|
Post by UnklMickey on Mar 20, 2006 14:37:32 GMT -5
i just received a MegaSwitch (P model) in my latest StewMac order.
of course, the first thing i did: dissect it!
the frame:
thick casting, not a stamping. +1
Schaller - made in Germany
actuating lever:
solid mechanism.
detent mechanism is atypical. the ball moves in a lateral, as well as up and down motion.
somewhat more positive feel than a standard fender or oak-grigsby unit. +1
switch wafer:
double-sided printed board
lugs rivet to plated thru hole
4 quadrants, 5 positions each, on one side of board.
15 degrees per position. (75 degree rotation)
remaning unused 15 degrees used for trace to connect common inner contact for each quadrant.
wiper mechanism:
plastic housing with 4 spring loaded bars to connect inner (pole) contact to outer (throw) contacts. expect the electrical contact to have more longevity than a standard rotary or lever action rotary +1
square opening mates with square drive from actuator mechanism. will mate in 4 possible orientations, all with the same result.
plastic "ears" make for easy assembly/removal.
prewiring:
i'll need to follow-up on this, when i have more time.
it appears to be the PRS / deaf-eddie circuit.
with the inherent "coils hanging from hot", and coil shunting. -2
i'm not a big fan of that circuit, but if you've already decided to use that wiring scheme, this is a simple pre-wired way to do it. +5
you need only connect the pickups and output to the 7 lugs, the rest is in the board.
it will be difficult or impossible to deviate from the basic circuit. -5
unfortunately the E model was temporarily out of stock at this time. maybe they'll have them when i place my next order.
unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Mar 24, 2006 17:48:41 GMT -5
Guys, if you shop at StewMac.com, you will find the following models: - S - Strat 5-way - standart strat wiring
- T - Tele 3-way - standard tele wiring
- E - 2HB or 3 coil 5-way
- P - 2HB 5-way - PRS style
i did some research on the MegaSwitch. there are other models available. ( but not through StewMac) noteworthy are: - E+ - an extended version of the E model
- M - a 5-way, 4-pole, 24-pad switch that is electrically the equivalent of the SuperSwitch
- M (stacked) - a 5-way, 8-pole, 48-pad switch!
i had a few e-mail conversations with StewMac and Günter Eyb (the inventor of the MegaSwitch) i was looking to find a U.S. source for the M and stacked-M models. it seems Günter would like to have StewMac market the M model here. yet when i told StewMac of my interest in the M model their response was not-comittal. they said the usual, "we'll certainly make note of your comments and recommendations." or something to that effect, which often means "yes, that's a good idea, but we're not gonna do that." they also they told me that the 3200 SuperSwitch is very similar to the MegaSwitch M. i wrote back to them agreeing that they are electrically the same, but there are size, durability, and tactile advantages to the MegaSwitch i also mentioned the 8-pole stacked version which has double the capability of the SuperSwitch. i haven't heard back from them. i'll give them some time, but i don't think i'll hold my breath. if want to buy a MegaSwitch M, and are in the U.S., i suggest first contacting StewMac, and if you aren't successful there, you can go to: rockinger.com/index.html?lang=ENG&cat=WG121it will require an international shipment, but it will be possible. during my convesations with Günter, i suggested a variant of his basic M model. if he does put it into production, he will call it the U (unklmickey) model. fun eh! i'll keep y'all posted during this process, and at some point, i might enlist the help of any members who might want to help me try to bring these switch to the U.S. through StewMac. for now, i'll give them some time, before i pester them again. unk BTW: during my next conversation with Günter, i'll ask for some more detailed info on the P and E models, so anyone building around them will have a better understanding of the pre-wiring built into the switches.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Mar 24, 2006 22:00:48 GMT -5
Ackshally,
I bot the E, S, and P a few years ago and traced the circuit for all of them. I posted some of these here within the last two months....somewhere. I'll dig them out and add to this post. I gots a good interpretation of the "E" model as a pdf. I'll have to morph it into a jpg and post it. I'll email it to you
I decided a while back that if I needed custom switching, I would just make a PCB of my own and use the megaswitch frame, but a decent plating is needed (not tin-lead), but probably Rhodium. I'd thought about making a PCB w/ many different snap-out wiring coupons, but I'd probably be the only one that would buy it.
I am interested in the stacked M model......
