what are normal gauss readings

[copperheadroads]

Id be lost without my gauss meter now ,Especially when M_jo sells me a bunch A2 bar Magnets ,& tries to tell me they are the A8 magnets i ordered , Around 500 gauss A8 fully charged .I don't think so

[peskywinnets]

I should clarify my earlier thoughts - when I said it'd be better to monitor gauss strength at the string...it was with pickup creators in mind .... ie someone creating their own 'signature' & getting deep down 'n dirty with collecting data .....if it's just for churn/repeatablity, then yeah, measure it wherever you care - and the pole or the magnet face is the most obvious & easiest place.

[Mike Sulzer]

I should clarify my earlier thoughts - when I said it'd be better to monitor gauss strength at the string...it was with pickup creators in mind .... ie someone creating their own 'signature' & getting deep down 'n dirty with collecting data .....if it's just for churn/repeatablity, then yeah, measure it wherever you care - and the pole or the magnet face is the most obvious & easiest place.

I think that was clear to everyone, even those who think that any kind of analysis is a misuse of brain power.

[RedHouse]

Cliff Claven was certain he was using his brain power.

YMMV

[Mike Sulzer]

Cliff Claven was certain he was using his brain power.

YMMV

There is a key milestone in the understanding of any topic. It consists of understanding how little you understand. You can go beyond that milestone, but it is necessary to reach it first.

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive drinking of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

[RedHouse]

There is a key milestone in the understanding of any topic. It consists of understanding how little you understand. You can go beyond that milestone, but it is necessary to reach it first.

Anyone ever notice how the more Cliff talks ...the stupider he sounds?

Anyway, there is no milestone unless one has set a path or on a quest, I don't think anyone here needs waste cycles on observing or fullfilling unnecessary markers.

A greater "skill" to aquire (which takes mental dicipline) is understanding what is necessary to the issue/task at hand, and what is not.

Deciding the world should agree on a standard string height for measuring gauss readings because it makes sense to you, really shouldn't be a "stop the presses" moment and sorry if I'm not impressed, but if it seems good for you, well then have at it. When you get to telling the next guy it's what he needs to do for proper measurements? nope.

Review the goals of the gauss reading we pickup makers take, why we measure our magnets, what we do with the info, how we apply that info ...well it's usually in making pickups (funny thing to do on a Pickup Makers forum eh?) trying to sort, type, and reproduce known good specimen s of our own and others.

We usually have our magnets in our hands, or the (assembled) pickup in our hand, so we normally really don't care about the gauss reading at string height like 99% of the time. We're not normally trying to match/reproduce/track that aspect of the pickup's gauss effects.

I'd have to disagree that we need to be measuring our poles at string height, adding spacers to our sensors etc, I know I don't.
(or having an epiphany over it)

[Mike Sulzer]

Brad,

I never suggested that you, for your production purposes, should measure magnetic fields as I do.

[RedHouse]

Brad,

I never suggested that you, for your production purposes, should measure magnetic fields as I do.

Well....

...Why? If you are measuring an assembled pickup, the magnetic field that counts is where the string would be, and that is what you should measure to compare the field strengths of different pickups...

...There is nothing wrong with assuming a typical distance and using that as a reference. It is a hell of a lot better than measuring where the string never is....

...3/32" is a much better representative of where the string is than at the pole piece...

Kinda sounds like it to me, but maybe I'm mistaken? so I'll go ahead and re-read your posts, see if I can glean some other meaning.

[Dave Kerr]

Brad, Mike and Pesky both made a distinction between measuring at the string for design purposes (as different pole piece/baseplate/keeper/etc configurations might make an identical magnet magnetize a string differently) and measuring at the pole for production repeatability.

[RedHouse]

Brad, Mike and Pesky both made a distinction between measuring at the string for design purposes (as different pole piece/baseplate/keeper/etc configurations might make an identical magnet magnetize a string differently) and measuring at the pole for production repeatability.

Yes I understand that Dave, but when you include the string height you are actually adding the guitar's setup to your "design" development.

Like I said to Mike, if it works for you rock-on, but I also tried to point out that you are adding variables to your tone "design" that are not going to be maintained by the end user.

For instance Gibson Les Pauls are "officially" spec'd out at 3/32" (N) and 1/16" (B) which very few playing musicians like, most find they get too much "rustling" (noises their hands/palms/fingers make as they move about during play) and the tone from pickups that close is much less tonally distinct. Most working guitars that come through my shop have the pickups at more like 1/8" (N) and 3/32" (B), similarly and even more exagerated with Strat's most folks play with like 1/8" minimum and on the low-E side can even be up to 5/16" or more.

So when you're "designing" where are going to put your string height? factory spec, your preferred spec, Mikes spacer spec?

But again, if designing with your gauss samples taken at string height works for you rock-on. I'm just not seeing the design value in adding the guitar setup to the design process. Doesn't mean I'm correct, just not seeing it.

{Edit} a good example of "rustling" can be heared in Gary Moore stuff, every time he takes a lead listen to the sounds just before and after a note is played. I'm not knocking Gary (love some of his stuff) just pointing out a side-effect that becomes quite noticable when the pickups are really close to the strings.

[Dave Kerr]

Well, if the intent is to have an idea how strong the field is at the strings, you take a stab at a standard distance and stick to it. Whether you choose 1/8" or a fraction either way, you'd be better off not choosing 0.0".

[RedHouse]

Well, if the intent is to have an idea how strong the field is at the strings, you take a stab at a standard distance and stick to it. Whether you choose 1/8" or a fraction either way, you'd be better off not choosing 0.0".

Sure, while that sounds logical, obviously if you've been taking readings with your gauss meter you sure do know by now that a fraction of an inch can make the reading vary greatly, it's not uniform like checking the air in your tires.

Whether you choose 1/8" or a fraction either way ...you could still be getting vastly different readings.

[Joe Gwinn]

One reason I can think of to measure at the poles versus at string height is that one can measure at the poles without unstringing the guitar if the pickup is installed.

[Peter Naglitsch]

What Joe said triggered a though and made me do a really quick test:
A magnet placed facing upwards, a wooden spacer placed on the magnet and the sensor placed on top of that to simulate measurements at string height. Different stings were then placed flush on top of the sensor, at the same position to simulate the presence of a string (to see what happens if you measure a pickup in a guitar at string height with the strings still there). The gauss-readings increased with the strings in place and differed between strings. Three examples
No string present = base line (roughly 110 gauge)
A .010 string present = + 9.5 Gauss
A 0.52 string present = + 26.0 Gauss
So when measuring magnets with strings present the readings will differ greatly (in the range of 15%) from pole to pole (string to string) even with a standardized distance. What we however also need to take in account it that the readings will also be affected by different string gauges. The gauges for a low e-string of a guitar range from .042 to .062 or more. I think that we can assume the impact on the measurements will be quite different with a .042 sting of a .062 string. So we need to standardize both string height and string gauge (minimum what string the pole is for) if we take measurements from pickups at string height with strings on to be able to compare measurements in a consistent way. There isn’t anything wrong with that (although it’s a bit unpractical) but I’m now quite inclined to agree with David Swab that we need to use the same size cups if we want to be able to trade receipts with each other. I think I’ll stick to the “measure flush against the magnet” method.

[Mike Sulzer]

What Joe said triggered a though and made me do a really quick test: .......

Pushing the string aside is not difficult to get rid of the string effect. With small neos on top of high permeability ferrite, the difference can be 45% (using a .046). It is not clear to me how much the field is actually increased, or if the accuracy of the sensor might be affected by the magnetic material against its backside.