HH Weird LP Wiring Possible with just one super switch?

[reTrEaD]

Apr 24, 2024 21:50:39 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

But I don't know if there's a real difference in load between a tone pot at 10 and no tone pot at all

There will be a noticeable difference in load between a tone pot at 10 and removing the tone pot from the circuit.  Not saying you will find the difference objectionable, though.  It will result in a slightly brighter sound.

Apr 24, 2024 21:50:39 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

• I don't know if I really need to have the 33K resistor in series with the 470K to achieve the value of a 503K tone pot.  There is so much variance in actual pot values, it seems like just going with the 470K to ground to simulate the tone pot would be fine, and totally in line with standard 20% tolerances.  Am I right in that thinking?
• Further, if I'm simulating a tone pot at 10, does it really need the .022 cap in there at all?
• Is this whole idea of having a tone cap simulation poppycock?  I don't know if a tone pot at 10 is really completely out of the circuit and avoids loading the pickup at all at that point. I can't tell if what I've drawn here belongs in crazy town.

If you find the increased brightness undesirable, there are two reasonable solutions.  Either use a 250k volume pot instead of the 500k volume pot you're currently using -- or --- use a single fixed resistor in parallel with the input to the 500k volume pot.  Either 470k or 560k.  No need to split hairs.  

[stateofepicicity]

Thanks so much reTrEaD!  This is great to know.  So the cap really has no effect when a tone pot is at 10?  I definitely do not want this guitar to get any brighter.

[newey]

Apr 24, 2024 22:51:29 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

So the cap really has no effect when a tone pot is at 10?

Effectively, yes, unless your pot is faulty. You can test the pot with a multimeter if it is out of the circuit. With the pot shaft rotated full clockwise (unless you're wiring for a lefty), between the wiper (center lug) and the CCW lug you should see only a negligible resistance.

I start to sound like a scratched LP on this topic as I've said this so many times. Test all components, even brand new ones, before installing in a guitar- pickups, switches, pots- everything. It only takes a couple of minutes to check it all but that couple of minutes can save hours of troubleshooting if you wire a bad piece into the guitar and have to sort it afterward. (not implying you don't already do so, stateofepicicity, but for the benefit of all who may read this in the future)

How do I know to do this? I learned the hard way with a broken pickup that I couldn't figure out why it wasn't working in the guitar. Our late mentor ChrisK advised me after that to not only check each component, but to take notes on every build- pickup DC resistances, pot values, wiring diagram used, etc. I now do so regularly, it not only helps with troubleshooting problems, but also if you go back in to the wiring years later and can't recall exactly what you did years before.

[stateofepicicity]

Much appreciated newey! This is helpful to simplify the wiring; I'm starting to wrap my mind around it, that a resistor in that places in the circuit will always load the pickup, but a .022 cap has been overshadowed by the 500k resistance it sees, although the humbucker with a 500k volume and 500k tone sees 250k overall.

As far as simplification goes, I did decide also to switch to 250k pots after considering it. I know many people try to maintain the upper mids and treble of their pickups, but I think it really depends on your guitar's construction. I had a Les Paul that was beautiful and dark in its tone, so it was able to stand brightening in my mods, but my current superstrat is just shy of brittle and needs sweetening wherever possible.

[stateofepicicity]

Apr 25, 2024 15:32:21 GMT -5 newey said:

I start to sound like a scratched LP on this topic as I've said this so many times. Test all components, even brand new ones, before installing in a guitar- pickups, switches, pots- everything. It only takes a couple of minutes to check it all but that couple of minutes can save hours of troubleshooting if you wire a bad piece into the guitar and have to sort it afterward. (not implying you don't already do so, stateofepicicity, but for the benefit of all who may read this in the future)

How do I know to do this? I learned the hard way with a broken pickup that I couldn't figure out why it wasn't working in the guitar. Our late mentor ChrisK advised me after that to not only check each component, but to take notes on every build- pickup DC resistances, pot values, wiring diagram used, etc. I now do so regularly, it not only helps with troubleshooting problems, but also if you go back in to the wiring years later and can't recall exactly what you did years before.

No, I love this.  I think this is totally essential.  Sometimes you get in the habit of assuming everything will work just as you envisioned it, forgetting that a lot can go wrong when wiring.  If you can eliminate the components themselves as a potential source of trouble, you're down to rechecking your schematic / wiring diagram, how well you followed it, and how well you soldered!  This should be standard operating procedure.

