Can CSC machine be programmed to do scattered winding?

[LtKojak]

I have wound pickups... That's not the point of my study, though. What exactly is absurd about a controlled scientific analysis of the parametric effects of wire gauge, magnets, winding patterns, and tension on the tonal properties of pickups?

Imagine the same approach in cooking. You can put all the science you can afford into it, but the end result will be judged by a person. And what science tells you is "best", the person might tell you is not.

People with a long experience winding and making p'ups for a living, like Spence in this case, know that trying to define certain parameters like "organic sounding", "oomph", "articulation", "airy top", "harmonic complexity" to cite just a few, is an exercise in futility, let alone assign'em to certain parameters in a mathematical equation derive from analysis.

FWIW, Kevin Beller, together with Seymour Duncan have developed a "tonal footprint" controlled analysis enviroment, used to reproduce certain p'ups like the ones found in the original "Pearly Gates" guitar from Billy Gibbons, or the ones in Joe Bonamassa's '59 'burst. IIRC, this enviroment gives not less than seventy variables. But judging the results are always persons. What you're trying to accomplish reminds me of the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": after three billion years of a computer analyzing the meaning of life, the end result was 42.

I let you with a phrase by me coniated, use it as "food for thought", if you so wish: "Not everything that can be measured counts, and not everything that counts can be measured".

HTH,

[Steve Conner]

trying to define certain parameters like "organic sounding", "oomph", "articulation", "airy top", "harmonic complexity" to cite just a few, is an exercise in futility, let alone assign'em to certain parameters in a mathematical equation derive from analysis.

You could of course take the cynical view that the fine details are mostly imaginary, and the customer will hear what he's been told to by the witch doctor. This is pickup psychology, which I personally find much more interesting than science.

I'm not stating this outright. I'm saying that if you wanted to undertake a serious investigation of the mapping between measurements and subjective sound quality, it would be wise to start by investigating whether the mapping even exists. You could save a lot of time, effort and confusion.

Personally I think the second-order low-pass filter model of the pickup, plus the comb filtering effect in humbuckers, explains 95% of the subjective sound impressions. I guess there is a gain term to take magnet strength into account there, too.

[LtKojak]

Personally I think the second-order low-pass filter model of the pickup, plus the comb filtering effect in humbuckers, explains 95% of the subjective sound impressions. I guess there is a gain term to take magnet strength into account there, too.

I'm of the same opinion, adding magnetic field projection and establishing through components' permeability a must, directed specifically at humbuckers.

HTH,

[Hugh Evans]

Considering I've made no mention of plans to map vague subjective terms to empirical data, it sounds like you just agreed with what I'm doing. There's a reason why I've been actively developing low-z pickups for use with state variable filters in separate single coil and humbucking configurations: It's logical that if one starts with a flat response up to at least 20kHz and then modifies the resonant frequency, Q, and gain to expect that the resulting tones will be extremely close to the effect of re-winding coils and changing out magnets. If I wanted to explore some of the subjective terms I could set up something of a "Pepsi Challenge" although I'm not particularly interested in doing so.

Do you have a reference for Duncan's magical tone matching machine? All I've been able to find so far points to them having wound so many coils that they "can make a perfect copy of a snowflake and then do it over and over again," and that at least paraphrases an article they published. I doubt that duplicating PAFs is very challenging for them: They have the resources to duplicate the materials and establish a more reliable supply chain than small operations (and unless you have expensive test equipment to carry out QC on the raw materials you're sent I can safely assure you that the good materials go out to the big boys and you get the stuff they would reject.) They also have Gibson's Lessona winder, and have dissected enough coils during rewinds to know how they were usually configured, so taking a few measurements is likely all they needed to get it right very quickly. I expect to end up with some differential equations, but I've modeled entire automotive suspensions with up to 26th order equations and I don't see enough variables to reach 30+ for a pickup. If they really have such a system in-house I would think they would advertise it as a toy no one else has, and charge big bucks to make exact copies of peoples favorite pickups. It sounds like brilliant marketing hype to me. Nothing against Duncan, I have used many of his products over the years and he's a good guy to boot. In fact, if I can't find the information you've referenced I may well contact him directly.