I do love the mechnical action.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Mar 25, 2006 15:00:19 GMT -5
M (stacked) - a 5-way, 8-pole, 48-pad switch! That's insane. I want one. I haven't the foggiest what I would use it for, but I want one. I mean, I've already got the SuperSwitch thing going on, but, knowing that's out there, I'm sure my imagination would come up with a few things. In fact, as I type this, things are already percolating. Tho, that said . . . hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . I was toying with this idea using a SuperSwitch, 11 position stacked rotary switch, and some relays. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Mar 25, 2006 20:33:57 GMT -5
Unk, since you have a direct line to the engineer, how 'bout one of those 8 pole jobers with 7 positions to grab the 2 lost combos in a 3 pup design. Might as well go for broke. Yes I know there may be a rotary out there that can, but the ergonomics of a rotary are not quite as natural as shoving a lever around. And I know, someone will argue that they get lost in 5 positions, much less 7, but hey, we can adapt.
Surely anyone with a name like Günter can pull it off.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Mar 26, 2006 1:38:15 GMT -5
Surely anyone with a name like Günter can pull it off. On behalf of all analytical people of German extraction, I thank you. There's nothing quite like German engineering. It's nice to be appreciated. Unk, since you have a direct line to the engineer, how 'bout one of those 8 pole jobers with 7 positions to grab the 2 lost combos in a 3 pup design. Might as well go for broke. Yes I know there may be a rotary out there that can, but the ergonomics of a rotary are not quite as natural as shoving a lever around. And I know, someone will argue that they get lost in 5 positions, much less 7, but hey, we can adapt. Well, sure, we could adapt, but there is a bit of a problem with 7 positions: at 15 degrees per position, that's a 90 degree sweep. I don't believe that it is possible at 15 degrees per position, mechanically speaking, to build that. Perhaps it is. Of course, 12 degrees per position, or even 10 . . . that might work. I'd be interested to see if that could happen. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Mar 26, 2006 11:49:31 GMT -5
Yes, of course the arithmetic dictates less arc between stops, necessitated by the 75 degree total sweep. Perhaps the geometry could be shifted to 78 or even 80 degrees, but that would also mean a change in the lever channel. Still, it seems like an obvious design to at least prototype.
Remember that Leo thought you had to have 25 degrees between stops, yet folks adapted to 15 degress pretty rapidly. The adjustment from 3 to 5 positions was a 40% adjustment, and from 5 to 7 postiions (at 75 degree total sweep) is only a 29% adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Mar 26, 2006 13:53:13 GMT -5
What sort of things do people have in mind for an 8 pole switch?
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Mar 26, 2006 18:16:38 GMT -5
Yes, of course the arithmetic dictates less arc between stops, necessitated by the 75 degree total sweep. Perhaps the geometry could be shifted to 78 or even 80 degrees, but that would also mean a change in the lever channel. Still, it seems like an obvious design to at least prototype. Indeed. That was, in fact, something that occured to me, and I totally concur that that could (should?) be prototyped. Remember that Leo thought you had to have 25 degrees between stops, yet folks adapted to 15 degress pretty rapidly. The adjustment from 3 to 5 positions was a 40% adjustment, and from 5 to 7 postiions (at 75 degree total sweep) is only a 29% adjustment. Quite. What sort of things do people have in mind for an 8 pole switch? Well, nothing and everything. While I don't suppose that there are a bunch of people with ready to roll with applications, now having that available opens up all sorts of possibilities. For instance, how much need was there for a 4 pole switch Strat style switch? In the minds of the players from the 60's and 70's, probably not much. And now the SuperSwitch makes up the lion's share of mods around here where sophisticated switching comes into play. Not only that, but I imagine that the SuperSwitch's first use was probably just a bit of splitting or shunting some things to ground in a position specific context, or some such thing. Kinda like how one of the first uses of the microwave, and only use for most people, was that of a coffee warmer. Remember that? "The $400 coffee warmer!! What a joke! You'd have to just plain stupid to waist $400 on that!" Well, not anymore. Cooking went from 3 hours of prep and cooking time, to 45 minutes with the first TV dinners, to now 5 mins. Such it is with technology. These types of innovations have a marvelous capacity to open up new frontiers. Along those lines, two ideas come to my mind. First, I was toying with the idea of sort of a chromacaster schematic, where I'd have one SuperSwitch and one rotary switch, and I would be able to get every kind of combination I'd want, only without repeats, waisted positions, and it wouldn't be rote, but rather very intuitive. This would definitely open up those possibilities. I even thought of incorporating relays, where the switches wouldn't route the signal from the pickups, but, rather, route energy from a 9-volt battery, which would in turn operating the switches to create any combo I wanted. Coupled with a 7 Position SuperSwitch, that would be ideal. Short of that, the other idea I had was to take my current UU schematic and clean it up. Right now it's pretty clean . . . in fact, really clean. However, that said, I'm not sure if I have any coils hangin' from hot or any other issues of untidyness. To that end, the extra poles might give me more to work with. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 26, 2006 21:30:58 GMT -5
