Tonemonster expanded

[pete12345]

Hi all, I think I may be on to something here!

Had a look at the schematic for 'the tonemonster' and worked out how to add the missing combos to it.


If you were to use a fifth switch to connect both the series and parallel circuits together (by shorting together the outer terminals of SW4) this would switch them both on, correct? In this case, would you not get all the hybrid configurations: (A*B)+C and (A+B)*C

You might even be able to use a pot to blend the two circuits together, adding more variety.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Pete

EDIT: Never mind 'might', you can use a blender between the two circuits:


The wiring is actually simpler than the original ;D

[sumgai]

pete,

I was writing as you posted your edit. Sadly, your edit shows that my assumptions about your intentions were wrong - you've somehow gotten off the path.

When you tied the two signal returns together (Lead circuit and Rhythm circuit), you just blew any possibility of running one into the other for a serial connection such as (A + B) * C. The Lead and Rhythm signal return paths must remain separate, as they were originally.

I had first supposed that you meant to tie the Lead Hot to the Rhythm signal return, and that might might have some possibilities........

HTH


sumgai

[pete12345]

Hmm.. yeah, I figured that out after I posted, you cant have two pups in parallel, in series with the third, as they end up being all parallel, with a blender on one pup. Looks like you can still have the (A*B)+C combos though, and having a blender on any pup might still be useful.

Maybe by replacing sw4 with a 3P4T rotary you could get series channel, parallel channel, both in series, both in parallel. You would probs have to go to a master tone to free up a hole in the pickguard, and would of course lose the blender control.

However, I think that with all 3 pups set to the same channel, you will get some dead spots. With all three set to parallel, and both channels also in parallel, you would get a short. With all three set to series and both channels in series you would get an open circuit. In any case, the operation of this thing is quickly getting complicated.

Pete

[sumgai]

pete,

I too have suffered "pre-cogitation posting syndrome", so don't feel bad. ;D

One of the tenets of Nutz-dom is that we can justify almost anything, in the name of Tone. However, as you just noted, it sometimes backfires when reality steps in and slaps our face with the simple question: "can you really use this contraption on stage, or are you just chicken-chokin' here?"

Welcome to my world, where one switch fits all. If I could, I'd even eliminate that.

HTH



sumgai

[pete12345]

If I can source some 3PDT switches fairly cheaply, I might have a go at building one of these as I designed. I'm not sure that the (A+B)*C combinations would sound much different to the (A*B)+C ones anyway, but I like the ability you get with this to have a parallel blender on the third pickup.

Pete

[sumgai]

pete,

Just take a normal 4PDT switch, and shrug off the fact that you're paying for a pole you're not gonna use - call it a cost of doing business.

Your ideas have merit, and definitely should be field tested. Good luck.

HTH



sumgai

[pete12345]

I thought about using 4PDT switches, but it's the width of the things that's the problem- would they fit side-by-side in the place of the usual blade switch. Still, this could be overcome by putting the series/parallel switch next to the blender.

Pete

[ChrisK]

This is starting to look suspiciously like the Brian May "Trilogy" that was started by unk some time back.

Some many months ago I had translated it from the 12 terminal 4PDT ON-ON-ON (2P3T Center-ON) switches to rotary and lever switches and had been waiting to hear back from unk thereon to no avail.

I had taken it fairly far with the The HSS All Mode 'Caster which integrated phasing on two pickups and series/parallel on a humbucker.

I've been working on this some lately as I begin to implement it in the walnut body with 4 push pull pots.

As I've optimized things to free some switch poles, I moved the series/parallel for the humbucker to the volume push pull pot for a symmetrical phasing structure (on all three pickups) that will work equally well for three single coils as well as an HSS combination. Parallel out of phase is capacitive half out of phase.

There is now a free pole per pickup which will be used for tone circuit related switching.

Regarding the 4 push pull pots; one is as mentioned for series/parallel and the other three are a tone/volume for each pickup. These allow each to be either a high-cut tone control across each pickup when it's in series, or sequentially enabled as a function of what other pickups are also in parallel; or a volume pot when in parallel (allows blending in like an LP) or a shunting pot when in series.

I'm not sure that the (A+B)*C combinations would sound much different to the (A*B)+C ones anyway,

Actually, they do. If you look at the chart in the All Mode Caster design, the Leff column is the effective inductance of the structure in units of average pickup inductance. A+(B*C) will have a value of 2/3 while (A+B)*C will have a value of 3/2.

If all three of your pickups are three Henry's, the first will be effectively 2 Henry's while the second will be 4.5 Henry's. This will result in a fairly differing frequency response.

This is the reason that I took issue with unk's design ignoring the former grouping thru its series dominance.