Talk:Humbucker/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Untitled

Someone should chnage the picture to a guitar with only humbuckers.. as not to confuse people.. i dont know how to do this. ciao

Agreed. — Omegatron 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A schematic diagram would be nice - 2010-08-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.175.240 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sound

I believe the reason why the sound of a humbucker is "darker" compared to a "single coil" pickup is due to the decrease in resonant frequency caused by the doubling of the number of loops (and therefore impedence) of the device. The offset off the coils causes no electrical cancellation of the signal. --Eraticus 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true. The slight offset of the coils means that some higher frequency harmonics (any that have nodes directly in between the two coils) will be picked up by one coil as an inverted form of what is picked up by the other, and so they will be cancelled out along with the hum. Because the position of the nodes will change according to what fret you are playing on, which harmonics are cancelled will also change as you move around the neck, but they will tend to be the higher harmonics, because these have more nodes. This effect is not a big one, but because of it's different shape, and extra coil, a humbucker will always pick up slightly different harmonics to a single coil in the same position, and sometimes they will cancel.

This article contradicts itself with respect to the sound. Sorry I can't contribute more. 65.4.78.117 03:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence I have seen leads me to believe that both changes in impedance and the offset between coils are very important contributers to the sound of humbuckers. I have modeled pickups in PSPICE and the resonant frequency and Q changes quite dramatically when two pickups are placed in series (as well as parallel). Regarding the effect of the offset of the coils I've come across a web site with some excellent info:

http://www.till.com/articles/PickupResponse/index.html http://www.till.com/articles/PickupMixing/index.html

OscarBoy74 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This needs more technical details. Need to say how the magnets are opposite and the coils are opposite so the external magnetic fields are cancelled out but the fields caused by the strings moving through the magnets are the same polarity and sum, etc. Needs the opposite of {{technical}}

http://www.musicoff.com/lezioni_images/humbs.gif — Omegatron 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That image is on the right track, too bad it's in Italian! I agree that this article lacks technical detail. I also agree with the claim (disagree with Eraticus above) that the difference in tone between the humbucker and the single-coil is attributable to phase cancellation affecting the high-frequency response of the pickup, not the low-pass filter effect created by the higher impedance of two coils. We need a good source on this topic. Anyone? Steve carlson 07:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, the offset of the coils will cause some cancellation which will have an effect on the sound. If you get any sound at all with an out of phase switch that just proves it, contrary to what is stated in the "Sound" section. Any sound which you have with the two coils out of phase is sound you wouldn't have in the final signal due to common mode rejection. That said, phase switches are generally used between separate pickups, and not coils within a humbucker.

The increased impedance will have an effect on the sound as well. The two effects aren't exclusive. --Nwimpney (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi folks-just some input from a guitarist of 30 years who regularly uses both fender single-coil and les paul humbucking guitars-both live and in the studio. It's VERY difficult to convey the sound of a guitar through words or technical data.It would blow your minds the number of different ways I've heard tones described over the years. It might be useful to those who turn to wiki for an understanding of the sonic difference between the two different pickup types, to upload short MP3's of each guitar's "native" clean tones, i.e. the three switch positions on a les paul without any distortion or reverb, etc. One studio engineer may refer to a particular tone as "warm and fat" when referring to a les paul, whilst another engineer may refer to the exact same tone as "glassy and round". I often have to play the same short passage with different tones to hone in on what the client is listening for....just my two cents, adjusted for inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.145.191 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All good comments. Consider that there is no single factor which is by itself responsible for the tone of a pickup. The inductance (and therefore the impedance) of a pickup certainly affects the frequency response. And, the relative phase of the signal at each frequency from the two coils determines whether the resultant superposed signals will add constructively or destructively. Some frequencies will add, some will subtract, and the rest will be somewhere in between. Relative phase also affects transient response owing to the fact that attack and decay can each have a unique harmonic structure. If frequencies which are prominent during the attack portion of the note happen to cancel, then the pickup may give the impression of having less attack and a smoother or darker response. musant (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Invented where?

Please see http://www.vintageguitar.com/brands/details.asp?ID=46 for a discussion of a pickup design by Stimson and Tutmarc that was sold by Stimson to Dobro for it's All-Electric. To quote: "Experience Music Project [in Seattle] has this second version All-Electric in its collection, and the slanted split-polepiece magnetic pickup corresponds with the patent application filed January 19, 1934, as do all the Audiovox Hawaiian guitars and the bass. This pickup is similar to the George Beauchamp Electro/Rickenbacher string-driven horseshoe pickup in many respects, but does not extend over the strings, making it the first of what would become the standard style for Spanish guitars, being entirely under the strings. It also has twin coils (bass side/treble side) wired in series, each with its own blade-style polepiece attached to an opposite end (polarity) of the horseshoe magnet."

