the Good, the Bad and...

[UnklMickey]

while working with fenleo on analyzing a diagram from deaf-eddie, i revisited a design i had rolling around in my mind for 2 SCs (1 of them RWRP) and a HB.

since i had some of the drawing from fenleo's post, i modified it and used it to layout my design.

i have drawn it as a 2 HB, but it would work the same with 2 SCs instead of the neck HB

JohnH has graciously proofread the diagram for me.


it's rather complicated, not for the faint of heart.

i haven't decided yet if i'll build it, but i thought i'd put it out here.

maybe one of our members would like to build it.


let me know what you think of the concept,

and whether or not i should post it to the schematics page.




________________ NORMAL_____________________SERIES___________________ "PHASE" ________

POSITION 1 __ NECK SERIES HB _____________ NECK SERIES HB _____________ NECK SERIES HB

POSITION 2 __ INNER COILS in PARALLEL ______ INNER COILS in SERIES _______ BOTH NORTH COILS OoP

POSITION 3 __ BOTH ser HB in PARALLEL ______ BOTH ser HB in SERIES _________ BOTH ser HB OoP

POSITION 4 __ OUTER COILS PARALLEL ________ OUTER COILS in SERIES _______ BOTH SOUTH COILS OoP

POSITION 5 __ BRIDGE SERIES HB ___________ BRIDGE SERIES HB ___________ BRIDGE SERIES HB




THE GOOD:

• all positions are 2 or 4 coils, correctly selected to be HUMBUCKING
  
  
• NO coils are ever shunted
  
  
• there are no dead spots
  

THE BAD:

• because of the desire to keep all positions humbucking, there are no "single" sounds.
  
  
• to keep EVERYTHING humbucking, i used a different configuration for the "phase" switch. it has NO effect in position 1, and virtually no effect in position 5
  
  
• because of the desire to have 2 HBs selected at one time, the following compromises had to be made:
  
  
• there are unused coils hanging from hot or midpoint in positions 2 and 4
  
  
• positions 1 and 5 are always series regardless of the S/P switch
  

THE (BIG) UGLY:





............SAGWBLT............

unk

[jimplaysguitar]

Wow, truely amazing.
All rights reserved for me right, Unk? ;D
If I attempt to go through it now, I'll probably go wrong somewhere. I'll check it tomorrow, after a good sleep.

Jim

[jimplaysguitar]

One thing I don't get is how the phase switch works in positions 2 and 4. Take 2 for example, the signal goes straight into the red and white wires, which goes past the phase switch. I think i see it... When it's in phase, the signal goes into the red wire, out of the green, and is then grounded. But when it's out of phase, that coil is then shorted, so the signal goes into the white wire, out of the black, and is then grounded?

Jim

[UnklMickey]

Jim,

the "phase" switch in this circuit is a bit different from the usual configuration.

it exchanges the connections to the north and south coils of the bridge.

it's pretty easy to understand what happens in position 3.

but in positions 2 and 4, it's a bit more devious.

in those positions, exchanging the connections causes the split coil that was selected by the 5-way to be replaced by it's "sister" coil. also what used to be "up" in the north-south stack, is now "down. so the signal is out of phase, but the winding connection is such that it is still hum-canceling with the coil that is selected at the neck.

in a 2HB configuration,
the 2 and 4 positions that were previously inner and outer, with the "phase"switch are now,
both north coils O-O-P, and
both south coils O-O-P.

i'm not sure how different positions 2 and 4 will sound in the 2HB configuration. but i'm certain they will sound very different in a S-S-H configuration.


if this explanation is still not clear, let me know and i'll try again.


this doesn't seem to have generated much interest, maybe cause my description was a bit confusing, or maybe cause the other members don't see much merit in the basic concept.

that's one of the reasons why i ran it up the flag-pole here, rather than post it on the schematics page.


unk

[JohnH]

Well I think it is a good design. It nails most of the best combos available, and greatly extends the basic 2Hb configuration with a selection of brighter and deeper options, and not too many switches. With everything humcancelling, it should be a good choice for use with high-gain distortion Unkl gets +1 from me.

John

[jimplaysguitar]

I understand 100% now. And i love it.
I'll probably save it and try it in the future, with Unk's permission ofcourse.

