|
Post by sumgai on Jan 17, 2010 19:56:45 GMT -5
John (number II), Have you had a look at this post recently: JohnH's Guitar FreakIt should explain in fairly layman terms what to expect as you plug various capacitor values into your tone circuits. What you got with a 4.7nf is about what I'd expect, and indeed, I'd also describe it as "nasal". Check out John's post, and see what that tells you...... HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 19, 2010 22:49:53 GMT -5
sumgai: JohnH's calculator is something I've fiddled with in the past... but in recent times, I've been trying to do the component value selection by 'trying things out' 'coz *my* take on the theory didn't seem to be working... and yet, when I plug-in the ultimate values I selected into the spreadsheet, what do you know, I see the response I think I hear After playing about with this most recent mod this past few days, I think I need to fiddle with things a bit more. The nasal thing is good... but the normal treble cut that happens before the 'nasal' part starts is not really right; I think I need to work with the spreadsheet some more... 'coz I think I trust THAT a bit more than MY version of TheTheory(tm)...! ...and it gives me a (more) reliable picture of what I'm likely to hear. ...but I'm NOT dismantling the guitar AGAIN, just to fiddle the cap. value... I'll go back to my external tone controls again, using the spreadsheet to confirm what I think I hear... At least now I'm getting closer to a 'freeze' on the experimenting... and will soon get on with playing the guitar instead of playing with the construction of it John
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 20, 2010 0:05:00 GMT -5
John II, Just be sure that when you're playing Mad Scientist with your external tone stuff, you keep the guitar's controls at maximum (10). In many, if not most cases, reducing the volume below max will adversely affect whatever tone circuitry follows it - that's why most guitars (notable exception: very early Les Pauls) have the tone control before the volume, not after. Just so's ya know, tha's all. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 20, 2010 21:19:57 GMT -5
[...about 'external' testing...] Thanks, yup... I've been doing all the tone testing that way, using a particularly bright, maple-neck/fretboard Strat. ...and whilst I'm in 'Mad Scientist' mode... something I'm 'thinking out loud' about... Yet another (simplified) scheme to implement a 'series blended middle pickup' arrangement, particularly with regard to our recent modular approach to things. I don't think there's anything wrong with the following diagram but I'm half-thinking the Blender might act as a weirdo tone control in 'Parallel' mode..!?? I don't think it will but I just have this lingering doubt... Even so, is that a 'bad' thing?... especially when compared to using a DPDT over a SPDT toggle switch to guarantee the 'blend' arrangement is forced out of the circuit...? Would appreciate any thoughts from you learned folks ... Edit: Moved the image location on its host
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 20, 2010 23:52:38 GMT -5
Hi Oz
Australia day is coming up - a long weekend if you are lucky. Time to put the wiring down for a while, get outside for a beer and a couple of snags on the barbie.
I dont think your diagram will be pleasing. In P mode, the mid control is out of circuit (as intended), but in S mode, everything on the mid pup circuit leads to ground, and position 3 is dead.
Mind you, its not too far off, another pole to disconnect B and N from ground in S mode might do it. The idea of using a volume pot with treble bleed as a series mixer does work - I have it on my LP. The proof of it is that you get fully mixed with M and also no M, at the extreme ends, and nothing dull or nasty happens in between, with a smooth transition.