"Assuming the coils were reverse-wound (why else would they bother with two), you have the first humbucking pickup for a guitar, as seen on split-pickup P-basses (the theory behind hum cancellation was well-established by the mid ’30s)."

This is from the mid '30s and would certainly call into question the claim above that the humbucker was invented in the '50s at Gibson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.230.236.8 (talk • contribs) .

I moved this from the section below because I should have put it in this section. The location of the edit button was confusing. I have also added an update.

I found a reference, right here on Wikipedia, under Kay guitars which states that Kay, under the Kamico brand name, sold a guitar with a humbucking pickup YEARS before Gibson. I have found a link to such a guitar from the late 1940's which you can all see for yourself. http://www.kokomomusic.com/pages/guitars/kay_kamico_40s.html Clearly, a guitar from the 1940's with a humbucking pickup shoots holes in the theory that they were invented in the 1950's at Gibson. Edit: I am now the owner of the guitar pictured at the preceding link and I can tell you that it absolutely is noiseless and predates the filing of the Seth Lover patent therefore the patent should be null and void due to prior art and the article should be updated to show that it was not invented by Seth Lover or Gibson.

The article doesn't say it was invented by Seth Lover. It says the humbucker he invented was the PAF humbucker, but that the original humbucker was invented elsewhere in 1934. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Try again. It says the "humbucking coil" was invented in 1934 for PA equipment. The first actual humbucking guitar pickup mentioned in the article is the 1955 PAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.126.47 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kinman advertising

It looks like user from IP 61.69.161.243 has blatantly inserted lots of Kinman single coil pickups advertising here and there around the article on 2006-06-07. Shall we do something about it? --GreyCat 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see how removing it can be justified, the technology was invented by Kinman and is as unique as described and it has direct relevance to existing section "other noise reduction attempts". Ought all references to Fender and Gibson companies be purged also? I should add that although I didn't have anything to do with content of this article I had a hand in writing a page on Kinman Guitar Electrix under category pickup manufacturers. But I agree that last sentence "No longer does the Strat player have to rely on positions 2 and 4 to be free of noise." Is a little too much like a sales pitch and will remove it. I think, but haven't the technical expertise to be sure, that Kinman products are some sort of dual coil arrangement, with one of the coils sensing the noise the other the signal. Richard

I would agree with the removal of the Kinman references, as they amount to ad copy, essentially. I've been involved with guitar electronics for a long time and although I haven't extensively studied pickups per se, Kinman is FAR from the household names that Gibson, Fender, Lollar, Lace, EMG, Duncan, Dimarzio etc are.

Individual brand does not matter. What matters that the pickups mentioned here are a good representative of what is usually used. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The 61.69 range of IP addresses is based in Australia where SUPRISE SUPRISE Kinman is also based. If the insertion of advertising persists I will recommend that IP range from being banned from editing this page. Please stop self-promoting so we can work toward making a useful Humbucker entry. Tremspeed 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed, but there is nothing wrong with putting it in so long as it is useful information and is not biased. Wikipedia is not a popularity-based encyclopedia - it is a knowledge-based encyclopedia, and so long as there is knowledge and relevance of it, it should be here. Of course, we should alter it (heavily if need be) to make it sound less like an advertisement, but it doesn't mean we have to remove it altogether. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But it reads as biased, sloppy ad copy, not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article or wikipedia in general. There's ALOT of minor contributions from various pickup makers that COULD be included- Seymour Duncan almost single handedly created the aftermarket pickup industry, EMG pioneered the use of active electronics, Gretsch had humbuckers on board pretty early with the Filtertrons- and best I recall NONE of that is mentioned thus far. Why such a push to mention one of the smaller p/u companies? Which isn't to say it shouldn't be- which is why I left a comment (curiously signed by GreyCat) that the whole article should be rewritten. But to have someone insert the name Kinman in this article amounts to nothing more advertising, Kinman is extremely marginal. I'd be pretty suprised, for instance, if the entry for Guitar Amplifier mentioned Engl. No matter how awesome Engl products might be. And you bet, if someone kept writing about Engl's 'patented innovations in the work of a new kind of high-gain amplifier' ETC ETC readers would be on the ball enough to take it out. ESPECIALLY if Fender, Marshall, Mesa did not have elaborate sections detailing their much less marginal contributions ahead of time. Thats just an example, read the entry on guitar amps for a good example of a well-written article that is general enough to contain useful information about a product CATEGORY with no part reading like an ad.

