THOUGHTS ON SHIELDING?

......Hang on a second, there are different issues at play here.

Shielding your cavities (with whatever method) is only about reducing RF (radio frequency) interference. The pots, switches etc are like little radio antennas picking up interference from TVs/computer monitors (the old CRT were the worst) and strip lights etc. It is nothing about stopping 50/60 cycle hum from single coils and therefore whether whatever you're shielding with is a magnetic material or not has got bugger all to do with it!

No amount of shielding/grounding will stop a dirty power supply from introducing noise or stopping 50/60 cycle hum. And likewise, no amount of noiseless pickups or power conditioners will stop RF interference!
 
Last edited:
......Hang on a second, there are different issues at play here.

Shielding your cavities (with whatever method) is only about reducing RF (radio frequency) interference. The pots, switches etc are like little radio antennas picking up interference from TVs/computer monitors (the old CRT were the worst) and strip lights etc. It is nothing about stopping 50/60 cycle hum from single coils or and therefore whether whatever you're shielding with is a magnetic material or not has got bugger all to do with it!

No amount of shielding/grounding will stop a dirty power supply from introducing noise or stopping 50/60 cycle hum. And likewise, no amount of noiseless pickups or power conditioners will stop RF interference!

Exactly!
 
"Shielding your cavities (with whatever method) is only about reducing RF (radio frequency) interference."

No, I know that you may only claim that that is what it does Tone-y but many people post making claims about reductions in hum too, perhaps not here if the members are better informed but in other forums I follow this is a common thing to have to point out. The phrase "reduced to coal black silence" after complaints of hum problems is one often used and you can't have that without hum being made non-existent as well. And even so my point still stands, the ridiculously thin copper foil is no good at even touching that. Not all low frequency hum comes in through single coil pickups. Any wiring inside which has a significant loop area acts as a turn of a coil and picks up magnetic interference. Of course pickups do too, they are designed to do just that, but that much loved hand wiring is also a common culprit unless great understanding and care is applied to minimise all of those loop areas I mentioned. I promise you this is an even bigger issue when you are designing for 100uV moving coil vinyl cartridges in hifi where it has to be got right. Though they are hated by most guitarists nowadays, a well designed PCB is infinitely better at preventing this sort of issue than hand wiring.

Also, in terms of reducing RF interference, foil shielding can only reduce things to a small degree. The amount of reduction is related to aspects such as the frequency of radiation and to the thickness of the foil and to the degree of absolute seal of the cage at every point. There are always holes left for cables to come in, or seams such as between the scratchplate and body which is nothing like a proper joint. Poorly grounded areas, of which there may well be a few if you take the wrong approach to use loads of little strips for "neatness" then attempt to tack solder them together, will act to re-radiate the RF they pick up directly into the cavity so you can easily make matters worse unless you do things absolutely right. What you see as a "low resistance" path can easily be nothing like that after some time. And it is also not necessarily a "low impedance" path when inductance is taken into account. And RF loves inductance. In time the contact areas of the different pieces of foil tarnish and their connection resistance increases reducing their effectiveness even more.

At the dimensions we are talking about it can only help with the least intrusive of interference, hence Ironwolf's observations which are pretty much spot on in the real world. The pots are better shielded by their much thicker and better grounded rear covers than the foil you are fitting so they will not be helped and you are right in that our open contact switch designs do not help at all. As I said, in industry and medicine there are thousands of pounds thrown at trying to deal with this problem, unsuccessfully in absolute terms, it's always a matter of "how many decibels?" They go to the extent of using thick multiple nested enclosures and they have to take specific steps to prevent it sneaking in through any cable entry or tiny slot left open. Lids have to be made to fit with right angle grooves and using conductive gaskets to try to stop it creeping in through the joint, so what price success with something such as a flat fairly light contact between the scratchplate and the body which is effectively open to the air to tarnish. You think that is a tight conductive fit but it is the sort of joint that RF just loves.

And I entirely agree with you regarding the power supply issue. "No amount of shielding/grounding will stop a dirty power supply from introducing noise or stopping 50/60 cycle hum. And likewise, no amount of noiseless pickups or power conditioners will stop RF interference!" But that genuinely is another issue isn't it? No power supply should be allowed into production if it is dirty to the point of pollution. It is fairly easy to design to the point of no problem for hum and to also prevent RF problems by that source, much easier than by introducing them via the high gain amplifier input.

If you love doing the job then by all means go ahead and do it. It whiles away a winter's night or two, but it won't be a guaranteed success and could even make matters worse. And peoples' reports of their success doesn't take into account that they may have only a very mild case of the problem and it probably won't last. I would have to say that the lack of any form of repeatable testing by us guitarists makes claims anecdotal at best and that brings in the other issues of placebo/memory and desire to succeed. You only have to search online for real engineering info on this issue and not just follow the anecdotes by gurus in guitar forums to find the truth, it is out there if you look.
 
