|
Post by asmith on Apr 22, 2011 10:12:20 GMT -5
You've reversed the way your Bridge, Neck and Middle poles of the superswitch work, but I don't think that should make a practical difference. You probably already know you have. Looks good to me. You've got two Bridge-only selections there as well. Don't forget you can stick a cap between the ground lug of the "Series/Parallel" switch and actual ground, for a Bridge*Cap selection, if you wanted to be overly nutz. If you wanted to be OVERLY overly nutz, you could connect that one-position-only bridge-ground wire to the free lug on the tone control. Then solder a cap in parallel to that lug and the input lug, like so. Then when the series switch is pulled, that tone control turns into both a tone control, and a variable cap to ground, so that it cuts out both high and low. A bit crude, but would do the job. The diagram obviously doesn't use the correct caps, values would have to be experimented with.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 22, 2011 13:14:21 GMT -5
Great, thanks Yeah, the 5ways poles: couldnt make a difference, could they? I kept chanting to myself, its just a switch its just a switch, ground is ground is ground ;D Of course, the 4th pole is a different story. Yeah, I'll prolly try a cap on the series bridge, just for 'weirdness sake' ( i do plenty of things for that reason). I think i'll set up a couple caps in the style of 'Free Woman Tone'. ChrisK said: what other values on either side of that would be a good starting point for experimentation?
|
|
|
Post by D2o on Apr 22, 2011 13:24:54 GMT -5
Tone is a subjective thing ... I farted about a bit here and found a combination I liked, although I did not use the values required for the true bona fide "Woman Tone". I hope that helps. D2o
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 22, 2011 14:23:24 GMT -5
i meant the switching style of the 'free woman tone' not the cap values. Cuz I am not talking about the Tone cap. But I have listened to you Ring Dem Bells a few times ;D
So, for example when chrisk gives 0.03uf, should I get a .01 and a .05 or more like .005 and .10?
And also, what might I expect from this cap in series? What should I listen for? I am guessing that its either going to be a roll off, starting at some freq, or maybe a bump at some freq. Any gotz samples of such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by D2o on Apr 22, 2011 14:51:33 GMT -5
jfp - I may be a bit slow today ... are you looking for verification that .05* and .10 will give the free .033? If so, they will.
I hope that answers your question, but I suspect you are looking for something else that I am not quite getting. Sorry about that.
By the way, those sound samples are all with the tone set at zero, if that is any indication of what you have to do to actually notice any difference in tone ... and keep in mind that I used higher values.
D2o
P.S. *.005 will be pretty much useless, as will the resulting free value of .0047.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 22, 2011 15:20:27 GMT -5
JFrank, To be sure, Fender's 'special' cap is 0.003µfd, not 0.03µfd. Your quote came from ChrisK, and I think I mentioned it to him at the time. It was merely a slip of the fat fingers on the keyboard, not a full-on CRS moment. However, the values you mention are more in line with the whole 'Woman Tone' thing. A bit steep, IMO, but they'd do for starters. I think Chris had values about half of yours, but then again, I could be suffering a CRS moment..... HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 22, 2011 15:25:33 GMT -5
D20: this cap is not on the tone pot, but wired directly in series with either the bridge pup by itself, or with the neck and bridge in series, that is B*N*cap. In the diagram at the top of this page, the small cap near the 5way switch, not the ones near the tone.
I'm sorry to mention 'free woman tone' as this is not really what I'm after. Actually, I dont know what I'm after, just something to try on a duplicated pup combo.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 22, 2011 16:29:01 GMT -5
You chaps are doing great work here, so I hesitate to make a suggestion. But I just wanted to put up this version, based on asmiths second to last schematic build up, just before the last superswitch pole got included: In the dashed box, I'm suggesting to use this 4th pole, with a cap, in a slightly different way, to get what I 100% promise (ok, maybe 99.5%) is a great second version of your NxB combo. In series mode position 3 only, the N pup is bypassed by a cap. I use this sound every day, and its on all the SSS designs I do, where possible, either as a switched option or using the tone control. Its brighter than simple NxB, as bright as B only, but with thick extra bass from the N, and an interesting mid-range wiggle. I find the best cap value for this is of a value similar to that of a tone cap, or a bit larger. 22nF is good, as is 47nF cheers John
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 22, 2011 17:39:50 GMT -5
well, from your description of the sound, I'm all for it, but that version of the schem has a flaw where parallel 1 err..5...uhh neck only, is shorted by the wire on the Middle Pole of the 5way(which was neccessary to avoid a dead series bridge only.) Do you have a schem handy with this module?
