Need help with my plans for a triple P90 strat

[jdl]

Hey guys;

If you've read my posts in the lutherie forum you'll know that i'm planning a build of a 3 P90 strat style guitar.(or maybe a different body type, i haven't decided yet!)

Here is my current plan:
-3 P90's, each with a concentric vol/tone pot.
-This is the pickup config that i would like to have(if possible):
Neck, middle, bridge
N+M, N+B, M+B
I don't know how i would do this but that is why i am posting here. I was thinking of a 5-way switch for the standard combos, and some other kind of switch for the neck/bridge combo.

This will be my first build project, and i'm hoping that this can be done and if so it will be easy enough for a first project.

James

[flateric]

I recently put together a partscaster ebay strat. I had the standard 5-way strat switch and added a mini toggle switch so I could switch the bridge pickup in, in any position. That way you can get the two missing strat positions of N+M+B and N+B (which is a really great sound, btw.)
I also modded the switch with a jumper to let the 2nd tone pot control the bridge pup and the first tone pot to control both neck and mid together. Is this any use for your project?

[wolf]

jdl
I don't know if you visited my website but (to me) the best way to wire 3 single coils is like this:
www.1728.com/guitar2.htm
The combinations you'll get are incredible. You'll really like the distortion "crunch" you'll get when you switch to the series option. (And you can always switch back to the parallel option for a cleaner "straight" sound).
OR if you just want the parallel sounds (and don't care for pickups in series) then a real easy approach would be to use the "3 single coils wired in parallel" circuit found on this page:
www.1728.com/guitar.htm
All you need are 3 SPST switches and that's it. No worrying about connecting that 5 way switch.

[jdl]

Hey guys;

Flateric your response did help, i completely forgot about all 3 pickups together!!! I really want that sound, so your idea was very helpful, thanks!

Wolf, i'm going to check your sites out later on, i am currently studying for a french final.....blah. thanks for the links!

james
P.s. will those concentric pots work, as i described them above? how would i connect them all to a jack? as you can tell i'm really new at all of this!!!!

[Runewalker]

A nod to Wolf. Many if not most of us who explore the options on a 3 pup rewire eventually run into a wall of frustration with the 5-way blade switch in its rigidity and steadfast ignoring of the 2 "lost" combos -- N/B & all 3.

Wolf's design is one of the venerable ones on the board and is tested and executable by a novice modder.

There are as you imagine a number of approaches to these mods. A central decision is how wedded are you to the blade, or are you interested in exploring toggles as activating switches for the various options.

The blade has its loyalists, and the toggle crowd is usually pretty convinced of their benefit. I can argue both sides of the page, but my biggest frustration with the 5 way is the somersaults you must perform in your scheme to get the lost sounds and the issues that surface in the 5 way + when switching between System Series and System Parallel.

But to join Wolf's parade, kicking the System Series option into a strat, transforms the instrument. It is hard to go back once youv'e tasted the good thing. Finally a strat that roars (or gets fat and mellow).

I suspect however you will get some admonitions about those 6 pots you want in your system. That is going to add a lot of wool, and you can't compensate with higher value pots, because concentrics are hard to find and only come in 3 flavors (at least as far as I have found) 500K X 2, 250K X 2, 500/250K.

You are accumulating a lot of system Resistance with that load. You will see in the designs that the engineers have tried to be lean with their use of pots, trying to retain more purity in the relationship between the strings, pups, wiring, cord finally to the amp.

There are several good threads on the board that end up discussing theory behind these decisions.

At some point some of us have talked about building a reference compendium from the historical posts, but who among us is an archivist?

So try to come to terms with the decision on blade vs toggles. And the 6 pot array I sense will be problematic.

[jdl]

Hey rune;
thanks for following me over here! I really like the blade, so i'm leaning towards flateric's idea of the standard 5-way and a mini toggle to switch the bridge into the mix.
Deep down inside i knew that the concentrics wouldn't work....i really wanted them though!!!: ( O well i guess i'll keep dreaming!

james

[UnklMickey]

runewalker said:

...The blade has its loyalists, and the toggle crowd is usually pretty convinced of their benefit. I can argue both sides of the page,...

there's no fence too tall for RW to straddle.

unless it's made of (tone)wood! XD



unk

[wolf]

Runewalker
Thanks for advocating the virtues of toggle switches and the series wiring option.
As just about everyone here knows, I am a big fan of toggle switches (as well as Dimarzio X2N pickups). ;D

It's funny that for about the last 3 or 4 decades, the definitive rock and roll guitar sounds have been the Gibson Les Paul and the Fender Strat. Yet, it has not crept into the pea brains who run either company that maybe they could try to wire their guitars so it could sound a little more like the other. Oh no !!! It's so much more logical (to them) to have zillions of different models of guitars that just look different.
(Oh yeah, Fender has a few hot Strats with humbuckers mixed with single coils but the tone-changing potential already exists in the traditional Strat).

