Strat: Neck/Bridge Blender AND Series Blender

[pineal]

Hey everyone. First post here. I’ve been formulating the wiring scheme for my Strat knockoff and my research has constantly brought me to this forum, so I’m so excited to finally create an account and post my first question. (Disclaimer: I will not be doing the actual wiring work and have only been charged with developing the plans, so please forgive my limited electrical knowledge)

I plan on incorporating a mini pot for the classic blender mod (the one that blends in the neck pickup in positions 1 and 2 and the bridge in positions 4 and 5). I’m not against altering the stock look of the pickguard and have already dedicated both tone knobs to the PTB Tone Control system. But my curiosity in a series blender for a faux-bucker sound has got me wondering if I could employ the use of both blenders, as I’ve gathered they often don’t play well together. My middle pickup is RWRP and would be the candidate for this mod. To be more clear, in my head I am envisioning a second mini pot that would be used to blend the middle pickup in series. I’m not sure if this would require the use of a DPDT switch, but if that’s the case I would use a push-pull mini pot for the series blender. Could I just use my standard 5-way switch or would it require the use of a Super Switch? Ultimately I’m looking for a pickup configuration like this...

1. B
2. B + M
3. M
4. N + M
5. N

With classic blender engaged
1. B + N
2. B + M + N
3. no effect
4. N + M + B
5. N + B

With Middle series blender engaged
1. B x M
2. no effect
3. no effect
4. no effect
5. N x M

With both blenders engaged
1. (B + N) x M
2. no effect
3. no effect
4. no effect
5. (N + B) x M

Is this practical...or even possible?

[JohnH]

Hi pineal, welcome to GN2

I reckon your design is possible.

But here's one that is almost there. I tried the various blender options, and found that to my ears, the parallel blending was not so interesting along the way, though the final B+N sound is very nice. On the other hand, series blending has several nice places to stop as you turn the knob. So this design uses one extra switch to add the series blender, plus the option of B+N, which can also transition to (B+N) x M

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7117/strat-ssm3-series-parallel-switch

[pineal]

I’m so glad that you were first to respond, John, as it was that specific thread on the SSM3 that inspired me to join up. Although I was tempted to use this particular scheme, I was under the impression that the parallel blending would be useful to slightly thicken the bridge by adding a little neck and vice versa. But now that you offer up the experienced advice it makes me question my plans a bit, as I hadn’t considered that series blending might accomplish this same task, only better.

On a side (but slightly related) note, I’m under the impression that the series blender should be a regular 250k Audio Taper...that is to say, not modified for no-load (as I was originally planning on using for the parallel blender). Is this correct?

If I do go with the SSM3 wiring, which I am seriously considering, I’m curious if there is a use for (or even a possibility of) rigging up an additional capacitor so the series combinations see a more appropriate value than the parallel combinations? Not sure if this will be too confusing with the PTB Tone System in place and the N + B combo being a part of the series switch.

[JohnH]

What's good and not good is mostly a personal opinion. On no-load pots, these blender schemes work with normal or with no-load. I find it important to have no-load on a parallel blender, but not really on a series blender.

You can have both blender pots if you want. Just wire the extra parallel blender between the two hot wires for N and B. But note that with standard audio pots, no-blending will be at 0 on the series blender and 10 on the parallel blender. To make both blend the sams way, the parallel blender should be reverse audio (C type) and use the other outer lug.

I wouldnt bother to make caps changeable.In any case, the cap value makes negligible difference unless uou turn tone right down.

[pineal]

I’m definitely leaning towards the SSM3 as it sounds less confusing than my idea. Haha. But, just to be thorough, I thought I’d ask some follow up questions about the “double blender” idea. Would the final pickup configurations on the 5-way in combination with the blenders be as I predicted in my original post? Would it need the DPDT to activate the series blender or would I just need to simply turn the knob (like with the parallel blender)?

[reTrEaD]

Oct 2, 2018 17:16:45 GMT -5 pineal said:

I’m definitely leaning towards the SSM3 as it sounds less confusing than my idea. Haha. But, just to be thorough, I thought I’d ask some follow up questions about the “double blender” idea. Would the final pickup configurations on the 5-way in combination with the blenders be as I predicted in my original post? Would it need the DPDT to activate the series blender or would I just need to simply turn the knob (like with the parallel blender)?

