Why aren't there pickup simulators?
Or are there and I just don't know about them.
Pickup simulator:
A pedal or other device that simulates the audible output of various pickups.
Let's say I'm too poor to buy some mack daddy bass. But I buy a decent Squire from Guitar Center. I really wanted that ESP with EMG pickups, but it was too expensive.
Oh look, and EMG pickup simulator, I can plug my bass into that and now sound like I'm playing through EMGs.
I find this just as reasonable as amp or cab simulators.
Or is this just the same thing as a tone pedal?
I have seen a few things floating around
http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm (http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm)
http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/store/kits/passive-pickup-emulator-bundle/ (http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/store/kits/passive-pickup-emulator-bundle/)
Also, one of the guys on Ilovefuzz posted this.. I am looking for the details.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/3233/pickupsimulator.jpg)
Looks so sweet.
Quote from: selfdestroyer on September 18, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
I have seen a few things floating around
http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm (http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm)
http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/store/kits/passive-pickup-emulator-bundle/ (http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/store/kits/passive-pickup-emulator-bundle/)
Also, one of the guys on Ilovefuzz posted this.. I am looking for the details.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/3233/pickupsimulator.jpg)
Looks so sweet.
That is one sharp, sharp build.
EMGs are low impedance pickups. So their resonance frequency is very high. All in all they provide a broad frequency spectrum, especially more highs than traditional pickups. This lays the base for shaping it in many ways.
What works quite well with my strat and classic pickups:
Using a state variable filter as resonant lowpass allows to make it sound more Tele, more P90, more PAF, more anything. Right, you don't get the true thing, but near.
With a little compression added the darker/humbuckerish sounds also feel (dynamically) a bit like humbuckers. You won't get the humbucking, of course.
Also works quite well to make split humbuckers more convincing.
To make it work with (full) humbuckers you first need to flat their natural resonance peak (with a para eq) and then apply the new higher peak to get it more like single coils. You won't really get the high sparkle and the dynamics, of course.
Edit: here's someone demoing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFDSe6p6qK8
something like this Kothoma?
(http://www.musiker-board.de/attachments/f3-musik-instrumente-know-how//f75-e-gitarren-forum//f39-modifikation-technik-gitarrenbau-e-git//241993d1321738793-lemme-state-variable-filter-sounds-aufnahme-kleiner-test-state-variable-filter_diy-layout-neu.gif)
Ill have to read up on this some. Sounds interesting.
Bingo! I tried this perfboard but failed. That was my last attempt at perfboard...
But there is also a PCB layout and even Eagle files and that worked great:
http://forum.musikding.de/vb/showthread.php?27375-Alembic-SVF
(Eagle files also here: http://forum.musikding.de/cpg/albums/userpics/17486/alembic-state-variable-filter.zip)
Here's the schematic:
(http://forum.musikding.de/cpg/albums/userpics/17486/alembic-like-state-variable-filter-schematic.jpg)
BTW Lemme published this SVF in his green book back in 1978.
Maaaan! It seems always when somene has a great idea, its been already done somewhere else!
I also never heard about it!
The prob is if the pedal in the market will cost even more than the pickups it self!😜
Well, Artec builds a Parametric EQ based on a SVF that sells for €33 and has 4+2 op amps.
Sweeeeeeet.
Quote from: kothoma on September 19, 2013, 06:35:51 AM
Bingo! I tried this perfboard but failed. That was my last attempt at perfboard...
But there is also a PCB layout and even Eagle files and that worked great:
http://forum.musikding.de/vb/showthread.php?27375-Alembic-SVF
(Eagle files also here: http://forum.musikding.de/cpg/albums/userpics/17486/alembic-state-variable-filter.zip)
Here's the schematic:
(http://forum.musikding.de/cpg/albums/userpics/17486/alembic-like-state-variable-filter-schematic.jpg)
BTW Lemme published this SVF in his green book back in 1978.
Has anyone been successful building this circuit???I really want to try it...
Quote from: kothoma on September 19, 2013, 06:35:51 AM
But there is also a PCB layout and even Eagle files and that worked great
Yes, fired up on first try. Used C taper for the freq pot but B should be fine too.
Edit: Just to make clear: the perfboard layout here certainly does works too, it's just my poor skills at working with perfboard that caused it to fail.
What does the dual pot actually do???Does it balance from one freq to the other?
The structure of the SVF needs those two resistors to move together. It can work to fix one and move the other, but this comes at a cost of frequency range and screwing up the shape of the filter.
I'm a bit confused as to why an SVF though. The main strength of the SVF is that it's got LP, BP, and HP taps in the one structure. If you aren't using those and only want the LP, there are probably better resonant lowpass filters that you could use.
