onederboy
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
|
Post by onederboy on Oct 10, 2009 11:35:15 GMT -5
I have a set of GFS Lil Killers which are like a cheaper version of Hot Rails, anyway, I had an idea I'd like to try with them. What would it take to get:
1. Bridge HB
2.Bridge Inner Coil/Middle Inner (Bridgeside) Coil
3. Middle HB
4.Middle Inner (Neckside) Coil/Neck Inner Coil
5. Neck HB
I know that the Duncan site has a diagram for that kind of, but I'd like it to be switchable between all series and all parallel. I have a Superswitch and I'm willing to track down anything else I'd need, I just can't get my head wrapped around how to make this work. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 10, 2009 12:02:07 GMT -5
O-needer:
Let's clarify. Do you mean that you want to be able to switch all 3 pickups between series/parallel, or do you mean you want the 2 coils of each HB to be switchable between series/parallel, or do you want both intra- and inter-coil series/parallel options?
Ignoring the series/parallel for a minute, the basic scheme is like many Ibanez guitars. They make a switch that does this. We had some discussion awhile back about that, I'll see if I can dig it up.
This may also require mounting one or more pickups backwards (i.e., 180 degrees rotated) in order to get positions 2 and 4 to be humbucking.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Oct 10, 2009 13:23:43 GMT -5
The Lil Killers are cheaper, but the sound great. Can't say I've tried them side by side with HotRails, or that I've ever even played the SD version. I do have 4 Lil Killers and highly recommend them.
I'm pretty sure a 4P5T Superswitch can be made to do anything those proprietary Ibanez switches can do. Answer newey's question about the S/P thing, and this one too:
What kind of switch would you prefer to use to accomplish this? Is a rotary or toggle good, or do you require a P/P?
|
|
onederboy
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
|
Post by onederboy on Oct 10, 2009 15:03:24 GMT -5
I knew that it would be confusing to explain, sorry about that.
I'd like each of those combinations to be available in either series or parallel with a master series/parallel switch. Let me try to illustrate the best I can.
From neck to bridge:
AB CD EF
I'd like to get A*B, B*C, C*D, D*E, E*F in Series mode and then A+B, B+C, C+D, D+E, E+F in Parallel mode. I hope this is much clearer and as far as the switch is concerned, I'd actually prefer that it not be p/p. I don't mind a rotary or toggle at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 10, 2009 16:24:05 GMT -5
mmmmm......quite interesting, I like it! A wide range of tones incrementing from bridge based to neck based, all hum cancelling
Here's how it could be done:
You have six seperate coils with 12 connections. At any one setting, you want just four of these. A 4 pole 5 way switch (rotary or lever 'superswitch') selects which four wires are being used, ie selecting the ends of two coils. Each of the four switch pole selects one of the four wires needed.
The 5 way switch therfore condenses your three humbuckers down to one effective 'moveable' humbucker.
The outputs from the four switch poles are treated just like the four wires from a single Hb. One of these is grounded, another to hot, the other two get linked or sent to hot and ground depending on...
...a dpdt toggle or push pull to act as your series/parallel switch, and then followed by a simple master tone and volume.
Even better, use a dpdt on-on-on for the series/parallel and get single coil options too - 5 of them! This is wired up as usual for S/P switching of one humbucker.
That could be 15 sounds, 5 each of series, single coil and parallel, all of them good, no quirks or compromises needed.
