LP 50s / Modern Switch, Changing Cap Values too

[stateofepicicity]

I've been lurking for a while, though this is my first post. Thank you to all who run and contribute to this forum; it's such an incredible resource.

I play a dual humbucker superstrat that I wire like a Les Paul, using two dual concentric pots. I've also incorporated four mini-switches, using asmith's fantastic method for getting Series / Parallel / North Split / South Split. I use a .015 µF cap on the neck tone, and a .010 µF on the bridge. I've also put a .047 µF cap in series at the output of the neck to block some lows, and I have not perceived any phase issues when switching to the middle position of my 3-way blade. I use modern LP wiring on the bridge, to get it fatter, and 50s wiring on the neck to maintain the brightness as naturally as possible. I've just never cottoned to treble bleeds, so I found that, for me, 50s LP wiring just worked better.

I was wondering about installing another switch for the bridge, to be able to go between modern LP and 50s LP wiring, but in my experiments, I knew I'd not use the same cap values for each style, so I wondered about a scheme to allow one to switch a single pickup in Les Paul style wiring, to go between 50s and modern wiring, but also to be able to switch cap values at the same time. I tried for a while working things out with a 2PDT mini-switch, but no matter what, I just couldn't get it to work on paper. Then I thought, maybe I just need another pole! So I worked out the idea finally with a 2 way 3PDT, and it came together in a few minutes haha. The paradoxical thing about having tried to work this out for a while: after experimenting with a quick and dirty 50s hookup on the bridge, I finally decided preferred running it in parallel with Modern LP wiring anyway. I had been doing all this in order to get really low gain tones that were very usable on the bridge, to squeeze more versatility out of the guitar.  Even though I didn't end up using it, maybe someone would find this a timesaver reference in the future.

I worked this out on paper, which was so inefficient. I had completely forgotten I had DIY Layout creator installed on my PC; it's freeware. So I transferred my diagram to that program. Here's the original DIY Layout Creator file, in case anyone wanted to add this snippet to their own master scheme.

I do wonder if this was in fact possible with a 2PDT, or if anyone sees a more efficient way to lay this out, please do let me know. I've never worked out a diagram before, so I was struggling at first to get this right.

[Yogi B]

Aug 15, 2022 21:08:07 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

I do wonder if this was in fact possible with a 2PDT, or if anyone sees a more efficient way to lay this out, please do let me know.

Swapping between '50s & modern wiring there's really only one thing that you're changing: whether the tone control is 'fed' from before the volume control (lug 3) or after (lug 2). If we permanently connect one lead of each appropriate cap to each of these two places, then we can use only a SPDT to swap the tone pot between the remaining leads of the caps — like so:

I've also put a .047 µF cap in series at the output of the neck to block some lows

That seems on the large side. Selecting the neck alone and assuming the cap is placed between the pickup the volume & tone controls (set to maximum) and you're plugging into something with an input impedance of 1Meg, then the cutoff frequency of the resulting highpass filter is 17Hz — so you're only blocking frequencies already below the range of human hearing. (Placing it after the controls would mean an even lower frequency.)

Additionally, also assuming pre-controls placement, it makes this highpass filter dependent upon the tone control (kinda like how '50s wiring makes the volume & tone controls interactive) such that lowering the tone control not only cuts treble, but also raises the cutoff frequency of the highpass filter, thereby also cutting bass to some extent.

... and I have not perceived any phase issues when switching to the middle position of my 3-way blade.

You're quite unlikely to be able to perceive the kind of phase difference this causes. When both pickups are selected the cutoff frequency raises (from the perspective of the neck pickup, the bridge pickup looks like a relatively low impedance going to ground) — this'll vary depending upon the specs of your pickups, but I'll take a stab in the dark at 200Hz. Below this frequency the cap causes an (additional) phase difference of no more than 90°, and above that frequency that'll decrease fairly sharply, returning to normal. But that's not all: below the cutoff frequency the volume of the neck pickup is reduced (as expected), however the cap also causes an opposing effect on the bridge pickup causing its bass contribution to rise. The difference in amplitude makes the phase change essentially irrelevant — at lower frequencies you'll be hearing mostly just the bridge pickup with only very little contribution from the neck.

