# 'nother Newbie Question - Capacitors



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Here's another question I got in an email that might help others out there:

*"What I'm struggling with currently(ha ha) is the role capacitance plays in amp design. I'm starting to understand how a capacitor can act as a filter for lower frequencies, but they have other uses which I've read about and this is where I get confused. I guess what I mean is that I can't see the forest for the trees so to speak. I'm trying to understand the circuit as a whole and how each component interacts etc. but at this point that eludes me."*

First off, a capacitor helps isolate stages in an amp. Tubes need high DC voltages to set their operating parameters. Once that is done the tube can amplify AC signals. However, if we take the signal from the plate of a stage to feed the grid of the following stage we have a problem. That previous plate will have a couple of hundred volts DC on it and if that feeds into the grid of the next tube it will cause that tube to crank full on and try to burn itself up!

That's where we use coupling capacitors. As the name implies, they couple signal from one stage to the next. DC is BLOCKED by a capacitor but AC sails right through! So now we keep DC voltages from leaking through to where we don't want them while allowing the signal to follow its own path.

After we understand that, I find the easiest way to understand a capacitor is to think of it as an AC resistor! We've already accepted that it blocks DC so the DC resistance is nearly infinite, like an open circuit. When AC flows through a capacitor the device acts exactly like a resistor only the "resistance" depends on the AC frequency. High frequencies pass through a given value of capacitor better than lower ones. If you don't have enough bass getting through you need a bigger value of capacitor.

The "AC resistance" of a capacitor is called "reactance". Inductors have reactance too but but of opposite effect to capacitors. Low frequencies get through easier than high ones. Combinations of inductors and capacitors have been used as long as we've been using electronics in passive crossover filters for hifi speaker enclosures. They make sure that high frequencies go to the tweeters and low ones to the woofers. The wrong frequencies in a tweeter or a woofer just waste energy and can even blow them up!

Capacitors are used in tone control circuits. The effects can get complicated to trace out but they all work by choosing different values to get different cutoff frequencies and slope to the adjustment curves.

Power supplies rectify AC voltage into pulsating DC. Circuits like pure and level DC voltages so filter capacitors are used to "filter" out the ripple of the pulse peaks, pulling peaks down by using the peak to charge up and filling in the "troughs" by releasing the peak voltage, ending up with an average. Filter capacitors are MUCH larger in value than couplers because power supply ripple frequencies are VERY low! Due to the physics in trying to put that much capacitance at a high voltage rating in a practical sized container and at a reasonable price, we usually use what are called "electrolytic capacitors". These have an electrolyte in the form of a wet paste inside as a "dialectric" to separate the two very long strips of aluminum foil that form the capacitor plates. One problem with these type of caps is that over years and decades they will dry out, even if the amp is in storage. It's a total crap shoot as to how long they last and no two are the same but after 20-25 years if they are still going you are living on borrowed time. The cure is to replace them. This is called a "cap job" and the amp will then be good for another few decades.

Coupling caps being made of different materials do not wear out. They can fail like any other part but in normal circumstances could last for over a hundred years or more.

I could go deeper but this is probably enough to chew on for now.

WB


----------



## The Usual (May 14, 2008)

That was great. Thanks.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Many thanks Wild Bill. 

As always, very well written and easy to follow. 

All the best.

Dave


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Hey Bill,

If you wanna really mess 'em up, you could discuss using a choke as the primary filter for the power supply 

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Why do some people worship some caps like (used) Sprague .022 mf. "bumblebee' or "orangedrops", etc. The former sell on FleaBay for $60 a pair and up.
I've seen .05 mf (used) ceramics go for $15 because they "came out of a vintage Jazz Bass". (Ceramics are the cheapest technology of the bunch, and traditionally used in least-critical applications. They usually sell for 5 cents each, new).

Caps are passive components, their electrical properties are capacitive reactance, leakage, and breakdown voltage - that's it. These properties are determined against universal standards and have assured tolerance ranges.
How is this kind of component going to affect the instrument tone comparatively, among manufacturers and type? It can't. The only conceivable explanation I can think of is that a certain brand/technology may have developed a long-term aging characteristic which, quite coincidentally, has drifted its original value in a direction which happened to improve a particular tuned circuit in which it is employed. If this were the case, the 'aged' value of an old component could be measured, and be replaced with a new piece of the same value, from any make, giving the same effect, correct?

Personally, I think that people are throwing their money away on mojo make-believe which gives imperceptible results to the ear (but perhaps not to the mind).

The big name guitar manufacturers of the 40's, 50's, and 60's used radio-grade commodity electronic components, not special designs. They chose their suppliers based on price and availability.

While I'm on this rant, what's up with the "cloth-covered" wire resurgence? So who's going to be the first to step up to the plate (ha ha), and tell me it makes an audible difference to amps?


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

J-75 said:


> Why do some people worship some caps like (used) Sprague .022 mf. "bumblebee' or "orangedrops", etc. The former sell on FleaBay for $60 a pair and up.
> I've seen .05 mf (used) ceramics go for $15 because they "came out of a vintage Jazz Bass". (Ceramics are the cheapest technology of the bunch, and traditionally used in least-critical applications. They usually sell for 5 cents each, new).
> 
> Caps are passive components, their electrical properties are capacitive reactance, leakage, and breakdown voltage - that's it. These properties are determined against universal standards and have assured tolerance ranges.
> ...


Well, you're preaching to the choir with me! I agree with you. It's all mojo crap!

In the golden years of tube technology some of the most expensive hifi amplifiers used ceramic or ordinary film caps. They achieved fabulous specs on their products. The fancy types were available but in those applications they were unnecessary.

It's all a con to take advantage of an uneducated market. Studying electronics books is hard and time consuming. Reading some self-appointed internet guru's web page and seeing a statement like "expensive oil-filled coupling caps really juice up your hifi!" is easy! Nobody notices the irony of how the same site SELLS those caps!

It becomes really ridiculous when they are pushing the mojo parts for a guitar amp. Even if the mojo stuff was true WHICH IT'S NOT why would you want to make your guitar amp super hifi? There's supposed to be distortion! That's the sound of rock and roll! There are different kinds of distortion and that's what makes a Marshall sound different than a Fender or whatever.

The same is true of different brands of tubes. Some brands of 12AX7s might have a bit more or less gain than the data book specs said. This is because they often are not made to the same close tolerances as tubes in the Golden Years. So you might plug one in and notice a slight volume jump. However, tone is not volume. Tone is a change at different points of the frequency spectrum coming from the note. There is no way some preamp tubes will have "more chimey mids and stronger bottom"!