Any time you attempt to blend two pickups in series which are naturally found in parallel in some positions of the selector switch, you'll definitely need to add some switching, for instance a DPDT. Else you'll never get the original combinations in the 'non-blended' situation. How you move the connections about in the series mode will determine what the results will be when in series mode.


Of course if you want to blend two pickups in series which are not normally found in parallel in any of the positions of the selector, that is possible without adding a 'mode' switch.

On the Zero Bux Series Addition to SSS Strat I introduced such a concept. Then Yogi B took it to the next level.

That was an example of how the results of two GuitarNuts working together are exponentially better.

Instead of GN2, you get GN²

[pineal]

Nice to finally converse with you as well, reTrEaD. I’m surprised I hadn’t come across the Zero Bux before. Pretty clever stuff and very utilitarian.

I figured a DPDT would be necessary, although I feel I should phrase the question in a different way just to make sure my simplistic understanding of this subject isn’t hindering my communication skills. It is possible to have 2 blender knobs, one that brings in the neck/bridge in parallel [allowing for B + N / B + M + N / N + M + B / N + B] and another that brings in the middle in series [allowing for B x M / N x M]? Is it possible to configure it so that the middle series knob comes after the parallel blending knob [allowing for (N + B) x M]? If I am understanding correctly, all of the aforementioned functions are possible with this setup, but a DPDT is needed to activate the series knob?

OR...something I just thought of...is it possible to wire up the SSM3 to have the series blender knob act as the parallel blender when not in series mode and still have the option to have (B + full N), and therefore (B + full N) x M, when series mode is activated?

[Yogi B]

Oct 3, 2018 8:11:16 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Any time you attempt to blend two pickups in series which are naturally found in parallel in some positions of the selector switch, you'll definitely need to add some switching, for instance a DPDT. Else you'll never get the original combinations in the 'non-blended' situation. How you move the connections about in the series mode will determine what the results will be when in series mode.

Yes, for instance a DPDT -- but not necessarily a DPDT, the additional switching could come from the extra poles of a superswitch.

Oct 2, 2018 10:57:40 GMT -5 pineal said:

With both blenders engaged
1. (B + N) x M
2. no effect
3. no effect
4. no effect
5. (N + B) x M

I presume you still wish the N/B blender to affect positions 2 & 4, giving B + M + N in these positions. (Not "no effect" completely, i.e. not B+M and M+N respectively)

[pineal]

Apologies, Yogi...I’m at work and haven’t quite got the hang of how to quote yet but I’ll respond to your statements in order.

I hadn’t even considered putting the switching on a superswitch, although it doesn’t really seem to align with my goal of being able to gradually blend in the parallel neck/bridge and series middle (and, most ideally, being able to utilize both blends at once). Or am I not understanding how a superswitch can actually be applied? I’ve also entertained the idea of having the DPDT being a push-pull pot as the series blender and having the down/push position wired as the active mode so I could just leave it down and use it like a normal pot. Just another idea for the pile...

And you are correct in your presumption about the N/B blender. Although, that being the case, it would be pretty cool to have it be...

1. (B + N) x M [both blenders effect position]
2. (B x M) + N [series blender has no effect, parallel blends in neck]
3. M [neither blender effects position]
4. (N x M) + B [series blender has no effect, parallel blends in bridge]
5. (N + B) x M [both blenders effect position]

But this is a just a crazed attempt to squeeze a little more flexibility out of those 2 positions. If it convolutes the scheme or eliminates the possibility of the series blender knob being “always active” (not requiring the use of a DPDT) please disregard and default to your original presumption! I suppose it should be noted here that one of the charms of my original “master plan” is that most of the action takes place at positions 1 & 5, the least likely to get knocked out of place! I guess that’s part of its appeal to me and makes these last configuration suggestions for 2 & 4 a lower priority as a result.

[JohnH]

I've done way too much doodling of blender schemes since we started GN2! The 'zero-bux' schemes by reTrEaD and Yogiare some of the best, and they do what they do with simple parts and no compromises. SSM3 is also one I'm happy to suggest.

There are other strat-based series and parallel blending schemes on the net, and some of them are compromised in ways such as not fully disconnecting the blending options or adding more load to pickups, in each case reducing a Strats natural primary tone of being able to do pure, clear single tones. Or having quirky knob actions or dead spots, or mega-complicated switches.