If one in ten guitarists had Kinman pickups, if one in ten guitarists had HEARD of Kinman, I'd have no problem with it being in there, there'd be no debate. As it stands, Kinman has yet to reinvent the pickup. They're one of a few dozen boutique companies essentially mining the same territory. I have no objection to a Kinman article being created and linked- appropriately- from a more general, less biased, less manufacturer hyping Humbucker article. As this article stands now the references don't belong there. Tremspeed 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit cheeky "In 1996, Kinman Guitar Electrix introduced replacement pickups for Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars. These were of the stacked humbucker design, where the lower pickup coil functions solely to cancel hum." I've got a 1980s DiMarzio stacked humbucker in my Tele. Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

Article should probably be rewritten- too many minor edits have been made to support the obviously infringing advertising aspects. The reader is also left thinking humbuckers are purely a noise-reduction technology, and not an aesthetic choice also.

--GreyCat 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kinman cont'd

Before commencing I would like to state that I am not associated with Kinman products, I don't even live in the same country. I do own a single Kinman pickup, as well as Seymour Duncan products.

The category under discussion is "other noise reduction attempts" and should Kinman pickups warrant mention.

I believe the Kinman product fits the description of the section, it is a unique product (hence the patents). It is significantly different in design from a host of other stacked-pu designs.

I have reverted information that pertains to Kinman technology.

"Kinman Guitar Electrix developed a new generation of pickup in the 1990s. Designed to produce a noise free single coil like sound these pickups are based upon patented differential coil technology, in which one of the pickup coils functions solely as a noise sensing coil."

It is no more advertising than that of Fender, Lace, Gibson etc who are also freely mentioned in the article.

I am not responsible for any other mention of Kinman technology in this article, however I will defend this paragraph as being factual and of potential interest to those reading the article.

RichardJ Christie 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there've been a lot of noise about Kinman products lately. What is really needed is a good and clear article on Kinman, without lots of blatant "new generation", "never seen before", "noise free", "patented technology" wording, but with a clear explanation of what exactly is done in Kinman products (how that "differnetial coil" technology works), clean and neutral facts about pickups (i.e. SNR ratio measured, output, comparison to other products), explanation of both pros and cons (for example, to my best knowledge, Kinman pickups really cover only a small portion of tonal palette that modern guitarists use - specifically, only Strat-like guitars and sounds - one can't install Kinman on heavy guitars such as Les Paul to get that fat mahogany sound). Claims about how "revolutionary" Kinman is are cool, sure, but aren't really helpful in encyclopedia :( --GreyCat 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with GreyCat's comments. Can someone edit the article to reflect the use of marketing language. As a matter of comparison the edits (by GreyCat?) of the Kinman info on single-coil were well put. Original motivation for the invention of humbuckers is of interest also. Was that object only to produce a hum free version of single coil p'ups?. I suspect so, and therefore Kinman products are a direct continuation down that line of approach. However Seth Lover's contribution created many other sonic possibilities. RichardJ Christie 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter how novel a product, Kinman pickups are used by probably less than .5% of all guitarists. Create a seperate article for Kinman if its that relevant. I don't think it is. Tremspeed 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed, but there is nothing wrong with putting it in so long as it is useful information and is not biased. Wikipedia is not a popularity-based encyclopedia - it is a knowledge-based encyclopedia, and so long as there is knowledge and relevance of it, it should be here. It is relevant because it is a humbucker, and isn't that what this article is? Of course, we should alter it (heavily if need be) to make it sound less like an advertisement, but it doesn't mean we have to remove it altogether. Remember, if reality is based on popularity, we would be getting the "wikality" Stephen Colbert was talking about, where unpopular information is omitted while popular (even if untrue) information is written in. We aren't getting any of the latter scenario in the current issue we are discussing, but more of the latter. Wikipedia is clearly about citation and verification, not popularity and wants. We aren't here to give big companies bragging rights to be able to have their names on Wikipedia whereas smaller companies are limited in this simply because they aren't popular enough.
Now, I know nothing about this Kinman pickup, but essentially so long as it is a humbucker, it has a place here. However, if it is simply a modified single coil, it should be in the single coil article. If it bears some relation to humbuckers (but is not a humbucker), it can be briefly mentioned here but must have an article of its own. These are the parameters we should follow concerning this issue. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
User Tremspeed has again removed
"Kinman Guitar Electrix developed a new generation of pickup in the 1990s. Designed to produce a noise free single coil like sound these pickups are based upon patented differential coil technology, in which one of the pickup coils functions solely as a noise sensing coil."
What is the specific objection please?. Why have a section entitled "other noise reduction attempts" but only allow variations on same theme and not allow information on other genuine noise reduction attempts (and successes)? That attitude defies logic. Also just removing the two sentences is extremely unhelpful. If the objection is to specific wording then identify the words that cause offence and we'll work to amend them. This is ridiculous, it is only two sentences of information. If "new generation" offends then I suggest replacing "developed a new generation of pickup" with "engineered a new configuration of humbucking coil arrangement". Before replacing it I will however allow Tremspeed the opportunity to do so himself. RichardJ Christie 01:49 24 August 2006.


