|
Post by sumgai on Nov 14, 2019 21:41:45 GMT -5
trag,
In fact, this kind of thing is easier to do in digital than analog! It doesn't take a microprocessor, all that's needed are some logic gate arrays that are directly programmable, or erasable and re-programmable (the latter being a bit more expensive, but they allow for custom mods without additional purchases).
As we have a Truth Table in our analog world, the logic gate is really nothing more than a look-up table. It's programmed to look for a condition, and respond with a desired result. In our case, an example would be "if this switch and this switch are both flipped up, then send the signal from the Neck and the Bridge, in parallel, out to the controls", etc. Along with "and" of course, we can set conditions using "or", "if not", etc. These are the exact same conditions we contemplate when we design an analog circuit by hand.
An Arduino (really a tiny but powerful microprocessor) can actually do all that for us, with the added benefit that we can program it in nearly any computer language we might like. Perhaps a bit more investment at first, but the ability to quickly change things around allows one to experiment waaaay beyond what a soldering iron can accomplish in an afternoon.
About the most difficult thing in all this would be to anticipate user errors, and build in a "default state" for when those occur. For instance, perhaps you have a "digital" switch to put one pup in parallel with another, and a second switch to make that same pair combine in series. Flick both "on", and you have a short circuit, OIOW, a dead guitar. Digitally, we'd prevent that with a condition of "If both switches are on, set the signal path to parallel". Essentially, to achieve series, parallel must be off. This is, of course, just an example of how one must think when setting up conditions - anticipate the worst user errors, and program around them so the fool doesn't look like one.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 14, 2019 15:52:29 GMT -5
And yes, before g-f-b can get started, I'll openly admit that I'm already around the bend!
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 14, 2019 15:49:12 GMT -5
bc,
Given that you haven't specified what kind of switch you'd like for the pup selector, I'm gonna take a flyer and refer you to the Mike Richardson Mod. Therein, you'll find that with one SuperSwitch and one 4PDT push-push (ala the Fender S1 switch, but available as a toggle too), you'll get several parallel and series combos. My bet is that you'd find the majority of them useful, if not all of them.
And quoting from your post of 14 monhts ago: ..... I suppose I don't necessarily want every single config, just the useful ones. I don't think I need inter-pickup phasing switches Well, your chart above does have a lot of duplicates. Discounting those dups brings your count down to just over 10, the number of possible combos in Mike's mod. Other folks have modded his mod to introduce a (slightly) different set of combos, so search around. Tell us if any of this works for you, or if you want a specific change to get to some particular combo, we'll try our best to make it happen.
Also, let me remind you of the most recent post in your HHH Super Wiring - Every option? thread, the one where tubejockey recommended that you pare everything down to no more than 10 combos. Like the nice man said, going on stage with much more than that can cause sudden onset of "too many options, what do I choose now?" syndrome! Some folks can get past that, some can't. YMMV. (And that was before you started talking about having 6 possible choices - per pickup! Man, I wish I had your powers of concentration and memory, that kind of decision-making would send me around the bend!!)
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 12, 2019 16:46:44 GMT -5
so by my count I'll be there in about 35 more years Well, the way your "What're you workin' on today?" thread is going, I'd put it more like about 4 months!
Hey, wait a minute... who you calling old here?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 12, 2019 12:35:28 GMT -5
When I was 18, my dad was an idiot. When I was 30, I grudgingly admitted he might have a clue or two. When I hit age 50, he was a flippin' genius. Nice rehash of the old adage As I became older, my father became smarter. Now I understand why people have kids - so they can become smarter as their kids grow older.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 12, 2019 12:24:52 GMT -5
I consider this over and done with but also realise there may be someone who absolutely has to have the last word, so have at it, get it off your chest whoever you are. So be it. Whew, glad that's over with. Currently we have 11 different rankings that we Admins have created. As ordained by ProBoards, these ranks are matriculated by Post Count, and nothing else. I and my cohorts can change the default intervals, but that's it. (The last time we changed those intervals was somewhere around 11 years ago.)