I use modern LP wiring on the bridge, to get it fatter, and 50s wiring on the neck to maintain the brightness as naturally as possible. I've just never cottoned to treble bleeds, so I found that, for me, 50s LP wiring just worked better.

My usual treble bleed recommendation for those who like '50s wiring, is to go much smaller than what's typically recommended, i.e. a single cap around 100pF in value. There also is another option, but would require pulling your pots apart, which usually is enough to ward most people off and they're not dealing with concentrics.

[stateofepicicity]

Hey there Yogi B, Thanks so much for detailed response!

Swapping between '50s & modern wiring there's really only one thing that you're changing: whether the tone control is 'fed' from before the volume control (lug 3) or after (lug 2). If we permanently connect one lead of each appropriate cap to each of these two places, then we can use only a SPDT to swap the tone pot between the remaining leads of the caps

I so appreciate the simplified diagram; it points out a really interesting point: my messing with different lugs on the tone pot is unnecessary. I was going by Lindy Fralin's diagrams, in which lug 1 is connected to the cap in 50s wiring and lug 2 is connected to the cap in modern, and I made an butt of myself and umption thinking the lugs used for those configurations were essential. I totally didn't realize you could just connect to lug 2 regardless and still maintain that same behavior. Thanks very much for that. Does choosing to use lug 1 or 2 to connect the cap to the tone pot matter arbitrary in that case? I.e., would your diagram function the same with lug 2 grounded and lug 1 connected to the cap?

That seems on the large side. Selecting the neck alone and assuming the cap is placed between the pickup the volume & tone controls (set to maximum) and you're plugging into something with an input impedance of 1Meg, then the cutoff frequency of the resulting highpass filter is 17Hz — so you're only blocking frequencies already below the range of human hearing. (Placing it after the controls would mean an even lower frequency.)



Additionally, also assuming pre-controls placement, it makes this highpass filter dependent upon the tone control (kinda like how '50s wiring makes the volume & tone controls interactive) such that lowering the tone control not only cuts treble, but also raises the cutoff frequency of the highpass filter, thereby also cutting bass to some extent.

I got that value from a consensus from different forum threads, I think mostly from The Gear Page, if memory serves.  Funny you should point this out about the very low cutoff frequency, I used an online calculator and came up with 7Hz, or something like that, and I was utterly convinced I was doing something wrong.  So that leaves me questioning my perception.  Did I just create better tones after that mod?  haha I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.  Classic bias.  I connected the cap from the end of the mini switch matrix output to the input of the 3-way pickup selector.  Recently I've discovered, since this was my hamfisted way of approximating a single coil, and testing with EQ placed before the amp input, that what I may want to investigate instead for what I'd like is really just a passive mid cut.  Even then, it may be better if I just went for two onboard eqs, one as a mid cut / treble & bass boost for the neck, and a mid boost for the bridge.  I've already raised the pole pieces of my neck (lowering the whole pickup) and lowered the poles of the bridge (and raising the whole pickup) to approximate this effect in a much milder way.  I think the overall balance I'm looking for may just be a ton easier to achieve with active eqs, but I may passive circuits first. 

My usual treble bleed recommendation for those who like '50s wiring, is to go much smaller than what's typically recommended, i.e. a single cap around 100pF in value. There also is another option, but would require pulling your pots apart, which usually is enough to ward most people off and they're not dealing with concentrics.

The most recent one I used was GuitarElectronics.com's V-Treb.  I wired it first with extended leads so I could dial in the desired response while playing and then install properly.  But after much experimentation I still found it not natural sounding to me.  But you're saying Modern wiring with a 100pF might be a good alternative, and that sounds like good advice.  Much appreciated!

[stateofepicicity]

Yogi B Also, what software did you use to create your diagram?

