Talk:Humbucker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
	This article is supported by the Guitar equipment task force.

Someone should chnage the picture to a guitar with only humbuckers.. as not to confuse people.. i dont know how to do this. ciao

Agreed. — Omegatron 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1 Sound
2 Invented where?
3 Kinman advertising
4 Rewrite
5 Kinman cont'd
6 Stacked pickups

[edit] Sound

I believe the reason why the sound of a humbucker is "darker" compared to a "single coil" pickup is due to the decrease in resonant frequency caused by the doubling of the number of loops (and therefore impedence) of the device. The offset off the coils causes no electrical cancellation of the signal. --Eraticus 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true. The slight offset of the coils means that some higher frequency harmonics (any that have nodes directly in between the two coils) will be picked up by one coil as an inverted form of what is picked up by the other, and so they will be cancelled out along with the hum. Because the position of the nodes will change according to what fret you are playing on, which harmonics are cancelled will also change as you move around the neck, but they will tend to be the higher harmonics, because these have more nodes. This effect is not a big one, but because of it's different shape, and extra coil, a humbucker will always pick up slightly different harmonics to a single coil in the same position, and sometimes they will cancel.

This article contradicts itself with respect to the sound. Sorry I can't contribute more. 65.4.78.117 03:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs more technical details. Need to say how the magnets are opposite and the coils are opposite so the external magnetic fields are cancelled out but the fields caused by the strings moving through the magnets are the same polarity and sum, etc. Needs the opposite of {{technical}}

http://www.musicoff.com/lezioni_images/humbs.gif — Omegatron 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invented where?

Please see http://www.vintageguitar.com/brands/details.asp?ID=46 for a discussion of a pickup design by Stimson and Tutmarc that was sold by Stimson to Dobro for it's All-Electric. To quote: "Experience Music Project [in Seattle] has this second version All-Electric in its collection, and the slanted split-polepiece magnetic pickup corresponds with the patent application filed January 19, 1934, as do all the Audiovox Hawaiian guitars and the bass. This pickup is similar to the George Beauchamp Electro/Rickenbacher string-driven horseshoe pickup in many respects, but does not extend over the strings, making it the first of what would become the standard style for Spanish guitars, being entirely under the strings. It also has twin coils (bass side/treble side) wired in series, each with its own blade-style polepiece attached to an opposite end (polarity) of the horseshoe magnet."

"Assuming the coils were reverse-wound (why else would they bother with two), you have the first humbucking pickup for a guitar, as seen on split-pickup P-basses (the theory behind hum cancellation was well-established by the mid ’30s)."

This is from the mid '30s and would certainly call into question the claim above that the humbucker was invented in the '50s at Gibson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.230.236.8 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Kinman advertising

It looks like user from IP 61.69.161.243 has blatantly inserted lots of Kinman single coil pickups advertising here and there around the article on 2006-06-07. Shall we do something about it? --GreyCat 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see how removing it can be justified, the technology was invented by Kinman and is as unique as described and it has direct relevance to existing section "other noise reduction attempts". Ought all references to Fender and Gibson companies be purged also? I should add that although I didn't have anything to do with content of this article I had a hand in writing a page on Kinman Guitar Electrix under category pickup manufacturers. But I agree that last sentence "No longer does the Strat player have to rely on positions 2 and 4 to be free of noise." Is a little too much like a sales pitch and will remove it. I think, but haven't the technical expertise to be sure, that Kinman products are some sort of dual coil arrangement, with one of the coils sensing the noise the other the signal. Richard

I would agree with the removal of the Kinman references, as they amount to ad copy, essentially. I've been involved with guitar electronics for a long time and although I haven't extensively studied pickups per se, Kinman is FAR from the household names that Gibson, Fender, Lollar, Lace, EMG, Duncan, Dimarzio etc are.

Individual brand does not matter. What matters that the pickups mentioned here are a good representative of what is usually used. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The 61.69 range of IP addresses is based in Australia where SUPRISE SUPRISE Kinman is also based. If the insertion of advertising persists I will recommend that IP range from being banned from editing this page. Please stop self-promoting so we can work toward making a useful Humbucker entry. Tremspeed 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But it reads as biased, sloppy ad copy, not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article or wikipedia in general. There's ALOT of minor contributions from various pickup makers that COULD be included- Seymour Duncan almost single handedly created the aftermarket pickup industry, EMG pioneered the use of active electronics, Gretsch had humbuckers on board pretty early with the Filtertrons- and best I recall NONE of that is mentioned thus far. Why such a push to mention one of the smaller p/u companies? Which isn't to say it shouldn't be- which is why I left a comment (curiously signed by GreyCat) that the whole article should be rewritten. But to have someone insert the name Kinman in this article amounts to nothing more advertising, Kinman is extremely marginal. I'd be pretty suprised, for instance, if the entry for Guitar Amplifier mentioned Engl. No matter how awesome Engl products might be. And you bet, if someone kept writing about Engl's 'patented innovations in the work of a new kind of high-gain amplifier' ETC ETC readers would be on the ball enough to take it out. ESPECIALLY if Fender, Marshall, Mesa did not have elaborate sections detailing their much less marginal contributions ahead of time. Thats just an example, read the entry on guitar amps for a good example of a well-written article that is general enough to contain useful information about a product CATEGORY with no part reading like an ad.

