These are great videos. I'm an engineering physics student at the University of British Columbia, who is also very into music as you are. I just started smushing these two interests together. Right now I'm machining a guitar pedal enclosure, laser cutting stencils to paint it, then will fill it up with some fuzz variant circuit :D. I've been realizing that I think I want to pursue Music/Technology in the early part of my career. Been trying to figure out what that intersection can look like. Working at a company like Roland maybe? Im not sure, but for now I learn more by watching your videos! Thanks for creating
Cool! Yes, an electronic musical instrument company might be a path, and there are also a number of audio gear companies out there (audiophile or musician oriented). As for videos, you might also be interested in the four part "Science of Sound" series I posted recently.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore Sweet ! I was secretly hoping you'd have some more ideas haha. Thanks so much ( also cool for me to see that you're in upstate New York because I grew up in Plattsburgh!)
That’s interesting. I wonder why some pickups are so microphonic that if you did yell it picks it up? Also does this mean that the wood doesn’t effect the sound of the pick ups?
The choice of wood affects the resonance of the body which affects the string motion which is caught by the pickups. So it is there, the question is how much influence it has on the overall sound compared to the numerous other inputs to the system. I don't have any hard data on the microphonics issues (or even any personal observations as I'm not one to yell into pickups), but I suspect it may have something to do with how they are wound. I imagine that a loose winding might be more susceptible.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore My theory is that the pickups that are covered with a metal sheet tend to be microphonic since the vibrations from the voice will make the cover vibrate, being a thin, flat, metal sheet essentially, thus acting like a sort of microphone.
I love videos from the law firm of Faraday, Lenz and Ohm, great job. Plucking a string generates a mechanical force. That force transfers to the nut on the neck and the bridge of the guitar body. Wood is a fibrous material that becomes an acoustic cavity spreading this tiny force around causing the coils and strings to oscillate. Any movement of a conductor, even just the width of an atom will cause a current to flow within that conductor. "Loose" or "scatter winding" the coils contribute to this phenomena and accounts for the shape of the tone as these energies collide with one another. Wax potting the coils dampens this effect.
You have not addressed external electrostatic interference. Shielding can be very effective against this type of noise. It is not just the pickups that are sensitive to this noise though. Wiring is also sensitive. Shielding can be as simple as layer of grounded foil between the circuit (pickups and wiring) and the noise source. A grounded foil on the opposite side of the circuit can also be effective if the circuit elements are close to the foil. It reduces the electrical field gradient in the vicinity of the circuit. Grounding is important here. It provides the "zero volts" that the shielding presents to the circuit. If the shield were not grounded, it would simply rise to the voltage level of the external field and act itself as a noise source. The most common source of the electrostatic fields that the instrument sees is your own body. You pick up these voltages from the electrical fields in the room. That is why touching the strings can silence the noise. If the strings are grounded, you also become grounded, and are no longer a source of noise.
No, I have not addressed shielding in this video. It's an introduction to the topic, not an exhaustive treatment. It is important to the design of such instruments, as you say, and perhaps I'll have time to cover this in a future video.
Thank you. This was well-explained. I was wondering whether the guitar recording environment affects the guitar's sound, and I got the answer that it doesn't. Whether you play the electric guitar in a bathroom or a studio, it sounds the same.
In a practical sense, sure. Though, more specifically, it’s the behavior of the pickup remains consistent. Environmental factors impacting the guitar itself can impact the input it gives the pickups.
well, if you record your guitar straight into a mixing desk or audio interface, yes, the environment doesnt affects the sound. If you play through a mic'd guitar amp and you are in the bathroom, it will sound different than in your backyard
there are examples of yelling into a guitar pickup and hearing your voice through the amp. these conditions usually are found in older unpotted pickups with loose coils and thin metal covers (or baseplates). the cover acts like a microphone diaphragm and vibrates which will induce a signal. not relevant to your discussion but still interesting.
