Keeper Bars I was asked.

[Possum]

You didn't experience so it can't exist. Its impossible, no one else has ever experienced it either. Its so subtle its all in the imagination, its only ear fatigue, its hypnosis. Debunking is debunking, proof is dismissed as rigged. I have 60 guys waiting for their pickups, no time to waste. Please go back and search on this subject here on the forum and note that others experience it besides me.

Since you didn't read the MLP thread on the subject here's a quote from one customer, yes I hypnotized him, he is crazy, he made it up, he imagined it ;-) I didn't start this thread.

"I'd have to go back and look at some notes I took... my recollection was that they were dark first day. Then, days 2-4 they were excellent, then they went dark for a day (e.g. muddy). I thought at that point they had "settled" and was kind of upset at the shit pickups. The "dark" sound was so noticable that it made me think I had a short or bad solder. Then, get this, about day 5 they bloomed, claritized, honk-itized and jizzma-tized. lol. Short answer +/-8 to 10 hours of playing they became good citizens and spoke to me :-) Enjoy the ride. I have the JP59s. Wonderful, clear and meaty."

Stephens Design VL 2 break in ? - My Les Paul Forums

Why do I bring this subject up now and then? To tell newbie winders give your pickups a few days before you make a judgement call on whether they suck or not, especially with humbuckers, there's 18 parts in those things and it takes time for all of it to jell.

[big_teee]

This is such a Petty Argument.
If you believe that, fine.
Why keep bringing it up?
I'm sure you guys believe in Science.
If you have something to Prove, then by all means Do!
Prove it by Recording it.
And, Yes I still have my 6 Pence!
B_T

[Possum]

It certainly is a petty argument, petty in that some vehemently deny its even possible, why the attitude? Must be a pretty threatening subject ;-) Go tell my customers they are delusional and see what answer you get, the MLP thread is there for you to post your views....
Anyway, I'll drop it for now, but will bring it up when appropriate for those who haven't closed their ears. One can't convince a debunker of anything anyway.......

[big_teee]

It certainly is a petty argument, petty in that some vehemently deny its even possible, why the attitude? Must be a pretty threatening subject ;-) Go tell my customers they are delusional and see what answer you get, the MLP thread is there for you to post your views....

Scientific Method

Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Sorry Possum:
Your still on the Hypothesis step.
You haven't made it to Theory, or Law yet.
To Be a Law.
You have to show proof, not Opinions or HearSay.
Good Luck in Proving your Opinions, and Hearsay!
B_T
** No Thank You to the MLP Forum.
I already belong here, 2 Other guitar forums, and 3 Amplifier Forums.

[Possum]

That's definitely the "scientific method," LOL ;-) Avoid reading anything outside your belief system ;-) Very common in the scientific community ;-) Your argument fell apart there.....

[David Schwab]

It certainly is a petty argument, petty in that some vehemently deny its even possible, why the attitude?

Dave, YOU have the attitude. I explained how you can document the affect. You come up with lame excuses why you can't. So it's only anecdotal at this point. Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof rest with you.

You also imply that it's common and everyone knows it. When I state that it does not happen to my pickups, you decide the best way to handle that is by questioning my ears. Hence what ever attitude you might have sensed. Since you have nothing backing up your claim, except anecdotal evidence, you decide to do an ad homonym attack, in a very passive/aggressive way.

Now if you can demonstrate that the affect happens, you have a valid claim. I'll also be doing the test and see. But then if you say things like

the fact that you don't experience it just means you are doing things differently than some of us, or you've been standing next to the drummer's cymbals for too many years.

So lets see, I've been playing in in clubs with bands since I was 16, and your experience is what?

You simply are not using my methods, the things I am doing are vastly different than anyone I know.

Really? Dave, you are making PAF clones. We all know how to do that. You are also NOT making all your parts like you say you do. I'm sure my pickups have more parts that I made. You had screws made and keepers. You buy your bobbins. You aren't doing anything magic.