With all due respect Ariedartin, if you don't know what Humbuckers are about, you are not in a position to arbitrate whether a specific mention of a specific product should, or should not be included. Going by your logic, this Kinman pickup is not in keeping with the original humbucker patent as mentioned at the beginning of this article- it would NOT fall under the patent issed to Gibson/Seth Lover as it is a different design- thus, it's not a humbucker per se, as described in this article, rather it is a type of noise cancelling pickup that is related to a humbucker. I have never used a Kinman pickup and so I really have nothing against them, it's just that the people adding the references are either Kinman themselves or fanboys- either way, it's a biased addition, and it's not a position (re: Kinman pickups are innovative or a 'new generation' of pickup) that can be supported by references. I'd love to see references that cite them as such. Check out the history page on the entry for Single Coil pickups- it's the same thing, blatant entries for Kinman. They don't even make Single Coils. Extremely tacky. Tremspeed 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously, the only way please Tremspeed and to have a section about other noise reduction attempts without mentioning other noise reduction attempts is to delete the section altogether. I also think Tremspeed ought to reflect upon his comments in regard to 'fanboys' etc. RichardJ Christie 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Have restated Kinman info without the words "new generation". Have noted Tremspeed has been busy writing articles about Fender products. I couldn't possibly offer any comment on this. RichardJ Christie 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Tremspeed, I would very much appreciate it if you avoided the ad hominem attack on me. And to everyone, please stop judging one another by each other's "preferential patterns" and just look at the logic in the words. I earlier said that if Kinman's pickups are not true humbuckers, they are still related - as you have said so yourself and so should be given a brief and descriptive mention, but there will be no need to over-elaborate. I also recognise and reiterate that if there is biased text (such as saying that it is innovate, etc.), it should be edited to remove the biased slant, but not remove all of the content. And trust me, if Kinman's entries on Single-coil are advertising, I supposed the humbucker entry is advertising as well. I don't catch your logic where you say that Kinman must manufacture single-coils in order to have their concept displayed on Wikipedia. It is not about deserving its place here, its about whether it is relevant. And so far, it has about as much (or lack thereof) relevance to single coil as the humbucker. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I fail to see a distinction between 'relevant' and 'deserving mention.' Are they not the same thing? Nor do I see references that support Kinman being in this article. Oh and the implication that I'm biased toward Fender is pretty funny- I could say much worse about Fender than Kinman.

I was just attempting to work toward a coherent, non-biased Humbucking Pickup article. I won't compete with people bent on making this entry an advertisement. Tremspeed 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The final comment above is another in a string of comments that imply that I (mostly) am attempting to use Wiki as an advertising forum. I both resent and reject the implication. The author of the historical copy you mostly object to has abandoned, it appears, activity on the article. You have asked for cites as to the technology being novel, I suggest that is what patents are awarded for. Then the argument shifts to that of Kinman's pickups not being within S. Lover's patent - so making them too different for inclusion (which is it to be?) Also the non-argument in Wiki terms that the company that produces them is (currently) too small for mention (what size it should be?) or too few use the product (how about a figure that must be obtained in order to qualify).
The technology appears to be the successful application of magnetic shielding between two coils such that only one coil senses signal (hence the signal behaves as if produced by single coil) but without noise, this is due to the second coil being designed to pick up noise only and then cancelling it out in concert with the first coil in the usual humbucking fashion. This as far as I am aware is another noise reduction attempt, and its success is novel enough to warrant mention. The use of the words "patented" in the article are justified because without the term it would be legitimate for a reader to surmise that the technology isn't new and is therefore just company hype. RichardJ Christie 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Also some mention/comparison was made to Engl amplifiers. The comparison is invalid, if Engl has re-engineered and patented a new variety of vacuum tube and then used it a patented circuit the comparision might be valid, and yes they would certainly be entitled to a mention in any article despite their small volume of sales cf Fender etc. RichardJ Christie 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've re-phrased that paragraph once again - please check it out, I guess it's less emotional and more invinting to add other historical examples of noise reduction designs (I guess, at least active electronics and other patented (=innovational) things). --GreyCat 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
good call. Tremspeed 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Stacked pickups

