mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 5, 2010 18:26:00 GMT -5
Hello Nutz folks. Hello John Ok, That is how things will be going. I have an old RG350DX. I have repainted the body and renewed the neck as well as purchasing a new bridge and of course willing to get new pickups with my own custom wiring. About the controls and electronics that are installed now: - Stock INF3, INFS3 & INF4 pickups - 1 500K volume pot - 1 500K tone pot What I guess I'll need to buy for the project: - Dimarzio Dsonic - Dimarzio D-Activators X - 2 Dimarzio 500K Push/Pull pots: 1 for Volume and 1 for Tone - Dimarzio Megaswitch 4 poles - leaving the stock single coil in the middle. That is the configuration I want for my knowledge. I am willing to use Volume pot for Humbucker/Single switching and Tone for Series/Parallel switching. Positions are from the Bridge to the Neck 1,2,3,4,5 A.When Volume is Down/ Tone is Down: Humbucker/Series: 1. Whole Bridge HBs in Series 2. Coil Split Inner coil of bridge + Single middle ( I guess they are originally in parallel).. Can they be connected in Series ? 3. Whole Bridge HBs + Whole Neck HBs in Series 4. Coil Split Inner coil of neck + Single middle ( I guess they are originally in parallel).. Can they be connected in Series ? 5. Whole Neck HBs in Series B.When Volume is Up/ Tone is Down: Humbucker/Parallel: 1. Whole Bridge HBs in Parallel 2. Coil Split Inner coil of bridge + Single middle ( I guess they are originally in parallel).. ## 3. Whole Bridge HBs + Whole Neck HBs in Parallel 4. Coil Split Inner coil of neck + Single middle ( I guess they are originally in parallel).. ## 5. Whole Neck HBs in Parallel C.When Volume is Down/ Tone is Up: Single/ Forced Parallel to the circuit: 1. Outer Bridge coil 2. Inner Bridge coil 3. Single Middle pickup 4. Inner Neck coil 5. Outer Neck coil D.When Volume is Up/ Tone is Up: Single/Parallel: - Same as C So, is my idea possible to build without any modifications like adding an extra switch or an extra pots ? I mean no extra woodwork. Thanks a lot, John
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 5, 2010 21:42:44 GMT -5
mclord - unfortunately that is too much to ask of a system controlled by push-pull switches, since these are only available with two poles per switch, whci is what would be needed just to change one Hb from series to parallel, nevermind two Is it out of the question to have an extra toggle switch or push button? Although it is a different scheme, you should have read through this thread, about Ibanez HSH, to see if anything applies: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=4675&page=1It is also important to consider what parts will fit in your control cavity. Anyone got some cool HSH schemes? Ill also see if I can think of ideas. John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 5, 2010 21:46:10 GMT -5
McLord- Hello and Welcome! (well, I realize you were welcomed in your other thread, but here's another . . ) We recently had this discussion of the Ibanez-style successive coil switching for a 3 HB guitar. Take a look at this thread: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=4506&page=1This does most of what you want, except for your desired position 3, with the Br and N options. This just has the middle at position 3 (a HB in this scheme). But I think that JohnH's scheme (read all the way to page 2 of the thread) could be modified to fit 2 p/p pots as opposed to the one on-on-on toggle he uses. And the fact that you only have the SC in the middle instead of the HB simplifies things as well. How to get the N and Br in position 3, I don't know but I suspect it can be done. I won't have a chance to take a serious look at it for a week or so due to other commitments, but maybe someone else can chime in with a solution. And I'm not sure that "D" on your chart can be made the same as "C", not sure how that would all work out. But I think JohnH's diagram in the thread I linked can be a starting point for what you want. It's got the Ibanez successive coil switching, in both series and parallel, and the single coil option, that you want. JohnH's use of an on-on-on toggle to switch between the series, parallel and SC modes has advantages for ease of switching, compared to having to manipulate 2 push/pulls to get the various combos. It does mean an extra hole. EDIT: And I see JohnH stepped on my post! If John thinks the p/p switches are going to be insufficient, he's probably right!