Since you didn't read the MLP thread on the subject here's a quote from one customer, yes I hypnotized him, he is crazy, he made it up, he imagined it ;-) I didn't start this thread.

Did he do a recording? No. So he might THINK he hears a difference. Strangers things have happened. Look at the people who swear they here the difference in tone caps used in a guitar... even when the pot is at 10.

Then we have some contradictions:

Statement 1:

What my experience and all my customers for my buckers is first day is the worst, pickup will sound like like its a little muffled, not very open sounding, and yes I let the pickups cool down, then 2nd day a dramatic change happens, the pickup opens up and more treble, then over a period of several months it smoothes out and gets a sweet warmth and rounds out nicely.

Statement 2:

Pickups don't settle in sitting around you have to play them.

Statement 3:

which I repeatedly have stated that I don't decide if a pickup is ready for the public until its aged about four months or so.

So, Dave, which is it? Do your customers get the pickup after the second day, so that they expereince the change over several months of playing, as you state, and as your MLP customer states (Statement 1). Or do you let the pickup sit and don't then send it to them until it's aged? (Statement 3). Id that's the case, how do they experience the change from aging? Now if it has to age by being played (Statement 2), do YOU play them for several months? If you don't, how is Statement 1 and 2 true?

And if you do, and have heard these changes, then you can record the pickup before it goes to the customer.

So clearly someone is not being totally forthright here. You have contradicted yourself more than the three times i have noted too. That's chipping away your your claim here.

The bottom line is if you can't back it up it's nonsense. Also, it's a damn stupid way to make pickups. How do you know what you are going to get if you have to wait until the customer plays it for three months? Most people would get rid of it before then if they didn't like it. You also don't hear of anyone saying that they get this from Duncan, DiMarzio, et al. Just your pickups.

Now for some fun, here's some of my customer quotes:

Just installed my Sidewinders.

David, your pickups sound like God on Viagra.

That's from day 1. No break in needed.

David, I finally got the sixer hooked up. Amazing. That's what my bass should sound like. Thanks. The bass never sounded like it does now. It's awsome! Super bridge bark mixed with the fat neck pup. Beatiful. It's 33" and the low B has such a strong fundamental note that goes on litterally forever. I imagine that has ALOT to do with your pups.

He said that the first day they were installed... no break in needed.

Got my bass back today, and had a chance to play it through my rig for about an hour. I LIKE this pickup a lot! It has more "girth", seems to sustain longer, and when I kick on the booster... HOLY CRAP!!! With the booster off, I still get a good amount of growl, even though your pickup is lower output, so it's perfect in that respect! The big test will come on Monday night when i rehearse with the band.

(and then)

The tone is WAY better/balanced, so I also adjusted the EQ on the amp. It sustains longer (I always thought pickups had little effect on that, unless they were super low output... live and learn, hehehe...), it's MUCH "clearer" sounding (by that, I mean I can hear the individual notes a lot better now), and as I said previously, has more "girth". All in all, an excellent pickup.

That was the first hour of playing... not three months later. I know, they are bass pickups and aren't being used for Jump Blues (i.e., swing, i.e., jazz ). But my guitar pickups are as equally consistent from day one.

I think it is you that's doing something wrong.

[edit] Just to add to this;

my buckers is first day is the worst, pickup will sound like like its a little muffled, not very open sounding,

So here was a PAF style neck pickup I made back in '07. I wound it, and stuck it in the guitar and recorded it. It sounded like this:

PAF

That's not muffled at all. It's very bright and chimey. Another thing I don't get is some reports that the pickups are overly bright at first and then mellow out a little. So again, which is it?

[marku52]

It also makes sense on a theoretical basis. The flux coming out of the pole is a function of the magnet strength, and the resistance of the magnetic circuit. They even have a name for the resistance to magnet flux flow, it is called reluctance. So when you add an iron piece to the bottom of the magnets, you replace some of the path that was air with iron. The reluctance of the magnetic path decreases, and so the flux levels (out where we can measure them) increase. You would also expect the inductance of the coil to increase slightly as well, as the coils now link a higher level of flux.

