|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2006 9:38:53 GMT -5
Any insight on the value of compound combos? I.E., N>(M+B)? Any recording artists or guitar heros out there produce a "defining sound" with one yet? The gottahaveit tone that's just mindblowingly cool?
Incidentally, assuming I wanted to take the plunge, how about a rotary switch that would automatically add the missing pickup to whatever other combo was in play, and added it in the appropriate orientation, i.e. adding the missing M in series to the N+B option, of whathaveyou?
At least that way, if I take the plunge, I go all the way, not miss a thing, and if I don't want to be bothered I can just leave it alone and not worry about it, and just go straight off of my UUSS.
Any ideas?
Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 21, 2006 10:12:05 GMT -5
Funny you should mention about the rotary switch thing...
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jul 21, 2006 11:55:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2006 23:23:13 GMT -5
Okay, here's the samples page from Deaf Eddie. I figure that's as good a place as any to explore these compound combos. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 22, 2006 23:34:31 GMT -5
I have a mod for 17 sounds and two switches. It's a real PITA to wire, but if you want it (mostly) logical, that's what you gotta do.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 23, 2006 0:17:22 GMT -5
I have a mod for 17 sounds and two switches. It's a real PITA to wire, but if you want it (mostly) logical, that's what you gotta do. Post it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 23, 2006 0:41:10 GMT -5
I will soon. It's gonna take some time to figger the best way of diagramming the PITA part, which is the rotary switch. I'm still not 100% convinced that it's all that much of an advantage over push/pull or push/push pots. Actually, I have a couple of different ideas for the rotary, but one has "repeat sounds", which I can't stand. The "repeat" setup actually has 22 sounds. However, the 17 has at least one sound that the 22 doesn't. FWIW, I've been trying for a "Chesh Mode" that has the middle pickup alone in addition to the other stuff. If I can work that out, I might actually have something. By the way, there's a guy in the Ft. Lauderdale area selling my original setup as his own. The place is called HAS Sound. He adds a Torres-type midrange, tho'. It's not illegal, as far as I know, but IMO it's certainly unethical. On the other hand, NOTHING he sells seems to actually be of his own design, so maybe I should be flattered. NOT.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 23, 2006 1:31:34 GMT -5
Cool! It's gonna take some time to figger the best way of diagramming the PITA part, which is the rotary switch. I'm still not 100% convinced that it's all that much of an advantage over push/pull or push/push pots. Well, it depends. If you simply use the rotary as a way to cleanly ring in a lot of extra poles that would be rather hard to come by with toggles or push/pulls, then there are definite advantages. Actually, I have a couple of different ideas for the rotary, but one has "repeat sounds", which I can't stand. The "repeat" setup actually has 22 sounds. However, the 17 has at least one sound that the 22 doesn't. The challenge I'm setting for myself is as follows: * No redundancies. * No deadspots. * No patching. * No finicky fingerings. * No hanging from hot. * Completely intuitive. * Completely ergonomic. * Completely works live. * Completely modular. * Completely sideslammable, or . . . * Completely pinchtwistable . . . . . . and, last but not least, a . . . * Complete cache of combos. So far I'm making good progress. FWIW, I've been trying for a "Chesh Mode" that has the middle pickup alone in addition to the other stuff. If I can work that out, I might actually have something. Cool, and thank you! I'm honored to be referenced as an adjective! ;D Does that mean I've arrived? By the way, there's a guy in the Ft. Lauderdale area selling my original setup as his own. The place is called HAS Sound. He adds a Torres-type midrange, tho'. It's not illegal, as far as I know, but IMO it's certainly unethical. On the other hand, NOTHING he sells seems to actually be of his own design, so maybe I should be flattered. NOT. That's just so wrong! I've drawn a lot from your work, and I always give you credit! That's only fair and proper! What's up with the Torres thing? How does that figure into it? Incidentally, in addition to working on the Coil Inverter, I'm also working on a Combo Compounder, basically a rotary or toggle that, once flipped or engaged, will immediately ring in the third missing pickup, in either series or parallel, to the other two pickups in a two pickup combo, thus giving us the missing compound combos. So, i.e., N+B becomes (N+B)>M, and so on. The only exception to this will be ALL3>, which becomes ALL3+. Neat, eh? Assuming HSH, I'm looking at seven switches altogether, but a very intuitive seven switches indeed. The SuperSwitch and Mode Switch handle the main switching, and then all of the five other optional switches, being the two Splitters, the Phase Inverter, Coil Inverter, and Combo Compounder, are either on or off. There's no patching or odd combos to remember. You either want the attribute that that particular switch represents, or you don't. You either want the buckers split, or you don't. You either want OOP, or you don't. You either want the outer coils, or the inner coils (a la PRS). You either want the compound combos, or you don't. I'm even looking at a version where the Coil Splitters are replaced with a universal splitter, perhaps coined as a UniSplitter. I'm just wondering if it's worth giving up SSH and only having SSS and HSH. Either way, these were some ideas. And even if you had an HSH, but didn't need independent splitting, and didn't care for the compound combos, then that would only be the bladeswitch and three toggles. Not a bad deal to have. Not only that, three S-1 Switches would do the trick, so technically your prized strat would look unmodified, unless people looked closer at the knobs. Ultimately, this schematic would give every macro-combo (vs. the micro-combos of series/split/parallel for each pickup, for instance). And it would do it will almost all the attributes listed above. (I'm still testing to make sure everything is 100%.) Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 23, 2006 16:07:24 GMT -5