That being said, some brands have differences with overall quality. Crap is still crap, "chimey mids" notwithstanding.

What the uneducated do not understand is that there is NO sound inside an amp at all! The sound doesn't happen until the speaker moves air! Inside the amp is only electrons moving, which is electricity. A TungSol 12AX7 doesn't have maple elements inside instead of rosewood, like a guitar neck. It has metal plates and wires! Sonic factors just don't matter!

This mojo crap started back in the 70's, when big hifi units began to be replaced with component tuners, amplifiers and turntables. That begat the need for patch cords. How do you explain with a paragraph on the back of a blister pack that your patch cords are better than someone else's? The answer is, you can't! You could only describe the advantages in tech talk, which your customer would never understand. So someone gave them a lick of gold plating! Bingo! The rube thinks "Gold must be better than that silvery looking plating." Pretty soon all the brands are copying your marketing method.

Meanwhile, I'm an industrial electronics salesman, selling connectors to tv and radio stations. You know how many gold-plated connectors were used in CHCH-TV? ZIPPOLA!

Some people just eat up mojo. As I said, it's easier than opening a book. That will never change. Also, mojo folks will almost never submit to a blindfolded, scientific test. Nobody ever audits an astrologer for his LAST YEAR"S predictions!

WB


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

+1 on your post J-75
Many will want to flame me to death for this but the same goes for original PAF pickups...some sound good and some don't. They're all made from the same stuff they're using today to make pickups...$1500-$2000 for a pickup?? $200 for a .022 bumblebee cap??? I'll stick to the offerings produced now thanks...



J-75 said:


> Why do some people worship some caps like (used) Sprague .022 mf. "bumblebee' or "orangedrops", etc. The former sell on FleaBay for $60 a pair and up.
> I've seen .05 mf (used) ceramics go for $15 because they "came out of a vintage Jazz Bass". (Ceramics are the cheapest technology of the bunch, and traditionally used in least-critical applications. They usually sell for 5 cents each, new).
> 
> Caps are passive components, their electrical properties are capacitive reactance, leakage, and breakdown voltage - that's it. These properties are determined against universal standards and have assured tolerance ranges.
> ...


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I have always been from Missouri re: old caps and their influence on tone.....until I listened to the sound clips on this thread.

http://www.guitarscanada.com/electric-guitar/34238-sound-shootout-bumble-bees-black-beauties.html

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm certainly not converted, but the clips did surprise me. I was hoping to get some accurate measures of the values of the caps shown but it never happened...and I was never 100% sure that I was reading the colour codes correctly.

If any of you have some time to read through the thread and/or listen to the clips, I'd really like to know your comments. I'm also curious to know if my thinking re: electronics (specifically the ESR readings) "holds water".

Thanks

Cheers

Dave


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

greco said:


> I have always been from Missouri re: old caps and their influence on tone.....until I listened to the sound clips on this thread.
> 
> http://www.guitarscanada.com/electric-guitar/34238-sound-shootout-bumble-bees-black-beauties.html
> 
> ...


 Greco, thanks for the link to the shootout - it was an interesting illustration.

Shure, different cap values will yield different tones, but the point is, they don't _have_ to be *old* caps, or Sprague caps, or Bumble bee, Black Beauty, etc.
They just have to be different values, that's all. For instance, Phillips capacitors will give the same results with the same values, but I'll bet I can't get 60 bucks for a pair of them.

Best,

Bill


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

J-75 said:


> Greco, thanks for the link to the shootout - it was an interesting illustration.
> 
> Shure, different cap values will yield different tones, but the point is, they don't _have_ to be *old* caps, or Sprague caps, or Bumble bee, Black Beauty, etc,
> 
> Bill


Bill..my question remains...will a cap of say .022 uF that is PIO OR a new electrolytic OR an old electrolytic, etc all result in similar tones? 

The "shootout" certainly demonstrated various tones, but like I mentioned, I could not be sure of the values of all of the caps that were tried. I was also wondering, in that thread, if some of the values of the caps had changed through time from their stated/marked values (hence the the ESR meter question in that thread). 

Am I making any sense here...or missing something very basic?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Capacitors can and in some cases will drift from their spec. This is very common with the old wax type caps. To answer your question Dave, yes there are instances where tone will change due to cap drift. In the case of electrolytics value drift, especially downwards, will cause a noticeable changes. Hum and poor bass response come to mind if it's the primary cap. Hope that answers your question...kinda. 



greco said:


> Bill..my question remains...will a cap of say .022 uF that is PIO OR a new electrolytic OR an old electrolytic, etc all result in similar tones?
> 
> The "shootout" certainly demonstrated various tones, but like I mentioned, I could not be sure of the values of all of the caps that were tried. I was also wondering, in that thread, if some of the values of the caps had changed through time from their stated/marked values (hence the the ESR meter question in that thread).
> 
> ...


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks nonreverb. Much appreciated. Yes, it does answer one of my questions.

This question remains: _.......will a cap of say .022 uF that is PIO OR a new electrolytic OR an old electrolytic (NOT DRIFTED from SPEC), etc all result in similar tones? _...Edit : OOOOPS...I just realized that this is basically the same question that sparks the never ending debate/discussion globally. Sorry.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Hey oh Dave

I've been silent of late. Too much drama in my life, but I have followed much of the threads here.

To answer your question, there are three parts. 

1uf is a mathematical function and not a construction. No matter the materials science in applying the math, the resultant 1uf is 1uf.
Materials science does have an impact in terms of electrostatics, inherent resistances, ability to retain static charge etc. These will affect how stable 1uf is when built.
Though I have mentioned that no one has done low frequency studies on the materials, they have on high frequency, and the "knee" point of shift in value (where the math that defines 1uf as 1uf) is typically around 100Khz to 150Khz on materials pre-WW2. Post-WW2 frequencies would knee around the 10Mhz point, and modern materials do function stably into the Ghz (think of all the capacitors in your computer right now). Now, there may be some shifts in the interactions of the materials at lower frequencies, and that is part of the debate, no one has to my knowledge followed that in a scientific manner to see.

So, until someone finds something, 1uf is 1uf is 1uf no matter the materials used when used at audio frequencies


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks Keeps...I feel like I am derailing Wild Bill's thread here. However, it is meant to be in the best interests of mankind.