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 16, 2022 1:47:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Swapping between '50s & modern wiring there's really only one thing that you're changing: whether the tone control is 'fed' from before the volume control (lug 3) or after (lug 2). If we permanently connect one lead of each appropriate cap to each of these two places, then we can use only a SPDT to swap the tone pot between the remaining leads of the caps

This prompted me to learn about the reasons for Gibson’s choices. I can see how treatment of the tone pot is more flexible than I assumed simply from looking at the way it is commonly done, and one ought not necessarily recreate a diagram via switches just as it was; there are more considerations. If I were to implement your diagram, I might even try it grounding lug 2 of the tone pot and connecting the cap to lug 1, essentially to switch between 60s and 50s. As Dirk Wacker writes here, this ought eliminate an unnecessary source of noise in the unused lug. It’s so helpful to understand this flexibility, as it will simplify any other diagram I make. You altered my perspective. Thanks so much!

[newey]

Ah, yes, the "legendary" Mr. Wacker. He's "legendary" around here for the frequency with which he uses sloppy language or is simply dead wrong. A quick search of this forum for Mr. Wacker should bring up the number of times his articles have been found wanting.

As just one example from the link you provided, stateofepicicity:

In a standard electric guitar, the potentiometers are used as variable resistors. We use two of the three lugs on each pot,

A simple look at his own diagrams of a volume control will illustrate the falsity of this statement. Now, one can say he just means tone controls, but at the very least it's sloppily worded.

The idea that, in a passive guitar (as opposed to his example of old tube radios, amps etc) the usued third lug of a tone pot has any effect on the signal-to-noise ratio ? . . . I won't say ludicrous but I will say "highly questionable and suspect".

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 18, 2022 12:56:39 GMT -5 newey said:

Ah, yes, the "legendary" Mr. Wacker. He's "legendary" around here for the frequency with which he uses sloppy language or is simply dead wrong. A quick search of this forum for Mr. Wacker should bring up the number of times his articles have been found wanting.

That’s good to know; I have no electronics background, so I’ve gleaned just enough to get by; in fact, the detailed threads I’ve read on this forum made me hesitant to post here at all, since I can’t contribute much meaningfully, and there’s so much to know even in passive electronics. Thanks for the warning about his assertions; I can always learn more to counter bad theory.

[Yogi B]

Aug 16, 2022 15:30:35 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

I totally didn't realize you could just connect to lug 2 regardless and still maintain that same behavior. Thanks very much for that. Does choosing to use lug 1 or 2 to connect the cap to the tone pot matter arbitrary in that case? I.e., would your diagram function the same with lug 2 grounded and lug 1 connected to the cap?

Yep, since the third lug is unused the pot is only being used a variable resistor, so is functionally identical connected either way around.

Aug 18, 2022 12:56:39 GMT -5 newey said:

The idea that, in a passive guitar (as opposed to his example of old tube radios, amps etc) the unsued third lug of a tone pot has any effect on the signal-to-noise ratio ? . . . I won't say ludicrous but I will say "highly questionable and suspect".

I was going to note that I've seen this argued in a few places (though I didn't recall DW being associated with those maybe it's where the actual writers got the idea). Theoretically, I can see why it would be preferable: any noise potentially picked up by lug 3 would have a separate path to ground, rather than sharing a path used by the signal. However, with the terminal of a pot being such a small part of the overall wiring, I imagine noise specifically due to that would be negligible (especially if residing within a shielded cavity) but haven't seen proof that this either is or is not an issue. Overall, whilst I can't say grounding the middle lug is better, it certainly isn't worse.

I connected the cap from the end of the mini switch matrix output to the input of the 3-way pickup selector.

There's another disadvantage to placement after the controls that I didn't think about previously and that's when both pickups are selected the neck volume would also simultaneously act as a bridge tone control.

Funny you should point this out about the very low cutoff frequency, I used an online calculator and came up with 7Hz, or something like that, and I was utterly convinced I was doing something wrong. So that leaves me questioning my perception. Did I just create better tones after that mod? haha I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Classic bias.

The effect of a series component is highly interactive with changes to the 'parallel' components that proceed it (closer to the guitar's output / amp input), thus the standard ordering (as per G&L's PTB circuit) is to have tone control, bass cut, then volume control. This eliminates the interactivity between bass cut & treble cut. Plus, with the volume control being last means that the bass cut isn't totally dependent upon input impedance of the next thing in your signal chain, however it doesn't completely solve it. Therefore, if you're using vintage (roughly I'm talking pre '80s or modern vintage-correct recreations) pedals there's a good chance they have pretty low input impedance, meaning the cap could be doing more than nothing, likely not much, but still something.

