Double Bass New Pickup MSP (Magnet Sandwiched Pickup)

[lcpierce]

"Bag O' Magnets"!
Problem solved.

Need magnets? Bag O' Magnets are small enough to fall inside your bass accidentally, but too big to be able to get back out! Our patented design prevents the magnet from falling out through the F-hole, no matter how close it gets to the hole. You're guaranteed to have a loud and unsettling rattle inside your bass with Bag O'Magnets.

 

[drurb]

might be fine, the gage soundclip is much heavier, only one way to find out

Agreed that there's essentially one way to find out. Here's my prediction. Bridge placement, will lose the important and desirable transduction of the temporal attack/decay profile, as discussed here and elsewhere. That's the downfall of any bridge-mounted pickup.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

You can bind the inside magnet to the pickup with a soft but strong thread/yarn.
I assume the pickup sits close to the bass bar in range of the f-hole, so the magnet won't fall since the thread/yarn can be rather short to reach the interesting positions.
Should be no problem to make a small hole in the shrink-wrap around the magnet to fiddle the yarn through.

Well, you can also use the double-sided sticky tape, but I guess only a few of us like to go that route.

 

[shwashwa]

or you can make a trap door in the rib of your bass

 

[drurb]

You could have your luthier remove the top and line the underside with a ferrous sheet. Then, just use the magnet in the pickup. The possibilities are endless!

 

[seamonkey]

The patent won't hold up? Has anyone else patented the idea? My understanding is that an idea can be floating around but the first one to the patent office with a unique aspect is the winner. I'm not sure that the idea having been discussed before on TB and elsewhere makes the patent invalid. Apparently, the patent office didn't think so.

First to Patent or Puiblish. It was at least talked about on this forum before the patents was filed. Patent office job isn't to research all the places things can be published. If there's no earlier patent filed before it was talked about here then it's public domain. If this concept can make good sounding pickups, then all manufacturers can do a version of it. They can patent improvements they do. More options for bass pickups is always good.

Another advantage here is you can put the pickup on the back of the bass, even more tonal options.

 

[drurb]

First to Patent or Puiblish. It was at least talked about on this forum before the patents was filed. Patent office job isn't to research all the places things can be published. If there's no earlier patent filed before it was talked about here then it's public domain. If this concept can make good sounding pickups, then all manufacturers can do a version of it. They can patent improvements they do. More options for bass pickups is always good.

Another advantage here is you can put the pickup on the back of the bass, even more tonal options.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess you're saying TB qualifies as publication. Still, I suspect that the unique details of the patent, the kinds of which were never spoken of here, likely matter a great deal. I don't claim to know the bases on which the patent was granted. Yes, more options for pickups are definitely good, whether they are sufficiently unique to patent or not.

 

[Don Kasper]

Agreed that there's essentially one way to find out. Here's my prediction. Bridge placement, will lose the important and desirable transduction of the temporal attack/decay profile, as discussed here and elsewhere. That's the downfall of any bridge-mounted pickup.

That doesn't seem to square with the physics involved. A pickup placed at the bridge does not and never will come close to transmitting the attack/decay transient that is similar to what is transmitted acoustically. I posted at length in the Ehrlund thread(s) about the attack/decay profile and its importance in terms of how we identify and characterize the sound of any instrument. So, the vibrations of the table are not "just as weird" as those at the bridge. Rather, I believe they can be (and typically are) closer to what is radiated acoustically-- that is, what emanates from the front of the bass. That's not always the case and therein lies the rub. The greater the extent to which you transduce what's at the strings, the less the extent you transduce what the instrument is doing. Sure, the response of the instrument affects the strings but that influence pales in comparison to the way the response of the strings affect the instrument. It's a classic impedance mis-match and we rely on it.

As for balls, well, IME, in that department, the Ehrlund, when placed properly, trounces any bridge-mounted pickup I've ever used or heard. I don't dispute your experience at all. Yes, there are just some basses for which players can't seem to get it to work well. It may also have to do with their preferences for amplified sound.

It's not surprising that you don't know many other players in your sphere who use the Ehrlund. Neither do I! Many people don't know about it, it's expensive, and it requires a fair degree of fiddling and expertise. It's hardly plug-n-play as are many other pickups. Those characteristics right there turn off many players right at the get-go. That's quite understandable.

By the way, on a variety of real gigs, I've never experienced substantial "contact noise" from the Ehrlund.

