smallapps
For the acoustic musician, there exists a great, often disappointing, divide. It’s the sonic chasm between the rich, woody, and complex voice of their instrument in a quiet room, and the sound that emerges from an amplifier or PA system. This plugged-in version is frequently a thin, brittle, and percussive caricature of the original. This is the world of the piezoelectric pickup, and its signature, unwelcome artifact is known throughout the industry by a single, onomatopoeic word: “quack.” It’s a sound that screams “pickup,” not “instrument,” and fixing it has become a holy grail for performers and audio engineers alike.
The journey to solving this problem doesn’t start with buying more gear, but with understanding a fundamental question: why does this otherwise brilliant technology so often sound so unnatural?
The Physics of the Piezo Problem
At its core, a typical undersaddle piezo pickup is a marvel of simplicity. It’s a transducer made of a crystalline material that generates a small electrical voltage when subjected to mechanical pressure. Placed beneath the guitar’s saddle, it “feels” the pressure fluctuations from the vibrating strings and converts them directly into an audio signal. This method is efficient, robust, and highly resistant to the acoustic feedback that can plague microphones. But its greatest strength is also its fatal flaw: it is fundamentally deaf to the soul of the instrument.
An acoustic guitar’s sound is not just the vibration of its strings. It’s a complex conversation. The strings excite the saddle and bridge, which in turn drive the top wood (the soundboard). The soundboard vibrates the air inside the guitar’s body, which resonates at various frequencies, creating the warmth, depth, and character we associate with an acoustic instrument. This resonant, vibrating air then projects outwards.
A microphone captures this final, glorious result—the movement of air. A piezo pickup captures only the initial, raw pressure at the saddle. It hears the attack, the pitch, and the string, but it largely misses the crucial response of the wood and the resonating air.
This results in a very specific tonal imbalance. If we were to plot the frequency response of a typical piezo pickup against that of a quality microphone recording the same guitar, the difference would be stark.
[Figure: A conceptual graph showing the frequency response of a typical undersaddle piezo vs. a condenser microphone. The piezo line shows a flat or slightly scooped low-end, a relatively neutral midrange, and a sharp, jagged peak in the high-mids/treble (the "quack zone"). The microphone line shows a much fuller low-end, a complex and rich midrange, and a smoother, more natural high-end.]
The piezo signal is plagued by a harsh, pronounced peak in the high-mid frequencies (typically between 2-5 kHz), which is the source of the infamous “quack.” It also lacks the low-frequency body resonance that gives an acoustic guitar its foundational warmth. So, if the piezo pickup is fundamentally deaf to the guitar’s wooden soul, how can we teach it to hear? The answer lies not in changing the hardware, but in digitally reconstructing the conversation between the strings and the body.
The Fix: Rebuilding the Missing Body
This is the domain of “acoustic resonance modeling,” a sophisticated application of Digital Signal Processing (DSP). The core idea is to take the incomplete signal from the piezo and intelligently re-introduce the sonic characteristics of the guitar’s body that were never captured in the first place. There are two primary schools of thought on how to achieve this.
Path 1: Impulse Response (IR) Modeling
Think of an Impulse Response as a sonic photograph or a “sound fingerprint.” Imagine you stand in a grand cathedral and clap your hands once. If you record the resulting reverberation, that recording is the cathedral’s IR. It contains all the information about how that specific space reflects, absorbs, and colors sound. In the audio world, we can use a process called convolution to apply this IR to any dry audio signal, making it sound as if it were recorded in that cathedral.
Acoustic instrument modeling, pioneered by companies like Fishman with their Aura technology, applies the same principle. Engineers place a target guitar in an anechoic chamber and record it simultaneously with a high-end studio microphone and its own undersaddle pickup. By comparing the two signals, they can mathematically generate an IR that represents the difference—essentially, the “sound fingerprint” of that guitar’s body resonance. When a player loads this IR into a pedal, it applies that stored “body sound” to their live piezo signal, effectively filling in the missing pieces.
Path 2: Algorithmic Modeling
The other path, employed in devices like the BOSS VE-8 with its “Acoustic Resonance” feature, is algorithmic. Instead of using a static IR “photograph,” this approach uses a complex set of constantly-running algorithms to simulate the behavior of a resonant body in real-time. This can be thought of as a highly advanced form of dynamic equalization and resonance simulation.
These algorithms are programmed with a deep understanding of acoustic physics. They analyze the incoming piezo signal and, based on the dynamics and frequency content, intelligently boost the frequencies where a real guitar body would resonate, while simultaneously smoothing out the harsh peaks characteristic of the pickup. It might, for example, identify the fundamental note of a bass string and add subtle, harmonically related low-mid frequencies to simulate the soundboard’s response. The benefit of this approach is its potential for adaptability, allowing the user to adjust the character (e.g., “Bright,” “Mild,” “Wide”) to better suit their specific instrument, rather than searching for the perfect pre-captured IR.
Conclusion: Beyond Mimicry
The evolution from raw piezo pickups to sophisticated acoustic resonance modeling represents a significant leap in live sound technology. It marks a shift from merely amplifying an instrument to truly translating its acoustic essence. These technologies, whether IR-based or algorithmic, are more than just mimicry; they are restorative tools that bridge the gap between the player’s intention and the audience’s experience.
While no technology can perfectly replace the sound of a masterfully built instrument resonating in a beautiful room, these digital tools empower the modern acoustic musician to present a far more authentic and musically pleasing version of their voice to the world. The goal is to make the technology so effective that it becomes invisible, allowing the song, the performance, and the soul of the wood to finally take center stage.