"Shielding your cavities (with whatever method) is only about reducing RF (radio frequency) interference."

No, I know that you may only claim that that is what it does Tone-y but many people post making claims about reductions in hum too, perhaps not here if the members are better informed but in other forums I follow this is a common thing to have to point out. The phrase "reduced to coal black silence" after complaints of hum problems is one often used and you can't have that without hum being made non-existent as well. And even so my point still stands, the ridiculously thin copper foil is no good at even touching that. Not all low frequency hum comes in through single coil pickups. Any wiring inside which has a significant loop area acts as a turn of a coil and picks up magnetic interference. Of course pickups do too, they are designed to do just that, but that much loved hand wiring is also a common culprit unless great understanding and care is applied to minimise all of those loop areas I mentioned. I promise you this is an even bigger issue when you are designing for 100uV moving coil vinyl cartridges in hifi where it has to be got right. Though they are hated by most guitarists nowadays, a well designed PCB is infinitely better at preventing this sort of issue than hand wiring.

Also, in terms of reducing RF interference, foil shielding can only reduce things to a small degree. The amount of reduction is related to aspects such as the frequency of radiation and to the thickness of the foil and to the degree of absolute seal of the cage at every point. There are always holes left for cables to come in, or seams such as between the scratchplate and body which is nothing like a proper joint. Poorly grounded areas, of which there may well be a few if you take the wrong approach to use loads of little strips for "neatness" then attempt to tack solder them together, will act to re-radiate the RF they pick up directly into the cavity so you can easily make matters worse unless you do things absolutely right. What you see as a "low resistance" path can easily be nothing like that after some time. And it is also not necessarily a "low impedance" path when inductance is taken into account. And RF loves inductance. In time the contact areas of the different pieces of foil tarnish and their connection resistance increases reducing their effectiveness even more.

At the dimensions we are talking about it can only help with the least intrusive of interference, hence Ironwolf's observations which are pretty much spot on in the real world. The pots are better shielded by their much thicker and better grounded rear covers than the foil you are fitting so they will not be helped and you are right in that our open contact switch designs do not help at all. As I said, in industry and medicine there are thousands of pounds thrown at trying to deal with this problem, unsuccessfully in absolute terms, it's always a matter of "how many decibels?" They go to the extent of using thick multiple nested enclosures and they have to take specific steps to prevent it sneaking in through any cable entry or tiny slot left open. Lids have to be made to fit with right angle grooves and using conductive gaskets to try to stop it creeping in through the joint, so what price success with something such as a flat fairly light contact between the scratchplate and the body which is effectively open to the air to tarnish. You think that is a tight conductive fit but it is the sort of joint that RF just loves.

And I entirely agree with you regarding the power supply issue. "No amount of shielding/grounding will stop a dirty power supply from introducing noise or stopping 50/60 cycle hum. And likewise, no amount of noiseless pickups or power conditioners will stop RF interference!" But that genuinely is another issue isn't it? No power supply should be allowed into production if it is dirty to the point of pollution. It is fairly easy to design to the point of no problem for hum and to also prevent RF problems by that source, much easier than by introducing them via the high gain amplifier input.

If you love doing the job then by all means go ahead and do it. It whiles away a winter's night or two, but it won't be a guaranteed success and could even make matters worse. And peoples' reports of their success doesn't take into account that they may have only a very mild case of the problem and it probably won't last. I would have to say that the lack of any form of repeatable testing by us guitarists makes claims anecdotal at best and that brings in the other issues of placebo/memory and desire to succeed. You only have to search online for real engineering info on this issue and not just follow the anecdotes by gurus in guitar forums to find the truth, it is out there if you look.

TLDR:
I can't comment on all of it, and quite frankly my electrical knowledge is too rusty as it's been over 20 years since I covered it at college (I pursued the mechanical route after that).

I don't think anyone sensible would say that you can reduce hum to basically nothing through only shielding, but certainly RF interference can be significantly reduced.

Yes, the internals of pots are shielded by their metal covers (provided they are grounded properly) but it is the wires and solder on top of the pots that act as RF antennas. Anything sharp and pointy like bad soldering and ends of wire are good at acting as aerials.

I'll describe my own experience of shielding a guitar. 15 years ago or so I bought a mexican strat with the aim of taking it all apart and upgrading everything. I bought Kinman noiseless pickups all new electronic parts - CTS pots, switchcraft switches, CRL jacks etc from Bill Callaham. I even bought a metal pickguard shield. I shielded the guitar using aluminium tape as that's what I could get from work. I just stuck it straight down into the cavities overlapping each strip a bit. I didn't bother soldering the strips together or anything. I made sure that the metal pickguard shield touched the aluminium tape when fitted and then made sure it was all grounded properly.
The end result was that guitar was extremely quite. Even if sat directly in front a computer with CRT monitor. After 10 years of playing it and never quite being happy with the tone, I wondered if the shielding might be attenuating some of the signal so I ripped it all out. The guitar was then no longer anywhere near as quiet. It wasn't noisy as such, but there was definitely a buzz that wasn't there before. I still didn't like the sound it produced btw.
 
