|
Post by JFrankParnell on May 19, 2010 16:05:17 GMT -5
I found these www.guitarelectronics.com/product/CPFNL11/Original-Fender-No-Load-Guitar-Tone-Pot-Split-Shaft.htmlpots that click at position 10 to become no load or out the circuit. Since I am considering deleting one pot from my strat (and just have a master tone and master volume) , I thought that might be a good idea, especially to retain the no-tone bridge pup wiring idea (but give me the option to play with it). Well, these pots are advertised as tone pots, so i was just wondering if I could or should use one in the volume spot?
|
|
|
Post by wolf on May 19, 2010 17:07:57 GMT -5
Well, "no-load" tone pots have been discussed here before and I like to use these myself (but I make my own). The ones you linked to at GuitarElectronics work by a switch. To me that is going way over the edge to achieve a no load tone pot. I don't like the idea of a switched pot on an electric guitar. In the above graphic a potentiometer has had its cover removed and is viewed from the rear. To make your own no load pot, scratch away at the resistive material where the arrow points. You don't have to cut a wide swath through the material - just enough so that the resistance from the left terminal to the right terminal changes from 250K to infinity. As for a no-load volume pot, there is no such thing. I remember a time when I started a topic suggesting connecting a volume pot using only two terminals - one to the "hot" side" the other to ground. Well, I was told it's a bad idea because of impedance mis-matching and other problems. One solution (and it doesn't even require buying or making any no-load tone pots) is to use a "solo switch". www.1728.com/guitar4.htm
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on May 20, 2010 15:57:06 GMT -5
hmm, what about, instead of taking the wire from the pup selector, I took just the bridge wire and ran it to your solo switch? Or, just take a hot wire from the bridge, go to a switch, and then to the jack? Here is basically what i have: and then just a switch?
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 20, 2010 17:34:25 GMT -5
For the most part, that'll work as a Bridge Override type thing.
Problem the first: If the 5-way is in the B+M position, that's what you'll get at the output. Any other 5-way position and you'll have Bridge only.
2) If the 5- way is in any position that includes the Bridge pickup, you'll still have the load of the volume pot at 10, and the Tone control will be fully operational. I can see a couple situations where this might be useful, but I'm not sure it's what you intended.
|
|
|
Post by wolf on May 20, 2010 18:12:37 GMT -5
If you are going through all the trouble of wiring in an SPDT switch, why not just use a DPDT switch and connect it as a full-fledged solo switch?
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on May 20, 2010 18:13:24 GMT -5
1. hmm, yes... well ok. can prolly solve that by using a dpdt and hooking the middle pup wire to the other side/end of it?
2. Ok, i stared at the diagram long enough, i think i get why that is happening, too. So, the solution there would be to use the other 1/2 of the dpdt on the wire going from switch to volume pot?
and to fix both of those at once, you need a 3 pole switch?
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 20, 2010 19:59:12 GMT -5
1. hmm, yes... well ok. can prolly solve that by using a dpdt and hooking the middle pup wire to the other side/end of it? You could do that, but... Nope, like wolf said, it only takes 2 poles. One decides whether the Bridge pickup goes to the switch or directly to output. The other decides whether the 5-way goes to the output (via V/T) or not.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 20, 2010 21:11:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolf on May 20, 2010 22:03:44 GMT -5
newey You can basically skip all the folderol- in the end, wolf's Solo Switch gets the nod.
Thanks newey.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on May 20, 2010 22:45:17 GMT -5
Nope, like wolf said, it only takes 2 poles. One decides whether the Bridge pickup goes to the switch or directly to output. The other decides whether the 5-way goes to the output (via V/T) or not. Ah, like this? Did I get that right? With no tone suck problems? please note the switched neck/mid wires (giving me N+B @ pos 4). Also, phase switch for neck pup.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on May 27, 2010 22:30:56 GMT -5
Hey guys, on the solo/blower switch thing, is it enough just to take the tone pot out of the circuit? Atm, I have both the vol and tone bypassed on my bridge only blower. I really like the increased highs on that setting, but i'm wondering, if i leave the volume in the circuit, will i still get the same effect? Or, does the volume suck out a little of the signal even when its on 10? Would the 'treble bleed' mod mitigate that suck, if it does exist?
