|
Post by ashcatlt on May 11, 2006 15:19:55 GMT -5
Okay, after surfing both GuitarNuts.com and this forum for ideas and information, I attempted to draw out this concept so you all could critique and feedback for me. In the process I realized how little I understand about what I'm trying to do. So I guess now I'm asking for a lot more help. The idea seems simple really. I've got a Behringer strat copy. Currently, it has the stock single-coils in the neck and bridge positions, with a Lil Killer HB in the middle. I love the sound of that HB, and will be buying two more to stick in the other positions. Now, I never really touch the knobs on this guitar. Sometimes fiddle with the volume, but never the tones. So - I thought - for (near) maximum flexibility, I could replace the three pots with rotary switches. Each of these switches would control the output of each of the pickups. The options I was looking for from each switch look like this: HB, off, single (normal strat coil*), single(opposite coil) And then I could use the standard 5-way switch and some resistors to create a voltage divider which would give the following options: off, 100%, 75%(loundess)**, 50%, 25% I thought I had a clue as to how to wire the pickup switches at least, but when I started to get into it I just confused the heck out of myself. The specific questions I have are: 1) what sort of switches do I need for the pickups, and how do I wire them? 2) what value resistors will I need and how do I wire that switch? 3) should there be a capacitor in there somewhere? * as I understand it, many strats have one of their pickups out of phase with the others in order to cancel hum in x+y positions. I thought I could use a different coil of one of the humbuckers to simulate this (?) ** I am talking here about volume, as opposed to voltage. That is, I'd like for this switch to have an audio taper to it. Any and all suggestions, tips, tricks, or links would be greatly appreciated. Of course if anybody actually had the time to draw it out for me that would be even cooler. Thanks for any and all help
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on May 11, 2006 16:04:52 GMT -5
Okay, first off, I'm not terribly sure how practical switching from one coil to the other on a split is going to be. The apperture between them is so narrow that it probably one make that dramatic a difference. At least with PRS switching, you are dealing with full-sized bucker coils and you are going from the inside coils to the outside coils, so the aperature between their respective centerlines increases by almost two full inches. That would give you a great deal more variance in tone. Basically, all you seem to have going here is splitting and standard strat switching, speaking on a gross scale, and accomplishing that with three rotaries and a strat blade, vs. a strat blade and three push/pulls. Now, if I read your addendum notes correctly, it seems you want to affect a PRS Switching convention by utilizing alternating coils to maintain a humbucking effect. If so, that's a good idea, but you mustn't miss the forest from the trees. What do I mean by that? Well, when you start talking about using three different rotaries, one for each pickup and so on, you start crossing over into hyper-variability. The number of possible patches goes exponential, the learning curve goes vertical (uphill, not down ), and the practicality level goes thru the floor. If you just want this as a test guitar to experiement with different tonalities, or experimentations to record with, or something just to tinker with, then have fun and tinker away. But if you want a practical guitar that you can gig with and, in that context, be able to sideslam a switch midflight in the heat of battle, then I'm not sure dinking around with three rotaries and a strat blade is really the way you want to go. Not that you shouldn't use rotaries when playing, but it's different taking one and wrenching it one way or another, vs. having to fiddle with it, say with going from position 4 to position 13 on a 16 position rotary. Make sense? So, before you dive into all this, explore more what sounds you actually want to work with. What combos do you like the best, or you feel are the most practical. Also, incidentally, what was your line of thinking on the whole variable power bit with "voltage divider which would give the following options: off, 100%, 75%(loundess)**, 50%, 25%" and whatnot? FWIW, if you are going for "every tone possible", that's what I was working on with my UUSS. While I'm almost there, I kept it to the big stuff, and didn't get into stuff like series vs. parallel within the coils of each bucker, but rather focused on series/parallel with the different pickups and so on. I just see that as a more practical approach. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by fobits on May 11, 2006 17:11:13 GMT -5