nat atbot GPT-3 [:|o].. thank you for sharing your video file. wouldnt an ideal pickup then have a second pickup flipped up over the usual pickup and a magical string between. or, wouldnt more a magnet string and iron core 8:07 pickup. "
This explanation is incorrect. The role of the magnet in the pickup is to magnetize the string above it. Once the string is magnetized, it becomes a small magnet with its own magnetic field. When the string (now a little magnet) vibrates, its magnetic field also vibrates and induces current in the coil per Faraday law. So the role of the magnet in the pickup is only to magnetize the string. Once the string is magnetized, the magnet in the pickup is by and large irrelevant. This is why we use ferromagnetic strings (iron, nickel), not just any metal. If there was a way to use permanently magnetized stings, we wouldn't need a magnet in the pickup at all.
In effect, you're suggesting that that the field created by the permanent magnet which "magnetizes the string" is weaker than the field that is retained by the string from said magnet. Please explain how that is possible. That would also imply that we would want to use strings with as high a retentivity (AKA remanence) as possible, but we don't (if we did, the used strings would be noticeably magnetized when replaced). The reason "why we use ferromagnetic strings" is because other materials wouldn't distort the magnetic field of the permanent magnet, and no voltage would be induced in the coil. The magnetic permeability (mu) of iron and related materials is many times greater than that of air. Hence, the presence of the metal string offers an "easier path" for the magnetic flux, and therefore, as the string moves, so does the field. I have heard of this "magnetized string" hypothesis before but I have never read a cogent and coherent explanation of it. It seems to be one of those weird RUclips things pushed by some people. I am guessing that it arose from a misunderstanding, namely, that if magnetic lines of force are passing through a metal string, that means the string is "magnetized". But ultimately, the most important thing to understand is that the motion of the string creates a variation in the magnetic field which, in turn, induces a current in the coil which echoes that motion. If you get that much, you're mostly there.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore For some reason, my replies keep disappearing, maybe because I had a link in them. Here it is without. Essentially, the disturbance in the pickup-generated magnetic field in response to string vibration is far less efficient (negligible) at inducing current in the coil compared to the vibration of the magnetized string. You can do an experiment where you have another pickup with everything, but the magnet positioned right above the strings. The output from both pickups would be virtually indistinguishable. The key here is the spatial arrangements of the system components. When the sting vibrates, it disturbs the field generated by the pickup magnet mostly above the coil, and this is inefficient in inducing current; whereas the magnetic field generated by the string itself cuts right through the coil (the ferromagnetic pole pieces help this process a lot).
@@sbagria I have seen this argument before and I find it unfulfilling. First, kindly define exactly what is meant by "the string "being magnetized". Normally, this would mean that the string has its own magnetic field, independent of some other source. Granted, a source can be used to magnetize a material, but once that source is removed, the newly magnetized material would continue to exhibit a field. If it doesn't, then by definition, it's not magnetized. We don't see this effect. I have changed bass strings numerous times and have never noticed any sort of residual magnetic effect from them. Second, let's consider your statement: "You can do an experiment where you have another pickup with everything, but the magnet positioned right above the strings. The output from both pickups would be virtually indistinguishable." I've seen this claim before and it does not prove the hypothesis. The string is moving and distorting the field that is created by the permanent magnet, and that field extends into the coil above. I would be amazed if the second coil didn't produce a signal. For this claim to be true, there would have to be some means of making sure that the distorted field did not interact with the coil above. Simply moving the coil above the string does not prevent that situation. Further, this assumes that the field strength of the string is much, much greater than that of the permanent magnet which has supposedly magnetized it. Again, show me how that is possible. If this hypothesis were true, we would expect that the makers of guitar/bass strings would be very interested in determining and optimizing the retentivity of