I wish Les Paul the best of health but I think Gibson will have a guitar building "orgy" when he passes away. I'm sure we'll see a HUGE amount of new models such as The Les Paul Memorial Commemorative Super Deluxe Extra Special - Limited Edition, etc. And they'll all come equipped with the ultimate in tone versatility - that "amazing" Rhythm/Treble switch.

[jdl]

Hey guys;

So is it general concensus that the concentric pots wont work? If not are there any other options for me, like say using two instead of three to just control the bridge and neck? or will this still be too much. I'm not too concerned about seperate volume for the middle, although it would be a nice option.

james

[sumgai]

Rune,

......
At some point some of us have talked about building a reference compendium from the historical posts, but who among us is an archivist?

Errr..... me?

Just waiting on the go-ahead from RH.


sumgai

[Runewalker]

James, I'm really more of a wood hogger than a wiring theorist, so I can't definiitively answer your multiple pot config. as well as the knowledgible guys here.

I do suggest reading the ToneMonster original thread as John H does address this issue adjunctive to that long conversation.

I will tell you I was on the same track because I basically wanted a mixer on my guitar. But I was gently spanked (felt so good!) and led by the hand to understand that pots add resistence in a passive circuit and in the famous words of JH, "wooliness." (actually he was talking about the compounding resistence in multiple pups in Series, but I like the term).

James, when have you ever seen any guitar with 6 pots? If it was a good idea wouldn't have been built somewhere (notwithstanding Wolf's very good points about guitar mfg. market segmentation strategy)

If you are really behind that mixing idea, as I was, then look seriously at the ToneMonster II, because that is the fundamental rational reason behind the blender, which gets you where you are trying to go.

I did not mean to discourage you about it's difficulty. I was, and still am a novice as far as I am concerned, because I rely on the guidance of the these guys here, and "paint by numbers" in my wireing. And the TM-II (mark II, IV etc) was what I cut my teeth on in modding. So it can definitely be done by a first timer, just prepare for learning curves you did not expect. Soldering for instance. There is a definite technique to it.... Magnifying Reading glasses ain't just for the old guys, etc.

I went to Strats from a complete devotion to Gibbys (and as Wolf notes, their incredible "Rhythm/Treble" advanced electronics). So my reference was both -hums and the ability to mix them in the middle position. I felt I had to have that and badgered poor ol' JH until he caved in the development of the Blender. Every guitarist I have built it for feels, and this is not hype, like it has changed their life. But not all folks here have the Blender "religion."

If you have it in your head that ya gotta have the mixing capability then read about and get comfortable with the TM-II.

In general, I have noted my appreciation of your enthusiasm and go-for-it attitude. I suspect though that your ideas will evolve over time, and what sounds like, that's it I am settled, is likely to change.

Yeah, the blade. I love it and hate it. I love playing loud and just shovin' into overdrive on a lead. I hate its limitation and rigidity. Mostly, I prefer the toggles. Once you get used to them, and you have an economical ergonomic design, the blade is no loss. Until they make a 7 postition blade I will not be happy with them.

One reason you may prefer the blade is you have no experience with the toggles. They really become intuItive. Both visually and tactically they give you more information about what your selections are in the mid positions than the blades.

Just figure you will do more than one build. Get a cheapo strat and do one of the mods to practice before you build your ultimate. You can buy 3 pups strats day in and day out for $100 and get your building chops up, before you attack your ultimate baby.

Your first try will also be your learning curve. By the end of it you will have 10 things you would have done differently. Do a build on a cheapy and experiment with the options to really come to a conclusion on what works for you. Figure it's a quest than a destination.

Zen and the Art of ElectorGuitar Modding!

Sensei RW

[jdl]

Thanks rune;

Good advice, i'm going to read up on the tonemaster II, and see what it's all about. Since tomorrow is my last final, i'm going to sit down thursday and try and come to a conclusion about what i want to do for this first project.

As far as the concentric things go, i guess you could say that im kinda stubborn . I realize that its not practical so i'm going to figure out a different route.

I'll keep y'all posted as to my intentions, and expect some typical "new guy" questions in the near future!!!!

