SD mV Pickup Ratings Reference

[Cynical]

How much louder in actual human hearing dB? Who knows....

0db in most use cases. Raising the output of a pickup doesn't make the final sound from an amp louder unless the amp is running extremely clean.

[Masta' C]

THAT would be an interesting experiment, wouldn't it?

The chart is a useful reference. I'm not sure why some are trying to dismiss it in favor of mere opinion. There's room for both to coexist and help create a more informed view of the pickup landscape overall.

Experience is valuable, but there are so many variables at play that you have to sort of "average out" everyone's input to get a clear picture about a pickup's voicing, character, etc. This chart provides a basic and convenient way to compare one particular aspect of SD's products (output)...nothing more, nothing less.

[beaubrummels]

THAT would be an interesting experiment, wouldn't it?

The chart is a useful reference. I'm not sure why some are trying to dismiss it in favor of mere opinion. There's room for both to coexist and help create a more informed view of the pickup landscape overall.

Experience is valuable, but there are so many variables at play that you have to sort of "average out" everyone's input to get a clear picture about a pickup's voicing, character, etc. This chart provides a basic and convenient way to compare one particular aspect of SD's products (output)...nothing more, nothing less.

I think ti would have been a much more useful reference if it was demonstrated to be complete and reliable. As soon as suspect numbers, like 666 and what-not, are seen, it call the whole list into question. Now we don't know which numbers came from testing and which were just deliberately or mistakenly put in there.

[Masta' C]

There's a *chance* the "666" was pure coincidence

But I agree that it's hard to put full faith in something like this, especially when it was basically abandoned and clear inconsistencies exist

[GrilledChickenSalad]

I highly doubt Scott Olson (SD's former Media Manager) would try to pull our legs

Ignore list. Use ears and experience, or ask people who generally know about relative comparisons.

THIS

[Benjy_26]

I have one question:

Is this list easily replicated?

I.E. can someone else follow the same methodology used to arrive at these same results time after time?

If not, it's no more valuable than opinion. I'd go so far as to argue that it is *less* valuable than opinion, as someone can take this chart as gospel simply because it's in an easier to digest, more authoritative format.

[Mincer]

I think it is just as easy to not factor it in decisions about pickup power. But for those who want to get an idea about comparing similar pickups, it can be helpful.

[Benjy_26]

I think it is just as easy to not factor it in decisions about pickup power. But for those who want to get an idea about comparing similar pickups, it can be helpful.

I disagree. Just browsing said list, it states that the 59n is hotter than the Demon. That's just not true.

[Mincer]

I disagree. Just browsing said list, it states that the 59n is hotter than the Demon. That's just not true.

All it means is that in this particular test, it was. Feel free to ignore.

[freefrog]

I disagree. Just browsing said list, it states that the 59n is hotter than the Demon. That's just not true.

For the record, transients can be extremely strong with P.A.F. style HB's. If the test mentions peak voltages (and I think it's the case like in the measurements done here), I see how it could give such results : my experimental data rate a Burstbucker Pro @ 660mV while this pickup was not that stronger than other P.A.F. clones when played... A good part of the output level was in the attack with this A5 unbucker.

Also and FWIW: in my archived data, a same P.A.F. clone in neck position delivers 150mV more than in bridge position - reason why there's "neck" and "bridge" models, basically. :-)) So, the SH-1n in the test above should spit 422mV once in the bridge slot: it "sounds" possible to me... but YMMV. :-)

[Benjy_26]

All it means is that in this particular test, it was. Feel free to ignore.

If you get different results in each particular test, then one SHOULD ignore, as the methodology is flawed.

[Mincer]

If you get different results in each particular test, then one SHOULD ignore, as the methodology is flawed.

It probably specified a limited range of frequencies. And didn't take into account that there is usually a spike in attack with PAF-style pickups.

[Benjy_26]

For the record, transients can be extremely strong with P.A.F. style HB's. If the test mentions peak voltages (and I think it's the case like in the measurements done here), I see how it could give such results : my experimental data rate a Burstbucker Pro @ 660mV while this pickup was not that stronger than other P.A.F. clones when played... A good part of the output level was in the attack with this A5 unbucker.

Also and FWIW: in my archived data, a same P.A.F. clone in neck position delivers 150mV more than in bridge position - reason why there's "neck" and "bridge" models, basically. :-)) So, the SH-1n in the test above should spit 422mV once in the bridge slot: it "sounds" possible to me... but YMMV. :-)

The rub is repeatability. If you're testing different pickups at different positions with varying parameters and the experiment is not repeatable, then it's nothing more than a bunch of somewhat interesting numbers. One can't really come to any logical conclusions. It's like me adding 2+2 and getting 4, but the next guy that conducts the experiment comes up with 2+2=purple.

[freefrog]

None of my own posts has never implied that 2+2 = purple but for my 4th answer in this thread, it might be a meaningful idea, finally.

To come back on topic: to check if results are repeatable, repeated experiments would be required.

The great thing is that other Duncan users are free to do alternative peak voltage measurements and to share their own results.

It would at least provide something to compare to the chart discussed here so... "repeatitively".

I know for a fact that it's doable (since it has been done here), that it can gives consistent and repeatable results and that it can even match largely what brands publish about that - many of the data that I've shared by thin slices match values coming not only from Duncan but also from DiMarzio or Jackson, for instance. I've not enough free time and I'm not masochistic enough to keep sharing such things in an argumentative context.but IME, they ARE potentially useful and instructive, even (if not mostly) when the numbers provided are apparently surprising. YMMV.