As CheshireCat pointed out, the difference in sound between the coils of a rail-type humbucker would be very small. If you give up one of them, it's very simple. All you need is a single-pole DT (on-on-on) switch, or half of a DPDT. It would be useful to select coils to get humbucking combinations, but as our Cat friend also pointed out, it would be mighty confusing to mess with three rotaries and remember which coils were humbucking with which others. You would have six coils there, a lot of possibilities. The simplest way that I can devise is to use a double-pole 4-way selector, wired like so: I hope that this helps. Hey, us Beringer players have to stick together. Oops, I'll modify this quick to address the other part of it. Now there's an original idea, but with a problem. The Beringer selector isn't a 5-way switch. It has only three lugs, plus the pole. In positions 2 and 4, two are selected at the same time. If you put resistors there, they would be in parallel, with less resistance than the positions on either side. In short, the volume wouldn't go progressively up as you moved the switch, but would jump up and down in a strange way.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on May 11, 2006 17:46:25 GMT -5
It would be useful to select coils to get humbucking combinations, but as our Cat friend also pointed out, it would be mighty confusing to mess with three rotaries and remember which coils were humbucking with which others. You would have six coils there, a lot of possibilities. Whatever alternate coil humbucking modes you worked out, they would need to be hardwired into the pickup switching convention. It sounds like you want to apply some PRS Switching principles. Consider how PRS Switching works: Inner coils series, Outer coils Series, Inner coils Parallel (or some version of that). All you have is a 5-way rotary, and those combos are hardwired into positions 2, 3, and 4. You don't have to jack with two different rotaries to make sure you're in humbucking mode with any of them. Ergo, whatever you work out for combos, you need to have that bit worked out. Now, that being said, let me offer you a challenge: My UUSS is basically Strat switching with the addition of all the lost combos, and has the following options: N M B N+M N>M M+B M>B N+B N>B ALL3> Here's my suggestion (challenge): work out a switching convention where you get all those combos, and they are all humbucking (using your PRS adaptation, of course)! IOW . . . N M B . . . each in humbucking mode . . . N/M M/B N/B . . . using alternate coils . . . ALL3 . . . with N and M in humbucking mode using alternate coils, and B in full humbucking mode by itself. All this, and you also get the series/parallel options with the twofer combos. If you made that work, then you'd get a lot of what you were talking/asking about. Incidentally, I don't think it such a wise idea to have both on/off switches for your pickups and a selector switch. What if you turned off the B pickup three songs ago, and forgot about it and then during the bridge part or interlude of the really cool song you use to close your first set you slam your selector to the B pickup for that really awesome solo, and your guitar goes dead. Oh, and the A&R rep from the record label you've been courting for months is in the audience. The pickups are best turned on and off by virtue of the fact that they are either selected or they are not. When Wolf uses three on/off toggles to turn his pickups on and off, that's in lieu of having a selector switch. They work collectively as a selector switch, and he hits them with his hand, or pinches all three at the same time (or something like that) to create the change up. He doesn't daintily pinch the tips of each toggle and adjust it, one after the other, especially not midflight before a solo. A pinch and a twist and he's done . . . with all three of them. Like I said, this goes back to whether you just want a guitar to tinker with, or you want something practical that will work in the heat of battle . . . without looking. I would suggest that that be your line of thinking or exploration, and then see where that takes you. One of the advantages of the UUSS is that it only takes a strat blade and a mini-toggle (or S-1 if you prefer [and if you can get your hands on one]). Just two switches and you'll get all the benefits that you listed above, short of the variable resistances thing you mentioned, which I'm still a little unclear on. Does that make sense? Chesh Incidentally, are you talking about using the strat blade as some sort of vol pot, stepping down the volume in quarters for each position? So, iow, it wouldn't be a pickup selector but a switch oriented vol pot? If not, what? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 11, 2006 21:05:22 GMT -5
hi Ashcatlt,
FIRST OFF:
this is your first post on our forum.
so, WELCOME TO GUITARNUTS 2 !
your questions and thoughts seem to be a bit vague as though you are "thinking out loud".
that's OK, lots of us do that here often.
just realize that when you do, your going to get a bunch of different ideas that don't necessarily fit together.
and sometimes replies that say: HUH?
some of the things you might consider are:
there are six different ways the 2 coils of a HB can be connected together.
even if you only use the 3 you've mentioned plus and off position, that points to a 4 position rotary switch for each pickup.
and your idea for a stepped attenuator for the blade is interesting, and if you decide to go that way, we can point you to the math required to figure that out.
i won't make any value judgements about what the best way is to implement your control options. you'll get plenty of opinions on that, to help you decide.
