Can we have it all?

[col]

Hi,

For some time I've been thinking about some alternative guitar wiring schemes. I read johnh's comment from a day or two ago (and similar comments from others) that seem to suggest that the problem with existing schemes (for three PU guitars) that attempt to provide all possible arrangements (17 sans phase; 47 with phase), is that they are impractical to use, and are therefore unsatisfactory.

Dec 22, 2012 0:11:21 GMT -5 JohnH said:

The Strat, was almost new and electrically fine, but just needed to be explored to figure out why it was how it was and to explore a couple of extra sounds that I rely on. Playing a stock-wired Strat or LP just annoys me now, as I try to find what I'm looking for, even though the main sounds are just fine and i no longer want to add 42 extra sounds.

All-encompassing schemes are impractical to operate in live situations, and are seemingly always devoid of semantic switching (slow, and ugly too). A simple five-way lever switch is simple, semantic, and therefore, elegant. Toggle, slide and rotary switches have their uses, but can become very unsemantic, very quickly.

Before I finalise some ideas, I'd like to seek out the thoughts of others. Is the general consensus that the problem with such schemes is that they are plain ugly (visually and semantically), or is it more complicated than this? Obviously, a simple lever switch is very simple to use, provides five sounds, and is cheap too. I'm sure economics is a factor too, but to what extent does this override the development of better schemes?

I realise that without detailing specifics, full comment might be difficult, but I am not ready to divulge the details of my schemes. Is the barrier to generally employing more all-encompassing schemes: complicated operation; or tradition; or economics; or something else? Why are most people happy to accept just three or five sounds from their guitar when there are so many more potential tonal options available?

[Deleted]

I guess Fender had raised the same questions as you, along the same mindset, and ended up in the special electronics in American Deluxe Strat. 10 sounds +1 with one push/pull, one "bypass" button and the classic 5-way lever switch. In the end, besides bridge and neck which are fully recognizable in any guitar (Les Paul, Strat, etc..) , the legendary position 2 of the strat, and the legendary middle position of the Les Paul, all other sounds can be achieved more or less by the use of amp equalizer. Also the new digital era dictates moving the processing away from the guitar offloading them to specialized processors. Overloading a guitar to achieve 40 sounds, when you can have x1000 by the use of an effects processor, is just not practical. In the digital era, IMHO, further develop the guitar in an analog manner has no future. In fact as long as the traditional electric guitar as we know persist, we should be happy.

[wolf]

Personally, I like to have as many switching possibilities for any guitar I play.
Here is the switching for all possible combinations for 3 single coils:
www.1728.org/guitar2a.htm

Here is the switching for all possible 2 humbucker combinations:
www.1728.org/guitar6.htm

[megi]

Dec 25, 2012 3:38:15 GMT -5 wolf said:

Personally, I like to have as many switching possibilities for any guitar I play.
Here is the switching for all possible combinations for 3 single coils:
www.1728.org/guitar2a.htm

Here is the switching for all possible 2 humbucker combinations:
www.1728.org/guitar6.htm

wolf, I have your super seven switching installed on an old Ibanez Allan Holdsworth model guitar I have, using two Entwistle HDN humbuckers. I admit I like the "lots of switches" look (and I added an 8th switch which is a volume bypass) but also I have to say, if the controls are laid out in the right ergonomic kind of way, the circuit is pretty natural and intuitive to use - no one ever believes me when I say that, but true nontheless. And thank you for the help I've had from your website - along with this place and the original guitarnutz site, I've learnt a lot.

[4real]

My strat in the gallery uses the MR scheme plus variable spliting and phase and reaps 30+ combos with no obvious modification and very intuitively laid out. My LP 22 with 4 p-p pots...standard with all pots down. On that LP and pups in it, the 'splits' sould very similar to the local parallel, but the parallels are dead quiet. My tele has only 3 selections with a gibson stype switch, plus a phas switch and the sustainer and for a very long time, that was my 'go to guitar'.

For most people/players the standard selections are plenty enough, EVH only had one pup a volume control and gets a huge variety of sounds and that is a cool way to go. A lot of combinations also just dont work too well with certain pups, big drops in volumes or loss of noise reduction or simply that half the HB sounds weak. After all, even 'splits' still ahve the opposite magnet pole right next to them, so on that alone they are not similar.

And As I posted recently, a lot of the 'tone' I believe is in the envelope of the note, not so much the pickups either.

I think the whole digital thing is way oversteping things, at least with the technology so far. There is always a 'delay' of a kind to convert to and from analog to digital and back for amplification.

But one you get up to 47 selections, so many will sound as good as similar...'everything schemes' abound of course, but really most of those things are not that much different that it matters live and even limited in recording situations. More experienced people do tend to get things down to a few favs. For instance, the B+N on a strat is a great sound, I had no problem sacrificing the middle alone for it and in a logical place. The 'series things' though....I never really use them, they tend to sound 'muddy' to a great extent. Some sound good with some 'phase' variation, my strat has a HOoP control but, how are you going to switch one for the other.

I'd considered in teh past making a DIL circuit board so that things could be customized to a few selections, selected by the user...kind of 'programming the guitar' fo the selections one wants.

For me also, I put a premium on 'noiseless' using stacked SC or HB and so a lot of 'selections' are going to compromise that. A lot of enviroments now ahve a lot of noise generators about, computers to fluros and all that. So, tend to be 'safe' rather than sorry in that department.

But with a strat and a super-switch' few p-p switches, you get all the variation one might reasonably want. I've done some weird schemes, but there is some virtue in 'looking stock' and operating as expected...The MR scheme is extremly intuitive and gives a huge range of sounds. On the old 'phase caster' with a mid pup fader, that had the possibility of some great effects...but that did require 'modding' with a bunch of toggles and gibson selector...a great layout, but moding of both the scratchplate and a substantial amount of wood inside it.

But yes, if there is no schematatic and such...well...hard to comment at all. Some seem to like the idea of varitone or rotorary swithces, I dont, but then it is a matter of choice. Customization is really 'that' is it not, not a one scheme suits all...if that is what is intended...

[col]

@pyrros Unfortunately, the American Deluxe Strat somewhat exemplifies what I (and I suspect most others) find 'ugly'. In its standard setting, it is fully semantic: the five positions relate directly to the pickups selected. However, there is no way you could guess what pickups are selected and their arrangement when the S1 switch is engaged. This is not necessarily a killer, as five alternative sounds are easy enough to learn (even if you don't know how the pickups are wired). I'd argue that this is not true of 47 sounds, with a multitude of switches, with little to no semantic meaning behind the switch positions.

wolf Unless I'm missing something, the Ultra Strat Mod seems to provide just 18 of the 47 possible configurations. I have not yet worked through the scheme enough to comment upon how semantic it might be in operation. Don't misunderstand me. You have some great ideas and wiring diagrams at your site - they are just not what I am after.