their strings, yet we see basically no technical discussion of it. Indeed, I suspect that this whole issue arose out of some bad marketing prose. To wit, from the Seymour Duncan web site: "A magnet within a pickup is used (to) magnetize the string so when it vibrates it causes the magnetic field to move back and forth through the coil and generates an alternating current of a certain impedance that is heard through an amplifier." I would wager that some people took the first part of that sentence literally without understanding the effect of a material's permeability on the field (i.e., it's ability to distort said field without itself being magnetized). Now, why do I call this "bad marketing prose"? Because the second part of the sentence is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "an alternating current of a certain impedance". That's like describing a "height of a certain weight". If the latter statement is nonsensical, why would anyone take the former as necessarily true? But let me be clear here. I am not saying that a magnetized string cannot produce a signal on its own. There is no reason why it couldn't. In such a case, a permanent magnet would not be needed. But nobody makes magnetized guitar strings. Kind of funny, don't you think? What I am saying is that this hypothesis strikes me as a sort of an overly complex Rube Goldberg mechanism when compared to the more direct conventional explanation. Occam's razor wins.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore "The string is moving and distorting the field that is created by the permanent magnet, and that field extends into the coil above." The strength of the field from the magnet below diminishes with distance very rapidly, as 1/distance cubed, so the output from the two pickups in this experiment must be different, yet they are identical (well, almost, because the magnet distorts the amplitude of the string by attracting it, but you won't hear it). Do another experiment: after the string is magnetized, lose the magnet - you will still get the signal for some time until the dipoles in the string lose alignment. What doesn't make sense is the "filed distortion" idea simply because of the geometry of how the components are placed.
@@sbagria First, you have not addressed many of the questions/concerns I posed. Moving on, yes, the field reduces as we move away from the magnet, but what matters here is not the intensity of the field itself, but rather its rate of change at the coil. This is known as Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction: the voltage induced in a coil is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux with respect to time. The rate of change and the static intensity of the field are two different things. By analogy, we can have one car moving at 10 MPH and another at 50 MPH, yet both can be accelerating at 1 MPH per minute (i.e., their acceleration is their rate of change of velocity). Pick up a college physics text. It's all there. With that, I believe I have said enough on this particular topic. Thank you for participating.
OOOOPS...GOOD GUITAR PICKUPS ARE INDEED MICROPHONIC THOUGH NOT EFFICIENTLY.... EVEN TO VOICE BUT TAP ON ANY PICKUP WITH YOUR FINGER .. CASE CLOSED.. FIRST STAGE TUBE IN AMP ALSO MICROPHONIC
As I stated in response to a comment below, yes, it's possible that pickups can be microphonic. That doesn't mean they have to be, or more importantly, whether or not that's good. Of course, with instruments we sometimes do weird things, but in a high fidelity playback system, microphonics are something to be avoided.
I always thought microphonics were the hallmark of bad or cheap pickups. And usually a result of in sufficient potting of the windings with either wax or resin resulting in harmonic vibrations.
You seem unprepared and constantly interrupt yourself. Picking up things and dropping them off screen is a little off putting. You seem surprised by your own conclusions. Also, you drew a bar magnet on it's side and a string above it, but of course that is not how pickups work. Bar magnets in humbuckers and p90's magnify steel poles or a given polarity which magnify the string. Vintage single coils have the string run across the top end of magnetic pole. Your discussion of the horseshoe magnet made no sense. I think you were trying to explain a the magnetic string induces a stronger voltage in a multiple coils of wire as it moves. But you just stated this simply anyway, which is all that was needed. Also, I am uncertain if your overall explanation is precise. The magnets in guitar pickups magnetizes the string. That is the important point. When the now magnetic string vibrates, it induces an electric charge in the coil of wire below it. It is this that is fed into the amp. I would not say that the string 'changes the shape' of the magnetic field. Although technically correct, it is of secondary importance.
