|
Post by newey on Jul 13, 2008 8:30:08 GMT -5
Ok, so it's raining and too damp to be painting my current project, so I'm looking ahead to the next one, my P bass copy. This one needs a refinish and a new neck, so there's much to do before I get to the wiring. But, very preliminarily, I want to add a second, split-coil P bass pickup in the neck position, with the 4 coils individually wired and selectable. My first scheme, using a 4-position Baja Tele switch: As I said, very preliminary. Several questions: 1) Has anyone used a Strat/Tele style lever switch in a P bass? Will iit fit w/o major modding? 2) This scheme doesn't give me the "all 4" option, which I would want. I suspect a 5-way superswitch could be used to do that, but any other ideas? Could ChrisK's "free neck on switch" idea be used to give all 4 without additional switching being added? 3) Is it going to be tonally worthwhile to "cross-split" the coils this way? Or should I forget that idea and go for, maybe, series/parallel between the N and B pickup pairs? Wide open to suggestions here. PS- Now that I preview this, I see that it's tough to see the wiring to the 4 way switch (which I lifted from the templates section). There's a lot of jumpering going on there. But I think all y'all will get the general idea here.
|
|
|
Post by pete12345 on Jul 13, 2008 12:02:49 GMT -5
I believe split pickups are usually wired in internal series, rather than the internal parallel you show. If you can put up with shunting unused coils, here's a fairly simple switching layout. If you wanted the 'all four' position, use a 5 way switch with the fifth position empty (i.e, no coils shunted) I think cross-splitting the coils could be very interesting, especially N1*B2 as these are producing maximum bass and maximum treble, respectively. Now, if you were to add a phase switch between the 1s and 2s.... Pete
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 13, 2008 13:20:33 GMT -5
pete, Nothing would happen, tone-wise. The strings don't run over the same-side pickups (N1 and B1, etc.), so there's no intermingling between the various harmonic points. This would be valid, and interesting, if all four pups were turned on at the same time. Moreover, a 5-way switch will only get you one more possibility, series or parallel. Your suggestion that newey use the fifth position to open all shorts implies a series connection between the two, but indeed, it can all be done in parallel too, as newey originally drew up. ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~ newey, this is essentially a two-humbucker circuit, where each coil of the humbucker is individually switchable. You yourself started a thread a couple of months ago, running almost exactly parallel with this subject. Review that thread here: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=3284In a simple way, you can do this with a six-pole rotary switch, like here: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=1828And if you're really in the mood to become a Rogaine Poster Boy, look no further than JohnH's contribution to the topic, here: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3125Raining, eh? I must have let some of that slip by the Cascades...... it was an accident, I assure you! ;D HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 13, 2008 13:56:32 GMT -5
Pete- thanks much for the diagram, it's very helpful. While the two coils are wired in series, I was going to cut the wire between the two and run separate leads off of each end to do the scheme as I originally proposed. But your idea is equally intriguing. Sumgai- Thanks. You are correct that the genesis of this is the "4caster" scheme, that was the starting point. But here, of course, one must always have at least one of the bass string coils on in conjuction with at least one of the treble string coils, so as to have full coverage of all 4 strings at all times. BTW, does anyone know if the two coils in a P bass pup are identically wound- I realize one is RWRP with respect to the other, but are the bass coil and treble coils otherwise identical? I've never had a bass before, the goal is to have this one for some "plunkin' about" as I teach myself a bit of bass with it. And the rain has stopped and it's now beautiful outside. The saying about Ohio weather is, if you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes, it'll change . .
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 14, 2008 18:29:35 GMT -5
newey, Within the confines of the definition of "identical", and further within the confines of "manufacturing tolerances", yes, they are essentially the same 'half-pickups' No, I'm sorry to have to correct you, but that saying belongs to Seattle in particular, and most of Western Washington state (to a lesser degree). The correct statement for you is "If it's hot outside, and you're waiting on a construction flagger, then you're in Ohio! HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 14, 2008 22:10:21 GMT -5
SG- No, the saying goes that we have 2 seasons in Ohio- Winter and Orange Barrel season. I haven't pulled the bass apart yet, so as to see what routing, etc will be needed for a neck split-coil p/u. But I'm still wondering about lever switch fitment, whether anyone's done that yet or not. Before my plans "gang aft a'glee", so to speak . . . Not to get all literary or anything.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 15, 2008 0:17:44 GMT -5
newey, Yeah, but don't you get tired of all the mess made by the horse-riders, as they carve the dirt around those barrels? ;D I'd've thunk that since you're gonna convert some Tonewood ® into a hole for the pickem'up anyhoo, you might as do it again in the vicinity of your switching arrangement. It's not like you're dee-stroying anything of future value here, eh? If needful, you can mount a custom pickguard on this beast too, but I don't think you'll need to do that. (But OTOH, you could do matching custom pickguards............ ) Or were you still wondering about which wires go to which terminals on said switch? More to the question, in my mind, is exactly where along the string length are you planning on installing this new tone-monster? I'm thinking that you'll wanna pay attention to harmonic nodes and all that jizz-jazz, but then again, appearance does have something to do with it, right? HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 15, 2008 5:04:11 GMT -5
No, I mean physical fitment. And I'm hoping to reuse the stock pickguard. The 2nd pup would be mounted as far neckwards as possible since that's where the existing guard will cover any routing errors. Of course, there's the Tim Allen approach: "More Router!". That could certainly be done to the control cavity as well, but there's not a lot of guard area there to work with from the looks of it. Guess I'll have to get in there and take a good look at it before tapping the wallet for one of them thar SuperMegaSwitch thingys. BTW, I like Pete's new way of drawing 2 wires crossing w/o connecting, I haven't seen a "gap" used for that before. But my trashy little paint program can't seem to draw a decent curve, so I like not having to draw the little "bump" to show a wire crossing over another one. A new convention, possibly?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 15, 2008 11:21:14 GMT -5
newey, No, not new. Basically, it went out of favor as people looking at it realized they couldn't tell if they were supposed to imagine a continuous wire, or if there'd been a printing glitch, and both wire and dot were missing. It's quick and easy for someone using a Bishop template to draw out a schematic by hand, but it's slower for a CAD machine, by and large. Yet another reason you don't see the big boys do it this way. At least, not very often. Once in awhile, though...... Personally, I prefer color, and no potential printing glitches. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jul 15, 2008 19:34:28 GMT -5
?Ohm meter? Nah, it's the "lumpy" hydrocarbon "emissions" from all of the Amish buggies. We used to draw little tunnels, but it became cumbersome. The best approach is the fault-tolerant one. Wires can cross, but are NEVER connected at a crossing (ALL connections are "T"s with dots - the double positive). Some folk don't like the redundant dots, but CAD programs persist.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 16, 2008 15:41:41 GMT -5
Chris, And what about all of the other variables, as you yourself have pointed out in several recent postings? Granted, the manufacturer isn't likely to use two different bobbins, or different magnetic materials, etc, but you never know what they'll come up with next, in order to distinguish their IP, eh? Yeah, they don't even carry buckets - they're such scofflaws! Well, that's probably because the netlist extractor programs use the "dots" to determine which intersections are supposed to electrically intersect, as opposed to those that just visually intersect. Seems easier to do it that way than to add "intelligence" to the proggie that would determine how many lines are entering/leaving said intersection. Just a guess, tha's all. sumgai
|
|