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 5, 2010 22:14:03 GMT -5
OK, thats a thought. the scheme that newey pointed to was HHH rather than HSH. But the key to it was that out of all the six (or in your case five) coils, you only pick two of them at a time. Then the toggle switch (which could be done with the two p/p switches in your case) decides whether these two coils are used in series, in parallel, or only one is used.
The concept is quite versatile. Lets say the five coils are Nouter, Ninner, M, Binner, Bouter
Pairs could be: Nouter, Ninner Ninner, Bouter M, Ninner Binner, M Bouter, Binner
those 5 would be available in series or parallel, all humcancelling and with both switches pulled, you could have just the first coil of each of those pairs
Nouter Ninner M Binner Bouter
Right then - thats a good scheme!, and thanks to newey for the clue. What do you think?
John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 5, 2010 22:36:23 GMT -5
John-
Problem is, I get the impression the N + B and N*B at position 3 are a big part of MCL's plans here.
McLord-
As you can see, we can get you there, except for the #3 position. How wedded to that selection are you? And, does it have to be at pos. 3?
I'm thinking some sort of a "neck on" (or "bridge on") set up could be used to give the N+Br options. You'd have that setting available, but not on your 5-way switch.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 5, 2010 22:44:29 GMT -5
John- Problem is, I get the impression the N + B and N*B at position 3 are a big part of MCL's plans here. On my suggestion, N, B options in series and parallel are there at position 2, but only made up of one coil from each. Actually, I would argue that that is fine. Putting two entire humbuckers in series gets very boomy and muddy. Four coils in parallel is OK, but something has to give! Theres 15 solid sounds on my list, every one a coconut, except that the two separate N coils may sound similar to each other. John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 5, 2010 23:41:31 GMT -5
Hello Newey and John too Thanks guys for the welcome and here we take off. I think i missed a lot of action around here. OK, Newey is right about having the B and N in position 3. They are a big part of the plan. Well as that is impossible and ofc I can't add extra toggles or switches because my cavity will fairly take the 2 P/P and a megaswitch. Can I take the Inner coil Bridge with the Inner coil of Neck ? Does that simplify things ? Also about the 3 HBs plan, It seems good but actually I don't have a HB in the middle John, about the part of Nouter, Ninner, M, Binner, Bouter That part is perfect and it is part of the plan too (Singles) Nouter Ninner M Binner Bouter you said that the seprate Neck coils will sound similar. You are right, but there is no other choices. More than 1 coil does mean they are no longer singles. But that part is a bit off, as I want the 5 way switch to be symmetric Nouter, Ninner Ninner, Bouter M, Ninner Binner, M Bouter, Binner Could be this modified like that ? (Humbucking) Nouter, Ninner Ninner, M Binner, Ninner or Bouter, Nouter or Binner, Nouter or Bouter, Ninner/ Is any of them possible at that position while still maintaining humcancelling in both series and parallelBinner, M Bouter, Binner If it could be like that. Then everything is fine. John, for the Full neck + Full bridge, the Nouter, Ninner will be connected in series locally as well as Binner, Bouter locally, but both are connected in parallel with each other globally. I think I wrote "series" by mistake in my post. So, Are the new modifications applicable ? EDIT: newey, unfortunately, I can't dig an extra hole as well as my cavity will have no space to fit all that. But Is there any combination of bridge and neck with any coils available at position 3 specifically ? Thanks a lot guys
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 0:06:49 GMT -5
We realize that the 3xHb scheme is not directly applicable to you, its more as an illustration of an approach, to see if it can be adpted to HSH.
The following is only applicable to this type of design, which is an unusual one that I thought might lead somewhere, but may not be suitable. But continuing with it some more:
If we start with the single coil set
Nouter Ninner M Binner Bouter
Which is logical enough, then with this particular wiring, the two-coil set has to be by adding to this. So I cant put M at 3 as a single, and then coils from N and B at 3 as a pair!
The other thing that this scheme does not provide for is using more than two coils at a time, ie all the B and N coils at once.
So if these provisions are really important for you, we will need to start with a different scheme.
John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 0:10:22 GMT -5
4 coils at a time was wrong. Now 2 coils won't even work.
So the only obstacle here is the combination of the bridge and neck with 2 coils in the third position, Right ?
So at this particular position, M needed to be in the equation, so the Nouter Ninner M Binner Bouter
can work as they are.