I am sure that my "discussion of the horseshoe magnet made no sense" to you for the simple reason that I never discussed horseshoe magnets in this video. The closest I came to that was showing a conductor moving through an air gap as part of explaining Faraday's Law. Not the same thing. Also, the words "magnify" and "magnetize" have completely different meanings. I would expect anyone in high school or above to not confuse the two. Further, there is a difference between an electric charge and an electric current. Although related, they are not the same thing, as you seem to be treating them. I will say this much in your defense: if you had a magnetized string, its movement could induce a current in the associated coil, but then why not just sell magnetized strings? After all, Faraday's Law just says that there needs to be relative motion between the conductor and the field.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore Yes I made some typos. I don't see how that's relevant. The horseshoe magnet stuff is irrelevant and badly explained. You should try to convey the key concept of what you're trying to explain with as less jargon as possible, and in the simplest way as possible. As to why they don't magnetize strings, I think it is because strings will lose their magnetism after some period of time. I don't think you could make a string under tension out of magnetic material - It would simply break or shatter. But your question does point out an interesting fact which is we don't really need the guitar string, all we need are magnets. And in fact there's a guy who sells a magnetic pick for $50 and it makes guitar-like sounds without the strings moving.
@@valueofnothing2487 If you do it once, it might be a typo. If you do it repeatedly, it probably indicates a deeper misunderstanding. For example, referring to an electric current as an electric charge is like confusing length or distance with speed. These are technical terms with specific meanings. It's not a horseshoe magnet. Stop calling it that. Further, that section is very much important in order to explain how Faraday's Law works, and how it applies to pickups. The bit about "magnetic strings" was rhetorical. Of course they don't make magnetic strings, and for good reason. But speaking of "magnetizing strings", take a string off of one of your guitars and see if it attracts something iron-based, like a paper clip. Then report back here.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore So you were just being rhetorical? And I wasn't supposed to take you seriously? Ok. I think your video is misleading and needlessly confusing - for all the reasons I have given above. Lastly, I think you're criticizing my criticism of your use of the horseshoe magnet to explain Faraday's law. My point is that you did not explain Faraday's law with this, nor should you, nor should you even use a horseshoe magnet. The point is to explain that the magnetized string induces "a current" in the wire. There's no real need to talk about "Faraday's law" or "lines of force" or horseshoe magnets. And in particular I think you showed your hand going in between the north and the South Pole "cutting the lines of force". All I ask is why? It seems needlessly confusing.
@@valueofnothing2487 Think what you will. I have no argument with whether or not you like my mannerisms, or my methodology, or even the clothes I wear. If everyone wanted the same thing, there would never be a need for more than one book or one video on any given topic. My goal in these comments is simple, and that's to prevent self-proclaimed "expert RUclips commentators" from confusing the people who come here with an interest in learning how these sorts of things actually work. Does that sound harsh? Well, the fact that you believe that it's "needless" to discuss Faraday's Law in conjunction with an explanation involving inducing a current into a coil of wire speaks volumes. It's a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. What's next? Would you like me to explain DC circuit analysis without using Ohm's Law? (Just to be clear, that was a rhetorical question.)
I do love random YT commenters. They are an endless source of inadvertent entertainment. Of course, given the amount of nonsense that can be found on YT, one can hardly blame them for thinking that everything is equally bad and the presenters equally misinformed.
Good day professor. Here is a diagram which is drawn with magnetic field oriented correctly for comparisson. It will also explain why. Enjoy. /watch?v=SfkX-fgmIbc
? We are saying the same thing. I am simply drawing something that is easy to see and which explains how Faraday's law applies here. I am not attempting to draw a cutaway of a guitar. The key takeaway is that the vibrating string distorts the magnetic field, and the resulting fluctuation in the magnetic field induces a current in the associated coil of wire (which is then fed to the amplifier, creating the input voltage which is amplified out to the loudspeaker). Sorry for any confusion.
Awesome. Faraday's law is all around you and the universe.
Really interesting video - would love to see the next level of detail =)
These are great videos. I'm an engineering physics student at the University of British Columbia, who is also very into music as you are. I just started smushing these two interests together. Right now I'm machining a guitar pedal enclosure, laser cutting stencils to paint it, then will fill it up with some fuzz variant circuit :D.
