Double Bass An Ehrlund blog, sort of

[drurb]

But they are all pressure driven, not a contact microphone like the EAP.

Those other transducers are no more pressure driven than is the EAP if, by that term you refer to air pressure, as is the norm. All the transducers mentioned are driven by mechanical vibration. By the way, the EAP can hardly be driven at all by air pressure. I tried by exposing it to substantial sound-pressure level in a laboratory setting. That makes sense, given that it's a contact microphone. It must be in mechanical contact to receive the vibrational energy via the solid media. Again, that's a characteristic shared by the other piezo transducers mentioned.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

I refer to the use of piezo foil as a bridge foot pickup which reacts mainly to pressure variation. Of course all it is mechanical vibration, but piezos have different sensitivity for bending or pressure. Depends on the cutting direction of the crystal. The piezo foil I know is really sensitive to bending, but much less on pressure, so using it as a bending membrane is a good idea.

Contact microphones often have some mass on (the center of) the membrane to be driven by inertia (I hope you know what I mean), so it is not primarily the membrane that vibrates, but the holder of the membrane, since the mass on the membrane tries to stay where it is. And this leads to bending of the membrane if the mass covers only a small area of the membrane. Maybe the membrane doesn't need additional mass, the company I know makes foils with masses at the end of the sensor too (i.e. for use as an accelerometer sensor).

 

[drurb]

I refer to the use of piezo foil as a bridge foot pickup which reacts mainly to pressure variation.

I believe that's what mechanical vibration is all about.

 

[drurb]

There's a Swedish patent here:

Invalid Link Removed

It's in Swedish.

Thank you, Francis!!! So, it's a piezo. That, of course, doesn't change my appreciation for how wonderfully it functions. Once again, it's about the execution and not about the principle of operation chosen.

So maybe Ehrlund's obfuscation on the product's design is simply marketing. They've got a great (possibly revolutionary) new piezo design, but they want to distance themselves from the word "piezo."

Well, I think it goes beyond obfuscation in this case. Consider this from the Gollihurs' website:

We emphasize the term "linear microphone" because this is what Göran Ehrlund (inventor and manufacturer of the pickup) calls it. He made it a point to tell us that it is not a piezo element -- which is the technology used by most other commonly available bass pickups. (Emphasis added)

Now, let me be clear. I absolutely believe the Gollihurs. I believe that's what they were told. I doubt they "mis-heard." It seems to me that someone has some explaining to do. It's one thing to hold the details of a design close to the vest. It's quite another to claim that the design is not based on "x," when, in fact, it is!

 

[DoubleMIDI]

Advertising is lying for better sale, isn't it?

 

[Thumpie]

Thank you, Francis!!! So, it's a piezo. That, of course, doesn't change my appreciation for how wonderfully it functions. Once again, it's about the execution and not about the principle of operation chosen.



Well, I think it goes beyond obfuscation in this case. Consider this from the Gollihurs' website:

We emphasize the term "linear microphone" because this is what Göran Ehrlund (inventor and manufacturer of the pickup) calls it. He made it a point to tell us that it is not a piezo element -- which is the technology used by most other commonly available bass pickups. (Emphasis added)

Now, let me be clear. I absolutely believe the Gollihurs. I believe that's what they were told. I doubt they "mis-heard." It seems to me that someone has some explaining to do. It's one thing to hold the details of a design close to the vest. It's quite another to claim that the design is not based on "x," when, in fact, it is!

I was actually thinking along the same lines, but I was/am too lazy to go back through exactly who said what. There could be some dishonesty on the part of Ehrlund, or it could have been just a miscommunication, or possibly someone at Ehrlund speaking from ignorance.

I also don't think the Gollihurs have purposely misinformed...

 

[Thumpie]

Advertising is lying for better sale, isn't it?

Yes. But in some (most?) countries there's legal restrictions on what kind of lies can be told...

 

[Eric Hochberg]

So, being a piezo, would a hpf be beneficial then?

 

[Bob Gollihur]

We pass on what our vendors tell us, provided it's believable, and what we've personally experienced. We'll ask again.

However, I can only say that this feels like you've gotten to know a stunningly beautiful woman, who only becomes more alluring as time passes... until you meet her father, who is ugly, so you change your opinion of the woman.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

The judge at the court says, that since everybody knows that advertising in general is not completely true, so you cannot sue them. At least this happens in Germany. There are a lot of laws, but even more holes in practice. Don't underestimate the power of the lobbyists.

And sorry, nothing against the Gollihurs (that was never intended), they can only forward what they were told.

I only want to make clear that telling the (complete) truth in advertising might be problematic for sale, so only tell the best and not the worse things and also lie a bit if needed.
Since piezo is a buzzword a lot of bass players don't like, it is clear that this word is omitted from the advertising of the EAP. Technically this is not correct, but it is a wise decision for advertising, since the EAP works very differently and doesn't have the piezo crystal artifacts that most players think of when reading "piezo". So, never believe any advertisements. And even less in technical explnations.

From the beginning I thought it might be some kind of piezo foil or something similar in it. But I hardly believed it myself.

 

[PB+J]

The other issue with the fact that it's a piezo is the cost, especially the new, much much higher cost.

The patent mentions using commonly available piezo buzzers, cut to a triangle shape. I have no idea if that's what's in there specifically, but you can buy them at Radio Shack for $2.50. There's no mention in the patent of any special assembly process or costly materials. The whole point is the shape and the attachment points. As far as I can tell, that's what's being patented--a triangular shape. The patent specifically covers other, non-equilateral triangles. If that's the case, and it uses regularly available piezo buzzer elements, then a great deal is being charged for a plastic triangle.

