Polished vs Un-polished Magnets

[big_teee]

I've been reading all over the net on different forums, about polished, vs nonpolished magnets.
Magnet Swappers are making big claims that polished A5 magnets add top end.
The Swappers claim that Un-polished magnets Suck the top end out.
Sounds like Snake Oil to me?
I thought magnet composition determined how they sound?
Please Debate.
T

[Mike Sulzer]

There really are not very many ways a magnet can influence the sound, and its level of polish seems like wishful thinking.

Field strength, conductivity, and permeability. That is about it. And if the magnet is not actually inside the coil, those steel cores dominate on the last two.

I've been reading all over the net on different forums, about polished, vs nonpolished magnets.
Magnet Swappers are making big claims that polished A5 magnets add top end.
The Swappers claim that Un-polished magnets Suck the top end out.
Sounds like Snake Oil to me?
I thought magnet composition determined how they sound?
Please Debate.
T

[belwar]

The magnet composition of two different A5 magnets will make more difference than anything else - Maybe the top 0.01% might be able to physically hear a difference between the two truly identical mags (polished v. unpolished) but even then it doesnt mean one is better or worse. For sure I can hear the difference between A5 from sens, and A5 from Arnold.

[big_teee]

I agree on telling difference in brands.
I think I can tell some difference in some different brands of A2 Bar magnets.
One thing that is probably happening with Magnet swappers is gauss strength.
Non of them check or recharge magnets, just do the magnet swap.
Not too sure if they keep the polarity the same.
T

[David Schwab]

Polished magnets sound shinier.

[Bruce Johnson]

I think polished magnets sound brighter, but only when you are looking at them.


An amazing phenomenon of internet forums is the way a crowd can initiate and self-confirm complete technical garbage. To those of us with actual experience and knowledge, it's somewhere between amusing and scary. Just like scandalous rumors, bad technical information spreads so much faster than accurate technical information. I guess we Engineers are eventually going to have to hire thug squads to defend rational knowledge.

[David King]

Bruce, The climate debate seems to have plenty of thugs involved and not much movement towards rational knowledge. I suppose it doesn't help that the thugier thugs were hired by the wealthier side.

[Bruce Johnson]

Yeah, but that's actually more understandable. There you have big financial interests paying scientists to create phony science, so they can gain political power and make lots more money. The angering part there is the scientific establishments being so eager to prostitute themselves, and allow the credibility of science to be severely damaged. At least you can understand that the reasons behind it are money and power. But let's no go there. This is a fun forum.

The sadder and more baffling thing is the little stuff like polished magnets. It doesn't sound like there is any real financial interest pushing it, but yet, a silly technical idea just grows like a weed, out of control. I like to believe that back in the good 'ol days (whenever that was...) if you proposed a silly technical idea, fairly quickly somebody would stand up and tell you that it didn't make any sense. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think that 40 years ago, most people had a better understanding of how things work and how they are made, and basic principles of math and physics. Today, I'm constantly stunned by how technically shallow most people are. We've raised two generations who have very little idea where products come from or how they are made. They are taught that using tools or working in a shop are icky things that smart kids shouldn't do. It seems like the portion of our population that knows how to invent things and make products is becoming smaller and more concentrated. That's not good for our society. Our world is built of products, things that we humans have figured out and made from the raw materials that we find around us. That's what keeps us from being wild animals. We have to teach our children how to build things, or they will revert into being helpless animals.

Oh, man, I sound like a ranting old geezer......I need to get out in the shop and finish up my new magnet polishing machine.

[copperheadroads]

Oh, man, I sound like a ranting old geezer......I need to get out in the shop and finish up my new magnet polishing machine.

Polished half of the magnet ,& only to cover the wound strings half ..........

[mcgruff]

Yeah, but that's actually more understandable. There you have big financial interests paying scientists to create phony science, so they can gain political power and make lots more money. The angering part there is the scientific establishments being so eager to prostitute themselves, and allow the credibility of science to be severely damaged. At least you can understand that the reasons behind it are money and power. But let's no go there. This is a fun forum.