Recently I've discovered ... that what I may want to investigate instead for what I'd like is really just a passive mid cut.

For that the only real option involves the use of an inductor, but those with large enough inductance to be useful for this purpose are fairly niche. Most commonly therefore, audio transformers are repurposed for this use. Almost all of frets's harnesses seem to include some variation of mid-cut and therefore is probably the person to ask.

Even then, it may be better if I just went for two onboard eqs, one as a mid cut / treble & bass boost for the neck, and a mid boost for the bridge.
...
I think the overall balance I'm looking for may just be a ton easier to achieve with active eqs

Going active also likely makes the choice of '50s versus modern wiring moot, the treble loss at reduced volumes is due to the interaction between the volume pot and the capacitance of the cable — with some kind of active system it's likely that you'll have a buffer between the two.

The most recent [treble bleed] I used was GuitarElectronics.com's V-Treb.

The information about exactly what circuit this uses seems to be a well kept secret. Last time someone brought these up I assumed the trimmer was in parallel with the (unknown) cap, but reevaluating I now think that it must be in series (or possibly some peculiar hybrid). If it is series (or mostly series), that would very well explain why it sounded unnatural — series treble-bleeds by there very nature have quite a different frequency response to the signal at max volume.

But you're saying Modern wiring with a 100pF might be a good alternative, and that sounds like good advice.  Much appreciated!

If you want a treble bleed that approximates the treble response of the volume control with the tone on max under '50s wiring then it's the direction to go in. 100pF may not be the exact perfect value, but is in the ballpark.

[sumgai]

sop,


First, to The NutzHouse!

Second, no one here was born knowing all this stuff, we each had to learn it at some point in our lives. You're just standing on the first brick of that particular road, and from where you're are standing, each brick looks foreboding, I'll grant you that. But take heart, we're here to tell you that as you progress along from one brick to another, they actually get easier to understand, and to start using to meet your design goals. Trust me on this, if you please.

Third, I wasn't gonna say anything, but now that the floodgates have been opened by newey, I have to say that D.W. is not who I'd point to as a shining example of competency and/or proficiency in teaching others about electronics. In fact, I had to stop subscribing to Premier Guitar solely because he is wrong so much more often that he's correct. Speaking as long-careered Electrical Engineer, I couldn't stand it, and had to get out of that particular kitchen.

There are indeed several sites comparable to ours in erudition, ones that I would find it extremely difficult to find fault with. But I like to think that we're one of the few sites who will take the as much time as needed to get a newbie's questions fully answered, and hopefully to start them on the way toward enjoying their mods/repairs/wild schemes by learning more than just "copy this exactly".  We're big on that kind of thing around here.  Examples abound: newey, thetragichero, frets, and many others.  Ask around, you'll see.

Not to mention, I also happen to think that have we've earned the reputation of being just about the friendliest guitar site on the web, if I do say so myself! 

My fellow responders to your questions have given you all the necessary nitty-gritty, I need not make a mess of things with my usual clumsiness. 

HTH





sumgai

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Yep, since the third lug is unused the pot is only being used a variable resistor, so is functionally identical connected either way around.

This is such great info.  It's interesting that the volume pots need particular lugs in order to function as one would expect, and I'm so glad to know that tone pots are more flexible in this regard.  It's huge for me to be able now to look at these components with greater understanding.

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

There's another disadvantage to placement after the controls that I didn't think about previously and that's when both pickups are selected the neck volume would also simultaneously act as a bridge tone control.

Here’s my wiring:

Neck Pickup → Neck mini switches for Series / Parallel / Coil Splits → Neck Vol & Tone Knobs → .047µF cap ↘
	Pickup Selector → Output Jack
Bridge Pickup → Bridge mini switches for Series / Parallel / Coil Splits → Bridge Vol & Tone Knobs ↗

And I'm maintaining independent volume control for each pickup, but I had not noticed any effect of the neck volume on the bridge tone.  I will look into this.

