|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 2, 2008 5:35:53 GMT -5
'lo everyone... As I've not done any (re-)wiring of guitars before, I'm kind of nervous about a proposed modification to one of my guitars... but I thought I'd post my design and subsequent layout, just to see if there are any glaring errors - I don't want to blow anything up... The idea is that I have a Squier Bullet Strat that I'm going to try modifying with a simple neck blend pot, together with a parallel/series selection. Here's my attempt at a circuit:  [ Edit: ...removed layout...]I might be an (civil) engineer but I haven't done much with the soldering iron for the last 10+ years and I'm not really sure about the circuit/layout.. but I'd appreciate your thoughts, please. Oh.. another thought. In most of the circuit diagrams I've seen when researching this project, no detailed mention is made of dealing with grounding. I'm kind of paranoid about ground loops and/or floating grounds... and I don't want anything blowing-up. I mean, I have ground wires from the pups to various places... but what's this I sometimes read about a ground wire from the bridge or something? What do I have to be careful of when wiring-up this mod? Anyway, thanks for any forthcoming thoughts, suggestions, etc. Edit: Removed the wiring layout until I get the circuit 'right'; also relocated the image and embedded it so more people are likely to see it  |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 2, 2008 8:05:21 GMT -5
Ozboomer-
Hello and welcome! Someone will be along soon enough to vet your diagram. Most guitars do require a ground from the bridge, also known as a string ground.
The consensus around here seems to be that ground loops do not cause a significant difference in noise. And you're certainly not going to blow anything up.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 3, 2008 15:57:20 GMT -5
Hi and welcome to GN2
Im also in Oz and a structural engineer during daylight hours.
I saw your circuit the other day, its good but making blenders work properly in series and parallel is trickier than it may seem if you want smooth consitent operation. I have a few versions on the schematics page.
I think your blender will work better in series if its third lug is grounded, and then put a 1nF cap and a 220k resistar across the other two lugs. Youll then be able to mix in the neck in series with the other two pickups. The down side however is that turning the neck down to zero would cut out all pickups in parallel mode. As I said, its tricky! Maybe if the DPDT changed to a 3PDT toggle switch, you could put the extra pole to switch the blender 3rd lug to ground only in series mode.
Also, given a choice, log pots are better for tone, while for volume pots, log or lin is a personal choice, I like linear pots, unless Im adding treble bleed caps and resistors (a good idea IMO - as suggested for the blender) in which case log. Your blender is best as lin pot.
I think the design has some merit - so keep at it!
cheers
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 3, 2008 18:46:50 GMT -5
I firmly believe that all engineers should be civil.......... Well, unfortunately, if you play really, really, really hard................you still won't blow up anything in the guitar. It's low voltage..... I used to work in aerospace (EE) where I worked on high energy directed beam weapons, warhead tracking systems, and submarine hydrophone arrays, and I learned a stark truth: Aerospace engineers build weapons systems.... and Civil engineers build targets.   ;D My VPN blocks your pics otherwise I'd have a meaningful comment...... |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 4, 2008 4:50:57 GMT -5
I saw your circuit the other day, its good but making blenders work properly in series and parallel is trickier than it may seem if you want smooth consitent operation. I have a few versions on the schematics page. Well, I did a search and found some nice diagrams and things, thanks... but they prompted me to maybe go back a step or 10 and talk a little about what I'm trying to do. The primary intention is to enable the blending of the neck pickup with the others, as I've heard that combination and like the sounds. I also like the almost humbucker-like sound of the series combinations (as the Strat guitars I have all have a reverse-wound middle pickup). So, my design was an attempt to try and get the two functions available while not altering the appearance of the guitar, which is in the best 'Guitar Nuts' tradition I also wanted to try and do all this as simply as possible, as I've never hacked around inside a guitar. I've designed and built synthesizer/MIDI modules before.. and have done a few mixers, stomp boxes, etc... but that was many years ago, so I'm not too sure about the current level of my design/construction/soldering skills, hence the idea of trying these mods out on the Bullet before I attack my 'real' guitars. Anyway, as far as the current design is concerned, I've made the suggested amendments, viz:  ...and apologies for the dodgy component labelling; the schematic software I'm using doesn't have a library element for a 3PDT switch so I had to hack a little bit BTW, can you actually buy a pot with an attached 3PDT switch? I had a hard enough time finding a pot/DPDT (which I had to buy from a tech friend o' mine). Uhmm... What will those components do? Other than some filtering, I don't really see how they will make the blender "work" better? ...I can sortof understand about how the line to ground will take out everything... but as I said, I'm a bit vague on some of these things these days. I won't get into the arguments about using log pots for volume or not For now, I'll just use the standard pots for my experiments and will work on the pot taper another time. ...and as far as engineers are concerned... Well, I'm in traffic signals these days... and it's not as easy as you'd think.. I might've been working with computers for nearly 40 years but I still can't get my head around the black art of traffic signals Again, thanks for the thoughts... and please keep 'em coming... |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 4, 2008 5:52:06 GMT -5
Ozboomer-
It's best practices, around here at least, to not go back and edit prior posts as design changes are made, so that subsequent readers get to follow the chronology of the posts. Not to worry, you just removed a layout, no big deal, but as you change things around, please put the changes in a new post.
