|
Post by Runewalker on May 20, 2014 13:19:25 GMT -5
EDIT: Rune, I moved this portion out of Tommy's thread because, sorry to say, you had essentially hijacked it. No harm, no foul, we're all good! (EDIT: The next two sentences refer to the goings-on in this thread, started by Tommy. I left them intact because I hate to needlessly censor anyone.)
Gents this is really a really intriguing approach. Nice job ReT (not to be confused with "frankly, I don't give a ...., Rhett Butler). I have periodically returned to see if it was getting traffic and it so far has a narrow audience, although one full of luminaries. I am a fan of individual volume controls and always am frustrated on Strats or PRSs with the single volume control. I have had some PMs with John H re: further enhancements of his Strat with two volume controls SSS, HSS & HHH, and he has some interesting ideas. But this one also looks promising. I notice it posted to the schematics section, but I have some questions and rather than junking up the design section I thought I would pose them here. As designed in the V1-Up/V2-Up position where the Neck and Mid are combined at the V1 Pot, and the Bridge is assigned to V2---- - Are the Neck and Mid in series or parallel?
- what is the interaction with the Gibson style 3-way? For example in the last configuration:
- are all three pups only engaged in the middle position?
- if you are in the Neck (top) position, is the Bridge cut out?
- if you are in the Bridge (bottom) position is the N+M (or N*M) combo cut out?
The next set of questions will be about System options: parallel & series --- in and out of series. Then, adding tone controls. Thanks. Innovative thinking. RW
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 20, 2014 18:05:54 GMT -5
It's all parallel wiring, no series combos available on this one. Adding series would truly be a chore here, too, as one would have to tidy up the pot wiring between series and parallel settings. Instead of thinking of the 3-way switch as selecting pickups, think of it as selecting volume controls. If the bridge P/P is pulled up, it defers the selection of the volume control to the neck P/P. If the neck P/P is then pushed in, you get the neck pickup on the neck volume, and the middle pickup on the bridge volume. The 3-way then toggles between N/N+M/M. If the bridge P/P is up and the neck P/P is up as well, you have the N+M on the neck volume and the bridge pup on the bridge volume. The toggle then gives you N+M/N+M+B/B. If the bridge P/P is down and the neck P/P is up, the middle pup gets assigned to the neck volume, and the bridge is on the bridge volume, so that the toggle gives M/M+B/B. Both P/P down eliminates the middle pickup entirely, and the toggle selects the standard N/N+B/B. As John noted above, what's cool about this is the ability to preset with the P/Ps, and then just use a flick of the toggle to chose between them. (I know, this all kind of makes my head spin, too . . .) Although the purpose of this is vastly different, the switch logic puts me in mind of ChrisK's so-called "binary tree switching" for series/parallel switching.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on May 21, 2014 5:11:49 GMT -5
Yes, I think this one is very clever, and extends well to the addition of tone pots (wired across the volume pots), also coil cuts or local series/parallel of humbuckers is feasible.
But overall system series is going to get very tangled indeed. Currently, all three pickups have their cold wires grounded, and there they stay. But to do series wiring, we have to reconnect certain cold wires to certain hot wires, and with M unsure as to where it is supposed to be connected, we will be several switch poles short of a working wiring scheme.
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on May 21, 2014 14:21:31 GMT -5
Hey SG, don't know about the hijacking but proud I am identified as not following some rules, wherever they are. I can still get the local gendarmerie called out on Uncle Son-o and me for playing too loud, so non-compliance is a trend. Happy to be redirected as I think I have never had the name as part of a subject line. Proud squared. _______________________________________ Clever design indeed. I am however, highly reliant on System Series settings. So this becomes, unfortunately, a non-starter for me. But i can appreciate the art of the design. Are tone controls also dodgy to add? _______________________________________ SG and other overlords, I have some ideas about John's dual vol. Strat design as further extensions of that concept. It has worked well for me on several builds, but I can't help myself from thinking of additional options. I will be sure to post a new thread when I can find the time to sit down and articulate what I am thinking. I notice some finished designs elicit additional discussions and requests for variants. I try to avoid launching into a discussion on an existing design. However, some of those discussions can produce variants that are useful as addendum extensions to finished designs. I do find it useful when builders run into some issues and the designer and or virtual team of knowledge assist in problem solving as part of the design post. Those kind of troubleshooting processes can be helpful to other builders. Sometimes those kind of exchanges occur in the general section, perhaps in the effort to not clutter the design, but then their value risks loss when not attached to the thread. Judgement call. Sometimes design is messy. "Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else." -Tom PetersAs always this is an unusually remarkable forum. I always appreciate its collaborative civility and really, charity of the smart and creative guys that keep helping others. Salute.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 22, 2014 13:34:49 GMT -5
Rune, Your points above are well-taken, about when and where to "extend" a discussion. It seems to me that the so-called "Rules" of engagement are thus (and newey will correct me if I'm incorrect): General Guitar Wiring (the main go-to forum) is for all sorts of stuff, whether it be a brand-new discussion or something we've hashed over time and again. Many threads, particularly older ones, remain here to this day, having not been either moved, or augmented in the Schematics sub-forum. In that sub-forum, we strive to post only completed works, things we know and understand to be working examples of usable circuitry/schemata. Discussions on such ideas are supposed to remain on-point, at least somewhat. Granted, ideas are going to "boond aboot", to quote a much-revered member, and that's a good thing - indeed, it's why we're here in the first place, and why most of us stick around! But while thread-hijacking in such a manner is encouraged in the main forum(s), it's kinda counter-productive in the sub-forum, the place where posts/topics are meant to be examples, or starting points. Indeed, ash has been a good, recent example of postings along the lines of "According to this thread (some intended link into a sub-forum topic), I've been doing this-and-that, yadda yadda...." Others also have done that during our lifespan, although I must admit, I can't remember doing such myownself. And nearly any discussable topic can be linked for reference, whether it's here within The NutzHouse or elsewhere on the innerwebs, so I'm not sure we would benefit by keeping "relative" ideas in the same thread as where they were first born. Kind of negates what Tim Berners-Lee gave us, 21 years ago, eh? But in the long run, as you fervently stated, rules were made to be broken, though hopefully only on occasion, and not all the time. That said, I'm comfortable with this "fork" of Tommy's thread, and I hope that you continue to enlarge/expand on your ideas herein. Or start something else entirely different, who knows? All I know is, whenever you post, others listen. Probably 'cause you've been here the second-longest of us all (JohnH being the longest). Streets creds, and all that. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 22, 2014 20:26:36 GMT -5
No correction needed, sg. I think that's about how it should work, too.
