine if you've got a sound man, but
there
> are too many variables that can shift too much after you've set up your
> amplification - small changes in your position relative to the mic make a
> big difference to the sound. An on-board system at least has the benefit
of
> being repeatable and stable.
>
Chris that is what the compressor does it maintains you soundat a even level as you move
(within a foot or so)
but I will not give my sound to a unknown sound guy on a mic If it is the
average open mic or voulenteer sound guy I will give him my pick up
90% of the time I am responsibkle for my duets (Barleywine) sound and I will
use only mics as they sound far and above more realistic than ANY pick up
system
George Gleason
| Fender Twins |
|---|
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Fender Twins
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:30:07 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Jerry and Bill, all.
As there are always exceptions to the rule, and you're talking about Fender
Twins here, one of the best guitar sounds I've ever heard was when Nick
Forster (Hot Rize, Tim O'Brian, etc.) plugged a PUTW model #27, 40's Martin
D-18 straight into his blackface Twin. Now this was no normal twin, because
it had fuller range EV (I think) speakers put into it. Back in the days of
the Blackfaces, they ran the input signals straight onto the grid of the
first pre-amp tube and the impedance on these is at least 10 megohms plus.
These amps also have so much gain that they need no boost from a pre-amp.
This is the only case I know of where you can plug straight into an amp
designed for electrics and have it sound good. The typical midrangey
speakers in these amps are the weak link, but the amps are great. I believe
this holds true for all the pre CBS Fender amps.
Bill, if you don't stop flattering our pickups so much, I will have no
choice but to employ you very soon.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
| SOS: Baggs Duet II System pickup options |
|---|
From: Al Jacobs <adjacobs@mnsi...>
Subject: SOS: Baggs Duet II System pickup options
Date: 11 Apr 2002 13:56:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I am unhappy with the Duet II system installed in a Larrivvee D02MH. Since I
can't lose the preamp without leaving holes in the guitar the only viable
option I have would be to replace the mic and or ribbon ust. The easiest
to do would be to swap out the Ribbon transducer for something like
a passive I-Beam. The wire from the foam encased internal mic is soldered
to the preamp circuit board so this would be more of a challenge to replace.
The reasons I am not happy with this system are:
1. I installed an active I-Beam in my D-28 and that system raises the bar
for acoustic guitar amplification at least for my ears.2. The internal mic makes the body of the guitar super sensitive... like
scratching the grill of a live mic.Does anyone have an opinion on the best replacement for the ribbon ust that
would match up nicely with this preamp? McIntrye Feather, B-Band AST, passive
I-Beam?
thanks.
Al
| What's your live set-up? [21] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: What's your live set-up?
Date: 11 Apr 2002 22:57:11 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I was surfing around, reading about gear choices, when I happened upon this
from Leo Kottke (attached at bottom). He's really simplified things since I
last read about his gear. I've never had the opportunity to hear him, but I
would imagine it's a given that he sounds great wherever he goes, and the
venues he plays in probably have at least a decent system.
I know I'd have been in big trouble if I relied on the sound systems in the
venues I've played, so I've got my own thrown-together small PA. Mackie board,
two Ultrasound 50's, various gizmos. So what's your setup? Have you found
this quote from Leo to mirror your experience: "I don't carry a lot of gear or
a rack or anything, because it won't do you any good if the system isn't set up
right, and if the system is set up right, you don't really need the rack."
Sounds like the proverbial "Less is More". So what are your thoughts? I think
the voices of experience here would help a lot of people who are just getting
into playing live.
Mitch
<<Leo Kottke currently travels and records with a pair of Kottke
signature-model Taylors, a 12-string and a six-string. He uses light-gauge
strings on the six-string and gauges .012–.053 on the 12-string (even for his
low tunings). On stage he uses either a Sunrise or a Fishman Rare Earth
magnetic pickup, usually run through a Fishman Dual Parametric DI. "That's it,"
he says. "I don't add a mic to the guitar. I've spent a lifetime trying to
decide whether I want that in or out of the mix, and literally every soundman
will want the mic in. Sometimes they're right, but usually not." In the studio
he uses an RMC pickup and a Roland VG-8 digital processor.
Of sound reinforcement in general, Kottke says, "There are real problems with
getting guitar sound live. It's an art in itself getting it to work. I don't
carry a lot of gear or a rack or anything, because it won't do you any good if
the system isn't set up right, and if the system is set up right, you don't
really need the rack. So I like to sound check from in front of the stacks.
I'll walk the cable out into the first few rows and check from there."
His choice of pickup on any given night, he says, "kind of depends on the
system I'm playing through. Usually it's the Sunrise, and sometimes the system
is just so dead in the water that the Sunrise sounds like a turtle that's
upended somewhere. In that case the Rare Earth can save your ass. It has a
wider bandwidth and a different kind of high end. And it's an active pickup. It
has a different quality on the transients and the bottom end compared to the
Sunrise. It can solve problems, and I kind of treat the sound as a
problem--every sound check--and try to solve it.">>
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: 12 Apr 2002 00:29:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>> Sounds like the proverbial "Less is More". So what are your thoughts? I
>think
>> the voices of experience here would help a lot of people who are just
>getting
>> into playing live.
>>
>
>The main thing is to be versitile ,comfortable and reliable with your sound
>some people get that with a rareearth into a ultrasound
>many don't
>if I had to choose the best sounding ,most reliable,easiest to deploy under
>any condition it would be a neumann 184 mic to a A&H Icon to a pair of SLS
>8190 speakers on vox I like my audix 211 but a shure beta 87c would be fine
>and seeing as I did have to choose it that is what I have picked and it is
>FANTASTIC
>george
Nice setup George. I also wonder about the guys/gals who just plug into
whatever sound system they're provided with, as Kotkke and Keaggy do. Instead
of "what's your setup?" it's more like "what tools are in your gig bag?"
Kottke surprised me with the Fishman Dual Parametric thing. I would have
expected someone as A.R. as he is about his sound to have at least a Rane or
Pendulum mounted in a rack.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:49:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020411202925.01663.00000048@mb-mg...>...
> >> Sounds like the proverbial "Less is More". So what are your thoughts?
I
> >think
> >> the voices of experience here would help a lot of people who are just
> >getting
> >> into playing live.
> >>
> >
> >The main thing is to be versitile ,comfortable and reliable with your
sound
> >some people get that with a rareearth into a ultrasound
> >many don't
> >if I had to choose the best sounding ,most reliable,easiest to deploy
under
> >any condition it would be a neumann 184 mic to a A&H Icon to a pair of
SLS
> >8190 speakers on vox I like my audix 211 but a shure beta 87c would be
fine
> >and seeing as I did have to choose it that is what I have picked and it
is
> >FANTASTIC
> >george
>
> Nice setup George. I also wonder about the guys/gals who just plug into
> whatever sound system they're provided with, as Kotkke and Keaggy do.
Instead
> of "what's your setup?" it's more like "what tools are in your gig bag?"
>
> Kottke surprised me with the Fishman Dual Parametric thing. I would have
> expected someone as A.R. as he is about his sound to have at least a Rane
or
> Pendulum mounted in a rack.
when I go to other peoples sound systems where I do not have control of the
mic I use a JDV active direct box from radial and a !/4 to 1/4 cable(25
foot)
I do not even remember what pick up I have now
I think it is Highlander in my Larrivee 09 and I never knew what is in my
Rigel
I have no volume or tone control
george
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:36:56 +0100
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 1:29:25 +0100, MKarlo wrote
(in message <<20020411202925.01663.00000048@mb-mg...>>):
>[...]
>
> Kottke surprised me with the Fishman Dual Parametric thing.
It's a very under-rated tool - yer basic life-saver.
Did I hear it was discontinued ? If it is, that's a triumph of l.e.d.s and
excess knobs over common sense.
> I would have
> expected someone as A.R. as he is about his sound to have at least a Rane or
> Pendulum mounted in a rack.
Why cart all that around if something lighter and capable of running on a
battery does the job ?
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Joe Carpenter <tenntoad45@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:16:34 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020411185711.06623.00001964@mb-mb...>...
> So what's your setup?
Have to agree with the "less is more" statement. Any
true "venue" that you find yourself playing in is going
to have a system (I've got a "small" PA system that I
use for the small gigs without systems...parties, etc...)
that is usually useable.
So, I just carry a 7-band EQ DI box (Trace Elliott), 2
cords & extra batteries for it & the Rare Earth. Plug
in & work it from there. I agree with Kottke's comment
that it's good to get out in front of the mains to hear
what the audience will hear (monitors can screw you up).
The best thing is, it's relatively cheap & easy to load/
unload. Oh, best to mention that it's just me...no band,
etc...
And George's comments below? After EC-5, when George speaks,
I listen. He knows his shit! He got a great sound out of
my guitar (through a borrowed Raven) that night. Not to
mention the many folks that he had to mic that night. I
was impressed with the resulting tone.
Sorry for the lengthy reply....I tend to babble on these
topics. <g>
Regards,
Joe
www.joe-carpenter.com
6 & 12 String Guitar
---------------------
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: <fader@free...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:09:41 -0000
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org
In article <<20020411185711.06623.00001964@mb-mb...>>,
MKarlo <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote:
>Sounds like the proverbial "Less is More". So what are your thoughts? I think
>the voices of experience here would help a lot of people who are just getting
>into playing live.
Baggs box to the board. Done. I play in bars, so microphones are not an
option I like at all (why? 1. feedback potential is too high 2. the sound
systems tend to suck, so there's no advantage in sound 3. stumbling drunks
4. small stages, the less stuff the better 5. carrying gear in, the less
stuff the better 6. mixing from the stage, you need to be able to step out
in front and hear the sound ... shall I go on?). I play Irish trad, so
effects processing would be a little silly. The Baggs makes the stock
Martin pickup sound acceptable, and it's an easy setup job.
If I were playing solo, or featuring a lot of flatpicking, I'd probably
be thinking differently, but my guitar is meant to be behind the fiddle
and box, so the search for perfect sound reproduction is subordinated to
the desire to get everything out in one trip to the car at the end of the
night. Ultimately, I'd love to get my gear down to stuff I could carry on
my bicycle...
-jon kiparsky
portland, oregon
--
Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
<fader@sdf...>
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: 12 Apr 2002 13:06:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Sounds like the proverbial "Less is More". So what are your thoughts? I
think
the voices of experience here would help a lot of people who are just getting
into playing live.
Mitch >>
Well lately In a club I'm at regularly I've been using a Fishman/Joe Mills
into a Raven Labs Blender..........Fishman to an Ultraamp on stage for me(I'm
disliking the fishman more & more on stage altho outfront i don't mind) and XLR
out to house.............and different external condenser to house because I
can..................but on bigger stages I use the same rig - but monitors
supplied, no Ultraamp.....so i actually played a private corporate thing at the
Opry the other night..Baggs Ribbon into Para DI into house
monitor..........could not lose 2-250 despite everything - it
sucked..........unplugged & played electric didnt tell the artist.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:30:16 +0100
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:34:30 +0100, MKarlo wrote
(in message <<20020412103430.19079.00003797@mb-fm...>>):
>[...]
> I started reading up on the gear selections of other pro's. With few
> exceptions, less is more rules the day. It's really making me re-examine my
> preoccuaption with the electronic side of acoustic playing.
>
I think pros are as susceptible to amusing bells and whistles as anyone else,
but staggering up the motel stairs a few times with an over-developed pile of
toys tends to bring one back down to earth - sometimes literally.
A point worth bearing in mind is that in a gig signal to noise ratio has more
to do with playing louder than the air-conditioning than the niceties of
circuit design ;-)
Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:01:41 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Great post, Mitch; I'm enjoying seeing the replies.
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Kottke surprised me with the Fishman Dual Parametric thing. I would have
> expected someone as A.R. as he is about his sound to have at least a Rane or
> Pendulum mounted in a rack.
He has in the past; he may again. Kottke is notoriously fickle about
his gear. Back when I wrote the FAQ entry on pickups, I collected
some info on pro setups:
http://www.museweb.com/ag/amp/pros.html
I'll append Leo's entry below.
Peace,
Tom
Leo Kottke
From "Words and Music" AG Nov/Dec 1992 (Jim Ohlschmidt): Leo Kottke records and performs primarily with his Taylor signature 12-string and a concert-sized six-string built by Minnesota luthier Jim Olson.... As for amplification, Kottke says, "I used to be frustrated all the time. What's happened for me is I now have a system that works great with a piezo setup, a system that works great with a magnetic setup, and I've found three guitar mikes that I like a lot, and I just bounce from one to the other. Which one I'm using depends on what month you run into me." [He uses a Sunrise soundhole pickup (although he somewhat prefers the no-longer-available Bill Lawrence) with the Sunrise tube preamp; a Fishman piezo pickup through a Pendulum Audio Guitar Preamp; and a Shure SM-57, AKG 451, or Beyer M-201-N microphone.] "What I'll do sometimes is take everything on the road, with the Pendulum and the different modules, because some systems will not work with a piezo, while others won't work with a magnet. Most of my guitars have two jacks in them, so I can decide when I get there which one I'm going to use. It all depends on how 'live' the room is. If it's one of those washed-out, lively rooms, the magnet is great because it has such a strong fundamental. If the room is deader than a doornail and it's like playing inside a sock, the piezo is the thing."More recently, Kottke has been using a Rane AP13 to process his pickup signals (using the AP13 mic channel for the Sunrise signal).
From: Phil Doleman <phil_doleman@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:40:29 +0100
First of all, Hello everyone! I've been meaning to join for ages, but only
just got around to it.
I play around the London 'toilet' circuit (tiny shoddy venues that pay
nothing and have poor facilities!). I usually have to get in, do a short
soundcheck if I'm lucky, then get on stage, play my set and get off again
for the next act. I have 2 Northworthy acoustics (fine guitars), and my main
gigging guitar has an EMG undersaddle. I have no controls, no pedals, no
rack and I use the house PA, which is often WAY too loud ......
....and without fail the soundman always compliments me on my acoustic sound
and says how easy the soundcheck was! Maybe I just fell lucky with the
guitar/pickup combination, but often in the past I would fiddle with a van
load of gear and still get an awful sound. I definitely agree with the 'less
is more' philosophy. Sometimes the quest for a more and more perfect sound
leads you to endlessly try and fix this, which leads to something else that
needs fixing. I stripped down my gear to my guitar and a lead and enjoy
playing all the more for it (and don't have a bad back!)
Sorry for rambling on my first post!
Really enjoying reading all the excellent info on here,
Phil Doleman
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: 13 Apr 2002 03:04:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>But what if your not yet hittin' the venues?
>Say I'm doing local coffee joints solo just for fun and to build up a
>repertoire and performance skills. Is the setup that George detailed
>a reasonable starter system? The places I'm talking about don't have
>house systems...so at least I can have some control.
>
>Jerry
Hey Jerry. I'd call George's system more than a "starter" system. It's a
great system! As I posted earlier, I'm using a Mackie 1202 board into two 50
watt Ultrasounds as a small PA. It does a really good job for the small venue,
say 250 people or less. I'm very please with it for that purpose.
Then I play in a few large auditoriums packed with people and a full band, and
that's where I've had the big gear challenge. From what I've been reading, I
think my best course is to get an all around good tool like the Baggs PADI or
Fishman Dual Parametric (looks like they still make it, Adrian, according to
the website) and just go to the board and forget about the myriad of stuff I've
tried attempting to sound like the guitar in my living room. I guess you could
say I've come full circle.
Mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 14:49:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Jerry Ranch" <<ranchjp@mchsi...>> wrote in message
news:<p4dgbuk5t60u02dsc748mpdfganll2ccbr@4ax...>...
> Micth
> Oops I didn't mean it that way
> I meant that would Georges system be reasonable if one is starting out
> solo performing. I've played guitar for > 30 years, (loud rock bands
> experience). Now I'm going solo acoustic
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> >Hey Jerry. I'd call George's system more than a "starter" system. It's
a
> >great system! As I posted earlier, I'm using a Mackie 1202 board into
two 50
> >watt Ultrasounds as a small PA.
mackie 1202 350$
two ultra sounds 300$ ea (I am guessing here I do not know wwhat they sell
for)
two speaker = to the ultra sound units 250$
$1200 for the mackie ultra sounds
$1600 for the Icon and community 8 inch coax speakers
the diffrence will be with the Icon there is less to carry less to set up
plus you gain four band parametric eq(a Gigsaver IMO)
built in compressor and two seperate efx
if you are making fair money(2000$/year)or less a night it might beoverkill but if you gig regular and get paid fairly 150/night 40 nights a
year(5000$/year) I would say you are earning enough to own pro level gear
and you should be compentent enough to take advantage of the advanced
features the Icon offers
no not a begginer desk but a swiss army knife like tool for the working
professional;
I am sorry I keep jabbering on about this A&H icon but I find it is one of
the best values in sound reinforcment today
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:38:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Jerry Ranch" <<ranchjp@mchsi...>> wrote in message
news:<0elgbukd4vsi2bsh78v2hcp3gsfhshlhh2@4ax...>...
> Help George
>
> What is an ultrasound...I can't find this on the web anywhere
> Can't find an ICON anywhere neither
>
> And in your setup, what do you use for an amplifier?
>
Allen and Heath Icon dp1000k/l
www.allen-heath.com
two versions one is a powered mixer(the dp1000k that i use)
and the unpowered dp1000L
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: 14 Apr 2002 04:23:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Micth
>Oops I didn't mean it that way
>I meant that would Georges system be reasonable if one is starting out
>solo performing. I've played guitar for > 30 years, (loud rock bands
>experience). Now I'm going solo acoustic
>
>Jerry
Hey Jerry. Then scratch what I said. By all accounts, George's system sounds
like the perfect setup for the pro or semi-pro who's making money at it. I use
my stuff for worship in church settings and don't get paid (in dollars anyway
;-), so my somewhat economical system is sufficient.
Congrats on the new direction. Enjoy the journey.
Mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:21:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Jerry Ranch" <<ranchjp@mchsi...>> wrote in message
news:<k5sebu8i8ohbf44oc5rh1sm4a265ie4qv4@4ax...>...
> >Have to agree with the "less is more" statement. Any
> >true "venue" that you find yourself playing in is going
> >to have a system (I've got a "small" PA system that I
> >use for the small gigs without systems...parties, etc...)
> >that is usually useable.
>
>
> But what if your not yet hittin' the venues?
> Say I'm doing local coffee joints solo just for fun and to build up a
> repertoire and performance skills. Is the setup that George detailed
> a reasonable starter system? The places I'm talking about don't have
> house systems...so at least I can have some control.
>
Nbo Jerry it should be a starter system cause then it would also be the last
money you NEED to spend but it is a advanced mixer with many features a new
player would have trouble adjusting properly I think you need to have a few
systems that really don't work before you are ready for what the Icon can
offer
Now the Mic is THE acoustic guitar mic but if you did not want to spend
700$ on a mic then look at the AKG 535 or c1000(both in the 200$ range)
and the SLS 8190(425$ ea from me 595 list)speaker is the best sounding small
speaker I have found though I did very much like the unpowered JBL eon 10's
shop ebay you should be able to get a pair for around 400$
George
From: Joe Carpenter <tenntoad45@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"Jerry Ranch" <<ranchjp@mchsi...>> wrote in message
news:<k5sebu8i8ohbf44oc5rh1sm4a265ie4qv4@4ax...>...
> >Have to agree with the "less is more" statement. Any
> >true "venue" that you find yourself playing in is going
> >to have a system (I've got a "small" PA system that I
> >use for the small gigs without systems...parties, etc...)
> >that is usually useable.
>
>
> But what if your not yet hittin' the venues?
> Say I'm doing local coffee joints solo just for fun and to build up a
> repertoire and performance skills. Is the setup that George detailed
> a reasonable starter system? The places I'm talking about don't have
> house systems...so at least I can have some control.
>
> Jerry
What George noted is probably a little too much for what you're looking
for (but it would still be nice to have!). The simple/small PA system
that I have is just a SoundTech 100w 6 channel, plus 2 mic inputs, with
reverb. No monitor out though, but you don't need such for these size
gigs anyway (just put the mains behind you). The actual model name is
"QuickMix 6". Added in a Shure SM-58 mic & stand, and I'm done. Oh
yeah....and a stool <g>. MARS had a great sale sale on this system about
2 years ago. Got it for $500.00 new.
Hope this helps.
Joe
www.joe-carpenter.com
6 & 12 String Guitar
---------------------
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:55:08 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
For my 6 and 12 string guitars, I use a single PUTW model #27 in each. For
my Moon octave mandolin, I have a model #20 mounted internally under the
bridge. I keep a PUTW Power Plug on the instrument end of my amp cable, and
plug this into either an Ultrasound 50 or 100. I keep the amp e.q. set flat
with no effects, and turn the volume down on the Power Plug when I want to
change instruments.