[newey]

but a .022 cap has been overshadowed by the 500k resistance it sees

The cap is not "overshadowed" by the pot's resistance, the cap is effectively out of the circuit at "10" on the pot. At that point of rotation, the CCW lug is effectively connected straight to the wiper, bypassing the pot's resistive element. The cap operates through the resistance of the pot (and then to ground a frequency-dependent portion of the signal) and so has no effect when the pot's resistive element is out of play.

Here's an eperiment that I found helped my understanding of pots. Measure with a multimeter between the 2 outer lugs of a pot. This will give you the total resistance value. A 500K pot won't be exactly 500K but it sould be within about 20% of the stated resistance, as most guitar components are made to a 20% tolerance, plus or minus. Then, put the meter between the CCW lug and the wiper, with the knob/shaft at 10, Slowly turn the shaft and measure the resistance at, roughly, 9, 8, 7, 6 etc, all the way down. Watch how the resistance changes as you turn the knob down. This is of course nonlinear with a log taper pot (or antilog taper)

[stateofepicicity]

Apr 25, 2024 15:53:56 GMT -5 newey said:

The cap is not "overshadowed" by the pot's resistance, the cap is effectively out of the circuit at "10" on the pot. At that point of rotation, the CCW lug is effectively connected straight to the wiper, bypassing the pot's resistive element. The cap operates through the resistance of the pot (and then to ground a frequency-dependent portion of the signal) and so has no effect when the pot's resistive element is out of play.

Thanks for explaining it in greater depth.  So the fact that the cap goes to the middle lug, the wiper, is what effectively takes it out of the circuit at that point.

[newey]

Yes, the path straight from the CCW lug to the wiper will be the "path of least resistance" as opposed to the path that goes through the cap to ground.

[Yogi B]

Apr 25, 2024 15:32:21 GMT -5 newey said:

With the pot shaft rotated full clockwise (unless you're wiring for a lefty), between the wiper (center lug) and the CCW lug you should see only a negligible resistance.

I don't know if this is a typo, but (assuming that your perspective of the pot is unchanged regarding which way is clockwise) that's opposite to how I refer to the outer lugs. That is, the convention I've always used is that the lug to which the wiper is directly connected upon turning the shaft fully clockwise (with the shaft facing towards the observer) is the clockwise lug. Admittedly, following a minor arc concentric with the axis of the shaft's rotation, this is the lug which is immediately counter clockwise of the centre wiper lug — but, the wiper itself follows the path of a major arc instead, which turns in the opposite direction.

Apr 25, 2024 16:01:46 GMT -5 newey said:

Yes, the path straight from the CCW lug to the wiper will be the "path of least resistance" as opposed to the path that goes through the cap to ground.

There is only one path through a tone control, the tone cap is in series with the section of resistive track between the wiper and the CCW lug (which is at around 500k with the pot fully clockwise, at '10').

Apr 25, 2024 15:53:56 GMT -5 newey said:

but a .022 cap has been overshadowed by the 500k resistance it sees

The cap is not "overshadowed" by the pot's resistance, the cap is effectively out of the circuit at "10" on the pot. At that point of rotation, the CCW lug is effectively connected straight to the wiper, bypassing the pot's resistive element. The cap operates through the resistance of the pot (and then to ground a frequency-dependent portion of the signal) and so has no effect when the pot's resistive element is out of play.

Ah, wait, are you talking about a no-load pot? I think stateofepicicity's question wasn't whether the cap had any influence when a no-load pot goes no-load, but rather the effect the cap has with a normal (non-no-load) tone pot when turned to '10'.

---

Apr 24, 2024 22:51:29 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

So the thing that really has no effect when a tone pot is at 10 is the cap?

The magnitude of the impedance of a 22nF capacitor is equal to 500k at a frequency of about 14.5Hz, so it is only around that frequency (and below) that the cap has any significant effect in comparison to the 500k of resistance from the tone pot. But, even below that frequency the overall effect is not significant.

In 'modern' wiring, the primary effect the tone cap has is the voltage divider between the impedance of the pickup and the tone control. At low frequencies the impedance of the pickup is approximately equal to its DCR, for the sake of an example lets say 13k. If the cap is replaced with a short, a divider formed by the 13k of pickup & 500k of the tone pot results in a signal level of 500/(500+13) ≈ 97.5% or a reduction of 0.22dB.

