Magnet and tone question

[Ulys]

I have been doing some research lately to find which magnet would have an EQ as flat as possible. From what I understand AlNiCo-4 and AlNiCo-8 seems to be the ones.
Does it seem accurate? Could someone point me the right one? Am I wrong?

 

[Clint 55]

A4 is the only one that sounds super flat to my ears. A8 sounds boosted in different frequencies.

 

[beaubrummels]

I thought ceramic was the flattest, not emphasizing any particular frequency (which also can be undesirable in an instrument)

 

[Artie]

I would think it would be more the total package, than a specific magnet. For example, I consider the PATB-1's to be fairly flat. Great evenly voiced frequency response, and they are A5's.

 

[Adieu]

A8 doesn't feel flat imho

 

[PFDarkside]

You know, I’ve always accepted the fact that different magnets sound different, but haven’t thought about it too much other than knowing that they have different gauss, etc.

Why does A2 sound spongy compared to A5 and Ceramic? Does a pick attack disrupt the magnetic field and the lower gauss can’t re-establish the magnetic field as fast as a stronger magnet?

 

[eclecticsynergy]

You know, I’ve always accepted the fact that different magnets sound different, but haven’t thought about it too much other than knowing that they have different gauss, etc.

Why does A2 sound spongy compared to A5 and Ceramic? Does a pick attack disrupt the magnetic field and the lower gauss can’t re-establish the magnetic field as fast as a stronger magnet?

Kind of like sag in the power stage of a tube amp? That's an interesting thought.

Oriented vs unoriented may have something to do with it too I think.
Unoriented mags generally have a softer attack and a chewier feel overall IME.

Even UA5 - quite different from A5 in both tone and fingertouch. Of course, it does have a weaker field than regular A5.
But not so much that there's a big level drop - I was surprised at first how little volume was lost in swaps to UA5.

A4 has a stronger field than A2 or A3 and tends to have a snappier attack, with tighter release in the lows too.
That would seem to support the hypothesis that field strength and sponginess may correlate.

 

[jeremy]

strength definitely effects things but i have tried an a5 and a2 both at the same about gauss, a2 fully charged and a5 degaussed, in the same pup and there was still a noticeable difference. a5 still had a bigger tighter bottom for example

 

[beaubrummels]

Isn't A2 unoriented? So the direction or lack of direction of the magnetic field is making those particular differences?

 

[jeremy]

it is unoriented, yes. thats the only experiment ive done with the same pup. maybe some one else has tried a2 and a4 at the same gauss?

 

[ToneFiddler]

i guess charge isn’t everything.
the composition of the magnet is still different.
somebody on hear wrote that alnico magnets add also inductance because of the metal content.
so that may be different for each grate.

@PFDarkside: that’s a very good explanation what actually might happen. at least i can picture it in my head. makes a lot of sense.
i think you guys are on to something

 

[freefrog]

Hi all,

I agree that...
-AlNiCo alloys contribute to different inductance values. To put it simply, inductance rises proportionnaly to the ferrous content of the magnets;
-conversely, the more iron in an AlNiCo, the less charge it will take. A3 is meant to contain 60% of iron. A2, 55%. A5, 51%. A6, 48¨%. A8, 34%.
-Consequence: "inductively", A3>A2>A5>A6>A8. "Magnetically", A3<A2<A5<A6<A8.

But I've shamelessly produced here a purely theoretical sum up, laid in a very simplistic way. Things become way less clear when reality chimes in. Let's consider for example the A4 evoked above. as described by a famous supplier: https://www.arnoldmagnetics.com/wp-c...0214_FINAL.pdf

In this doc, the variable amount of Al(uminium), Ni(ckel) and Co(balt) implies a ferrous content vaying of 5%: it's a lot. enough to affect the "sound" if you ask me. .

Regarding the reaction of AlNiCo mags to string plucking: yes, there's a difference. "slowness" is roughly proportional to inductivity, with the notable exception of U0A5 which is distinctively "slower" than the others, regardless of its influence on inductance. In my experience at least.
Amusingly, eddy currents due to a cover also make the attack "slower", BTW.

Thx in advance to forgive any possible imprecision or error above: I've shared some "thoughts of the moment", to take accordingly.

EDIT - Below is an impulse response test done on a same pickup with various mags. I've trimmed the screenshot for questions of intellectual property but "you'll get the picture". ;-)

 

[freefrog]

I have been doing some research lately to find which magnet would have an EQ as flat as possible. From what I understand AlNiCo-4 and AlNiCo-8 seems to be the ones.
Does it seem accurate? Could someone point me the right one? Am I wrong?

Hello,
For which pickup in which guitar do you search the flattest possible EQing? Paired with which volume/tone resistance? Plugged in which rig through which cable?
Each of these elements will affect the level of perceived "flatness", albeit real flatness doesn’t exist with magnetic pickups: they are LRC (inductive / resistive / capacitive) filters with resonant peaks affected by all the components named above.


Anyway and to put it simply:

1) I agree with Artie : the whole package matters more than the mags. Put a same pair of "A4" bars under some PAF coils tightly wound by a machine, then under hand guided loose coils, then in a P90: you may experiment polar opposites, tonally speaking...

2) mags of a "same" alloy coming from different foundries (if not from different batches from a same supplier) can contribute to vastly different tones, and these differences will vary themselves according to the magnetic charge of a mag… And while there’s certainly typical “Gauss levels” for various AlNiCo alloys, each magnet is unique in its way to hold the charge IME . Reason why I've more trust in a lab gaussmeter or teslameter than in a sticker or sharpie mark stating that a mag is an "A4" or anything else... And even more trust in experiments: when I swap mags, I do it until it sounds good, personally. theoretical specs are just a reference here, they don't really predict IMHO how a mag will affect the sound in a given pickup or guitar.


3) if you want more flatness, mags are not necessarily the most efficient starting point. A careful fine-tuning or manipulation of LRC specs would be more effective: an ultra low capacitive load, for example, would bring the resonant peak way higher than any frequency reproduced by a guitar loudspeaker and would contribute to an apparently “flat” / transparent tone. That's the principle behind Bill Lawrence "Micro-coils", for instance.
Or plug your guitar in an ultra high Z (ultra high impedance) input…

FWIW. YMMV. Good luck in your quest!