*So, until someone finds something, 1uf is 1uf is 1uf no matter the materials used when used at audio frequencies *

.....I like this statement! (sincerely)

Cheers

Dave


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

greco said:


> Bill..my question remains...will a cap of say .022 uF that is PIO OR a new electrolytic OR an old electrolytic, etc all result in similar tones?
> 
> The "shootout" certainly demonstrated various tones, but like I mentioned, I could not be sure of the values of all of the caps that were tried. I was also wondering, in that thread, if some of the values of the caps had changed through time from their stated/marked values (hence the the ESR meter question in that thread).
> 
> ...


Dave, The old cap technologies employed the limited selection of materials that were available back then - paper, oiled paper, mica, wax sealed, early plastics, metal alloys, etc. These materials limited the properties of a cap - size, shape, and range of values (capacitance) that could be made. They also came with their own drawbacks - dehydration, thermal/humidity issues, corrosion, oxidizing unstable dielectrics (oils, etc.). The engineering goal was to insure stability over a long life under a range of environmental conditions.

In a typical installation, the caps are in a cool environment which heats up rather rapidly, then cools off slowly. This invariably triggers an event whereby all components undergo a physical expansion/contraction cycle which stresses the component, causing small cracks & leaks, particularly where the wire leads penetrate the container. This progressively dries out volatiles - oil, wax, etc. as well as out-gas. The development of any gas build-up in a cap will seriously alter its value.

In answer to your question, YES a new .022 mf capacitor will give similar tone to what a PIO .022 mf gave _when it was new_. The catch is, those _old_ PIO's aren't .022's anymore - age has changed their values. So, to be accurate, you will get similar tone if you replace an old PIO with a new cap with a similar _measured value_ (we're not talking .022 anymore, that's history, a "used to be". You may measure the PIO's _current_ value, and replace it with the nearest standard value available. If you can't get a close enough match with a standard value, you can combine two new caps to add-up to the desired target value. Unlike resistors, caps add together when wired in _parallel_, not series.

Electrolytic capacitors don't fit in this discussion - they are not used in guitar tone-shaping circuits. They are commonly employed where much larger capacitance values are required. They can affect the tonal qualities of an amplifier when they age or fail, but otherwise should not be altered in value to "tune" an amplifier.

Lastly, modern caps are made with materials and methods that make them smaller, more stable with time, etc. polystyrene, polycarbonate, polypropylene, mylar, teflon... These are what's replacing the old PIO dielectric. These new materials will not age in value as much as PIO.

ESR won't change the tuning frequency of a circuit, but it could alter the tone because it _flattens_ the tuning, making it less _critical_. This will have an effect on the harmonic profile of the tuned circuit, causing an instrument to lose some tonal character or, "flavour". In reality, using practical values, i don't have any idea whether this ESR-derived effect would be significant enough to be audible in musical amplification applications.

Best,

Bill


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks Bill...everything I wanted to know and more!

The use of "electolytic" was a stupid error on my part. 

Wild Bill..apologies for the derail.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Hey guys,

I apologize if I've been an intruder in this thread - I certainly didn't mean to be.
I'm new here, and the topic was irresistible to me, as I see what these old parts sell for on the 'Bay.

Again, I didn't mean to offend, and if I did, I'm sorry,

Best and be well,

Bill


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

None taken...there's lots of room for comments on this board. The more the merrier 



J-75 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I apologize if I've been an intruder in this thread - I certainly didn't mean to be.
> I'm new here, and the topic was irresistible to me, as I see what these old parts sell for on the 'Bay.
> ...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

J-75 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I apologize if I've been an intruder in this thread - I certainly didn't mean to be.
> I'm new here, and the topic was irresistible to me, as I see what these old parts sell for on the 'Bay.
> ...





nonreverb said:


> None taken...there's lots of room for comments on this board. The more the merrier


Agree'd

Wild Bill did say it is a big topic and lots of questions come up. And, we all have slightly different ways of explaining things too. In the end, it all works


----------



## The Usual (May 14, 2008)

I really liked where the original post was going, because it had not yet gone down the road of "there is no difference in tone between types of caps made of different materials". It was just a great post on how capacitance works for guitars. I knew it was too good to last!!!

Not that the type argument is not a great argument. It is. But it always ends unresolved, regardless of the facts presented on both sides. One side says equal capacitance is equal capacitance, and I think they are right. The other side points out that the speed of one type is different than the other (which they can show proof of), and that is what contributes to the different tone. Then everything melts down.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Capacitance "speed" issues at the frequencies that audio equipment are operating at simply do not exist. IMO



The Usual said:


> I really liked where the original post was going, because it had not yet gone down the road of "there is no difference in tone between types of caps made of different materials". It was just a great post on how capacitance works for guitars. I knew it was too good to last!!!
> 
> Not that the type argument is not a great argument. It is. But it always ends unresolved, regardless of the facts presented on both sides. One side says equal capacitance is equal capacitance, and I think they are right. The other side points out that the speed of one type is different than the other (which they can show proof of), and that is what contributes to the different tone. Then everything melts down.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

nonreverb said:


> Capacitance "speed" issues at the frequencies that audio equipment are operating at simply do not exist. IMO


Now I am really confused....What is "capacitance *speed*" ? 
I have never heard or read this term associated with capacitors.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

The Usual said:


> I really liked where the original post was going, because it had not yet gone down the road of "there is no difference in tone between types of caps made of different materials". It was just a great post on how capacitance works for guitars. I knew it was too good to last!!!
> 
> Not that the type argument is not a great argument. It is. But it always ends unresolved, regardless of the facts presented on both sides. One side says equal capacitance is equal capacitance, and I think they are right. The other side points out that the speed of one type is different than the other (which they can show proof of), and that is what contributes to the different tone. Then everything melts down.


You can blame me for this. My apologies

Probably I should have left the thread to be only a discussion related to *caps in amps*...as I suspect Wild Bill had intended. 