STACKED PUPS - this section does need attn. The object of stacking isn't always to achieve separation between the coils as is implied. Many players use them simply as a conveniently sized humbuckers and are quite happy with the sound they make. The objective of separating the coil funtions may have been a design objective of some manufacturers but not necc. all. RichardJ Christie 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've separated these two purposes in sub-sections "stacked" and "strat-sized" pickups. "Stacked" are used mostly for their distinctive sound and "strat-sized" are any humbucker-like design that will fit as a replacement pickup in strat guitar. --GreyCat 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Good editing, many thanks. RichardJ Christie 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO Ariedartin is right to put cite tag in. Also is it justified to say all stacked pups have higher than average impedance? I had already moderated the previous claim that they had 'excessive' impedance to the current version, but remain unhappy - higher impedance than the average what? Certainly higher than single coil but I doubt higher than standard humbuckers. RichardJ Christie 11:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


"Phase Cancellation" vs. "Common-Mode Rejection"?

From a technical perspective, isn't the method that humbuckers use to cancel noise more appropriately referred to as Common-mode rejection instead of Phase cancellation? Phase cancellation is the phenomena that occurs by summing the signals from two coils that are at different positions on the string. Each captures a slightly different tonal image (and I suspect phasing, too), and when they are summed together, certain frequencies are emphasized and others de-emphasized. I've always been told that this is the fundamental reason that humbuckers aren't as bright as single-coils, because this effect is more pronounced in the higher frequencies, but this article disputes that. Would love to see a source to back that up. Steve carlson 06:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct and I'm in fact reading your comment because I saw the same gaping thing and so went to the talk page to see if anyone is discussing it. Will fix. 192.139.122.42 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Single Coil vs. Humbucker

I wondered whether anyone had found audio clips that would provide an example of the difference in tone/sound of single coil pickups compared to humbuckers? If anyone does I would like to know.

Nowiky (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Coil Splits

I removed a line: "The resultant single coil sound is not the same as a Fender single coil sound because the poles of the coil are made of steel and not of alnico, and the coil turns are significantly less than a Fender pickup (5,000 as distinct to 8,000 - this can vary depending on the type and brand of the humbucker)."

Clearly these two assumptions are not always true. Single coil or humbucking doesn't dictate what the poles are made of, nor the number of turns on the coil.

I expect that there probably is a tendency to wind each coil in a humbucker with slightly less turns to get a reasonably low impedance and not roll off the high frequencies too far. Anyone know? It might be worth mentioning as a possible difference in sound.

Also, there's mention of the magnetic circuit still being there, it might be good to add some information why this is relevant. Magnetic influence on the strings maybe? --Nwimpney (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other noise-reducing pickup designs

I removed the paragraphs about the Fender "Vintage Noiseless" and "Samarium Cobalt Noiseless" pickups. Unless there is some special design characteristic unmentioned in the article, these are just two more varieties of stacked humbuckers which don't do anything different to reduce noise, and aren't really relevant in this section.

I combined the bit about the Strat and the Jazz bass, since both are using the same approach.

I removed the comment about how it affects "tone". I think the "quack" tone mentioned is just a result of that combination of pickups, and not as a result of the hum cancelling configuration. The output should be virtually identical with 3 identical pickups in an unreversed config right? If I'm wrong, please add it back in but if possible please explain what actually causes the difference.

More technical details should be included on how the Lace Sensor, and Kinman pickups work. "proprietary hum screening technique" is marketing-speak. Anyone know how what they actually do? I think I gathered from some of the removed text that the Kinman pickups magnetically shield the bottom pickup. If someone could verify that, it would help explain how "only the upper pickup coil is able to sense the string vibrations."

