Validating pickup-position spatial sampling through repeatable spectral measurement and explicit uncertainty analysis
Translate the A02 pickup-position spatial-sampling model into an empirical measurement protocol. C01 does not treat sin(nπd/L) as complete pickup output; it separates excitation, finite sensing aperture, magnetic transduction, string non-ideality and electrical loading, then tests whether a repeatable position signature survives in the measured modal spectrum.
1. Research question and measurement boundary
For an ideal fixed-end string, the point-sensor spatial factor is Hpos(n)=sin(nπd/L). It is a geometric factor, not the complete pickup output. Real measurements also contain plucking position, sensing aperture, magnetic field, electrical transfer and time-dependent decay.
Geometry coordinate model
Bridgesensing centernut / fret
d = bridge → sensing center→r = d/L
Figure 1. d from bridge to sensing center, speaking length L, and normalized coordinate r=d/L. Record dᵢ and Lᵢ per string for slanted or multiscale layouts.
2. Ideal spatial weighting and nodes
The ideal node condition is r=m/n. A real pickup, however, has finite magnetic aperture and a potentially asymmetric field, so an exact zero output is not guaranteed. The plot below is calculated |sin(nπr)|, not measured RavenForge data.
Spatial weighting model
Geometry r=d/L→Mode sin(nπr)→Weight |sin(nπr)|
Ideal spatial-weighting calculation · not measured data
3. Separate plucking point from pickup point
For ideal triangular initial displacement, the excitation coefficient depends on plucking coordinate q. Under a linearized velocity-sensitive pickup approximation, Vₙ ∝ sin(nπq/L)·sin(nπd/L)/n is a useful baseline. Therefore plucking coordinate and release conditions must be controlled when testing pickup position.
For a general sensitivity kernel g(u), H_g(n)=∫g(u)sin[nπ(d+u)/L]du. A symmetric rectangular kernel produces sinc-like attenuation of higher modes but does not automatically move the central ideal node. Physical housing or pole width must not be equated with effective sensing width.
Finite sensing-aperture model
Point sensor g(u)=δ(u)→Finite kernel g(u)→Spatial average
Finite-aperture response · illustrative ratios
5. Fretting and multiscale
At fret F, L_F=L₀·2^(−F/12) and r_F=d/L_F, so the normalized coordinate migrates. For multiscale instruments calculate rᵢ=dᵢ/Lᵢ for every string. Pickup slant changes dᵢ; it does not automatically compensate for scale-length differences.
Fret and multiscale coordinate migration
Fret F L_F ↓→r_F=d/L_F ↑+Per string rᵢ=dᵢ/Lᵢ
6. Spectral-analysis audit
Do not read only the exact n·f₀ FFT bin. Track the actual local modal peak because leakage, finite records and inharmonicity can move the peak away from the bin center. Zero-padding increases interpolation density but not the physical resolving power of the observation window.
Spectral-analysis workflow
Raw WAV→Onset + window→Local peak search→Amplitude / phase
FFT bin vs local modal peak · illustrative spectrum
7. C01 bench protocol
C01-A should, where possible, move the same pickup so position is the primary changed variable. C01-B keeps the pickup fixed and changes fret to test r_F migration. The A04 electrical load is recorded as a fixed boundary condition rather than a C01 research variable.
Do not impose an arbitrary repeat count or ±dB acceptance limit before a pilot. Estimate pilot variance first and include geometry, pluck coordinate, pickup gap, tuning/speaking length, electrical load/gain, onset/window placement and spectral estimator in the uncertainty budget.
Record pickup placement as a relationship between per-string/per-fret normalized coordinate and measured modal response, not as “neck/bridge equals a tone adjective.” C01 is primarily model validation / parameter estimation; consistent residuals become candidates for later aperture, magnetic-field or boundary-condition studies.
Core evidence: Paiva, Pakarinen & Välimäki, JAES 60(10), 768–782 (2012); Mohamad, Dixon & Harte, JASA 142(6), 3530–3540 (2017), DOI 10.1121/1.5016815; Horton & Moore, AJP 77(2), 144–150 (2009); Lemarquand & Lemarquand, IEEE Trans. Magn. 43(9), 3573–3578 (2007); Harris, Proc. IEEE 66(1), 51–83 (1978). Mohamad’s 3.53 mm is an estimation error, not a manufacturing tolerance.
