brons101
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 2 
Likes: 0
|
Post by brons101 on Jun 19, 2017 14:45:08 GMT -5
Hello I'm new here and to wiring passive pickups. I'm wanting to do a pretty complex wiring with my guitar I'm building. Im going to use Duncan distortions for bridge and neck positions and a Duncan single coil 2 wire in the middle (haven't picked an exact model yet) and 1 tone and 1 volume push pull.
My question is would somone be so kind to help me achieve this type of wiring possibly by giving me tips or diagrams of there own. Thanks for your assistance the layout I want is below.
2 humbuckers (neck and bridge) (duncan distortion)
1 single coil ( middle) (random Seymour single coil 2 wires)
5 way switch (4pole super)
1 tone 500k
1 volume 500k push pull unless the tone has to be the push pull.
Push pull (up) = mostly single coil except middle position #3
(Switch position 5)
Bottom of neck humbucker
(Switch position 4)
Bottom of the neck humbucker and middle single coil
(Switch position 3 )
all pickups on (if that's not possible then just both humbuckers on)
(Switch position 2)
Middle coil and top of bridge humbucker
(Switch position 1)
Top of bridge humbucker
This is where I want the switching to change when the tone or volume pot is pushed down.
Push pull (down) = mostly full humbuckers except middle position #3
(Switch position 1)
Full Neck humbucker
(Switch position 2)
Full Neck humbucker and middle
(Switch position 3)
Middle only
(Switch position 4)
Full Bridge humbucker and middle
(Switch position 5)
Full Bridge humbucker
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 19, 2017 15:23:20 GMT -5
There are guys around here smarter than me that might be able to figure it out, but I thought about it from several angles, and...
If you're willing to deal with both HBs hanging from hot in the one middle only position, it's pretty easy. It'll probably be pretty noisy too, though.
Else I think at least one of the switches needs more poles.
I might suggest making the second pot a push-pull that adds both HBs to whatever position the 5-way is in. There might be a way to make that bypass the splitting at the same time, but otherwise you'd be able to get all three singles as well. There'd be some redundant positions, but you'd also be able to get the two HBs (split or not) together without the middle, which seems to missing altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 19, 2017 15:34:02 GMT -5
brons101,
Hello, and welcome to The NutzHouse! 
What you described is actually a very bone-stock setup, with the single addition of a coil-cut switch. (Many factory guitars come with this option installed.)
While I sometimes dig out the old CAD program and spend a few hours cobbling together some lines and such, today is not looking too good for such activity, sorry to say. So, what I'm gonna do is recommend that you peruse our sub-Forums in this section of The NutzHouse. Therein you will find many schematics ready to go, but you need to narrow your search for "coil-cut" "coil-split" or "coil-tap" (which is essentially the same thing to most guitarists, even though there is a technical difference between the three - but it's the resutls that counts, so we don't go all anal about that kind of thing).
As far as the Middle only versus the Bridge and Neck go, you'll probably end up having to reverse those two selections between the p/p-Up and p/p-Down. It might be possible to leave them as you want them, but for some reason, it sticks in my mind that the last time we visited this arrangement, they had to be reversed. I dunno, my memory ain't what it used to be. 
After you've checked around, if you still don't see anything helpful, then report back here for further assistance. 
EDIT: ninja'd by ash, above. But I'm still pretty sure that merely splitting the Hb coils to a single coil per pup in the p/p-Up position will be the easist way to go, after wiring the p/p-Down as a bone stock setup.
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 19, 2017 16:27:33 GMT -5
Yes although this will be quite a powerful setup, its quite a simple one. You can do it with a standard 5-way switch. Here is a good base diagram from SD: www.seymourduncan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/HSH_5W_1V_1T.jpgWhen you add the pp switch to that, it will connect each of the two red/white joined pairs to ground to do coil-cuts when pulled. They'll be one thing to check beforw wiring, after you have your pickups. When you do coil cut in positions 2 and 4, you might as well make it humcancelling. To do that it needs the active humbucker coils to be the opposite magnetic polarity to the middle. That could affect the arrangement of wire colours on the diagram. We can help with that if needed. (Note: I see that SD also have another similar diagram on their site which already has the pp switch, but its all messed up so too confusing!) EDIT Scratch the above! I hadnt noticed your request for position 3 changes. |
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 20, 2017 15:16:21 GMT -5
As far as the Middle only versus the Bridge and Neck go, you'll probably end up having to reverse those two selections between the p/p-Up and p/p-Down.