I've been realizing that I think I want to pursue Music/Technology in the early part of my career. Been trying to figure out what that intersection can look like. Working at a company like Roland maybe? Im not sure, but for now I learn more by watching your videos! Thanks for creating
Cool! Yes, an electronic musical instrument company might be a path, and there are also a number of audio gear companies out there (audiophile or musician oriented). As for videos, you might also be interested in the four part "Science of Sound" series I posted recently.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore Sweet ! I was secretly hoping you'd have some more ideas haha. Thanks so much ( also cool for me to see that you're in upstate New York because I grew up in Plattsburgh!)
@@alexkneifel3191 It doesn't get much more upstate than Plattsburgh, with the exception of Massena! Next stop, Canada.
This was a very well made video. Thanks
I absolutely loved this video!!!!! So interesting and soooo many guestions answered. Thanks for posting!
Excellent lesson
Very nice. Thanks.
That’s interesting. I wonder why some pickups are so microphonic that if you did yell it picks it up? Also does this mean that the wood doesn’t effect the sound of the pick ups?
The choice of wood affects the resonance of the body which affects the string motion which is caught by the pickups. So it is there, the question is how much influence it has on the overall sound compared to the numerous other inputs to the system. I don't have any hard data on the microphonics issues (or even any personal observations as I'm not one to yell into pickups), but I suspect it may have something to do with how they are wound. I imagine that a loose winding might be more susceptible.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore honestly thank you very much for answering that question. I greatly appreciate it all the best and love your content.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore My theory is that the pickups that are covered with a metal sheet tend to be microphonic since the vibrations from the voice will make the cover vibrate, being a thin, flat, metal sheet essentially, thus acting like a sort of microphone.
I love videos from the law firm of Faraday, Lenz and Ohm, great job. Plucking a string generates a mechanical force. That force transfers to the nut on the neck and the bridge of the guitar body. Wood is a fibrous material that becomes an acoustic cavity spreading this tiny force around causing the coils and strings to oscillate. Any movement of a conductor, even just the width of an atom will cause a current to flow within that conductor. "Loose" or "scatter winding" the coils contribute to this phenomena and accounts for the shape of the tone as these energies collide with one another. Wax potting the coils dampens this effect.
I actually just heard someone talk about this, they confirmed it was because of loose coils.
I never understood how a pickup works. Thanks for your excellent explanation. Very cool information.
Thanks
You have not addressed external electrostatic interference. Shielding can be very effective against this type of noise. It is not just the pickups that are sensitive to this noise though. Wiring is also sensitive. Shielding can be as simple as layer of grounded foil between the circuit (pickups and wiring) and the noise source. A grounded foil on the opposite side of the circuit can also be effective if the circuit elements are close to the foil. It reduces the electrical field gradient in the vicinity of the circuit.
Grounding is important here. It provides the "zero volts" that the shielding presents to the circuit. If the shield were not grounded, it would simply rise to the voltage level of the external field and act itself as a noise source.
The most common source of the electrostatic fields that the instrument sees is your own body. You pick up these voltages from the electrical fields in the room. That is why touching the strings can silence the noise. If the strings are grounded, you also become grounded, and are no longer a source of noise.
No, I have not addressed shielding in this video. It's an introduction to the topic, not an exhaustive treatment. It is important to the design of such instruments, as you say, and perhaps I'll have time to cover this in a future video.
Thank you. This was well-explained. I was wondering whether the guitar recording environment affects the guitar's sound, and I got the answer that it doesn't. Whether you play the electric guitar in a bathroom or a studio, it sounds the same.
In a practical sense, sure.
Though, more specifically, it’s the behavior of the pickup remains consistent. Environmental factors impacting the guitar itself can impact the input it gives the pickups.
well, if you record your guitar straight into a mixing desk or audio interface, yes, the environment doesnt affects the sound.
If you play through a mic'd guitar amp and you are in the bathroom, it will sound different than in your backyard
there are examples of yelling into a guitar pickup and hearing your voice through the amp. these conditions usually are found in older unpotted pickups with loose coils and thin metal covers (or baseplates). the cover acts like a microphone diaphragm and vibrates which will induce a signal. not relevant to your discussion but still interesting.