At this point not much seems to be coming from this thread. I explain my plans, get torn apart and told I'm crazy for wanting to try and usually end up having words put in my mouth prior to being accused of not respecting people who wind by hand. Some of my favorite pickups were wound by hand using traditional techniques. There's a set of hand-wound pickups made by a fellow who duplicated Leo Fender's winder that are going into the partscaster I've always wanted, because they get the sounds I want. I am driven by determination to understand the world around me in scientific terms... Because it can be done, and finding out when changing TPL ceases to make a difference, or the amount of tension required before necking has an effect, or any number of potential findings adds to our collective knowledge base.

Science is very important in cooking, btw. I got to be a good cook, in part, due to my background in biochemistry. Understanding organic reactions, denaturing of proteins, etc. makes understanding how to achieve specific flavors a much easier task.

[LtKojak]

If they really have such a system in-house I would think they would advertise it as a toy no one else has, and charge big bucks to make exact copies of peoples favorite pickups. It sounds like brilliant marketing hype to me.

Well, that's what YOU would. They just don't. What hype? The one in your head, maybe?

At this point not much seems to be coming from this thread. I explain my plans, get torn apart and told I'm crazy for wanting to try and usually end up having words put in my mouth prior to being accused of not respecting people who wind by hand.

I don't see how this has happened here. Again, looks like it's all in your head.

Science is very important in cooking, btw. I got to be a good cook, in part, due to my background in biochemistry. Understanding organic reactions, denaturing of proteins, etc. makes understanding how to achieve specific flavors a much easier task.

You're missing the point. AGAIN. What I was saying was: it doesn't matter how much science you put into, the final outcome would be judged by one person that just say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's all about the recipe, not about the axial coordinates of the Feng Shui positioning of the kitchen.

The best cooks on the world DON'T HAVE a Ph.D in Organic Chemistry. That may say something 'bout the importance of science in the kitchen, isn't it?

[Hugh Evans]

Well, that's what YOU would. They just don't. What hype? The one in your head, maybe?

See what I said about putting words in my mouth? Stop being so presumptuous. I've found no indication that their testing system exists... But you made a claim and have provided no evidence to back it up. Is that in your head, maybe?

I don't see how this has happened here. Again, looks like it's all in your head.

Then I guess you haven't read this entire thread, even though you seem to be adding to the extremely negative sentiment right in line with other posts.

You're missing the point. AGAIN. What I was saying was: it doesn't matter how much science you put into, the final outcome would be judged by one person that just say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's all about the recipe, not about the axial coordinates of the Feng Shui positioning of the kitchen.

Or perhaps you're ignoring my point: Science for the sake of knowledge. My studies have nothing to do with asking people if they like each result. Some of the test coils will sound terrible, and will exist only as necessary data points. If you don't care to understand the science: then just ignore it rather than claiming I'm wasting my time. There are obvious knowledge gaps, and that is what I intend to study.

The best cooks on the world DON'T HAVE a Ph.D in Organic Chemistry. That may say something 'bout the importance of science in the kitchen, isn't it?

Yet applied chemistry is becoming increasingly common in gourmet cooking. I don't think transglutaminase was isolated by a chef. Rotovaps were also not invented in a kitchen. Perhaps you should learn a bit about the increased prevalence of science in high end food preparation before trying to insult my intelligence again.

It could be in my head: but it appears I'm mostly feeding trolls right now. So I'm done wasting my time with this thread. Back to my delusions about science being capable of explaining the physical world... What a silly pipe dream.

[Spence]

Hugh, you are making a basic error in thinking that nobody has done this before.
To add to this you started talking about blowing the lid off pickup making as if we are all a bunch of assholes trying to deceive the public with smoke and mirrors. That is offensive.
Up until then I didn't have a problem with your scientific approach.

[Hugh Evans]

That certainly was not my intention, and I believe I acknowledged my poor choice of words and apologized for any misunderstanding. There will always be a market for quality hand wound pickups, and I have the utmost respect for those of you who have mastered the art. It was not my intention to make anyone feel as if I was attacking them. Can we bury the hatchet?

I would love to have experienced winders, such as yourself, involved because you have a strong understanding of the art that only comes from years of experience. It would seem to me that there is room for everyone to benefit. Can we be cool now everyone?

I do realize that others have conducted some research, but I have not found the level of depth that I want to achieve. Even the extensive work done at UIUC is incomplete because they have only been able to measure coils while in the dark about their construction methods. The talks I have had with that research group have indicated that double-blind tests using their fancy test rig would fill in a large knowledge gap.