With the cap in place, at frequencies lower than 14.5Hz the impedance of the cap continues to rise, effectively eliminating any loading caused by itself or the 500k with which it is in series — therefore we have no divider and get 100% of the signal. Whereas, if we go in the opposite direction (upwards in frequency) the impedance of the cap falls away towards zero, thus we get effectively the same as the previous circuit where the cap is replaced with a short.

In short, including the tone cap has the affect of a boosting bass frequencies, but this is insignificant because the boost is so small in amplitude and because the frequencies it boosts are so low.

[newey]

Yogi B's technical explanation is obviously better than my layperson's take.

[stateofepicicity]

Thank you newey and @yogi b for taking this much deeper. I've never understood the relationship between a tone pot and cap with the pickup to this degree, and I appreciate you two taking the explanation to this level of detail.

Apr 25, 2024 21:12:10 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Ah, wait, are you talking about a no-load pot? I think stateofepicicity's question wasn't whether the cap had any influence when a no-load pot goes no-load, but rather the effect the cap has with a normal (non-no-load) tone pot when turned to '10'.

This was the root of my question.  I wasn't thinking of no-load pots.

Apr 25, 2024 21:12:10 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

The magnitude of the impedance of a 22nF capacitor is equal to 500k at a frequency of about 14.5Hz, so it is only around that frequency (and below) that the cap has any significant effect in comparison to the 500k of resistance from the tone pot. But, even below that frequency the overall effect is not significant.

In 'modern' wiring, the primary effect the tone cap has is the voltage divider between the impedance of the pickup and the tone control. At low frequencies the impedance of the pickup is approximately equal to its DCR, for the sake of an example lets say 13k. If the cap is replaced with a short, a divider formed by the 13k of pickup & 500k of the tone pot results in a signal level of 500/(500+13) ≈ 97.5% or a reduction of 0.22dB.

With the cap in place, at frequencies lower than 14.5Hz the impedance of the cap continues to rise, effectively eliminating any loading caused by itself or the 500k with which it is in series — therefore we have no divider and get 100% of the signal. Whereas, if we go in the opposite direction (upwards in frequency) the impedance of the cap falls away towards zero, thus we get effectively the same as the previous circuit where the cap is replaced with a short.

In short, including the tone cap has the affect of a boosting bass frequencies, but this is insignificant because the boost is so small in amplitude and because the frequencies it boosts are so low.

In my basic understanding before you explained the mechanism, a tone cap would be doing something to the signal at all wiper positions with a normal pot, but whether or not that is perceptible running through an actual guitar amp is another matter!

So, if you have two normal pots, i.e., not no-load pots, with modern wiring, the tone pot is in parallel with the volume pot at all positions of both wipers.  If each pot is 500K, then your overall resistance from the pots themselves with both wipers at 10 is 250k.  The tone cap's effect at 10 is negligible and effectively inaudible.

So, for my purposes of simulating the high frequency roll off of a normal 500k volume and 500k tone pot with modern wiring, a .022 tone cap, with the tone pot always at ten, a 250k volume pot alone will do just fine.

[JohnH]

Yes I'd agree with thst last paragraph. At 10, a 500k for volume and tone will sound the same as a 250k volume and no tone, and the tone cap plays a negligee role at this setting.

[stateofepicicity]

Okay, this should be the final version.  I'm just posting it here in case anyone might find it helpful for their own diagram in the future.  To recap, this is:

Position 1	Bridge Series
Position 2	Bridge Parallel
Position 3	Bridge Inner / Neck Outer
Position 4	Neck Parallel
Position 5	Neck Series

Bridge Vol controls positions 1 and 2; Neck Vol controls positions 3, 4, and 5.

I'm using a treble bleed of .82nF in parallel with 150K for each pot, taken from JohnH's extensive research and experimentation in the Better Treble Bleed Circuit thread, which I found to maintain the perceived tonal response so well for my style that it eliminated the need for a tone pot.  To keep the load that a tone and volume pot with modern wiring would normally have with a tone pot always at 10, I'm switching from two A500K / A500K dual concentric volume / tone pots with 50s wiring, to two A250K volume pots with treble bleed.

Thanks again to everybody who helped!

