|
Post by JohnH on Oct 30, 2018 14:26:38 GMT -5
Looks like your wiring has been decorated for Christmas!
The simplest best most informative tests you could do now are with the multi meter. Set volume and tone to max, strangle to normal mode. Set the meter to a 20k Ohms range (use 200k if it goes off scale) connected between hot and ground at the jack. Then just methodically cycle through each setting of pickups on or off, in series or parallel. That's 16 (out of the possible 81) readings, write down and post them here.
As you do them, just confirm that 'on in phase' and 'on out of phase' never makes any difference to the resistance. Don't worry about the middle setting of series/parallel, we will consider that later.
In one setting, try sweeping the tone pot, it should make no difference. Then sweep the volume pot from max (as readings above) to min. The resistance should rise to around 250k (if you have a 1M pot, use the 2M ohms scale) then fall to zero at min volume.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 29, 2018 15:21:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 29, 2018 13:54:17 GMT -5
Sorry to hear that! but I suggest to just take a breath!
Complex wiring like that almost never works first time. It's usual that some troubleshooting is needed, and we can help. You will need a multimeter, which will be a good $15 investment (for a basic but perfectly adequate one)
We should also review that wiring diagram for the switching since it is not 'GN2 QA stamped'. We have similar designs here though (I did a couple of Brian May series/parallel ones).
Your switches are likely to be fine and not needing to be replaced. They can be checked with that meter.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 26, 2018 18:18:49 GMT -5
newey Okay, but precisely how do need to alter the wiring to the switch (as shown in my Version 5 diagram) to achieve what you are proposing? Thanks Like this....
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 25, 2018 13:42:14 GMT -5
Better throw in the base plate and cover materials, dimensions, string gage etc., plus how hard the strings are plucked ie, Two similar pickups will probably have similar output if installed and played similarly!
All the thinking that you note is highly reasonable, but we just cant quantify it enough to get specific about overall relative output between two fairly similar but somewhat different pickups. But usually its not a huge deal, and a tweak of a gain control somewhere down-stream of the guitar can cover the range.
Id tbink that one of the cases where relative output would be nice to understand better would be in selecting a set of different pickups to go on one guitar. eg. My Strat is HSS, and how I use is greatly affected by the availability of a few extra db's from the bridge. Thats how I like it, but I can also adjust heights and bring them all to tbe same volume.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 25, 2018 5:30:14 GMT -5
Yes thats reasonable and inductance is a fair clue to likley output, better than dc resistance. But its an assumption in the data, rather than a measured conclusion such as the tonal parameters. For example, two similar pickups with different magnet strength could have the same inductance but different output.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 24, 2018 15:18:15 GMT -5
Hi Steve, thanks for your message and welcome to GN2. I see you are an EE, which gives you have a good chance of being able to get the most out of these testing and analysis discussions.
Yes relative output between pickups is an order less defined and more qualitatively assessed in GuitarFreak, as it is in the pickup testing from Antigua and Stratotarts on which it is based. We just dont have a good quantitative way of creating a consistent and meaningful output-level benchmark that can be tested. And it depends greatly on pickup height and magnets, and ths best tones from different pickups come from different heights. We have a much better grasp on the tonal characteristics.
In GF, there's a parameter that sets overall level and I picked values that put the various pickups in reasonable relationship to each other. eg, 0db for very vintage low-wind singles, a db or two more for hotter singles. Strum tests on my own guitars lead me to about +5db for PAFs, more for hotter etc. Dimarzio gives some kind of output level in mV for their range. Mot sure what its based on but I took that into account too.
So from pickup specs available, you get a bit of a guide, at least if you know the general construction of the pickup and the inductance. There's probably a model in the data that is near enough to use to help make choices on wiring etc, which is what GF is for.
If you buy the pickups, maybe one of the guys could run the tests if you shipped them each way. Then you'd get a better handle on tonal features but still output is best-guess. If that happens, Id be happy to process the test to make a model for GF, allowing for damping etc (ie 6 components)
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 24, 2018 14:40:39 GMT -5
Assuming that you want the piezo switch with just the one pickup, then those switching clicks might be solved by a resistor, either directly across the piezo, or directly across the jack output hot to ground. Depends whether it comes from charges building up in the piezo, or noise induced in the cable, or maybe both. These would be high value, maybe around 2M. Might need both.
But theres another simpler thing to try first. Instead of using the switch to disconnect the piezo, use it to short it out, hot to ground, with the piezo hard-wired to the jack. No spurious charges can build up then.