A lot of times, if I'm sitting in with someone, I'll simply take my
instruments, the Power Plug, and a 1/4" cable and plug straight into the
p.a.
With my acoustic band, D & A, (guitar, flute, bass, vocals, vocals, vocals,
vocals), the bass usually goes into a Roland KB500 keyboard amp, the flute
through an Ultrasound, the guitar through another
Ultrasound, and the vocals through a Mackie 16 CFX mixer to a pair of Mackie
SRM 450 speakers. Most of the time it is this simple, but sometimes we add a
Ultrasound 50 extension cabinet for a vocal monitor. For larger venues, we
sometimes run line outs from the amps into the mixer.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:34:03 -0700
David Enke wrote:
> ...I keep a PUTW Power Plug on the instrument
> end of my amp cable, and plug this into
> either an Ultrasound 50 or 100. I keep
> the amp e.q. set flat with no effects,
> and turn the volume down on the Power
> Plug when I want to change instruments...
> A lot of times, if I'm sitting in with someone,
> I'll simply take my instruments, the Power Plug,
> and a 1/4" cable and plug straight into the p.a...
I have done what David describes above, several times.
With David, and others.
WAY convenient to simply turn down your plug, unplug,
switch guitars, turn it back up.
No pop no splatter no stems no
seeds that you don't need.
lump
From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:16:24 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.
I just thought I would get a pickup on my D-18 and plug it into my
VOX and zoom zoom zoom off to the races.
I'm a bit AR about sound, so now I'm sheepishly recanting what I
thought I would do after seeing all your posts about live setup, and
the differences between acoustic and voice amplification.
My D-18 needs as bit of repair, so I'm sending it to a luthier (Dennis
Berck). I'm going to wait to see what he needs to do (replace saddle,
nut, glue down bridge, repair pickguard, check out the action, etc) He
might have some recommendations for electronics, since he has a D-18
too.
Got the URL to the Ultrasound amps, too, from Bob. I don't know if
they are available locally, but I will wait to check these out until
I get some onboard electonics into the D-18.
I don't think I'd need more than a single Ultrasound to start out.
And George, if the Ultrasound has channels for mic and guitar, and
some modest control over shaping that sound, to start out would a
mixer be necessary? The A&H mixer has great functionality, but it
seems way too much for me right now. Might there be a model with less
capability that might suit a more novice performer. For me, now,
this is more of a hobby and aspiration, not an income generating
pursuit. And there's the rub . . . "for now". I can't imagine that
this "hobby" won't grow to the same or greater extent than 30 years
ago when I was gigging with the band. So maybe I just need to get
what does the job up front.
Also, I'm now thinking of dumping my VOX Buckingham amp, AND my '64
Gretsch Nashville to get some bucks to help me purchase one or two
more acoustics (so I can get those alternate tunings and sounds) to
complement the D-18. Hey, what do you think the Gretsch would sound
like run through the Ultrasound...the Gretsch is a hollow body
electric.
Jerry
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:11:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> I don't think I'd need more than a single Ultrasound to start out.
you'd want the 100 watter
>
> And George, if the Ultrasound has channels for mic and guitar, and
> some modest control over shaping that sound, to start out would a
> mixer be necessary? The A&H mixer has great functionality, but it
> seems way too much for me right now.
i agree
Might there be a model with less
> capability that might suit a more novice performer.
no not really
I think the ultrasound would be a good start
Skip the other powered heads though by the time your spending $700-800 on a
powered mackie/peavey mixer it is foolish econmy not to wait till you can
spend the other 4 or 500 and get the ICON
As a solo performer I would look into a studio type preamp(great river?)
into a powered speaker like the mackie 450
I really do not know much about studio equipment so I can not offer choices
or opinions on them
george
From: Martinpositronic <martinpositronic@cs...>
Subject: Re: What's your live set-up?
Date: 15 Apr 2002 00:12:39 GMT
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
This has been an interesting thread. Most of the places I play don't have
sound systems so I have bring my own. My $0.02 worth and what seems to work
well for me; the guitar has a Baggs Dual Source that plugs into a Baggs PADI
which then goes into a Mackie 450 power amp which drives two EV SX80 speakers.
That was a mouthful! I do like some foo-foo in my sound (sorry, I'm not a
purist) so I plug a NanoVerb into the insert on the guitar channel to add some
chorus. The only problem is that it can be a hassle to lug all this stuff
around on a cart. I like the concept of going "simple"; just plugging into an
amp and bang! your done. But hey, chicks dig all that equipment! And, you can
always tell the jealous wanna-bees in the crowd. They're the ones with the big
eyes wondering where one gets all this stuff.
Regards,
Bob
| Goodall and 4th gen. B-Band [3] |
|---|
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: Goodall and 4th gen. B-Band
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:50:26 -0400
Organization: Kiva Networking
I recently ordered a custom Goodall CJ, and when it arrives I'm thinking of
installing a B-Band A2 with the 1470 AST and 4th gen. UST. Based on my
experience with the old B-Band AST / 2150 in my Santa Cruz, I know I'll like
the 1470 by itself in most situations, but I think the UST will be useful if
I get in situations where feedback is uncontrolable with the AST (this
happened to me a couple weeks ago with the single source active iBeam in my
12-string--what a disaster!). Anyway, I'm wondering how hard it's going to
be to get good sting volume balance with the UST in a Goodall? Of course it
will have that dreaded "smile face" bridge pin pattern. Isn't the 4th gen.
UST supposed to be easier to balance? Does anyone have experience with one
in a Goodall? Thanks!!!
Mike Cloud
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Goodall and 4th gen. B-Band
Date: 12 Apr 2002 12:54:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Mike Cloud said:
<< I recently ordered a custom Goodall CJ, and when it arrives I'm thinking of
installing a B-Band A2 with the 1470 AST and 4th gen. UST. Based on my
experience with the old B-Band AST / 2150 in my Santa Cruz, I know I'll like
the 1470 by itself in most situations, but I think the UST will be useful if
I get in situations where feedback is uncontrolable with the AST (this
happened to me a couple weeks ago with the single source active iBeam in my
12-string--what a disaster!). Anyway, I'm wondering how hard it's going to
be to get good sting volume balance with the UST in a Goodall? Of course it
will have that dreaded "smile face" bridge pin pattern. Isn't the 4th gen.
UST supposed to be easier to balance? Does anyone have experience with one
in a Goodall? Thanks!!!
Mike Cloud
>>Looking forward to hearing your review...curious do you still need to drill the
hole at an angle for the new UST? No big deal I know - I just don't want
anybody to stick anymore power tools near this guitar.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Goodall and 4th gen. B-Band
Date: 12 Apr 2002 13:02:41 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Mike Cloud" <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message news:<a96kjt$h9e$<1@topsy...>>...
> I recently ordered a custom Goodall CJ, and when it arrives I'm thinking of
> installing a B-Band A2 with the 1470 AST and 4th gen. UST. Based on my
> experience with the old B-Band AST / 2150 in my Santa Cruz, I know I'll like
> the 1470 by itself in most situations, but I think the UST will be useful if
> I get in situations where feedback is uncontrolable with the AST (this
> happened to me a couple weeks ago with the single source active iBeam in my
> 12-string--what a disaster!). Anyway, I'm wondering how hard it's going to
> be to get good sting volume balance with the UST in a Goodall? Of course it
> will have that dreaded "smile face" bridge pin pattern. Isn't the 4th gen.
> UST supposed to be easier to balance? Does anyone have experience with one
> in a Goodall? Thanks!!!
>
> Mike Cloud
Mike,
Acoustic Guitar Mag columnist Teja Gerken has advanced the theory (in
AG's online discussion group) that the Bagg's folks have come out with
their new double notch anti-feedback gizmo because of the feedback
problems that some folks are having with the I-Beam. I certainly had
to notch out a lot of boominess (with the PADI notch) when I was using
an I-Beam in a Tacoma EM9C.
Yes, the new generation B-Band UST is supposed to be easier to
balance, though I never had any balance problems with the old
generation B-Band in my Tacoma ER22C. I'm getting the new generation
UST (for that guitar) because it's also supposed to have a hotter
output, better dynamic response and a better signal to noise ratio.
We'll soon see.
Good luck with the Goodall. I wish I had THAT problem to worry about.
Gary Hall
| PUTW / Ultrasound / Baby Taylor Hum followup! Thanks Dave!! |
|---|
From: Kurt <anderson@snet...>
Subject: PUTW / Ultrasound / Baby Taylor Hum followup! Thanks Dave!!
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:03:12 -0400
Another "Satisfied Customer" story for Mr. Enke and his
Pick-Up-The-World product and company.
You folks may remember my question on how to address a 'hum' problem I
had with a PUTW in my son's baby Taylor. My 8 y.o. son Kevin has a
receital tomorrow so I was anxious to get his guitar in working order
ASAP.
David offered to send me another unit, and it arrived express mail
yesterday. This morning the pickup went into the BT and the hum's
gone! A little tweaking of the levels and eq, and Kevin sat down and
played through his recietal piece. We're good to go!! Now all we
need is for Kevin to remember his songs tomorrow. He's playing 'God
Bless America' and 'The Star Spangled Banner'.
Thanks David and Annie!!
Kurt Anderson
| Pickup in Vintage Martin [2] |
|---|
From: <shredr@mindspring...>
Subject: Pickup in Vintage Martin
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:30:09 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I have a 1958 Martin 00-18G, which was designed for gut or nylon strings,
but I am using silk and steel with excellent tonal results. I would like to
mount a pickup to this guitar, but am not sure which one will best suit my
purposes, which is intimate surroundings, very small audience, fingerstyle.
I already have a couple of quacky piezos (I kind of like the sound, but it
is not very accurate) and am not interested in installing one of these in
the 00-18G. Does anyone have experience with one of these guitars and
amplification solutions. I am leaning towards a Baggs I-Beam active, or the
Mcintyre feather pickup. Both of these are acoustic soundboard transducers,
which differ significantly from the under the saddle variety. I have not
heard either one mounted in a guitar, and I have read that there can be a
large bit of variability of sound depending on the final location of the
pickup on the bridgeplate. I am not interested in just miking the soundhole
either, I am definately interested in plugging in. Thanks!
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Pickup in Vintage Martin
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:04:59 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy Shredr-
Hopefully someone with an 00-18G can help with specific suggestions.
But if not, you're on the right track---try the new soundboard
transducers. They may take some experimenting with position, but
on the other hand they're easier to install and fiddle with than
undersaddle transducers. To the iBeam and Feather you already
mentioned, other popular ones are the PUTW film pickups and
the B-Band AST 1470. I've tried all of these in my guitar (Olson SJ),
and the B-Band AST was far and away the winner. But it's dangerous
to generalize from one instrument/player to another. That's the
one I'd start with, though, if I had to pick just one to try on
another instrument.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| $200 guitar cable !!! [18] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:06:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a9hcc8$vf1$<1@slb3...>...
> Hi Hans,
> we just got one of these to test, and are looking forward to putting it
> through the paces. As the electrical engineers here will appreciate, the
> cable has some unique features that definitely provide improvements.
> First off, the cable is 3/4" diameter, yet it doesn't weigh more then
> standard cables. As a result, the capacitance for a 14 footer is around 3
> picofarads compared to 20-50 pf for standard cables. The effects of cable
> capacitance on signals is not really a subjective thing, especially in
side
> to side tests. Other then that, according to Richard Glick at FGC, the
> cables are apparently very difficult to make and the price also reflects
> this. He also said that in numerous evaluations in recording studios, the
> difference was like removing a veil from the transparency of the signal. I
> will post a through review once I get a chance to sit down with it. I have
a
> 14ft one, and I'll be comparing it to Horizon, Spectraflex, and PUTW OFC.
> Though probably not for everybody, if it performs as claimed, the price
> would be commensurate with other high end sound improvements like better
> pre-amps, amps, or other equipment. If the difference is startling, it
might
> actually be one of the best bang for the buck tone improvements one can do
> for their sound. We'll see.
>
> David Enke
> Pick-up the World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <pickups@rmi...>
> 719-742-5303
>
Dave the real fall down on this cable (besides the price)
is the 1/4 inch connector with its very small contact area and flimsy
construction if they were truly conncerned ther would have speced a whole
new connector to be installed to allow for the ability of the system
also it appears to be gold plated gold is much more resisitve to electron
flow than silver(sorry I do not have my engineering books handy to quote
numbers)
while I have no doubt it can do its job exceedingly well I would doubt that
anything short of a ossiliscope would be able to pick the cable out of a
feild of cables in a double blind test
there are just too many things that have much more effect on sound than a
proper cable at this point
I would equalte the sound diffrenceas similar to being able to see all the
'Extra " light in your living room due to the laser being active in your cd
player
George
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohnson@cfl...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:30:56 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Bob Alman wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > also it appears to be gold plated gold is much more resisitve to electron
> > flow than silver(sorry I do not have my engineering books handy to quote
> > numbers)
>
> But gold doesn't corrode like silver. Silver
> produces silver sulfide and silver oxide that are
> rotten conductors.
>
> Bob Alman
Wrong. Corrosion on silver contacts is very nearly as conductive as
the silver itself. This is why the telephone company specified silver
contacts on all their mechanical switching components back when they
used such things. It's also why mil-spec switching components use
silver. Gold, too, but silver for sure.
CJ
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohnson@cfl...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:06:42 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
George Gleason wrote:
> "Chris Johnson" <<cmjohnson@cfl...>> wrote in message
> news:<3CBCA731.DD68AB2@cfl...>...
> >
> >
> > Bob Alman wrote:
> >
> > > George Gleason wrote:
> > >
> > > > also it appears to be gold plated gold is much more resisitve to
> electron
> > > > flow than silver(sorry I do not have my engineering books handy to
> quote
> > > > numbers)
> > >
> > > But gold doesn't corrode like silver. Silver
> > > produces silver sulfide and silver oxide that are
> > > rotten conductors.
> > >
> > > Bob Alman
> >
> > Wrong. Corrosion on silver contacts is very nearly as conductive as
> > the silver itself. This is why the telephone company specified silver
> > contacts on all their mechanical switching components back when they
> > used such things. It's also why mil-spec switching components use
> > silver. Gold, too, but silver for sure.
>
> I thought mil-spec for electronics was nickle I know I bough a netric ass
> load of 4/0 portable cable from military salvage and it is nickle plated
> ofc(oxygen free copper) I also bought reels of communication (6 conductutor
> stainless steel braid) that was nickle
> George
Nickel plated electrical contacts and wire? Are you sure about that?
I've been in the electronics field for over twenty years and up until now
I have NEVER heard of such a thing. Mil-spec wiring is silver or silver
clad. I'm absolutely certain of this.
CJ
From: John Williams <johndwilliams@qwest...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:24:16 -0700
There was an outfit up here in Seattle a while back (they may be still
around) that made VERY expensive cables but nobody could hear the
improvement. They used some super-secret process to bond the wire to the
connector and then potted the connector so you couldn't see it. The
tremendous price was of course attributed to the fact (as it is here) that
they were hard to make. Buyer beware!
Cables can make a difference. Rather, I should say that bad cables can sure
muck up your sound. It have seen a marked, audible, improvement in an
entire studio when everything was replaced with George-Ls cable. I've done
this a couple of times and am very convinced that it is well worth it. One
of the reasons probably is that it comes on a spool with easy-to-attach
connectors so you don't end up with too much extra cable laying about.
I do use the cable live but, since it isn't very durable, it's nice that
spares are easy to make.
--
John Williams
http://www.mp3.com/handpicked
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:Hn0v8.34387$<QC1.2241837@bgtnsc04-news...>...
>
> "David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
> news:a9hcc8$vf1$<1@slb3...>...
> > Hi Hans,
> > we just got one of these to test, and are looking forward to putting it
> > through the paces. As the electrical engineers here will appreciate, the
> > cable has some unique features that definitely provide improvements.
> > First off, the cable is 3/4" diameter, yet it doesn't weigh more then
> > standard cables. As a result, the capacitance for a 14 footer is around
3
> > picofarads compared to 20-50 pf for standard cables. The effects of
cable
> > capacitance on signals is not really a subjective thing, especially in
> side
> > to side tests. Other then that, according to Richard Glick at FGC, the
> > cables are apparently very difficult to make and the price also reflects
> > this. He also said that in numerous evaluations in recording studios,
the
> > difference was like removing a veil from the transparency of the signal.
I
> > will post a through review once I get a chance to sit down with it. I
have
> a
> > 14ft one, and I'll be comparing it to Horizon, Spectraflex, and PUTW
OFC.
> > Though probably not for everybody, if it performs as claimed, the price
> > would be commensurate with other high end sound improvements like better
> > pre-amps, amps, or other equipment. If the difference is startling, it
> might
> > actually be one of the best bang for the buck tone improvements one can
do
> > for their sound. We'll see.
> >
> > David Enke
> > Pick-up the World
> > www.pick-uptheworld.com
> > <pickups@rmi...>
> > 719-742-5303
> >
>
> Dave the real fall down on this cable (besides the price)
> is the 1/4 inch connector with its very small contact area and flimsy
> construction if they were truly conncerned ther would have speced a whole
> new connector to be installed to allow for the ability of the system
> also it appears to be gold plated gold is much more resisitve to electron
> flow than silver(sorry I do not have my engineering books handy to quote
> numbers)
> while I have no doubt it can do its job exceedingly well I would doubt
that
> anything short of a ossiliscope would be able to pick the cable out of a
> feild of cables in a double blind test
> there are just too many things that have much more effect on sound than a
> proper cable at this point
> I would equalte the sound diffrenceas similar to being able to see all the
> 'Extra " light in your living room due to the laser being active in your
cd
> player
> George
>
>
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: 17 Apr 2002 15:13:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I recently tried a couple of Monster cables.
For bass, the really thick (and, I might add, damn near inflexible) Monster
cable for bass made a noticeable sonic difference over a 'standard' Whirlwind
cord.
For guitar, we heard no difference at all, using the thinner Monster cable
intended for guitar.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:33:18 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:fNhv8.31199$<Rw2.2347088@bgtnsc05-news...>...
> If a cable is of adaquate gauge(18 guage is more than adaquate for ANY
line
> level signal regardless of impeadence or reasonable distance) and of
proper
> construction and in good working order I defy any one to reliably and
> repeatably pick thier favorite cable from a generic pile of other cables
> suitable for the job at hand
> if intrested I will set up the double blind tests at ec6 and put this
issue
> to rest
> George Gleason
To clarify for others here, this might be true for line level signals, but
is clearly not for smaller signals like what passive pickups and microphones
produce. In these applications, cable differences are hugely apparent, and
actually the larger gauges tend to sound worse due to the signal getting
lost in all the copper and other things.
As for impedance, most audio applications keep it in certain lower ranges,
but for un-buffered pickup or electret microphone elements, high impedances
interacting with capacitive transducers and cables have a rather dramatic
effect on the sound.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:33:18 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:fNhv8.31199$<Rw2.2347088@bgtnsc05-news...>...
> If a cable is of adaquate gauge(18 guage is more than adaquate for ANY
line
> level signal regardless of impeadence or reasonable distance) and of
proper
> construction and in good working order I defy any one to reliably and
> repeatably pick thier favorite cable from a generic pile of other cables
> suitable for the job at hand
> if intrested I will set up the double blind tests at ec6 and put this
issue
> to rest
> George Gleason
To clarify for others here, this might be true for line level signals, but
is clearly not for smaller signals like what passive pickups and microphones
produce. In these applications, cable differences are hugely apparent, and
actually the larger gauges tend to sound worse due to the signal getting
lost in all the copper and other things.
As for impedance, most audio applications keep it in certain lower ranges,
but for un-buffered pickup or electret microphone elements, high impedances
interacting with capacitive transducers and cables have a rather dramatic
effect on the sound.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
>
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohnson@cfl...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:34:28 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Hans Andersson wrote:
> You thought the capos were expensive?
>
> Try this one:
>
> http://www.fineguitarconsultants.com/cable.htm
>
> Can anybody explain what this cable does and why it might be $200+?
>
> Thanks
>
> hans
The high end audio market (for audiophiles) is LOADED with patch cables
and speaker cables that can run many thousands of dollars.
I figure if you've got the money to afford such cables for such a monster
audio system as would have the resolution to make the most of such a
cable, then why not? I guarantee you that if you spend that much on a cable,
your wallet will talk to your subconscious and you WILL discover that you
hear a big improvement in your system. Whether you can reproduce the
effects in a blind test may be another matter entirely, but if you're happy
with your purchase, you're happy with your purchase.
CJ
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:48:02 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> To clarify for others here, this might be true for line level signals, but
> is clearly not for smaller signals like what passive pickups and microphones
> produce.
