|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 11, 2011 19:08:52 GMT -5
If you want a mag volume control, you can add one between the pup and the buffer. In fact, this can be simply by using the full module with pot, in volume control configuration, instead of just the buffer. That would provide a 500k pot for the mag only, which would be just right.
If you want active outputs for mag and piezo as well as blend, just take them from each end of the blender pot input. All of those could easily be wired in with no switches, but solving all possible external ground loops that may then be possible might be too complicated within the guitar. So one DI box in your bag, used where necessary might be a better strategy, and maybe you'll never need it.
On my guitar, I have mag volume control, followed by blend control and that's all. With mag at zero, the blend control acts as a piezo volume. With bland fully to mag, piezo is off. I find I can deal with any level and balance I need with those, though it is a solid body guitar so squashing feedback is not often a problem
John
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 11, 2011 20:32:09 GMT -5
Hmmmm....
Well, no I don't want another control nor a separate mag volume control...the blender does that function I would have thought...plus the piezo system has a volume control so can adjust so the balance of outputs is similar or to taste between the two systems.
Something like a stereo out that goes mono with a mono lead seems to be the ideal kind of thing...not sure if that can be done.
Here are some scenarios...
Basic performance...
Run piezo and active to a guitar amp
More elaborate set up...
Run piezo and active to two amps, channels or effects loops. Say a warm electric tone with a piezo sparkle to it. Run it into a PA mixer on separate channels. Run the piezo and hex to one amp, the mag sound to another for a big stereo spread and to handle those low bass guitar frequencies to optimise the sound and effect.
Recording...
Send the piezo and mag sounds to separate channels so they can be mixed or effected and changed in post production. Give more variety to the tone than can be done in performance...say mostly mag in the chorus, that kind of thing.
Similarly with the hex. With the hex, if a mono bass line for instance, this could be cleaned up and run with audio2midi software a VST such as a sampled string bass instead of a pitch shifted guitar sound.
As I only have a two channel interface, perhaps the hex into one and the mono piezo/mag into another to facilitate the above scenario on two channel interface.
...
Otherwise, all combinations such as three outputs into separate channels if I come across that kind of facility...say in a recording studio or a bigger PA system where I want a giant stereo field
I'd like to explore the recordings side of things with mid-side effects and stereo reverbs and such to give a 'depth' to things...say to have the mag out front and the piezo further back with a different reverb or EQ effect. This could also occur in performance perhaps.
...
Something like a stereo socket for general use seems to be appropriate, plug a mono cable in and you get the blend in mono, a stereo lead to get each on a different channel, another lead to handle the hex of course.
Is this a scenario that is possible?
This is a complex guitar like that but needs to be practical as well as versatile. Restricting things to a mono out, or mag passive only and defeating the master volume and blend is kind of...well, not good. I use the volume control for a number of things.
This guitar seems ok, but in a real performance I anticipate I will need to be able to control mid song the volume in case of feedback (being an acoustic guitar) or expressively for quieter or louder sections, for volume swells perhaps and especially to be able to turn the thing "off" should I need to put the guitar down or between songs.
Having the volume control defeated, even in an emergency passive mode seems to be too much of a compromise.
Having a blend that only works in a mono mode seems a bit...well, again a compromise that limits things.
Having way to many outputs is perhaps a problem....hmmm
Having a multitude of knobs and controls means it will be super hard to control the thing which is already to be used in a very demanding style...it is not like a band situation or normal guitar where you can hold a note or stop mid song and get away with it. It is a style that is playing the bass, the melody, the harmony, the percussion and the way my 'style developing' a whole lot of counter melodies and fill licks and even solos...
To achieve this, the guitar needs to be intuitive and responsive and capable of a range of scenarios. The peizo and hex things are not like just another pickup to add flavour (though perhaps mostly it will be used in that way in performance) but a true stereo or tri-stereo(?) insturment...as if three individual instruments.
...
Does this sort of thing help to put the requirements into some perspective and put yourself into 'my shoes'?
Basically, if you can imagine, you have one guitar and a multitude of set ups that it might come into contact with and things that might go wrong. There is no back up instrument that can do what this does and no fellow players about to cover for lack of function or adjustment.
The instrument can not get in the way of the performance, and in part the instrument is a part of the performance to create this big expanse of sound, possibly in stereo.
It is alos in part an illusion or magic trick...although technical, things like changing tunings between tunes is supposed to be seamless (hence the trilogy)...so too the changes in tone and volume and bringing in the extended range of the hex system as required. Plus, if one has to worry about that kind of thing, it is going to be near impossible to play the thing and do the performance.
Might seem a bit much, but you got to aim high to reach even the middle ground and acceptable compromise.
It does seem to me though that there are instruments that are able to run multiple outs and blend onboard between them say, run into a PA system on multiple channels and the like...run a stereo cable and blend between the two 'sides' and not be sprouting knobs and switches and output sockets and the like everywhere. Many acoustic players do this kind of thing fairly regularly it seems to me for instance, though perhaps they have elaborate outboard gear or something.
maybe I am overly concerned, but it kind of comes with the territory in some ways.
Not expressing my concerns or have a very good 'list of requirements' at the moment, so, sorry for that...
On your guitar with a mag volume for instance...how do you turn the volume off for the whole guitar? If you turn the thing down does not the piezo remain? Does this mean one could not do say a volume swell on the volume control or lift the volume if it turns out that things are not 'loud enough' once you start playing? It sounds like on your guitar is is not built to take separate outs and separate processing or recording of those signals, sometimes you want to record everything (this style does not allow for overdubs) and pick and choose and process these things after the fact.
Not sure at all if I am expressing myself well here...a master volume on everything bar the hex (that is asking too much I am anticipating so am treating that separately...though ideally that too!) and a blend in mono or stereo between channels and possibly amps or recording inputs.