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

The effect of a series component is highly interactive with changes to the 'parallel' components that proceed it (closer to the guitar's output / amp input), thus the standard ordering (as per G&L's PTB circuit) is to have tone control, bass cut, then volume control. This eliminates the interactivity between bass cut & treble cut. Plus, with the volume control being last means that the bass cut isn't totally dependent upon input impedance of the next thing in your signal chain, however it doesn't completely solve it. Therefore, if you're using vintage (roughly I'm talking pre '80s or modern vintage-correct recreations) pedals there's a good chance they have pretty low input impedance, meaning the cap could be doing more than nothing, likely not much, but still something.

Generally I'm going in 1MΩ.  There are a couple of occasions where I go 230K, but not often; I never hear anything weird with those though.  I'm never using fuzz pedals.

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

For that the only real option involves the use of an inductor, but those with large enough inductance to be useful for this purpose are fairly niche. Most commonly therefore, audio transformers are repurposed for this use. Almost all of frets's harnesses seem to include some variation of mid-cut and therefore is probably the person to ask.

For this, I found a video about a Guitar Player article by Gary Brawer detailing how to create a variable mid cut.  This is really interesting to me.  The video host actually displays the article from the magazine, which I paused and read; here's a loop of that section:

youtube.com/clip/Ugkx8FD-ohGwFbyAHS2PlrrAUBal9jn_6cDC

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Going active also likely makes the choice of '50s versus modern wiring moot, the treble loss at reduced volumes is due to the interaction between the volume pot and the capacitance of the cable — with some kind of active system it's likely that you'll have a buffer between the two.

Yes, the buffer allows one not to have to compromise between volume and treble.  I'm so often playing with my volume and tone knobs dialed back that it's rare for me to be at 10 with either.  For active, I'm actually thinking a cool way to do it would be a dual concentric with center detents, allowing for boosts and cuts of mids on one knob and treble on the other.  You could adjust them relative to the fixed bass.  To follow along a more traditional model but in an active situation, one could wire one dual concentric, with volume and treble, and another with mids and bass, for a full experience.  But really, the most powerful way would be to use tiny knobs and have a separate active 3 band parametric eq and volume for each pickup for the most detailed frequency and volume balance, but then, even if you use tiny knobs of some kind, you're going to end up with something that looks like a 70s Alembic bass haha.

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

The information about exactly what circuit this uses seems to be a well kept secret. Last time someone brought these up I assumed the trimmer was in parallel with the (unknown) cap, but reevaluating I now think that it must be in series (or possibly some peculiar hybrid). If it is series (or mostly series), that would very well explain why it sounded unnatural — series treble-bleeds by there very nature have quite a different frequency response to the signal at max volume.

I mean, it could be me.  I'm obsessive about tone to a fault, so what I deem unnatural could just be me being overly picky.    Just ask my wife.  She has to hear me drone on and on about tone, and she's long past the point of trying to convince me I'm preoccupied.

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 18, 2022 23:40:10 GMT -5 sumgai said:

First, to The NutzHouse!

Thanks very much!    It took a weird amount of mustering up to post here, since I know virtually nothing, and I feel like an idiot.  This forum just has a certain aire of authority, coming from threads I've read here that do not dissolve into weirdly personal attacks, just deeper and deeper analysis of what's really going on in guitars.  I love it!

Aug 18, 2022 23:40:10 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Second, no one here was born knowing all this stuff, we each had to learn it at some point in our lives. You're just standing on the first brick of that particular road, and from where you're are standing, each brick looks foreboding, I'll grant you that. But take heart, we're here to tell you that as you progress along from one brick to another, they actually get easier to understand, and to start using to meet your design goals. Trust me on this, if you please.

Much appreciated.  I'm in a period in which my design goals are evolving, and I'm trying to evaluate if I'm going overboard at any point.  I hate the traditionalism that is the basis of the guitar world.  Forget about electronics; even in the worlds of hardware, and every other part of guitar design, some of the coolest ideas tend to die just because the non-guitarist Leo Fender didn't come up with it personally.  I am in awe of the work of the pioneers of electric guitar, but by god, innovation didn't stop at the end of the '50s!  But about the traditionalism: wiring is one area where minimalism kills me.  I cannot deal with a guitar that isn't at least Les Paul wiring, so I'll alter it.  The fact that the modern ideal is one master volume, one master tone, and you're good to go, is just so wrong to me.  Of course, the idea there is, just use your pedals, your midi controllers, your amp channel switches, and whatever else.  But no matter what, some things passive pickups do seem nearly impossible to recreate.

