Please recommend PU system for a 1992 J200.

[88mmll]

Hi, Will receiving a recent EBay purchase, a 1992 J-200. Please help with an existing thread or chime in. I need to pick your brains and tastes for the latest good pick-up (system) and I was wondering if cavernous, super jumbos, need some other preamp, EQ box or....? Connected to PA's and possibly my electric guitar amplifier.

 

The new Gibson J-200's have the Fishman Ellipse Aura:

 

Fishman Ellipse Aura Electronics

This release of the J-200 comes standard with a Fishman Ellipse Aura electronics package. This sophisticated system uses an advanced Fishman preamp as well as astounding Aura Acoustic Imaging Technology preloaded with four acoustic images designed to bring out the best qualities of the J-200's sound. The controls rest in the sound-hole of the guitar and include pickup/image blend and volume controls, as well as a feedback combating phase switch.

 

I like the volume control wheel(pot) on the upper sound hole but I was wondering if I should just get a KK mini or some other PU system for a maple super jumbo?

I will be playing it in a 6 piece band and alone in a coffee shop art studio setting, as a singer songwriter instrument.

Thanks as always.

[GDC]

I recently bought a new J-200. I didn't like the Fishman Aura pickup. It didn't fully conceal the UST quack. And, I must admit, I just had a mental problem with the concept of "blending" my guitar with the sounds (images) of other guitars. That just seemed weird to me and may have had an impact on my opinion. I replaced the Fishman with an LR Baggs.

 

I also have a Collings CJ that I bought used at Gruhn's. I took their advice and had them install an LR Baggs iMix system. That device uses both a UST and a bridgeplate transducer, an end pin pre-amp, and some sort of controller board that is stuck to the back of the guitar inside. They set the adjustments on the controller and said that the settings on that thing are quite important to get a good sound. It has two adjustment wheels at the soundhole: one is volume; the other is to mix how mcuh of each transducer is sent to the amp - can be all of either one or any degree of blend of the two. It sounds great, and I mean really great. From what I gather, the main reason for two pickups is that a UST is less likely to feed back in a live setting with a band etc., so you can dial it more that way to eliminate feedback The bridgeplate transducer is much better sounding than the UST.

 

Like I said, I didn't like the Fishman in my J-200 so I replaced it. Since I don't play on stage and never have a feedback problem, I had an LR Baggs iBeam Active installed in my new J-200. That model is just the bridgeplate transducer and end pin preamp without the UST and without the controller board or whatever it's called. Haven't played it eomugh to know for sure whether it's as good as the iMix set up, but so far it's been great.

 

That J-200 is at its best when plugged-in. Full, rich, balanced and powerful, I'm sure some sort of outboard pre-amp or EQ thing would add something but I don't think I have a need for it, though you may have a need for one.

 

Most of the various forum stuffs I've read rave about the K&Ks but I think Baggs is a bit fuller. Just my opinion.

 

http://www.lrbaggs.com/imix.htm#overview

 

http://www.lrbaggs.com/ibas/

[EuroAussie]

I on the other hand do like the Fishman UST (matrix infinity) coupled with the Aura imaging technology on my J-150. In fact I like it so much its the set up I have on all my gigging guitars.

 

Here's an example from a past gig with this set up and the J-150.

 

[blindboygrunt]

I on the other hand do like the Fishman UST (matrix infinity) coupled with the Aura imaging technology on my J-150. In fact I like it so much its the set up I have on all my gigging guitars.

 

Here's an example from a past gig with this set up and the J-150.

 

 

 

you ever tried the lr baggs stuff EA?

just wondered if your choice for fishman was a result of nit liking one or just a lucky first choice and if it aint broke ......

[EuroAussie]

Both BBG.

 

I first tried a Baggs M1a and absolutely hated it. I found the tone to be really phasey and unatural. I adjusted the pole pieces, even thought it was faulty. Send it back to Baggs who sent me another one and had the same experience. Plus their customer service really sucks.

 

Had exactly the opposite experience with Fishamn, both on a product and CS level.

 

The thign with the Aura Spectrum that I use is that it is suitable for all guitars that have a UST, so Im sort of locked in because it is so transferable.

 

So, now Im pretty much a 100% Fishy kinda guy..

