lechatnoir
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by lechatnoir on Nov 21, 2006 6:51:49 GMT -5
Hey all! I'm new here, so please be gentle! Basically, I've been having a bit of fun with modifying pedals and guitars recently and I wondered how feasible it is to make my old valueless backup Squier Strat sound like a Tele - it was just sitting around not doing anything so I've given it a lovely new arty paint job for fun, but it just doesn't have the sound I want so it's still not getting played. I was thinking about a total revamp - hardtail bridge, new machineheads, new pickups etc, but I might go one step further and think about turning it into a tele electronics-wise! How easy/hard/expensive would this be? Can anyone point me in the direction of any sites that might help me in my crazy quest? Many thanks in advance! -x-
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Nov 21, 2006 12:35:48 GMT -5
Well, I don't think that you will get to a real true Tele sound. The Strat is a semi-acoustic guitar turned inside-out. It has a lot of chambers for pickups and controls, and a built-in reverb in the back (the vibrato springs). The Tele is a fairly intact plank of wood. I have a STreleCaster that I'm working on. It is now routed for a Rio Grande TwangBucker pickup and bridge (a dual single coil, humbucker-like pickup - no shared magnet structure), a lipstick single coil in the middle, and a Duncan P-90 Stack in the neck. It is a 2#15oz swamp ash body with a Tele neck pocket. The neck is maple/ebony of 1 3/4" width and 1" thickness boattail (soft "V"). It sounds "fairly well" Tele-like acoustically, except that it isn't due to the pickups used.
|
|
lechatnoir
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by lechatnoir on Nov 21, 2006 15:05:51 GMT -5
I've now removed the middle PU and one tone control! Is it possible for me to wire it so that the two remaining pickups are always both on, but the two pots control their volumes, effectively allowing me to turn them off that way? I.E. bypassing the 5-way selector too? If so, please could someone draw me a picture of how the wiring would work?
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Nov 21, 2006 16:33:46 GMT -5
...Is it possible for me to wire it so that the two remaining pickups are always both on, but the two pots control their volumes, effectively allowing me to turn them off that way?... you have no clue how bad that idea is. here's something that will work, but without the problems you would be creating by having 2 volumes and 1 tone. the drawing is as if you had simply snipped the middle pickup wires. adding only the green wire will make the 5-way work as follows: NECK (tone pot#1) BRIDGE + NECK (tone pot#1 + tone pot#2) BRIDGE (tone pot#2) BRIDGE (tone pot#2) BRIDGE (no tone control) if you also add the red wire, you will get this: NECK (tone pot#1) BRIDGE + NECK (tone pot#1 + tone pot#2) BRIDGE (tone pot#2) BRIDGE (tone pot#2) BRIDGE (tone pot#2)
|
|
lechatnoir
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by lechatnoir on Nov 22, 2006 10:47:39 GMT -5
...Is it possible for me to wire it so that the two remaining pickups are always both on, but the two pots control their volumes, effectively allowing me to turn them off that way?... you have no clue how bad that idea is. Sorry to sound dumb, but why is it crazy - isn't what I suggested effectively how the setup on the traditional 2 humbucker, 2 volume, 2 tone guitars works, only with the tone pots removed? Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough - basically, I don't want tone pots because I've no use for them, I always leave my tone pots on 10 anyway and i'm not concerned about the extra brightness that may be caused by bypassing the pots. I'm also not bothered about switching between pickups with a switch, I just want to keep it very simple. Currently, I've been fiddling and have both pickups connected to one volume pot which controls both, and this seems to be working fine - tohugh perhaps there is a very good reason why I shouldn't have it like this, hehe! Any suggestions? Please shout at me if i'm being stupid!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Nov 22, 2006 12:08:32 GMT -5
i don't think you sound dumb, or are being stupid. just unaware of the problems that you will have with this idea.
first, i wasn't aware that you wanted to eliminate the remaining tone pot. i thought you wanted to use the one from the middle pickup as a second volume. that would have meant the tone pot would have to connect after the volume controls - a bad idea, by itself - the amount of effect the tone control would have, would be highly dependent on the volume controls. now that we have that issue resolved (you don't want a tone control), we can move on to the other challenges.
what you currently have is 2 pickups in parallel. to use 2 volume controls and be able to turn either one completely off, without affecting the one you want to keep on requires wiring the volume controls "backward". you have a linear (b) taper pot for the volume, and that will work well when wired backward. but the other pots are audio (d) taper. when used in this application, they will cause a very abrupt drop in the volume when you reduce the volume.
so you have 6 choices:
1 -- use the linear pot for one volume, and the audio taper for the other. -- one control will be fairly normal, the other will cause the volume to drop very quickly when you reduce the volume from max.