Well, the guy kinda ripped off Torres, as well. He uses a copy of Torres' Super Midrange (the one with the fake mid boost) in addition to my bit. As for the newer stuff, I don't have quite as many things to overcome as you've set for yourself. I have two versions of the "big" wiring, one with a "Chesh Mode", which I finally got to work (I think) last night. The main issue now is that I have to make sure the rotary I'm using will fit in a Strat with no problems. Just in case, each version as a sort of "Lite" version that uses a smaller rotary for fewer sounds. I'll try to fit everything together this evening, and hopefully it'll all work out. And thank you for giving me credit. I don't mind if people make the thing for themselves. Sharing the info is why we're here. But for somebody to pass someone else's stuff off as his own just rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, Scarlett Johansson can rub me any way she wants.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 23, 2006 16:20:12 GMT -5
Well, the guy kinda ripped off Torres, as well. He uses a copy of Torres' Super Midrange (the one with the fake mid boost) in addition to my bit. Ah, equal opportunity plagerizer. Got a link? In PM, so we don't give the free publicity? Also, big question here that I've seriously been wondering about: considering all passive electronics are subtractive, how can Torres make the claim that their super midrange control can actually "boost" a signal? As for the newer stuff, I don't have quite as many things to overcome as you've set for yourself. I can indeed be so hard on myself. I have two versions of the "big" wiring, one with a "Chesh Mode", which I finally got to work (I think) last night. The main issue now is that I have to make sure the rotary I'm using will fit in a Strat with no problems. Just in case, each version as a sort of "Lite" version that uses a smaller rotary for fewer sounds. I'll try to fit everything together this evening, and hopefully it'll all work out. Wise idea on having the fallback positions. And thank you for giving me credit. I don't mind if people make the thing for themselves. Sharing the info is why we're here. But for somebody to pass someone else's stuff off as his own just rubs me the wrong way. Indeed. I'm angry for you as well. On the other hand, Scarlett Johansson can rub me any way she wants. I totally concur! BTW, I have a request: when you post your schematic, could post a handwritten one, so I can understand it? I notice that it's hard to read and understand the other schematics, unless it's someone like JohnH doing some wild CAD work or something. I really think that the font that you created was really the best . . . ergo, why I adopted it. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 23, 2006 19:58:32 GMT -5
Hand-crafted it will be, then. Here's the Torres Super Midrange. From "5" to "0", it's a normal tone control. From "5" to "10", the pot sees more resistance, making your signal just a tiny bit hotter. The small cap rolls off some of the "highest highs", making the circuit function like a poor man's mid boost. It's supposed to be neutral at "5", but it isn't. You could make it neutral by modding the pot to have no load at "5", but it'd probably be more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 24, 2006 1:03:31 GMT -5
Hand-crafted it will be, then. Here's the Torres Super Midrange. Coolio! BTW, it's not that it needs to be "hand rendered" or "hand crafted" or anything. It's just that you really had the best font of any schematics I've ever seen, or have yet to see in terms of something that bests it. For instance, I use a lot of MSPaint to clean up my work (and do some creative copying and pasting as well) to create what I've done so far, but I'm still maintaining that wonderful font. Along those lines, I'm sure I'll clean things up even more and get it really crisp, clean, and sharp, probably just short of CAD clean, but I'll never deviate from that font, unless, of course, I move into the JohnH and ChrisK school of CAD work. And it would have to be at that level of excellence before I was to ever abandon this font. I just find it so much more evocative than anything else out there. From "5" to "0", it's a normal tone control. From "5" to "10", the pot sees more resistance, making your signal just a tiny bit hotter. The small cap rolls off some of the "highest highs", making the circuit function like a poor man's mid boost. It's supposed to be neutral at "5", but it isn't. You could make it neutral by modding the pot to have no load at "5", but it'd probably be more trouble than it's worth. Okay, I'm still not tracking this. How exactly do they make it work from 5 to 10? I get the yin yang bit, but explain the 5 to 10 yang again.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 24, 2006 3:19:47 GMT -5
