JohnH helped me with a single HB + rotary switch (4-way) wiring diagram a while back, and while that project languishes as parts are being shipped, I'm rewiring my single pup Tele (i.e., Esquire-stye, but with a GFS dual rail HB).
So I've (hopefully) extrapolated JohnH's diagram for the 4-position rotary to my std 3-way Tele switch (it's the "Boxed" style Import switch with all the contacts on the same side). The idea was to eliminate the "cap bleed" position from the rotary diagram, leaving:
1) Both coils series 2) Both coils Parallel 2) Single coil split (which one is unimportant)
Currently it's wired with both coils series in the center position, and N and S coils split in the other two positions- but the tonal difference between one vs. the other coil alone is nonexistent to my ears. So I want the parallel option instead.
So I drew up this:
Can someone more skilled double-check this for me? I think it's ok, but not at 100% confidence level here . .
You may need to reverse the leads of the N coil. As it is, the two coils will be wired out of phase. Not only is this not hum-cancelling, on a dual rail humbucker you will get almost no signal. I could be wrong, so try both, but be prepared to pull your axe apart again if they are the wrong way round.
Otherwise looks great! You will get:
1: both coils series 2: both coils parallel 3: S coil only.
I'm gonna pre-punt in that I've included a recent post helping someone that, while using a different switch (a DPDT ON-ON-ON 3 position toggle switch), is directly related to doing exactly what you're doing. I can't make out your color codes and the North start, South side, East end, and Western Ho shite gives me an aneurysm (and not the good kind either).
Now, before one goes GeHuh?, realize that the two pole three position lever switch is a SUPERSET of what was used in the post. If one ties two of the switch positions together per pole, one from each end (this is a meta concept), one gets the toggle's action.
The switch is shown in the middle position for the single coil. This would be the #2 or middle position on your switch.
For series, only the left pole switches "up" (on your switch both poles switch "up", so your right pole would select again the same connection as shown for the middle position when it "goes up").
For parallel, only the right pole switches "down" (on your switch both poles switch, so your left pole would select again the same connection as shown for the middle position when it "goes down").
If you were following my diagram, with your DP3T lever switch, one pole would have the terminals for positions 1&2 tied together, and the other would have positions 2&3 tied together.
Meta is as meta does, I believe that you can correlate these. It also has Duncan color codes referenced. Additionally, it doesn't have the hanging coil that your design does.
gives me an aneurysm (and not the good kind either).
There's a good kind??
Appreciate the help, didn't realize I had a coil hanging from hot. So I sort of "hinge" the two sides of the DPDT in your diagram, but what becomes of the common "P" connection? Is that then the same as #2?
BTW, GFS pup wire colors are SD style, as shown in the diagram.
Here's what I get, which I am now much less sure is right
And Pete. thanks-
but be prepared to pull your axe apart again if they are the wrong way round.
That's what's so great about a Tele (er, . . .Esquire) style guitar. Two screws, no destringing!
Your latest masterpiece is too far gone for retrieval - suggest you revert the previous incarnation, 'cause it works as you specified. No need to rewire, unless you want to cement in your mind the concepts that Chris has laid out for you.
And for the record, I fail to find any hanging hots in your first diagram. Check it out:
South start is always hot, so to avoid the 'hanger', the finish must always find ground. In positions 2 and 3, it does so directly. In position 1, it does so thru the serial connection to North finish. Done is.
North start is always grounded, so by definition, there's no way for that coil to hang.
Done really is. Unless someone wants to lead me by my widdle hannie.....
Rule #1: All Lives Are Final. Make sure that the life you have just been issued is appropriate for your needs, before departing the womb.
Rule #2: In case you don't like the life you have, see Rule #1.
I agree with sumgai, the first design will work for this arrangement with the following cavaets:
1) The coils are currently shown out of phase, so reverse the start and finish on one of them.
2) Check that on a box style switch, the two P terminals are not internally connected. If they are, then positions 2+3 will both give parallel coils. This can be fixed by removing the cover of the switch and scraping off a tiny piece of the PCB track between the terminals.
No need to rewire, unless you want to cement in your mind the concepts that Chris has laid out for you.
Clearly, my grasp of Chris' concepts leaves a lot to be desired- Well, actually, the concept I've got, it's the implementation that is wanting. But rewiring is not an issue since I haven't yet desoldered the previous incarnation.
I'll check the switch for continuity between the two "P" positions, but I don't think that's the case with these switches, based on Chris' post:
In any event, while I could take the switch apart I doubt it could then be put back together. These things are like 2 pieces of circuitboard sandwiched together, using glue I suspect- there is no "cover" to be removed. Not exactly a military grade component.
Got this rewired as per my first posted diagram, and it works! Thanks to all who helped walk me through this.
And Pete and Zam- your worries about the coils being OOP were unfounded. Works fine just as displayed in my diagram. There is only a very subtle difference in tone between the coils in parallel and the single coil (except the SC has a little bit of hum, not annoying). I suspect that's due to the nature of this GFS dual rail pup, both coils are probably identical internally. But overall it's a vast improvement over the previous scheme.
However, I've learned a lesson doing this- plan and do only one mod at a time. At the same time I was rewiring this, I decide to do the Tele "flip the control plate" mod, so that the knobs are to the front and the switch to the rear. So I swapped the V and T pot positions, but found that with all the extra wiring the switch wouldn't fit that way without a bit of forcing, which I didn't want to do. So it went back in just fine in the original position. I figure I need to flop the switch 180 degrees also to do that mod, but that's a project for another day- for now I'm playing it
newey , glad to hear your tele [esquire] wiring worked. Ive got a HB mod in my near future so pardon me for picking your brain. Do you get more of a volume drop running in parallel than in single coil? Also have you had it running long enough to have a preference in tone between the two ? [if you had to choose]
No real volume difference between the SC and parallel, the series HB position is a bit louder than the other two. If I had to choose between the SC and the ll, I'd take the ll as it seems to be equally bright as the SC but with a bit "smoother" sound. But as I said above, the differences between the 2 are very subtle; I figure that's simply a function of the pickup I'm using, which is a dual-rail HB in a SC form, so as to fit the std tele bridge position. If you used a regular HB with 2 full-sized coils the differences would likely be more dramatic- and it then might matter which coil you used for the SC. Since I'd already had it wired before to split each coil individually, I knew that N coil vs. S wouldn't matter much with this type of pickup.
And, I should add, that I'm still playing around with it- there may be more to be discovered. I usually like a clean sound, don't use the gain channel much, so I haven't explored that yet. One of these days I'll have one of my "metal moments" and string up all the pedals, crank the gain, etc.
And, as an afterthought, if I was going to do this single pup mod over again, I'd make the SC setting bypass the tone control to give more output for that position. That idea is straight out of Leo's original 1952 wiring.
Amazing to think that, from that early a time, the use of switching for tonal variation was part of the plan- since then, many single pup guitars haven't had any tonal options except what the tone pot gives.