Another alternative would be using a combo of a high shelf cut and a PEQ filter for the resonant peak. You could set those to move independently and get a wider range of pickup simulation and tighter control of the Q and resonant peak height. That'd be a few too many controls on the instrument, but if you are going to do it in a box, it seems like a good way to go.
One other thing that has been alluded to above is that this really won't work in a straight forward way for most pickups. Since the pickup already has an input resonant LP or two, it's cutout many of the frequencies you are going to want to get another pickup's sound. Or, since it's got a resonant peak of it's own, you'll have to counter that to get a flat response to then shape yourself. The whole idea would work much better with active pickups. For guitar, the SD Blackouts are pretty ideal this way. I've got them in my Les Paul and you can shape them all over the place.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 03:15:20 PM
One other thing that has been alluded to above is that this really won't work in a straight forward way for most pickups. Since the pickup already has an input resonant LP or two, it's cutout many of the frequencies you are going to want to get another pickup's sound. Or, since it's got a resonant peak of it's own, you'll have to counter that to get a flat response to then shape yourself. The whole idea would work much better with active pickups. For guitar, the SD Blackouts are pretty ideal this way. I've got them in my Les Paul and you can shape them all over the place.
I'm just a big Wal bass fan...I believe the Wal preamp works some how like this one...am I wrong?!
I've never played on/with a Wal bass, so I really don't know. I did just take a quick look at one of their brochures and it does describe using a resonant LP filter. It says the tone pot has a switch to invoke a 10dB gain near the rolloff freq. So, that's a bit different but probably tonally similar.
It does say that they use a flat response humbucker to start with. That's going to have a lot to do with the sound.
Quote from: garfo on September 20, 2013, 02:46:02 PM
What does the dual pot actually do???Does it balance from one freq to the other?
It sets the cutoff frequency of the lowpass filter and its resonance peak.
You can set it anywhere from 300Hz to 4.8kHz.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 03:15:20 PM
One other thing that has been alluded to above is that this really won't work in a straight forward way for most pickups. Since the pickup already has an input resonant LP or two, it's cutout many of the frequencies you are going to want to get another pickup's sound. Or, since it's got a resonant peak of it's own, you'll have to counter that to get a flat response to then shape yourself. The whole idea would work much better with active pickups. For guitar, the SD Blackouts are pretty ideal this way. I've got them in my Les Paul and you can shape them all over the place.
You don't necessarily need low impedance pickups. Single coils usually have a high res freq and the idea is to lower it for fatter sounds. One additional trick is to use higher value pots in the guitar to load the pickups less.
As for humbuckers you indeed need to compensate the existing lower peak, but I already wrote that above. Wiring them in parallel is also an option.
Quote from: garfo on September 20, 2013, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 03:15:20 PM
One other thing that has been alluded to above is that this really won't work in a straight forward way for most pickups. Since the pickup already has an input resonant LP or two, it's cutout many of the frequencies you are going to want to get another pickup's sound. Or, since it's got a resonant peak of it's own, you'll have to counter that to get a flat response to then shape yourself. The whole idea would work much better with active pickups. For guitar, the SD Blackouts are pretty ideal this way. I've got them in my Les Paul and you can shape them all over the place.
I'm just a big Wal bass fan...I believe the Wal preamp works some how like this one...am I wrong?!
I'd guess so. If not a SVF then a similar resonant lowpass filter is used.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 03:09:42 PM
I'm a bit confused as to why an SVF though. The main strength of the SVF is that it's got LP, BP, and HP taps in the one structure. If you aren't using those and only want the LP, there are probably better resonant lowpass filters that you could use.
Why not? It's a simple and stable topology and is able to deliver real high Q and a great sweep range for the cutoff frequency.
A biquad would need the same amount of op amps.
What other second order res lp filter do you have in mind?
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 03:09:42 PM
Another alternative would be using a combo of a high shelf cut and a PEQ filter for the resonant peak. You could set those to move independently and get a wider range of pickup simulation and tighter control of the Q and resonant peak height.
That's not needed. You just want to simulate the natural L-R-C equivalent of a pickup (a second order lowpass).
On my bass I use two passive humbucker, I can connect them as Single/Parallel humb/or series humb.From what I've read before, wiring it in Parallel would be better to work well with this type of circuit.
The Wal preamp is based on an Alembic preamp as well, so I assume this would be the "base" one.
Any idea on how to add that extra 10k peak to the rollof frequency?
Quote from: garfo on September 20, 2013, 04:40:00 PM
Any idea on how to add that extra 10k peak to the rollof frequency?
That's what the resonance pot is for... Seems like it's only switchable on that Wal preamp?
