|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 23, 2006 14:06:04 GMT -5
Chesh, Uhm, you lost me. Did you mean "use one switch for the entire HB, then use a second switch appended to that in some fashion? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to add a yet more switches, you meant to merely re-wire the current switches, right?  And the real reason I replied, what's this "Double-Barreled" thing of which you speak? I don't see it here in the Schematics sub-forum, should I be looking elsewhere? (Like in unimportant areas of the innerweb (that would include anywhere off of this site). ;D) sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Apr 24, 2006 8:24:46 GMT -5
 For ease of reading I've left out the terminals that put it out of phase, but that's pretty intuitive. There are three four pole switches. The little letter in the middle (B, N, or M) indicates which switch is which (and which pup it relates to). The blue lines show the basic parallel circuit. The red lines show all pups in series. The green lines do the magic that allows you to have just two pups in series. The purple lines come into play to allow you to have NxB and (NxB)+M. Ok, it doesn't have the (A+)xC combos, and it has stacks and stacks of redundant parallel combinations, but (unless I'm being really dumb) it still seems to be free of the defect that Unk spotted. The reason is because the extra poles are used to create a series path as necessary rather than plug into an existing one. What do you think? Hastings |
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 24, 2006 10:02:55 GMT -5
okay folks, here's unklmickey's take on all this: i'll have to dissect Sumgai's diagram. although it's much more convoluted looking than mine, i'm pretty sure it does one good thing that mine doesn't.in the (series-first-math) parallel dominant version, like we have been discussing, mine leaves an open circuit, when all switches are off. however in the (parallel-first-math) series dominant version, mine has no problem. as you can see from the diagrams, i had taken a RADICALLY DIFFERENT APPROACH. one pair of poles (the upper pair) are used to connect the pickup to either the series group or the parallel group.  that leaves 2 poles availble for houskeeping. the lower left pole is used to shunt it's place in the serial group when the selector is off, or in one of the parallel positions. the lower right pole is use to connect the series group (in parallel with) to the always connected parallel group, only when any switch is in one of the series positions. this has the unfortuate consequence of leaving the series group disconnected when all selectors are off. so there's no "built in mute". you would still want to turn the volume down to zero instead of leaving that open circuit. i like to refer to this version as " parallel dominant" because of the switch priority. if one selector is in series, and one is in parallel, the result is the two are in parallel. except for the open circuit when all off, i was quite pleased with this version. i have an improved version, that provides a short in all-off. but it requires a special variant of the M type MegaSwitch (remember that U model i mentioned before?) ___________________________________________________________________________________ now, for it's prettier sister, the series dominant version:  this version has the parallel group in series with the series group. the lower right pole of the switch shunts the parallel group UNLESS any of the selectors is in a parallel position. so in the all off mode there is a nice short to keep things quiet. (built-in mute) the best part is, if the U model MegaSwitch ever does become a reality, i can switch between parallel dominant and series dominant with only a 4PDT switch. unk EDIT: "I can't see the whole thing yet, but the starting point would be connect the hot and cold of each pup to two POLES on each five-way. Then those two poles can be used to put the pup in and out of phase and "put" it into the required position in the wiring set up. The two left over poles from each five-way can be used to fix up all the rest.
Hastings" Hastings. i just scanned some of the posts in the thread and came across that one. just before i did the BigUGly, i worked on this mentally for a week ( no paper -- try that sometime). when i came upon that epiphany, it was a priceless feeling! i was trying to come up with different permutations in the direction Sumgai had gone, but imagine trying to keep track of something like that in your head! |
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Apr 24, 2006 12:07:12 GMT -5
the best part is, if the U model MegaSwitch ever does become a reality, i can switch between parallel dominant and series dominant with only a 4PDT switch. Which would give ALL the possible SSS combinations  ... Impressive! How about two four-ways and a three-way? To give all 48 combinations with no redundancy in the switching...  Hastings |
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 24, 2006 12:48:55 GMT -5
the best part is, if the U model MegaSwitch ever does become a reality, i can switch between parallel dominant and series dominant with only a 4PDT switch. Which would give ALL the possible SSS combinations ... Impressive! How about two four-ways and a three-way? To give all 48 combinations with no redundancy in the switching... Hastings Hastings, i'm all for including a 3-way in the mix, if i'm the only guy involved. i'm wondering what you had in mind, to get rid of all the redundancies.BTW, i'm looking over your diagram. so far, it looks like it also has the same open circuit as mine (parallel dominant), when in the all-off position. unk |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Apr 24, 2006 12:48:58 GMT -5
How about two four-ways and a three-way? Be sure not to say that in mixed company. |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Apr 24, 2006 13:02:44 GMT -5
Uhm, you lost me. Did you mean "use one switch for the entire HB, then use a second switch appended to that in some fashion? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to add a yet more switches, you meant to merely re-wire the current switches, right? Four coils ~ four SuperSwitches, matched in pairs. The first switch of the pair handles series, parallel, oop, and off. The second handles splitting and other functions, possibly such as PRS style coil coupling. If you find that no other use for the second one other than splitting, then just use a regular splitter. And the real reason I replied, what's this "Double-Barreled" thing of which you speak? I don't see it here in the Schematics sub-forum, should I be looking elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 25, 2006 0:14:00 GMT -5
Chesh,
Tanks! "Disco here, disco dere...." Wotta riot! ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 25, 2006 0:21:17 GMT -5
unk and Hastings,
Lot of .... ummm.... diagrams here. Yeah, that's it, they're diagrams. I'll need some time to get my head around them, but tonight I'm just too doped up with pre-op (dental) meds to dive in. I'll try again tomorrow, hopefully the fog will be less murky.