However, there certainly was a lot of specific information, regarding caps in general, discussed in the thread.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> +1 on your post J-75
> Many will want to flame me to death for this but the same goes for original PAF pickups...some sound good and some don't. They're all made from the same stuff they're using today to make pickups...$1500-$2000 for a pickup?? $200 for a .022 bumblebee cap??? I'll stick to the offerings produced now thanks...



ahem 

most current PAF pickups are not made with the same materials they used in the late 50s 
They most definately do not sound almost the same 
this is easily demonstated with a genuine set and a proper ab comparison 

Real Paf's have clearer hi's have a musical chime and most importantly they sustain 
2x as long as current offerings and while sustaining the harmonics rise 
ie the lower tones drop out first and the higher overtones continue 

with modern pickups the opposit effect occurs the harmonics decay first and the lower muddy tones next 

the difference is the metalurgical formulation of the screws, slugs and keeper bar in the original pickups

those one or two custom pickup winders who have taken these bits to the lab and had custom steel alloys mixed have come the closest 

Yes the price of real PAF's is insane & the real cost of this price insanity is the HUGE number of counterfits "about 90% of the ones currently for sale" 

The proper test for a PAF is to play it and listen for the "angel voices" as my buddy calls them 
if you don't hear them you have a fake or rewind/rebuild with the wrong pieces 

I get my PAF clones from one of the people who has done the lab work and they are 98% close 
but the paf's always have one more angelic voice in the mix 

most Modern PAF's/ clones and repros sound broken to me 
they go in the GARBAGE 

I won't argue the effect of PAPER IN OIL caps in a les paul .. the effect is there but no where near as obvious as the PAF's and indeed may be inaudible with regular humbuckers 
since the effect of the oil dialectric is the smooth the top end and enhancing the PAF harmonics 

most people overpaying for look a like capacitors are doing so for the REPRO RESTORATION factor 

if you are into cars you now the guy who has the genuine OEM look alike or authenic OEM 
Ford or GM battery, hoses and sparkplug wires his car should have shipped with, and the bill of sale ususally wins top prize simply because of his attention to detail in his restoration process 

that guy will pay insane dough for the right OEM parts for his car to keep it "original" 
and thats partially what drives the pricing on "correct" old parts 

The PAF thing on the other hand is depressing, when you hear a great set 
"you slap your head and say... damn I get why Duane Allman had that clean magic sustain" 

please allow me to demonstrate 

YouTube - Evaluating Pickups with your ears ....

The second PRS in the video just got converted over 

Real Paf's 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8kfI8H-XOg


with "vintage capacitors" lead composition length are a factor a .02 cap with beefy leads will have some inductive effect on the cap's performace 

likewise drift is a huge factor one guy on a marshall building forum couldn't find .02 capacitors but had a good supply of .015 caps 
he was amazed that when he built a standard Marshall 50 watt circuit with these instead of .02s his amp was focus and sounded
a LOT like a vintage amp . The example was even more interesting when he obtained his .02 caps swapped them in 
and found his previously killer sounding amp lost a lot of its MOJO 

I don't build a ton of stuff but find I can get more consistent results with one modern Brand of caps 
compared to another type ...

I relate this to guitar strings...
most sets of 10-46 are interchangeable however 
certain brands have more "bad strings" more often 
a bad string won't hold its tune when you check it with your tuner 

in some cases there are desirable QC issues with the popular 
mojo parts 

even though a .1 cap is a .1 cap 

Likewise a 
Goodyear or Toyo p225 40 r17 tire is better 
than a Motomaster p225 40 r17 
or a chinese discount p225 40 r17 
and you can verify that an "identical" PART Number is not always the same part at the racetrack ! 

to sum up 

on the internet 90% of epiphone les paul owners will tell you there is no difference 
between their guitar and a gibson



p


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

I find a noticeable difference (not sure that "huge" qualifies here) between some brands and types of capacitors when used for coupling, not so much in the power supply. Just solder in one leg of a Sprague Black Beauty and a Solens of the same value and using a clip lead, a-b them. The same goes for tubes, especially 12AX7's in critical gain stages. Unfortunately it's harder to a-b tubes because of the time elapsed shutting down the amp, removing one and installing another, powering up and warming up the tube.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

I hear differences too and I don't feel its Laughable 

If you take into account the massive + or - 20% tolerances in old parts 
manufacture some of these preferences do make sense 

As wild Bill points out Parts Drift is a huge factor 
I've spent years cataloging the examples I've found that sounded really good 

example
there are two resistor values that are different between a ts9 and a TS808 
musicians with ears spotted this right away when the products changed 
yet I'm sure for years some people believed it was all BS hype 

Personally I feel you should just go grab a reissue ts9 and put in the 808 output buffer 
but you need to have noticed the hype to figure out the you needed to investigate
the correct circuit 



p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Dude whatever floats yer boat! I've also heard several PAF's both long and short magnet pickups and I simply DO NOT BUY the notion that paying exhorbitant prices for pickups with essintially the same materials as new ones. Don't forget Parkhead, like old caps or old Strat pickups, like it or not, the alnico has degraded over the years and lost some of it's magnetism. Therefore, what you hear today is NOT what the pickup sounded like brand new. So now we get subjective...if someone truly wants to believe the pickups they just dropped $2000 on are the best sounding, by all means! Personally, I've heard true PAF's that did nothing for me at all. 

One aspect that you didn't point out is the wood that those pickups are in. As most experience guys know, a pickup can behave differently from one guitar to another. ie take a PAF and remove it form a Les Paul and install it in an L5...it's going to sound diffrent.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

parkhead said:


> I get my PAF clones from one of the people who has done the lab work.......
> p


Parkhead: I understand that you are referring to "lab work" regarding the composition of materials (that is what I assume, given what you have written).

However, I have a purely academic question: 
Have studies using scientific sound analysis/measurement equipment been done that shows the original PAF's have the sound qualities you refer to ? (i.e., to reduce the subjective element)

Cheers

Dave


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Food for thought: (rhetorical questions)

How come *everything* that's *old* is *better* (except strings LOL)? Old wood, nitro, caps, PU's, wire, workmanship, pedals, amps, etc.
I admit that 'old' is *different*, but I question that it's always *better*, by default. Isn't it just a crapshoot?

Why do we (yes, me included) try and make up for our playing deficiencies by blaming equipment, insisting on better components, etc.?
Liberace was a mediocre musician who smoke-screened his playing ability by insisting on a very rich performing environment. (He was a popular Las Vegas- grade performer, not symphony level, but I'll bet his pianos cost him a fortune).

