Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 14:45:43 GMT -5
Always think its noble to shrink thr useage of switches where you can.
Mighy look at 4P2T (on on on) to marry the phase and on/off switching
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on May 10, 2022 15:58:30 GMT -5
You could use three basic dpdt switches for on and off, Take the 4pdt series-parallel switch and translate it to the 4pdt push switch on a Fender S1 switch. Then just have one phase switch on a push pull, or another S1, for the neck
|
|
oettam
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 1
|
Post by oettam on May 11, 2022 5:42:16 GMT -5
Thanks john I‘ll take the challenge and try to design something. I agree it won’t be as flexible as this but it’ll save 3 switches. I basically would like to do something with 3 on off on switches ( that fit nicely in place of the 5 way switch) and 2 push pull only. Any idea to achieve something similar to this? I think I got something (sorry the handwriting is horrible). any thought?
now this is not perfect, there is some dead spot and duplicate setup but it should work at the bottom there are 2 phase switch for B and N, and one by-pass switch for M the series connection is indeed interrupted when one of the three pickup is in the off position but that can be restored by putting the middle pickup in the top-on position not all combinations are possible but this should give - all possible parallel combinations (in and out of phase) - all or B+N in series - mixed B in parallel to M+N in series (and viceversa) - perhaps something else, not sure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 11:54:09 GMT -5
One, don't like the two toned.. they are fighting with each other as they are always on
I do think having the N phase switch as a on/on/on will help for series for when the Neck is off, it will go direct to the Middle. as at the moment it will hang in series if Neck is off.
Again if you could do that with the Middle switch , on/on/on so when in the middle it will bypass.
Love the little links for series and parallel
And the bridge phase , sorry to say on/on/on that bypass to ground
------- The on/off/on is only really good for phase switching on/off.
But as you say a few dead spots and its just rough.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 11, 2022 11:59:41 GMT -5
now this is not perfect, there is some dead spot and duplicate setup Quite a few dead spots, more than I could live with anyway. I haven't fully traced through this as yet, but at first blush, I'm not understanding the middle pickup's on-off-on. In the center position, both ends of the middle coil are disconnected, so middle pickup will be off. With the switch flipped such that the upper lugs on the diagram are connected, the middle pickup + and - are shorted together, so likewise no middle pickup. With the switch flipped so that the lower lugs are connected, the middle pickup + connects to the volume pot and the - connects to ground, so you get the middle pickup, in parallel, with whatever else you have selected, or by itself if the other 2 coils are off. So the middle pickup will have 2 dead positions, and will never be connected in series with anything. oettam, it seems to me as if you are going at this exactly backwards. You apparently have 3 On-Off-On DPDT switches, and you're trying to "shoehorn" your wish list into those particular switches. Better to figure out first what you want to do, then get the switches you'll need to do it. Apart from wire, switches are generally the cheapest components you'll put in your guitar (well, JohnH suggested an S-1, they can be a bit pricey, but that's an exception). I'll bet that the last time you bought a new guitar strap, or a cable, you spent more than you'd spend to buy the switches to do what you want here.
|
|
|
Post by MattB on May 11, 2022 13:42:54 GMT -5
I drew oettam's diagram as a schematic. Hopefully this is a little easier to follow. the series connection is indeed interrupted when one of the three pickup is in the off position but that can be restored by putting the middle pickup in the top-on position not all combinations are possible but this should give - all possible parallel combinations (in and out of phase) - all or B+N in series - mixed B in parallel to M+N in series (and viceversa) - perhaps something else, not sure As drawn, you won't get bridge and neck in series. I think you may have mixed up the connections on the middle on/off/on. Swapping the middle and bottom connections on each side would let you get neck and bridge in series. Like this: You can also get N and M in series by putting the middle/bridge series/parallel switch to parallel mode and switching the bridge off. Or M and B in series by doing the same thing in reverse. With the middle switch wiring corrected, I think your diagram will work like you want, and it does give you a good range of sounds, but I do agree with newey here- you're making a lot of compromises to be able to use those switches. Here's a diagram that does almost the same as your wiring scheme, but doesn't cut the sound if you switch off a pickup in series mode. It replaces the neck and bridge phase switches with 4PDT centre-on switches and the middle bypass with a 4PDT on/on. This layout doesn't give you any more sounds, it just makes them easier to get to. The compromise here is that you have to use physically larger 4-pole switches, so your control layout will be a little bigger.
|
|
oettam
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 1
|
Post by oettam on May 11, 2022 15:45:57 GMT -5
Wow, thanks a lot everyone for replying so quickly and competently. And thanks for spotting the mistake and providing new (and much nicer) schematics. which software are you using to draw it? I wanted to try with circuitlatex when I find time
Yes you’re right, I’m reverse engineering here and trying to use the switches I already have. That was my initial challenge honestly just for fun. I’m honestly quite happy already to hear from you it’s not total crap but could work.