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 25, 2006 18:00:40 GMT -5
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you can get rid of him for an entire weekend."
|
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Apr 25, 2006 21:54:51 GMT -5
This wiring scheme is going to need one of Rick Nieson's five neck guitar bods --- converted to a single neck, but with plenty of landscape for all those blades --- back routed with a chainsaw, or front routed and covered with a flag sized piece of Toneplastic.
Lets call it the "Blade Lovers StratoPaul."
Gotta love slammin'
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 26, 2006 2:12:36 GMT -5
Rune, Well, it was conceived as a test bed more than anything else.  My idea started out as "why do some designers pick combinations based on what they like..... who are they to tell the user what he can or can't have? From that, it developed into a test bed where one can flog away at song after song, and locate (and hopefully write down) those combos that seem to sound the best to the flogger. The cost was not a factor, but after looking at those 8P switches, I don't know that anyone's gonna cook this up for a one-time use. Even I don't contemplate getting this "souped up".  If I do this, I will definitely go the JohnH-approved route, a small FET amp inserted after a pair of isolation/mixing resistors. BTW, did I mention (ahem!) that I have solved the equation, and have found the remaining 12 Par/Ser combo's? Yeppers, I had to sell my soul, but I got 'em on board. Interested in seeing that little tidbit? sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 26, 2006 9:37:58 GMT -5
...The cost was not a factor, but after looking at those 8P switches, I don't know that anyone's gonna cook this up for a one-time use. ... who needs 8 pole switches to do the basic series/parallel or parallel/series versions? ...BTW, did I mention (ahem!) that I have solved the equation, and have found the remaining 12 Par/Ser combo's? Yeppers, I had to sell my soul, but I got 'em on board. Interested in seeing that little tidbit? sumgai i haven't been able to do that with a 5-way alone. my method of getting both series dominant and parallel dominant requires adding a 4PDT. so if you can do that all with just a 5-way, that's worth seeing. unk |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 26, 2006 13:21:07 GMT -5
unk, My use of the words "all possible combinations" would sorta require that your "or" be changed to "and". Thus, 6 poles are required, as of this point in time. Hehehehe, by selling my soul, I meant that I had to compromise my original goal of "one pickup, one switch". No, I can't do it either, I also had to insert a non-pickup switch. But I can name that tune with only 2 poles and 2 throws! Check me out on this: ...... hey, wait a minute. If I wanna keep this up, I might have to find a new file server.... filecabin has gone TU on me, as of yesterday afternoon. I've submitted a trouble-ticket, but haven't heard back yet. Let's let this ride for a few hours, or maybe the rest of today, if necessary. If they haven't gotten their scheisse back together by this time tomorrow (noon PDT on Thu 4/27/06), then I'll definitely move somewhere else. In the meantime, hang on please.  sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 28, 2006 15:38:08 GMT -5
Um...stupid question time. Is this stuff part of some theoretical exercise, or is somebody actually going to put this together? I'm asking because such a circuit will be, for all practical purposes, impossible to use in any sort of band or gigging situation, won't it? Is this being done just to see how far guitar wiring can go? Okay, that's THREE stupid questions, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Apr 28, 2006 15:54:25 GMT -5
Um...stupid question time. Is this stuff part of some theoretical exercise, or is somebody actually going to put this together? I'm asking because such a circuit will be, for all practical purposes, impossible to use in any sort of band or gigging situation, won't it? Is this being done just to see how far guitar wiring can go? Okay, that's THREE stupid questions, but still... Yeah, that was the poorly made point of my earlier post. But should inapplicability stop us? Of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 28, 2006 17:47:52 GMT -5
This thread can have some fairly profound and wide-spread effects. [Fish, Learn, Now]
It's not just a bunch of schematics, posted without reasoning attached, but an on-going perspective into the inner (and oft demented) thought processes of those that render new wiring schemes.
