RAVENFORGE

MEASUREMENT & VALIDATION RESEARCH LOG — C01

C01 — Pickup Position FFT Mapping

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
|sin(nπr)| spatial weighting0.00.10.20.30.40.512345678r = d/L

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.

Pluck–pickup signal path
Pluck q/L×Pickup d/L→Magnetic transfer→Fixed load→Modal spectrum

4. Finite sensing aperture

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
finite-aperture envelopeW/L=0.02W/L=0.05W/L=0.1harmonic order n

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
exact bin vs local modal peakfrequency

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.

C01 measurement workflow
Geometry→Stabilize→Repeatable pluck→Specified load→Record→Modal tracking→Compare→Uncertainty

8. Uncertainty and repeatability

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.

9. Myth audit

ClaimVerdict
Bridge pickup always produces more harmonicsNeeds correction
sin(nπd/L) is the complete pickup outputIdeal-model only
An ideal node guarantees zero real outputNot guaranteed
Housing width equals sensing widthUnsupported
Finite width always moves the nodeIncorrect for symmetric baseline
Fretting leaves weighting unchangedIncorrect
Multiscale pickup slant automatically compensates scaleUnsupported
Reading exact n·f₀ bins is sufficientIncorrect
Zero-padding raises true frequency resolutionIncorrect
96 kHz is always more accurateUnsupported as universal claim
Hₙ/H₁ is always sufficient normalizationConditional
One pluck is enough for validationInsufficient
Mohamad 3.53 mm is a manufacturing toleranceIncorrect use of evidence

10. Current RavenForge design position

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.