• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Shielding paint

from what ive read copper foil is a much better form of shielding. i think this comes up in the shielding tutorial(check the FAQ) copper foil isnt that hard, it takes me a very short amount of time to do a jazz bass, i did 3 or 4 of em, and ended up makng a pattern, but the first one i did took a little over an hour i think. copper silenced my super noisy stick MIM pickups, its a good mod on any bass, shielding goes a long way.
 
I've switched from using copper to shielding paint on 99% of the work I do anymore. I found that it does every bit as good of job as the copper - just remember to add a copper strip to your control cavity so the copper foil on the back of the cover can ground out to the main cavity.

I have a super EMI noisy assembly area, and the paint kills all of the noise without a hitch.

One other great benefit to the paint is that it takes about 5 minutes of application time to complete a coat in a typical rear routed P/J. Multiply this times three for each coat and you're only talking 20 minutes to completely shield a bass vs at least 90 minutes for copper foil and soldering. If you do several basses, the time really adds up.

all the best,

R
 
Rodent said:
I've switched from using copper to shielding paint on 99% of the work I do anymore. I found that it does every bit as good of job as the copper - just remember to add a copper strip to your control cavity so the copper foil on the back of the cover can ground out to the main cavity.

I have a super EMI noisy assembly area, and the paint kills all of the noise without a hitch.

One other great benefit to the paint is that it takes about 5 minutes of application time to complete a coat in a typical rear routed P/J. Multiply this times three for each coat and you're only talking 20 minutes to completely shield a bass vs at least 90 minutes for copper foil and soldering. If you do several basses, the time really adds up.

all the best,

R

agreed, i used to use copper exclusively. now i hate it cuz it takes so long. sheilding paint is just as good, sometimes better. it's alot faster too.
 
The reson I posted: I'm installing Nordstrand Big Singles and J-Retro Deluxe pre. I know 60 cycle hum will be an issue. I will spend the time to do a nice copper shield but paint seems a lot easier. If copper shielding is the way to go then thats what I want to do.
Please advise.:help:
 
* paint the pickup cavities and control cavity - I use three coats, each applied 24 hours apart (directions on the container) The key to success is in the 2+ coat application ... one coat is just not quite enough shielding IMO

* copper foil on back side of control cavity cover, and a small copper foil strip to connect the cover to the cavity (I like to do this at screw holes for a solid connection)

* ground the bridge (I install the wire to the cavity, but leave the bridge ground wire unconnected on the basses when I deliver them for liability reasons)

* ground each cavity to a common ground in the control cavity via star grounding

I have a set of Aero Type I's (J/J) in a bass set-up exactly like this and it's dead quiet in my EMI noisy office.

all the best,

R
 
The paint's easier, but not a perfect conductive! It works just fine. Sadowsky is an example.
But pretty much all the hi-tech luthiers use copper foil. MTD, Nordstrand, Lakland, Fodera...

I was talking to Carey about this. He used paint in the beginning, but now he believes on copper foil and I'm with him! :D

Mo'
 
IME all copper foil starts to peel away in time making a mess. I've gone through a few cans of Stew Mac paint and haven't run into a situation where it did not completely shield an instrument.

Copper is also not a perfect conductor. Zubin Mehta has received similar criticism ;)
 
here's a tip...

there are paints available that are designed to turn ordinary walls into magnet boards - for kids' rooms for instance...

these paints - available at most paint shops - are loaded with iron filings (this is how they turn walls into magnet boards).

well I've not tested the stuff yet - I am reasonably confident that this stuff would work - and it would be a quite bit less expensive than the stew mac products.

for now, I'm using two-sided carpet tape backed aluminium foil...it's a bit fiddly to apply but works great...
 
Probably make lumpy paint ;)

For iron filled paint to attract magnets the particles don't need to touch and conduct across the surface which may be an issue with iron filings.

And I think the StewMac paint uses graphite not iron, probably a very fine powder.
 
yes, the StewMac product utilizes powdered graphite and carbon as the shielding agents

while the iron filings may seem like an interesting experiment, I don't think you have a fine enough particulate to make a solid covering of the right materials ... and worst case is a non-working mess that you'll then have to strip out of the cavity

all the best,

R
 
Rodent said:
yes, the StewMac product utilizes powdered graphite and carbon as the shielding agents

while the iron filings may seem like an interesting experiment, I don't think you have a fine enough particulate to make a solid covering of the right materials ... and worst case is a non-working mess that you'll then have to strip out of the cavity

all the best,

R

Jees guys, have you ever heard of "testing"? testing the stuff is easy...stripe some on a length of wood, let it dry and break out the ohm meter...compare the resistance per length vs. the stew mac stuff...

also graphite powder can be purchased and suspended in a paint and tested as well...

my point is this...stew mac's products are good...but they are also VERY expensive...and alternatives do exist.