spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 26, 2012 14:29:27 GMT -5
First post so all the usual new member apologies apply - I'm open to any and all criticism and will amend any blunders.
I am at the final stages of a scratch build. I have 3 kent armstrong lipstick pups, one of which is RWRP. They go will go in two at the bridge to look kind of like a humbucker and one at the neck.
I have 1 volume, 1 tone, and a 4 pole 6 position rotary switch from Stew Mac.
I'd like to the set up below. I've read some of the SSS schematics here and I can get close to what I want having perused for about 4 hours but I thought someone might have a very specific schematic for me:
Position 1 - bridge only Position 2 - bridge and middle(RWRP) in series to act like humbucker Position 3 - neck only Position 4 - bridge, middle and neck in series Position 5 - bridge and neck in series Position 6 and on - I don't know...what might be fun?
Thoughts? Is this too vague? The pots are not push/pull but if there's something crazy I could do by changing that, I'm open.
I don't want to add any more switches or pots.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 26, 2012 15:50:43 GMT -5
Spicynuts-
Hello and Welcome to G-Nutz2!
I don't know that we have a diagram for that, we may need to draw something up custom.
Are you wedded to the positions you have listed? What about if neck was at one end of the rotary instead of in the middle?
Middle in parallel with bridge, maybe? Or Middle in series with bridge, both parallel with the neck (like a HB + SC)? An OOP option would be the other logical possibility.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 26, 2012 18:35:16 GMT -5
Middle in parallel with bridge, maybe? Or Middle in series with bridge, both parallel with the neck (like a HB + SC)? An OOP option would be the other logical possibility. I second that thought about (M*B) + N. In position 5, the N*B could be replaced by N*M. Since the middle is so close to the bridge those two combinations would sound very similar but the latter will be hum-canceling. N+M hasn't been mentioned yet. Lipsticks sound nice in series, but they aren't bad in parallel. N*B out of phase would be possible, if you want an out of phase combination. And since they are of like polarity, they will hum-cancel when out of phase.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 26, 2012 20:33:22 GMT -5
Pending finalization of exactly what you want at position 6, I drew this schematic up. Hopefully it is all correct, but we'll need verification. This does (B X M) + N at position 6, all others are as per your desires. If you change your mind, the changes suggested above are easily made with this scheme. There are probably cleaner and more elegant ways of wiring this- call this the "down and durty" version! But this can serve as a starting point for further discussion.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 26, 2012 21:51:55 GMT -5
There are probably cleaner and more elegant ways of wiring this- call this the "down and durty" version! But this can serve as a starting point for further discussion. Newey, this is an excellent structure. It's a close cousin of one of my favorites. I prefer to use two poles on the Neck rather than the Middle. That allows the possibility of -N*B or -N+B. It also allows for N+B and N+M. Your version allows for middle out of phase and M+B and M+N. If M+B is desired, this structure can get there. And it does appear to work as advertized.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 26, 2012 22:10:06 GMT -5
I am absolutely not wedded to the positions as I listed them. I guess I should have used the word 'option' or 'setting'.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 26, 2012 22:13:06 GMT -5
I am not used to the notation you guys use for this stuff yet and I'm also a newbie schema reader so it will take me awhile to work through the suggestions above. So for now I'll just say thanks! Once I have some time tomorrow to understand what I'm looking at, I'll post more.
I can say I do like the idea of an out of phase option.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 26, 2012 22:56:24 GMT -5
No worries, got yer back . . .
I thought it might be difficult to get exactly the positions you wanted, but it actually was pretty easy. Since the structure is all series, I simply worked out position 4 (B X M X N) and worked backwards from there, eliminating coils as needed.
We can put that on the rotary if desired, but most players find OOP to be a "sometimes thing". So, it lends itself to a separate module, on a Push/Pull pot (or other switching). Putting it on the neck pup would mean that you'd get the most useful OOP setting (-N X B, at position 5). This gives the widest coil separation and also makes the combo hum-cancelling, as noted by RT above.