And I became obsessed with a single utterance from the inimitable Paul Gilbert.  He said in an interview that he was, at that point in a particular tour, using just one amp channel, and rolling back his volume knob on the axe for a different tone.  Somehow that got lodged in my brain, starting me on a journey not of just rolling back for one tone, but getting all I'd like out of a single amp channel with an overdrive pedal.  Already I have a ton of versatility with the way I set up my tone, and I'm just looking now to make the frequency response between two pickups completely ideal for me, which I think just means I need to buy a great noiseless single coil when I have the chance (likely a ZexCoil).

Aug 18, 2022 23:40:10 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Third, I wasn't gonna say anything, but now that the floodgates have been opened by newey, I have to say that D.W. is not who I'd point to as a shining example of competency and/or proficiency in teaching others about electronics. In fact, I had to stop subscribing to Premier Guitar solely because he is wrong so much more often that he's correct. Speaking as long-careered Electrical Engineer, I couldn't stand it, and had to get out of that particular kitchen.

I take most forum posts with a grain of salt, understanding that some people just like to talk, but it's easy to forget the same phenomenon exists in publishing too!  And it's only through familiarity with a writer's work that you can start to decipher who's full of bullhockey, and who is earnest.

Aug 18, 2022 23:40:10 GMT -5 sumgai said:

There are indeed several sites comparable to ours in erudition, ones that I would find it extremely difficult to find fault with. But I like to think that we're one of the few sites who will take the as much time as needed to get a newbie's questions fully answered, and hopefully to start them on the way toward enjoying their mods/repairs/wild schemes by learning more than just "copy this exactly".  We're big on that kind of thing around here.  Examples abound: newey, thetragichero, frets, and many others.  Ask around, you'll see.

This is kind of the feeling I had, and why I like to find what members here have to say about any particular guitar electronics idea.  I don't have enough knowledge to be able to discern what's based on sound theory and what's just parroting misunderstood equivocations, but what I've read on this site is a general earnestness, which I think is the basis for any kind of real understanding.  The moment seeking knowledge becomes a zero sum game of convincing others of one's superiority, I find the discussion far less helpful haha.  And what you wrote means so much, that you guys are really dedicated to knowledge here, the fishing, not the fish!

[sumgai]

sop,

Aug 19, 2022 16:29:34 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

threads I've read here that do not dissolve into weirdly personal attacks,

Oh, we've had our share of drama, but I (and my fellow Staff members) tend to put up with it for about 30 seconds, and then it's Stern Warning time. Only once have I had to threaten the Ban Hammer in earnest, which had the desired effect. (But I do trot out Mjolnir whenever a certain someone starts yodeling about Yoko Ono.... be forewarned.)

, the fishing, not the fish!

Yeah, about that.... the saying goes:

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man how to use the Internet, and he'll never bother you again!

HTH





sumgai

[newey]

Aug 19, 2022 19:00:21 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man how to use the Internet, and he'll never bother you again!

No, the way I heard it:

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he's gone all weekend, comes home drunk, and the truth is not in him"

[stateofepicicity]

This whole thread is getting a little fishy.

[newey]

stateofepicicity-

Sorry to sidetrack your discussion with a bit of tomfoolery . Did we get all your questions answered? If not, what have we not yet addressed?

[Yogi B]

Aug 19, 2022 16:02:00 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

And I'm maintaining independent volume control for each pickup

Ah, do you mean the volumes are wired 'backwards' (such that the input from the pickup's goes to lug 2 and the output to the switch comes from lug 3) or is that just an unfortunate coincidence of words.

