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 www.steelguitarblackbox.com

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

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.]

------------------
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
intonation help

quote:

---

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

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.

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

"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.]

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.]

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.

Donny, the Pu slanting idea is something I have considered. Funny is that most guitars and even early steels had backwards slanted PU's... I've allways asked my self "why"?

Please don't be offended if I say this:
I appreciate all the GraphEQ talk but it does not in anyway answer the particular question nor offer cure to the problem I described.
A GraphEQ (active or not) will affect the whole global input fed into it... Believe it or not, even a bass string has high frequencies and any type of control (Eg: cutting) will affect these as much (and probably more noticiably) than the high frequencies of a treble string. If I'd enhance mids on such a device, to sweeten up my treble strings... I'd mud up every thing bellow. That's why we tend to cut mids in a general EQ-ing.

What I want is to be able to pre-EQ (at least somewhat) certain string groups (I want to cut highs on my thin strings and emphasize them on my thick strings, selectively) and my question is a technical one as to how these bobins would have to be designed and later (after the pre-EQ'ing) run together, into one output so that the whole effect is not lost, altered or any other missmatches of impedance or winding numbers or what ever are created.

Thanks! ... J-D.

[This message was edited by J D Sauser on 08 April 2005 at 10:44 AM.]