While my sketch is a schematic, it does have some features of a wiring diagram, in that I tried to make it read left-to-right insofar as possible.
As for notation, a "times symbol" (i.e., " X " or " * ") means a series connection, and "+" means parallel. (These symbols approximate what is happening electrically . . .)
I have also used " - " to indicate a coil which is phase-reversed (i.e., OOP). This is also sometimes indicated with parentheses, like on an account statement, so the bridge pickup OOP is noted as " (B) ".
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 27, 2012 14:16:16 GMT -5
Thanks so much, Newey..this looks great. Before we get to throwing the OOP option in there, I have some extremely annoying base line questions for you about reading the schematic. I'd be honored if you'd indulge me, but obviously I can try to find the answer myself if you'd prefer. So:
1) when you have two lines connecting at a dot, what does that mean?
2) when you have a hot wire from a pick up like in the N going to three nodes on the switch (6, 5 and 4), does that mean I solder the hot wire to the 6 node, then a jumper to 5 then another jumper to 4?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 27, 2012 14:42:00 GMT -5
That the wires are connected. Wires which cross without a dot are not connected. Because this is a schematic and not a wiring diagram, the dot shows the two wires are electrically connected somewhere; in the actual guitar the connections likely won't be made in mid-wire, where the "dot" is shown. More likely, the actual connections will be made at a terminal lug on a switch or other component. A schematic shows electrical relationships, not physical layout. Ultimately, once we get a final schematic of what you want, then it will need to be translated into a wiring diagram, which does show the physical relationships. The wiring diagram is then used for the actual wiring and soldering work. It's just easier for me to draw up the basic concepts in the form of a schematic (and easier for RT to double-check my work as well). That's the best way of doing it, although realize that the order doesn't matter so long as the connections are all made. You may find it to be easier or tidier to wire the pickup to the #4 lug, and then jumper to #5 and to #6. Or to #5 first, and from there to the others. My threshold for minor annoyance has not yet been reached, much less for "extreme". IOW, we're here to help. If we didn't want to help newcomers with their inquiries, well, it's a mighty big web out there. We all started somewhere. When I first started participating in this Board (about 4 years ago now), I couldn't have drawn a schematic to save my life . . . Again, happy to help- no bowing and scraping required!
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Mar 27, 2012 14:49:51 GMT -5
1) Lines which cross without a dot do not connect. The dots show where two or more wires connect. This is a schematic, though, not a wiring diagram. You don't have to (and I would tend to avoid) spliced these together "in mid air". Usually connect these wires at some convenient pot or switch lug.
2) Yeah, pretty much. All of those things need to connect one way or another. If you strip the wire long enough you can sometimes just connect it to all those lugs and not bother with separate jumper wires, as long as the bare wire isn't going to be touching anything that it shouldn't.
Edit - yup, was afraid id be ninja'd! Answers to #1 are darn near identical.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 27, 2012 19:07:08 GMT -5
You guys are great. Yeah I wasn't sure whether the dot meant crimp together or solder to a pot shell.
Anyway - I'm pretty damn happy with what you've worked up for me. If you want to throw the bridge/neck OOP option in there on the rotary switch, then I think I'd be fine moving to a wiring diagram. I not too keen on the push/pull pot option as I've been building this guitar for a year and a quarter and I'm so near the end I don't know if I can handle waiting for more parts to arrive!