However, we can also create "Groups". Groups can be made to look like a ranking, thanks to the ProBoards software. So we created two special groups to commemorate some now departed members, as a way of thanking them for their contributions. Mentor Emeritus has one member, and you'll see us refer to him more than occasionally, he left that indelible an impression on us. ChrisK passed away in Feb of 2010, and yet we still invoke his name as if he were here today. Mentor has two members, UnklMickey and 4real . We cite them when topics near and dear to them come up, but that's not nearly so often as ChrisK .
I don't advise wishing to attain their status, the only entrance requirement is that one must first pass away.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
24/8 ?
Nov 11, 2019 18:15:26 GMT -5
Post by sumgai on Nov 11, 2019 18:15:26 GMT -5
p.s. I saw the title and said to myself "Cool, a far-out time signature for a crazy beat". Fooled me. Time signatures with odd prime numbers in the numerator seem kinda crazy to me. 24 ... not so much. It's divisible by 2, 3, 4, etc so it would naturally lend itself to switching between some common subdivisions. True, but then again, when we wish to use triplets in the main, we often set the time signature to 12/8 - that lets us do things like dotted eight notes and dotted rests that are more easily counted out. Saying to yourself "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1...". makes it much easier to recall where the beat and any off-beat rests lay, compared to "1, and, uh, 2, and, uh, 3, and, uh, 4, and, uh, 1...".
There are other examples, but this kind of thing occurs more frequently in either Jazz or World Music, to be sure. Dave Brubeck should come to mind about now, but Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson and/or Miles Davis would also serve as examples of popularizing non-standard time signatures.
Disclosure: While I'm not an afficiando by any means, it should strike no one as strange that the Jazz section of my collection is by no means bereft of good stuff. But I'm forced to admit that the greater majority of artists are either sax players or pianists. Jimmy Bryant, Wes Montgomery, Howard Roberts, George Benson, Kenny Burrell, Lee Ritenour, Charlie Christian, John McLaughlin, Grant Green, Robben Ford, Tash Wolf, and even Les Paul - they're all present (if not in complete discographies), but not too many other guitar players.
Did I mention Johnny A. Smith? Extra points if you can name why he is considered to be the artist who launched 10,000 rock bands, directly or otherwise.
sumgai
|
|
|
24/8 ?
Nov 10, 2019 21:57:19 GMT -5
Post by sumgai on Nov 10, 2019 21:57:19 GMT -5
The standard measurement of distance time is a parsec, not a second. In a manner of speaking, that's true. Before that Far, Far Away Galaxy caught up to us, we used to define a parsec thus: A unit of distance used in astronomy, equal to about 3.26 light years (3.086 × 1013 kilometers). One parsec corresponds to the distance at which the mean radius of the earth's orbit subtends an angle of one second of arc. Stepping into my Professor shoes, I'll gently remind one and all that distance is the third member of the triumvirate, namely Frequency, Time and Distance. They are all related - when one changes, so do the others.
Fascinating (to some of us, anyways).
sumgai
|
|
|
24/8 ?
Nov 10, 2019 21:42:36 GMT -5
Post by sumgai on Nov 10, 2019 21:42:36 GMT -5
And at that, newey stopped short of replying that there are more than 86,400 seconds per 24 hours. Astronomically speaking, the Solar year contains 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. This works out to.... 452,926 seconds beyond the commonly accepted 365 days. Distributed amongst each day of the year, that adds about.... 1,244.3 seconds per day, which is something a bit over 20 minutes. Sadly, our time-keeping system can't adjust in those kinds of increments, so we do the leap day/leap year thing. Works well enough for most purposes. The real debate, as opened by newey, is the question of whether we (the future us) will recognize that time has slowed down, compared to the 3rd millenium's standards. Unprovably at this time, cesium-133 may well indeed also "slow down", or suffer decay in natural order along with all else. Entropy and all that, doncha know. Required Disclosure: As newey is a Stoner, I am a Timer. sumgai p.s. I saw the title and said to myself "Cool, a far-out time signature for a crazy beat". Fooled me.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 10, 2019 21:18:24 GMT -5
reTrEaD nails it. In my experience, DC is beneficial for quieting hum, and not much else. After all, heat is heat, and it takes a certain amount of amperage to generate that heat, regardless of it being AC or DC. When you consider the added expense of low-power-value components to make DC available for noise-sensitive pre-amp tubes, the benefit is obvious. Doing the same for power-hungary output tubes doesn't make as much sense, due to the cost of the power-capable parts needed to do the job.
