• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Potted vs. Unpotted - a visual representation of hamonic complexity.

Tim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,860
If the fundamental died faster, that tells me the string probably was not plucked as hard. And that would also effect the amplitude and duration of the harmonics. Assuming the same pick was used, it would need to be plucked at the exact same distance from the bridge with the exact same force to get a comparable result. Having said that, I've always thought un-potted pickups sound better.
 

Classic

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
1,624
Regardless of the charts we know potting pickups alters it in one way shape or form. It’s a compromise as with most things in the guitar signal chain. Most pickups need to be potted if you’re playing high gain and at volume. I like the additional harmonics unpotted pickups generate but have grown to like the way potted pickups work and feedback in a controllable way.
 

P.Walker

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
941
Some people either won't be satisfied with any test, or simply don't want to admit/confirm the hypothesis and try to cast doubt on whatever evidence is provided. The OP doesn't owe anyone a master's dissertation.

That's not really why he spoke up is it?

Casting doubt and well-reasoned skepticism is key to any further understanding of the topic...

Similar to how not many dared to challenge the inaccuracies of classical newtonian mechanics, which admittedly were above "master's dissertation."

By that metric, this test as interesting as it is, is of course up for scrutiny.

There's really nothing wrong or sinister about what dey says nor does it look like he intends to hurt feelings around here...but ymmv
 

Macleod

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
514
A better test would be 20 or so of the same pickups, 1/2 potted, 1/2 unpotted. Use your test signal through the 10 unpotted, record all the data and find the statistical variations in content present first as you're about guaranteed there'll be some variance. Then, do the same with the potted......

No, it's not science at all, you need an identical signal to start with. Attacking a string won't do that, record yourself on your native setup playing an open A 20 times in a row, then take each sample and use a simple plug-in like the OP. I guarantee you each sample you'll have slightly different results in sustain/decay/overtones/fundamental/etc no matter how hard you try to attack the string in an identical fashion.

You need to weed out the variations that exist in the real world first in order to even begin such tests, strings dynamics are complex.

If you need to weed out the variations first, then using 20 pickups isn't going to do it at all. Even among the same model, there's a certain amount of variance in wire thickness, magnet strength, wire tension, etc. Enough to make a difference. Even Duncan has a +/- tolerance of about 3%.
 

renderit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
10,951
Geez folks!

Hey McLeod!

I appreciated the
interesting pictures you showed of the 'anomaly', repeatable or not.

They certainly started and interesting discussion even though MOST of us understood it was NOT a full-blown set of scientific proofs.

Do not hesitate to show interesting things directly to me if you choose not to print them on the toilet paper that is the forum in the future...

Sincerely,

Ren the Ridiculous
The Prof of the Proof of Randomness
Slayer of Universes
Nebula of the Cosmos
 

deytookerjaabs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,592
If you need to weed out the variations first, then using 20 pickups isn't going to do it at all. Even among the same model, there's a certain amount of variance in wire thickness, magnet strength, wire tension, etc. Enough to make a difference. Even Duncan has a +/- tolerance of about 3%.


Sorry I confused the matter, you're mixing up two different points I was making. The point of using a batch of pickups was if you wanted to see the general deviation in "identical" pickups then test a difference between the potted and unpotted batches from the factory, then compare the maths to see if you can find anything interesting. Which, of course, is a different experiment then just using one pickup then potting it yourself.
 
Last edited:

Black58

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
10,139
Sorry I confused the matter, you're mixing up two different points I was making. The point of using a batch of pickups was if you wanted to see the general deviation in "identical" pickups then test a difference between the potted and unpotted batches from the factory, then compare the maths to see if you can find anything interesting. Which, of course, is a different experiment then just using one pickup then potting it yourself.

I hope he understands that, because I sure don't! :rofl
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
600
If the fundamental died faster, that tells me the string probably was not plucked as hard. And that would also effect the amplitude and duration of the harmonics. Assuming the same pick was used, it would need to be plucked at the exact same distance from the bridge with the exact same force to get a comparable result. Having said that, I've always thought un-potted pickups sound better.
+1
 

thejaf

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
527
I have a set of Voodoo '59s (Peter Florance) from ~2006 in my #1 Les Paul. I loved the way they sounded but they squealed on stage. So I wax potted them myself with 80/20 paraffin beeswax. I love they way they sound and they no longer squeal. Bring on the ride cymbal, tequila shots and the dancing girls. End of my story.
 