eljib, The first thing that hit my mind was the fact that I could now connect as many pickups (or inidividual HB coils) as I wanted, one each to a pair of poles, and have phase reversing right on the switch. Probably not too useful in most schemes, but there's always that one tight spot where this would save somebody's bacon..... Hmmm, come to think of it, I need to post my current mod setup and schematic. I just remembered, I do reverse the bridge pup's phase on two positions, exactly as desired. Chesh, Indeed, this was the second thing to implant itself in my little bitty noggin - no more hanging anything, hot, cold or otherwise. Bring it on! ;D sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Mar 27, 2006 11:55:43 GMT -5
Unk, since you have a direct line to the engineer, how 'bout one of those 8 pole jobers with 7 positions to grab the 2 lost combos in a 3 pup design. Might as well go for broke. Yes I know there may be a rotary out there that can, but the ergonomics of a rotary are not quite as natural as shoving a lever around. And I know, someone will argue that they get lost in 5 positions, much less 7, but hey, we can adapt. Surely anyone with a name like Günter can pull it off. RW, that would take some modifications on the actuating mechanism as well as the contact board. but, since there is already a 3 position tele style switch, they are not married to a single design there anyway. when you see how he's doing the detents in the mechanism, you'll understand that a 10 degree step will probably still be feasible. i definitely will discsuss this with Günter in my next conversation with him later this week. if i had to guess, the initial product would be a "prewired" strat switch that would include the 2 "lost" combos (neck + bridge, and all-on). if so what would be your recommendation for the sequence? What sort of things do people have in mind for an 8 pole switch? ElJib, just for starters, i have a pristine version of the BigUGly that requires 8 poles. does a few things v2.0 can't do, as well as being even "cleaner". and we're still only talking 4 coils. admittedly at first glance 8 poles might seem excessive, but surprisingly, not-so-much. . . . I was toying with this idea using a SuperSwitch, 11 position stacked rotary switch, and some relays....... Chesh, i really have to respect a guy that keeps the hardware so simple like that. XD unk
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Mar 27, 2006 15:05:20 GMT -5
if so what would be your recommendation for the sequence? Probably either . . . 1 N 2 N+M 3 M 4 M+B 5 B 6 N+B 7 ALL3 . . . because that would be most recognizible, or, however, have said that, for those players who mainly vasilate between N and B for the most part, but do use the middle selections for various sounds, you can do this spread (or a version thereof) . . . 1 N 2 N+M 3 M 4 M+B 5 N+B 6 ALL3 7 B That way, the basic player can just side-of-the-hand-slam ("sideslam"?) the lever from one side to the other for N and B playing. That would be the best choice for ergonomics. If you are slamming the lever with the side of your hand while you are cranking on some chords and then slam into the B pickup for lead playing, then you don't need to worry about the degrees between positions, and adapting to anything admidst the heat of battle. That would probably be most logical approach, and most everything else would still be where they need to be, intuitively speaking, and we'll still have easy access to the N and B pickups without having to remember everything. just for starters, i have a pristine version of the BigUGly that requires 8 poles. does a few things v2.0 can't do, as well as being even "cleaner". and we're still only talking 4 coils. admittedly at first glance 8 poles might seem excessive, but surprisingly, not-so-much. Well, two pickups are excessive if you've always gotten by with one, or three if you've gotten by with two, and so on. Not only are they not excessive, as you point out, they just open things wide open in terms of possibilities. . . . I was toying with this idea using a SuperSwitch, 11 position stacked rotary switch, and some relays....... Chesh, i really have to respect a guy that keeps the hardware so simple like that. XD Funny comment coming from a guy whose schematic is called "The Big Ugly". I can't wait to see how ugly it gets if you were to ever add a third pickup. Seriously, tho, simple hardware is my approach, ergo I was "toying" with the idea. Basically, I get all