Tone Monster Wiring Diagram

[JohnH]

Time to revive this thread - RW has made a prototype of the 3 pup series/parallel circuit, which seems to work well. The Blender has been a problem though, since it has not been consistent in series and parallel.

This idea may fix it, using a dual gang linear pot, with some resistors to tune the response.

See the bright green pot and yellow resistors.
people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/SSSseriesparallelschematicMk8.gif

It has an 'S' curve response, with most of the action near the ends, but it is consistent within 1db between series and parallel with 2 pups. It is optimised for two pups in use at one time. The central position is fully mixed, while the ends give a 6-7db relative change from neck to bridge/middle. I did some tests and found that this is enough to make one pup fade out but not fully.

I haven't built it but I ve tested the resistor values on my guitar to try the effects, and the math checks out. As shown here it is designed for pups with about 8k resistance. the best resistance values will depend on the pup.

This is worth a try! - RW, if you are interested, I can put it in a wiring diagram - Ill need to know the pup resistance values, and the inductance if you know it from pickup specs (or Ill guess)

John

[Runewalker]

....the 3 pup series/parallel circuit, which seems to work well. The Blender has been a problem though, since it has not been consistent in series and parallel.

This idea may fix it, using a dual gang linear pot, with some resistors to tune the response.

See the bright green pot and yellow resistors.
people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/SSSseriesparallelschematicMk8.gif

It has an 'S' curve response, with most of the action near the ends, but it is consistent within 1db between series and parallel with 2 pups. It is optimised for two pups in use at one time. The central position is fully mixed, while the ends give a 6-7db relative change from neck to bridge/middle. I did some tests and found that this is enough to make one pup fade out but not fully.

This is in lieu of the fixed ratios rotary we have discussed?

"...This is worth a try! - RW, if you are interested, I can put it in a wiring diagram - Ill need to know the pup resistance values, and the inductance if you know it from pickup specs (or Ill guess) ..."

Sure, the wiring diagram always makes more sense to me. I have to open up the Tbeast anyway because I switched a pup wire set when changing out pups.

I can test the resistance, and need to anyway because the pups are different. But I have seen a number of 6K singles coming through, even some 4Ks. I think these new ones are in the 7-8K range, but I will test to be sure.

There are plenty of reasonably priced dual pots, linear or log, here:

www.mouser.com/catalog/623/485.pdf

and range between .5K to 1Meg. is there any issue on lower value pots absorbing, or bleeding (or whatever they do), treble frequencies?

You are talking about dual ganged, not dual concentric (independent movement) pots, correct?

When you say:

" ...The central position is fully mixed, while the ends give a 6-7db relative change from neck to bridge/middle....this is enough to make one pup fade out but not fully...."

this means that at the ends of travel the pups are about, what, 15:85%, 85:15%? and in the approximate middle, 100:100%?


I still like your fixed ratio rotary idea, though.

[JohnH]

Its another option to the fixed ratio rotary. The advantages of this latest idea is that it is simpler, and it has a smooth response instead of a stepped one. I think a stepped response is good because you can make each step even, and switch to it positively to find a setting quickly. The switched version has no load on the treble. The advantage of a smooth response is to find that perfect balance point. Ive been doing some tests with resitances in series and parallel across pickup coils to check out these ideas. One of the most interesting was blending two pickups out of phase, where there is an exact point where the fundamental disappears.

The dual pot design will bleed some treble due to the 100k resistance, but you mentioned that your latest pups are well supplied in this regard. My guitar has 100k pots for vol and tone, and the way it is wired, it puts a 50k load on the pickups as originally designed. My coil resistances are quite low at 4k and 6k. When I tried a bypass switch to take these loads out
it sounded way too shrill and hurt my ears. But with hotter pickups, which also have less treble, this loss may be too much but is hard to predict.

This treble bleed can be reduced by going to a 250k pot, at the expence of the fact that the response is more of an 'S' curve, ie, with the action more concentrated at the ends. However, you noted that the current blend has used a 1M pot, so it would still be smoother than that.

Another way to fix treble bleed (if it is a problem which it may not be), which may be worth testing on a $3 pot, is to put a break in the pot track at the mid point, just on the side doing the series control. This can easily be done by taking the back off a dual gang pot. It would break the continuity of the 100k track, eliminating the load on the pups. The parallel side of this design does not load the pups.