Yes, there was a bit of a conversation on this a few months back. See the other comments on this video started by JayOneAlumni.
nat
atbot GPT-3 [:|o].. thank you for sharing your video file. wouldnt an ideal pickup then have a second pickup flipped up over the usual pickup and a magical string between. or, wouldnt more a magnet string and iron core 8:07 pickup. "
You could have a pickup above the strings but it rather gets in the way of your pick.
Slay king omg bless you
i could hear you through the pickups however that is because it still had strings on!
Right! Nothing to do with the remote mic still being on ;-)
Very cool thanks for the lesson
1:11 "stay"
As usual I try to learn scales, Chords, tabs, and here I am doing geek stuff. 😂 I am DEVO!
D-E-V-O
This explanation is incorrect. The role of the magnet in the pickup is to magnetize the string above it. Once the string is magnetized, it becomes a small magnet with its own magnetic field. When the string (now a little magnet) vibrates, its magnetic field also vibrates and induces current in the coil per Faraday law. So the role of the magnet in the pickup is only to magnetize the string. Once the string is magnetized, the magnet in the pickup is by and large irrelevant. This is why we use ferromagnetic strings (iron, nickel), not just any metal. If there was a way to use permanently magnetized stings, we wouldn't need a magnet in the pickup at all.
In effect, you're suggesting that that the field created by the permanent magnet which "magnetizes the string" is weaker than the field that is retained by the string from said magnet. Please explain how that is possible. That would also imply that we would want to use strings with as high a retentivity (AKA remanence) as possible, but we don't (if we did, the used strings would be noticeably magnetized when replaced).
The reason "why we use ferromagnetic strings" is because other materials wouldn't distort the magnetic field of the permanent magnet, and no voltage would be induced in the coil. The magnetic permeability (mu) of iron and related materials is many times greater than that of air. Hence, the presence of the metal string offers an "easier path" for the magnetic flux, and therefore, as the string moves, so does the field. I have heard of this "magnetized string" hypothesis before but I have never read a cogent and coherent explanation of it. It seems to be one of those weird RUclips things pushed by some people. I am guessing that it arose from a misunderstanding, namely, that if magnetic lines of force are passing through a metal string, that means the string is "magnetized".
But ultimately, the most important thing to understand is that the motion of the string creates a variation in the magnetic field which, in turn, induces a current in the coil which echoes that motion. If you get that much, you're mostly there.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore For some reason, my replies keep disappearing, maybe because I had a link in them. Here it is without. Essentially, the disturbance in the pickup-generated magnetic field in response to string vibration is far less efficient (negligible) at inducing current in the coil compared to the vibration of the magnetized string. You can do an experiment where you have another pickup with everything, but the magnet positioned right above the strings. The output from both pickups would be virtually indistinguishable.
The key here is the spatial arrangements of the system components. When the sting vibrates, it disturbs the field generated by the pickup magnet mostly above the coil, and this is inefficient in inducing current; whereas the magnetic field generated by the string itself cuts right through the coil (the ferromagnetic pole pieces help this process a lot).
@@sbagria I have seen this argument before and I find it unfulfilling. First, kindly define exactly what is meant by "the string "being magnetized". Normally, this would mean that the string has its own magnetic field, independent of some other source. Granted, a source can be used to magnetize a material, but once that source is removed, the newly magnetized material would continue to exhibit a field. If it doesn't, then by definition, it's not magnetized. We don't see this effect. I have changed bass strings numerous times and have never noticed any sort of residual magnetic effect from them.
Second, let's consider your statement: "You can do an experiment where you have another pickup with everything, but the magnet positioned right above the strings. The output from both pickups would be virtually indistinguishable." I've seen this claim before and it does not prove the hypothesis. The string is moving and distorting the field that is created by the permanent magnet, and that field extends into the coil above. I would be amazed if the second coil didn't produce a signal. For this claim to be true, there would have to be some means of making sure that the distorted field did not interact with the coil above. Simply moving the coil above the string does not prevent that situation. Further, this assumes that the field strength of the string is much, much greater than that of the permanent magnet which has supposedly magnetized it. Again, show me how that is possible.