Does that make sense or achievable?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 11, 2011 21:51:48 GMT -5
Yes, tricky!
Seems like three are five types of outputs potentially on offer:
Passive mag
Active mag
Piezo
Piezo/mag blend
Hex
If we say Hex is completely independent, that leaves four, and if passive mag is just a fall-back then there are three main ones.
With no mag volume control, then there is no control at all of the passive mag signal. Is that Ok? (Id say yes) If not, and given desire for no more knobs, you could put a dual-gang pot on the master volume, and use the second half only to control passive mag output.
Lets say you want a stereo output socket, let the main channel (tip connection) be the blend output, which will also work with a mono plug. Let the ring connection be one of active mag or Piezo. Either pick one, or make it switcheable. Id maybe suggest a 3 position switch to disconnect the ring terminal, or connect it to active mag, or to Piezo. Need to make sure that plugging in a mono plug does not short one signal to ground, losing it from the blend. This stereo socket would no longer be able to activate power through the ring terminal, so a switched socket may be needed for that.
On mine, to cut all volume, mag volume goes to 0 and blend goes to all mag. Currently its only a mono guitar, but a passive mag out will give me the two channel option that I’m interested in, but my needs are much more basic than what you will achieve.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 11, 2011 22:40:08 GMT -5
Ok...well we all might need to put some thought into this...
But that helps a bit...not quite there, but of some thought...perhaps it is clearer to you what I am hoping to achieve or the guitar capable of.
Lest say we dont do a 'stereo plug' and keep things as mono for now...4 jack sockets or less is ok.
Say, if I must use only one lead, I make a multi-core lead with separate mono jacks...alternatively I can use mono leads for each channel and carry spares if the multi-core breaks down perhaps.
Ok...so...
I am envisaging this as an active guitar, it should not be that big a current draw that the battery will fail id performance or anything...I'll carry a spare...
However, that things can go wrong, a passive option is something to consider, perhaps switch-able to the mag out...could this keep the volume control in this mode with appropriate switching...there is a 500k in the master volume module most likely anyway?
Lets see...so lets say 4 outputs, all mono. Piezo/mag/hex/blended mono.
Power switching handled by a switch elsewhere most likely...I tend to leave things plugged in at home. The tuner and such works and goes to sleep it seems even without plugging in, so not sure what the arrangement of the power supply is to achieve that...might need some exploration and experiment as it supplies power to the whole guitar.
When using the mag and piezo separate outs, the blend fades between outputs to separate amps or PA channels and such....master volume on the entire guitar.
In all modes (other than hex, though including that would be a good thing too perhaps, at least as an option...hmmm...sounds too hard) the master volume does that and kills the guitar at zero (other than the hex on a separate system, though it might be an idea if that could be included, perhaps as a dual gang pot later...thinking aloud).
...
For a general performance I can see the blended mono to a single amp as most likely. However, I have enough amps to run the mag to my fender for warmth and the hex and piezo to my super clean roland GA60 with a 15" extension cab to handle the bass...this would give a more 'acoustic sound' and clean bass, a warm mag, a huge stereo spread and at least 100 watts of available power or headroom. Conceivably I might be playing outside in an open area without a PA system!
Similarly, one could see three outs to a PA system with foldback and no amps at all perhaps. In recording, big advantages to printing all signals on separate tracks (though I personally only have access to two channel interface at home). Treating and processing these three separate signals optimally and in stereo is ultimately important...the acoustic sound is even good enough to record that too and potentially even both an amped and direct signal which is something I have played with quite a bit...allows the use of software amp sims post performance and the like.
...
So, yes complicated...but must be doable. No?
perhaps tackle each thing one by one.
~ 4 outs, all mono...piezo,mag,piezo/mag blend, hex.
~ Master volume the guitar in all modes and outputs.
~ Blend to work for P/M blend out in mono or fader between the piezo and mag separate outputs when in use instead of blend.
~ Emergency passive mode, perhaps switch-able out of the mag only output...volume control switched to passive mode perhaps.
~ Options for using switches to select modes and outputs if that decreases number of outputs or pots or fixes problems.
...
Not being great at the technicalities of course. Since both the mag and piezos will be active with the HB buffer and going into the blend. Could an output for the separate be arranged from the blend pot before the signals are combined with that buffer into a mono out?
We seem to have a mono out sorted...
Could I devise a passive mode switch that takes the HB out to the mag only output through the master volume's 500K volume control...before it goes through that circuitry?
The hex is to be treated separately as a bit of an unknown, but conceivably one might use a dual gang pot on the master volume to control both at the same time, preserving the balance selected by the hex volume control, yes?
these 'solutions sound doable or practical in some way...what would the details of such a scheme be, what further components need be obtained do you think to test out such ideas?
Is this kind of wish list 'unreasonable' or too 'over the top' given the intended use of the guitar?
How likely really would it be, other than damage or power failure in the battery that the electronics might fail? Am I likely to experience excessive noise, the cheap piezo is pretty quiet all things considered.
Am I heading for nightmares of ground loops once the signals get to say multiple pedal boards or amps and such...or into a PA system?
I am considering that I may well need, to do the full three channel hex trick, a pedal board (the hex at least needs processing) so perhaps some potential problems might be sorted out there...hmmm
Ok, some things to consider and nut out...I know it is a big ask and you are all being very generous with your time and brain powere even to consider it...so hope I don't sound ungrateful or demanding or something. Perhaps things might become clearer in testing, but it helps to have a scheme that does what is required going in. Getting the electronics in and out is not going to be easy, so tweaking is going to be a lot harder later...I'd feel a lot better if I had a more concise 'plan' or even if getting parts out here was a simple and easy proposition at short notice....hmm...where are those caps, everything else came!