With the SSM3, we can add the extra parallel blender as a separate control, and its still all good, you can mix and match series and parallel with it because the series blender, when activated mixes in the M, and the parallel blender mixes B with N. It needs the dpdt that it has though.

In theory, the dpdt could become a 4pdt toggle (not a problem), and move the blender wiring to a position where it can do parallel blending just in standard mode. but, inherently, it will work backwards in one mode. Parallel blending is about mixing pickups with a reducing resistance to bring one in, while series blending is about reducing resistance to cut one out. And parallel needs a no load pot to work properly. So that, plus the observation that I found parallel mixing to be a bit uninteresting, is why I've never gone there myself.

[pineal]

Oct 3, 2018 15:24:34 GMT -5 JohnH said:

With the SSM3, we can add the extra parallel blender as a separate control, and its still all good, you can mix and match series and parallel with it because the series blender, when activated mixes in the M, and the parallel blender mixes B with N.

So, in regards to this part, does that mean the functions with DPDT engaged read out as...

S2 up / add series blend / add parallel blend
1. B to B x M to (B x M) + N
2. B to B x M to (B x M) + N
3. B to B x M to (B x M) + N
4. B + N to (B + N) x M [parallel blend has no effect]
5. N to N x M to (N x M) + B

Thank you for the clear explanation of why the parallel blend on the SSM3 standard mode is impractical.

[JohnH]

Almost, but need to move some brackets. N+B parallel mixing blending happens first, then all that gets added with series blending to M.

S2 up / add series blend / add parallel blend
1. B to B x M to (B + N) × M
2. B to B x M to (B + N) × M
3. B to B x M to (B + N) × M
4. B + N to (B + N) x M [parallel blend has no effect]
5. N to N x M to (N + B) × M

[reTrEaD]

Oct 3, 2018 14:16:13 GMT -5 pineal said:

Apologies, Yogi...I’m at work and haven’t quite got the hang of how to quote yet but I’ll respond to your statements in order.

I hadn’t even considered putting the switching on a superswitch, although it doesn’t really seem to align with my goal of being able to gradually blend in the parallel neck/bridge and series middle (and, most ideally, being able to utilize both blends at once). Or am I not understanding how a superswitch can actually be applied? I’ve also entertained the idea of having the DPDT being a push-pull pot as the series blender and having the down/push position wired as the active mode so I could just leave it down and use it like a normal pot. Just another idea for the pile...

And you are correct in your presumption about the N/B blender. Although, that being the case, it would be pretty cool to have it be...

1. (B + N) x M [both blenders effect position]
2. (B x M) + N [series blender has no effect, parallel blends in neck]
3. M [neither blender effects position]
4. (N x M) + B [series blender has no effect, parallel blends in bridge]
5. (N + B) x M [both blenders effect position]

But this is a just a crazed attempt to squeeze a little more flexibility out of those 2 positions. If it convolutes the scheme or eliminates the possibility of the series blender knob being “always active” (not requiring the use of a DPDT) please disregard and default to your original presumption! I suppose it should be noted here that one of the charms of my original “master plan” is that most of the action takes place at positions 1 & 5, the least likely to get knocked out of place! I guess that’s part of its appeal to me and makes these last configuration suggestions for 2 & 4 a lower priority as a result.

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

The architecture could be like this:

The (-) connections of the Bridge and neck pickups would be wired to one end of the series blender and to one pole of the superswitch.
The other end of the series blender would connected directly to ground.
The (-) connection of the Middle pickup would be connected to ground.
From there, a couple of variations are possible but the most obvious to me would be...
One end of the parallel blender connects to hot.
The three remaining poles of the superswitch are assigned to the (+) connections of each of the three pickups.

Regarding the first pole of the superswitch ... the throws of positions 1 and 5 connect to the (+) of the middle pickup. In positions 2,3,and 4, the throws are connected to ground.

It should be easy enough to figure out the connections of the throws associated with the three other poles.

[pineal]

Oct 3, 2018 17:01:05 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

If indeed true, this would be awesome! Would I also still have access to the standard 5 sounds (namely B + M and N + M) with this wiring or would that necessitate the use of an additional switch? If this is impractical and I had to choose, I suppose they would take precedent over their series counterparts since B x M and N x M would be available in positions 1 & 5 via the series knob.

