Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Recommended string gauge
Re: Recommended string gauge
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
> Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
Sorry mate, but that ain't true....
The greater mass takes a greater force to move it. That's the law of
inertia.
When I posted the statement that larger strings had less sustain I
based that on what I heared...not on physics. and the difference was
damn small, at least the audiable sound. So I would have to agree with
Lumpy.
However, if you have 2 strings of a different diameter, both the same
length and streched to the same tension. they would both vibrate for
the same length of time.
Or maybe not :)
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
> Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
Sorry mate, but that ain't true....
The greater mass takes a greater force to move it. That's the law of
inertia.
When I posted the statement that larger strings had less sustain I
based that on what I heared...not on physics. and the difference was
damn small, at least the audiable sound. So I would have to agree with
Lumpy.
However, if you have 2 strings of a different diameter, both the same
length and streched to the same tension. they would both vibrate for
the same length of time.
Or maybe not :)
Re: Recommended string gauge
On May 16, 4:29 am, ARLOWE <ARL...@nose.picker . com > wrote:
>
> However, if you have 2 strings of a different diameter, both the same
> length and streched to the same tension. they would both vibrate for
> the same length of time.
They wouldn't play the same note, though. To do that, the heavier
string would have to be under higher tension.
While we are on physics, though.... What explains the difference in
tone between the heavier and lighter strings? I assumed that the
higher-order harmonics would be dampened on the heavier strings, but
is that true?
--Cliff (US)
On May 16, 4:29 am, ARLOWE <ARL...@nose.picker . com > wrote:
>
> However, if you have 2 strings of a different diameter, both the same
> length and streched to the same tension. they would both vibrate for
> the same length of time.
They wouldn't play the same note, though. To do that, the heavier
string would have to be under higher tension.
While we are on physics, though.... What explains the difference in
tone between the heavier and lighter strings? I assumed that the
higher-order harmonics would be dampened on the heavier strings, but
is that true?
--Cliff (US)
Re: Recommended string gauge
I don't know where you learned our physics, but it surely wasn't where I
learned mine.
Near as I can see Lumpy is completely correct.
EJ in NJ
Squier wrote:
>> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>
>>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>>> ARLOWE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just from my own limited experience.
>>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>>> That seems backwards.
>>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
>>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
>>> less mass.
>>>
>>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
>>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
>>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
>>> to stop, than the little VW.
>>>
>>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
>>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>>>
>>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
>>> in motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lumpy
>>>
>>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
>>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>>
>> ok. just wanted to mention this.
>> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
>
>
> Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
> tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as long.
> anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the speakers
> at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down away
> from the strings and then just add in some
> super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the signal chain
> (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain - but also probably
> terrible bad tone.
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
> Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
> ok. nuff said.
>
> so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> whew - I type way too much.
I don't know where you learned our physics, but it surely wasn't where I
learned mine.
Near as I can see Lumpy is completely correct.
EJ in NJ
Squier wrote:
>> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>
>>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>>> ARLOWE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just from my own limited experience.
>>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>>> That seems backwards.
>>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
>>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
>>> less mass.
>>>
>>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
>>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
>>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
>>> to stop, than the little VW.
>>>
>>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
>>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>>>
>>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
>>> in motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lumpy
>>>
>>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
>>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>>
>> ok. just wanted to mention this.
>> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
>
>
> Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
> tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as long.
> anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the speakers
> at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down away
> from the strings and then just add in some
> super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the signal chain
> (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain - but also probably
> terrible bad tone.
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
> Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
> ok. nuff said.
>
> so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> whew - I type way too much.
Re: Recommended string gauge
On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>
> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
belief. I wonder if it is true.
Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
makes the bob stop swinging.
Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
very significant, though...
I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
flames over there) what they say.
--Cliff (US)
On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>
> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
belief. I wonder if it is true.
Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
makes the bob stop swinging.
Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
very significant, though...
I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
flames over there) what they say.
--Cliff (US)
Re: Recommended string gauge
hcbowman expounded in
news:b32dd728-eb55-4b5b-8899-ab2de8577d98@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups . com :
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative,
Liberal or conservative, it amounts to the same old thing..
> so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts.