The idea is that as you go from "5" to "10", you are adding resistance between output and ground. It's equivalent to having a larger value pot, which will give you a tiny increase in output voltage, as well as a tiny bit more treble. Fender's TBX control added highs the same way as you turned it from "5" to "10", but they used a 1M pot instead of 500k or whatever Torres uses. The cap rolls off some highs, so the net result is a small overall increase in output, with some highs rolled off. This sort of equates to a mid boost, but not in any practical sense. I've never heard of anyone measuring the "boost", but I'd be suprised if it's more than 1 or 2 dB. I read somewhere on either the Torres or Griblin sites that it's supposed to simulate adding more windings to the pickup(s). www.torresengineering.com www.griblinengineering.com
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 24, 2006 7:43:18 GMT -5
Looks like the "big" rotary switch will fit a Strat body, at least in the middle postion. Mine's a Warmoth, so it may not fit everything. The one drawback is that the switch has a smooth shaft, and I want one that's knurled so a Strat knob will fit on it. It may be one of those "we can get it for you, but you'll have to order 1,000 of 'em" deals. Hopefully not. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 24, 2006 8:37:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 25, 2006 0:45:51 GMT -5
Mike, That would be "splined split-shaft", not knurled. AFAIK, Strat knobs have always been splined in the shaft hole. In fact, I think that nearly all Fenders have always had splined knobs and pots, but I could be wrong about that. More to the point, you may be in for a long search. Most rotary switches come with a smooth shaft with one flat surface intended for a set screw in the knob. Seems that's the "normal" way to guarantee traction between the knob and the shaft, without stripping or breaking something. But who knows, you may strike paydirt yet! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 25, 2006 6:27:03 GMT -5
Okay, then, "splined split-shaft". I'm very much aware that "nearly all Fenders have always had splined knobs and pots". THAT'S why I wanted to find a switch with a "splined split-shaft". I'm also well aware that "most rotary switches come with a 'smooth shaft with one flat surface'". That's called a D-shaft, because of it's shape. The switch I have has a SMOOTH SHAFT, not a D-SHAFT. It is COMPLETELY SMOOTH, with NO flat surface(s).
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 25, 2006 16:36:14 GMT -5
Mike, I had a hunch that you are up to speed, but you gotta remember, I also think of those members here who are not yet at your level of knowledge and expertise. That explains in general why I get so verbose. ;D Hmmmm, I just remembered...... you know those Vari-tone switches on the ES-345/355? Well, they got me to thinking, and I took a google for them. Turns out that Stew-Mac has a 4P5T and a 2P6T available, with the proper splined split shaft. Just over 10 bananas each!! Perhaps a little surgery, grafting wafers and such, and you might have just what you need. But I see where you're coming from, because they got the terminology wrong in their description - they call it a knurled shaft when it's clearly splined and split. But wait, it gets worse! If you click for a look-see at their matching knob, that part is described as having a "knurled shaft with 18 splines". WTF?? Don't these people ever consult the written materials that accompany the parts they sell? It's no wonder that guitarists who try to go beyond just playing a basic instrument have problems.... how can they ever figure out what we're talking about when the parts sellers themselves refuse to get the terminology correct!! It's enough to make a grown man curse! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Jul 25, 2006 17:06:01 GMT -5
With all due respect, I have NEVER seen the term "splined split-shaft" in reference to pots or rotary switches. FWIW, the CTS website uses the term KNURLED, as do Mouser, Digikey, and pretty much everywhere else I've ever looked for electronic parts.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 25, 2006 17:14:39 GMT -5
It's no wonder that guitarists who try to go beyond just playing a basic instrument have problems.... how can they ever figure out what we're talking about when the parts sellers themselves refuse to get the terminology correct!! It's enough to make a grown man curse! Welcome to Tremololand.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 25, 2006 17:33:53 GMT -5
Mike, No respect necessary. Ain't ever had none before, and don't 'spect I should spoil the record this late in the game. ;D
Ah, that would explain the problem then. In most colleges, marketing types are not required to take any engineering classes at all, probably nothing more than basic science, most likely taught by Bill Nye The Science Guy.
By definition, to knurl a shaft means that a very shallow scratching has been appled to the surface of a shaft, usually at either a 60 or 90° angle. This is intended not so much to cause a depression into the surface, but to "raise" the material to a dimension greater than the original diameter of the shaft. Ideally, no material actually disappears, it is merely "moved" to a more useful location.
Contrast that with the defintion of a spline. That's where material is truly removed from the surface of a shaft, along the longest dimension. The overall diameter should not be changed in this process. The intent here is to provide "teeth" to engage matching "teeth" found within another shaft. Obviously, splines are intended to be matched with something else, whereas knurling need not be matched. In fact, a knurled surface works best against a smooth surface. (Auto mechanincs would think of valve guides here.)