I have not seen a pot with a 3PDT switch, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The DPDT push/pull pots can be ordered from many guitar suppliers. Our links page lists several Oz-based etailers, so search about there if you need another of those. If your desired 3P does exist, I'm sure we'll hear about it in a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 4, 2008 6:26:45 GMT -5
It's best practices, around here at least, to not go back and edit prior posts as design changes are made, so that subsequent readers get to follow the chronology of the posts. Not to worry, you just removed a layout, no big deal, but as you change things around, please put the changes in a new post. YupYup, agreed... That's why I posted a revised schematic in a separate posting. It was just that I thought the wiring layout was a bit of unnecessary 'noise' and wasn't contributing anything (at this stage, anyway) and I made a note I dumped it... so I didn't think it'd hurt too much in the history of the thread. As JohnH mentioned the 3PDT (and I can imagine it as a discrete switch but not as a 'piggyback' on a pot), I included that sort of thing in the diagram as it was the simplest thing to do - I wouldn't need to make fairly major changes to the schematic... and as I said, I'm trying to keep this as simple as I can... at least, while I'm trying to understand what's going on. ...but fair comment on protocol... No worries |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 4, 2008 11:48:40 GMT -5
You can get a 4PDT switch on a pot. It's called the Fender S-1 switch. While you can't buy them directly from Fender (at least when I last checked), you can often find them on ebay.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 4, 2008 17:00:58 GMT -5
ozboomer - Chris makes a good suggestion. The Fender S1 works like a standard Strat pot, but it has push-in section on the top of the knob. If you can get hold of one, you might have to hunt and spend some $$ on it, but with care it will be a quality component that you can reuse on future builds. With four poles, it is a very handy gadget for realizing demented wiring schemes.
I actually quite like toggles for extra features however, because they have a nice tactile click and you can see which way they are pointing. Its usually easy enough to find space for one or two on a Strat pick guard, and you just have to drill a 6.5mm hole. 1, 2, 3 or 4 pole toggle switches are available down here from Jaycar. I think the 3 and 4 pole ones are about $7 Aus.
The 220k and 1nF are treble bleed components. As you turn down the volume, the resistances of the pot or pots makes the overall impedance of the guitar greater, and the capacitance of the cable to the amp acts like a filter to dull the treble. The small extra cap lets more treble through to compensate. The resistor balances the effect, otherwise it gets too trebly, and it seems to work better like that, rather than just using an even smaller cap - although that is another option (see below).
I think these features are particularly useful with series wiring since overall impedances are higher and dullness more of a risk. And with the blender, as you turn the neck down, it makes sure the other pickups have a good route to ground to help them keep their highs.
The other effect of the resistor and cap in parallel is that it changes the taper of the pot, ie, as you turn it down, the volume drops less fast. In this case, that effect will help when blending in parallel mode, otherwise, the sound of the neck pup will quickly drop away between 9 and 10. On the volume pot, its a good change with a log pot, but you might find that with a linear main volume pot, theres not enough fall in volume as you turn it down, until you get down to 1 and 2. If you are using a linear volume pot, you might try without the treble bleed, or try just a 330pF cap.