With the range I have described, Im predicting that it will get you that 85:15 and 15:85 ratio at each end, and 50:50 in the middle. In the tests I did, I found that a cut of what I am calling 6db, is enough to make one pup reduce to being just perceptable, but still audible. To reduce it further, it can be switched off with a switch, so I think this will cover the range needed. THe range can be extended if needed, but it is harder to keep the series/parallel balance.

Its all experimental. If you want to try something quickly, put a 100k pot wired directly in place of the current pot. This will test the sounds with the treble bleed and the smoothness. Ill do a wiring diagram for the new idea.

For the rotary switched version - I have the math worked out to find the parallel and series resistance values for any number of steps of any size. (I have a long train journey each day and I cant play guitar on the train). This uses a 3 pole switch with as many positions as you choose.

[Runewalker]

Resistance values of the new alnico pups, as requested:

Neck = 8.43-4K
Mid = 8.74K
Bridge = 9.00K

The original ceramics centered at 5K +-2-300.

The new ones produce more resistance than I remembered

RW

[Runewalker]

JH: As you know we are still working out my execution bugs on the 5-way rotary HH.

I am confident we will get there, but things are a little suspended.

Picked up another couple of bodies, and one is going to a working musician who has been watching the evolution of these designs and done some hands-on with SSS prototype.

His objectives are:

• HSH config
  
• All options of the HH + the three pup design (Series/Para system, In/outta-Phase, individual pup activations)
  
• and a key condition is user-friendly switching- ergonomics and intuitive-easy switching for live playing applications.
  
• That unique blender function
  
  

Some of that (ease and ergonomics) is geographic placement and I will work that out with him wearing my luthier hat.

Part of that is logical sequencing and that will take some discussion.

However, maximum electronic-tone options, it's subsequent complexity by the shear number of combos, and rapid live fire switching work somewhat against each other.

The next design evolution is to adapt the HSH to the additional 2 options per hum the rotary switch gives in the HH design.

I assume that it is just a matter of adapting the hot and negative leads that are currently to the ON/ON/ON switches to the hot/negs of the pup rotaries. Then I will probably have to rout out the entire bottom half of the guitar to have enough room for all of this.

I still wonder though why there is no enhancement to the standard 5-way that gives 7 positions. the travel arch would be slightly reduced but seemingly achievable. Perhaps it is out there an I have not found it. Seems like a marketing opportunity for recovering every Strat player's "lost sounds" fantasies. I certainly prefer getting all 7 primary pup combos, but the 5-way motion is I suspect, somewhat more intuitive for the conditioned learning of the typical strat player. Not better, just more familiar.

[JohnH]

Well yes, anything is possible - but only in Texas!

The rotary switches could be directly added in substitution for the on-on-on switches that you used before in the HSH circuit.

Heres a point about hum:

One aspect of the HH rotary design which is an advantage when theres only 2 pups is that hum can always cancell. This is because the bridge and neck PUs are wired to produce hum in opposite phase to each other, no matter what setting is used. With 3 pups, they cant all have diiferent hum phase, 2 have to be the same. You could either say that minimising hum is not too important between say, the bridge and neck. Or you could find that you have a really effective shielding job that cuts hum down anyway. Or, it would need a phase switch on the bridge pup, as per our previous HSH and SSS designs. Apart from getting further out of phase sounds, this allows the bridge to be put into hum cancelling with the middle, and then by changing phase, with the neck.

So a base design has the following switches:
5 position rotaries for neck and bridge
3 toggles for bridge, mid, neck on/off
bridge phase
series/parallel

Now guess how many sound settings that provides?

I make it 241, plus an 'off' setting, x variations using the blend!

So, i take your point about trying to simplify the switching. I think that HSH circuits where you try to keep all possible options are inherently complex, because there simply are alot of options

I might be a good idea to work out which combinations are most important, and not try to provide all of them.

Another issue is with the blend control, in keeping a balance of series and parallel. The design that I have depends somewhat on knowing the relative resistances. A design with Hb pups wired in series and in parallel varies the resistance by a factor of 4, so it would be optimised for just the most used setting.
I have now drawn the dual-pot blend on an SSS wiring diagram. I need to check it then Ill send it.

[Runewalker]

[a href="Well yes, anything is possible - but only in Texas!"]Well yes, anything is possible - but only in Texas![/a]

Now we're talkin', cowboy!

The rotary switches could be directly added in substitution for the on-on-on switches that you used before in the HSH circuit.

As I assumed

Heres a point about hum:

One aspect of the HH rotary design which is an advantage when theres only 2 pups is that hum can always cancell. This is because the bridge and neck PUs are wired to produce hum in opposite phase to each other, no matter what setting is used.