instead of talking about the other questions you raised, i think it more important to point out, there are a multitude of ways to connect those 3 pickups, in series, parallel, 2 series with one in parallel, in or out of phase, etc.
have you considered any of that? and how you will accomplish any of it?
the question you had about selecting which coil on which pickup to use to maintain hum-cancelling or hum-reduction shows that you have given this issue some consideration.
that will be something you will want to incorporate in your design.
but you'll probably want to explore the ways you'll manage the configurations between pickups first.
i think i'll let some of the other guys work with you on your design.
but, i hope my comments will help you define the direction you want to take this thing.
good luck,
unk
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 11, 2006 21:59:49 GMT -5
First, I want to thank you for your quick replies. Second, I'm not really worried about switching mid-song. I will be using this guitar more for recording than anything else. Even when I do play live, though, I never really touch those switches and knobs in the middle of a song. Not something I ever felt comfortable with. 3) I was in fact talking about using the original switch in place of a volume knob. It has nothing to do with selection. I dig what fobits said, but I guess I could replace the shorting 3 position switch with a non-shorting 5, no? 4) I looked at the UUSS and it does a bunch more than I thought I was trying to do with this. I'm looking to keep the individual pickups in parallel with one another. I will hardwire the switches so that the middle pickup position 3 (remember HB, off, normal coil, other coil) will be out of phase while for the other two, it is in phase. This way setting the switches to position 3 on the neck(or bridge) and mid pickups (with the third in position 2 "off") would give both the humbucking and that stratty "out of phase" sound. This would be like the standard strat x+y positions (2 and 4). the other position on each switch allows me to change which of the pickups are in phase with the others. that is it could be in-in-out, in-out-in, or out-in-in. most of the time, these switches will be sitting in position 1, 2 or 3, but I thought it would be neat to have the other option as well. For example, if I wanted to play through the neck+bridge but have them out of phase... anyway, for the switching part I'm pretty sure I can use the picture above. Thanks much, fobits I'll put the HB tie across the first position instead of the 2nd, but... Then I just tie all 6 "out" wires together and send them to the volume switch... We've determined that we will need a real 5 position non-shorting switch as opposed to the one I've already got. Then what? Thank all of you for your time so far and any further assistance you can offer.
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 11, 2006 22:21:03 GMT -5
actually, now that I think about, fobits's thing may not work the way i intend.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the south pole of any given humbucker is set up to be both magnetically and electrically out of phase. This way when they are tied together in series, the audio signals actually end up summing and the hum cancels.
Seems like this will also happen when mixing the output from the north of the neck with the south of the middle. That won't give me that "stratty" sound I was talking about at all. So now what I need is not to switch between north and south on each pickup, but to switch between +north and -north on each pickup(?).
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on May 11, 2006 22:28:23 GMT -5
I looked at the UUSS and it does a bunch more than I thought I was trying to do with this. Well, again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Spell it out explicitly. I've seen a thread run upwards of five pages, argued and debated, on the turn of an ambiguous phrase or use of wording, when in fact both sides were arguing the very same point in different words. The only thing I was doing with the UUSS was have all the combos available from a Strat. Any phase-inverting or coil-splitting was so far a seperate issue. You talked about some phase inverted sounds, some split sounds, and you've selected series out of the equation, leaving only parallel combos. So, exactly what do you want to do with all that? Also, what was the purpose of the voltage divider? I assume to act as a kind of volume pot. What was your thinking on that? Chesh
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 11, 2006 22:50:04 GMT -5
i know i said i was going to leave more room for others on this one.
and i will..............after this.
let me clarify what makes the standard strat, "strattiness".
its the spacing between the pickups.
a stock strat has it's pickups in parallel.
positions 2 and 4 are pairs.
older strats have 3 identical coils and magnetic polarities.
they don't hum-cancel. but they have the same "stratty" sound as modern strats.
modern strats have an opposite magnetic polarity middle pickup.
the signal from the string is IN-PHASE, but the hum is reduced in the same manner as a HB.
the slightly out-of-phase character comes from the pickups receiving the crest of the wave at slightly different times as it travels down the string.
yeah, i just got verbose again, but i hope this helps.
unk
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 11, 2006 23:04:01 GMT -5
That does help, thanks! I did suspect this to be true, but I wasn't sure. That simplifys things greatly, my last post can be ignored
Now the only question I have left is how do I use a five position switch and some static resistors to create a stepped volume adjuster? Why? Because I've got this switch sitting here, so why not put it to use?
