Blend Control: Tonemonster2 -vs- Strat SP SSS

[crillev1]

Is there any chance that you could make a diagram/schematic for the Blend-control from the Tonemonster2 to be incorporated in the Strat SP SSS version?
It's OK to sacrifice the "Fade" control.

[Deleted]

Just going to try and DRAW them in the same formats and hope help me to follow them better

I DID TRY AND DRAW THE TM2 but i got lost "Bit of ART WORK" with that one and would take me a while to pull it apart (i am very scatter brained more than normal, had someone break in to the house while sleeping and steel and smash up my car.. so New LOCKS and New Car Hunting and finding CASH to buy it.. the Side effects "Joy Riding")




give me a truth table plz

[crillev1]

I have a Fender S-1 pot/switch which could take care of the series/parallel-switching of the Tonemonsters 4pdt switch.
It would also be nice to be able to use the Superswitch SW1 from the Strat SP diagram instead of three separate switches.
Ooops, I see you have already taken care of my wishes.

I am going to build a black strat version of Brian May's "Red Special".
If you use standard 3-way pickup selector switches for the pickup selection and implement the phase switches on these, you could have a faceplate looking something like this. 

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2019 10:20:54 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

I have a Fender S-1 pot/switch which could take care of the series/parallel-switching of the Tonemonsters 4pdt switch.
It would also be nice to be able to use the Superswitch SW1 from the Strat SP diagram instead of three separate switches.
Ooops, I see you have already taken care of my wishes.

I am going to build a black strat version of Brian May's "Red Special".
If you use standard 3-way pickup selector switches for the pickup selection and implement the phase switches on these, you could have a faceplate looking something like this. 

too many states in 3 Switches (looking at 8 states) where the "SuperSwitch" is 4P5T (has just 5) I have tried to force it to do 7 but it cuts in to the screws.
IM LOST!!

again .. 3 way pick-up Selector switch (3 states) to Replace 2x2P2T Switchs (4 States)
to use a selector switch i would have to use a 4P5T (just dont make the slot it sits in big so you only have 4 states.

[JohnH]

So this was a surprise this morning!

May I ask if youd like to take this further, please could you start a new thread in Guitar wiring? These schematics threads are just for discussion and minor tweaking of finished designs from the first post, whereas if this develops it looks to be heading towards a new design.

But, just to comment on the current posts above:

These two designs, being SP and Tonemonster2 are both a bit complex and very different, each maxing out the parts that they include, I doubt they can be mashed successfully together (although if it is possible, Angel SB might be the one to do it!). The way the blend on the TM2 works is specific to the switching on that scheme.

The TM2 blender uses a full sized, dual-gang, detented, 100k linear pot that requires to be taken apart and have one track split at mid turn, then reassembled so it still works. I found three of these in a shop in 2007 and bought them all. I've never seen them since! I sent one to Runewalker, put one in the TM2 build and then sold it and I think I may still have one. Id be happy to post it if a verified design develops to use it and gets built.

But, really, series and parallel blending on one knob was an interesting puzzle, but I found parallel blending to be rather boring. The end positions are fine but I found that there's nothing very interesting along the way at intermediate positions IMO. So for later designs I just focussed on series blending which I think is much more interesting.

[Yogi B]

Sept 14, 2019 23:28:23 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

Is there any chance that you could make a diagram/schematic for the Blend-control from the Tonemonster2 to be incorporated in the Strat SP SSS version?

Just to clarify a few things for me, the ToneMonster2's blend control blends between the the bridge pickup and a combination of the middle and neck pickups. When either the bridge is unselected or neither of the middle and neck pickups are selected, no blending occurs (though the control will still potentially load the circuit, depending on which position it's dialled to.) BE AWARE: blending between middle and neck is NOT possible with this scheme in it's current state.

The StratSP's fade control blends out the ground-most coil of the series stack when in series mode, this allows blending out only one of the two selected pickups: the middle pickup in position 2 and the neck pickup in positions 3 & 4. Specifically note that the blend in position 4 (the middle pickup fully on, in series with a blendable amount of the neck pickup) is, as mentioned above, impossible with the ToneMonster 2.