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 12, 2011 0:03:46 GMT -5
You know...I don't think we can be far off...looking at the diagram again and adding a bit to the passive switch and highlighting the outs with dotted lines...  Not sure about the details of the mag passive switch wiring to achieve it...but a switch that takes the signal before the buffer and connects the volume control direct seems to achieve a volume control and mag passive output from the mag only does it not? How would one wire such a switch? Or, have I got something drastically wrong in concept on this part? For the mono blend, the circuit seems to acheive and be designed for that aim...so we can consider it to be functional? So, with the mag in active, we should get an active mag into that output, an active piezo (from the piezo pre's out) and the blenders pot alone providing a balance control. Yes? Same questions as above. Would the circuit be providing some loading or something? The hex thing is separate, but I could see that one could perhaps use a double gang pot on the volume control and use that perhaps as a master for the hex thing too perhaps, post it's own volume control...does that make sense? That would be an advantageous function, perhaps switch-able. I could conceive perhaps an arrangement where I want to have then independent. Say perhaps, a swell in the harmony under a clear octave down bass part out of the same strings....hmmm...perhaps that could be switchable...though although hidden, there seem to be sprouting more 'switches' than I might like! Or am I being completely naive here...I have parts coming to be able to make yet still pre-amps if that would help! |
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Nov 12, 2011 11:21:41 GMT -5
this thread has been a great read, only sorry i haven't been able to contribute anything...
you mentioned your interface only handles two inputs... are those strictly mono inputs or could you send say hex and piezo to separate channels of a stereo input (with mag going to the other input) and then splitting the stereo track into two mono tracks on the pc? this would solve your desire to record all three pickups at once
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 12, 2011 15:32:54 GMT -5
I agree the blended output is looking fine, and I’m also sure there is a good ergonomically functional system that is almost defined. There’s maybe a few things to consider in the multi-output scenarios however. First, let me just state my own biases on these things, just so you know when to steer the design back towards what you need! I also think that the simple functionality of operation is the key priority, and I’m always looking to drop off a knob or a switch to reduce operational complication, if a function is not really needed or can be gotten in simple way with fewer controls. Second priority is to reduce electronic complication, to improve reliability, reduce noise and power draw and simplify construction and troubleshooting. But that is definitely second because you build the guitar once (OK, around here, we might reinvent it a few times!) but you play it every day for a long time. Looking at your last diagram, there’s a few things that are not going to be feasible without a different overall design, when in stereo mode. First is, the modules shown there will give a master volume only on the one blended output. There can be no master volume on a single knob across more than one different output without a dual-gang pot and two output buffers, ie, there would need to be a stereo version of the last module. Second thing, the blender as designed is just a mono system, to take two signals and blend them to a single mono mix. So in stereo mode, it can not act as a ‘balance’ control, in which two channels are faded up and down respectively. That also needs a dual gang pot and another buffer. However, if it could be acceptable, in stereo mode only, to use independent volume controls, one for mag, one for Piezo (being the one built into the Piezo preamp), it all gets simple. I know that may be a big ask since if you get a howl-around, you have to kill two pots. Maybe if you just go for the dominant one in the mix, it will reduce enough to control feedback. Anyway, like this: 1. Simplest of all (ignoring the wish for a passive output, and assuming hex is separate), with no extra switches, you just have two outputs, Blend and Piezo. For mono use, just plug into the blend, for stereo, use both. The Piezo output has its own full set of controls, and the blend can be panned fully to mag, so the ‘blend’ output is now a mag output with the volume control. You have both signals inpependent and contaroolable, for stereo mixes or recording. 2. Next, introducing the ‘passive mag with volume control’ feature, this could be done with a dpdt switch, to turn the active blend output into a passive mag (so no more sockets needed, and if the electronics go pear-shaped during a gig, just flick the switch, no re-plugging needed). One pole would switch the input to the volume pot from the blend output directly to the mag pup. The other pole would switch the blend output to the volume control wiper. The mag pup is then loaded by the 500k volume pot, plus two buffers. The buffers have an input impedance of about 1.5M so it should all sound fine, no more loading on the mag pup than in a normal guitar with 500k volume and tone pots. Heres a diagram of that:  This diagram is still feasible with the idea i posted last week where the blender is a 100k pot and there is no buffer directly after it J |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 12, 2011 16:49:49 GMT -5
Thanks TH and all that have been following the saga. It's an honour to share the journey with you guys in a friendly forum and collaboarte with people with ideas and the nutz to help realize a vision... There have been a lot of frustrations and as always there will be compromises to the end result. In this guitar I am going out on a limb with some features not tried before and there may well be aspects that can't literally be 'overcome'...so up late last night addressing one of those things... I had read some anecdotes of the things changing pressure on a drobo's cone and there are no real stories of other acoustic instuments, this could be the first... But I've had a constant frustration with the trilogy concept...it would occur if I built my own device or any multi-tuning thing (other than I suppose the gibson robot things) like the trilogy. The unit itself is rock solid, guitars are inherently not...catch 22 The top flexes....the solution...  Finally bit the bullet and did something about it! This pic is taken from the rear electronics hatch and shows two light cedar struts between the top and bracing and the bottom of the guitar to stop deforming under pressure. The downside...it makes the guitar feel 'stiffer' (more like an electric) and changes and cuts right back on the acoustic volume (still far louder than a semi-acoustic) of the guitar...something of a shame, hmmm However, on the upside... it provides significant support for the top. It is a cheap guitar body and over time the top under pressure like this is likely to continue to deform or even destroy itself...the original guitar was intended to be little more than a 'toy'. It stops the top from flexing under changing pressure through retuning...when a few strings tuning were changed, the top would spring back up and make unchanged strings slightly 'sharp' defeating the whole purpose of the multi-tuning concept. It cuts back on the feedback potential. The top had flexed enough under pressure that the bridge was not following the new curve of the top exactly and all the pressure was on the outside 'feet' of the bridge...now the top exactly follows the bridge (held on by two small screws above these struts). Now when the pressure is released when detuning has far less effect on the other strings via top movement. ... I had suspected 'neck flex' or other aspects, and there is some small amount no doubt, but almost all of the problems seem to have stemmed from this top movement. ... It still works as a quiet acoustic for practice but is stronger for this simple mod. Felt like the 'monkey and the coconut fable' though...an instructive story to consider and is apparently true...