> --Cliff (US)
More or less: at a _practical_ best, for weak fields all it amounts to is
a slightly lop-sided string swing, causing a slightly lopsided signal to
be picked up by the pickups.
Theoretically, things are more complicated than that because with
magnetic attraction, the force varies inversely with the square of the
distance. IOW, as the you reduce the distance by half, the force
increases by a factor of 4, etc.
You'll all have probably done this already at one time or another:
Try this with a strong magnet or one removed from a speaker:
With the metal bar say, right up against the magnet, you can barely pull
it off. No surprise there.
With the same bar 4 inches away, you might feel a slight attraction.
Now try to bring that bar within half or 1/4 inch of the magnet without
allowing it to touch. I bet you can't stop it from snapping together as
you get within a certain small range.
This is because the force is so strong as you bring it in "near" because
of the squaring of the force. So much so, that any minute change in
distance can cause you to lose total control of the metal bar and it
becomes attached to the magnet.
Soooooo... this means that theoretically, if you have a strong magnetic
pull from a pickup on the string, and the string gets very near it, the
force could be dramatic, post-poning the strings swing back. This non-
linear pulling force would effectively cause other distortions in the
swing, and hence the signal (not to mention near to far effects on the
signal of the string itself).
IOW, if the string's vibration was a pure sine wave (its not), then it
would clearly not be in the presence of a magnetic field.
Now how much of this can your ear discern? I think that is fodder for NG
chatter.
It is interesting to me that your ear cannot hear a perfect sine wave.
Until recently, I was unaware of this. At best, if you were to hear a
perfect sine wave, your ear would transmit the fundamental frequency and
multiple harmonics to your brain (at a reduced level of course).
The reason why is that your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms). As the sound pushes
the ear drum against the bone, there is increasing pressure (in a non-
linear way). As the sound pressure drops and your ear drum pulls away
from the bone, the bone helps to push the drum out. Again, another non-
linear process.
So your ear actually perceives sound in a way similar to a string
vibrating in the presence of a magnetic field. You will NEVER hear a
perfect sine wave, unless of course it could be transmitted eletronically
to your brain without the use of your ears.
But sine waves are boring-- bring on the distortion boxes!
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
hcbowman expounded in
news:b32dd728-eb55-4b5b-8899-ab2de8577d98@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups . com :
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative,
Liberal or conservative, it amounts to the same old thing..
> so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts.
> --Cliff (US)
More or less: at a _practical_ best, for weak fields all it amounts to is
a slightly lop-sided string swing, causing a slightly lopsided signal to
be picked up by the pickups.
Theoretically, things are more complicated than that because with
magnetic attraction, the force varies inversely with the square of the
distance. IOW, as the you reduce the distance by half, the force
increases by a factor of 4, etc.
You'll all have probably done this already at one time or another:
Try this with a strong magnet or one removed from a speaker:
With the metal bar say, right up against the magnet, you can barely pull
it off. No surprise there.
With the same bar 4 inches away, you might feel a slight attraction.
Now try to bring that bar within half or 1/4 inch of the magnet without
allowing it to touch. I bet you can't stop it from snapping together as
you get within a certain small range.
This is because the force is so strong as you bring it in "near" because
of the squaring of the force. So much so, that any minute change in
distance can cause you to lose total control of the metal bar and it
becomes attached to the magnet.
Soooooo... this means that theoretically, if you have a strong magnetic
pull from a pickup on the string, and the string gets very near it, the
force could be dramatic, post-poning the strings swing back. This non-
linear pulling force would effectively cause other distortions in the
swing, and hence the signal (not to mention near to far effects on the
signal of the string itself).
IOW, if the string's vibration was a pure sine wave (its not), then it
would clearly not be in the presence of a magnetic field.
Now how much of this can your ear discern? I think that is fodder for NG
chatter.
It is interesting to me that your ear cannot hear a perfect sine wave.
Until recently, I was unaware of this. At best, if you were to hear a
perfect sine wave, your ear would transmit the fundamental frequency and
multiple harmonics to your brain (at a reduced level of course).
The reason why is that your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms). As the sound pushes
the ear drum against the bone, there is increasing pressure (in a non-
linear way). As the sound pressure drops and your ear drum pulls away
from the bone, the bone helps to push the drum out. Again, another non-
linear process.
