GregP

It's about "realigning" the molecules of the various metals used in guitar components. In the case of bridges, tuners, etc, I suppose the benefit, if you were able to do it NASA's way (ie. hard to say if homebrewed "cryogenics" would work) would be harder metal... but, you'd have to be using steel it seems, because other metals don't respond to such temperature changes the same way. I don't know too many significant guitar parts made from steel. Steel saddles, I guess. Steel baseplates. So, there's room for the theory at least. I wonder, would the chroming or nickel-plating of other components be effed up by all this cryogenic processing? The other portion of the conversation is about how cryogenic processing, used on a pickup, is purported (by Jans Labs or whatever they're called) to produce "improved tone and more sustain". The more sustain thing is simply unfounded garbage (if the magnetic properties are enhanced, the sustain will be less.... not more.... though the perceived sustain if played through an amp might be different due to the effect of increased output) and the "improved tone" part is the main part of this discussion. In pursuing the discussion, it has been forwarded that for guitar parts, and particularly magnets in pickups, cryogenic processing will not produce benefits. But people are MORE getting up-in-arms because the original poster seems to keep quoting meaningless information found on the internet (my personal beef being with those Youtube videos that have nothing to do with this conversation except the word "cryogenics" appears in the title) rather than documenting or otherwise "proving" that there is a difference with a series of tests. When logical consistencies are found in the "found science", especially as they pertain to guitar-making, the original poster doesn't seem to have the answers. In recent posts, he's starting to admit that interpreting his "found" information is out of the scope of his abilities. That's a positive step because perhaps instead of making assertions, interesting questions will be raised. <shrug> That's my perspective anyhow. I'm starting to lose the story, too.

If only it were that easy. If it was "just" a matter of programming, we would have had the "holy grail" of modeled amps long ago. Unfortunately it's a very very complex set of algorithms to work out. Line 6 is good at this stuff, but that doesn't mean it's flawless or that it came easy. I personally don't think that completely bypassing the pre section is the way to go, either. I think that figuring out a way to have the pre and the modeling interact is the ultimate objective, no? Think outside the box-- Line6 could be cooking up a way for signal processing (the digital pre) and the tube pre to interact, based one some potentially complicated math and possibly even using 'feedback' loops-- the digital could be informed by what's happening in the tube pre, and/or vice-versa. Think about it a different way-- different guitars plugged into the same tube amp will sound... different, right? The actual signal hitting the pre (and then the pre hitting the power...) is different depending on the guitar used, the volume generated, the frequencies manipulated with the tone knobs, etc. etc. All this does is take it to the next level by putting some intervening signal processing in front of the tube pre. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that they're not just using stock POD tones, which would make the whole thing a rather silly exercise... they're probably taking their signal-manipulation expertise and finding ways to alter the signal hitting the tube pre. That's the important thing here. It's not about "it's a POD into an amp." Atomic does that already. It's not about bypassing the pre and going straight to power. Vetta II does that already. Unless Line 6 are fools (and well, people HAVE made colossal blunders in this world, so you never know), they're using their knowledge of signal processing to custom-tune a guitar signal before it hits a Bogner pre. I don't see how people are overlooking the huge possibilities here. I mean, worlds have opened up for people who have put nothing more than an active EQ/pre into their bass or guitar. How can this NOT be potentially huge for tone-shaping if you have an entire algorithm-based preamp modifying the signal before it passes to the tube pre and then tube power sections? The possibilities, if Line 6 and Bogner do it right, are huge. And by "do it right," I also mean, "avoid simply trying to copycat other amps and open up totally new tonal possibilities to customers." Though, a few of the old standbys wouldn't hurt, either. Greg

I don't think people were quick to jump on the "voodoo BS" bandwagon at all. I think people were quick to jump on the "back your sh** up" bandwagon. Speaking only for myself, I admitted that there's something scientific going on with -cryogenics- that I don't necessarily understand. But he quoted a bunch of links back to me and I even watched them. They had nothing to do with the matter at hand, and even the thing the scientist was trying to prove while mucking around (which is all he was doing) didn't work. They were "nothing." Not only that, but they were quoted back to me as an explanation for my 'humbuckers don't have inherent sustain' explanation, which in turn was a response to janslabs' unsupported and unscientific claims... those videos were worse than useless to the actual interesting question at hand: "can cryogenic treatment be used to enhance/change pickups?" The videos had nothing to do with realigning molecules, effects on magnetic properties, or anything remotely related to pickup design or even scientific principles in general. He was just trying to make liquid helium and then try to shatter a variety of metals... <shrug> I for one am always FOR seeing people try stuff out and take new approaches. As SL says, not many innovations come along in the electric guitar world.