If a monkey finds a coco nut with a whole in it just big enough to get his hand in, and there is some food or something he wants in the coco nut...he will put his hand in and take the morsel only to find that his closed hand can not be removed from the vessel. Rather than 'let go' he will retain that grip and be trapped out of greed...or something like that...hmmmSo too with a lot of things...like trying to fit you hand into a hole cut into a guitar less than 2" high cut for a tuner and fit a strut, then glue it so you can't let it go and repeat the procedure...if only I had a small child around to facilitate things...or indeed, a small monkey. Also, take your watch off first...very important LOL...still the struts are in there and lightly glued to the top and greatly helps and addresses things as noted above. ... The rest of the evening was trying to get the trilogy set...a long and tedious job but far more successful after this mod. You need to be completely 'in tune' in standard and highest tension setting. Then, you let each string down and tune that with a tiny allen key to the new note. You need to constantly switch back to make sure the string is still in tune and adjust again. Continue for each string. Now, adjust combinations of strings...the E and A strings down to D and G say, is the release of the tension of these two strings still in tune. Now, try a few common tunings, say open G letting down the E,A and E strings...did the standard tuning notes go 'sharp'...dos there need to be some 'compromise' there...adjust a tad. Now, try tuning the entire guitar down to D as a dropped tuning...adjust a tweak, etc... On my guitar, I have/had hoped to use half step drops...so the whole guitar down to Eb (hendrix style LOL) and again to D (Nu metal style LOL). A 'slack tuned' guitar does have a different sound, the strings are more elastic, not just lower, and this effects the tone and feel of the guitar. In 'solo guitar' styles there is a preference generally to use open strings where possible and not just in open chords, this can lead to some repetition of strategies and keys. Buy altering the tuning it gives the audience some variety and the guitar more diversity of keys. Then there are the things possible with 'open tunings'...J Page did a lot of this work of course and there are quite a few players working in alternate tunings that sound great. Changing the tunings also increases the chance of finding things you might not normally because you no longer fall into established and known patterns. I'll always be primarily an 'standard tuning' player I suspect, but some small alterations can be of benefit...dropped D is obvious, a half stepped raised E string can be effective (if you have a common progression of say Am-F you can use the A and low string in the bass and navigate all over the board. So, half step 'drops' in various combinations allow for ~ three different tensions and keys of standard, E,Eb,D ~ dropped D ~ open G (DGDGBD) ~ open D (DADF#AD ~ DADGAD (common in celtic music) ~ raised "E" in Eb... (E,Ab,Db,Gb,Bb,Eb) ~ some 'minor versions' such as G minor DGDGBbD or DADFAD ~ faster access to other tunings, like dropping the E string lower to say C perhaps..though might get a bit flappy depending on the string guage Now, how much of this can really be practical on this guitar given that there is going to be some movement and being in tune is extremely important for this style of music (any time you are doubling a string in octaves such as open G which has two G's and three D's, any discrepancy is pretty obvious!) and the intonation could well go off a little, so there will need to be some compromise in everything. Perhaps in practice one could use the levers for a decent approximate and 'tweak' with the tuners...but then...when you return to standard, you'd have to tweak things back...hmmm....but still faster than retuning everything so perhaps worth while. Many of these 'problems' would not occur on a solid body instrument so that is something to keep in mind. This unit is really designed for lap steel and similar instruments where you can built the instrument to be ultimately 'stiff' and you are not 'fretting the notes' either, so it will work well for that...a guitar is trickier, an acoustic instrument...well, can only ask so much before your paw gets stuck pursuing the impossible and you spend the rest of your life with a coconut on you wrists through a commitment to 'the vision'... ... Still, this is a 'concept guitar', so if you aim high, the results may well be a lot 'better than average' rather than to aim too low where there is plenty of instruments about that can do those things. There are lots of 'problems' to overcome and compromises along the way and it is all a learning experience...I've certainly learned a bit and there are lots of things, if I one were to build an instrument specifically from scratch that could be addressed better, but in this process one discovers these things...better to do the best one can with a 'cheap guitar' before throwing a lot of pennies in a wishing well. ... In reality, in my view, once you plug a guitar in, it is an electric guitar. Piezos can give you an acoustic edge perhaps, acoustic guitars tend to 'feel' and play a bit different as a rule and give a bit more complexity even with magnetic pickups...but the sound is primarily a result of the pickups and amplification and perhaps processing. As a result, the electronics of this is important and this is the first 'active' guitar I have made, so a lot to learn and discover and a lot of 'concerns' come from that...so more learning to do in the process no doubt. But there is also the audience 'perception' and I have learned a little there about the psychology at work...appearances do seem to matter as there are biases in us all. We are attracted to archaic retro bigsby's for instance, despite the multiple flaws that have been overcome in more modern units and put up with the idiosyncrasies largely as a result of the 'cool' factor and retro fetish. In a genre overwhelmingly dominated by acoustic purists, any body coming in with a solid body will be pushing up hill to be accepted...even just your ordinary listener it seems from experience. So, there is some deception in this guitar and trying to keep it as 'clean' and provide the aesthetic queues for the audience. You see the same things all over the guitar world. EVH originally was playing a 335 and LP...but the band did not like the 'look' despite the sound. Metal guys got to go black (though aside from Living Color and perhaps hendrix, there are few black people in metal (read 'crosstown traffic' by CSM)) and perhaps pointy imagery though does little for sound, functionality or ergonomics LOL. There is a trend these days to look to the past and covet the appointments of past icons (bigsby's, filtertrons, P90s, etc)... For me, this project is both challenging some of this while acknowledging the realities and the cool aspects...to look forward by going all the way back, to imagine the instrument from how the people of the past might have imagined things progressing. An example is the 'plastic' back of the thing. I love the look of a nice bit of flame maple as much as anyone, but this is not furniture and the sound is almost entirely coming out of the electronics in use. We don't watch TV's generally in large wood veneered cabinets...but we used to! This guitar philosophically is acknowledging a lot of the really good things of the past (a guitar that works as an acoustic instrument for practice is a fantastic thing and incredibly useful) while reaching forward...noble aims, hard to know how far one can go though LOL Thanks to all for the interest, encouragement and opportunity to share the journey... |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 12, 2011 17:10:51 GMT -5
