H-S-S, 2 Vol, 2 Tone...& Switches...

[cynical1]

Greetings -

First off, I want to thank JohnH for his Strat with two volume controls design, orignal and Plus variety...from which I borrowed (stole) heavily... Secondly, I want to thank ChrisK for fixing my humbucker switching.

Okay, here's the pickups and their respective wiring colors and polarity.

	SCREW	POLE	COIL (S)	SLUG	COIL	POLE(N)
Winding/Polarity	Start	Finish	Polarity	Start	Finish	Polarity
Seymour Duncan SSL-1	N/A	[N/A	N/A	White	Black -	North
Rio Grande Halfbreed RW/RP	N/A	[N/A	N/A	Gray	Black -	South
DiMarzio DP197 Virtual PAF (Bridge)	Green -	White +	South	Red +	Black -	North

And here's the diagram:



What it's supposed to do:

First off, I apologize to all those looking for a chart of all the available switching combinations. I just didn't have the stamina to knock one out. But there is more then 5...

The 5 way switch is your garden variety switch which selects B, B+M, M, M+N and N.

For the Neck and Middle pickup you have the option of series or parallel from a DPDT switch

The Bridge is a bit more involved, but nothing from another planet by any means. The DPDT switch allows series and parallel in humbucker mode. The SP3T switch allows switching between Single coil (N), Humbucker and Single Coil (S). NOTE: This only functions in SERIES modes from the DPDT switch.

Both Tone Controls have the Free Woman Tone modification to allow 3 different cap values from a SP3T switch. Thanks again, ChrisK.

There is also a "Bridge On" switch wired in to allow a N+B and N+M+B combinations.

Which brings me to the two areas that I don't have the greatest confidence in. (well, two that I know I'm not sure of...there may very well be more...)



First off, I'm not entirely sure I have the wiring for the "Bridge On" switch correct. (See Red circle with red "A" )The Strat with two volume controls design is a bit different then anything I've seen before, so I guessed at the wiring for the "Bridge On" switch. If anyone sees an error in this just shout it out.

The second is the wire coming from the right bridge volume post to the DPDT switch. (tagged with the red circle and the "B") It was not in the original Strat with two volume controls design, but was included in the PLUS version. However, in the PLUS version there is a OOP option for the bridge, which I didn't include here. I'm not sure if this wired connection is supposed to be here. Any assistance here would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone sees any potential issues or glaring mistakes please feel free to shout it out.

Again, thanks to JohnH and ChrisK for their inspiration and hand holding.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

EDIT: To see the final evolution of this design, please follow this link to this series of posts.

HTC1

[ChrisK]

I'm going to take this opportunity to preach anew, in general to all, on the "forest and trees" of "seeing" switching schemes.

religion

Yes, "B" IS supposed to be there and not those other "comfortable" bridge circuit ground connections. This is why I do not like looking at/reviewing a design in wiring (implementation) form, since it is "undersightful" at best (that's why we invented the schematic language). Seeing first in (sub)modular structural form, rather than first taking the overall chassis (wiring) view, leads one to the insight of insight.

Using the wiring view leads to one "seeing" a "normal landscape" when it is not. Series structures require one to see that there are signals and returns and NOT signals and grounds. Aside from shields, no wire from a passive pickup and all of its circuit components is ever a ground wire. Some signals/wires just happen to be connected to a ground.

(Sub)modular structural form (whether series or parallel, or a combination of both) works easily when one always keeps in mind that grounds are only the final (and usually convenient) resting/connection place of some circuit nodes.

With that in mind;

While the pot shells CAN be connected to the shield ground (since they are a shielding component), for the series elevated bridge structure, no signal therein can be connected to ground EXCEPT by the Middle/Neck driving Bridge series switching mechanism. The bridge pickup, its DPDT and SP3T internal configuration switches, its tone control circuit, and its volume control are a submodule that must be treated holistically, and only elevated or connected to ground as a single structure.

/religion


BTW, the Bridge ON switch looks ok.

[ashcatlt]

Jan 17, 2009 15:48:23 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

First off, I'm not entirely sure I have the wiring for the "Bridge On" switch correct. (See Red circle with red "A" )The Strat with two volume controls design is a bit different then anything I've seen before, so I guessed at the wiring for the "Bridge On" switch. If anyone sees an error in this just shout it out.

I don't see any problem here. It should stop working when the other switch is in series mode.