+1 from me, definitely belongs on the Schematics board.

Jim

[simes]

Hello unkl.

That set-up couldn't help but remind me of a configuration I posted in another thread. I say I posted the configuration ... what I mean is that I gave a number of combinations that I think would be useful, but of course I don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a schematic or even know if it's possible. The idea would be to use one of these double 5-ways in conjunction with one push-pull or mini-switch to give:

A - "clean"
1. neck HB in parallel with itself
2. north coils in series out of phase
3. outer coils in parallel
4. inner coils in parallel
5. bridge HB in parallel with itself

B. - "crunch"
1. neck HB in series with itself
2. both in series with themselves and series with each other and out of phase
3. both in series with themselves and parallel with each other
4. both in parallel with each other, neck HB in series with itself, bridge HB in parallel with itself (or vice versa)
5. bridge HB in series with itself

Actually, I changed it a bit from the other thread.

This would presumably be all hum-cancelling, and would also give some pseudo-SC sounds in positions 1 and 5 of the "clean" option.
Looking at your proposal, I'm not sure how useful so many out-of-phase and series options would be, for me personally, at least. I'd prefer to limit that to combining the two series HB's or outer coils in series/OoP, and using the remaining positions for putting the HB's in parallel with themselves.

So ... is it possible?

Simes

[UnklMickey]

simes said:

...So ... is it possible?...

i won't say no, but i will say it would be extremely difficult to figure out.

and to get all you've asked for and avoid shunting coils, it think would be impossible.

i do have a design similar to the big ugly that has even more selections, never has unused coils hanging from hot, never shunts coils, and ALL combinations are hum-canceling (except for when only 1 coil is used alone of course).

but that requires an 8 pole switch. (good luck finding one of those)

and it was designed around having a separate S/P switch, rather than having a position on the 5 way being series instead of parallel. (or vice-versa)

it would be a piece of cake to get all of the A combinations that you asked for, or all the B combinations. (if you had an 8 pole 5 way.) but i suspect it wouldn't be possible to do both and select between the A sequence or the B sequence.

mind you, i'm not saying it's impossible.

i'm saying just saying that i can't envision it.



unk

[UnklMickey]

jimplaysguitar said:

...I'll probably save it and try it in the future, with Unk's permission ofcourse. ...

well of course, all have implied permission for individual, personal use.

but if you go into production, and start selling them, ... I WANT MONEY! ;D


unk

[simes]

OK, how about:

1. neck series HB
2. outer coils in parallel
3. both series HB's in parallel
4. inner coils in parallel
5. bridge series HB

PLUS:

- one push/pull or mini-switch to put the HB's in parallel with themselves only in positions 1 & 5
- one push/pull or mini-switch to change position 2 to north coils in series out of phase, and position 3 to both HB's in series out of phase, only affecting these two positions

[UnklMickey]

Simes,

the basic 5 is a no-brainer.

the challenges come from the "plus" and the "only" parts

if the basic design was done without regard to shunting coils, that might lead to keeping a pole free on the 5-way. that in turn might make it possible to make some of the "onlies" closer to being do-able.

having both HBs change from parallel to series configuration in 1 and 5 without affecting what happens in 2,3,and 4 would indeed require some sWitchcraft.

likewise, keeping the series OoP/coil-swap local to only positions 2 and 3 is a tall order.

my own designs are based on much simpler targets. as in: how many combinations can one come up with and keep everything hum-cancelling.

if any of the other members are interested in taking on your challenge, i would really enjoy seeing this solved.

it would no-doubt require an extensive set of drawings (like the ones fenleo posted for the analysis of the deaf-eddie drawing) to begin to figure out how to implement the required switching.



well, that's my story, and i'm stickin' to it.



unk

[Runewalker]

Back to the Good, Bad and Eli (Wallach)....

First a question, maybe I missed this: in the phase bank are pos 2-3-4 OoP in system series or system parallel?

I have paused on this a couple of times. Seems like the direction has real merit. There is a certain elegance to the logic of the 3 bank arrays. Like John H, you are prioritizing the anti-hum, and Seth Lover would be proud.