The ideas of on-on-on (not sure I totally understand that though. Wouldn't the mid-on position lead to a short and therefore killing all signals in parallel mode?) and 4pdt to improve it and remove dead spots are great. Thanks. Will probably give it a go tomorrow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 15:48:22 GMT -5
So many ways to do this. I was thinking swapping the Neck Phase for a 2P2T on/on/on but the commons for Output and Link to there Series/Parallel switch. N+ to the two single states and -N to the two dual states Should Phase it as well as making a bypass for Output to the series Parallel switch. Same for the Middle. And the Bridge I'd need a 4P2T on/on/on same set up apart from .... Where the other Series Parallel Switch goes to Output id would the other two poles of the 4P2T to be linked. So the Output of the Bridge goes to the common and the dual state of that throw goes to the other common and then the dual state of that one goes to the Series/Parallel Switch. I'll try and upload a circuit in 20hr (it's bed time for me and my phone doesn't let me upload photos) Think it gives you most combo including N+(MxB) and (NxM)+B sadly not (NxB)+M DAM IT I COOKED UP the Neck On/On/On when in the Middle and the Neck/Middle is in Parallel it KILLS the System Could fix it with a 4P2T .. Like did at the Bridge one, but i want to limit the use of 4P2T you can get MxB by having Neck in Mid Position and Both Series/Parallel Switches in Series Like MattB suggestion of a BASS Tone Pot .. Note G&L use a C1M Pot (rev Log) with a 2n2F There is a KILL Position that should be ALL Switches in MIDDLE Position and All Series/Parrallel in Series so it links OUTPUT to GROUND Just Google EasyEDA , good for circuit design and PCB. Also you can order batches from China as well as boards that are populated and 3D items (not used them for that yet)
|
|
oettam
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 1
|
Post by oettam on May 11, 2022 15:57:41 GMT -5
One, don't like the two toned.. they are fighting with each other as they are always on Yes. You’re right about the two tones. What could I do with the third pot then? A separate volume? Or a better tone combination?
|
|
|
Post by MattB on May 11, 2022 18:15:10 GMT -5
Yes you’re right, I’m reverse engineering here and trying to use the switches I already have. That was my initial challenge honestly just for fun. I’m honestly quite happy already to hear from you it’s not total crap but could work. Given the limitations of on/off/on switches I think your design is probably about as good as it gets. I can't see a way to improve it without swapping out parts. The ideas of on-on-on (not sure I totally understand that though. Wouldn't the mid-on position lead to a short and therefore killing all signals in parallel mode?) and 4pdt to improve it and remove dead spots are great. Thanks. Will probably give it a go tomorrow The part of the wiring that bypasses pickups in series mode is connected to the series link between pickups, not directly to the pickups. In parallel mode it isn't connected to anything. Here's the schematic again. The parts highlighted in red are needed for bypassing pickups in series mode.
I have flipped the switches so N and B are on and in phase, M is off and both push-pulls are in parallel mode. You can see that the middle pickup is disconnected and the bypass circuitry isn't doing anything. With SW4 and SW5 switched up into series mode the bypass links would be connected and join N and B together. Yes. You’re right about the two tones. What could I do with the third pot then? A separate volume? Or a better tone combination? You could have a dedicated tone control each for any two pickups, and no tone control for the third. Or maybe some kind of cap selector or varitone. That could be simple or complicated, depending on how many sounds you want. Two extra caps on one of your DPDT centre-off switches would be easy, and could give you some really good extra sounds. This thread has lots of useful information:
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 11, 2022 18:20:37 GMT -5
What could I do with the third pot then? I don't know if you're a "blender guy" or not, but using the 3rd pot to blend the middle into the neck and bridge might make some sense with this scheme, which is sort-of "Neck and bridge dominant" anyway.. With a little rejiggering, that could potentially save you a switch, the middle pickup one. If that pot was also a push/pull, could blend the middle into the mix in one position, and do middle alone in the other. Of course, the blender would have to be rotated to "0" to give you middle off. Or, push/pull turns it on, pot blends it in . . . Jes' spitballin' here, y'unnerstand?
|
|
oettam
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 19
Likes: 1
|
Post by oettam on May 12, 2022 14:21:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the great insights! Lots of interesting stuff to learn here is what I would like to try, I hope I did the bass cut correctly. if it works and I like it, I might then improve it with 4PDTs to fix the dead spots
|
|
|
Post by jhng on May 12, 2022 15:30:55 GMT -5
I don't know whether this has already been discussed (although I'm sure it is on Guitarnuts somewhere), but there is a very economical variant on the Brian May wiring that uses three DPDT 'on-on-on' switches.
Basically, you have one switch per pickup. Two of them switch their pickups 'On-Off-OutOfPhase' while remaining always in series. The third one switches its pickup 'Series-Off-Parallel'. So overall, you get all series combinations both in and out of phase (like Brian May's Red Special), together with two sets of parallel combinations in and out of phase. It misses the third parallel combination, but it's still a lot going on for only three toggle switches.
Alternatively, you can have one switch doing 'On-Off-OutOfPhase' while the other two do 'Series-Off-Parallel'. Then you have all the main series and parallel combinations in phase, but a slightly more limited range of out of phase combos.
|
|
|
Post by MattB on May 12, 2022 17:05:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the great insights! Lots of interesting stuff to learn here is what I would like to try, I hope I did the bass cut correctly. The bass cut should be moved to before the volume pot. The resistance of the volume pot is part of the high-pass filter. Along with the cap size it determines the cut-off frequency. If you put the bass cut after the volume pot, the cut-off frequency will depend on the input impedance of whatever you plug into. Usually this is much higher than the resistance of a volume pot, which means a lower cut-off frequency and less bass cut. You also have the treble cut after the volume pot, which is usually referred to as '50s wiring. This is more of a personal preference, but I'm not really a fan of it. The advantage of putting the treble cut after the volume pot is that it preserves a little more high end when the volume is turned down. The disadvantage is that when both volume and tone are turned down, the tone control starts to act more like a volume control, cutting low frequencies as well as high. Here is an edited version of your diagram, with both low cut and high cut moved to before the volume pot. If you want the '50s wiring for the treble control just move the link back to the middle lug of the volume pot.
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 12, 2022 23:19:49 GMT -5
The bass cut should be moved to before the volume pot. The resistance of the volume pot is part of the high-pass filter. Along with the cap size it determines the cut-off frequency. If you put the bass cut after the volume pot, the cut-off frequency will depend on the input impedance of whatever you plug into. Usually this is much higher than the resistance of a volume pot, which means a lower cut-off frequency and less bass cut. You also have the treble cut after the volume pot, which is usually referred to as '50s wiring. This is more of a personal preference, but I'm not really a fan of it. The advantage of putting the treble cut after the volume pot is that it preserves a little more high end when the volume is turned down. The disadvantage is that when both volume and tone are turned down, the tone control starts to act more like a volume control, cutting low frequencies as well as high. The other issue with 50's wiring when combined with a bass cut, is that it necessitates that the treble cut is placed after the bass cut. As you note, the bass cut is dependent on the impedance of what follows it, so with '50s wiring (or more generally with the treble cut 'after' the bass cut, as still persists in your diagram) you'll have the interaction whereby turning the treble cut down also raises the cut-off frequency of the bass cut — thereby potentially cutting both treble and more bass. The usual way to eliminate this (and, as per G&L's circuit) is to have the signal go from the pickups go to the treble cut first, then the bass cut, then the volume. (Though there are exceptions which don't bother fixing this, such as a Fender Jaguar's 'strangle' switch).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 5:19:47 GMT -5
I did see a guy who had a capacitor switch from 22nF- (I think 1nF) Volume --> Capacitor (with a bypass) --> jack socket www.1728.org/bass-cut2b.pngAlso on YouTube (Jonesy) did talk to him about it. Said he sold a few of them.
|
|
|
Post by MattB on May 13, 2022 11:20:03 GMT -5
The other issue with 50's wiring when combined with a bass cut, is that it necessitates that the treble cut is placed after the bass cut. As you note, the bass cut is dependent on the impedance of what follows it, so with '50s wiring (or more generally with the treble cut 'after' the bass cut, as still persists in your diagram) you'll have the interaction whereby turning the treble cut down also raises the cut-off frequency of the bass cut — thereby potentially cutting both treble and more bass. The usual way to eliminate this (and, as per G&L's circuit) is to have the signal go from the pickups go to the treble cut first, then the bass cut, then the volume. (Though there are exceptions which don't bother fixing this, such as a Fender Jaguar's 'strangle' switch). Yes, you're right. I think this fixes the problem:
|
|