This is true, the primary offender being the cable capacitance. For
a hi-Z source, you can readily calculate the effect with freshman-level
engineering skills. It is unambiguous, both in the math and to the
ear.
> In these applications, cable differences are hugely apparent, and
> actually the larger gauges tend to sound worse due to the signal getting
> lost in all the copper and other things.
Huh????
> As for impedance, most audio applications keep it in certain lower ranges,
> but for un-buffered pickup or electret microphone elements, high impedances
> interacting with capacitive transducers and cables have a rather dramatic
> effect on the sound.
Very true. It gets even more interesting when you use a stereo cable
and put sources of different impedance on the two conductors!
Peace,
Tom
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:07:49 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3CBDD172.55FCA9B3@astro...>...
> David Enke wrote:
> >
> > To clarify for others here, this might be true for line level signals,
but
> > is clearly not for smaller signals like what passive pickups and
microphones
> > produce.
>
> This is true, the primary offender being the cable capacitance. For
> a hi-Z source, you can readily calculate the effect with freshman-level
> engineering skills. It is unambiguous, both in the math and to the
> ear.
>
> > In these applications, cable differences are hugely apparent, and
> > actually the larger gauges tend to sound worse due to the signal getting
> > lost in all the copper and other things.
>
> Huh????
I don't know all the exact physics involved, but high Z or (low current)
signals get swamped by overly large cables. There just isn't enough current
to keep the electrons going in the right direction, and when they do, they
hit a brick wall impedance at the input of the pre-amp. Perhaps 'diffused
would have been a better word then 'lost', but the effect is actually less
usable voltage appearing at the pre-amp.
Does this make more sense?
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:53:35 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:a9hcc8$vf1$<1@slb3...>...
> Hi Hans,
> we just got one of these to test, and are looking forward to putting it
> through the paces. As the electrical engineers here will appreciate, the
> cable has some unique features that definitely provide improvements.
> First off, the cable is 3/4" diameter, yet it doesn't weigh more then
> standard cables. As a result, the capacitance for a 14 footer is around 3
> picofarads compared to 20-50 pf for standard cables.
Are you sure you have these numbers right? I don't know of any standard
cable that has a capacitance as low as 20 pF at 14 feet. Perhaps you
mean pF *per foot*? If they can make a 14' cable whose total
capacitance is 3 pF---holy cow!
> The effects of cable
> capacitance on signals is not really a subjective thing, especially in
side
> to side tests.
True enough.
> Other then that, according to Richard Glick at FGC, the
> cables are apparently very difficult to make and the price also reflects
> this. He also said that in numerous evaluations in recording studios, the
> difference was like removing a veil from the transparency of the signal.
I am skeptical, unless you are talking about using a 14' cable with
a completely passive transducer. But you can get not only improved
signal but gain (and possibly more) by putting a preamp in the
guitar or on the end of the cable, for less than $200.
> I
> will post a through review once I get a chance to sit down with it.
If you get a chance, compare it with a passive pickup and with a
buffered pickup.
Peace,
Tom
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:16:12 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> I don't know all the exact physics involved, but high Z or (low current)
> signals get swamped by overly large cables. There just isn't enough current
> to keep the electrons going in the right direction, and when they do, they
> hit a brick wall impedance at the input of the pre-amp. Perhaps 'diffused
> would have been a better word then 'lost', but the effect is actually less
> usable voltage appearing at the pre-amp.
> Does this make more sense?
No.
Where did you read/hear this?
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> Lumpy wrote:
>
> > Hysterisis loss? Eddy currents?
>
> No, just Ohm's Law with AC circuit theorems added. LCR laws.
> Basic stuff.
Well, all the LCR and cable physics I'm familiar with
leads to quite the opposite conclusion, so I'd appreciate seeing
some more details of the "basic stuff" that leads one to conclude
that electrons somehow get "lost" in a thicker cable.
Here's a good article on LCR and skin effect in
audio cable. For plots of results for parallel pair cable:
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page5.html
For coax:
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skincoax/page6.html
Both calculations show losses vs. frequency for various conductor
diameters, and in both cases losses decrease for larger cables.
If anyone can offer a sound technical explanation for the effect
David is trying to describe here, I'm all ears. But I know a bit
about cables and it sounds like more audiophile snake oil to me
(not originating with David, but from wherever he got it from).
There may be a subjectively verifiable problem with large diameter
cables, and it may point to some physics beyond basic LCR and
skin effect calculations. But electrons "getting lost" is not
it (where do they go? is the law of charge conservation getting
violated here?) and diffusion is just what the "R" part of LCR
already takes into account (and its effects are lessened with
larger diameter cables).
-Tom
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohnson@cfl...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:33:27 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Mike Dotson wrote:
> <<sounds like more audiophile snake oil to me>>
>
> You can only sell this type of stuff to guys you know. I mean a bigger 'cable'
> is always better right? :o)
>
> Mike
> http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
It is a VERY interesting market.
The most interesting phenomenon associated with the audiophile cable market
is that of "difference amplification" which occurs entirely in the brain of the
person listening to the various cables. The effect is rougly proportional to
the total value of the system multiplied by the total value of the cables in question.
Such differences will be perceived to be large enough to warrant twenty or
thirty different descriptive terms and at least a dozen different examples, if the
subject listening is a reviewer for an audio magazine. A low cost cable
and a low cost system (relatively) won't get as much copy and will get fewer
descriptive terms as well.
I've played the cable game...a little. I found that I made better cables myself,
out of a 3 wire braid of 22 gauge stranded, silver plated, teflon insulated,
mil-spec hookup wire (with 8 dollar apiece locking RCA connectors) than
any cables I was able to get my hands on for audition, and the wire was
something I found. I've kept my stash of wire in case I feel a desire to
braid up more of them.
All cables have only a few relevant characteristics: Resistance, impedance,
inductance, capacitance, Q factor, and dielectric constant. There is nothing
else that needs to be considered, but know that each cable has all of these
characteristics with varying values. Therefore, each cable is in fact a filter.
The one that is the lowest value filter across the audio band is the one that
is the most 'transparent'. And as it turns out, the braided design is one of
the best designs from a mathematical perspective. Simple, cheap, and effective.
I won't buy any more interconnnect cables as long as my stash of wire holds
out..and when it does, I'll buy another small reel of this same type of wire for
less than the cost of any mid-priced pair of cables.
CJ
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:00:07 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3CBF1B7C.E9E0E051@astro...>...
> David Enke wrote:
> >
> > I don't know all the exact physics involved, but high Z or (low current)
> > signals get swamped by overly large cables. There just isn't enough
current
> > to keep the electrons going in the right direction, and when they do,
they
> > hit a brick wall impedance at the input of the pre-amp. Perhaps
'diffused
> > would have been a better word then 'lost', but the effect is actually
less
> > usable voltage appearing at the pre-amp.
> > Does this make more sense?
>
> No.
>
> Where did you read/hear this?
I've heard it consistently in our tests here, and also from recommendations
in sensor literature. In our tests, up to a point, running a passive signal
down a smaller cable gives more continuity to the sound compared to larger
cables. This has also been verified by many of our customers who bought 12
gauge monster cables only to find the instrument sounded much better with
standard sized ones.
For references to this, look at the wires coming off a phono cartridge or an
exposed microphone capsule. These wires are as small as can be, and there is
absolutely no cost benefit from working with such fine wire (it is a pain).
If the larger is better rule applies, people would have started making these
things with larger wires a long time ago.
From looking at LCR relationships and skin effects, I think it is the L
component that causes this more than anything else. The inductance field
radiating off the skin of a conductor is proportional to the surface area,
and with small signals this might be the reason for the effect.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
> Chris Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Lumpy wrote:
> >
> > > Hysterisis loss? Eddy currents?
> >
> > No, just Ohm's Law with AC circuit theorems added. LCR laws.
> > Basic stuff.
>
> Well, all the LCR and cable physics I'm familiar with
> leads to quite the opposite conclusion, so I'd appreciate seeing
> some more details of the "basic stuff" that leads one to conclude
> that electrons somehow get "lost" in a thicker cable.
>
> Here's a good article on LCR and skin effect in
> audio cable. For plots of results for parallel pair cable:
>
> http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page5.html
>
> For coax:
>
> http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skincoax/page6.html
>
> Both calculations show losses vs. frequency for various conductor
> diameters, and in both cases losses decrease for larger cables.
>
> If anyone can offer a sound technical explanation for the effect
> David is trying to describe here, I'm all ears. But I know a bit
> about cables and it sounds like more audiophile snake oil to me
> (not originating with David, but from wherever he got it from).
> There may be a subjectively verifiable problem with large diameter
> cables, and it may point to some physics beyond basic LCR and
> skin effect calculations. But electrons "getting lost" is not
> it (where do they go? is the law of charge conservation getting
> violated here?) and diffusion is just what the "R" part of LCR
> already takes into account (and its effects are lessened with
> larger diameter cables).
>
> -Tom
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:15:39 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> "Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
> news:<3CBF1B7C.E9E0E051@astro...>...
> > David Enke wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know all the exact physics involved, but high Z or (low current)
> > > signals get swamped by overly large cables. There just isn't enough
> current
> > > to keep the electrons going in the right direction, and when they do,
> they
> > > hit a brick wall impedance at the input of the pre-amp. Perhaps
> 'diffused
> > > would have been a better word then 'lost', but the effect is actually
> less
> > > usable voltage appearing at the pre-amp.
> > > Does this make more sense?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Where did you read/hear this?
>
> I've heard it consistently in our tests here, and also from recommendations
> in sensor literature....
I asked "where did you..." in response to your explanation (as quoted
above), not the observation. I said the observation might be subjectively
verifiable, but that the explanation was... garbage.
> From looking at LCR relationships and skin effects, I think it is the L
> component that causes this more than anything else.
Think again. If it is truly just the size of the conductor causing it,
as you have claimed, then L is not the culprit.
> In our tests, up to a point, running a passive signal
> down a smaller cable gives more continuity to the sound compared to larger
> cables.
What the heck is "continuity to the sound"?
> This has also been verified by many of our customers who bought 12
> gauge monster cables only to find the instrument sounded much better with
> standard sized ones.
David, you know there is a lot more to the difference between two
cables than just the gauge of the conductors.
> For references to this, look at the wires coming off a phono cartridge or an
> exposed microphone capsule. These wires are as small as can be, and there is
> absolutely no cost benefit from working with such fine wire (it is a pain).
You know that in both of these cases, a primary consideration is
the mass of the lead (particularly in the case of the mic capsule).
Small wires are used to avoid adding significantly to the arm mass,
and to avoid changing the acoustic response of a condenser capsule's
membrane.
Sorry to belabor this, but you have an electronics degree, and so
you should know better. I can't dispute that you might hear an
improvement in one cable over another---perfectly possible. But
offer a sound explanation or no explanation at all. The latter
is perfectly reasonable---there might be something going on that
the standard calculations don't include (and it would be way cool
to make some measurements that help identify the missing piece). But
this talk about electrons "getting lost" or blaming it on inductance
(which is perfectly calculable and measurable and doesn't generically do
what you claim)---I'd rather someone who believes there is an effect
just shrug his or her shoulders and say "I believe there is a difference
but I don't know what causes it" than hear this kind of stuff. And
if the person in question has a sound technical background, I'd even
hope to see some measurements that correlate the improvement to a
particular cable property. That would not only give insight, but
could lead to a new and valuable product (it would tell you just what
to optimize in a cable for the particular task at hand).
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> All cables have only a few relevant characteristics: Resistance, impedance,
> inductance, capacitance, Q factor, and dielectric constant. There is nothing
> else that needs to be considered, but know that each cable has all of these
> characteristics with varying values. Therefore, each cable is in fact a filter.
> The one that is the lowest value filter across the audio band is the one that
> is the most 'transparent'. And as it turns out, the braided design is one of
> the best designs from a mathematical perspective. Simple, cheap, and effective.
> I won't buy any more interconnnect cables as long as my stash of wire holds
> out..and when it does, I'll buy another small reel of this same type of wire for
> less than the cost of any mid-priced pair of cables.
Nice insights, Chris. You mentioned a 3-wire braid, and I presume
you are talking about standard unbalanced interconnects. So what are
the three wires? Is there no shield? It is perhaps worth pointing out
that the qualities that optimize the cable in regard to its properties
as a "filter" for the audio signals might not be the ones that optimize
it in regard to shielding from hum or RFI, so depending on the environment
and "optimal" cable might not be the "best" choice.
-Tom
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:23:05 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Tom,
Glad to keep the conversation going, and I'm in no way trying to offer the
answer, just my observations with the intent of hearing others as well.
Just as most performance values are shaped like an 'S' curve on a graph,
there is a limit on each end, where the efficiency/effect. At the top end,
past a certain point, adding more conductive mass does nothing to increase
the energy exchanged. There is most likely the same drop off on the other
end, where the energy spends more time bumping into electrons all around it
rather then get really exited about bumping into the brick wall impedance on
the other end of the cable.
Since I have never heard people discuss the reasons for this effect, perhaps
I have no right to imagine what the cause is, but I am curious just the
same.
Sorry to have ruffled you.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
Tom Loredo" <loredo@astro.cornell.edu> wrote in messagenews:<3CC06CDB.5C093FA@astro...>...
> David Enke wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
> > news:<3CBF1B7C.E9E0E051@astro...>...
> > > David Enke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know all the exact physics involved, but high Z or (low
current)
> > > > signals get swamped by overly large cables. There just isn't enough
> > current
> > > > to keep the electrons going in the right direction, and when they
do,
> > they
> > > > hit a brick wall impedance at the input of the pre-amp. Perhaps
> > 'diffused
> > > > would have been a better word then 'lost', but the effect is
actually
> > less
> > > > usable voltage appearing at the pre-amp.
> > > > Does this make more sense?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > Where did you read/hear this?
> >
> > I've heard it consistently in our tests here, and also from
recommendations
> > in sensor literature....
>
> I asked "where did you..." in response to your explanation (as quoted
> above), not the observation. I said the observation might be subjectively
> verifiable, but that the explanation was... garbage.
>
> > From looking at LCR relationships and skin effects, I think it is the L
> > component that causes this more than anything else.
>
> Think again. If it is truly just the size of the conductor causing it,
> as you have claimed, then L is not the culprit.
>
> > In our tests, up to a point, running a passive signal
> > down a smaller cable gives more continuity to the sound compared to
larger
> > cables.
>
> What the heck is "continuity to the sound"?
>
> > This has also been verified by many of our customers who bought 12
> > gauge monster cables only to find the instrument sounded much better
with
> > standard sized ones.
>
> David, you know there is a lot more to the difference between two
> cables than just the gauge of the conductors.
>
> > For references to this, look at the wires coming off a phono cartridge
or an
> > exposed microphone capsule. These wires are as small as can be, and
there is
> > absolutely no cost benefit from working with such fine wire (it is a
pain).
>
> You know that in both of these cases, a primary consideration is
> the mass of the lead (particularly in the case of the mic capsule).
> Small wires are used to avoid adding significantly to the arm mass,
> and to avoid changing the acoustic response of a condenser capsule's
> membrane.
>
> Sorry to belabor this, but you have an electronics degree, and so
> you should know better. I can't dispute that you might hear an
> improvement in one cable over another---perfectly possible. But
> offer a sound explanation or no explanation at all. The latter
> is perfectly reasonable---there might be something going on that
> the standard calculations don't include (and it would be way cool
> to make some measurements that help identify the missing piece). But
> this talk about electrons "getting lost" or blaming it on inductance
> (which is perfectly calculable and measurable and doesn't generically do
> what you claim)---I'd rather someone who believes there is an effect
> just shrug his or her shoulders and say "I believe there is a difference
> but I don't know what causes it" than hear this kind of stuff. And
> if the person in question has a sound technical background, I'd even
> hope to see some measurements that correlate the improvement to a
> particular cable property. That would not only give insight, but
> could lead to a new and valuable product (it would tell you just what
> to optimize in a cable for the particular task at hand).
>
> Chris Johnson wrote:
> >
> > All cables have only a few relevant characteristics: Resistance,
impedance,
> > inductance, capacitance, Q factor, and dielectric constant. There is
nothing
> > else that needs to be considered, but know that each cable has all of
these
> > characteristics with varying values. Therefore, each cable is in fact a
filter.
> > The one that is the lowest value filter across the audio band is the one
that
> > is the most 'transparent'. And as it turns out, the braided design is
one of
> > the best designs from a mathematical perspective. Simple, cheap, and
effective.
> > I won't buy any more interconnnect cables as long as my stash of wire
holds
> > out..and when it does, I'll buy another small reel of this same type of
wire for
> > less than the cost of any mid-priced pair of cables.
>
> Nice insights, Chris. You mentioned a 3-wire braid, and I presume
> you are talking about standard unbalanced interconnects. So what are
> the three wires? Is there no shield? It is perhaps worth pointing out
> that the qualities that optimize the cable in regard to its properties
> as a "filter" for the audio signals might not be the ones that optimize
> it in regard to shielding from hum or RFI, so depending on the environment
> and "optimal" cable might not be the "best" choice.
>
> -Tom
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:59:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
At the top end,> past a certain point, adding more conductive mass does nothing to increase
> the energy exchanged. There is most likely the same drop off on the other
> end, where the energy spends more time bumping into electrons all around
it
> rather then get really exited about bumping into the brick wall impedance
on
> the other end of the cable.
Dave I understand your concept but at 186,000miles a second even in a 30
foot cable a foot in diameter I can't see where this would come into play
I mean even if there is some divergent paths inside some huge conductor i
can't visualize it being a issue
I am not a degreed engineer so I am speaking strictly seat of the pants
layman talk here
George
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohnson@cfl...>
Subject: Re: $200 guitar cable !!!
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:43:18 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Tom Loredo wrote:
>
>
> Nice insights, Chris. You mentioned a 3-wire braid, and I presume
> you are talking about standard unbalanced interconnects. So what are
> the three wires? Is there no shield? It is perhaps worth pointing out
> that the qualities that optimize the cable in regard to its properties
> as a "filter" for the audio signals might not be the ones that optimize
> it in regard to shielding from hum or RFI, so depending on the environment
> and "optimal" cable might not be the "best" choice.
>
> -Tom
The 3 wire braid is configured with two conductors to the shell (ground)
and one to the tip connection, if configured to a two conttact connector
as in an RCA/phono type.
If configured balanced with XLR connectors, refer to the amplifier's pinouts
(I don't specifically recall the XLR data) and just make sure you don't cross
the wires from one connector to the other so you don't accidentally ground
out half your signal or unintentionally invert the signal's polarity.
Though my amps have XLR inputs in addition to RCA inputs, I can't
use the XLR balanced inputs yet because my preamp only has RCA's.
This braided cable is not shielded, but has good common mode rejection
characteristics since it approximates a twisted pair. I have not found it
to be any more susceptible to induced noise than any conventional shielded
cable at any rate. Not in its intended application, a music/video system.
The only drawback is that if I need to make more cables, I can only braid
up about ten feet of cable per hour. It's demanding work to do that much
braiding by hand, particularly when the teflon insulation is slippery and I
try hard to maintain regular spacing of the loops.
CJ
| new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long) [15] |
|---|
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: 17 Apr 2002 08:25:56 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I recently took Tom Loredo's advice and contacted the B-Band folks
with some concerns about the old generation B-Band UST in my Tacoma
ER22C. I'd been considering trying out the new generation UST and
AST, but had reservations because the old generation UST in the ER22C
had a weaker output and was noisier than the various other pickups in
my other guitars. At any rate, I finally decided to give the new
generation UST a try, after an exchange of emails and a phone
conversation with B-Band's Pekka Rintala. Pekka told me that the new
generation UST had a hotter output, a better dynamic response and a
greater signal to noise ratio than the older model.
In the course of our phone conversation, Pekka also mentioned that my
low output/noise problem might be due to having the narrower model UST
(the 2.3 mm 22L model, which is recommended for 3/32" saddle widths)
under the ER22C's 1/8" wide saddle. According to Pekka, the Tacoma
folks had installed the narrower 22L model in some guitars before
changing over to the 3mm 29L model(recommended by B-Band for the 1/8"
wide saddle). Sure enough, when the new UST arrived and I removed the
old one, the old UST was the narrower-than-recommended 22L.
In any event, I quickly installed the newer/wider 29L and found that
it was much quieter and had a much hotter output than the older UST.
I also ran some tests comparing the new B-Band UST with the
(retrofitted) Baggs LB6 in my Taylor 314C and the (retrofitted) Baggs
Hex pickups in my Tacoma EM9C. I ran them all thru my Yamaha AG Stomp
preamp, since the LB6 and Hex are passive pickups. In addition to
playing the guitars thru a studio monitor, I hooked them up to a DAT
recorder so that I could use the DAT's meter to get a visual
comparison of the various pickups' outputs. This allowed me to match
the pickups' output volumes and make a comparison of the input gains
needed and the noise levels when dampening the guitar strings with my
hand.