4real I think you pretty-much exemplify what I feel is the problem. You like options, but you are happier when things remain uncluttered and you can easily locate your favourite sounds. Though, of course, you are unusual in that you have experimented enough to know what are your favourite sounds and how to wire your guitar to achieve them - and often retain stock appearance too! Though, my feeling is that 'retaining stock appearance' is often more about 'retaining beauty' than it is about retaining the original look (a valuable classic guitar excepted, of course). I'm guessing that if you could have those 47 sounds, within a semantic scheme, and retain a beautiful looking guitar, you would be more inclined to have a guitar like this. And, I surmise this would be even more the case for those people without your extensive modding background, where they unlikely to know the precise sounds (pickup arrangements) that might interest them.

I feel that guitarists are, in the main, very conservative about the appearance and operation of their instrument. There are schemes available for passively mixing three pups (or even six coils) together in any way we might choose, but these ideas fail for other reasons (not just expense). Passive, direct switching options seem best, but only so long as they are not overly messy and retain semantic meaning.

The ideas I have are pretty simple, but would require the development of a piece of hardware. I'm just trying to work out if it is worth the effort and expense. All the logic is worked out.

[newey]

col-

You mention visual appeal, tactile factors, and useability, and these issues sort of define the basic divide we have- lots of options, some of which may sound very similar, and which may be either "ugly" or hard to access, versus fewer combos but more elegant switching and better access to those combos.

This also breaks down along the lines of "stage use" vs. "Studio use", given the need for easier access to sounds on stage.

On the visual aspect, there seem to be three schools of thought. First, some demand a stock appearance, which can be changed back to stock wiring for resale. Second, some like a "clean" look but will take added switches so long as the end result is aesthetically-pleasing; they want the guitar to look "custom" but not cluttered. Finally there's the group who want as many switches, knobs, LEDS, whatever- the "tech is cool" school.

As far as easy of use, switching logic, etc.- what you call "semantics"- this raises other issues. Car manufacturers (and car stereo manufacturers) long ago found out that a dashboard with identically-sized and shaped buttons for all the functions looks visually "clean" and appealing, but doesn't work well when the operator is attempting to select things at speed, in the dark, by feel alone.

So, nowadays, they have the functions divided between knobs, switches, levers- different shapes. sizes, different tactile feel. The stereo makers found out that an analog knob for volume control beats all the hi-tech up/down buttons or slider switches.

Visually, this all looks like a big ol' mess- but it is better in use. Same can be said of guitar switching.

[Deleted]

col just a comment, you said the combinations are 17 without phase, 47 with phase.

my numbers are a little different. According to my knowledge of combinatory algebra:

without phase :
(3 by 1) +
(3 by 2) * #(parallel/serial) +
( 3 by 3) * #(parallel/serial)
=
3 + /* single pup selected */
3 * 2 /* number of pairs of two in parallel or series */
6 * 2 /* the #of the above pairs with the 3rd pup in parallel or series */
= 3 + 6 + 12 = 21

with phase:
(3 by 1) +
(3 by 2) * #(parallel/serial) * #(in/out of phase) +
( 3 by 3) * #(parallel/serial) * #(combinations of in/out of phase)
=
3 + /* single pup selected */
3 * 2 * 2 /* number of pairs of two in parallel/series in/out of phase */
12 * 2 * 2 /* the #of the above pairs with the 3rd pup in parallel/series in/out of phase*/
= 3 + 12 + 48 = 63

am i missing smth?

of course without phase combinations (21) are included in the 63.

[JohnH]

Dec 25, 2012 8:40:52 GMT -5 col said:

The ideas I have are pretty simple, but would require the development of a piece of hardware. I'm just trying to work out if it is worth the effort and expense. All the logic is worked out.

Hi col

If you have a scheme for something clever then I'd say go for it if it is worth it to you to see your idea realised and to be able to play it. It may not be the end of the story but may lead to something else that you can't predict yet.

I'm guilty of a few do-everything schemes, and although I now like to pair down excess functionality, I still like them and they are great puzzles to solve. But I think the solution to a complex scheme is not only to get the good sounds, but also cut out redundant and sub optimal sounds, and make it usable with whatever is left.

cheers

John

[ashcatlt]

I guess I come out somewhere in the middle.

For live use I really only need, want, and use one good sound. As long as I can have either a middle pickup or a N and B combination I'm good. I'd very much prefer that there not be any way to accidentally leave that sound in the heat of the moment - no gibson-style toggles anywhere, and all other switches out of the way of my flailing picking hand. I use a combination of right hand technique and pedals to change tone and volume.

For the studio I like to have as many options as possible. Part of the reason I have so many darn guitars! But I also want all of the options from each of the guitars. The way I layer things means that I'm looking for very subtle differences sometimes. Yes, I can (and do) use effects, but there's still something strangely satisfying about getting the sound from the guitar. It almost goes against my entire philosophy, but it's there.

As for aesthetics, again I'm middle of the road. I don't mind at all a few subtle changes to the stock appearance. My LP has a rotary in place of the toggle, as does my Rick. My hybrid offset tele thing has a few mini goggles in between the lever switch and the knobs. But that guitar posted above is way too cluttered and messy looking for me.

On semantics - with my guitars it's almost impossible to make any real drastic sound changes in any kind of hurry. You have to turn this rotary and then that one and maybe flip a toggle or two... But as I said, I don't do that live anyway. I do put some effort into designing to some form of logic, though, so that all that switching is as intuitive as possible. Of course, it's difficult to relay to others.

I find that most guitarists really don't have a clue what the switches on their guitars actually do. They just twiddle til they find something that sounds good and go with it. I asked a dude the other day if his three pickup tele was just standard 5-way switching and his response was to flip the lever and count. Didn't use his fingers, but I did see his lips moving.

[4real]

Oh no, I ahve a little 'distain' for that "gamechanger" thing, a lot of marketing hype (all these great players/endorsees saying how revolutionary Ernie Ball is with this new guitar, yet none of them use it wtf?! Plus, 3xAA batteris and only 100 hours...that would not be easy to fit in a standard guitar and in the end, though selectable, it only gives about 10 in two banks with a momenatry pp so no visual or tactile way of know which mode on is in.