cheers
John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 21, 2010 4:30:50 GMT -5
I dont think your diagram will be pleasing. In P mode, the mid control is out of circuit (as intended), but in S mode, everything on the mid pup circuit leads to ground, and position 3 is dead. Fanx! for the insight, John... Acshually, what I wanted to do was to set-up something that had the conventional switching for the conventional sounds... and then to add the series sounds... and I wasn't too worried about the redundancies and the 'dead' sound position; they're easy enough to escape from... and again, I'm going for simplicity for Joe Player, so we had a 'sound matrix' like: Pos. | P Mode | S Mode | 1. | B | MxB | 2. | B+M | MxB | 3. | M | - | 4. | M+N | MxN | 5. | N | MxN |
Yup... I was just forgetful... careless... wotever... about leaving that out. At least this arrangement gives the extra sounds without the 3rd pole -style switch (I hope). Heh... 'tis one of the modules, dontchaknow!? Anyway, here's an updated version of the layout... with some (vague!) derivation of where I thought I was getting my 'simple thoughts' from(!), viz: I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get this into a module eventually, albeit one with 2 sections Hopefully, I'm getting closer...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 24, 2010 3:48:59 GMT -5
As well as that proposed 'series select' -style of thing, I'm also back to looking at tone controls - As I said above, I still want to do something more than the plain RC circuit can do... So, my research has most-recently led to this: Obviously borrowed from elsewhere, it uses an inductor (now my maths/electronics is REALLY floundering!). Now, as I don't know too much about these components, I had a look on our site here and found an old-ish discussion that seemed relevant: Greasebucket Tone Circuit. Now, I'm pretty confused already(!)... but I was wondering if the following, locally-available (Oz) part might be suitable: Jaycar Mini. Transformer...or should I just hunt around some op (2nd-hand, 'welfare') shops for an old phone and rip the guts out of it to find a little transformer that might work?? Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jan 24, 2010 10:26:17 GMT -5
ozzy- We've had several discussions on the use of inductors. I don't know if you had seen either or both of these threads: Passive tone control (once again)Hard wired tone capHeck, you may have even posted to one or the other, I didn't check every post in those . . . In the second thread listed, ChrisK points out that you can buy a cheap transformer and simply wire one-half of it as an inductor.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 31, 2010 8:57:41 GMT -5
...ChrisK points out that you can buy a cheap transformer and simply wire one-half of it as an inductor. I've forgotten most everything I ever knew about transformers, let alone using them as inductors... but I tried connecting one of these 500R units into the circuit as shown in my diagram above, using the outer-wires on the '3-conductor' -side, with an unknown pot value (I think it's 500k Lin but it's easy to find out)... and it made a big difference to the sound, cutting the bass out a lot; only trouble was that all the changes happened in the last couple of 'clock positions' on the pot. So, I'll do some more experimenting with the pot value/taper and we might be able to get something useful working here. In any event, the specific part of the thread on the small transformers seems to be here, I think. Using the formula quoted and assuming the 1kHz spec thing (I have no idea about the details of this transformer, other than the 500R resistance), the value as an inductor would calculate to ~79mH. I think that sounds small... JohnH's subsequent comment in that thread is also thought-provoking: I think there is more to be discovered with this style of circuit. Also, most guitars already have 2, 3 or 4 inductors in the form of their pickup coils, and I think there is much mileage in combining them via capacitors to shape the response, in various part-bypassed arrangements. Has anyone done anything along those lines recently? There's always one more thing to experiment with, eh?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jan 31, 2010 9:40:05 GMT -5
Yes, it does. I'm surprised that there was a big difference in tone, as you found. 500Ω is 20 times smaller than the 10K unit ChrisK was using as an example. I'd try using a unit more along the lines suggested rather than spend a lot of time messing with the 500Ω one you have.