If this hypothesis were true, we would expect that the makers of guitar/bass strings would be very interested in determining and optimizing the retentivity of their strings, yet we see basically no technical discussion of it. Indeed, I suspect that this whole issue arose out of some bad marketing prose. To wit, from the Seymour Duncan web site: "A magnet within a pickup is used (to) magnetize the string so when it vibrates it causes the magnetic field to move back and forth through the coil and generates an alternating current of a certain impedance that is heard through an amplifier." I would wager that some people took the first part of that sentence literally without understanding the effect of a material's permeability on the field (i.e., it's ability to distort said field without itself being magnetized). Now, why do I call this "bad marketing prose"? Because the second part of the sentence is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "an alternating current of a certain impedance". That's like describing a "height of a certain weight". If the latter statement is nonsensical, why would anyone take the former as necessarily true?
But let me be clear here. I am not saying that a magnetized string cannot produce a signal on its own. There is no reason why it couldn't. In such a case, a permanent magnet would not be needed. But nobody makes magnetized guitar strings. Kind of funny, don't you think? What I am saying is that this hypothesis strikes me as a sort of an overly complex Rube Goldberg mechanism when compared to the more direct conventional explanation. Occam's razor wins.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore "The string is moving and distorting the field that is created by the permanent magnet, and that field extends into the coil above." The strength of the field from the magnet below diminishes with distance very rapidly, as 1/distance cubed, so the output from the two pickups in this experiment must be different, yet they are identical (well, almost, because the magnet distorts the amplitude of the string by attracting it, but you won't hear it). Do another experiment: after the string is magnetized, lose the magnet - you will still get the signal for some time until the dipoles in the string lose alignment. What doesn't make sense is the "filed distortion" idea simply because of the geometry of how the components are placed.
@@sbagria First, you have not addressed many of the questions/concerns I posed. Moving on, yes, the field reduces as we move away from the magnet, but what matters here is not the intensity of the field itself, but rather its rate of change at the coil. This is known as Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction: the voltage induced in a coil is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux with respect to time. The rate of change and the static intensity of the field are two different things. By analogy, we can have one car moving at 10 MPH and another at 50 MPH, yet both can be accelerating at 1 MPH per minute (i.e., their acceleration is their rate of change of velocity). Pick up a college physics text. It's all there.
With that, I believe I have said enough on this particular topic. Thank you for participating.
Interesting. So that's what happens
OOOOPS...GOOD GUITAR PICKUPS ARE INDEED MICROPHONIC THOUGH NOT EFFICIENTLY.... EVEN TO VOICE BUT TAP ON ANY PICKUP WITH YOUR FINGER .. CASE CLOSED.. FIRST STAGE TUBE IN AMP ALSO MICROPHONIC
As I stated in response to a comment below, yes, it's possible that pickups can be microphonic. That doesn't mean they have to be, or more importantly, whether or not that's good. Of course, with instruments we sometimes do weird things, but in a high fidelity playback system, microphonics are something to be avoided.
I always thought microphonics were the hallmark of bad or cheap pickups. And usually a result of in sufficient potting of the windings with either wax or resin resulting in harmonic vibrations.
You seem unprepared and constantly interrupt yourself. Picking up things and dropping them off screen is a little off putting. You seem surprised by your own conclusions. Also, you drew a bar magnet on it's side and a string above it, but of course that is not how pickups work. Bar magnets in humbuckers and p90's magnify steel poles or a given polarity which magnify the string. Vintage single coils have the string run across the top end of magnetic pole. Your discussion of the horseshoe magnet made no sense. I think you were trying to explain a the magnetic string induces a stronger voltage in a multiple coils of wire as it moves. But you just stated this simply anyway, which is all that was needed.
Also, I am uncertain if your overall explanation is precise. The magnets in guitar pickups magnetizes the string. That is the important point. When the now magnetic string vibrates, it induces an electric charge in the coil of wire below it. It is this that is fed into the amp. I would not say that the string 'changes the shape' of the magnetic field. Although technically correct, it is of secondary importance.