the switching coverage I need from just a SuperSwitch and an S-1, tho a 4PDT toggle would work just as well (which is what the S-1 is, in fact). I get all seven settings, including the lost two. Tho, actually, I get the lost three, because I get both N+B in series and parallel, along with ALL3. And, that leaving two positions, I get to do that classic 2 and 4 positions (N/M and M/B) in both series and parallel, just by toggling the S-1. The tricky bit, where the new SuperRotaryRelay combo comes into play, is that I have seperate splitters and a phaser, which are all seperate slider switches, a la Fender Jag. The advantage here is that it is incredibly intuitive. Instead of having to remember all these patches and combos of toggles, I just select what I want. If I want to split the N pickup, I split it. If I want to split the B pickup, then I split it. If I want OOP, I throw the switch. So, it's really intuitive, but, if there was a way to do it with only two controls, that could potentially eliminate three switches (which I could then reassign to other functions). So, that's when I started playing with that idea. Actually, the relay idea is a nice idea, because what happens is that I can have all these relays that can do all the highend switching, and the combo of the SuperSwitch and the Rotary Switch would simply be to route juice from a 9-volt battery (of which I already have three) to turn on the correct relays to switch what I need. See, I'm a big believer of black box engineering: mechanical complexity ~ conceptual simplicity. I don't care how complex it is on the inside (as long as everything is simple, straightforward, and solid from a hardware standpoint) so long as things are simple on the outside. One example of this is the phase switch. First, I was thinking along the lines of phase inverting the B pickup, which initially made sense during one of the early incarnations of the switching convention. One problem: the B is an 85 (now 89). You can't phase invert EMG's (or active pickups for that matter). IOW, you can't run them "backwards". The only alternative was to get an EMG-Pi2, which is there phase inverting circuit, which mathematically flips the signal 180 degrees while moving the signal forward (iow, not reversing the leads) and therefore you have your phase inversion. Effective solution, but now I'm buying a $60 circuit. Well, then I looked over my schematic, and I discovered that if I moved one or two wires, I'd be able to use the N pickup as an inverter, and not the B. Well, suddenly I went from paying $60 to paying $1. Very fortunate discovery. Well, that's where things stayed, until I finally evolved the switching convention to where it is now, and I realized that I wouldn't get to have OOP on M/B combos in position 4. Granted, not a big loss if I'm skating along with just a $1 switch, and the only alternative is to somehow ring in a Pi2, for $60 no less. Well, then something interesting happened. I got hold of a copy of Craig Anderton's "DIY Projects for Guitar", and it had a phase inverting circuit in it (for syncing up OOP pedals on pedal boards) that I could build, and I just so happened to be designing some custom circuits using surface mount technology, which will then be fabricated by pad2pad.com (most likely). So, seeing this opportunity, I revisited the question of OOP on Position 4. Well, basically, I'll be getting a new slider switch, identical to the DPDT numbers I got from RS, only this will be 4PDT (but otherwise identical) and using two of the poles for inverting the leads from/to the N pickup (standard phase inverter wiring), and then the other poles will 1) route the B+ pole on the SuperSwitch from the fourth position to the phase inverter circuit, and 2), turn on the power to said circuit. This way, no matter what position I'm in, I'm getting OOP regardless of the combo, and all from one switch. When that switch is on, I know what I'm getting. Sounds like it's needlessly complicated, but I get exactly what I want from just one switch and have nothing to remember. Not to mention, I'm taking advantage of prexisting logistical opportunities in the design process. Mechanical Complexity ~ Conceptual SimplicitySo, that said, I'm thinking along the lines of something like the 7 position blade switch, covering all the possible combos, and then the rotary could dial in the split, S/P and OOP status. Where they intersect is where the combos lie. That's not a perfect solution, but it has possibilities. I think there are one or two loose ends and one or two holes that'll cancel each other out while still keeping this thing intuitive. And the great thing about routing juice to relays is that it frees you up from having to sort out which coil gets connected to which terminal and whatnot on the SuperSwitch or Rotary Switch. Anyway, it's still in the conceptual stage. Til then, I'll probably open up my UUSS for analysis in terms of cleaning it up. And, of course, if it's as clean as it can get, where four more poles won't really help it any further, then that'll be that. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Mar 27, 2006 19:05:27 GMT -5
As usual, Unk, you are the man. I appreciate you pursuing this notion.