Also, did you measure the resistance before installing it? The description indicates "500Ω center-tapped". I don't know whether this means that the whole coil is 500, with the center tap presumably giving 250, or if each half is 500, with the whole being more like 1K. Easily checked, though.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 2, 2010 5:22:36 GMT -5
I've been using the previously mentioned small output transformer in the circuit I've shown here earlier and I thought I'd experiment with the circuit a bit tonight.. For the 'low-cut' control, I had been using a linear 1M pot, which only made any audible change when moving through 1 to 2; there was no change in the tone past 2 right up to 10. So I replaced that pot with a linear 100k version... and the response was more-or-less the same; some change from 1 through 2 and then more-or-less nothing from 2 through 10. However, I then used a 100k log pot and I could hear changes in the tone from 1 through 5 or 6... and then no change up to 10. So, with the inductor included, it seems the 'better' taper to use here might be log. As usual with my experiments, I'd been using a 0.012uF capacitor for the normal 'treble-cut' control and that seemed to work pretty well. After I'd stabilized some on the pots, capacitors, etc, I thought I'd get the meter out and make some measurements on the transformer. The resistance reads 2R on the '2-conductor' side. On the '3-conductor' side, it reads 308R across the 2 outer conductors and 154R between an inner and outer conductor (centre-tap, eh?). Like the variation we can get in pots, can we also get this sort of variation in transformers/inductors? A unit specified at 500R that reads 308R is nearly 40% in error, which seems pretty awful...? Anyway, assuming the 1kHz frequency might apply, and that we use our favourite formula: L = Z / (2 * Pi * f), we'd be able to get 49mh and 25mh as the inductances from this particular transformer - obviously much too small. Now.. I haven't tried it out yet but I managed to get another small transformer today. Again, I don't have any info about a frequency but it DOES say we have 2k and 10k windings (I think). So using the same formula as before, this unit would give us 318mH and 1.6H - that 10k winding is looking a mite healthier, eh? So, I'll give that a go sometime soon... and will let you know what I find.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 7, 2010 8:36:32 GMT -5
Well, let' see... First of all, I made some measurements on the small coupling transformer. The resistance reads 500R on the '2-conductor' side. On the '3-conductor' side, it reads 60R across the 2 outer conductors and 30R between an inner and outer conductor. How this ends up at 10k/2k as shown in the website catalog, I'l never know... and as I don't have a reliable signal generator, I can't really check/calculate the inductance of the unit... but it almost seems like it's 'worse' than the little one I started with. *shrug*.. Anyway, all of my experiments gave 'better' results (that is, more variation in tone) when using the 500R side. I used a circuit close to the one I posted above EXCEPT all I did was connect the wiper of a pot to the 'hot' line, one side of the pot to the transformer (inductor) and then I connected either a bare wire or a capacitor between the 2nd wire on the inductor and ground. With a bare wire in use, I heard a major change in tone (it sounded more "tinny" == dropped mids, I understand) but there was also a large drop in volume, which is expected with these sorts of circuits.. With a capacitor of 1nF between the transformer and ground, I heard a small change in tone (it sounded a little "tinny", maybe a little nasal) and the volume didn't change all that much. So, I guess I'll need to do some hard experimenting on the capacitor value to use... as the L = Z / (2 * Pi * f) and other formulae for reactance, etc are not much use when I don't have the value for the inductor. Of course, I could always try something relatively well-known, like the midrange control shown in this Esquire Wiring Experiment... but recent experience tells me to not expect any of them to work very well. As usual, the explorations continue... John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 7, 2010 9:31:46 GMT -5
Ozzie- Don't know if you saw this post or not: Schaller Tone circuitThis uses a 4-position switch instead of a pot to give hi and low pass filters, but it might give you some ideas as to component values.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 8, 2010 5:12:25 GMT -5