Rock on BP, LK, and all the others that are missed.

Cool. I'll have to ask at one of the local stores. There's a magazine shop nearby, and I think they do cigars, as well. I don't speak portuguese, but if you happen to know Spanish, that would be a common language for us. In any event, your English is fine.

Very cool! I play a little mandolin, but the one I had on loan is gone. That dreadnautilus "shell" shape is extra-cool but at the same time a relatively basic bend. The one under discussion in the thread, the cigar box Uke/Mando is well cool, too. How does one source a cigar box like that? Did you tell the store owner that you'd like the box and he said, "only if you buy the last cigar"? Greg

a bunch of links I don't see how any amount of links, or re-linking to the page you've already linked to, is going to explain away how the guy is falsely talking about "humbucker sustain" without considering what is actually happening in the equation. Nor does it explain how cryogenics actually "add" sustain and level. :? Sorry, but you gotta bust out some logic of your own if you want to counter unexpected and unpredicted points made and give yourself any semblance of credibility. Quoting a bunch of links back to me isn't going to help because I for one am not going to click them all to find the information you're trying to use to answer my points. Even if it's in there somewhere, a "watch this video at 1:32 to see what Jans says about output levels" is the bare minimum. I already responded to their own words and claims, so I'm speaking to the source.... -- [ edit: I just made a liar out of myself-- I decided to check out those videos to see if they offered any insight. There's absolutely nothing in them that would have anything at all to do with the topic at hand. The guy in the video is just mucking about with liquid helium and nitrogen... they're completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, and particularly irrelevant to the information I posted, which was simply the description of how a humbucker CAN (but doesn't always) have increased perceived sustain, but will generally have a negative effect on true physical sustain. ]

Yeah. Digital modeling is still digital. The cool thing about it is that it puts at least "reasonable hand-drawn facsimiles" of a whole storage-locker full of amps at our disposal. Since I'm just a home recordist kinda guy, that's cool to me. I'd prefer having the real things and a great recording environment, but those things will never happen. ;-) Amplitube2 has a few models that are better than Line 6, but Line 6 (despite having much older technology) is still ahead in others. I'll be curious to see what this Bogner "mashup" will yield. You just never know-- it could be the digital modeling answer we've been waiting for. Or, it might just sound like loud digital. The best way to know for sure is to do a double-blind. I dunno anyone who's going to go out of their way to set such a test up, but it'd be interesting to see how people react, NOT knowing that it's a "digital model".

chicken-pickers like Albert Lee and Vince Gill sometimes use a slapback delay with a short repeat and high volume to effectively "double" each of their notes. This only works properly when your passages require staccato even-lengthed notes, but they're aware of this and abuse it to make their passages sound twice as fast as they really are. Awesomeness, and not "cheating", just another technique. The Edge famously uses stereo delay to create his pseudo "infinite guitar" effect, too. Long delay with lower wet mix gives an airy spaciousness... Gilmour and many others use this on slower solos for that distant mournful sound.

I think you're missing some of the opportunities this will afford. Line6's amp modeling is good, but it's not absolutely 100% responsive and authentic all the time. It would likely be a mistake if all they did is take their current algorithms and slap them in front of a squeaky-clean power amp, as you say. I'd agree, if that's the case, that it's wasted effort. But I suspect there's more to it than that, if nothing more than "voicing" the models to interact with the Bogner-supplied technology. The incorrect underlying assumption you're making is that Line6 has already achieved the apex of modeling and now it just needs amplification. But that's not accurate, and as far as I can tell, that's not what the 2 companies are considering. If the amp models were 100% perfect, then you'd be correct. But they lack a sensitivity that might be recaptured by whatever Bogner's throwing into the mix. I don't claim to know everything about either technology... but it should be fairly obvious that if approached a certain way (the way you're envisioning is certainly ONE approach, and a valid one, but not the only one!) interesting results could be achieved.