So your ear actually perceives sound in a way similar to a string
vibrating in the presence of a magnetic field. You will NEVER hear a
perfect sine wave, unless of course it could be transmitted eletronically
to your brain without the use of your ears.
But sine waves are boring-- bring on the distortion boxes!
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
Charmed Snark wrote:
> But sine waves are boring--
Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
Funkin up the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Charmed Snark wrote:
> But sine waves are boring--
Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
Funkin up the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
Lumpy expounded in news:69697rF312hi0U1@mid.individual . net :
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> But sine waves are boring--
>
> Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
> Funkin up the scenery
> Breakin' my mind
>
> Lumpy
Good one!
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Lumpy expounded in news:69697rF312hi0U1@mid.individual . net :
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> But sine waves are boring--
>
> Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
> Funkin up the scenery
> Breakin' my mind
>
> Lumpy
Good one!
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
Lumpy wrote:
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> But sine waves are boring--
>
> Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
> Funkin up the scenery
> Breakin' my mind
>
Canadian music!
Lumpy wrote:
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> But sine waves are boring--
>
> Sine, sine, everywhere a sine
> Funkin up the scenery
> Breakin' my mind
>
Canadian music!
Re: Recommended string gauge
Charmed Snark wrote:
> ... your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
> bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms)...
He're a fun fact.
Hammer, anvil, stirrup.
Malleus, incus, stapes.
The three bones of the inner ear.
The trio of bones is connected
to the ear drum on one end (stirrup),
and to the tympanic membrane on the other
end (via the hammer).
We have muscles that are connected
to the tympanic membrane.
When we are subjected to loud sounds,
those muscles contract and dampen the
vibration ability of the membrane,
thereby attenuating the sound.
In younger people, that tensor tympani muscle
is stronger and more flexible than in older
people, just like most muscles.
So in older people, we have less of an ability
to dampen loud sounds.
"Turn that damn music down" is a very real,
physiological occurrance. It literally IS
louder to older people. Younger people
have a better ear protection device.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Charmed Snark wrote:
> ... your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
> bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms)...
He're a fun fact.
Hammer, anvil, stirrup.
Malleus, incus, stapes.
The three bones of the inner ear.
The trio of bones is connected
to the ear drum on one end (stirrup),
and to the tympanic membrane on the other
end (via the hammer).
We have muscles that are connected
to the tympanic membrane.
When we are subjected to loud sounds,
those muscles contract and dampen the
vibration ability of the membrane,
thereby attenuating the sound.
In younger people, that tensor tympani muscle
is stronger and more flexible than in older
people, just like most muscles.
So in older people, we have less of an ability
to dampen loud sounds.
"Turn that damn music down" is a very real,
physiological occurrance. It literally IS
louder to older people. Younger people
have a better ear protection device.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
Lumpy expounded in news:6969ugF30olurU1@mid.individual . net :
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> ... your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
>> bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms)...
>
..
> We have muscles that are connected
> to the tympanic membrane.
> When we are subjected to loud sounds,
> those muscles contract and dampen the
> vibration ability of the membrane,
> thereby attenuating the sound.
>
> In younger people, that tensor tympani muscle
> is stronger and more flexible than in older
> people, just like most muscles.
>
> So in older people, we have less of an ability
> to dampen loud sounds.
..
> Lumpy
Interesting indeed. That might explain why
one brother-in-law suffers so much at
concerts.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Lumpy expounded in news:6969ugF30olurU1@mid.individual . net :
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> ... your ear drum at rest, rests against some small
>> bones (I'm too lazy to look up the correct terms)...
>
..
> We have muscles that are connected
> to the tympanic membrane.
> When we are subjected to loud sounds,
> those muscles contract and dampen the
> vibration ability of the membrane,
> thereby attenuating the sound.
>
> In younger people, that tensor tympani muscle
> is stronger and more flexible than in older
> people, just like most muscles.
>
> So in older people, we have less of an ability
> to dampen loud sounds.
..
> Lumpy
Interesting indeed. That might explain why
one brother-in-law suffers so much at
concerts.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
Lumpy wrote:
> He're a fun fact.