When I first saw that photo, I thought you had gotten under your house to add a couple of columns to help support the weight of guitar gear above.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 12, 2011 17:47:55 GMT -5
I also think that the simple functionality of operation is the key priority, and I’m always looking to drop off a knob or a switch to reduce operational complication, if a function is not really needed or can be gotten in simple way with fewer controls. Second priority is to reduce electronic complication, to improve reliability, reduce noise and power draw and simplify construction and troubleshooting. But that is definitely second because you build the guitar once (OK, around here, we might reinvent it a few times!) but you play it every day for a long time. Looking at your last diagram, there’s a few things that are not going to be feasible without a different overall design, when in stereo mode. Thanks John, I appreciate this a heap of course and acknowledge that some compromise is required and working towards getting on the same page...and we are not far off I suspect. A 'wish list' is just that, and as always you have to be careful what you wish for. Around here perhaps some may wish for 'everything' and that's a fun pursuit and reveals a lot of great options, but for a performance guitar they can over burden things a little... I am in agreement with where you are coming from too...and will give this a bit more thought. There are some good ideas there and have excessive parts arrived or on the way to try out a host of ideas...I will look about in the parts boxes, who knows, perhaps there is even a double gang 500K pot or something to test the idea of controlling the hex with a master control ( I can see this as being valuable and achievable) ... This certainly does look interesting, the piezo system is not running through the blender buffer when used alone and that seems appropriate and you are right of course, this system already has it's own volume control and extensive tone shaping too, so although inconvenient, perhaps should be kept in mind more than I have. This plan reduces the output number to three, more intuitive by far and 'cleaner' and well on the way to the ideal. Not sure if you are able to get an active mag out only for recording the piezo and mags separately or how one would do this in practice. Such a situation though may well not arrive under the pressure or conditions of performance...in recording there are a lot of things that can be done in post production and the aim more to get the sounds onto "tape". I do only have 2 mono inputs, so in reality a blend/hex mix is more likely to be used perhaps. Switches are not too elaborate and can be hidden in various ways...perhaps a slide switch on the output jack panel to 'go passive' or a hidden switch in the F-hole...will have to see what is possible and not having to 'unplug' is a valuable thing too, so that's a good aspect. The main 'downside' would appear to be the inability to 'blend' when using both piezo and mag separate outputs...or have I got things wrong? I would not mind duplicating preamps and dual gang pots potentially to make that happen if that is what it takes...any thoughts? Potentially you will want an amp that optimises the mag sound...a warm tube amp like my fender for instance) and a super clean uncoloured sound for the piezo. The hex too needs to have consideration with the extended range. The idea is to get three quite separate sounds and a multi-dimensional effect. This music relies on the distinction between parts and once everything goes through just one amp, there is some reduction of this effect. For best effect, it is likely to require a PA I suspect, and that may well be a possibility at times or in the future. This guitar is likely to get an enormous amount of playing on it in the next few years, hundreds of hours for sure. Since playing this guitar acoustically while building it, my technique has developed and it is hard to play like that on my other guitars and some things impossible. So...this guitar is going to get a lot of use and needs to be able to hold up to that and not just be a 'show piece' of features. ... The whole thing was extremely like that...to take that pic I had to shine a torch in there as it is pitch black. It may seem a little 'crude', that cedar is left over from when I built a boat, so nice to get some more personal history in there, there is actually quite a bit of that in there. Given the difficulty access the insides, this does the job, is unseen and strong and does the job but the best I could think of doing to address the problems ...OK. So, sunday morning, got out of meeting the GF extended family at a party last night, and a 'work do' with a gaggle of women for lunch LOL...but there is not getting around a cross country trek off island this morning to the suburbs today...so better get my act together and hit the road! The forum here though is amazing and your help john has been great and sure will pull me into a practical line of attack...perhaps this week the parts will arrive! |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 12, 2011 17:54:06 GMT -5
easily done! Just turn the blender to full mag and record from the blend (=mag) and piezo outs
If you dont want full mag in one channel, it can still be whatever blend you want, with full piezo going to the other channel
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 13, 2011 23:12:05 GMT -5
easily done! Just turn the blender to full mag and record from the blend (=mag) and piezo outs If you dont want full mag in one channel, it can still be whatever blend you want, with full piezo going to the other channel Thanks John, back from away... So, still having trouble getting a few parts...hmmm...getting excess and some wrong parts would you believe...so need to 'muddle through' With this scheme, I had been thinking...could one use more creativly dual gang pots. For instance A dual gang linear on the blender and some how, when used with the separate piezo and mag outs, the other 'gang' of the pot be used on that control as a volume on the piezo and therefore effect the blending control instead of it only effecting the mag...any thoughts? I also thought...could one do the same on the master volume control to control the usual piezo mag systems, and a the separate hex out from the second gang? In this regard, I have not been able to locate anywhere a 500KA pot...not sure how a linear would work in a volume control or if I can get those... any idea where one might locate such pots at a reasonable cost or postage?...the Lin 100k duals don't seem a problem but log 500k dual gangs seem a bit rare. Getting parts out here seems to be harder than I thought and some catalogues far harder to navigate than I'd like...hmm |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Nov 13, 2011 23:30:05 GMT -5
4Real- I don't know how Mouser is shipping down Oz-way, but they've got these for $2.73@ USD. I'm using one for a "master" tone after two individual Vols on my stereo Tele project, so as to have the channels separated and not need an extra tone control in a cramped Tele control plate. 500KA Dual Gang PotBTW, where parts prices and/or shipping costs create problems for our non-US based members, some of us Yanks are happy to help out with a "logistics solution". (My cousin doesn't drive a semi truck, it's a "logistics solution" . . .  ;D ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 13, 2011 23:59:58 GMT -5
Thanks Newey...
