String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

[greekdude]

Hey I found this :
https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/secrets-jimi-hendrixs-guitar-setup-interview-roger-mayer

He says :

The electrical output of the strings is dependent on the square of the diameter; if you square all the diameters and look at them, you can get much more of an idea about the balance of the guitar.

"You should always remember that, because many, many times people use a set of strings that are completely imbalanced and they just don't sound that good. Most people would say a .010 to .013 is the correct jump. And the .015 is much better for the G than a .017. An .015 squares out at .225 and .017 is 289. So you're going to get 28 percent more output just with a two-pound different in string size."

I don't believe this has any connection to reality. I have never experienced this as a player. By his logic a 0.016 G should ring 3 times louder than a 0.009 high E, which is just wrong.

What's your thoughts?

 

[Blille]

String diameter &lt;--&gt; pup output correlation (really?)

String diameter &lt;--&gt; pup output correlation (really?)

I think it will depend on the wood of the guitar.

 

[ibanezrocks]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

A larger string would cause a larger disturbance to the magnetic field around the pickup, so that makes sense...

But a larger string also has higher tension to hit the same pitch so the displacement is smaller, which probably has a larger effect.

Sent from my BlackBerry using Tapatalk

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

It's certainly true that the different strings cause different volume levels. More magnetic metal moving through the pickups magnetic field will create a louder sound.


That's the whole reason for the goofy strat pole staggered orientation. They were designed to work with a wound third, hence the stagger. Then people started using unwound thirds with strats and got used to the uneven string volume sound. This effect is most noticeable if you're playing clean and have the pickup close to the strings. I have found that you get much clearer sounding chords for playing jazz by adjusting the pole piece height of your humbuckers depending on the string they're sitting under (under your G and E strings should be lowest, under the high E and D string should be highest).

 

[greekdude]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

A larger string would cause a larger disturbance to the magnetic field around the pickup, so that makes sense...

But a larger string also has higher tension to hit the same pitch so the displacement is smaller, which probably has a larger effect.

so in the end it doesn't matter.

 

[greekdude]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

It's certainly true that the different strings cause different volume levels. More magnetic metal moving through the pickups magnetic field will create a louder sound.


That's the whole reason for the goofy strat pole staggered orientation. They were designed to work with a wound third, hence the stagger. Then people started using unwound thirds with strats and got used to the uneven string volume sound. This effect is most noticeable if you're playing clean and have the pickup close to the strings. I have found that you get much clearer sounding chords for playing jazz by adjusting the pole piece height of your humbuckers depending on the string they're sitting under (under your G and E strings should be lowest, under the high E and D string should be highest).

I am in a such bad state (just got my daughters grades in Tuesday and still trying to recover) that I haven't been able to even think about playing any guitar, but I might just pull one out and test what I have not noticed all those years..

 

[devastone]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

Yes, theoretically a larger cross section area of ferritic material vibrating in a magnetic field will generate more electricity. Will the difference be noticeable between noticeable with all the other variables in a guitar signal chain, well, I'm no Eric Johnson, so probably not to me. But, I'm no Roger Mayer either, so I can't argue on a technical level either.

Look up Electromagnetic Induction which is the principle guitar pickups work on.

Sorry to hear about the family stuff... Best to you on dealing with that.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

I usually use 10-52 or 11-52, because I like how they sound and feel. Frequently, I’m told that lighter strings are superior, and heavier ones sounding better is a myth. Every so often, I’ll get a set of .009s and put them on my Strat. Not only does it sound thinner, but much quieter as well.

My thoughts are he’s not talking about perceived volume. An EMG 85 has more output than an 81, but everyone hears the 81 as being louder.

 

[greekdude]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

I usually use 10-52 or 11-52, because I like how they sound and feel. Frequently, I’m told that lighter strings are superior, and heavier ones sounding better is a myth. Every so often, I’ll get a set of .009s and put them on my Strat. Not only does it sound thinner, but much quieter as well.

I dunno, I think thinner bass strings break the amp easier.

An EMG 85 has more output than an 81, but everyone hears the 81 as being louder.

Except me, when I put 81 in the bridge and 85 in the neck, I had to bury 85 all the way down and raise 81 close to the strings just to have a somehow balanced situation. When I moved 81 in the neck and 85 in the bridge then the guitar sounded fuller and more balanced. And I tried with two different 81's just in case.

 

[Gransen]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

The way that I'm to understand it is that it's not the SIZE of the string, but the ENERGY of the string.