In many cases, the PI (phase inverter) is also a pre-amp tube, so I'd put the DC there as well, even if the hum has been somewhat suppressed by earlier stages. But as usual, YMMV.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 9, 2019 18:06:30 GMT -5
julian, It would seem that in my last epistle, I missed the point.... entirely. You asked about a single coil being hooked up in reverse, and getting a different tone. I went on about two coils, and the vanishingly small audible difference between the two, when played in a live environment. Sigh. Let me try again, attempting to keep on point... In any circuit known to man, novice or engineer, there must be a complete circuit to carry current from one place to another, and back again. If the circuit is broken, there's no "action", so to speak. So let's look at the basic building blocks of a circuit, shall we? First, we have two methods of conducting current around the circuit, and it's important to differentiate between them. In one method, the current always flows in the same direction, which is known as Direct Current, or DC. The other method is where the current reverses the direction of flow, and usually at a steady periodic rate - this is known as Alternating Current, or AC. The important thing to know here is that AC means, by definition, that current flows at a changing rate of time, first from negative to positive, then from positive to negative. This is important, so remember it... please. Now, in order to build a circuit, we need components. To keep things simple, we'll use a guitar pickup as the source of current, and that puts us in the AC realm of methods (frequency is just another word for AC). Next we'll need a resistor to imitate the Vol pot, and an output jack. Those are the basics of what an electric guitar needs in order for us to hear it in operation, all else is just added for beneficial effect(s). So the pickup is generating current because the magnetic field is sensing changes within it, due to string vibrations, right? And that generated current "flows" out to the resistor, and on to the output jack, yes? And the so-called "ground" terminal of that jack is also hooked up to the other end of the pickup, yes? That's a complete circuit. (A drawing should not be necessary at this point.) I'm going to ask you a question here, in several parts.... what would happen if you took anyone of the three components, and hooked them up backwards? Would the output jack being hooked up backwards have any effect on the flow of current? How about the resistor, any change to the current if that's backwards? And finally, let's ask that same question of the pickup, shall we? In short, if a component has only two leads, it's: A) capable of being used in a circuit; and B) incapable of knowing that it's "backwards" or "forwards" in a circuit. Yes, that's an extreme simplification, but if we don't start with the basics and get them down correctly, then we'll be in trouble all the way down the line... until someone kindly takes us aside and gives us the straight skinny. What I'm saying here is that yes, when many other factors are considered, and all of them outside of the scope of the pickup itself, then we might perceive a difference in how the pup works in forwards or backwards fashion. But at the heart of the debate is this factoid: in order to make the difference audible, we needed to add a whopping big bunch of outside stuff, stuff which was not part of the basic circuit. And by that I'm now speaking of acoustic properties of both the guitar (plus the amp/speaker) and the room. Feedback can also play a part, but that gets particularly hoary, so we can save that for later. tl;dr: In all of this discussion, the fact remains that regardless of which way a pickup is hooked up, it doesn't change the function, nor the human perception of that function - only outside factors can do that. The question for you is actually this: "Can I control those outside factors, and if so, can I take advantage of such?" Because trust me on this, capacitance has no business being brought into the discussion, it's a total non-starter. Ditto for inductance and resistance, they don't play a part either. The guitar itself? Nope. Not unless it can interact forcefully with the room's acoustic properties to cause feedback - that'll surely demand that something be done to reduce/eliminate it any such - throwing a "phase" switch might do that very thing, but it's not a guarantee, only a chance. Up until now, I've been as nice as I can be, given the environment. But at this point I need to go one step further, which takes me closer to the realm of being a Dick. Like newey said above, you need to stop confirming your own biases. Instead you need to either conduct your own research, or find and point out to us the findings of preferably credible other researchers. To that end, only a double-blind test will suffice. newey's conditions above were simple, and the bit about picking was over-thought out. a) A sample size of participants/listeners must contain at least 25 persons who are not musicians in any way, and at least 25 musicians of any stripe (no matter what instrument they play). This latter group will be more attuned to subtle differences in tonality; b) The sample testing rate must be over the course of several days, giving each participant between 2 and 5 test routines; c) To avoid any picking differences, we should embrace such, and use no less than 5 different guitarists, along with 5 different guitars (these are minimums, the number can increase in the same ratio to listeners). Of course, they will not know how the pickup is wired, they will be instructed to merely "flick the switch", and confirm to the test proctor that it is indeed either up or down;