I just tried an order...$39 shipping for two???!!!
Not sure that that could possibly be right, but I think I could 'make one' easier than that!!! LOL...
In fact, not sure what would be the absolute best solution as perhaps 'making one' would be an option. If you can get pots of the same type you can often replace the resistive strip/s inside to values that suit...this is how i was able to get a 1K push pull pot for my tele...perhaps I might explore that...
The reason for this is to try and get a little more from john's suggestions above and some how get the blend to work in both mono blend output and for the separate piezo/mag outs....any thoughts?
The 500KA pot would be to control the master volume and perhaps the hex output volume from a master so that the master volume will turn down the mix of guitar and hex outputs at teh one time and 'kill' everything at zero with one easy control...was just a thought and the hex a way's off...but getting into the guitar to tweak and alter things will be something of a trail I suspect.
I have my thinking hat on though to address this kind of thing, perhaps I could devise some kind of 'plate' that surrounds the f-hole inside and fit with the pots. That way perhaps all the switches and electronics can be fitted and mounted on this and be easier to take in and out for experimentation...was just a thought there...
Thanks for the offer...will see perhaps if it is advantageous and 'special delivery' required on that.
The cost of the parts of much of this side of things seems to be adding up, so I ought to try and restrain that side of things perhaps...but so far, not enough to start building grrr...
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 14, 2011 4:31:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 14, 2011 5:51:30 GMT -5
Thanks John and Newey et al...sent mouser an email to check on delivery prices...they are in hong kong after all, closer to me than the USA! I've been buying from element14 and their service is great...free shipping by express post, usually the next day or so even way out here. But, a lot of stuff is housed elsewhere and takes a week often. I've just ordered 2 of these, thanks john and will see how well they are constructed and if they can be integrated into a more complete design...plus some dual gang 100k's to see if we can devise something for the separate outs blend function to continue to work in that mode. Still no sign of the hex parts other than the magnets which look ideal. I also got a single hall effect sensor as I am curious how such devices might be used to pickup a vibrating magnetic sting perhaps...as a $2 experiment...had to make up a $10 credit card minimum...hmmm Otherwise, been away for a day but back to the island...tonight's post sunset with a sky for Pareidolia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia...I spend a bit of time cloud watching...  |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 15, 2011 3:31:02 GMT -5
Heres another few options: It seems that one limiting factor to consider is that you need a master volume control on the whole guitar, and there are three different pickup systems that may need that control, with the requirement to keep them separate in some modes, plus there is the blended output plus a passive output. So thats five different signals to consider, but pots only come with a max of two gangs! So one idea is to move the master volume (2 gang) to before the buffers, so that you can control the mag pup while it is still a passive signal, and the blend is mixed out of signals that already have been controlled by the volume pot. Hence four things get controlled by the master volume instead of two. The next thought is that in controlling and blending the signals, you may wish to choose two out of the three pickups, so M+P, M+H or P+H. That could be done with an on-on-on switch. That is what S1 does on the diagram below, while S2 is activating a passive-only signal onto output 1. So you have S1 selecting which pair to go forwards to the volume pot and blender, and each volume-controlled separate signal from those selected pups appear at output 1 and 3, with 2 being the blend. Hex also gets its own dedicated output, at 4.  Whatcha think? John |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 15, 2011 5:54:55 GMT -5
Thanks John
Fell asleep in the arvo and missed the end of the day so will have to study it better later...possibly...hmm
At first blush it seems to do everything...who knows, perhaps the hex things would make an interesting sound in their own right when mixed with other signals in the guitar without processing. It is likely that the hex thing will be used for special occasions, recordings and at home mostly, at least in reality...of course the reality is that the parts are still awaiting and they don't yet exist...in reality...