I'd given such thought of such things in the past that is possible with active switching, but really, not a direction that I think anyone should go...if one were to go 'active' by putting a battery in the guitar, there are far more powerfulm and useful options one might want to consider. most things that one might think of though would be better put on the floor though, even there.

No...when I said there were other schemes...there are a few in the reference like this..."super duper strat"

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nutzoid&action=display&thread=4125



Using three toggles it's not at all ugly and being toggles it's easy to see and feel' what's going on. A few 'dead/off' selections but it could even be useful to have an off switch. When I played live I used this a lot, on my new guitar, there is a pushbutton 'sound off' switch that engages the tuner that is a cool feature too. But there are others too...

...

I see there have been more posts, so...

You have some great ideas and wiring diagrams at your site - they are just not what I am after.

For some time I've been thinking about some alternative guitar wiring schemes. I read johnh's comment from a day or two ago (and similar comments from others) that seem to suggest that the problem with existing schemes (for three PU guitars) that attempt to provide all possible arrangements (17 sans phase; 47 with phase), is that they are impractical to use, and are therefore unsatisfactory.

I don't think that there are going to be 17 great sound combinations, let alone 47, that a person is going to realistically want, there are 'bad combo' but even then....hmmm...how shoul;d I put this...

It can be nice to have a lot of options to 'geek out' but most things are pretty superficial and seems to lack a bit of 'experience' a trend to just want' everything' in an excessive/geeky way (without knowing what 'everything' sounds like) and somre really unrealistic expectations and limitations on what wiring coils can achieve. Some peole have a very 'basic' understanding of things and think they really can have a 'do anything' guitar....'the swiss army knife' thing...but in reality I would argue that this is really not a possiblity. We ahve seen 'products' come out that try to offer these kinds of things, Like P-rails from SD or their switching pickup rings for HBs and such....but these are just pandering to this kind of 'market' IMHO

Needs a bit of a reality check I think...

Personally, I've not found the series combos really to my taste, perhaps there are some things with a bit of fiddling, my strat with all three in series with a bit of half phase to lighten this up is an ok sound, takes a little 'fiddling'...

...

But, the MR scheme does substantially provide close enough to 'all' with no visible switches/mods and extremely intuitive and player oriented.

You get a intuitive N N+M N+B M+B B on the five way...so a standard strat but no 'middle alone' option, replaced with the far more useful N+B in it's logical place on the selector.

Pulling on the volume control, switches it to the 'series mode'...
NxMxB NxM NxB MxB N+M+B

This means that, you get a familiar and logical 5 selections (sans mid alone) and one can quickly switch to logical series things just by pulling the nearest knob. So, one can go to a very dark all series 'jazz' like thing from the neck, or darker louder series options of the selection in a similar way. The all parallel is an interesting sound, a very 'light' and lower volume thing, almost like an acoustic, but so easy to go from a loud bridge option to this lighter sound with a pull of the volume knob.

The upshot of the MR scheme is a logical and familiar and invisible 10 useful options, the loss of the less attractive to me 'middle only' option.

It's logical and intuitive and does not 'switch through' less useful options or big volume differences unexpectedly. As I favour humcancelling pups, I don't need to worry about any of the RWRP issues and noise in any position.

It requires only a super switch and a dpdt that could be installed in a p-p wihout any mods...or a toggle if so inclinded and compact.

Now, by adding a pahse or HOoP to the neck pup as I did, you get another 6 variations where the neck is in combo and again 'logical'

If you wire for a 'master tone' control rather than fenders dual tones, you get a whole other rotary/switch control to do what one pleases with, on mine this controls the 'spin-select' of the bridge HB.

...

But, in reality, I only use the 5 way standard position with the HB tweaked to 'balance' and used perhaps as a secondary tone/volume on the bridge pup to bring out a bit of a 'lead' louder boost and more 'body'.

It's been a long time now, but in reality when playing loud and rock, I almost exclusively played the bridge pup on my LP, often with the neck pup volume down to nil so I could use the selector to turn off a very live guitar. back then there was a lot to do, you know, I was the singer and MC and had stuff to 'do' like communicate with the band, find a lyric sheet and all that kind of stuff.

If one uses a lot of distortion and volume and such, the differences between 'sounds/selections' seem to be practially very little difference at all....you kind of need to switch to a total 'woman tone' or soemthing drastic like that to make a lot of difference.


All this is in the context of being a player or just knowing that by far the most variation to anything is in the nads of the player. I'm not a 'purist' as some, but reality is that where nad how you pick the string can offer more intuitive and wider tonal variation without any modding at all!

On most guitars and pups, a 'split', at least to me, often sounds like a 'weedy version' of an HB for instance, though as a former LP player exclusively, I had all splits available and used them back in the day, but really even back then, I was playing at most a kind of 'crunch' sound, I had a second guitar player as well so you wanted to 'compliment' that as well, so thinking about the total effect of the two gutiars.

And, I've always liked the more 'complex' sounds of a combination, particularly the N+B things and that is generally my 'default' option. On the LP, this allows one to use the dual volumes to find a 'mix' as well when adjusting the guitar's volume.

...

Anyway...i suppose it depends what you want...or if a 'product' what you are wishing to achieve/offer. Is there a market is a different question, perhaps on a very small scale but likely not very cost effective to the builder having looked at this kind of thing in the past.

Perhaps others have different desires or needs or way of operating the instrument. The guy that 'does it for me' in terms of guitar operated tonal variation and expression is Jeff back, who uses very subtle mods on the standard strat and use of tone controls and such to achieve it. He can get through his unorthodox fingerstyle thing though, way more variation than possible with a pick alone. He has some incredibly cool sounds using the dual tone controls as well.

I guess any 'critique' is largely based on the details of the proposal, which is kind of 'missing'. Didn't someone make a circuit board type thing using ideas from GN2 to make it a bit 'easier' than hand wiring such schemes, perhaps using DIL switching?

[col]

Dec 25, 2012 11:28:48 GMT -5 newey said:

col-

You mention visual appeal, tactile factors, and useability, and these issues sort of define the basic divide we have- lots of options, some of which may sound very similar, and which may be either "ugly" or hard to access, versus fewer combos but more elegant switching and better access to those combos.

Hi newey,

I understand. What I am talking about is lots of options (17 or 47), but with elegant switching. There are already inelegant solutions - I don't wish to emulate them or produce something that is just as semantically flawed in its own way.