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on May 11, 2006 23:04:02 GMT -5
yeah, i just got verbose again, but i hope this helps. You call that "verbose"!?! Please!! After you top five pages, then we'll talk.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 11, 2006 23:44:26 GMT -5
i don't have a complete answer right off-hand.
i can figure out how to do it.
but i'm trying to leave some space for other members to contribute, and hone their skills.
here are the principles:
you need to translate the volume levels into dB.
for instance, half volume = -10 dB
then translate that into a voltage ratio.
it's not the same as the power ratio.
once you determine the voltage ratio,
x = output percentage
y = input percentage (100 percent)
the "bottom" resistor in the divider = "x"
the total (sum) of the "top" plus "bottom" = "y"
you need to do one of these calculations for each "step".
then just scale the values so that you can use standard values, and the total is about 250k~500k.
there is quite a bit of error that will not be audible because the relative volume is logarithmic.
if you have a 2 pole switch, you can use the other side to select different values of capacitors to "treble bleed" so the sound doesn't lose it's edge as series resistance is increased.
once you have determined the resistor values, you could just do it by experimentation.
or JohnH might help you with some suggestions to get you started.
he's used treble bleed in some of his designs.
well, that give you an idea of how the process works.
if you need more help, i'll let the other guys work on this a while before i get back in if you don't mind.
i really do want to be a little less active.
i tend to hog all the fun.
cheers,
unk
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 12, 2006 1:43:35 GMT -5
thanks, i think i found a slightly easier way. I found a stepped attenuator over here. Using the chart on this page I was able to estimate the values I would need to emulate 25, 50, 75, and 100% rotation of the volume knob. If I want to end up near 500k total, I need 15K, 33K, 82K, 330K I somebody wanted to confirm that math it would be cool. Other than that we've got the question left to answer: where's the best place to pick up 3 x (double pole 4 positon rotary switches) + 1 x (double pole 5 positon nonshorting switch that will fit in place of the stock switch) + those 4 resistors?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 12, 2006 4:07:14 GMT -5
ash, Hi, and to the forums. You'll get closer to 500K total resistance if you change the first three resistor values to 22K, 47K, and 100K. BTW, I heartily disagree with these choices overall, but who am I to fly in the face of other websites. My suggestion would be to obtain a 500K pot, and measure the values you find at the desired rotation points. I'm willing to bet shekels to shillelaghs that the results you get will be eye-opening, in view of your choices above. To be complete about this, try to find both a linear pot and a log taper pot, and measure each of them. Report back here with your results, please. One more thing..... May I recommend that you reconsider the ergonomics of putting the 'off' position right next to the '100%' position? I think your hand is gonna try instinctively to go to the lowest volume position in order to kill the sound, just as it's been trained to do with a pot. Unless you are going for the rapid "full on/full off" effect, ala Eddie Van Halen. ;D HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on May 12, 2006 6:15:11 GMT -5
A few thoughts I had:
having access to both single coils of a pickup would give the chance to play with phasing of coils, to get a bright 'honk' kind of sound, and also to find hum canceling combos of single coils. You could have your second coil out of phase on the bridge and middle pups, and on the neck, have both single coil options in phase, which would then allow hum canceling with any combo of single coils on the bridge or with the neck.
The pup switches would be 3 pole 4 way rotary, which is a standard type - one for each pup.
Theres a rather nice one of single at neck and bridge, which Strats don't get without extra switching, and is not hum canceling, whereas yours could be.
For the volume control, I wonder if a slider pot might fit in a Strat 5-way slot. It would be great for volume swell effects, better than a rotary pot. However, your stepped switched volume control would work, but not very well with the standard Strat switch due to positions 2 and 4 not being independent.
My son has one of those Behringers. its quite playable, but not much to lose, so it is a good basis for experiments.