Is there any solution to solve that. i mean is there a solution like getting the switches you told about in the first post will leaving them for example ON all the time in the cavity, So they make the circuit work but they don't need to be toggled to achieve different combinations. I mean it has a static condition either ON all the time or OFF all the time ? because I can't dig into the wood.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 6, 2010 0:42:03 GMT -5
Pretty much. JohnH's scheme for the 3 HB guitar gives you the series/parallel/SC combos you want except the mid at #3. Modifying it for a single coil in the middle instead of a HB is trivial. And substituting 2 p/ps instead of the 3-way switch is doable.
As indicated, you could also modify this to give one neck and one bridge coil at pos 2.
With this set up, as John noted, we've used all 4 poles of the superswitch to do just the 2 coils at a time. You'd need more switching to add more than 2 coils at once.
Another option that might be able to give you the N+B combos you seek, but with a bit different switching, would be to use the 5-way superswitch to just control the neck and bridge HBs, and use one P/P pot as a middle pup on/off switch, with the other p/p controlling series/parallel. I haven't thought that all the way through, but it might be a start at an alternative scheme for this.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You could certainly hide one or more switches in the cavity, space permitting, but then you'd have to open the cavity to switch modes.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 6, 2010 1:10:18 GMT -5
newey, John, Do I wanna get in the middle of this? I'll let you two take care of my light work for me ( ), but before I leave, I might suggest that one of you combine all three pups in position 3, then short the Middle pup's ground lead to 'hot', thus yielding only B+N. (Well, that and some Dreaded Tone Suck. ) Too many chocolate-chip cookies for dessert tonight, I'm gonna go sleep 'em off. ;D Oh, and mclord: Hi, and to the NutzHouse! sumgai
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 10:01:17 GMT -5
Pretty much. JohnH's scheme for the 3 HB guitar gives you the series/parallel/SC combos you want except the mid at #3. Modifying it for a single coil in the middle instead of a HB is trivial. And substituting 2 p/ps instead of the 3-way switch is doable. Yes, I know. It the just the problem of Position 2 and 3 inverted. No need for 4 coils combo. Any 2 from the neck will solve the whole problem. Well, there is options, either to use this scheme or sacrifice the middle position of N/B; however, I will wait till someone tell us a brilliant idea Ohh, Well ok. I though I can leave it alone in the cavity the whole time either of or on.. like that.. Never mind newey, John, Do I wanna get in the middle of this? I'll let you two take care of my light work for me ( ), but before I leave, I might suggest that one of you combine all three pups in position 3, then short the Middle pup's ground lead to 'hot', thus yielding only B+N. (Well, that and some Dreaded Tone Suck. ) Too many chocolate-chip cookies for dessert tonight, I'm gonna go sleep 'em off. ;D Oh, and mclord: Hi, and to the NutzHouse! Hello sumgai John, newey. Is sumgai idea possible ? If it is possible, he'd probably save my day Guys. I appreciate all your support. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 6, 2010 10:25:52 GMT -5
Maybe. It might be possible to use one push/pull to switch to single coils as well as add the middle back in. But I'm having trouble visualizing how you'd also disconnect the neck and bridge at the same time without adding another switch pole.
IOW, you might have to live with all 3 single coils at position 3 when in single coil mode, rather than M alone. Not sure how that all would work out.
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 11:07:42 GMT -5
3 single coils in the Middle position in Single Mode ? What 3 coils will be activated at this position ? I'll be waiting for john to see what he'll say about sumgai idea? If he agree with you. Probably, I will think of something else. A scheme from the start with your help. About Sumgai idea, instead of having 5 coils and to short cicuit the middle. We may be able to have 3 coils and short circuit the middle, if that will make it simpler a bit I guess that I may bring a HB in the middle. But that will make everything complicated ? Right ? Like instead of the N+B and N*B in the middle, it is the middle HB and in single coil mode the middle position is one of the middle coils. Like this if we said, Nouter, Ninner, MN, MB, Binner, Bouter MN = Middle on Neck Side MB = Middle on Bridge Side so like this Both series & Parallel Nouter, Ninner Ninner, MN MN, MB Binner, MB Bouter,Bouter and for singles Nouter Ninner MN or MB Binner Bouter I may also don't think of the singles mode at all if that scheme didn't work. So only Nouter, Ninner Ninner, MN MN, MB Binner, MB Bouter,Bouter with 2 p/p or 1p/p if applicable with both parallel and series. But the problem is I don't know if Ninner will overwhelm MN and Binner will overwhelm MB. If this whole idea won't work. It is not a problem it was just an attempt. I am not sure too, that my budget will tolerate another $70 for an extra HB
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 15:58:41 GMT -5
I have thought some more, but am still stuck.