d) At least one guitar will have an ineffective switch to act as a control, and two of the remaining four will be wired as "up is backwards". Only the test coordinator will know which guitar is wired in which manner. As before, this is founded on the number of players;
e) At least 10 test proctors are necessary, and they will never know which guitar is wired in which manner; f) The test coordinator will write scripts to be used by the proctors that will incorporate, at a minimum, a series of single note string-strikes, played at the players' choice of speed, covering all six strings, and at the open, 3rd and 7th frets. Additionally, the script will also call for a single-note melody line to be played, either in some cases to be determined by the player, or to be taken from a phrase out of one or more known hit songs. Said songs can be recent or historical, at the coordinator's discretion;
g) At no time will any effects be applied to the sounding note, said notes must be as clean as possible in order to not disguise or cover any subtleties;
h) The test coordinator will be on hand at all times to ensure that the test proctors are giving explicit instructions (from the script) to each player. During any repeat testing, no proctor should be paired again with the same player and the same listeners;
i) As time is not to be wasted wantonly, testing at multiple sites and at the same time is encouraged. However, each site should have subsantially the same acoustic properties, i.e. the amount of the room's echo, etc.;
j) Other instructions/requirements may follow, as I think of them.
It is a known fact in the world of research that this is the only acceptable method of separating fact from fiction, aka confirmation bias. I hope it helps put things in perspective for you.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 9, 2019 11:53:33 GMT -5
julian,
It is sad when the world of scientists and engineers must engage with those who are curious, but are not steeped in the pool of knowledge regarding any given non-trivel subject matter. I've learned this, both within and outside of my craft over the course of 70 years of life, the last 55 of them as a budding engineer, and then a fully degreed Electrical Engineer. As a young hot-head, I would've told you to bugger off, you are ignorant, and left with a smug look on my face. Now...
Now I don't do those kinds of things anymore, I just sit back and smile politely, and let you figure it out on your own. But, and this is the good part, I do have an explanation for why you think you're hearing different tones from each coil. In fact, I've got two of them, both of them both plausible and provable.
First, the standard explanation is that the two coils are set at different points along the string(s). For that reason alone it would seem that the two separate coils, focusing their respective magnetic fields at different nodal points, would sound different. That's true, and provable. But the difference in viewpoints running through this thread has been, and will continue to be, that the audible difference to a listener is too slight to be worth the trouble.
Notice that when we have two (or more) Humbuckers in a circuit, then it makes sense to cut one coil or the other, when used in combinations between two widely separate mountings. But even there, Neck or Bridge, we don't espouse cutting to a single coil for just one pup by itself. There may be a slight difference in tone when doing so, but again, as soon as there are other sounds in the room, any such detectable difference is indiscernable, no matter how hard one might try to hear it. At volume levels above an unamplified acoustic guitar, no golden ears have yet shown up to prove my statement wrong.
That's Explanation One, now here's Two:
In many, like about 99%, if not most pups, the two coils simply are not wound exactly the same - one is gonna be "hotter" or "smoother" than the other, or some other descriptor. It would take a very, very large investment in equipment to come close to making every coil the exact same as the previous one to come off the line. (Hand wound? Good luck with that one.) Big companies get close, but at the end of the day, they know just one thing: they can ship what works for the vast majority of players. To make sales (and profits), they don't have to be perfect, just good enough.