John
|
|
|
Post by jhng on May 12, 2006 9:05:08 GMT -5
your questions and thoughts seem to be a bit vague as though you are "thinking out loud". that's OK, lots of us do that here often. just realize that when you do, your going to get a bunch of different ideas that don't necessarily fit together. The best way! My tuppenny as regards 3HBs and fewer knobs would be as follows: Keep the Strat fiveway wired as normal and keep the volume control (you may well find you miss it once it's gone). For the rest, have: -A two position DPDT toggle that coil-splits the Neck and Middle pickups, so you can go to a Fat Strat HSS configuration. -A three position on-off-on DPDT toggle that (a) adds the Bridge HB when you have Neck or (Neck and Middle) selected (positions 1 and 2 on the fiveway); (b) normal; (c) Coil-splits the Bridge HB AND adds the Bridge (as a single coil) in positions 1 and 2 on the fiveway. This would give: All the different parallel combinations, as well as each individual pickup, both with either HBs or Single Coils. With a moderately simple and logical switching convention. (See, another idea that doesn't fit together!). Hastings
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 12, 2006 10:24:34 GMT -5
hi ashcatlt,
if you just change the 82k to a 120k, that should give you:
0 dB (full volume) -10 dB (half volume) - 20 dB (quarter volume) - 30 dB (eighth volume)
Sumgai's thoughts on measuring pot resistance would be useful.
you might want to run a signal through a pot and listen to how much the sound is reduced at 3 intermediate levels that you like.
then measure the portion of the total resistance you have from output to ground, when the pot is at those three position.
that will get you the exact ratios you need.
but before that, if it were up to me, i'd definitely research John's slider pot idea! if you could find one that would fit.....................oooooooooooooh! tres chic! functionality AND a conversation piece.
unk
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 12, 2006 10:29:48 GMT -5
sumgai - I had considered testing an audio taper pot, but according to that one site, the "log" pots are actually linear approximations. So I guess it depends on if I want a "pure" log or an approximation of a real pot. Since it's all approximate and subjective anyway, I think we've come close enough. I'll probably use your values anyway.
And as far as the ergonomics - as I've said before, I don't really anticipate messing with any of these controls "on the fly" very much. I figure the most used positions on that switch are going to be the 0 and 100% positions, so why not have them right there next to each other. And yeah, while I probably wouldn't have said EVH, I would like to be able to do that rapid on-off thing once in a while.
I guess I could use a 6 position switch and put on "off" at both ends.
For everybody else, thanks much. I think I've got this pretty well figured out. I would like suggestions on where to find the parts. Preferably all at once and not too terribly expensive.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 12, 2006 15:03:01 GMT -5
ash, My friend, if you can locate a source for one of these, your name will go down in history (on the positive side)! But what we really need is a seven-position Strat-style switch. unklmickey is attempting to persuade someone in Germany to make 'em, but so far, the outlook is not too good. Let us know if you find a six-position jobbie, eh? sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on May 12, 2006 15:45:27 GMT -5
Why again is he not using a regular volume pot?
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 12, 2006 16:44:07 GMT -5
guys, pay attention here.
with this many ideas being tossed around, you have to stay sharp, or things slip by you.
EDIT: he wants 6-position rotaries [/EDIT] he wants 4-position rotaries (3 of em, one for each pickup).
since the pot-holes are all occupied with the switches, he wouldn't even have a volume control (doesn't feel he needs one).
but since the pickguard is already cut out for a 5-way, he figured he'd do something with it. (and he only wants parallel combos) hence the stepped attenuator.
yeah it's kinda off-beat.
but hey, he's not trying to sell one to me.
if he likes it, fine.
if he decides it isn't workable enough after he tries it, that's fine too.
i've come up with ideas that seemed strange, but turned out quite well.