[stateofepicicity]

A practical note on treble bleed isolation:

To construct this .82nF 150K parallel treble bleed, I took a .82nF cap and wrapped two resistors around the legs, one 470K, and another 220K.  470K in parallel with 220K equals ~150K.  In my testing, I discovered two strange phenomena occured inconsistenly when rolling back and playing, with either volume knob:

• disortion and crackling
• very minor but discernible volume swell

Now, I have no electrical expertise; everything I've learned has been gleaned from articles and forums, just enough to get by in order to handle my own wiring.  The consequence of my lack of understanding is that I'm ashamed to ask for help until I've exhausted my own research, effort, and troubleshooting.  In this case I've spent many hours trying to isolate the problem.  In the end, I discovered it had something to do with the treble bleed on each volume knob.  Neither treble bleed was in contact with any other metal part outside of the soldering connections, but I guessed that maybe the area in which I wrapped the resistors around the legs of the cap might be vibrating with the guitar, that I should isolate that vibration, should that be the case.  My solution was then to wrap each treble bleed entirely with electrical tape and retry my tests, and that solved the problem!

Anyway, should anyone else with a multi-component treble bleed encounter strange and inconsistent distortion and crackling as well as very minor volume swells, wrapping the resistor(s) and cap with electrical tape may help!

[JohnH]

Hi stateofepicicity

That's very interesting, but science can not explain how wrapping the treble bleed in tape would affect how it sounds. That assumes that it is properly soldered in place and not touching anything that it shouldn't.

150k and 0.82nF is usually a very good combo for use in the mid range of a volume pot turn. When you get very low on the volume, you might find the tone is a little brighter than higher up, and maybe that could enhance any crackles caused by the pot. Also, such parallel TB circuits do tend to slow down the pot taper, making a log pot about halfway towards being a linear pot. So to get to a given reduced volume, you have to turn down a bit more on the knob.

[stateofepicicity]

Apr 29, 2024 15:56:46 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Hi stateofepicicity

That's very interesting, but science can not explain how wrapping the treble bleed in tape would affect how it sounds. That assumes that it is properly soldered in place and not touching anything that it shouldn't.

150k and 0.82nF is usually a very good combo for use in the mid range of a volume pot turn. When you get very low on the volume, you might find the tone is a little brighter than higher up, and maybe that could enhance any crackles caused by the pot. Also, such parallel TB circuits do tend to slow down the pot taper, making a log pot about halfway towards being a linear pot. So to get to a given reduced volume, you have to turn down a bit more on the knob.

It could be a soldering mistake on the treble bleeds.  Now that I think of it, I probably should've soldered the wrapped resistor legs themselves.  I'm just guessing that because I didn't do that, they were maybe jiggling, and taping the bleeds kept the resistors in place enough to avoid the undesired noises.  The soldering of the legs of the caps to the lugs of the pots is solid.

[stateofepicicity]

I got around to removing the electrical tape and just adding a tiny bit of solder to the wraps of the resistor legs, and that did it: the treble bleeds sound great!  I had thought that just wrapping the resistors tightly around the cap several times would be fine; they certainly weren't going anywhere.  But I didn't realize the weirdness that would cause.  Lesson learned.  Is there a Wiring 101 section?  

[newey]

Apr 30, 2024 19:55:56 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

Is there a Wiring 101 section?  

Yes. It's the "Intro to wiring" course, offered by the School of Hard Knocks at the Seat of Your Pants University.

Seriously, though, YouTube is your friend on that sort of thing, it's been done better (by multiple people) than we could ever have done.

[stateofepicicity]

Apr 30, 2024 20:43:36 GMT -5 newey said:

Yes. It's the "Intro to wiring" course, offered by the School of Hard Knocks at the Seat of Your Pants University.

I thought I would've graduated from there sometime in the past couple of decades, but I fear I'm becoming a "professional student."

[unreg]

Apr 29, 2024 18:54:10 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

Apr 29, 2024 15:56:46 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Hi stateofepicicity

That's very interesting, but science can not explain how wrapping the treble bleed in tape would affect how it sounds. That assumes that it is properly soldered in place and not touching anything that it shouldn't.

150k and 0.82nF is usually a very good combo for use in the mid range of a volume pot turn. When you get very low on the volume, you might find the tone is a little brighter than higher up, and maybe that could enhance any crackles caused by the pot. Also, such parallel TB circuits do tend to slow down the pot taper, making a log pot about halfway towards being a linear pot. So to get to a given reduced volume, you have to turn down a bit more on the knob.

It could be a soldering mistake on the treble bleeds.  Now that I think of it, I probably should've soldered the wrapped resistor legs themselves.  I'm just guessing that because I didn't do that, they were maybe jiggling, and taping the bleeds kept the resistors in place enough to avoid the undesired noises.  The soldering of the legs of the caps to the lugs of the pots is solid.