If one in ten guitarists had Kinman pickups, if one in ten guitarists had HEARD of Kinman, I'd have no problem with it being in there, there'd be no debate. As it stands, Kinman has yet to reinvent the pickup. They're one of a few dozen boutique companies essentially mining the same territory. I have no objection to a Kinman article being created and linked- appropriately- from a more general, less biased, less manufacturer hyping Humbucker article. As this article stands now the references don't belong there. Tremspeed 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Article should probably be rewritten- too many minor edits have been made to support the obviously infringing advertising aspects. The reader is also left thinking humbuckers are purely a noise-reduction technology, and not an aesthetic choice also.

--GreyCat 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinman cont'd

Before commencing I would like to state that I am not associated with Kinman products, I don't even live in the same country. I do own a single Kinman pickup, as well as Seymour Duncan products.

The category under discussion is "other noise reduction attempts" and should Kinman pickups warrant mention.

I believe the Kinman product fits the description of the section, it is a unique product (hence the patents). It is significantly different in design from a host of other stacked-pu designs.

I have reverted information that pertains to Kinman technology.

"Kinman Guitar Electrix developed a new generation of pickup in the 1990s. Designed to produce a noise free single coil like sound these pickups are based upon patented differential coil technology, in which one of the pickup coils functions solely as a noise sensing coil."

It is no more advertising than that of Fender, Lace, Gibson etc who are also freely mentioned in the article.

I am not responsible for any other mention of Kinman technology in this article, however I will defend this paragraph as being factual and of potential interest to those reading the article.

RichardJ Christie 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there've been a lot of noise about Kinman products lately. What is really needed is a good and clear article on Kinman, without lots of blatant "new generation", "never seen before", "noise free", "patented technology" wording, but with a clear explanation of what exactly is done in Kinman products (how that "differnetial coil" technology works), clean and neutral facts about pickups (i.e. SNR ratio measured, output, comparison to other products), explanation of both pros and cons (for example, to my best knowledge, Kinman pickups really cover only a small portion of tonal palette that modern guitarists use - specifically, only Strat-like guitars and sounds - one can't install Kinman on heavy guitars such as Les Paul to get that fat mahogany sound). Claims about how "revolutionary" Kinman is are cool, sure, but aren't really helpful in encyclopedia :( --GreyCat 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with GreyCat's comments. Can someone edit the article to reflect the use of marketing language. As a matter of comparison the edits (by GreyCat?) of the Kinman info on single-coil were well put. Original motivation for the invention of humbuckers is of interest also. Was that object only to produce a hum free version of single coil p'ups?. I suspect so, and therefore Kinman products are a direct continuation down that line of approach. However Seth Lover's contribution created many other sonic possibilities. RichardJ Christie 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter how novel a product, Kinman pickups are used by probably less than .5% of all guitarists. Create a seperate article for Kinman if its that relevant. I don't think it is. Tremspeed 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed, but there is nothing wrong with putting it in so long as it is useful information and is not biased. Wikipedia is not a popularity-based encyclopedia - it is a knowledge-based encyclopedia, and so long as there is knowledge and relevance of it, it should be here. It is relevant because it is a humbucker, and isn't that what this article is? Of course, we should alter it (heavily if need be) to make it sound less like an advertisement, but it doesn't mean we have to remove it altogether. Remember, if reality is based on popularity, we would be getting the "wikality" Stephen Colbert was talking about, where unpopular information is omitted while popular (even if untrue) information is written in. We aren't getting any of the latter scenario in the current issue we are discussing, but more of the latter. Wikipedia is clearly about citation and verification, not popularity and wants. We aren't here to give big companies bragging rights to be able to have their names on Wikipedia whereas smaller companies are limited in this simply because they aren't popular enough.

Now, I know nothing about this Kinman pickup, but essentially so long as it is a humbucker, it has a place here. However, if it is simply a modified single coil, it should be in the single coil article. If it bears some relation to humbuckers (but is not a humbucker), it can be briefly mentioned here but must have an article of its own. These are the parameters we should follow concerning this issue. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User Tremspeed has again removed

What is the specific objection please?. Why have a section entitled "other noise reduction attempts" but only allow variations on same theme and not allow information on other genuine noise reduction attempts (and successes)? That attitude defies logic. Also just removing the two sentences is extremely unhelpful. If the objection is to specific wording then identify the words that cause offence and we'll work to amend them. This is ridiculous, it is only two sentences of information. If "new generation" offends then I suggest replacing "developed a new generation of pickup" with "engineered a new configuration of humbucking coil arrangement". Before replacing it I will however allow Tremspeed the opportunity to do so himself. RichardJ Christie 01:49 24 August 2006.