This also breaks down along the lines of "stage use" vs. "Studio use", given the need for easier access to sounds on stage.

The aim would be to produce something that is easily understood (maybe even by someone coming the instrument without any explanation), and can be operated by feel. I know this seems unlikely, but I have some advanced ideas of how to achieve this.

On the visual aspect, there seem to be three schools of thought. First, some demand a stock appearance, which can be changed back to stock wiring for resale. Second, some like a "clean" look but will take added switches so long as the end result is aesthetically-pleasing; they want the guitar to look "custom" but not cluttered. Finally there's the group who want as many switches, knobs, LEDS, whatever- the "tech is cool" school.

Yes, that was my take too. Except, the possibility of such a scheme might be available as stock too. I think it must have a clean look to possess broad appeal, and fulfill ease of use requirements. Complicated schemes, even when promoted by the big guitar manufacturers, are always a flop. Even though electric guitars have not been around for that long, there is already a huge and strong tradition, even about things that make no difference to playability or sound (such as the precise shape of the guitar body).

As far as easy of use, switching logic, etc.- what you call "semantics"- this raises other issues. Car manufacturers (and car stereo manufacturers) long ago found out that a dashboard with identically-sized and shaped buttons for all the functions looks visually "clean" and appealing, but doesn't work well when the operator is attempting to select things at speed, in the dark, by feel alone.

I won't argue with you about about cars (modern car dash boards cover a lot of functions), but surely a guitar could (should?) possess a relatively simple interface.

So, nowadays, they have the functions divided between knobs, switches, levers- different shapes. sizes, different tactile feel. The stereo makers found out that an analog knob for volume control beats all the hi-tech up/down buttons or slider switches.

Yes, a simple rotary volume control nearly always makes the most sense, wherever one is utilised.

Visually, this all looks like a big ol' mess- but it is better in use. Same can be said of guitar switching.

Yes, but I am talking about just three pups. It should be possible to provide a simple and functional interface.

[col]

Dec 25, 2012 13:12:39 GMT -5 @pyrros said:

col just a comment, you said the combinations are 17 without phase, 47 with phase.

my numbers are a little different. According to my knowledge of combinatory algebra:

[...]

am i missing smth?

of course without phase combinations (21) are included in the 63.

I think chrisk explains it all (and better than I would) in his post:

www.guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reference&action=display&thread=3239

[col]

Dec 25, 2012 14:59:55 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Dec 25, 2012 8:40:52 GMT -5 col said:

The ideas I have are pretty simple, but would require the development of a piece of hardware. I'm just trying to work out if it is worth the effort and expense. All the logic is worked out.

Hi col

If you have a scheme for something clever then I'd say go for it if it is worth it to you to see your idea realised and to be able to play it. It may not be the end of the story but may lead to something else that you can't predict yet.

Hi johnh,

True. And if I don't progress this as a full-fledged engineering project, I'll certainly post my ideas here.

I'm guilty of a few do-everything schemes, and although I now like to pair down excess functionality, I still like them and they are great puzzles to solve. But I think the solution to a complex scheme is not only to get the good sounds, but also cut out redundant and sub optimal sounds, and make it usable with whatever is left.

I started off the same way, working through how a scheme that encompasses all combinations might be achieved. However, although an interesting exercise in of itself, the aesthetics were always going to be a problem. That is until a particular idea came to me. That was just the starting point - it took a lot of thought to resolve all the issues.

As for redundant sounds - these will not be the same combinations for all guitarists, or all three-pup guitars.

[col]

Dec 25, 2012 15:05:44 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

I guess I come out somewhere in the middle.

For live use I really only need, want, and use one good sound. As long as I can have either a middle pickup or a N and B combination I'm good. I'd very much prefer that there not be any way to accidentally leave that sound in the heat of the moment - no gibson-style toggles anywhere, and all other switches out of the way of my flailing picking hand. I use a combination of right hand technique and pedals to change tone and volume.

Hi Ash,

I think this achievable.

For the studio I like to have as many options as possible. Part of the reason I have so many darn guitars! But I also want all of the options from each of the guitars. The way I layer things means that I'm looking for very subtle differences sometimes. Yes, I can (and do) use effects, but there's still something strangely satisfying about getting the sound from the guitar. It almost goes against my entire philosophy, but it's there.

And this too!

Of course, even with all three-pup combinations available on one guitar, it would never provide everything you would want. Though, another use would be as a test bed, to determine what type of sounds you like (for leaner pup arrangements on working instruments, but this would be of rather limited use). Mind you, I think it is possible to provide an 'everything' guitar that remains very practical to use.

As for aesthetics, again I'm middle of the road. I don't mind at all a few subtle changes to the stock appearance. My LP has a rotary in place of the toggle, as does my Rick. My hybrid offset tele thing has a few mini goggles in between the lever switch and the knobs. But that guitar posted above is way too cluttered and messy looking for me.

My feeling is that thus is where the majority of people lie, and what I am trying to achieve.

On semantics - with my guitars it's almost impossible to make any real drastic sound changes in any kind of hurry. You have to turn this rotary and then that one and maybe flip a toggle or two... But as I said, I don't do that live anyway. I do put some effort into designing to some form of logic, though, so that all that switching is as intuitive as possible. Of course, it's difficult to relay to others.

Yes, I see that a lot of effort is put into designing as semantic arrangements as possible by you and others. I hit the same linits - which is why my idea would require new hardware.

I find that most guitarists really don't have a clue what the switches on their guitars actually do. They just twiddle til they find something that sounds good and go with it. I asked a dude the other day if his three pickup tele was just standard 5-way switching and his response was to flip the lever and count. Didn't use his fingers, but I did see his lips moving.

Yes, I'm sure this is true of very many guitarists. I think though, presented with 17 or 47 options (or even more with other switching), they would be more inclined to at least understand the basics (especially if the solution was semantical). Maybe I'm giving them too much credit! However, I think no matter how semantic the solution, if the guitarist does not understand the basics, they will be blinded by the options available to them.

[4real]

Yes, but I am talking about just three pups. It should be possible to provide a simple and functional interface.

Well, all options has been done quite a bit, with various types of interfaces. The 'secrecy' and such is kind of clouding things a little. Not usre what 'going public' at this stage is aiming for.

All this stuff makes some kind of logical preferential 'sense' but are you asking for 'contributions' or an expression of 'desirability' or 'encouragement'...?

Certainly, if you want such a guitar, do it. Then perhaps post the results with the argment for it's desirability...then perhaps one could guage if there would be an 'interest' in it or it become some kind of 'standard'.