Which means, some pickups are going to be very noticibly different when comparing coils, one to the other. But the fraction of such pups found on the market are remarkably few, the expectable level of quality control is that good. In fact, companies have gone out of their way to call out the fact that they are intentionally using different coils inside of some of their models. They have their reasons for doing so, why is not a matter under discussion at this time.
tl;dr:
It can happen that a pickup has two entirely different coils under its sheild, and would produce, provably, different tonal results. Also, placing a pup under a string, with differently focused magnetic fields might produce different results. But the test there would be to simply reverse the pup in its mounting, and see what happens. That's to eliminate the differing coils aspect of things, you understand.
One final thought: Perfect Is The Enemy Of Good Enough. That applies to just about everything in life, not just pickups and/or guitars. You're welcome. HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 8, 2019 21:01:55 GMT -5
No matter how many poles might be used, this illustrates the basic problem:
Even if you use "extra" poles to shunt around the Vol pot such that it then runs at WOT, then the usefulness of the control is null and void. IOW, if you can't control the volume whilst controlling the Black Box functionality, then how are you gonna keep the decibels down below the ear-bleed level? Reach back to the amp every time you pull up on the knob?
I trust we'll be putting this one down soon, eh?
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 8, 2019 12:52:48 GMT -5
Acoustically (not the original intent of the question), yes, reversing the phase of the pickup could have a noticible (and perhaps positive) effect, i.e. reducing feedback. Electrically, someone's been drinking the Flavor-Aid again.....
My suggestion would be to not bother the nice folks at Stew-mac, they have enough to do as it is. And for Pete's sake, you won't find an Electrical Engineer on their staff anyways, so this might be the right time for the obligatory xckd cartoon:
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 8, 2019 12:29:12 GMT -5
reTrEaD,
It looks to me as if the North coil will still be hanging when the South only is selected. Both ends of North are going to the output (labeled as To Controls) when South only is selected. BTW, I like the way you depict the two switch positions.
ky,
So which one should I use? Either one, they both work as intended. What you're seeing here is proof that for most wiring setups there are at least two ways to do it, and probably more.
My drawing may look simpler, but a closer inspection will show that reTrEaD uses only one more terminal than mine, and that does the job of connecting North Start to the Output only when needed. Crafty, I hadn't thought of that.
Your call (or your tech's call, if he has an opinion).
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 8, 2019 1:35:17 GMT -5
frets, I’m wiring a volume push pull to be a volume on the down and a Midrange control (Rothstein) when pulled up. ..... Can what I’m doing be done? It can be done, but only if you like doing projects that end in tears. Simply stated, you can't disengage the Volume control with a switch, and have those same wires do something else - what happens to the signal that's expecting to go through the Vol pot, and on to the output jack? In short, you're proposing to have either control of the signal's Volume, or control of the signal's tonality, but not both together. Seems like a strange way to control one's guitar, IMHO. Rothstein uses the p/p on a Tone control, switching between standard treble-cut and mid-scoop - that's doable, and possibly desirable, but the Vol pot is never compromised. I believe you'll want to revisit this idea, before you harm the environment any further with more burnt solder vapors.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 8, 2019 0:53:18 GMT -5
newey, I said that "Unk concocted the basics", not "Unk designed this particular method". Besides, it was in Unk's thread that the whole discussion took place (wherein he went through some contorted gyrations, for sure). Forgive me for mixing them up, but then again, every image in both threads is pretty much unreadable, so I took a flyer of a guess, and your institutional memory says I lost.
julian, I put this question up somewhere else a d all I got was some fellow telling me he thought 3 phase switches was too much, one wound be enough, referred me to this site and said most here would probably agree with him. Yeah, sounds about par for the course. Not that I'm tooting the NutzHorn, but there are lot of "visitors" here that don't register, but they're reading/soaking up our material, to be sure. And we do agree with referrer, phase switching is needed only on X-1 number of pickups. For whatever reason, Brian May chose to have all three pups switchable (for OoP), perhaps it was to keep thing symmetrical, I dunno. Nope, ain't gonna happen. What we call "reverse phase" is a method of referring to the polarity of two signals compared to each other. Seemingly obviously, one single-coil pickup can't generate two dissimilar signals at the same time, hence....
