Post by sumgai on Sept 9, 2006 16:29:33 GMT -5
Well, it had to happen.......
In "Fixing old bugaboos", I upgraded my switching arrangement, and that was fine and dandy. However, usability issues plagued me anyways, so I gave it some serious thought, and said, "What, me worry?", or words to that effect, anyway. ;D
Coupled with everyone's concern about tone control placement (which I was satisfied with), I bit the bullet, and made the jump. The master tone control now comes before the master volume. I've only just completed this, and the jury is still out, but for my money, given the way I play, and the volume levels, etc. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference. I do use the control often, but I also have a hidden benefit, it's one of those "fully off" controls that break the circuit when they are turned up to 10. (The wiper lifts entirely off of the resistance element - no continuity from output to ground via the capacitor is possible.)
So what was my beef? I found that I use the B+N, normal phase, so often that I was manhandling two switches every time I wanted that combo - the 5-way and the S1. (I don't use B+M very often.) So my first decision was to put B+N in Pos 1 of the 5-way switch. Then it came to me that I don't compare B+N in and out of phase, I compare parallel to series (B+N, B*N), and then I compare the out-of-phase sounds (B+Np, B*Np). So why not try to lump those two combo pairs closer to each other, eh?
Sure enough, it was almost a snap. Reverse a few wires here and there, and Voila!, I'm golden. ;D Here's the baseline schematic:
I've also made up the "proof-of-concept" drawings, just like last time, but in the interests of keeping this post from scrolling down to China, I'll just post links to 'em. If you wanna see them, be my guest.
S1 Up:
Neck
Neck-Mid
Neck-Mid-Bridge
Bridge-Mid
Bridge
S1 Down:
Neck parallel with Bridge
Neck in series with Bridge
Mid
Neck in series with Bridge, out of phase
Neck parallel with Bridge, out of phase
As most of you will recall, magenta is used to show the path between pickups in the series combos. And you can tell what combo you're looking at by the position of the switches themselves, and by noting the underlined combo in the truth table at the side.
~!~!~!~!~!~!
Now for something entirely different....... I made up a "hookup" diagram, ala Mike Richardson. No pencils, sorry, but more than a few squiggly lines, hope that's OK with you.
This is the actual diagram I used to wire up my puppy:
Note the blue wires, they run between the decks, under the other wires that cross from one deck to the other. Those that run from N+ to B+ were laid outside, not between the decks, but of course, if you're copying this, you can mount them as you wish.
Some of you will note that I wired the output and ground wires directly between the two switches. Is that kosher, in light of the star-ground system tenents? Of course it is. In fact, this wasn't done just to keep the drawing clean, it just plain was easier to run a short wire from the 5-way to the S1, then to ground or the output, than it was to run two wires to do the same job, from longer distances. In cases like this, it can be argued that anything with another lead (like a pickup) should always have it's own ground run (to the star point), but these aren't just one pickup, they're several mixed together. Already we have a mish-mash, so the "pure" theory is out the window. Might as well make the best of it, eh? I ran as few wires as possible, and kept them as short as possible.
The drawing is pretty much from an "as-built", not from thin air, then implemented. I know the system works (how great, that's another story.
), so I think I've covered my buttski here. ;D
Other ways to wire such combos are plentiful, I'm sure. One could just about as easily lay B+ and B- on opposing poles (on the same deck or elsewise), and let 'er fly. It's all in the eye of the beholder. But I choose to use what I think is simple, and easy to double-check when it's all over. For me, there's a near one-to-one relation between each element of the schematic, and the drawing I made from how I wired it all up. Just the way I think, that's all. (And no comments on that "think" part!
)
I've ended up with Pos 1 having 2 options, N or B+N, and that's a good thing, covers 50% of all my work. Pos 3 has my second most used combo, B+M+N, a real Robert Cray sound if there ever was one. And I can do Pos 5 for B, if I'm feeling lucky during a moment of fancy that I can keep up with the big boys while soloing.
Those two out-of-phase sounds? They're on Pos 4 and 5 of S1-down. They are different, but I'm still not sure if they're necessary. Kind of haunting, in some instances, but not compelling.