 

you ever tried the lr baggs stuff EA?

just wondered if your choice for fishman was a result of nit liking one or just a lucky first choice and if it aint broke ......

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Both BBG.

 

I first tried a Baggs M1a and absolutely hated it. I found the tone to be really phasey and unatural. I adjusted the pole pieces, even thought it was faulty. Send it back to Baggs who sent me another one and had the same experience. Plus their customer service really sucks.

 

 

 

Hey EA,

 

i remeber you posting about your experianves with the Baggs M1.... I read recently that a number of pups where shipped sometime last year that were faulty...

 

i think you may have had faulty pups..

 

as you know I have the Baggs M1a.. and love it.. just thought I'd let you know..if you ever thought about trying again

[EuroAussie]

Del, do you have any clear recordings with the M1a, I would be keen to hear how yours sounds ?

 

Hey EA,

 

i remeber you posting about your experianves with the Baggs M1.... I read recently that a number of pups where shipped sometime last year that were faulty...

 

i think you may have had faulty pups..

 

as you know I have the Baggs M1a.. and love it.. just thought I'd let you know..if you ever thought about trying again

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Del, do you have any clear recordings with the M1a, I would be keen to hear how yours sounds ?

 

I'll do one for ya EA... but won't be for week or so..I'll post then

[ryanfender]

I installed a K&K Pure in my 1990 J-200. I also use the Pure XLR preamp. Most natural acoustic sound you will find. Feedback is no problem unless you are playing with a loud band (drums and bass). Can recommend it enough for coffee house gigs.

[GDC]

What comes as OEM equipment on the new J-200 is the Fishman Aura Ellipse. That's different from the Spectrum in that the Ellipse is an all on-board system affixed to the inside of the top along the sound hole whereas the Spectrum is an outboard unit. The Ellipse is pre-loaded with 4 "images" and, according to Fishman, the usb connection is disabled on OEM units so that more "images" can't be loaded to it. The Spectrum has a lot more "images" loaded to it than does the OEM Ellipse made for Gibson. It also has the ability to load a different selection of images from a large data base of "images" maintained by Fishman. I'd think the versatility of the Spectrum would make a huge difference in the ability to get the kind of sound an individual is looking for opposed to the limited number available with the made for Gibson Ellipse.

 

So, all of that is to say my experience with the Aura technology is more limited than someone would have with the Spectrum. The technology is intriguing. I'd think it'd be worth exploring in your search for the pu to put in your '92.

 

I hope you will keep us posted as you evaluate the available electronics.

[Jinder]

I've had excellent results with the Fishman Acoustic Matrix Natural II in my old Gibby J200 and the Matrix Infinity in my Epiphone EJ200. Played everywhere from 20 seat folk clubs to a 10,000 capacity arena with nothing but compliments and solid tone.

[rar]

... And, I must admit, I just had a mental problem with the concept of "blending" my guitar with the sounds (images) of other guitars. That just seemed weird to me and may have had an impact on my opinion. ...

Well, maybe I can help with that part, because that's not what's going on. There is no blending with the sound of any other guitar.

 

The way this works is that Fishman developed a model for transforming the signal that comes from a pickup into the signal that would be coming from a microphone is the guitar were being played into a mic. The model is parameterized, and parameter values are determined by actually sticking a mic in front of a guitar, playing it, recording both the pickup signal and the mic signal, and then tweaking the model parameters to get the best possible match between the transformed pickup signal and the mic signal. Change the pickup, the guitar, or the mic, and somewhat different model parameter values may produce better results. Generally, the closer the pickup/guitar/mic combo used to determine the parameter values for the model to your pickup/your guitar/your favorite mic, the closer those parameter values will be to the best possible parameter values for you, assuming your aim is to sound as much like a mic'd guitar as possible. There's really no advantage to being able to add new images --- which are just collections of parameter settings -- to the on-board Aura that came with your SJ-200, because those on there were determined using the same pickup and the same model, with varying microphones. They're the best settings Fishman has for your guitar. (There are some assumptions here, like the metric for signal closeness used by Fishman is appropriate for your ears and there is enough tonal consistency across SJ-200s that yours sounds more like the SJ-200 they used than it sounds like any of the other guitars they've used, but these are pretty reasonable assumptions.)