And, for additional clarity, are we talking about a super switch or a megaswitch? If the latter offers any additional advantages towards my goal I’d be happy to add it to the shopping list.

[reTrEaD]

Oct 3, 2018 17:36:05 GMT -5 pineal said:

Oct 3, 2018 17:01:05 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

If indeed true, this would be awesome! Would I also still have access to the standard 5 sounds (namely B + M and N + M) with this wiring or would that necessitate the use of an additional switch? If this is impractical and I had to choose, I suppose they would take precedent over their series counterparts since B x M and N x M would be available in positions 1 & 5 via the series knob.

Yes, the standard 5 are still there in exactly the same sequence when the blenders are set to their no-blend positions on the pots. And no additional switch is needed.

Oct 3, 2018 17:36:05 GMT -5 pineal said:

And, for additional clarity, are we talking about a super switch or a megaswitch? If the latter offers any additional advantages towards my goal I’d be happy to add it to the shopping list.

The superswitch and Megaswitch are exact electrical equivalents. Either will get you where you need to go.

Megaswitch: Superior detent mechanism makes it very easy to click into any position with a positive 'feel'. In my opinion the build on a circuit board makes it slightly more reliable and less prone to contact degradation over time. But the pads to which you will solder your connections are rather small. Those with very good soldering skills will not see this as a serious problem. The superswitch is a better choice for a beginner.

Superswitch: Takes up more space in the control cavity but the large and widely spaced lugs are very easy to work with. It's also available through more sources and is slightly less expensive than a Megaswitch.

Because the Megaswitch is based on a printed board, the pad layout is less obvious than the lug arrangement on a superswitch. But we've covered how they relate to one another on a thread in the Reference Articles section. Terminals (4 pole/5 way) Oak Grigsby & Schaller Megaswitch M

[Yogi B]

Oct 3, 2018 14:16:13 GMT -5 pineal said:

I hadn’t even considered putting the switching on a superswitch, although it doesn’t really seem to align with my goal of being able to gradually blend in the parallel neck/bridge and series middle (and, most ideally, being able to utilize both blends at once). Or am I not understanding how a superswitch can actually be applied?

What I mean is to switch the blend pots in and out of the circuit depending on the position, i.e. the series blender only affects positions 1 & 5, so we can disconnect in the other positions to avoid it conflicting with those selections. This can give you the options proposed in your OP.

And you are correct in your presumption about the N/B blender. Although, that being the case, it would be pretty cool to have it be...

What being the case, I didn't say either were not possible, I just wanted to clarify what we're aiming for.

---

Oct 3, 2018 17:01:05 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

Maybe, but I'm not sure what you have is right:

The (-) connections of the Bridge and neck pickups would be wired to one end of the series blender and to one pole of the superswitch.
The other end of the series blender would connected directly to ground.
The (-) connection of the Middle pickup would be connected to ground.
...

If the Bridge(-) and Neck(-) are permanently tied together and the Middle(-) is permanently tied to ground, I don't see how we can have the Middle in series with only one on the Bridge/Neck pair in positions 2 & 4?!

---

Oct 3, 2018 17:36:05 GMT -5 pineal said:

Oct 3, 2018 17:01:05 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

If indeed true, this would be awesome!

But you'd still prefer your original “master plan” version, right?

[pineal]

Oct 3, 2018 19:44:14 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Yes, the standard 5 are still there in exactly the same sequence when the blenders are set to their no-blend positions on the pots. And no additional switch is needed.

This sounds like it could be exactly what I’m looking for!

Oct 3, 2018 19:53:10 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Oct 3, 2018 14:16:13 GMT -5 pineal said:

And you are correct in your presumption about the N/B blender. Although, that being the case, it would be pretty cool to have it be...

What being the case, I didn't say either were not possible, I just wanted to clarify what we're aiming for.

Sorry about that, Yogi. It was a poor choice of phrasing.
[But you'd still prefer your original “master plan” version, right?

Yes, that would still be ideal. To further clarify, and because I have a slightly better picture of what said “master plan” might entail, I will restate it. I realize some of it might not be pertinent to this specific area of discussion, but I’ll include the grand scheme in case there is anything I’m planning for this wiring that will complicate your design. In the end, it would be a 5 knob Strat with 1 knob for volume, 1 knob each for treble cut and bass cut (as per the PTB Tone System), 1 knob for N/B parallel blend and one knob for M series blend. Also in the mix is a DPDT which switches the output on the dual output bridge (7.6k / 12.5k). Middle pickup is RWRP.