The second is the wire coming from the right bridge volume post to the DPDT switch. (tagged with the red circle and the "B") It was not in the original Strat with two volume controls design, but was included in the PLUS version. However, in the PLUS version there is a OOP option for the bridge, which I didn't include here. I'm not sure if this wired connection is supposed to be here. Any assistance here would be greatly appreciated.

The wire you've marked seems okay.

The problem, I think, is the green wire on the pot lug where this connects. Shouldn't that be the bottom of the bridge pickup, rather than system ground? Looks like it shorts out the middle/neck when the s/p override switch flips toward the top set of contacts.

I think the green wire you've got leaving the S/H/S switch should come up to the bridge volume. As is, they do meet, but they also meet ground at that point. Let the bridge pickup find ground from the override switch.


Edit - ninja'd again! We basically said the same thing, except I missed the bridge tone connection.

Edit2 - Oh, and I used the G word, which should have been, what, output return bus? How's about jack sleeve?

[ChrisK]

Edit2 - Oh, and I used the G word, which should have been, what, output return bus? How's about jack sleeve?

No, from the perspective of the guitar being a two-terminal device (signal output and ground), ground is a fine descriptor since this point is the ground potential and return point for the guitar signal.

My point is that the "ground-ness" of wires usually connected to signal ground leads most to assume that these are (always) ground wires. They are not.

Ground is a circuit node, it is not a component node.


How you look at something determines how you see it.

[cynical1]

Your point is well taken, ChrisK. I assumed the ground wires were fine and questioned the two points that were correct because they didn't look correct. Hey, at least I guessed right on the bridge on switch...

I sincerely wish I knew how to read and write schematics. It would have saved me endless blond moments during this project. I'm sure there's a lot more people here, then would care to admit it, in the same boat as I am. We want to build or modify a guitar or bass, we want it to have certain features and tones...but we don't have the fundamental knowledge or training to do it. I've been doing repairs, set-ups and re-finishing on guitars and basses off and on for almost 30 years...but never touched the electrical because I never understood it...and most schematics still look like Cyrillic writing to me.

The three little designs I've worked up have taken me a year of Internet reading and research to accomplish...and each one had some type of problem or error I wasn't aware of until I posted it here. Until last January the only things I had ever soldered were speaker connections, jacks, crossovers...and two filter capacitors into an old Luxman amplifier. I've learned more from this board then anywhere else, and I owe you all a serious debt of gratitude for dragging me along.

Taking into consideration the inherent limitations of wiring views...since it's all I know how to do...for posterity, here's the updated version of the drawing with ChrisK's corrections:



I must admit, as I look at it now I don't completely understand it...but I'm getting better...

Thanks again to everyone for picking me up and setting me straight...repeatedly... And take heart ChrisK, this is the last of three projects I'll be doing for quite some time. With any luck I'll be able to provide a real schematic by the time the fourth one rolls around... +1 for your patience.

Again, thanks to all

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[ChrisK]

Cyn,

Please take great pride in your efforts. In more ways than you might think, you get things.

Also, you are most tolerant in that you take my comments and criticism in stride. Your willingness in this is much appreciated, since many of my comments are directed at a much wider audience than just you and these designs.


I also am learning from this. Helping you helps me see how many folk view guitar wiring and things electrical. This teaches me how to better explain things.

Your last post caused me to realize that it's not really the use of schematics (a language that I've spoken since I was less than 10 years old) that enables a better view of the landscape, but the practice of submodule isolation.

Wiring view is based on grouping things by where they are located while schematic view is based on grouping things by what they do by function.

In my considered opinion, the overall wiring view is too cluttered when used too early. A good analogy is software; most is a main line thread that calls subroutines.

Your prior post about your DPDT and SP3T humbucker switching is a module. Leave that on a separate sheet of paper (gif, jpg) and call its TWO external connections Bridge Pickup Signal and Bridge Pickup Return. These two signals connect to another module comprised of the bridge volume and bridge tone circuits. The output of the combinations of these two modules (now the Bridge structure) is TWO signals; the Bridge Structure Signal and Bridge Pickup Return (the latter carries thru within the structure). Let's call them BSS and BPR.

Now, since this structure will be ground referenced when in parallel, and electrically "perched atop" the Middle and Neck structure when in series, we should represent them on the initial main view solely as BSS and BPR, (and NOT by drawing any of the submodule's components). For now, that is.