Recommended array.
I can buy Chesh's idea on his first array, that is more familiar, if the target audience is the great collective unconscious of motor-patterned, 5-way blade, strat players out there. It would be have the broadest audience and subsequently the larger market. Chesh also brings in the discussion on ergonomics, which woud be important to make the design easy to manage, especially playing live.
However for the customizer, there would be as many preferred arrays as there are player/builders out ther. This is definitely one of those questions open to a variety of arrays dictated by personal preferences. I have not spent a lot of thinking about it because mostly the lament was, 'why hasn't anyone thought of this and built it', instead of 'what would you actually do with it.'
I think there needs to be a framing question first: What singles and combos, and in what System will you land on the most -- stay the most time in. That predisposes your array choice.
So, off the top of my head......
I personally tend to live in the System Series world on 3 pup designs. The time spent ratio is probably 70% Series, 30% Parallel. OK don't get picky, I know percentages are not ratios. 70:30, ... there.
Therefore I would lean towards an array that went from thickest at 1 (towards the strings) to thinnest at 7 (away from the strings.
1. All 3 2. N/M 3. N 4. M 5. N/B 6. M/B 7. B
Or something where the combos are clustered
1. All 3 2. N/M 3. N/B 4. M/B 5. N 6. M 7. B
That might get a little wacky in System Parallel. The second array would actually then go thinnest-least loud to thickest/louder at 5 to most treble and loudest (with "Texas style" singles [hotter bridge]) If your deal is System Parallel, maybe reverse 3 and 4 since more quack is in N/M and M/B
Of course part of my preference is supplimented by my other requirement to have blender-mix controls, which act almost like parametric EQs adjusting a parabolic range of frequencies opposed to a slice of frequecies.
In a live playing setting it is very easy to stay in the all-three setting, System series, and roll with the blender to a broad pallate of tones. From swampy, to thick and overbearing, to bright and biteing.
Finally, arrays would have to be tested to select the optimum for the player. But there would be significant personal idiosyncrasies driving the array (not that there are any indiosyncrasies in the membership of this board, or strong and passionantly felt opinions.)
You already see player/builders turning mental somesaults trying to select the 'optimal' array on 5-way blades. A 7 way would just expand the the discussion.
Finally the thickest to thinnest argument gets further jumbled when you throw in OoP-ping things up. Especially in System Parallel, your OoP-ed combos will be the thinnest. But for me, the OoP settings are still more of a 'play around" setting than a recurring preference. I like having it, just don't overly rely on it.
Thanks all for weighing in on this, as it is an intriguing idea.
Finally let me part with one of my favorite (paraphrased) aphorisms, whom I do not not to attribute:
"Blessed is the man who has nothing to say .... and cannot be persuaded to say it."
Goes along with Blaise Pascal saying, "sorry this letter is so long, I did not have time to make it shorter."
One of these days I'll live up to those standards......Naahhh.
RW
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 29, 2006 18:55:02 GMT -5
unk, I don't usually think in terms of 'thin' or 'thick' sounds, they're just possible combinations to me. What I do usually think about is familiarity. For those reasons, I'd opt to wire such a beast like so: N N+B N+M M M+B N+M+B B Obviously it would also work if you were to swap 2 with 3, and 5 with 6, but I thought I'd keep three familiar positions adjacent to each other. Why not all five together, and put the "found" combo's at the end (per your recent post)? Because the "sideslam" crowd will really appreciate the fact that five of these positions are right where they're supposed to be: N at the near end, M in the top-dead-center, the two usual combo's right next to it, and B is at the far end. Presto!, the learning curve has been reduced to the smallest possible minimum. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Apr 3, 2006 14:58:15 GMT -5
unk, I don't usually think in terms of 'thin' or 'thick' sounds, they're just possible combinations to me. What I do usually think about is familiarity. For those reasons, I'd opt to wire such a beast like so: N N+B N+M M M+B N+M+B B Obviously it would also work if you were to swap 2 with 3, and 5 with 6, but I thought I'd keep three familiar positions adjacent to each other. Why not all five together, and put the "found" combo's at the end (per your recent post)? Because the "sideslam" crowd will really appreciate the fact that five of these positions are right where they're supposed to be: N at the near end, M in the top-dead-center, the two usual combo's right next to it, and B is at the far end. Presto!, the learning curve has been reduced to the smallest possible minimum. sumgai Brilliant! You've got my vote.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 2, 2006 11:58:43 GMT -5
Another milestone passed: this post brings me into quadruple digits. (I guess I do talk too much, eh?)