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 7, 2019 19:28:35 GMT -5
kyolic,
If there's still time before your tech heats up his soldering iron, let me point out that I've updated the diagram, above. It's nearly the same, except that I was able to eliminate the so-called "hanging hot" issue. Ask us, if that's not something you're familiar with.'
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 7, 2019 18:44:08 GMT -5
Thanks, John!! But it really was Unk that did the yeoman's work, I just dressed it up a bit. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 7, 2019 2:48:24 GMT -5
trag, You might want to double-check that output transformer.... my gut feeling is that nearly all Intercom systems of those days (and indeed, most PA systems as well) used 25 or 70 volt output systems, not so many watts of power. This was because of the fact that when you have scads of speakers hooked up, your impedance is liable to be all over the map.... meaning, if a teacher in a room has turned off the speaker, then the load presented to the amp will not be the same as usual. And if several teachers do the same thing.... In a voltage driven setup (often called "line powered speakers"), the impedance is of almost Zero importance - we're not dependent on gobs of current, but instead we're dependent on voltage. You'll recall from Ohm's Law that voltage at very low amperage requires little resistance in order to work. Thus, varying load conditions don't affect the amp (specifically, the OT and tubes) nearly so much as would happen were a current amplifier stage to be used in these situations. Without a specific model number, I had zero results trying to find a schematic. Hopefully you can do better. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 7, 2019 2:15:58 GMT -5
julian,
Hi, and to The NutzHouse!
Long departed member Unklmickey concocted the basics for this setup, about 10 years ago. I've merely adapted it to your desires.
In this drawing, you'll find that a common switch (on-on-on) is used to both turn on or off the pup, and to reverse its phase. As noted by newey above, we actually short a pickup to turn it off, in order that continuity is maintained for the remaining pups. That means that you have (Bonus!) an All-Off position.... good for shutting everything off during breaks from jamming, etc.
This arrangement works because of the internal connections found in this particular switch. On my diagram, they are shown in red - you (the user) don't do anything else, those connections are already built in. If you trace out the signal path, you'll find a complete series signal chain from ground to Output, no matter which switch is thrown to whatever position. The switch is available from various sources, so do some comparison shopping, but here's one source that's got a pretty good reputation: guitarelectronics.com/double-pole-on-on-on-bat-handle-mini-switch-chrome/
Any questions?
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 7, 2019 0:14:34 GMT -5
ky, You're welcome! And don't forget to post a sound clip when the rig is all finished. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 5, 2019 21:42:40 GMT -5
(EDIT: Updated the diagram with switch labels, and resolved the Hanging Hot issue.)
newey,
Oops (couldn't help it!), I did miss the boat on that one. Apologies to all.
ky, That's three of us who have gently advised you that splitting for the two different coils in a single pickup is not really worthwhile, tone-wise.
However, since you've asked, try this on for size:
Here's the Truth Table:
Both Down = Parallel Both Up = Series S1 down, S2 up = North on, South off S1 up, S2 down = North off, South on
This is an adaptation of something I did a long, long time ago, originally for two Hb pups. Sadly, very much so, the diagrams I had posted back then are now null and void, no thanks to Photofuggedit. We're working on getting things back in order, but one of our Staff members is on holidays, so it may be awhile before the project is completed.
Note to other modders: This can be easily adapted to other layouts, including two full humbuckers, two single-coils, etc.
Further note: newey will gladly remind you (one and all) that this is nothing more than a dude'd up Binary Switching scheme... and he'd be correct.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 5, 2019 13:25:21 GMT -5
ky, Using your current parts, if you want to have both coils available independently in single-coil mode, you will need to use both p/p switches. Accordingly, you must either give up the OoP option, or install a third switch somewhere. Optionally, you could install a more complicated switch (such as a Fender 2P4T switch like those found on the Baja Telecaster) that will give you all four options in one switch (Coil 1, Series, Parallel, Coil 2). Well, all but the OoP function. If you want OoP on just one pair-combo, then a so-called "half Superswitch" 5-way switch will work to give you that option, for either Series or Parallel, but not both. To have both options (SOoP and POoP), you will still need a second switch, such as a p/p or mini-toggle. Now, if you are asking for my opinion, I'd have to tell you that the two coils, when selected individually, won't sound very different. Maybe slightly different when all else is quiet, but when you're jamming with other players at volume levels louder than a whisper, then any difference won't be audible. IMHO, of course. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 4, 2019 12:46:01 GMT -5
kyolic,
Hi, and to The NutzHouse!