Cool
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 10, 2009 22:20:10 GMT -5
needyboy, I note that when combining two full humbuckers, whether in series or parallel, there're four coils in the circuit. That's a lot of inductance, which is not good for one's tone, I'm sure we can all agree. It's a safe bet that eliminating two of the four coils in positions 2 and 4 will sound a whole lot better to everyone's ears. Good idea on your part!  John, When selecting for a single coil in your scenario, I think we might have to take care which coil we choose. If we simply elect "the Bridge-most" every time, then in position 2 (B+M) we end up with the Bridge's Neck-most coil - not much change in tone there. Ditto will happen between positions 3 & 4 with the Middle pup's two coils. Not to mention that the Neck position's single coil selection won't be the one we'd usually prefer tone-wise, either. This is a good idea, make no mistake, but I think it bears further cogitation..... sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by ijustwannastrat on Oct 10, 2009 22:38:19 GMT -5
Not disagreeing gai, but why on 2 hb guitars, do they always have a middle position w/ all four coils on? Seems like a waste to me. I would love to have just the inner coils on for the middle position on a 3-way
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 10, 2009 22:41:03 GMT -5
JohnH's idea has the goods! And, hopefully, this implements it correctly . . .  I really need to figure out how to do different colors on the schematics software, this is hard on the eyes . . .  And, assuming it's right, my diagram could probably be cleaned up a bit as well. EDIT: Well, one mistake I see already, I flipped the connections for the last Bridge coil so it's OOP. I'll fix that in a sec here. EDIT 2.0: Ok, fixed that:  |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 10, 2009 23:56:33 GMT -5
Not disagreeing gai, but why on 2 hb guitars, do they always have a middle position w/ all four coils on? Seems like a waste to me. I would love to have just the inner coils on for the middle position on a 3-way Well, take yer pick: They're too lazy to think about it: They're too lazy to actually do anything about it, even after thinking on it (over a Lowenbrau, no doubt); They're sure that they're right, and that all the modders out there are crazy.... After all, they ARE Gibson, and that automatically makes them right; To the testers at the factory (I'm making a huge assumption that they actually are testing), it sounds better with all four coils in the circuit at the same time; The whole plant is run robotically, and they fired the programmer before they learned how to make changes themselves. Now they're stuck with the original program, and no programmer will come in to help them (they're all in the same union!); The big drug companies are really a single cabel that controls pricing.... oh wait, wrong forum. Never mind. Like I said, take your pick. Or come up with your own reason, it's bound to be as good as one of mine. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 11, 2009 0:33:20 GMT -5
JohnH's idea has the goods! And, hopefully, this implements it correctly . . . Newey - I think it does - and you have done it in a clever way, keeping each coil associated with the same pair of switch poles. That means that the connections between lugs of the switch comprise only of links between adjacent pairs - which is easy to do and to check. It has one implication though, if the option of an on-on-on is adopted to get the single coil sounds (same diagram), it will only give three single coil sounds, since there will be two pairs the same. The more complex way of wiring of the switch, in which the upper two poles always do the neck side coils etc, has longer lengths of interlinking wires across the switch - steady but annoying work, but will then give 5 different single coil sounds with the dpdt toggle in the middle position. If the singles are not wanted, then your way is better. John |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 11, 2009 0:38:26 GMT -5
OK, newey, I'll sign off on that! Looks like all those nights in Night School are finally paying off, aren't they? ;D All we need now is the on-on-on version for the single coils. newey, do you want to do the honors, or shall I? (I'd only drop in a module, you know.... it wouldn't look as nice as yours.  ) Further discussion.... I could wish for a combo that gave Bridge (Bridge-most) and Neck (Neck-most), for that chimey sound. Other than that though, this is an extremely good way to make inexpensive pickups give us lots of killer tones. I have a feeling that there's a +1 in the air around here somewheres......... sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 11, 2009 0:45:50 GMT -5
SG- Go for it, 'cause I'm not seeing it, whether 3 or 5. OTOH, it's almost 2 a.m., so maybe I just need to sleep on it . . . I was actually thinking a blender arrangement might be good, so each of the 2 coils selected could be varied- but the whole series/parallel blending thing also has my head swimming.  |
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Oct 11, 2009 0:46:37 GMT -5
Hmmmmm this seems like the kind of topic I should join. If you like a lot of switching options, you'd be surprised what just 2 humbuckers can do. Here's a page from my website: www.1728.com/guitar6.htmThat's what I call Super Seven Switching™. (If you don't want the DPDT phase switch then you only need 6 SPDT switches.) This circuit will produce 40 different tones. Basically, it will give you the sounds you want. Here's a crude "drawing" of the 2 humbuckers: COIL A NECKCOIL B COIL C BRIDGECOIL D • With this switching, you can choose any single coil you want (A,B,C or D) • Coil A & D - In series or parallel and both are humbucking. • Coil B & C - In series or parallel and both are humbucking. • Neck pickup alone in series or parallel • Bridge pickup alone in series or parallel • With both pickups on they can be connected in series or parallel and each pickup can be wired in series or parallel, yielding eight tones. Well, what do you think? Do you really need that third humbucker? Yes, you'll have to drill a lot of holes in your guitar, but I've done that too. See this page: www.1728.com/super7.htm |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 11, 2009 0:53:30 GMT -5
Go for it, 'cause I'm not seeing it, whether 3 or 5. Well, since John ninja'd me...... ;D It's getting late for me too, I'll try to cobble something together tomorrow morning. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 11, 2009 1:17:27 GMT -5
Go to bed guys!