Sept 15, 2019 10:20:54 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

It would also be nice to be able to use the Superswitch SW1 from the Strat SP diagram instead of three separate switches.
...
I am going to build a black strat version of Brian May's "Red Special".
If you use standard 3-way pickup selector switches for the pickup selection and implement the phase switches on these, you could have a faceplate looking something like this.

These two thoughts are at odds, do you want a super switch or three separate switches?

The particular combination of the ToneMaster blend control and 5-positions defined with the Start SP's super switch, does seem quite limiting. If combined together exactly as each is currently defined the blend control would only be effective in positions 2 and 3.

I'm with @angeisbunny, a truth table would be a great help here, but I also agree that could be quite unruly with many switch states to consider. Perhaps it may be better to focus on answering the following:

• Do you want to be able to select all three pickups at once?
• If yes, what do you wish for the blend control to do when all three pickups are selected?
• And what about two pickups selected?

---

My thoughts are leaning towards keeping the individual 3-way off/on/phase switches, moving the series/parallel to an S1 switch as you say, then adding a 3-way (or 4 / 5-way) switch to select which pickup is attached to the blend control, but I'm not sure if that's a viable option yet -- or if it's something you would be welcome to consider.

---

Sept 15, 2019 15:50:17 GMT -5 JohnH said:

May I ask if you'd like to take this further, please could you start a new thread in Guitar wiring? These schematics threads are just for discussion and minor tweaking of finished designs from the first post, whereas if this develops it looks to be heading towards a new design.

I was thinking about moving it anyway, I took the fact it could be filed under either this thread or the Tonemaster one as a good sign it belongs in neither.

[JohnH]

All as Yogi says, except that I'm pretty sure that the TM2 blender doesn't load the circuit when not blending (ie B not selected)

[crillev1]

JohnH
It sounds like opting for the SP as the base building block is an easier way to go.
My main reason for wanting a blender is the possibility to increase the "quack" in position 2 and 4.
Thank you for sorting out the difference between series and parallel blending.

I'm not quite clear on if Yogi B will move this add-on thread to somewhere else or keep it here in the SP or if I should move it?

Yogi B
Thanks for clarifying the fade controls function.
Sorry for confusing you in the choice between a Superswitch and three separate switches!
I would prefer a Superswitch and that the blender is active in pos. 2 and 4 and if possible in pos.3 when I have chosen Neck and Bridge (Telecaster-mode)

About your questions:
Do you want to be able to select all three pickups at once?
No, I have never liked that combination.

If yes, what do you wish for the blend control to do when all three pickups are selected?

And what about two pickups selected?
As above, I want to be able to blend the middle pickup in pos 2 and 4 with the bridge or the neck pickup, and if possible in pos.3 when I have chosen Neck and Bridge (Telecaster-mode)



If I could wish, I'd prefer a Superswitch for pickup selection, an S-1 pot/switch for series/parallel on top of the volume pot and possibly a second S-1 as a blender pot with 2 pickup switched choices.
The phase option could be on a push-pull pot, like the universal solution in the SP circuit.

[JohnH]

If the intent is all about the quack then the best quack will be when two good basic, alnico pickups are directly connected in parallel, with no blender in tbe circuit. The scheme has that anyway.

I thought a lot about blending etc when I worked it out. The series fader was the idea that avoided any undesirable or quirky effects. It would be fesible to decide, in each of the 3 series settings which pickup was to be faded out, eg M in pos 2 and 4.

[Yogi B]

Sept 15, 2019 16:42:11 GMT -5 JohnH said:

All as Yogi says, except that I'm pretty sure that the TM2 blender doesn't load the circuit when not blending (ie B not selected)

Ah yes, I missed that, but it still does when only the bridge is selected -- though I'm not sure that matters as much.

Sept 15, 2019 18:39:30 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

My main reason for wanting a blender is the possibility to increase the "quack" in position 2 and 4.

I'm getting Dial-A-Duck vibes.

I'm not quite clear on if Yogi B will move this add-on thread to somewhere else or keep it here in the SP or if I should move it?

I'd hoped that you would answer in a new thread, I was waiting for that before moving anything, sorry for not explicitly stating that.

(Proboards is fussy about thread ownership when breaking posts out of another thread.)