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 15, 2011 21:32:24 GMT -5
Heres another few options: It seems that one limiting factor to consider is that you need a master volume control on the whole guitar, and there are three different pickup systems that may need that control, with the requirement to keep them separate in some modes, plus there is the blended output plus a passive output. So thats five different signals to consider, but pots only come with a max of two gangs! So one idea is to move the master volume (2 gang) to before the buffers, so that you can control the mag pup while it is still a passive signal, and the blend is mixed out of signals that already have been controlled by the volume pot. Hence four things get controlled by the master volume instead of two. The next thought is that in controlling and blending the signals, you may wish to choose two out of the three pickups, so M+P, M+H or P+H. That could be done with an on-on-on switch. That is what S1 does on the diagram below, while S2 is activating a passive-only signal onto output 1. So you have S1 selecting which pair to go forwards to the volume pot and blender, and each volume-controlled separate signal from those selected pups appear at output 1 and 3, with 2 being the blend. Hex also gets its own dedicated output, at 4. Whatcha think? John Ok, had another look at it this morning...seems exceptional work that does the functions required. Trying to visualize it in practice. Looks like the hex will always be going to it's own output but only be controllable by the master volume if combined with the piezo. Is that right? If so, not exactly 'perfect' perhaps on that front. I'd consider the ability to mix in the hex with other inputs a bonus but doing so prevents the processing necessary to create say an octave bass effect on the selected strings alone say and having control over that with the master volume control. The hex will have it's own volume control to create balance but ideally using the master should operate all signals in use. Does it provide for 3 individual active outputs of M,P,Hx through separate sockets? This is for recording or performance where you might want to pass the hex through processing and the piezo though an amp that can best take advantage of the 'acoustic nature' while the magnetic pickup perhaps go to another channel or amp...if that makes sense. It does cover a lot of the bases though and perhaps I am not fully comprehending it quite right. The most common output is likely a M/P blend and a Hex out for processing with master volume control on all of this. I realize there is only so much that is possible of course. On the 'up' side I found a small bag of on/on/on toggles, hopefully they will be the right sort for such a scheme. Still awaiting parts anyway! ... On the up side, the guitar has strings on it! I am not convinced at all about the GFS locking tuners, so a warning there, have broken 3 strings so far, all at the tuner and something that I never do nor happens with my schallers...a bit of false economy on my part. It's not as if I am even 'bending' strings though..hmmm. I have had a bit of a tinker with the trilogy with half step down tuning settings since the body modifications. It is certainly better but not quite if ever going to be actually 'perfect' due to neck flex at least. It does seem to tune the whole guitar down to Eb ok, dropped D and open G seems pretty good. It is likely faster than using tuning pegs of course and is not far off, but perhaps more improvements can be made...or some things are just not possible. I've also fairly sensitive about tuning, generally it is ok, but this style does require an accurate intonation and am considering some kind of compensated nut. Has anyone experience with things like the earvana or "shelf nuts", perhaps made their own? It's generally 'not bad' at the moment (probably better than many people's standard instruments and most acoustics I'd suggest), but something to consider perhaps since so much work is going into this instrument. Ideally it should be slippery like a graph-tech tusq so as not to get caught up with the multi-tuning things...the plastic nut on the neck might well be creating some problems though it seems to be pretty good and can't identify a problem there. ... Anyway, with not a lot that can be done now and the guitar in working condition, plan to enjoy a while playing the thing which often brings about or moderates ideas. Let the guitar and music inform what it wants to become...  A shot of one of my 'neighbours', these things will come right up to be fed or just cruise about at san remo (generally around noon when the pelicans come for a feed at the fish co-op). I got a bit of a fright though when swimming at my own beach last summer when I swam over the top of a smaller one last summer though I am told no one has gotten hurt by them before (steve irwin not withstanding). The same person though told me that the reef I swim around sometimes is a shark nursery so...hmmm...no stats on them given other than "they should put up a sign"...LOL |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Nov 15, 2011 23:38:25 GMT -5
Real quick, before I trudge off to sleep, I've installed the Earvana and the Buzz Feiten system on people's guitars. They both offer some real advantages
The Buzz Feiten system is a bigger PITA to install then the Earvana There is a certain amount of precision wood butchery involved, but nothing master class about them. Buzz does tend to get a little O\C about the install, but I guess that's how he insures the system is installed correctly.
The Earvana is much cheaper and easier to install. If you can swap a nut you can install and Earvana. You will set the intonation a bit differently then you're used to, but it is intuitive.
I will say this, while I never played one personally, the feedback I got was that certain drop tunings and and odd keys do not transfer as well as a standard tuning...but that's the same on any guitar.
As you know, intonation is a compromise on a guitar in the first place. Some compromises come off better then others.
If it was me I'd go with the Earvana. It will offer a measure of improvement. But if you've got flex through the body not even divine intervention will help...
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 16, 2011 0:21:14 GMT -5
Thanks C1
Yeah, Buzz is out and he is kind of over the top and their are flaws that I can see. The earvana is an option, how slippery are they?
I have a spare LP sized Tusq nut that is the correct string spread and could be built into a shelf nut possibly.
The 'body flex' has pretty much gone from the last mod and of course you are right, all guitars are a compromise. With a style with a lot of open strings involved and first position stuff (which traditionally I've avoided in my normal playing) everything helps.
It is all slight though and not really a part of the trilogy thing...that there are some problems with detuned tunings are a fact of life.
The more it is tinkered with, the more little improvements, the better things have gotten though so it may not be necessary, but an option i guess...will wait till the electronics are done and I've had a chance to work more with it.
It is set up as electric really, so a low action especially at the nut so other than an intonated nut there are not a lot of other improvements that can be. A down side is of course, the bridge is a preset intonation and that would likely need to be altered...so not something I'd want to take on lightly
cheers though p
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 16, 2011 2:07:23 GMT -5
Here is something to throw into the mix...how about phone sockets with internal switches in them...I think someone mentioned them earlier (S or N perhaps) designed for headphones to defeat the main speakers when plugged in. I believe I might have three, possibly 4.
So, say when a plug is plugged into the piezo socket it takes it out of the mag combined perhaps and visa versa...
...just a thought.
Turned on the TV this afternoon and there was the President of the united states, the american flag over parliament house and a familiar national anthem that wasn't ours...as I recall...last week it was the queen of england...is australia now flying under various flags of convenience or are we to expect more refugees coming this way come summer?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Nov 16, 2011 4:16:12 GMT -5
..yeah, we're so concerned about the refugees who arrive in boats..
...maybe we should worry about the ones that send in their own 23-ton bullet-proof "Beast" before they arrive...
...sigh..