If desiring of some 'input' well. then that requires perhaps something more concrete than a sensible no fuss all options passive switching solution.

The 'guitar geek' in me likes these kinds of things, the player kind of reject it. What is more important. Frequently the geek wins out for a lot of people, the culture of excess perhaps, maybe unrealistic expectations...hard to tell some times. With what regard to noise reduction is commonly a concern in such schemes and projects at GN2...I typically avoid it by going noiseless completelyas much as possible.

Bear in mind also, we are talking here on a very small and somewhat obscure, technical and speicalized kind of little community. Of course, we are all 'nuts' and most of us love to see some kind of clever implementation of such things.

JohnH frequently takes this to another level with sims and graphs and actual sound analysis. I particularly 'like' in many ways his use of pots to provide a few functions, though for myself not sure that I'd find them that attractive in practice.

...

I put a bit of a 'spin' on my strats MR wiring, even made those 'uber-switches' for it which just made it rediculously complex and sidelined the entire guitar for a few years in such a pursuit...
guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=5364 and guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=3521


^^^ What you don't want is soemthing like this!!!

Nor perhaps even this >>>



^^^ These are the infamaous 'uber pots' I made that kind of takes inspiration from a car's radio dial/switch thing. It provides for a pot with P-P dpdt swtich and a twist of the base to offer 4pdt switch...

That's a lot of switching power, hidden and without substantial mods and small on the inside too. I made these to attempt a 'once control' no mod sustainer option. A 4pdt on/off/ground bypass/power and bridge pup select function...so twist the bass 'switch' a harmonic function by pulling the p-p dpdt swicth and a pot to control 'drive'.

Having done that, I made three...then looked for help to use this massive switching functions...we just couldn't work something out that was decent, needed all that 'power' and made sesne.

In the 'build thread' when it was finally rationalized, I scrapped teh while 'uberswitches' and went with straignt PP pots and all the things that I 'desired' once listed, exactly matched the MR scheme! The HSS nature and an attempt to address that side of things was with a variable split, the 'original' aspect largely a factor of the 'select a split' variation, which did work out well. The HOoP much more useful than a full 'phase'.

After some 'reality check' even though the strat ended up with more 'selections' than any other of my guitars, even though I can come up with some poerful switching solutions...even though there are more things that could ahve been added (the wafer sustainer driver coil still lives in teh neck pup, a battery compartment was made behind the trem block, though the guitar is passive, their is a piezo even in teh neck socket...etc...Really, souch stuff starts to cut into the functionality and a really nice intuitive and clean working guitar, with 5 of the most wanted combos available with the simple selector...well, that is far more useful and enjoyable for me, personally. And I suspect, for most players. Nutzers often 'wnat it all' but they are not familiar as to what 'it all' actually is...and frequently have unrealistic expectations.

[newey]

@ pyrros:

with phase:
(3 by 1) +

and

am i missing smth?

Yes. You can't have one coil OOP by itself. One coil can only be OOP with respect to another coil.

I think we thoroughly discussed the other discrepancy in ChrisK's thread linked to above, as pointed out by col.

[col]

Dec 25, 2012 16:12:25 GMT -5 4real said:

Oh no, I ahve a little 'distain' for that "gamechanger" thing, a lot of marketing hype (all these great players/endorsees saying how revolutionary Ernie Ball is with this new guitar, yet none of them use it wtf?! Plus, 3xAA batteris and only 100 hours...that would not be easy to fit in a standard guitar and in the end, though selectable, it only gives about 10 in two banks with a momenatry pp so no visual or tactile way of know which mode on is in.

I find the 'Gamechanger' irritating. Partly, the system itself, but a lot of it is how it is promoted. There is even a charge that they majorly infringed a patent. I'm sure it has it uses though, and it is certainly clever (but maybe not their idea). I saw one promotional video where a guitarist (I forget who now) was waxing lyrical about being able to place any two coils he wished in series, but he could also change the order of the two coils for slightly different sound. Brother! I don't care that the guitarist didn't understand, but the Gamechanger company must have known that this is nonsense.

I'd given such thought of such things in the past that is possible with active switching, but really, not a direction that I think anyone should go...if one were to go 'active' by putting a battery in the guitar, there are far more powerfulm and useful options one might want to consider. most things that one might think of though would be better put on the floor though, even there.

I did find an interesting idea (somewhere) where someone devised a scheme that utilises mini relays and a complicated series of buses, a CPU, and simple programming to make the whole thing work. He didn't prototype it - I don't know if anyone ever produced a working example. This would be one up on the Gamechanger, as it would be housed within the guitar itself (but it was programmable).

I am certainly not talking about an active system for my scheme. It would be passive mixing, and without batteries.

No...when I said there were other schemes...there are a few in the reference like this..."super duper strat"

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nutzoid&action=display&thread=4125

An interesting and clever solution. Still, although it looks relatively easy to use (and far better than most schemes I've seen) switch functioning is inconsistent - the system must be learned.

Using three toggles it's not at all ugly and being toggles it's easy to see and feel' what's going on. A few 'dead/off' selections but it could even be useful to have an off switch. When I played live I used this a lot, on my new guitar, there is a pushbutton 'sound off' switch that engages the tuner that is a cool feature too. But there are others too...

Yes, dead spots is another no-no for some. Still, an interesting arrangement. No dead spots or shunts or hanging from hot in my design.

Dec 25, 2012 16:12:25 GMT -5 4real said:

col said:

For some time I've been thinking about some alternative guitar wiring schemes. I read johnh's comment from a day or two ago (and similar comments from others) that seem to suggest that the problem with existing schemes (for three PU guitars) that attempt to provide all possible arrangements (17 sans phase; 47 with phase), is that they are impractical to use, and are therefore unsatisfactory.

I don't think that there are going to be 17 great sound combinations, let alone 47, that a person is going to realistically want, there are 'bad combo' but even then....hmmm...how shoul;d I put this...

I understand that there will be many not so interesting combinations, but these will not be the same on every guitar. And, of course, there is personal preferences too; most people will not know of their preferences until they have the chance to try them out for themselves.