However, by prioritizing hum cancelling, as you note, single coils alone are abandoned. While a cut coil humbucker rarely sounds exactly like a strat some can get respectably close, especially the hotter wound ones. I know you made the conscious decision to abandon the single coil because of the hum, and suspect the compromise emulation of the single coil sound is in those parallel and OoP settings.

But the single coil sound is a benchmark signature tone that those emulations don't quite capture. Like I always say to John H if the hum bothers you, you don't have it loud enough!

But when I look at the various banks and try to figure out where a single coil selection would fit, the options narrow. Maybe on bank one (NORMAL) where you have in position one the NECK SERIES HB --- given that that bank tends more towards the treble and lilting opposed to the OoP channel, treble and ring-modulated.

So if that were an option you at least have the SRV chunk rhythm sound, more so by using the inner coil of the neck.

But that is a minor adaptation. I would like to hear this thang. I have a fat strat style this might work well for, although on that one I would feel the loss of not having the Neck and Mid as singles. It is back routed with the 5 way lever, and I was hesitating on driiling the slot for minis.

I am trying to envision what the live guitarist would go through moving between rhythm and lead within a song.

Typically you would be in some para combo or mid/neck single for rhythm then switch to fat strat style configs for lead. So I was thinking ok you in the OoP bank- say postition 2 --- and you want to go to the series bank - say position 4. That would be, in John H lexicon, a little "fiddly," Well with the Bridge in Ser in all banks you might not need to ever switch between banks in a given song. That's where the elegance comes in.

So this could be quite ergonomic as well. There's a lot of motor patterned 5-way lever guys out there, so learning curve could be short.

It would just have to be built and tried to see about how much is given up with no single coil.

My biggest issue with the -hums in parallel, their equivalents (inner in para, eg), or the OoPs is the drop in output, especially compared to the series settings. I have had some long discussions about the need to have some output normalization in these designs, and this one would have significant differences in output. I guess you could be pumping the volume petal, but something onboard seems to be a missing ingrediant.

I see also you did the Gary Moore/PeterGreen/Dimebag mod of turning the bridge slotted coil away from the bridge. That will slightly change the Bridge alone in Series sound toward the beefier, but also has the benefit of approximating Mallard Quack on the Inner coils combos in Para. Even more quack on a 24 fret version.

Anyway, I know you thought your work was not getting much traffic. Hopefully that was not a pout we saw. It just takes some thought, which seeing how this brain labors, takes some time.

Nice design. Kudos, Zarathustra.

RW

[UnklMickey]

runewalker said:

...First a question, maybe I missed this: in the phase bank are pos 2-3-4 OoP in system series or system parallel?

However, by prioritizing hum cancelling, as you note, single coils alone are abandoned. While a cut coil humbucker rarely sounds exactly like a strat some can get respectably close, especially the hotter wound ones. I know you made the conscious decision to abandon the single coil because of the hum, and suspect the compromise emulation of the single coil sound is in those parallel and OoP settings....

...But the single coil sound is a benchmark signature tone that those emulations don't quite capture. Like I always say to John H if the hum bothers you, you don't have it loud enough!

...My biggest issue with the -hums in parallel, their equivalents (inner in para, eg), or the OoPs is the drop in output, especially compared to the series settings. I have had some long discussions about the need to have some output normalization in these designs, and this one would have significant differences in output. I guess you could be pumping the volume petal, but something onboard seems to be a missing ingrediant.

I see also you did the Gary Moore/PeterGreen/Dimebag mod of turning the bridge slotted coil away from the bridge. That will slightly change the Bridge alone in Series sound toward the beefier, but also has the benefit of approximating Mallard Quack on the Inner coils combos in Para. Even more quack on a 24 fret version.

