Is “QUACK” just accepted!!!

[KevWind]

Not only "accepted".....Some have taken "Quack" to a whole new level, and made it the featured sound
It is after all ...... "relative" to individual taste

[Tnfiddler]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Not only "accepted".....Some have taken "Quack" to a whole new level, and made it the featured sound
It is after all ...... "relative" to individual taste

Even though it was one of my favorite shows growing up, that sounds right out of Miami Vice!

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Tnfiddler

Even though it was one of my favorite shows growing up, that sounds right out of Miami Vice!

Humm interesting association ... I would not have made that as a connection. But of course we are all different
For me having been a Jan Hammer fan back in the day , pretty hard to beat the Theme

[shufflebeat]

I'll see your Craig Chaquico and raise you a Dave Stewart:

https://youtu.be/86BmSaXZMHw

I think this is more an example of the Ball Bearing Syndrome I mentioned earlier but quality control issues (or DGaF issues) are similar.

That has bothered.me for years, I feel much better getting it out of my system, thank you Doctor.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

I'll see your Craig Chaquico and raise you a Dave Stewart:
I think this is more an example of the Ball Bearing Syndrome I mentioned earlier but quality control issues (or DGaF issues) are similar.

That has bothered.me for years, I feel much better getting it out of my system, thank you Doctor.

Hum? Me thinks more dueling Sax-Tar than quack

See your raise and double down with this for overall quackie'ness

[tbtxaz21]

I am confident I will spend the rest of my life attempting to eradicate quack from my sound.

[Paleolith54]

Originally Posted by Tnfiddler

I may be the outlier here, but I’m SUPER PICKY about the tone of my plugged-in acoustics(D41/K&K, Bourgeois/Lyric) and do everything in my power to get rid of any “quack” I hear when playing. I heard an acoustic player this weekend and his guitar was so quacky and not natural-sounding, AT ALL! Is this just an accepted thing if you have to plug in? I had a pickup(not going to mention the brand and model) in one of my old stage guitars and it was HORRIBLE sounding and so metallic and quacky! It sounded nothing like the guitar did unplugged and I hated using it and bought an 814ce with the ES pickup so I could get it off the stage. Please tell me I’m not the only one who cringes when I hear a quacky acoustic onstage and just accepts it as part of plugging-in!

Three things seem to get missed a lot when this topic is discussed, so:

1. Not all USTs are the same, though an awful lot of people talk as if they are. Whatever Tom Anderson put in my Crowdster sounds fantastic on a loud stage.

2. Learning to properly play a UST pays huge dividends. I can make my Crowdster sound like crap if I don't lighten up my attack. I see lots of folks who don't seem to get that.

3. If the standard for a good acoustic tone is an Olson in a studio into a mic, the whole discussion is pointless. The goal needs to be a good stage tone, and good UST properly played can certainly get you there.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Paleolith54

Three things seem to get missed a lot when this topic is discussed, so:

1. Not all USTs are the same, though an awful lot of people talk as if they are. Whatever Tom Anderson put in my Crowdster sounds fantastic on a loud stage.

2. Learning to properly play a UST pays huge dividends. I can make my Crowdster sound like crap if I don't lighten up my attack. I see lots of folks who don't seem to get that.

3. If the standard for a good acoustic tone is an Olson in a studio into a mic, the whole discussion is pointless. The goal needs to be a good stage tone, and good UST properly played can certainly get you there.

That's true to a point, but fundamentally, they will all quack. One of the best I have tried is the Headway in my Octave Mandolin, but it requires routing the saddle. It's true that you can play a UST in a way that it won't necessarily quack, but playing that lightly isn't something that we can all do. Not because of lack of technique, but just the style of music.

[Peter Z]

Soft fingerstyle is an option to make USTs sound better, but playing so lightly is not an option for me.

[Peter Z]

Originally Posted by tbtxaz21

I am confident I will spend the rest of my life attempting to eradicate quack from my sound.

That’s a mission!

[lkingston]

Originally Posted by Peter Z

Soft fingerstyle is an option to make USTs sound better, but playing so lightly is not an option for me.

The reason for this is that the way piezo elements work is that they generate electricity when they bend. The problem is that they distort when they are bent hard. Remember the old crossover free piezo tweeters that used to be on cheap PA speakers? They sounded fine at low volumes but distorted like crazy at high volumes. The principle is the same.

For me the solution is a pickup with individual piezo elements for each string. This means that the dynamic range only has to be enough for one individual string at a time. They also tend to be very even volume-wise between strings, but the real advantage is being able to dig into a six string strum without distortion.

[Peter Z]

Oh yes, the piezo speakers … they are still around!

What you wrote sounds logic and I think Yamaha has such pickups. If seen them in old guitars before but never played one.
It would be great if separated crystals solve the quack issue. The piezos cost nothing and six time nothing is still nothing. Especially compared to multisource pickup systems or IRs.

[lkingston]

I wouldn’t say that they completely solve the quack issue so much as that they solve the issue of the quack sounding worse when you dig in and play hard.

The LR Baggs LB6 pickup has individual piezo elements for each string.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by lkingston

The LR Baggs LB6 pickup has individual piezo elements for each string.

As does the Takamine Palathetic system which has all the classic features of quackery and fret rattle but better matched to the job.

[geokie8]

Acoustic amplification has come a long way in the last 25 years so anyone who tolerates a “quack” either doesn’t care or doesn’t have the money to upgrade.

Like many others, it took me awhile to get gear I’m happy with (at a reasonable price). The passive K&K was a revelation and I’ve stuck with that in my guitars ever since. Still, if you’ve got sensitive ears, the “quack” is still there. (Acoustic guitars are pretty much defined by their midrange sound and the midrange is where the “quack” lurks).

In the early days the “quack” bothered me so much I laid out serious dough for a Pendulum Audio SPS-1 as it was the only thing that actually got rid of it. (I’m sure there are still audiophiles on this forum who still use it). Thankfully, that’s no longer the case. I discovered the Headway EDB series and the variable Q on their units allows you to dial in the offending sound and eliminate it without taking a hatchet to the entire midrange. That’s hard to beat for the price.

From the Headway the sound goes into a small Allen & Heath board with another variable Q. Is that overkill? Not really, the A&H is there to take out the quack in my voice.

geokie