nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 9, 2006 1:29:11 GMT -5
Well, a week or two ago I decided to strip my standard telecaster and create an entirely setup with some GFS pickups, a bigsby, and some new electronics. Trouble is, I've gotten over my head with the wiring. I wanted to combine the Telerific 5 way switching from guitarnuts with a blend pot and the typical volume/tone. I understand mostly how the switching works. the problem is I don't understand how to incorperate a blend pot with this so that I can mix the signals of the bridge and neck pups when they're both active. I'm not all that knowledgeable about electronics but I assume this should be possible - early broadcasters/nocasters/telecasters had blend pots instead of tone ones. I'm cramming this all together by using a concentric stacked pot with the blend, but I'm almost ready to give up and just order another stacked pot for seperate tone and volume controls. Somebody please help!
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jun 9, 2006 10:33:07 GMT -5
Hi there, welcome to GN2.
I'm sure you'll get a lot of excellent advice in due course, but in the meanwhile you may find it helpful to look at some of the designs posted on the schematics sub-board.
In particular, have a look at Chris K's design for the "Demented Teleblender" and at the blender circuit in John H's "Tonemonster2", which works both in series and parallel.
I think what you are after is possible, but my personal approach would be to lose the tone control and have separate volume controls for Neck and Bridge.
Hastings
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jun 9, 2006 12:03:27 GMT -5
The Demented TeleBlender is not up to date. I have several other incarnations thereof.
One has the following: 1. Bridge 2. Bridge in series or parallel w/ Neck in or out of phase, blended 3. Bridge in parallel w/ Neck 4. Bridge in series w/ Neck 5. Neck
It essentially is a two-setup guitar. The first is the normal Tele four-way method and the second is a tone workbench.
This design uses three pots; a volume (which can be a push pull for phase or series/parallel, a blender tone pot that does low-cut as well as high-cut, and a blender pot that does both series as well as parallel blending. It does require two DPDT functions; one for series/parallel in pos 2, and one that does phase reversal, again for pos 2. I have a third SPDT CO switch for three tone caps (0.47uF, 0.022uF, and the "woman tone").
(Yuk, yuk, unk, unk) (It was either you or sumgai.)
I'm in the process of drilling (yet) another Tele control plate. BTW, if'n a body wants a Tele control plate without the lever switch slot, buy a John5 dual volume Tele control plate, it doesn't have one.
If one is less demented and doesn't want the high and low cut tone with cap options), one can use a push pull pot for the volume and series/parallel, and one for the tone and phase. Aside from the third blender pot, it looks fairly normal. Note that this design requires a true blender (StewMac I'm told, or a Fender replacement pot which is my favorite) and not a pan pot. If none can be had, a 3PDT series/parallel switch will be required.
The issues is, ya gets one or two things on a single pot. Either a dual element (stacked or blending) or a single element and a push pull switch.
I also have a MegaSwitch "E" based design for a two-pickup guitar that does some really convoluted stuff, but it's fairly likely that I will file IP on that one. If not unique, I'll post it.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 9, 2006 12:17:30 GMT -5
... "woman tone"...
(Yuk, yuk, unk, unk) (It was either you or sumgai.).....
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 9, 2006 13:35:13 GMT -5
haha i love that gif
anyway, i think you're right jhng, I may just go for dual concentric knobs with seperate tone and volume controls for each pup, then run that through the switch for more versitility. but in the meantime i'm going to check out some other diagrams. I really need a break from all this, it's all I've been doing for a week in my free time... striped the guitar, aligned the bigsby, created the shim, shielded the inside of the guitar, I even created some extra space in the control cavity just incase I needed it for all the wires. It's time for a break and some planning before I go ahead and finish the last job, the wiring.