It's just another form of crosswire (ops, crossword) puzzles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 28, 2006 18:45:01 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong--I'm not criticizing! I was just curious as to the purpose of the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Apr 28, 2006 19:12:53 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong--I'm not criticizing! I was just curious as to the purpose of the whole thing. I'd say it's a bit of both, actually. You normally don't see the fashions on the New York runways worn on the New York streets, but the ideas often work their ways into the national consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 29, 2006 12:23:11 GMT -5
Holy You-Know-What, Batman, what a lot of ground this thread has covered! And now we're at fashions.... where will it all end? ;D I'm still at my wit's end trying to get filecabin to accept uploads in my 'member's area'. I can do it anonymously, but then I can't "manage" anything, like overwrite a file if I update it, or delete it, nada. Bad juju, I may be spending this morning searching for another image repository. Mike, my original premise still stands. If one buys a piece of blank pickguard material, one can insert whatever combination of controls one wishes. At that very point in time, one should either: a) know exactly what one wants; or b) be prepared for some hard-core bench work, or c) do what I'm contemplating, and building something that will give him/her a way to find and try every possible pup combination on one's guitar. I agree that we all think differently, but if you look closely, you'll see that most GuitarNutz fall into one of those three categories. My bet would be b), however, I'm still more into c), myself. (And that's after how many years of playing the same guitar??) And at that, tastes change over the years. What I used to disdain as useless (most OoP combos) I now consider as "interesting" or "OhMyGawd, I got to have that tone". Hence, for me, the search is on. Yes, I definitely will be building this baby, probably not until later this summer. (Life is getting in my way, as I'm sure any married man here will attest to.  ) Where I differ from some of you other 'Nutz is that I abhor rotary switches for myself. They're useful, and some folks can't live without them, but I personally can't stand them. That's why the multiple blade switches. And after all that, consider this. I'm on a crusade to find things that I can't get with my VG-88. Ever heard one of those? I don't know about anyone else here (I think a "few" of you have it, or it's older sibling, the VG-8), but it models beaucoup guitars - acoustic, electric, 12-string, many explicit models of various popular guitars, you name it, it's there, already built into the unit. Plus, I can change so many parameters to come up with new goodies, it's not funny. Want to know how a pickup would sound if it was placed at exactly the 12th fret? No sweat, GI, make it so. How about reverse-slanting it, opposite a standard Strat (ala Jimi)? You got it. Want a lipstick tube and a soapbar on the same ax? Nolo problemo. All this and soooooo much more, right at my widdle biddie footsies. So, can this thing do LP to the max? You have to ask? Can it do a Strat? Well here we go, the $64 question. Because I can't find anyone who can tell the difference between that unit and my Strat (in blindfold testing, yet), I've decided that my future wiring scheme will have none of the standard Strat combos available. If I want 'em, I'll just [picard]"Engage"[/picard] the VG-88, and have at it. Believe me, there's only thing I've found so far that it can't do very well at all, and that's that it can't emulate an outboard Fender Reverb Unit. Sad that, because FRU's are going for like $800 for originals, nearly half that for re-issues. And if you have to ask why I need one of those, I'll leave you with one word: [glow=red,2,300]SURF[/glow] sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 3, 2006 6:31:23 GMT -5
OK everyone, it's time to shake up the shack! ;D unklmickey referred one of our new members to this topic, which jerked me out of my forgetfulness..... I'm updating the schematic to the latest incarnation. Take a look, and see if I've covered all the bases here.   I added a 2P2T switch that routes the Parallel section Hot to either Out or to the Serial section ground. From this, I should be able to obtain all of the 2ser-1par and 2par-1ser combos, depending on which way the switch is set. Also, be aware that the switch affects the arrangement of 1par-1ser combinations. This is not an additional burden or penalty, no more so than when selecting any other combination. Finally, note that the switch has no effect on all-parallel or all-serial settings, a user-friendly feature that I lucked out on. Additionally, I've officially adopted the JohnH-approved method of inserting a small FET amp into the main output circuitry. In turn, this allows me to safely use isolation resistors to keep the Series section from shorting the whole output (thus killing the Parallel section). Bye-bye extra switch sections! The cost of the project becomes feasible once again. Note that because pickups in series will usually deliver a hotter signal, I offset the resistor values to compensate for this disparity. Without actually breadboarding this lashup, I can only say that I started with generally accepted values, but I expect that some experimentation will be needed. Do I need to publish a truth table, or can you all figure out the various settings without one? sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 5, 2006 9:16:44 GMT -5
Sumgai,
i hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. but, it looks like the side-slap has slapped back again.