No Blenders Engaged
1. B
2. B + M
3. M
4. N + M
5. N

N/B Parallel Blender Engaged & Middle Series Blender Disengaged
1. B + N
2. B + M + N
3. M
4. N + M + B
5. N + B

Middle Series Blender Engaged & N/B Parallel Blender Disengaged
1. B x M
2. B + M
3. M
4. N + M
5. N x M

Both Blenders Engaged (I realize positions 2 & 4 might not work the way I think they do...)
1. (B + N) x M
2. (B x M) + N
3. M
4. (N x M) + B
5. (N + B) x M

[reTrEaD]

Oct 3, 2018 19:53:10 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Oct 3, 2018 17:01:05 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I may be wrong but at first glance, this seems completely possible with a superswitch and no additional switches.

Maybe, but I'm not sure what you have is right:

The (-) connections of the Bridge and neck pickups would be wired to one end of the series blender and to one pole of the superswitch.
The other end of the series blender would connected directly to ground.
The (-) connection of the Middle pickup would be connected to ground.
...

If the Bridge(-) and Neck(-) are permanently tied together and the Middle(-) is permanently tied to ground, I don't see how we can have the Middle in series with only one on the Bridge/Neck pair in positions 2 & 4?!

You're absolutely right.  I was focused on the text regarding the series blender having no effect on positions 2 and 4 and completely missed the (B x M) and (N x M) in the descriptions.

Oct 3, 2018 21:02:18 GMT -5 pineal said:

No Blenders Engaged
1. B
2. B + M
3. M
4. N + M
5. N

N/B Parallel Blender Engaged & Middle Series Blender Disengaged
1. B + N
2. B + M + N
3. M
4. N + M + B
5. N + B

Middle Series Blender Engaged & N/B Parallel Blender Disengaged
1. B x M
2. B + M
3. M
4. N + M
5. N x M

Both Blenders Engaged (I realize positions 2 & 4 might not work the way I think they do...)
1. (B + N) x M
2. (B x M) + N     B + M + N
3. M
4. (N x M) + B     N + M + B
5. (N + B) x M

I've made corrections in positions 2 and 4 of the 'Both Blenders' sequence and indicated the blend-ins with Bold Blue.
Unless I've made additional errors, this should represent what's possible with just a superswitch and no additional switches.

[pineal]

Oct 3, 2018 22:54:23 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Unless I've made additional errors, this should represent what's possible with just a superswitch and no additional switches.

Wow, reTrEaD! Thank you for taking the time to do that. And it confirms for me that the combinations of (B x M) + N and (N x M) + B add an unnecessary level of complexity and hassle to the wiring. I can officially view the pickup configuration layout, with your corrections and blend-in indications, as my ultimate desired layout.

[pineal]

I know you guys have already helped me so much and I am so grateful to each of you. Would it be considered going overboard or rude to request some help with penning up a diagram? I do believe my friend is capable with electronics and has done his share of standard wiring jobs before, but I feel that I’ve added so many factors to this design and if I don’t come to him with a diagram he will be less inclined to attempt something this ambitious (plus the fact that the 5 knob design will likely necessitate a new pickguard for properly spacing all the components and he may not like that so much!).

[reTrEaD]

Oct 4, 2018 10:49:22 GMT -5 pineal said:

I know you guys have already helped me so much and I am so grateful to each of you. Would it be considered going overboard or rude to request some help with penning up a diagram? I do believe my friend is capable with electronics and has done his share of standard wiring jobs before, but I feel that I’ve added so many factors to this design and if I don’t come to him with a diagram he will be less inclined to attempt something this ambitious (plus the fact that the 5 knob design will likely necessitate a new pickguard for properly spacing all the components and he may not like that so much!).

Not at all. It's generally just a matter of who has spare time at the particular moment and how much you might be inclined (and capable) to do yourself.

If I have time in the next day or two, I'll make a schematic of the pickup coils, superswitch, and blender pots. But I won't be making an actual 'wiring diagram'. Perhaps someone else will have the time to do that part.

