|
Post by JohnH on Jul 8, 2006 12:11:35 GMT -5
i'm not sure about the 47. anyway, i'm still not certain if i threw away too many or if you haven't filtered all the dupes out. Heres how I see it: 3 single pup sounds 3 combos of 2 in series, in phase 3 combos of 2 in series OoP 3 combos of 2 in parallel in phase 3 combos of 2 in parallel OoP 1 combo with 3 in series, in phase 3 combos with 3 in series with one pup OoP wrt the other two 1 combo with 3 in parallel in phase 3 combos with 3 in parallel with one pup OoP wrt the other two 3 combos with (2 in series) in parallel with 1 - all in phase 9 combos with (2 in series) in parallel with 1 - with one pup OoP wrt the other two 3 combos with (2 in parallel) in series with 1 - all in phase 9 combos with (2 in parallel) in series with 1 - with one pup OoP wrt the other two Total = 47
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 8, 2006 16:45:34 GMT -5
John, I'm not quoting everything you just wrote, that's rather lengthy, just for reference purposes, I hope you'll agree. I wholeheartedly agree that this is not for the average Joe Six-string, it is indeed meant for a lab setting. I confess to not imagining the value of "showing a customer" what his propose selection would sound like, before wiring it all up for him. That has potential. Hmmm...... As to the buffer issue, I recall that the advice was previously offered that I use two separate amps, one for each leg of the whole shmear. I somewhat rejected that, in the name of simplicity (and longer battery life). But upon your urging, I will revisit that issue when I put this thing together. Indeed, resistors are not the sinecure I'd like them to be, but they are simple, aren't they though? In the "guinea pig", there will be room enough that I could, in theory, separately amplify each pup first, but that would also affect the tone, so I'd be loathe to do that. And yes, without the resistors-and-amp circuitry, I'd have a dead short. That's why I put the resistors in, even after going to all the trouble of making a version that didn't need them. Sadly, that iteration about choked on the complexity of the 2 additional poles needed to prevent the short. (That circuit is at Reply #18 of this thread, on Page 2.) One more..... I am operating in WAG-land here, but I am of the opinion that reversing each pup in a "2par, 1ser" (or in a 2ser,1par") combo will have a different effect, due to both the location of where that pup sits along the string, and its inductive loading effect on the other two pups. But then again, that's just another good reason to build this thing - we'll soon know for sure, eh? ;D And finally, HEY - JOHN! You're on vacation, ferKrisesakes! Get off the innerweb, and go have some fun! And while you're out there having fun, have one on me! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 9, 2006 23:24:22 GMT -5
Sumgai,
i think John's last post was for my benefit, and i do appreciate it.
i'll take his list and compare it to my own, and try to figure out why we came up with different numbers.
cheers to all,
unk
|
|
moha5
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
|
Post by moha5 on May 10, 2007 5:01:54 GMT -5
Well I don't see clearly the main goal of this thread.
I'm interested in creating a simple diagram capable of producing all combinations from a SSS Stratocaster, just the pickups and switches, no caps or other elements at this moment. I've drawn lots of wirings using standard Strat switch or SuperSwitch and push-pulls, rotary switches. Now I got a wiring using a 4pole5way SuperSwitch, a 4pole2wayRotary and a 2pole2wayPushPull. So
If you can achieve 6pole4way switch, it can replace the latter two.
At one setting the 5way gives standard strat combinations. Another one gives the parallel (and parallel dominated) settings. The third gives the series dominated settings (with 2 redundancies). The fourth gives five serial settings, including B(M)N.
To get the OutOfPhase options you have to add 2 PhaseReverse switch. This Summer I want to install it in a cheap Strat copy. I'm not sure if a complex switching like this can be usable in a live situation, but I'm curious how they sound, so it will be a test guitar.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on May 17, 2007 19:19:38 GMT -5
I have taken unk's Brian May thread design and extrapolated it for rotary and lever switches. I further extrapolated it to accomplish ALL possible combinations of 1, 2, or 3 pickups. Not counting phasing variants, there are 18 (including OFF) possible combinations. I also extrapolated it to encompass phasing as well. A straight implementation of unk's design sans phasing requires a 4-pole 3-way rotary (existing) or lever (never seen one) switch for each pickup. Phasing and series/parallel would be addressed with push pull pots. A straight implementation of unk's design with phasing requires a 4-pole 5-way rotary (existing) or lever (existing - the super switch) switch for each pickup. All of the following truly implement a complete (including phasing) ALL possible combination Side-Slap Strat. An implementation adding my design for ALL possible combinations sans phasing requires a 8-pole 3-way rotary (existing) or lever (never seen one) switch for each pickup. Phasing and series/parallel would be addressed with push pull pots. An implementation adding my design for ALL possible combinations with phasing requires a 8-pole 5-way rotary (existing) or lever (The Schaller mechanism German unit of $40 fame) switch for each pickup. I also have an implementation adding my design for ALL possible combinations with phasing on two pickups and humbucker series/parallel coil selection on one pickup that requires a 8-pole 5-way rotary (existing) or lever (The Schaller mechanism German unit of $40 fame) switch for each pickup. This scheme is going into this project; guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=repair&action=display&thread=1172196911Of course I have a knob design that allows completely sight-unaided switch selection and confirmation (touch is).
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 17, 2007 19:34:48 GMT -5
Someone remind me to update all the photo referencess for this thread. I"ve got them stored on my machine, I just need to get off my lardbutt and post them to photobucket....... My final scheme also implemented all possible combos, but the downside was two-fold - a dead spot (all off) and muy repeated combos. An additional downside for stealth builders is the very obvious modification to the guitar's appearaance, but for testing purposes, I wasn't gonna mind that. Standby........................ sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Ripper on May 17, 2007 19:39:37 GMT -5
You guys DO know how to play...right? Ya know I luv ya!
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on May 17, 2007 19:59:52 GMT -5
Well, a dead spot occurring when all are selected OFF isn't a down side, it's THE selected configuration. In unk and my schemes, we force a short across the volume pot. OFF is OFF. There are repeated combinations, but since the structure is series dominant, there are no dead spots other than in the selected all off combination (unk's genius design). For 3 switches with 3 positions each, there are 27 possible combinations. Subtracting the valid ones (18 including OFF) we are left with 9 possible redundant combinations. Since our schemes are series dominant, when one pickup is selected in parallel and another is selected in series, both are connected in series. Each parallel selected pickup can be combined with either of the other two pickups in series so this accounts for 6 of the remaining 9 redundant positions. This leaves 3 redundant positions which occur when each one pickup is selected for either parallel or series, which is the same structure. One is One. Indeed there are redundant combinations, but they are patently obvious, logical, and expected. FWIW, these are the possible combinations of three pickups: 1. B 2. M 3. N 4. B+M 5. B+N 6. M+N 7. B+M+N 8. B*M 9. B*N 10. M*N 11. B*M*N 12. B+(M*N) 13. M+(B*N) 14. N+(B*M) 15. (B+M)*N 16. (M+B)*N 17. (N+B)*M 18. All OFF For each pickup having relatively equal nominal inductance, the total inductance is: Nominal 1. B 2. M 3. N 1/2 Nominal 4. B+M 5. B+N 6. M+N 1/3 Nominal 7. B+M+N 2 * Nominal 8. B*M 9. B*N 10. M*N 3 * Nominal 11. B*M*N 2/3 Nominal 12. B+(M*N) 13. M+(B*N) 14. N+(B*M) 3/2 Nominal 15. (B+M)*N 16. (M+B)*N 17. (N+B)*M None 18. All OFF This goes to the different frequency responses arising from the different achievable combinations.
|
|