|
Post by ChrisK on Jan 10, 2007 18:12:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 10, 2007 20:12:52 GMT -5
Getting that parallel dominant mix of S and P is a tricky one. I had a sketch this morning which I thought would do it, but I needed the central position on the 4PDT on-on-ons to have three connected to the left and one to the right, instead of two of each.
John
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 10, 2007 23:39:04 GMT -5
unk, Right you are, unk. I was referring to switches alone, but I didn't quote enough of the thread to make that obvious. Sorry 'bout that.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 11, 2007 6:20:18 GMT -5
I had another go at the parallel dominant version of this switching, respecting the limitations of a 4PDT on-on-on. Here is my attempt, which is half baked and therefore only for intelectual interest. It's similar to semi-solids one, but not identical. I left off the phase switches and pots etc. I found that I could not do this without a couple of features that we try to avoid if possible, being coil shunting, and an undesirable all-off condition. On an SSS, I'm personally not too worried about shunting coils if necessary, since from testing , I found the effects are somewhere between 'negligible and 'not a problem'. I was not too pleased to find that I needed an open-circuit all-off setting however, rather tha the inherently quieter short-circuit one. This could perhaps be acceptable with a very good internal shielding job. And also I don't play much with all the pickups off. I find that having at least one switched on is much better! However, I would have to say that I do not plan on building one of these. The switches cost more than most of my guitars, and I find three-position toggles to be fiddly to set, and less positive and clear than two-position ones. Its a nice puzzle though. John
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jan 11, 2007 14:13:14 GMT -5
hi John,
even half baked things do serve as learning tools.
i'm fairly certain, all the fruit has been shaken from this tree.
i went through exhaustive attempts to make the parallel dominant version clean, but never got it right.
one of the reasons why the series-dominant version was possible, is because, after i "economized" on the use of poles and throws, the left-overs were enough to do the "housekeeping".
in the case of series-dominant, that means keeping the parallel group shorted, unless any pickup is selected as parallel.
however, the parallel-dominant scheme requires a bit more.
you want have the parallel group always connected to the output, and connect the series group to the output, only if: (1) all pickups are off, OR (2) any pickup is selected as series.
i'm quite impressed with how far you were able to take this.
you are quite right about the cost of these switches.
they cost more than a superswitch in most cases, and for this application you would also need a DPDT for phase.
and since i've already solved the puzzle for both series-dominant and parallel-dominant versions using superswitches,
i did find the main reason to solve these was just for the sake of solving them.
and, of course, for the benefit of those who have an aversion to "the blade".
good work John,
unk
|
|
semisolid
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
|
Post by semisolid on Jan 11, 2007 14:49:30 GMT -5
John; that is so clever that it is annoying.
I suppose that is as good as it gets for now.
Tip of the month:
Semisolid
|
|