>
> Hammer, anvil, stirrup.
> Malleus, incus, stapes.
> The three bones of the inner ear.
> The trio of bones is connected
> to the ear drum on one end (stirrup),
> and to the tympanic membrane on the other
> end (via the hammer).
>
> We have muscles that are connected
> to the tympanic membrane.
> When we are subjected to loud sounds,
> those muscles contract and dampen the
> vibration ability of the membrane,
> thereby attenuating the sound.
A couple of nits to pick (because I still hear the rote memorization
sessions of Vertebrate Anatomy in my head):
The eardrum and tympanic membrane are the same thing. The bones of the
inner ear (ossicles) transmit vibrations from the eardrum to the oval
window of the cochlea, in which the auditory receptors do their thing.
tympanic membrane -> malleus -> incus -> stapes -> cochlea
Of the muscles of the inner ear, the tensor tympani anchors to the
malleus, which does ultimately tighten the eardrum when it contracts,
while the stapedius muscle is attached to the stapes. They do indeed
protect the ear from loud sounds. When they contract, the motion of the
ossicles is dampened, limiting the vibrations passed to the cochlea.
Fun things I learned while I was making sure my memory wasn't fooling
me: The stapedius protects the inner ear from external loud sounds,
while the tensor tympani contracts primarily to dampen the noise
produced by chewing. However, the stapedius also contracts when we
vocalize (auditory reflex) and lowers the sound level of our own voice
by about 20 dB. (wikipedia)
Willy
Lumpy wrote:
> He're a fun fact.
>
> Hammer, anvil, stirrup.
> Malleus, incus, stapes.
> The three bones of the inner ear.
> The trio of bones is connected
> to the ear drum on one end (stirrup),
> and to the tympanic membrane on the other
> end (via the hammer).
>
> We have muscles that are connected
> to the tympanic membrane.
> When we are subjected to loud sounds,
> those muscles contract and dampen the
> vibration ability of the membrane,
> thereby attenuating the sound.
A couple of nits to pick (because I still hear the rote memorization
sessions of Vertebrate Anatomy in my head):
The eardrum and tympanic membrane are the same thing. The bones of the
inner ear (ossicles) transmit vibrations from the eardrum to the oval
window of the cochlea, in which the auditory receptors do their thing.
tympanic membrane -> malleus -> incus -> stapes -> cochlea
Of the muscles of the inner ear, the tensor tympani anchors to the
malleus, which does ultimately tighten the eardrum when it contracts,
while the stapedius muscle is attached to the stapes. They do indeed
protect the ear from loud sounds. When they contract, the motion of the
ossicles is dampened, limiting the vibrations passed to the cochlea.
Fun things I learned while I was making sure my memory wasn't fooling
me: The stapedius protects the inner ear from external loud sounds,
while the tensor tympani contracts primarily to dampen the noise
produced by chewing. However, the stapedius also contracts when we
vocalize (auditory reflex) and lowers the sound level of our own voice
by about 20 dB. (wikipedia)
Willy
Re: Recommended string gauge
Willy Burger wrote:
> The eardrum and tympanic membrane are the same thing. The bones of
> the inner ear (ossicles) transmit vibrations from the eardrum to the
> oval window of the cochlea, in which the auditory receptors do their
> thing.
> tympanic membrane -> malleus -> incus -> stapes -> cochlea
You're right. I too was working from memory.
I had it reversed. Thanks. Oval window to
the cochlea.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Willy Burger wrote:
> The eardrum and tympanic membrane are the same thing. The bones of
> the inner ear (ossicles) transmit vibrations from the eardrum to the
> oval window of the cochlea, in which the auditory receptors do their
> thing.
> tympanic membrane -> malleus -> incus -> stapes -> cochlea
You're right. I too was working from memory.
I had it reversed. Thanks. Oval window to
the cochlea.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
> hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
> > That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> > that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> > The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> > larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> > which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> > thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> > set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> > much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> > might actually retain more energy for longer time.
> >
> > Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> > account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>
> This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
> belief. I wonder if it is true.
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
> bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
> the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
> makes the bob stop swinging.