참고문헌
[1] Paiva, R. C. D.; Pakarinen, J.; Välimäki, V. “Acoustics and Modeling of Pickups.” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 60(10), 768–782 (2012). Peer-reviewed.
[2] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Pickup position and plucking point estimation on an electric guitar via autocorrelation.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(6), 3530–3540 (2017). DOI: 10.1121/1.5016815. Peer-reviewed.
[3] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Estimating Pickup and Plucking Positions of Guitar Tones and Chords with Audio Effects.” Proc. DAFx-17, Edinburgh (2017). Conference paper; used as supporting evidence for persistence of spatial signatures through processed chains.
[4] Horton, N. G.; Moore, T. R. “Modeling the magnetic pickup of an electric guitar.” American Journal of Physics 77(2), 144–150 (2009). DOI: 10.1119/1.2990663.
[5] Lemarquand, G.; Lemarquand, V. “Calculation Method of Permanent-Magnet Pickups for Electric Guitars.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 43(9), 3573–3578 (2007). DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2007.891671.
[6] Harris, F. J. “On the Use of Windows for Harmonic Analysis with the Discrete Fourier Transform.” Proceedings of the IEEE 66(1), 51–83 (1978). DOI: 10.1109/PROC.1978.10837.
[7] Murray, C. J.; Whitfield, S. B. “Inharmonicity in plucked guitar strings.” American Journal of Physics 90, 487–493 (2022). DOI: 10.1119/5.0064373.
[8] “Performance of Acoustic, Electro-Acoustic and Optical Sensors in Precise Waveform Analysis of a Plucked and Struck Guitar String.” Sensors 25(21), 6514 (2025). DOI: 10.3390/s25216514. Peer-reviewed; used for controlled excitation/sensor methodology.
[9] Gràcia, X.; Sanz-Perela, T. “The wave equation for stiff strings and piano tuning.” Reports@SCM 3(1), 1–16 (2017). Mathematical stiff-string reference.
[R1] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A02. “Pickup Position and Harmonic Sampling.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R2] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A04. “Electrical Loading of Passive Pickups.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R3] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A03. “Magnetic Pickups as RLC Systems.” Figure-corrected revision, 2026.
출처 상태 및 해석 범위
[1,2,4–8]은 peer-reviewed journal literature, [3]은 conference proceedings, [9]는 mathematical technical reference다. Figure 2·4·5·6은 문헌에 근거한 RavenForge analytical/illustrative diagrams이며 실측값이 아니다. C01 acceptance threshold와 ASKR/EMBLA/EDDA의 실제 effect size는 prototype measurement 전까지 미확정 상태로 둔다.
References
[1] Paiva, R. C. D.; Pakarinen, J.; Välimäki, V. “Acoustics and Modeling of Pickups.” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 60(10), 768–782 (2012). Peer-reviewed.
[2] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Pickup position and plucking point estimation on an electric guitar via autocorrelation.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(6), 3530–3540 (2017). DOI: 10.1121/1.5016815. Peer-reviewed.
[3] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Estimating Pickup and Plucking Positions of Guitar Tones and Chords with Audio Effects.” Proc. DAFx-17, Edinburgh (2017). Conference paper; supporting evidence for persistence of spatial signatures through processed chains.
[4] Horton, N. G.; Moore, T. R. “Modeling the magnetic pickup of an electric guitar.” American Journal of Physics 77(2), 144–150 (2009). DOI: 10.1119/1.2990663.
[5] Lemarquand, G.; Lemarquand, V. “Calculation Method of Permanent-Magnet Pickups for Electric Guitars.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 43(9), 3573–3578 (2007). DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2007.891671.
[6] Harris, F. J. “On the Use of Windows for Harmonic Analysis with the Discrete Fourier Transform.” Proceedings of the IEEE 66(1), 51–83 (1978). DOI: 10.1109/PROC.1978.10837.