And hows the piezo tone sounding?. I know its just a test rig but are you getting a nice ranges of stringy highs down to full lows?
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 20, 2018 19:55:17 GMT -5
Hello, Thanks for your reply. I'll make those two grounding changes you suggest. JohnH said: "The two piezo volumes will interact and affect each other."What will be the negative effect? I'd like to be able to adjust the volume and mix of the two piezos, you see. What about if instead, I had a single global volume for the piezos, and the secondary piezo has a pot configured as a blend control ? Thanks the issue with the two piezo volumes is similar (but different tonally) to the same in a humbucker guitar, when two pickups are selected. If you have one at full, and turn the other down, it starts to shunt the main pickup, eventually cutting out all signal. Along the way, the reduction of pickup 2 is loading pickup 1, which with piezos (being capacitive) will cut bass. Experiment is key to find what will work for you, I don't know enough to advise further.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 20, 2018 14:49:39 GMT -5
Hi Ro_S
The circuit looks basically fine to me. Just a few comments:
Im not personally a fan of master volume in addition to separate volume and tone for each pu, since it adds loading on your pickups, reducing max treble. But I think a number of archtops have them, and maybe the idea is a mellow sound for jazz etc.
Given its all passive its wise, as you have drawn, not to try to mix outputs of piezo and magnetic.
The two piezo volumes will interact and affect each other. Id reckon one piezo volume might just work better (or maybe none), and experiment with wring the piezos in parallel or in series to see which is better.
Good question about linking the grounds. I not sure but, given that they may go to different amps, there is probably no advantage in grounding them together, and possible risk of ground loops if they are linked. Ground the trapeze to the mag output ground.
I played with those piezos discs on a Strat, and its a totally different scenario to yours. But, the biggest suggestion I have is to try to rig up the piezos experimentally early, before committing to the internal build. eg, can you do a test wire up and then try placing them externally on the guitar to find the best places and check the output volume and tone?
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 18, 2018 15:18:52 GMT -5
Well I reckon Yogi has The Gift' of being able to see circuits. We should bestow an honorary EE degree from the University of GN2.
But, Id also say, as a teacher of students getting (non-electrical) engineering degrees, that most can learn to pass but far fewer really 'get' it. So I reserve maximum respect for those who show that they can actually 'do' it in practice.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 17, 2018 21:23:29 GMT -5
Often there is only a small range of trimpot values that you can find, since they can be adjusted. For this test, how about 100k? Then you can adjust down to 0k to taste. I wouldnt wxpect huge variations as you adjust the trim though, but ir will be interesting to see what you think
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 15, 2018 13:41:00 GMT -5
Just on those series blend ideas with treble bleed. When I posted that, it was intended to represent an arrangement similar to what I have on my LP, where each pickup has its own volume control and each has its own treble bleed circuit , which is helpful since when one or both are rolled down, then the whole signal has to pass through one or both pot resistances. The values are as on any volume control, and I use 150k in parallel with 1nF. In this arrangement the whole pot+pickup is in series with the other pot+pickup and you can control the volume of either independently with its own pot.
But if as on this thread, you are just blending out one coil, and doing it by shunting it fully using just two pot lugs, no TB network is needed nor wanted. I have this on two of my guitars and the blend works very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 12, 2018 18:07:06 GMT -5
Thanks for posting those. I haven't checked them for working, but I really like the first scheme that you already have built. It has a great range of tones with all the basics and the usually favoured extras, and is simple. Plus, it has a simple B tone as a go-to sound that you can quickly get to from anywhere with one switch swipe. IMO, I would not feel compelled to add the further options!
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 12, 2018 14:12:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 10, 2018 15:07:37 GMT -5
I was beginning to come to the same conclusion, John. I think I came up with a nifty idea or two that involve an extra toggle, but they are rather clunky ideas and I wouldn’t want to convolute the flow of the original design. I think my question was more of a case of me perhaps not understanding the concept of partly hanging coils and how one cuts them off. I was looking at the SSM3 diagram to figure out what was meant by this but haven’t spent quite enough time with it yet. Thank you for the response, sir. 'Hanging from hot'On most basic wiring designs, the switching between coils happens on the hot side of the pickups, ie the ends nearest to the output jack tip connection. The ground side is usually permanently connected on all pickups. This all works fine. But another way to switch off a coil is to disconnect its ground, leaving the hot end connected to the output. That does achieve the switching function, but may result in a residual buzz from the wiring if there is an electricaly noisy environment. Try this with a guitar cable plugged in with no guitar. Touch the jack tip and it buzzes, touch the grounded jack barrel and its still quiet. So for this reason we try to work our switching schemes by disconnecting 'off' coils from their hot ends. But sometimes in a complex scheme, we cant avoid having to leave a coil 'hanging from hot'. Actually it's usually not such a big deal with an otherwise well designed scheme. But, if there's a spare switch pole that can be used to avoid the issue, then it's worth using it. But with your scheme, its all moot. reTrEaD has already designed it to avoid such issues, using just 3 poles. So you have a spare pole in the bank....
