You who know of pickups and related electronics

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 27 Mar 2005 10:25 am

Since I own a steel guitar I spend a considerable amount of time fumbling with the amps EQ settings... and I think I am not the only one.

I have come to believe that the problem is that we want to EQ 10, 12 or 14 strings with gauges ranging between o.o11 to almost o.o80 and the sound of 5 octaves, pickt up by ONE device (Pu) and sent into ONE EQ-amp.
If one doesn't like shrill sounding high strings, one cuts some of the treble and looses all livelyness of your bottom strings (call it mudd up the whole thing). To get so called "bottom" is not an issue anymore... today's amps have more bottom than one could ever want.

So my idea and thus question to you who know of Pu's, impedance and all the related electronics:
I am wondering if a guitar could have a pu for, let's say strings 1 to 4 and with it's tone and volume control and an other for stings 5 to 10, again with it's tone and volume control attached to it. could these two pre-eq'ed signals then be led into one output (your regular cable jack) to be send for final global EQ'ing in (one) the amp, so that the separate pre-eq'ing would not be lost by some blend effect?
Would an irregular number of poles, windings or wire length create some imparity of some sort? Whats important?
Would it create impedance problems?
Would it create single coil / humbucker problems?

If it can be done, with a good result, can you build it, in other words, who can? (I would be interested in a version with 3 stages/pickup parts with tone and volume control on each for a 12 string).

Thanks! ... J-D.
[This message was edited by J D Sauser on 27 March 2005 at 10:32 AM.]

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 27 Mar 2005 11:29 am

JD, forgive the shameless self-promotion here, but many have found that the answer to keeping the low strings bright and clear and at the same time keeping the high, unwound strings warm and smooth is thru the use of tubes. Tube amps do this automatically. Purely transistor rigs seem to posess this dilemma of not being able to balance these factors out. Whether it's a tube buffer (Black Box) or a good tube preamp or tube amp, the solution is instant. IMHO

Brad Sarno www.steelguitarblackbox.com
[This message was edited by Brad Sarno on 27 March 2005 at 11:30 AM.]

John Daugherty · Post by **John Daugherty** » 27 Mar 2005 12:41 pm

JD, I do not have a problem with string balance. I am quite happy with the sound I get from my Nashville 400 or 112. These amps have a shift control in the EQ circuit that can be adjusted to get a very satisfactory balance. Many steelers use these amps and are happy with the sound. It all boils down to personal preference.

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 28 Mar 2005 2:32 am

Thanks Brad. I do use tube amps... a prewar (WWII) Rickenbacher, a wartime Rickenbacher, a 50's Oahu, A BF Fender Twin... the only solid state is a Sho-Bud X-mas tree amp... and that one beats the Fender in warmth. But you are right, but even so, I want more control over it.

Thanks to you too, John. I used Peavey amps. The shift control works as all EQ controls on an amp... it affects the sound to all the strings at once, just moving the center point at which the +- control acts. Every strings has lower and higher frequencies (harmonic and noises, buzzes and so forth). And additionally, midshift or not, when I cut trelbes I don't only cut them on the high string but on all strings, which I don't want.

I want to push the mids on my high strings and cut their highs. I don't record in Nashville, so I am at liberty to do that

... if I only could, technically.

Try this: play your three strings form the high E on down on your C6th, now work your EQ settings on your amp until you get, for the examples sakes, a fat vintage Bigsby sound... warm midrangy, somewhat pushed (allmost overdriven) sound. Once you got that, play the other strings and you'll get my point.

... J-D.
[This message was edited by J D Sauser on 28 March 2005 at 02:37 AM.]

rpetersen · Post by **rpetersen** » 28 Mar 2005 5:11 am

I'm with you on this JD - I play a 12 string which is probably worse - I went to a TT pickup and that helped considerably, but I'm still thinking even a split, or 2 pickups would be of great help. - I have a new guitar on the way and I am going to try stainless strings - I hear they are brighter and since they are on the wound strings only, it might help the lower end brightness without having the high strings biting at your ear!!

