Joey Voltage
New member
Re: Alnico 8 vs. Ceramic.
Listen this is getting pretty tired and old at this point, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions but this has very little to do with the initial thread. Either get a real example and put it through testing and throw it under a spectrum analyzer, or drop it. Post a reply if you must have the last word but IÂ’m not addressing you any more regarding this.
Which taken at face value, is true. It never says by how much. Parasitic capacitance is a very basic concept, itÂ’s also the less important in a guitar pickup because itÂ’s dominated by cable capacitance nearly 100% of the time. If you have ever talked to Steve Blucher, or any the engineers at DiMarzio, they are well aware of the concept I promise you. I encourage you to reach out to them if you want a better idea of how their company runs, and their understanding of the art. Go to the source.
You can say the same exact thing about taking it at face value. Since you quite clearly stated earlier, we cant possibly deduce true intentions. You canÂ’t then use the patent wording as evidence and proof everything is at face value just because it fits your narrative. You donÂ’t get to pick and choose what to take at face value just to make your argument. ThereÂ’s no evidence to support you can take any patent at face value and itÂ’s a huge mistake to. There are several examples even within the music electronics world, some that don’t even cite the final working circuit as proof that the invention even works. Either everybody at the patent office is an expert at everything and every patent is thoroughly vetted before itÂ’s approved, or the patent office isn’t fully vetting and it’s not full of experts on everything. You can’t have it both ways to suit your argument. And so long as the practice is covered with in the patent, they, DiMarzio, have the legal authority to execute the practice contained with in it, own the legal rights to it, and any practice similar enough. A patent isn’t an advertisement for a new technology that is meant for peer review, it is primarily for sole legal rights to the practice contained with in it, and a sue happy company like DiMarzio will and has used them against others for litigation. Ask Seymour Duncan. I could list other patents that do the same exact thing. Your own expectations are what’s mirrored in what you are picking and choosing.
I think you missed my point with that, but to address this response, again you can’t define “improvement” if no one can agree that it’s an improvement. Improvement doesn’t have a strong value if it’s not generally accepted to be one. It then can only have value as a difference, not as an improvement. And the difference is not the primary marketing point. Take the gravity storm or the illuminator, two models that both feature this patentented technology. How many people do you think are buying these pickups just for that technology, and then compare to how many people do you think are buying them because they happen to be the signature models of both Steve Vai, and John petrucci? That marketing value only really appeals to a few select, very specific type of people, where as the endorsement has a broader mass appeal. Does boasting the tech hurt? No, but it simply pales in comparison to other aspects of their marketing engine.
Listen this is getting pretty tired and old at this point, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions but this has very little to do with the initial thread. Either get a real example and put it through testing and throw it under a spectrum analyzer, or drop it. Post a reply if you must have the last word but IÂ’m not addressing you any more regarding this.
Last edited:
