"Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

[voggin]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Appeal to authority is only an (informal) fallacy if it isn't relevant. Bill is a PhD in physics, and he says WWI was caused by the Russian revolution. As opposed to, I'm getting a mole removed because my dermitologist says it's cancerous.

All of this scientific method talk is leaving out the biggest pitfall of this kind of enquiry, and that is confirmation bias. The "rigour" that is so often argued for is often being used as an excuse to "exclude variables" to the vanishing point to avoid conclusions which should have been reached earlier on.

Maple plank, JB pickup, grover tuner, Ernie Ball string: sounds like x, brighter than y
Mahog plank, JB pickup, grover tuner, EB string: sounds like y, not as bright as x.

Are we done? No, because that is not the answer we want. So, we want to eliminate the variable of two JBs. Same result? Better use the same tuner. Same result? Better use the same string.

Same result again? Oh, the string aged between test one and two. Devise some process for near-identical strings. Same result? Maybe the screw depths of the tuner in the different pieces of wood is inconsistent. And on and on. Changes in humidity in the room? Butterflies beating there wings in Australia?

Can't eliminate every variable? Well, I guess we'll call it a draw. Inconclusive. I can't establish that I'm right, but neither can those luthier guys.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

So you plan on hanging around here that long, huh?

"We", "I"... what's the difference?

[Big Flannel]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

"We", "I"... what's the difference?

A lot.

A whole lot.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Appeal to authority is only an (informal) fallacy if it isn't relevant. Bill is a PhD in physics, and he says WWI was caused by the Russian revolution. As opposed to, I'm getting a mole removed because my dermitologist says it's cancerous.

All of this scientific method talk is leaving out the biggest pitfall of this kind of enquiry, and that is confirmation bias. The "rigour" that is so often argued for is often being used as an excuse to "exclude variables" to the vanishing point to avoid conclusions which should have been reached earlier on.

I'm sorry... I can't find any coherence in this.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Anyway.. I'd hate to see another thread about the pursuit of truth and reason get locked, so let's stay on track.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

There's a third option you're not considering . . . like all human beings, they are remarkably easy to fool. If you spend any time learning about how optical illusions work you'll see what I'm talking about. The human brain is a pattern matching machine. We are naturally predisposed to seek cause and effect . . . it's baked in to the way you interpret data. If you perform an experiment expecting an outcome, you can easily change the outcome of the experiment even subconsciously. I don't think that people do this out of malice, but just because it's very easy to make mistakes and fail to account for variables. That's why rigor is so important in scientific testing. Information is never useless, the more information from a well designed test the better your conclusions should be.

Choosing to accept the word of someone in a particular field over empirical evidence is in fact anti-science and a well known logical fallacy (there's a name for this flawed reasoning . . . appeal to authority).

Speaking on confirmation bias, it's especially concerning when it comes to people who make a living off guitars, like John Suhr et al. The best salesman is one who believes what he says, because he doesn't have to act, he's naturally convincing. The fewer differentiators that exist, the fewer reasons there are to sell guitars. It's in their best interest to conclude that woods and materials vary substantially in tone. They might not even realize their own biases, nothing motivates as well as money. Seymour Duncan would probably love it if Rich Menga was right, and pickups expired after so many months, because then he could sell more pickups, you'd have to change them like batteries, and buy value pack of five JB's to get you through the year. Unfortunately, it's too obviously not true, but tone woods on the other hand....

[Gibson 1964]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Unfortunately, it's too obviously not true, but tone woods on the other hand....

Are equally as obvious that they make a substantial difference.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Are equally as obvious that they make a substantial difference.

Of course, how could I forget about the raging "pickup break-in" debate that has taken YouTube by storm?

[Gibson 1964]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

I'm sorry... I can't find any coherence in this.

It actually is coherent. When the video did eliminate variables, new potential variables were invented to hold in the view by the superstition of the "wood doesn't make a difference" crowd, or the denial that people heard what they heard. This is truly as big an issue of junk science to state that nobody can hear what everyone clearly hears, all things being equal but the wood. It is the obsession of proving what everyone knows because it is painfully obvious, is not so through obfuscation.

[Zhangliqun]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Wood does make a difference. However, on the pickup "break-in" time, here are my thoughts:

There is no pickup "break-in" time. The bobbin plastic, the metal parts, the copper wire, etc, are just not going to change significantly in just a few days or weeks (or even years -- maybe after decades) and there's nothing in the guitar that will make any of it change either.

The only possibility is the magnet changing, which will happen only if that magnet has been exposed to other magnetic fields. This can happen easily by just leaning the guitar up against the amp -- those speaker magnets have very strong fields.

In the absence of that, I have noticed that when I play Strats or Teles for a long time, even the best humbuckers will sound a little bit muddy when I go back to them, but after a few days I get used to it, and my picking technique also changes a bit, like maybe picking a little closer to the bridge for more treble response, maybe even do a little amp EQ'ing. Then when I go back to single coils, they sound scrawny and anemic, but the adjustment happens once again.