------------------
Ron Petersen &
The Keep'n Tyme Band
Mullen Universal 12 - 1975 Session 400 - Nashville 1000

[This message was edited by rpetersen on 28 March 2005 at 05:12 AM.]

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 28 Mar 2005 10:09 am

JD,
The Jim Pitman pickups have adjustable pole pieces that help balance output level. There are 2 rows of pole pieces so you should be able to balance the tone depending on how you set them. I just like how they sound.

------------------
Bob
intonation help

Bill R. Baker · Post by **Bill R. Baker** » 28 Mar 2005 10:52 am

Bob, how do we contact Jim Pittman?
Thanks. Bill

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 28 Mar 2005 10:55 am

Jim Pitman

jaspit@aol.com

Jennings Ward · Post by **Jennings Ward** » 28 Mar 2005 1:02 pm

DONT KNOW IF THIS WILL HELP YOU,, BUT I USE A PEAVEY 31 BAND EQ BETWEEN MY GUITAR AND AMP... WORKS FOR ME.... I HAVE MORE " TONE " CONTROL,,,, pROCESS SIGNAL BEFORE IT GETS INTO THE PRE AMP.... JENNINGS......

------------------
EMMONS D10 10-10 profex 2 deltafex ne1000 pv1000, pv 31 bd eq, +

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 28 Mar 2005 1:03 pm

Imagine you had a pickup for every single string, each one leading into one output and into one amp. You would set EG for each string completely differently. You can try this... just set optimal Eg for a particular string... then for an other and see how different you settings are.
I know that in the 70's or so a guy in Northern Europe played a 10 string into 10 amps... that's a bit an overkill but I think that the idea behind all that was just that.
R. Petersen, I can relate.. my pedal steels were U12 too... on non-pedal y mostly play 10 string now, but I want to go to a 12 string too. On a S12, three segments would be optimal, IMO (high, midrange and bass strings).

... J-D.

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 28 Mar 2005 1:57 pm

Imagine you had a pickup for every single string, each one leading into one output and into one amp

Jason Lollar's 7 String X

------------------

Aiello's House of Gauss


My wife and I don't think alike. She donates money to the homeless and I donate money to the topless! ... R. Dangerfield

Billy Gambrell · Post by **Billy Gambrell** » 28 Mar 2005 8:25 pm

JD-Anything can be made-Duane Marrs told me he has installed 2 pickups on one neck on a few guitars and the owners loved them-thats why regular guitars have 2 to 3 pickups-why not a steel? I always thought it was a cool idea to get that (in between) Strat sound on a Steel, kinda like Mark Knophler meets Lloyd Green!

------------------

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 28 Mar 2005 11:19 pm

That you can wind individual bobbins is clear to me.
That you can run them each thru an individual line into an individual amp for each, is clear too (it was meant as an example. I don't really want to use 12 amps! I eventually want 3 partial pu's separately tone altered to go into one amp).

I think my questions boils down to:
What happens when the, by tone control altered signals of individual bobbins, coils or groups thereof (call them separate pu's, if you want) meet before going into one amp?
Does it alter the previous individual tone alteration?
Does it create interferences.
Does it create loss of tone and/or output?

... and so forth.

Thanks! ... J-D.
PS: Rick, I was hoping for a post form you, just that I was looking forward to more

.
And if it had horseshoes arround it, I'd like it even better. ... J-D.

... J-D.

Rainer Hackstaette · Post by **Rainer Hackstaette** » 29 Mar 2005 3:18 am

JD, if I remember correctly, the first Emmons PP guitars had a stereo pickup. The idea was relatively shortlived as the result wasn't worth the hassle. But that was 40 years ago and technology has advanced quite a bit.

For the best results, the tone control of individual strings or groups of strings would have to be active. Passive EQ can only cut certain frequencies, not boost them.

The ultimate scenario would be individual pickups for each string, going through a small multicore cable into a 24-channel mixing board (e.g. a Mackie, enough for a D-12) with 2 parametric mids, bass and treble tone controls, then stereo out to the vol pedal and into a stereo amp. With the aux inserts of the board you could assign different effects to individual strings, or different amounts of reverb/delay. Total tone control!