It can be nice to have a lot of options to 'geek out' but most things are pretty superficial and seems to lack a bit of 'experience' a trend to just want' everything' in an excessive/geeky way (without knowing what 'everything' sounds like) and somre really unrealistic expectations and limitations on what wiring coils can achieve. Some peole have a very 'basic' understanding of things and think they really can have a 'do anything' guitar....'the swiss army knife' thing...but in reality I would argue that this is really not a possiblity. We ahve seen 'products' come out that try to offer these kinds of things, Like P-rails from SD or their switching pickup rings for HBs and such....but these are just pandering to this kind of 'market' IMHO

I have nothing against 'geeking out', but such schemes are of minority interest if the appear as 'geeking out'. You will have to trust me when I say that there will no banks of switches. There will be no unsemantic switching. There will nothing fiddly to use interface. All the 17 or 47 options, but without the usual mess.

Needs a bit of a reality check I think...

Honestly, I too have little interest in something that's ugly in appearance or concept. If I have to decide which options others might like, then I consider the project failed. In actuality, it would cause more problems for me to rationalise the available options.

Personally, I've not found the series combos really to my taste, perhaps there are some things with a bit of fiddling, my strat with all three in series with a bit of half phase to lighten this up is an ok sound, takes a little 'fiddling'...

And yet others really like series arrangements.

But, the MR scheme does substantially provide close enough to 'all' with no visible switches/mods and extremely intuitive and player oriented.

Yep - it seems like a nice arrangement. But, again, not exactly intuitive. Still, for a limited set of sounds, that's not great problem.

You get a intuitive N N+M N+B M+B B on the five way...so a standard strat but no 'middle alone' option, replaced with the far more useful N+B in it's logical place on the selector.

That seems reasonable.

Pulling on the volume control, switches it to the 'series mode'...
NxMxB NxM NxB MxB N+M+B

That's where it leaves me a little cold. I like to see some meaning and consistency in switching. But, for five options, this is not a great problem.

This means that, you get a familiar and logical 5 selections (sans mid alone) and one can quickly switch to logical series things just by pulling the nearest knob. So, one can go to a very dark all series 'jazz' like thing from the neck, or darker louder series options of the selection in a similar way. The all parallel is an interesting sound, a very 'light' and lower volume thing, almost like an acoustic, but so easy to go from a loud bridge option to this lighter sound with a pull of the volume knob.

I can see that it is very useful modification and why it is popular around here.

The upshot of the MR scheme is a logical and familiar and invisible 10 useful options, the loss of the less attractive to me 'middle only' option.

It's logical and intuitive and does not 'switch through' less useful options or big volume differences unexpectedly. As I favour humcancelling pups, I don't need to worry about any of the RWRP issues and noise in any position.

I don't find it that logical, but since the first five make a lot of sense, it doesn't really matter that there are five more tones which are less intuitive. After all, it the actual sounds that matter most.

It requires only a super switch and a dpdt that could be installed in a p-p wihout any mods...or a toggle if so inclinded and compact.

Yes, it is a neat solution.

Now, by adding a pahse or HOoP to the neck pup as I did, you get another 6 variations where the neck is in combo and again 'logical'

I see that.

If you wire for a 'master tone' control rather than fenders dual tones, you get a whole other rotary/switch control to do what one pleases with, on mine this controls the 'spin-select' of the bridge HB.

I think a master tone makes a lot of sense in such schemes. I have read of your 'spin-select' system. It is some kind of balance system, but with some kind of variation (I forget the exact details). Right?

But, in reality, I only use the 5 way standard position with the HB tweaked to 'balance' and used perhaps as a secondary tone/volume on the bridge pup to bring out a bit of a 'lead' louder boost and more 'body'.

'Spin-select', yes?

All this is in the context of being a player or just knowing that by far the most variation to anything is in the nads of the player. I'm not a 'purist' as some, but reality is that where nad how you pick the string can offer more intuitive and wider tonal variation without any modding at all!

True, of course, but somewhat heretical for a 'Gutarnut'!

On most guitars and pups, a 'split', at least to me, often sounds like a 'weedy version' of an HB for instance, though as a former LP player exclusively, I had all splits available and used them back in the day, but really even back then, I was playing at most a kind of 'crunch' sound, I had a second guitar player as well so you wanted to 'compliment' that as well, so thinking about the total effect of the two gutiars.

Splits are another matter - I'm not addressing those with this scheme.

And, I've always liked the more 'complex' sounds of a combination, particularly the N+B things and that is generally my 'default' option. On the LP, this allows one to use the dual volumes to find a 'mix' as well when adjusting the guitar's volume.

Nice, but what about series blending options? This is something else I've been thinking about, but is not included in the primary project.

Anyway...i suppose it depends what you want...or if a 'product' what you are wishing to achieve/offer. Is there a market is a different question, perhaps on a very small scale but likely not very cost effective to the builder having looked at this kind of thing in the past.

Well, I might pick your brains further about this, if that's OK?

Perhaps others have different desires or needs or way of operating the instrument. The guy that 'does it for me' in terms of guitar operated tonal variation and expression is Jeff back, who uses very subtle mods on the standard strat and use of tone controls and such to achieve it. He can get through his unorthodox fingerstyle thing though, way more variation than possible with a pick alone. He has some incredibly cool sounds using the dual tone controls as well.

I do understand that the most important factor, by far, is the skill of musician. This is just about offering some additional tonal options in a easy-to-use, easy-to-understand system and layout.

I guess any 'critique' is largely based on the details of the proposal, which is kind of 'missing'. Didn't someone make a circuit board type thing using ideas from GN2 to make it a bit 'easier' than hand wiring such schemes, perhaps using DIL switching?

I appreciate that it is difficult to comment without specifics. I can appreciate the use of DIL switches for a test bed guitar, but not much use otherwise.

What I'm trying to do is find out what people think are the main barriers to 'all options' systems. If there just isn't a great interest, then my idea will not go anywhere. If the barriers are failures in existing schemes that are overcome by mine, then it might be viable. I'm too close to the project to have a very objective opinion.

What it comes down to is this: if there was a system that provides 17 or 47 options, with a very clean and uncluttered layout, inexpensive, and semantic (even intuitive switching), might this be of practical interest to you, and fellow Guitarnuts? And, more importantly, do think this hold would appeal for many non-Guitarnuts?

I do appreciate all the feedback, 4real, and everyone else too.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2012 21:14:19 GMT -5 newey said:

@ pyrros:

with phase:
(3 by 1) +

and

am i missing smth?

Yes. You can't have one coil OOP by itself. One coil can only be OOP with respect to another coil.

I think we thoroughly discussed the other discrepancy in ChrisK's thread linked to above, as pointed out by col.

maybe my english is not that good. (3 by 1) i mean choose 1 out of 3. If you notice i didn't multiply it by 2 or 4. Anyway, i'll take a look at this thread.

