jeremyo83
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
|
Post by jeremyo83 on Sept 6, 2006 21:16:42 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I'm happy to find a forum of people who seem to really know what they're doing (because I mostly don't). I've been trying to wrap my head around lever style switches, particularly the 5 way variety. The thread regarding 3 & 5 way switches has helped out a lot, but I'm still not sure how to go about getting the results I'm looking for.
I have a stock Yamaha enclosed 5 way switch in what will be a 2 pickup guitar, and I'm looking to get the following results:
1-bridge 2-bridge/neck (parallel) 3-neck 4-bridge/neck (series) 5-kill switch (off)
I'm beginning to think I can't wire this with the switch that I have, and may have to invest in a superswitch or megaswitch (which is fine), but I still need help figuring out how to go about doing this, as my electrical experience is rather limited, and I get lost whenever a circuit enters a 5 way switch. Any suggestions, explanations or diagrams, on how to wire this would be appreciated.
thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 6, 2006 23:00:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 7, 2006 22:22:53 GMT -5
Jeremy, Hi, and to the forums! I can go Chris one better. (NOT an easy thing to do, lemme tell you! ) I've already posted this, only for a 4-way switch (no cut-off), but the Search function is not bringing it up. Therefore, I whipped up a 5-way version, just for you. EditUpgraded the schematic, per "suggestions" from unklmickey, as posted below. /editHTH! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 7, 2006 22:35:07 GMT -5
mostly nice work, Sumgai.
1 -- you have something missing in position 1.
2 -- a short (rather than an open) on the output would be nicer for the kill position. (there are actually 2 easy ways to do that.)
nonetheless, +1
unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2006 2:00:54 GMT -5
This post notes necessary corrections pointed out by unklmickey, above. A new schematic was written over the top of the old one, so unk's comments appear to have no meaning. Never fear, he was right! (Did you doubt it? )unk I kept flipping back and forth between which pup should be the neck, and which the bridge. I was merely renaming the the two, and I would move a wire or two as I saw the need. All of this was going on to see if I could simplify the drawing, sort of make it as clean as possible. Obviously, I "forgot" to replace one of the missing wires after such an excursion. Ah, where's that GinkoBiloba when I need it the most? (For the curious, it was the Bridge minus wire to ground.) And yes, I have to agree, Pos 5 should send the hot to ground, I didn't think of that one at all. Hmmmm, wonder just what I was thinking of at the time........ I forwent elegance, and just used the remaining section of the Superswitch. Quick and dirty, that's me! ;D Fixed, new schematic posted over the top of the old one. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 8, 2006 9:38:33 GMT -5
yep, that'll do it. that's the simplest and most direct solution. remember i said there are 2 easy ways? the second one looks a bit more convoluted, but doesn't need the extra pole. so that's available for any other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2006 10:22:26 GMT -5
unk, You've been Photobucketed! Thanks. I also worked out another solution, but I took a dim view of how messy the drawing got. If I didn't give a hoot for "clean and easy to follow", I'd've done it that way too. ;D sumgai
|
|
jeremyo83
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
|
Post by jeremyo83 on Sept 8, 2006 10:33:56 GMT -5
thanks so much guys, that helps out a lot. I should be able to take it from here. If I have any more questions I'll be sure to post them.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 8, 2006 11:06:14 GMT -5
...You've been Photobucketed! ... thanks, just fixed that. my fault, not theirs. unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2006 13:28:58 GMT -5
unk, I see that you've modified my GIF file nicely, as good as if you'd used the original AutoCAD drawing. Nice job. Strangely enough, I was gonna do the same thing as you, only with the Neck pup instead. Sometimes I do things just for the sake of a clearer drawing, though, thus the added switch section. Kinda worries me how we think alike, yet so differently at the same time. ;D sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 8, 2006 13:43:41 GMT -5
...Strangely enough, I was gonna do the same thing as you, only with the Neck pup instead.... too bad you didn't. the drawing gets messier, but the wiring gets "better". twisting the switch for the neck pickup around, would have forced you to go through one less switch contact, in position 4. unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2006 19:09:42 GMT -5
Well, since you brought it up...... using the extra switch section like I did, it's conceivable that one could run a capacitor or two, or even an inductor, to other terminals of that pole, thus giving a different tone than just the raw combination of the pickups. It would be permanent, true, but if the user found it desirable, then the option is there to implement it. This is what I would have used the 'unused' section for anyway, only now, the last position is "Off".
Off is a valid tone, isn't it? ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 8, 2006 19:48:19 GMT -5
i think you're missing the point i was trying to make.
"would have forced you to go through one less switch contact, in position 4"
has nothing to do with what you may or may not chose to do with the unused pole.
it has to do with the very slight improvement, in terms of reliability, and in contact noise, by using one less switch contact in position 4.
right now your signal path involves 3 switch contacts in position 4.
it only needs 2.
this is a very minor improvement.
the bigger lesson was in economy.
knowing your options, on where you can save connections, can lead to possibilities, that make the difference between having contacts available to do a job with 4 poles, that other people think take 6.
when you can snatch the pebble..........
unk
|
|