Also, that Les Paul humbucker pic is nice, but that's a conventional humbucker. We should probably have something more relevant to this section. Perhaps a strat, J-bass, or any of the "Other noise-reducing" designs. --Nwimpney (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sound

The section reading......

"It is a common misconception that because the coils are at slightly different positions along the string some of the higher-frequency harmonics are diminished or cancelled out, thus producing this warmer sound. This is only true if the pickup's coils are in reversed phase, (i.e., a phase switch on Vol/tone).".....

....is completely incorrect. That IS the main reason for the lack of higher harmonics when compared to a single coil pickup. The section needs rewriting by someone who actually understands harmonic structures along a vibrating string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.117.239 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about Sound

So... why is it that humbuckers sound different when in different configurations. We don't have third party references, which means that anything could be correct. Let's get away from just stating opinions as fact and move toward quoting experts and authors who have stated their opinion. We'll stick with the older version until a version with references is put together. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's easy enough to test! Simply cover one set of pole pieces on a normal humbucker with a mumetal screen and listen to all the high harmonics suddenly reappear. It's not rocket science. Whoever keeps reverting the section back to maintain that the sound is predominantly because of the impedance simply doesn't know what he is talking about. If Wiki wishes to have incorrect information on its pages then so be it. Not my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.217.20 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
A test such as the one you describe would constitute original research. What we need is a reputable (peer-reviewed) third-party source that has conducted said test (or similar) that we can cite as a reference. This guy (not peer reviewed, but seemingly scientifically rigorous) claims that it is the difference in inductance between SC and HB's that account for the difference, which makes sense because it changes the resonant peak of the RLC filter created by the pickups, volume/tone pots, cable and amp input. But I also suspect there is some subtle phase-related interference going on, but that would be more pronounced at lower frequencies than high ones - still looking for a source on that. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What I am about to type will sound flippant but in reality it isn't. You will actually have to read it properly to get the gist. By the same token as what you say above, wheel also needs rewriting because it contains no peer reviewed research that the wheel even works. The reality is that the operation of the wheel is so blindingly obvious that no peer review is required. Anyone can test it, but by your definition that constitutes original research. In the same manner, it is blindingly obvious that the MAIN reason for the difference in sound between SC and HB is the cancellation of higher harmonics. If it really was due to the resonant peak then it would be a VERY simple matter to duplicate the sound of a HB with a SC or vice versa with tone controls. And clearly this isn't the case. Just read the above comments. It appears that only one person believes the resonant peak is the reason for the difference. Everyone else maintains it is phase cancellation. And yet somene keeps reverting the edit thus ensuring that the page contains incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.152.160 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We aren't debating any other article; we're talking about humbuckers. It doesn't matter how blindingly obvious something may be to you—because there was a mini revert war here, we are at the point where reliable sources are required to move forward. If you aren't an expert on the order of Les Paul or Leo Fender then you must find expert sources to back up your 'obvious' facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And by the same argument wheel needs rewriting because there are no peer reviewed articles confirming that it does indeed work. We might all be mistaken. Perhaps the wheel doesn't actually work or maybe not for the reason we all think (know)! In fact just about every article with obvious facts in it needs rewriting to include peer reviewed reasearch. Expain why the sound of a SC cannot ever be recreated with a HB by use of tone shaping circuits if the only difference is the frequency responce. You are the only one on this discussion page who thinks the frequency response is the reason for the difference in sound. It is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.152.160 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your continued reference to the Wheel article has nothing to do with humbuckers, and adds nothing to the discussion. A humbucking coil is much more complex than a wheel, and two coils in different parallel/series arrangements are even more so. This article must have an outside source for its assertions. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"This article must have an outside source for its assertions" - the exisitng section incorrectly maintaining the difference in sound is due to the resonant peak contains no references to outside sources so by your own rules it should be deleted. You have no consistency in your viewpoint. According to you all statements must have peer reviewed research or must reference outside sources of some other form except for the parts YOU think are correct which, according to you, are OK to remain in the article without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.77.104 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just an outside observer here--I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not trying to stop the correct reason from getting into the article, I'm just trying to make sure it is done with expert references. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"This is only true if the pickup's coils are in reversed phase" is incorrect. As someone else pointed out, any sound produced with the coils in reverse phase is sound that WON'T be there with the coils in normal phase. This is sound that has GONE. No amount of "resonant peak" tweaking can ever get this "cancelled out" sound back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.152.160 (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Reversing the phase of one of two perfectly identical signals adds to complete cancellation. Reversing the phase of one signal from two differently-placed pickups isn't the same thing at all... the two pickups are each getting slightly different harmonic content from the strings. The resulting out-of-phase addition will have the differences between the two signals highlighted. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I give in. You clearly do not understand the concept of complete or partial phase cancellation. It appears that you, and you alone, are responsible for this page containing technically incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.152.160 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This section does contain some information which is completely incorrect.