[newey]

Didn't someone make a circuit board t]ype thing using ideas from GN2 to make it a bit 'easier' than hand wiring such schemes, perhaps using DIL switching?

Our member Santellan did, now sold/marketed as the "Toneshaper" system, and available from Acme Guitar Works.

It's not digital logic, it uses a bunch of DIP switches on a circuit board to allow one to "pre-set" the switching options.

As I pointed out way back when, in discussion of the concept, it would be a whole lot more useful if the control section of the pickguard were hinged, or separate from the rest of the pickguard, so that one could access the switches without having to remove the strings and the complete pickguard.

col made the point that guitarists are very conservative, and he's right. Witness the fact that the two major designs of electric solid-body guitars were designed in the 1950's and haven't changed since. And, in the interim, new designs have fallen by the wayside, generally after a few years on the market.

As far as switching options go, we here are the "nutz". Many of us have wired up those "all options" schemes of one sort or another, not because we thought all those tones would be useable, or that the switching would be logical, but "just because"- it was more of a wiring exercise than anything else.

But is there a market for this sort of wiring, beyond a few tech-happy types? I don't know, but I'm guessing not.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2012 18:37:33 GMT -5 col said:

Dec 25, 2012 13:12:39 GMT -5 @pyrros said:

col just a comment, you said the combinations are 17 without phase, 47 with phase.

my numbers are a little different. According to my knowledge of combinatory algebra:

[...]

am i missing smth?

of course without phase combinations (21) are included in the 63.

I think chrisk explains it all (and better than I would) in his post:

www.guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reference&action=display&thread=3239

thanx, didn't read every word of it, but didn't find any proof that the number is 49. Either there must be some kind of proof or at least some counter example that my proof above is wrong. Counting the combinations (and not permutations as some members call it unless the order in series produce distinct results) and trying to find missing combinations won't cut it.

[4real]

Well, I might pick your brains further about this, if that's OK?

Sure, well if you want to talk 'privately' feel free to email, people often do, will even give a non-disclosure etc...

I appreciate that it is difficult to comment without specifics.

Well yes, it is a little unorthodox. This forum has some very good people at these kinds of things (I am not one of them, ideas and making stuff is a better strength for me and collaboration tends to make things much better)

I can appreciate the use of DIL switches for a test bed guitar, but not much use otherwise.

Well, the idea of this was to be able to program in a bunch of 'selections' and leave it at that, with the option of altering these selections later, etc. It seemed not worth of pursuing...

what I'm trying to do is find out what people think are the main barriers to 'all options' systems.

'too many options' perhaps...if one needs to switch through a bunch of close or not so useful options for instance. How many 'selections' is someone going to use in a 'song', as a lot of people work with a lot of processing, most sounds don't mean 'squat' IMHO.

If there just isn't a great interest, then my idea will not go anywhere.

Well, see there is something of the 'rub'...you earlier said 'what you want'...by that do you mean in a guitar, or just in a 'wiring scheme' that someone might go 'wow' at or replicate and praise? All option 'options' abound really.

The thing really is to ask, do you really want this in your guitar, what is your opinion? I sometimes remind myself with the phrase "just because you can pete, does not mean that you should!"...this applies to guitar modding all the way through my personal life btw...

ANyway, it is important that this is something you would realy really want and use, at least if nothi9ng else you will have achieved your aims and all that R&D will have some pay off. If not though, it begs the question, if you are not overly interested enough to do anyway...then there is likely flaws in the desirability and the end result of such an ambition.

If the barriers are failures in existing schemes that are overcome by mine, then it might be viable. I'm too close to the project to have a very objective opinion.

Yes...well this is of course the big thing and ys, it sounds like you are. I certainly have been acused of such, but people that I've corresponded with privately will know that I am a bit of a 'hard task master' at testing such things. I'm even more hard on myself!

What it comes down to is this: if there was a system that provides 17 or 47 options, with a very clean and uncluttered layout, inexpensive, and semantic (even intuitive switching), might this be of practical interest to you, and fellow Guitarnuts? And, more importantly, do think this hold would appeal for many non-Guitarnuts?

It would be a specilized and limited appeal thing. Not knowing what you are proposing seems to be an impossiblity of commenting sensibly. It's passive, etc...but it just leaves one guessing at the propsal. Is it 'invisible' is it 'cheap' does it 'modify the guitar'...etc?!

For myself, probably unlikely...I don't ahve a guitar project in mind, though there might be something in the future. GN2er's are a very small minority and quite varied. Such schemes are of interest for 'clean players' like me, I doubt it would quite ahve the appeal for a lot of others, but I might be wrong...

What we are seeing though is that, the more experienced and skilled at these things are coming around to simpler more 'stiock' or at least simple systems that provide the sounds we want and little else. Often the 'default sounds' are pretty close to the 'original' selections.

In chosing my 'scheme' I wanted the N+B combo, I was not too fussed to have the middle alone. All three is an interesing sound as well.

Varialbe slections nad circuits that might have caps to lighten up and moderate series sounds might hep in that deparment...but there are so manythings one can do.

On an old test gutiar, I used one tone pot as an independant volume control for the middle pup, it even bypassed the tone so remailed 'bright' for combos. It ahd three phase switches and a 3 way slector. There is an interesting 'effect' at least on that guitar in treating the middle pickup as a kind of 'tone control'. In combination with other selections one can dial in degrees of cancellation to create that 'out of phase' strat tone. The interesting effect is that, if you revesed the phase of the middle pickup, it tended to have the opposite effect of teh strat combos 2 and 4 and even all three. The middle pickup creates this effect through being physically such as to be 'out of phase' with the other pickup...but reversing this phase you get a much better kind of 'series like HB sound...it dialed in the midrange oddly enough.

Anyway...well, it really needs to have more details. If that good and no 'profit motive' then brainstorm it and pin it up here publically with attributions...patenting is a very expensive and near impossible thing..or I'd have several!! At least, if made 'publically' you are making a 'prior art' claim...or got 15mins of fame on an obscure guitar forum. If you'd like to talk privately, happy to and to give advice as best I can, though largely it would be informed opinion at best.

With enough 'game changer' hype and such, maybe it could offer something, but as GN2 has a culture of skepticism and constant modding and evolution, it is likely that it will be a bench mark and useful in that way at best. But then, I don't know what 'it' is! For all I know, it's been done, there have been a lot of different schemes presented with similar 'claims' and I am sure works for their users...

[newey]

maybe my english is not that good. (3 by 1) i mean choose 1 out of 3.