If true, that's something I hadn't considered, and is something we generally recommend against around here. Independent wiring is a remedy that's worse than the disease, it only really solves one problem: allowing you to reduce one of the volumes to zero whilst the toggle switch is in the middle position. However it does very little to improve the actual ability to blend pickups, whilst causing an adverse effect upon both taper & treble loss in all switch positions (which can be solved neither by '50s tone control placement nor by treble bleeds). If you actually want only a single pickup selected, that's what the toggle switch is for .

Aug 18, 2022 23:33:23 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

For that the only real option involves the use of an inductor, but those with large enough inductance to be useful for this purpose are fairly niche. Most commonly therefore, audio transformers are repurposed for this use. Almost all of frets's harnesses seem to include some variation of mid-cut and therefore is probably the person to ask.

For this, I found a video about a Guitar Player article by Gary Brawer detailing how to create a variable mid cut.

It would've been more obvious with a cleaner signal, but that video still demonstrates that with a passive midrange cut you'll lose a fair amount of signal (usually treble, in particular) before the mid-cut starts to properly kick in. When restricted to passive solutions there's not really a solution to this.

Also onto the general response of the mid cut: roughly, the centre frequency of the notch is inversely proportional to L × C (the product of the inductance & capacitance). Whereas, again roughly, the Q factor of the notch is proportional to the square-root of (L / (C × R²)), where R is (mostly) the variable resistance of the mid-cut pot — Q factor itself being proportional to the depth of the notch, yet inversely proportional to the width of the notch. Thus, in my opinion, the most common problem with any kind of passive mid cut is that the notch is too wide and centred too high a frequency because people understandably skimp on the inductor. I'd ideally want at least 3 henries, but it's notable that the inductors used in the BluesHawk's varitone circuit were 7.5H and in the original ES‑345 possibly as high as 15H.

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 21, 2022 7:50:56 GMT -5 newey said:

stateofepicicity-

Sorry to sidetrack your discussion with a bit of tomfoolery . Did we get all your questions answered? If not, what have we not yet addressed?

I love tangents of all kinds!  I welcome shenanigans, tomfoolery, and ballyhoo, much the opposite of George Plimpton in Good Will Hunting.  

Really the only question I had was if my wiring was inefficient, if I was being overly complicated, as I tend to be in life in general, and that was answered right away!  You guys are awesome, and it’s  really thoughtful for you to ask.  The rest has just been getting a better understanding.  I’m frankly surprised to have gotten responses here, because I felt my initial questions would be a little elementary, so I’m pleasantly surprised!  And I’ll definitely start a dedicated thread if I have something else unrelated I can’t figure out.  Much appreciated!

I personally can’t stand people who stand as hall monitors in forums trying to keep tangents from happening. Sometimes tangents lead to revelations, and they’re always an opportunity to learn something.  Plus, human conversation is tangential by nature, and that’s what makes it interesting.  Otherwise we’re all just trying to mimic a nuanced Google search, and that may be efficient, but it’s not very exciting.

[stateofepicicity]

Aug 21, 2022 8:11:49 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Aug 19, 2022 16:02:00 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

And I'm maintaining independent volume control for each pickup

Ah, do you mean the volumes are wired 'backwards' (such that the input from the pickup's goes to lug 2 and the output to the switch comes from lug 3) or is that just an unfortunate coincidence of words.

That’s sloppy writing. Sorry about that. I initially misread your statement that volume control of one pickup would affect volume on the other in the middle position, and I actually meant to remove that line when I was editing my response for clarity! 🤦‍♂️ You ever get the feeling you’re sabotaging yourself?

What you wrote did prompt me finally to test what you were saying, that volume reduction on one pickup would reduce tone on the other in the middle, and of course you were right there. I was aware the controls are very interactive in the middle position, and that’s an exciting thing to me, but I hadn’t noticed the neck volume reducing bridge treble effect, because I generally dial in the amp to have an overall bright sound, and I spend most of my time dialing in the guitar to varying degrees of darkness to balance against the amp anyway.  I love dialing them in just right and getting the feel for how the work in the middle position; they make me think of the controls on a Plexi, where they’re so interactive it’s like it’s own language of tone.