RocknRollShakeUp

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
766
I have a set of Voodoo '59s (Peter Florance) from ~2006 in my #1 Les Paul. I loved the way they sounded but they squealed on stage. So I wax potted them myself with 80/20 paraffin beeswax. I love they way they sound and they no longer squeal. Bring on the ride cymbal, tequila shots and the dancing girls. End of my story.

That's what it comes down to for me too. The squeeling from a non-potted pickup in a live setting with loud amplified music and lots of gain, especially on small stages (!) can be terrible and a total non-starter. Especially if you are singing too. And fighting to control that squeeling in order to gain a little more tonal immediacy that was unceremoniously crushed by the drummers cymbals was not worth it to me.

Potting pickups became a real good solution for a very real problem. Sort of like solid body guitars did for the largely similar reasons of dealing with the other problem of loud live gainy playing, feedback. Heavy potting is likely overkill, but judicious potting is super useful for live use...unless you are an absolute fookn wizard with quickly rolling off that volume knob like Gary Moore, even when singing! The biggest stages I've been on is the Whiskey and the Hollywood Moguls back in the 90's so I don't know how it is to play on a big enough stage to get away from your amp enough to maybe not have to worry about it as much. But kick on a gnarly fuzz on top of fairly high gain at high volume on a smallish stage, and that type of squeeling could be a show stopper. Also back then I don't remember plexiglass baffles being used, which probably help a lot, but correct me on that if I'm wrong.

So, might as well throw this out there too, there is live tone that usually needs to cut through the mix, which is very different than bedroom tone, and live tone is usually considered by many as too cutting and harsh when heard in one's bedroom, and there are also needs for pickup squeel and feedback control that a bedroom player doesn't have to worry much about either. My bedroom tonal corksniffery has gotten many slaps in the face and brought back down to reality so many times when I tried it in full band rehearsals that I'd be rich by now if I had gotten payed for it.

So if you are mostly a bedroom/home player, or perhaps in the studio where you can isolate a cranked amp rig (I've done most of my keeper tracks playing in the control room isolated from my rig) you can get away with things that you typically can't playing live.

I think this is where some of the disconnect comes from. We need to define specific needs, are we talking live playing tone and live playing needs, or bedroom or recording in isolation playing tonal needs and liberties?

As a lowly ex semiprofessional musician, that is my "take" anyway.

Maybe some of the real pros can chime in.
 

El Gringo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
5,657
So I play at home in the living room, which is a good sized room and am using a Marshall 2555X amp into a Marshall 2551 AV cab loaded with Vintage 30's speakers and with my Les Paul's which all the pickups are potted by the way I am using a very good amount of volume (between 5-7 on both the output master and the lead master ) and since July 9th 2015 when I got the Marshall I have wanted to use the Marshall to It's full potential as far as volume goes and seeing that logo has demanded a good amount of volume or else why bother ! The beauty part of this as I live in an dense urban area and my least favorite neighbor has called the cops so many times even from long before I got the Marshall that the cops have threatened him with charges for making frivolous complaints and have told him to seek out a shrink and to cease and desist and I take full advantage of that with my guitar and amp . Except for a pair of Burstbucker 1&3 pickups which were unpotted and squealed very badly and I could have sold them to someone else but my conscience would not allow it , and had issues with the covers as well and they squealed so bad that after headache after headache I ripped them out and replaced them with ThroBak MXV-SLE-101 Plus pickups which I also have in another Les Paul as well and will be getting them for a 3rd Les Paul in the next few weeks and then finally in another Les Paul soon after that as well .
 

Patrick Ginnaty

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
1,498
What a great conversation, thanks Wolfe!

Subjectively, potted and unpotted pickups sound different *to me*. I like the sound of the 50s and 60s recordings... those old Les Pauls didn't have potted pickups, Beano and Greeny, nor the Bloomfield burst. That 'vocal' thing that we're all looking for, changes when a pickup is potted.
 

Brek

Member
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
62
I would like to see the same guitar and test system measure the difference between covers on and off, just to because lol.
 

somebodyelseuk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
454
You can't 'de-pot' a pickup without unwinding it, either. You can remove the excess, but it'll still be potted thanks to capillary action and surface tension.
 

Mr. Papa

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,418
Thank you for posting the graphs, I appreciate them. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether to take stock in them, but I do see significance.
 
Last edited:
Top