James

[JohnH]

James

Heres my view: Since you are doing a custom scheme, then getting the series option is a huge enhancement as described above my Wolf and Runewalker.

Me and RW spent months figuring out the Tonemonster2, with me doodling wiring diagrams and him putting in the essential players perspective and having a vision of the sounds that we were working to and how they should operate. It is still developing. So if you want versatile control with blending of subtle mixtures of three SC pups, in series, parallel and out-of-phase , I hope I will be forgiven for saying that the TM2 is my view of the best way to do it. If it wasn’t I would have designed it differently.

However, if we have not corrupted you so far, and going back to your original post, what you describe there is in fact not too hard to configure, and not too hard to build. If you are only looking at parallel combinations, as on a standard Strat, with maybe a bridge-on switch, you could build your 3 x double tone/volume controls. Each pair would be wired with the tone and volume directly connected to each pup, before the switching. That way, when a pup is deselected, it takes out the pots that go with it, preventing them from loading the active pups. That is, after all, how a normal Les Paul is wired, with two pups rather thn 3. I think the issues with it in this case are that it will be fiddly to keep track of all those knobs, and when more than one pup is selected, the active tone controls and maybe the volumes will often, but not always, all act on all the active pups. ie they will not be fully independent and may drive more nuts (you are already a GuitarNut). Setting volume mixes across three pups will also need very careful attention. Will the sound be woolly or muddy? Maybe not in just parallel combos, I think it is the series ones that are more prone to this. But if you want to have a system with that many controls, then my view is that there are better options, or else just keep it simple.

good luck with exams!

John

[sumgai]

James,

RW and John are cogent and on point. John does give you a small window of opportunity to get the blending options you wanted, I'd like to expand on that a bit.

After seeing John's circuit for the FET amlifier that draws almost no current (long battery life), and some other circuits that have been subsequently referenced here, I'm of the mind that you should consider this carefully before rejecting it.

Why? Glad you asked.

Let's refer back to John's statement about the interaction of tone controls:

.... the active tone controls and maybe the volumes will often, but not always, all act on all the active pups. ie they will not be fully independent.

That is true in the ultimate sense of a passive scheme (John meant "selected" pickup, not 'active' in the battery powered sense.), but if you add a small amplifier to the output of the guitar, then you can isolate each pickup/volume/tone section with, what else, isolation resistors.

Inserting a 100K resistor between the pup/vol/tone combo and the switching arrangement will keep all interactions down to zero. That will knock down the signal about 6dB (rough guess), which could be made up with any small signal amp, but John's FET circuit could do the trick. (John, yes the TM II shows a source follower with unity gain, but I'm being general here. You did also refer to another circuit recently, and that mgiht be more suitable, to be sure.)

This will add to the complexity and overall cost of the project about, oh.... say...... a dollar three eighty! The most expensive component will be the battery holder, I assure you. Finding room for it is not the easiest thing, but it won't be hard, that amp is very small, it's the battery that you need to worry about. In fact, it's being discussed right now that we might get away with using oversized watch batteries instead of the ubiquitous 9V jobbie.

Finals indeed. Good thing I'm past that stage, I'd flunk every one of them now, the way my memory's been going on the blink these days. ;D


sumgai

[jhng]

As an alternative for going for full on flexibility at the outset, here's a good design technique that someone suggested back on the GN1 forum in the dim and distant:

Build and assemble the guitar with no controls and no wires connected except for the jack plug. (Gently!) pull all the wires from pickups and from the jack plug out through the hole where the volume control will go and label them.

Now, since the guitar is playable, you can spend days, weeks, and months trying all kinds of different ways to connect up the pickups to the jack (using a breadboard or crocodile clips or such), and playing the guitar to find out which you like. I would also suggest throwing a variety of capacitors into the experimental mix.

Eventually you will narrow it down to a fairly small bunch of core sounds that will be your "bread and butter".

You may be surprised at what you find! For example: Neck and Bridge in series, together with the Middle in parallel, is very nice variation on the quack theme (much nicer in my view than all three in parallel) that rarely shows up in mods; other pleasant surprises for me were Neck and Middle in series with a 0.045uf cap across the Middle pup, and the Bridge pup in paralell with a 0.01uf capacitor. And, of course, out of phase combinations can add a lot of colour.

In any event, once you know what you'll be using day-in day-out (worth taking time over this) write a list of "every day", "every week", and "once a month if I'm bored" sounds, and you'll be in a much better position to decide the wiring.