Even then I have to stop myself, because I got the idea for routing out a channel to put two switches in for optional wire tap on each pup. I don't know how usefull that would be, but it'd be cool!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 9, 2006 16:03:14 GMT -5
hi Nerve, here's something to consider, i've prepared a few drawings that show series and parallel pickups with individual controls. i haven't put in the switching, just shown how the connections are ultimately made. in the upper left, we have normally wired volume controls in a parallel circuit. things work pretty well there until one pot or the other is turned way down, or set at zero -- NO SOUND from the other pickup, it's shorted out. it won't hurt the pickup, but certainly not the result you want. in the upper right we see the typical fix for this. this is sometimes called Gibson wiring or backwards wiring. the controls don't respond quite as nicely as in normal wiring, but neither one shorts out the other. definitely a better choice. in the lower left is reverse wired pots as though you had connected the outputs to a switch and changed from parallel to series. the problem here, is when one of the pots is turned down the pickup (5~10 K ohms) no longer is the primary path for the signal from the other pickup. it gets worse when one pot is all the way down. we now have only the 250k pot as the path for the signal. BAD PLAN. if we had forward wired the pots, there would be no problem when a pot was at zero, or at max, but things still get a bit screwy in the middle. if a forward wired pot was adjusted to half it's resistance, the path for the other pickup would be about 1/4 of the 250 k ....over 80k. that's not too good, plus the evil interaction when the circuit is switched to parallel. the lower right shows a reasonable way to configure the controls in a series circuit. if you can figure out the switching, so that the circuit looks like the upper right when in parallel, and like the lower right when in series, then you would be the man. it shouldn't be all that hard to do, but i'm so invested other work here that i won't be spending any time on it in the near future. good luck, unk
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 9, 2006 17:29:47 GMT -5
Quite reasonable Unk, and what you suggest is probably the best direction for passive wiring of two independent volume controls in series and parallel. There are some issues though, in my opinion. top right diagramWhat I don't like about the reversed volume control (top right in Unks post) is the way that in a mix of pups, one pup disappears very quickly as you start to turn it down - ie in the parallel configuration, all the blending happens between 8 and 10. Its also not such a good way of getting overall reduction in volume, which is useful for cleaning up an overdrive sound, then maxing it again for a lead. I think thats because it puts a large resistance in series with the signal at reduced settings, and also loads the pups significantly more than a normal volume control at low settings. lower right diagramThe lower right series version is OK for mixing, but to mix a little of one pup with all of the other, all the action happens at the lower settings, theres not much volume change untill the reduced pup is shunted by quite a low resistance. So if you change from a parallel blend (blending happens between 8 and 10) an a series blend (blending happens between 1 and 3), the blend mix is not consistent betwen series and parallel. Again, making overall changes in volume is not so good. eg, a series combo where you want both pups reduced in overall volume implies a low resistance across each pup - resulting in high end loss of tone. Top left diagramThis is the normal way of wiring a single volume control, extended to two controls, and it gives the smoothest control as a master volume. I came to the conclusion that this also is the best configuration for two volume controls, if the problems of one control zeroing both pups is overcome. My LP copy, which I used for the LPmax originally had this, and the problem ocurred when one pup was reduced below about 3 I went through a few of these configurations when I was figuring out the LPmax: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=1138768962So on the LPmax, I use the normal forwards volume control arrangement, but with seperating resistors (56k) to stop one volume from negating the other. Now the volume controls are inependednt and smoothly operating, and they are fully consistent in series and parallel. However, putting in those seperating resistors in the signal path causes the capacitance of the cable to the amp to act even more like a high cut filter than it usually does - furher tone loss. Not a problem though, because I have a small active buffer that solves the problem. i also found that some treble bleed caps and resistors helped the mix. Hence, for independent, consistent smooth acting volume controls in series and parallel, my best version is what I put on the LPmax. I am happy to concede that there may be other ways to skin a rabbit, but I can say that this design does work. regards John
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 9, 2006 17:54:29 GMT -5
Quite reasonable Unk, and what you suggest is probably the best direction for passive wiring of two independent volume controls in series and parallel. There are some issues though, in my opinion.....
....Not a problem though, because I have a small active buffer that solves the problem. i also found that some treble bleed caps and resistors helped the mix.
