Just a question here; are people measuring the static resistance of these pickups through a patch cable or are you actually disconnecting them and measuring the pickup in isolation?
In Search of ... Dynasonic Facts, Fiction, Myth, and Truth
« » Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-
- Rated: 83 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 3:30 p.m. Mark Synchro:
-
- Rated: 24 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 3:56 p.m. TomfromPA:
One thing to keep in mind is that MJ at the Seymour Duncan Custom Shop will wind DynaSonics to YOUR specifications. In fact its the first question she asks. A lot of guys like me picked the 11K range because that's what Gretsch uses on their hand built guitars.
Is there a GDPer out there willing to order a 9K set and report back to headquarters?
-
- Rated: 41 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 4:01 p.m. J(et)D:
Yes, how are you guys measuring pups
-
- Rated: 26 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 4:07 p.m. texarock:
J(et)D: said: Yes, how are you guys measuring pups
Like this...
-
- Rated: 41 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 8:54 p.m. J(et)D:
Hell, that's easy
I'll try that later tonight
-
- Rated: 204 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 9:01 p.m. Proteus:
For quick convenience, I measured at the end of a guitar cord plugged into the guitar.
However, I also measured one at the jack on the same guitar and found no difference.
And I THINK I measured the Dynas both in and out of the guitar, and readings either way were within .2 of a KOhm of each other, whatever that would be.
-
- Rated: 46 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 10:14 p.m. Timthom62:
0.2 KOhms would be 200 Ohms. Not a significant amount of line resistance when measuring a range of 6,000 to 12,000 Ohms (6.0 KOhms to 12.0 KOhms).
Measuring the line resistance of the cord itself - tip to tip, shield to shield - would provide a baseline for the effect of the cord when using the 'cord in' measuring method. This should leave only the wiring harness unaccounted for.
-
- Rated: 13 ↑
Feb 21, 2008 3:04 a.m. riz:
I've been absent from this party, but I will say two of my three sets of vintage dyna's measure almost identically (approximately) 9.2k bridge and 9.0k neck, and seem to be capable of any tone imaginable. My '57 jet in particular is astounding in it's range: any pot at any setting in any combination seems to provide a completely usable tone! To me, the true beauty of the dyna is manifest in that it's the only pickup that i've EVER played that I actually use my tone and volume pots! My third set was rewound to 11k/12k. I don't know what they were originally, as they were D.O.A. Also, in the "shootout", the SD dyna immediately struck me as sounding most like my vintage, unmolested ones.
-
- Rated: 204 ↑
Feb 21, 2008 8:44 a.m. Proteus:
Thanks riz, good vintage info and perspective.
Do you happen to have pics showing your pickup and polepiece heights?
-
- Rated: 9 ↑
May 4, 2008 6:29 p.m. Devils_Tool:
For whatever it's worth - I finally took pics of the interior of the Dynas on my '94 Jet '57 RI and here they are. If I could ever figure out how to measure the resistance I would.....my multimeter is giving me fits.
and down below.....
David
-
- Rated: 16 ↑
May 4, 2008 8:51 p.m. lionel:
Being very late to this party, someone has probably already asked this:
Do I read right that the samples were made with either a) both pickups or b) bridge only?
I can judge a pickup much better by hearing the neck pickup alone.
But that's just me.
-
- Rated: 16 ↑
May 4, 2008 9:06 p.m. lionel:
Someone mentioned feedback of unpotted Dynas. I have successfully wax-potted a Dyna; shut that pick-clicking right up.
-
- Rated: 16 ↑
May 4, 2008 9:17 p.m. lionel:
Glued in Dyna bobbins?
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
All the Dynas I have handled have bobbins that slip right out; they're just jammed in there.
I have commented re the Dyna/2000 construction differences beforehand.
One other thing: my 2000 Rockabilly, with its 2000, sounds more "Duane Eddy-ish" than my Dyna-equipped guitars; it has that hard, cutting, rasping tone that I hear on his records. All in all, based on tone alone, it would be hard to pick any of my other guitars above the Rockabilly.
-
- Rated: 25 ↑
May 5, 2008 5:47 a.m. Shuie:
Texarock,
Lovely fat mono sound on your soundclips. Always the hardest mix to do, nice job. I used to use a 2" Studer machine, a 16 track. A reel of tape cost over £100/$200 and lasted 15 minutes at 30ips! The tape compression and overload strength of the Studer made up for the expense, though. That sax has a great tone, very fruity. The Dyna's do all their own talking.
Enjoyed that.