Running into the AG Stomp, the Baggs Hex is still the hottest and
quietest pickup I have - by far. My only reservation about this
pickup has been that it gets very quacky with hard strumming. It's an
excellent pickup for fingerpicking.
The new generation B-Band UST, however, DOES compare favorably (with
respect to output and noise) to the LB6. The B-Bands output was a tad
bit hotter going into the AG Stomp, and it was a little quieter
(according to the DAT meter). I can still hear a little more high-end
hiss with the B-Band when I turn the monitor amp way up, but I suspect
that the B-Band is simply better at hearing high end sounds. Neither
pickup is noticeably noisy at regular (less than painful) playing
volumes. I've heard/seen it said that the AG Stomp doesn't amplify
very cleanly, but the new B-Band UST delivers a hot enough output that
this isn't an issue at regular playing volumes.
I should also mention that the B-Band UST sounds like it has (and
appears to have, on the DAT meter) a better dynamic response than the
LB6. One experiment that I tried with all the pickups was to dampen
the guitar strings and watch the DAT meter jump when I spoke loudly.
The B-Band and Hex pickups were noticeably more responsive than the
LB6.
To sum it up, the new generation B-Band UST is the best sounding
pickup that I now have for all-around playing. In addition to having
the most natural sound, the output is quite strong enough, and it's
noise-free enough, for my purposes. I should also mention that the
balance is good, though balance wasn't a problem (on the ER22) with
the old generation pickup either.
I can't make a direct comparison between the old generation and new
generation USTs, because I had the wrong-sized old generation UST in
my ER22. I suspect, however, that the B-Band folks are correct in
their claims that the new generation UST is better in many ways. I'd
recommend that anyone having output or noise problems with their old
generation B-Band UST give the new one a try. The installation is
easy (no soldering) and the pickup can be purchased separately (only
$40 or so) and connected to the B-Band preamp that came with the old
generation UST.
Gary Hall
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:35:22 GMT
On 17 Apr 2002 08:25:56 -0700, <ahall@tusco...> (Gary Hall) wrote:
>I recently took Tom Loredo's advice and contacted the B-Band folks <snip>
Great review, Gary. Do you think that would be a step up from my
Fishman UST? If it is then it'd be a bargain at $40.
What led you to that particular model? B-Band has others, right?
Jeff
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:18:16 GMT
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:04:59 -0400, "Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>>
wrote:
>
>"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
>news:<3cbd9573.10133689@news...>...
>> On 17 Apr 2002 08:25:56 -0700, <ahall@tusco...> (Gary Hall) wrote:
>>
>> >I recently took Tom Loredo's advice and contacted the B-Band folks <snip>
>>
>> Great review, Gary. Do you think that would be a step up from my
>> Fishman UST? If it is then it'd be a bargain at $40.
>>
>> What led you to that particular model? B-Band has others, right?
>>
>> Jeff
>
>The $40 is for the pick up only. I don't think your fishman pre-amp is
>compatible with the b-band.
>I'm afraid to say this, but it might have something to do with the "I" word.
>Dorgan
LOL. Don't be afraid to say the "I" word.
Actually, I'm using one side of a PUTW Power Plug to pre-amp the
Fishman. I could ask the B-Band folks how the emg in there would
work.
Jeff
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:22:07 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3cbd9ffe.12833107@news...>...
> Actually, I'm using one side of a PUTW Power Plug to pre-amp the
> Fishman. I could ask the B-Band folks how the emg in there would
> work.
>
> Jeff
I know for a fact it will not work, and Bob's right about it being due to
the I word. What we haven't tried is plugging a PUTW pickup into a B-band
pre-amp. This, should work, but as yet, I've not heard anyone try it.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
>
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:07:01 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
David Enke wrote:
>
> I know for a fact it will not work, and Bob's right about it being due to
> the I word.
Yup. Piezo pickups require much higher impedance inputs than typical
sources (10 Megohms is a good target), but electret elements such as
the B-Band require something like 10-100 times higher impedance than
that! To design the preamp, a good model is the preamp stage built
into a condenser mic (for which a typical impedance is 1 gigohm or
more), rather than a normal instrument preamp. The impedance is
so high that even half a foot of normal cable will very noticably
corrupt the signal. So you have to have the preamp at the guitar,
and to date B-Band is the only company making a suitable one. They
do a good job, though.
Peace,
Tom
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: 18 Apr 2002 03:19:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote in message news:<<3cbd9573.10133689@news...>>...
> On 17 Apr 2002 08:25:56 -0700, <ahall@tusco...> (Gary Hall) wrote:
>
> >I recently took Tom Loredo's advice and contacted the B-Band folks <snip>
>
> Great review, Gary. Do you think that would be a step up from my
> Fishman UST? If it is then it'd be a bargain at $40.
>
> What led you to that particular model? B-Band has others, right?
>
> Jeff
Jeff,
I'm ultimately aiming at putting both the AST and UST, along with the
new B-Band preamp, in the guitar. Since B-Band sells all these items
separately, however, I thought it would be a safe (and cheap) first
step to try out the new generation UST with the Core99 preamp that's
already in the guitar. I may eventually end up using the AST alone
(as Larry Pattis does), but my experience with the Baggs I-Beam has
made me a little gun-shy about trying another internal pickup without
also having the "safety net" of a UST in the guitar. I thought that
the I-Beam had an excellent dynamic response, but I never got quite
comfortable with that internal mic sound (that's the best way I can
describe it) which my I-Beam/guitar setup had. There's also the
feedback issue and the fact that I sometimes do bare-fingered picking
in very loud places. I suspect that a UST will be more feedback
resistant.
I happen to have a Fishman Matrix in one of my guitars (a Larrivee
C-10) and I definitely think that the B-Band UST is a step up from the
Matrix. Unfortunately, you'd need to buy both the B-Band UST AND the
preamp. (Get the new preamp which will also accomodate the AST, so
you'll have the option of adding that later.) You'd also need to
fill-in the perpendicular hole in the bridgeplate (needed for the
Fishman pickup lead) and drill a 45 degree angled hole to accomodate
the B-Band UST. (You can download the instructions for the various
B-Band products from their website.)
In sounds like you've already got a pretty good dual setup (with the
Fishman and a PUTW #27), so I suspect that you'll want to think twice
about doing a complete changeover to B-Band gear. All I can tell you
is that, IMO, the new generation B-Band UST is significantly superior
to the Fishman UST.
If I were in your situation, Jeff, I might think about trying the PUTW
Air Core UST in conjunction with the PUTW #27 that's already in your
guitar. I've seen Air Core owners refer to it as being quackless and
similar to the B-Band UST.
Whatever you choose to try, enjoy the adventure.
Gary Hall
From: El McMeen <elmcmeen@optonline...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:36:15 GMT
Organization: Optimum Online
"AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message >
> Nice review- informative...........definitely want to try one.
Pattis here, commandeering the McMeen home computer in an attempt to
communicate with the outside world.
O.K., communicating with RMMGA will suffice, as this place really can't be
considered a part of the "real" world...
8-)
I am glad to hear that Pekka is following in the fine tradition of customer
service initiated by Heikki from Finland. Now that there is a permanent
office/distributor in the L.A. area these things can be taken care of
nationally, rather than internationally. Pekka Rintala has been set-up for
sometime now in N. Hollywood, but perhaps not everyone knows about this.
It also good to hear that the newest generation of USTs is making folks
happy.
Here is some interesting news:
So far on this tour, every show has had my guitar amplified ONLY with the
new B-Band 1470 AST (acoustic soundboard transducer) coupled with one of
their internal pre-amps. The guitar has the UST installed, and I've dialed
it in during each "sound check," but it hasn't been necessary to use the UST
as even a small percent of the overall sound. 100% AST, 0% UST.
I suspected that this might be the case when I tested an early version of
this now-finished product, but I wanted a tour/field-test before my final
decisions were made.
No need for an undersaddle element, not even the very fine B-Band UST. No
internal mic needed, either. I am still running through my Raven Labs
PMB-1, but obviously only through a single channel.
I honestly can't believe it, but for the first time in over ten years I
don't have a dual-system in my on-stage guitar...and the others will follow,
once I return home.
Cool.
Larry Pattis
http://www.LarryPattis.com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:23:49 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Gary-
Gary Hall wrote:
>
> I may eventually end up using the AST alone
> (as Larry Pattis does), but my experience with the Baggs I-Beam has
> made me a little gun-shy about trying another internal pickup without
> also having the "safety net" of a UST in the guitar.
This does make sense. But I have tried the iBeam in my guitar,
and the iBeam and the AST respond incredibly differently even
when mounted in the same place. I never got the iBeam to sound
decent in my guitar; the AST sounded good right off the bat.
So... if you want to play it safe, go with the UST. But I think
the AST is less of a risk than the UST. Having used the AST for
several months now (in a couple different incarnations), I not
only don't forsee myself ever going back to a saddle pickup, but
I'm actually about to remove both the UST and the LB6 from my
guitar.
> There's also the
> feedback issue and the fact that I sometimes do bare-fingered picking
> in very loud places. I suspect that a UST will be more feedback
> resistant.
This is my suspicion, too, and is probably a good reason to hang
on to the UST. But I've yet to have my AST feed back at a gig.
I don't play in a loud band or anything like that, but I do
duo gigs where it can get louder than a solo act on stage, and
haven't had a problem (even with a bit of an internal mic signal
with the AST).
Peace,
Tom
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: 18 Apr 2002 12:32:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote in message news:<<3cbec99f.399568@news...>>...
> Thanks. Hey, you know Bill Lestock, right? I was talking dual source
> with him the other day and he felt that you'll always face an issue of
> phase compatability --- that two pick-ups can interact badly. I'm
> not sure that's right but I just nodded because I don't really know.
>
> Waddyathink?
I'm afraid I haven't had the best results from dual setups (but I keep
trying, don't I?). The mic/UST thing was always too much of a
feedback prone hassle for whatever small tone benefit it yielded. I
once had a Godin Multiac with the Duet setup (ribbon UST and internal
mic) and I thought that adding mic actually hurt it's tone. (I do
think that internal mics sound "boxy" or reverby, as you say.) I've
got the Duncan MagMic also, but I think that a little bit of mic
simulation (15%) from my AG Stomp improves the tone of the mag pickup
better than adding mic. As for the I-Beam/Hex experiment that I
tried, that combo didn't sound good to me. Granted, it's impossible
to get the I-Beam in the recommended (directly under the saddle)
position with all six Hex leads coming down thru the bridge plate.
Still, the I-Beam sounded "boxy" to me when it was in there by itself,
directly under the saddle.
I HAVE been running sound for a guy who has a good sounding passive
I-Beam/passive UST (he can't tell me what make UST) set-up in his
guitar. Still, I suspect that the B-Band UST alone would sound better
to my ears.
As for Bill, he's heavily into the recording studio thing and has a
discerning ear. He may be right, but I intend to at least try some
more dual setups. In addition to the B-Band UST/AST combination, I'd
like to try a PUTW #27 in combination with the Baggs LB6 in my Taylor
314C. Even if I don't actually end up combining the outputs of both
pickups, I might want to have the option of using either pickup
separately, as the situation dictates.
> Thanks. You too and congrats on the new set-up. I hope to hear it
> one day. As I've been saying for months. <g>
I'm conflicted about playing out with the B-Band equipped Tacoma
ER22C. I prefer medium gauge strings for all-around playing, and I
have concerns about putting mediums on the cedar-topped ER22C. I
definitely wouldn't take it to the hosting jobs, as I often loan out
my guitar at those shows. The ER22C doesn't even have a pickguard,
being designed mainly for fingerstyle playing. (I'm conflicted
because it also sounds great strummed, and it drew compliments on the
one or two occasions that I did venture out with it for a solo show.)
In any event, I'm looking forward to meeting you, Jeff - whenever that
may be.
Gary Hall
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:01:58 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
AMost2001 wrote:
>
> So you think I could bet by in a pretty lound band with just the AST???
>
> Not loud band by electric standards - all acoustic instruments with full drum
> kit though.
I just don't have the experience to say for sure. I used it at
church for our Easter Vigil mass, where I was battling with a
piano and about 40 voices. I could barely hear myself play, but
I'm told it sounded good in the church. But that's without
a stage monitor, so it's probably not a fair test. The loudest
setting I've played in, though.
I'd give it a try in that setting, though depending on the style
sometimes a saddle pickup really cuts through well with a band,
and there is by now a cultural expectation for it's non-acoustic
qualities in some music.
Your stuff, though---I'd want to hear that sounding as natural
as possible!
Peace,
Tom
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: 18 Apr 2002 20:34:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Tom wrote:
<< AMost2001 wrote:
>
> So you think I could bet by in a pretty lound band with just the AST???
>
> Not loud band by electric standards - all acoustic instruments with full drum
> kit though.
I just don't have the experience to say for sure. I used it at
church for our Easter Vigil mass, where I was battling with a
piano and about 40 voices. I could barely hear myself play, but
I'm told it sounded good in the church. But that's without
a stage monitor, so it's probably not a fair test. The loudest
setting I've played in, though.
I'd give it a try in that setting, though depending on the style
sometimes a saddle pickup really cuts through well with a band,
and there is by now a cultural expectation for it's non-acoustic
qualities in some music.
Your stuff, though---I'd want to hear that sounding as natural
as possible!
Peace,
Tom
>>hey Tom - thanks. I am trying desperately for the loud acoustic thing. I'm
really starting to dislike the Fishman tho & as much as I like the Raven Lab,
the EQ (lack of) on my Piezo needs help....just a woofiness I can't lose
sometimes. I have the Joe Mills which I can get fairly loud out front - and
it's a great sounding mic.....yet it is what it is.....a mic in the inside of a
guitar...and also using an external mic..AKG 451 yesterday...but that's a work
in progress...when I happen upon the correct external mic for this maybe I'll
be happy. Just fighting it for now...Still like the Sunrise but I hate what it
does to the acoustic sound of my guitar..waah..waa..waah...waah waaah
the bottomline is though - it's just a club..plug in and play ....but ya know
you gotta have fun.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:57:42 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Tom Loredo wrote:
>
> But I think
> the AST is less of a risk than the UST.
Oops! I meant to say "less of a risk than the iBeam" here!
-Tom
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:44:59 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Gary Hall wrote:
>
> <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote in message news:<<3cbec99f.399568@news...>>...
>
> > Thanks. Hey, you know Bill Lestock, right? I was talking dual source
> > with him the other day and he felt that you'll always face an issue of
> > phase compatability --- that two pick-ups can interact badly. I'm
> > not sure that's right but I just nodded because I don't really know.
> >
> > Waddyathink?
There is some truth to this. It's more complicated than this remark
makes out, but there is indeed some truth to it. It's always a
compromise, with the 2nd transducer adding some new qualities that
help the tone, but perhaps interacting in ways that hurts it. I can believe
that in some guitars adding the mic hurts, but I think it's dangerous
to generalize.
> I
> once had a Godin Multiac with the Duet setup (ribbon UST and internal
> mic) and I thought that adding mic actually hurt it's tone.
I don't think this is a good setup to judge by. As I recall (please
correct me if I'm wrong) the Duet has a mic element mounted to
the preamp. So you have no control over where to put the mic. The
success of a dual source setup with an internal mic often depends
rather critically on exactly where the mic is. There's no good
reason why right next to the preamp should be a good place!
> (I do
> think that internal mics sound "boxy" or reverby, as you say.)
Yes, as Andy said in his own post in this thread, a mic in a guitar
will always be a mic in a guitar, and thus not sound like a mic
outside of the guitar. 8-(
> I HAVE been running sound for a guy who has a good sounding passive
> I-Beam/passive UST (he can't tell me what make UST) set-up in his
> guitar.
Chris Grener has been doing a lot of installs for people where
the basis of the system is a saddle pickup (Baggs LB6) and a
soundboard pickup (his piezo bridge plate sensor, made by Oceana).
He thinks this is a very good general foundation. He often
adds one or two internal mics, though. (Yeah, it's a lot!)
So it probably isn't an accident that the B-Band folks have
moved to UST+AST themselves. Still, I personally just don't
like the saddle pickup sound very much.
> In addition to the B-Band UST/AST combination, I'd
> like to try a PUTW #27 in combination with the Baggs LB6 in my Taylor
> 314C.
That sounds like an interesting combination. Please let us know
what you find. Back when I was trying a #27, I had a lot of
problems with it, but I noted here that they were similar to
problems I would have with an internal mic used by itself,
though less so. So I thought it might make a better internal
mic substitute than a single-source pickup (in my guitar). I tried it with
a B-Band UST in my guitar, but it ended up not working well.
But I think it is an interesting line to pursue.
Peace,
Tom
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: 19 Apr 2002 08:19:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message news:<<3CBF3E5B.BFE9CFD@astro...>>...
> > I
> > once had a Godin Multiac with the Duet setup (ribbon UST and internal
> > mic) and I thought that adding mic actually hurt it's tone.
>
> I don't think this is a good setup to judge by. As I recall (please
> correct me if I'm wrong) the Duet has a mic element mounted to
> the preamp. So you have no control over where to put the mic. The
> success of a dual source setup with an internal mic often depends
> rather critically on exactly where the mic is. There's no good
> reason why right next to the preamp should be a good place!
Tom,
I'm sure that you're right about the importance of the mic placement
in a UST/mic setup. Now that I think about it, I remember a guy that
I used to run sound for who had the Baggs Duet system, which sounded
great, in a $500 (street price) Seagull. I don't think he could move
the mic around with that system, so I presume he got lucky on
placement. In any event, he was getting a distinctly more natural
sound than those of us with single source USTs. I recall that I, and
several other players at those open mics, commented on it at the time.
I must note, though, that this player was a hard strummer and I neverhad to crank his volume up especially high.
For whatever reason, I see a lot more high-end guitars and dual source
setups at the monthly songwriters' nights which I host in Cleveland.
That's usually such a quiet setting, though, that high volumes aren't
required.
> > In addition to the B-Band UST/AST combination, I'd
> > like to try a PUTW #27 in combination with the Baggs LB6 in my Taylor
> > 314C.
>
> That sounds like an interesting combination. Please let us know
> what you find. Back when I was trying a #27, I had a lot of
> problems with it, but I noted here that they were similar to
> problems I would have with an internal mic used by itself,
> though less so. So I thought it might make a better internal
> mic substitute than a single-source pickup (in my guitar). I tried it with
> a B-Band UST in my guitar, but it ended up not working well.
> But I think it is an interesting line to pursue.
I've been putting off buying and installing the #27 in the Taylor 314C
(my main gigging guitar at the moment) because I know, from reading
various posts, that placement is a critical issue and that there are
other problems (a loose "brass thingy") that can also arise. I'm not
very good at tinkering around with pickups, and I'm reluctant to lose
the use of my gigging guitar while my extremely capable (and extremely
busy) guitar tech does the job. I'll probably get around to trying to
do the job myself, but I'd be extremely reluctant to make any negative
report on a problem which I could have caused myself.
Thanks, Tom, for the observation (given elsewhere) that you've found
the B-Band AST to be less of an "iffy" thing than the Baggs I-Beam.
I'm still having great fun playing around with the B-Band UST equipped
Tacoma and my AG Stomp. It's only a matter of time, though, before
the AST and a new preamp join the UST in that guitar. (Decisions,
decisions - What do I need more at the moment - recording equipment or
guitar pickups?)
Thanks also, for urging me to contact B-Band about my dissatisfactions
(low output and moderate noise problem) with the old generation (and
wrong-sized)UST in my Tacoma. $40 for a much hotter output and less
noise is a great deal. Pekka actually offered to replace the old
pickup for free, but I wouldn't hear of it. I certainly wasn't THAT
unhappy with the old pickup. Aside from the low output and moderate
noise problem, I quite liked it.
Gary Hall
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: new B-Band UST - SATISFACTION (long)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 19:18:41 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
SweetWaterDrive <sweetwaterdrive@aol.com> wrote:> Larry,
>
> I realize you are a fingerstyle player. Do you think the AST is also the
> better
> choice versus the UST for flatpicking, single note runs with a pick, sometimes
> agressive blues leads? What about the AST is superior in your experience over
> the Bband UST?
>
> Gary
Gary,
I have never heard the new AST flat-picked on, so I might be wrong in
saying the following as a general comment; a warm and natural tone. To
me the AST has (for how I've heard it amplified) a more warm and
natural tone than other systems, and none of the scratchy woodiness
that I have heard in other SBTs.