Alrighty, folks... I had a go at the Esquier Wiring Experiment that describes a well-known, 3rd-party mod... and you got it right: it didn't seem to do anything very interesting at all Now, I'll be the first to admit that the lil' transformer I'm using might be hopeless (although, using it by itself with a pot gives the typical "tinny" sounds)... and maybe my prototyping is sus.. but I can get something sensible happening with 'normal' tone controls and such things alright... so I dunno. With this experiment, winding the pot from fully anticlockwise to fully clockwise, changed the tone a bit but it didn't sound too flash to me... AND! although there was something of a "straight" sound in the middle of the rotation, both of the extremes sounded the same, both being something like the straight sound going through a dozen cotton towels(!) I tried a few different pots and some different capacitors, etc... but I still reckon the most effective thing to use is the transformer without any capacitor at all down to ground... but then, I still have to try some pF-value capacitors in there... which will be the next lot of experiments. Oh.. and Fanx!, newey -- I spied that Schaller tone circuit posting once before and I might try its simple switching scheme, together with a standard 'treble cut' tone control, methinks... "And awaaay we go!" ...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 9, 2010 6:23:18 GMT -5
I've spent another few hours tonight working on this inductor thing... and it seems the original layout of the inductor/pot, as shown in the 3S03 circuit above is going to be the closest to what sounds useful to me; all the options that included a capacitor between the inductor and ground just sounded like nothing OR like mud. However, the couple of 'standard' problems are still about, namely: - the losses when the bass(mid) is cut makes the output very low
- I only get a change in the tone when turning the knob on the pot through 1 to 2 or so
Now, I'll nut out the taper problem or whatever is causing the narrow range thing... but to deal with the losses is making me crazy. If I set the guitar volume to something sensible with the 'low cut' wound in, as soon as I wind it out a little, the volume will get ridiculously loud (I'll get around to measuring something with the volume level difference but I'm sure it's greater than 3dB or more). So, with no other componentry, I'll just have to get to be a whiz with winding the volume up and down together with the 'low cut' control -- I'm guessing that's all I can do... As well as this, I'm all confused about how an on-board pre-amp is going to have the 'smarts' to deal with the variable volume level that the 'low cut' will introduce, without making 'normal' sounds distort like crazy.. Still thinkin' out loud and trying to get my head 'round how to deal with this messiness... John
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Feb 10, 2010 0:28:43 GMT -5
When you start cutting fundamentals you're bound to lose some overall volume.
Something to keep in mind any time you're modeling these types of circuits: The model describes the overall action of the filter, not necessarily the actual frequency response of the output. A vibrating guitar string produces neither white noise nor a step function.
How 'bout a ganged pot? One deck could control your low cut while the other trims either the preamp's input or (probably much better) it's gain.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 10, 2010 6:46:52 GMT -5
When you start cutting fundamentals you're bound to lose some overall volume. Ya, I expect that.. so no dramas.. 'tis just the question of how to deal with it How 'bout a ganged pot? One deck could control your low cut while the other trims either the preamp's input or (probably much better) it's gain. Well, that's certainly something I'd like to think about eventually. Depending on the configuration of the guitar I'm going to apply this mod to, I'd like the option of using 2 separate pots (a 'hi cut' and a 'low cut'), as well as having both controls on the one pot (sort-of like how I understand a TBX control works). At any rate, I think I'm getting closer to the 'ideal' of being able to cut out the 'boominess' I sometimes hear. *thinks again* Maybe I should just have a simple, narrowly-tuned filter that hits the specific 'boominess' and revise that for each guitar; do it with a single toggle.. or like I saw mentioned someplace, you have a 'varitone on a board' with DIP switches selecting the 'best' capacitor combination to use for a given guitar... *muttering as I wander off to contemplate some more...*
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 17, 2010 22:11:41 GMT -5