So please when replying to this post, instead create a new thread in Guitar Wiring and write your reply there. Then I'll set about moving things around.

Do you want to be able to select all three pickups at once?
No, I have never liked that combination.

I'm not overly keen all three on and all in phase, in either series or parallel, but having one of the three out of phase opens up some interesting in-between kinda sounds -- but I guess you aim to supplement that by having blending instead.

As above, I want to be able to blend the middle pickup in pos 2 and 4 with the bridge or the neck pickup, and if possible in pos.3 when I have chosen Neck and Bridge (Telecaster-mode)
...
possibly a second S-1 as a blender pot with 2 pickup switched choices.

If I'm reading that right, the options you are describing are:

• (A) a blend pot where full output of both pickups occurs at the centre position, turning the control in one direction blends out one pickup, turning it the other direction blends out the other pickup;
• (B) a blend pot where full output of both pickups occurs at one end of its range, turning the control to the other extreme blends out that pickup -- choosing which pickup is blended is done via depressing the S1 switch

Both are certainly feasible, the question is balancing what produces the best results while minimising complications.

[reTrEaD]

Sept 15, 2019 18:39:30 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

I'm not quite clear on if Yogi B will move this add-on thread to somewhere else or keep it here in the SP or if I should move it?

Hi crillev1 ,

You don't have the tools necessary to move existing posts to a different thread. But if you would be so kind as to create a new thread, that would be helpful since that will cause your name, rather than one of the staff to appear as the author of the new thread.

No need to put much of anything in the first post, of the new thread, we'll be deleting that post after we move the string of posts after the one in this link ...
guitarnuts2.proboards.com/post/90030/thread
... into your new thread.

Suggested title: Blend Control: Tonemonster2 -vs- Strat SP SSS

Create the thread in the Guitar Wiring forum.

But really, name it as you see fit. Just make the new thread and we'll manage the rest.

[crillev1]

I've had a look at the "Dial-a-Duck" thread and found the addition of a middle blender there to be very easy.
Could we do the same with the SP?

This is my interpretation, though I have no idea if it messes up the combinations of the SW1.
Blend pot wires are purple here.

[JohnH]

That's not gonna be good.

The blender is permanently loading the output, dulling all quack down to the level of a muted squawk. And sometimes cutting out all sound.

[crillev1]

Well, if it looks to simple to be true ........ 

[Deleted]

It will take me some time to understand fully what is going on in John's circuits as the have a lot going on .

The second thing is what to keep as there is lose always when merging things
Fly and humans you always lose a bit of the human when you merge them

[crillev1]

Oh, I would be ever so happy if I just could get that little middle pickup blender pot added to the circuit. 

When I try and follow/dissect John's circuits, it always ends up just like when I stare up at the stars and I go thinking
"Yeah, well, I just don't understand it!"

[Yogi B]

JohnH is there a good reason why the TM2 uses the blending arrangement it does, over say ChrisK 's scheme using an MN blend pot.

SPOILER: Click to show

I think that's the direction I'm envisioning for this, I'm moving away from my option (B) above as any of the three version's I can think of give enough of a benefit without a downside:

• (B.1) Use a linear blend pot, gives okay blending in both modes, requires swapping the element of the S1 to a linear taper
• (B.2) Use a the stock log taper forwards in series mode / backwards in parallel mode, gives better blending but at the expense of blend direction swapping between series/parallel modes
• (B.3) Use a dual gang log + reverse log pot for the blending, gives potentially the best blending available but requires both the series/parallel and 'pickup blend swap' switches be at least 3PDTs, keeping in mind that requiring the blend pot to be a dual gang precludes it from being an S1 switch pot, so the blend switching would have to be on a different pot (i.e. tone) or as a separate switch.

Plus the requirement of needing a switch to swap which pickup get blended does seem really clunky compared to the simplicity of twisting a blend pot in the other direction.

[JohnH]

Sept 16, 2019 13:56:10 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

JohnH is there a good reason why the TM2 uses the blending arrangement it does, over say ChrisK 's scheme using an MN blend pot.

Yes, I don't think it works well enough!

So far as I can work out, there's a gap between having a high-enough ohms value for the tracks, so as not to add significant extra load on the pickups (it adds load in addition to volume and tone pots), but also a low enough pot value so that blending is smooth and not an almost instant switch-off in parallel mode as you move away from full blend.

