RMMGA postings on B-band pickups (1998)

79 Messages in 41 Threads:

B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc. [5]
Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI- [1]
EMF b-band review [1]
Piezo Owners...Highlander or LR Baggs? [1]
Recording acoustic gtr direct? [1]
B-Band pickup [1]
Pickup vs. quality of guitar* SUGGESTIONS? [1]
Any Word on B_BAND? [1]
B-band [2]
Baggs vs Fishman [4]
b-band with baggs para acoustic DI? [1]
B-Band retrofit (was: Baggs vs. Fishman) [1]
condenser mic placement [1]
B-Band dual source review [3]
B-band/mic review [2]
B-Band pickup for classical guitar [1]
Transducers, mics, & pre-amps [2]
What is a Piezo electric pick up? [1]
Lowdens with Piezos or B-Bands? [1]
Sunrise pick-ups? Any users? [2]
Source for b-band pickup [2]
B Band? [7]
B-Band Review [4]
Awesome B-Band! [7]
Mics (was "Awesome B-Band!") [1]
b-band problem [3]
B-Band Installation Findings [1]
B-band Pickups [1]
Installing the B-band pickup [1]
Another B-Band rave [1]
Q: B-Band vs. Highlander [1]
B-Band mic mounting problem [3]
noisy b-band problems [1]
My experiences with the B-Band pickup [2]
Another B-band rave [1]
B-Band Balance on a 12? (was: pocket blender phantom power) [2]
pocket blender phantom power [1]
Review: EMF B-Band Piezo Replacement System [1]
Saddle Pickups: LR Baggs versus Fishman? [1]
B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle [4]
Taylor Electronics [1]

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc.
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:09:41 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

George-

The current B-band is just an undersaddle pickup, not a dual source
system. In my opinion, the pickup sounds better than any other
undersaddle pickup. But a dual source system will probably sound
better than just the B-band, if it's set up right.

By the way, I've yet to hear a Baggs dual source system based on
their Ribbon pickup that I liked, but the ones using the older LB6
saddle pickup can sound good, in my opinion. In the past these
have been available custom (used by Phil Keaggy and others), but
I think Baggs now makes a public version compatible with the LB6.
I may be confusing the Dual Source and the Duet here, though---I
always screw those two up! 8-)

The current B-band cannot easily be used in a dual source setup
because they use the "ring" connection on the stereo endpin jack
to turn the internal preamp on an off---that is, you can't connect
a mic or second pickup to it. So to use it in a dual source system,
you'd have to install a second jack. The EMF folks recognize players
want dual source setups, and are working on such setups right now.
They will not require holes in the side of the guitar.
I don't know when they will be available. Probably worth waiting
for if you aren't in a rush.

I myself am developing some preamp kits that will work both with
B-band and other pickups and mics. But this is a spare-time activity,
so they won't be available for a few months. And since they will be
kits, they probably won't interest that many of you. Ideas/feedback
appreciated, though, if you wouldn't mind soldering together your
own preamp.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc.
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:10:34 -0700
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)

In article <<34B53BC0.3219@ccm...>>,
<george_reiswig@ccm...> wrote:

> Hi, all.
> I know that Larry Pattis and Tom Loredo had mentioned the B-Band,
but I
> don't know anyone else who seems to know anything about them. Tom,
> Larry, how do these compare to, say, the Baggs Dual Source system? I'm
> interested in putting something in my old 12 string, and those two
> systems are the same price with all the electronics. One advantage the
> Baggs system seems to have is that, if the guitar owner doesn't want a
> hole cut in the side, the Baggs system let's them keep it whole.
> Opinions? Has anyone else heard these things?
>
> --
> George S. Reiswig
>

The B-band, as a stand alone, is the best under saddle element that I have
ever heard. I have never cared for the all-in-one dual internal systems,
as they do not allow for seperate eq of the pick-ups/mics, plus the
individual components (the mic, along with the internal pre-amp gear) are
not nearly the same quality as the seperate stand alone gear that is
available. For $120 or so, the B-band is the best thing going. Doesn't
the Baggs Dual Source go for more than $200? If you have need for higher
quality than this, the only real next step (IMHO) is to go the full 9 yards
with a Mills mic, Fishman Blender (or Rane or Pendulum), etc. I am just
now trying to test the B-band in a dual set-up with an external pre-amp
system. I'll report back in a few weeks on this. Tom may already hgave
some results on this, I don't know.

Larry Pattis

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in
practice.

The top header is to reduce spam. You can really find me at
<lpattis"at"xmission"dot"com>.

From: jeff liaw <jeffliaw@mail...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc.
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:06:40 -0600
Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net

I haven't done any thorough scientific research on the matter, but I'd
give the Baggs system another look before dismissing it as lesser
quality stuff.

The saddle transducer is the ribbon transducer that baggs markets
individually. As far as I know, this transducer has an excellent
reputation. Taylor uses them in some of their guitars, and I know
Langejans does as well.

Larry is right about the fact that the internal unit limits your eq
flexibility. My experience with the unit is this: I don't know enough
to improve the sound dramatically with an eq anyway, so i trust the
default settings and the sound man enough that I don't need the unit.
if you're one of those people who likes to fiddle with the knobs until
everything is perfect, yeah, don't get the Baggs. But if you see your
amplification system more as a burden to mess with, I think the Baggs is
the best thing around. Besides, you have a nice compromise with the
onboard volume and mic/transducer controls.

If you check the Langejans home page (from guitarnotes.com), you'll see
that Del put the unit on his display guitar. I think that says a lot
about the system. Three of my guitar-playing buddies went out and
bought the unit as soon as they'd heard mine. You can get the unit for
something like $155 or so. A decent tech man will put the system in for
$50 or so. It's well worth the investment.

jeff

Larry Pattis wrote:
>
> In article <<34B53BC0.3219@ccm...>>,
> <george_reiswig@ccm...> wrote:
>
> > Hi, all.
> > I know that Larry Pattis and Tom Loredo had mentioned the B-Band,
> but I
> > don't know anyone else who seems to know anything about them. Tom,
> > Larry, how do these compare to, say, the Baggs Dual Source system? I'm
> > interested in putting something in my old 12 string, and those two
> > systems are the same price with all the electronics. One advantage the
> > Baggs system seems to have is that, if the guitar owner doesn't want a
> > hole cut in the side, the Baggs system let's them keep it whole.
> > Opinions? Has anyone else heard these things?
> >
> > --
> > George S. Reiswig
> >
>
> The B-band, as a stand alone, is the best under saddle element that I have
> ever heard. I have never cared for the all-in-one dual internal systems,
> as they do not allow for seperate eq of the pick-ups/mics, plus the
> individual components (the mic, along with the internal pre-amp gear) are
> not nearly the same quality as the seperate stand alone gear that is
> available. For $120 or so, the B-band is the best thing going. Doesn't
> the Baggs Dual Source go for more than $200? If you have need for higher
> quality than this, the only real next step (IMHO) is to go the full 9 yards
> with a Mills mic, Fishman Blender (or Rane or Pendulum), etc. I am just
> now trying to test the B-band in a dual set-up with an external pre-amp
> system. I'll report back in a few weeks on this. Tom may already hgave
> some results on this, I don't know.
>
> Larry Pattis
>
> In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in
> practice.
>
> The top header is to reduce spam. You can really find me at
> <lpattis"at"xmission"dot"com>.

From: Paul Guy <paul@guyguitars...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc.
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 05:24:14 +0100
Organization: Paul Guy Guitars

Larry Pattis <<abuse@127...>> wrote:

> <george_reiswig@ccm...> wrote:
>
> I know that Larry Pattis and Tom Loredo had mentioned
> the B-Band, but I don't know anyone else who seems to know anything
> about them. Tom, Larry, how do these compare to, say, the Baggs Dual
> Source system? I'm interested in putting something in my old 12 string,
> and those two systems are the same price with all the electronics. One
> advantage the Baggs system seems to have is that, if the guitar owner
> doesn't want a hole cut in the side, the Baggs system let's them keep it
> whole. Opinions? Has anyone else heard these things?
> >
>
> The B-band, as a stand alone, is the best under saddle element that I have
> ever heard. I have never cared for the all-in-one dual internal systems,
> as they do not allow for seperate eq of the pick-ups/mics, plus the
> individual components (the mic, along with the internal pre-amp gear) are
> not nearly the same quality as the seperate stand alone gear that is
> available. For $120 or so, the B-band is the best thing going. Doesn't
> the Baggs Dual Source go for more than $200? If you have need for higher
> quality than this, the only real next step (IMHO) is to go the full 9
> yards with a Mills mic, Fishman Blender (or Rane or Pendulum), etc. I am
> just now trying to test the B-band in a dual set-up with an external
> pre-amp system. I'll report back in a few weeks on this. Tom may already
> have some results on this, I don't know.
>
I have to agree with Larry here. The only other undersaddle pickup I've
heard which comes close is the English Ashworth "Microstrip" (from
Ashworth Electronics). I tested the B-Band for the Swedish guitar
magazine FUZZ recently and was very impressed. If you're interested you
can read my review of it (translated into English!) on their website:

http://www.b-band.com/paulguy.htm

The B-Band model I tested had the "CORE" preamp, which is mounted on the
endpinjack, and thus needs no holes cut in the side of the guitar. They
also have a new preamp/equalizer called the "New Frontier" with volume
and EQ controls (which does mount in the side) which they sent me for
test, I haven't finished evaluating it yet but so far I'm very positive.

I'm also very excited about their B-Band for electric guitars which is
in the works (see their website), they promised to send me one for test
when they get production up and running, I'll post a report when I've
tried it.

Larry, I will be very interested to hear how your test goes, I'm going
to try something similar myself, but with a contact p/u as the second
transducer, as I don't like internal mikes (too much feedback...).

Paul

--
Paul Guy Guitars (Handmade - Custom Shop - Repairs)
 Katarina Bangata 65, 116 42 Stockholm, Sweden
 My homepage: http://home3.swipnet.se/~w-37192

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickups VS Baggs, etc.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 19:07:21 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi again, folks-

Larry Pattis wrote:
>
> If you have need for higher
> quality than this, the only real next step (IMHO) is to go the full 9 yards
> with a Mills mic, Fishman Blender (or Rane or Pendulum), etc. I am just
> now trying to test the B-band in a dual set-up with an external pre-amp
> system. I'll report back in a few weeks on this. Tom may already hgave
> some results on this, I don't know.

The EMF folks sent me a modified version of their New Frontier preamp/EQ
that works outside of the guitar. I further modified the setup to
allow addition of another pickup or mic signal. I've been using the
B-band as the core sound of a 3-transducer setup this way (with an
AT831 mic and a Sunrise pickup) since early November. It's great, and
combines well with other transducers. However, I haven't wanted to say
much about this because it's not publicly available yet, and the EMF folks
haven't even settled on the basic details of their upcoming dual source
systems. I've used it in two configurations: In one, I combined the
mic and Sunrise with a Rane AP13 loaned to me for a conference; the
AP13 provides access to the mix bus on the back, so I plugged the
B-band signal in there. In the second, I have a Fishman Blender that
I modified to take a third input. I use the standard controls to blend
the mic and Sunrise, and take the 3rd input from the B-band.

Regarding holes in the side of the guitar... I presumed the original
question referred to the New Frontier setup---a B-band pickup with an
onboard preamp that provides volume and bass and treble boosting. This
also brings the cost up around the dual source prices quoted in this thread.
The New Frontier box requires holes in the side of the guitar for the
three controls to pass through. If you use the B-band with only the
Core preamp (no controls), you need no holes. Any EQ you have to provide
yourself externally.

Regarding the tone, when used flat, I prefer the B-band tone to other
piezo tones, flat. The difference in the basic tone is not incredibly
dramatic. The B-band does not sound completely natural, and has a
bit of harshness, but in my opinion this is inherent to the undersaddle
location. Put your ear very close to your guitar at the bridge---it just
doesn't sound as nice as what you hear far away, when you hear sound
produced across the whole instrument. I don't believe there is any way
to get around this limitation with an undersaddle pickup. Thus I believe
you need to add a second source to get the most natural sound out of a
B-band setup. But I think the B-band is probably about as good as an
undersaddle sound can get.

Where it really shines in comparison with my current pickup (Baggs LB6)
is when you add EQ. With the B-band you can add highs without the added
harshness you get when you try this piezos. The lowest bass notes also
sound less "boingy" to my ears. The New Frontier preamp works quite well for
this. With most piezos, the 1st thing I like to adjust as far as EQ is to cut
mids in the 1-2kHz region. You cannot do this with the New Frontier, but
you can get the effect of a broad midrange cut by boosting lows and highs
a bit. This would be a disaster with my LB6, but sounds quite nice with
the B-band. I thus suspect the B-band with the Core preamp would work very
nicely with a Blender, since the Blender provides similar tone shaping
capabilities.

Also, when I play hard, I find the B-band to be noticably less harsh sounding
than piezo pickups, which to my ears tend to sound harsher the louder you
play.

Paul's review puts it well; read it. [He doesn't have the physics quite
right, though! 8-) ] The one thing he didn't mention that
all the other testers I've spoken to have noticed is that it takes a bit
of work to get good string-to-string balance. Perhaps Paul was lucky in
this regard!

I think Jeff really summed up the issues about dual source systems well.
In my presentation at the Folk Alliance conference I handed out a list
of the questions you need to consider when shopping for an amplification
setup, and one of these was in regard to the level of complexity you are willing
to deal with. If you really don't want to carry around a Blender or fiddle
with EQ of the separate signals, you will probably do better with an
onboard dual source setup than with any single pickup setup. But if sound
quality is your primary consideration, get two separate transducers and
leave the preamp/EQ/mixing tasks to higher quality equipment out of the
guitar.

As for the Ribbon transducer... I have only heard it live in a few setups
(with a Duet or Dual Source), and never liked it. The luthiers I've spoken
to about Baggs pickups (Jim Olson, Peter Granata, Eric Aceto) all feel it
was a step backwards from the older LB6; Jim and Peter regularly recommend
the LB6 to their customers. Phil Keaggy, Cliff Eberhardt, and a few other
players whose names escape me at the moment agree with this assessment.
A few years after the introduction of the Ribbon, Baggs is not only still
selling the LB6, but has just come out with a version of their dual source
system compatible with it (it requires less gain than the Ribbon, so the
preamp has to be adjusted). What can I say? This is a subjective game,
and I can believe the Ribbon does sound good in some guitars when installed
properly. But I think it's pretty indisputable that the LB6 sounds better
a fair fraction of the time.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: 29 Jan 1998 16:59:13 +0200
Organization: TUT

Robert McArthur wrote (in avery good article):

> ...When the Sans Amp meets the highlander you have what to my ears is
> the holy grail of amplification found. Highlander IP-1's run bout
> $125...

I agree, the Highlander is a very good mic. Best of the piezo saddle
transducers I've heard. But I'd like to remind that technology goes
on. Some time ago I did an A-B test with two handmade guitars, one
equipped with a perfectly installed Highlander, the other with the new
B-Band. (At the time, not so perfectly installed.) We recorded both
guitars digitally to a DAT, through just the transducers to remove the
acoustic sound completely.

Result: The Highlander was by no means completely butchered in the
comparison, but there was little doubt as to which one sounded closer
to the original. Especially the attack brought the difference
out. B-Band just lacks the piezo quackiness. You can try to compensate
with something like the Sans Amp, but with the B-Band you don't have
to. As either Tom or Larry previously pointed out, to get a
significant improvement in the sound you need to add a zero to the
price. (A multi-source micing system with a dedicated preamp; no
one-point vibration-sensing device will ever sound natural by
definition.)

http://www.b-band.com, about 130 $ by mail order. No affiliation.
Just an impressed beta-tester.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Acoustic Trio CaveOss: http://www.hut.fi/~tilmonen/CaveOss.html
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# Promote Responsible Net Commerce: http://spam.abuse.net/spam/
# Stomp the Spammers: Support CAUSE: http://www.cause.org

EMF b-band review

From: Tom Chow <thomchow.NOSPAM@geocities...>
Subject: EMF b-band review
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:05:59 -0800
Organization: UC Berkeley. No spamming please.
   i finally got the guitar and played it plugged in..  and i was
surprised how good it sounded for a measely 130 dollar pickup. the
pickup lacked the brittle high ends that the Fishman demonstrates. it
was really sharp and clear- not quite as good as an internal mic, but
pretty darn good. the mids and lows were very strong, but not overly
loud. they sounded just like the guitar. with a bit of EQing, the
pickup is very impressive. while it's not completely acoustic, it was
really close- all it needs is the brilliant highs of an internal mic.
b-band is like getting the richer highs of the Highlander and a more
natural mid and low ends like the Fishman. all in all, definitely worth
the 130 dollars for the b-band with Core. :)
   i still can't believe that this pickup sounded as good as any dual
source system. thumbs up!

--thom

Piezo Owners...Highlander or LR Baggs?

From: Tom Chow <thomchow.NOSPAM@geocities...>
Subject: Re: Piezo Owners...Highlander or LR Baggs?
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:55:17 -0800
Organization: UC Berkeley. No spamming please.

> The B-band US dealer page is "under construction" (nice picture... -
> wanna sell that guitar... ?). Who does installs in US ?
>
> John
   it's under construction, but the "The Music People" are carrying the
B-band pickups. it's currently the only US Distributor, but i'm sure
that they're working out details with other distributors. (like Tom
Loredo reported.. and i know some people who would like to get in touch
with EMF also). i actually recommend just ordering a b-band from them
directly if you can't contact The Music People. (sorry, i don't have
their number or anything) that's what i did a few months back- and i
have absolutely no regrets since it burns any undersaddle pickups i've
ever heard.
   in terms of installs, you can get any competent luthier/tech to do
it. if the person has done various under-the-saddle pickup
installations, they will have no trouble doing the installation for the
b-band. it's really easy to install- took my guitar tech no time to
install though it was his first time doing it. it's a rather simple
procedure. the only tough part is trying to get proper string to string
balance from the pickup, but any good luthier/tech should know how to
deal with it.

--thom

Recording acoustic gtr direct?

From: dave <dave@ced...>
Subject: Re: Recording acoustic gtr direct?
Date: 24 Feb 1998 16:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

Tom Loredo wrote:

: None of these will make a lousy pickup sound good, though they may
: make a lousy one sound better. The guitar transducers with the best reputation
: are the under-saddles by LR Baggs, Highlander, and Fishman, the
: soundboard pickups by McIntyre, soundhole pickups by Sunrise and Seymour
: Duncan, and internal mics by Joe Mills and Donnell Enterprises.
: I've been beta-testing a new under-saddle pickup by EMF called the B-band
: that I believe is a step above existing under-saddle technology. It is
: the only such pickup that does not use piezo technology; it is a
: 12+ mil strip of electret material, essentially putting an electret
: condensor mic element under your saddle. More info at www.b-band.com.

I got one of the b-band units to look at and although it is an electret
rather than piezo based element it still is closer to a piezo than a
mic. It still works by translating the saddles vibrations to an
electrical signal rather than translating the heard sound to an electrical
signal signal like a mic would. That said I fell that it is an improvement
over existing piezo based units in that it does sound better and it is
thinner and requires no or certainlt less modification to the guitar.

dave

B-Band pickup

From: Dan Smith <des24@cornell...>
Subject: Re: B-Band pickup
Date: Unknown

Tom,
	Thanks a bunch for your suggestions.  I have decided to go with the B-Band
pickup. I e-mailed EMF acoustics with my question (shown below) and their
response went like this. They also indicated that the first shipment was
due in the US on April 1st. Incredible price, too :) Thanks again for
your help!
					Dan
<<My message to them>>
>> I have a question regarding your B-Band acoustic guitar pickup. I am
>> interested in combining an under-saddle pickup with an internal=
 microphone
>> in my Martin D-1. Is EMF considering developing this sort of product in
>> the future? Thanks for your time!
<<>>

>Hello Dan.
>
>Thanks for your mail. I gues our Larry did answer to you but in case he
>didn=B4t see your mail (it came to my laptop) I answer to you just for=
 sure.=20
>
>This product is being manufactured right now. Our first shipment to our US
>distributor will be new Core preamps which will feature as standard a Mic
>input/output. We will naturally be offering the Core with our choice Mic.
>This will retail at 179 US with B-band pickup but you can very easily
>modify the Core to plug in for example a Joe Mills Mic. The retail price
>for Core with B-Band pickup will be 139 US.
>
>All the best for you.
>
>Best regards,
>EMF Acoustics
>Heikki Raisanen

Pickup vs. quality of guitar* SUGGESTIONS?