I think you now have a good Mark 1 design -but I'm sure if you build it you'll then find things to tweak!
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 4, 2008 17:41:44 GMT -5
JohnH - Many thanks for the excellent explanation of the 'side effects' of the Treble Bleed treatment. I've used that on the output in this (revised) design and have had it done some years ago on my 'main' guitar... I just wasn't totally aware of the impedance/taper change effects and about how to keep the other pickups 'bright'. I've had a token look for the S-1 pot/switch and they seem a bit like hen's teeth... but I'll keep a'lookin'. It still seems that I might have to bite the bullet and attack the pickguard with the drill tho... What do you think about using those 'mini' toggle switches? Other than maybe having to solder a tag onto the poles so I have some space for a stack of wires, are they robust enough? I just don't particularly fancy having a 1-inch klunker of a switch hanging off the pickguard, y'see I'll do a little more research and see what I can find re: parts... and then I'll have a go. Oh.. what d'you think would be a good name for the mod, hmm? My creativity in these things is sorely wanting... Thanks a heap for all the help... John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 4, 2008 17:53:34 GMT -5
The mini-toggles are fine - its what everyone uses. Most of my builds have them and they seem to be very reliable.
Lets let the name float for a while. I'm sure a suitable name will come to you when you burn your fingers for the 10th time while soldering deep in a tangle of wires and switches.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 4, 2008 18:07:45 GMT -5
Hmmm, things are going way too well here.  First, the use of a high value pot for series blending creates signal drive issues. The 500K blend pot is in series with the series signal chain and greatly increases the effective output impedance of the meta-pickup created by the neck in series with either/or the middle and bridge. This will cause tone suck, or sucky tone, your choice. I have found that a 100 to 200 K maximum parallel blending resistance or a 100 to 200K maximum series shunting resistance are ideal for this type of dual-mode blending. JohnH's 220K resistor is non-linearizing the linear taper as well as limiting this resistance to a usable value that I also agree with. I call to reference my Series_Parallel Blend Pot w/ DPDT switch to illustrate the point. This shows how I accomplish series and parallel signal variation. since you only want to vary the contribution of the neck pickup, s Using a reverse volume potentiometer (3 terminal ratiometric) configuration (the pickup signal output goes to the wiper, the signal to the rest of the circuit comes from the CW terminal), enables the easy shunting of said coil when in series. While blending in a pickup in parallel can be accomplished in either 2 wire (rheostat mode) or 3 wire (ratiometric mode), when in series mode, a pickup is best shunted out (2 wire rheostat mode). This shunting can either go thru just the pot, or the pot and series capacitor (eh, JohnH ). |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 4, 2008 19:04:24 GMT -5
First, the use of a high value pot for series blending creats signal drive issues. The 500K blend pot is in series with the series signal chain and greatly increases the effective output impedance of the meta-pickup created by the neck in series with either/or the middle and bridge. Fear not, similar series arrangements with 500k pots has been analysed, built and tested: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3157and guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3125and guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3165Chris' version of blending, as interpreted onto your diagram, would involve swapping the upper and middle lugs on the blend pot, and would work best with a 250k lin pot. More than one way to skin a cat. Actually, I think with either diagram, a 250k may be a better choice than 500k, to get smoother action in paralell blending Usually, series/paralell switching needs 2 just poles, but I think the third pole is needed here to allow the blend pot ground connection to be disconnected, to avoid loading the output too much in parallel mode, where otherwise it would always be across the output in this scheme. John |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 4, 2008 19:20:01 GMT -5
OK, JohnH stepped in front of me while I was a'thinkin how to finish my post, so I move the new material here.  You talk about using a 3PDT switch, but I'm not sure that that is needed. If you look at SW2A and SW2B, there's a bit of over-switching going on. In the series mode, SW2A switches to a link that SW2B also switches to. Not only does this reduce the reliability (two points of failure), but it is also unnecessary. Have SW2A select something and leave SW2B's contact free for future use. Dang, here's an approach!  Now, you've chosen the neck as the parallel blended/series dominant pickup. I find more use in blending in the bridge pickup. This has a greater tone spectrum variation when used with the middle or particularly the neck since the bridge dominates in harmonic content. Likewise, I find the bridge more interesting as the dominant pickup in series structures. IM(not so)HO that is. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 4, 2008 21:36:38 GMT -5
.....interesting......... Lets say one chose not to have Cx or the dotted link next to it, which allows it to get back to a two pole switch which could then be on a push-pull. Then it would seem to work fine but a bit differently to Mk1, in that in parallel it would blend the neck in and out, but in series it would have full neck and blend the bridge/middle in and out. It would be good to be sure what the most favoured part blended options will be. I have had 4 axes which are capable of mixing pickups in series and or paralell. I quite often use the main mixtures of two or three pickups all at 100% in series or paralell. But, personally, the only part option which I find useful is full bridge with partial neck in series - but each will have there own view after trying them. Whats good is that its not too hard to move wires around and try different versions. Here's another one, which I think would be cool bananas:  On this one, you get a standard 250k linear pot and open it up, to remove a section of the carbon track at the mid postion, by scraping it with a blade. It works well, not hard at all and the pot is only a couple of $. Cutting the track like that also means that the pot does not load the signal at all when set in the centre, since nothing is connected. Park this control in the centre and you have a standard Strat in parallel mode, and 100% series combos in series mode. In parallel mode, roll it to the neck to start to blend in the neck pup, up to 100%. In series mode, roll to the neck to favour the neck, diminishing M and B, and to the bridge, to diminish the neck. Its intuitive and I use this device every day on one of my guitars. Theres another seperate trick on the tone control, in series mode only, it acts on the neck only when at high level, this brightens the tone by letting more bridge/middle through - again it feels sensible to use because it just adds an extra brighter end to improve the top end of the tone control. Back it off a bit from 10 and it deepens. No differnt efect in paralell mode. Theres again a third pole cutting off the lower connection to the blender in parallel. Not essential, but it make it less important to set the blender to the mid position for full parallel operation. This, or the tone control trick could be omitted, saving a pole and getting back to a 2-pole switch. John |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 4, 2008 21:40:24 GMT -5
Well, after these few postings, I'm now sufficiently bamboozled that I'll have to study them and think a while before I do anything else.  I can sortof understand JohnH's suggestions.. but ChrisK's are taking me a while longer to understand... I am trying to keep things simple.. and I just think I want to blend the neck pickup in/out... Maybe I'll just try one arrangement and see how it suits... Oh.. BTW.. ChrisK: when you talk about CW and CCW... do you mean something like this (viewing the pot from within the body cavity)?  Heh.. I can see this project turning into a major development if I'm not careful(!) I'm off to contemplate somewhat... |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 4, 2008 23:56:17 GMT -5
Lets say one chose not to have Cx or the dotted link next to it, which allows it to get back to a two pole switch which could then be on a push-pull. Then it would seem to work fine but a bit differently to Mk1, in that in parallel it would blend the neck in and out, but in series it would have full neck and blend the bridge/middle in and out. Hmm.. which was what I more-or-less wanted to do originally.. but I wonder if things can be fiddled to blend the neck in/out when in series mode? Maybe through some sort of cross-over switching? *thinks*... Still, I'm taking a liking to JohnH's latest treatment, as it provides the 'mixing-in' of both the neck p/u and the bridge p/u, which was something I wanted to try but it all got too complicated for me when I was first thinking about the circuit. I'd probably drop the 'tone control' trick in favour of keeping the wiring that much simpler and keeping with the DPDT on the blender pot... but I'm guessing I might fiddle with the tone control capacitor some more in that case. ...but JohnH, what happened to the 220k/1nF combination on the blend pot in your latest diagram? ...or is it just a matter of it was simpler to do the graphics without those components included? Anyway, thanks for all the golden input... Lots! of things to consider (and further complicate my decision) for this design now ... |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 5, 2008 16:42:36 GMT -5
ozboomer - your picture with cw and ccw is right, showing which side the wiper gets connected to as you turn clockwise and counter clockwise on the knob.
On my last diagram, the blender is working differently to the previous one. Its more like Chris' version in that the blending in series is done not by setting up a normal volume control (in which all the output is taken from the pot wiper, but by shunting across the diminishing pickup. So the pickup is always directly connected and gets gradually shorted out. That means that the other pickup always has a good route to ground through the neck pup, without relying on going through the blender pot. Hence the treble bleed bits are not needed. Also, cutting the track allows a smaller value pot to be used, giving a smoother blend in parallel without extra signal needing to go through a treble bleed.
Thats a mouthful of words - the best thing is to start!
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Sept 5, 2008 18:48:31 GMT -5
Hmmm, them dang unconnected terminals, eh, The FREE Neck On Switch. I did this in wiring format since most folk can't "see" schematics. Unfortunately, when I do things in wiring layout, I can't "see" it. Oh well. CW, CCW, ya, you betcha', whatever it takes (you "get" it). Dang John, we've been a'found out.  We have no life, so we lurk aboot to captivate (and thence capture) those folk a'planet that do (still) have lives. In the process, we suck the life out of them and turn them into GeNuts2. |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 5, 2008 22:28:42 GMT -5
Well, here we go... I've updated the diagram again, viz:  Simplifying the wiring while getting the blend/series features happening is one of the important things here.. and I think we're slowly getting it organized, thanks folks. I have yet to find a parts place and then to order the parts (like that DPDT 250k push/pull pot... unless I say forget that and just go the mini-toggle route), so I won't be starting to construct for a while yet... and then I also have to decide if I'm going to drop the stock Bullet pups or perhaps fry them first with my soldering before doing the pup mod later.. hmm... We have no life, so we lurk aboot to captivate (and thence capture) those folk a'planet that do (still) have lives. In the process, we suck the life out of them and turn them into GeNuts2. Oh, I've been a GN2 lurker for years, so no 'conversion' is really necessary here...(!) Any further thoughts on the design? Fanx! again.. John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 6, 2008 16:52:58 GMT -5
a couple from me: If you want to use just a 2 pole switch, and hence not do the 'tone trick', and so have just a normal tone control, then disconnect the lower lug on the tone pot. As currently shown, you'll get the great expanded tone control range in series mode, but when neck or neck+mid in paralell is selected, the tone control will have two ends of the range with muted treble. In fact, I've realized that to really sort it out, it would need not only the 3rd pole, but also the other half of the 5-way switch, so the 3rd tone pot lug is only active in series mode and (logical AND) when mid and/or bridge is connected. For the blender, I've found these easiest to make with just a plain full size pot (24mm). The idea is to create a fully dead zone on the pot, by scraping across the track at say 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock, so that when the wiper is sitting anywhere in that range, its fully disconnected. Gentle scrapes graduallly increase the resistance until its infinite, and a multimeter across the track ends lets you watch it increase. So that means any push/pull switches should be on the tone or volume controls. They are a bit hard to find down here. Heres an overrpriced one, but I'm sure there's better deals www.billyhydemusic.com.au/shop/index.cfm?action=view&id=3317If you can get a package together with other stuff, you can often save by ordering from the US which is where Ive got them. John |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 6, 2008 17:35:36 GMT -5
Well, this is certainly getting more confusing (for me, of little brain in these things)... In short, it seems to do this modification with the 'proper'(?) control of tone and to be able to switch the connections the way we need to, we're going to have to bite the bullet and just use a separate 4PDT or 3PDT toggle switch or something (I checked yesterday - places like Jaycar stock those devices Ok). I'll have another go later today at re-doing your "perverted" diagram, JohnH... and will re-introduce your 'tone trick' element... but I'm still having trouble visualizing what you mean about what you want to do with the other side of the 5-way; if this thing gets too much more complicated, it might be easier (to build.. and for me to understand) to go a different route and do something, say, with 2 volume controls and a single toggle switch... So that means any push/pull switches should be on the tone or volume controls. Huh? What difference does it make where the switch is physically located, provided it is electrically doing the right thing? ...or is there some 'common ground'-thing going on that I don't recognize 'coz the switch part is in the same casing as the pot part? As to the buying... I've had a look at a few of the non-Oz part suppliers and they're charging around US$20 or more to ship the bits via "non express/courier" means (double that for an express-style delivery), which means this project is getting out of the "couple of $$" range(!). Hmm... *thinking out loud*... Perhaps I should start out "crawling" before I try to "run" and just do one of ChrisK's "Free Neck Blend" things first and then add the series/parallel switching with an external toggle at a later time? ...'tis getting back to the idea written elsewhere here of having 'wiring modules' that we can stack together at different times, eh? Anyone have any thoughts on this revised approach to the mod? ...on 'The Zen of Guitar Maintenance/Modification'(!)...? |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 6, 2008 18:58:56 GMT -5
I'll add what I was talking about the other side of the 5-way switch to a diagram, just so its recorded to be seen. (see here later)
My point about the push-pull switch being on the tone or volume is that its therfore not on the blender. Doing the track cutting is easy and low risk on a standard 24mm pot from jaycar or Dick smith. But Ive not figured out how to do it on a pot with push-pull switch without trashing it, and of course its a much more expensive item.
The easiest cheapest route, if you dont mind a small hole, is to do your diagram with a toggle switch - and just delete the lower tone pot connection as I noted above. You can use a DPDT toggle, or get a 3 or 4 pole one if you wish. Easy to change later if you want to.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 6, 2008 19:52:21 GMT -5
I'll add what I was talking about the other side of the 5-way switch to a diagram, just so its recorded to be seen. (see here later) Okie... It was just that I was thinking the other side of the 5-way is more-or-less in a 'who cares' state 'coz it wasn't really connecting anything... My point about the push-pull switch being on the tone or volume is that its therfore not on the blender. Doing the track cutting is easy... uhmm... silly me. I've never done it (but have seen the procedure described a lot) re: the carbon track cutting... but ya, I wouldn't fancy trying to do it on the combined pot/switch either  You can use a DPDT toggle, or get a 3 or 4 pole one if you wish. Easy to change later if you want to. Yup.. I was mindful of that myself. For the aesthetic cost of an extra mini-toggle, you have the flexibility. 'Binding' a DPDT to a pot is going to be restrictive/wasteful... and is part of why I was re-thinking along just doing the blend function first (requiring only some minor wiring changes) and then add the toggles for series/parallel later (requiring wiring changes, drilling pickguard, extra switches). It would also be something I could cut my teeth on, without causing too much grief... and for all I know, it might give me enough options anyway ;D Again, greatly appreciate the help here... |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 7, 2008 2:54:35 GMT -5
Another update... back to JohnH's original re-design... It includes the extra switch to allow for the 'tone trick'... and the thinking is that we'd now do the switching via a single 3PDT switch mounted on the pickguard, rather than fiddling about with a pot-mounted DPDT.  For your next iteration, please Mr JohnH ...or anyone else, for that matter John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 7, 2008 15:59:33 GMT -5
Ive been thinking more about the circuit and I think the 'tone trick' bit has some hairs that cant be fully resolved by switching. Here's what I think it all does, as curently drawn:
Parallel mode: - all good, the Standard 5 Strat settings with the option to blend in the neck with B or B+M, tone control works as normal.
Series mode - blender in mid position: BxN, (B+M)xN, MxN, N, N. The tone control works great - at 10 the neck contribution is pure bass and bridge/mid treble is enhanced. But note that if neck only is selected, you have bass only from the neck if tone is at 10 - which is unusual
Series mode - blender towards the bridge. All as above, with neck reduced by the blender
Series mode - blender towards the neck: With tone at 10, you have only bass from the neck
So the quirky bits are that when in series mode, if you only select Neck, either with the blender or by setting the 5-way, the tone control has the ususual feature of being bass only at two ends with brighter in the middle. the system is providing extra sounds and giving all athe good sounds, but at the expense of some places where there are possibly unwanted effects.
I think on reflection, Id build it just with a normal tone control - ie SW2 B is deleted and lower tone pot lug not connected. Or if you can accept the above points, then as you have drawn.
What do you think?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 7, 2008 21:47:07 GMT -5
Well, I've put a little thought into this as well... and if I read your note correctly, JohnH, we'd revise the diagram by removing the green outlined section thus:  With this arrangement, I can sort-of visualize the following operation: Parallel mode: Standard 5 Strat settings with the option to blend in the neck with B or B+M, tone control works normally Series mode: Blender in mid position: BxN, (B+M)xN, MxN, N, N, all with 'full signal' neck pickup. (How 'well' does the tone control work here?) Blender towards bridge: BxN, (B+M)xN, MxN, N, N, all with 'reducing signal' neck pickup Blender towards neck: BxN, (B+M)xN, MxN, N, N, all with 'reducing signal' bridge pickup I 'spose the big issue here is how the tone control will work in this arrangement compared to the "V4" arrangement. I think it sort of defeats the purpose of having the blend work in serial mode if the tone works weirdly... but I could make-do with "full-signal" pickup mixing in serial mode... but if arrangement "V4a" means we get some better control of the tone when blending in serial mode, it's probably a better way to go. So, how will the tone control behave using the above "V4a" arrangement? John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 7, 2008 23:05:44 GMT -5
I agree with your summary, and with V4a, the tone control is completely conventional and acts after all the switching and blending. Full signal at 10, with reducing treble as you turn it down to 0.
BTW - I note you show a fairly small tone cap of 0.012uF. I think a value around there is a good choice, particularly with series options. Have you tried that value before?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 8, 2008 0:01:12 GMT -5
I agree with your summary, and with V4a, the tone control is completely conventional... Okie... and as we're down to 2 poles in the switching again, I could use the pot+DPDT... although, with what we've talked about before, it's probably just as useful to go the mini-toggle route, as I'll probably be less confused when the next mod comes along... no big deal anyway. BTW - I note you show a fairly small tone cap of 0.012uF. I think a value around there is a good choice, particularly with series options. Have you tried that value before? No, not at all. I decided on that value as I currently have a 0.022uF cap in my Affinity Strat and it still sounds a little bit... 'mellow'... to my ears, so I'd like to try the 0.012uF, just to get my ears familiar with a somewhat 'brighter' range. Also, I understand the "volume bleed" on the output should help keep the highs in there, too, when the volume level is down. Seeing we've more-or-less settled on the "V4a" version, I might freeze the design at that for now... and start working on how I'm actually going to do the wiring. Is there anything further that anyone would like to add? Once we're all Ok with the design, I'll pop it into the "Schematics" section... that's what we should be doing... right? Hmm... now what to call this lil' mod... Another thought... I was thinking about upgrading the pickups at the same time as doing the rewiring, as most everything I've read about recently-made Squier Bullet Strats suggest the pickups are kind-of ordinary (I bought mine new in 2006, so I assume it's a 2005/06 model - although it has a tremolo installed)... but again I'm concerned I might be 'running' before I can 'crawl'... As this is my first attempt at significant guitar surgery, I wouldn't be playing about with trying to install Custom '69 Pickups into a A$150 guitar(!)... but maybe I could try some low-end GFS pickups... some Vintage Wilkinsons... or some used pickups out of a MIM/MIJ Strat... Again, any thoughts or suggestions? Anyway, many thanks for everyone's input into this project. I've certainly learnt a lot about what's important in the design side of things.. and I'm surely going to find out about the practical side soon enough John |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 8, 2008 0:41:50 GMT -5
Cool!
As to pickups, its easy enough to change them if you want to. I once got a set of Vintage alnico ordered my mail from GFS, and they were very good, great value and shipped the next day from Texas to oz. If you did that, you could add a few other bits from your wish list as well to spread the shipping cost. The hotter more overwound or 'Texas' ones are also reported to be good value.
On the other hand, if you stick with the current pups for now, you'll be able to appreciate the benefits of the wiring changes, seperatly from pickup changes.
John
|
|
;D