-
- Rated: 9 ↑
May 5, 2008 9:16 p.m. Devils_Tool:
lionel:
shrug They were glued in when I got it. From the pictures I've seen, all the recent FMIC Dynasonics have a small amount of glue on them as well (less than mine anyway)
David
-
- Rated: 45 ↑
May 6, 2008 7:08 p.m. BillyZoom:
Proteus...Are you using the royal "WE"? I'd have to disagree with several of the things that you claim "we" know. Vintage DeArmonds used by Gretsch run a little over 9K ohms. The current Japanese versions run about 8K. The Seymours are about 11K. The vintage DeArmonds used on sixties Martins are around 12K. It doesn't make much difference unless you play as loud as I do, and want every last DB. If Chet really said he didn't like them...and I'm not sure I really believe this, then he was smokin' crack that day. He certainly seemed to prefer that 6121 long after the FilterTrons were available. I also don't see how any decent player could not like DeArmonds, or prefer FilterTrons. All DeArmond style pickups have the bobbins glued in. It IS very annoying that the Japs use a hot glue gun, because their bobbins fall out if you look at them hard. It's also annoying that the holes in the Japanese cast housings aren't spaced the same as the real stamped housings, and it's annoying that their magnets are upside down (north pole up) and have sharp edges instead of being beveled. It is very annoying that, except for those used on the Billy Zoom models, the Seymours have reverse-wound neck pickups, but that can be partially excused since at least the Seymours are potted, and don't squeal like a big when the amp is turned up really loud. All of this is, of course, more or less academic. The DeArmond pickup is one of, if not THEE, best sounding gutar pickup ever designed, and it was the standard against which all other vintage pickups were measured. As someone who's been using DeArmond pickups since the late-fifties, I can assure you beyond a doubt, that I would rather pemanently switch to playing clarinet in a marching band than to be forced into playng a guitar with FilterTrons. (your experience may vary) BZ
-
- Rated: 45 ↑
May 6, 2008 7:26 p.m. BillyZoom:
And yes, I measure the pickups out of the guitars. I have a bunch of nos Gretsch-style DeArmonds, a bunch of new the Seymours used on the BZ models, and a few sets of the Japanese DeArmonds which I'd replaced with new Seymours. I also have several of the vintage Guild DeArmonds, and several Martin DeArmonds. I also have several nos sets of the Fender Coronado DeArmonds, a box Harmony DeArmonds, one of the DeArmond acoustic pickups like Elvis used, and one of the upright bass pickups like Bill Black used. I have three of the DeArmond volume pedals, one of the volume and tone pedals, and one of the tremolo pedals. I don't collect this stuff...I've just been playing for a long time. BZ
-
- Rated: 204 ↑
May 6, 2008 8:57 p.m. Proteus:
Billy, as someone who HASN'T been using DeArmonds since the late fifties, I'm as far from using the royal we (or assuming my experience must hold for everyone) as I could possibly be.
I didn't claim that I personally knew ANYthing about the matter independently from the reports of others. The whole purpose of my casual research and article on Dynasonics was to explore the differing experiences of many guys who've reported on both the old and the new.
You say Vintage DeArmonds used by Gretsch run a little over 9K ohms. The current Japanese versions run about 8K. The Seymours are about 11K, and this summary conforms to averages of the values anecdotally reported by the guys whose information I relied on – information I was trying to compile in my summary, and which wasn't generally current on the GDP before that discussion began.
But, again according to that very unscientific sampling, there were also pickups in the vintage era which do NOT conform to the average range 9+k range, coming up both light and heavy by comparison. And, again, those who had to choose specs for reissued Gretschs report finding that vintage specs were "all over the place."
In that vein, the article was partially an attempt to figure out why, in the mid-90s when the Dyna was reintroduced, Gretsch would have chosen the 8k value if it was so out of line with vintage practice. If, as others report, that figure WAS found in SOME vintage guitars (notwithstanding that the "average" was higher), it makes more sense.
Any claim about what "we" know was an attempt to summarize the "folk knowledge" then current on the GDP – which was, at that time, that vintage Dynas were generally in the 11-12k range now occupied by most "stock" Seymours (remembering that SD will wind to whatever value the customer requests). It was not an attempt to claim that "I" knew anything, and I apologize if it reads that way.
Your experience with a broad range of the pickups helps fill out what "we" know.
I agree that the DeArmond pickup is one of, if not THEE, best sounding gutar pickup ever designed. While I note that such judgments are always matters of personal judgment, and none of our preferences hold for anyone but ourselves, it's a judgment I agree with myself.
Given the supreme subjectivity of such matters, I wouldn't go so far as to say I ...don't see how any decent player could not like DeArmonds, or prefer FilterTrons.
At least in my gallery of greats, there are plenty of players who have chosen to record with lots of other pickups.
I can't tell if you're taking me to task for the Chet quote, but I didn't make it up. I don't have access at the moment to his exact words as they have been reported, but they were something to the effect of "I never liked those DeArmond pickups because their magnets were so strong they sucked the sustain out of the strings" and "I never heard anyone but Duane Eddy get a good sound out of them." I've seen that summarized in print in various ways, from various sources, and accepted it.
For what it's worth, I think CHET was wrong in his evaluation of the sound and response of Dynasonics. I prefer his tone during the 1954-1957 period when he was playing with Dynasonics. But, at least according to the history as it is popularly understood, Chet was instrumental in bringing Butts' Filter'Tron design to Gretsch and making it the standard Gretsch pickup from 1958 on. He seems to have preferred the Filtertron himself from that time forward.
I don't have a position on annoying construction differences between vintage and modern Gretsch Dynas, though I understand when others do.