Even if you swap them, so that you don't have to somehow "un-split" both pickups, I'm not seeing how the P/P can both split the pickups and remove them both from position 3.  |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 20, 2017 16:58:12 GMT -5
Even if you swap them, so that you don't have to somehow "un-split" both pickups, I'm not seeing how the P/P can both split the pickups and remove them both from position 3. Yep. You correctly identified the problem. We can *almost* get there by using one pole of the push-pull to select split or full if we assign one pole of the superswitch to select which pickup to split. But that only leaves us three poles of the superswitch to do overall pickup selections. If one pole of the superswitch is always in-play for pickup selection we can get some unique combinations by using the second pole of the push-pull to choose which of the other two poles of the SS is enabled. But that won't quite get us where we need to go. The swap at position 3 can't fully happen. ------------------------------------------ The obvious solution appears to be: Use an S-1 (four poles) instead of a push-pull (two poles). |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 20, 2017 17:17:00 GMT -5
As far as the Middle only versus the Bridge and Neck go, you'll probably end up having to reverse those two selections between the p/p-Up and p/p-Down.
Even if you swap them, so that you don't have to somehow "un-split" both pickups, I'm not seeing how the P/P can both split the pickups and remove them both from position 3. John spoke as if a standard 5-way (DP5T) were in play. brons101 stated in his list of parts that he has a superswitch on hand. I believe that it's not the extra two poles will make a difference here, but the extra terminals on each pole.
brons, I earlier spoke about not having enough time to do up a diagram for you, but.... whilst dumpster-diving through the hardware called "my harddrive", I found a set of drawings that I had make up several years ago for someone else. For that exercise in solving a logic puzzle, the goal was to have an individual (mini-toggle) switch for each pup that chose between one coil or the other, or both. You said you want both humbuckers on one p/p switch, yes? Let me bypass an hour or two of sleep tonight, and I'll modify what I've got for your needs. Expect it to be posted by this time tomorrow at the latest.
Even if someone else beats me to it. 
EDIT: ninja'd once again! The older diagram to which I just referred did not ask for a B+N combo, M was the only selection in Pos 3. However, I can see in my mind's eye how to do the swap, ala Mike Richardson. This will require the full superswitch, but brons101 already has one on hand. Please standby.....
(Now returning to the "Honey-Do" list in 3.....2.....1.....)
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 21, 2017 0:07:08 GMT -5
brons,
As the others have stated above, your push/pull pot will not get the job done, per your desired combinations - you are asking a "two job" switch to do three jobs. However, the four-pole push/push switch mentioned above by reTrEaD will do the trick. Where we need that third pole is to determine which pole of the superswitch will be sending a signal onwards - namely the Mid or the B+N combo, in Pos 3.
Fender has been the leader in this department, naming their switch the "S-1". It was mounted in many of their higher-end models, always in the Volume pot position. I'm sure they're available from various outlets, both official and otherwise, but for starters you might give eBay a shot. That's a pretty pricey unit, to be sure, but without it, you'll need to modify your desires, I'm sorry to have to say. Pick it now, M or B+N.
But seeing as how The NutzHouse is famous for granting newcomers a much-coveted consolation prize, I'll leave you with something to ponder: If you can stand the thought of a second p/p pot (cheaper than an S-1, for sure), you could separate the functions - one p/p splits both Hb's at the same time, the other selects for either M or B+N (in Pos 3 only). Your superswitch is still necessary for this scenario.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 21, 2017 2:19:51 GMT -5
After a bit more thought, I believe I've come up with a solution for this, using just a simple DPDT push-pull.
On the superswitch, two poles (Let's call them A and B) are connected to the output ie: CW of the volume pot. These sections accomplish the pickup selection.
Pole C is connected to the neck pickup. Throw C3 is connected to the bridge pickup.
The ONLY function of this section is to connect the bridge and neck together in the #3 position.
Section D is for HB splitting.
In positions 1&2 the series link of the Bridge pickup is selected.
In positions 4&5 the series link of the Neck pickup is selected.
Pole D is connected to the 'UP' throw of the first half of the P-P.
The Pole of the first half of the P-P is connected to ground.
If we want all three pickups in position 3 when the push-pull is up,
Throw A3 is connected to the middle pickup.
Throw B3 is connected to the pole of the second half of the P-P.
The Neck pickup is connected to the 'UP' throw of the second half of the P-P.
(Neck and Bridge are connected together by Pole C and Throw C3)
The 'DOWN' throws of the P-P are not used.
Note: In the all-pickups #3 position, the HBs are full, not split.