Despite the ideas above, my best offer for the two coil system with superswitch and two push/pulls is the list as in reply 3 above, in that order. Its really pushing the boundaries of those switches and theres nothing left to swap positions 2 and 3 when moving between modes. The point is is that to make it work, the single coil setting in each position needs to be one of the coils selected in the two coil positions.
You can swap the settings around, so you could have Ninner and Bouter in position 3, and get all the two coil settings as you wished, but then in single coil mode, M could not be at position 3.
If it was my guitar, I would be quite happy with the possible list as in reply 3. The single coil sounds are in the right order. You are getting three different sounds from each humbucker in 1 and 5 and the 2, 3 and 4 settings are all different, with 2 and 3 (which have the neck) being heavier than 4.
So, if anyone has a better idea, let them draw it!
Lets discuss other options, back to basics:
You could use a standard 5-way switch to get Strat options, and one p/p could be neck on to give the missing N+B and N+M+B, and the second p/p switch could cut both Hbs to single coils. Lots of sounds there, though no series wiring between pickups. A bit of cleverness with the neck-on switch could ensure a humcancelling B+N single coil combo, which is not usually available on an SSS Strat.
You could also explore any scheme with three singles but using HSH, and use one or two of your p/p switches to cut Hbs to single coil otr parallel (but probably not both). With a two pole p/p switch, you can in general, convert one Humbucker from series to parallel, or you can coil cut one or two humbuckers from series to single coil.
On that HHH scheme, I wouldnt suggest spending extra to go for that unless you really liked it, but it turned out very logically. The selection is each of five adjacent pairs of coils moving from bridge to neck, and in single coil mode, it would be Bo, Bi, Mb, Mn, Ni - and its all drawn up ready to go.
cheers
John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 6, 2010 16:15:26 GMT -5
Alternatively, show us some photos of your cavity. There may be more room than you think. If you could slide a DPDT mini-toggle in there, it would open up some additional options. . .
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 16:32:03 GMT -5
Adding the an HB was just an idea. And I have no more money to spend an extra $70 Sorry. Or I may spend couple of months to get that 70 bucks. You mean like Pos 2 and 4. M,Ni and M,Bo .. Right ? That will only be in parallel.. About the HHH scheme, Could it be Bo, Bi, Mb or Mn, Ni, No. I want it to be symmetrical, If you can ofc Well.. I need sometime time to study the scheme again. I thought of that but I think according to the problem of M in the middle, It will fail. There will be no single mode, So I have a free p/p you may use, that could switch between the Middle mode or N/B mode if possible ? Like Tone down = N/B Like Tone up = Middle Something like that and the volume pot is for newey, Adding a DPDT mini-toggle means woodwork. And I can't do that because I may mess up everything Here is an image of the cavity: (It is similar guitar, not mine) a.imagehost.org/0158/cavity.jpg
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 17:17:56 GMT -5
Is symmetry really so important? just wondering, and its your call of course, but it seems to be limiting the options.
Also, I can understand not wanting to do woodwork or add switches, but mini-toggles of anything up to four poles are the easiest of all switches to add (provided the surface is not too thick), only a 1/4"or 6.5mm hole is needed. You have already done a lot of work on this guitar in painting and changing the neck.
