Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pickups' started by Antigua, Dec 9, 2017.
Yep. That pretty well nails it!
I mean your goal in general. Why are you constantly posting pickup threads, appearing in every pickup discussion on the internet, asking for specs on PAFs and other pickups from others, collecting all the pickup information you can, ruthlessly defending your loosely founded claims to a fault (rather than exploring other possibilities through open minded discussions), baiting those who present contradictory information into argument, and, most importantly, spreading doubt about the ethics and intentions of numerous established professionals in this industry?
...and, interestingly, all the while funding a not-inexpensive and failing court case against DiMarzio. Which, I might add, may have been successful if the "expert witness" was someone with more knowledge on the subject and a plan of attack based in actual legal precedence. Court records make it look as if that case was handled similar to your threads.
So what is your goal regarding pickups and these threads, Antigua? The time and money you put into the subject shows that casual internet interest as a hobby is obviously not it.
Of course not.
He's a "man with a plan" with love for trolling and attention whoring.
Posts like this should really be sent via the private messaging feature of the forum.
Why? I have nothing to hide. What do you have to hide?
Your post is off topic, and personal in nature.
I could just keep repeating it. I could start a new thread with it. Makes no difference. You've similarly questioned the motivation of others in this thread. Now, I'm returning the same favor to you.
Antigua, what is your goal regarding pickups and these threads? The time and money you put into the subject shows that casual internet interest as a hobby is obviously not it.
Keeping people from spreading misinformation is by definition never off topic......in fact mis-informing people itself is 'off topic' as education is the goal of forums.
There is no misinformation here.
Let's be honest for a minute, I've said in the past that I believe that much of what you think is true and real about the function of a guitar pickup owes to psychological suggestion and psychoacoustic effects, because having studied the physics of guitar pickups, I see no fact based, or physics based justification for those claims, and people who are emotionally invested in the craft of making pickups, or just buying them, take great offense to the notion that what they believe to be true and real, is actually a trick of the mind. Nobody likes to be told, in effect, that they're imagining things, but that's the conclusion I'm left with.
Antigua, what is your goal regarding pickups and these threads?
Oh, man. When I cited that quote from the CIA handbook, I didn't really thought about being actually true, but damn! Cooljuk nailed it to the plank!
It must be chill for the emperor now that's been established that he has no clothes... but an agenda.
In a perfect world, pickup makers would also list wire guage, turn counts and inductance values of their products, so that consumers can better correlate what they hear with these values. The guitar speaker manufacturers such as JBL, Jensen, Eminence and Celestion among others list twenty to thirty different specifications per speaker they offer. Pickup winders offer about two: magnet type and DC resistance, if we're lucky. To make matters worse, I frequently see claims made about pickups that are not supported by known physics. There's a celebration of ignorance when it comes to guitar pickups, and I'll be honest, it bothers me quite a bit. My agenda is simply to replace this alchemy we're suffering with now with actual facts and science, that's why this thread is here.
I still don’t see how objective Science could cooperate with polemical goals, which make suspect experimental results.
[EDIT – IOW, if an observer just wants to deny, he won't search if "another method" leading to a positive answer could be applied. What is evoked here is not a suspicion of falsified data, but the fact that choosing a testing method is already conditioning the results to come and always risks to be caused by presuppositions that it will finally confirm. See the definition of “observer effect” when it comes to tests and the notion of “hermeneutic circle” when it comes to generate and interpret experimental data.]
Especially when these results are obtained through respectable but subjective experiments, done AFAIK in a total solitude, with a relatively cheap testing rig, on the basis of a largely self taught and (admittedly) still partial knowledge.
[EDIT – in the previous messages of this thread, I’ve said to be “appreciative” in front of tests qualified as “respectable”… Therefore, the accusation of elitism below is not justified. The remark just above was only underlining the risks of solitude as generating self enforcing thoughts, against the self criticism required by any sane experimental epistemology.]