unk
|
|
|
Post by fobits on May 12, 2006 16:51:55 GMT -5
Eyeballing the chart at the link ashcatit gave, it looks like this (to one significant figure) 25% = 0.05 of total resistance 50% = 0.1 75% = 0.3 Measuring a new 500k pot from Stewart-McDonald, I get: 25% = 45k = 0.08 of total 50% = 74k = 0.14 75% = 225k = 0.43 100% = 518k So they are in agreement except for the 75% one - but I had to guess where that was, and in that part of the arc the resistance changes rapidly. The Stewart-McDonald Super Switch is loved by many here. It's actually a four-pole 5-way selector, but it's made specifically for guitars and would probably be less expensive that a 2-pole from an electronics company. Besides, you could reuse it as a selector, if you decide that you don't like this scheme. I don't know if Radio Shack still sells resistors or not. Probably not, not enough profit in them. If you live in or near a fairly large city, electronic surplus stores are great. JohnH is the rotary switch guy, perhaps he can suggest a source for those.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 12, 2006 17:43:56 GMT -5
. yeah, that was me, "thinking out loud". here's another piece of the puzzle, to explain why the numbers don't exactly match up, between measuring the resistance on a pot, and doing the math. here two sites that describe the "dual-slope" approximation that is in the so-call logarithmic pots: www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/potsecrets/potscret.htmsound.westhost.com/pots.htmnot that any of this is all that terribly important. but it is kinda nice to know how these things are made. unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 14, 2006 21:28:08 GMT -5
unk, EditRemoved smug comment to unk, he modified the above post, and I've copied that to this reply. /editAsh and I were discussing the placement of the 0% level selection on the stepped attenuator type blade-style switch, not the number of possible pickup combinations depending on his rotary switches. Or did I somehow miss a post where ash changed his criteria? That'd be par for the course for me, the way things are going these days. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 14, 2006 22:30:46 GMT -5
Frank,
Nice piece of investigative work, but I've gotta ask, were you observing the shaft rotation as from the front when mounted for use, and were you measuring from the wiper to the "upper end" of the resistance ladder, or the lower end?
Seems to me that if you were looking at the control from the user side of things, and you were rotating the shaft CW (from full CCW-stop), and you were measuring between the wiper and the high-end of the resistance ladder, then you were giving us figures reflective of a anti-log pot!
The definition of a logarithmic pot, aka an audio taper pot, is such that the resistance measured at the wiper changes the greatest amount between the full CCW-stop position and approximately the mid point of rotational travel. (Obviously there are some tolerances allowed here, so this is an approximation.) Your figures appear to me that they changed mighty little between the lower end and the wiper during the first half of travel, unless you were holding the leads the other way, and/or facing the pot from the rear.
For those of you who've never heard the story before, the reason for all this is that in the golden-oldie days of radio, the game of one-upsmanship was alive and well in the field of marketing. One of the strongest selling points was to show that your radio was more powerful than all the others out there. So, if you had a radio that got loud at, say, 5 on the dial, and another radio that got just as loud at 3 on the dial, which radio would you say is the more powerful of the two? And thus was born the audio taper pot - nothing but a cheat, pure and simple. ;D Turns out in later years that we've devloped some good uses for them, but there's the history.
So, given all this, does it make sense to calculate and contrive values for a stepped attenuator? Nope. Even if you have to go to Radio Shabby, find a working pot, and measure it. Regardless of what the values are, if you're sure you're measuring a pot that would work for you as a volume control, then whatever resistor values that are closest to what you measured will work just as well in your stepped attenuator scenario.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 15, 2006 8:15:54 GMT -5
...Do you wish me to pass the salt now, hmmmm? ;D ... sorry, i can't pass the salt just yet. i need it to help with the crow. i've edited the post. and took a bit of my own advice. unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 15, 2006 8:42:16 GMT -5
...The definition of a logarithmic pot, aka an audio taper pot, is such that the resistance measured at the wiper changes the greatest amount between the full CCW-stop position and approximately the mid point of rotational travel. (Obviously there are some tolerances allowed here, so this is an approximation.) Your figures appear to me that they changed mighty little between the lower end and the wiper during the first half of travel, unless you were holding the leads the other way, and/or facing the pot from the rear..... okay, now i'll pass the salt. audio taper pot have about 12% of the total resistance, between CCW and midpoint. so Franks numbers look pretty good. Ampeg uses linear pots for the volume controls in their amps. (that might be the only thing that i don't like about Ampeg.) i can tell you from first hand experience, those get real loud, real fast on the volume controls. after about 1/3 of the rotation they are at nearly full volume. unk
|
|
|
Post by fobits on May 15, 2006 13:31:51 GMT -5
Thanks, Unk. Sumgai almost had me convinced that I had measured from the center lug to the wrong side... until I remembered the shape of the graph. It starts with a small slope, then gets steep at the end. Ergo, if you set the wiper in the middle, the side with the smaller resistance is the one you want. A quick way to check for those of us who get confused about front and back, left and right.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 16, 2006 5:24:07 GMT -5
unk, Oh?
Frank, just stand pat for a few moments, while The Unkster re-thinks this one. ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 16, 2006 9:02:46 GMT -5
Sumgai,
what part of that do you disagree with?
|
|