 

If that's all too technical, look at it this way. Suppose you and a band mate are playing matching SJ-200s with the same pickup in them (like the Every Bros back in the day). Your band mate, who is an expert on the amplification system you're both using, plugs in and adjusts it to get the most accurate possible acoustic tone from his SJ-200. You then just plug in and take advantage of his knob settings. Well, that's exactly what Fishman does for you -- they give you the best knob settings for the SJ-200 they have, on the assumption those are pretty darn close to the best knob settings for the SJ-200 you have. Now, suppose your band mate plays a D-28 instead. If he plugs in and adjusts the knobs to get the most accurate possible acoustic tone possible, then you plug in and play, are you "blending" the sound of your SJ-200 with his D-28? Of course not! You're just using less-that-optimal knob settings. It's still 100% your guitar, just played through an amplification system that could be doing a better job for you.

 

I'm not saying the current Aura is perfect. (It's my current favorite, certainly better than the Baggs that used to be standard equipment on Gibsons IMHO, but not perfect.) However, there is no limit to perfecting the results with the approach they're using, continually developing better models with more parameters that produce a closer match when optimally tuned, which is more than can be said for pickups. I had a conversation about this with Rick Duncan awhile back, and he told me that he thinks current pickups are as good as they can get, in the sense that, if there were some way to get the vibrations where the pickup is attached to your ear, what you would hear would be essentially the same as what you hear when the pickup signal is fed to an accurate acoustic amp. (That's what inspired his work on the Mama Bear, another digital pickup signal transformer based on an interestingly different view of the problem.) I don't know whether that's true or not -- I'm not even positive it makes any sense -- but his basic point is right: a raw undersaddle pickup signal is not really what you want, because it just reflects what's going on under the saddle and not all the other places that contribute to air vibrations a few inches out in front where you'd place a mic (and the same can be said for any other place, or small number of places, any other sensor or sensors is/are placed in a guitar). It seems like some very knowledgeable folks have decided that the best way to get more accurate acoustic tone is to digitally transform accurate pickup signals. (Everything in the signal chain transforms the signal -- although, ideally, cables wouldn't -- and amps in particular are specifically designed to, so it's only the combination of "digital" with the goal of accurate mic'd-like acoustic tone that is new.) Whether the current technology is good enough to make it better than other options is up to your ears to decide. But, if I were going to bet, I would bet that basic this approach is going to win over everything else, and in the not-too-distant future.

 

-- Bob R

[GDC]

That's a clear and very helpful explanation of that system, Bob. I understand it much better now. I generally understood that it was done through EQ stuff and not actual recordings of other guitars. It's still a bit strange to me and the one on my new J-200 wasn't very impressive. It was quite ok, but that's it. The bridge plate transducer Baggs makes does a better job for me.

 

I am thinking about one of those Spectrum things, though; it is an intriguing technology even if I find it somewhat weird. I'd really like to try one and see what all it can do since it's equipped with greater flexibility than is available on the OEM units. A bit pricey for experimentation, though.

 

Fishman may well be onto the next wave of pu technology. Time will tell, of course. Martin has just introduced a line of guitars with this technology. Their marketing seems to be focused on the fact that they used pre-war guitars to capture the "images" they are using. That to me just sound gimmicky; it's a turn off. I'm so over the whole vintage superiority thing. To me my new Martins sound every bit as good as the old worn out things that cost so much. But I get hooted at every time I say that.

 

What’s your take on Martin's use of this technology: will using a pre-war guitar to produce the "image" make any difference in the performance of the unit in a new guitar? Why use one of them to develop the “image” instead of using the actual model the unit is destined for?

 

I don’t mean to highjack the OP’s thread. Certainly if I seriously needed a pu for performance, I would fully explore this Aura business. What I bought is fine for me and much less expensive, but the OP would be making a mistake, I think, if he didn’t explore this technology thoroughly before choosing a pu for his guitar.

[sjl200]

+1 on the Fishman I use the Infinity matrix through a Aura 16 'box' on my SJ200 and the Aura Pro through my J45 They work for me, good tone and good control. They both go to a Fishman SA220 solo which is also great...imho.