"It is a common misconception[who?] that because the coils are at slightly different positions along the string some of the higher-frequency harmonics are diminished or cancelled out"

It's not a misconception, It's a fact. If the pickups are spaced at a given distance, there's a frequency with a corresponding wavelength (we'll call it f). there will be constructive interference at frequencies of f, 2f, 3f, 4f, ..., because both coils will be aligned with the same part of the wave at any given time. At frequencies of .5f, 1.5f, 2.5f, 3.5f, 4.5f, ..., there will be total cancellation, because at any given time when one coil is detecting one part of the wave, the other is detecting the opposite. frequencies in between will vary (like a comb filter) A java applet which demonstrates this nicely is here: [1]

"The main reason humbuckers sound different is that the two coils resonate at different frequencies causing a broad resonant peak in frequency response"

This is also wrong. In most cases the two coils will have virtually identical inductance and resistance (and ideally capacitance), and in fact, this is required for best hum rejection. Their resonant frequencies will be identical. Some people do like the sound of a badly matched humbucker with uneven turns, as this will give a broader lower resonant peak at the expense of reduced common mode rejection, but this is certainly not the norm, and definitely not "The main reason humbuckers sound different".

"In fact, not all humbuckers have two separate full-size coils with two separate rows of magnetic pole pieces facing the strings; see the paragraphs below about "stacked" and "rail" designs. The "stack" and "rail" pickups can still produce the "warm" and "fat" tone"

This doesn't prove anything. there can be more than one contributing factor to fattness and warmth. Increased midrange resonance peak due to higher inductance, reduction in high frequencies due to an increase in resistance causing the tone control's corner frequency to drop, or in some cases a reduction in some high frequencies due to phase cancellation. So, it's pointless to argue A or B, because the answer is a combination of the two. Even arguing which is the primary factor is silly, because it's going to vary from pickup to pickup. In a case where you have really overwound mismatched coils and low resistance volume control with a relatively large capacitor on the tone pot, you'll get a significant change in tone mainly due to the impedance change of the coil. In a case where you've got relatively low impedance coils feeding directly into a buffer in an "active" instrument, the change in tone due to impedance will be negligible, and any "fatness" or "warmth" would be attributable to phase interference, both constructive and destructive)

I think this section should be rewritten to show both as reasons why humbuckers can sound different from singlecoils.

As far as arguments about citing sources go, some of this stuff is explainable strictly based on known physics. Proper sources will be pretty much impossible to find, since generally published scientists concerned with wave interference aren't discussing guitar pickups specifically. You could find a citation to say that phase cancellation exists, but I don't think anyone's debating that. Find me a peer reviewed scientific paper explaining causes of fatness in guitar pickups, and I'll be impressed. To what extent are references necessary?

Nwimpney (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is long on subjectivity and short on facts. IMHO. 88.110.89.118 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the posts here appear to be duplicated. Can someone clean them up? In the first paragraph, "reversed polarity", etc should be "opposite" because it's referencing both coils. Or it should only reference the second coil and then maintain the current "reversed". "As alternating current is passed though a coil, it induces a magnetic field around the coil that quickly becomes weaker with distance." There is so much wrong with that statement. It is unclear which coil it's talking about. Quickly is a matter of perspective. "Humbuckers are great at cancelling out low sine wave frequencies (such as those produced by big AC transformers) but poor at canceling out higher frequencies and various harmonics (such as those produced by guitar strings)." This seems false. From my understanding, the electromagnetic field of transformers, etc is picked up and cancelled due to the reversed windings of the two coils. The guitar strings are picked up and has opposite effects on the two coils because of the reversed poles of the permanent magnet, which has nothing at all to do with its frequency. The "How Humbuckers Work" section seems to just reiterate what was already stated in the opening section, with the addition of explaining what I just said poorly in my previous sentence. SeanProctor (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I don't play guitar nor do I know much about the physics of a resonant string on a stringed instrument. What I do think I know a bit about is the difference of a sourced citation and a string of text that yells boldly --ArealDoggus (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Electronic SC Noise Cancelling

Late-December 2009 I added a short paragraph on in-guitar noise cancelling for single coil pickups. A request for citation appeared a couple of weeks ago.