Yeay, I’m happy you solved this!

Honestly, I had a similar resistor problem. I had soldered two 1 meg resistors in parallel between lugs 1 and 3 of my tone pot; that resulted in changing my initial 500K tone pot to 250K. Back then, I was unaware of my tone pot being 250K… I was just super pleased with the treble reduction the 250K equivalent tone pot provided. I believe that, like you, I taped the resistors to prevent wobbling and the noises/popping that happened sometimes while using my guitar. I think I taped them to the capacitor; my capacitor was also stable.

I also remember receiving a similar science can’t explain that message from JohnH. Removing the tape, and adding a small dot of solder to the resistors+pot also resulted with great audio!

Now, my humbucker guitar has a 250K tone pot. This sounds excellent! A long time ago, after I had installed a DiMarzio Bluesbucker the treble became MUCH too shrill; I ended up soldering those two 1 meg resistors in parallel between lugs 1 and 3 of my 500K tone pot as a result of an internet search to make my guitar less shrill; it was a big blessing to have a less shrill guitar, but my soldering skills were TERRIBLE then… and thus the resistors began wobbling after a while.

So, that kind of happened to me too; I understand your wiring 101 question a bit too well.

[stateofepicicity]

May 1, 2024 17:54:57 GMT -5 unreg said:

Yeay, I’m happy you solved this!

Honestly, I had a similar resistor problem. I had soldered two 1 meg resistors in parallel between lugs 1 and 3 of my tone pot; that resulted in changing my initial 500K tone pot to 250K. Back then, I was unaware of my tone pot being 250K… I was just super pleased with the treble reduction the 250K equivalent tone pot provided. I believe that, like you, I taped the resistors to prevent wobbling and the noises/popping that happened sometimes while using my guitar. I think I taped them to the capacitor; my capacitor was also stable.

I also remember receiving a similar science can’t explain that message from JohnH. Removing the tape, and adding a small dot of solder to the resistors+pot also resulted with great audio!

Now, my humbucker guitar has a 250K tone pot. This sounds excellent! A long time ago, after I had installed a DiMarzio Bluesbucker the treble became MUCH too shrill; I ended up soldering those two 1 meg resistors in parallel between lugs 1 and 3 of my tone pot as a result of an internet search to make my guitar less shrill; it was a big blessing to have a less shrill guitar, but my soldering skills were TERRIBLE then… and thus the resistors began wobbling after a while.

So, that kind of happened to me too; I understand your wiring 101 question a bit too well.

Thanks haha.  It's funny, I went for the tape at my wits' end to find any reason for the noises to be occurring.  I had already spent hours desoldering, resoldering, and multimeter testing, I was starting to lose it.  Also, since this whole project has taken a while, between soliciting advice and studying to understand the solutions properly, at this point I was itching finally to play.  So in this instance tape would at least isolate which components were causing the noises.

This problem of a shrill guitar is something to which I can relate.  The guitar I've been writing about in this thread is actually a warranty replacement, because one of the Floyd posts in the original actually broke through the body.  Almost all of the screw holes of the body of the original stripped, including a strap button screw hole.  The wood (black limba) was so soft.  Along with this was a thinness and a shrillness that was extremely difficult to mitigate, and I think it was because of the over-softness of this specimen.

Luckily the replacement does not have these problems, neither with nonsensical stripping nor excessive shrillness.

That Bluesbucker is an interesting pickup.  A few years ago I called DiMarzio when shopping for pickups for another superstrat, and the rep told me it's essentially a noiseless single coil, just not the stacked variety; you have one wound coil next to a dummy coil for hum cancelling.  I ended up opting for Duncan Saturday Night Specials, but I took note of how cool that is.  That said, no wonder it could get shrill!

In my quest to dial down the shrillness of the first of this guitar, I tried soooo many pickups, but there harsh upper mids were really impossible to get rid of entirely.  A Floyd is an instant tone thinner but, this went far beyond that.  I ended up thinking there are just some guitars that you can't fight.  I even tried the basic Q manipulation thread posted by antigua here, but I couldn't fine tune the results enough.

The current guitar has a regular Floyd thinness, the kind manufacturers fight with high output pickups to beef up the tone when the excessive routing for the trem and the needless swimming pool route has taken too much away, but it is balanced enough still to allow for great chime and sparkle in front of an AC30 style amp when running either humbucker in parallel.