Why do we worship the efforts of past designers & builders who often blundered into things, based on trial-and-error, materials availability and economics? Case-in-point, Leo's first guitars had no truss rods, and guess what happened? Are they still worth a fortune? His maple fingerboard switched to slab rosewood, then contoured rosewood - to him, and others, these were improvements. His strat was intended to be a tele-slayer, his jazzmaster was supposed to do the same to the strat, and likewise the jag-to-jazz. He saw this a history of _improvement_ over the course of 15-odd years. Looking back at this, why does the current demand and price of vintage equipment reflect the opposite? (ie. - What's worth more, a '65 jazzmaster, or a '56 strat?) Leo made some mistakes; he was not a god. Today, people love to dissect the anatomy of things such as PU's - wire, widing form, bobbin material, metallurgy, etc, and the result is always: 'the old ones were better', (and near-impossible to reproduce). Do you really think that Leo and his peers were into 'lab' research? I think it was more like bench testing, A-B tinkering, some hits, some misses. In their day, wire was wire, magnets were magnets, & workmanship was to the best of employees' abilities, because there was no CNC mechanisation, etc. to assure accuracy & consistency.

Ever wonder about the strat bridge PU, and why he never altered the pole spacing to account for the slant? - Didn't need to, still worked.

To those who aren't 'in the choir', I've got my flame suit on.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2010)

WCGill said:


> I find a noticeable difference (not sure that "huge" qualifies here) between some brands and types of capacitors when used for coupling, not so much in the power supply. Just solder in one leg of a Sprague Black Beauty and a Solens of the same value and using a clip lead, a-b them. The same goes for tubes, especially 12AX7's in critical gain stages. Unfortunately it's harder to a-b tubes because of the time elapsed shutting down the amp, removing one and installing another, powering up and warming up the tube.


Did you measure the actual capacitance on the parts in question though? Or are you just calling them equivalent because of the markings on them?


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2010)

greco said:


> Now I am really confused....What is "capacitance *speed*" ?
> I have never heard or read this term associated with capacitors.


The material properties of the base materials used to build most capacitors aren't linear with signal frequency. So the actual capacitance value seen by the signal varies depending on the period of the signal. But you have be working with some seriously fast signals for this to matter. In the audible frequency range capacitors should have uniform capacitance.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed Ian. As mentioned before low frequencies are not going to expose the limites of most caps. Variance in tolerance will however.
J-75 I totally agree with what you're saying. There are excellent examples of PAF's and there are shitty ones as well. Same goes for new production vs old equipment. There simply is no standard to measure against except your own ears. IMO




iaresee said:


> The material properties of the base materials used to build most capacitors aren't linear with signal frequency. So the actual capacitance value seen by the signal varies depending on the period of the signal. But you have be working with some seriously fast signals for this to matter. In the audible frequency range capacitors should have uniform capacitance.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

iaresee said:


> The material properties of the base materials used to build most capacitors aren't linear with signal frequency. So the actual capacitance value seen by the signal varies depending on the period of the signal. But you have be working with some seriously fast signals for this to matter. In the audible frequency range capacitors should have uniform capacitance.


Thanks Ian...much appreciated.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

greco said:


> Parkhead: I understand that you are referring to "lab work" regarding the composition of materials (that is what I assume, given what you have written).
> 
> However, I have a purely academic question:
> Have studies using scientific sound analysis/measurement equipment been done that shows the original PAF's have the sound qualities you refer to ? (i.e., to reduce the subjective element)
> ...


Paf's have very little to do with sound "quality" there is no PAF eq curve or special spike at 1k 
or anything like that that is obvious and measurable in that manner...

What is going on is that the steel elements have fewer degenerative eddy currents in them 
in essence the pickup is more sensitive with a lower "magnetic noise floor" 

this is experienced as playing feel, obviously longer sustain and a wider dynamic range from soft to hard picking

The PAF's real I've played have all sounded different but exhibited this dynamic range and sustain ... one of the key experiments was installing PAF's in a Brand new les paul standard 
for a local player who was gigging a 59 burst ...

He paid HUGE money for PAF's 2x what he paid for the guitar and after we popped them into his guitar declared "the legend is true" "we have just proven it" 

One of the guys I spoke to who had paf parts analysed said "they stopped making these grades of steel years ago so we had to go to the foundry with the formula and custom order our raw steel ... its so expensive its no surprise no one else is willing to do it" 

Personally I wont spend 2k per PAF to get that tone, but know it to be a reality. 
I will spend $200 for a custom made pickup by small supplier who has these details right 

again a .1 cap is just a .1 cap 

but in all things we know from our own lives there is a difference between 
an "edible oil product" and real cream 
a fresh salad and stale chemical sprayed packaged salad 

a great Mexican reposado tequila (Don Julio) and the "joven" junk you get for $20 
made with corn syrup instead of a cactus 
good scotch vs Rotgut 


some people may not hear the PAF THING ... 
In fairness I have a buddy who feels that the PAF sound is not tight enough 
and contains too many uncontrolled harmonic elements

for years people argued that a solid state amp 
could sound just as good as tubes 

P


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

iaresee said:


> Did you measure the actual capacitance on the parts in question though? Or are you just calling them equivalent because of the markings on them?


Ian,
I never measure caps, not my philosophy and not very productive in tweaking amps. I did however measure the very two that I mentioned in my post. One measured .025 and the other .023.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

*Pickup References*

Greco, you wanted to read lab research, these sites provide technical, historical, and practical info. They answer a lot of questions:

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cour...ronic_Transducers_for_Musical_Instruments.pdf

UIUC Physics 498POM Guitar Pickup Measurements

Some interesting points (at least, to me they are):

Physical & sonic differences between Fender and Gibson PU's
The relationship of PU positioning with the physics of string vibration.
Capacitance issues in coil types
The role of the surrounding metal environment (mass & type), coupled to the PU

Enjoy,

Bill


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Bill...THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the links !! This is somewhat what I was wondering about. 
I openly admit that I'll never come close to comprehending the math...but these are very fascinating articles.

My thinking/question was a bit more oriented to the measurement of the sound produced by various pickups actually mounted in guitar(s) while it is being played (i.e., mechanically strummed with the same/controlled variables). I know that a study of that nature would be very difficult and complicated to perform, but I'm sure there have been others before me that have thought of it. 

Cheers

Dave


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

there are errors in these articles 

the author states that Gibson Hand wound their pickups 

Fender did, but Gibson used a Mechanical cam winder 

interestingly the guy who did the research conclude the old pickups had a better sonic character 

"2.) Didn’t even get to talk about the microscopic/quantum/particle-physics aspects of what-all is
going on in electric guitar pickups, which blows my mind – and your ear can hear this!!!" 