So, arrrg, do I need to change my 1-5 nomenclature? 1 is Bridge for most ppl?
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 22, 2011 18:09:01 GMT -5
well, from your description of the sound, I'm all for it, but that version of the schem has a flaw where parallel 1 err..5...uhh neck only, is shorted by the wire on the Middle Pole of the 5way(which was neccessary to avoid a dead series bridge only.) Do you have a schem handy with this module? good point... this may fix same: Deletes the previous wire on the 2nd 5-way pole, and uses the new 4th pole to give B a direct link to ground in B-only, series mode. asmith - can you do a check please? John
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 22, 2011 18:33:05 GMT -5
I haven't checked the latest, but this is definitely good work by all.
There is no convention on numbering of the 5-way switch, nor is there any consensus. Fender usually calls the bridge pup #1 but I'm not sure even they have been 100% consistent over the years.
However, if you download any Fender manuals or service diagrams, they are labeled that way, at least the ones I've seen.
I have advocated before that we all collectively resolve to call the bridge pup #1, not that I expect the world will magically follow suit . . .
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 23, 2011 13:18:41 GMT -5
Looks good to me John. There's the dreaded "ground loop" in parallel position 1, but if I'm correct in my understanding that doesn't make a difference inside a guitar? I can't see a way to solve it. Newey, I advocate adding in very big, bold letters, a numbering system in the "Read Before Posting" thread. JFP, if you like the idea of that High'n'Low-Cut Tone Control on *Series* 1, here's the extended schematic of JohnH's update.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 23, 2011 15:02:41 GMT -5
The consensus here, after years of debate, is that the loop shouldn't make a difference in the amount of noise, particularly if it's within a well-shielded cavity. And, I don't see any way to eliminate it either, without taking us backwards here.
Yeah, I've thought of that but it seems a bit dictatorial, like: "Achtung! You WILL number your diagrams THIS WAY!!!"
Besides, some wouldn't read it, others wouldn't heed it, and someone would paste a diagram from elsewhere that didn't use it, so we'd still end up talking about diagrams that were the opposite.
ChrisK's solution, which may be the most helpful, was to mark diagrams with an arrow designating the neck position.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 23, 2011 15:41:24 GMT -5
I believe that the ground loop is of no concern in such a device with no powered or active circuitry. When I first read about issues with ground loops in guitars, on the old GN, I set about 'fixing' a couple of them that were in inherent in my guitars, with absolutely no effect whatsoever. Then I rigged up a huge circuit, with resistances and connections analagous to that of a guitar, with a ground loop around the entire room, and again, breaking the loop caused no change in hum or noise. Anything that is connected by a very low resistance to ground seems to be fine. But put a bit of bare wire 'hanging from hot', and you get an instant buzz...(in a bad way).
asmith - your tone control is interesting. It it your view that as drawn in your last schematic, it works just as normal as a simple treble cut in all modes and positions except in B series mode? and then when set to B series at full tone (10) its also as normal?, then you turn down and you get the treble and bass cut? If so, its good, because its not doing anything quirky most of the time, but gives you another tone to find out of the B only mode. As to values for it, some 5Spice modelling might be instructive
newey - I've also never been quite clear which is 1 and which is 5. But from now on, in any Stratish design, Im going to refer to 1 as the usual B position, and label accordingly.
John
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 23, 2011 22:54:31 GMT -5
Yeah, this thing's going to have some cool sounds Both JohnH and Asmith contributing a funky cap!
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 24, 2011 1:56:26 GMT -5
I thought it would be interesting to check out the likely response when you sweep asmiths tone control, in B-only 'series' mode. Something like this I think, in 10% increments of the tone pot, using a 22nF normal tone cap and a 6.8nF 'asmith-cap' cheers John
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 24, 2011 12:38:34 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks reasonably uniform all the way up until 100% where it goes crazy.
Is there any way we can shape this up?