Now that we have that down pat, what's the benefit of all this? None. Absolutely none. All I've done is rant and rave, because it's a sure bet that all those parts outlets you mentioned are not gonna listen to me, nor even a thousand people like me. What we have here is a classic case of "Leo-itis", vis-a-vis the vibrato/tremolo fiasco. If I were to say something to any of them, I'd bet shekels to shillelauglies that they'd respond something like: "It's called what we wanna call it, and to hell with anyone who says otherwise."
Aw well, so long as I can wrap my fingers around the neck, and keep from dropping the pick more than once or twice a night, then I guess I don't really care.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jul 27, 2006 6:53:20 GMT -5
Hey Sumgai....wasn't that vacation s'posed to leave you all cool calm and collected? .. FWIW...I call them thar wiggly thangs splines as well......:-)
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 27, 2006 14:59:33 GMT -5
gumbo, Well, it was 4800+ miles in 12 days, and I did 98% of all the driving. You do the math! [Side note: 2005 Exploder, 4.0L V6, AC and all the goodies.... averaged 19.8 MPG for the whole trip! Interstate for much less than half that, mountains for a large part of it, and d@mned hot (AC turned way up!).] Besides, who says that a lament is all hot and hairy? This isn't the first time that I've learned the hard way that the world took a turn (for the worse) while I was snoozing in my rocker out on the porch overlooking the pond. A few more of these "episodes", and I'll be so used to it that I'll finally stop b1tching. ;D sumgai p.s. The image is 1280x960, so give it a few moments to completely load up for you.
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jul 28, 2006 6:26:27 GMT -5
OK..You win.... ...and not even a headstock in the corner of the pic......I'm impressed!!!!
(this space intentionally left blank to allow others to regain topic)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Aug 3, 2006 10:01:09 GMT -5
I've got one of the rotary diagrams ready. I'll get it posted asap.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Aug 3, 2006 10:15:35 GMT -5
Okay, here's one of them. This one does the original 10, then puts the neck out of phase for 4 more sounds. The rotary is a 4P3T. You can get one with a SPLINED SPLIT-SHAFT(!) from www.allelectronics.com for $1.35. Look for PART # RS-134. The available sounds are: Bridge, Bridge/Middle, Bridge/Neck, Middle/Neck, Neck All 3 Parallel, Bridge/Mid Series, Bridge/Neck Series, Middle/Neck Series, All 3 Series All 3 Parallel w/Neck O/P, Bridge/Middle Series, Bridge/Neck Series O/P, Middle/Neck Series O/P, All 3 Series w/ Neck O/P. There is one repeat sound, which I can do nothing about using this rotary. I'll post an expanded version of this using a 6P4T rotary soon. There will also be a "Cheshcaster" version of the big one, for those who might want one. (Hmmm...?)
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Aug 3, 2006 13:01:01 GMT -5
Okay, here's one of them. This one does the original 10, then puts the neck out of phase for 4 more sounds. The rotary is a 4P3T. You can get one with a SPLINED SPLIT-SHAFT(!) from www.allelectronics.com for $1.35. Look for PART # RS-134. The available sounds are: Bridge, Bridge/Middle, Bridge/Neck, Middle/Neck, Neck All 3 Parallel, Bridge/Mid Series, Bridge/Neck Series, Middle/Neck Series, All 3 Series All 3 Parallel w/Neck O/P, Bridge/Middle Series, Bridge/Neck Series O/P, Middle/Neck Series O/P, All 3 Series w/ Neck O/P. There is one repeat sound, which I can do nothing about using this rotary. I'll post an expanded version of this using a 6P4T rotary soon. There will also be a "Cheshcaster" version of the big one, for those who might want one. (Hmmm...?) Excellent work!! So far so good! Incidentally, you mention the repeat combo. Actually, you really don't have a repeat combo. You just have a combo yet to be phase inverted (but you probably knew that ). Still, I'm liking this in a big way! Incidentally, I'm also going to be putting together my Coil Inverter. I should hopefully have that up soon. Also, I'm still crunching the braincells on the Bypassable UniSplitter. I'm not big on three throw toggles, but this looks too good not to do. It's all looking so cool I'm seriously thinking of trading out my EMG 89 for a custom EMG job. BTW, could you post/link a big version of your diagram so I can really study it? Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Aug 3, 2006 13:24:38 GMT -5
Um...Bigger than what?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 3, 2006 15:15:23 GMT -5
Mike, Chesh means bigger pixel-wise. Larger in width and height, so he (and others) can glean the details more easily. For some of us, the closer and smaller things are, the more they appear to 'disappear', if you know what I mean. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Aug 3, 2006 16:33:07 GMT -5
Actually, I knew what he meant. I was being facetious. The reason I asked is because (on my computer at least) it's quite large. How much bigger do you need? I'll post a larger one and you can tell me if it's okay.
|
|