It would seem all-pickups is preferred by brons101 for position 3 but if just Both HBs were the preference, that could easily be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 21, 2017 12:45:59 GMT -5
After a bit more thought, I believe I've come up with a solution for this, using just a simple DPDT push-pull. Yeah, I think you have. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 21, 2017 14:59:45 GMT -5
This was an interesting puzzle to solve, Ash. I kept looking at the similarity between pickups selected in the 'UP' vs 'DOWN' position of the P-P and thinking it's all the same except for the #3 position.
I'm not fond of shunting coils to split HBs but it sure is a lot easier to accomplish. By using just one side of the P-P to do that and employing one pole of the SS to select which pickup was being split, that left one pole of the P-P and one pole of the SS free to do something else.
At first, I was focused on using the PP to swap which pole of the SS was being sent to the output. That lead to a dead-end. When I looked at just managing what happened in the #3 position, all else fell into place.
What I don't like:
I'd rather bypass unused coils than shunt them.
In the #3 'DOWN' position, the two HBs are connected together, even though they aren't being used.
That probably doesn't present much problem, though.
Far less, I would imagine, than shunting one coil of a HB.
If it was me, I'd just use an S-1 and go a more straight-forward route.
But I reckon this way is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 21, 2017 17:03:19 GMT -5
C'mon reT, we know you want to draw a diagram and that it will be well worth seeing if you do!
But Im still thinking of a simpler, non- compliant version. All the required trickery with this scheme is around position 3, getting M to swap or combine with B and N. If not for this, it can be a simple 5-way with simple 2x coil cut on one switch An extra pp switch for neck-on could get all the extra options and a few more.
Or, instead, use a 2nd pp switch to exchange ground-side coils between N and B. Then positions 1 and 5 become B+N combos of inside coils or outside coils, which should cover the BN intent.
|
|
brons101
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
|
Post by brons101 on Jun 22, 2017 2:06:42 GMT -5
Hello thank you all for your help , I've come to the conclusion I better just lay
Down the $38 and get guitarelectronics.com to make me up something that will work (not that you guys couldn't) it's just this stuff is way beyond my knowledge and skill at this time. Hopefully the super switch will work I'm still awaiting them to send me any questions or something like that, but if it doesn't I can settle for either a second push pull or the s-1 switch from fender. Once again thanks everyone for you help I really appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 22, 2017 5:50:07 GMT -5
Id just point out that your request needs some cleverness that you may not get from GE. Its not obvious which is why reTread got interested! His designs are 110% and worth persuing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 22, 2017 11:04:16 GMT -5
Hello thank you all for your help , I've come to the conclusion I better just lay Down the $38 and get guitarelectronics.com to make me up something that will work (not that you guys couldn't) it's just this stuff is way beyond my knowledge and skill at this time. Hopefully the super switch will work I'm still awaiting them to send me any questions or something like that, but if it doesn't I can settle for either a second push pull or the s-1 switch from fender. Once again thanks everyone for you help I really appreciate it!
Wait! Hold on a second!!
You mean we could be making honest-to-Gawd real money here in The NutzHouse?
......
No, what I mean to say, after my initial shock, is that if someone is charging for for what we do for free, then that someone's agenda is skewed, to put it the most politely I know how. Making money is fine, and necessary, but making it by implying there's no way to get the job done for free, that sticks in my craw. (For those of you who haven't yet checked this out, the direct link is: Custom Wiring Work) In my opinion, the better way for them to operate would've been to suggest a few sites around the web as "other possible resources". We do it, why can't they?
brons, there's no reason why you can't participate in what we're discussing here, this isn't rocket science. We'll do the design work together, you can either play solder-flinger at your own workbench, or you can take the final design to a trusted guitar technician, that's OK too. But paying money for such simple design work..... Jeez man, that's beyond my ken.
Looked at another way: you've got a team of at least 5 design experts here, and there are several more in The NutzHouse that don't always chime in so quickly, but they're here nonetheless. And all of the discussion between us so far has occurred in less than 2 days. Another day or two at the most, and you're gonna be a happy camper... providing you know which end of the soldering iron to grab.
Here's our philosophy: Whatever you (or anyone) want/s, it can be achieved... given the mechanical constraints of components themselves. We'd rather offer you options, based on our knowledge of those few constraints, and let you choose your path. Yes, it is a give-and-take operation that takes a finite amount of time, but we Nutz, acting as volunteers who prefer to share our knowledge, are here exactly for that exchange - it's what has kept us going for the past 10 years, sans any money!
But in the end, it is your affair. Whichever way you go, good luck!