In my case, having realised that I spent more time switching pup combo than playing, my Strat now has core sounds on a Tele-style three-way [1= Nx(M+cap), 2= N+M, 3= BxM]. The tone control for the Bridge pup shorts out the Middle pickup at 10 giving just the Bridge pup. Plus Tone for 1 & 2 and vol. Simple, simple!
Sacrilege, I know, but for me "fewer options = more playing".


Hastings

[sumgai]

Hastings,

... fewer options = more playing.

There will never be anything wrong with the Zen art of playing to your inner soul.

In point of fact, what you've just said is really a condemnation of the very philosophy of this forum, but ask me if I care! ;D The underlying tenor of your statements is that some folks need to spend less time playing "tone god" on stage, and more time playing, period. I like that, it's something that I often forget, so the reminder was not 'intrusive' in the least.

Thanks.


sumgai

[jdl]

Hey guys;

Just finished my last final, 13 handwritten pages on American Lit...........can you say writers cramp!!!

As always, thanks for all the input. Either today or tomorrow i'm going to sit down with my current strat, and try to come to some conclusions as to what i would like to see in my project. I'm already positive that i want to go with 3 P90's, now I'm going to try and decide on the rest. Again thanks for the help, i'm going to try and read up on different wiring diagrams as much as i can today.

Expect questions!!!

james

[jhng]

sumgai said:

Hastings,

... fewer options = more playing.

There will never be anything wrong with the Zen art of playing to your inner soul.

In point of fact, what you've just said is really a condemnation of the very philosophy of this forum, but ask me if I care! ;D The underlying tenor of your statements is that some folks need to spend less time playing "tone god" on stage, and more time playing, period. I like that, it's something that I often forget, so the reminder was not 'intrusive' in the least.

Thanks.


sumgai

No! No! I wasn't intending to judge at all! And don't think anyone "should" do anything or "needs" to do anything. It's just that I, personally, succumb very easily to the temptation to "change for change's sake" (e.g. switching combo just because I can).

Actually, I love devising clever new wiring schematics on paper (even for guitars I don't have) and find it something of a zen art in itself.

But when the guitar is in my hands, the less opportunity for distraction the better. In fact I've seriously toyed with the idea of having just one combination: but can't quite settle on which.

Hastings

[UnklMickey]

jhng said:

... In fact I've seriously toyed with the idea of having just one combination: but can't quite settle on which.

Hastings

good luck on that!

JohnH has whittled his favourites down to a mere 6!

it's gonna vary accoring to tastes, but would guess most nutz would find 3 choices to be a really stripped-down, "dragster" sort of set-up. no real need to get simpler than that.

but, which 3?..............................................





unk

[wolf]

jhng
Ah, pursue the art of Zen guitar do you?
Difficult journey ..... but rewards ... many.

~~~ Yoda ~~~

[Runewalker]

H.

But when the guitar is in my hands, the less opportunity for distraction the better. In fact I've seriously toyed with the idea of having just one combination: but can't quite settle on which.

One pickup, straight to the jack lugs, no pots, no switches.

The sound of one pup clapping.

[sumgai]

Sound of one pickup clapping, indeed! What a guffaw, Rune, thanks!

Hastings, in my post at the top of this page, I was thanking your for re-opening my eyes*, that was all. It was not meant as a recrimination for what you said, please don't think that!

I don't for a minute profess to tell any member here, let alone a group of them or all of them, that one should stop doing what they are doing, and instead do something else that meets another person's criteria. But it is an established fact that I do get carried away with "investigating the tonal possibiliites", as some of my fellow players put it. Therefore, the shoe fit, so I'm wearing it, that's all.

In fact I've seriously toyed with the idea of having just one combination: but can't quite settle on which.

There was a time when I thought to myself, "why not just run a DIN connector and 4 wire cord down to a bunch of footswitches, and be done with it?" As soon as I plotted out how much floor space that would take, I came to my senses.

If it were me, the best all around combo that works on my Strat, to my ears, is all three pups in parallel. It can be made to work for just about everything, if you move your picking position towards the neck or towards the bridge to slightly modify the overall tone.

One more thing. In keeping with the tenor of this conversation, I hereby reveal that I do believe in the zen art of playing without distraction, but only as far as my hands go. After all, they do the playing, not my feet. When you look down at the stage in front of me, I can only request that you "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!" - it's a pig sty down there!! ;D I may not sound very good, but I look like I'm dancing for all I'm worth, so they keep asking me to come back. Sometimes for money, even!!


sumgai


* Why, oh why, am I thinking of Gallagher's "New Eyes" sequence right now?