Blower Switch

Santellan-

First, your table of positions doesn't correspond to the numbers on the lugs of the switch, which is confusing. I understand your table to be in reference to how the switch is physically mounted in the guitar, but this is a schematic, so it's a bit tough that the neck is at "position 1" but is wired into lug "3A". But that's more of an orientation issue.

More basically, your table tells me that SW 1 is to be a "bridge on" switch, but your schematic shows it as controlling the neck pickup. And since the switch connects to the "blower" line, in position 1 with SW1 on, you'll have neck to the blower.

Also, have you considered that, in position 4, the "blown" bridge pup is likely to swamp out the middle?

An improvement on the numbering, but I'm still not seeing how SW 1 is switching in the bridge.

I see this giving the following:

W/ SW 1 off:
1) N
2) N+M
3) M
4) M+B (Blown)
5) B (Blown)

W/ SW 1 on:
1) N (Blown- takes the path of least resistance)
2) N (Blown) + M
3) N (Blown) + M
4) N (Blown) +M +B (Blown)
5) N (Blown) + B (Blown)

I could be wrong on this, I'm sure I'll get corrected if I am!

Santellan-

I think that's got the goods, but let someone else weigh in before you fire up the soldering iron.

This should give you what the table shows. For completeness sake, we could add that pos. 3 w/ SW1 on gives M+B (no blower); pos. 4 gives M + B (blower) regardless of the position of SW 1.

Newey and Sumgai thanks for your input. Here's the updated drawing with the circuit so far. I would like to remove the blower from position 4 someway. Any ideas.

In this case it means that when the Bridge pickup is selected alone it will bypass all controls and go straight to the output.

The tone controls are going to act something like Master tones in any situation where they are selected (including those marked as "blown" in the schematic. Turning down the Volume control will help to isolate the bridge pickup from the Tone control.

Unfortunately, though, the "blower" position does not completely disconnect the Bridge pickup from the Volume. There may not be much overall volume reduction until it's turned way down, but it will reduce the impedance the pickup "sees", increasing the load and reducing high frequency content.

Wolf,

Nice job on your solo switch I really like it.

Since I am limited to using only one dpdt push-push switch it appears that I would have to choose between solo or bridge on function.

Or could I have both?

Thanks
santellan

Well, with one push/pull, you can have "bridge on" + "blower" both, but not either /or.



This would give all std Strat selections with SW 1 down, and "Blown Bridge On" with the switch up, giving:

1) N + Br (blown)
2) N + M + B (blown)
3) M + B (blown)
4) M + B (blown)
5) B (blown)

Not exactly what you want, and it has redundant positions at 3 and 4 with the switch up. But I think that's the closest you can do with just a single push/pull.

Yahoo, that's pretty close sumgai. I will update the schematic and post it later today.

santa,

As I see it, you've taken a step sideways. At least it wasn't backwards.

The main difference between your latest mod and mine is the truth table - I left the expected M+B in both positions 3 and 4, which one expects when one uses a Bridge Always On arrangement. What you've done is to sort of "force" an unexpected "Middle only" in position 3, even when the Bridge Always On switch is engaged. I consider that anti-intuitive, to say the least.

None the less, your circuit works, and if that's what you want, then who am I to tell you it's wrong?  But the other thing to point out is that you've now complicated it with another switch section (you already had an SPDT on hand, now you have to procure a DPDT, thus wasting the SPDT (for this project)), not to mention all the extra wiring. I must say, I liked your earlier incarnation better, both from the standpoint of implementation and that of operation.

It does boil down to design philosophy. You have two separate functions that have no physical relation, yet you want to relate them by tying them both to the same physical switch. As things stand, with the current switch (SPDT or DPDT), you must compromise something. It doesn't matter what, where or how that compromise occurs, what matters is that some compromise will have to be made, it's the nature of the beast. You understand.

However, since you've demonstrated a willingness to expand the switch itself beyond SPDT, why not consider a 3-position toggle switch? On-on-on might awaken some possibilities, no?

You know where to hail me, if so desired.




sumgai

Just fyi I have a dpdt push-push switch which I will be using on this wiring.

I agree with you Sumgai that is better serve to have leave position 3 with SW1 on, as the M&B combo.

What I was playing around with is how can I used the other half of the switch to have position 4 with the SW1 off be M&B with no blower switch.

Thanks for the help John.

I could live with the M+B blown position if I could accomplish the rest. What modifications do I need to make to the schematic?

S

John I updated my schematic with your changes. If it meets your intent then consider this exercise done. Thanks to everyone for your help

Sumgai - in post 20 I already pointed out that the M+B (ie position 4) was going to be hard to fix with respect to disconnecting the volume pot to get an uncompromised blower. To get at least the other 4 settings working well, I had to use up half of the 5 way - so I still cant see how to get that position 4 just right and I wont get much more spare time in the next few days.

So if you can see how - please feel free to have a go!

Santellan - your latest seems to match my scribble

John

Yes, ash, you did mention it a priori. But if we keep hammering at it from different angles, then at some point it's going to get the attention it needs in order to fix it.

John, ditto.

As I see it, there is an easy fix, but it's not one that santellan is likely to wish for. The use of the old-standard selector switch (3 terminals and 5 position ) is an indication that he wishes to make this a modification for the lowest-common-denominator found in the wilds of guitar-land. That doesn't eliminate the use of newer switches, but forcing one to use a newer switch severely cuts the market for this mod - all the old-style switch users will be left out, unless they are willing both to spend even more money for the upgrade, and to do a whole lot more re-wiring than just dropping in this module. I like it that he's trying to keep it as inexpensive and easy to install as possible, to appeal to the widest possible market.

However, I now want to address another question, this time to:


santellan,

Is there an empirical reason for sticking with just one switch? Are you absodamnlutely positive that no one will buy your new rig if it's got two switches? Here's a suggestion for ya.... how about offering it in two versions, one with jumpers to select SW1's function (either Blower or Bridge On, can't have both), and another version that allows for both switches to be mounted. For manufacturing purposes, you could have both versions use the same board, the difference being the components sold with the board to make the upgrade. But once users catch wise to that, then your market for the more expensive version deteriorates..... two boards really would be the better solution, even if it's a bit more hassle on the manufacturing end.

I'm not saying anything here, ya know, I'm just saying, that's all. ;D

HTH




sumgai