I know this is a contentious issue Tone-y, it always stirs up a fever of lovers and haters. As I said I certainly didn't mean to point fingers at anyone and laugh, that's not the way to go forwards with issues like this. And, luckily, it has generated only a small amount of sensibly questioning response such as your own. I should point out that not soldering the pieces together as you described, (aluminium would be out of the question anyway), may not be a problem when you apply it but it will lead to a gradual decrease in effectiveness over time as the joint surfaces begin to corrode. Even a slight increase in resistance can be very noticeable.

I do feel the problem is that, despite all of the Physics and engineering practice being available to use as justification and as research into the truth of the phenomenon, when it comes to the results it is all subjective and even imaginative at times. (No, I don't mean anyone here and least of all yourself, your posts have been very well presented in my own view). As I said before, it is all a matter of decibels, (and they are also a desperately misunderstood concept ;) ). Copper shielding can reduce the problem but only by a relatively small factor. It is never noted that it can also INCREASE the problem if implemented poorly. Those industrial solutions reduce the problem too and by a bigger factor as would be expected. Neither the cheap nor the expensive solution is capable of removing the whole problem entirely and that can easily be shown on the workbench. So how we perceive the results and where this argument genuinely starts from is down to a couple of factors.

The first is how bad was the problem in the first place, the second is how does the guitarist perceive any improvement once it is in place? This in itself is a mixture of environment and expectation and is entirely subjective. So how noisy is the environment where the guitar is being used when the idea of it being noisy took root? If you are a "cup half full" person you will tend to be influenced more by how your guitar performs in the quietest of environments. (I myself tend towards that way of thinking.) If you are a "cup half empty" type of person the opposite is true, you remember that night when you were in an appallingly noisy location and the guitar hissed, clicked, popped and buzzed incessantly. That leads to a view of your guitar which leans either towards it having no undue problem or a big problem. Coupled with the fuel poured on the fire by people who make the startling claims of "inky black silence when I did it", often linked with claims of mains hum rejection that I mentioned above, the expectation is created that once a couple of strips of cheap thin copper are stuck in place the guitar will totally refute nuclear EMP, and that just 'aint so as we both know! And "history is written by the victors". Those who are satisfied with the results however much or little that may be will of course openly and vocally support the view that it works either accurately or with exaggeration, while those who are disappointed and get no real benefit never seem to come out and say so openly. The current environment makes them targets for too much criticism and mockery. And they do exist, I do talk to as many people who have experienced no benefit whatsoever once they learn I am only a reserved believer myself. So the myth is born and proliferates.

Often the opposing views on this particular subject are mostly a result of a difference in perception and expectation. I would hope this is the case here. I do openly acknowledge that there are some otherwise quiet guitars used in some homes or easier environments by a critical owner for recording who sees the slight normal noise that his/her guitar generates as unacceptable which improve to the point of the guitar generated noise dropping by a few dB to below the level of the amp and associated gear. (Though this is often only due to testing in a slightly different environment.) The expectation there is that all guitar gear should be absolutely silent. It never will be in normal use! Likewise there are some guitars which are noisy owned by not particularly demanding owners, (hrrrmpphh! I would actually say realistic, :rolleyes: ), which could be perfectly usable in a live context and where the owner would be delighted when that level drops just a small amount. These situations should of course generate positive feedback as to the usefulness of shielding. However, that feedback should be balanced. Neither should give rise to claims that a bit of copper foil is the way to solve all problems and end up with a guitar with not an iota of noise nor should it go unchallenged when claims are made which genuinely and factually cannot be true. Hype breeds more extreme hype like a snowball rolling down a hill and ends up with a situation where there is no truth and the lunatics rule the asylum. It needs to be put in perspective. This is a scientific and engineering area not an artistic musical one which it only serves.

It is the hype around many subjects like this, using magic tone caps, ground loops inside guitars, changing out those evil electrolytics every 18 months, valves "wearing out" in a year, PCBs sound dreadful, different makes of the same valve type sounding totally different, that I really believe should be challenged and the claims put into some sort of true perspective. These are all easily shown in a test situation on the workbench to have no or at best very little foundation in truth even to people who are "true believers". It should be the norm to be that critical so those coming into this field with little or no knowledge are not hooked into and made to believe that a high maintenance and costly involvement is the correct and only way to play. These things fuel the buying of so much absolutely unnecessary gear and services each year it is untrue, and that is not right and needs to be challenged with factual information wherever possible. It won't change everyone's perception but it may give it some alternative points to be considered before plumping for the "musical myths and mojo" approach to your playing.
 
Back
Top