Parallel blending with one fully connected pickup, happens in the first 10 to 20k, after which one pickup is audibly gone. Lets say we use a 500k pot, with the resistance happening over half tbe track, then 20k will happen in just 2% of the pot sweep either side if centre.

And in series, other than fully mixed or one fully off, the in-between settings add series resistance, dulling the tone. And in the series case, instead of switching quickly near the centre, all the change happens near max or min.

Apart from all that, its great!


Here's an idea that will work fine with the SP concept, and achieve all the combinations:

Instead of volume and blend, just have two volume pots. The 5 way switch delivers the selected 2 out of 3 pickups to the pots and push pulls Before they get there, feed each of the selected two to its own normal volume control, with treble bleed (important). One volume for the selected Pu nearest to bridge, the other for the one nearest neck. All mixes are smooth and all blends are possible. Series/parallel and phase come after the volumes. There's no added loading I have this system, with 2 pickuos, on my LP, and its been there 10 years now.

[crillev1]

JohnH

Is this how you mean in reply #17 above, with two volume pots ?

                                                        Two volume pots



                                                       
                                                           Original

[Yogi B]

Sept 16, 2019 23:25:39 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

Is this how you mean in reply #17 above, with two volume pots ?

Unfortunately not, there's a few issues:

• Firstly, and most directly related to the volumes, the ground connection of volume 2 should connect to the 'negative' end of the selected pickup, in between the superswitch and the phase switch, instead of directly to ground. (as you've currently show it volume 2 will become a master volume in series mode and will do very little with the phase switch toggled to the out-of-phase position)
• Secondly, with two volumes it may make more sense to swap the wiring of position 5, between the upper and lower halves of the super switch, such that the neck pickup is controlled via volume 1. This means the volumes would be assigned as follows (to me this makes more sense as it more clearly separates the role of each volume control):

  	SW1 Position
  	1	2	3	4	5
  Volume 1		M	N	N	N
  Volume 2	B	B	B	M

• Thirdly, separating out the volume controls means that something has to be done about the tone control in order to avoid unwanted side effects. In general positioning a tone control after a volume control isn't a good idea as it makes the controls interactive. With the volume on 10, the tone control works as expected; but as soon as you reduce the volume the tone control will start controlling a wider frequency range, cutting not only treble but also mids; further reducing the volume leads to the tone control affecting the whole frequency range -- effectively becoming another volume control.
  
  The solution here is to use a dual gang pot so we can 'split' the tone controls into two halves, enabling use to place one of each halves before each volume control. Fortunately, Bourns makes a dual gang push pull potentiometer, which you can use for this very purpose.
• Finally, all the above can still be made to work with the tone control's ability to place a cap across one of the pickups when on 10. However, since we can now completely eliminate either pickup via the separate volumes, if we turn down the non-cap-bypassed coil we'll end up with just normal treble cut, rather than the intended mid cut effect. I don't think a big enough down side to remove it entirely, but it's something to be aware of -- and you may think differently.

---

Also, time to put my moderator's hat on...

While I appreciate that you are probably about to stick a giant notice on the above rejected diagram, lets consider the possibility between then and when the image was posted it is copied elsewhere online (say this page is cached by Google, saved to the Internet Archive, or grabbed by a bot of some nefarious image aggregator). Given enough time someone may eventually find that original image and unknowingly assume this it both correct and JohnH's responsibility that it should be correct.

Therefore, for the benefit of future aspiring guitarnuts and out of respect for JohnH's (or whomsoever else's) work, in future modified diagrams could you please indicate:

• the updated functionality of the modification (Thanks for fixing that already 👍);
• that this is modified version of the diagram -- it is no longer the "Strat SP" as designed and vetted by JohnH and countless passing eyes for the best part of the last decade -- so please add your own name/username and the current date -- naming and dating your work is a double-edged sword, yes it forces you to own your mistakes, but also appropriately accredits yourself when you deserve it, furthermore it serves as a nice record of progress you've made;
• that the modification is unverified, or otherwise may contain errors -- informing a viewer of the relative newness of this modification (by including the date, as above) hints at this, but let's really drive the point home;
• finally, give credit where credit's due at leave any original attribution intact.