The downside is, the more control knobs you have, the easier it is to fabricate a totally crappy sound - the "mixerman syndrome".

------------------
Remington D-10 8+7, Sierra Crown D-10 gearless 8+8, Sierra Session S-14 gearless 8+5, '77 Emmons D-10 8+4, '70 Emmons D-10 8+4, '69 Emmons S-10 6+5, Fender Artist D-10 8+4, '73 Sho~Bud LDG 3+4, Peavey Session 400 LTD, Peavey Vegas 400, Line 6 Variax 700

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 29 Mar 2005 4:14 am

Rick, I was hoping for a post form you, just that I was looking forward to more

Sorry ...

... I just make magnet assemblies and pour hot metal ...

I'm sure Jason Lollar can answer the questions you pose ... with his personal experiences with the 7 string X , 7 string Split and Double Wound pickups.

He doesn't get over here much ... but if you give him a holler at info@lollarguitars.com ... I'm sure he will be happy to answer your questions.

------------------

Aiello's House of Gauss


My wife and I don't think alike. She donates money to the homeless and I donate money to the topless! ... R. Dangerfield

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 29 Mar 2005 2:18 pm

For the best results, the tone control of individual strings or groups of strings would have to be active. Passive EQ can only cut certain frequencies, not boost them.

Yes! I've said it here 50 times...still no one listens. For "ultimate" tone control, you MUST have an active graphic equilizer!!!

Nothing else... not tone stacks, not "tilt" controls, not even parametric whatzits, gives you the complete control that an active graphic equalizer does!

That's why every recording studio on the face of the earth has one!

It may interest you to know that your guitar will do tones and sounds you can't even imagine, that you can't even dream of. But without an active graphic equalizer, you will NEVER hear them.

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 7 Apr 2005 2:47 am

Thanks for all the replies.
Sadly, so far nobody has realy answered the actual question.
I just e-mailed Duncan and TrueTone PU's... I hope they will be abld to explain.

... J-D.

Chip Fossa · Post by **Chip Fossa** » 7 Apr 2005 4:10 am

I'm with Jennings on this, too.

I use a Peavey Q1311 31-band graphic equalizer thru a "modded" Vegas 400 w/15"BW,
and I get all the tone control, along with the stock amp settings, that I could possibly want. Great sound as far as I'm concerned.

Donny, is this Q1311 an 'active' equalizer?

I can + or - all 31 settings individually.

cf

Ken Fox · Post by **Ken Fox** » 7 Apr 2005 5:32 am

All this makes me want to experiment a bit. The Bassfex, which is a Profex 2 in disquise has a bi-amp output capability, probably due to a function of the firmware chip itself. Why not just split at some given frequency and use two amps or two seperate channels on an an that has both channels in phase? The reason I mention that is that any Fender two channel amp with reverb had the two channels out of phase.

Even the old Session 500 had a built in variable crossover, making it easy to do the same. Have any of you guys ever tried that with a Session 500 and a seperate amp?

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 7 Apr 2005 10:32 am

To try to answer your question directly, I have no doubt one could do this, although I don't know of anybody who does. A Fender P-Bass pickup (of the '57 and beyond variety) has different sensing units for the top two and bottom two strings, but simply links the two up as a humbucker. This approach was also used on the Z-pickup, again by Leo Fender, for G&L, they are also humbucking and really have lots of top-end sizzle like a Tele. I think they sound real good, and I think the approach of linking separate pickup sections together is good, although not new.

You might want to check this link for the Charlie Hunter model by Novax: http://www.novaxguitars.com/Pages/Sales_CH8_frame.html. Charley is probably the pre-eminent jazz guitar/bass player, his guitar has 8 strings, the top 5 sensed by conventional guitar pickups, and the bottom 3 sensed by completely different bass pickups. The output is stereo, and he runs the guitar signal to one amp, the bass signal to another. He's unbelievable and makes this work beautifully. But I have trouble imagining his approach working without biamping - he approaches both groups of strings completely differently.

