The Strat SP

[JohnH]

Sure! When blending, both series and parallel versions tend to give the smoothest transition with some form of log taper pot. ie the change in tone is spread around the turn of the pot and not all suddenly at one end.

But, in the first half turn when such a pot goes from say 0 to 10% of its value, that is a good area in parallel mode to go from both coils, to one coil full and the other partly faded. Whereas in series blending, it's best for the range one coil to one full and part of the other. So the best blending tends to work in opposite directions unless a log and an anyilog taper can be combined!

Other versions that work around that tend to put added resistance or loading on the coils, so you never quite get the full natural tones.

[stevewf]

Jun 3, 2023 22:53:50 GMT -5 JohnH said:

But, in the first half turn when such a pot goes from say 0 to 10% of its value, that is a good area in parallel mode to go from both coils, to one coil full and the other partly faded. Whereas in series blending, it's best for the range one coil to one full and part of the other. So the best blending tends to work in opposite directions unless a log and an anyilog taper can be combined!

I get the sense that you've poked around with this quite a bit, so I'm grateful for any passage knowledge. Time-saving, aggravation-saving, etc. I don't understand the second sentence, above, and I have a feeling it'd be valuable to understand. So could you explain more about that middle sentence about serial fading [taper] in contrast to parallel? Thanks!

I might add a follow-on Q already: being that the fader pots that I'm considering are members of a dual-gang, would that lend itself well to the opposite directions needed? Is that the same as A vs C tapers? 'Cause I could do A in one wafer and C in the other.

[edit]: and while I'm at it, how about cutting tracks? Do I have it right if I cut a Serial fader near the "10" of a A taper and cut a Parallel fader near the "0" of a C taper? Thanks zills!

[JohnH]

It's always seemed difficult to do these blenders in series and parallel. This is one way that worked ok-ish, actually my first guitar mod here:

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/4641/brian-red-special-series-parallel

It used a dual-gang linear pot, of a type that I could open up to cut a track on the middle, and some added parts. It doesn't really go with this SP scheme though.

The fader ideas here may work better with a combined log and antilog pot. so that single is always at one end and two coils at the other. But, you may also find that at mid turn, the parallel setting is almost like single coil, and the series setting is almost both full coils. so there's a tendency to be a bit inconsistent.

I found that I liked the series blends, and preferred to be able to set a simple control just to to that one special tone, without having to keep twisting the knob.

[stevewf]

Thanks still more, JohnH. I found lots about what you'd done with that S/P dual-gang pot here: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/post/27534/thread (ToneMonster2)

I'd read it a long time ago, but at that time it was 3 meters over my head. After haunting this forum for a couple years, I've gotten that down to 1 meter  You clearly put a lot of research and work into making that design. That's Wow-level stuff.

As you say, the TM2's S/P fader might not be suitable for my current project, which is already pretty fiddly. Working with a fader that needs twiddling doesn't really change the practicality of this guitar - it's already out of the "straightforward controls" category. For that reason, I'm ready to go ahead with plain ol' 250K audio wafers, cut at either end.

One thing I've noticed about using the cut 250K's is that there's quite a jump in sound from 10 to 9 (where the sweeper cross the cut in the track), and then an acceptably smooth transition after that. While I'm ready to live with that jump, I might have been able to make a smoother pot by starting with 500K wafers and carefully scraping the tracks to change the taper near the cut end. Too much testing for me (with added risk of wasting wafers along the way). [edit: no, I have that wrong, haven't I? I still need a 250-range pot to keep most of the sweep smooth; but I could scrape its track near the cut in order to smooth the transition to that cut].

Thanks again, John!