No, pyrros, your English is fine, I misread your post there.

But I still think your number is too high because you've duplicated some of the OOP combos. Bear in mind that there is no difference, electrically or sonically, between, for example, N + (-M) + B and (-N) + M + (-B).

If we ignore phasing, there are 17 possible combinations of 3 pickups, in series and/or in parallel- 18 if we include "all off". These are easily listed.

One coil operating is 3 possibilities.

Two coils adds another 6 possibilities- 3 parallel pairs and 3 series pairs.

Three coils adds another 8, as follows:

N+M+B
N*M*B
(N+M)*B
(N*M)+B
N+(M*B)
N*(M+B)
M+(N*B)
M*(N+B)

That's 17.

[4real]

Yeah...the 'toneshaper'...basically the kind fo thing I'd ensiaged, but it you know what you want...I guess it is just as easy to wire a suitable scheme. You know, most of thoese 3 pup combos I don't think I've actually heard...the more you have I suspect the more they are near enough the same and so redundant effectively. Plus, unless you play clean and analog, I suspect you are not going to hear enough difference. And of course, most 'lay audiences' don't hear any differences at all...they just hear 'electric gutiar'...you know?!

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2012 3:00:25 GMT -5 newey said:

maybe my english is not that good. (3 by 1) i mean choose 1 out of 3.

No, pyrros, your English is fine, I misread your post there.

But I still think your number is too high because you've duplicated some of the OOP combos. Bear in mind that there is no difference, electrically or sonically, between, for example, N + (-M) + B and (-N) + M + (-B).

If we ignore phasing, there are 17 possible combinations of 3 pickups, in series and/or in parallel- 18 if we include "all off". These are easily listed.

One coil operating is 3 possibilities.

Two coils adds another 6 possibilities- 3 parallel pairs and 3 series pairs.

Three coils adds another 8, as follows:

N+M+B
N*M*B
(N+M)*B
(N*M)+B
N+(M*B)
N*(M+B)
M+(N*B)
M*(N+B)

That's 17.

Thanx. That is correct. Did the exhaustive expansion of the thing and indeed N+M+B and N*M*B are listed 6 times in total. If we count them regardless of order then those 6 can be reduced in just 2, leaving the rest 4 as duplicates, so, 21-4 = 17.
I am sure order does not even exist in the case of parallel wiring. But are we sure that order is indeed irrelevant in series wiring? I mean, just like in pedals, maybe order does matter?

[newey]

Order matters in pedals because you're layering different effects on top of one another. When it comes to series wiring of pickups, it's just as in math= B * A = A * B.

[jerry]

I've tried almost every mod I have ever heard or thought of, and to my mind, there aren't that many that truly offer something both new and useful. For example, I have yet to hear a tapped coil sound in the bridge position that I find really useful. The bridge position is already a trebly one and tapping most coils makes them thinner yet.

In the neck position, I have found useful sounds from a split HB. The other sounds I use a lot are putting two HB ins series and out of phase. In phase, the sound can get pretty muddy depending on how hot the HB are. The hotter they are, the muddier.

I've tried tapping both HBs and putting them in series, and that can offer a somewhat new sound depending on the HBs. I really like the sounds of some of the piezos and mixing them with the different, aforementioned magnetic choices. Even then, I wouldn't say they all work as well as some others.

The foregoing is just a long way of saying, try things first on an inexpensive "staging guitar". Then, implement the ones you like and believe you'll use on the final guitar. So, try all the various combinations you read about, think about, and hear about hear, and then implement the ones that work -- they're definitely not all created equal. Worse, most listening non-musicians will never hear most settings, those settings are more for us because they can inspire great play and feelings to our music.

By taking this approach, our guitar switching options are simpler and more easily remembered and accessed. I do agree with Megi that I like lots of switches and options. But with guitars I've created, one currently with 41 "sounds", if I'm honest with myself, I really only use nine or ten of them. So my current, new, modded guitar has a dozen or so permutations, and that counts mixing in the piezo with various magnetic choices. So far, it seems I've chosen the right ones because I'm using most of them and each inspires me or seems to "fit" the song I'm doing at the moment and I don't have to switch to another guitar.

Now, to be clear, I am NOT SAYING that what I've said above about what works best for me should work best for everyone. I'm saying I do believe that most of us will primarily use a subset of all the available PU permutations available. Which they are will be determined by the number of and kinds of pickups on the axe and the preferences of the guitarist. Picking and implementing your favorites from that will simplify modding your guitar and more importantly, selecting the sounds you want while playing/performing.

Good luck!

[ashcatlt]

I guess the thing is you've come to GuitarNuts2 and really asked a couple questions:

1) What do we members think about this and
B) What do we think most people will think.

1) I don't honestly think that too many of our members will realistically be taking whatever you build and sticking it in their own guitars. We may cherry pick some ideas or use it as a starting reference, but everybody pretty much will end up doing their own thing. Now, if you came up with some real switching innovation - some way to use existing parts to do things previously "impossible"...

B) I think most people probably don't care enough. 5-way switching is more than enough for most people.

There may be a narrow window in between where you could sell something. Member santellan has stuff in Musician's Friend. He's done all of the market research that you are attempting, but I'm not sure he'd be willing to share.

[long813]

Dec 26, 2012 11:21:59 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

I guess the thing is you've come to GuitarNuts2 and really asked a couple questions:

1) What do we members think about this and
B) What do we think most people will think.

1) I don't honestly think that too many of our members will realistically be taking whatever you build and sticking it in their own guitars. We may cherry pick some ideas or use it as a starting reference, but everybody pretty much will end up doing their own thing. Now, if you came up with some real switching innovation - some way to use existing parts to do things previously "impossible"...

B) I think most people probably don't care enough. 5-way switching is more than enough for most people.

There may be a narrow window in between where you could sell something. Member santellan has stuff in Musician's Friend. He's done all of the market research that you are attempting, but I'm not sure he'd be willing to share.

I must agree here. Also with newey's post on guitarists being 'conservative', I've been to other guitar forums and many have a negative opinion on mods and so many love and only love 50's wiring on LPs. Not my cup of tea, but the majority aren't modders.

Goodluck with the R&D

[JohnH]

I would also suggest, at this point, if you want to develop the discussion further, it would be helpful to describe more of what you are thinking of. How many pickups are we talking about? how would the controls work?

Such projects can lead to some interesting discussion and enjoyable guitars, probably not much 'market' interest though, But if you write it up and it is a good design, you may find a one or two others who will try it over he course of years.