I am sure that my "discussion of the horseshoe magnet made no sense" to you for the simple reason that I never discussed horseshoe magnets in this video. The closest I came to that was showing a conductor moving through an air gap as part of explaining Faraday's Law. Not the same thing. Also, the words "magnify" and "magnetize" have completely different meanings. I would expect anyone in high school or above to not confuse the two. Further, there is a difference between an electric charge and an electric current. Although related, they are not the same thing, as you seem to be treating them.
I will say this much in your defense: if you had a magnetized string, its movement could induce a current in the associated coil, but then why not just sell magnetized strings? After all, Faraday's Law just says that there needs to be relative motion between the conductor and the field.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore
Yes I made some typos. I don't see how that's relevant. The horseshoe magnet stuff is irrelevant and badly explained. You should try to convey the key concept of what you're trying to explain with as less jargon as possible, and in the simplest way as possible.
As to why they don't magnetize strings, I think it is because strings will lose their magnetism after some period of time. I don't think you could make a string under tension out of magnetic material - It would simply break or shatter. But your question does point out an interesting fact which is we don't really need the guitar string, all we need are magnets. And in fact there's a guy who sells a magnetic pick for $50 and it makes guitar-like sounds without the strings moving.
@@valueofnothing2487 If you do it once, it might be a typo. If you do it repeatedly, it probably indicates a deeper misunderstanding. For example, referring to an electric current as an electric charge is like confusing length or distance with speed. These are technical terms with specific meanings.
It's not a horseshoe magnet. Stop calling it that. Further, that section is very much important in order to explain how Faraday's Law works, and how it applies to pickups.
The bit about "magnetic strings" was rhetorical. Of course they don't make magnetic strings, and for good reason. But speaking of "magnetizing strings", take a string off of one of your guitars and see if it attracts something iron-based, like a paper clip. Then report back here.
@@ElectronicswithProfessorFiore
So you were just being rhetorical? And I wasn't supposed to take you seriously? Ok.
I think your video is misleading and needlessly confusing - for all the reasons I have given above.
Lastly, I think you're criticizing my criticism of your use of the horseshoe magnet to explain Faraday's law. My point is that you did not explain Faraday's law with this, nor should you, nor should you even use a horseshoe magnet. The point is to explain that the magnetized string induces "a current" in the wire. There's no real need to talk about "Faraday's law" or "lines of force" or horseshoe magnets. And in particular I think you showed your hand going in between the north and the South Pole "cutting the lines of force". All I ask is why? It seems needlessly confusing.
@@valueofnothing2487 Think what you will. I have no argument with whether or not you like my mannerisms, or my methodology, or even the clothes I wear. If everyone wanted the same thing, there would never be a need for more than one book or one video on any given topic. My goal in these comments is simple, and that's to prevent self-proclaimed "expert RUclips commentators" from confusing the people who come here with an interest in learning how these sorts of things actually work.
Does that sound harsh? Well, the fact that you believe that it's "needless" to discuss Faraday's Law in conjunction with an explanation involving inducing a current into a coil of wire speaks volumes. It's a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. What's next? Would you like me to explain DC circuit analysis without using Ohm's Law? (Just to be clear, that was a rhetorical question.)
This guy doesn't really know what he is talking about
I do love random YT commenters. They are an endless source of inadvertent entertainment. Of course, given the amount of nonsense that can be found on YT, one can hardly blame them for thinking that everything is equally bad and the presenters equally misinformed.
Good day professor. Here is a diagram which is drawn with magnetic field oriented correctly for comparisson. It will also explain why. Enjoy. /watch?v=SfkX-fgmIbc
? We are saying the same thing. I am simply drawing something that is easy to see and which explains how Faraday's law applies here. I am not attempting to draw a cutaway of a guitar. The key takeaway is that the vibrating string distorts the magnetic field, and the resulting fluctuation in the magnetic field induces a current in the associated coil of wire (which is then fed to the amplifier, creating the input voltage which is amplified out to the loudspeaker). Sorry for any confusion.