I'm going to do some tweaking over the weekend and will have a go at making some minor changes to the existing circuit... and here's what it will ultimately look like: Now, I understand the inductor (small transformer) is actually an unknown inductance but it seems to work Ok in testing, so I'm prepared to try a real installation with it, even IF! I get the large volume change when it switches-in. Also note, that when it comes to a 'real' (non-experimenting) guitar mod, I'd probably use 'no-load' pots, as I'd really like the 'low cut' to be totally out-of-circuit except when I want to use it.. Otherwise, all we have is a simple phase changing switch addition; nothing overly flash... but I remember reading somewhere about placing the small capacitor in the circuit when the phasing is reversed-- so the lower frequencies are filtered out and hence, we won't get those frequencies cancelled when the out-of-phase pickups are combined... so the sound won't be so thin (I hope). More details to follow after the mod is done... John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 17, 2010 23:18:37 GMT -5
OzBoom- That looks like a wrap! Let us know how it comes out. I notice that what started as a "simple mod . . " has now run close to 80 posts- 6 pages worth! Your continual, and detailed, experimentation is has clearly caught the fancy of this Nutzy crew.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 18, 2010 13:38:35 GMT -5
ozzy, I remember reading somewhere about placing the small capacitor in the circuit when the phasing is reversed-- so the lower frequencies are filtered out and hence, we won't get those frequencies cancelled when the out-of-phase pickups are combined... so the sound won't be so thin (I hope). You can thank ChrisK for that one! ;D It'll work as you've described, the only thing will be what value you settle on for C1. Each pickup, and combination of pickups, is different in so many ways that it's almost impossible to pick a value and say with authority "that's the best choice". Fortunately, you can run a pair of long wires out from under your pickguard and temporarily hook up any given cap you wish, and try it out, live. Think of it as "on the fly" tuning of your rig. In fact, you may find that two or three differing value work best for different songs. No sweat, a handy-dandy switch to the rescue! ;D (But yeah, likely as not, you'll settle on just one value. I only mention that for the Nutz-ness of it. ) HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 18, 2010 23:07:39 GMT -5
I notice that what started as a "simple mod . . " has now run close to 80 posts- 6 pages worth! Your continual, and detailed, experimentation is has clearly caught the fancy of this Nutzy crew. Heh... ya, I know. I have a knack of making simple things complicated (or, at least, to take them in unexpected directions)... but the thread has certainly covered a lot of things... and provides substantial info that will likely be included somewhere in the 'module library', methinks... ...the only thing will be what value you settle on for C1. Each pickup, and combination of pickups, is different in so many ways that it's almost impossible to pick a value and say with authority "that's the best choice". Well, I expected that would be the case, as that's one of the biggest lessons I've learnt from this thread: the only way to know how something will sound is to try it out (no matter what the theory sometimes says)... and don't be surprised if you hear something you never expected (including silence)! Hmm... Even though I'm still trying to keep this mod as "simple" as I can, I think I can still be a little cerebral about it, too... So... I understand the capacitor value for the out-of-phase (OOP) sound is often chosen to be similar to the "tone" (high cut) control capacitor. This would give a consistent "bottom end" to the sound from the "normal" pickups and the "OOP" pickups, so that might be a "conservative" way to go... ...but if I used a smaller capacitor value (I think it is -- I still get confused by low-pass and hi-pass!), that would raise the cutoff frequency, making the OOP output somewhat brighter than the normal output, which is probably the most common application of the OOP sound anyway (I think).. So, I'll try some simplified, final(!) 'outboard' testing of a capacitor value for the OOP section later today... and I expect I will probably end-up using something like the next preferred value (or two) smaller than the "normal" tone capacitor. ...But yeah, likely as not, you'll settle on just one value. I only mention that for the Nutz-ness of it. ) ...and out of such Nutz-ness do 80-posting threads and more mind-bending discussions grow More later... and Fanx! again, everyone, for the useful thoughts... John
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Feb 19, 2010 0:41:36 GMT -5
High-pass or Low-pass, the capacitance is inversely proportional to the cutoff frequency. Smaller caps make for higher frequency cutoff and bigger caps make higher cutoffs.