i think you need to find another way of handling the house-keeping tasks.
what happens when one or two pickups are selected on the parallel side, and at least one pickup is off?
unk
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 5, 2006 15:58:28 GMT -5
unk, The 'off' coil is shorted, meaning that it can't be selected for serial duty. This is obviously one of those times when it would be handy to have another person look it over first, before I post it. But then again, that's why it's being posted and dissected here first, instead of in the Final Schematics sub-forum - you all are my 'second eyes'. I swear I looked at this until all the cows were back in the barn, and you know, I added the parallel-side shorts at the last moment, to complete the serial circuit where no such completion existed if any one of the coils were unselected. IOW, all three had to be on in one form or another, or else all was lost. And wouldn't you know it, the moment I opened up this thread today, it literally jumped out at me, even before I got to your reply. Right about now, I'm thinking "Que je sui bete!" Ah yes, back to the CAD machine for me.  sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 5, 2006 18:05:49 GMT -5
it's even more of a problem than that.
the coil doesn't get shorted, the parallel section does, so anything else selected as parallel gets shunted.
i also just noticed, if all pickups are in the series section, and the DPDT has the parallel section "in series", you won't have continuity.
it's really a major pain, to keep track of all the details, innit?
unk
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 5, 2006 22:38:25 GMT -5
unk, This is a quickie reply..... Yep, it sure is. When I looked at it this afternoon, I was mis-remembering where the coil went - yer right (as usual), the coil ain't shorted. However...... A label would have helped here, I can see that now. When the DPDT switch is in the upwards position, the Series section becomes dominant, as you would call it. The intent was, and I have to admit now, I didn't think through the parallel side of the equation...... the intent was to provide a complete circuit for the Series dominant position. Without that short across Pins 3, the Series side would never have a complete circuit unless the remaining pickup was selected on the parallel side. Which I now see will be in series with the combination, no matter which direction the switch is flicked. [glow=red,2,300]ARGH![/glow] But I can't make anymore time for it right now, I just got a call to go play, so I'm outta here. I'll see what I can do later on, but no promises. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 7, 2006 1:56:38 GMT -5
OK, all done. Ready? Here we gooooooo...... The original drawing as of Post 18 (with further explanations at Post 21, both on Page 2) was never actually refuted. It was roundly castigated for being overly complex, and I agree with that assesment - I didn't like it either! But it did work, so there's no reason to modify the basic premise, with one exception. As of this point in time, I am eliminating the 5th and 6th switch poles, and using a preamp after the switching array. That preamp circuit is not shown here, for reasons of brevity can clarity. You can ask questions about that here, or you can consult JohnH's many postings on the topic for more details. And now for the chance to flog once again my meager maunderings:  Take a look at it, and see what you think. Next, let's investigate the switching scheme and a "sort of" truth table. But first, a couple of words about my nomenclature. I have labeled the switches in the diagram, thus S1-2 is Neck, parallel, in-phase. In the truth table, I do not list any of the Out-of-phase combinations, it would take quite awhile to wade through all the sub-text. That's why you only see 2 and 4, you're supposed to infer the 1 and 5 for out-of-phase combos. And of course, 3 is just plain Off, so it's not broken out separately in the table. Side-Slap Strat, Mark II