Bottom line 

if you went to a company making #42 PE wire in 2010 and asked them to draw and coat the wire the same way they did 
in 1959 they wouldn't ... because your order would not be large enough, 
some of the coating chemicals are illegal and the dies & machinery have been replaced with "accurate" machines 

and yes those "fools" spending 2k for PAF's can hear it! 

p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

I believe that most of this discussion regarding old/new pickups and caps could be concluded easily with blindfold tests. That way their is no preconceived bias either way. Funny but you never hear any buyers say that they based their purchase on a test like this. Hype goes a long way....


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

I couldn't agree with this more. Better than "blindfold" tests, would be double-blind tests, where neither the subjects (listeners) nor the person manipulating the different variables knows which is which. I have not been able to do this, but have switched between different components without telling my listeners what they were hearing, sometimes not even changing the component. In the end we all agreed that there were differences and were able to define them. In this case it was output transformers. People's biases are huge in these comparisons. For example if something costs significantly more than something else or is a "holy grail" item, it will almost always sound better to the subjects if they are told this.


----------



## Gizmo (Aug 7, 2008)

A sax player I play with, who used to have a hifi store, claims that in his hifi setup (worth probably 20k) he can actually hear the difference if he changes power cables.
Thats taking it too far for me but he's convinced and who am I to argue!


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

Double blind tests are great ... but are also not needed 

there are folks who's ears are biased by their eyes and their wallet 

nothing like spending a pile of money to make you hear what you bought 

on the other hand 

I know studio people who have "dog ears" they are hard to fool and their opinions are trustworthy 


I have a buddy who has this vintage guitar... when anyone plays it people walk up and ask what 

it is ... its that dang obvious they hear it and walk over.

I heard it and asked "can I study measure, photograph and meter it please" 

I have studied that guitar to death with his permission and discovered some interesting oddities 

about it ... 

I was able to source the right parts to build myself a clone of that tone...

all of this is irrelevent if you think that people cannot hear, and that a part is a part 

When he gets a new guitar he brings it to me and says can you set it up like my old one? 

Sure I've got tons of old crappy parts !


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Don't you think that statements kinda vague? Anyone can walk up to someone and ask the same question about any guitar...It happens all the time. When I'm working at the store, all it takes is for someone to bring an old Strat into the store and play it and I guaranty within a half hour a half dozen spellbound guitarists will be stuck to him like flies on a pest strip. "Dog ears" is a very subjective thing...like audiophiles, sometimes we hear what we want to hear and nothimg more.....or less. Have people seen aliens? The ones that truly believe have for sure.



parkhead said:


> Double blind tests are great ... but are also not needed
> 
> there are folks who's ears are biased by their eyes and their wallet
> 
> ...


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> Don't you think that statements kinda vague? Anyone can walk up to someone and ask the same question about any guitar...It happens all the time. When I'm working at the store, all it takes is for someone to bring an old Strat into the store and play it and I guaranty within a half hour a half dozen spellbound guitarists will be stuck to him like flies on a pest strip. "Dog ears" is a very subjective thing...like audiophiles, sometimes we hear what we want to hear and nothimg more.....or less. Have people seen aliens? The ones that truly believe have for sure.


Sure we all know the scene where a bunch of guys drool over an old strat and It must sound good 
since it's old .... 

I'm talking about the auditory phenomena where the exceptional sonic properites of a guitar draw listeners who are not exited about its pedigree... 

this is extremely rare yet I have seen it a few times ... I estimate about 3 of the thousands of guitars i've seen to be this memorable... FWIW I have pre cbs strats (yawn) 
in the best case I was lucky enough to get to examine the guitar up close in great detail 

noting some significant peculiarities ....

don't misunderstand I am as skeptical as anyone about snake oil and unobtainium 
... yet every two or three years I learn something that odd that advances my undertsanding 
of the phenomena 

this drives me on investigating sonic phenomena 
Eric Clapton plays the same way he did in 65-66 
Freddie King Played the same songs and licks almost note for note 5 years earlier 

yet that Les Paul Standard (6 years old max) and Brand new Bluesbreaker amp 
tore the roof off of Guitar tone on the Bluesbreaker album 

I don't think Mullard mustard caps, Kt66's or early Greenbacks were critcal to the tone 
though some argue they are ...

those particular PAF's were a large factor but not all of it
I think Billy Gibbons has a very close set to Claptons, and the Clapton guitar is lost 

No one needs a blind test to hear the "bluesbreaker tone" and sit up an take notice 
and there are unique electro mechanical things involved if one chooses to examine 
the instrument/ amp and lucky to scientifically peel back the layers 

a smart man once said the average guy does not need a scale to know a 400lb man is FAT 
likewise I don't need a blind test to hear an exceptional guitar and feel it stands out 
like a flower on waste ground 

1% better does not cut it, exceptional is the starting point of the investigation 

If we accept that exceptional exists .. then we must investigate 

that or go back to practicing scales because its "JUST bigger talent" that makes a 59 les paul 

sound great 

Back to Clapton, he's a better guitar player now but his "tone" is pretty mild 

Dog ears are real... just talk to a succesful record prodcer 

they hear things 

"there a noise in this room at 1k" 

"the second guitarists A string is slightly flat" 

"the third 10 in that 8x10 has a tiny rattle on Bb" 

If I want subjective, I read internet product reviews... 

my produce friend is pretty blunt "dooood that sounds like pooop... we can't use it" 

(he's always right) 

Bottom Line 

I agree with wild Bill "Mojo parts" are 99% snake oil crap 

its the 1% that are worth pursuing where the reward is 

than and Bills approach or measuring parts drift ( I've studied this for years) 

in the end you can't buy it, and no ones going to do it for you 

thats why Eddie Van Halen ruined so much gear creating his "TONE" 

p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Ok here goes. I'll try and address each point as best I can...



parkhead said:


> Sure we all know the scene where a bunch of guys drool over an old strat and It must sound good
> since it's old ....
> 
> I'm talking about the auditory phenomena where the exceptional sonic properites of a guitar draw listeners who are not exited about its pedigree...
> ...