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs. quality of guitar* SUGGESTIONS?
Date: 03 Mar 1998 11:57:13 +0200
Organization: TUT

<hojo2x@aol...> (Hojo2X) writes:

> As to the pickups, what I have found over the years is that one
> company will make a breakthrough and have the best pickup available
> for a couple of years, while the other outfits scramble to catch up.
> The best firms seem to be EMG, Baggs and Highlander. Right now the
> Baggs RT system (which makes up the under-the-saddle component of
> the Dual Source mentioned in another post) is currently the best
> acoustic pickup available, at least to my ears. Previously I had an
> EMG, which was also quite good.

These three companies are, to my ears as well, the best makers of
piezoelectric pickups. A new breaktrough has, however, been recently
made, by a small new company. EMF Acoustics Ltd has come up with a new
under-saddle design. It looks and installs just like a conventional
piezo slip. But inside, nothing is the same anyy more. It is a
condenser microphone, with a long thin and flexible `capsule'.

This design neatly avoids many of the piezoelectric crystals' inherent
non-linearities. Which most notably result in the upper-range
quackiness, regardless of the manufacturer. The EMF's B-Band uses
minute air bubbles inside the pickup. Comparing to the piezo crystals,
the bubbles compress and decompress much more readily with the
vibrating string than any crystal can. The result is a clearly audible
improvement in sound.

Of course, it is still an under-saddle pickup, so it can't capture the
full effect of the entire vibrating soundboard. So, for the ultimate
sound you still need a microphone to go with it. The starting point
is, however, already much closer to the goal with the b-band. The mic
only has to add a little air and warmth. You don't have to desperately
try to EQ the piezo shortcomings away & compensate with the mic.

The www site is http://www.b-band.com/
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Acoustic Trio CaveOss: http://www.hut.fi/~tilmonen/CaveOss.html
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# Promote Responsible Net Commerce: http://spam.abuse.net/spam/
# Stomp the Spammers: Support CAUCE: http://www.cauce.org

Any Word on B_BAND?

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Any Word on B_BAND?
Date: 03 Apr 1998 17:51:18 +0300
Organization: TUT

"jae il \"Joker\" Ko" <<jik3343@is...>> writes:

> Dear all,
> how's that Bband thing going? Have they made a dual source system, yet?
> My Martin's screaming for a PA voice and my Sunrise's getting kinda lonely.
> Thanks
	Dear Jae,
I called EMF to ask about this. Harri (the electronics guru) assured
me, that a dual source system has been designed. Even better, they've
made a contract with an electronics manufacturing plant to assemble
the electronics for them. The first big shipment is expected to arrive
from the factory in about a week or so, including both single & dual
source models. Add a week (or two - they're going to check every
unit themselves before shipping) and The Music People Inc has it &
then whatever time it takes to make it to the stores. Guitar Centre
will probably be the first chain to start carrying B-Band. It probably
won't slow the guys down to have your local store to call & ask for
it. Of course, you can still order it directly from EMF Acoustics.

As for first reviews, I'm hoping to have one installed some time
around easter. The only problem is that Lottonen the luthier is on
vacation, as he has just become a father. I rather doubt he'll be too
interested in installing pickups right now.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

B-band [2]

From: David Wolfe <dwolfman01@sprynet...>
Subject: Re: B-band
Date: Unknown

-->Hi David-
>
>I just got a note from Heikki at EMF. It seemed that he was
>going to contact you directly, but I couldn't tell for sure
>from what he wrote so I thought I'd better double-check. They
>are a few weeks behind on production, but are about to get
>their first deliveries. They've been away and so haven't
>responded to recent email.

Evening Tom,
    Thanks for the help. I have gotten e-mails from both Heikki and Larry in
the sales department. I have ordered the B-Band/mic combo. It should take
about a week to get here according to Larry.
    The people at EMF are great to work with. I wish I could get half the
customer service from them from other businesses I deal with. If the pick-up
is half as good as I've heard they have picked up a loyal and vocal
customer.
    My Langejans should be done in about 3 to 4 weeks so that should be just
enough time. I'm starting to save my pennies up now for a second custom
guitar. I'm torn between an Olson or getting a Grand Concert from Del. It's
gonna be 2 years or so before I can get another one...so I have plenty of
time to make up my mind.
    Again, thanks for your help.
Dave Wolfe

"I've been lining up my heros. like big paper dolls,
  And I find they need a wall behind them to lean on.."
    Karen Perris

From: <glenjan@zeta...>
Subject: B-band
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:36:36 GMT
Organization: Zeta Internet, http://www.zeta.org.au/

Just had my B-band installed and am having a party to celebrate. Long
wait and really worty it. Review to follow after the week-ends gigs.]
Glen
PS. Get one, no get TWO!! If we have to plug our beautiful
acoustic's into a PA they should at least sound the same, only LOUDER!
Back to the party.

Baggs vs Fishman [4]

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Baggs vs Fishman
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:56:25 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi again folks-

Lance McCollum wrote:
> [Lots of great info snipped...]
>
> I have yet to see a B-band pickup. I have some on order and will give my
> opinion as soon as I have had a chance to check them out. They sound very
> interesting. But from what I'm hearing from my "tech-head" friends, they
> claim not to use piezo technology, but anything that thin would have to be
> a film that was excited by string energy which is "technically" a piezo,
> but they just might be using a different crystalline structure (I guess
> we'll have to wait and see when we actually have one in front of us).

No, the B-band is not in any sense ("tecnically" or otherwise) a piezo.
It uses no crystals of any kind. "Piezo" = "piezoelectric", relying on
a material that produces a voltage or charge on reaction to a stress or
strain. The B-band is technically an electret condenser mic element.
It has a proprietary electret material that permanently holds an electric
charge, and uses this to create a capacitor that produces a varying output
voltage as its cross-section changes in size (microscopically) in response
to vibrations. Completely different physics from a piezo, and thus a
different set of strengths/weaknesses. It is this use of a totally different
technology that allows them to make a transducer drastically thinner than
previous ones.

If you've read some of Ville's posts on the B-band, you might have noticed
that he often speaks of "putting the mic under the saddle" rather than
"putting the pickup under the saddle." The difference in technology is
why he uses this lingo. I personally haven't adopted it because the
B-band will not usefully pick up sound from the air. Unlike a normal
condenser mic which has air between the charged plates (and thus can
respond readily to changes in air pressure, ie, sound), the B-band's
insulating material is stiff (designed to have the same acoustic impedance
as wood, in fact), so it doesn't act like a condenser mic in its response
to air vibrations, only in response to direct contact with a rigid surface.

Lance, when you get one, do post your impressions. I for one value your
opinion and would love to know what you think of it.

In response to Daniel, I've never heard or seen a Bourgeois system myself.
But in the ASIA pickup shootout that Jody mentioned, as I recall Bourgeois
was rated very highly, as good as the more popular contenders. I'll try to
remember to dig up the article; I and others have potentially misquoted it
too many times already in this thread! 8-)

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: George Reiswig <reiswig@europa...>
Subject: Re: Baggs vs Fishman
Date: 10 Apr 1998 22:47:47 GMT
Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com

To all who are thinking about it: try a B-Band. I put one in my Lowden
recently, and I'm truly impressed that a single-source setup can get this
close to a desirable sound. I think it could benefit from some microphone
high-end, but that's soon to come, too.

GR

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote in article
<<352E9589.22475DC8@spacenet...>>...
> Hi again folks-
(SNIP)
> Lance, when you get one, do post your impressions. I for one value your
> opinion and would love to know what you think of it.
>
> In response to Daniel, I've never heard or seen a Bourgeois system
myself.
> But in the ASIA pickup shootout that Jody mentioned, as I recall
Bourgeois
> was rated very highly, as good as the more popular contenders. I'll try
to
> remember to dig up the article; I and others have potentially misquoted
it
> too many times already in this thread! 8-)
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo
>

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Baggs vs Fishman
Date: 14 Apr 1998 20:12:07 +0300
Organization: TUT

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> writes:

> Hi again folks-
>
> Lance McCollum wrote:
> > [Lots of great info snipped...]
> >
> > I have yet to see a B-band pickup. I have some on order and will give my
> > opinion as soon as I have had a chance to check them out. They sound very
> > interesting. But from what I'm hearing from my "tech-head" friends, they
> > claim not to use piezo technology, but anything that thin would have to be
> > a film that was excited by string energy which is "technically" a piezo,
> > but they just might be using a different crystalline structure (I guess
> > we'll have to wait and see when we actually have one in front of us).
>
> No, the B-band is not in any sense ("tecnically" or otherwise) a piezo.
> It uses no crystals of any kind. "Piezo" = "piezoelectric", relying on
> a material that produces a voltage or charge on reaction to a stress or
> strain. The B-band is technically an electret condenser mic element.
> It has a proprietary electret material that permanently holds an electric
> charge, and uses this to create a capacitor that produces a varying output
> voltage as its cross-section changes in size (microscopically) in response
> to vibrations. Completely different physics from a piezo, and thus a
> different set of strengths/weaknesses. It is this use of a totally different
> technology that allows them to make a transducer drastically thinner than
> previous ones.

Both piezoelectric crystals and the EMF electret condenser produce a
minute charge (rather than voltage - although there's not much
difference) when squeezed. Thus, both require a charge amplifier for
the signal. The impedances are way different, though, so you cannot
use a piezo preamp to drive the B-Band.

The tonal difference comes from the fact, that the B-Band's EMF film
behaves much more linearly in response to the vibrations. Basically,
the charge produced should be directly proportional to the amount the
material gives in. And the material should give in in proportion to
the applied force. EMF film's cushioning material is air, and the
charge is produced by a condenser element. While nothing is ever
perfect, it's pretty hard to get much closer to ideal than this.

In contrast, a piezo crystal is a crystal. Not exactly the most
perfectly elastic material around. Squeeze it, and yes, it'll give in
- by some amount. Squeeze it twice as hard, and it'll give in more,
but not necessarily twice as much, as it should. And even if it did
that, the resulting output charge wouldn't necessarily be twice the
original.

This kind of behavior results in distortion. In other words,
additional frequency components get added to the original signal,
often overlapping with it. Which means you can't EQ it out...

B-Band is by no means completely free of problems either, but IMHO,
it's a long step forward.

> If you've read some of Ville's posts on the B-band, you might have noticed
> that he often speaks of "putting the mic under the saddle" rather than
> "putting the pickup under the saddle." The difference in technology is
> why he uses this lingo. I personally haven't adopted it because the
> B-band will not usefully pick up sound from the air. Unlike a normal
> condenser mic which has air between the charged plates (and thus can
> respond readily to changes in air pressure, ie, sound), the B-band's
> insulating material is stiff (designed to have the same acoustic impedance
> as wood, in fact), so it doesn't act like a condenser mic in its response
> to air vibrations, only in response to direct contact with a rigid surface.

Actually, B-band has air inside too, but that's not the reason. After
all, English is not my native tongue, and sometimes I confuse these
little nuances. In Finnish, theres no good word for a
pickup. Microphone, yes, and transducer and sensor, but no pickup.

In this case, the correct term would be pickup. Microphone should
be reserved for devices that require some carrier medium (air, water
etc) to transfer the signal to the element.

BTW, the entire band just got new B-Bands installed. Two guitars and a
cello, that is. Dual source versions, all of them. I still need to
solve a few practical problems before I can post a full review, but
it's coming soon. Initial impressions were pretty good, though. No
match to a good studio microphone (we used an AT 4033 & a pair of
Genelecs for a quick check), but with a little EQ and careful
mixing, one should be able to get a pretty good live sound.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

b-band with baggs para acoustic DI?

From: Jiyang Kang <jiyang@hdtv...>
Subject: b-band with baggs para acoustic DI?
Date: Unknown
Organization: School of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University

Hi,

> The Fishman Matrix preamp uses a FET-input op amp as its input stage,
> and has a nontrivial EQ network in the feedback loop. It uses surface
> mount components, and thus is not easy to modify. The EQ network
> will modify the timbre of the B-band even if you put it thru the Core
> preamp. The input impedance of the Matrix preamp is not suitable for
> direct connection to the B-band. Also, the B-band element has a
> 0.1" 2-pin (female) header attached directly at the end; this plugs
> into the Core. Most other preamps require that you solder a wire.
> If you add a wire to the B-band, be careful---it is a capacitive
> transducer, and 8 inches of good quality small-diameter cable has enough
> capacitance of its own to cut the signal substantially (EMF told me this,
> but I also found it out by experiment!).
> ........

A question on b-band and outer preamp.

I have a Baggs Para acoustic DI, and have a plan to use it with my nylon
string guitar which I'll put the b-band with Core preamp on. In above
article, it seems that b-band do not match well with external preamp &
EQ such as baggs PADI. Is that true?

Sincerely,
	Jiyang Kang

B-Band retrofit (was: Baggs vs. Fishman)

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band retrofit (was: Baggs vs. Fishman)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:08:35 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

A few clarifications....

The B-band insulator is not air; it is a proprietary material that
has air bubbles in it, but that is more like wood in its density.
That's why it does not respond to normal sound the way an air-insulated
condenser mic element does. It does not squeeze linearly, but presumably
it squeezes more linearly than does a piezo because it's more like a
sponge than like a crystal.

Like other electret elements, the b-band element is a capacitor with
a fixed charge. When compressed, what changes is the capacitance,
not the charge. This results in a fluctuating voltage from the element.
The Core preamp is a standard Class A FET voltage gain stage, as are
the preamps in most condenser mic modules.

The Fishman Matrix preamp uses a FET-input op amp as its input stage,
and has a nontrivial EQ network in the feedback loop. It uses surface
mount components, and thus is not easy to modify. The EQ network
will modify the timbre of the B-band even if you put it thru the Core
preamp. The input impedance of the Matrix preamp is not suitable for
direct connection to the B-band. Also, the B-band element has a
0.1" 2-pin (female) header attached directly at the end; this plugs
into the Core. Most other preamps require that you solder a wire.
If you add a wire to the B-band, be careful---it is a capacitive
transducer, and 8 inches of good quality small-diameter cable has enough
capacitance of its own to cut the signal substantially (EMF told me this,
but I also found it out by experiment!).

I don't know if the Prefix has the same built in "pre EQ" as the Matrix
(I would suspect it does), or whether it, too, uses surface mount
technology. If it uses standard thru-hole components, it may be
easier to modify. But if it uses a FET op-amp input stage rather than
a discrete FET, the results may not be great. These op amp chips have
a nonlinear capacitance between the FET inputs and the substrate that
causes distortion when used with high impedance sources. The B-band
impedance is so high that this distortion could be troublesome, but the
only way to tell is to try.

Bottom line: This modification is not trivial.

By the way, the Core preamp is about the simplest thing you can imagine,
with absolutely no pre-EQ. I think this says something about the the
basic sound from the transducer---with the Matrix, you have to start
"fixing" things right away.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

condenser mic placement

From: Thomas Chow <tomchow@uclink4...>
Subject: condenser mic placement
Date: Unknown

Larry, Tom, & Ville:
   I got the package from EMF the other day with the Core preamp with 
b-band and condenser mic. Because the instructions don't really
specify where to place the mic, I was wondering if you guys had any
advice to give on mic placement. What are the best positions for
different tones (clear highs / strong mids / boomy) and what are your
favorite mic positions, especially as you 3 all have EMF b-band
pickups? (Ville in particular because he has the dual source)
Thanks a lot!

--thom

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Thomas Chow! _/ <tomchow@uclink4...> _/ <manowar@technologist...> _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ <>< Lord and Savior, true and kind, be the master of my mind; Bless and _/
_/ guide and strengthen still all my powers of thought and will. While I _/
_/ ply the scholar's task, Jesus Christ be near, I ask; Help the memory, _/
_/ clear the brain, knowledge still to seek and gain. --Bishop H.G.C. Moule _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

--------

Hi Thom-

Well, I see Ville gave you quite a lengthy report. I don't have
much to add except to say that optimal placement seems to vary
a lot from instrument to instrument and mic to mic. This mic
element is extremely similar to the Panasonic element used in
the highly regarded Radio Shack 33-1052 lapel mic. Paul Stamler
has written about this mic in Recording magazine, noting
that Martin Carthy uses it for his live sound. I've written to
Paul about it and it turns out that Carthy puts it on the neck
block. But in Paul's guitar that turned out to be a horrible
place, and he had to experiment a lot to find a good one.

For what it's worth, my guitar has a Sunrise soundhole pickup,
and a good location turned out to be under the pickup, pointing
toward the back of the guitar. But as near as I can tell the
mic element is an omni, so it shouldn't matter which way you
point it. Ville's experience does not seem to verify this,
however.

Let us know what ends up working for you.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

PS: Who was Bishop Moule? I like the prayer in your signature!

B-Band dual source review [3]

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band dual source review
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:32:21 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <<mike-2404981220040001@mueckler...>>,
<mike@cellbio...> wrote:

> In article <<tmfwwcfb435.fsf@cc...>>, Ville Nummela
> <<vnummela@xxxomega...>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for the review. You seem to imply that the mic doesn't add that
> much to the tonal quality of the under saddle B-band pickup. Is that the
> case, and if so, is the B-band by itself acceptable? I don't care for all
> of the feedback problems that result from the use of a mic, and it always
> limits volume to some degree.
>
> Thanks.

I have found that the B-band (by itself) is absolutely the best sounding
saddle element available. It is not quite as good as the high end dual
systems out there, but it is certainly head and shoulders above anything
else in it's "class." I firmly believe that every other saddle element is
now obsolete. Completely obsolete.

When adding a mic, every other saddle element requires up to 50% of the
sound be the microphone....because the transducers sound so bad! With the
B-band, less mic is needed simply because the high end transducer quack
that is ever present on the treble strings from "old technology"
transducers is literally gone. I find that the small amount of mic I am
using (see below) with my new Core/B-band/mic combination is to enhance the
bass a bit more than even the treble needs....what a great change, and a
great sound.

I have just installed my new Core (internal pre-amp) in my Traugott...the
Core that allows the additional condenser mic....and I would like to add my
email to EMF as part of this discussion...believe me, it is just
sensational....I am plugged into a Fishman Pocket Blender, then directly
into my Mackie board/PA system and I am just astonished....

Dear Heikki,

Guess what...? I have just installed the new Core & Mills mic in my
favorite guitar and it is FANTASTIC. I mean, really better than fantastic.
I will post to the newsgroup as soon as I am finished writing you.
 EMF Acoustics Oy Ltd wrote:
>>>Yes, our standard Core preamp is built so that the Mic gets it power
from it. So in a standard version the Mic cannot be powered from external
unit like Fishman blender. However, the one we sent to you was modified by
Harri so that it does not power the Mic at all. You told earlier about
using it with Fishman blender and that is why we modified it. Other way
would have been naturally to modify the Blender. We will make the
instructions how to do this modification...there might be some other too
that would like it that way.>>>>

This is also fabulous...I forgot this was being done this way, and it is
really perfect!!!!

Can you please send to me two more internal Core pre-amps set-up the same
way. Send your mics along with these two for me to try in my other
guitars. Then, if I like your mics I will take out the Mills from my first
guitar!!!

Again, so many thanks....this is great...I play out tonight and I will be
able to talk about your system from the stage for the first time....I am
very excited.