[rar]

What’s your take on Martin's use of this technology: will using a pre-war guitar to produce the "image" make any difference in the performance of the unit in a new guitar? Why use one of them to develop the “image” instead of using the actual model the unit is destined for?

Good question. Changing to an Aura image created using a pre-War guitar will alter the tone you get, but there is not the slightest reason to expect the result to be closer to the tone of the pre-War guitar. Fishman points out that you get the best results by using an image created using your own guitar: you send them the guitar and some money, and they send you back the guitar and some custom images (varying the microphone). Makes sense. I've only heard one guitar played through an Aura using an image of that very guitar, and the result was just jaw-droppingly accurate reproduction. That using an image created using another guitar of the same model is typically much less impressive is just another indication of how much variation there is in acoustic guitars of the same model. (Maybe, eventually, you'll be able to generate your own custom images. You send a mic signal and pickup signal into you computer, and it tweaks the image -- simple hill climbing might work fine -- to improve its accuracy. Apparently playing style matters, as Fishman makes a big deal about the range of playing in generating data for image creation, so optimizing for your own playing would be a plus.) Seems like, whatever Martin's doing, it must be somewhat different. Or they're confused about how the thing works. Or it's just marketing BS.

 

-- Bob R

[EuroAussie]

I've only heard one guitar played through an Aura using an image of that very guitar, and the result was just jaw-droppingly accurate reproduction.

-- Bob R

 

 

I think if I lived in the US I would take the punt and invest in sending all my gits to Fishman to create custom images if the recreation is so close to the original Bob.

 

Personally I found very satisfying images for the same model guitars in the image bank that I have in the stable. The main exception was the Hummingbird, where I found all the Bird images available to be really thin and awful. Luckily one of the 'dreadnougth' images was on the money, while for my Fruch OM I use a an OM18v image which is very good.

 

But i would be willing to invest in getting the tone to be as close as possible to the orginal.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Man..it can all get a bit too mind bending can't it ?

 

everyone has a differnt idea on how they think something sounds..just natural physics....

 

the music I listen to... well some of the guitar ...acoustic..can sound sh!te if you listened to it on its own... recorded badly..quacking..fracking and doing a duck walk sideways

 

but it still sound feckin great to me.. I', thinking Bob marley at the mo..Redemtion Song..listebn to that..the guitar sound is crap..butt..well u know

 

basi9cally these modertn day pups.. the Fishman..LR Baggs..K and S..ect..they are top class bits of technology..

and if u cant get a sound u like out of them...then ur thinking too hard ..

 

excuse my recebnt rants..I am currently celebrating a 40th year of being on this plaanet..haha..

 

Peace and love to all

[EuroAussie]

 

excuse my recebnt rants..I am currently celebrating a 40th year of being on this plaanet..haha..

 

Peace and love to all

 

Congrats, thats another thing you and BBG have in common .... getting a bit creapy ..

 

I'll be joining you two war horses in that milestone in two months ...

[ParlourMan]

I think if I lived in the US I would take the punt and invest in sending all my gits to Fishman to create custom images if the recreation is so close to the original Bob.

 

Personally I found very satisfying images for the same model guitars in the image bank that I have in the stable. The main exception was the Hummingbird, where I found all the Bird images available to be really thin and awful. Luckily one of the 'dreadnougth' images was on the money, while for my Fruch OM I use a an OM18v image which is very good.

 

But i would be willing to invest in getting the tone to be as close as possible to the orginal.

 

Don't know that I'd go that far myself, as always it's a subjective topic, probably one of the most subjective in the acoustic guitar realm. It might drive Del mad, but I'm forced to agree with him again here... The calibre of a lot of the modern tech is very good, I can get a very decent usable sound between my Marshall AS100D and the LRBaggs elements, or the K&K pure mini in the case of the SJ200TV.

 

The guitar sound although something we focus on a lot, is only a single facet of how the band sound, as Del pointed out with Bob Marley, there's loads of songs where the guitar sound on it's own is not very inspiring but in the context of the full song it's the 'right' sound for that song. Being the guy who plays the second/lead guitar parts in my wee combo I will sometimes deliberately use sounds that are not the most organic acoustic tone to enhance the separation between the two guitars.