Discussion?
sumgai
In "Fixing old bugaboos", I upgraded my switching arrangement, and that was fine and dandy. However, usability issues plagued me anyways, so I gave it some serious thought, and said, "What, me worry?", or words to that effect, anyway. ;D
Coupled with everyone's concern about tone control placement (which I was satisfied with), I bit the bullet, and made the jump. The master tone control now comes before the master volume. I've only just completed this, and the jury is still out, but for my money, given the way I play, and the volume levels, etc. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference. I do use the control often, but I also have a hidden benefit, it's one of those "fully off" controls that break the circuit when they are turned up to 10. (The wiper lifts entirely off of the resistance element - no continuity from output to ground via the capacitor is possible.)
So what was my beef? I found that I use the B+N, normal phase, so often that I was manhandling two switches every time I wanted that combo - the 5-way and the S1. (I don't use B+M very often.) So my first decision was to put B+N in Pos 1 of the 5-way switch. Then it came to me that I don't compare B+N in and out of phase, I compare parallel to series (B+N, B*N), and then I compare the out-of-phase sounds (B+Np, B*Np). So why not try to lump those two combo pairs closer to each other, eh?
Sure enough, it was almost a snap. Reverse a few wires here and there, and Voila!, I'm golden. ;D Here's the baseline schematic:
I've also made up the "proof-of-concept" drawings, just like last time, but in the interests of keeping this post from scrolling down to China, I'll just post links to 'em. If you wanna see them, be my guest.
S1 Up:
Neck
Neck-Mid
Neck-Mid-Bridge
Bridge-Mid
Bridge
S1 Down:
Neck parallel with Bridge
Neck in series with Bridge
Mid
Neck in series with Bridge, out of phase
Neck parallel with Bridge, out of phase
As most of you will recall, magenta is used to show the path between pickups in the series combos. And you can tell what combo you're looking at by the position of the switches themselves, and by noting the underlined combo in the truth table at the side.
~!~!~!~!~!~!
Now for something entirely different....... I made up a "hookup" diagram, ala Mike Richardson. No pencils, sorry, but more than a few squiggly lines, hope that's OK with you.
This is the actual diagram I used to wire up my puppy:Note the blue wires, they run between the decks, under the other wires that cross from one deck to the other. Those that run from N+ to B+ were laid outside, not between the decks, but of course, if you're copying this, you can mount them as you wish.
Some of you will note that I wired the output and ground wires directly between the two switches. Is that kosher, in light of the star-ground system tenents? Of course it is. In fact, this wasn't done just to keep the drawing clean, it just plain was easier to run a short wire from the 5-way to the S1, then to ground or the output, than it was to run two wires to do the same job, from longer distances. In cases like this, it can be argued that anything with another lead (like a pickup) should always have it's own ground run (to the star point), but these aren't just one pickup, they're several mixed together. Already we have a mish-mash, so the "pure" theory is out the window. Might as well make the best of it, eh?
I ran as few wires as possible, and kept them as short as possible.The drawing is pretty much from an "as-built", not from thin air, then implemented. I know the system works (how great, that's another story.
), so I think I've covered my buttski here. ;DOther ways to wire such combos are plentiful, I'm sure. One could just about as easily lay B+ and B- on opposing poles (on the same deck or elsewise), and let 'er fly. It's all in the eye of the beholder. But I choose to use what I think is simple, and easy to double-check when it's all over. For me, there's a near one-to-one relation between each element of the schematic, and the drawing I made from how I wired it all up. Just the way I think, that's all. (And no comments on that "think" part!
)I've ended up with Pos 1 having 2 options, N or B+N, and that's a good thing, covers 50% of all my work. Pos 3 has my second most used combo, B+M+N, a real Robert Cray sound if there ever was one. And I can do Pos 5 for B, if I'm feeling lucky during a moment of fancy that I can keep up with the big boys while soloing.
Those two out-of-phase sounds? They're on Pos 4 and 5 of S1-down. They are different, but I'm still not sure if they're necessary. Kind of haunting, in some instances, but not compelling.
Discussion?
sumgai
? Sure, that's how the underlying switch started out, but that sure ain't how I soldered things up, inside my widdle pride 'n' joy.