Hence, for independent, consistent smooth acting volume controls in series and parallel, my best version is what I put on the LPmax. I am happy to concede that there may be other ways to skin a rabbit, but I can say that this design does work.
regards
John John, as always, when it comes to blending.....Udaman! +1 i always lean toward the passive approach, and try to minimize the evils inherent. it's becoming more apparent that if one wants to do S/P blending well, an active buffer is a real boon. if one would want to keep things strictly passive there will be severe functional limitations. thanks, unk
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jun 9, 2006 21:12:18 GMT -5
If'n ya look in "Electronics and Wiring/Schematics/Modules" at my pic for a "Series_Parallel Blend Pot w/ DPDT switch", you will see exactly similar the "lower right" at use in series, and the "upper right" at use in parallel. I know that some folk ain't fond of "hanging pickups" of of the output rail, but is sure makes thing cornvenient. The Neck pickup is thus hanging, and the """normal""" convention in "upper right" is just upside down (duality is). The blender pot that I use is a linear. For different curves, I add padding resistors across appropriate legs. If one has "poles to burn" on the switch, one could switch in appropriate padding as a function of series and parallel.
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 9, 2006 22:52:41 GMT -5
for the record all my pots are/will be 500k thanks for the posts so far... im digesting them in my head. ChrisK, I finaly know how a blend pot is correctly drawn!
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 11, 2006 22:32:20 GMT -5
ok, this HAS to be wrong... but it's right according to the guitarnuts diagram above someone please help me out top is neck pup, bottom is bridge pup, runs through a tone/volume for each pickup, then goes to the 5 way "t riffic" style switiching I read about. I decided to go with seperate tone/volume controls. The resistor/cap thing under the volume is an antishock circut i read about at stewmac's site. Please help me out here... at this point I just want to finish, I'm all tangled up between knowing what I want and working with the 4 pole 5 way switich this is what another switch looks like doing the same thing with the pots
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jun 12, 2006 8:18:41 GMT -5
Ok. I haven't gone over your diagram in detail but I can see several hiccups already just glancing at it.
The volume controls and tone controls need to be integrated into the wiring for the 4P5T switch. In order to that you're going to have to design the circuit from scratch rather than trying to adapt the T-Riffic. However, if you thoroughly understand the way the T-Riffic circuit works, and thoroughly understand ChrisK's series/parallel blender circuit above, you should have the necessary concepts to design the circuit you need.
If you wish I can try and find a moment to draw you up a diagram. But you may find it more satisfying to have a go at coming up with one on your own first.
Incidentally, I notice you have coil splits in the diagram. These will also need to be integrated into the switching circuit.
Hastings
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 12, 2006 11:53:20 GMT -5
I think I'd rather see it done right... I think I understand how the switch is supposed to work, but I've already made enough mistakes so far.
Maybe if you could show me how to adapt it I'd completely get it. Why couldn't I keep the coil taps seperate though? I have two little switches I was going to use for that, I don't see why it should make a difference to the Superswitch I'm using.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 12, 2006 13:30:21 GMT -5
i think what Hastings is trying to tell you is, you CAN do the coil splits, and individual volumes/tones, BUT....
you can't reference things to ground if you are going to use parallel anywhere in your combinations.
you end up shunting EVERYTHING from the point of the coil you are bypassing to ground. so the bucker that ends up in the "top" of the parallel stack MUST be split "locally", not directly to ground.
the same for a volume control for the "top" pickup.
also, the tone controls are wrong. (should only use 2 connections of the tone pots)
you guys were starting to have a good conversation, so i won't get into this any deeper.
i think you'll be well off to wait for him to post a drawing.