...Hopefully that was not a pout we saw....

as to your question about the "phase bank", it looks like i did a poor job of mapping that out.

there are actually 4 banks. normal (System parallel) - system Series - system Parallel Oop - system Series Oop.

this is because there are 4 combinations of the 2 push-pulls.

i coulda-shoulda done a better job of making that obvious in my table.

thanks for the "system" phraseology. that combined with "local" might be a good way of differentiating things.



abandoning single coils was necessitated because of the fact that there are a limited number of poles. (believe it or not 4 ain't even close to being enough!) so the 4 wire HBs had to be wired as 3 wire, allowing for both HB to be enabled in position 3.

so now i'm stuck with choice of having dead-spots caused by the s/p switch or wiring so that the s/p switch is bypassed.

i have an idea for a slight change in the wiring of the s/p switch that might allow for a coil-cut in positions 1 and 5. it would require shunting the unused coil. i really try to avoid that, but i think i can get over it. especially since it would only occur in this one situation. i'll include that in the mick II mark II version.

because of the wider spacing, the parallel OoP combos will be a little less heinous than a HB in that mode, but i suspect that they probably will be more of a specialty tone of limited application.

the main reason i turned the bridge HB around was to get the spacings to be what i consider right when combining coils in the S S H version as well as having inner and outer being hum-cancelling. to my way of thinking inner vs outer will be a bigger difference (and more so the closer the 2 HBs are to each other) than shifting one coil closer to the bridge and maintain the same gap. the rest is just a "happy accident".


pout? maybe not-so-much. self-doubt? maybe just a little.


BTW my thoughts on S-S-H spacing is a bit different from the standard Fender layout. but, that's a different matter altogether.


{in unison} but, that's a different matter. {/in unison}



thanks for your comments and thoughts. i'll clean up the text and get v2.0 drawn up.

unk

[simes]

Good morning.

Now, I'm aware that I may be flogging a dead horse, and that I'm asking a lot of questions without being in a position to offer any technical input, but I'd like to press on just a little with this.

As I see it, the original Big Ugly is a kind of Jimmy Page thing without the coil splits but with a couple of "PRS" combinations and the OoP combinations kept hum cancelling. My gripe with the JP mod was that there were so many switches, but hey, if it's the only way it's the only way.

What would happen if you kept the Big Ugly format but added two more push-pulls (on a 4 pot guitar) to put each of the HB's in parallel? Would this affect the inner/outer coils positions?

You could call it the Ugly Jimmy ...

By the way - pardon my ignorance - what exactly is a coil shunt and why don't you like it, unkl?

[Mini-Strat_Maine]

simes said:

Now, I'm aware that I may be flogging a dead horse

Some members might say I do that, too. But if you do it right, it makes the horsehide really easy to work with.

and that I'm asking a lot of questions without being in a position to offer any technical input

I hope members here are never required to maintain a positive balance of (correct) answers we've given vs. questions we've asked. I've got a wicked deficit already.

By the way - pardon my ignorance - what exactly is a coil shunt and why don't you like it, unkl?

The top two links on this page deaf-eddie.net/drawings/drawings.html will give some more info, but UnklMickey has a way of explaining it that even I can understand.

[UnklMickey]

Simes,

i've just cut and pasted my text from the conversation i previously had with Doug.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

an unused coil, "hanging from hot", acts like an antenna. slightly increases the hum and noise. more noticeable when in a complex OoP configuration. same amount of noise and quieter signal = poorer signal to noise ratio.

shunted coils cause a slight dampening of string vibration, though some will argue it's too small to make any difference.

cleanest way to split (coil cut) a HB is to bypass the "bottom" coil of the "stack", connecting the - lead of the top coil to ground, instead of to the + lead of the bottom coil.

the - lead of the bottom coil is still connected, but this antenna is connected to ground.

it takes an extra pole to bypass the top coil and use just the bottom if you want to achieve this level of cleanliness.

you would have to disconnect the - of the upper coil, in addition to connecting the + of the bottom coil to hot.

if the 2 coils are connected in parallel rather than series, it's easy to cut either cleanly. but who wires their HBs in parallel?



i think between the Deaf Eddie reply and the "Tap" thread here on GN2, you know all about the concept of tapped coils.
______________________________________________________________________________________



about Jimmy, he's ugly enough already, but i'll think about your local s/p switching on the hb's and figure out how that might work. it will take a while, but maybe i'll have a brainstorm.



Doug,

thanks for the compliment, sparking the idea to cut and paste, and the humor.

as if Mini_Strat_Maine wasn't enough to type, now we'll have to append "and Master of all things Smilie"



unk