Here you can see that this SVF can provide >16bB gain at the peak:
(http://forum.musikding.de/cpg/albums/userpics/17486/state-variable-filter_ffts.jpg)
No reason why not really. I did say I was only a bit confused :D. It makes sense for an on instrument situation because of the amount of control you get for the minimal number of knobs. But in the case of doing it in a box, I'd look first at parametric EQ's. I'd use a variable high-shelf in a cut only arrangement and and a pair of PEQ's. It would give you a ton of flexibility for correcting the resonance of the input signal and adding the resonant peak where ever you want it to sit. It would be much more complicated knob wise, but I've got a thing for PEQ's anyway.
There are other things that are worth experimenting with too. Lots of resonant LP filters from the synth world might be really fun to use this way. Most of them would probably be less accurate than the SVF approach but might be more colorful too.
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 04:38:13 PM
[...]
That's not needed. You just want to simulate the natural L-R-C equivalent of a pickup (a second order lowpass).
No it's not needed, but it can help. Different pickups have different amounts of resonance and the rolloff isn't completely straight forward either. It's more complex than a straight LRC filter because the L, R, and C are intermixed in the same device. In addition to that, hum buckers make it even more complicated because of the way the two coils interact as two LRC filters. The PEQ approach just gives you much more flexibility to match the frequency responses of a variety of pickups.
Anyway, you will always only get an approximation, good enough if you'd need to switch guitars on the fly.
I found that I don't need many different Qs, a 3-way-toggle should be enough.
If I'd build it again I probably would include parametric mids in front, perhaps with fixed Q.
OR have only maybe two presets to select, because this knob twiddling is really tricky.
BTW It was this circuit that brought me back to DIY world after many years of absence as you can't simply buy it at the next corner.
BUT: Nothing really beats having several guitars with different pickups!
Interesting circuit to be the one to bring you back. It makes sense though, lots of good stuff going on in there with interesting musical effects.
You are absolutely right about the complexity of using a PEQ approach and being tricky to set. It would be hard to use without some kind of preset system. Being able to flip between 3 presets would be pretty ideal.
My path for getting multiple guitar sounds in one guitar was to go with the SD P-Rails and a blend pot for pickup mixing. But even there, I've ended up with 5 toggles and a blend pot. Still kinda crazy but it has tons of tonal possibilities. I do really like the P-Rails.
Yeah, I'm still considering the P-Rails. You blend the two coils (the P90 and the rail) of one pickup?
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 05:40:43 PM
Yeah, I'm still considering the P-Rails. You blend the two coils (the P90 and the rail) of one pickup?
No, the blend pot replaces the pickup selector. For each pickup, I've got two toggles that let's me have P90, rail, parallel, and series. I also have a fifth toggle that puts the neck and bridge in series.
The standard series humbucker setting isn't my favorite humbucker in the world. In fact I find it a bit bland. It is good for really heavy stuff but not much else. The parallel humbucker setting is a very nice bright sounding HB though and the two rails in series make for a very nice humbucker. Both of the single coil settings on both neck and bridge are really nice. The bridge P-90 with volume bypassed is a monster. (I've got no tone controls on the guitar either.)
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
The standard series humbucker setting isn't my favorite humbucker in the world. In fact I find it a bit bland. It is good for really heavy stuff but not much else.
That was my impression too.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
The parallel humbucker setting is a very nice bright sounding HB though and the two rails in series make for a very nice humbucker. Both of the single coil settings on both neck and bridge are really nice.
So a simple on/on/on toggle per pu would be enough.
I've heard some people use them with the blades outside and P90s inside to bring forward the strat/tele single coil sound.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
The bridge P-90 with volume bypassed is a monster.
But you're not using the Hot model? No toggle switch for the vol bypasss?
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 06:18:05 PM
...
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
The parallel humbucker setting is a very nice bright sounding HB though and the two rails in series make for a very nice humbucker. Both of the single coil settings on both neck and bridge are really nice.
So a simple on/on/on toggle per pu would be enough.
I've heard some people use them with the blades outside and P90s inside to bring forward the strat/tele single coil sound.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
The bridge P-90 with volume bypassed is a monster.
But you're not using the Hot model? No toggle switch for the vol bypasss?
Yeah, a single on/on/on SPDT per pickup should work. And I'd do that over their suggested way of getting P90, rails, and series HB. If you don't mind always switching the two pickups together, you can do two on/on DPDT and have all four configurations on just two toggles. That really isn't much of a loss either because they really do work best in their respective pairs.
I didn't try out the flipped orientation idea. I could see that working well if your primary goal was the rails. To me though, the single best tone from them is the P90.
My bridge is the normal version. I don't think the hot model was out when I bought them. I would consider it now though -- not sure which one I'd actually choose.