I think you’ll agree, this one is worth it.Latest news from Günter: Unfortunately, 7 position switches are not economically practical. The cost of tooling for the actuating mechanism is too high. I’m certain he would re-consider this, if anyone wanted to order 10s of thousands of switches, but I don’t see that being too likely. Although, Stew-Mac is not carrying anything more than the basics: S, T, P, and E models, We can order MegaSwitches directly from Günter, here: www.eyb-guitars.de/english/frameintro.htmclick on Retail Prices, and you will find the basics, as well as the E+, and the M models. The price is $11.50 (US) for any of them. the E, ( not E+) model is $10.60 The “stacked M” 8 pole switch is available for 25 € (about $28.00). He does accept PayPal. You CAN have custom boards made. Günter will create a board layout, from a schematic of the connections you need. The cost for this is 100 € (about $110) . This also requires a minimum order of 100 switches. However the per switch cost, is lower when ordering so many. Should you need to contact Günter directly, he is allowing me to post his address here. eyb-guitars@t-online.de unk
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on May 4, 2006 17:21:51 GMT -5
Great, oh ye verbosic diety!
Thanks for the info.
I am interested in the "M" unit, although I'll have to determine how to order it. The last time I wanted to use PayPal, they wanted a bank account exposed (may have been the membership level or something) which I am unwilling to do.
In his intro spiel, he mentions that the original was 6 position.....
At first I hated the "solder finger" approach on the "M", but now I see that if'n I can find an appropriate edge connector/mechanism, the switch might be replaceable or freed from exposure to flux/cleaning.
Likewise, one could realize the custom wiring on a base board (PCB or point to point/wirewrap), and just plug it onto the switch.
A right angle means (using a right angle header soldered onto the switch) could place the wiring board in parallel w/ the switch.
Hmmmmm, a baseboard w/ three such connector means (straight perchance) could realize the "crotch" of the matter in realizing my (or anyones limited to 8 poles per switch) "Side Slap Strat" scheme.
If this is feasible, it would seem that sumgai's may have all the luck!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 4, 2006 18:11:30 GMT -5
"In his intro spiel, he mentions that the original was 6 position....."
he also mentioned that in our discussions about a 7 position switch.
i surmise from the context, that he was forced into choosing a single platform (for the actuator) that would support the standard 3 and 5 position models.
that forced him to abandon the 6 position switch he envisioned.
your thoughts on edge-connectors ring true with me, that's immediately where my mind wandered when i saw the M layout.
and given the number of connections to a stacked-M, doing a little printed board, with the interconnects for the pre-wiring, and 2 edge connectors seemed like a logical path to follow.
i still don't see why it would require more than 4 poles for the side-slap, but that's another matter altogether.
[airplane mode] (in unison:) but that's another matter. [/airplane mode]
unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 5, 2006 3:35:48 GMT -5
unk, It's a matter of not being able to squeeze the series and parallel functions onto one pair of poles. That comes from the fact that you have to short (bypass) the unused series pups, you can't leave the circuit open like you do in a parallel config. To do that, you need to include the "parallel" positions in the series circuit, hence the requirement for 4 poles (with active electronics to overcome a pair of isolation resistors) or 8 poles to be able to accomplish the mission in totally passive mode. The lesson I learned, just so you don't have to go check that thread at this very moment, is "there are two signal paths running side by side - one for parallel, one for series". In my current incarnation, I don't allow for the feeding of one into the other (giving the remaining few positions of two pups in parallel with the remaining in series to that combo). But as I said, I have overcome that by sacrificing my original intent, and adding a standard DPDT switch. I'll post that mod in a bit, but first, I need to change file-upload servers.... filecabin has gone gunnysack on me (and the rest of the 'net). sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 8, 2006 15:51:21 GMT -5
More News on the MegaSwitch saga.
I've been doing a bit of "match-making".
It is entirely possible the MegaSwitch M, and stacked M models will be available soon from a U.S. vendor.
I'll keep you posted as this progresses.
unk
|
|