It’s interesting to notice how “physics as [Individual X] perceives it” becomes “known physics”: individual interpretation seems to be confused with objective reality, without epistemological distance.
Furthermore, I see an unexpressed premise behind: putting existing scientific names on things would be the only way to valid their existence.
That's not exactly what I'd call Science. If it was the case, we'd have nothing new to discover scientifically and Scientists wouldn't put new hypothesis with new terms on their last experimental findings.
[EDIT – it doesn’t mean that musicians perceive things that Science has not yet explained but that a really objective Science would ALSO search how to measure the differences perceived. The idea of aural illusion is a simplistic self fulfilling certitude based on a caricature of human psychology and, as such, is itself potentially illusory.]
What I see at work here is rather a form of magical thought, as involved in alchemy.
“Abracadabra” is just replaced with words like “magnetic reluctance”… "If I can name something, it exists"! And reciprocally: "If I can't projet the content of my mind on something, it doesn"t exist", which presupposes that my mind contains the key of all existing things in the domain contemplated . Science as unseen new magic...
The overall project seems to remain the same than with sorcerers: gaining an almighty control on material things and people thanks to symbolical figures and cryptic words...
The same initiatory journey could be much more pleasing and instructive for everybody once purgated of its emotionally rooted irrational dimensions, IMHO.
It's very, very, very simple: you document and disclose your methodology and make it available for peer review.
And I don't think I need to tell you how elitist a person comes off for criticizing autodidacts. Is that your bias? Do you refuse to consider information gathered by self taught individuals?
Your assertion here, from what I can tell, is that guitarists could be perceiving something that science hasn't discovered yet. The thing about it is, the burden of proof would be on guitarists to establish that they actually heard something distinct from known scientific discovery. This gets back to the "hearing = speculation" a few posts back. The fact that someone thinks they heard something doesn't mean they did. We don't know that they have, for a fact, observed something that science missed. There is no documented trail to substantiate what you think you hear, simply by virtue of you thinking you heard it.
You mean in YOUR perfect world...?
In reality, after exposing your pseudo-techno-babble about a p'up to a stoic interested party, whenever the poor soul confronts you with the dreaded question "but how does it sound"?, you present this time graphs, plus force him/her down the troat a lot of big words that not only don't answer that simple question in any way, but leave the person alienated to no end, with even more doubts than before, and more times than not, feeling like an idiot. You REALLY should be in a sales team! (I think your life expectation in such an enviroment could be measured im miliseconds, before getting lynched by the sales team leader and all the other members)
You mean the physics YOU know... or think you know, when you actually don't.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
- Donald Rumsfeld
I don't think that's actually true. See, as you don't need to know how the whole digestive process works to enjoy a good meal, a guitar player doesn't need to know quantum physics to be able to get good tone. He/she only needs to HEAR what's coming out of the rig, and if that's of his/hers liking or not. That's how it works, plain and simple. Musicians USE THEIR EARS. Something you try oh so hard to make believe otherwise, as it serves your biased, little narrative.
One thing is what you say you do, and another thing is what you actually do. Which is actually NOT what you say it is. And thank you for actually admitting to have an agenda. That was actually a whole lot of actuallys!
They exist, I have some. They make a Strat bridge sound a lot like a Firebird pickup. Have not bothered with A8 rods in neck or bridge because the Strat-itis would be hell. Or so I assume. Maybe on a slow day (if it ever comes), I should give it a try...
The live version is killer...
WHY? ....Pickup winders battle daily with customers mind cramping questions .that love how a Duncan JB sounds split Yet they don't like the sound of the JB in full HB MODE & want that in a paf style pickup . So Antigua answer this question in 24 hours .
Referring back to what I said in your quote above, it doesn't seem to be a problem for guitar speaker companies, and to be honest, a paper cone pushing air is a lot more complicated than guitar pickups, because in addition to electromagnetic considerations, you've got various mechanical impedances to factor in as well. We all know customers are going to ask difficult questions regardless of whether the specs are out there or not, but for those who are inclined to learn about what they mean, they're very helpful.