I use a switched volume pot. I have it set up so that I have to pull it out to activate it. So, the normal position is bypassed.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 07:14:54 PM
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 06:18:05 PM
So a simple on/on/on toggle per pu would be enough.
Yeah, a single on/on/on SPDT per pickup should work. [...] you can do two on/on DPDT and have all four configurations on just two toggles. That really isn't much of a loss either because they really do work best in their respective pairs.
I was thinking of a on/on/on DPDT working like a tele switch. There are no on/on/on 4PDT toggle switches, are there?
But yes, mixing them up probably only makes sense in out-of-phase configurations (yes, another switch).
This is the wiring I was thinking of when I said two on/on DPDT will get you all four. Mine is basically set up the same way but I broke the two DPDT's out into four on/on SPDT and each pickup is then independent.
http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/schematics.php?schematic=2_prails_1v_1t_tspp (http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/schematics.php?schematic=2_prails_1v_1t_tspp)
One good thing about having them set up as independent switching is that you can have the neck on the rails and the bridge on the P90 and flip from neck to bridge is a really nice tonal switch with just one control change.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 07:56:09 PM
One good thing about having them set up as independent switching is that you can have the neck on the rails and the bridge on the P90 and flip from neck to bridge is a really nice tonal switch with just one control change.
Yeah, that would require switching three switches (including the pu selector). Now add switching a few pedals...
I still try to work out what could be done using a 5 way super switch. Too many possibilities.
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 08:10:58 PM
...
I still try to work out what could be done using a 5 way super switch. Too many possibilities.
This is the setup I had when they were in my Les Paul. Each pickup has the four different modes and then I used a six-way rotary set up to do:
1) Neck
2) Neck and Bridge, parallel
3) Neck and Bridge, parallel and phase reversed
4) Bridge
5) Neck and Bridge, series
6) Neck and Bridge, series and phase reversed
It's a bit of an understatement to say the it was too complex. It was really just silly. It was fun though.
http://www.musicunfolding.com/graphics/LP_Wiring_Complete.svg (http://www.musicunfolding.com/graphics/LP_Wiring_Complete.svg)
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 08:25:44 PM
It's a bit of an understatement to say the it was too complex. It was really just silly. It was fun though.
Just let the roady do the switching...
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 08:25:44 PM
It's a bit of an understatement to say the it was too complex. It was really just silly. It was fun though.
Just let the roady do the switching...
;D. Roadies with PhD's in topology are expensive.
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 08:43:24 PM
Quote from: kothoma on September 20, 2013, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: RobA on September 20, 2013, 08:25:44 PM
It's a bit of an understatement to say the it was too complex. It was really just silly. It was fun though.
Just let the roady do the switching...
;D. Roadies with PhD's in topology are expensive.
Yeah, they are better off driving taxies. ;)
Back to pickup simulators. Has anybody tried these?
http://www.ehx.com/products/knockout
"Its secret...the Knockout has a 7 pole filter for sculpting the low end of your mids and a 6 pole filter to shape the top end of the mids."
The second video states: LP at 85 Hz. HP at 6.5 kHz. (Top end of the mids?)
Schematics:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/4117.gif
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x12/Henrik_J_album/ATTACKEQ.jpg
And some history:
http://electroharmonix.vintageusaguitars.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15:the-attack-eq-fact-and-fiction&catid=13:electro-harmonix-articles&Itemid=45
"If I were to redo it, I'd certainly improve those PRIMITIVE low pass and high pass filters!"
Edit: I'm a bit reminded of the Sonic Stomp (not a pickup simulator per se) that works at 50Hz and 10kHz with 2 pole filters.
And I imagine it's again the phase shift that's the real secret.
I'd like to revive this topic just to add some info I've just been experimenting with...passive components
In this article http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm (http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm), he talks about resonant peaks based on the L,C,and R values.
I played around with LTSpice for a little bit and found this:
Small value caps (in the pf to nf range) going from signal ("hot") to ground lowers the frequency of the resonant peak. A value of 1.5nf made my strat sound more ES335-like. Resistors going from signal to ground reduce the "height" or intensity of the resonant peak. I tried something like 220k in parallel with the 1.5nf. This effect of resistors is the reason why 500k volume pots sound brighter than 250ks.
It's best to put these components right after the pickup and before volume controls because of the interaction, but I've been playing around with them post-volume
More info at this page:
http://www.buildyourguitar.com/resources/lemme/ (http://www.buildyourguitar.com/resources/lemme/)
Yup, a few caps and resistors (or even coils) can do wonders. As you said you need to have them right after the pu.
And despite being passive, lowering the resonance frequency can even result in a bit higher output level. At least it can feel like that.
But I always have a hard time to decide on specific values, and although it would give more flexibility, I don't like a rotary switch on my guitar.