Larry Pattis

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B-Band dual source review
Date: 27 Apr 1998 21:14:04 +0300
Organization: TUT

<abuse@127...> (Larry Pattis) writes:

> In article <<mike-2404981220040001@mueckler...>>,
> <mike@cellbio...> wrote:
>
> > In article <<tmfwwcfb435.fsf@cc...>>, Ville Nummela
> > <<vnummela@xxxomega...>> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Thanks for the review. You seem to imply that the mic doesn't add that
> > much to the tonal quality of the under saddle B-band pickup. Is that the
> > case, and if so, is the B-band by itself acceptable? I don't care for all
> > of the feedback problems that result from the use of a mic, and it always
> > limits volume to some degree.
>
> I have found that the B-band (by itself) is absolutely the best sounding
> saddle element available. It is not quite as good as the high end dual
> systems out there, but it is certainly head and shoulders above anything
> else in it's "class." I firmly believe that every other saddle element is
> now obsolete. Completely obsolete.
>
> When adding a mic, every other saddle element requires up to 50% of the
> sound be the microphone....because the transducers sound so bad! With the
> B-band, less mic is needed simply because the high end transducer quack
> that is ever present on the treble strings from "old technology"
> transducers is literally gone. I find that the small amount of mic I am
> using (see below) with my new Core/B-band/mic combination is to enhance the
> bass a bit more than even the treble needs....what a great change, and a
> great sound.

Exactly. For a virtuoso fingerstylist like Larry, the mic is just the
finishing touch. For recular flatpicking this applies as well.

More mic is only needed if you do some heavy percussive stuff -
especially if you drum the soundboard, rather than just hit the muted
strings. In the former case, the body resonances come into play, and
you really have to set the mic EQ curve carefully. Also, an adjustable
frequency low cut circuit is a good thing for eliminating excessive
low end, especially from the B-Band. (The element's bass response
virtually reaches zero, unless you artificially limit it. I believe
there is some kind of bass rolloff thing in the Core, but if so, it's
been set really low.)

Anyway, this hardly applies for most players.

[from Larry's e-mail to EMF:]
> Can you please send to me two more internal Core pre-amps set-up the same
> way. Send your mics along with these two for me to try in my other
> guitars. Then, if I like your mics I will take out the Mills from my first
> guitar!!!

Tommi played a little with the digital recordings we made from our
first dual source test session. After a quick Matlab session on a
Silicon Graphics workstation (Calculate transfer function from the
impulse response we recorded & invert it for the frequency response
curve. We used an AT 4033 studio microphone as a reference), he
concluded that the mic's frequency response is almost similar to the
B-Band's. Which, I guess, is why the two blend in rather nicely.

The other parameters might not be as good; I wish the mic had had a
bit more accurate upper range. So, there's still room for improvement.
Don't mistake this though - the mic is by no means of low quality. I
was quite impressed myself. Those who already have a Mills mic,
however, may choose to stick with it. (The Core preamp can be made
compatible with a small modification.) As long as the Mills alone
costs around the same as the entire B-Band dual source system, I'm
happy with what I've got.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Tommi Ilmonen <nouser@kill...>
Subject: Re: B-Band dual source review
Date: 30 Apr 1998 11:18:45 +0300
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Ville Nummela <<vnummela@xxxomega...>> writes:

> Tommi played a little with the digital recordings we made from our
> first dual source test session. After a quick Matlab session on a
> Silicon Graphics workstation (Calculate transfer function from the
> impulse response we recorded & invert it for the frequency response
> curve. We used an AT 4033 studio microphone as a reference), he
> concluded that the mic's frequency response is almost similar to the
> B-Band's. Which, I guess, is why the two blend in rather nicely.

I might add something myself about this. We wanted to compare the
b-band with quality studio mic. Both were set up very quickly. As
expected the external mic sounded better. The b-band sound lacks
something (is shimmer the word) that we couldn't repair with an EQ.

We recorded both sound sources to ADAT for later
comparison. One thing we recorded was "bidge impulses" - sound you get
by tapping the bridge bone with light hard object (pencil).
Eventually I transferred the sound to my work computer
(Silicon Graphics workstation) for closer analysis.

I selected with sound-editing program individual impulses to use with
Matlab (software for scientific computation). These impulses can be
visualized and further parameters can be calculated. I was specially
interested in the spectrum of mic and pick-up. (spectrum - or
frequency response - describes the general timbre of an instrument:
bassy, lots of highs... it is not a perfect method to analyze sound,
but it gives decent results).

Results I got from analyzing multiple impulses:

1. Visually, the impulse signal from mic and pick-up are very
different. In pick-up there is one strong peak and little low-freq
"reverb". The impulse response of the mic looks very complex (like a
mountain range) and takes more that 0.2 seconds to vanish. One reason
signals sound different.

2. In spectral analysis of the signals look very similar "in
average". Finer detail revels a major difference. The mic spectrum has
large number (probably hundreds) of sharp peaks and valleys in the
spectrum. Looks like a saw-edge when you look at the details.
Another reason why mic and pick-up sound different (in fact the
complex spectrum and complex impulse response are are connected to
each other).

What does this amount to ? Well, it tells pretty much the same thing
as we found out by listening. I did it mainly out of interest to see
if computational analysis could do anything about this.

I should do comparison with my older guitar that has Highlander bridge
pick-up to verify these preliminary results. Besides I could run the
tests on Villes guitar.... Also spectrogram (spectral waterfall plots)
analysis could be fun to do. The recording levels should have been set
better, now the noise tended to be a problem at times. I guess I'll
redo the recording some day.

I suppose I could put some pictures to web if there are people who
want see them...

PS. The guitar used for the tests was my new Goodall KGC. By using the
b-band with the internal mic we got very good sound as we had been
expecting.

Tommi.Ilmonen"located-at"hut.fi ("located-at"=@)
http://www.hut.fi/u/tilmonen/

B-band/mic review [2]

From: Tom Chow <thomchowNOSPAM@geocities...>
Subject: B-band/mic review
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:03:11 -0700
Organization: No spamming please.
     Alrighty..  I know I just recently posted (last night I posted but
somehow it came today), but I have officially installed the new pickup
(with the help of a friend since my tech was booked like crazy). The
new dual source is quite a pickup.. It has the standard b-band, which
is really good- but I won't get into that since there have been full
reviews posted here before (just check dejanews).
     My big complaint with the b-band was that it's highs weren't as
crystal clear as my guitar's highs. I was able to EQ the b-band to get
fairly close highs, but because of my pinless bridge (where the string
angle isn't really high), it got somewhat harsh. (but that's not a
problem for people with standard pin bridges) With the new mic, I was
able to EQ out some of the highs off the b-band and use the highs from
the mic instead.
     B-band: turned up bass, left midrange, lowered the highs.  Mic:
turned down bass (almost to zero), turned midrange up a tad, turned up
highs. Mind you, I used an SWR California Blond amp to do it. When I
plugged it into my cheesy amp (not in stereo), the signals were
automatically blended- and they actually blended pretty nicely.
     I admit, this mic is what I needed- it added a kick to the highs
that I was searching for. Though I wish there was a way for me to bang
my strings harder and not have such a loud thump (the undersaddle is
condenser mic material.. aka "electret"), I cannot really complain about
this pickup. I have a feeling that this will be the best and most
affordable pickup system out there... until EMF decides to release that
external blender! :) <grin> All in all.. this definitely gets my 2
thumbs up.

--thom

From: Tom Chow <thomchowNOSPAM@geocities...>
Subject: Re: B-band/mic review
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:01:58 -0700
Organization: No spamming please.

> > So, tell me if I'm on the right track here--hard strumming with the
> > B-band is harsh, but has been improved with a better pre-amp, even
> > without a mic. But in either case, the B-band harshness is much
> > less of an issue than peizro harshness. True?
    It's MUCH less of an issue here..  and if you have the standard pin
bridge, then I am willing to bet that you will have NO problems with
harshness. (remember that I have a pinless bridge, which means there
isn't that string angle to put enough pressure on the pickup to prevent
harshness). And with the improved pre-amp (yes, it has been improved),
harshness isn't really an issue for me either. :) String banging often
comes into play when I pick up my guitar so I know how you feel.

> Umm, I haven't been informed of any modifications to the basic Core
> preamp. Something may have been changed, but this seems unlikely; the
> Core is a very simple device. Essentially two high quality field
> effect transistors and very little else. Not much there to modify. Due
>
> to the high quality of the B-Band element, nothing else is needed.
    Actually, I was informed by Heikki at EMF that the Core preamp was
modified to handle more output (I have it in my email), so yeah, it was
modified to be better. ;) The Core is still a simple device.. hard to
improve on, but somehow the folks at EMF improved on it!

> From Tom's posts it seems that the harshness comes from his unusual
> bridge design. The B-Band can be a bit picky about these
    Exactly.
> Anyway, I've never had any problems with harshness. (That is, since I
> dumped my old piezo.) Single or dual source. And I too sometimes
> really bash the living daylights out of my guitar.
    Exactly what I was thinking with standard pin bridge guitars.
> Of course no saddle element will ever sound completely like the real
> thing. The element only hears the strings and a small portion of the
> top around the bridge; the player hears the entire vibrating body but
> virtually no strings (directly). Adding the mic in the equation helps,
>
> as you can make the sound a little more natural, for example by adding
>
> some highs for extra shimmer.
    But that's what I really love about this pickup..  The b-band
doesn't have those shimmering highs without the mic. (When I talk about
shimmering highs, I mean SHIMMERING highs.. the b-band itself is
capable of very nice, bright, clear highs.. I'm just a picky bastard
when it comes to the highs since my guitar has them in abundance) :)

--thom

B-Band pickup for classical guitar

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: B-Band pickup for classical guitar
Date: 28 Apr 1998 20:19:10 +0300
Organization: TUT

I got the following question by e-mail. Since it's relevant to others
too, I thought I'd post my answer to the guitar & builders newsgroups.

If you don't know what B-Band is, or would like to read other
reviews of it, just go to http://www.dejanews.com/ and type
B-Band in the search box.

Currently B-Bands are available for folk & classical guitars, upright
bass, acoustic bass guitar and electric guitars with
stratocaster-style bridge.

> Hi,
>
> I'm a fingerstyle player in Seoul, Korea.
> I have a great hand-made classical guitar by local luthier,
> which I'm considering to put the b-band pickup on.
>
> Would tell me or post an article for me on your experience with
> classical guitars with b-band pickup?

I'm afraid I don't own a classical, so I only have second hand
information. The EMF people have tried it on several classical
guitars, including high-end hand made ones. They claim, that usually
the b-band is even easier to install in a a classical than a steel
string. And gets even better results. I know the luthiers who's
guitars they have been using, and they agree with this.

In conventional piezoelectric transducers the signal level increases
as the string tension increases. Compared to steel strings, nylon is
left far behind, and thus few people use piezos at all in
classicals. They just won't work properly. Not that they sound
terribly realistic in folk guitars either; there's always the
high-range harshness, an inherent property of all piezoelectric
crystals.

With the B-Band the situation is reversed: Smaller string tension
actually allows b-band's thin condenser film to vibrate more freely
with the strings. You'll have ample gain, without having to worry
about loss of fidelity.

As for the B-Band itself, IMHO it truly is head and shoulders above
any other bridge transducer, folk guitar or classical. Still not
the same as a good external microphone, but better than anything
else. No harshness, incredible bass reproduction, enough fidelity to
deliver all the delicate nuances of a good fingerstyle player.

Last time I asked, the international price (before customs) was around
130 USD. If you have the money and a suitable preamplifier (or mixer),
I would recommend the dual source system, B-Band + Core 2, which adds
a condenser capsule inside the body. The price is 175 USD for
both. This is what I'm using myself. The b-band alone is already very
good, but the other mic will give it a nice final touch.

As Larry Pattis said, you don't really need to add very much mic
signal. (Unlike in piezos, where one needs to do something to fix the
piezo shortcomings!) Nevertheless, adding some 25 % or so (for
fingerstyle) would give you a little extra warmth and a more realistic
sound. A bridge element, no matter how good, essentially only hears
the strings and the bridge area, but the mic hears the rest of the
body too.

EMF Acoustics can be reached at
        sales@b-band.com
or http://www.b-band.com/

They've always been very helpful, don't hesitate to contact them.
        Ville Nummela
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

Transducers, mics, & pre-amps [2]

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Transducers, mics, & pre-amps
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 15:19:59 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <<354A3A71.8A943DB5@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

> Larry Pattis wrote:
> >
>
> > Or you can build your own pre-amp like Tom Loredo and
> > combine three signals...but I thought I would limit this discussion to
> > available equipment.
>
> Though I have a pretty complicated custom unit for 3 transducers,
> lately, for reasons of convenience, I've been using a modified

<<snip>>

>
> The quality of the B-band reduces the need for it, however.
>
> Peace,
> Tom

When I get up in the morning now, I bow three times in the direction of
Finland to thank them for the B-Band pick-up. And I also whisper my thanks
to Ville for "introducing" us.

Larry Pattis

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Transducers, mics, & pre-amps
Date: 05 May 1998 19:50:13 +0300
Organization: TUT

<abuse@127...> (Larry Pattis) writes:

> When I get up in the morning now, I bow three times in the direction of
> Finland to thank them for the B-Band pick-up. And I also whisper my thanks
> to Ville for "introducing" us.

Whoa, you almost made me blush bright red...

I guess this is a perfect opportunity to share this little story I
just heard on the EMF film.

Guitar pickups are just one application that this revolutionary new
material can be used for. The inventor of the material (but not of
b-band), one Kari Kirjavainen, recently visited our physics
department. I missed the show, unfortunately, but here's a couple of
stories someone passed on to me.

To demonstrate the incredible sensitivity of the film, they put a big
piece of it underneath a carpet. Then someone walked on the carpet and
stood still. The meters promptly picked up his heartbeat!

The film is sensitive the other way around too. There's another
company who makes hi-fi speakers out of it. The film can't move very
much, so the bass range is a bit of a problem, but the highs can be
reproduced quite accurately, and with very little power. The exact
number escapes me, but one could produce more than 110 dB of sound
energy with just 0.6 Watts of input power!! (Sorry, don't know if the
signal was just sine wave, pink noise or something else.)

For comparison, the sound pressure is something of the order of the
classic 100 Watt Marshall guitar cabinet at full blast. Too loud to
stay in the same room (for me, at least). Imagine a battery-powered PA
system that folds into a briefcase? In theory it's now possible...
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

What is a Piezo electric pick up?

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: What is a Piezo electric pick up?
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:18:34 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Just to complicate matters further... There is a new type
of under-saddle pickup out that I've had the privelege to
beta test. All the testers I know consider it a significant
improvement over the piezo under-saddles, and the product is
now on the market. It's the B-band pickup, made by a small
(3-man!) Finnish company called EMF. The pickup is based
on a proprietary electret material (EMF) that they use to
create what is essentially a thin, long electret condenser
mic element that sits under the saddle. Unlike a normal
condenser mic, whose insulator is air, for the B-band the
insulator is a compressible solid filled with air bubbles;
it has roughly the same acoustical properties as wood.
For whatever reason (we can speculate to death about this),
the pickup produces a more natural sound than any piezos
I know of, and in particular seems to distort less when you
strum hard (a well-known limitation of piezo undersaddles).
Like most condenser mic elements, it has a very high,
capacitive impedance (ie, an impedance nearly equivalent to
that of a small capacitor, perhaps 10 pF or so). It thus
cannot be used "bare" into any standard acoustic guitar preamp.
But nowadays even most piezo pickups come with small onboard
preamps, and the B-band comes with the EMF "Core" preamp---
a simple Class-A FET preamp with an input impedance of ~ 1G Ohm.
The pickup + preamp costs just over $100, and is thus competitive
with active piezo setups. They have also just started offering
a dual-source version, combining the piezo with a small electret
cartridge (let's not start that thread again!) for about $170.

The B-band pickup is thinner than any piezo; only about 12.5 mils
thick! You can thus install it without having to trim the saddle,
since the action will be raised only very slightly (~6 mils at
the 12th fret).

More info about the B-band at http://www.b-band.com/. They
are now being distributed in the US by Guitar Center.

More info about acoustic guitar amplification at my AG web site:
  http://www.museweb.com/ag/
Look under "Technology:Amplification".

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Lowdens with Piezos or B-Bands?

From: George Reiswig <george_reiswig@ccm...>
Subject: Re: Lowdens with Piezos or B-Bands?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:19:20 -0700
Organization: Intel Corp.

Dave,
    Are you buying that F-32C that's been around Portland for awhile?  Nice
instrument.
    Anyway, I have an O-32C that has a B-band dual source in it.  B-Band is
making a split saddle unit, and I have one of the prototypes. The first one
had some problems, but this one seems to have the bugs ironed out. I'm not
sure if or when they're available to the public, but it's worth it. Very nice
pickups.
    Good luck!
Red River wrote:

> I'm getting ready to buy a Lowden, and I understand the top is split into
> two pieces, as is the bridge. I want to use a mic in conjuncton with a
> piezo or b-band pickup. Do I need two piezos (one for each half of the
> top -- e.g. two Macyntires)? Alternately, will a single bridge transducer
> work okay all the way across the split bridge?
>
> Many thanks to any knowledgeable souls who respond to this.
>
> Dave Carter
> Portland, OR

--
George S. Reiswig

Obviously, my opinions should not be construed as being anything like
those of my gracious employer, Intel. Their opinions are probably
better.

Advertisers!
It is illegal to use this e-mail address for unsolicited commercial
e-mail per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I reserve the right
to assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited
commercial e-mail.

Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to my email address denotes
acceptance of these terms. Postings from me to UseNet neither grants
my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit
commercial email.

Sunrise pick-ups? Any users? [2]

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Sunrise pick-ups? Any users?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:39:28 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <<3585B7A5.572134CF@ghg...>>, Andy Schreckenghost
<<alschrec@ghg...>> wrote:

> > <snip> Info about pickups and mics....
>
> Could someone post information (or email me) about cost and availability
on the
> B-band? Also the phone number for Joe Mills mic's? Seem to have misplaced
> information I once collected and there's a new guitar coming up..
>
> Andy Schreckenghost
> Houston TX

Andy,

The B-Band/Core retails at $139.99. Believe it or not, to add their
internal Mic only bumps up the price to $199.99. I find their mic to be a
tad less quality than the Mills, but the Mills retails anywhere between
$175 and $200. Plus, the quality of the B-band is so high that I find
myself needing less Mic to bring in an acoustic sound. Win-win situation.

I am mostly recommending the entire EMF system to folks, especially if they
don't already own a Mills. Joe Mills can be reached at 615-227-3542, I
can't find his email address.

I have all the B-Band & Mills gear available.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

From: Bruce Stryd <bstryd@home...>
Subject: Re: Sunrise pick-ups? Any users?
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 05:21:52 GMT
Organization: @Home Network Member

STILLLLLLL waiting for the Thompson to arrive (late this week, I believe) but
Ted installed the B-Band dual source for me as he was building the guitar. Ted
was VERY impressed with the sound after he put it in and said he thinks its
the best thing going.

Bruce

Larry Pattis wrote:
>
> In article <<3585B7A5.572134CF@ghg...>>, Andy Schreckenghost
> <<alschrec@ghg...>> wrote:
>
> > > <snip> Info about pickups and mics....
> >
> > Could someone post information (or email me) about cost and availability
> on the
> > B-band? Also the phone number for Joe Mills mic's? Seem to have misplaced
> > information I once collected and there's a new guitar coming up..
> >
> > Andy Schreckenghost
> > Houston TX
>
> Andy,
>
> The B-Band/Core retails at $139.99. Believe it or not, to add their
> internal Mic only bumps up the price to $199.99. I find their mic to be a
> tad less quality than the Mills, but the Mills retails anywhere between
> $175 and $200. Plus, the quality of the B-band is so high that I find
> myself needing less Mic to bring in an acoustic sound. Win-win situation.
>
> I am mostly recommending the entire EMF system to folks, especially if they
> don't already own a Mills. Joe Mills can be reached at 615-227-3542, I
> can't find his email address.
>
> I have all the B-Band & Mills gear available.
>
> Larry Pattis
>
> Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Source for b-band pickup [2]

From: Anthony W. Rairden <TRairden@XXstrategicplan...>
Subject: Re: Source for b-band pickup
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:07:10 -0400
Organization: Rairden Associates

First Quality Musical Supplies (www.fqms.com) has added the B-Band pickups
to their lines, and should have them in stock in a week to ten days. As soon
as they've been shipped from the distributor, they'll be up on the Web site,
probably at www.fqms.com/b-band.htm. The straight pickup/Core preamp
combination will be on sale (10% Off) at $80.96, and the pickup/mic
combination with the Core preamp (which is built to handle two inputs) will
be $144.95. (Prices might always change modestly between now and when we get
them in, so YMMV, but we have no reason at this time to think that these
won't be the final prices.)