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 22, 2017 13:21:47 GMT -5
Hello thank you all for your help , I've come to the conclusion I better just lay Down the $38 and get guitarelectronics.com to make me up something that will work I'm interested in knowing your current exchanges with them. Did you ask them if they can hit all the targets on your list with just a superswitch and one push-pull (not S-1)? If didn't, maybe you should confirm they can accomplish that before you send them the thirty-eight skins. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 22, 2017 13:35:11 GMT -5
But Im still thinking of a simpler, non- compliant version. All the required trickery with this scheme is around position 3, getting M to swap or combine with B and N. If not for this, it can be a simple 5-way with simple 2x coil cut on one switch An extra pp switch for neck-on could get all the extra options and a few more. Or, instead, use a 2nd pp switch to exchange ground-side coils between N and B. Then positions 1 and 5 become B+N combos of inside coils or outside coils, which should cover the BN intent. Yeah, there are plenty of ways to slice and dice this which would open the door to more interesting combinations. There's a balance between getting useful sounds and keeping it simple with an intuitive sequence. That point varies depending on who's behind the wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 22, 2017 13:43:39 GMT -5
No, what I mean to say, after my initial shock, is that if someone is charging for for what we do for free, then that someone's agenda is skewed, to put it the most politely I know how. I think GE's agenda is exactly where it should be. They have a ton of diagrams on their site for free. If you can't find what you want there (or elsewhere on the web) the thirty-eight skins is a rather modest fee for the time required to produce a one-of-a-kind drawing to your specs. As far as them suggesting other free resources, they could. But I don't see them as having the slightest obligation to do so. JMO |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jun 22, 2017 13:44:45 GMT -5
Its not obvious which is why reTread got interested! You know me too well. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 22, 2017 14:48:12 GMT -5
No, what I mean to say, after my initial shock, is that if someone is charging for for what we do for free, then that someone's agenda is skewed, to put it the most politely I know how. I think GE's agenda is exactly where it should be. They have a ton of diagrams on their site for free. If you can't find what you want there (or elsewhere on the web) the thirty-eight skins is a rather modest fee for the time required to produce a one-of-a-kind drawing to your specs. As far as them suggesting other free resources, they could. But I don't see them as having the slightest obligation to do so. JMO Entirely true, they are entitled to earn money any legal way they see fit. And yes, they already provide many, many free diagrams, so there is some social redeeming value to the site. Where I get a little miffed is that they don't even pretend that other websites exist, let alone provide links to them. Free or otherwise (a competitive paid service), they intimate that there's no need to look anywhere else, all your needs can be met right there. IMO, judgmental that it is, one ignores one's colleagues (often mis-termed as competitors) at one's peril. But that's a story for another day. 
Now maybe I'm not acting as though I can see things the way that others do, I'm sorry if that's the impression I give out. But I'm from the "sharing is caring" school of thought, so perhaps you'll understand my sentiments. It just so happens that I like the fact that the internet is not one big, crass, commercial trap for the unwary... only part of it is. I stay away from such claptrap as much as possible, because I practice safe hex. 
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 22, 2017 16:43:53 GMT -5
I think in principle, design should be paid for. Otherwise I would be very hungry and my wife would be annoyed.
But the way I see it, doing custom one-off wiring diagrams for guitars as a commercial venture is in no way viable unless they are absolutely cookie-cutter basic.
When I do a diagram just for interest or for myself (ie no one is paying), I might spend 3 hours figuring it out and getting it right. But if somebody wants to pay me $38 for something, then that is only worth about 20 minutes of my time max (actually less than 10 minutes at commercial charge-out rates).
Also, with regard to GE, ive seen plenty of errors and sub-optimal designs on their site. Out on the net I think the best wiring diagrams are to be found here, Seymour Duncan and a few others such as those by Phostenix and Deaf Eddie.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 22, 2017 22:59:19 GMT -5
John,
I agree, with one difference - custom designs that are unique should be paid for, but not everyday knock-offs that are brain-dead obvious derivatives of the basic manufacturer's stuff. Paid-for design work also trumps free in another area, one where particularly you and your expertise come in - any time that safety is a major consideration, especially when building things that will be permeated by people in one form or another.
So many sites out there in Newton N. Minnow-land are single-person entities with no sense of double-checking their work for errors. We do that almost by accident, nearly everything done here being a team effort. I think that speaks volumes right there about our worth, don't you? Coupled with our openly sharing attitude and our mostly spam-free forums, I'm rather opinionated that we should be considered as good as, or even better than, a goodly number of "paid design service" sites.
There, I said it. And I ain't gonna take it back.
brons, if you're still with us....
Going off-topic like this happens a lot here in The NutzHouse. We do have one member who derails topics more regularly than a carton of Ex-lax, and he does it without any compensation merely because he's a nice guy, but he's currently on a walkabout down under. So I have to pick up the slack, you understand.
sumgai
|
|