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 16, 2011 4:35:11 GMT -5
LOL...don't worry they come and they go. Last Australia day I took a girl to Churchill island and they were flying this...  I suppose if you have a national anthem with the word girt in it, not many are going to want to sing it... ... Ok...back to making a guitar...getting closer I am sure... I am still awaiting parts for the Hex thing and it better work and prove it's worth for all the complications it raises for this project. I worked out and built the circuit board ready to do a test prototype when they arrive...even found an interesting low noise preamp option that I am planning to explore |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 16, 2011 5:11:53 GMT -5
Hi Pete You could use some switched jack sockets, for something.... Maybe now, there is enough on the table interms of what you would like this system to achieve, combined with a few constraints that may be unavoidable, for you to draft a new concise description of what knobs and switches and sockets there should be and what they do in each setting? Meanwhile, here's some more thoughts, which I wrote earlier in response to a few posts back. My last sketch probably would be clearer without considering switch S1. Assuming S1 is either omitted, or left in the position shown in the schematic, then Output 1 is the mag pup, under control of the master volume and active unless you flick S2 in which case it is passive with volumne control Output 2 is the blend, master-volume-controlled, with active output Output 3 is the piezo, with master volume control Output 4 is Hex, not master volume controlled and not mixed with anything else, so reliant on its own volume control. The single-gang blender does not act on outputs 1 and 3, only on 2. I would think for balancing the pickups, you would just use the piezo volume to match them, and the master volume for overall level. Maybe S1 is not needed, but what it does is change the rest of the circuit so instead of working on mag and piezo, it picks a dsioferent pair ie, one that may replace either mag or piezo with the Hex. With a dual gang pot, I believe it will be impossible to get mag, piezo and Hex all under master-volume control at one time. The best is to apply it to just mag and piezo, because then you can also get it controlling the passive mag and the mag/piezo mix at the same time. As a further option for the blender, I could imagine a dual-gang blender with a switch for mono/stereo, and one more buffer module required. Ouputs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by just two outputs. In mono mode, both of these are the same and get the blended mix, in stereo mode, mag goes to one and piezo the other, and the blend knob now acts like a balance control to fade one up and the other down. But I can’t see a good way to do this that lets you have the full signal level of each into separate outputs when needed, so I have not drawn such. cheers john ps, sad to hear that one of our pollies couldnt take his Fender bass to work at Parliament House today for his weekly jam session, for fear of getting his long thin instrument case exploded by the CIA www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=685780&vId= |
|
|
|
Post by Yew on Nov 16, 2011 5:30:59 GMT -5
Hey Guys, I know this probably wouldnt help you now, but if you had a Hex Pickup, and a Peizo pickup, could you modify a 7 band EQ pedal to allow you to balance each string, (6) and the peizo (1) as this would use up all 7 channels, and allow a master volume.  |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 16, 2011 5:38:06 GMT -5
Thanks john it is a conundrum for sure. Appreciate all your suggestions.
Could one consider the piezo and active mag as a stereo blend going to one output, when a cable plugged into the piezo, to take it out of the blend to become a stereo fade between the two...kind of like a stereo left/right channels?
Obviously there is only so much one can expect I suppose, and compromises will be inevitable. What I ahd thought for the master volume is for one gang to work the mag and piezo and the other the hex but that is unlikely to be possible without another 'gang' which does not exit to control all three and keep them separate anyway.
I can see an 'ideal' but does not sound possible, the last design was certainly creative (are there downsides?) and the previous one has some appeal for simplicity and creating the functions required with the addition of the passive volume control.
There looks like there will be time to mull things over a little more and lots left to do on the project. I am prepared to do a bit of experimenting and considering a kind of 'plate' that goes around the F-hole with most of the electronics and all mounted to it which might make it easier to take in and out and offer more shielding opportunities.
Perhaps I need to be more careful what I wish for too, perhaps the schemes offered are as good or better than whatever I think I am trying to achieve
hmmm...have to put some thought into it...
...
Lest one forget what these things are for, been back into playing it and researching the musical side of things. There are so many great players out there and generous with their work...
Shaun Murray is an example with lots of great arrangements...here's his version of Bohemian Rhapsody that even includes a good portion of the guitar solo for instance...
Just shows you how much one can do with one guitar.
Obviously with a clever arrangement you don't need any fancy 'hex sub bass' shenanigans and an arrangement should stand on it's own, but it is very hard to get the separation for some material as everything tends to be a bit of a 'close harmony' a lot of the time.
Anyway, perhaps gives a sense of the kind of approach this guitar is designed to do and the direction I am trying to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Nov 16, 2011 5:46:57 GMT -5
Hey Guys, I know this probably wouldnt help you now, but if you had a Hex Pickup, and a Peizo pickup, could you modify a 7 band EQ pedal to allow you to balance each string, (6) and the peizo (1) as this would use up all 7 channels, and allow a master volume. Hi Yew, welcome to this saga... I don't think that is necessary...Perhaps you don't quite get what I am hoping for with the "hex project". What I am developing is a new kind of compact pickup system. There are many applications, on this guitar and for what I want to do and to make the prototype 'simple' I am aiming for a pickup for each string and each string able to be selected to go to a separate output. This would allow you to say use a pitch shifter down an octave just on the lower strings so in a solo style producing a following bass tone. But there are wider applications for it from hex fuzz to stereo amping of different strings to fuzz on the bass strings and clean on top perhaps...all manner of potentials I imagine could be made of such a device. It's not really about balancing strings. The problem is that in this guitar there are three pickup systems and keeping them separate for processing and ideal amplification or recording while allowing control is a tricky thing. Compromises will need to be made and it is just a matter of determining where I think. As a solo instrument, control and reliability is kind of paramount, but perhaps I worry too much LOL |
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Nov 16, 2011 7:48:29 GMT -5
Do you need really need continuously variable master volume control? Could a stepped attenuator work? I mean, if the biggest reason for the thing is to shut off the whole guitar at once, a simple two position switch would work. If you want a point or two in between then you need more positions and some fixed resistors. Rotary switches come in many different configs, and could get you past the two-gang limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Nov 16, 2011 12:00:01 GMT -5
The earvana is an option, how slippery are they? As I recall, no slipperier then any other nut. It can be a longer slot to cut in certain positions depending on the style used, but nothing you can't do if you've cut a nut before. HTC1 |
|
;D ;D)