Big fat low E string, same tension as skinny high E string. So, since they're the same tension, and one is bigger, they have the same energy, right...???

Nope! The frequency of the note that it's tuned to is another factor in the energy equation: higher frequency = higher energy. This is why low freq sound waves travel through water so well...it doesn't take as much energy to push them through, and the water is full of both suspended AND dissolved solids, both of which aid in the transmission of energy (water then becomes a "multi-vector conductor").

So, according to what I've learned (or at least think that I remember learning...), this idea is complete crap. Instead, the two E strings have the same (or similar) amount of energy.

PROXIMITY to the string is a factor, and why pickup height is so important. And the reason that the pickups get real sensitive to minor changes when they are super close to the pickups is because of the "Inverse / Square Law." All field effects (magnets, light, etc) follow this law. "The strength of the field is SQUARED when the distance is HALVED, and SQUARE ROOTED when the distance is DOUBLED." If you're pickups are .1 inches from the pickups, and you move them down to .2 inches, you just cut the field strength at the pickup poles by the square root of what they were. If you're at .2 inches, you'd have to go to .4 inches to get the proportionate amount of change as before.

So, yeah, this one is crap. (Or else I'm wrong, and I don't think that I am.)

 

[greekdude]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

Just tested yesterday. Nothing to support this idea. Another factor is that high E having lower action (in most setups) gets choked by hard picking or strumming easier than G which among the plain strings usually has the highest action .

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

https://www.seymourduncan.com/blog/the-tone-garage/fine-tuning-the-adjustment-of-passive-humbuckers

https://hazeguitars.com/blog/how-to-set-pickup-pole-piece-height

 

[devastone]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

You have to remember that Roger Mayer was an engineer, not a musician, so looking at it from physics, he is totally correct, again, look up EMI which is the principle that electricity is generated from ferritic metals moving in a magnetic field. It takes into account the area of the moving conductor as well as the delta of the movement.

But, in practice, no, it may not be noticeable, and it doesn't take into account playing styles, habits, etc...

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

To reiterate, there is a volume difference between strings if you have all the polepieces of a pickup flat. You will probably not be able to hear this if you play with gain because distortion compresses the output of your guitar - evening up the string response. Dial up a sparkly clean tone though, and it's really noticeable (very much so when you're playing clean jazz chords on a strat with the neck pickup close to the strings - the G string just takes over the whole chord).

 

[Chistopher]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

Also consider that it takes more force to vibrate a thicker guage string than you would a thinner one. Plucking a set of 8s at the same force as a set of 13s will dig into the 8s a lot harder than the 13s.

 

[Gransen]

Re: String diameter <--> pup output correlation (really?)

Also consider that it takes more force to vibrate a thicker guage string than you would a thinner one. Plucking a set of 8s at the same force as a set of 13s will dig into the 8s a lot harder than the 13s.

I know what you're saying. I'm thinking of the overall output here. First let me correct something that I said...

Big fat low E string, same tension as skinny high E string. So, since they're the same tension, and one is bigger, they have the same energy, right...???

...what I meant was, "...So, since they're the same tension, and one is bigger, that means the bigger one has more energy, right...???" NO! Same energy due to a lower ("less energetic") frequency that they're tuned to.

Put a 9 in for high E, and put a 13 in at the B string...but tune the B string to high E. Now you have two strings right next to each other tuned to the same note. One has significantly more tension. If you pluck the strings at the same force, the 9 will "deflect" greater than the 13, and my way of thinking is that the 13 would be LOUDER because there's more overall energy stored in that string with the same force applied. If I'm wrong, then certainly "deflecting" the 13 to the same LENGTH OF PLUCK as the 9 would cause it to be louder.

Tighter strings (ie: bigger gauges) should make the guitar louder when the same force is applied. I personally think that the most important factor in bigger string gauges a greater presence of the fundamental note compared to the harmonics...which is why bigger strings clear up mud on the bottom end: Mud = "A weak fundamental note compared to it's harmonics." That's why pickups not tuned to accentuate the bass notes sound muddy at the bottom; they do great with the higher-pitched harmonics, but the fundamental note is too low to register with the coils. Now all that you hear is garbled harmonics.

The lack of presence of the harmonics in thicker gauged strings tuned to the same note is part of that "takes more energy to vibrate a thicker string" that you mentioned. But remember, when the overall energy is the same because of string gauge vs notes they are tuned to, then this is not entirely the case. Those thick strings do quite well vibrating some nice long wave lengths...