>
> Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
> by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
> the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
> must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
> to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
> maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
> it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
> imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
> very significant, though...
>
> I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
> flames over there) what they say.
>
> --Cliff (US)
well it would be interesting to see what they say over there.
it's always cool to learn more (even if in the end you let your
own ears be the judge and not physics). But it is cool to learn
more about it. I'd be interested to see what their take on it is.
ok.
> hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
> > That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> > that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> > The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> > larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> > which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> > thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> > set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> > much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> > might actually retain more energy for longer time.
> >
> > Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> > account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>
> This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
> belief. I wonder if it is true.
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
> bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
> the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
> makes the bob stop swinging.
>
> Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
> by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
> the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
> must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
> to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
> maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
> it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
> imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
> very significant, though...
>
> I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
> flames over there) what they say.
>
> --Cliff (US)
well it would be interesting to see what they say over there.
it's always cool to learn more (even if in the end you let your
own ears be the judge and not physics). But it is cool to learn
more about it. I'd be interested to see what their take on it is.
ok.
Re: Recommended string gauge
hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
>> mass.
>
> This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
> belief. I wonder if it is true.
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
> bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
> the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
> makes the bob stop swinging.
>
> Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
> by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
> the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
> must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
> to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
> maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
> it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
> imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
> very significant, though...
>
> I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
> flames over there) what they say.
>
> --Cliff (US)
What you've missed in your analysis is that the changing magnetic field
induces eddy currents in the strings. Energy is transferred, and so it
appears that there's a dissipative force acting on the strings -- like
friction.
If the strings didn't conduct electricity, there would be no eddy
currents. But there would also be no oscillating component of the
magnetic field to induce a voltage in the pickups!
RichL
Ph. D., physics.
hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, Squier <squ...@strats . net > wrote:
>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
>> mass.
>
> This is an interesting and (after a quick web search) widely-held
> belief. I wonder if it is true.
>
> Magnetic fields are conservative, so while the magnet may pull the
> string towards its center point, this pull should help just as much as
> it hurts. As an analogy, think about a pendulum. Gravity makes the
> bob want to go to its lowest point. That pull accelerates the bob on
> the way down and slows it on the way up. Friction -- not gravity --
> makes the bob stop swinging.
>
> Energy is being taken out of the string's vibration, but not directly
> by the magnet. In order to generate that teeny electrical signal in
> the coils of the pickup, some of the energy from the vibrating string
> must be transferred to the coil. (Web search again) Many people seem
> to think that more powerful magnets like neodynium reduce sustain, and
> maybe neodynium pickups do... But it's not the magnet that does it:
> it's the pickup's ability to remove energy from the string. I can't
> imagine that the energy being transferred into an electrical signal is
> very significant, though...
>
> I've posted this question to sci.physics. We'll see (if I survive the
> flames over there) what they say.
>
> --Cliff (US)
What you've missed in your analysis is that the changing magnetic field
induces eddy currents in the strings. Energy is transferred, and so it
appears that there's a dissipative force acting on the strings -- like
friction.
If the strings didn't conduct electricity, there would be no eddy
currents. But there would also be no oscillating component of the
magnetic field to induce a voltage in the pickups!
RichL
Ph. D., physics.
Re: Recommended string gauge
On May 16, 8:24 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> What you've missed in your analysis is that the changing magnetic field
> induces eddy currents in the strings. Energy is transferred, and so it
> appears that there's a dissipative force acting on the strings -- like
> friction.
Oh, very nice. Thanks, Rich.
Will larger diameter strings (e.g. on a bass guitar) make this effect
more pronounced? My non-scientific sampling of discussions on the web
seemed to have more bass player hits.
--Cliff (US)
On May 16, 8:24 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> What you've missed in your analysis is that the changing magnetic field
> induces eddy currents in the strings. Energy is transferred, and so it
> appears that there's a dissipative force acting on the strings -- like
> friction.
Oh, very nice. Thanks, Rich.
Will larger diameter strings (e.g. on a bass guitar) make this effect
more pronounced? My non-scientific sampling of discussions on the web
seemed to have more bass player hits.
--Cliff (US)
Next: What guitar do I buy for my daughter?
Previous: How To Find The Best Cheap Music Download Site ???