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 27, 2012 21:22:11 GMT -5
Here's the same scheme with an OOP option at position 6. So, you can take your pick, one or the other diagram. As RT mentioned earlier, the way I drew it, using two switch poles for the middle pickup means I can easily put the middle pup OOP. Here, it's OOP in series with the neck. Serial OOP ("SOOP") will give a stronger signal and is generally preferred to parallel out-of-phase ("POOP"). And combining the neck with the mid gives you almost as much distance between the coils as with the bridge. The further apart two coils are when wired OOP, the less signal cancellation will occur. The downside of using the middle is that, because it's RWRP, putting it OOP means it won't hum-cancel anymore. (a clever lad will have noticed that, by taking a RWRP pickup like your middle pup here, and switching the wires around, we have un-reversed the windings. It's now "normally wound". So, how is it then out-of-phase? The answer is that the reversed magnetic fields make it OOP just as swapping the wires does.) Now, you have some decisions to make. First, you can chose to not worry about hum-cancelling too much, and trust to a good shielding job to cut any hum to a tolerable level. It may not be all that bad even without the shielding, there are so many variables in hum/noise levels. Second, you can send me back to the drawing board, to redo the scheme as RT suggested, so that you can get the -N X B OOP setting which will be hum-cancelling. This essentially means redrawing the entire scheme. I'll do that if you decide that's really what you want, but I'm not sure if I can get to that before the weekend. The third option is to physically move your RWRP middle pup to the bridge position, and put the bridge pup in the middle position. The OOP combo will then be hum-cancelling (It's still N X -M, but the "new" middle pup isn't the RWRP one anymore.) Notice that moving the pickup will make your N X B combination at position 5 also hum-cancelling, whereas it isn't in the original scheme. So, moving the RWRP pup to the bridge position sort of kills two birds here. The M X B "Humbucker" at position 2 will remain hum-cancelling just as in the original scheme. Of course, the RWRP pickup is usually located in the middle position on a Strat for the simple reason that the middle pup is involved in the only multi-coil options on a stock Strat -positions 2 and 4 on the 5-way. So, putting the RWRP pup in the middle maximizes hum-cancelling there. Your scheme, however, is different- you only have the B X M combination at position 2, which will remain hum-cancelling anyway. So, I see a lot of merit in this particular scheme of moving the RWRP pup to the bridge position. (And, no, I'm not just saying that to avoid having to redraw the diagram!) The only possible downside to moving the pickup would be if there's a difference in output between the two coils, if it's one of those "matched sets" of pickups. Even so, the mid and bridge in those sets are usually so close that there's not a noticeable difference. A slight difference in output can also often be ameliorated by lowering the height of the offending pup. Anyway, here's the OOP version:
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 27, 2012 22:28:15 GMT -5
Now, you have some decisions to make. First, you can chose to not worry about hum-cancelling too much, Noooooooo! Second, you can send me back to the drawing board, to redo the scheme as RT suggested, so that you can get the -N X B OOP setting which will be hum-cancelling. This essentially means redrawing the entire scheme. I'll do that if you decide that's really what you want, but I'm not sure if I can get to that before the weekend. If he does that, I'd suggest also changing position 5 to Middle x Neck. Since the Middle and Bridge are right next to each other, this won't sound too different from Bridge x Neck. And Middle x Neck is hum-canceling if the RWRP stays in the middle. The third option is to physically move your RWRP middle pup to the bridge position, and put the bridge pup in the middle position. The OOP combo will then be hum-cancelling (It's still N X -M, but the "new" middle pup isn't the RWRP one anymore.) Notice that moving the pickup will make your N X B combination at position 5 also hum-cancelling, whereas it isn't in the original scheme. So, moving the RWRP pup to the bridge position sort of kills two birds here. The M X B "Humbucker" at position 2 will remain hum-cancelling just as in the original scheme. Reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 27, 2012 23:37:37 GMT -5
So, I see a lot of merit in this particular scheme of moving the RWRP pup to the bridge position. (And, no, I'm not just saying that to avoid having to redraw the diagram!) I just had another thought. What if... You leave the RWRP in the middle position, physically, on the guitar. You leave the drawing basically as-is. You re-label the middle pickup on the drawing as the bridge pickup, and vice-versa. The bottom pickup on the drawing is now the middle pickup on the guitar and is hum-canceling when used with either of the other two.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 28, 2012 21:46:32 GMT -5