I am in total agreement that this feature is [shadow=red,left,300]huge[/shadow]. {Sorry, still exploring all these G2 Features.} and is at the core of why I am pursuing the enhancement. It also brings in interesting implications. Eg, NorthNeck, SouthBridge and SouthNeck and NorthBridge are humcancelling (or their inverse), but since the coils don't have much real geographic placement differences, the sounds are likely to be simillar, unless the pole adjustments are extream. But the covered pups. Now that is a differnt story, since the output of the coverer slug sides are likely to be significantly less, you have suddenly distinct sounds in the humcancelling combos. Of course if you crave hum you can always find it in these arrays. Having a unit with the splits but no control over the coil combos has given me some experience with hum, and I am willing to let it go, with appologies to the vintage hum freaks.

With 3 pups, they cant all have diiferent hum phase, 2 have to be the same. You could either say that minimising hum is not too important between say, the bridge and neck. Or you could find that you have a really effective shielding job that cuts hum down anyway. Or, it would need a phase switch on the bridge pup, as per our previous HSH and SSS designs. Apart from getting further out of phase sounds, this allows the bridge to be put into hum cancelling with the middle, and then by changing phase, with the neck.

IF you are geeky enough to understand what the switching does these combos are either avoidable or avoidable. One postive aspect is that the need for a RWRP mid pup should be eliminated in the combos with another hum single, because you can find the inverse single coil for humcancelling.

So a base design has the following switches:
5 position rotaries for neck and bridge
3 toggles for bridge, mid, neck on/off
bridge phase
series/parallel

Not too scary.

Now guess how many sound settings that provides?

I make it 241, plus an 'off' setting, x variations using the blend![/blockquote]

Being from Texas and familiar with all sort of excess, of course I love the X infinity piece.

So, i take your point about trying to simplify the switching. I think that HSH circuits where you try to keep all possible options are inherently complex, because there simply are alot of options

I might be a good idea to work out which combinations are most important, and not try to provide all of them.

Another issue is with the blend control, in keeping a balance of series and parallel. The design that I have depends somewhat on knowing the relative resistances. A design with Hb pups wired in series and in parallel varies the resistance by a factor of 4, so it would be optimised for just the most used setting.
I have now drawn the dual-pot blend on an SSS wiring diagram. I need to check it then Ill send it.

And I probably need to emphasize the blend control is really generated from the eccentricties of my approach to playing, although it is, what?

[glow=red,2,300]Huge[/glow]

It conveys a remarkable range of tones. But if the playing style and settings of the guitarist are mostly overdriven or metal, much of these nuances are buried. It really surfaces in the clean to slightly overdriven range. I still find it useful in the hard areas, but that is just me.

That said it may for many be optional, but with an open slot in the Strat form factor, why not? The biggest iussue of the blend is the parking feature between Series/Parallel systems setting, which I think you have worked out.

The art of matching pups that are dirvergent is critical here, because of the issues you raise. I lean actually to hotter hums than normal because:

A. the single coils of the hums are then more likely to be matched with the Mid Single coil resistence and output, and

B. In series their are altenative humbuckery arrangements in the mid/single combos.

Of course you loose some defintion in the hotter hums, so alternatively, get a moderately overwound hum, and a somewhat more vintage single.

The whole area of balance between pups is perhaps another entire topic.

One great thing about this is at its extreams there are great fun sounds. For example, you have always cautioned me about the 'wooliness' of too many pups, too many pots --- but in the Turser prototype, there are some very interesting Jazz tones (out of a Strat!) with all 2 pups in and in series.

I would have to spend some serious time thinking about optimal combos to limit the options.

I have found in a live situation you can park on say the system series side, then control treble/bass/mid tones with your in/out switches and the blend. It is simple but vast in variance, especially in the single coil arrangements, because the blend rolls at the extreams to either a neck single coil sound, or if all three are in to a badass, Eddie V type bridge humbucker.


So even if the beast has a lot of options, and I think 240+ qualifies as a lot, there are parking places for live plays that give rapid access but varied tones.

I am still looking for that 7-Way strat switch though.

what's up with modern technology?

RW

[JohnH]

OK, well it should work out fine. It is a good point about not needing an RWRP on the mid. What you would do though, is to wire the Hb's so that they both hum cancell with the mid in the in phase single coil settings. That can be done by choosing how the Hb coils are wired. Both Hbs would be wired the same, and youd use the overall bridge phase switch to cancell hum in B/N single-coil combos.