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

There was a guy who used to play here in K-W with Mel Brown on his jam night. He had a beautiful Gibson Firebird. Mel was known for having several vintage Gibson archtops including a Super 400. They sounded great, but when this guy would come on stage and play "Cause We Ended as Lovers" on his Firebird, people really talked about the sound. I think it was mainly a combination of this guitar into a very nice tube amp. Also these guitars feature a multi-ply mahogany neck that runs straight through the guitar's body to the tail end. I don't know if the pickups were the mini-humbuckers, mini PAFs or the Gibson P-90s, or a combination therein, but it was so starkly different from the other guitars that featured regularly in the same jam night. My point is; it's often a combination of many elements that may not be exclusive to the electronics or even the guitar alone. However, in this case it was the same room and the same tube amp as everybody else was playing, but this particular guitar sounded like nothing else. I knew very little about guitars in those days, and the Firebird was a wierd looking guitar, but I was compelled to ask him about this strange instrument. He said he'd bought it many years ago and that it was his very favorite guitar. Years later I would try a Firebird out and sadly it epitomized everything I _*don't*_ like in an electric guitar. I think there is such a thing as "The One", but I don't think it's about any mojo parts or only to be found in vintage stock.


Shawn.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

Rugburn said:


> There was a guy who used to play here in K-W with Mel Brown on his jam night. He had a beautiful Gibson Firebird. Mel was known for having several vintage Gibson archtops including a Super 400. They sounded great, but when this guy would come on stage and play "Cause We Ended as Lovers" on his Firebird, people really talked about the sound. I think it was mainly a combination of this guitar into a very nice tube amp. Also these guitars feature a multi-ply mahogany neck that runs straight through the guitar's body to the tail end. I don't know if the pickups were the mini-humbuckers, mini PAFs or the Gibson P-90s, or a combination therein, but it was so starkly different from the other guitars that featured regularly in the same jam night. My point is; it's often a combination of many elements that may not be exclusive to the electronics or even the guitar alone. However, in this case it was the same room and the same tube amp as everybody else was playing, but this particular guitar sounded like nothing else. I knew very little about guitars in those days, and the Firebird was a wierd looking guitar, but I was compelled to ask him about this strange instrument. He said he'd bought it many years ago and that it was his very favorite guitar. Years later I would try a Firebird out and sadly it epitomized everything I _*don't*_ like in an electric guitar. I think there is such a thing as "The One", but I don't think it's about any mojo parts or only to be found in vintage stock.
> 
> 
> Shawn.


exactly there are those instruments, and that exact experience 

& those instruments are the sum of their parts and transmit the magic of the player 

when you are lucky enough to examine one up close sometimes you find something ...

and when you do find something you realize there is an element of truth to some of those MOJO 

myths 


Here's why that firebird sounded great compared to a modern one 

Brazillian Rosewood FB (stiffer and more musical NLA)
Honduras Mahogany (lighter and more resonant NLA) 
vintage pickups using vintage metals...

Hide Glue construction (harder to work with but unites the wood pieces and crystalizes) 
-modern plastic white glues never harden 100%, they both creep and absorb vibration - 

+ or - 20% pots and caps 
-currently gibson uses 300k pots pre 1970 they used 500k - 

Thats just general stuff about pre 1970 guitars 

I could go on but you get it 

There will always be a BS salespitch about the benefits of antibacterial capacitors 

and there will always be those exceptional instruments, amps and parts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inwqzxLqmY

end 


p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

I read an article a few years back that pretty well summed up the stiuation where vintage guitars are concerned.
Take any 10 guitars from any given year...let's say 1960 Strat. Out of that group, a couple will be exceptional guitars, a couple will be crap and the rest will fall somewhere in between. My point is yes Rugburn, you're quite right, it probably is an exceptional instrument....that's doesn't mean all similar models from that year will be. The same can be said for other models in that production year regardless of what they're made of.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> ....that's doesn't mean all similar models from that year will be. The same can be said for other models in that production year regardless of what they're made of.


I agree, and basically said as much. However, I also agree with *parkhead* that if we do here something exceptional we should try and figure out what it is that is making such a difference.

Cheers
Shawn..


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Very difficult thing to do. Usually those guitars are the exception not the rule. Back then, a certain block of wood that happened to have an advantage when made into a guitar was purely by chance. There's no way on earth that Gibson employees back then knew that all the mahogany they built guitars out of was going to make them all sound consistently good. The production standard was not that tight. PAF's, due to the variation in winding turns, are all over the map when it comes to sound. Each is individual. However that doesn't make them all great pickups.



Rugburn said:


> I agree, and basically said as much. However, I also agree with *parkhead* that if we do here something exceptional we should try and figure out what it is that is making such a difference.
> 
> Cheers
> Shawn..


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> Very difficult thing to do. Usually those guitars are the exception not the rule. Back then, a certain block of wood that happened to have an advantage when made into a guitar was purely by chance. There's no way on earth that Gibson employees back then knew that all the mahogany they built guitars out of was going to make them all sound consistently good. The production standard was not that tight. PAF's, due to the variation in winding turns, are all over the map when it comes to sound. Each is individual. However that doesn't make them all great pickups.


People Like 

Wren Feguson, Eric Johnson, TV Jones, Jason Lollar, Wade Westbrook, Tom Holmes, Mike Eldred, Seymour Duncan, Paul Reed Smith would agree that there was some chance involved...

Back in the day they chose materials by Price VS. Strength and other basic manufacturing standards ... however these guys would all argue that there are minute details we can learn about what they did right and wrong 

In the case of each of these gentlemen, their research has resulted in consistently great modern products, all of these characters are deep into the research, and consistently produce desirable products using modern materials, in spite of dwindling natural resources...

None of them believe the problems are too dificult to solve or exceptional instruments are inaudible
& that is the heart of our disagreement 

no doubt 
there is snake oil out there, and an immense marketing machine designed to sell you more of everything on credit...

there are also folks who get results using science, basic observation and refusal to stop asking why is X better than Y 

(Those articles that claim that most vintage guitars were average and that 1 in 10 was good, are targeted at the new guitar buyer and written by cynical product reviewers... for the most part 
99% of pre CBS strats in good original & non worn out condition will clearly outperfom modern offerings... as will Original Fender amps compared to their reissues... perhaps by only 10% but noticeable) 
(in 1980 a USED 57 strat cost the same as a Brand new strat... the 57's were the ones to get if you had ears & that was before the hype... ) 

p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Far be it from me to try giving a balanced perspective to a true disciple. I stand by my opinion 100%. Nothing has been said to convince me otherwise....so let's agree to disagree.



parkhead said:


> People Like
> 
> Wren Feguson, Eric Johnson, TV Jones, Jason Lollar, Wade Westbrook, Tom Holmes, Mike Eldred, Seymour Duncan, Paul Reed Smith would agree that there was some chance involved...
> 
> ...