Tony Rairden
(SPAM Control on-- delete Xs in return address to reply directly.)

John Z wrote in message <<35896a87.4616154@news...>>...
>I've been reading all of the positive reviews on rmmga about the EMF
>B-Band pickup (thanks Thom) and I've pretty much decided to purchase
>one. Does anyone know of a good source to buy from (mail order?)
>(local music stores here don't carry them). I'd like to find a
>discount source (nobody really pays retail, do they? <g>) What is the
>street price for these gems?
>
>Thanks for any help!
>
>John

From: Brad Lussier <brad@c4...>
Subject: Re: Source for b-band pickup
Date: Unknown

Tom,

I paid under $75 for an EMF CR1AG B-Band pickup core preamp system . Got it
from The Music People, 2074 Park Street, Hartford, CT 06106. Call them at
800 289 8889.

Sounds great in my Gurian.

Best,

Brad

B Band? [7]

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: 25 Jun 1998 22:52:32 +0300
Organization: TUT

"Chuck Boyer" <<caboyer@monumental...>> writes:

> I saw something the other day that led me to believe
> that the B-Band is a condenser type transducer
> (vice piezo). Can anyone validate /elaborate?

Correct. It is an electret condenser, which simply means a condenser
microphone (actually, pickup in this case) with permanently charged
condenser plates.

Physically it looks & installs just like ordinary piezos, except that
it's a lot more thin, easier to install & sounds better (as it lacks
the high end 'quack' inherent to all piezos). You may have to
experiment a bit to get the string-to-string balance right though.

For more info, go to http://www.dejanews.com and do a power search for
B-Band. Or check the manufacturers pages at http://www.b-band.com

The thing is so new, that it's a bit difficult to find one as
yet. Worth the trouble though. The US importer is
                   The Music People! Inc.
                   P.O. Box 270648 West Hartford,
                   CT 06127-0648
                   tel 860/236-7134
                   fax 860/233-6888 or 860/523-4023
The easiest way is probably to just buy one from Larry.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: 26 Jun 1998 16:03:02 +0300
Organization: TUT

<abuse@127...> (Larry Pattis) writes:

> > Could you elaborate on "You may have to experiment a bit" please, Ville.
> > What sort of tweaking is done to get the balance right?
> >
> > Tony Rairden
>
> I have had to shim under the B-band. With balance problems on the
> Matrix, one of the fixes was to wrap the quiet area once or twice with
> aluminum foil (sort of like the beer can fix in Zen and the Art of
> Motorcycle Maint.). This did not prove to be enough with the B-Band. I
> have used a very hard plastic less than half the thickness of a credit card
> for shim material. Hasn't affected the acoustic response of any of my
> guitars.
>
> Ville will tell you more about this....

Okay, here goes.

Part of the reason for B-Bands great sound lies in the fact, that it
responds directly to pressure variations.

[In contrast, a good deal of the piezo signal comes from the minute
twisting motion it does when the bridge moves. A condenser pickup,
like B-Band, responds to a change in the condencer's capacitance.
Which is induced, for example, when the motion of the bone
pushes the condenser's charged plates closer together.]

The drawback in a design like this, is that the output of the pickup
becomes sensitive to the static pressure on the bridge, as well as the
vibrations.

If one or more of the strings aren't as loud as the others, there can
be two reasons.
 1 - Too little pressure. The contact of the bone (or bridge) with
the B-Band is less than perfect beneath the offending string, and the
vibrations of the string won't get transferred to the pickup properly.
 2 - Too much pressure. There's a slight bump against the pickup, or
the string exerts much greater pressure than the others for some other
reason. In this case, the plates of the condenser get squeezed
together, and won't have room to move --> no signal.

To get the balance right, one has to try to recognize which is the
case, and try to even out the pressure by some means. The first thing
is to make sure, that your bone & bridge slot are perfectly clean
and smooth. In addition, Larry, Tom and I all have put some sort shims
under the saddle to even things out. Either under or sometimes even
above the B-Band. Materials vary from hard plastic and metal to wood
and even paper. Whatever that works.

Note that we are dealing with relatively high levels of static force
compared to the minute motion induced in the capacitor. B-Band is
actually roughly as compressible as the wood beneath it, and only a
little softer than the piece of bone above it. In other words, don't
consider the bone rigid. As far as the pickup is concerned, it's
not. It's more like an elastic rubber bar that twists whichever way
the strings happen to be pulling, allowing for each string separately.
Remember, the pickup and the saddle mostly move together with the
top; The relative motion of the two is several orders of magnitude
less than the vibration of the top.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:01:12 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi folks-

Ville gave the best summary yet of how to balance the B-band. I just
want to emphasize---you may (as I did) have to shim under the strings
that are loudest. Back in the beta-test days, EMF recommended
that you shim soft strings or sand/shave the saddle or saddle slot
for loud strings. Since I had one loud string, I tried lightly sanding
the bottom of the saddle slot, figuring there must have been a bump
there. Just made the problem worse! I eventually had to shim there,
an extra amount to make up for the mil or so that I had sanded out.
Live and learn! Just take this as a warning to try all the least
"destructive" approaches first.

Ville Nummela wrote:
>
> Mind you, B-Band's Core preamp introduces some nonlinearity
> intentionally - they add a touch of 3rd and 5th harmonic distortion (I
> think) to make a little thicker sound.

Yikes! No! They add a little *2nd* harmonic distortion. This happens
naturally with FET-based preamps (for Chuck---the Core preamp is just
a simple JFET common-source stage); depending on how you bias them, you
can control how much distortion there is. Back in the beta-test
days, I commented to them that my simulations of their preamp showed
a bit of 2nd harmonic distortion, and they replied that in their
extensive user tests, users actually preferred this. By the way,
even-harmonic distortion is what many believe is the pleasing characteristic
of the "tube sound," hence the use of FETs to simulate tube sound in
many circuits (FETs and tubes have similar nonlinearities). For
some reason, our sense of hearing finds even harmonics more pleasing
than odd ones (hint---even harmonics are exactly at higher octaves
from the original tone), and also we can audibly detect much smaller amounts
of odd-harmonic distortion than even-harmonic distortion. So circuit
designers go to great lengths to reduce odd-harmonic distortion.

By the way, the distortion is added by the Core preamp; the distortion
we're talking about here is not produced by the B-band itself. And we're
talking small amounts; probably only easily measurable with hard strumming.

Chuck wrote:
> Me too; my favorite TV show was "Mister Wizard"?! I'll bet our own
> virtual Don Herbert (Tom Loredo) understands it! :-)

Mr. Wizard?! ;-)

Well, I pretty much understand it. But Ville is our resident materials
scientist, and understands the physics of the B-band itself better. In fact,
during the beta-testing he was the one who actually figured out the
occassionally
anti-intuitive strategy one must adopt to shim the B-band mentioned above
and in earlier posts.

And speaking of shims... I use thin sheet brass shim material, which
you can buy in plastic packs at a modeling store (including various
thicknesses, 1-5 mil). You can cut the stuff with ordinary scissors.
However, Jim Olson told me of a neat trick he uses to shim LB6
transducers---he uses the "sticky" part of post-it notes. Since
they are sticky, you don't have to worry about them moving about
as you put the pickup and saddle back in, or later if you happen
to remove all the strings. But they aren't so sticky that it becomes
tough to move or remove them.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:06:45 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy again-

Just to elaborate on the "is it a mic" issue....

It's an electret-based capacitive transducer. So is a conderser mic.
But the b-band is not a condenser mic, in the sense of being able to
pick up normal sound waves. In a condenser mic, there are charged
plates separated by a layer of air. When sound (a pressure wave in
air) hits it, the plates change their spacing, producing a small
fluctuating voltage. The B-band works similarly, but the space
between the plates is not filled with air, but instead with a
proprietary flexible material (a bit like wood---a solid with air
bubbles). Thus if you plug in a B-band outside of your guitar and
talk to it (!), you won't get any significant signal---the stiff
insulator prevents it from responding the way an air-filled
condenser mic element does.

So... is it a condenser mic element? Yes and no! Yes---it uses
the same basic technology. No---it can't pick up ordinary sound,
which is what a microphone does.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: 29 Jun 1998 23:39:52 +0300
Organization: TUT

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> writes:

> Ville Nummela wrote:
> >
> > Mind you, B-Band's Core preamp introduces some nonlinearity
> > intentionally - they add a touch of 3rd and 5th harmonic distortion (I
> > think) to make a little thicker sound.
>
> Yikes! No! They add a little *2nd* harmonic distortion. This happens

Thanks Tom. Not the first time you pull me out when I make some stupid
mistake like this. I was thinking of even harmonics, but got lost
somewhere.

> Well, I pretty much understand it. But Ville is our resident
> materials scientist, and understands the physics of the B-band
> itself better. In fact,

"Resident materials scientist"??? Gimme a break... a "smartass
college kid" is more like it. Never did any "materials" stuff and
still miles away from the "scientist" too.

> during the beta-testing he was the one who actually figured out the
> occassionally anti-intuitive strategy one must adopt to shim the
> B-band mentioned above and in earlier posts.

Boy did I have a hard time convincing the EMF people. Had to type a
few pages of equations before they bought it. (I guess the formulas
went mostly over their heads, but it looked very convincing and then
they no longer dared argue with me :-)

Not that they were the only "boneheads" around - it took them a while
to convince me, that it could be the other way too. Too little string
pressure and the contact isn't good enough. Shouldn't have been too
hard to get it. Oh well, I guess students are supposed to discover new
things...

> However, Jim Olson told me of a neat trick he uses to shim LB6
> transducers---he uses the "sticky" part of post-it notes. Since
> they are sticky, you don't have to worry about them moving about
> as you put the pickup and saddle back in, or later if you happen
> to remove all the strings. But they aren't so sticky that it becomes
> tough to move or remove them.

A great tip. And yes, paper is actually a pretty good material. I've
tried it too. While flexible, it doesn't give in a lot when
squeezed. (There's quite a bit of clay in it.) It is also quite
smooth, and thin enough, should you wish to put it under one or two
strings only.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:32:29 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy again folks!

McCollum wrote:
>
> First off, I would like to explain to everybody that the B-Band is still a
> piezo element...because piezo means "to press, squeezes, or pressure". The
> difference between the Baggs and B-Bands are the materials used and how
> much they are actually electrically charged. But they basically function
> the same.

As George said... BZZZT! "Piezo" is not an English word; in this
context it is slang for "piezoelectric" which is an English word
that means using "electricity or electric polarity produced by
meachanical stress on a nonconducting crystal." No crystals inside
a B-band, so sorry, it's not a piezo. All the other under-saddle
transducers use piezo crystals (sometimes long solid crystals,
sometimes several small ones spaced according to the strings,
sometimes lots of them embedded in a flexible medium). The B-band
is a completely different technology, and thus has different
inherent strengths and limitations.

> I did some serious A/B-ing between the Baggs Ribbon Transducer and the
> B-Band system. I will post a review in the next day or two of what
> conclusions I came to. But I do have one concern about the B-Band and that
> is about its end jack. It's wimpy, cheap, and I would like to see it
> improved. It is very easy to mess the threads up because of the low
> quality of the metal.

Can't comment on the current jack, since I have an old one that used
a custom-made jack. It was very solid, but a tad longer than most
such jacks. They told me they switched to an off-the-shelf variety
recently. Interestingly, they told me they learned at the NAMM show
that Baggs and others are starting to use the same jack. It's a newish
type that includes a separate switch for the battery (not the one
marketed by EMG, though).

> Back to Alan's question. In my guitars (and I flat pick in a fingerstyle
> kinda way -- if that makes any sense at all - kinda of Michael Hedges-ish
> -- being a guitar builder its kind of hard to have real nails :) ) I have
> found that I actually prefer the Baggs over the B-Band.

Can't directly compare the Baggs Ribbon to the B-band. Baggs sent
me one to show at an amplification workshop a year and a half ago.
They said I could install it if I wanted. I had heard other guitars
with the Ribbon in them and not been impressed at all, so I didn't
bother. I can say that my own playing mixes lots of fingerstyle
with single string runs played with a pick and heavy strumming with
a pick and fingers (especially at church). The B-band is fine for
all of it.

> Especially in
> altered tunings. The B-Band will not keep up with the upper lows (and no I
> don't mean the mids) of my guitars.

My guitar is seldom in standard tuning. Yesterday it was in
B F# C# D A D (pretty low stuff!). The B-band has always behaved
fine for me.

George asked:
> That's got me wondering... If the B-Band is so thin, can one assume that it's
> effects on the mechanical system of the guitar are small enough that one could
> A/B it with an under-the-saddle transducer mounted on the same instrument?

As I've mentioned before, my comparisons of the B-band with the
LB6 in my Olson are with the B-band under the LB6---that is, both
pickups in the same guitar at the same time.

All this said, I'm looking forward to more about Lance's test. There
are lots of variables in this game, and what's best in one situation
is not always best in another.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B Band?
Date: 29 Jun 1998 23:58:30 +0300
Organization: TUT

Alan J Rabideau <<rabideau@acsu...>> writes:

> I'm curious - do any of you b-band advocates
> flatpick, or are you mostly finger style players?
>
> Alan Rabideau
> (flatpicker who is almost ready to purchase
> a dual source b-band)

I flatpick and fingerpick around half the time each. Maby leaning a
bit on flatpicking lately. On top of that I do quite a bit of special
effects. Mostly percussive stuff - soundboard drumming, harmonics
tapping and left hand hammering.

Quite a combination of things - and really, not even my B-Band + mic
combination is quite up to it all. You know, one can optimize the
setup for something, but not all of it at the same time. Especially
the drumming is a pain to amplify. So, we're still a long way from
good studio microphones, but IMHO it's the next best thing.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

B-Band Review [4]

From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: B-Band Review
Date: 30 Jun 1998 23:08:13 GMT
Organization: McCollum Guitars

First things first :) Everybody has gotten a little rabid waiting to
pounce on anything or anyone's opinions that might be different than their
own. Remember, people, this is a discussion group, so let's have a nice
discussion, not a pissing match.

Now having said that, I never said I didn't like the B-Band. I actually
like it a lot. But there are some things that it won't do that the Baggs
will. The same for the Highlander, and Sunrise. I use all of these
systems in my guitars depending on the customer's needs and the environment
in which he/she plays.

Here's what I came up with:

The B-Band is an easy installation with the minor exception that the metal
used for the end jack is easily damaged and extra care must be taken to
hold the pre-amp on the inside of the guitar when tightening the nut,
instead of using the little hole on the outside of the jack. This is how I
damaged one of mine, and have not been able to get the threads back to
normal since.

As far as the sound goes...The B-Band sounds very natural, but when the
tuning is dropped, the low E and A (now down to D and G) will not produce
the upper low frequencies that I desire in amplification of my guitars.
We're talking the 80-130 cycle range. This is why a lot of people use a
Sunrise. Because this is where that pickup excels. The tones I'm looking
for are those typical of Michael Hedges and Richard Thompson to name a
couple.

I have a very extensive rack system with about $10,000 worth of equipment,
so it's not your typical "home stereo" setup. I also tested these two
systems (the Baggs and the B-Band), albeit not in the same guitar, when I
did the sound for the Doug Smith concert that I put on this month. We were
running through a typical PA system with Bagend speakers. Both Doug and I
agreed that for his playing style and mine, that the Baggs sounded better.
Much cleaner.

Back to comparing one system to the other...After testing the B-Band, and
swapping out back to the Baggs RT system, I noticed how much more accurate
the Baggs was and the funny thing was when I went back to the B-Band, it
(the B-Band) didn't sound as clear and accurate anymore. Then I added some
enhancement processing with a BBE Sonic Maximizer and it sounded exactly
like the Baggs does without enhancement. And being as most people would
not be using the kind of system I'm using when they're on the road, this is
where I would recommend the Baggs. I think the B-Band is much more of an
analog-type sound whereas the Baggs is so accurate and so precise that it's
almost digital. So that would be something that would have to be
considered when choosing amplification -- do you favor an analog, or more
of a digital clarity? And also, what type of playing style you have. I
have seen Larry Pattis play, and for him I agree, the B-Band is much more
suited to his style and sound (which I enjoy very much). But when going
for the big "Michael Hedges" type sound and not wanting to have a Sunrise
in the soundhole, which blocks off half of the acoustic sound, I can get
the Baggs close enough for most intents and purposes and it produces the
upper-low frequencies that I am looking for and I can EQ the highs to be
much more smooth.

I also happen to really like the Highlander with their own (yes, they make
their own now) proprietary mic. I think it is the best sounding mic out
there for my guitars and I wish I could combine it with the Baggs or the
B-Band, still using a stereo jack. But, alas, it is a three-wire system
and everybody else is a two-wire system. One of these days I'll just have
to have two jacks in the back of my guitar. :) :)

So that's it in a nutshell. These are my opinions of these systems as
used in my guitars, so your test results may vary.

There is no perfect all-encompassing, right for every guitar, system. For
the same reason that you can't have just one guitar and expect it to give
you every kind of sound (for which we are very glad <g>). This is why I
build seven different body styles.

Lance McCollum
McCollum Guitars
http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum/mccollum.htm

From: George Reiswig <george_reiswig@ccm...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Review
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 08:49:13 -0700
Organization: Intel Corp.

McCollum wrote:

> (SNIP)
>
> As far as the sound goes...The B-Band sounds very natural, but when the
> tuning is dropped, the low E and A (now down to D and G) will not produce
> the upper low frequencies that I desire in amplification of my guitars.
> We're talking the 80-130 cycle range. This is why a lot of people use a
> Sunrise. Because this is where that pickup excels. The tones I'm looking
> for are those typical of Michael Hedges and Richard Thompson to name a
> couple.

Hmmm...I haven't noticed this lack, but I admittedly haven't spent too much
time on a full PA. Most of my work goes through a Trace TA50R. My biggest
question would be which B-Band are you using? Are you using it as a single
source, or the dual-source B-Band? Which Baggs unit are you comparing it to?

>
>
> I have a very extensive rack system with about $10,000 worth of equipment,
> so it's not your typical "home stereo" setup. I also tested these two
> systems (the Baggs and the B-Band), albeit not in the same guitar, when I
> did the sound for the Doug Smith concert that I put on this month. We were
> running through a typical PA system with Bagend speakers. Both Doug and I
> agreed that for his playing style and mine, that the Baggs sounded better.
> Much cleaner.
>
> (CHOP)

> I think the B-Band is much more of an
> analog-type sound whereas the Baggs is so accurate and so precise that it's
> almost digital. So that would be something that would have to be
> considered when choosing amplification -- do you favor an analog, or more
> of a digital clarity? And also, what type of playing style you have. I
> have seen Larry Pattis play, and for him I agree, the B-Band is much more
> suited to his style and sound (which I enjoy very much).

Okay, now I'm REALLY curious: what is it that makes one digital and the other
analog to you? What is it about the different playing styles that makes
accuracy better for one style, and not for the other?

Great post, Lance. I don't know you, but judging from the reputation your
guitars carry, I have to respect your opinion on sound. As a result, I'm
really interested in your thoughts on these. I've used both a single source
B-Band and a Baggs Ribbon dual source in the same guitar, and I preferred the
B-Band sound. I even preferred the sound of the B-Band transducer plugged in
in place of the Baggs ribbon, but using the rest of the Baggs electronics. To
my ears, the Baggs Ribbon does not have a smooth high end, and sounded harsh
and artificial. The B-Band had plenty of "guts," which is what I'm guessing is
similar to the 80-130 Hz range that you described as being lacking.

The only thing that I can think of is that the Hedges style of playing is
tremendously aggressive, especially when using a pick. You want those bass
strings to sound like the acoustic guitar equivalent of a "power chord" on an
electric guitar...first and fifth of the chord, with tube overdrive, so the
major third comes out as a harmonic. For me, I'm too shy about my abilities to
be as aggressive as I know (intellectually) that certain music I try really
needs. When I back off the aggressiveness, the delicacy of the string sounds
prevails, and the B-Band really shines for that. Is that what you mean?
Maybe? Possibly?