Ive just read what I have written above - it would appear as complete BS to anyone who didnt know what we are talking about!

[Runewalker]

, well it should work out fine. It is a good point about not needing an RWRP on the mid. What you would do though, is to wire the Hb's so that they both hum cancell with the mid in the in phase single coil settings. That can be done by choosing how the Hb coils are wired. Both Hbs would be wired the same, and youd use the overall bridge phase switch to cancell hum in B/N single-coil combos.[/blockquote]

This idea of beginning the process of narrowing options to the optimal choices has appeal, but I am perplexed at exactly how to do that from a wiring standpoint. At this point I have worked with the prototype enough to have a pretty good map as to which combos generate optimal sounds and or listenable variations. The blend sure adds another dimension to the combos that have the neck kicked in, especially in Series.

Ive just read what I have written above - it would appear as complete BS to anyone who didnt know what we are talking about

Unless someone has labored through this thread not much of this towards the end would make sense. Few probably take that challenge, since the thread has a lot of thinking out loud, education and probes down paths that proved unfruitful and were abandoned. It has the character of a design project.

At some point, when it is finished, and that looks to be some where in 2030, we could probably edit it down to key passages and perhaps use it on your website.

Heck the thing has about 6 separate designs, and the term Monster hardly does it justice. It needs something more mythic --- Tone Kracken, Tone Miniataur, Tone Mithra, or perhaps that beast in Lord of the Rings that turned that wizard dude from grey to white.

[JohnH]

This idea of beginning the process of narrowing options to the optimal choices has appeal, but I am perplexed at exactly how to do that from a wiring standpoint.

Yes me too - and not a problem so long as the switching described above is useable in practice. Probably the 10-12 best options are spread around, and the other 231 sound possibilities are provided as a consequence of the required switching.

[Runewalker]

"....This idea of beginning the process of narrowing options to the optimal choices has appeal, but I am perplexed at exactly how to do that from a wiring standpoint.

Yes me too - and not a problem so long as the switching described above is useable in practice. Probably the 10-12 best options are spread around, and the other 231 sound possibilities are provided as a consequence of the required switching....."

Just sitting and thinking about it and translating some experience with the prototype, I don't think it will be that overwhelming in a live situation. Unless you are wanting to go to extream divergent sounds in the same song. The only real difference between the prototype (red Squire) HSH and the HSH with rotary hums is the rotaries in place of on-on-on switches, which gives the two addition options per hum, + hum canceling control on combos.

Like anything, the more you use it and become familiar with capabilities and settings the easier migration between settings will be.

Gotta make some sacrifices if yore gonna have an UberGuitar. I have to say it is refreshing and odd to have a strat that effectively gets LesPaul sounds, and then so much more. One guitar - Infinite tone!

Those considering ths probably have enough geek in them to manage the controls.

So I am getting no response anywhere on the 7-way version of the 5-way strat switch, so if it does not exist .... how about one of the variable stop rotary switches we have seen. How many poles would a 7 postion rotary require?

[JohnH]

So I am getting no response anywhere on the 7-way version of the 5-way strat switch, so if it does not exist .... how about one of the variable stop rotary switches we have seen. How many poles would a 7 postion rotary require?

Theres probably a German scientist who worked out a mathematical theory of how many switches are needed to connect X number of inputs in Y number of combinations. The best I can see is that, to make a rotary version of our current design with 7 basic choices of 1, 2 or 3 pups, set up for switching in series /parallel we would need 6 poles - to do the job of the 3 x 2pole toggles. A 6P7T rotary would be a enjoyable switch to wire up, but probably exists - and if it does, you are the man to find it if anyone can.

If you lose the setting with all pups on, the other 6 settings can be done with a 4 pole switch, ie 4P6T. This of course is available as the sibling of our 4P5T switch. Not quite pure though..

hmmmm...
heres an idea (cant help it..here it comes...!)

Have a 4pole 3way (ie simple cheap & small) switch to control Bridge and Middle, to give you B, B&M, M. Let the neck just be controlled just with the blender, to blend from N to N&(B/M), to (B/M). That gives all the options.

The 4P3T could probably be found as a lever switch to go in the strat slot.

A variation:

Or use a 4P5T megaswitch to give the usual strat positions, in some relationship with the blender so that the blender can bring the neck in, in positions 1, 2 and 3. A phase switch could be a push/pull on the tone pot. The blend would be in place of the other tone. Master volume as usual. The appearance would be stock, except for the 4pole toggle for series parallel

[Runewalker]

"...Have a 4pole 3way (ie simple cheap & small) switch to control Bridge and Middle, to give you B, B&M, M. Let the neck just be controlled just with the blender, to blend from N to N&(B/M), to (B/M). That gives all the options. ..."