That is such a ridiculous thing to say. Climate scientists are paid to do science. It's kind of hard to create "phony" science when proposing a new theory means publishing an argument and supporting evidence in a scientific paper openly for all to see. Peer-reviewed papers published published in reputable journals define the limits of scientific knowledge not unqualified blowhards with an internet blog like Anthony Watts etc. or propaganda organisations like the Heartland Institute who are paid vast amounts of money to attack climate science and harass individual scientists in an appalling display of ignorance, cynicism and greed.

However, like you say, this is not the place to go into all that.

[David Schwab]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think that 40 years ago, most people had a better understanding of how things work and how they are made, and basic principles of math and physics. Today, I'm constantly stunned by how technically shallow most people are.

People are getting dumber. This always makes me think of a TV commercial where a little kid asks his dad "where does orange juice come from?" Seriously? Couldn't be from... ummmm oranges?

The other thing is people have gotten greedier. So you don't have as many wanting to go into the sciences, and instead want business degrees. And young people seem to think it's cool to be stupid. Just watch YouTube a little, and read some comments to see how stupid people are.

And no one has to think anymore. Everything is done for them. That gives them more time to watch reality TV.

Are People Getting Dumber? One Geneticist Thinks So | Popular Science

Getting back to the magnets, we have this whole vintage guitar fad. Along with that you have players who think they must have a guitar built exactly like it was in 1959 or whatever, or they won't sound like [fill in the blank]. Forget the fact that these players can't play. Or maybe they want to pose with their guitars in the mirror?

Either way you have people obsessing over things like tone control caps, pickup mounting rings, cloth covered wire, the number of strands in the braid in shielded wire, wooden vs plastic spacers in humbuckers, long wobbly humbucker legs, black vs gray fiberboard, etc. This is fine if you want your guitar to look old. But it has nothing to do with the tone of the guitar.

The more that pickup makers give these fools what they want, the longer this will continue!

Personally, I think guitar techs need to adopt the wiffle bat concept. When a customer asks for something stupid, you hit them with the wiffle bat. Rolled up newspaper would also work, but might frighten them, since they have never opened a newspaper. But they have probably watched a ball game. Anyway, hit them over the head a few times and they will stop asking dumb questions. And of course the bats are non lethal.

[David Schwab]

That is such a ridiculous thing to say. Climate scientists are paid to do science. It's kind of hard to create "phony" science when proposing a new theory means publishing an argument and supporting evidence in a scientific paper openly for all to see.

It's not that hard. It's called cherry picking data. It happens all the time. There have also been a number of cases over the years where studies were forged and no one caught on for a long time.

Whenever there is a lot of money behind something, experts can be found to support a claim. Even if it is not valid.

You also have egos involved. Some scientist will not change their opinion on something unless they are forced. Science works slowly. Sometimes you have to wait for older scientist to die before things change. Just 10 years ago the consensus was there was no water on the moon or Mars. Forget about on Mercury. Now we know that was not correct. But they said water on the moon was not possible.

[mcgruff]

It's not that hard. It's called cherry picking data. It happens all the time.

Actually it's very rare in fundamental science. Scientists are pretty idealistic people as a rule who do what they do for the thrill of finding stuff out. You certainly don't do it for the money (!). Profit-led research in industries such as pharmaceuticals is obviously a whole different ball game but climate science is examined in such relentlessly hostile detail that no-one could get away with fiddling data even if they were trying to do so.

Just 10 years ago the consensus was there was no water on the moon or Mars. Forget about on Mercury. Now we know that was not correct. But they said water on the moon was not possible.

It would be more correct to say that the presence of water on the moon has been a constant source of speculation but, sure, major paradign shifts do happen in areas where we know very little about the subject. They are much less likely in a more mature field of study, such as climate.

[big_teee]

What happened to my magnet thread.
This Thread needs to be in the Lobby, or the Soapbox now!

[mcgruff]

Sorry big T. No more about climate from me.