With all due respect Ariedartin, if you don't know what Humbuckers are about, you are not in a position to arbitrate whether a specific mention of a specific product should, or should not be included. Going by your logic, this Kinman pickup is not in keeping with the original humbucker patent as mentioned at the beginning of this article- it would NOT fall under the patent issed to Gibson/Seth Lover as it is a different design- thus, it's not a humbucker per se, as described in this article, rather it is a type of noise cancelling pickup that is related to a humbucker. I have never used a Kinman pickup and so I really have nothing against them, it's just that the people adding the references are either Kinman themselves or fanboys- either way, it's a biased addition, and it's not a position (re: Kinman pickups are innovative or a 'new generation' of pickup) that can be supported by references. I'd love to see references that cite them as such. Check out the history page on the entry for Single Coil pickups- it's the same thing, blatant entries for Kinman. They don't even make Single Coils. Extremely tacky. Tremspeed 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously, the only way please Tremspeed and to have a section about other noise reduction attempts without mentioning other noise reduction attempts is to delete the section altogether. I also think Tremspeed ought to reflect upon his comments in regard to 'fanboys' etc. RichardJ Christie 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have restated Kinman info without the words "new generation". Have noted Tremspeed has been busy writing articles about Fender products. I couldn't possibly offer any comment on this. RichardJ Christie 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tremspeed, I would very much appreciate it if you avoided the ad hominem attack on me. And to everyone, please stop judging one another by each other's "preferential patterns" and just look at the logic in the words. I earlier said that if Kinman's pickups are not true humbuckers, they are still related - as you have said so yourself and so should be given a brief and descriptive mention, but there will be no need to over-elaborate. I also recognise and reiterate that if there is biased text (such as saying that it is innovate, etc.), it should be edited to remove the biased slant, but not remove all of the content. And trust me, if Kinman's entries on Single-coil are advertising, I supposed the humbucker entry is advertising as well. I don't catch your logic where you say that Kinman must manufacture single-coils in order to have their concept displayed on Wikipedia. It is not about deserving its place here, its about whether it is relevant. And so far, it has about as much (or lack thereof) relevance to single coil as the humbucker. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a distinction between 'relevant' and 'deserving mention.' Are they not the same thing? Nor do I see references that support Kinman being in this article. Oh and the implication that I'm biased toward Fender is pretty funny- I could say much worse about Fender than Kinman.

I was just attempting to work toward a coherent, non-biased Humbucking Pickup article. I won't compete with people bent on making this entry an advertisement. Tremspeed 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The final comment above is another in a string of comments that imply that I (mostly) am attempting to use Wiki as an advertising forum. I both resent and reject the implication. The author of the historical copy you mostly object to has abandoned, it appears, activity on the article. You have asked for cites as to the technology being novel, I suggest that is what patents are awarded for. Then the argument shifts to that of Kinman's pickups not being within S. Lover's patent - so making them too different for inclusion (which is it to be?) Also the non-argument in Wiki terms that the company that produces them is (currently) too small for mention (what size it should be?) or too few use the product (how about a figure that must be obtained in order to qualify).

The technology appears to be the successful application of magnetic shielding between two coils such that only one coil senses signal (hence the signal behaves as if produced by single coil) but without noise, this is due to the second coil being designed to pick up noise only and then cancelling it out in concert with the first coil in the usual humbucking fashion. This as far as I am aware is another noise reduction attempt, and its success is novel enough to warrant mention. The use of the words "patented" in the article are justified because without the term it would be legitimate for a reader to surmise that the technology isn't new and is therefore just company hype. RichardJ Christie 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also some mention/comparison was made to Engl amplifiers. The comparison is invalid, if Engl has re-engineered and patented a new variety of vacuum tube and then used it a patented circuit the comparision might be valid, and yes they would certainly be entitled to a mention in any article despite their small volume of sales cf Fender etc. RichardJ Christie 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-phrased that paragraph once again - please check it out, I guess it's less emotional and more invinting to add other historical examples of noise reduction designs (I guess, at least active electronics and other patented (=innovational) things). --GreyCat 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

good call. Tremspeed 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacked pickups

STACKED PUPS - this section does need attn. The object of stacking isn't always to achieve separation between the coils as is implied. Many players use them simply as a conveniently sized humbuckers and are quite happy with the sound they make. The objective of separating the coil funtions may have been a design objective of some manufacturers but not necc. all. RichardJ Christie 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've separated these two purposes in sub-sections "stacked" and "strat-sized" pickups. "Stacked" are used mostly for their distinctive sound and "strat-sized" are any humbucker-like design that will fit as a replacement pickup in strat guitar. --GreyCat 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good editing, many thanks. RichardJ Christie 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO Ariedartin is right to put cite tag in. Also is it justified to say all stacked pups have higher than average impedance? I had already moderated the previous claim that they had 'excessive' impedance to the current version, but remain unhappy - higher impedance than the average what? Certainly higher than single coil but I doubt higher than standard humbuckers. RichardJ Christie 11:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHumbucker_1949.html"

Categories: Guitar equipment task force articles | Start-Class guitarist articles