Since flat-picking a guitar is a different approach than my playing, I
won't try to convince you (or anyone) that I "know" for sure that it
will work perfectly well for this style.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
| Fishman Platinum Pro EQ vs. Baggs PADI |
|---|
From: Pete Ngai <nighguy@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Platinum Pro EQ vs. Baggs PADI
Date: 18 Apr 2002 14:04:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote in message news:<<3cbf130c.2845738@news...>>...
>
> What are you blending? Internal mic and ust?
>
I've got a Baggs LB6 and a PUTW in my Olson SJ. Blended together, the
sound is extraordinary! <gush gush>
>
> Cost difference?
>
I originally picked up the PADI for $129 from 1st Quality. I got the
Acoustiq from Music 123 for $225. The Acoustiq has pretty much the
same features as the PADI (Notch filter, phase inverter) plus a mute
switch. Doesn't run on batteries though.
> Jeff
| B Band Question/Imitating Sherman |
|---|
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: B Band Question/Imitating Sherman
Date: 18 Apr 2002 17:41:01 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<amost2001@aol...> (AMost2001) wrote in message news:<<20020418145158.22410.00004266@mb-fv...>>...
> The new endjack pre that accepts UST/AST thingie or UST/Mic..........
> if you come straight out of it mono(no ext. pre) is it all UST no
> AST/Mic....... or can a mono blend happen?
> My tunes at:
> http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
Andy,
Here's the press release on the new A series preamps. Looks to me
like you'll need one of the onboard preamp/mixers (in the side of the
guitar) to get a mono blend at the jack.
http://www.b-band.com/new/2002_press.shtml
If you don't get more expert help than mine, I'd contact the B-Band
folks directly.
Hope this helps,
Gary Hall
| LR Baggs iBeam Onboard for RainSong [2] |
|---|
From: Keith Marzullo <marzullo@cs...>
Subject: LR Baggs iBeam Onboard for RainSong
Date: 19 Apr 2002 17:22:01 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
(sorry for starting a new thread; i couldn't get google to post on the
old thread.)
i got a used Rainsong WS1000 at (gasp!) buffalo brothers a week ago. i
love its sound. i then took a class with george kahumoku jr. and found
two other rainsongs there - one was george's. he said that the only
guitars he could hear when at the front of the class were the
rainsongs. talk about pressure.
anyway, i'm one of those old fashioned farts who is suspicious of
amplification, but then a friend of mine let me play his taylor
plugged in. he claimed that he trolled several stores until he found
one that sounded the best when plugged in. he had to rip the guitar
out of my hands, and he said that i looked like i was on something
when i was playing it. it was the closest i will ever sound like led
kaapana.
my new rainsong is amped, but it doesn't sound all that good - it
sounds much better unplugged. i read in an earler thread that
rainsongs sound good with the LR Baggs iBeam onboard system.
how much better? that's a hard question to answer, i know, but can you
give me a hint? should i invest the $250?
cheers,
keith
From: Rodney Turner <rodney_turner@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs iBeam Onboard for RainSong
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:36:12 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Well, I guess I will throw my 2 cents here...
I have played a number of the Rainsong Guitars with the Prefix Plus onboard
blender that yours has and I too have to say that I am
underwhelmed...Actually, I have been underwhelmed by any guitar with the
Prefix Plus Onboard blender....To me, if you are going to play plugged in
very often and it matters to you how it sounds...It would be a very
worthwhile investment. The new IBeam Onboard system with preamp and EQ
lists for $259 so you should be able to get it for less than that. It fits
right in the same opening of the Fishman System and is supposed to be pretty
easy to install yourself.
"Keith Marzullo" <<marzullo@cs...>> wrote in message
news:<d6e9805b.0204191622.19d5c465@posting...>...
> (sorry for starting a new thread; i couldn't get google to post on the
> old thread.)
>
> i got a used Rainsong WS1000 at (gasp!) buffalo brothers a week ago. i
> love its sound. i then took a class with george kahumoku jr. and found
> two other rainsongs there - one was george's. he said that the only
> guitars he could hear when at the front of the class were the
> rainsongs. talk about pressure.
>
> anyway, i'm one of those old fashioned farts who is suspicious of
> amplification, but then a friend of mine let me play his taylor
> plugged in. he claimed that he trolled several stores until he found
> one that sounded the best when plugged in. he had to rip the guitar
> out of my hands, and he said that i looked like i was on something
> when i was playing it. it was the closest i will ever sound like led
> kaapana.
>
> my new rainsong is amped, but it doesn't sound all that good - it
> sounds much better unplugged. i read in an earler thread that
> rainsongs sound good with the LR Baggs iBeam onboard system.
>
> how much better? that's a hard question to answer, i know, but can you
> give me a hint? should i invest the $250?
>
> cheers,
> keith
>
| Acoustic Rig setups w/ band [10] |
|---|
From: BlWillMctell <blwillmctell@aol...>
Subject: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 21 Apr 2002 14:19:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Just found this newsgroup.
Have seen lots of discussion about acoustic guitar setups for solo and
bluegrass style but how do folks approach playing a few songs in a primarily
electric band (Guitar, drums, electric bass) with an acoustic? I'm looking to
make this sound happen and currently own a decent dreadnaught with no
electronics and a inexpensive soundhole pickup. This will usually be played
through a small PA (Yamaha?) in small bars. Lookin to spend some $ to make this
work. What should I sink the $ into? Acoustic amp? Better soundhole pickup?
Preamp? Would putting a piezo type pickup in the dreadnaught help?
I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 22 Apr 2002 11:46:41 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
If it were me, I'd put a good passive magnetic pickup in the guitar in
a dual setup with either a B-Band UST or AST. That way I could use
the magnetic when max gain before feedback is needed, and the B-Band
when better tone (at a lower volume) is desired. If I could afford
it, I'd get a Sunrise magnetic because one can adjust the pole pieces
for optimum string balance. If funds were limited, I might go for the
new Fishman passive magnetic. (I do happen to have a Fishman Rare
Earth humbucker active magnetic pickup. It's a pretty good pickup -
for a magnetic.)
You'd probably also find the EQ controls, anti-feedback notches, and
phase reversal switches on various preamps to be helpful in
controlling boominess and feedback. There's also all kinds of
anti-feedback gizmos out there. Baggs just came out with a two notch
(fixed depth and Q notches) anti-feedback device and Sabine has an
automatic feedback eliminator that you might do a search (for
opinions) on.
My Yamaha AG Stomp preamp/mic simulator/effects box thing also has an
automatic feedback eliminator on it. I haven't needed to use it at
any solo gigs yet, but have tested it out and found it quite
effective. You simply step on a pedal and it finds the feedback
frequency and notches it out. That would be very handy if the
feedback suddenly appears mid-song.
As for getting a guitar amp, I'm not sure how using a guitar amp, as
opposed to running thru the PA, or used in conjunction with the PA,
would help your situation. I suppose it could serve as a guitar
monitor if you don't have a proper stage monitor.
The alternative to mag pickups and/or anti-feedback gear is to buy one
of those hybrid guitars (a Gibson Chet Atkins SST or one of the
various Godin models) that's designed to sound (kind of) acoustic in a
high volume situation. One of the members of a loud rock band which I
run sound for, occasionally, uses a Chet Atkins SST. It doesn't sound
exactly like an ordinary amplified acoustic, but I'd describe the
sound as rich and effective in that particular (loud band) setting.
In any event, getting a decent (and suitably loud) acoustic tone in a
rock band setting is no easy task.
Good luck,
Gary Hall
<blwillmctell@aol...> (BlWillMctell) wrote in message news:<<20020421101915.22959.00003912@mb-cn...>>...
> Just found this newsgroup.
> Have seen lots of discussion about acoustic guitar setups for solo and
> bluegrass style but how do folks approach playing a few songs in a primarily
> electric band (Guitar, drums, electric bass) with an acoustic? I'm looking to
> make this sound happen and currently own a decent dreadnaught with no
> electronics and a inexpensive soundhole pickup. This will usually be played
> through a small PA (Yamaha?) in small bars. Lookin to spend some $ to make this
> work. What should I sink the $ into? Acoustic amp? Better soundhole pickup?
> Preamp? Would putting a piezo type pickup in the dreadnaught help?
> I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
From: John Bjorkman <desert2000@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 22 Apr 2002 12:11:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
BlWillMctell wrote
> Just found this newsgroup.
> Have seen lots of discussion about acoustic guitar setups for solo
and bluegrass style but how do folks approach playing a few songs in a
primarily electric band (Guitar, drums, electric bass) with an
acoustic? I'm looking to make this sound happen and currently own a
decent dreadnaught with no electronics and a inexpensive soundhole
pickup. This will usually be played through a small PA (Yamaha?) in
small bars. Lookin to spend some $ to make this work. What should I
sink the $ into? Acoustic amp? Better soundhole pickup? Preamp? Would
putting a piezo type pickup in the dreadnaught help? I'd be interested
in hearing your comments.
Welcome to the group! Your basic amplification question comes up a
lot, so doing a few RMMGA searches on pick-ups and amps will garner a
lot of info.
I play primarily with my church group with several voices, drum,
electric bass, two other (usually electric) guitars and an electric
keyboard. Right now I play mostly a Taylor 555 with a B-Band UST and
Core99 pre-amp, into a Fishman Acoustic Performer Pro amp that I use
as a monitor for guitar and my voice, with direct outs to the sound
system. Sometimes I'll play a Martin D-35 or Tacoma C1C Chief, both
also with B-Bands.
My thoughts (in simple terms): Your first step will be deciding on a
budget. Anyone here can tell you that there's always something better,
but naturally it always includes a price tag. The basic thing is
getting a pick-up that gives you the sound you want with little or no
feedback. Getting something you can 'grow into' would be good, too -
a little better than you immediately need will cover the future for
you, plus leaves you room for occasional solo pieces.
The under-saddle transducer (UST), soundhole pick-up, and soundboard
transducer are the basic types, but there are others, like LR Baggs
(http://www.lrbaggs.com/), that make saddle/pick-up combinations that
are excellent as well. These can be combined with each other, or with
an internal microphone, to better reproduce your guitar's sound (and
the blenders can get pricy, too). I eschewed using an internal mic
because it made little difference in my loud band setting (and I think
the B-Band is fine by itself), plus it's simpler.
A pre-amp is often a good idea because it immediately boosts the
signal and gives your sound system a chance to "see" more of the
guitar's sound, especially the low end. A friend of mine plays his
Taylor 615c with a Fishman piezo straight into his Fishman APP without
a preamp to get the sound he likes, but in his case, his amp is close
by and serves as an adequate preamp.
Fishman is currently in the process of redesigning their APP, so new
ones aren't available, but there are a host of other acoustic amps on
the market: Fender Acoustisonic, California Blonde, 'and much, much
more'. An acoustic amp does a better job reproducing the acoustic
sound than an elctric amp, but in the small setting you describe you
may not have room (all the more reason for a preamp), so you have to
rely on a more general PA/monitor.
Hope this helps get you started. Enjoy the hunt...
peace and joy,
jbj
From: robohop <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 23 Apr 2002 06:31:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Don't count on the sound man or your pickup system -- no matter the
brand -- to save you ... have a LRBaggs PADI unit, (I hear the Raven
Labs equivalent is great too), in line so you can adjust your sound
right where you stand. A good pickup can still sound like hell going
through a big ol' PA at times. These units are life savers for band
practice or gigs -- wouldn't show up without one.
best,
rob anderson
<desert2000@yahoo...> (John Bjorkman) wrote in message news:<<e09ce526.0204221111.49bccd48@posting...>>...
> BlWillMctell wrote
> > Just found this newsgroup.
> > Have seen lots of discussion about acoustic guitar setups for solo
> and bluegrass style but how do folks approach playing a few songs in a
> primarily electric band (Guitar, drums, electric bass) with an
> acoustic? I'm looking to make this sound happen and currently own a
> decent dreadnaught with no electronics and a inexpensive soundhole
> pickup. This will usually be played through a small PA (Yamaha?) in
> small bars. Lookin to spend some $ to make this work. What should I
> sink the $ into? Acoustic amp? Better soundhole pickup? Preamp? Would
> putting a piezo type pickup in the dreadnaught help? I'd be interested
> in hearing your comments.
>
>
> Welcome to the group! Your basic amplification question comes up a
> lot, so doing a few RMMGA searches on pick-ups and amps will garner a
> lot of info.
>
> I play primarily with my church group with several voices, drum,
> electric bass, two other (usually electric) guitars and an electric
> keyboard. Right now I play mostly a Taylor 555 with a B-Band UST and
> Core99 pre-amp, into a Fishman Acoustic Performer Pro amp that I use
> as a monitor for guitar and my voice, with direct outs to the sound
> system. Sometimes I'll play a Martin D-35 or Tacoma C1C Chief, both
> also with B-Bands.
>
> My thoughts (in simple terms): Your first step will be deciding on a
> budget. Anyone here can tell you that there's always something better,
> but naturally it always includes a price tag. The basic thing is
> getting a pick-up that gives you the sound you want with little or no
> feedback. Getting something you can 'grow into' would be good, too -
> a little better than you immediately need will cover the future for
> you, plus leaves you room for occasional solo pieces.
>
> The under-saddle transducer (UST), soundhole pick-up, and soundboard
> transducer are the basic types, but there are others, like LR Baggs
> (http://www.lrbaggs.com/), that make saddle/pick-up combinations that
> are excellent as well. These can be combined with each other, or with
> an internal microphone, to better reproduce your guitar's sound (and
> the blenders can get pricy, too). I eschewed using an internal mic
> because it made little difference in my loud band setting (and I think
> the B-Band is fine by itself), plus it's simpler.
>
> A pre-amp is often a good idea because it immediately boosts the
> signal and gives your sound system a chance to "see" more of the
> guitar's sound, especially the low end. A friend of mine plays his
> Taylor 615c with a Fishman piezo straight into his Fishman APP without
> a preamp to get the sound he likes, but in his case, his amp is close
> by and serves as an adequate preamp.
>
> Fishman is currently in the process of redesigning their APP, so new
> ones aren't available, but there are a host of other acoustic amps on
> the market: Fender Acoustisonic, California Blonde, 'and much, much
> more'. An acoustic amp does a better job reproducing the acoustic
> sound than an elctric amp, but in the small setting you describe you
> may not have room (all the more reason for a preamp), so you have to
> rely on a more general PA/monitor.
>
> Hope this helps get you started. Enjoy the hunt...
>
> peace and joy,
> jbj
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 23 Apr 2002 14:11:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Don't count on the sound man or your pickup system -- no matter the
brand -- to save you ... have a LRBaggs PADI unit, (I hear the Raven
Labs equivalent is great too), in line so you can adjust your sound
right where you stand. A good pickup can still sound like hell going
through a big ol' PA at times. These units are life savers for band
practice or gigs -- wouldn't show up without one.
best,
rob anderson >>
Have to say - I'm pretty sure since I've been doing this I've liked the sound
of my acoustic coming back through a wedge(on full blown pro systems) about
twice.and this is with most of the available stuff avilabl at one time or
another ...PARA DI. Rane, Pendulum, Raven Labs, Fishman Blender....I'm just
tired of it. I played a gig this weekend.......a biggun.my guitar into PARA Di
back through major wedges.......nasty sound but I've learned to get up & go
with it fast regardless but inspiring it ain't..now ear monitors that's another
story............anyway.........
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: robohop <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 23 Apr 2002 11:07:50 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
OK ... is this Ozzy writing? No offense, but I've read this 3 times
and I'm lost ... are you saying that the Baggs, et.al., are useless
and don't bother cause it will sound like crap though them or not? If
so, I agree to a point, I've never been totally happy with the big PA
sound I get, but I can make it a hell of lot less objectionable with a
nice eq/notch/etc. control right at my assigneed place. What
alternative are you recommending? Sorry if I completely missed your
point here ...
best,
rob anderson
> Have to say - I'm pretty sure since I've been doing this I've liked the sound
> of my acoustic coming back through a wedge(on full blown pro systems) about
> twice.and this is with most of the available stuff avilabl at one time or
> another ...PARA DI. Rane, Pendulum, Raven Labs, Fishman Blender....I'm just
> tired of it. I played a gig this weekend.......a biggun.my guitar into PARA Di
> back through major wedges.......nasty sound but I've learned to get up & go
> with it fast regardless but inspiring it ain't..now ear monitors that's another
> story............anyway.........
>
>
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 23 Apr 2002 18:21:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
robohop wrote:
<< OK ... is this Ozzy writing? No offense,>>
uuhh ok.
>>but I've read this 3 times
and I'm lost ... are you saying that the Baggs, et.al., are useless
and don't bother cause it will sound like crap though them or not? >>
Not at all - I'm saying for me.....I pretty much dislike in alarge way, the
sound of my guitar coming back through wedges using all the aforementioned
stuff.
>>Whatalternative are you recommending?<<
Im not recommending anything just venting about the tone of my acoustic guitar
coming back through wedges - I'm very rarely thrilled with the sound no matter
what I'm using..
best,
rob anderson
> Have to say - I'm pretty sure since I've been doing this I've liked the sound
> of my acoustic coming back through a wedge(on full blown pro systems) about
> twice.and this is with most of the available stuff avilabl at one time or
> another ...PARA DI. Rane, Pendulum, Raven Labs, Fishman Blender....I'm just
> tired of it. I played a gig this weekend.......a biggun.my guitar into PARA
Di
> back through major wedges.......nasty sound but I've learned to get up & go
> with it fast regardless but inspiring it ain't..now ear monitors that's
another
> story............anyway.........
>
>
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
>>
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 24 Apr 2002 10:52:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
David,
I used to gig with the Boss AD-5, and still take it to hosting jobs as
an extra preamp/effects box. I've found, though, that the Baggs PADI
(with the sweepable midrange, as well the sweepable notch) is a little
more versatile in the EQ department. According to my manual, the
center frequency for the mid boost/cut on the AD-5 is only 500Hz. I
suspect that particular frequency will work better with some
guitar/pickup setups than others.
The AD-5 does have nice chorus and reverb, but I still haven't found
anything (including the Yamaha AG Stomp) that I like as much as my old
Korg G-2 preamp/effects box for a nice chorus/plate reverb combo.
That's a personal preference thing, I'm sure.
As for the "body" and "mic distance" effects on the AD-5, I didn't
ever care to use much "mic distance", but found that a little bit of
"body" does help the thin-bodied guitars. As you mentioned, it isn't
needed for a big, resonant guitar.
I've used the AD-5's anti-feedback notch on many occasions, and it's a
nice feature. Once you sweep around and find the feedback frequency,
you can reduce the notch depth so that you're only notching out enough
of the problem frequency to kill the feedback. You can also use the
anti-feedback notch to control the boomy/feedback prone frequencies
while increasing the overall bass, if one has a guitar that needs
extra bass.
In any event, I think that the lack of a sweepable mid control on the
AD-5 might be a drawback for some folks who're considering preamp
choices. It's a factor to consider, at least.
Gary Hall
David Kilpatrick <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message news:<B8EB95C9.DE30%<iconmags2@btconnect...>>...
> I've never been very happy with monitoring or with acoustic sound, finding
> my Lowdens generally too bassy. However...
>
> After hearing what Kieran Halpin could get out of a Boss AD-5, I got one. I
> am now very happy indeed. Just exactly what it is about the chorus and
> reverb on this box I have no idea, but it beats anything else I have used,
> and the gain/volume, mag-active/piezo inputs, and the T/M/B/presence shaping
> all work extremely well too. The only thing I don't use much is the body and
> mike distance modelling, which seem to be aimed at Ovation users (the Lowden
> seems to do the body stuff even into a piezo, and both the Highlander and
> the Fishman Acoustic Matrix are body-sensitive). I don't find the feedback
> notch controls much use because I would need to induce feedback to find out
> where to set them.
>
> I used to use a Para DI but I've observed that some of the best pure
> acoustic guitarists add presence, chorus and reverb. John Renbourn uses Boss
> CH-1 chorus unit, just the old familiar pedal. Pierre Bensusan uses a
> rackmount which I forget but it's misleading called a Harmonizer, in fact
> the 'harmony' serves to create chorus effects and it has a delay type
> reverb. What I found anyway is that the Boss AD-5, while still just being a
> box you can have sitting beside you and twiddle the knobs on, comes about as
> close as anything I have heard to getting either a band-cutting-through
> sound or an auditorium-filling orchestral sound, without ruining the guitar
> sound behind it.
>
> I suppose it is an old design now, 1998, but it is built like a tank,
> noiseless and works.