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 27, 2010 23:07:27 GMT -5
You'll get less of an effect with the volume pot left in, it's loading the circuit.
This is like position 3 on the classic Esquire wiring.
The "treble bleed" circuit has no effect with the pot at "10", only as you roll it down. A good thing to have, but it doesn't help with this question.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Jun 16, 2010 13:33:23 GMT -5
You'll get less of an effect with the volume pot left in, it's loading the circuit. And so, a higher ohm vol pot would give you more of that effect? The vol pot at 10 gives the highest resistance that pot is able to give, therefore, less signal is shorting out to ground? What i'm getting at here is to have the effect of the vol/tone bypass but still have the volume control, lol.
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 16, 2010 18:06:52 GMT -5
If you're looking to preserve as much treble as possible - and insist upon having a capacitive cable between your pickups and the first active stage - then you want the pickups to "see" the biggest possible resistance to ground. I think I'm correct in saying that what matters here is the parallel total of any pots in the path with the input-Z of the first active stage.
This can never be greater than the smallest of these values. For pot values, bigger will be "better" in this case, until they get to the point where they are significantly larger than the input-Z of the next device. 1M is a good start. 20M for both V and T would probably get up to the point where it's negligible in comparison to a 500K or 1M input like you see on most amps and pedals.
Better yet is to use largish pot values and install an active buffer on-board to take the cable crapacitance out of the equation altogether. Or even betterer connect the buffer to before the V/T for wide open ear splitting highs.
Honestly, this all works to get us away from the "warm" "vintage" "mojo" vibe that many people consider to be the perfect tone. I'd suggest experimenting some. I personally do prefer the no-load sound for many things, especially with humbuckers, but you might find it to be too much.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 16, 2010 19:28:54 GMT -5
IMHO " Vintage " = muddy and dull in many cases ... give me the option of some clarity and sizzle in my tone , and i am a happy camper
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 16, 2010 21:56:20 GMT -5
Personally I’m not in favour of going to very high value volume pots in search of maximum treble. Its OK at full volume, but if you turn down, the output impedance of the guitar rises to a value of 25% of the sum of pot + pup, ie about 130k for a typical 500k volume pot. In this state, the cable capacitance cuts more into the treble with higher pots, so I prefer not to use anything over 500k. Treble bleed circuits help a lot, but are not perfect and they mess with the tone somewhat, more so with higher value pots. With circuits Ive tried, I have not noticed a significant extra amount of treble with pots higher than 500k, although that would depend on the pickups. To get that last tad of brightness, a no-load tone pot is a good idea. It halves the max load on the treble (assuming equal vol and tone pot values) in the no-load position, but does not cause the unwanted increase in output impedance of a very high volume pot.
Buffer circuits are also great – either in the guitar, in the jack plug or with just a short cable to the guitar.
John
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 16, 2010 23:54:32 GMT -5
^^^That is, a bigger Volume pot - when turned down - will have the opposite effect from what you're looking for. It'll probably be darker on 5 (or even 8) than with a smaller value pot. But then, who ever turns down their Volume control? This isn't an issue with a Tone control, since it's a variable resistance to ground, and doesn't introduce any series resistance to the signal line. I tend to agree that it's generally best to at least have the option to get as much treble as possible out of the guitar. We can always take it out later, but there isn't a good (quiet) way to add get it back. It's worth mentioning that we're not really talking here about changing the cutoff frequency of the filter anything much. What we're doing is increasing the resonant peak just before the cutoff. That is, we're not letting any more high frequencies through. Rather we're amplifying a very narrow band at the very top end of the system's range. On that note, I'd mention that the "treble" that we get out of a guitar is not anything I'd call treble in any other context. Most passive pickup systems won't pass anything much more than 4-6KHz. To my mind that's a lot more like "high mids". This is right around the area where some of the nastiest harmonics and harshest artifacts of the pick attack tend to live. This is where we find that click-clack nastiness that comes out of those under-saddle piezo systems.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Jun 17, 2010 10:33:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 17, 2010 11:38:51 GMT -5
Yeah, probably. 100K Input-Z smells a lot like tone suck with most passive guitars, though. See also JohnH's Guitar Cable Buffer (scroll down a little). There's at least one version of the exact same thing available commercially.
|
|
|
Post by D2o on Jun 17, 2010 12:27:47 GMT -5
I'd never seen that before.
|
|