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

If I may once again jump into the fray,

This is an unbiased contribution to the general 'old versus new' underlying theme of this thread. It's not meant to sway anyone's opinions - it's just my personal experience:

I purchased a used strat, my guess is it was in '63, for $325. I think it was a '59 model (rosewood / brown tolex case). I sold it in the early 70's for $460 (made a tidy profit because "pre-CBS" models were now being sought-after).

I now have three contemporary strats: American Standard, Deluxe, and a Custom Shop.
From my recollection, the old strat didn't have any exceptional sustain, chime, or clarity compared to my new ones. Strings were available in only one, (heavy) guage set then, and that made for poor playability (which controlled the styles of solo work from that era. The G string was wound, not solid. Later, players began experimenting with substituting (thinner) banjo strings for some of: G,B&E).
The handwound PU's certainly didn't work any magic on my point-to-point wired, '62 (Jensen Alnico) Ampeg Reverberocket - that amp lacked bottom-end.

The new strats have more, & clearer voices, partly owing to 5-way switches (on my old strat, I reversed the middle & neck switch positions to be able to get at a neck-bridge sound by careful positioning of the switch lever). They are easier to play, but my residual memory of the '59's 'feel', embedded in my brain, sometimes surfaces causing me to "oversteer" the strings on the new strats - they require a lighter touch.
A set of strings cost $5 in the sixties - same as now, but incomes are about 15x higher, so a yearly string change back then, has now become a monthly string change.
Played through Fender amps, these new guitars have serious bottom-end (real "balls", compared to my early experiences with the now-vintage Ampeg model), and their build quality is superb, owing to modern tools, controls & measurement.
I could go on, boring you about neck profiles, PU choices, etc. which weren't even thought of in '63 - the only choice was right-handed sunburst, over-the-counter, versus, colour or left-handed, order & wait.

The only thing I miss about the '59 is the 30,000 bucks it's now worth!

Bill


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

_*QUOTE J-75 "The only thing I miss about the '59 is the 30,000 bucks it's now worth!"*_

That certainly would have compensated for all of the things that didn't impress you about it at that time !!...LOL

Thanks for the interesting post...very enlightening.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

J-75 said:


> If I may once again jump into the fray,
> 
> This is an unbiased contribution to the general 'old versus new' underlying theme of this thread. It's not meant to sway anyone's opinions - it's just my personal experience:
> 
> ...


unfortunatly the BIG DOUGH has skewed objectivity on the whole Vintage strat thing 
I have access to a few & don't get that exited about them ...

I could claim to be unbiased because I can directly compare a pre cbs strat to a modern offering 

typically the vintage strats are consitently better, with modern strings & modern amp than your current typical off the shelf offering 
the pickups do have a much better depth and dimension ...

(an Eric Johnson strat is 95% as good as a 56-58 but with a modern fretboard) 

But we are talking about a max 20% perceived improvement in tone over a standard or CS re-issue guitar 

especially since all strats sound like strats (good design) 

that gap can be bridged with good quality "custom shop" & "boutique type" parts 

And that is the essence of why this discussion has gone on and on 

to say that there is no difference in the qualites of various parts is to say that you cannot 

improve an average strat quite nicely by ...

Changing the pickups to a nice hand wound set and swapping the bridge out for one with proper 

cold rolled tool steel block and saddles ... just to name two of the things that should be done 

and can be done to Japanese and other generic strats 

Those changes are instantly audible to a player ohhh "nice strat" 

There is also a point of diminishing returns... is 3% better for $600 of parts really going to make 

the people in the bar love your version of mustang sally or Enter sandman ? more than a good 

rehearsal ??? 

$600 of lessons with an excellent teacher is probably a greater investment than amp & guitar parts 


ON the other hand ...

SRV constantly worked on his gear and his tone ... and we can all put on the disc and enjoy the 

results of his hard won accumulation of 3% + 3% + 5% + 2% improvements in tone ...

Eric Johnsons "I Can hear battery brands" or certainly wins on the guitar tone front...

but perhaps he should work on his vocals instead of listening for the effects of the screw in the 

fuzz face enclosure (EJ uses elastics to hold his FF together since he dislikes the "sound" of the 

screw, really!!! I've seen it up close ) 

Playing with capacitors for a .0001 % improvement in your playing & tone is probably a waste if you have not covered the easy 10% and 15% or 20% opportunities
or got your playing together 

as in all things in life identifying the correct way to allcoate you limited resources for the best gain or return is the real "secret" mojo 


So to sum up 

I need to get my metronome out and get to work 

please .... Talk amongst yerselves 

p


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

interesting reading, thx everyone for the opinions & info !!


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

I think what the old stuff has going for it is *soul*. The fact that numerous people have played and loved it for years. What I don't like about most of the modern mass produced stuff is exactly the reason why it's touted as "better". They're like toasters, each one is the same as the next. Who really wants that? If you happen to like the PRS neck that's great. But if you don't they're all the same and you're out of luck trying to find one that's different and fits you. I personally like a hand made or hand finished element to an instrument that sets each one apart from the other. It's the imperfection that makes them unique. Some people see that as a flaw, but I don't.

As for magnet wire they can't make it the way they used to no matter how much you order. Modern copper is purer and better annealed than it was in the 50's. You can get old formula PE but you have to pay an environmental fee per pound. If you're willing to do that it's no problem.

According to conversations I've had on the pickup maker's forum they are at least three different alloys used over time with PAF's. You can get close with "off the shelf" alloys. I'm actually not so convinced that the alloys are not available anymore as I think there's a certain variance within each batch because of size. I don't think you can mix alloys that thoroughly that every measurable piece will be exactly the same mix. So you can get some steel from a 1022 batch that may be closer to 1018 when analyzed.

As for Alnico magnets you're talking about a 1% loss over one hundred years. Not enough to make a difference even now. The real phenomena with 50's magnets is they don't gauss as high as their modern counterparts. I have two 50's PAF magnets that measured 25 gauss on my little hand held Annis Magnetometer and 30 gauss when I re-magnetized them. A year and a half later they're back to 25 gauss. That seems to be where they want to be. In comparison I can get modern Alnico 3 to stay at 30 gauss or above. No matter what the grade 50's magnets will usually measure between 25 and 30, which is not the same for modern Alnico.


----------