[7] Murray, C. J.; Whitfield, S. B. “Inharmonicity in plucked guitar strings.” American Journal of Physics 90, 487–493 (2022). DOI: 10.1119/5.0064373.
[8] “Performance of Acoustic, Electro-Acoustic and Optical Sensors in Precise Waveform Analysis of a Plucked and Struck Guitar String.” Sensors 25(21), 6514 (2025). DOI: 10.3390/s25216514. Peer-reviewed; controlled excitation/sensor methodology.
[9] Gràcia, X.; Sanz-Perela, T. “The wave equation for stiff strings and piano tuning.” Reports@SCM 3(1), 1–16 (2017). Mathematical stiff-string reference.
[R1] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A02. “Pickup Position and Harmonic Sampling.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R2] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A04. “Electrical Loading of Passive Pickups.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R3] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A03. “Magnetic Pickups as RLC Systems.” Figure-corrected revision, 2026.
Source status / interpretation boundary
[1,2,4–8] are peer-reviewed journal literature; [3] is conference proceedings; [9] is a mathematical technical reference. Figures 2, 4, 5 and 6 are RavenForge analytical/illustrative diagrams grounded in the cited literature, not measured data. Acceptance thresholds and actual ASKR/EMBLA/EDDA effect sizes remain unresolved until prototype measurements exist.
Literatur
[1] Paiva, R. C. D.; Pakarinen, J.; Välimäki, V. “Acoustics and Modeling of Pickups.” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 60(10), 768–782 (2012). Peer-reviewed.
[2] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Pickup position and plucking point estimation on an electric guitar via autocorrelation.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(6), 3530–3540 (2017). DOI: 10.1121/1.5016815. Peer-reviewed.
[3] Mohamad, Z.; Dixon, S.; Harte, C. “Estimating Pickup and Plucking Positions of Guitar Tones and Chords with Audio Effects.” Proc. DAFx-17, Edinburgh (2017). Konferenzbeitrag; ergänzende Evidenz für die Persistenz räumlicher Signaturen in bearbeiteten Signalketten.
[4] Horton, N. G.; Moore, T. R. “Modeling the magnetic pickup of an electric guitar.” American Journal of Physics 77(2), 144–150 (2009). DOI: 10.1119/1.2990663.
[5] Lemarquand, G.; Lemarquand, V. “Calculation Method of Permanent-Magnet Pickups for Electric Guitars.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 43(9), 3573–3578 (2007). DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2007.891671.
[6] Harris, F. J. “On the Use of Windows for Harmonic Analysis with the Discrete Fourier Transform.” Proceedings of the IEEE 66(1), 51–83 (1978). DOI: 10.1109/PROC.1978.10837.
[7] Murray, C. J.; Whitfield, S. B. “Inharmonicity in plucked guitar strings.” American Journal of Physics 90, 487–493 (2022). DOI: 10.1119/5.0064373.
[8] “Performance of Acoustic, Electro-Acoustic and Optical Sensors in Precise Waveform Analysis of a Plucked and Struck Guitar String.” Sensors 25(21), 6514 (2025). DOI: 10.3390/s25216514. Peer-reviewed; kontrollierte Anregungs-/Sensormethodik.
[9] Gràcia, X.; Sanz-Perela, T. “The wave equation for stiff strings and piano tuning.” Reports@SCM 3(1), 1–16 (2017). Mathematische Referenz zur steifen Saite.
[R1] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A02. “Pickup Position and Harmonic Sampling.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R2] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A04. “Electrical Loading of Passive Pickups.” Verified revision, 2026.
[R3] RavenForge / Signal & Transduction Research Log A03. “Magnetic Pickups as RLC Systems.” Figure-corrected revision, 2026.
Quellenstatus / Interpretationsgrenze
[1,2,4–8] sind peer-reviewte Journalquellen, [3] Konferenz-Proceedings und [9] eine mathematisch-technische Referenz. Abbildungen 2, 4, 5 und 6 sind RavenForge-Analysen/Illustrationen auf Basis der Literatur und keine Messdaten. Akzeptanzgrenzen sowie reale Effektgrößen von ASKR/EMBLA/EDDA bleiben bis zu Prototypmessungen offen.