This is exactly analogous to reducing the resistance in a DC circuit with a fixed voltage, the current (flux) will increase with reduced resistance (reluctance).

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

I'm with Dave on this one - he isn't refusing to do the tests because he doesn't think it'll work, he's refusing because he hasn't deemed it worth his time. He's determined this phenomenon to his own satisfaction for what he does, and that is plenty for him. Yes the scientific process is real and important, but think about it: if you did double blind tests for everything in life, you'd get nothing done. I've found that cooking my eggs with lower heat makes them softer. I'm sorry to say that I didn't do a double blind test with two simultaneous batches of eggs, carefully measuring the pan temperature for each. I still think my discovery is valid. If I was on a cooking website and a bunch of guys there disbelieved my discovery of slow cooked eggs and wanted me to document it, my reaction would be the same as Possum's. I just wouldn't care that much because my own cooking at home would remain the same.

If Dave was really set on convincing everyone of this phenomenon then yes he'd have to offer something other than anecdotal evidence, but from what I gather he really isn't losing sleep on it. He takes it for truth and offers his experiences to anyone who'll listen, and leave it there. Again, this is a discussion board, not an academic gathering. Few of us post here with the expectation that our words will have the same gravity as an academic study, so to hold that standard to all of the posts is a bit excessive.

There is also the problem of proving a positive against proving a negative. With whom does the burden of proof really lie? If every statement made yields a bunch of "prove it or shut up" answers, then you're effectively propagating a reality where negatives are assumed until positives are proved for absolutely everything, and that creates a huge bias in the methodology; sometimes the negative needs to be proved instead of the positive. I realize it is a bad habit to always try to prove a negative (many crime novels display this well) but if you're in a vantage where you don't believe anything ever happens.... well, that's a slippery slope.

[big_teee]

I'm with Dave on this one - he isn't refusing to do the tests because he doesn't think it'll work, he's refusing because he hasn't deemed it worth his time. He's determined this phenomenon to his own satisfaction for what he does, and that is plenty for him. Yes the scientific process is real and important, but think about it: if you did double blind tests for everything in life, you'd get nothing done. I've found that cooking my eggs with lower heat makes them softer. I'm sorry to say that I didn't do a double blind test with two simultaneous batches of eggs, carefully measuring the pan temperature for each. I still think my discovery is valid. If I was on a cooking website and a bunch of guys there disbelieved my discovery of slow cooked eggs and wanted me to document it, my reaction would be the same as Possum's. I just wouldn't care that much because my own cooking at home would remain the same.

If Dave was really set on convincing everyone of this phenomenon then yes he'd have to offer something other than anecdotal evidence, but from what I gather he really isn't losing sleep on it. He takes it for truth and offers his experiences to anyone who'll listen, and leave it there. Again, this is a discussion board, not an academic gathering. Few of us post here with the expectation that our words will have the same gravity as an academic study, so to hold that standard to all of the posts is a bit excessive.

There is also the problem of proving a positive against proving a negative. With whom does the burden of proof really lie? If every statement made yields a bunch of "prove it or shut up" answers, then you're effectively propagating a reality where negatives are assumed until positives are proved for absolutely everything, and that creates a huge bias in the methodology; sometimes the negative needs to be proved instead of the positive. I realize it is a bad habit to always try to prove a negative (many crime novels display this well) but if you're in a vantage where you don't believe anything ever happens.... well, that's a slippery slope.

I respectfully Disagree.
This is not the MLP.
This is a Pickup Makers Forum.
This Forum has always Prided itself in Facts, Truth, and Documentation.
The Possum Argument Shows none of these Attributes.
So Enough with the Smoke and Mirrors, It's time to Produce Proof, or Let it Go!
Keep Rockin!
B_T

[David Schwab]

He's determined this phenomenon to his own satisfaction for what he does, and that is plenty for him.

Actually he hasn't because he's contradicted himself on how it works in the three statements above. So he doesn't seem to believe what he's saying, since he keeps changing what he says.

There is also the problem of proving a positive against proving a negative. With whom does the burden of proof really lie?