I love the pickup--it's great. I plan to keep using it. Ehrlund deserves to make money on it. He's managed to combine all the advantages of piezos with none of the disadvantages. That's something musicians have been looking for for a long time. At the same time, there's an old fashioned notion of a reasonable profit....

Now I really want to know what's in the preamp!

 

[drurb]

We pass on what our vendors tell us, provided it's believable, and what we've personally experienced. We'll ask again.

However, I can only say that this feels like you've gotten to know a stunningly beautiful woman, who only becomes more alluring as time passes... until you meet her father, who is ugly, so you change your opinion of the woman.

No sir! No one, especially me, is saying that she is any less beautiful. Here's what I said, right out of the gate:

So, it's a piezo. That, of course, doesn't change my appreciation for how wonderfully it functions.

Gee, how much clearer could it be? No one here expressed any change in opinion about the device, so I don't understand how it could "feel" like the situation you described.

There is a principle here. It is about misrepresentation. I shouldn't be told that I'm buying sequential fuel injection, only to find that there's a four-barrel carb under the hood-- even if I'm delighted with the performance.

 

[drurb]

The judge at the court says, that since everybody knows that advertising in general is not completely true, so you cannot sue them. At least this happens in Germany.

Not in the USA!

I only want to make clear that telling the (complete) truth in advertising might be problematic for sale, so only tell the best and not the worse things and also lie a bit if needed.

Nonsense! I was with you right up until "lie a bit if needed." It certainly happens but it's unethical, immoral, and illegal. There is no "fine line" between not revealing details and outright misrepresentation.

Since piezo is a buzzword a lot of bass players don't like, it is clear that this word is omitted from the advertising of the EAP. Technically this is not correct,

There's nothing technically incorrect about not mentioning that it's a piezo. It's perfectly fine not to mention what is the operating principle.

So, never believe any advertisements. And even less in technical explnations.

That's a jaded, cynical, and IMO, inappropriate view. Sure, one should not be naive but this is extreme.

 

[Jeff Kissell]

It's possible the process of creating the Ehrlund is more, if not way more, complicated then just wiring up a piece of film and wrapping it in copper foil. It's also possible this process may blur the line between piezo and mic form factors. Especially considering there are many suitable form factors and components that are considered "microphone" technology.

FWIW, the APTflex is an underfoot electret film which is the form of piezo the Ehrlund supposedly uses but is different from the piezo crystals that the Realist uses. I've found these two pick-ups require really different EQ on my bass even though they are both considered "piezo".

Just my $.02

-Jeff

 

[Thumpie]

This thread has gotten *very* interesting...

 

[PB+J]

It's possible the process of creating the Ehrlund is more, if not way more, complicated then just wiring up a piece of film and wrapping it in copper foil. It's also possible this process may blur the line between piezo and mic form factors. Especially considering there are many suitable form factors and components that are considered "microphone" technology.

Just my $.02

-Jeff

It is certainly possible although that's not at all what the patent says. I just mentions taking a piezo buzzer, cutting it to a triangle, and mounting it at the corners. Ehrlund may have done other things that aren't revealed in the patent--that's certainly possible.

But my point is just that based on the patent, "manufacturing costs" would seem to be unlikely to justify the current extremely high price of the pickup. This is the explanation the Gollihurs were given for the price increase, according to what was posted here a few days ago by Mark Gollihur (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f4/ehrlund-blog-sort-909299/index15.html#post13880287).

In the end, the thing is worth what people are willing to pay for it. But full disclosure is a good thing.

 

[Mark Gollihur]

The horse's mouth, indeed, is the best place to go. I've sent a direct request to Göran to get the straight dope. In the meantime, I've put a temporary note in our description mentioning the controversy here.

Not having heard back from him yet, I'll make one other point. We're all sort of assuming that the patent applies to the pickup that we're all talking about here. But the patent in question dates from December 2004 - 8 1/2 years ago (which is well before any of us knew of the EAP's existence). Is it possible that this patent does not specifically apply to the current generation pickup, but rather an earlier, much simpler model which he later re-engineered/altered?

 

[Thumpie]

This thread is becoming a study on epistemology.

I love it.

 

[PB+J]

The horse's mouth, indeed, is the best place to go. I've sent a direct request to Göran to get the straight dope. In the meantime, I've put a temporary note in our description mentioning the controversy here.

Not having heard back from him yet, I'll make one other point. We're all sort of assuming that the patent applies to the pickup that we're all talking about here. But the patent in question dates from December 2004 - 8 1/2 years ago (which is well before any of us knew of the EAP's existence). Is it possible that this patent does not specifically apply to the current generation pickup, but rather an earlier, much simpler model which he later re-engineered/altered?

It certainly is possible, and he may have done things which are not patentable but dramatically improved the basic design. it's a long road from patent to product and he deserves all credit for getting there.

The earliest account of the EAP i've found dates from 2006, probably from the NAMM show (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb06/articles/guitartech.htm)

 

[engedi1]

Wow. I am floored. And pissed off at being made out to be a liar. I have been telling people for months this is not a piezo. Of course, I still love the pickup, but I can't believe it is a piezo. No piezo system has every produced such a nice arco tone and I don't see how it could be. Still worth the money (the original price that it) to me, but man! A little honesty would be nice. I would like to know what Jonas thinks, since he is a big promoter of the EAP and is in Germany and closer to Erhlund.