In general the second and third points aren't always necessary, but you should definitely include them if they were present on the original diagram, as is the case here.

Thanks, yb

[crillev1]

Yogi B
First of all, I'm sorry if I did anything that might miscredit JohnH in any way. 
When I got Johns reply that my interpretation was mostly garbage, I thought that I had better mark that diagram as unverified/rejected/... / do something/ as fast as possible in an attempt to stop others from thinking that this was an approved schematic from John. But you're right, a Bot or fellow guitarist might have archived/downloaded my interpretation in that narrow time-frame before I "fixed" it.

That was also partly why I submitted both my interpretation and John's original SP in my next attempt to understand what John meant by his suggestion of two volume controls.
In doing so and asking a question, I felt assured that nobody would mistakingly take my version as verified.
But again, I could have been clearer about that my diagram was more of a question than a suggestion.

Regarding the rest of your comments as a moderator, you have my unreserved Buy-in.
------------------------------------------- 

On an other note I hope you understand that it sometimes isn't easy for us mere mortals to understand some of you pro's verbal instructions.
It is so much easier for us to understand a graphical presentation of a solution or suggestion.
While I am extremely thankful for your latest input and suggestions to this thread, it will take me quite some time to interpret how they are to be carried out.
I do however fully understand that you can not draw a new corrected diagram for every wish/whim we hobbyists may have.

Cheers from a silly cold Sweden/ Chris

[reTrEaD]

Sept 17, 2019 10:54:47 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

It is so much easier for us to understand a graphical presentation of a solution or suggestion.
While I am extremely thankful for your latest input and suggestions to this thread, it will take me quite some time to interpret how they are to be carried out.

crillev1 , the staff is currently discussing a rule strategy that balances the need for convenient exchange of ideas and discussion and the protection of the integrity of the reputation of the original author's name which appears on the drawing.

In the interim, I suggest that if you use a drawing such as the one I changed from a displayed image to a link, that you:

• Clearly Identify (on the drawing itself) that is is an Untested Modification for discussion purposes only.
• Include your username or display name and the date on the drawing so that it's clear who modified it.

[crillev1]

reTrEaD

Good advice, which I'd like to follow, but how do I access the link you have made to my unverified Two-volume diagram so that I can change it and save it according to your suggestions?

[reTrEaD]

Sept 17, 2019 12:42:48 GMT -5 crillev1 said:

how do I access the link

If you click the link it will open a new page or tab which will display the image you uploaded to the external resource: imgbb.

If you have an account with them and were logged on to their service at the time you uploaded the image, you'll be able to log onto your account with them to delete the image. But they don't have a mechanism to modify images you host with them. So it would be necessary to upload the new image you create and use that in your post.

If you don't have an account at imgbb.com/ you won't be able to delete the image from their service. It would have been uploaded 'anonymously' so you won't have the power to delete.

But in any case, you should remove the link in your post and replace it with a new image, by editing the post. The only reason I left the link was in case you don't have a copy of that image on your computer, you can download the image if necessary.

If you already have a copy on your computer, please just edit that post and delete the link while you're creating a proper replacement image.

[JohnH]

I think its good to move forward with an agreed way of posting untested diagrams for discussion, no problem.

So, does the idea of two volumes seem like it could meet your needs?

If so, then Yogi's proposal of how each volume would work is optimum and is also what I was thinking of. Apart from controlling the combo mixes, it gives independent volume settings to positions 1 and 5, being B and N, so you can preset rhythm and lead volumes and swipe between them with the main switch.

For tone. there are a couple of further options. Since there are only two push-pull switches, they can be on the two volumes for series/parallel and phase, then the tone doesn't need one. Tone options can be:

1 A dual-ganged pot controlling both channels on a single knob
2 A dual-concentric pot, 2 tone knobs on one shaft, one for each volume
3. A single no-load pot, as a tone placed after the two volumes, 50's style. It gives a somewhat quirky interaction with reduced volume, but a no-load feature could be useful for maximum quack.

1 and 2 would have the same wiring.