[pineal]

My inclination to do it myself is definitely not an issue (as I find all of this rather fun and fascinating) but my capability, at this point in time, is another matter entirely. Looking at the diagrams for the individual mods (i.e. PTB Tone System and Bridge Output DPDT), and provided I had the schematics for the double blender, I could surely attempt to piece together a diagram. However, it would only be in a “connect-the-dots” sort of fashion.

My gratitude cannot be overstated and I am willing to work with any and all assistance that you can find the time to provide.

[JohnH]

I think the superswitch scheme without extra switches, as proposed by reTrEaD will be very good. Id definately recommend drawing up the wiring yourself, once you get the schematic. Then you will understand and own it, and you can decide how to position each control on your guitar. Are you going to have volume, two blenders plus T and B controls? If you have room, Id say go for it. None of them need detract from the basic tones when not used. I suggest no-load pots for Treble and parallel blender, and a 1M pot for bass.

[pineal]

You’re absolutely right, John. I do crave understanding of this subject and this would be a good lesson. And yes, that is the control set up I’m planning on. And your suggestions for the pots are exactly in line with what is on my shopping list. But I’d like some verification on values and taper for the blenders: 250k Linear for the parallel and 250k Log for the series? Or is it Log for the parallel? And 500k for the series?

[Yogi B]

Oct 4, 2018 17:30:12 GMT -5 JohnH said:

I'd definitely recommend drawing up the wiring yourself, once you get the schematic. Then you will understand and own it, and you can decide how to position each control on your guitar.

Could've done with posting that a little earlier

Oct 4, 2018 18:33:47 GMT -5 pineal said:

And your suggestions for the pots are exactly in line with what is on my shopping list. But I’d like some verification on values and taper for the blenders: 250k Linear for the parallel and 250k Log for the series? Or is it Log for the parallel? And 500k for the series?

Personally I'd probably use 500k for both the parallel and series blender pots, though others may prefer different. (Well actually I might cobble together a custom dual gang pot for the parallel blend, but that's another story)

As John noted earlier the taper depends on which way round you want the controls to work, for both blenders to work in the same direction, whilst giving the best sweep, one would need to be a log taper and the other a reverse log taper.

Taking into account that it's probably easier to find a pre-made no-load pot with a log taper, rather than a reverse log taper. It would be easier to have the parallel blender be log taper, thus the series blender as reverse log. Therefore to take advantage of the tapering you'd need to have the controls wired such that the regular Strat switching occurs with both blenders fully clockwise, on '10'.

Making your own no-load pot to get the opposite behaviour can be done, if you're comfortable in doing so.

[pineal]

Oct 4, 2018 19:13:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Personally I'd probably use 500k for both the parallel and series blender pots, though others may prefer different.

May I ask the reasoning behind your preference?

Oct 4, 2018 19:13:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

...for both blenders to work in the same direction, whilst giving the best sweep, one would need to be a log taper and the other a reverse log taper.

Taking into account that it's probably easier to find a pre-made no-load pot with a log taper, rather than a reverse log taper.

True as that may be, it seems like this design is going to make for some cramped living quarters and my blend pots are most likely going to be minis. Finding a quality, pre-made no-load mini log taper is harder than finding...well...a quality mini reverse log taper. Haha. My plans already involved modding a mini Bourns for the parallel no-load. But it is very helpful to know that linear is not the taper to use...correct?

If it is of any assistance to both the ease of design and rarity of certain parts, I have very little issue with the blenders operating in inverse direction to one another and will adapt myself accordingly. If anything, it adds a little something to the subtle geometric aesthetic of this wiring.

I do have a full-size, pre-made no-load 500k I was planning on using in conjunction with a 1Meg reverse log for the PTB system, for the purpose of letting the tone controls take advantage of the further travel in the sweep of the larger pots. But I wonder now if the blenders would be more worthy of the wider range. Would anyone like to add their opinion to this one? As far as the 1Meg reverse logs go, I actually happen to already have a mini from Alpha that I picked up in addition to the full-size Mighty Might that G & L use in their Legacy series in order to keep my options open. Somehow the 1Meg was the easiest reverse log mini I could find, but from what I understand the Mighty Might is superior in quality and reliability to the Alpha, as it is pretty much made for this exact purpose (master bass cut for 3 single coils).

[Yogi B]

Oct 4, 2018 20:53:23 GMT -5 pineal said:

May I ask the reasoning behind your preference?