John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 17:31:15 GMT -5
To be honest, I never proceed to a job before being sure that I can do it. The painting was with the help of a friend. He mixed the materials and that stuff and I painted it with a new finish of metallic black. Changed the neck with a better neck but still maintain the old headstock shape and for the electronics, I can buy the parts, but I don't know how to wire them. So I needed to resort to experts like you. Symmetry is somehow important because the options are a lot. I have 10 different sounds as a start, and I will confuse among them. What could you say about the idea I told in post #16 ? A p/p for Middle and Neck/Bridge for switching. I found that having singles will not be very important. Parallel humbucker is enough for cleans as well as coil splits.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 18:15:14 GMT -5
OK, well if the 5 single coil options are not needed, then the two coil options can be rearranged into the order that you want:
Neck both Neck inner, Middle Neck inner, Bridge Outer Bridge inner, Middle Bridge both
One pp switch turns each pair from series to parallel., leaving a spare pp switch. At the least, this switch could overide everything and force M alone to go on, no matter how the 5-way is set. Will have to think further if it can do more (im not sure if it can be limited to only pos 3), but how would that be? - I could buy into that scheme.
John
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 18:38:12 GMT -5
But - not given up on the first scheme yet, I think there may be a possible way to have B,N in pos 3, and M when in single coil mode, as discussed earlier, so you get all 15 sounds.
The M pup can afford to have one end grounded, and the coil cut switch has a spare pole since only one is needed. So theres only the hot end of M that needs switching, and the spare pp pole can substitute it into position 3 in place of a neck coil, only when the pp for single coil mode is pulled.
Maybe, but does that sound good? ie im changing my story having realized something new.
so it could be:
Neck both Neck inner, Middle Neck inner, Bridge Outer Bridge inner, Middle Bridge both
in series or para, and in single mode Neck outer Neck inner Middle Bridge inner Bridge outer,
One pp switch would be pulled to change to parallel combos of 2 coils . If the other was pulled instead youd get single coils. If you pulled both you could get parallel or single depending how its wired, which would be better if both pulled?
John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 19:49:22 GMT -5
Neck both Neck inner, Middle Neck inner, Bridge Outer Bridge inner, Middle Bridge both That is part of it. If I wanted to have Ninner, Binner. I will need to rotate the Bridge by 180 degrees, Right ? yes, Exactly Well using the pp to just use the single coil in the middle is not good at all. I prefer you ignore that idea. That symmetry problem In what positions of the knobs are these combinations ? I want it ti be clarified more, for example if we said V for parallel/series and T is for single/humbucking. if both volume and Tone are down we are series with 2 coils "One pp switch would be pulled to change to parallel combos of 2 coil" That is if the Volume is up while Tone is down "If the other was pulled instead youd get single coils" That is if the Volume is down while the Tone is up "which would be better if both pulled?" Singles in parallel They are already in parallel to the circuit. I guess that having the Tone up and Volume is up or down will not affect it. There is no series for singles in the circuit, or Am I wrong ? BTW, that is the old scheme I want. I hope I can understand how do you think and I can be at least at half of your knowledge in that stuff XD I appreciate your help John so much
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 6, 2010 21:22:52 GMT -5
McL- Not exactly, originally you wanted full N and Br HBs at position 3. That was the bugaboo that can't be solved without more switching. Also, in looking at your cavity, and since you say you don't want to do any woodworking, better check the dimensions of a Superswitch against the dimensions of the 5-way switch that's in there. You may be looking at some fitment issues with that alone, much less drilling for another switch (which you could certainly do, there's room for a minitoggle in there). And John- Are we talking a binary tree arrangement of those p/p pots? At least it seems like that's where you're headed.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 21:30:50 GMT -5
I think its this:
A. Both switches down, you have 5 combinations of two coils each, with those coils being in series - this position picks up the standard full series humbuckers in 1 and 5, and in 2, 3, 4, makes a series combo of coils from different pickups.