And back and forth it goes.

It is unlikely in the extreme that the humbuckers "break out " and become muddy while I'm not playing them and then "break back in" in just a day or two when I pick the bucker guitar up again -- and then the single coils that sounded fine in turn "break out" and suddenly become thin and anemic while I'm playing the humbucker guitars, then "break in" when I put the humbucker guitars down and go back to them in the span of a few days. And it is even more unlikely that this cycle repeats over and over through the years each time I swap the guitars.

I'm convinced that -- with the obvious exception of exposure of the pickup to magnetic fields -- this pickup "break-in" theory is really just ear adjustments, technique adjustments (often subconscious), and in some cases amp adjustments.

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

It actually is coherent. When the video did eliminate variables, new potential variables were invented to hold in the view by the superstition of the "wood doesn't make a difference" crowd, or the denial that people heard what they heard. This is truly as big an issue of junk science to state that nobody can hear what everyone clearly hears, all things being equal but the wood. It is the obsession of proving what everyone knows because it is painfully obvious, is not so through obfuscation.

I'm a believer that wood makes a difference, so you wouldn't be able to accuse me of being part of the "wood doesn't make a difference crowd", and I'll still stand by the facts:

1) potentiometers have a wide tolerance, less resistance in the circuit produces a different tone than greater resistance, therefor it's required that it be proven that they are the same value, or that the same potentiometers are used in both tests.

2) pickups have a wide tolerance also. There is variation in the magnetic alloys, the magnetic charge, the wind scatter and variation in the size of the wire along it's length which will cause one to sound different from the next. The same pickups must be used.

3) it's impossible for a human to repeat the exact same muscle movements twice, most especially several minutes apart.

In their demonstrations, they wanted to insist it was the wood that made, or didn't make, the difference, but they could not prove the difference was not caused by these other factors.

This is basic stuff. Those three points are not disputable. Denying these facts is akin to saying the earth is flat or that blood letting heals diseases.

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

It actually is coherent. When the video did eliminate variables, new potential variables were invented to hold in the view by the superstition of the "wood doesn't make a difference" crowd, or the denial that people heard what they heard. This is truly as big an issue of junk science to state that nobody can hear what everyone clearly hears, all things being equal but the wood. It is the obsession of proving what everyone knows because it is painfully obvious, is not so through obfuscation.

No they weren't. Those new variables were there to begin with. Varied tolerences on pots/pickups and the guitars setup can alter the sound a lot. Enough to where those variables need isolated, or tested in such larger quantities than tolerances become essentially irrelevant. You've never played two guitars of the same make/model that sounded just as different as the two in this video? I have multiple times.

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Denying these facts is akin to saying the earth is flat or that blood letting heals diseases.

Its funny you mention blood letting, because that's what a lot of content in this thread reminded me of. And doctor's believed it, therefore its a good example of how a call to authority isn't a logically sound way to determine if something claimed is truth.

[AlexR]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Its very easy for the sceptics in this sort of debate. You can just play the 'not scientific enough' card to just about any test you do and manage to escape. If you look at the theory behind motion and the way moving bodies and energy works then yes wood will make a difference - the string energy and the way it vibrates can't help but be influenced by the only thing that allows it to hold tension and vibrate in the first place. Take out the practical demo and the scientific burden there (your desperate escape route) and it becomes very clear.
You only need 1 guitar to sound different to prove the 'woods make a difference' case. You need to test every single instrument in history to prove the 'no difference' case. That is why the sceptics come out so strongly in the discrediting side.

But most seem to think that this equates to every bit of wood having to sound different, and that every single difference will be audible once the pickup puts its strong tonality over the top.
There are so many who say - I've never heard a difference - thats fine......you might just have bad ears, or a predisposition that wood won't make a difference therefore your ears will be deaf to it, or playing a Super D through a cranked hi-gain Marshall - which will squash anything subtle anyhow.

It also could be that the guitars you have owned do actually sound similar/same. As said, just because wood has variability doesn't make it impossible for 2 guitars to sound identical.

http://www.petelacis.com/2010/07/08/alder-vs-swamp-ash-maple-vs-rosewood-and-a-neck-swap-the-definitive-comparison-with-audio-clips/

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Its very easy for the sceptics in this sort of debate.

Once again, there's no reason NOT to be skeptical when there's no solid test supporting that the difference between two guitar's sound is in the wood. All the video (and that link you posted about the strat neck) teaches us is that the two guitars of the same make have the potential to sound different. Deciding that its the wood based on personal anecdotes doesn't mean squat. That's inductive reasoning, and doesn't answer questions accurately. There are TONS of variables not controlled. The burden of proof is on the ones saying wood DOES make a difference, not the people saying "prove it" like we are.