Yes, because it'll make me think harder...

Oct 4, 2018 19:13:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Personally I'd probably use 500k for both the parallel and series blender pots...

Parallel:

Since the plan is to use a no-load pot for this (thus the control will be left ungrounded), the value makes no difference in terms of loading/brightness at either extreme of the pot's rotation. The only things this really affects are the feeling of the sweep and the step to the no-load condition. I believe 500k is better on both of these fronts than 250k, the larger overall resistance will put a widen the sweep of tones near the fully blended-in end of the range, and 500k -> no-load is less of a jump than 250k -> no-load

Series:

My original thought was that we'd want as little loading coming from the extra pots where possible, hence suggesting the larger value. However upon reflection, and noting that you also intend to use a no-load pot for the treble-cut, I don't see this with as much importance. It's also worth noting that the series blender only directly loads the middle pickup and doesn't add any additional loading when turned all the way off. So I'll update my recommendation to a 250k (log) pot.

Further on this topic, I don't think you've mentioned the specific type of series blend you're planing to use, my recommendation would be type C as mentioned in JohnH's Blending coils in series, with starting values of 1.5nF and 47kΩ.

That's also my other reason for backtracking on this: when using the potential divider type series blend with treble-bleed, best results are given when treble-bleed resistor is smaller than usual. To get the same taper as the suggested 47k resistor and 250k pot combo, a 500k pot would require a 100k resistor, but that would (comparatively) allow too much treble though the treble-bleed.

Oct 4, 2018 20:53:23 GMT -5 pineal said:

Finding a quality, pre-made no-load mini log taper is harder than finding...well...a quality mini reverse log taper.

Sounds like you'll need to mod the pot either way, so it's a question of finding that mini reverse log pot, or not.

You might have better luck finding an A+C taper blend pot, if so you can utilise the reverse log half as you would a normal reverse log pot, but use the log half to gradually load the pickup as it's being blended out -- giving a more even frequency response from the blended pickup. However this means you'll have to either live with, or deal with, the centre detent.

(In fact, this is actually what I meant by cobble together a custom dual gang pot for the parallel blend, which I horridly misremembered as requiring a 250k reverse log gang and 500k linear gang, for some reason.)

But it is very helpful to know that linear is not the taper to use...correct?

Well, it could be used, but it is far from ideal.

I do have a full-size, pre-made no-load 500k I was planning on using in conjunction with a 1Meg reverse log for the PTB system

The closest I've got to my perfect (passive) treble cut tone control is a no-load 250k (log) pot , for me 500k pots have too much of their range in the lower half, 250k solves that but doesn't get as bright at '10'. A 250k no-load solves both these.

[JohnH]

Given its a no-load, i prefered 250k log for the parallel blender when i tried it. Most of tbe action is in the lower values.

250k log is good for series blending. I have this as no-load but theres no difference as it clicks from 250 to open circuit. Reverse log if poss.

[Yogi B]

Oct 5, 2018 1:01:16 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Given its a no-load, i prefered 250k log for the parallel blender when i tried it.
...
250k log is good for series blending. ... Reverse log if poss.

I prefer blender controls working in the same direction as a volume control, i.e. 0 = no blend, 10 = fully blended in. (These suggestions are based on the reverse operation.)

Apart from making more intuitive sense to me, it also disambiguates the following:

Most of the action is in the lower values.

Is that lower values of blending (8-10 on the knob), or lower values of knob position (almost fully blended)?

[reTrEaD]

Oct 4, 2018 13:14:23 GMT -5 pineal said:

My inclination to do it myself is definitely not an issue (as I find all of this rather fun and fascinating) but my capability, at this point in time, is another matter entirely. Looking at the diagrams for the individual mods (i.e. PTB Tone System and Bridge Output DPDT), and provided I had the schematics for the double blender, I could surely attempt to piece together a diagram. However, it would only be in a “connect-the-dots” sort of fashion.

My gratitude cannot be overstated and I am willing to work with any and all assistance that you can find the time to provide.

Hello pineal

I drew up a schematic, then erased all the connections to the superswitch. This might be a good way for you to get your feet wet in the design process. During the process, I noticed this could be accomplished with just three of the four poles of the superswitch.



You might like to download that drawing then edit it with paint or some other program and add the connections to the switch. We can proofread your work. Feel free to ask questions at any point in the process.