2 -- use both of the audio taper pots. both controls will be touchy, but they will both act the same way.
3 -- use both of the audio taper pots, but wire them "upside down" as well as backward. turning them counter clockwise will INCREASE the volume, turning full clockwise turns the pickup off. this will make it very easy to adjust the 'blend' you want, but requires thinking backward, when making the adjustment.
4 -- buy a new linear taper pot so you will have both volumes with linear tapers.
5 -- wire the pickups in series and use the audio taper pots. the controls will work smoothly, but affect the tone when at reduced volume. also, when both pickups are full on, series will sound darker than parallel.
6 -- use the diagram i gave you.
so now that you know what to expect, you can make an informed decision.
now you DO have a clue how bad that idea was.
make your choice according to which one presents problems that will bother you the least.
cheers,
unk
|
|
lechatnoir
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by lechatnoir on Nov 22, 2006 12:20:25 GMT -5
Thanks a lot - I think I'll go with option 2 or 3... we'll see! I'll let you know how I get on!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Nov 22, 2006 13:05:20 GMT -5
okay then, here's the wiring for 2 (just replace the B500K pot with a D500K. and here's the wiring for 3 another thing, i should mention, if your middle was RWRP you will want to put that at the neck. that way you will get less hum when the neck and middle are used together.
|
|
lechatnoir
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by lechatnoir on Nov 22, 2006 16:53:31 GMT -5
Thanks a lot, really kind of you! I'll let you know how it goes!
|
|
mooncaine
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
|
Post by mooncaine on Jan 7, 2007 2:48:15 GMT -5
Back before I used a Roland VG, I gigged with a Strat, but had a Squier Tele backup guitar and I came to love the sound of the neck and bridge pups together. I wanted that on my Strat.
Guitar Player magazine had run an article on how to rewire your Strat for different things, and I dug up that article and used it to rewire my Strat. I know nothing about how the switches and pups, and their wiring, work, so without that article I would have screwed things up, for sure. Anyway, that setup worked out so that my 5 position switch would do:
1. [closest to bridge] Bridge Only 2. Bridge and Neck 3. Neck Only 4. All three 5. I forgot because I stopped using this guitar 8 years ago, but whatever this position was, I seldom used it.
Oh, the middle pickup was already wired out of phase to the other two.
I loved the sound of the Strat's neck and bridge pups together. If I got a Strat again, I'd have to buy a reprint of that article, because I would want to wire it that way.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 8, 2007 5:38:16 GMT -5
I need to be the first one to respond to this one, guys. moonie, ! It's about time you showed up here! ;D ;D ;D No need for article reprints, we handle that sort of thing every day. But it now makes sense why you have a soldering iron, and not a meter. We'll fix that soon enough. ;D sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jan 8, 2007 14:00:56 GMT -5
hi Mooncaine,
one of the simplest ways to get neck and bridge with a standard strat 5-way, would be to exchange the neck and middle connections at the 5-way.
that would get you:
1. [closest to bridge] Bridge Only 2. Bridge and Neck 3. Neck Only 4. Neck and Middle 5. Middle Only
if you also commandeered the tone side of the 5-way, you could get:
1. [closest to bridge] Bridge Only 2. Bridge and Neck 3. Neck Only 4. All three 5. Middle Only
you could also do something similar by exchanging the bridge and middle connections:
1. [closest to bridge] Middle Only 2. Bridge and Middle 3. Bridge Only 4. Neck and Bridge 5. Neck Only
of course, since the Neck and Bridge have the same magnetic polarity, you won't have hum-canceling when using them together. (unless you change one of them to RWRP.)
cheers,
unk
|
|