I appreciate your love of DeArmonds and antipathy to Filtertrons (and playing clarinet in marching bands), but unless I'm misreading your tone, I don't know why you take me to task for anything I said. I'm on the Dynasonic side!
(Unless you're implying that only someone with no ears, taste or ability could prefer the 8k modern stock reissues to vintage-correct winds, or the hotter Seymours. I really DON'T have a preference - the Seymours are staying on my Jet, and the stockers on my Club - but I DO understand how players with different purposes and practices might prefer the lower-output versions. We don't all play at high volume, and not everyone is looking for the same balls-to-the-wall performance - as much as we might like it!)
I don't really "collect this stuff" either. But as it happens, my first guitar pickup was a chrome DeArmond soundhole model, which went in my Harmony Stella acoustic in 1968 before I had an electric guitar.
And I have a grey-crackle DeArmond volume pedal too.
Other than that, I don't claim any personal experience with vintage DeArmonds; my article was in the nature of reporting what I could pull together from others about both vintage and modern, and their relationship. It was not intended to substitute for or challenge the experience of someone like you who can bring better information to the table.
-
- Rated: 18 ↑
May 6, 2008 9:11 p.m. Gretschington:
I'll ask this here since I can't seem to find the search function for the site anymore--
What about the GFS Brooklyn for the guy who wants a Dearmond sound in a guitar with humbucker mounts? Are these a decent Dyna-type pickup?
-
- Rated: 17 ↑
May 6, 2008 9:51 p.m. CnW:
Sorry to hop over your post, Gretschington. Nothin' personal.
Taken from "Chet Atkins--Me and My Guitars," pages 73,74:
"One thing I really didn't like about the early 6120s was the DeArmond pickups on them. The DeArmond magnets were string suckers, so strong they'd pull the sound right out of the strings. The only way to get any sustain was to put as much distance as possible between the magnets and the strings. They were too heavy on bass response, weak and inconsistent in the higher registers, and they hummed terribly. I took a pair of wire pliers and broke the tips off the pickup magnets to try and reduce their pull and get a better balance. I don't think it helped any, but it shows how frustrated I was with them."
I'm with you, Prot, I think he sounded great on those DeArmond Gretsches. But I understand. If your rig doesn't sound right to you, it affects your playing. And it doesn't help anything if other people do like your sound. DeArmonds are great pickups--very distinctive, without question.
-
- Rated: 45 ↑
May 6, 2008 9:52 p.m. BillyZoom:
Dude...I wasn't taking you to task on anything. I'm just a natural curmudgeon. I know you didn't make up the Chet quote...I've seen it repeatedly around the internet. But then, I've also seen myself erroneously quoted on the www more than once. I can't believe he'd actually say something like that, unless he was trying really hard to sell FilterTrons. As my good friend Mark Neill once pointed out, DeArmond set the standard for the way guitar pickups should sound, in much the same way that the early Martin D28's defined to correct tone for acoustic guitars. As for the new pickups...sure, I can point out the differences, but the Japanese Dynasonics sound really good. They're cheaper, but they didn't scrimp on the sound; the bobbins just fall out. On the other hand, It's really hard to get the originals out of the housing if you ever need to(they CAN break) I have been known to switch the new ones out for Seymours or nos DeArmonds, but mostly just because I can. I have lots of this stuff. FWIW, I think the Seymours are even better than the originals. They're built better, and they don't squeal as much. They have bevelled magnets, south end up. They actually don't seem hotter, even though they're wound a little higher. I haven't been able to accurately compare the magnet strengths. My magnatometer is pretty much off the scale with any of them. It's better with bar magnet pickups. I've run frequency and inductance curves on both the originals and the Seymours. They both seem to be all over the place. As many of you probably know, I design amps and audio gear, so I have some really over the top test gear. I find that with guitars, listening usually works better, but I can also come up with lots of numbers. If there's any off the wall spec you've always wanted, let me know.
-
- Rated: 45 ↑
May 6, 2008 9:56 p.m. BillyZoom:
Well, there you go...you learn something new every day. I had no idea Chet was a crack head.
-
- Rated: 83 ↑
May 6, 2008 10:02 p.m. Mark Synchro:
BZ said: I also don't see how any decent player could not like DeArmonds, or prefer FilterTrons.
Different tools for different tasks. I can certainly understand your preference for Dynas, I love them too, but they are but one of a number of great pickup designs. Personally I can't stand Gibson humbuckers but a lot of great artists have used them over the years so while I don't understand their choice I don't criticize it either. -
- Rated: 83 ↑
May 6, 2008 10:12 p.m. Mark Synchro:
BZ said: I've run frequency and inductance curves on both the originals and the Seymours. They both seem to be all over the place.
That's one of the great conundrums of trying to copy vintage guitars, pickups etc. A lot of the great gear of the past was created when industrial standards were much less precise than they are today. Beyond that, the winding of pickups has always carried a bit of magic in the minds of many players. I agree completely, in the final analysis the ear is the best tool for judging gear. -
- Rated: 17 ↑
May 6, 2008 10:17 p.m. CnW:
There's got to be a Ray Butts crack in this somewhere