Truth TableS4 = “DOESN’T MATTER” N - S1-2 or 4 M - S2-2 or 4 B - S3-2 or 4 S4 = “DOWN” N+M - S1-2 & S2-2 (1 oop) M+B - S2-2 & S3-2 (1 oop) N+B - S1-2 & S3-2 (1 oop) N*M - S1-4 & S2-4 (1 oop) M*B - S2-4 & S3-4 (1 oop) N*B - S1-4 & S3-4 (1 oop) N+M+B - S1-2 & S2-2 & S3-2 (3 oops) N*M*B - S1-4 & S2-4 & S3-4 (3 oops) (N*M)+B - S1-4 & S2-4 & S3-2 (5 oops) (M*B)+N - S2-4 & S3-4 & S1-2 (5 oops) (N*B)+M - S1-4 & S3-4 & S2-2 (5 oops) S4 = “UP” (N+M)*B - S1-2 & S2-2 & S3-4 (5 oops) (M+B)*N - S2-2 & S3-2 & S1-4 (5 oops) (N+B)*M - S1-2 & S3-2 & S2-4 (5 oops) (end of table) Hastings once asked about "all 48" possible SSS combinations. Urk! I only came up with...... 60 possibilities. (But to be fair, the first one is the venerable Off position, so I suppose you'd say there are really only 59 "sounds", and you'd be correct.) More over, I've tried to label everything so that the combinations are somewhat intuitive and easy to remember. Sadly, there are some redundancies, but they don't crop up accidentally. You can go looking for them, be my guest, but I am making a conscious effort to not do so. Also, be aware that my designation for S4 is imperative. I don't care what's available if S4 is up, except for the "2 in parallel, both in series with 1" combinations. There will be plenty of duplicates, but as I just said, I'm not going to map them all out - they wouldn't be intuitive. I can hear some of you now, "hey, how come so many OoP possibilities?" Well, it has to do with a little phenomenon called inductance. If you'll recall, placing two coils in parallel will tend to change the sound in a brighter manner, and putting them in series will tend to make them darker. That's one effect of combining pups. The other is the actual placement along the length of the string. Think about it - you're correct to say that No+B is electrically the same as N+Bo, but the hidden item here is that they are also magnetically identical, so reversing one is tantamount to reversing the other instead. However, when we consider 3 pickups at a time, position and inductance both come into play, with subtle but audible results. For the (N*M)+B combo, I've detailed the OoP possibilities here: (N*M)+B (basic combo, already listed, doesn't count as an OoP) (No*M)+B (N*Mo)+B (these two are the same electrically, but not magnetically!) (N*M)+Bo (No*M)+Bo (N*Mo)+Bo (No*Mo)+Bo (obvious total reversal, so not counted) (No*Mo)+B (magnetically and electrically the same as (N*M)+B, so not counted) That yields 5 OoP possibilities that are unique and discernible. Who knows how useful any of them might be, but I know one thing - I'll be able to find out for sure, and not have to settle for someone else's word for it! ;D Kudos? Brickbats? sumgai p.s. It occurs to me, just as I "go to press", that if one were to use a 4PDT switch (the Fender S1 jobbie), then in theory, one could change the resistance in each path (the 100KΩ and 82KΩ resistors). If the two signal paths are too far out of balance when the switch is flipped, the additional poles could be made to change that behavior. But let's not worry about that unless we have to, eh? s. |
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 7, 2006 6:44:18 GMT -5
The wealth of OOP settings went rather over my head.
Surely any three pup combination (no matter the configuration) with [Ao, Bo, C] is electrically and magnetically equivalent to [A, B, Co]? Aren't both magnetic and electric phase relative (pup to pup) rather than absolute (pup to guitar)?
(This is a bit over my head as to the physics).
Good circuit, though. Are you actually going to build it?
Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 7, 2006 12:14:36 GMT -5
Hastings Well, perhaps I should have chosen another word besides "magnetically". But in retrospect, I think I'll leave the post alone, and embellish my thoughts here. It was late (for me) when I posted that diatribe on the Truth Table, and the OoP combos. I probably should have said "string node location relationships" instead of magnetic, but at that time of the night, I was no longer thinking too clearly. Yes, it is a fact that as you reverse one of three in a straightforward combo (all parallel, f'rinstance), reversing any two will be the same as reversing only the third pup. But as I said, in such a change, the inductive loading effects will remain the same, no matter which of the three pups are swapped around. Now, in multiple combos of parallel and serial connections, you have to contend with the effects of two separate combinations as they are inductively combined. Two coils in parallel will reduce the overall inductance (formula given in the footnote), two coils in series will increase the overall inductance (simple addition). Got that so far? Good, let's see it in action. Consider N, M and B to each have the same inductance values..... Combining N and M in parallel will give us a final value of 1/2 the inductance of either pup. Combining that result in series with B, we end up with 1 plus 1/2, noted simply as 1.5L. Applying the same analysis to the reverse scenario - N and M in series will add values, so we now have double the value of either pup. That combo in parallel with B will give us 2 x 1 divided by 2 + 1, or 2/3 the value of a single pup. Hey, 2/3L isn't the same as 1.5L, is it? And there's the reason for all the combos listed, they have "loaded" each other in a different fashion. Now, considering all that along with the string node location at which the reversal takes place, and wala!, you have a slightly different sound each time. Not very simple, not at all neat, but it is all there, nonetheless. FN1 - The value of two inductances combined in parallel can be found by using the same formula as in determining two impedances in parallel: L1 x L2/L1 + L2 Fortunately, there's a shortcut for two equal values - merely divide one of the values in half, and you're done. ;D Thanks! Yes indeedy, I certainly am going to build this little bugger. In fact, I've already secured a nice little guinea pig for it. I found a craigslist Squier Bullet for 50 bananas, complete! Kid leaving town or somesuch, I didn't care. It all works/worked (I've disassembled it down to its constituent components, ready for routing), although as a MII, the pickups are as short on tone as I am on skills. I've left another note in the Coffee Shop about when I'll start in on this venture. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 8, 2006 4:39:27 GMT -5
Hi Sumgai– I’m on vacation at the moment, but dipped in here for some holiday reading and downloaded this thread. So here is what I reckon about it:
Given the premise that this is a design to provide every possible switched combination of three single coils, then I think it is remarkably compact, with just four controls. Provided one has a clear head, it would not be too hard to set up a particular combination. A guitar like this would be a useful tool for the GNut making custom designs, to evaluate the sounds that may be available on a given simpler design, and perhaps demonstrate them for a customer.
For example recently, I spent some time thinking about the ‘Strat Lovers Strat’, which in a very simple way, adds some series and out-of-phase combos to a standard Strat. It has a setting with bridge in series with (neck and middle in parallel). I haven’t built it myself so I don’t know what this would sound like, but if I’d had a Sumgai-Side-Slap in the corner, this combo could have been dialled right in.
This is not really practical as a guitar for the masses and risky for use on stage, unless it is preset and not changed, but fine for recording.
As to how many sounds? – I reckon there are 47 different sounds out of three single coils. In that, I don’t count as different, settings such as B and M with B reversed phase, as conspired with B and M with M reversed phase, since they sound the same. Similarly, a three-pup combo with one pup reversed, sounds the same as a similar one with the other two reversed. Now Wolf, I know you have a 94 combo design on your site. Do you agree with that? Or am I missing half of the different sounds? My 47 comprise 3 single pup, 14 all-in-phase combos and 30 out-of-phase combos.
Back to the design – clearly there are some quirks, switch positions where no sounds come out. But I would say, treating this as a recording/test-bed, just accept that because it is too hard to fix. It does not detract from getting all of those 47 working sounds and it goes along with the intention that this is not a practical workmans axe, but rather an item of lab or studio gear. Also, there is heaps of redundancy. 5x5x5x2 = 250 switch positions!
So accepting quirks in this case– I would at least want to get all of those 47 sounds in their purest form. So I am not sure I would be wanting those resistors, since they change the way the pups interact with each other – maybe for better or worse. For example, a pure all-three-in-parallel combo will be different to one where two are fed through the 100k and the other through the 82k. A (two-in-series) in-parallel-with-one combo can be fully hum cancelling if directly wired (surprising fact) , but this would be compromised by the resistors.
Those resistors also have some insidious effects. For example, pick a single pup from the parallel side, with others off and S4 down. The sound comes out, but is reduced by about 50% of voltage and 6db of power, due to the voltage divider action of the resistors. Without the resistors, it is a dead short!, but that will give a clearer cue that the single pup sounds are best found with S4 up or on the series side.
As for buffers, well you know I like them and thanks for the mention. It is IMO an improvement to have them, but it is also a change to the sound. I realise that the use of the buffer is related to the resistors. But I’d say ditch the resistors and have the option of hearing it with and without buffer– this is a journey of discovery. If you only have it buffered, you may never know what a huge difference it made. The easiest way to do that might be to make a buffer cable, such as Tillmans. I’ve built a different version recently, and they really do work (Tillmans is a ‘common source’ JFET design, I made one as a ‘source follower’ – I’ll post it soon)
cheers
John
|
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 8, 2006 9:39:27 GMT -5
|
|
... Impressive! 
If I do this, I will definitely go the JohnH-approved route, a small FET amp inserted after a pair of isolation/mixing resistors.
) Where I differ from some of you other 'Nutz is that I abhor rotary switches for myself. They're useful, and some folks can't live without them, but I personally can't stand them. That's why the multiple blade switches.