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 10, 2018 0:04:35 GMT -5
I think the design is fine as it is, no obvious benefit in adding more complexity with ths 4th pole.
Youll need to add the pots to the schematic and then work out a wiring diagram.
Once you have it working, you can consider if there is some change that you might prefer to certain of the 5 switch settings, and maybe that 4th pole could be used then if needed.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 6, 2018 0:23:25 GMT -5
Hi newey Seems like it will be a nice scheme. Some attention to the B and N switches needed I think. The outer lugs on the left sides are joined, so the cap is always connected when the pickup is on.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 5, 2018 16:42:15 GMT -5
But I do have another question. While I was searching through the pots I came across the PTM V-Treb Variable Treble Bleed Circuit. I hadn’t originally realized that the series blender required a treble bleed, and I wonder if this would be a good acquisition in order to adjust the circuit and dial in a better sweep? Treble bleed is for the volume pot, and whether you want it or need it is independent of all the issues discussed here. Its not related to the series blender. The TB reduces the change in tone as you roll off volume (caused by interaction with the capacitance of eth guitar cable). Most guitars don't have them but I like them. That little board looks ok but really all you need is a cap and resistor in parallel from centre to hot outer lug. For a 250k volume pot a 1000pF cap and 120k resistor is a good optimum. Very small and cheap to add, and you can add it later if you want to, or build it in from the start.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 5, 2018 15:05:51 GMT -5
Just to be clearer about pot values and directions:
With the blending arrangements we are discussing on this thread, both the parallel and the series blenders have the main tonal changes between zero resistance and about 50k resistance (actually most in the first 20k or so). I'm saying this based on having tried them, but the theory also supports this.
But at zero resistance, the parallel blender is fully mixed while the series blender has bypassed one pickup and is just at a single pickup tone. So the two systems work in opposite directions with regard to changing resistance.
At say 50k, the series blender has just taken the edge off the blended pickup (M in this case), ie, a say 6k pickup is then being shunted by 50k. Most of the M sound remains (mainly its treble has been depleted a bit).
Again at 50k, the parallel blender is not letting much of the blended pickup through. ie, a pickup which has 50k added to it in line with it is competing with a fully connected pickup.
As blender resistance increases further above this notional 50k, in each case there is just a fairly small mount of added tone change to do. By 250k, the parallel blending is almost totally not blended, and the series blender is audibly completely blended. For the parallel blender, there's almost nothing to change in going above 250k, and this is perfectly fine to be dealt with by the switch=off at no-load, to get complete disconnection. Its better IMO, to use a 250k pot to get the main tone changes 0-50k spread further around the dial, than to go to 500k and compress the useful range and expand a range where nothing much is happening.
The effect whereby both types are most effective at low resistance is why some form of log taper is desired, and to get them both blending I the same direction is why the log taper is best changed to reverse log on one of them.
None of this is about whether or not the scheme works. and it doesn't really affect the extent of the tonal ranges available. ie, 500k is OK, its just that 250k works a bit better!
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 5, 2018 1:01:16 GMT -5
Given its a no-load, i prefered 250k log for the parallel blender when i tried it. Most of tbe action is in the lower values.
250k log is good for series blending. I have this as no-load but theres no difference as it clicks from 250 to open circuit. Reverse log if poss.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 4, 2018 17:30:12 GMT -5
I think the superswitch scheme without extra switches, as proposed by reTrEaD will be very good. Id definately recommend drawing up the wiring yourself, once you get the schematic. Then you will understand and own it, and you can decide how to position each control on your guitar. Are you going to have volume, two blenders plus T and B controls? If you have room, Id say go for it. None of them need detract from the basic tones when not used. I suggest no-load pots for Treble and parallel blender, and a 1M pot for bass.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 3, 2018 16:21:26 GMT -5
Almost, but need to move some brackets. N+B parallel mixing blending happens first, then all that gets added with series blending to M.