--
George S. Reiswig

Obviously, my opinions should not be construed as being anything like
those of my gracious employer, Intel. Their opinions are probably
better.

Advertisers!
It is illegal to use this e-mail address for unsolicited commercial
e-mail per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I reserve the right
to assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited
commercial e-mail.

Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to my email address denotes
acceptance of these terms. Postings from me to UseNet neither grants
my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit
commercial email.

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Review
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:18:13 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi folks-

Lance McCollum wrote:

> Now having said that, I never said I didn't like the B-Band. I actually
> like it a lot. But there are some things that it won't do that the Baggs
> will. The same for the Highlander, and Sunrise. I use all of these
> systems in my guitars depending on the customer's needs and the environment
> in which he/she plays.

Agreed. This also should alert readers that subsequent statements
implying that the Baggs RT is better than the B-band should be
taken to be specific to this application---this guitar, installation,
playing style, etc.. (A point Lance himself makes at the end of the post.)

> Back to comparing one system to the other...After testing the B-Band, and
> swapping out back to the Baggs RT system, I noticed how much more accurate
> the Baggs was and the funny thing was when I went back to the B-Band, it
> (the B-Band) didn't sound as clear and accurate anymore. Then I added some
> enhancement processing with a BBE Sonic Maximizer and it sounded exactly
> like the Baggs does without enhancement.

This statement I found particularly fascinating. Guess what a BBE Sonic
Maximizer does, folks? It *adds distortion* to the signal, in a controled
way. This isn't to dispute that the RT sounded better to Lance and Doug.
But it makes me wonder if what they like about the RT is what I have
disliked about it when I've heard it---a hyped high end (distortion products
are at high frequencies, which is why enhancers add distortion to
give the psychoacoustic sense of high end "clarity" or "air").

> I think the B-Band is much more of an
> analog-type sound whereas the Baggs is so accurate and so precise that it's
> almost digital.

This simply doesn't follow from your observations. It could be that the
B-band more accurately picks up the bridge vibrations and the RT adds
distortion, but you prefer the distorted sound for any one of a
variety of psychoacoustic reasons---it may just appeal to your tastes, or it may
happen to resemble the more complicated full sound of this particular
instrument (ie, not just the vibrations from the bridge area) more faithfully
than the possibly more accurate B-band signal. Again---I'm not disputing
that you and perhaps I and others might prefer the sound on subjective
criteria. But you can't generalize from such subjective evaluations
to statements about the accuracy of the transducer.

It would be real interesting to see the measured responses of all these
pickups in test jigs. I know Fishman does this kind of measurement,
but I don't know about Baggs, and I doubt EMF does it. In any case,
it's doubtful any of these companies would release the results!

> As far as the sound goes...The B-Band sounds very natural, but when the
> tuning is dropped, the low E and A (now down to D and G) will not produce
> the upper low frequencies that I desire in amplification of my guitars.
> We're talking the 80-130 cycle range. This is why a lot of people use a
> Sunrise. Because this is where that pickup excels. The tones I'm looking
> for are those typical of Michael Hedges and Richard Thompson to name a
> couple.

As I've mentioned here before, my setup combines the B-band, an internal
mic, and a Sunrise, and I've found the bottom end of the B-band to be
so good, even for some of the very low tunings I use, that the Sunrise
is currently extremely low in my mix. This is with an
Olson SJ guitar. I can easily believe that the capabilities of these
various pickups to cover various parts of the spectrum differs from
one instrument to another. In particular, acoustically my Olson
has a much fatter bottom end than other guitars of its style and size
that I've played; this may explain why my experiences differ from
Lance's here.

> There is no perfect all-encompassing, right for every guitar, system. For
> the same reason that you can't have just one guitar and expect it to give
> you every kind of sound (for which we are very glad <g>).

Amen! Unfortunately, I can only afford one high quality guitar!

> This is why I
> build seven different body styles.

One for every day of the week! 8-)

Thanks, Lance, for an informative and useful post on a complicated
issue.

> McCollum Guitars
> http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum/mccollum.htm

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Review
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 12:00:30 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy again-

<xyzjefsu@primary...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:18:13 -0400, Tom Loredo
> <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:
>
> >Hi folks-
>
> >This statement I found particularly fascinating. Guess what a BBE Sonic
> >Maximizer does, folks? It *adds distortion* to the signal, in a controled
> >way.
>
> You sure? I thought it was only the original Sonic Whatzit that did
> that; the BBE claims only delay/phase wizardry. Works, too.

(Sonic Maximizer, I believe!)

What BBE says it does and what it actually does turn out to be two
different things. Their literature claims they introduce some frequency-
dependent phase corrections to "fix" phase differences introduced by
speakers. If you've ever seen phase plots for speakers (some manufacturers
provide them), a statement like this makes you very suspicious! They
are complicated (no simple analog circuit could "correct" them) and
vary greatly from one speaker to another. So I asked the experts
on rec.audio.pro about it. Turns out some of them had been suspicious,
too, so they actually measured what it does. They found it adds distortion
products much like other "enhancers." As claimed in the adverts, it
also provides some dynamic equalization, and this introduces phase
shifts (all analog equalization introduces frequency-dependent phase shifts).
Since their circuit is somewhat unique, the phase shifts are different
from those of standard EQ topologies, but nothing very fancy is going on.

So, it's an enhancer with additional dynamic EQ capabilities, but the
"enhancement" part of its action is due to added distortion.

The story one of the folks provided was that the BBE folks were just
experimenting with various enhancement/EQ topologies, and liked this
one. On measuring/studying it, they noted the somewhat unusual phase
behavior, and marketing grabbed that for the ads. How this person could
know this or whether it's true I have no idea, but since this is Usenet,
why not perpetuate the rumor? 8-)

Whatever it does, most of the engineers that have commented on it
on rec.audio.pro find it useful for adding a bit of simulated top end
to dull tracks such as those from 4-track cassette decks, but otherwise
the purists stay away from it and all such devices that add distortion,
prefering to seek for something that provides the "real" top end to
begin with. But among the enhancing devices, it seems to have one of
the best reputations.

I emphasize that I do not own one! I'm passing on responses to questions
I and others have posed on rec.audio.pro over the last couple years.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Awesome B-Band! [7]

From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NEWSmother@gnv...>
Subject: Awesome B-Band!
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 21:08:39 -0500
Organization: Motherheart

Hey All.

Say hi to another convert to B-Band p/us. Mine showed up this morning and
I had the whole system, including mic, in the guitar by 4PM.

I first plugged-in to a small bass amp (Peavey Minx 110), via a pocket
blender, just to test to see if everything was working. I was immediately
aware of a greater depth to the p/u sound than I've heard from my Fishman
Matrix system. I got drawn into trying to get a sound that was pretty much
the same as my SCGC H, acoustically...and got close, believe me. It wasn't
till about half-an-hour had gone by that I remembered that this little
Peavey only has a 10 inch speaker and is little more than a practice amp!
So..then I dragged out and set-up my PA and got to hear the full range.

Well, first off, I was particularly struck by the depth of the p/u highs.
The treble strings have so much clear, woody definition that it took me
several minutes to realise that they're not overloud...just sounding as
they should...lots of depth and sparkling highs. I mean, was I ever really
happy with that thin, quacky high-end from piezos? In general, the B-Band
transfers the acoustic nature of an flat-top guitar to an amplifier much,
much better than any other under-saddle p/u I've heard. Bottom and mids
are great - highs sparkling.

The mic is pretty similar in response to the Crown I'm used to, with,
maybe, a smidgen more body to the mids and highs. Also, with this system,
you need to use so little mic to get the sound 'just right' that feedback
doesn't seem to be an issue, either, from my current perpective. The mic
just adds a resonance to the p/u signal that rounds out the overall sound.
It took about a half hour of fiddling to get output from the PA that
closely approximated my guitar's sound - something I've never heard from a
p/u - and I haven't really begun to experiment with mic placement. I
can't say it was as good as a couple of well-placed U87s and PZMs...but it
was pretty dang close!

I've only had this system in for a few hours but I fully expect to buy
another for my backup guitar and have my Fishman/Crown systems up for sale
within a week or so. Anyone interested?

Regards

Elizabeth
               Remove NEWS from email address to reply
                   http://gnv.fdt.net/~mother/music

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: 03 Jul 1998 15:58:17 +0300
Organization: TUT

<NEWSmother@gnv...> (Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou) writes:

> Hey All.
>
> Say hi to another convert to B-Band p/us. Mine showed up this morning and
> I had the whole system, including mic, in the guitar by 4PM.
	<snip>
> I mean, was I ever really happy with that thin, quacky high-end from
> piezos? In general, the B-Band transfers the acoustic nature of an
> flat-top guitar to an amplifier much, much better than any other
> under-saddle p/u I've heard. Bottom and mids are great - highs
> sparkling.

Welcome on board, Elizabeth.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, rmmga has been discussing whether
science is any good when it comes to making guitars sound better.

Well, there's good science and there's bad science, and even good
science is not always succesful. But sometimes it is. B-Band is an
outstanding example of a scientific innovation, that will eventually
conquer the world.

There's been so much shameless B-Band propaganda in rmmga lately, that
Lance McCollum's opposite views were actually quite refreshing to
read. Not that I'd agree - I too had a Baggs Ribbon (Dual Source
version) in my guitar before B-Band. I didn't fall for B-Band
immediately, mainly because I had some serious balance problems at
first. But as the problems got solved, there was no going back, no
way!

Since then, it has been really exciting watching B-Band gain
momentum. I got my first beta test model installed about one year
ago. Pretty soon I decided to let Larry and Tom know about it. Larry
in particular was an instant convert, and he was also the one to
introduce it to the rest of the rmmga. (I was at the time "blocked" in
France, without access to amplification equipment.)

Now, thanks to rmmga, more and more people are discovering it. Not
bad, since the mass production only began a few months ago. Anyone who
purchased one before March can actually boast a hand made B-Band!

It is actually a stroke of good luck that you, fellow rmmga:ers, got
to know about the whole thing this early at all. It was a pure
coincidence that I happened to be visiting luthier Juha Lottonen's
shop, when Heikki R�is�nen, owner of EMF Acoustics, walked in, and I
got recruited as a beta tester.

Unless, of course, Juha somehow juggled things a little to put us
together.

C'est la vie...

> I've only had this system in for a few hours but I fully expect to buy
> another for my backup guitar and have my Fishman/Crown systems up for sale
> within a week or so. Anyone interested?

Sorry - no thanks.
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"cc.tut.fi ("at"=@) http://www.tut.fi/~vnummela
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NEWSmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 13:07:46 -0500
Organization: Motherheart

Hey Bill.

In article <<359CFD81.7AF5@iastate...>>, Dept., of, Geological, and,
Atmospheric, Sciences wrote:

| Hi Elizabeth
|
| Some questions....
|
| 1. Were you able to get the B-band in the saddle slot and working
| without any shims as discussed elsewhere on rmmga?
|
| 2. Could you detail how and where the B-Band mic attaches to the
| guitar? Do they indicate what the frequency response of the mic is (by
| chance)?
|
| Thanks in advance from the B-band wannabes..
|
| Bill
|
|

1. It fitted in the saddle slot fine, but I had to use slivers of
business card, cut to fit, one on each side of the p/u to restore the
action after removing the Fishman Matrix.

2. It comes supplied with a bunch of metal cable clips with double-sided
tape on the back. Apparently, the stiffness of the first third of the mic
cable is considered enough to anchor it with one of these. I used the
standard Crown mic holder. It's a much better bet. No idea what the
frequency rersponse is....ask Larry. Over to Larry in the studio. Larry?

Um. Just a minor additon to my 'review'. I note that my guitar has, what
some might term, over-rich upper lows (or low-mids :>). The B-Band
definately levels that out, so I must say that it's possible the
contributor who compared the B-Band with a Baggs system is correct in his
opinion that the B-band lacks a little in that frequency range. Doesn't
worry me, 'though. That's what the mic is for!

Regards

Elizabeth
               Remove NEWS from email address to reply
                   http://gnv.fdt.net/~mother/music

From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: 4 Jul 1998 01:34:39 GMT
Organization: McCollum Guitars

Bill and Elizabeth and everybody else,

The reason everybody has so many problems trying to balance out the B-Band
is the same reason that LR Baggs has the rubber attached to the bottom of
the Ribbon Transducer. The way the saddle functions is that it actually
floats within the saddle slot if the material is very hard (bone,
ivory...). Thus creating sort of a nodal point somewhere in the saddle (on
Taylors it always seems to be underneath the B string and other guitars
vary). But, being as we all prefer a harder substance acoustically, we're
willing to dink with the saddles so that they sound good electronically.
If you remove the rubber on the bottom of a Baggs, it is about the same
thickness as the B-Band. But then you're in the same ball park as dealing
with the B-Band as far as balance and output. I've done it on one guitar,
and it helped improve the sound of the pickup, and I tried it on another
one, and ended up putting the rubber back on because it was way too
unbalanced and I don't think that shimming the thing over and under is a
correct way to send a guitar to a customer. By the way, removing the
rubber from the bottom of the Baggs pickup will probably void any warranty.
 Please don't do this.
As far as Elizabeth's comments about the mic, yes it does help fill up
those upper lows. But in my opinion, the mic is just "half-assed". It's
really not that good a mic. It's muddy, does not have a high gain
threshold, and I agree with Elizabeth, that the mounting system leaves a
whole lot to be desired. This is why I made the post about the Highlander
proprietary mic. In my opinion it's the best mic out there for inside the
guitar. Unfortunately, I've not been able to get any information from
Ville or anybody else about trying to replace the B-Band mic with a
Highlander. I'm not sure if it's even possible.

Question for Elizabeth: What kind of guitar do you have? Excuse me if I
missed your stating it in a previous post.

And for those of you wondering about the kind of lower tones I'm talking
about (that my guitars produce), do a deja-news search of a review on my
guitars by Mike Muekler (<mike@cellb...>). He describes them well. Or ask
James Olson.

Lance McCollum
McCollulm Guitars
http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum/mccollum.htm

Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <<NEWSmother@gnv...>> wrote in article
<<NEWSmother-0307981307460001@port-35-ts2-gnv...>>...
: Hey Bill.
:
: In article <<359CFD81.7AF5@iastate...>>, Dept., of, Geological, and,
: Atmospheric, Sciences wrote:
:
: | Hi Elizabeth
: |
: | Some questions....
: |
: | 1. Were you able to get the B-band in the saddle slot and working
: | without any shims as discussed elsewhere on rmmga?
: |
: | 2. Could you detail how and where the B-Band mic attaches to the
: | guitar? Do they indicate what the frequency response of the mic is (by
: | chance)?
: |
: | Thanks in advance from the B-band wannabes..
: |
: | Bill
: |
: |
:
:
: 1. It fitted in the saddle slot fine, but I had to use slivers of
: business card, cut to fit, one on each side of the p/u to restore the
: action after removing the Fishman Matrix.
:
: 2. It comes supplied with a bunch of metal cable clips with double-sided
: tape on the back. Apparently, the stiffness of the first third of the mic
: cable is considered enough to anchor it with one of these. I used the
: standard Crown mic holder. It's a much better bet. No idea what the
: frequency rersponse is....ask Larry. Over to Larry in the studio. Larry?
:
: Um. Just a minor additon to my 'review'. I note that my guitar has, what
: some might term, over-rich upper lows (or low-mids :>). The B-Band
: definately levels that out, so I must say that it's possible the
: contributor who compared the B-Band with a Baggs system is correct in his
: opinion that the B-band lacks a little in that frequency range. Doesn't
: worry me, 'though. That's what the mic is for!
:
: Regards
:
: Elizabeth
:
: Remove NEWS from email address to reply
:
: http://gnv.fdt.net/~mother/music
:
:

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 22:50:27 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <01bda6ec$41ddf5c0$<82fc6bce@defau...>>, "McCollum"
<<mccollum@netshel...>> wrote:

> Bill and Elizabeth and everybody else,
>
> The reason everybody has so many problems trying to balance out the B-Band
> is the same reason that LR Baggs has the rubber attached to the bottom of
> the Ribbon Transducer. The way the saddle functions is that it actually
> floats within the saddle slot if the material is very hard (bone,
> ivory...). Thus creating sort of a nodal point somewhere in the saddle (on
> Taylors it always seems to be underneath the B string and other guitars
> vary). But, being as we all prefer a harder substance acoustically, we're
> willing to dink with the saddles so that they sound good electronically.
> If you remove the rubber on the bottom of a Baggs, it is about the same
> thickness as the B-Band. But then you're in the same ball park as dealing
> with the B-Band as far as balance and output. I've done it on one guitar,
> and it helped improve the sound of the pickup, and I tried it on another
> one, and ended up putting the rubber back on because it was way too
> unbalanced and I don't think that shimming the thing over and under is a
> correct way to send a guitar to a customer. By the way, removing the
> rubber from the bottom of the Baggs pickup will probably void any warranty.
> Please don't do this.

When the Ribbon first was available, I tested it extensively and found it
lacking in several areas. I was very disappointed with the rubber backing,
it seemed that even after letting it compress for many days, most guitars
were not quite as good acoustically. This must have been 4 years ago (or
slightly longer...the memory fades), and I immediately began experimenting
with removing the rubber backing. This of course, immediately took care
of the acoustic issue. To me, the Ribbon is the equivalent of any other
piezo based element. To get a reasonable sound, fingerstyle, flatpick,
hard strumming, etc., the only thing to do is roll off the trebles to
reduce the transducer "quack," and add a mic to bring back in what you can
on the treble side. I recently heard from a local top notch classical
player that a friend (how's this for third hand info?) had installed the
Ribbon upside down with better success than the standard installation, in
terms of a more natural sound.

I wouldn't characterize balancing any pick-up as a "problem," as even the
best installation usually requires some modification. You simply spend a
few minutes listening to the guitar, and then add a thin shim or two. Like
shampoo, sometimes you have to repeat the process.

>
> As far as Elizabeth's comments about the mic, yes it does help fill up
> those upper lows. But in my opinion, the mic is just "half-assed". It's
> really not that good a mic. It's muddy, does not have a high gain
> threshold, and I agree with Elizabeth, that the mounting system leaves a
> whole lot to be desired. This is why I made the post about the Highlander
> proprietary mic. In my opinion it's the best mic out there for inside the
> guitar. Unfortunately, I've not been able to get any information from
> Ville or anybody else about trying to replace the B-Band mic with a
> Highlander. I'm not sure if it's even possible.

I have used the Joe Mills mic for over three years now, and have not had a
chance to hear the new Highlander mic. I find the EMF mic to be better
quality of the Crown mic that Fishman distributes. It is not nearly as
harsh (brittle) on the treble side, and does not feedback as quickly on the
bass side, of course it is no match for the Mills. I don't find it "muddy"
at all, but perhaps we are hearing different things. The Mills retails at
$175, the Crown at $159.95, and the EMF is at $60. Best $60 bucks I ever
spent, since the B-Band requires less mic in the mix than any other
manufacture of saddle transducer. I currently have one guitar set-up with
B-Band and Mills, another with B-Band and the EMF mic. The overall
amplified sound through my full PA system is neither better nor worse for
either of these guitars, and to me, that is what is most important. I do
not use compression of any kind, and my effects are generally limited to
reverb with some delay. Not a heavily processed sound, as I want to hear
an acoustic guitar sound when I plug in. Preferrably something that
actually resembles the acoustic nature of the guitar I am playing. The EMF
gear does this for me.

Someone mentioned that the Highlander mic is a three wire mic, actually all
of the condensor mics are originally three wire. I am getting into areas
best covered by Tom or Ville here, but the instructions I have used for
years installing the Mills mic basically ignore the third wire. I don't
know if Joe makes some modification when he assembles the mic if he knows
it is being used for this type of installation. I haven't looked a a Crown
closely for three years, so I don't recall how they address the three
wire/two solder points situation. I suspect that if Highlander does sell
their mic seperately, it would not be too big of a project to run it
through the Baggs or EMF or Fishman internal pre-amps, as they are all set
up to provide phantom power. Perhaps I'm just showing my ignorance here,
however...Tom, Ville?