On that one one of the B/M combos is always engaged? And the N is always engaged, just blended in or out?

The minis would still be better because they take the pup entirely out of the circuit when called for.

This is just a theoretical discussion, because the miinis work really well, I am just trying to think about the learning curve of a traditional strat player and their migration away from their motor patterns aclimated to the 5-way.

I have propose what seemed like a simple option of useing the 5 way conventionally with an on/off mini for the lost pup when two others are combined. But you said I think that there were issues in that arrangement with the Ser/Para system switching.

If that were possible or if their were a 7-way strat arc switch to capture the 2 lost combos, that would be the easiest for strat players to adapt to.

Your basic 3 pup design works so well I'm not sure I want to tamper too much with it with the exception of subbing the 5-way hum selectors for the current On-On-On switches in the HSH and HSS's. Oh, and the notched blender switch. Oh, and the illusive 7-way strat switch. Oh, and ....

I suspect the 7-way rotary sub for the 5-way strat might be too alien for most. I might like to try it in another prototype after the HH SGs and HSH with Hum rotaries.

So many ideas, so many projects, so little resources (time and money)......

[JohnH]

I have propose what seemed like a simple option of useing the 5 way conventionally with an on/off mini for the lost pup when two others are combined. But you said I think that there were issues in that arrangement with the Ser/Para system switching.


That idea was OK, it just needed the 4P5T megaswitch rather that a standard 5-way.

[Runewalker]

"...[use] the 5 way conventionally with an on/off mini for the lost pup when two others are combined..."

[color=Maroon]"That idea was OK, it just needed the 4P5T megaswitch rather that a standard 5-way. "

[/color][/blockquote]

This thing?

www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/1/Megaswitches.html

With this you could have what appeared to be a conventional 5-way lever switch, with a mini for adding the lost pup in positions 4-5 (or 1-2)?

If so that would not be too alien for the strat afficinado.

I thought the 4P5T you mentioned was a rotary, not a lever. Sorry for the misunderstanding. As always I am out of my element.

[JohnH]

Dual-pot Blender

Here is the wiring for the SSS with the dual pot blender. It is based on 250k for the blender and your hot pups of 8.8k each. It might be good to try just a single 250k with the previous wiring to check the sound, before trying this one. It should give a smoother change in blending, but see if you get too much treble cut.

The new one will not do a full off setting, which is intentional to help it stay balanced and give sensitivity in the 15%-100% range . If you want to switch a pup off – use a switch. The main thing about this design should be that the centre position is balanced, with full blend on both series and parallel.

It took some thinking to get the wiring drawn, and as ever, I cant guarantee no errors. There’s also a risk of getting mixed up when changing from the current wiring to this one. To help this, I have re done the previous mk6 version at the same scale as the new mk 8. I found it very useful to get them both open in a graphics program (I use Irfanview) and click between them to check what is the same and what is different.

people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/SSSseriesparallelwiringMk6a.gif
people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/SSSseriesparallelwiringMk8.gif


5 way lever switch

With the 5-way idea, appologes, it is a Superswitch rather than a Megaswitch - ie one of these I believe:

www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/Super_Switch.html

Electrically it is a 4P5T, and does the same job as an equivalent rotary.

My thought with the blender in this case is to try to avoid needing a neck-on switch as well. Otherwise there’s 3 controls that affect whether that one pup is on, being the 5-way, the blender and a neck on. So my thought was as follows

Roll the blender all the way to one end – where it has no effect. The 5-way behaves exactly like a standard Strat with the same 5 sounds and positions, except you have a series/parallel switch to change positions 2 and 4 and a phase switch – same combinations however.

Now roll up the neck blend – this brings up some neck in positions 1, 2 and 3 of the 5 way. In 4 and 5, the neck is full on because the 5-way over rules.

So you can leave the blend alone and have a standard Strat, but with S/P options, or use the blend and phase control to get the missing sounds.

With series/parallel and phase, this would seem to give all the combinations The blend would be easier and maybe better if it just brought the neck up rather than also fading the others down, but either is possible. I think this would be very Strat-tuitive for 5-way type people. The only visible sign would be one small toggle.

Personally though, I like the toggles better, it’s a more direct link between what the switch positions show and which pups are on, and its cheaper and simpler to wire up.