YMMV

drurb, (palindrome noted),

I am not a acoustician, but doesn't a bridge mounted pickup simply replace the top table of the bass with the pre-amp/amp/speaker as the reproductive system for the attack/decay transient? (Yes, I understand that it is an approximation of that shape, at best.)
There is an interview with bassist/engineer/producer Steve Rodby, somewhere on the Internets, where he discusses this issue, and how successfully (or not) different bridge mounted pickups capture and relay this information.
Thanks for your time and expertise.
don kasper

 

[drurb]

drurb, (palindrome noted),

I am not a acoustician, but doesn't a bridge mounted pickup simply replace the top table of the bass with the pre-amp/amp/speaker as the reproductive system for the attack/decay transient? (Yes, I understand that it is an approximation of that shape, at best.)
There is an interview with bassist/engineer/producer Steve Rodby, somewhere on the Internets, where he discusses this issue, and how successfully (or not) different bridge mounted pickups capture and relay this information.
Thanks for your time and expertise.
don kasper

Well, not really. Let's consider what goes on acoustically. When you listen to the DB played pizz., that wonderful percussive attack and decay are a function of the entire transmission and interplay through the bridge and the top. What you hear is essentially coming off of the top. It is the response and vibrational modes of the top that give the instrument its characteristic sound. Those characteristics are not all present at the bridge. Now, what one does transduce from the bridge is certainly affected by the top but it is a classic mechanical impedance mismatch. That is to say, the vibration of the bridge drives the top much more effectively than the top drives the bridge. That's a good thing!

What you pick up at the bridge then, is largely the vibration of the strings themselves (yes, influenced also by the entire system). That's not really "the sound of the DB" which is why bridge-mounted pickups tend to produce a sound that's somewhere between the prototypical DB and the prototypical BG.

IME, and consistent with the physics, top-mounted pickups do a better job. They do, of course, transduce what's happening at one spot and that's not ideal either-- but it's closer.

The pre-amp, amp, and speaker ideally reproduce what they are given as input. If the temporal attack/decay profile isn't there, then they will not re-create it. It's probably worth mentioning here again that it is now quite well known that the temporal attack/decay profile is enormously important in terms of the characteristic sound of any instrument. When synthesizers first came on the scene, people thought it was sufficient merely to mimic the spectral (frequency) profile of an instrument. No matter how well that was done, it just didn't suffice. IIRC, there were some interesting studies done in which the spectral profile of one instrument was coupled with the temporal attack/decay profile of another, very different instrument. People identified the instrument as being the one that matched the temporal attack/decay profile even though the spectrum was all "wrong."

 

[Martin Beer]

Well, not really. Let's consider what goes on acoustically. When you listen to the DB played pizz., that wonderful percussive attack and decay are a function of the entire transmission and interplay through the bridge and the top. What you hear is essentially coming off of the top. It is the response and vibrational modes of the top that give the instrument its characteristic sound. Those characteristics are not all present at the bridge. Now, what one does transduce from the bridge is certainly affected by the top but it is a classic mechanical impedance mismatch. That is to say, the vibration of the bridge drives the top much more effectively than the top drives the bridge. That's a good thing!

It's interesting, as this could also describe why, pragmatically, a bridge pickup can be useful in some situations even though it resembles the acoustic sound less closely than a soundboard mounted pickup. The less percussive envelope is easier to amplify (being less demanding of amplifier and speaker headroom) and in certain loudly amplified situations could be perceived to sit in the mix better. Because the vibration of the top does not drive the bridge effectively a bridge pickup is less prone to feeding back or picking up bleed from the kick drum or other low frequency sounds. I prefer to use a microphone or a contact pickup (my AKG C411) wherever possible, but a bridge pickup is certainly a useful backup for these reasons.

 

[Don Kasper]

drurb,

So, maybe we can agree that all pickups, whether bridge or top-mounted, (and even a single mic, as well), function similarly to a doctor's stethoscope, in that they allow the user to access a reliable, (though incomplete), portion of the overall system.
FYI - I've had better sonic results with bridge mounted pickups (Underwood - 1 element only, B-Band: Statement and D-1 - wing elements only), than with top-mounted pickups (Realist copper, B-Band: Statement & D-1 E foot element).
Thanks for your time and expertise.
don kasper

 

[drurb]

It's interesting, as this could also describe why, pragmatically, a bridge pickup can be useful in some situations even though it resembles the acoustic sound less closely than a soundboard mounted pickup. The less percussive envelope is easier to amplify (being less demanding of amplifier and speaker headroom) and in certain loudly amplified situations could be perceived to sit in the mix better. Because the vibration of the top does not drive the bridge effectively a bridge pickup is less prone to feeding back or picking up bleed from the kick drum or other low frequency sounds. I prefer to use a microphone or a contact pickup (my AKG C411) wherever possible, but a bridge pickup is certainly a useful backup for these reasons.