> Question for Elizabeth: What kind of guitar do you have? Excuse me if I
> missed your stating it in a previous post.
>
> And for those of you wondering about the kind of lower tones I'm talking
> about (that my guitars produce), do a deja-news search of a review on my
> guitars by Mike Muekler (<mike@cellb...>). He describes them well. Or ask
> James Olson.
>
> Lance McCollum
> McCollulm Guitars
> http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum/mccollum.htm

Lance, I want to thank you for your "opposing" opinion on this issue, as
that is what makes the world go round. I am still curious, when you did
your testing with your extensive rack gear, what kind of speakers were you
using? High quality studio monitors, or PA speakers of some sort?

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 23:43:44 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <01bda6ec$41ddf5c0$<82fc6bce@defau...>>, "McCollum"
<<mccollum@netshel...>> wrote:

> Bill and Elizabeth and everybody else,
>
> The reason everybody has so many problems trying to balance out the B-Band
> is the same reason that LR Baggs has the rubber attached to the bottom of
> the Ribbon Transducer. The way the saddle functions is that it actually
> floats within the saddle slot if the material is very hard (bone,
> ivory...). Thus creating sort of a nodal point somewhere in the saddle (on
> Taylors it always seems to be underneath the B string and other guitars
> vary). But, being as we all prefer a harder substance acoustically, we're
> willing to dink with the saddles so that they sound good electronically.
> If you remove the rubber on the bottom of a Baggs, it is about the same
> thickness as the B-Band. But then you're in the same ball park as dealing
> with the B-Band as far as balance and output. I've done it on one guitar,
> and it helped improve the sound of the pickup, and I tried it on another
> one, and ended up putting the rubber back on because it was way too
> unbalanced and I don't think that shimming the thing over and under is a
> correct way to send a guitar to a customer. By the way, removing the
> rubber from the bottom of the Baggs pickup will probably void any warranty.
> Please don't do this.

Several years ago, when the Ribbon was brand new, I was quite interested in
how it differed from the other major manufactured saddle elements. The
results of some comparisons from back then remain relatively fresh in my
mind. The rubber backing, even after being allowed to compress for several
days, had a serious negative effect on the acoustic tone of about half of
the guitars I tried it in (a sample of about a dozen). I immediately (and
without any "authorization" from my friends at Baggs) removed the rubber to
see how this might change things around, as I suspected that it would be a
problem even before the testing began. Sure enough (and as Lance
mentions), the acoustic nature of the affected instruments went back to
their original state. The other difficulty that I found with the Ribbon,
and quite frankly, any piezo based pick-up, was that the treble strings
always had that transducer "quack." The only way to reduce this as a part
of the amplified sound was (is) to roll off the trebles, and add a mic
(internal or external) to try to bring a natural sound back to the treble
side of the guitar. The B-Band solves this problem, whether it is
fingerstyle (gentle or aggressive), flatpicking, or hard strumming. To my
ears, the sound remains clear, even when playing quite aggressively.

I don't characterize any pick-up as being a "problem" when it comes to
balancing volume from string to string. Even the best installations can
introduce a bit of variety there, and simply playing the guitar for a few
minutes will tell you what you need to know. Add a shim or two, and away
you go. Like shampooing, sometimes you need to repeat this procedure. It
is easier than adjusting a truss rod for a novice, as your ears will tell
you if one string is louder than the rest (no special knowledge needed!).

>
> As far as Elizabeth's comments about the mic, yes it does help fill up
> those upper lows. But in my opinion, the mic is just "half-assed". It's
> really not that good a mic. It's muddy, does not have a high gain
> threshold, and I agree with Elizabeth, that the mounting system leaves a
> whole lot to be desired. This is why I made the post about the Highlander
> proprietary mic. In my opinion it's the best mic out there for inside the
> guitar. Unfortunately, I've not been able to get any information from
> Ville or anybody else about trying to replace the B-Band mic with a
> Highlander. I'm not sure if it's even possible.

I have used the Mills mic exclusively for three or four years now, and I
have not yet had a chance to hear the new Highlander mic. The EMF mic is,
to me, a better sound than the Crown, not nearly as harsh on the treble
side, nor does it feedback as quickly on the bass side. Nothing that I
have heard compares to the Mills, but again, I have not heard the new
Highlander unit. The Mills retails at $175, the Crown at $159.95, and the
EMF at $60. Best 60 bucks I ever spent, since with the B-Band there is
less of any mic needed in the mix. I have one guitar set up with
B-Band/Mills, and another with the B-Band and it's own EMF mic. When mixed
(through a Fishman Pocket Blender) and run through my "touring" (high
quality components) PA system, there is literally no difference (to my
ears) in the overall sound. Not enough mic gain is really needed to make a
difference. I do not use compression, nor do I have a heavy hand with any
effects. A simple reverb with a bit of delay is what I want to hear, as
this seems to bring back more of just the basic acoustic nature of the
sound of my guitar. And the EMF gear does allow the actual voice of that
particular instrument to shine through. I admit to using more reverb today
than I did 6 months ago...hey, Pierre made me do it (and I like it)!!!!

I am out of my "element" when it comes to talking about the three wire
nature of the new Highlander mic compared to the "two wire" mics. It is my
understanding that all of these condensor mics are three wire ("balanced)",
perhaps the Mills and Crown are modified in some way to account for the two
wire installation. The Mills does have a third wire "available," but Joe's
installation instructions have two wires going to one solder point (the
ground) on the jack. Tom, Ville, anybody?

>
> Question for Elizabeth: What kind of guitar do you have? Excuse me if I
> missed your stating it in a previous post.
>
> And for those of you wondering about the kind of lower tones I'm talking
> about (that my guitars produce), do a deja-news search of a review on my
> guitars by Mike Muekler (<mike@cellb...>). He describes them well. Or ask
> James Olson.
>
> Lance McCollum
> McCollulm Guitars
> http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum/mccollum.htm
>

Lance, I want to thank you, not only for your time and energy doing these
comparisons, but indeed for that "differing" opinion...as that is what
makes the world go 'round.

When you did you test, I am still curious, as part of your extensive rack
gear equipment, did you use high quality studio monitors or some brand of
PA system speakers?

Pardon me if this is appearing as a repeat post to some of you, when I sent
the first one off it simply seemed to disappear into cyberspace.....

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Awesome B-Band!
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 11:28:26 -0600
Organization: XMission (801 539 0852)

In article <6nnokh$chm$<1@fir...>>, "basile"
<<zeppa@earthlink...>> wrote:

> Here's a B-Band question totally unrelated to the internal microphone
> discussion going on:
>
> Typically, it's very difficult to install an UTS pickup on a guitar with a
> vintage-style saddle (say, like a Martin xxxVR or something). Given the
> thinness of the B-Band, is it possible to install one successfully (without
> having to modify the guitar) on a guitar with this type of saddle? I'm
> guess I'm assuming that the thickness of your typical UTS is the reason that
> they're such a problem to install in this kind of saddle.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank Basile

Frank,

Very perceptive question in regards to open ended vintage style saddle
slots. You are correct in assuming that the issue revolves around
thickness for the "old style" saddle elements. I have not yet installed a
B-Band on such an instrument, but it doesn't take much intuition or
experience to realize that the B-Band will likely work very well without
having to re-work the saddle or bridge. Consider classical guitars. They
are all open ended saddle slots, and the B-Band works very well in this
application.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Mics (was "Awesome B-Band!")

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Mics (was "Awesome B-Band!")
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:53:41 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

George-

Gotta agree with Larry on the mic issue. I A/B'ed a bunch of internal
mics (AT831, Mills, Donnell soundhole, Radio Shack 33-1052, B-band)
and found astonishing little difference between the AT, RS, and B-band
(especially surprising considering the range in price and different
polar pattern of the AT). The Mills was the only standout; definitely
the best of the bunch (but also the most expensive) and worth it if
you have the $$. The Donnell is the odd man out---it's intended for
use by itself (ie not part of a dual-source setup) and thus has
a built in EQ correction that eliminates boominess, at the expense
(to my ears) of accuracy in the top end. For dual-source use, I
don't consider this a good compromise---one would probably roll off
all the lows anyway, and rely on the mic for accurate highs.

George, if you are the experimenting type, I'd love to hear what you find
if you use the AT or Shure elements. If you're not, I suspect you're
not missing much by sticking with the B-band element, but I can't
say for sure.

I should also emphasize that the sound field inside a guitar is very
complicated, and a particular element can respond quite differently
at different locations and in different guitars. It's tough to make
a general recommendation. FYI, the guitar I tested the elements in
is an Olson SJ. At one point I had 4 different elements in there at
once---lots of wires coming out of the soundhole! I recorded them
simultaneously on a 4-track so I could compare them with the exact same
signal, and without the actual guitar filling the room with its acoustic sound.

Instructions on how to modify the Core preamp so you can add a
different element and not have the Core provide it "phantom" power
(ie, so you can use your Blender or AP13 for that, and thus save
battery life) are available right on the B-band web site in a PDF file.

Someone asked about the frequency response. I don't have any official
info about this, but based on my speculations on the origin of the
element (don't ask for details because I won't provide them!), I believe
it's a 20-18k or 20-20k omni element. But there's a lot more to what
makes a mic sound good than its frequency response, so even though
these specs look impressive, they don't by themselves guarantee a good
sound ($3 Panasonic mic elements like the one used in the RS 33-1052
have these specs). Equally important are the polar pattern, distortion
figures, and the dynamic response, but the former is only sometimes provided,
and dynamic response (as a waterfall plot) almost never. I suspect it's with
these 3 specs that the Mills wins out, but since no one provides
them, it's hard to say for sure.

This gets us to the issue of 2-wire vs. 3-wire mic elements. Condenser
mic elements are actually more than just the actual condenser mic
element itself---they have a little circuit in them that "buffers"
the raw mic signal, because it is very delicate (extremely high impedance,
for the techies out there) and will be adversely affected by even
very short cables. Three wire elements give you a bit more access to
this internal circuitry, allowing the preamp designer more control over
the signal (techies: you can control the FET bias). It's obviously
easier to use 2-wire elements, but their distortion figures tend to
be somewhat compromised by the simpler topology---the price for
simplicity. You can convert most 3-wire elements to 2-wire simply
by connecting the right two of the wires together. Instructions for
a variety of mics are available at the page for the AP13 preamp
at the Rane web site (http://www.rane.com/). An outstanding web
site, by the way, with tons of useful audio info.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

b-band problem [3]

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: b-band problem
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 14:46:02 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Tim-

I had a similar problem. The B-band pickup is a long strip, of which only
the last few inches are "sensitized"---the rest basically acts as a cable.
Though the "cable" part is not itself a pickup, it can conduct sound/vibrations
to the sensitive part. You can see this before installation---plug it
all up, and tap on the sensitive end, and you get loud taps. Tap a few
inches further along, and it suddenly drops in amplitude---but it's still
there.

In my guitar I also have a Sunrise, and in playing position when I first
installed the B-band, the cable part of the B-band fell across the Sunrise
cable. At some point (presumably because of motion of the cables) I
started getting really bad distortion from the B-band when I played
loud, low notes. Took me a week or so to figure it out! It was the
B-band "cable" vibrating against the Sunrise cable. I forget the exact
solution I got in the end (the guitar is at home or I'd check)---I either
rerouted the cables so they weren't near each other, or tied the B-band
to the Sunrise cable so it was not free to "bounce" against it. Problem
gone.

I have difficulty seeing how motion of the loose part of the B-band could
create the "Leslie" effect you described, but perhaps there is some similar
microphonics issue, and you need to make sure the B-band itself is not
touching anything between the bridge plate and the Core preamp.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: Tim Helmen <thissong@pclink...>
Subject: Re: b-band problem
Date: Unknown

In article <<35A26CEA.9BC024D8@spacenet...>>,
<loredo@spacenet...> says...
>
>Tim-
>
>I had a similar problem. The B-band pickup is a long strip, of which
only
>the last few inches are "sensitized"---the rest basically acts as a
cable.
>Though the "cable" part is not itself a pickup, it can conduct
sound/vibrations
>to the sensitive part. You can see this before installation---plug it
>all up, and tap on the sensitive end, and you get loud taps. Tap a
few
>inches further along, and it suddenly drops in amplitude---but it's
still
>there.
>
>In my guitar I also have a Sunrise, and in playing position when I
first
>installed the B-band, the cable part of the B-band fell across the
Sunrise
>cable. At some point (presumably because of motion of the cables) I
>started getting really bad distortion from the B-band when I played
>loud, low notes. Took me a week or so to figure it out! It was the
>B-band "cable" vibrating against the Sunrise cable. I forget the
exact
>solution I got in the end (the guitar is at home or I'd check)---I
either
>rerouted the cables so they weren't near each other, or tied the
B-band
>to the Sunrise cable so it was not free to "bounce" against it.
Problem
>gone.
>
>I have difficulty seeing how motion of the loose part of the B-band
could
>create the "Leslie" effect you described, but perhaps there is some
similar
>microphonics issue, and you need to make sure the B-band itself is not
>touching anything between the bridge plate and the Core preamp.
>
>Peace,
>Tom Loredo
 I thought it might be the strip vibrating freely, but as I listen more 
closely it could perhaps be knocking into something. I've got a
miniflex mic in a second (upper) endhole, so that's fairly close to
the core an the incoming B-band. I'll do some more work with that and
see what I come up with. I think maybe if I didn't have the miniflex
in there (it's a pretty substantial piece of hardward) this would be
easier to work out.

By the way, lest anyone get put off--I'm working at this because the
sound is definitely worth it. And EMF has been very helpful
throughout.

Blessings,

Tim Helmen
<thissong@pclink...>
www.pclink.com/thissong

From: Tim Helmen <thissong@pclink...>
Subject: Re: b-band problem
Date: 10 Jul 1998 05:01:01 GMT
Organization: [poster's organization not specified]

In article <6nscn8$36h$<1@news3...>>, <thissong@pclink...> says...
>

>
>But this week I was performing an number where I play a chunky muted thing
>on the low E, which kept the body mving quite a bit. this shaking also
>shook the B-band strip, and the result was a shaking of the sound,
>especially noticable on the treble strings. It was an obnoxious quaver,
not
>unlike the effect of playing under a fan.
>
I seem to have made some progress on this. As far as I can tell the problem
was in the hole through which the b-band exits the saddle slot into the
guitar. I think the hole was not large and smooth enough on the side
closest to the strings. When I it the bridge with the heel of my hand, it
shook thinkgs up enough that the strip would rattle againstthat part of the
hole, causing a loud distroted "think" and causing the sustained tremolo
strings to waver.

i made the hole a bit larger on that side and smoothed the surface. This
seems to let the pickup strip clear the sides completely. The problem is
basically gone.

If I really whack the guitar, I still get somewhat of a tremolo effect, but
the amount of force required is more than really is musically necessary (or
very good for the top--I have cracked one doing this before).

So I've got a tone I love with the B-band--it really makes me want to
play-with every other pickup I tolerated the sound I got.

By the way, Heikki at EMF has been very helpful throughout this problem and
previously as I sorted through some installation and balancing issues.

Blessings,

Tim Helmen
<thissong@pclink...>
www.pclink.com/thissong

B-Band Installation Findings

From: <rocky_jones@my-dejanews...>
Subject: B-Band Installation Findings
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:52:18 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

Just installed another B-Band single-source system. The following are my
findings which may prove useful to your own installation.

A. Although the B-Band is designed to be easily installed, the saddle setup
for "plugged-in" string balance can take a good amount of your time. Unlike
other PU systems, don't plan on dropping it in and gigging. Expect to spend
2-3 hours making adjustments for the correct string balance. (Note: Don't
lose heart - it's worth the time getting it right.).

B. "Plugged-in" string balance seems to be a function of the downward
pressure on the saddle by the string (as stated by others in this newsgroup)
- more pressure yields less volume, whereas less pressure yields more volume.
I've used two methods in achieving the proper balance: METHOD #1: Use
post-it note paper shims on the saddle bottom, under the strings that are the
loudest. ADVANTAGE: a) No permanent alterations occur to the guitar, and b)
The post-it note shims stay in place, but are still removable (I've read here
recently that Jim Olson uses post-its, too, so... it must be a good idea
<g>). DISADVANTAGE: a) Action may raise more than your liking (assuming you
don't trim the saddle), and b) Shimming always carries the possibility of
altering the instrument's acoustic tone. METHOD #2: File the string slot
that sets the string angle out of the bridge pin toward the saddle for the
strings that are the loudest. A flatter string angle places less downward
pressure on the saddle, causing the string to be louder than the others. This
can be accomplished with a Stew-Mac tool designed for this purpose, or with a
very small diameter round file. ADVANTAGE: Does not alter your existing
action, assuming that it's where you like it. DISADVANTAGE: a) Alters the
instrument's string angle without reversal (apart from replacing the bridge),
and b) No amount of filing may yield the string angle necessary to create
enough downward pressure on the saddle; meaning that you may still need to
use shims.

C. Be careful with the battery holder/clip included with their system! It's
not designed to mechanically distinguish polarity, but uses +/- labels to
visually orient the battery. If you're attentive, then this will not pose a
problem. However, I inadvertently installed my battery backwards, in a
reverse polarity. Had I plugged in (closing the electrical circuit), I would
have likely fried the Core preamp. A SOLUTION: Go to Radio Shack and purchase
a standard 9V metal holder, and a heavy duty battery clip with male/female
connections. Total cost: <$2 if I recall correctly.

D. Be certain to isolate the B-Band cable from any other interior
cables/etc. - the B-Band is very sensitive and may "pickup" contact noises
from anything hitting it (Note: This has been previously discussed here, but
is worth another mention).

E. Another (potentially flammable) little "tip", something that LR Baggs
used for their MicroDrive product: Secure the battery holder (whichever one
you choose to install) to the neck block using 3M's "Self Stick Interlocking
Fasteners" #761. It works like heavy-duty velcro, but is 5 times stronger!
The adhesive bonds to wood, metal, or plastic. And, best of all, although the
adhesive is incredibly strong (which you'd want it to be), the interlocking
fastener is removable. ADVANTAGE: a) Other battery holders, preamps, etc.
could be replaced for the existing battery holder without much time or
trouble, and b) No holes need to be drilled, nor small wood blocks glued, to
the neck block. DISADVANTAGE: None, except for the apprehension of having a
battery secured by an adhesive. However, the adhesive is VERY STRONG, so for
me, there's no apprehension. :) Incidently, I've no affiliation with 3M.

A QUICK REVIEW: While not "100 times better" than all the other acoustic
transducers on the market, I do feel it's the best one available today. I've
used the LR Baggs LB6's with MicroDrive preamps for a few years and been
pleased with their tone. To my ear, all other single source PU/preamps have
paled in comparison to this LRB setup. However, the B-Band offers a bit more
in its tone - great lows, more transparent mids, crisper highs... just better
overall. As a single source, it'll be tough to beat for awhile.

Well, hope this helps. Have fun with the installation, and even more fun
pluggin' in!

Blessings in Christ,
Rocky Jones

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

B-band Pickups

From: alinger <alinger@erols...>
Subject: B-band Pickups
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:08:54 GMT
Organization: Imperial Outfiitters

I recently replaced my Fishman Matrix/Crown Mic with a b-band pick-up
and Joe Mills mic combination on my Taylor LKSM-6. Wow!

The b-band is totally different than the Matrix and it sounds great!
The main difference to my ear is mainly in frequency response. The
b-band is very warm and natural sounding and really warm in tone. The
matix is by contrast very mid-rangy, (which is great to cut through a
band), but not so great, IMO, for solo or fingerstyle playing, (which I
do).

The b-band does have a lower level output than the Fishman, but it's
also pleasantly missing the normal piezo quack. You probably couldn't
say it is "quackless", but it is really minimized. I'm very happy with
it!

As for the Mills mic, it's warmer than the Fishman Crown and has a bit
more punch to it.

BTW, Let me know if you would like to make an offer on my Matrix Crown
set up...