When I started in as admin (when sg went on walkabout, or a quilting run, I disremember which) I tried for a time to keep the schematics subforum strictly to schematics, hoping that all discussion would proceed in Guitar Wiring, with links back to the scheme under discussion. But that quickly proved unworkable. I now let discussion proceed within the Schematics sub-board so long as it is arguably germane to the scheme in question.
If it veers off too much in a new direction, then a new thread is in order. This is one area where Proboards new software is helpful, as we can now move pieces of threads without moving the whole thing, or cutting/pasting the non-germane bits to another locale.
As far as multiple volume pots go, I too have been thinking along those lines since ReTread's bit of pot-switching which started with Tommy's question. What I'm imagining is a 3 SC Strat-type axe with 3 volumes, one per pickup. Two poles of a Superswitch would give the standard Strat pickup selections, while the other 2 poles would be used to switch the pots in/out of the circuit, so that no more than two were ever in the circuit at the same time. Could that be done with a SS, or would more poles be needed? Or would it work just as well to have 3 no-load pots?
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on May 24, 2014 20:51:56 GMT -5
"Probably 'cause you've been here the second-longest of us all (JohnH being the longest)" - SGReally? I had no idea. I guess that makes John 'Venerable' and me.... 'venerable jr.' That takes me back to the sort of wild west this forum was when it started. Had some characters who are now gone, whose voices are missed. The archives of this forum are full of really valuable info. It would be fantastic if all of the diamonds and rubies were gleaned and put into an organized tome. But, who has the time and sense of personal mission to take that on? Inevitably there would be debates on veracity and value, etc, because choices would have to be made, and where there are choices that is at least diversity of opinion if not demonstrable conflict. Heck if I wanted diversity of opinion and demonstrable conflict .... I would just get married again! Anyway thanks for the nod SG. I really appreciate the work you and Newey, John, cyn1 provide in service to the board. A work of passion not remuneration and I am in awe of all you. ______________________________________________ "What I'm imagining is a 3 SC Strat-type axe with 3 volumes, one per pickup. Two poles of a Superswitch would give the standard Strat pickup selections, while the other 2 poles would be used to switch the pots in/out of the circuit, so that no more than two were ever in the circuit at the same time. Could that be done with a SS, or would more poles be needed? Or would it work just as well to have 3 no-load pots? - NeweyI am impressed with the direction of these options. Way back on the discussion with John on the Tone Monster II there was a background discussion on 3 volume controls, with the complications of that array with tone controls. At that point the focus shifted to a blender control to get many of the best features of being able to mix different levels of the individual pups. Still like the notion. RW
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 24, 2014 23:57:34 GMT -5
sg - That's what hypertext is all about! Or would it work just as well to have 3 no-load pots? A No-Load Volume control is a kill switch.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 26, 2014 8:15:02 GMT -5
(facepalms self)Obviously asleep at the switch on that one . . . OK, so we're back to switching volumes in/out of the circuit. Here's more or less what I had in mind. The Left side of the Superswitch gives the basic Strat parallel setings. The Middle Volume doesn't get switched. Bridge Vol. and Neck Vol. are only active when their respective pickups are switched in. So (my thought process goes . . .), we have only 2 pots in the circuit at any time. Correct? Or, is the extra pot still loading the circuit by virtue of the wiper and ground remaining connected? Do we need to switch wipers as well?
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 26, 2014 11:17:29 GMT -5
… we have only 2 pots in the circuit at any time. Correct? Or, is the extra pot still loading the circuit by virtue of the wiper and ground remaining connected? Do we need to switch wipers as well? Yep, all three pots are always loading the circuit. Worse, if one of them is ever turned all the way down, the whole thing goes silent. I guess I'm wondering why you wouldn't just wire the Vs across their respective pickups before the switch. Then, I think, you can use a standard 5-way wired as normal and have a pole left over.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 26, 2014 14:12:04 GMT -5
Well, you're right to wonder. I guess I was thinking that would also put all three in the circuit at once.
The goal would be to have 3 volumes that didn't interact, and didn't load the circuit excessively.
|
|