Then we would draw the Middle and Neck structure since that is predominantly taken from another design that does almost exactly what we wanted (except for the phasing rather than full coil flexibility within the bridge pickup). We would then erase the existing bridge pickup structure (pickup, phase switch, tone circuit, and volume control - I did all of these to emphasize the overall bridge structure) and replace it with the two signal names BSS and BPR.

Since we have the new bridge structure on a separate sheet of "paper", it is abstracted from our overall view for now.

Once we're confident of the modified overall view (sans the bridge structure), where wiring view is fine to use since we're not trying to understand and modify it since we already "trust" it, we then can drop in the new bridge structure, connecting it only by its API (Abstraction Point Interface - I made this up just now, but it's most applicable), which is BSS and BPR.

We then have a complete view that is free of legacy influence.


This is how I teach young electrical design engineers to do schematic layout. First decide what existing design references you want to reuse, second, develop the new modules, and third, fold all into the new "omelet".

We actually capture all new modules into library objects. In many ways new printed circuit designs for new products makes use of these modules which have proven interfaces, SixSigma scores, agency approvals, accuracy, and testability inherent.

As one builds the library of modules, things become more and more like plumbing.

[cynical1]

ChrisK -

I read this posting several times once it arrived. Then I fed the horses and came back and read it a few more times. The fog is beginning to lift...but I'm still squinting to see the far fence line...

The idea of modules clarifies quite a bit. For ten years I worked in the packaging industry as a Project Manager and for 20 years I've been in IT. I understand power transmission, pneumatics, hydraulics, routers, switches, computers and software. This module concept flows and I can reach a better understanding of how some of the magic works.

My last hurdle is to understand how to interface these modules. Most of my experience is from an empirical, or an "I can see it move, so I know it works" approach. Although I've had electricians explain to me that electricity is just like pneumatics and hydraulics...it ain't...probably explains why pneumatic or hydraulic computers never took off...(air logic blocks aside...)

It's a lot clearer then it was a year ago at this time. Little by little I'm beginning to see the patterns...

Thanks again for all your insight and assistance. And I never took anything you've said as malicious. If anything your approach makes me want to learn more in order to ask better questions.

Having worked in IT for 20 years I don't believe the axiom of "there's no such thing as a stupid question". So, if I chime in here every once in a while with a stupid question please feel free to send me back to the library to form a better question. Better questions get better answers.

Thanks again, ChrisK, for all your patient assistance. It was not time wasted.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[ChrisK]

pneumatics, hydraulics

Between my time in the service and college I worked in pneumatics and hydraulics, so I do see these things as well.

This is good to know.

Electrical current is water.

Voltage is water pressure. Sometimes it's gravity. Sometimes it's (differential) water level.

Resistance is pipes of varying diameter/length.

Capacitance is a storage tank.

Inductance is an accumulator (like the things that reduce the water hammer effect - sort of). Imagine a two port device that water flows thru. It's a small pipe (gee about as small/long as the inductor's internal resistance) with many small holes in it. It is surrounded by an elastic bladder that "blows up" as water leaks into it from the water pressure. When the water stops flowing thru it, the stored water is forced out in the same direction by the elastic bladder returning to its previous static state. This effect is the stored magnetic energy of an inductor.

An inductor stores energy. A capacitor stores charge/water.


Now, things really don't work that way, do they? Or do they?

My last hurdle is to understand how to interface these modules.

If you're doing something to some part of a circuit that is a two port linear network, the two ports comprise an API. It's like a USB connector (or a VGA connector, or a headphone connector). as long as you follow the rules of the interface, you can plug in anything.


In Fun with switches, take 2, at the bottom you can see that three identical submodules are combined into a design. In block "D" there is a module that switches two things, "A" and "B". Note that I DIDN'T say two pickups or two coils. "A" and "B" could just as validly be two capacitors for four tone cap choices if the submodule was treated as a two port network and used with a tone pot (cap "A"/cap "B"/both in parallel/both in series).

The up arrow is the "goesuppa" and the down arrow is the "goesdowna". They're not necessarily the output and ground, but they could be one or the other, or both.

Now. the magenta central module has an identical blue module on either side of it, with each blue module being the "A" and "B" of the magenta module. In this case, the "A's" and B's" for the blue modules are the coils. The "goesuppa" and "goesdowna" of each blue submodule feed into the "A" and "B" of the central module. The "goesuppa" and "goesdowna" of the central module goes to the tone and volume structure (although each coil on the blue submodules, or each submodule, or both could just as easily have their own volume and/or tone controls as well.

So we have a "left" A/B/parallel/series submodule for two coils and a "right" A/B/parallel/series submodule for two other coils, and a central A/B/parallel/series module for two submodules.

This could be for two dual-coil humbuckers, or a dual-coil humbucker (Bridge) and two single coil pickups (Middle and Neck).

Selecting only the left submodule, we get four unique coil combinations (left A/B/parallel/series). Selecting only the right submodule, we get four unique coil combinations (right A/B/parallel/series). The two other central module combinations (parallel and series) gives us 16 combinations in each for a total of 40 unique coil combinations.

Proofing this from the perspective that 6 two position switches give 2^⁶ or 64 possible combinations, and disallowing the 12 redundant ones each from the central "A" and central "B" selection gives 64 - 24 = 40.


I did this example specifically to show structured submodule-based design. In this case, we have an iterative subroutine that is calling itself (in a stack-based-processor sort of software analogy - can you "C" it?).

[cynical1]

Jan 19, 2009 1:38:22 GMT -5 ChrisK said:

Electrical current is water.

Voltage is water pressure. Sometimes it's gravity. Sometimes it's (differential) water level.

Resistance is pipes of varying diameter/length.

Capacitance is a storage tank.

This is the same analogy I've heard before, and I grasp this much.

Inductance is an accumulator (like the things that reduce the water hammer effect - sort of). Imagine a two port device that water flows thru. It's a small pipe (gee about as small/long as the inductor's internal resistance) with many small holes in it. It is surrounded by an elastic bladder that "blows up" as water leaks into it from the water pressure. When the water stops flowing thru it, the stored water is forced out in the same direction by the elastic bladder returning to its previous static state. This effect is the stored magnetic energy of an inductor.

OK, with you so far. One question. In a hydraulic application such as this there is some type of solenoid valve controlling the return back to the reservoir. What controls that in an electrical circuit?

An inductor stores energy. A capacitor stores charge/water.

Got the capacitor part...understand the inductor part better.

I've read your posting Fun with switches, both takes, numerous times. I'm good for about 30 minutes then my brain begins to hurt from the induction... I figure once I understand your drawings from the The HSS All Mode 'Caster I'm applying for a job at NASA.

I think there are too many nagging analogies and misconceptions I've accumulated over the years referring back and forth from electricity to hydraulics\pneumatics that I need to either re-define or just discard.

Little by little this is making more sense. I still have a long way to go. There will be more stupid questions coming...

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[ChrisK]

OK, with you so far. One question. In a hydraulic application such as this there is some type of solenoid valve controlling the return back to the reservoir. What controls that in an electrical circuit?

No, the inductor has the innate tendency to keep the same current flowing thru it in the same direction regardless of external current flow.

While it's a hydraulic analogy, it depends on the compressibility of the air or the elasticity of the bladder for the analogous "field".

In other words, as current flows thru it, the magnetic field increases until the core saturation point is reached, and then it appears as only its wire resistance. This is called "locked rotor current" in a motor, and is to be avoided if possible.

When the external current is removed (or reduced), the stored energy, to use the water analogy, squirts out in the same direction. In the case of a coil such as a relay coil or ignition coil, a theoretically infinite voltage is developed as this finite current tries to flow thru an infinitely large load resistance.

This is why DC relay coils have an anti-parallel clamp diode (so the solid-state relay driver doesn't "go to be with Jesus"), and why automobile ignition systems work.

[JohnH]

Just got back from a PC and guitar free vacation, and had a look at the finished diagram. Nice work at every level. I can't see any problems with it. It draws on about 1/2 dozen different ideas and designs and makes something new - thats what invention is.

I had a think about all the sounds that it will make, in comparison to other builds that I have. It will get all of the sounds that I find useful, including my favorite in-between sound where you are in series mode, with bridge on full, and you roll down both the tone and the volume of the neck (full biting bridge sound, with more bass wallop)

On a design point, theres a conceptual difference between the way this scheme works in series, and a number of other series schemes. This scheme, together with some that I have done (2 vol strat, JHLP, HBD, Lpmax) keep the volume and tone controls connected to their respective pickups, as the pups are put into series mode, and the wiper connection of the pot serving the pup nearest to ground, becomes the ground-side connection for the pup nearer to the hot output. This allows both volume controls to operate consistently and smoothly in both series and parallel. A concern however, was that with one or both volume pots reduced, it may degrade the tone since all sound has to go through two pots. The alternative is that the pickups just get shunted in series mode, so there is always a direct connection from ground to hot through the pickups. Ive done this too and I know that Chris is an advocate of this method.

