Benjy_26
25's Nemesis
If you get different results in each particular test, then one SHOULD ignore, as the methodology is flawed.
SD mV Pickup Ratings Reference
- Thread starter LLL
- Start date
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
25's Nemesis
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
Last edited: