|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 20, 2006 18:58:17 GMT -5
I am implementing this same design but with three Duncan SC-sized HBs On the above diagram, is it possible to include a single DPDT switch to allow for series/cut/parallel for all three pups at once? I found a diagram for just such a switch on Wolf's 1728 page but I can't figure out if I just hook all the like coils together as if all three were one, or what. My best guess says that it has to go between the pups and the 5-way, but my guesses are frequently wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Aaron |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2006 0:06:08 GMT -5
I am implementing this same design but with three Duncan SC-sized HBs On the above diagram, is it possible to include a single DPDT switch to allow for series/cut/parallel for all three pups at once? In a word? No. The Series/Split/Parallel convention is specific to each pickup. Basically you'd be merging all three coils into one massive, series-parallel hybrid überpickup, which would make for an interesting effect, but would defeat the purpose of any other switching. Essentially, when not split, all three south coils would, in parallel, run series thru all the north coils, at least in series mod. Split might work. Parallel would merge into one pickup. Basically, even if you could make it work (that is, with a standard DPDT), whatever you got out of it in terms of simplicity in using the DPDT would be grossly overshadowed by the nightmare of wiring the selector switch to accommodate the crazy wiring spaghetti-fest. I would not go that route. Instead, if you want to do this, there is a much easier approach. Simply use a 6P3T switch. IOW, you'd be using 3 DPDTs, one for each bucker, all on the same switching mechanism, be it a slider, for instance, or perhaps a rotary (multi-deck would be your best bet). More later. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 21, 2006 4:32:36 GMT -5
Hi Eljib, glad to see you are still using the expanded version of the S-Tastic we knocked up. What you are asking might theoretically be possible, but as Chesh says, it would involved redesigning the whole of the switching etc.
You may be better off with three series/split/parallel switches. Or use a 4PDT and do a single switch that just does does series/split for each pup.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that the Tone controls on the above diagram could be improved. It might be better to have just one tone control active at any one time say one control for Mid-in-Series and one for Mid-in-parallel. We could do this using the unused poles of the two p/p switches.
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 21, 2006 10:25:39 GMT -5
What you are asking might theoretically be possible, but as Chesh says, it would involve redesigning the whole of the switching etc. You may be better off with three series/split/parallel switches. Or use a 4PDT and do a single switch that just does does series/split for each pup. How intense would the redesigning be? The reason I want to do this is because the pups sound a little harsh in local series, and "different" in local parallel. But the benefit of this mod is that it offers the usual strat sounds, and adds extremes outsides those borders, so harshness and thinness might be a huge advantage. Plus, these pups sound killer in SC mode, but I still want to get maximum hum canceling. I figured, why not have all three at the flip of a single switch? If possible, I would like to have all three choices, but rules is rules, so if it can't happen, I'll understand. Incidentally, it occurs to me that the Tone controls on the above diagram could be improved. It might be better to have just one tone control active at any one time say one control for Mid-in-Series and one for Mid-in-parallel. We could do this using the unused poles of the two p/p switches. Hastings Hmmm. Tell me more. And what values do you recommend. Chesh, this is going in a completely handmade strat/tele combo I drew up, so I'll have plenty of room for the controls. I plan on placing the s/c/p switch in the cup usually used for the output on a tele. I don't think that depth will be a problem, or width as long (as its under 1.5 inches). I think just about any switch will be able to fit. -Aaron |
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 21, 2006 11:07:25 GMT -5
I think it would involve designing a whole new switching mod... probably losing most of the functionality of the S-Tastic Expanded. What might be possible is a mod where you do series/split/parallel for all three pups with just one switch but only when the pups are selected alone. And in the 2 and 4 positions you just have single coils combined in parallel/series/whatever.
We might then have a way of using switches to alter which combos sit in the 2 and 4 positions... I will have a think on the bus. It would be a totally different mod - with most of the tonal variation coming from the series/split/parallel variations on the individual pups.
The tone control point is easy. Just use the unused pole on the "Mid-on in parallel" switch to disconnect the middle tone control when it is pulled out. That way you will only have the main tone control in the parallel settings and the middle tone control just in the series settings (and for middle alone) which is where it is most useful.
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 21, 2006 11:23:58 GMT -5
On second thoughts, the single switch s/c/p dea is (I think) doable for just global parallel settings. E.g. if it was a standard strat set up with a neck-on switch.