But the key to the design here though is the treble bleed caps and resistors, that control this issue, giving a low impedance route for the high treble, which is what needs to be preserved. I know this works based testing and on playing reports from the other designs (particularly the 'HBD' and the '2 volume Strat')

So with all those switches, will they all be toggles or will some be on push pull pots? - If you have a free choice of how to lay them out - I reckon all toggles would be easier to use.

cheers

John

[cynical1]

JohnH -

Thank you for the comments. To be honest, I can only take a small amount of credit here, as it was basically your design...and ChrisK's help in pointing out where I hosed it up...that made it come together.

I do like the finished product. I think this will be a very versatile and simple design. It does everything I wanted it to do, and it doesn't take a membership in MENSA for operate.

To answer your question, I will be using all toggles. I never liked push\pull switches...and they never liked me much either... I'm still toying with the "ergonomic" layout, but this old GTX body has acres of real estate to work with, so it should all fit with no problems.

Thanks again for doing all the hard work. (+1 for that...) ...and for shortening my learning curve.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[ashcatlt]

Jan 21, 2009 15:47:10 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

...a membership in MENSA...

Those idiots?

[cynical1]

Jan 21, 2009 16:10:06 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

Jan 21, 2009 15:47:10 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

...a membership in MENSA...

Those idiots?

"Common sense is in spite of, not as the result of education." - Victor Hugo

..of course, he also said, "An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise."

...go figure...

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[ChrisK]

....membership in MENSA....

While generally pompous, annoying, and all around boring, they certainly are not idiots in the strict definition of the word (-Sigma on the intelligence curve).

Most of the folks that one meets there are like the slightly wealthy; they're slightly intelligent and go out of their way to make sure that everyone knows it.

The truly intelligent, like the truly wealthy, generally tend to not do so.


To get into Mensa one only has to be merely gifted (1 in 50). There are other high(er) IQ societies that one will never hear of.

True intelligence is self-evident.




The Mega-smart folks

just think that they're special.











Then there's them there elitists...

giga.iqsociety.org/


"......There are currently six Giga members."
giga.iqsociety.org/intro.htm


"The Giga society currently has seven members:"
giga.iqsociety.org/members.htm

(Unless, of course, one of them departs.)

[newey]

Well, this thread has gone from Cynical's project to the Hydraulic Analogy to the Giga society! We do get around.

As of 4:35 pm GMT today, the World Population Clock read 6,755,630,381. So, if there were any more than 7 members of Giga they'd be bucking the odds, as they claim the odds are .0000000001

All of which ignores the more basic question of whether intelligence is a unitary entity that is measurable by the standard testing. Psychologists (some of whom make money from administering and/or designing the tests) have found their way out of this dilemma by simply declaring that intelligence is whatever the tests are measuring. That's a tautology, but it keeps the money coming in . . .

And so, I've taken us even further off topic.

[ChrisK]

...whether intelligence is a unitary entity...

It is not.

It is a box, endowed best full, of tools unobtainium, bejeweled immeasurably.

The force is such that the fasteners of what_is morph and adapt to fit.


Perception (since ever) is reality a'view.

Reality (since ever) is perception anew!


So cyn, is it built yet?

[cynical1]

Jan 23, 2009 21:21:22 GMT -5 ChrisK said:

So cyn, is it built yet?

The neck is sanded, the body need some works, the electronics are figured out...still working on the string theory...at tough nut to crack, but that's nothing to fret about....

Happy Trails

Cynical One
The Anti-Mensa

[ChrisK]

So when did you have your bar-Mensa?

[cynical1]

I think Groucho Marx put it best, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. "

I see no benefit in joining a group that takes it's name from the word "table"...out of a dead language. Clever or pretentious... What's the Latin word for boring?

And their stated goal to, "...provide a forum for intellectual exchange among members..." ...well, we do that here...and I find the company much more appealing.

Vent is

Happy Trails

Mordaxius Unus