To make that all work however, a do-over of the main switch wiring is needed, and really, a whole new diagram. This is to get the right pot active in position 1 and 5. I think this can be done. I can have a go at this if it is of interest, given a few days.

[crillev1]

reTrEaD
Thanks for the help.
I have uploaded a new diagram with a lot of "warning signs", so it should be very hard to mistake my diagram for a verified version.

JohnH
I would be enormously happy if you would like to take a stab at the "Two-volume" version.
I'd prefer, if possible, to use a Superswitch as pickup selector, an S-1 as series/parallel switch and push-pull for phase.

Cheers Chris

[Yogi B]

Sept 17, 2019 15:26:48 GMT -5 JohnH said:

For tone. there are a couple of further options. Since there are only two push-pull switches, they can be on the two volumes for series/parallel and phase, then the tone doesn't need one.

Good point, I don't know why I persisted with keeping the second switch on the tone in what I said above, moving it to the new volume makes much more sense.

Tone options can be:

1 A dual-ganged pot controlling both channels on a single knob
2 A dual-concentric pot, 2 tone knobs on one shaft, one for each volume
...
1 and 2 would have the same wiring.

I agree in the case where we omit the series cap bypass feature, but if not: with a dual-ganged pot we would only want that to apply to only one of the gangs to get the intended feature, whereas with a concentric pot we are free to add it to both.

To make that all work however, a do-over of the main switch wiring is needed, and really, a whole new diagram. This is to get the right pot active in position 1 and 5.

I don't see it being that such a big change is actually required, but I agree that it will still most likely be clearer to redraw the diagram from scratch.

---

So, does the idea of two volumes seem like it could meet your needs?

Obviously while crillev1 can only answer that question, I don't think we've fully explored the other blending options yet -- so, backtracking a bit...

Sept 16, 2019 16:07:29 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Here's an idea that will work fine with the SP concept, and achieve all the combinations: Instead of volume and blend, just have two volume pots.
...
I have this system, with 2 pickups, on my LP.

As have I, but I think we can agree that blending when in parallel mode is less than ideal. I don't mind it quite so much on an LP because it's the default, but when doing something new I'd prefer to offer something better, if possible.

Yes, I don't think it [ChrisK's blending scheme] works well enough! ...

Alright, linear tapers work worse than I remember, I was going to suggest a variation upon Chris's scheme anyway, but now I realise the changes I was going to propose were mutually exclusive and that I had things backwards as to which taper works best when blending in series via shunting vs. via a potential divider.

Parallel blending with one fully connected pickup, happens in the first 10 to 20k, after which one pickup is audibly gone.

I suppose it depend's how closely you're listening, I think I can hear a difference all the way down (up) to 250k on a logarithmic neck/bridge blend pot on a Strat, but it is definitely most noticeable after the halfway point.

My option B.3 above represent my attempts to iron out the kinks in both series and parallel blending, so JohnH what do you make of this:

(I appear to have been overly optimistic in my previous mention of the above as I can only see how to achieve it with at least 7 poles across the two switches, but that's probably not too significant a step from two 3PDTs since they'd likely be implemented using 4PDTs anyway.)

[crillev1]

Sorry, I obviously missed a few questions;

Tone options:
1 A dual-ganged pot controlling both channels on a single knob is quite good enough.
BTW, what happened to the single no-load pot option, which would give maximum "Quack"?
Is that still an option? In that case, I'd opt for more quack.

Two volume pots would meet my needs.

[sumgai]

Dayum, Yogi, that's a nice one!

While I personally would find it "fiddley" in use (as John would put it), it is fully functional. I think this design is destined for the Modules section, titled something along the lines of "Selectable Blend".  Where I'd see this as useful (to me) is the elimination of the pup selector switch - the Swap switch can go between Neck or Bridge, and the Blend pot will give Neck and Bridge, as needed.  I don't see twisting a knob quickly as being any different than flicking a switch whilst on stage.

Bonus: the master Vol and Tone pots could both be Fender S1-style switches, giving a stealth appearance to the axe.

sumgai

[JohnH]

I was thinking more about this 2-volume system Its a bit trickier than Id thought!

The key issue seems to be getting the other volume pot out of the circuit when only one pickup is used. I'll keep looking. Hopefully 4pole S1 switches may help!