Yup. I think you're right on target. What I found early on with the Ehrlund was that the transduction of the percussive and transient attack made by bass much easier to hear when playing with a big band. It also allows me to hear the pitch more easily. Indeed, all that comes at the price of being less resistant to feedback but I've been able to manage that quite well. Then again, I don't use it in very highly amplified situations.

drurb,

So, maybe we can agree that all pickups, whether bridge or top-mounted, (and even a single mic, as well), function similarly to a doctor's stethoscope, in that they allow the user to access a reliable, (though incomplete), portion of the overall system.
FYI - I've had better sonic results with bridge mounted pickups (Underwood - 1 element only, B-Band: Statement and D-1 - wing elements only), than with top-mounted pickups (Realist copper, B-Band: Statement & D-1 E foot element).
Thanks for your time and expertise.
don kasper

You're quite welcome! This is a fun part of TB for me. I don't think of the Realist copper or any other foot-mounted pickup as a top-mounted pickup in the sense of the Ehrlund or B-Band. That's because they are not really transducing the "free" vibration of the top when they are sandwiched between it and the bridge foot. I'm eager to hear more about the MSP. It strikes me that it would be much more difficult to try different positions with the MSP than with the Ehrlund because it would involve moving the internal magnet each time.

 

[jlmorgan84]

Well even though I'm perfectly happy with my current pickup setup, curiosity got the better of me and I bought a MSP. I've always been interested in trying the Ehrlund, but was never willing to shell out the money for one. Will see how it goes.

 

[Ric Vice]

Well even though I'm perfectly happy with my current pickup setup, curiosity got the better of me and I bought a MSP. I've always been interested in trying the Ehrlund, but was never willing to shell out the money for one. Will see how it goes.

I understand, I purchased mine when they first came to market. They were considerably less expensive then.
I would still use one at the current price though.

Ric

 

[drurb]

I understand, I purchased mine when they first came to market. They were considerably less expensive then.
I would still use one at the current price though.

Ric

I wonder if Ehrlund would actually profit more, in the end, if the price were cut by 25-50%.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

I wonder if Ehrlund would actually profit more, in the end, if the price were cut by 25-50%.

I have read somewhere over here that Ehrlund needed to raise the prices because the cost to make them was the same or higher than what they got paid by the customer.
So, no, the profit won't be higher, only the losses bigger.

 

[Matt Ides]

I can't wait to hear some examples in a group context with pizz.

 

[drurb]

I have read somewhere over here that Ehrlund needed to raise the prices because the cost to make them was the same or higher than what they got paid by the customer.
So, no, the profit won't be higher, only the losses bigger.

Thanks for that info. I wouldn't have guessed that the cost to manufacture the device was that high. I seem to recall Mark Gollihur explaining the steep increase in the U.S pricing as the result of a change in the distribution model to the U.S. Specifically, a middle-man became involved.

 

[Ric Vice]

I have read somewhere over here that Ehrlund needed to raise the prices because the cost to make them was the same or higher than what they got paid by the customer.
So, no, the profit won't be higher, only the losses bigger.

Originally, Goran Ehrlund had a short run of the EAP made in Sweden by a local manufacturer. These were sold to
a U.S. Distributor. I purchased my first Ehrlund EAP from them. I still have that version of the EAP on my instrument. After the initial run was successful, he decided to bring the manufacturing in house and sell them himself
so he could control the quality of the pickups. At that time there was no U.S. Distributor for a short time he sold the pickup online himself. Later on, he changed his U.S.distributor, and that's when the price changed.

Ric

 

[ee-san]

To illustrate drurb's points in message 29, shown below are wave forms of plucked open E and A double bass strings transduced by an Underwood piezo bridge pickup, an AT35 clip-on microphone pointing upward through the bridge legs, and a Radio Shack Clip-on microphone pointing into the G-side F-hole. I've added plucked E and A strings on a Fender P-Bass with a Quarter-Pounder magnetic pickup for further contrast. Each signal was amplified through a Walter Woods head connected to a 12-inch speaker cabinet and recorded via microphone placed in front the speaker.

Note the higher, sustained intensity in the latter halves of the pickup notes compared to the sharp decays from the microphones aimed at the table.

Underwood Piezo Pickup

AT35 Clip-on Microphone

Radio Shack Clip-On Microphone

P-Bass Magnetic Pickup