I wrote this December edit as an informative statement addition because I have done the work myself. It involved a telecaster-copy guitar I built from parts (Warmoth Tele neck, etc.) and in-guitar electronics in late-1988 and early 1989. The pickups: DiMarzio PAF Pro in the bridge position, and two Tom Anderson SC in the neck and middle positions. In the underside compartment I placed a magnet-less SC stock pickup in a alignment parallel with the Anderson pickups. This pickup and the two Anderson SC were fed to three low gain TL084 JFET preamps. The magnet-less (slave) preamp fed one input to each of two differentially configured TL084 preamps and the other differential inputs were fed by the outputs of the Anderson pickup TL084 preamps. I use a single pot in the feedback loop of the slave coil preamp to adjust the gain at the other preamp slave inputs to essentailly zero out the hum. Then the pot was removed from the circuit and replaced with a metal film resistor. The circuitry then summed the low noise Anderson/slave outputs, along with the mildly amplified PAF Pro, to a last summing amplifier. Switches allow a myriad of pickup combinations, and the isolation of the pre-amped slave was preserved for all combinations with no alteration of the noise level. Two 9V batteries powered the system. It was all resistor network and 2 4-channel (7 of the 8 used) audio ICs on a small printed self-etched circuit board. It was TOO hot, but it worked well enough that the Anderson SC were at least as quiet as the series-wired PAF Pro. I have two regrets: 1) that the system was too hot for regular combo amp inputs (overall gain was about 15), and 2) that the guitar was built for someone else! I advertised the circuit in Guitar Player classifieds in 1989 and got a couple of bites. Anyone interested can get the schematic emailed back. (dsmith4029@aol.com). Informed readers would recognize it as a commode-mode noise rejection method using balanced differential amps. Comments welcome. - Dave Smith (amateur guitarist and electronics hobbyist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Databasemaker (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First patented by?

It's not clear what exactly was first patented by whom. This patent http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_coBAAAAEBAJ shows an earlier date. I'm not nuanced enough to know how exactly these items differ from each other, so haven't edited anything. If the article is about the specific item in the later patent, http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wxoCAAAAEBAJ that could be made clearer. Sln3412 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alutone ad copy

The section on Lace Sensor's Alumitone pickups do not meet NPOV standards. While their innovative approach is certainly worth mentioning, the description of the tonal qualities is way over board. Many, who tried these pick-ups, rejected them for their 'clinical' sound qualities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraphs entirely. The references didn't back up the claims, and much of it was copied directly from http://lacemusic.com/Alumitone_Humbucker.php . I don't see how it contributes to the reader's understanding of humbucking pickups at all. 69.14.200.78 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

copper/alumin(i)um

In the 'Other noise-reducing pickup designs' section it states; "In 2007, Lace Sensor introduced Alumitone pickups, which feature a new design which is aluminum based, rather than copper. The result is less resistance, higher output coupled to a "current driven design" as opposed to conventional voltage based pickups." To me, this reads as though alumin(i)um is less resistive than copper, which as we know is incorrect; the resistance of aluminium is 28.2 nΩ·m @ 20°C, copper is 16.78 nΩ·m @ 20°C. I believe the lower resistance is actually due to less copper being used, not that the copper has been replaced by alumin(i)um. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article contains a significant factual error wrt RWRP

The article states that humbucker coils are wound in reverse direction with respect to each other. This is not correct. The highly confusing industry nomenclature RWRP (Reverse Wound, Reverse Polarity) refers to the direction of current flow not the winding. By convention typically all humbucker bobbins are wound counterclockwise.

There are numerous sources for this information on the Internet, but here is Seth Lovers description of the solution: "you put the two coils, so they are wound in such a way - they are wound in the same direction, but they're connected so that they're out of phase as far as the start. [...] The two coils pick up identical voltages from external fields, but because of the connection they cancel the hum." Seth Lover, quoted, The Early Years of the Les Paul Legacy, 1915-1963, p107 John187 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

John187, thanks for the corrections. I recommend editing out any editorializing (i.e. "unfortunate nomenclature") and citing your source in the article text. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Made those changes. John187 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

eytmology

this needs to be included68.148.186.93 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humbucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humbucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Humbucker/Archive_1"