I don't remember reading anything about this. Sounds like a good idea. One thing that comes to me, though: AFAIK, these kinds of filters are not linear phase. There is significant phase shift of frequencies around the cutoff frequency. Those that are passed come out at 0° and those that are not passed head toward 180°, with a curved slope between. Not sure what this will mean in terms of tone. Perhaps sumbody around can elucidate or elaborate or something.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 20, 2010 6:32:16 GMT -5
I had a go at the changes today, to move from SimpleMod to SimpleMod-a... and although things didn't go to plan, I'm pretty happy with the discoveries I've made On the "down" side, I couldn't get the inductor/low-cut feature to work at all. As the mod was being done on a (2005) Squier Bullet Strat, which has a thin body, I had all sorts of trouble finding somewhere to mount the inductor; on the pot made the pot arrangement too deep; in the "lower cavity" under the 5-way switch was no good as the 5-way sat on top of it and I couldn't position the inductor anywhere else in there; beside the toggle switch was sort-of Ok but by that stage, I'd had to re-work the wiring a couple of times... so maybe something went bad in the connections. Anyway, I checked the connections for dry joints or anything else being wrong and I couldn't see anything bad... but it still didn't work. It's sort-of disappointing but I'm not overly fussed about it. On the "up" side, the phase switching works a treat! I ended-up using a 4.7nF polyester capacitor and it sounds pretty nice to my ears There's sort of an extra brightness to things... and as there's the extra capacitor in there, I actually have 2 sounds for when the middle pickup is used alone; you can't have an out-of-phase combination with one pickup ...but the extra cap makes for an interesting change. So, in short, the phase switching is something I'll be keeping... and the "low-cut" function is still something to get working... one of these days John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Feb 26, 2010 8:05:59 GMT -5
Although I'm very happy playing about with the current incarnation of this mod (that is, with simply nothing more than a phase change on the middle pickup), that still doesn't stop me from continuing to develop the mod ... So, even though I won't make any changes to the guitar for a month or two while I get my head around the out-of-phase sounds a bit, I think the incremental changes will continue and I'll add the parallel/series switching next, viz: This will allow me to hear how the series sounds will work with the out-of-phase sounds... and I think that will help me decide which sounds I want to mix-in/out -- the out-of-phase sounds or the series sounds -- and I'll leave the 'other' sounds to be just off/on. ...and, of course, all these changes are nice'n'modular, so we can fairly easily add/remove 'em all For your consideration, folks... John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 20, 2010 19:17:41 GMT -5
I'm still fiddling about with this project and in recent times, I've decided to keep even closer to the original idea of making the mod as simple as possible. Therefore, the current incarnation is nothing more than a modification of the tone controls. All I really want is to have some sort of decent control over the bass and treble part of the sound, rather than just a simple "treble cut" and as such, I've decided to have another go with the "sumgai tone control" (for want of a better name). This will also provide a "bass cut" which will give a "thinner" sound, which helps get rid of the "boominess" of the bass strings and this also means I won't have to worry about an "out-of-phase" element, as the "thinness" that produces sounds similar to what is done with a "bass cut" (to MY ears, anyway). After this latest round of experiments, where I've been soldering components directly, I think I can say my earlier efforts with tone control mods were less than successful because of the silly project board I was using. I knew it had some inherent capacitance but it seems it had enough capacitance to upset the operating properties of the circuits I tried... So, you live'n'learn, eh? The current design I'm using is the following: It's basically sumgai's original design with some modified component values which are more to my tastes (I think). These changes are: - Volume pot is 500k rather than 1M - I don't know why; I can't remember why I changed that and I can't find anything in my notes. Maybe I'll change it back to the original 1M.
- Treble control cap is 0.012 uF - I've used that value in other guitars and I like the level of treble cut it provides.
- Bass control cap is 470 pF - the design value of 5 nF wasn't providing enough bass cut for my taste. Note that any values smaller than this will cause a significant loss of signal level.