I'm glad lower pot value gave you what you needed.  A low pass filter is a hit and miss tool, and I feel like we're in the Dark Ages when it comes to this stuff.  To my mind guitars should have much more sophisticated tone shaping tools built in!  I know PRS has some sort of tone standardizing technology for some line of theirs.  I know when I've compared my guitar to DI tracks of a Core DGT, my superstrat sounds like a harsh mosquito compared to the majesty of the DGT.  In my mind, I want to play the smokiest Les Paul on my bridge, a Strat on the low output of my neck, and a sweet and beautiful Les Paul on the high output of my neck.  With the way I've configured the guitar now, I think I've got a good approximation now!

[unreg]

May 1, 2024 19:37:14 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

With the way I've configured the guitar now, I think I've got a good approximation now!

That’s great to hear!

If you ever want to further reduce slight shrillness, another thing, I learned here, is: for me, when both humbuckers are selected, I slightly reduce volume knob to about 9.7. (There aren’t any numbers on my guitar knobs, so 9.7 is just a slight turn down.) Decreasing my volume from max slightly, removes treble, but keeps volume nearly the same. That simple volume turn, whenever the switch selects both humbuckers, changes the few harsh notes into beautiful notes, so the entire fretboard is playable!

A slight pot reduction off max reduces treble; I don’t slightly move the tone knob since it’s set how I want; the number of pickups selected doesn’t matter for treble reduction, it’s just never needed for my DiMarzio.

I guess the other stock ESP humbucker at the neck doesn’t work super well with the Bluesbucker. Either that, or the neck position pickup alone increases shrillness… for some of the notes at least. I never play just the neck, so I don’t remember.

[stateofepicicity]

May 3, 2024 16:25:34 GMT -5 unreg said:

If you ever want to further reduce slight shrillness, another thing, I learned here, is: for me, when both humbuckers are selected, I slightly reduce volume knob to about 9.7. (There aren’t any numbers on my guitar knobs, so 9.7 is just a slight turn down.) Decreasing my volume from max slightly, removes treble, but keeps volume nearly the same. That simple volume turn, whenever the switch selects both humbuckers, changes the few harsh notes into beautiful notes, so the entire fretboard is playable!

A slight pot reduction off max reduces treble; I don’t slightly move the tone knob since it’s set how I want; the number of pickups selected doesn’t matter for treble reduction, it’s just never needed for my DiMarzio.

I guess the other stock ESP humbucker at the neck doesn’t work super well with the Bluesbucker. Either that, or the neck position pickup alone increases shrillness… for some of the notes at least. I never play just the neck, so I don’t remember.

Much appreciated.  I isolated the problem frequency at 2.3kHz for the problem guitar, and high end rolloffs just were always too high to attack that frequency properly.  It was just a terrible resonance.  I look at it as a reverse ghost note, where, instead of a resonance that makes a note disappear, you end up with a note that spikes and makes your ears bleed.

But I'm with you on high end rolloffs in general being great.  I think though, with JohnH's .82nF 150K parallel treble bleed, I feel way freer and happier playing.  It just feels so right.  This is one of those moments where I'm experiencing something that is a huge revelation in tone to me!

Your Bluesbucker, is that in the bridge position?  So you have a humbucker neck and essentially a noiseless single-coil tone in the bridge?  I only ever see that in certain Telecasters.  Cool way to go if it serves your style well.

[unreg]

May 4, 2024 11:14:05 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

Your Bluesbucker, is that in the bridge position?  So you have a humbucker neck and essentially a noiseless single-coil tone in the bridge?  I only ever see that in certain Telecasters.  Cool way to go if it serves your style well.

Feel free to hear it here, at the most recent post on page4:

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/9973/klon?page=4

Info: That’s my ghost drive pedal connected to a Universal Audio Orion Tape Echo pedal.

—-

Thank you! Happy you are enjoying your guitar!

___

EDIT: Here is a direct link to that post my klon thread:

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/post/112510/thread

And the text link there has been successfully converted into an actual link!

[unreg]

May 4, 2024 11:14:05 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

Your Bluesbucker, is that in the bridge position?  So you have a humbucker neck and essentially a noiseless single-coil tone in the bridge?  I only ever see that in certain Telecasters.

Yes and yes, a stock ESP humbucker neck. See post directly above for a direct link to the place where I actually linked an example mp3.