>
> David
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:24:26 +0100
in article <6b270d07.0204240952.433b0613@posting...>, Gary Hall at
<ahall@tusco...> wrote on 24/4/02 6:52 PM:
> David,
>
> I used to gig with the Boss AD-5, and still take it to hosting jobs as
> an extra preamp/effects box. I've found, though, that the Baggs PADI
> (with the sweepable midrange, as well the sweepable notch) is a little
> more versatile in the EQ department. According to my manual, the
> center frequency for the mid boost/cut on the AD-5 is only 500Hz. I
> suspect that particular frequency will work better with some
> guitar/pickup setups than others.
>
That positions it on the B string which is often a problem with mag pickups,
I guess, and they decided to make the mid have the most effect on that
string. The main thing I liked about the PADI was the phantom power but I
just found it very noisy, hissy once I got the gain up the level I needed.
The passive piezo input on the AD-5 manages to lift the signal much better
without hiss. I guess most people will be using an active pickup, in which
case the AD-5 poses a problem - do you use the piezo input (intended for
passive pickups) or the magnetic input? I use the magnetic.
Overall it seems to suit the large bodied Lowden better than the Baggs did,
and since I normally run a twin pickup system in my guitars, it acts as a
blender (though only volume wise).
David
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Rig setups w/ band
Date: 25 Apr 2002 09:19:03 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
David,
Your point about the usefulness of the AD-5's two inputs is
well-taken. I can recall occasions when I've gotten into a pinch and
had to use it to run two guitars, or a guitar and a bass, because my
old powered-mixer only has six channels.
I've never had noise problems with my Baggs PADI, but the only passive
piezo pickups that I've used it with have been the Baggs LB6 and Baggs
Hex pickups. The LB6 has a decent output, and the Hex is impressively
hot.
According to my home recording guide, the guitar's b string (at
concert pitch) has a fundamental frequency of 246.94Hz. That puts its
first harmonic at close to 500Hz. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on
this. I've always taken it as a given that the A string, in concert
pitch, has a fundamental frequency of 110Hz.) Perhaps this means that
a magnetic pickup emphasizes the lower harmonics more than a piezo, or
captures less of the higher harmonics - I don't know. I HAVE noticed,
when EQing magnetic pickups with my PADI, that my ear prefers to cut
the mids at a lower frequency than with the (passive piezo) LB6 and
Hex pickups.
At any rate, thanks for reminding me of all the AD-5's good features.
I've been taking mine for granted lately.
Gary Hall
David Kilpatrick <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message news:<B8ECEF2A.E092%<iconmags2@btconnect...>>...
> in article <6b270d07.0204240952.433b0613@posting...>, Gary Hall at
> <ahall@tusco...> wrote on 24/4/02 6:52 PM:
>
> > David,
> >
> > I used to gig with the Boss AD-5, and still take it to hosting jobs as
> > an extra preamp/effects box. I've found, though, that the Baggs PADI
> > (with the sweepable midrange, as well the sweepable notch) is a little
> > more versatile in the EQ department. According to my manual, the
> > center frequency for the mid boost/cut on the AD-5 is only 500Hz. I
> > suspect that particular frequency will work better with some
> > guitar/pickup setups than others.
> >
>
> That positions it on the B string which is often a problem with mag pickups,
> I guess, and they decided to make the mid have the most effect on that
> string. The main thing I liked about the PADI was the phantom power but I
> just found it very noisy, hissy once I got the gain up the level I needed.
> The passive piezo input on the AD-5 manages to lift the signal much better
> without hiss. I guess most people will be using an active pickup, in which
> case the AD-5 poses a problem - do you use the piezo input (intended for
> passive pickups) or the magnetic input? I use the magnetic.
>
> Overall it seems to suit the large bodied Lowden better than the Baggs did,
> and since I normally run a twin pickup system in my guitars, it acts as a
> blender (though only volume wise).
>
> David
| Acoustic Guitar Distortion? [3] |
|---|
From: Steve Johnson <steve9199@hotmail...>
Subject: Acoustic Guitar Distortion?
Date: 21 Apr 2002 09:57:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi Gang-
First time poster to this NG. I have a Fender AG25 acoustic guitar
with the cutaway and a passive pickup. I recently changed the strings
and now when I plug the guitar into an amp, the sound is horribly
distorted. I'm wondering if I did something to the saddle (moved it
or something) to cause it. The crew at "alt.guitar" never gave me a
response except for "Check the battery" -(It's a passive system-no
battery included), so I thought I'd ask here. Hope someone can shed
some light on the subject for me.
Thanks for any replies.
Steve
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Distortion?
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:13:19 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Steve Johnson" <<steve9199@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<860cede2.0204210856.13a8a63f@posting...>...
> Hi Gang-
>
> First time poster to this NG. I have a Fender AG25 acoustic guitar
> with the cutaway and a passive pickup. I recently changed the strings
> and now when I plug the guitar into an amp, the sound is horribly
> distorted. I'm wondering if I did something to the saddle (moved it
> or something) to cause it. The crew at "alt.guitar" never gave me a
> response except for "Check the battery" -(It's a passive system-no
> battery included), so I thought I'd ask here. Hope someone can shed
> some light on the subject for me.
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> Steve
>
The interface between the saddle and the piezo is pretty critical (NO GAPS)
so make sure that the saddle went back in the same orientation that it came
out and that it is all seated properly. If that has no effect the next
question is what are you playing through? If you're playing through
something that allows you to overdrive the pre-amp section it will distort
sorta like plugging your acoustic into the wrong side of a Rivera Sedona.
JD
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Distortion?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 05:33:32 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
Have you checked out some of the variables ie:
Same guitar and lead, different amp
Same amp and lead, different guitar
Same amp and guitar, different lead.
If you do this, at least you will be sure where the problem is.
It is possible that the piezo has got damaged. This has happened to me with
a Fishman Matrix, and in my case was cured by putting a separate earthing
strip with its own wire under the piezo.
I don't know if you did this, but it's a good idea to change strings one at
a time to minimise disturbance to the setup.
Tony D
"Steve Johnson" <<steve9199@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<860cede2.0204210856.13a8a63f@posting...>...
> Hi Gang-
>
> First time poster to this NG. I have a Fender AG25 acoustic guitar
> with the cutaway and a passive pickup. I recently changed the strings
> and now when I plug the guitar into an amp, the sound is horribly
> distorted. I'm wondering if I did something to the saddle (moved it
> or something) to cause it. The crew at "alt.guitar" never gave me a
> response except for "Check the battery" -(It's a passive system-no
> battery included), so I thought I'd ask here. Hope someone can shed
> some light on the subject for me.
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> Steve
| B-Band AST 1470 pickup [7] |
|---|
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:06:49 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
I'm very tardy posting this review. Especially since Lance and Pekka went
through the trouble to get me a pre-release pickup before I left for EC5.
I've had a Baggs Ribbon UST in my McCollum since I picked it up at Healdsburg
last Summer. The Baggs was okay but it wasn't up to reproducing all the
overtones the McCollum puts out. A lot of you have heard and played my guitar
and know what I'm talking about. I visited Pekka at winter NAMM and gave the
new AST a listen. I was very impressed and decided to try one in my McCollum.
The installation was fairly easy. B-band claims that placement is not
critical and I took them at their word. Pekka told me to place the pickup
on the bridgeplate, just forward of the bridge pins, under the saddle. The
pickup has a double sided adhesive strip to hold it in place. I then
connected the pickup and the battery leads to the A1 preamp. Using the handy
chopstick method, I then installed the preamp through the tail block and
tightened it down. Took about 15 minutes total.
Since the Baggs is not compatible with B-band electronics I removed it. This
caused a problem as the Baggs is a fairly thick pickup and I ended up with a
very low saddle height. After looking around I discovered that your average
credit card is about the same thickness as a Baggs UST. Problem solved!
I've played the AST through my Ultrasound and my PA. It sounds very natural
and woody. All the overtones I hear coming from the guitar are being
reproduced. The balance is even from string to string, no hot spots or weak
notes. I don't know what the default EQ curve of the A1 preamp is as I didn't
get any paperwork with the prototype pickup. I like using the Baggs PADI to
fine tune the EQ to my personal taste. Feedback, usually a problem with
SBT's, is very easy to control even when directly facing the speakers.
I was going to wow everyone at EC5 and UK5 but George stuck a Neumann in front
of me and Bob had AKG 451's so I never plugged in! Somebody will probably
bring a tube mic to TX3! :-)
Steve Hawkins
From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:44:19 GMT
In article <<20020423190907.27462.00004929@mb-mr...>>, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
><snipped nice review>
>
>Thanks Stephen. Is that setup available to the public yet.
>
>Mitch
>
>(still looking for that single source pickup that'll do the job)
>Mitch
Pekka said March but I haven't seen it anywhere yet. You might drop Tony at
FQMS a note and ask him if they have them yet.
Steve Hawkins
From: Twangchief <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:55:34 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Shoreline Acoustic Music is listing them on thier web site.
www.samusic.com
----------------------------
Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
----------------------------
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020423190907.27462.00004929@mb-mr...>...
> <snipped nice review>
>
> Thanks Stephen. Is that setup available to the public yet.
>
> Mitch
>
> (still looking for that single source pickup that'll do the job)
> Mitch
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: 25 Apr 2002 09:35:31 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Bill,
A big thanks from me, also. I was surprised at how inexpensive the
AST and the A2 preamp were. If I only like the AST half as much as
Steve and the others have, it'll still be a genuine bargain.
Gary Hall
"Twangchief" <<twangchief@charter...>> wrote in message news:<<ucd0b749iq4g14@corp...>>...
> Shoreline Acoustic Music is listing them on thier web site.
>
> www.samusic.com
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Bill Smith (aka twangchief)
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:25:26 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
MKarlo <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote:
>
> By the way, anyone know if the 1470 will work with my Core '99 preamp?
>
> Mitch
It should work fine, through the UST connector, as the impedences (!)
are closely matched between UST and AST...
It will absolutely NOT work through the Mic side of the Core, since
that side of the Core is basically a pass-through.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: 25 Apr 2002 22:35:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hey, thanks Larry. How's the road treating you? Really enjoying the CD's.
Is there any advantage to replacing the Core with the new "A" series? I'd like
to do this right the first time. Thanks.
Mitch
>MKarlo <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote:
>>
>> By the way, anyone know if the 1470 will work with my Core '99 preamp?
>>
>> Mitch
>
>
>It should work fine, through the UST connector, as the impedences (!)
>are closely matched between UST and AST...
>
>It will absolutely NOT work through the Mic side of the Core, since
>that side of the Core is basically a pass-through.
>
>--
>Larry Pattis
Mitch
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: B-Band AST 1470 pickup
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:56:05 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
MKarlo <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote:
> Hey, thanks Larry. How's the road treating you? Really enjoying the CD's.
Thanks, Mitch. The tour with El was an exceptional experience, and I
mean that in a very good way! I just got home, and despite this being
the 4th year we have done this tour, I am still learning how to recover
from 3-1/2 to 4 weeks of non-stop energy expenditure. The road was
indeed good, however.
I have TON of email to answer, and I hope anyone that sees me posting
here will forgive me if I take a few days to get to all of
this....other work is pending as well, as one might imagine.....
Good news on the CD front, as rather meaningful reviews have been
posted at:
http://www.geocities.com/strummer1.geo/reviews.html
...and the folks at NeumannUSA somehow heard about my use of their mics
on the project (they may have been searching "Neumann" on Google and
seen the gear discussed here!), and after hearing the music, they
requested that I do a bit of a write up for the "Application Notes"
area of their website:
http://www.neumannusa.com/pages/products/neumanAppNotes.asp?Apps=o
Glad to hear that you're enjoying the music from your end.
I also heard (a little birdie told me) that "Hands of Time" would have
a review in the August or September (likely Sept.) issue of Acoustic
Guitar magazine, in their "Hit List" section.....
>
> Is there any advantage to replacing the Core with the new "A" series? I'd
> like
> to do this right the first time. Thanks.
>
> Mitch
I don't believe that there would be an advantage to purchase the single
input A-1, if all you plan to do is have the AST as your sole pick-up
through the existing Core that you own. You might want to double check
with Pekka at the L.A. office on this, but I am pretty sure of this.
If you wanted to combine the new 1470 AST with a the B-Band UST
element, then you would be required to use their A-2 internal pre-amp.
Plese let us know how it works out.....
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
| Piezo pickup hum [4] |
|---|
From: <sh9998@attbi...>
Subject: Piezo pickup hum
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:43:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Hi all. Looking for a little info on repairing a piezo pickup. I have
a friend's guitar here. He had a new piezo installed a couple of years
ago and it has never worked right. It hasn't made any sound at all for
a while. I took a look and found that the lead from the pickup had
broken off. In general, the person who installed the pickup did a good
jog mechanically (the pickup that was replaced was one of the old wide
ones and an insert and new saddle had to be made), but terrible
electrically. It looked like whoever did it had never held a soldering
iron before and the lead from the pickup just barely reached the
position of the tone controls in the body of the guitar, and so
stretched across body of the guitar right down the middle of the sound
hole, and was very tight. Hence the broken lead.
So what I'm slowly leading up to is:
The pickup hums like crazy. Even if I remove it and solder it to just a
jack (taking care to leave minimal unshielded lead and all) and stops
humming only if I touch some part of the shielding.
Any hints? I'm thinking the shield connection is broken inside the
pickup. Any idea of the impedance of a piezo pickup - I could measure
it (I know it's "high" but that covers a lot of ground). Is it
worthwhile to even think about replacing the lead?
If not I'll have to tell him the pickup/saddle will need replacement. I
couldn't find another that is the same size and while I can do delicate
soldering, making a new saddle is out of my league.
Thanks for any help you can give,
-KD
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Piezo pickup hum
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:18:24 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
I had the same problem with the Fishman that came on my Taylor. The Fishman
guy told me to inspect the pickup to make sure the foil wrapping hadn't
torn. It hadn't but when I replaced the saddle, the hum was gone. But it
now tends to come and go. It is a low frequency hum that I can notch out,
or is gone if I use a wireless. But it's still annoying and I'm thinking of
replacing the whole system.
<<sh9998@attbi...>> wrote in message news:<3CC5F171.DDC0B6B5@attbi...>...
> Hi all. Looking for a little info on repairing a piezo pickup. I have
> a friend's guitar here. He had a new piezo installed a couple of years
> ago and it has never worked right. It hasn't made any sound at all for
> a while. I took a look and found that the lead from the pickup had
> broken off. In general, the person who installed the pickup did a good
> jog mechanically (the pickup that was replaced was one of the old wide
> ones and an insert and new saddle had to be made), but terrible
> electrically. It looked like whoever did it had never held a soldering
> iron before and the lead from the pickup just barely reached the
> position of the tone controls in the body of the guitar, and so
> stretched across body of the guitar right down the middle of the sound
> hole, and was very tight. Hence the broken lead.
>
> So what I'm slowly leading up to is:
>
> The pickup hums like crazy. Even if I remove it and solder it to just a
> jack (taking care to leave minimal unshielded lead and all) and stops
> humming only if I touch some part of the shielding.
>
> Any hints? I'm thinking the shield connection is broken inside the
> pickup. Any idea of the impedance of a piezo pickup - I could measure
> it (I know it's "high" but that covers a lot of ground). Is it
> worthwhile to even think about replacing the lead?
>
> If not I'll have to tell him the pickup/saddle will need replacement. I
> couldn't find another that is the same size and while I can do delicate
> soldering, making a new saddle is out of my league.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give,
> -KD
>
From: Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond...>
Subject: Re: Piezo pickup hum
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:08:12 +1000
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
My Fishman matrix developed a hum. The repairman said that wasn't rare, and
he fixed it with a brass earthing strip under the piezo, which was wired
separately thru a hole in the opposite end of the saddle slot. The hum
developed again after a few years, and I fixed it by cleaning the contact
area between the brass strip and the foil. This was about five years ago,
and I have had no further problems.
It appears that the original hum was caused by the foil losing good contact
with the pickup earth wire.
Tony D
<<sh9998@attbi...>> wrote in message news:<3CC5F171.DDC0B6B5@attbi...>...
> Hi all. Looking for a little info on repairing a piezo pickup. I have
> a friend's guitar here. He had a new piezo installed a couple of years
> ago and it has never worked right. It hasn't made any sound at all for
> a while. I took a look and found that the lead from the pickup had
> broken off. In general, the person who installed the pickup did a good
> jog mechanically (the pickup that was replaced was one of the old wide
> ones and an insert and new saddle had to be made), but terrible
> electrically. It looked like whoever did it had never held a soldering
> iron before and the lead from the pickup just barely reached the
> position of the tone controls in the body of the guitar, and so
> stretched across body of the guitar right down the middle of the sound
> hole, and was very tight. Hence the broken lead.
>
> So what I'm slowly leading up to is:
>
> The pickup hums like crazy. Even if I remove it and solder it to just a
> jack (taking care to leave minimal unshielded lead and all) and stops
> humming only if I touch some part of the shielding.
>
> Any hints? I'm thinking the shield connection is broken inside the
> pickup. Any idea of the impedance of a piezo pickup - I could measure
> it (I know it's "high" but that covers a lot of ground). Is it
> worthwhile to even think about replacing the lead?
>
> If not I'll have to tell him the pickup/saddle will need replacement. I
> couldn't find another that is the same size and while I can do delicate
> soldering, making a new saddle is out of my league.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give,
> -KD
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Piezo pickup hum
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:14:35 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I'm not going to bore you all with a bunch of technical stuff, but there are
a few things that can cause this. Obviously the continuity of the electrical
connections is the most important. There can either be an open in the wire,
an open at the electrode junction to the piezo material, or an open in the
shield material. Chances are, any of these will be very difficult to repair,
but that depends on the pickup. One thing that might be fixable is the wire,
but you have to be very careful not to overheat the pickup when soldering a
new one to it, and you will have difficulty making a good shielded
butt-splice in the coaxial wire. Some manufacturers used a copper tape with
conductive adhesive on it to form the contacts on the shield, and this can
oxidize over time and cause failure. The only solution is to open up the
pickup, clean the contact areas, and use some expensive silver epoxy. By the
time you have done this and re-assembled everything, you probably would be
better off with a new element.
There are lots of options available for very little money. Perhaps tell us
what the pickup is, and someone here might have a good used one to replace
it with (I know I do!). It would also be good to know if the system is
active or not.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
| FS:B-Band Entity System $250 [2] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: FS:B-Band Entity System $250
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:07:46 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Just thought I'd mention that if Gregory's system includes the
Entity Front End endpin jack preamp (which typically came with
the Entity) rather than a Core preamp, this lets you power
the onboard preamp remotely---no batteries in the guitar. I
use this currently with a B-Band AST 1470 pickup (not the UST)
and an internal mic, and it works well. I don't know how
this compares with the new "A" series of preamps (haven't
tried one yet).
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: FS:B-Band Entity System $250
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:25:05 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3CC6F472.5C95A0B6@astro...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
> Hi folks-
>
> Just thought I'd mention that if Gregory's system includes the
> Entity Front End endpin jack preamp (which typically came with
> the Entity) rather than a Core preamp, this lets you power
> the onboard preamp remotely---no batteries in the guitar. I
> use this currently with a B-Band AST 1470 pickup (not the UST)
> and an internal mic, and it works well. I don't know how
> this compares with the new "A" series of preamps (haven't
> tried one yet).
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo
Tom,
The comparison is favorable; that is, using the Front End/1470 AST
inside the guitar, coupled with the external Entity (this is what El
used on the latter portion of our tour) compared favorably with my use
of the A-1 pre-amp (w/1470 AST) and run through my Raven Labs unit.
This allowed El to run without a battery in his guitar, BTW, as we
should recall.
Neither of us felt the slightest need to add either an internal Mic or
the B-Band UST to the sound we were getting, BTW.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
| New iBeam Onboard |
|---|
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troubleman@starpower...>
Subject: Re: New iBeam Onboard
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:44:23 -0400
Any word on their efficacy?
I had a Fishman Onboard Blender in my Taylor 714CE (sold), and a garden
variety Prefix in my 414KCE. The Prefix preamp was replaced with an Onboard
Blender. Hmmmm..... the Onboard Blender sounded lots better in the 714CE.
Maybe it's just that my ears have become accustomed to B-bands? I'm waitin'
on the onboard iBeam. Anybody tried one yet? Any insight into installing an
iBeam in a Taylor? The sound great in Martins and Martin-based instruments
(such as Collings dreads), but I've heard lots of "less than enthusiastic"
grumblings about iBeams in other instruments....
jb
"Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020424084608.08658.00004849@mb-cp...>...
> Gozy wrote:
>
> >It's direct replacement for>the stock Fishman shipped with Taylors. As
mine
> has been giving me fits>lately, I'm interested in the iBeam but the L.R.
Baggs
> site doesn't offer a>lot of help as to where I might get one on line. The
> suppliers they list>don't list the new pickup system yet.