I think this idea of onederboys is the most interesting thing you could do with three Hbs, in a way that cant be done with fewer coils. It sort of sets the 5 way up as almost like a continuous control, moving the effective humbucker up and down the strings in small steps - just stop where it sounds best, and implemented with two or three tonal ranges using the S/Sc/P switch. As such, its not a scheme with a lot of fiddly settings to remember - just two very simple and powerful ones.
There's a zillion further things you could add with all those coils, but as it is, it is unsullied by further complication, and deserves to be tested I think
John
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 11, 2009 9:50:36 GMT -5
Hence my name-"progressive coil switching". Maybe it should be "successive". If my diagram is right, I think I'll put it in the schematics section for future reference. Hmmm, maybe I'm finally earning my keep around here!  |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 11, 2009 11:53:59 GMT -5
Well, I'll agree, it's about the best compromise for three pickups I've ever seen, single or double coil jobbies. Like John, I always vote for simplicity whenever possible. newey, call it "3 x 2 = 13 tones", and you'll get hits galore! John, I finally figured out that one can indeed move the connections amongst the various switch poles without disturbing the order of the coil succession, and thus yield 5 different single coil tones. But Gawd what a nightmare such a schematic would be! Waaaaaay too much chance for error, trying to follow that whilst wiring it all up on the bench..... no matter how many Fosters' one might have on hand! * ;D And here's the promised module. It's labeled as I think will make it easy to understand:  sumgai * I believe it was an Aussie who coined the phrase "Drink twice, cut once." Or wait, perhaps it went "No matter how many beers I've had, it's still too short!" |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 11, 2009 12:24:12 GMT -5
. . . . No, on second thought, I won't go there after all . . . ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 11, 2009 17:45:57 GMT -5
John, I finally figured out that one can indeed move the connections amongst the various switch poles without disturbing the order of the coil succession, and thus yield 5 different single coil tones. But Gawd what a nightmare such a schematic would be! Waaaaaay too much chance for error, trying to follow that whilst wiring it all up on the bench..... no matter how many Fosters' one might have on hand! * ;D Fosters is not a problem, nobody down here ever drinks the stuff! I did some doodling on the train to work - and the diagram that gets all 5 single coils, by keeping the order of coils intact, turns out to be simpler than I thought. Electrically, it is not more complex than neweys, and the chance to make it a simple wiring job comes from the specific layout of a 5-way super-switch, with its 2+2 lines of lugs. The diagram turned out to be neater and easier to follow as a wiring diagram (unusually, rather than a schematic). What I ended up with, was other than the minimum 12 wires to connect the coils and 4 to go to the dpdt, just 8 short parallel wires between banks across the width of the switch, each offset by one lug. All that would be an easy job. I'm describing it so cryptically, rather than posting a diagram, since unfortunately I wont get an opportunity to upload for a day or two. John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 16, 2009 21:41:29 GMT -5
Further to the above, I wanted to explore ways to organise the wiring so that it would be systematic to construct, and deliver the right combination of coils in order. Using a 5-way superswitch and a dpdt on-on-on:  These are shown as if they were Seymour Duncan humbuckers, with (I think) the right colour codes and correponding slug/screw coils and magnet polarity (red north, blue south) The output hot and cold is from the bright blue and red switch lugs, and in single coil mode (on-on-on dpdt in centre), it should provide 5 out of the 6 coils in order, except for the neck outer coil (which sounds alot like the neck inner). In series or parallel modes, progressive humbucking pairs of two coils are selected - so 15 sounds overall. I think that this layout would be a breeze to wire up, since other than the pickup wires and those for the toggle, there'sonly simple cross link wires needed on the super-switch. A standard tone, volume and jack arrangement can be added on the end of the circuit to complete it. cheers John |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 17, 2009 1:43:46 GMT -5
JohnH-
That is truly a thing of beauty. +1!