Re: the pickups, I call voodoo. Well, maybe not "voodoo" because there is a scientifically quantifiable change going on, and voodoo implies that everything is ONLY in the person's mind. But the person who wrote that has their facts misrepresented right from the beginning-- for example, talking about how a humbucker has more "sustain". A humbucker does NOT give your guitar more sustain. The increased output typically associated with a humbucker will saturate a tube amp to the clipping point, which in turn manifests as a form of compression. As the level produced by the guitar starts to taper off, the volume of the amp stays the same until it comes below the point that the clipping is occurring. This makes the amp maintain a consistent volume for longer. Take the amp out of the equation, and even the perceived sustain is gone and everything comes down to the guitar's construction. But the string will still eventually lose energy based ONLY on the construction of the guitar, the strings used, and the effect of the magnetic pull of the pickups. A humbucker is more likely to DECREASE sustain because of the greater magnetic pull damping the string. <shrug> To recap, I'm sure that cryogenics do SOMETHING to metal components. But I'm not sure that the "something" translates to what this person is claiming, and I'm absolutely positive that this person is using marketing-speak/blinders/pseudo-science in place of empirical tests. Greg

Weird that they don't already show the bridge being grounded. ? Fender must've cut costs even more than we thought, to produce this guitar. Funky-cool guitar... I like these... I have to admit, I had never seen the MM or Duo-Sonic before... weird that they slipped under my radar! Just attach a thin wire to the bridge, feed it under the pickguard material and into your control cavity, where you can solder it to wherever you've decided to make ground. The diagram doesn't seem to specify... is it assumed that there's connectivity between the pots via the pickguard (eg, there's some foil or shielding in-place) or something?

Don't run out of patience when you go to build THIS one. I'd like to see a more "professional" mockup or full-scale plans, but I have to confess-- I actually DO like the shape a bit! If you have no need for seated playing in your life, it's a pretty cool first step in visualization. Actualization will be the trick. +1 on the spalted maple suggestion.

MBM-1 is the guitar. The bridge is one of those Gibraltar bridges you refer to.

Pretty cool bridge. A quick-tacular Google doesn't seem to turn up any available after-market. You'd have to be REALLY lucky to find one, I'm betting.

The back of the volume pot is wired to the spring claw, but is that little "loop" then making its way to the output jack? If not, that might explain the noise. I wouldn't be disappointed in Fender yet-- those pickups have a good rep, and the pots are probably standard pots. I would think that human error hasn't been ruled out yet. Without going into extreme detail, I see a heap of room for ground loops the way you have things wired up. Ground loop = noize. Also, whether or not Fender effed up in giving you a 250k pot, why not just get the 1Meg that the diagram asks for?

Sometimes people want the volume difference when they kick in a different pickup. Overdrives the amp differently as well as producing different levels (well, depending on how much the amp 'compresses' the sound as it distorts). I say it's not all that important to have them match, but it *IS* important to know what your goals are. CMA's right about the more common approach, though... If you WANT them to be the same level, more care should be taken, and that's why many companies offer calibrated sets.

Talented. Annoying. Talented, but annoying.

Router, used like a big compass. They are kind of thin. Next time, I'm going to laminate 2 CD's together and see how I like that. Cool. I just kept imagining the router shattering the CD...! Not the case, I guess.

Quick slightly off-topic note... I have a "throwaway" email address that I use for signing up to mailing lists and stuff. On a whim, I signed up for his newsletter to get the "instructions for a wall-hanger" PDF... the pic shows a pretty neat-looking swivelly-deal. I didn't check to see if there was any fine-print, I just signed up. You get the e-Book, and the "instructions" are *NOT* for a swivelly-neato hanger. They're for a hunk of wood with 2 sturdy dowels sticking out. IE. something we're all quite capable of thinking up on our own. I was curious about how he was going to make the swivel-tastic action, but no... nothing like that... so unless you really want to be on his mailing list, don't fall for it. <shrug> Greg

awesome, sbs! what did you use to create the edges?

<shrug> Once upon a time they didn't have router bits with follower bearings. Perhaps they have updated everything and the templates are now meant to be the correct size. Things change.... If they're pushing for sale of their bearing router bits, and they don't refer to a pattern following baseplate, then they're probably meant to be (whether they are or not) the correct size; that's only logical, as you say. Greg

The diagram is "authentic" but that doesn't mean it's the "correct" one for your situation. The diagram you found is for an SSS guitar, not HSS. So you want the first Tone with TBX, and the second tone to be a "normal" tone? Also, when you use the PushPull, you want it to switch between using 1 coil and using 2 coils? Correct?

I thought the StewMac templates were made for router bases with a pattern-following collar (rather than a bearing on the shaft). If thats'the case, they'll be slightly oversized.

<drool> Looks great on all the examples provided.