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 21, 2006 13:29:57 GMT -5
Instead, if you want to do this, there is a much easier approach. Simply use a 6P3T switch. IOW, you'd be using 3 DPDTs, one for each bucker, all on the same switching mechanism, be it a slider, for instance, or perhaps a rotary (multi-deck would be your best bet). Chesh I like this idea (Or i could settle for 4PDT series/cut). Hastings, do you believe that Chesh's 6P3T could be implemented directly into S-tastic Expanded without losing anything? I'm not willing to part with the original setup. I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it, but to my mind it should be a simple procedure and it seems like 6P3T would do the trick. And I do have the space to pull it off with a rotary. -Aaron Thank you both for your input so far. Anyone else with something to add, please feel free. |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2006 13:30:44 GMT -5
How intense would the redesigning be? Try this one on for size: graduating from a regular stratblade to a 8P5T MegaSwitch, and even then I don't know if it would work. What you are suggesting is simple, but isn't minimalist. It will require quite a few connections, and whatever schematic simplicity you were looking to create by using just one DPDT will be inversively undone by virtue of the fact that you'd simply be moving all of that copious wiring from the toggle to the bladeswitch. Instead, simple go with a 6P3T switch. That will solve for everything you want to accomplish. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 21, 2006 13:35:27 GMT -5
I don't much care about schematic simplicity. The only rules were to keep the exterior "stock" appearance (more on that later).
How do I order that rotary switch you linked to?
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2006 13:49:42 GMT -5
How do I order that rotary switch you linked to? To answer several questions, each set of poles is self-contained relative to the individual pickup, so you'll have exactly what you have in the S-Tastic . . . three leads from the three pickups moving towards the SuperSwitch. How do you order the switch? Not sure. I've never ordered Grayhill stuff before, but I would imagine their website would have that info, or you could call them. More on that later as I get further enlightened. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 21, 2006 14:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 24, 2006 8:42:03 GMT -5
As Chesh says, using a 6P3T for a single series/parallel/split switch for all three is straighforward. Just send all three pups into the s/c/p switch and then ensure that all the wires coming out are matched up with the appropriate pup wires before proceeding with the mod.
I'm not sure how you can get a suitable switch, though, and where you would put it without losing the stock appearance.
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 25, 2006 4:39:23 GMT -5
Location is already taken care of, but I am finding it difficult to get the right switch. I was looking at the grayhill catalogue and I'm totally lost. I'd like a rotary and they appear to offer them in 4 throw varieties, but those don't have the number of poles I need (I think).
Anything with six poles seems to have 10-12 positions. Can these guys build a custom switch with more wafers in a 4 throw? Could I disassemble one to do it myself?
Please help,
-Aaron
|
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 25, 2006 8:54:02 GMT -5
I'm afraid I don't know much about these kind of switches. (I've only used a Rotary Switch once and didn't really like it). There's been quite a lot of talk about sourcing parts on the site. If you search "Rotary Switch" you may well find some useful stuff.
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 25, 2006 12:25:14 GMT -5
You can actually buy a four throw switch and add wafers to it. Im sure its not hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 25, 2006 12:47:19 GMT -5
Location is already taken care of, but I am finding it difficult to get the right switch. I was looking at the grayhill catalogue and I'm totally lost. I'd like a rotary and they appear to offer them in 4 throw varieties, but those don't have the number of poles I need (I think). Anything with six poles seems to have 10-12 positions. Can these guys build a custom switch with more wafers in a 4 throw? Could I disassemble one to do it myself? Please help, -Aaron The Grayhill's are totally modular, and come in multideck varieties. Basically, the number of possible terminals on a deck is fixed, usually either 12 or 16, and those terminals are then divvied up inversely between the poles and throws. So, with a 12 terminal deck, you could have up to 4 poles, leaving you 3 throws; or 3 poles, leaving 4 throws; or 6 poles, leaving 2 poles, and so on. The same basic procedures apply to the 16 terminal decks. So, once you have the pole/throw ratio worked out for a single deck, you then start multiplying decks. Now, once you have the number of throws worked out circuit-wise, you then add stops to the rotary which will reduce the number of positions from the 12 or 16 per deck down to the 2-6 that you specifically want to use. So, for instance, with a PRS 5 position rotary for their proprietary switching, it's actually a 12 position deck rotary switch, with a stop after the 5th position, thus, you can only turn it five ways and not have to worry about overshooting the positions and spinning off into oblivion - as opposed to, say, getting a 6 position rotary from Radio Sham, er, Shack, where you might only use 5 of the positions, but without that stop there is always the possibility of overshooting those positions. Make more sense? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 27, 2006 8:25:11 GMT -5
That's pretty cool. I think I like it, although I'll need to reread that several times to really understand what the heck it means.
|
|