>
> >Any ideas?
>
>
> Gozy, my experience with websites - ANY websites - is that they often tend
to
> be sketchy at best, and are quite often well behind the times in terms of
what
> is offered by any given store or vendor. Your best bet is to simply pick
up
> the phone and call, if you want immediate answers, or send an e-mail if
you
> don't mind a potential time lag of a few hours or days.
>
> But any Baggs dealer can get you the unit you're interested in, whether
they
> have it in stock this minute or not. There was a considerable delay
getting
> those ready, between their announcement in the trade journals and the
readiness
> of the actual production models, but they are available now.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Wade Hampton Miller
> Chugiak, Alaska
| K & K pickup vs. Fishman [4] |
|---|
From: Glen Eric <strum4u@msn...>
Subject: Re: K & K pickup vs. Fishman
Date: 27 Apr 2002 03:53:33 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Jeff,
Aren't you spoiled by the sound of the K & K compared to the Fishman?
I realize you have two different guitars employing these two brands of
pickups, but from the comparison I heard of the Fishman Matrix vs. a K
& K, both in the same model guitar(Tacoma)as heard on K & K's demo cd,
the K & K seemed to sound so much more natural, more musical, and less
"stringy" and "quacky" than the Fishman.
Let us know of your findings as you spend more time playing live, and
recording with the K&K equipped Taylor you have.
Keep strummin'
Glen Eric
(strum4u)
<jeh652@aol...> (Jeff Hill) wrote in message news:<<777bf6f7.0204060747.22bcde13@posting...>>...
> <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Jeff Sherman) wrote in message news:<<3cadb112.1535907@news...>>...
> > On 4 Apr 2002 16:19:52 -0800, <jeh652@aol...> (Jeff Hill) wrote:
> >
> > >I have a Breedlove with a fishman quacker but I use an Yamaha
> > >AG stomp thru the effects loop.
> >
> > I think I'd love an AG Stomp. Very Cool Beans for you, I bet.
> >
> > How's the high end on the GB comare to the U/S?
> >
> > Jeff
>
>
> That was one of the reasons the GB attracted my ear. In comparison to
> the U/S
> I played thru it had more high end gain. I have a regular gig at a
> large,
> can be fairly noisy place, and I need the ability to eq differently to
> cut through the ambient noise. I just did some more recording with the
> AG stomp
> using a guitar equipped with the K&K pickup and a large dia. condensor
> and it turned out beautiful, in fact I am going to get off-line here
> and work on editting it right now.
>
> I think the both the GB and the U/S are great amps it just depends on
> what your looking for. Good luck.
>
> Jeff Hill
From: Rich Kelley <rkelley@vcd...>
Subject: Re: K & K pickup vs. Fishman
Date: 30 Apr 2002 20:36:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Vancouver Site
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more (any really) responses
to this, so I'll chime in.
I have a K&K on both a Martin D18GE and a Collings OM2C. I have
a Taylor with a Fishman. The K&K's are definitely better. Less
quack, a much more natural sound. This is just the contact pu alone,
no internal mic.
It's a fine solution for playing live. However, I would never record
with it except as an effect. IMO, any half decent acoustic guitar
will sound better through an SM57/Mackie than it would through even
the best pickup. Use a decent small diaphram condenser and play
with the postion a little and you should have very nice results.
The K&K was also nice on the Martin because it has a through saddle.
I sincerely hope that Martin used that style of saddle for a sonic
reason and not for the vintage look. I do worry about changing the
action in the future.
Rich Kelley
Glen Eric (<strum4u@msn...>) wrote:
: Jeff,
: Aren't you spoiled by the sound of the K & K compared to the Fishman?
: I realize you have two different guitars employing these two brands of
: pickups, but from the comparison I heard of the Fishman Matrix vs. a K
: & K, both in the same model guitar(Tacoma)as heard on K & K's demo cd,
: the K & K seemed to sound so much more natural, more musical, and less
: "stringy" and "quacky" than the Fishman.
: Let us know of your findings as you spend more time playing live, and
: recording with the K&K equipped Taylor you have.
: Keep strummin'
: Glen Eric
: (strum4u)
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: K & K pickup vs. Fishman
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 02:40:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article aamv8t$mh$<1@news...>, Rich Kelley at <rkelley@vcd...>
wrote on 4/30/02 1:36 PM:
> I'm surprised that there hasn't been more (any really) responses
> to this, so I'll chime in.
>
> I have a K&K on both a Martin D18GE and a Collings OM2C. I have
> a Taylor with a Fishman. The K&K's are definitely better. Less
> quack, a much more natural sound. This is just the contact pu alone,
> no internal mic.
>
> It's a fine solution for playing live. However, I would never record
> with it except as an effect. IMO, any half decent acoustic guitar
> will sound better through an SM57/Mackie than it would through even
> the best pickup. Use a decent small diaphram condenser and play
> with the postion a little and you should have very nice results.
>
> The K&K was also nice on the Martin because it has a through saddle.
> I sincerely hope that Martin used that style of saddle for a sonic
> reason and not for the vintage look. I do worry about changing the
> action in the future.
>
> Rich Kelley
>
>
> Glen Eric (<strum4u@msn...>) wrote:
> : Jeff,
>
> : Aren't you spoiled by the sound of the K & K compared to the Fishman?
> : I realize you have two different guitars employing these two brands of
> : pickups, but from the comparison I heard of the Fishman Matrix vs. a K
> : & K, both in the same model guitar(Tacoma)as heard on K & K's demo cd,
> : the K & K seemed to sound so much more natural, more musical, and less
> : "stringy" and "quacky" than the Fishman.
>
> : Let us know of your findings as you spend more time playing live, and
> : recording with the K&K equipped Taylor you have.
>
> : Keep strummin'
>
> : Glen Eric
> : (strum4u)
The K&K is a great pickup. Don't let its relative obscurity fool you.Having sampled just about all tht's out there (except some new B-Band
items), I chose the K&K (along with a Joe Mills mike). Nonetheless, even
with a Dadeleus system and fairly high end DAW, the K&K plus Joe Mills
combination pales in comparison to two high quality external mikes.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Glen Eric <strum4u@msn...>
Subject: Re: K & K pickup vs. Fishman
Date: 2 May 2002 02:06:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Thanks for the responses, guys. I will likely purchase the K & K
Trinity system
for an old '66 Guild D-40 in which I want to install as little baggage
as possible inside the guitar, and I like the fact that this setup is
free of any internal preamp or pesky battery, the latter of which
would require routine changing.
I just ordered a B-band 1470 AST with A-2 preamp, and that will go in
a 1978 Guild D-50. It will be interesting to compare the two
different companies pickups. I'm sure I will be happy with both, as
they are considered among the best of the current crop of soundboard
transducers.
I'll post my findings as soon as both guitars are equipped with their
respective systems.
Keep strummin'
Glen Eric
STRUM4
Stephen Boyke <<sdelsolray@attbi...>> wrote in message news:<B8F4A5C3.3413E%<sdelsolray@attbi...>>...
> in article aamv8t$mh$<1@news...>, Rich Kelley at <rkelley@vcd...>
> wrote on 4/30/02 1:36 PM:
>
> > I'm surprised that there hasn't been more (any really) responses
> > to this, so I'll chime in.
> >
> > I have a K&K on both a Martin D18GE and a Collings OM2C. I have
> > a Taylor with a Fishman. The K&K's are definitely better. Less
> > quack, a much more natural sound. This is just the contact pu alone,
> > no internal mic.
> >
> > It's a fine solution for playing live. However, I would never record
> > with it except as an effect. IMO, any half decent acoustic guitar
> > will sound better through an SM57/Mackie than it would through even
> > the best pickup. Use a decent small diaphram condenser and play
> > with the postion a little and you should have very nice results.
> >
> > The K&K was also nice on the Martin because it has a through saddle.
> > I sincerely hope that Martin used that style of saddle for a sonic
> > reason and not for the vintage look. I do worry about changing the
> > action in the future.
> >
> > Rich Kelley
> >
> >
> > Glen Eric (<strum4u@msn...>) wrote:
> > : Jeff,
>
> > : Aren't you spoiled by the sound of the K & K compared to the Fishman?
> > : I realize you have two different guitars employing these two brands of
> > : pickups, but from the comparison I heard of the Fishman Matrix vs. a K
> > : & K, both in the same model guitar(Tacoma)as heard on K & K's demo cd,
> > : the K & K seemed to sound so much more natural, more musical, and less
> > : "stringy" and "quacky" than the Fishman.
>
> > : Let us know of your findings as you spend more time playing live, and
> > : recording with the K&K equipped Taylor you have.
>
> > : Keep strummin'
>
> > : Glen Eric
> > : (strum4u)
>
> The K&K is a great pickup. Don't let its relative obscurity fool you.
> Having sampled just about all tht's out there (except some new B-Band
> items), I chose the K&K (along with a Joe Mills mike). Nonetheless, even
> with a Dadeleus system and fairly high end DAW, the K&K plus Joe Mills
> combination pales in comparison to two high quality external mikes.
| AKG vs Joe Mills [13] |
|---|
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:03:45 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Anybody care to give their opinions on the relative merits? I've heard that
the Mills is extremely sensitive to placement and is a real PITA to install
while the AKG is over double the cost. I have my PUTW #27 in hand and am
waiting to get the mic to install them all at once. This going into the new
Larrive and will be run through an AP13.
JD
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:33:56 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020428144934.29236.00005040@mb-mu...>...
(snip)
> You're combining witha PUTW 27???
You're the second person to express surprise at this. Since I'm running a 2
channel pre-amp (Rane AP13) that's designed to blend a mic and a piezo, by
my logic it followed that a PUTW in the piezo channel and a Joe Mills or AKG
in the other channel would be just the ticket. Am I missing something here?
JD
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:47:17 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <Ea3z8.164986$<XV5.15492778@bin4...>>, JD
Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
> "AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20020428144934.29236.00005040@mb-mu...>...
> (snip)
>
> > You're combining witha PUTW 27???
>
> You're the second person to express surprise at this. Since I'm running a 2
> channel pre-amp (Rane AP13) that's designed to blend a mic and a piezo, by
> my logic it followed that a PUTW in the piezo channel and a Joe Mills or AKG
> in the other channel would be just the ticket. Am I missing something here?
>
> JD
Well, ahem, yes.
The basic rule when combining two separate systems in a guitar are to
pick two that have different strengths. A saddle piezo and a piezo
soundboard element are two very different sounding pick-ups, with very
different strengths and weaknesses. For some reason you have lumped
them together in the same "category," which is not exactly the right
approach....here's some quick rule of thumb commentary, distilled from
a much lengthier post:
Good bass response:
A) magnetic pick-ups (electric sounding highs)
B) Piezo saddle elements (for piezos, quacky highs. For B-Band, a
non-piezo element, pretty darned good everywhere. I haven't tested
Enke's new Air Core saddle element.)
Good treble/woody response:
C) SBTs in general (but tend to feedback on the bass side, not so with
the 1470 AST I am using)
D) Internal mic (always will have problems with feedback on the bass
response, even the Mills, which is the best mic I have tested/used)
So if you combine one from each category, and work the EQ to reduce the
weaknesses on each, you can get a great sound. A + C, or B + D, for
example. But combining any Mic with most SBTs reinforces the
difficulties on the bass side....just like combining a piezo saddle
element with a Magnetic pick-up would give you a headache on the treble
side.
Now, this isn't to say that some folks don't get reasonably good sound
when combining systems that are incompatible in the way I have
described. All things being equal (which they never are), one should
be able to get a better sound by following these guidelines, however.
My opinions.
Hope this gives you something to chew on.
My worries about all of this are over, but I've been yapping enough
around here about MY gear on other threads. Use what works.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:26:18 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
JD Blackwell wrote:
>
> Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
Nope! 8-)
Well, I'll well in a little. I just haven't had the luck with PUTW
that other folks here say they've had. The problems I had with it
are somewhat similar to problems I'd have using an internal mic
as a single source, so my reaction is a bit along the lines of
Andy's in thinking the tones are somewhat redundant. But it's
not really the same as an internal mic, so they're not really
redundant. I think you'll have to be our guinea pig!
Good luck,
Tom
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:05:06 +0930
>>
>Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
>
>JD
>
That's something that I'd be interested in too. My most successful
recordings have used the #27 and a Senheiser E845, but I'd like to use
an internal mic.
Michael B
From: <SPAMNOTdunwell.guitar@dorje...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: 1 May 2002 14:24:07 GMT
Organization: Dunwell Guitar
In article <<p78tcu01cc7frd8vjrlrku1tjuq5mq16id@4ax...>>, <rockon02@senet...> writes:
> >>
> >Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
> >
> >JD
> >
> That's something that I'd be interested in too. My most successful
> recordings have used the #27 and a Senheiser E845, but I'd like to use
> an internal mic.
> Michael B
I'm currently using a thin film from MSI that is similar to but not as good as David's PUTW units and I have it matched with a Joe Mills through an UltraJack. I like the blend of the two, they both give slightly different tonality and I find that about 2/3 thin film and 1/3 JM works well in the Padauk dred that I have. They tend to lie closer together that, say, an undersaddle and mic since they both tend to be somewhat warmer than the usual US which deliver a brighter tonality.
FWIW,
Alan D.
Dunwell Guitar
1891 CR 68-J, MSR
Nederland, Co. 80466
<dunwell.guitar@dorje...>
http://www.peaknet.org/webpages/dunwell/
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 20:34:37 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
> <<SPAMNOTdunwell.guitar@dorje...>> wrote in message
> news:aaotq7$fjf$<1@peabody...>...
> > I'm currently using a thin film from MSI that is similar to but not as
> good as David's PUTW units and I have it matched with a Joe Mills through an
> UltraJack. I like the blend of the two, they both give slightly different
> tonality and I find that about 2/3 thin film and 1/3 JM works well in the
> Padauk dred that I have. They tend to lie closer together that, say, an
> undersaddle and mic since they both tend to be somewhat warmer than the
> usual US which deliver a brighter tonality.
JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg.net> wrote:>
> That's kind of how I have it pictured. There may not be as much difference
> between the PUTW and the JM but at least I'll be mixing 2 sources that sound
> good instead of using a mic to cover the nasty sound of a UST.
>
> JD
>
JD,
I think we'll all be interested in the outcome. Knowing how good the
individual components that you have chosen sound, I suspect that what
you end up with will be satisfying to you.....just as Alan reports with
his SBT/Mills combo.
It won't take into account the commonalities that each piece presents,
however, and this is also something that Alan mentions.
There is a large difference between covering up a nasty sound, and
using synergy to go beyond what the individual components might present
as limitations. Blending two signals that each have something positive
about them can be somewhat of an art, and the outcome can be
significantly greater than what appears to be the inevitable sum of the
parts, especially greater when those parts are being examined
individually....and while I mention this as an "art," well, it's not
really all that difficult to achieve.
I hope what you purchase and install works very well, of course. The
lines are a bit blurrier today than where they were as little as 2
years ago, especially with the improved SBTs that several companies are
now making. This allows for mixing and matching (if necessary) with
pieces that would formerly reinforce a negative sound in a way that
would be quite unacceptable. The combo of an SBT w/Mic is still not
the way (IMO) to get an optimal sound, but one can probably get a
pretty darned good sound, again, relying on the quality of the
individual components, even without being able to consider working
synergistically with strengths to go beyond what appears possible.....
...now I sound like I'm from Boulder, however....8-)
We'll be waiting for the report.....I do hope you end up with a great
sound.
--
Larry Pattis Apprentice to the Zen Cowboy (for this one post, anyway)
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:22:34 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <PN1A8.23380$<mF4.18524@nwrddc01...>>, Steve Hawkins
<<res0pf02@verizon...>> wrote:
>
> I'll be exploring the UST/AST combo with the A2 preamp. I'd like to have a
> blender and EQ unit next to me. The problem is that all the blenders assume
> the second source is a condenser mic. Any ideas?
>
> Steve Hawkins
Steve,
This is somewhat correct, but in my discussion with Steve Rabe (Raven
Labs) he clearly stated that his PMB-1 unit would be perfect for the
B-Band AST/UST combination. The B-Band A2 internal pre-amp has the AST
going to the "tip" (normally where the saddle element would go), with
the UST on the "ring," normally where the Mic signal would go, BTW.
This is because the B-band folks believe that the AST will be most
folks choice for their "main signal," so if you had a "blender" failure
at a gig, a mono cable into a DI would still get you the primary (AST)
signal.
I tested my OM28V that has the ASAT/UST combo with my PMB-1, and Steve
was right, it worked perfectly fine. These were on-stage sound-check
tests, during the first three big shows on the recent tour, with full
PA systems in place. It worked great, in fact. Listening to both
signals individually as well as blended gave a very good sound, even
individually out of the Mic side of the PMB-1, which was dealing with
the UST signal. I did decide from these three experiences that I
actually preferred the AST sound solo, but that doesn't mean it will be
what you prefer!
I suspect that you would therefore be able to use this set-up with any
of the "blender" units, Fishman, Rane AP-13, Pendulum, even the little
Baggs belt-clip Mixpro.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:32:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <010520022122346962%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>, Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>In article <PN1A8.23380$<mF4.18524@nwrddc01...>>, Steve Hawkins
><<res0pf02@verizon...>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll be exploring the UST/AST combo with the A2 preamp. I'd like to have a
>> blender and EQ unit next to me. The problem is that all the blenders assume
>> the second source is a condenser mic. Any ideas?
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>
>
>Steve,
>
>This is somewhat correct, but in my discussion with Steve Rabe (Raven
>Labs) he clearly stated that his PMB-1 unit would be perfect for the
>B-Band AST/UST combination. The B-Band A2 internal pre-amp has the AST
>going to the "tip" (normally where the saddle element would go), with
>the UST on the "ring," normally where the Mic signal would go, BTW.
>This is because the B-band folks believe that the AST will be most
>folks choice for their "main signal," so if you had a "blender" failure
>at a gig, a mono cable into a DI would still get you the primary (AST)
>signal.
>
>I tested my OM28V that has the ASAT/UST combo with my PMB-1, and Steve
>was right, it worked perfectly fine. These were on-stage sound-check
>tests, during the first three big shows on the recent tour, with full
>PA systems in place. It worked great, in fact. Listening to both
>signals individually as well as blended gave a very good sound, even
>individually out of the Mic side of the PMB-1, which was dealing with
>the UST signal. I did decide from these three experiences that I
>actually preferred the AST sound solo, but that doesn't mean it will be
>what you prefer!
>
>I suspect that you would therefore be able to use this set-up with any
>of the "blender" units, Fishman, Rane AP-13, Pendulum, even the little
>Baggs belt-clip Mixpro.
>
Thanks Larry! I'll give it a try. I've been very impressed with the AST I
put in my McCollum. Pekka demo'd the UST/AST combo for me and I liked the
extra dimension the UST added to the sound. I've also been impressed with the
Raven gear I've seen and heard.
Do feel the EQ on the PMB-1 provides enough control to tailor your sound?
Have tried their True Blue EQ unit?
Steve Hawkins
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:32:55 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
JD Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
> >
> FWIW, I've found that the Mills/PUTW combination isn't untrod ground. I've
> found a half dozen or so players who use it in their guitars, notably
> Stephen Bennet and Marc O'Connor. Both use a Pendulum pre-amp. I don't feel
> like such a guinea pig now. The trick at this point is to actually find this
> mythic mic. No luck contacting him yet.
>
> JD
>
>
JD,
I just hope it ends up being a sound that YOU like, and can work with.
Joe is indeed a tough guy to get a hold of, not a real "public" person.
Tom Middlen that owns my old shop, Local Music in SLC, might have a
Mills or two on hand. He had at one point continued the retail
relationship I had started with Joe, although I don't know if he is
curently a retailer.
Hey, come to think of it, I might have a used Mills mic somewhere
around here....want it? You could test it with the PUTW and report
back to us....
I greatly appreciate your restraint in posting on this topic, JD, since
I have been challenging your precepts....maybe we've both turned into
"gentlemen" or something....8-)
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 03:55:01 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Larry Pattis" <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote in message
news:010520022132554329%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>...
> JD Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
>
> > >
> > FWIW, I've found that the Mills/PUTW combination isn't untrod ground.
I've
> > found a half dozen or so players who use it in their guitars, notably
> > Stephen Bennet and Marc O'Connor. Both use a Pendulum pre-amp. I don't
feel
> > like such a guinea pig now. The trick at this point is to actually find
this
> > mythic mic. No luck contacting him yet.
> >
> > JD
> >
> >
>
>
> JD,
>
> I just hope it ends up being a sound that YOU like, and can work with.
>
> Joe is indeed a tough guy to get a hold of, not a real "public" person.