You specify separate EQ for each of 3 pickup segments. I don't see any real problem with electronics. Probably the most versatile would be something like Parker's active on-board mixing system to allow routing to either separate outputs or to a mixed mono output, with full volume/tone control for each pickup segment. Parker applies this to distinct all-string electric and acoustic pickups. I used one of these for a while, the system worked well. 

If I wanted to try this, I'd probably try a custom pickup winder like you're suggesting. I might be inclined to add Bill Lawrence and Lindy Fralin to your list of people to talk to. I'd just set it up initially for 3 outputs and run them into a small Behringer or Mackie mixer to run experiments on. If it worked, then maybe I'd consider making a custom on-board mixer.

All this said, I think most people (including me) don't want this level of complexity. But I have thought of this type of approach for my new (to me) Sierra 14-string, which goes down to low bass-guitar E. I don't know of any source for stock 14-string pickups, so I'd probably have to get anything wound special anyway. Why not 3 separate sections? Stereo guitars have come in fads for a long time, think of the older Gibson ES-355, Rickenbacker "Rick-O-Sound" guitars, and the Parker Fly. It's tough to get the different sounds to blend well when switching, and that might be the main issue here. I wouldn't want the character to completely change when switching from one group of strings to another, I'm not Charlie Hunter. I think your idea of mixing into one amp makes sense, that might help with the rough transitions, not to mention the logistical hassle of bi- or tri-amping. But the point of many of these posts is that there are much simpler outboard ways to deal with the problem of wide frequency range.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 7 Apr 2005 11:51 am

I think that if more people would invest a few smackers in an even semi-decent 15 or 31 band graphic equalizer, a whole lot of them would run out of tone problems to complain about. If you want more of a certain frequency, you turn it up. If you want less, you turn it down. What is there to be confused about?

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 7 Apr 2005 12:10 pm

Donny wrote:

"Yes! I've said it here 50 times...still no one listens. For "ultimate" tone control, you MUST have an active graphic equilizer!!!

Nothing else... not tone stacks, not "tilt" controls, not even parametric whatzits, gives you the complete control that an active graphic equalizer does!

That's why every recording studio on the face of the earth has one!"

I regularly haunt about 15 studios here and in Nashville, ranging from ultra high end to midline, and there is not a graphic equalizer to be found in any of their racks... I own a couple, but they have not seen the light of day in a long time. Lots of parametrics, which always work for me if any serious carving is needed...

I think the graphic can be a very powerful tool, but it's not seen as often as you think.

(PS--How's Baltimore these days?)[This message was edited by John Macy on 07 April 2005 at 01:20 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 7 Apr 2005 12:50 pm

Hummph, no kidding John? Not even a software version of a GE?

I knew there was a reason for all this monotone bullcrap we're hearing on the radio today!

Now I know why!

But, on to serious things...

One simple answer to J.D.'s dilemma would be to use a 12-string pickup on a 10-string guitar, and then just angle the pickup so that the treble strings would be picked up further from the bridge. This would allow you to fatten up the treble side and leave the bass strings pretty much as-is, or even vice-versa, if you care to.

p.s. John, Baltimore's pretty much a drag nowadays. Our only claim to fame is having the highest murder rate in the country right now.

(Oh for the good ol' days when we had ITI studios and George Massenberg.) [This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 07 April 2005 at 01:55 PM.]

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 7 Apr 2005 1:24 pm

One of the studios I worked in during the late 70's had a pair of ITI parametrics that sounded reaaal good... Seems I remember a Massenburg paper about why he did not like graphics--I'll try and find it (or it good be aging memory fooling me

).

There are some software graphics out there, but I seldom see anyone use them. I found graphics were great in learning about frequencies, but I still go to the parametrics for fixes, and more broadband eq's like Neve's for most things.

Hopefully the Maryland crab makes up for the murder rate...

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 7 Apr 2005 1:49 pm

One reason a lot of engineers don't like graphic EQs is that they tend to raise the noise floor. Each band's preamp is a separate parallel noise source, all summed together at the output. I'm not arguing against them, they can be very useful, IMO. But I'd also argue that they are not a panacea. I think it's better to not have to radically EQ out of every problem. Ultimately, I'd also rather have my guitar naturally sound pretty close to the way it should right out of the output jack.