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 24, 2011 15:30:59 GMT -5
I think its pretty much as expected. In this case, 100% relates to tone at 0 on the knob. At that point, a new lower-frequency peak is created as the main tone cap is fully connected to the output (da woman tone!). All normal tone controls do that. With a log tone pot, the range 100% to 85-90% would be 0-5 on the knob.
At higher knob settings, you can see your bass roll-off happening in the 30-90% range.
John
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 24, 2011 15:36:47 GMT -5
I s'pose the only thing we can do then is to bully JFrank into building our collaborative creation and listen to the results.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 25, 2011 16:07:01 GMT -5
lol!
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 26, 2011 22:16:05 GMT -5
ok, diagram printed, extra pickguard in the mail ("in the post" for posh-y asmith), parts and wires boxes rummaged through, looks like all I need is a pot and maybe some caps. Pot: One point I should make is that the bridge is a SD lil59 supposedly 11.78 k (SD's tone chart is messed up). I've been playing with 250k pots. I found one 250k in the parts box. I guess I'll get another. Caps: I've been using 47nf, but I've been wanting to go to 22. the suggestions are normal tone 22nf asmith 6.8nf But for the N*B pos3 cap, JohnH redcomends 22nf or 47, but sumgai says fender's is 0.003µfd. Is that just moving the decimal point?
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 26, 2011 22:42:58 GMT -5
nano is 10 -9, micro is 10 -6, so to convert micro to nano, move the decimal 3 places to the right. So, according to sg, Fender's is 3nf, which is actually quite different than 22 or 47! EDIT:But,I question sg's info that it is .003µf. There are several different versions of the S-1 equipped Strats, and all may not be the same. Most of the wiring diagrams on Fender's website show the cap, but not its value- and the parts lists don't list it! But the 50th Anniversary American Deluxe Strat shows it as .05µf. This is 50nf, close enough to 47nf to be within tolerances, plus or minus. OTOH, I'm generally suspicious of all of Fender's diagrams, since they routinely show tone pot capacitors listed as being "220K"!
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 27, 2011 2:21:00 GMT -5
So, according to sg, Fender's is 3nf, which is actually quite different than 22 or 47!
EDIT:But,I question sg's info that it is .003µf. I've still got the part, tucked away when I removed it from the original wiring. Do I need to take a snapshot of it? And that's how Fender defines "special"! That European for 0.022µfd, or 22nfd. The way that works is you think in terms of picofarads, or 10 -12, and the rest becomes easy to figure. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 27, 2011 5:01:42 GMT -5
Just to confirm, when I use the cap that I suggested here, it is indeed around the range 22nF to 47nF = 0.022uF to 0.047uF, so considerably larger than Fenders 'special' 0.003uF one. But Fenders value will do something to the tone - it wont explode and will still sound like a guitar - you never know. So if you wish, this could be a subject of a study, involving a couple of flying leads so different values can be tested. I've re-run the 5Spice model to test the JohnH cap, in a similar manner to how I tested the asmith cap.: This shows two pickups in series (representing NxB in this case), with a cap, designated C6 bypssing one of them. C6=0 is standard BxN, and there are also plots for 3.3nF (in red) , approximately the Fender 'special' value, up to 33nF John
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 27, 2011 17:35:21 GMT -5
oops, I forgot that the 'special' cap is out and the 'JohnH' cap is in. 'Special' being in series, JohnH being the neck grounder.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 27, 2011 18:27:12 GMT -5
Here is the schem HRM asmith provided most recently and my diagram version of it: Would you guys please look it over, one more time?
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 29, 2011 5:50:36 GMT -5
I'll just nip out of Westminster Abbey to answer this: Your tone control needs redoing. It ought to look like this: Otherwise everything looks good. Must run, they're at the vows.
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Apr 29, 2011 11:14:53 GMT -5
;D ;D Ok, I see where I got confused, it looks like the asmith cap is connected to both ground and the wiper (well, it is) and so I thought it only needed to connect to ground. I see that your drawing today matches your schem, but does not match an earlier diagram. Does the placement of the normal cap matter?
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 29, 2011 16:15:05 GMT -5
I dont think asmith actually stepped out of Westminster Abbey. I think he was surreptitiously posting from an iPhone hid under his coat tails and hoping Prince Phillip didnt notice.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 29, 2011 19:37:44 GMT -5
asmith- That "posh voice" crack is probably going to haunt you for a while.
|
|