Aug 21, 2022 8:11:49 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

If true, that's something I hadn't considered, and is something we generally recommend against around here. Independent wiring is a remedy that's worse than the disease, it only really solves one problem: allowing you to reduce one of the volumes to zero whilst the toggle switch is in the middle position. However it does very little to improve the actual ability to blend pickups, whilst causing an adverse effect upon both taper & treble loss in all switch positions (which can be solved neither by '50s tone control placement nor by treble bleeds). If you actually want only a single pickup selected, that's what the toggle switch is for .

This is something I looked into many years ago, but I never thought it was a problem for one pickup to cut out the overall signal anyway.  I agree with entirely here.

Aug 21, 2022 8:11:49 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

It would've been more obvious with a cleaner signal, but that video still demonstrates that with a passive midrange cut you'll lose a fair amount of signal (usually treble, in particular) before the mid-cut starts to properly kick in. When restricted to passive solutions there's not really a solution to this.

I hated this guy’s tones, so I couldn’t use that as a measuring stick to gauge how I’d feel with my style and my tones, but what you’re saying makes sense. You’re always, always removing stuff in passive systems; it’s only a question of what you’re removing, how you’re doing it, and what the add on effects are. This far into the history of the electric guitar, and active systems still are not the standard. It boggles my mind that onboard active EQs are still niche.

Aug 21, 2022 8:11:49 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Also onto the general response of the mid cut: roughly, the centre frequency of the notch is inversely proportional to L × C (the product of the inductance & capacitance). Whereas, again roughly, the Q factor of the notch is proportional to the square-root of (L / (C × R²)), where R is (mostly) the variable resistance of the mid-cut pot — Q factor itself being proportional to the depth of the notch, yet inversely proportional to the width of the notch. Thus, in my opinion, the most common problem with any kind of passive mid cut is that the notch is too wide and centred too high a frequency because people understandably skimp on the inductor. I'd ideally want at least 3 henries, but it's notable that the inductors used in the BluesHawk's varitone circuit were 7.5H and in the original ES‑345 possibly as high as 15H.

I considered dialing in with a parametric EQ to figure out my ideal mid frequency and Q for my neck pickup, then calculating from there, but I just know I’ll soon dial in a different tone in the amp, and that frequency and Q I’d want to cut in the guitar would change.  Really, some ultra flexible parametric onboard designed for bass would be the solution here, or, as I wrote earlier, a ZexCoil, which would have copious high end to cut, without excessive mids to start with.  I’m running into the limits of a passive system just to try hardheadedly to fulfill my idea, when an active system would handle it readily.  I’m thinking an active EQ for bass because they’re just more plentiful.  The same way tube innovation never died in Russia, active eqs never died in the bass world.

Of course, active systems still exist for guitar, but they’re such a niche and a needlessly polarizing thing.  An active system doesn’t automatically mean a characterless tone unless you’re allergic to your tone knobs or an EQ placed before your amp!  And if you install an active EQ after a traditional passive pickup, I don’t see that being much different than an EQ pedal, except that, in an onboard installation, you could EQ each pickup very differently and switch between them easily, unlike a pedal treating your guitar output the same regardless of which pickup it’s treating.  That way you can still exploit the myriad passive pickup options, with the world of different magnets, poles, and windings, and still enhance their behavior individually with active processing.

And I’ve considering also using a stereo output jack to send each pickup on a different path, but of course that gets even more involved with external equipment, although it’s even more flexible.  I’d like to keep somewhat of an all inclusive setup, keeping all the processing that lies before the overdrive and amp in the guitar.

I also looked at the WMD parametric EQ pedal, thinking about screwing it to the guitar, but it’s voltage is too high to run on battery power.  So I’m realizing I’m likely making it too complicated in one way or another.  I may just need to get back to switching tones with my feet, like a normal person.  Wherever I dial in tones that way, it always feels kind of like it’s missing something in a big way, so I go back to my tone controls.

We’re getting ready both to move many states away and to try to buy a house for the first time, all of which will take a bunch of time, so I think once we’re settled where we’re headed I might look into some kind of active setup, and if I go that route (no pun intended) I’ll just carve out a new pickguard; the one I have has been mutilated enough!

Many thanks for your having lent your thoughts on the many issues I brought up here!