Thanks,

Hank Alinger
<alinger@erols...>

Installing the B-band pickup

From: <gnelson@my-dejanews...>
Subject: Re: Installing the B-band pickup
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:15:48 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

Hi Elizabeth,
I managed to install the pickup - finally! It's really amazing - I don't
know whether its my ears but I just don't hear the "quack" I was hearing
with my Fishman Matrix. Also the other thing is that right now its a
undersaddle/mic combination where before it was just and undersaddle
element. In any case, th sound is a vast improvement.

Regarding the saddle slot hole, I just needed to enlarge it a tiny bit
because there was already a hole there from where the Fishman element
connecting wire passed through. By the way, how do you like your Santa Cruz
H? I'm thinking of getting either that or a Collings C-10 in the next five
or six months but the problem is that I'm in Singapore and there's not much
choice here so I plan to mail order it from Cotten music.

All the best,
Gerry Nelson

ps. Any luck finding an arrangement of the Joni song?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Another B-Band rave

From: J.Adair (NO SPAM PLEASE) <oja@flash...>
Subject: Another B-Band rave
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:03:47 -0500
Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net

I just got my Breedlove Ed Gerhard back from my local guitar tech after he
installed a B-Band p/u, internal mic, and Core pre-amp and it sounds
absolutely wonderful. It sounds.....acoustic! And this is thru a mono
cable (no mic input) running thru a Crate Blue Voodoo half-stack! To my
ears, it is more natural sounding than the Fishman's I have in other
guitars, and has none of the "brittle" sounds of the typical piezo.

It was not a particularly easy installation. The saddle slot hole is not
perpendicular to the saddle slot, but instead shoots off at approximately 45
degrees, which put it rather close to one of the X-braces, but luckily
avoided piercing it.

Then the Bridge Doctor on the Breedlove appeared to be a problem since the
dowel abuts the end block right where the pre-amp and end-pin jack need to
go. But a quick call to Breedlove advised moving the dowel slightly off
center, toward the back of the guitar to provide the room needed for the
pre-amp. This seemed to have worked just fine.

Now, if I can just get a Fishman Blender and acoustic amplifier, there is no
telling how great this thing may sound!

Thanks to Larry Pattis for his technical advice and quick response in
sending me this neat little toy.

A happy camper,

Jay Adair

--
Founder & Charter Member of the Society for the Preservation
of Mediocre Guitar Playing on Expensive Instruments, Ltd.

Q: B-Band vs. Highlander

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Q: B-Band vs. Highlander
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:15:45 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

I have not yet heard both a Highlander and a B-band in the same
instrument. In order to make a somewhat reasonable comparison,
I had a friend come over who has the smallbody cedar-top Taylor
(514C?) with a Highlander installed in it, and we compared his
tone to that of my Olson SJ with the B-band. We compared the
tones flat into my mixer. We both significantly
preferred the B-band. The Highlander is a great piezo pickup,
and this one was expertly installed by Eric Aceto. That a
B-band (installed by an amateur---me!) could sound noticably
better than the Highlander speaks highly of the B-band.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

B-Band mic mounting problem [3]

From: David J. MacKenzie <djm@catapult...>
Subject: B-Band mic mounting problem
Date: 11 Aug 1998 09:14:05 -0400
Organization: UUNET Technologies

I have a B-Band pickup with the mic. It keeps slipping in the flimsy
cheap mounting bracket they supplied, causing it to point in random
directions and distances when I move the guitar. Also, one of the
other mounting brackets, which was used to bundle the wires along the
side of the guitar, lost the stickiness on its adhesive pad and fell
off inside.

Is there a better way to mount these things?

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band mic mounting problem
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:49:29 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

In article <<lopve7acf6.fsf@catapult...>>,
<djm@catapult...> (David J. MacKenzie) wrote:

> I have a B-Band pickup with the mic. It keeps slipping in the flimsy
> cheap mounting bracket they supplied, causing it to point in random
> directions and distances when I move the guitar. Also, one of the
> other mounting brackets, which was used to bundle the wires along the
> side of the guitar, lost the stickiness on its adhesive pad and fell
> off inside.
>
> Is there a better way to mount these things?

I suggest buying some double stick tape for the bracket that has come off,
as the wood interior of the guitar sometimes does not provide the best
surface, and all of the pick-up manufacturers have this problem with their
mounting brackets. Any business supply store will sell double stick tape
"squares."

In terms of the mic mount, I have emailed with EMF to improve this set-up.
This may happen, we shall see. Meanwhile, there is a very easy solution
that you should consider.....I personally use the mic mount that Fishman
sells, and if you go this route you will need to remove the exterior
"shrink wrap" on the last two inches of the mic wire, along with the small
wire insert that is used for rigidity. This removal is quite simple, all
you need is a sharp exacto knife a bit of care. It will take you about 3
minutes. Removing the "wrap" will simply expose the wire insert, it will
come right out. If you leave on the last 1/2 inch of "wrap," the mic will
fit snugly into the clip part of the mic mount. I use the Fishman mic
mount for the Mills mics as well, and this requires wrapping electrical
tape around the mic wire up by the capsule so that the diameter is
appropriate to fit in the area that holds the mic. I hear that Joe has a
new mic mount system himself, and it may parallel the Fishman product.

Fishman Internal Mic Mount (#ACC-BLE-MNT) retails for $19.95, for anyone
with this problem I would be happy to increase my supply of these and
re-sell them for $13, which will include Priority Mail delivery. I have
half a dozen or so of these mounts here right now. If you can get them at
a local retailer (rather than relying on me) I would appreciate it, I don't
have a lot of time to mess around with the retail stuff these days. I will
help if called upon.

All the best,

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

"It's not the years, it's the miles." (Indiana Jones)

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band mic mounting problem
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:17:22 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

At 12:56 PM -0600 8/11/98, Larry Pattis wrote:
>In article <<lopve7acf6.fsf@catapult...>>,
><djm@catapult...> (David J. MacKenzie) wrote:
>
>> I have a B-Band pickup with the mic. It keeps slipping in the flimsy
>> cheap mounting bracket they supplied, causing it to point in random
>> directions and distances when I move the guitar. Also, one of the
>> other mounting brackets, which was used to bundle the wires along the
>> side of the guitar, lost the stickiness on its adhesive pad and fell
>> off inside.
>>
>> Is there a better way to mount these things?
>
>
>I suggest buying some double stick tape for the bracket that has come off,
>as the wood interior of the guitar sometimes does not provide the best
>surface, and all of the pick-up manufacturers have this problem with their
>mounting brackets. Any business supply store will sell double stick tape
>"squares."
>
>In terms of the mic mount, I have emailed with EMF to improve this set-up.
>This may happen, we shall see. Meanwhile, there is a very easy solution
>that you should consider.....I personally use the mic mount that Fishman
>sells, and if you go this route you will need to remove the exterior
>"shrink wrap" on the last two inches of the mic wire, along with the small
>wire insert that is used for rigidity. This removal is quite simple, all
>you need is a sharp exacto knife a bit of care. It will take you about 3
>minutes. Removing the "wrap" will simply expose the wire insert, it will
>come right out. If you leave on the last 1/2 inch of "wrap," the mic will
>fit snugly into the clip part of the mic mount. I use the Fishman mic
>mount for the Mills mics as well, and this requires wrapping electrical
>tape around the mic wire up by the capsule so that the diameter is
>appropriate to fit in the area that holds the mic. I hear that Joe has a
>new mic mount system himself, and it may parallel the Fishman product.
>
>Fishman Internal Mic Mount (#ACC-BLE-MNT) retails for $19.95, for anyone
>with this problem I would be happy to increase my supply of these and
>re-sell them for $13, which will include Priority Mail delivery. I have
>half a dozen or so of these mounts here right now. If you can get them at
>a local retailer (rather than relying on me) I would appreciate it, I don't
>have a lot of time to mess around with the retail stuff these days. I will
>help if called upon.
>
>Larry

David,

I missed a few things on my original post. First of all, EMF provides
about 10 of these clips, you definitely should use 2 or 3 to hold their mic
in place. What you are describing has me believe that you are only using
one of these clips on the mic. If you use 2 (or more) of them your problem
will simply go away.

Secondly, my friend Elizabeth Papapetrou gently pointed out that to use the
Fishman mount, one does not necessarily have to remove the shrink wrap,
as I described. I do prefer it that way, but that is my issue, not
yours!!!

Thirdly, I heard from EMF and it appears the the mic mount will be changed
along with the new battery cap/clip arrangement. I feel that EMF is doing
a terrific job with a new product, and I hope that any current customers
agree. Email me if there is some help you might need with the EMF gear.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

"It's not the years, it's the miles." (Indiana Jones)

noisy b-band problems

From: <joeizzy@my-dejanews...>
Subject: Re: noisy b-band problems
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:18:28 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

In article <<mike-0508981353030001@mueckler...>>,
  mike@cellbio.wustl.edu wrote:
> I had a similar problem with a B band installed in my Collings OM2H, and
> the EMF folks admitted there was a problem with some of the units they
> have shipped. I don't know exactly what the problem was with the unit I
> had, but they told the Luthier who did the installation that if the
> battery was put in the wrong way, some component in the B-band would
> fail. I don't know if that caused my problem or not or whether they are
> correcting the battery problem, but they certainly should correct it since
> it is easy to accidently install a 9V battery with the polarity reversed.
>

I installed Mike's b-band, I was totaly unfamiliar w/ this p/u. When I
unpacked it, the transducer was bent @ a right angle about 1/8" from the plug
to the pre-amp. I didn't think this was good but..... I installed it and got
it working with some diffuclty. A few days later I had the guitar back and
the pickup was not working at all. I e-mailed EMF about the problem, they got
back in touch in a couple of hours w/ the answers to the problem. Also they
send a file about the battery clip/polarity problem. They sent us a new
pickup & pre-amp.. As luck would have it, (due to lack of communication on my
part) it was a 1/8" trancducer instead of 3/32". I e-mailed them @ about
6P.M. CDT and got a reply by 9P.M. They had Larry Pattis Express Mail a 3/32"
one to me on Sunday. Heikki @ EMF was great, right on top of things w/
better, faster service than anyone has a right to expect. Larry got the p/u
to me much faster than I had expected. They turned what could have been an
unpleasant experience into as good as it could be. I was pleasantly suprised.
 The b-band sounds very good. Much better than any other under saddle p/u
I've heard. It sound much more like the guitar does unamplified than the
Martin Thinline that was in it. I expect to be seeing a lot more of these in
the future.
 Joe,
Mendel's Fretted Instrument Repair

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

My experiences with the B-Band pickup [2]

From: John <ccm_touchesNOSPAM@hotmail...>
Subject: My experiences with the B-Band pickup
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:55:31 -0400

There have been lot's of good reviews on the B-Band on rmmga, and I
thought I'd put in my .02 worth, fwiw.

I ordered a B-Band pickup from First Quality Musical Supply and
recieved the pickup in a couple of days. The cost was 80 dollars for
the b-band pickup and Core preamp. Installation was a breeze. Took
about 30 minutes total. Unfortunately, the model I received was prone
to failure if the battery was accidentally connected in reverse
polarity. This was easy to do since the battery connections were not
keyed. So, my preamp fried and died.

I called FQMS and they were very helpful, saying that the batch of
pickups had been recalled and they would send a new one once they had
the new units in stock, which would be a couple of weeks. Problem is,
I needed it sooner for an upcoming concert.

I proceeded to Email EMF Acoustics in Finland, explaining my dilemma,
and within an hour or so received a reply from Heikki at EMF who said
they had just shipped out replacements to the US distributor, but he
was shipping me a unit directly to my home via UPS because of my need.
I Later recieved a call from FQMS asking if I had received the new
pickup yet. I must say that both FQMS and EMF Acoustics bent over
backwards to give excellent customer service.

The new unit arrived today, and installation was super quick because I
had already prepared the hole for the pickup and preamp-endpin jack.
The new battery clip arrangement is quite elegant, it's polarity
keyed, and very easily accessible.

I plugged in to my amplifier and was very pleasantly surprised by the
natural sound of this pickup. In essence, I have never heard anything
like it. I could detect no coloration from the preamp, just pure sweet
acoustic guitar tone. The preamp is perfectly quiet and response
sounds to be quite flat. Amazing. I did not want to put the guitar
down.

There were some problems with string imbalance, but these all but
disappeared after about 5 hours of "settling in" time - when the
bridge pickup itself settles to conform to any slight variations in
the bridge - saddle surfaces. I may tweak the balance a bit if
everything is not perfect after a few days, but this should be no
problem.

I'll sum up this review by saying that FQMS and EMF acoustics were
very courteous and genuinely responsive this customer's needs.
Their product, the B-Band with Core preamp is simply amazing. A joy
to listen to.

I'll give another review after I perform with this thing live at
concert volume.

God Bless,

John Zyla

URL's for these folks are

First Quality Musical Supply - http://www.fqms.com/

EMF Acoustics (Helsinki, Finland) - http://www.b-band.com/emf.htm

From: Bruce Stryd <bstryd@home...>
Subject: Re: My experiences with the B-Band pickup
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:31:52 GMT
Organization: @Home Network Member

As I wrote in my initial posting about my new Thompson (one week old and
still great!), the B-band -- as John says -- is really great, very
neutral. I could even heard the particular "newbie" tone the guitar was
giving off through a house system.

I am curious as to John's experience as concert level. I had my
experience today. And, again, it was simply outstanding. None of that
quacky stuff that was so hard to avoid at high levels. Just very clean.
In fact, my playing partner uses a McIntyre SBT, and his sound was always
so much better than mine with the undersaddle piezo. Not today, I could
here immediately the difference, and the B-band had less non-acoustic
sound the the excellent McIntyre.

It's just a great pickup.

Bruce

John wrote:

> There have been lot's of good reviews on the B-Band on rmmga, and I
> thought I'd put in my .02 worth, fwiw.

<snip....stuff about great service>

>
>
> I'll sum up this review by saying that FQMS and EMF acoustics were
> very courteous and genuinely responsive this customer's needs.
> Their product, the B-Band with Core preamp is simply amazing. A joy
> to listen to.
>
> I'll give another review after I perform with this thing live at
> concert volume.

Another B-band rave

From: Mark Blanchard <markath@qnet...>
Subject: Another B-band rave
Date: 16 Sep 98 13:50:05 GMT

I just put a B-band/core rig in my personal instrument and am very
impressed. It's the most natural sounding under saddle transducer I have
ever heard. Installation was a snap and I have no problems at all with
string to string balance. I'm hooked!!

Mark

--
Mark Blanchard
Blanchard Guitars
Mammoth Lakes, CA
http://www.qnet.com/~markath/blanchard.guitars.htm

B-Band Balance on a 12? (was: pocket blender phantom power) [2]

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Balance on a 12? (was: pocket blender phantom power)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:01:40 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

In article <<3609048A.7D58D8B8@Juno...>>, "George C. Kaschner"
<<GeoKasch@Juno...>> wrote:

> <mikecloud@my-dejanews...> wrote:
>
> > I have a b-band and core in my twelve string...
>
> Mike, I am confident that your Pocket Blender questions will be answered in
> sufficient depth by the authorities (Larry, Tom, and Ville) so I'll take the
> liberty of turning the corner on this thread...
>
> Given that the B-Band is fairly sensitive to string pressure with respect to
> balance, how well is the system working out on your 12-string? I'm
coming close
> to commissioning a 12 and have been contemplating the issue of how the strings
> whould break over the saddle for best B-Band Balance: 1) set the octave
strings
> closest to the saddle, 2) set the octave strings closer to the tailblock,
or 3)
> use a tailpiece such that all strings have the same angle. Of course, in
either
> situation 1 or 2, the angle can be moderated by slotting the bridge
between the
> pins and saddle.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
>
> Go for the tone,
>
> George

George,

I'd stay away from the tailpiece idea, just on general GFTT
("ka-ching"...sound of cash register, opening to pay George his royalty)
principles. Interesting question however, and I can't say that my
knowledge of B-band will give an accurate assessment of the situation...

...it seems (in my mind...) that the octave strings (with lower tension)
would be best suited closest to the saddle, so the angle (and downward
force) would be greater. This doesn't help with the b and e strings which
are paired and not octave...hmmm...

I'd repeat to you my advice to Mike, especially since I don't have
B-band/12 string experience...email EMF and ask them if they have seen any
balance issues that might relate to bridge pin placement on 12
strings....I'd guess that the answer is "no," but it sure can't hurt to
ask. The EMF web page, for those that missed my last post, is
http://www.b-band.com.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Balance on a 12? (was: pocket blender phantom power)
Date: 24 Sep 1998 16:19:32 +0300
Organization: TUT

"George C. Kaschner" <<GeoKasch@Juno...>> writes:

>> Interesting question however, and I can't say that my
>> knowledge of B-band will give an accurate assessment of the
>> situation...
>>
>> ...it seems (in my mind...) that the octave strings (with lower
>> tension) would be best suited closest to the saddle, so the angle
>> (and downward force) would be greater. This doesn't help with the
>> b and e strings which are paired and not octave...hmmm...
>
> That was my first impression too - coming from piezo-experience.
> Then I thought I remembered Ville describing the setup tweaking
> procedure as contrary to the Old Knowledge - to _lessen_ the
> pressure on strings that needed to rise in the mix. Ratz. I
> absolutely _hate_ having to think. ;/

Yeah, thinking is a pain. Just got a serious overdose last night. See
the Feiten thread and you'll understand...

The pressure on the b-band can be either too small or too large. If
the mechanical contact with bone and wood isn't very good, either
increasing the pressure or some other way of improving the contact
will increase the signal.

If the pressure is too high, the condenser element in the b-band will
not be able to move properly, resulting in low signal level. The cure
is obvious, but how to actually do it might be a task.

In general, the key to getting a balanced signal is
 a) to make sure nothing prevents the mechanical contact. That is, the
 bone & it's slot are tight, clean and smooth.
 b) arrange things in such a way, that the all the strings exert
 equal downward pressure on the saddle throughout the saddle.
Now, with a 12-string, I have a hunch (as usual, based on absolutely
no experimental data at all :-), that the string _pairs_, being pretty
close together and leaning on the stiff piece of bone, are not
terribly likely to cause much trouble. (Nevertheless, I'd make sure,
that the strings with lower tension have the greater break angle.)

But since you have the opportunity to design the whole bridge, I'd
suggest another approach. If you don't mind that pins aren't
necessarily in a perfectly straight line, arrange them so, that each
of the six pairs will produce roughly equal downward pressure.

That is, get a set of D'Addarios (or any other brand that lists the
string tension in pitch), and by simple application of trigonometry,
calculate what the break angles would need to be in order to achieve a
relatively constant saddle pressure throughout.

In my own guitar, no two adjacent strings are terribly far away from
each other, but getting the low E and B even on the same ballpark was
tough. I still haven't been able to get it quite right. That's because
my bridge geometry is just about the worst possible for B-Band - very
low break angle for the low-tension B, extremely sharp turn for the
heavy E.

Don't worry about the last decimal though - you'll be switching
tunings and string gauges anyway. If you wish to play it safe, a quick
error prediction analysis using the ideal string formula might not be
a bad idea.

Since you are one of the few ones in this group who might actually
have a clue what I'm talking about, I'll add the following formula
which I once derived for Tom and the EMF guys. (And after which I
began tho get hints of job offers from them :-) It might help you if
you decide to play with the error analysis a little.
                   A
        dS = C --------- dF
               Mi + M(F)
Where
	  dS = AC component of b-band output signal
	   F = downward pressure on the saddle (constant part)
	  dF = time-varying part of F, that is, the vibrating string
	   C = proportionality constant
	   A = effective area of contact between b-band and bone
	      (that is, a measure of goodness of the mechanical contact)
	Mi   = b-band material constant (ideal part, theoretically
	       linear function of temperature only)
	M(F) = b-band material function (pressure dependent part)
Now, if M(F) were identically zero, the pickup would behave as is the
condenser plates were separated by ideal gas (or some other infinitely
linearly compressible material. If it was ideal gas, pV = nRT == Mi).
And we wouldn't need to worry about any balance problems at all.