B. Volume up, tone down - as above, except the coils are parallel instead of series, less output, brighter sound
C. Volume down, tone up - you get the five single coils each on their own
D. Both up, has to be the same as either B or C - you choose, but it would be possible to adjust this later
I think this could work, and ive started a diagram
You can have Binner and N inner, so long as one is a screw coil and one is a slug coil so they are hum cancelling. It means also that you must have either M plus Nouter and M plus Binner at 2 and 4, or M plus Ninner and M plus Bouter. ie you do end up rotating one pickup, but it can be either one. It also affects whether you get a standard or reversed pickup for your Middle
John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 22:32:09 GMT -5
Not exactly, originally you wanted full N and Br HBs at position 3. That was the bugaboo that can't be solved without more switching.. That was old now. I agree on any of the coils from neck with any of the coils from Bridge. 2 coils are just enough. EDIT: I guess there is enough space for the switch. I am waiting for John.. I think its this: A. Both switches down, you have 5 combinations of two coils each, with those coils being in series - this position picks up the standard full series humbuckers in 1 and 5, and in 2, 3, 4, makes a series combo of coils from different pickups. What will be in Position 3 ? Other than that, it is fine Depends on A about combinations Nice As you like. What will give us a better ability to change in the future without hassle ? Finally, that What I want to hear ? Do I order my parts now ? Thanks a lot John
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 6, 2010 22:55:26 GMT -5
Better just check your cavity depth against the switches that you will order. Endo, on his current Suhr Guthrie Govan thread, found that on his HSH Ibby he could only fit a pp pot at the vol position, not the tone. John
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 6, 2010 23:54:44 GMT -5
Better just check your cavity depth against the switches that you will order. Endo, on his current Suhr Guthrie Govan thread, found that on his HSH Ibby he could only fit a pp pot at the vol position, not the tone. John The Pots dimensions www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Potentiometers/Push-pull_Pots.html My cavity depth till the cover (without cover height) SO here is calculations My cavity is measured like that using a ruler , it s 3.2 cm and the space before the "zero" in the ruler is 0.3 cm, so with a total of 3.5 cm. No idea about the superswitch width at all or the height. So I hope someone can help me with that. About the Pots, I think their width is around 2.6 cm. If the space is not enough.. Probably, I may go suicide EDIT: I guess that will be too huge. So it will not fit I found that, Will that work ? That is much more slimmer www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/Super_Switch.html but it seems the depth is a problem As far from the description, It needs 1-7/16" body cavity depth = 3.65. I have 3.5 roughly. I don't know what to do I have about 1 cm that is free between the 3 upper lugs of the pot and from the 5 way Ibanez Standard switch.. The Ibanez Standerd Switch is 1 cm width. I will contact Stewmac and see what they will say. Also please read its instructions: www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/Super_Switch.html?tab=Instructions#details I don't know if that may help you, as they say the common lug behaves differently from other switches So.. What do you think ? All dimensions are from an Ibanez of my friend. It is like mine exactly.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 7, 2010 1:03:00 GMT -5
Actually, it's a bit less than 8 mm, the pots are 28.58 mm depth, you've got 35mm, so I figure 6.4 is more like it. But the p/p pots wire from the side, so you won't be running the wires under the pots anyway, but to the side. I think you'll be OK with some planning for how the wires will route around the pots.
Ths Superswitch also looks ok depth-wise, it was the length that looked like it might be problematic to me. The dimensions of the slot aren't the issue, since the body of the switch is wider than the slot. We should be able to hunt up some firm dimensions for that switch somewhere.
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 7, 2010 1:23:19 GMT -5
I calculated it wrong. You are right !
my depth from the switch side is 3.9 cm & 3.5 from the pots side - the switch is routed a bit deeper.. the switch needed depth is 1 7/16" = 3.66 cm.. So there is about 0.34 gap ? are they enough ?
I am searching for the max. width of switch so, I can know if they switch will touch the pole of the volume pot or not.
|
|
mclord
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by mclord on Feb 9, 2010 19:43:45 GMT -5
Finally received a reply from stewmac support and measured all the dimensions again more accurately this time. Newey, you were completely right, The length seems to be a problematic. I may sand some of the wood inside a little to remove some of the wood inside However, here is all the measures: Switch measures:- From Outside:mounting hole to mounting whole : 41 mm Req : 41.2 mm , So I guess it will fit Slot width and length are fine. From Inside:Cavity depth as switch side : 39 mm Req : 36.5, so it will fit fine Available maximum length for the switch 57mm Req :47.7, so it will fit Available width form the switch (from outmost left) to the (rightmost) of the volume pot : 25 mm Req: 19 mm , so if the original radius of the pot from its outer most to the pole is 25 mm. So the p/p might be 27 mm .. that means 27 - 25 = +2 mm and 25 - 2 = 23mm , so 23 - 19 = +3~4 mm gap between the poles and the switch. The pots are fine from all dimensions, I think ! So, John & Newey, What can we do now ?
|
|