You can tell your guitar tech to go ahead, newey's done a bang-up job.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 3, 2019 21:39:00 GMT -5
..... And the price of using it, as with all designs on GN2, is some feedback in due course, on how it goes and what you think of it! Err, that's not quite all of the price. We also need to have audio clips posted (or even full video clips) in order that we can hear the final results. Other potential modders often find such clips useful.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Nov 2, 2019 15:27:46 GMT -5
For those who might wish to know....
In actuality, the often mis-credited as a Gibson design, 3-way toggle switch is properly designated as an Off-On-Off switch. This is because when the actuator is moved to one side, that side's contacts are opened, thus disrupting current flow. What we do as guitarists is nothing more than harness that operation in reverse. IOW, at various times we want to ensure that the current flow (signal) for only one of the two switch halves continues unabated.
The short history of this design is exactly like Leo's Esquire switch, ca. 1950 - it was war surplus. As in, there were scads of thousands available, seemingly on every street corner (like 7-11 stores, a couple of decades later). Designed and made by Switchcraft, they were used in all kinds of electrical stuff, and were actually adapted to military use by various radio companies at the outbreak of WWII. That means that Switchcraft meant to continue production well after the war, and indeed, they are available today, albeit from a number of manufacturers, the patent being long expired.
Representing this switch on a schematic has always been problematic. The most commonly accepted way was probably that purloined by Gibson from many war-time drawings. Let me illustrate:
While this is the complete schematic for a Les Paul, Gibson used this method of drawing the 3-way toggle in nearly all of their drawings, and indeed, they still use it today. It "goes against the grain" to display the actuating mechanism on a schematic, but it seems to be the only way to describe the two halves of the switch, and how they are intended to operate in order to achieve the desired effect. (Indeed, this isn't the only component to "disobey the rules" of schematic drawings.)
BTW, for those who might wish to use the original pot value of 300KOhms with an audio taper, look closely above - the Gibson part number is shown under the handwritten "NOTE", and it's still valid! HTH
One more thing.... angeIsbunny has done a bang-up job of redrawing John's crib notes. Albeit there are differences in how to represent some things, like switch position connections, nonetheless ange's diagram is easy to follow. Insofar as I can see, both of these two diagrams are correct, per the Truth Table. Good job, Nutz!
But John, I do have one minor nit to pick with you. In your Truth Table, you describe the S/P switch as in/out. That makes me wonder, is "in" meant to be Series, or is it supposed to be Parallel? Better would've been to have that column denote the two possible conditions as "s" or "p", or so I believe. That way, a modder could hook up the p/p in the manner they wish. (One person might find it easier to have "down" mean Parallel, and another modder might wish for the opposite wiring. To each their own.)
sumgai
(Schematic "borrowed" from guitarelectronics.com. Any errors are theirs, not mine.)
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 29, 2019 11:18:13 GMT -5
I'd be highly surprised if I was the only one here who understood the reference (abbreviation).
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 28, 2019 0:41:45 GMT -5
newey,
Gonna have to give that one a pass, amigo. While it seems like putting the phase switch after the Vol pot should be do-able (it sure looks like a simple transposition), the problem arises in that when you engage OoP, you are now attempting to control the volume via what is now the negative lead going to ground. As ashcatlt would like to remind you, you have just created a rheostat, and no longer have a potentiometer in the circuit. Look again: the permanently grounded third terminal is effectively useless in OoP mode because the wiper is already at ground potential. The wiper is making no significant change to the volume level until a certain point, and then.... whammo! Almost like an on-off switch.
To make a ChrisK-ism of it, your voltage divider isn't. Or he might've said "We Engineers call that bad ju-ju. "
If you simply swap the two components, all will be well in newey-ville.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 25, 2019 17:29:30 GMT -5
I always did think you look better with a hood over your head!
|
|