> Tom Middlen that owns my old shop, Local Music in SLC, might have a
> Mills or two on hand. He had at one point continued the retail
> relationship I had started with Joe, although I don't know if he is
> curently a retailer.
>
> Hey, come to think of it, I might have a used Mills mic somewhere
> around here....want it? You could test it with the PUTW and report
> back to us....
>
> I greatly appreciate your restraint in posting on this topic, JD, since
> I have been challenging your precepts....maybe we've both turned into
> "gentlemen" or something....8-)
>
I think I'll get a sound that will work for me both amplified and unplugged.
I tend to be a bit doctrinaire regarding non-tone materials in the vibration
chain and I'm convinced that UST's do nothing to enhance a guitar's acoustic
sound. If you have a used Mills around, I would be happy to buy it from you.
Otherwise, I'll call Local Music. Our local dealer dropped Mills when
Highlander came up with their own mic, plus he considers AKG to be superior.
I had no complaints with my AKG but it was $100 more than a Mills. As for
restraint, getting a good amplified sound isn't an absolute science and many
people get great results with a variety of gear combinations that wouldn't
be my first choice. In the end, it's not worth a pissing contest as long as
it works.
JD (gentleman?!?)
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 03:59:05 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020501235324.11139.00007081@mb-ca...>...
> << FWIW, I've found that the Mills/PUTW combination isn't untrod ground.
I've
> found a half dozen or so players who use it in their guitars, notably
> Stephen Bennet and Marc O'Connor. >>
>
>
> O'Connor has a PUTW/Mills in his guitar?
Yes. He plays a small jumbo Heiden cutaway.
JD
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 12:24:33 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Andy-
AMost2001 wrote:
>
> The last info I received I understand that the
> A2 out ......TRS is UST-tip, AST-ring...........has this changed or is
> something that can be switched with a DIP switch or something?
The A2 literature says the tip channel is for UST or AST, and the
ring channel is for AST or mic or mag pickup. Ch 2 (ring) has
a somewhat lower input impedance than Ch 1 (20 Meg vs. 50 Meg),
and that may be why they don't recommend the UST on ch. 2---some of
the low end may be lost because of the lower impedance. Ch 2 also
has 6dB more gain (though I think a dip switch can cut this to
resemble ch 2). There are some dip-controlled filter options that
differ between Ch. 1 and Ch. 2, but I have never used these on any
B-Band preamps. The bottom line thus appears to be that the ring
channel is not optimal for a UST, but it might be fine, especially
if your other source provides a good low end (as the AST does).
It would be nice if someone actually tried it, though! 8-)
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Hats off to David Enke & PUTW! [9] |
|---|
From: Phil Robinson <philroy1234@yahoo...>
Subject: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: 29 Apr 2002 11:28:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi all -
I won't go into all the details, but I just wanted to take an
opportunity to praise David Enke and his company Pick-Up The World
here in a public forum where he is well known and respected. And I
hope I don't embarass him too much!
Over the past couple of weeks, David has shown me the most excellent
display of customer service that I could have imagined. In addition,
it was under circumstances where he was in no way obligated to do so,
but he did it anyway, which speaks volumes about his character and
integrity. It's obvious that he believes in his products and wants his
customers to be completely satisfied with the experience of using a
PUTW. If only every company was as pleasurable to work with. So,
thanks David! My hats off to you!
OK, I sound like a gushing school girl. And I haven't even installed
my PUTW #27 yet! :)
-- phil --
From: Matt Hayden <matthayden@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:50:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Phil,
That's how David & Annie work. They display an astonishingly
high level of customer service and personal integrity. I've dealt
with them a couple of times and they've been great each time.
In this day and age, that's an accomplishment.
It's a plus that their pickups sound so good, because dealing with
PUTW is a pleasure.
mh
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: Stephen <underwoodskee@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: 29 Apr 2002 16:15:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Matt Hayden" <<matthayden@hotmail...>> wrote in message news:<<6d4d9557ada75a2008a4ec70f6dd683f.26622@mygate...>>...
> Phil,
>
> That's how David & Annie work. They display an astonishingly
> high level of customer service and personal integrity. I've dealt
> with them a couple of times and they've been great each time.
>
> In this day and age, that's an accomplishment.
>
> It's a plus that their pickups sound so good, because dealing with
> PUTW is a pleasure.
>
> mh
I will have to agree with you all. I recently had one of the PUTW
Aircore pickups go completely dead. I called David on a Wed. afternoon
he sent a replacement pickup out Thursday and I had it by Friday. The
next day I had it installed in time for the gig on Saturday night.
Thanks again David for going that extra mile. BTW the pickup sounds
great!!
Stephen
From: Cor & Helma <vaessen1@worldonline...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:31:21 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Benelux
Hi,
I,m agree.
I live in Holland and ordered a putw#27
It had a hum in it and they send me another right away.
Another #27 had come loose from the copper shield and they will replaced
this one also.
great family, great sevice, nice people!!
Cor
Phil Robinson <<philroy1234@yahoo...>> schreef in berichtnieuws
<73bfbd76.0204291028.3d30e56d@posting...>...
> Hi all -
>
> I won't go into all the details, but I just wanted to take an
> opportunity to praise David Enke and his company Pick-Up The World
> here in a public forum where he is well known and respected. And I
> hope I don't embarass him too much!
>
> Over the past couple of weeks, David has shown me the most excellent
> display of customer service that I could have imagined. In addition,
> it was under circumstances where he was in no way obligated to do so,
> but he did it anyway, which speaks volumes about his character and
> integrity. It's obvious that he believes in his products and wants his
> customers to be completely satisfied with the experience of using a
> PUTW. If only every company was as pleasurable to work with. So,
> thanks David! My hats off to you!
>
> OK, I sound like a gushing school girl. And I haven't even installed
> my PUTW #27 yet! :)
>
> -- phil --
From: gorblimey <persistent_offender@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:59:24 +0100
Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder)
Cor & Helma <<vaessen1@worldonline...>> wrote in message
news:aalrjh$im0$<1@reader1...>...
> Hi,
> I,m agree.
> I live in Holland and ordered a putw#27
> It had a hum in it and they send me another right away.
> Another #27 had come loose from the copper shield and they will replaced
> this one also.
> great family, great sevice, nice people!!
From the tone of all these testimonials I'm beginning to wonder if Pick up
the Putz have a few quality control issues....
P :-)
From: Doc West <docwest@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:35:56 -0400
Organization: Bellsouth.Net
gorblimey <<persistent_offender@yahoo...>> wrote:
> From the tone of all these testimonials I'm beginning to wonder if Pick up
> the Putz have a few quality control issues....
As near as I can tell, PUTW was sent some bad film early on. They got
stuck with somebody else's quality control problem. This is an all too
common problem in this modern world, even for huge companies like
Gibson/Norlin.
What's different with PUTW is that Mr. Enke is going to unusual lengths
to make sure his customers don't get left holding the bag.
From: rtmca <rtmca@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: 1 May 2002 05:33:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message news:<aam9vv$bs5ea$<1@ID-76024...>>...
> Doc West wrote:
> > Mr. Enke is going to unusual lengths
> > to make sure his customers don't get
> > left holding the bag.
>
> Now if I could get him to quit
> eating so much cow butt...
>
> lump
Maybe I shouldn't post this but the fingers are typing so I will let
them:
Becasue I do not read the PUTW threads, I don;t know waht I'm talking
about here, but I will say why I've never read them--
I find it suspect and off putting when an active particpant in RMMGA
is also sellinhg guitar products, not matter how good they may be or
no matter how sincere. It goes back to my two semesters in a
fraternity in college in 1967-68 (before I wised up to the
riduluousness of living in Animal House). The adult "advisor" was a
really nice guy who did lots of nice stuff for us. Near the end of my
tenure there he approached me to sell me life insurance. To this day
I am convinced the real reason he was helping out was to make life
long sales contacts. (It could be argued of course, that he was just
being a good businessman, or even that he was sincerely interested in
us but was also
trying to sell us).
It left me very wary. This was not meant to offend, but to finally
give expression to my wariness. No matter how innocent, or wonderful,
or helpful, or friendly, I am wary of dual motives.
Robert McArthur
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:59:19 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Robert,
I appreciate what you are saying, and am not going to try to alter your
thinking at all. I think we all have suffered from people with dubious
business motives at some time or another, and my hope is to offer people the
respect of having their own free will and not be hornshwaggled by anyone. I
have many reasons for participating here, and the biggest one by far is that
I enjoy the social community and the sharing of ideas and music. I live in a
small, rural community, and RMMGA brings a much broader slice of life into
my life then what I could ever find locally.
As for business, it is something I am learning about all the time. I have
made numerous blundering mistakes while trying to find the balance point
between simply sharing information and feeding my kids. I can not say I am
above financial motives, because we all live in a financial world. What I
can say is, I have had some money in the past, and it did not give me any
real satisfaction.
There are many people who offer information here because they find pleasure
in helping people. This community is comprised of people from all walks of
life, and I'm certainly not the only one who has had business come my way as
a result of being here.
If my technical background can assist someone in getting the performance
they need from a competitor's equipment, that feels just as good to me as if
they find it with ours. If someone is having technical problems, the first
choice is to help them fix it rather than take advantage of the situation by
selling them something else. Despite the fact that I am a manufacturer, I
think we are surrounded by so much material stuff already, most of us are
litterally swimming in it.
We are complicated and multi-faceted individuals, and if my presence here
ever seems to be out of balance in favor of my personal economic needs, I'd
want to be confronted about it.
I think people are assisted by knowing about new products so they can make
more informed choices about what is available for them. I have appreciated
learning about new amplifier products, capos, strings, concerts, tours,
instruments for sale, CD's, guitar polishes, and other items here, but I
respect that at the same time this is not a commercial forum. I think there
is a nice balance these days, but it is a fine line we all walk, and the
forum needs to be monitored by people such as yourself so it can continue to
maintain its usefulness for people.
In all respect,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"rtmca" <<rtmca@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<12847b5c.0205010433.443d4577@posting...>...
> "Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message
news:<aam9vv$bs5ea$<1@ID-76024...>>...
> > Doc West wrote:
> > > Mr. Enke is going to unusual lengths
> > > to make sure his customers don't get
> > > left holding the bag.
> >
> > Now if I could get him to quit
> > eating so much cow butt...
> >
> > lump
>
> Maybe I shouldn't post this but the fingers are typing so I will let
> them:
> Becasue I do not read the PUTW threads, I don;t know waht I'm talking
> about here, but I will say why I've never read them--
> I find it suspect and off putting when an active particpant in RMMGA
> is also sellinhg guitar products, not matter how good they may be or
> no matter how sincere. It goes back to my two semesters in a
> fraternity in college in 1967-68 (before I wised up to the
> riduluousness of living in Animal House). The adult "advisor" was a
> really nice guy who did lots of nice stuff for us. Near the end of my
> tenure there he approached me to sell me life insurance. To this day
> I am convinced the real reason he was helping out was to make life
> long sales contacts. (It could be argued of course, that he was just
> being a good businessman, or even that he was sincerely interested in
> us but was also
> trying to sell us).
> It left me very wary. This was not meant to offend, but to finally
> give expression to my wariness. No matter how innocent, or wonderful,
> or helpful, or friendly, I am wary of dual motives.
> Robert McArthur
From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hats off to David Enke & PUTW!
Date: 01 May 2002 17:40:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Robert,
I would like to check in on the issue of glad handing to create a sale. As a
muanufacturer and someone who knows David well, I would not put David in any
category other than someone who is selling a product he believes in. He is
also someone who has an intense desire to do the right thing by his customers.
This approach is one that you can feel good about at the end of the day. It
sure takes a lot longer to grow your business but in the long run it is what
will make your business be successful.
The Doc
| Know a Reliable B-Band Dealer? [4] |
|---|
From: Tim Berens <timb@erinet...>
Subject: Know a Reliable B-Band Dealer?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:55:24 GMT
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
Greetings, all.
I wish to purchase a B-Band pickup, and there are no dealers in my
area. Does anyone know of a good web or mail-order dealer for B-Band?
I am located in the U.S.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim Berens
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
No banner ads. All content, all the time
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Know a Reliable B-Band Dealer?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:14:08 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]Tim Berens <<timb@erinet...>> wrote:
> Greetings, all.
>
> I wish to purchase a B-Band pickup, and there are no dealers in my
> area. Does anyone know of a good web or mail-order dealer for B-Band?
> I am located in the U.S.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> Tim Berens
> http://timberens.com
> A Website for Guitarists
> Learn something...Have some fun
> No banner ads. All content, all the time
First Quality Musical Supply
Tony Rairden
800-635-2021
http://www.fqms.com
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: Know a Reliable B-Band Dealer?
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 14:18:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <3ccf2f12$0$3570$<4c5ecdc7@news...>>, <timb@erinet...> (Tim Berens) wrote:
>Greetings, all.
>
>I wish to purchase a B-Band pickup, and there are no dealers in my
>area. Does anyone know of a good web or mail-order dealer for B-Band?
>I am located in the U.S.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>Tim Berens
>http://timberens.com
>A Website for Guitarists
>Learn something...Have some fun
>No banner ads. All content, all the time
>
www.samusic.com
www.fqms.com
Steve Hawkins
From: Pekka Rintala <pekka@b-bandusa...>
Subject: Re: Know a Reliable B-Band Dealer?
Date: 1 May 2002 12:40:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote in message news:<<20020501102904.19111.00007072@mb-fm...>>...
> >www.samusic.com
> >
> >www.fqms.com
> >
> >Steve Hawkins
>
> While we're at it, anybody got Pekka's email address?
>
> Mitch
Hello Mitch,
here it is:
<pekka@b-bandusa...>
Both of above mentioned dealers are great. You can find all the B-Band
dealers in us in this address:
http://www.b-band.com/new/dealers.shtml
Pekka
| HELP finding METAL PICK UPS. [3] |
|---|
From: Intuition22 <intuition22@aol...>
Subject: HELP finding METAL PICK UPS.
Date: 01 May 2002 02:58:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
NEED HELP finding METAL PICK UPS.
I'm looking to buy a small round pick-up in a metal casing, to replace one that
I have had a real long time, only i don't know who made it or where to get a
NEW one.
The metal casing allows for alot of high end . . .and that's what I'm after.
And the small size is perfect for my non conventional usues for it. ( a long
story don't ask . .lol).
if you know of a manufacturer or better yet a retailer . . . PLEASE take a
second to drop me a private e-mail. it would help me out alot.
thanks in advance
-tom
<intuition22@aol...>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: HELP finding METAL PICK UPS.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 06:58:14 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Tom,
I am interested in your uses for it, but if the story's too long, that's
o.k. I haven't seen any metal cased pickups like you describe in a long
time, but I do have the active elements to build something of the sort, or
send the parts so you can build it yourself. The disks I have are 3/4"
diameter, but they can also be found in 1/2".
I think that more of the high frequency exaggeration comes from driving the
pickup into a low impedance device then it does from the mass or stiffness
of the casing, but I might be wrong about your experience with them.
Generally, any high impedance transducer, whether ceramic disk, chip, or
polymer film will exhibit the qualities you're looking for if plugged into a
low impedance device. Ceramic piezo materials have more of a hard, cutting
quality of sound, and most pickup companies that still use them offset this
by damping them with something soft (like rubber) or semi-flexible epoxy.
I also have some really nice 1/4" square by 1/32" thick bimorph ceramic
chips that make great sensors if you don't mind having a little bit of the
brittleness and metallic sound that is common to ceramic piezo devices. I
used to sandwich these between thin layers of spruce, and they made pretty
convincing pickups.
I'm happy to help if I can.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"Intuition22" <<intuition22@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020430225855.02910.00009549@mb-ba...>...
> NEED HELP finding METAL PICK UPS.
>
> I'm looking to buy a small round pick-up in a metal casing, to replace one
that
> I have had a real long time, only i don't know who made it or where to get
a
> NEW one.
>
> The metal casing allows for alot of high end . . .and that's what I'm
after.
> And the small size is perfect for my non conventional usues for it. ( a
long
> story don't ask . .lol).
>
> if you know of a manufacturer or better yet a retailer . . . PLEASE take a
> second to drop me a private e-mail. it would help me out alot.
>
> thanks in advance
>
> -tom
> <intuition22@aol...>
From: Matt Hayden <matthayden@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: HELP finding METAL PICK UPS.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:55:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
What about the lipstick-tube pickups that Danelectro uses?
They're small, round, metal-cased, and might meet our poster's needs...
Stew-Mac has 'em, I think. They work great in Strats.
mh
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
| PUTW in Santa Cruz OM/PW [10] |
|---|
From: John Youngblood <jyoungblood@attbi...>
Subject: PUTW in Santa Cruz OM/PW
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 19:36:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
--------------661E94B5E9406211689D292D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Like many, I've started playing a lot more fingerstyle in a solomode and am getting out in public a little more and wanted an outfit
that was focussed on that usage. I've been getting by on a 1-11/16th
neck larrivee OM and was happy with that for what was invested, but I
had a couple of opportunities to compare the OM/PW to some others and
came to the conclusion that it was a great user guitar with a nice
quality to price ratio. I found a good one lightly used. The tone is
delicate yet punchy, and the feel is very much like a prewar Martin OM.
I did a lot of reading of past posts about pickups and decided tostart with the PUTW as a minimally intrusive and occasionally highly
favorably reviewed option. I did see Loredo's posts and others. My
experience was nothing like his, however, as I was able to get a very
satisfactory positioning of the pickup after my third try. The position
used was the 2nd one proposed in the manual, for "medium braced"
guitars. This Santa Cruz is lightly braced but with a boomier side that
didn't need the bass emphasizing no. 1 position, apparently. With
respect to the bracing, with a mirror inside looking up it looks like a
vaulted church inside with all of the brace scalloping. Very clean
workmanship in there, I might add.
I just directly compared this PUTW against my Baggs Dual Source andB-Band UST (in other guitars), and I would have to say that the PUTW
easily had the more pleasing and realistic sound. The comparison was
made using a Baggs PADI run through a Behringer mixer and headphones.
The balance of tone and warmth were two things that were immediately
noticeable improvements. The woody sound others have described was very
noticeable.
On the downside, there is something about the attack of the notesthat gives a different feel when playing. Its kind of delayed and fat,
not immediate and clicky like a piezo. I wasn't sure I liked it at first
but the feel is growing on me after a week of use. I would be interested
to hear how dual sourcing the ast and ust would effect that
characteristic and haven't ruled it out at some point. A big plus,
however, in the present setup is that there's no battery inside the
guitar and I like that quite a bit for simplicity's sake. No hums or
other noise is evident through the earphones using a good 8 ft. cable.
I found that others experiences were very helpful in makingdecisions so I'm posting this to add mine to the record...
-- John Youngblood
Youngblood Photography Website
--------------661E94B5E9406211689D292D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Like many, I've started playing a lot more fingerstyle in a solo mode and am getting out in public a little more and wanted an outfit that was focussed on that usage. I've been getting by on a 1-11/16th neck larrivee OM and was happy with that for what was invested, but I had a couple of opportunities to compare the OM/PW to some others and came to the conclusion that it was a great user guitar with a nice quality to price ratio. I found a good one lightly used. The tone is delicate yet punchy, and the feel is very much like a prewar Martin OM.
I did a lot of reading of past posts about pickups and decided to start with the PUTW as a minimally intrusive and occasionally highly favorably reviewed option. I did see Loredo's posts and others. My experience was nothing like his, however, as I was able to get a very satisfactory positioning of the pickup after my third try. The position used was the 2nd one proposed in the manual, for "medium braced" guitars. This Santa Cruz is lightly braced but with a boomier side that didn't need the bass emphasizing no. 1 position, apparently. With respect to the bracing, with a mirror inside looking up it looks like a vaulted church inside with all of the brace scalloping. Very clean workmanship in there, I might add.
I just directly compared this PUTW against my Baggs Dual Source and B-Band UST (in other guitars), and I would have to say that the PUTW easily had the more pleasing and realistic sound. The comparison was made using a Baggs PADI run through a Behringer mixer and headphones. The balance of tone and warmth were two things that were immediately noticeable improvements. The woody sound others have described was very noticeable.
On the downside, there is something about the attack of the notes that gives a different feel when playing. Its kind of delayed and fat, not immediate and clicky like a piezo. I wasn't sure I liked it at first but the feel is growing on me after a week of use. I would be interested to hear how dual sourcing the ast and ust would effect that characteristic and haven't ruled it out at some point. A big plus, however, in the present setup is that there's no battery inside the guitar and I like that quite a bit for simplicity's sake. No hums or other noise is evident through the earphones using a good 8 ft. cable.
I found that others experiences were very helpful in making decisions so I'm posting this to add mine to the record...
-- John Youngblood