I'm fine with either moving the RWRP pup to the bridge or using the last idea from reTrEaD. No need to send you back to the drawing board. I like everything I'm seeing.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 28, 2012 21:55:15 GMT -5
This solves the hum-cancelling issue, but (assuming no redrawing) we now have middle alone at position 1, and N X M at position 5.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 29, 2012 7:32:42 GMT -5
This solves the hum-cancelling issue, but (assuming no redrawing) we now have middle alone at position 1, and N X M at position 5. Yes. If this guitar had the pickups spaced like a Strat, I wouldn't have suggested it. But since the middle and bridge are right next to each other, I don't see those results being a much of an issue.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Mar 29, 2012 9:16:48 GMT -5
Well, I think you two should fight it out and then tell me what the best approach might be. I am fine to go either direction.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 29, 2012 10:11:07 GMT -5
Well, I think you two should fight it out and then tell me what the best approach might be. I am fine to go either direction. The "best approach" is the one that get you where you want to go. Rather than "fight it out", I'll just leave my suggestion and the opinion I voiced in the hands of Newey for his consideration. Since he's the one who took the lead on this one and made a diagram, it's appropriate he should have the last word.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 29, 2012 16:50:28 GMT -5
There's no fight here, just a question of what spicynuts wants to do. RT is right, probably not a great deal of difference given that the coils are next to each other. But spicy identified a specific set of coils at specific positions, and RT's suggestion does change those around a bit. I just wanted to be sure we're all on the same page here, so SN can make an intelligent choice of how to proceed. Which, it seems, is where we're at. His choices are now 4 in number: - the original diagram,
- the OOP option,
- the OOP option with a repositioned middle pup
- RT's diagram-swap idea.
And the one who has the last word on this is not me or RT, but spicynuts, since it's his guitar and he has to live with the final choice . . . or, rather, he has to live with it or rewire it yet again. Now, if it were my guitar, I'd go with the first diagram, with the "SC + HB" option for position 6. I think that's going to be a more useful sound than the OOP. It would give at least one parallel option on an otherwise all-series set-up. I'd add OOP separately if it was truly desired. But that's me- spicynuts, YMMV.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Apr 2, 2012 20:53:27 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay on this...busy weekend.
Ok, let's go with OOP with the repositioned middle pup.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Apr 10, 2012 8:50:48 GMT -5
Is bumping an acceptable procedure around here?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 10, 2012 13:44:35 GMT -5
Bumping is fine. But is there a question that was still unanswered? I thought you were good to go with the OOP diagram and swapping the pups?
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Apr 10, 2012 14:16:34 GMT -5
well, i need a wiring diagram. maybe i misread...i thought you needed me to decide which way to go and then a wiring diagram would be generated. am i confused?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 10, 2012 16:11:38 GMT -5
No, right you are, I forgot we had just done the schematic. As I have some actual income-generating work to attend to this evening , it may take some time before I can get a diagram out to you. Also, before I do so, I will need to know how the rotary switch you have is configured- so as to make the diagram somewhat match the reality. There are several different ways a 4P6T rotary switch can be configured, depending on the number of "decks", and how many poles per deck. Most of these would be 2 decks, 2 poles per deck, but there are some that may be 4-deckers.
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Apr 10, 2012 19:10:45 GMT -5
No problem...I didn't mean to rush you. Would you like a picture of the switch? Otherwise, it's this guy: www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/Rotary_Switches.html
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 10, 2012 21:26:29 GMT -5
Well, I finished up the work earlier than I thought, so here's a diagram. This will require someone else to give it the go-ahead, don't start soldering just yet. . . On this diagram, wires are shown as connected by orange dots. Wires which cross w/o a dot aren't connected. The 4 poles of the rotary switch translate as follows: The top pole as shown on the schematic corresponds to the upper pole of the "back end"; the bottom one on the schematic corresponds to the lower one on the "knob end". Photobucket seems intent on miniaturizing my diagrams; hopefully it's legible enough.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 10, 2012 21:34:51 GMT -5
I believe I've solved the problem:
|
|
spicynuts
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
|
Post by spicynuts on Apr 11, 2012 8:08:33 GMT -5
Wow! Thanks so much for getting that to me so quickly! Now I'm going to feel bad because I won't be able to start on it til the weekend!
|
|