|
|
|
|
Post by simes on Oct 18, 2009 2:16:52 GMT -5
Hi.
Very interesting discussion, and out of my league, technically speaking, but I thought I'd make a couple of observations.
I have three Lil' Killers in my Strat, 10K at the bridge and 2 x 6K. In one of the mods I did, I had the bridge PU switchable between local series and parallel. This sounded good, and gave a reasonable imitation of HB/SC sounds. I didn't do this with the 6K PU's, as I thought they already sounded quite SCish and thought they would be too thin if put in local parallel.
I tried several mods, with mini-switches, OoP/series, etc, and eventually decided that (a) it was all too complicated for live work and people weren't going to appreciate so many subtle differences anyway (b) to stick to a few usable sounds that the guitar/PU's can do well. Now I have the superswitch wired for just 5 sounds, all very usable with just one amp setting, no miniswitches, and life is a lot easier:
1. bridge (local series): Angus
2. bridge + middle: Ed King
3. bridge + neck: Tele-ish
4. middle + neck: Jimi
5. middle > neck: Carlos-ish (may change this back to just neck)
I suppose my point is, is it worth complicating the switching to this extent - and thereby reducing the guitar's practicality for live work - in order to get so many sounds, many of which will be similar to other ones, many of which will be second-best imitations (I'm thinking of position 5 on my guitar, for example), rather than just using two different guitars or settling for a handful of your "own" sounds?
Cheers,
Simes
|
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Oct 18, 2009 17:06:38 GMT -5
As far as players using these designs on stage, I'd say some of these might be impratical. The most complex wiring ever used by someone on stage was probably the Jimmy Page wiring system, which consists of a coil cut switch for each pickup, a phase switch between the pickups and a switch for changing between series and parallel between the humbuckers. I'll admit that I like the complex switching arrangements (and have designed a few www.1728.com/guitar6.htm ) If I were still appearing on stage, I think I would use the most complex switching system that I could handle. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 18, 2009 17:38:49 GMT -5
Well I also like clever wiring schemes, and they can be simple or they can be complex. The criterion for me is that they provide usful functionality with easy to operate controls, and no quirky unexpected issues (such as would cause another user to curse the designer!). I like working them out, they are nice puzzles to solve and you create something in the process. I hate crosswords and Sukoku.
For use, well I play in a covers band and need several sounds. If needed, I can cover the full range from one guitar, single coil, humbucker and acoustic, just with a few knobs. That is so much easier in use than needing to swap between three guitars between songs, and half the time I’m on public transport and can only carry one anyway.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Oct 18, 2009 22:27:54 GMT -5
JohnH
and you seem quite capable of drawing those.
(Seems Newey was quite impressed too).
|
|
And, assuming it's right, my diagram could probably be cleaned up a bit as well.
)