[stateofepicicity]

May 7, 2024 15:10:04 GMT -5 unreg said:

May 4, 2024 11:14:05 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

Your Bluesbucker, is that in the bridge position?  So you have a humbucker neck and essentially a noiseless single-coil tone in the bridge?  I only ever see that in certain Telecasters.

Yes and yes, a stock ESP humbucker neck. See post directly above for a direct link to the place where I actually linked an example mp3.

Sorry I totally forgot to write about that recording! I heard it through my phone then forgot to go back to listen through headphones. So cool! It was mesmerizing with the way you stacked the time based effects. Really interesting pickup configuration. What made you want to go for that?

[unreg]

May 7, 2024 16:16:02 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

May 7, 2024 15:10:04 GMT -5 unreg said:

Yes and yes, a stock ESP humbucker neck. See post directly above for a direct link to the place where I actually linked an example mp3.

Sorry I totally forgot to write about that recording! I heard it through my phone then forgot to go back to listen through headphones. So cool! It was mesmerizing with the way you stacked the time based effects. Really interesting pickup configuration. What made you want to go for that?

Wow! Thank you so much! In my guitar beginning, I went for Bluesbucker at the bridge because a.) I had decided on a Bluesbucker b.) I remember doing an internet search to find where to put it and c.) that search told me the bridge location was an odd yet interesting location.

Plus, my bridge ESP pickup was putting out a lot of hum, so I chose the bridge for Bluesbucker. At that time, I had no idea about how to fix hum, so replacing the pickup seemed like the best solution; it worked/was hum free… for a SHORT while at least.

Ooh, the pulsing at the end of that mp3 is not a digital, or electronic, time based effect; it’s actually my using the wammy bar of the Schaller Floyd Rose to fade the volume away. That works too.



EDIT: My use of the word “hum” in this post can refer to either noise AND/OR hum. I don’t actually remember how the ESP bridge humbucker sounded… its muddy sound was just terrible, for me at least.

[stateofepicicity]

May 7, 2024 17:33:20 GMT -5 unreg said:

Ooh, the pulsing at the end of that mp3 is not a digital, or electronic, time based effect; it’s actually my using the wammy bar of the Schaller Floyd Rose to fade the volume away. That works too.

Oh very cool.  By time based effect, I meant whatever kind of phaser or flange you were using mixed with maybe delay?  Whatever you were doing with those effects all sounded cool and cohesive together.

[unreg]

May 7, 2024 18:10:27 GMT -5 stateofepicicity said:

May 7, 2024 17:33:20 GMT -5 unreg said:

Ooh, the pulsing at the end of that mp3 is not a digital, or electronic, time based effect; it’s actually my using the wammy bar of the Schaller Floyd Rose to fade the volume away. That works too.

Oh very cool.  By time based effect, I meant whatever kind of phaser or flange you were using mixed with maybe delay?  Whatever you were doing with those effects all sounded cool and cohesive together.

Well, ummm… I was only using my guitar through my ghostdrive (self built klon clone available from StewMac) through my Orion UAFX Tape Echo pedal hand-made by Universal Audio to my amp. My amp is set to sound like it’s using a 63 Fender Spring reverb… I think that’s right.

Anyways, there is no phaser or flange used… that’s just how my amp sounds with those 2 pedals and the 63 Fender Spring Reverb running on my amp. And, perhaps my playing had something to do with that sound too (My fingers aren’t super strong).

Maybe it’s obvious now, but I honestly don’t know how a phaser or flange is supposed to sound.

[stateofepicicity]

May 8, 2024 12:13:59 GMT -5 unreg said:

Well, ummm… I was only using my guitar through my ghostdrive (self built klon clone available from StewMac) through my Orion UAFX Tape Echo pedal hand-made by Universal Audio to my amp. My amp is set to sound like it’s using a 63 Fender Spring reverb… I think that’s right.

Anyways, there is no phaser or flange used… that’s just how my amp sounds with those 2 pedals and the 63 Fender Spring Reverb running on my amp. And, perhaps my playing had something to do with that sound too (My fingers aren’t super strong).

Maybe it’s obvious now, but I honestly don’t know how a phaser or flange is supposed to sound.

Oh very cool.  A tape echo is a time based effect.  Something about that pedal then gives off a phaser kind of vibe to me.  I'm sure there are YouTube videos comparing phasers and flangers where the difference is really discernible.  Sounded great no matter what!