If there's anything else that needs to be addressed, let me know. I want to put this ugliness behind us.

[big_teee]

That certainly was not my intention, and I believe I acknowledged my poor choice of words and apologized for any misunderstanding. There will always be a market for quality hand wound pickups, and I have the utmost respect for those of you who have mastered the art. It was not my intention to make anyone feel as if I was attacking them. Can we bury the hatchet?

I would love to have experienced winders, such as yourself, involved because you have a strong understanding of the art that only comes from years of experience. It would seem to me that there is room for everyone to benefit. Can we be cool now everyone?

I do realize that others have conducted some research, but I have not found the level of depth that I want to achieve. Even the extensive work done at UIUC is incomplete because they have only been able to measure coils while in the dark about their construction methods. The talks I have had with that research group have indicated that double-blind tests using their fancy test rig would fill in a large knowledge gap.

If there's anything else that needs to be addressed, let me know. I want to put this ugliness behind us.

Go for it.
With All Due Respect, but instead of talking it to death, do it.
We basically Make Pickups here, All Ways and All Types.
None of the ways, or Types are wrong, just different.
The Other thing that may be alienating some is the detection of Arogance, or Wonkinish, if that is a word.
Have you started yet, I suggest getting back to us once you have some results?
I wish you the best in your future project.
Very Sincerely,
Terry

[Hugh Evans]

I chalk most of that up to being on the defensive for a while there, and I take the blame for causing confusion that resulted in several people taking offense. I like leaving room for any ideas related to testing that I might not have thought of, but I see where you're coming from. If there's one thing I'm not, arrogant would be near the top of the list. However, it looks like things are finally clearing up here.

I will certainly share results as they become available. Coordinating with UIUC means recruiting one or two interns, so the hope is that things will start happening this fall... Everything will be open source/open hardware. So the next major post I plan to make related to this project will likely include details and pictures of the CNC winder, and an outline of the experimental design. A very busy couple of weeks are coming up, machining and assembling my CNC winder design is one of the top priorities. I won't get started on all the 8-string guitars I have to prototype. For people interested in CNC winding, I am seriously considering making it available as a kit and have a target price of $200.

My sincere apologies again for anyone who took offense to any of my statements (although I think there was just one that set it off.) If there's anything anyone feels raw about: feel free to post or send me a PM. This is my favorite forum for the discussion of pickups and guitar electronics... The wealth of knowledge, talent, and experience around here is staggering. I would hate to have a negative reputation, because all of my other interactions have been very positive and it's a wonderful thing to have a group such as this to bounce ideas around with.

It's a huge relief for me to see this situation cooling off. I'll sleep a little better tonight.

[Lyrebird Steve]

I will certainly share results as they become available.

That would be ace

[David Schwab]

I am just curious whether the CSC machine be programmed to do scattered winding?

Here's something to consider. Scatter wound coils, are random wound. Can you make a machine do a random wind? I don't see why not. But it wont be repeatable, every coil will be different. Does that matter? Maybe not, since when making a series of the same hand wound pickups, they sound the same.

So, it could also be that the person hand guiding the wire makes changes based on what they are seeing, such as making sure the coils are even looking.

Or you can do what some pickup makers do already, which is to program a simulated hand winding pattern, probably based on hand winding one coil. Then they are all clones of that.

[Hugh Evans]

Rather than simply random, what about applying non-repeating patterns using layered Costas Arrays? You could still have identical coils using that method. I've been keeping exactly that idea in my back pocket for what would serve as a benchmark for the most random coil and then progressively approach order. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Costas Arrays, check out the link below (it doesn't delve into the math much, but you'll get the idea):

Costas Array

[David Schwab]

I'm sure some winders that use CNC do some kind of repeatable semi-random pattern. The question is how much of a different do the patterns make in the tone?

Some winders also record their hand movements while winding a pickup with a joystick, and then play that back.

[Hugh Evans]

That's something I'd love to know as well. It's a safe hunch that starting from a perfectly wound coil with each turn being perfectly adjacent to the last, and then progressively increasing randomness, capacitance will likely drop dramatically along with some decrease in inductance. But is seems likely that there will be a point of diminishing return. You're hitting on a big topic I want to explore, and the best method I've thought of thus far is to establish a "randomness curve" and measuring the responses of other parameters against that variable. Any thoughts? Better ideas?