S2 up / add series blend / add parallel blend 1. B to B x M to (B + N) × M 2. B to B x M to (B + N) × M 3. B to B x M to (B + N) × M 4. B + N to (B + N) x M [parallel blend has no effect] 5. N to N x M to (N + B) × M
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 3, 2018 15:24:34 GMT -5
I've done way too much doodling of blender schemes since we started GN2! The 'zero-bux' schemes by reTrEaD and Yogiare some of the best, and they do what they do with simple parts and no compromises. SSM3 is also one I'm happy to suggest.
There are other strat-based series and parallel blending schemes on the net, and some of them are compromised in ways such as not fully disconnecting the blending options or adding more load to pickups, in each case reducing a Strats natural primary tone of being able to do pure, clear single tones. Or having quirky knob actions or dead spots, or mega-complicated switches.
With the SSM3, we can add the extra parallel blender as a separate control, and its still all good, you can mix and match series and parallel with it because the series blender, when activated mixes in the M, and the parallel blender mixes B with N. It needs the dpdt that it has though.
In theory, the dpdt could become a 4pdt toggle (not a problem), and move the blender wiring to a position where it can do parallel blending just in standard mode. but, inherently, it will work backwards in one mode. Parallel blending is about mixing pickups with a reducing resistance to bring one in, while series blending is about reducing resistance to cut one out. And parallel needs a no load pot to work properly. So that, plus the observation that I found parallel mixing to be a bit uninteresting, is why I've never gone there myself.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 2, 2018 16:07:46 GMT -5
What's good and not good is mostly a personal opinion. On no-load pots, these blender schemes work with normal or with no-load. I find it important to have no-load on a parallel blender, but not really on a series blender.
You can have both blender pots if you want. Just wire the extra parallel blender between the two hot wires for N and B. But note that with standard audio pots, no-blending will be at 0 on the series blender and 10 on the parallel blender. To make both blend the sams way, the parallel blender should be reverse audio (C type) and use the other outer lug.
I wouldnt bother to make caps changeable.In any case, the cap value makes negligible difference unless uou turn tone right down.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 2, 2018 13:57:25 GMT -5
Hi pineal, welcome to GN2 I reckon your design is possible. But here's one that is almost there. I tried the various blender options, and found that to my ears, the parallel blending was not so interesting along the way, though the final B+N sound is very nice. On the other hand, series blending has several nice places to stop as you turn the knob. So this design uses one extra switch to add the series blender, plus the option of B+N, which can also transition to (B+N) x M guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7117/strat-ssm3-series-parallel-switch
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Oct 1, 2018 16:11:21 GMT -5
I reckon the most useful things to do with a couple of extra pp switches are likley to also be the simpler options.
Given a basic V, T and 3-way, the most useful variation could be to add some one-flick volume and tone changes under the control of the main toggle. So Id suggest a pp switch for bridge and one for neck. The available simple options on each pu are; coil cut, local series/parellel and part bypass. The latter involves switching in a cap or resistor across one coil of a standard Hb. Its edgy like a single-coil with some of the added weight of a full Hb.
On my HH guitars, I like the part-bypass with a 0.047uF cap, on the bridge. On the neck I like a full coil-cut.
This arrangement gives a better single-ish bridge sound than a fully-split humbucker (which is often too thin IMO). It can also mix with the neck better than full parallel bridge (due to impedances).
This overall set-up lets you preset some useful basic variations to select quickly mid-song with the toggle. eg, particularly a changle from full bridge Hb to neck single, which are two of the most useful go-to sounds.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 29, 2018 23:05:00 GMT -5
If youd like to focus on a reduced set, there's a versatile HHH that I thought about but never tried:
With 3 humbuckers, theres 3 north and 3 south coils. There are 6 possible humcancelling, in-phase pairs. I think just limiting the design to 1 or 2 coils at a time is a good move.
You can have all tbose 6 pairs with one standard 4-pole 6-position rotary. Add an on-on-on toggle to give series, parallel or single options based on the two selected coils. 6 combinations each of series, parallel and single sounds using those two switches. I have a diagram for most of that, which I cohld find if interested.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 1, 2018 15:57:58 GMT -5
This is awesome! I have a ton of questions...but I'm still crazy interested Hi willybee24. Thanks for your interest and welcome to GN2. Happy to answer any questions about GuitarFreak. You can post them here on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Aug 31, 2018 22:56:33 GMT -5
Nice possibilities! We know youll make whatever you choose work in clever ways, so, its down to which...
Im slightly biased towards the first one, following a theory that the best sounds have fewer coils involved. eg, one combo not included that I like very much on an HH is a coil each from neck and bridge, in series.
|
|