unk
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jun 13, 2006 10:43:49 GMT -5
Hi there, Unk's clarification is, of course, spot on. I've done part of a modular design for you below. Basically if you wire each pickup up exactly like this with it's own volume, tone, and coil split, you are half-way there. Then you can treat each unit as a simple single coil pickup, except that: -you use the [Bs+] wire as the hot, and [B-] as cold, when pickups are to be in series; -you use the [Bp+] wire as the hot, and [B-] as cold, when the pickups are to be combined in parallel or are alone; and - and you use the [B-] wire as hot, and the [Bs+] as cold when the pup in question is to be in series but out of phase. Now all you need is to design the wiring for the 4P5T. Have a go, if you wish. Otherwise, I'll draw up a further suitable module in due course. Hastings
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 13, 2006 11:17:30 GMT -5
wait, so with that setup i can adapt the 4p5t with everything relative? I'm not sure how I would wire the 4 commons with that setup, it's not exactly intuitive. I would have to eliminate the bridge ground and put a ground after the switch then, right?
I understand what you've done here, i apreciate it but I'm not sure I can adapt it to the switch correctly... when you get the chance I'd like to see that too please
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jun 14, 2006 11:58:40 GMT -5
Ok, here's part 2. Remember each pup/vol/tone/coilsplit is wired according to module 1. Each is then treated as a single unit giving: [Bp+], [Bs+], and [B-] for the Bridge. [Np+], [Ns+], and [N-] for the Neck. Then just follow the signs in the diagram below! Hastings
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 14, 2006 13:13:48 GMT -5
thank you so much, ill give this a shot when my pots get here from warmoth and see how it goes
wait, where is the ground? still b- onto the bridge itself?
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 14, 2006 13:52:06 GMT -5
"wait, where is the ground? still b- onto the bridge itself?"
the only point that is always ground is the sleeve of the output jack [jack -]
the b- is sometimes connected to ground, but at other times it's not.
i'll bet Hastings could rework things so that the b- is always connected to ground, and do the OoP with the neck. (and only use 3 poles instead of 4.) but unless there is a need for another pole, i think it looks pretty good just like it is.
i should mention:
if for instance the north coil is used as coil 1 in the neck, and the south is used as coil 1 in the bridge 2 of the combos will be hum-canceling when split. (OoP will not be hum-canceling)
the down-side to that:
if you like the OoP, that is a fairly weak combo, so if OoP isn't hum-canceling the hum is more noticeable.
Hastings,
i like the way you "modularized" the local configuration, and then showed the overall arrangement with the modules inserted.
kinda makes understanding the circuit more "bite-sized".
+1
unk
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 14, 2006 15:36:13 GMT -5
ok, i understand now. Thanks a lot guys!
edit: one final question...in module one, does coil 2 run straight to b- or the volume pot? the schematic has the wires crossed.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 14, 2006 15:57:49 GMT -5
it's a four way intersection.
i prefer to put a dot in places like that in my drawings,
to make it more clear that the wires are connected together.
unk
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 14, 2006 20:15:48 GMT -5
k, just makin sure
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jun 15, 2006 5:30:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment, Unk! And for the clarification.
I realised after I'd posted it that I could have put little blocks where the intersections are. Maybe I'll update it.
The modular approach was a revelation. Makes planning a new design much more straightforward. BTW, I'm not sure I could actually do it with three poles.
Nerve - I hope that all works out. If you need any extra clarification, I'll try and provide!
I've just had a thought: on a Tele I believe you have slightly more complicated arrangements for grounding the metal shield of the Neck pup, and the metal plate under the Bridge pup. Are you cool with all that? Otherwise a Tele expert might be able to chip in with a word of wisdom. The key thing is that those shield grounds must be kept separate from all the pup wiring.
Hastings
|
|
nerve
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
|
Post by nerve on Jun 18, 2006 15:22:01 GMT -5
that i am clueless about. Right now I'm wiring the switches before the pots get here on tuesday. If anyone has a word of advice on the grounds, let me know - right now all the cavities are sheilded to ground from the output jack. everything else will look like the diagrams jhng provided. this is how the switching looks like it'll be wired...i drew out a real schematic from what was in the thread and here's what i got for the graphic switch
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Jun 18, 2006 19:06:06 GMT -5
The switching agrees with jhng's diagram, so long as the right pickup leads are connected to the right wires, and the poles are connected where they should be. I hope that your own drawing has this information on it
|
|