The burden of proof is on him because he made the claim. However, I offered to also do a test. If everyone did a test then we would have an average of results. This is how things are done. If I did a test and I did indeed hear the pickup change, than I would say so. But that has not been my experience. I record all my new models of pickups to keep a record, along with the pickup's specs. I also keep all those pickups. Many of them are still in one of my basses. And they have been played for a least a year. So it's very easy for me to go back and listen to the clips and then compare. I know exactly how each clip was recorded. I try not to do things haphazardly. My pickups sound the same as they did on day one. So do all the commercial pickups I own.

Look at the faster than light neutrino claims by CERN. They are welcoming other researchers to do their own experiments and to also critique the original 2 tests for flaws.

The bottom line is this, Dave made a statement that the tone of new pickups changes over time. He said they sound bad and muffled in the beginning. I also seem to remember him (or maybe someone else) saying they sound thin and tinny in the beginning. Which is it? It can't be both. I said that's not the case with me. His answer to that was things like "you aren't using the same techniques as me" or "you are using off the shelf parts" or "there's something wrong with your ears".

You don't see a problem in any of that? Really?

It's like the emperor's new clothes. Only Dave and his customers can hear it. And what I said was quite reasonable. People's hearing as well as what they see is often wrong. And it changes from day to day. And the way you remember things is generally always wrong. So if he's going by memory about how the pickup sounded on day one, he's probably wrong. The only way to prove to yourself what is going on is to make a recording. Now Dave makes all kinds of videos and such, so he can't make a recording of a new pickup? I doubt he is so busy as to not be able to do that. I'm sure one of his customers could do it also. I'd also imagine he has kept his prototypes, since he isn't going to see a used pickup, right?

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

I'm not defending his manners or how he's dealt with the accusations, I'm defending his right to make observations and stand by them without double blind tests. If the two of you have gotten into a tiff and hurt each others' feelings then I'm not going to get into the middle of that. I will say that if everyone is getting so worked up, I'd consider any tests null and void because I'm not going to believe that a test is going to be purely objective at this point. I remember two cases of posting evidence on this board that were complete failures. One was when someone was arguing something about volume changes and posted clips to prove a point, and as it turned out all the clips were clipping hard and were useless for the test. Another is when differences were clearly heard between two things (I forget what) and the cynical answer was "well, he's obviously just playing differently to make it sound different"... how exactly does "hard data" help in those two situations? In one case the recordings were misleading, and in another case the recordings were dismissed because they didn't agree with a preconceived notion. I don't see the recordings solving this argument, either.

Recordings need to be really REALLY good to be of any use, and if we rely on bad recordings, then we're moving backwards.

Personally, I've heard the phenomenon every time, and I came to those conclusions without reading anything about pickups changing prior. It was only upon researching this weird thing I was encountering that I found others with the same experiences; i.e. my experiences can't be blamed on the "emperor's new clothes" phenomenon. It does sound muffled and tinny at the same time. I'd say it is more that it sounds constipated, like an acoustic that isn't "waking up". When it starts moving, does it sound warmer or brighter than it did before? It sounds warmer AND brighter. The problem with documentation sometimes is that what our ears can pick up on exceeds what we have words for. Warmer and brighter isn't contradictory to the ears, but it is on paper. So, I don't think Dave's claims are contradictory. The changes are just a bit too strange to describe easily, but they're definitely there.

My point with the egg analogy is that not every statement uttered by anyone needs to be proved by a test. I say many things in a day, and people say many things to me. "It is colder in here than it was yesterday", "did you take accurate temperature measurements both days? It must be in your head and I won't let you put on a sweater until I see good data"... see what I mean? Only when it seems to be contestable, or when the conclusions affect the whole does it need to be tested. For Dave's purposes, it isn't worth testing. He mentions it because he's developed a system of listening over a period of time to judge changes and to compare to prior prototypes. Sure, if he was trying to convince everyone then Terry would be right... put up tests or shut the heck up. But, from reading his posts, it seems pretty clear that he isn't too worried what anyone else thinks.