But since in reality the material is a mixture of air bubbles and
plastic, we have to live with the pressure dependent part too. M(F)
will approach infinity as the pressure is increased, eventually
blocking all b-band signal. Now, you're the materials guy, so I'll
leave it to you to figure something more explicit to replace Mi +
M(F).

Please e-mail me if you can think of something. Somehow I suspect that
the b-band pressure ailment isn't a linear one.

GFTT (uwp)
	Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"iki.fi ("at"=@) http://www.iki.fi/vnummela/
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

pocket blender phantom power

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: pocket blender phantom power
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:23:17 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Mike-

Simple answer: Follow Larry's advice. I don't believe the power
will hurt the Core preamp, but you might as well check since
the EMF folks are so helpful about this kind of thing.

The more technical answer has a bit of an ironic twist to it:

Pretty much every battery operated preamp in existence has an
output capacitor to block DC. The reason is that the signal
produced by the transducer is AC, and fluctuates above and
below zero volts (zero volts being defined by the ground/shield
wire). But the preamp is powered by a battery, which only
provides positive voltage (with respect to the ground wire)
to play with. So the preamp itself actually has its transistors
biased roughly at half the battery voltage (4.5 V)---the "reference
voltage" is redefined so the preamp can handle the upward and
downward signal level fluctuations. To prevent this bias voltage
from possibly overloading whatever you plug the output
into, the designer puts a capacitor in the output that lets
through only the AC part, and blocks the DC. Ironically,
the Pocket Blender provides about 4.5V phantom power for
similar reasons (it's battery powered, and is thus internally
biased around 4.5V)---the voltage that the Core's capacitor
is blocking is just the voltage the phantom power supply would
have provided! The mic element's output FET is not as sophisticated
as the rest of the Core preamp and is probably not biased at
exactly half the battery voltage, but it's the same basic idea---
and they note specifically on their web page (see the
"Modifications for CR2AG" page under "Instructions") that there
is a DC blocking capacitor at the mic output when you power
the mic from the Core.

There is something to worry just a bit about, though. The
capacitors used for this are usually polarized---they want the
voltage at the end attached to the raw preamp output to be
higher than that at the actual output jack. If you applied
6 or 15V phantom power (via a Rane AP13, for example),
there is a small posibility for damage or reduced life
of the capacitor, because it is then reverse-polarized. Using the
lower voltage from a PB makes the DC voltage across it zero, so there
is no worry about damage. These capacitors do distort more if
they are not operated with a nonzero bias across them, so
in the golden-eared audiophile sense you will reduce the
performance if you turn on the phantom power. But this
level of distortion is probably small compared to that already
in the signal due to the limitations of transducers, so this
really should be no concern (and you will usually have the
power off anyway!).

If you are really concerned about this and don't
plan on ever needing the phantom power, it's trivial to disable
it in the Blender. The power is provided via a single couple-kilohm
resistor; remove that resistor and it's permanently off. I have
a Blender and can tell you which resistor to remove, but it's
not a Pocket Blender so that doesn't really help you. But
someone with pretty minimal electronics experience should be
able to look in your PB and identify the resistor in a couple
minutes. It can be clipped out from the top, or unsoldered
from the bottom. But it really isn't worth the trouble.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Review: EMF B-Band Piezo Replacement System

From: Rocky Jones <70X7rocky_jones@hotmail...>
Subject: Review: EMF B-Band Piezo Replacement System
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 08:12:18 GMT
Organization: Structured Network Systems, Inc.

Howdy y'all!

Some time ago (approx. 6 mos.) I chatted with Heikki at EMF regarding
the need for a B-Band piezo replacement. Knowing the number of Taylor,
Martin, etc. users with a Fishman Prefix system cut into the side, I
recommended they actively pursue coming up with a B-Band replacement.
Heikki liked the idea and told me they'd check into an inexpensive
solution.

About a month or two later, Heikki informed me that they were actively
producing a prototype and requested that I be a beta-tester. "No
problem!" So, after arranging shipment in June, I received 2 B-Band
P.R. (Piezo Replacement) systems in July.

Upon arrival, the instrument I had planned on installing the P.R. into
had been sold. So, after waiting for a month, I decided to install one
of the P.R.'s into my son's Baby Taylor. The following comments are
based upon this installation in comparison to 3 other B-Band/Core
installations, particularly my most recent on a Bourgeois.

PARTS:
  1) B-Band element, connected to...
  2) 1st-Stage Preamp housed in a small rectangular metal box, with a
3M interlocking fastener (like Velcro, but much better), with...
  3) Coax Output Wire (hot,gnd), and...
  4) Battery Connection Wires (+,-)
PLAN:
  1) Install the B-Band P.R. in conjunction with an L.R.Baggs
Microdrive Preamp
  2) Install the B-Band P.R. direct, without the Baggs unit.
INSTALLATION:
  Without getting into too many details, the installation was pretty
straight forward. If you have any experience installing or modifying
guitar electronics, then this would be considered a piece-of-cake.
  Basically, there are 3 procedures:
  1) Install the B-Band element under the saddle (Note: If you're
currently using a piezo element, you may have to add shims to maintain
the same saddle height, due to the thinness of the B-Band).
  2) Solder the battery wires (+,-) and the signal leads (hot,gnd) to
the existing preamp.
  3) Secure the 1st-Stage Preamp housed in a lightweight 1" x 1.5"
metal box within the instrument, using the included 3M fastener mat'l.

SONIC RESULTS:
  1) Overall...
        VERY impressive! Tonally very similar to the other B-Band
installations I've accomplished. DRAMATICALLY improved the tone of the
Baby Taylor, adding increased bottom end, highs, and overall clarity
and richness; yet, at the same time, it still retained the character
of the Baby T.. In the past, I've SOMEWHAT enjoyed playing my son's
Baby T., but after the installation I THOROUGHLY enjoyed the tonal
character plugged in!
  2) With the L.R.Baggs Microdrive...
        Output & tone equals that of the B-Band/Core units I use and
have used in the past.
  3) Without the Baggs unit...
        Output lower (guessing -10db); sounds somewhat "woodier"
(could just be my imagination due to the lower output); very similar
output level to a non-preamped piezo (ala Baggs LB6, Martin 332, or
McIntyre). However, it's usable by itself without a preamp because the
high impedance of the B-Band element has been compensated by the
1st-Stage Preamp which is part of the system.

CLOSING COMMENTS:
  After the installation, I e-mailed Heikki with my comments.
Unfortunately, they were not received until I resent them again
earlier this week. Apparently my original e-mailing was lost in
cyberspace. Regarding my comments, my assessment was that, apart from
a problem of not including a mate for the 3M fastener, the product was
excellent! Unfortunately, because of the lack of response over the
amount of time that elapsed, it appears that EMF has put the P.R.
product on the back burner.

If the P.R. sounds like the sort of thing you're interested in, then
I'd recommend visiting the EMF page (http://www.b-band.com/) and
e-mailing them. My feeling is that the P.R. is a valuable product, and
well worth the tonal improvement in swapping out the Matrixes & Ribbon
Transducers that have been installed in a multitude of flattops.
However, that's JMHO.

Disclaimer: I, incidently, have no relationship to the folks at EMF
other than the fact that I genuinly like the sound of their B-Band PU.
Besides that, I have no "kick-backs", nor have I been pursuaded to
sell or endorse their products; just a pleased end-user.

Have fun, and e-mail me if you have any questions.

Blessings in Jesus,
Rocky Jones

2bSPAMfree: Remove the "70X7" in the address.

*** Simply follow Jesus, simply! (Acts 2:42) ***

Saddle Pickups: LR Baggs versus Fishman?

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Saddle Pickups: LR Baggs versus Fishman?
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 17:06:32 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

In article <70ikp3$<1ek@drn...>>, <bob_goldschmidt@rocketmail...> wrote:

> Hi All:
>
> I am going to retrofit my old Guild D40 acoustic with a pickup. I have heard
> differing opinions about which one to get. There are even differing
opinions in
> the recent November issue of Acoustic Guitar Mag in the article re: acoustic
> amplification.
>
> So, any opinions as to whether I should go with the Fishman Matric Natural or
> the LR Baggs ribbon transducer system? Or anything else? I want something
> unobtrusive .. I will not be punching new holes in my ax.
>
> Email replies are appreciated if possible.
>
> Thanks. Bob Goldschmidt
> <bob_goldschmidt@rocketmail...>

Perhaps you didn't see the section where AG reviewed the EMF Acoustics
B-Band, where it is clearly stated, "The B-Band may be the most
natural-sounding under-saddle pickup available. Even before I blended in
the mic, the pickup produced a very satisfying tone, almost completely void
of the "quacky" attack that piezo pickups are often criticized for." They
neglected to say that the B-band is available without the internal
microphone.

If you know anything about AG magazine, they are constantly protecting
their advertising dollars, and their fairly direct comments actually
suprised me. As a player, the B-Band IS the most natural sounding saddle
element. I have tried them all.

Unfortunately for the AG readership, their comments about the 45 degree
saddle slot hole (for installation) are actually innaccurate. If a
straight through hole (90 degree) is already present, "feathering" the side
of the hole is all that is needed, just so there is not a hard "break"
where the pickup element changes direction from coming up through the
guitar to laying in the saddle slot. And if you are starting from scratch,
a lesser (that is, greater that 45 degrees) degree hole can be used on any
guitar with this feathering technique if there is a brace in the way. AG
also neglected to mention that the Baggs Ribbon and Highlander actually
MUST have a 45 degree angle, as these elements are so thick that the
feathering solution for the B-band will not work.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"

B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle [4]

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle
Date: 04 Dec 1998 16:25:06 +0200
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology

<thissong@pclink...> (Tim Helmen) writes:

> I've ha d B-band in my Taylor 712 for a few months now, and I stillcan't
> seem to get the balance right. The low E and A are not as hot as the rest
> of the strings. However, they do have a more pleasing tone to me--more
> woody, less quack.
>
> Would those who have looked into the B-band in more depth help me out here?
> I think, if I remember previous conversations, that this slightly lower
> output but more "woody" tone (the tone B-band ravers seems to fall in love
> with) would be the result of more pressure on these strings. This would
> make sense because the Taylor's arc arrangement of bridge pins mean these
> two strings have the sharpest downward angle. Or am I getting that all
> wrong?

Your reasoning seems correct to me.

> Anyway, I was thinking of trying a Fishman Cleartone saddle--the one with
> the keyhole cutouts. It seems like this might direct more pressure to all
> strings, since the total pressure of the string would now be applied to a
> smaller total area underneath the saddle. I figure at the very least, it
> will be easier to make adjustments to individuals strings (by filing,
> shimming, etc) if the "pedestals" are aleady separated.]
>
> Has anyone had any experience using the Cleartone saddle to deal with B-band
> balance problems?

I've never seen or heard of the Cleartone before, but the keyhole
cutouts seem pretty similar to my new saddle, which was installed a
few weeks ago. That is, the saddle is almost cut into pieces in
between each string. Looks like a row of teeth.

I too have the bridge pins in an arc in my guitar, and following that,
the break angle is greater for E and A. The result is the same too;
the two bass strings are quieter than the others. I've had the same
problem right from the beginning, and I just plain seem to be stuck
with it. No amount of filing, shimming, arching the bottom or the new
kind of saddle has really cured it. From this I've concluded that the
real source of trouble is the uneven pressure between the strings, and
the only way to get rid of it is to replace the entire bridge with a
new no-arc design.

I'm pretty confident in saying this, since together with luthier Juha
Lottonen and Mr. Heikki Raisanen (of EMF Acoustics Ltd) we've really
done a good deal of experimenting. I was the first rmmga member to
ever install the B-Band, and the propably the first one of all the
beta-testers to notice and report this problem. B-Band just plain is
sensitive to pressure.

I guess you just can't have everything.

Some day I might get around to having Juha re-design my bridge, but
I'm not in a terrible hurry - I can get around the problem by adding
some low frequencies from the condenser mic. (With Rane AP-13.)

GFTT (uwp)
        Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"iki.fi ("at"=@) http://www.iki.fi/vnummela/
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 09:52:19 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

In article <747snj$<bp4@enews2...>>, <thissong@pclink...> (Tim
Helmen) wrote:

> I've ha d B-band in my Taylor 712 for a few months now, and I stillcan't
> seem to get the balance right. The low E and A are not as hot as the rest
> of the strings. However, they do have a more pleasing tone to me--more
> woody, less quack.
>
> Would those who have looked into the B-band in more depth help me out here?
> I think, if I remember previous conversations, that this slightly lower
> output but more "woody" tone (the tone B-band ravers seems to fall in love
> with) would be the result of more pressure on these strings. This would
> make sense because the Taylor's arc arrangement of bridge pins mean these
> two strings have the sharpest downward angle. Or am I getting that all
> wrong?
>
> Anyway, I was thinking of trying a Fishman Cleartone saddle--the one with
> the keyhole cutouts. It seems like this might direct more pressure to all
> strings, since the total pressure of the string would now be applied to a
> smaller total area underneath the saddle. I figure at the very least, it
> will be easier to make adjustments to individuals strings (by filing,
> shimming, etc) if the "pedestals" are aleady separated.]
>
> Has anyone had any experience using the Cleartone saddle to deal with B-band
> balance problems?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim Helmen
> <thissong@pclink...>
> http://www.pclink.com/thissong

Tim,

As Ville Nummela has gone to great lengths to explain (I still don't "get
it"), the B-band can have "quieter" strings due to either less OR mpre
pressure needed at any given string. With an old style piezo pick-up, the
quiter strings would always respond to adding pressure, the B-band can
somehow, depending on "your guitar," need either more or less pressure for
the quiter strings to get the volume balanced. This requires a bit more
patience (well worth it, IMO) and experimenting to get your set-up perfect.
You don't mention what you have tried, so I can't suggest a remedy for your
quiet E and A strings, other than to try adding pressure first (easier!) by
simply adding a couple of layers of "post-it note" sticky section right
over the B-band element under both the E and A string. I would do this
with one (well, two layers) continuous paper, all the way from the edge of
the saddle slot to half-way between the A and D string. This "post-it
note" suggestion appeared on rmmga some time ago (thank you, whoever it
was!), and is a very good solution.

The "opposite" of the above solution (one way to do this, anyway) would be
to add a bit of thickness under all the other strings in the same fashion.

I have had several guitars that needed no adjustment, a couple with the
"normal" "add pressure to correct a quiet string," and only one where less
pressure was needed under a quiet string.

Regardless of my above commentary, I am also very interested in anyone
having experience with the Fishman saddle, yourself included, if you decide
to experiment.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"

From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle
Date: 05 Dec 1998 16:28:30 +0200
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology

<abuse@127...> (Larry Pattis) writes:

> Tim,
>
> As Ville Nummela has gone to great lengths to explain (I still don't "get
> it"), the B-band can have "quieter" strings due to either less OR mpre
> pressure needed at any given string.

Ailment 1: Bad mechanical contact = B-band does not rest firmly against the
saddle bone and/or the wood beneath it --> saddle bone is unable to
properly transfer the string vibration to b-band --> low sound level.

Cure: Improve the contact. Usually adding a little pressure is
enough. A piece of a post-it note is perfect for this.

Ailment 2: Too much pressure. The mechanical contact is good, but for
some reason the static downward pressure of one or more of the strings
is so big, that the b-band gets squeezed immobile.

Imagine a Japanese sumo wrestler sitting on your chest. You might have
a little trouble breathing, eh? Similarly, the b-band element needs
"room" to breathe. If pressed too hard, it can no longer readily
respond to the vibrations. The b-band element, despite being extremely
thin, is designed to be a cushion that gives in a little as the
strings vibrate. It is this minuscule motion that gets amplified. No
motion --> no sound.

Cure: Lessen the pressure.

If you suspect the latter, first check that the saddle slot is
perfectl clean and smooth. The tiniest speck of dust or bump can
nearly mute a string.

If the offending string(s) are not completely dead, you can try adding
post-it under other strings, filing away under the quiet string,
filing the bottom of the bone to the shape of an arc along the bone,
or whatever you can think of. Sometimes this is enough to do the
trick.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is not. If the difference in pressure is
really large, no easy trick will cure it. Under great tension, the
seemingly rigid bone will eventually give in and find itself a new
more comfortable shape. And then you're back where you started.
Besides, post-it pieces can only redirect some of the pressure
somewhere else - not lessen it!

The important parameter in this case is the string break angle. That
is, the angle the string has to bend itself to when it crosses the
saddle and starts toward the pin. A tight curve will exert a great
amount of downward pressure:
	pressure_on_b-band = string_tension * sin( break_angle )
A guitar with it's bridge pins in an arc will often bring the bass
strings' pins very near the saddle. Requiring the strings to make a
sharp bend. There's little one can do about the string tension
(assuming one wants to play the guitar in tune), but one can try to
modify the bridge to lessen the break angle some way.

> I have had several guitars that needed no adjustment, a couple with the
> "normal" "add pressure to correct a quiet string," and only one where less
> pressure was needed under a quiet string.

Yes, fortunately few guitars have major trouble with b-band.

> Regardless of my above commentary, I am also very interested in anyone
> having experience with the Fishman saddle, yourself included, if you decide
> to experiment.

If the one Juha made me is similar to a Cleartone, I rather doubt
there is much of a difference. For a conventional piezo (which, I've
been told, responds to sideways rocking rather than downward pressure)
it might be benefiacial. A well-installed b-band is clear enough by
itself. As yet I've failed to notice any difference, though I admit I
haven't played an amplified gig with the new saddle yet. (There will
be one this Wednesday.)

The saddle was changed because I needed to adjust the action and the
intonation a little bit. Juha simply wanted to try the keyslot cuts
too, and as I could not see any harm in it, I said OK.

GFTT (uwp)
        Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"iki.fi ("at"=@) http://www.iki.fi/vnummela/
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/

From: sleepy <nospam@dummyaddresshere...>
Subject: Re: B-band and Fishman Cleartone Saddle
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 16:13:06 -0500
Organization: Bilateral symmetry

Tim Helmen wrote:
>
> I've ha d B-band in my Taylor 712 for a few months now, and I stillcan't
> seem to get the balance right.
>
> Anyway, I was thinking of trying a Fishman Cleartone saddle--the one with
> the keyhole cutouts.

OK, the short answer -- yes, I'm using one, and the balance on my B-band
is much improved.

On that basis I'd say yeah, get one and try it -- it was not in itself a
cure, but it did make it easier to experiment with shimming, and I
finally achieved a balance I can live with.

One thing that helps is to record a .wav file after each experiment so
you can view the amplitude of each string graphically ( I used DOP, but
any wave editing software will do).

Hope this helps -- good luck, I had the same experience with the B-band,
it took a long time to get it working acceptably. The Cleartone does
help.

Taylor Electronics

From: <knucklehead25@my-dejanews...>
Subject: Re: Taylor Electronics
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:44:55 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

I agree with Tom to the degree that this is a highly subjective issue.
However, it does amaze me that the same 7 people boast the wonders of b-band
pickup throughout this news group. After reading the many references, I went
and had one installed in my taylor 514C and was surprisingly dissapointed
with it. I put the Fishman back in and explored what other options their
product line offered. I run it through a Baggs para DI and I don't think you
could get a better tone if you tried.
 In article <370200DB.61B9@busted.flush>,
  McGee@busted.flush wrote:
> Tom Loredo wrote:
> >
> > Dr. J.D. Milman wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I've heard that the Taylor Fishman electronics aren't very good.
> >
> > Opinions vary on this highly subjective issue, but having heard
> > Taylors with Fishman and other electronics (in at least one case
> > the same guitar, updated to a Highlander + Panasonic internal mic),
> > I must say that the Fishman stuff is acceptable, but you can
> > easily do better. And if you don't need anything now, in 6 months
> > or a year you can probably do still better. Keep an eye on EMF
> > and the B-band line http://www.b-band.com/, though there are
> > other options that are superior to Fishman as well (Baggs, Highlander).
> >
> > Peace,
> > Tom Loredo
>
> I recently got a new 714ce and I must agree. The guitar itself is top
> notch, but the electronics on my Ovation are better than the Fishman
> Blender. It's not bad, but I feel it's just not up to the quality of
> the guitar.
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own