Note that the original design didn't specify tapers for the pots, so I took a guess at what tapers to use after some experimenting... but even so, I still think there's something not quite right there... Y'see, I still have the classic problem of only getting some sort of response from the pots in the last bit of rotation instead of across the entire rotation of the pot. As a preamble to this, note that I leave the volume pot on 10 at all times, as I don't want to complicate matters with the problem of the sound becoming duller as the volume is reduced (I'll include a "Treble Bleed Mod" in the final design, so that won't be such a big problem). Also, I'm leaving the tone controls in the guitar maxed-out and have wired-up the new Bass/Treble/Volume controls on some stripboard, connected to the guitar with a short lead, so that I can make changes easily. Bass Control: It's close to working properly but it still seems to do the bulk of its changes when turned so that the knob reads 5-10. Treble Control: It has the "normal" problem in that nothing happens until the knob gets to 8 and then all the changes in tone happen between 8-10. Now, I've tried using both linear and log taper pots for each of the tone controls and the response doesn't seem to change.. and I wonder where that is coming from. Is it: - something to do with the interaction of all the components, making the individual control responses "incorrect" (with respect to what I want the control to do);
- just the way the "two-ramp" pseudo-log pots are constructed and operate, compared to a completely linear pot; or
- just that the quality/construction of the pots I'm using is such that they're not responding properly?
It's interesting that I have things working close to the way I want... but I just can't get the designs to operate exactly "right". Any thoughts, folks? Thanks. John
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 21, 2010 7:10:52 GMT -5
Oz - seems like a good arrangement, and one that does not compromise the full tone, so probably the best way to get bass and treble control on a passive guitar. Im not sure if there is any perfect answer to getting the sweep of the controls just right. Does the bass control do most of its change at the low resistanc end or the high resostance end of its turn?.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 21, 2010 15:46:57 GMT -5
Does the bass control do most of its change at the low resistanc end or the high resostance end of its turn?. Moving the pot from fully clockwise back anti-clockwise seems to have the most effect on cutting the 'bass' portion of the sound and it does it 'fastest' through that region 5-10. Ever experimenting here...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 25, 2010 19:18:04 GMT -5
I've just had a thought back on something I mentioned in one of my earliest posts in this thread... I've occasionally seen mentioned how some players like to have nothing at all between the pickups and the amplifier/mixer ( notwithstanding a connecting cable ) The idea seems to be that bypassing the tone and volume controls in the guitar means you will have the highest possible (natural) signal level from the pickups and the output won't be "coloured" by any of the electronics in the guitar. This is probably the best way to wire-up your guitar if you're evaluating pickups, for example. Of course, this also means you need to control your levels/tone at the mixer and, unless you use a foot swell pedal or something, you can't (easily) change anything about your tone/volume whilst playing the guitar (we're not talking about picking/strumming dynamics and such). I'd be interested in any thoughts you might have about this.. as I think I have a push/pull/pot switch lying around and maybe it would be one of these useful "simple" mods to include, given the things we've been talking about in this thread AND! that I'm possibly going to fiddle about with some different (cheapo) pickups as another iteration of "tone mods" down the track...
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 25, 2010 20:31:32 GMT -5
Ozzy,
Such a switch as you contemplate is usually called a "blaster" - it bypasses everything, and "blasts" all MojoTone™ straight out of the guitar. Blaster switches are usually a good idea, and not just for the Tone Nazi, but as a way to raise your axe's level from "just right for rhythm parts" to full-on, and then back again to the same level as before, all without having to monkey with your pot(s).
A foot volume pedal would be a step backwards - you just got through getting rid of one or more pots, now you wanna put one right back in the signal path..... albeit with some cable craptacitance inserted along the way. You probably should consider some alternatives.....
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 26, 2010 0:13:46 GMT -5
Ok, this is soundin' pretty good now...
I've done some more experimenting with the "sumgai tone control" today as well as last week and I think I have that running as best it can (given no active electronics)... and I think it gives some more useful sounds over the 'normal' treble cut.
..and I'll add that "blaster" switch into the circuit; the DPDT on the pot will be enough to drop the treble cut and bypass the bass cut+volume, I think..
...and with a view to play with Jazzmaster pickup positions in a subsequent project with this wiring loom, I'll probably go with a simple "neck on" switch, to use the toggle DPDT I currently have in the wiring at the moment.
Hmm.... Simple, with lots of sounds... that I'm pretty sure I like... and usable without re-wiring down the track. *Joy* ;D
Diagrams and layouts to follow, folks...
|
|