I also would respectfully disagree with Terry that he has only gotten to the hypothesis stage. If that were true, then he'd be making the guess based only on pickup making theory and not have tried it. I do see a lot of that on this board where pickup making is entirely done as an a priori thought experiment, but Dave has done the tests and his own results are repeatable. They just aren't documented in a way that people on this board can use. Again, he just doesn't have an interest in offering documentation or having his data shared on an academic level (like the CERN example) which is entirely his choice. Bear in mind that this is just an internet forum...

[big_teee]

Funky, You have some good points in your essay.
The Possum points that don't compute are,
You have to play them 6 months to get the full tone capability.
If you store the guitar, then you have to start over with the Playing cycle to get the tone back.
Secret formulas are the reasons for this Phenomena.
Secret Alloys are used for the Super Duper Tone.
This all implies that if you don't have all the Voodoo Secrets to stir in the pot then, you can't make a Decent Pickup.
These are things you tell Players to Sell Pickups, not to give Burden of Proof on a Pickup Makers Forum.
That's why I keep implying the Smoke, Mirrors, and Snake Oil Scenario's.
Sorry for having to point this out, but you guys won't let it go.
Good Luck,
Terry

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Funky, You have some good points in your essay.
The Possum points that don't compute are,
You have to play them 6 months to get the full tone capability.
If you store the guitar, then you have to start over with the Playing cycle to get the tone back.
Secret formulas are the reasons for this Phenomena.
Secret Alloys are used for the Super Duper Tone.
This all implies that if you don't have all the Voodoo Secrets to stir in the pot then, you can't make a Decent Pickup.
These are things you tell Players to Sell Pickups, not to give Burden of Proof on a Pickup Makers Forum.
That's why I keep implying the Smoke, Mirrors, and Snake Oil Scenario's.
Sorry for having to point this out, but you guys won't let it go.
Good Luck,
Terry

Good points, Terry. I would disagree with Dave on these, at least a bit. I don't hear a long term (over a couple months) change in sound, but I do hear a very dramatic change within the first couple weeks of a pickup's life. I also am less sure that the design emphasizes/masks this, although I will say I have noticed is much less with pickups where the magnet is the core (traditional strat/tele designs) than with pickups with the magnets below the coil. I wouldn't disagree in that I believe the opposite (because I haven't tried) but that I just haven't had the experience. I have heard the dormancy argument many, many times so it seems plausible, but I won't personally vouch for it.

The dispute in this thread doesn't seem to be in the minutia of the pickup changes, though. If that was the case, then it would be quite different. Also, I become hesitant when the line of explanation is crossed. When someone says "when I do this, this happens" that is valid to me, but when someone says "This happens because" that gets into a whole other area of thought. That is where the voodoo is for me. I'm not a positivist by any stretch of the imagination, (think Kant's arguments against causality... it was Kant, right?) but when you cross those lines from empirical data to explanations lots of traps await, and I think even the best scientists in the world trip all over their wangs on this one, but it is especially dangerous in communities like this one. Dave hasn't (thus far) done this, though he may or may not have those theories lodged somewhere in his brain. That is why I jumped in for his defense. I don't think his statements are invalid, even if they don't have the necessary volume of data for the greater message board nerdery. The basic argument seems to be "do pickups change over time" and nothing more specific than that.

[jonson]

David your not being fair on the old boy there. Don't forget, 2 hearts, green blood and a set of pointy ears under that hat so he's bound to hear different from the rest of us..

[JGundry]

I'm baffled as to why Possum who has a line of pickups called the Lab series would be so dead set against a scientific test of the phenomenon in question?

Personally I know that after about 10 minutes of high volume playing there is no question that my perception of highs drops. I also know that as a decent guitar player it takes several playing sessions with a new piece of gear to fully understand the tonal possibilities of the new gear. From that standpoint it makes total sense that a person's perception of new pickups might change to the positive with time rather than there being an actual change with the pickups. It does seem as if it should be simple enough to test.