|
Post by yakkmeister on Mar 25, 2012 9:11:47 GMT -5
Sumgai: Not only did I miss that diagram (and interpret it wrong when I *did* get back to it ... ugh ...) but I also missed your post! Thanks for the explain on that! reTrEaD: Ok, how's this go? It still has that weird "50's mod" tone control thingy going on... but that should be trivial to change once installed if it turns out to be awful. I hope ...
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 25, 2012 9:50:40 GMT -5
YKM- You've got the pickup-shunting switch right, as RT pointed out (and sg, as well), use fewer poles when you can, for reliability sake. Your solo switch could still use to be switched on the ground leg, as RT suggests. It will certainly work the way you have it, and as RT points out, if you had another use for the extra pole, it would be the way to go. But all P/P pots are DP switches, so you do have an extra pole that you're not using. Might as well use it to make your solo switch optimal. This sort of comes under the heading of "do as I say, not as I do" . . . . since I wired my Hofner travel guitar with a solo switch that didn't switch the ground leg. This was using a DPDT On-On-On switch, however, so as to give a direct out solo setting, a setting in the middle with std. V and T controls, and a "cap bleed setting", so I didn't have the extra pole to spare: The solo setting is still a pretty dramatic difference, even though the ground isn't switched.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 25, 2012 12:22:29 GMT -5
'meister, Your most recent diagram is correct - simply build it like that, and you'll get your desired Mojo ®. ;D As to the 'weird' '50s Tone wiring, let me refer you to this thread, which addresses exactly that issue: Modern and 50's WiringHTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Mar 25, 2012 12:37:55 GMT -5
Hey Newey, I am a little confused ... I thought I *was* using both poles but I am 100% all for optimal! If switching out the connection from the volume wiper alone will act as a bypass, then I should be able to make a bypass on the 2P4T switch, like so: [edit] This is probably better? But I dare say that's sub-optimal ... This is closer to what I think both you and RT are saying ...
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 25, 2012 13:34:15 GMT -5
Hey Newey, I am a little confused ... I thought I *was* using both poles but I am 100% all for optimal! If switching out the connection from the volume wiper alone will act as a bypass, then I should be able to make a bypass on the 2P4T switch, like so: Not sure how or where you got the impression that switching the connection on the wiper alone was a sufficient bypass. It isn't. What you have at this point will bring the volume back to full, it it had been turned down, but doesn't remove the loading effect of the volume and tone controls. Also, if the volume is at max and the tone is rolled off, the tone will still be rolled off in bypass mode. This kind of bypass does a little, but not nearly as much as you are likely to want. [edit] This is probably better? It's really the same as the drawing just before it. Just moving the connection further toward the pickup switch doesn't help. All those points are connected by a wire. If you ADD a switch to break the wire from the pickup switch to the volume pot CW lug when in bypass mode, it will work together with the switch on the output jack to completely bypass the volume and tone. This is closer to what I think both you and RT are saying ... Pickup switching is elegant. You're disconnecting the unused pickup instead of shunting. But the bypass is not good. Sumgai: Not only did I miss that diagram (and interpret it wrong when I *did* get back to it ... ugh ...) but I also missed your post! Thanks for the explain on that! reTrEaD: Ok, how's this go? It still has that weird "50's mod" tone control thingy going on... but that should be trivial to change once installed if it turns out to be awful. I hope ... Yes, the bypass on this one works perfectly. And I agree, that moving the tone control from 50s style to modern would be very easy.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 25, 2012 14:30:10 GMT -5
My fault, I missed the latest version before I posted.
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Mar 25, 2012 21:20:38 GMT -5
Sumgai: Thanks mate, appreciate the link! RT: That's what I figured ... Hence the confusion ... I think you'll be able to use mt my posts as a "n00b mistakes" reference soon ... it's getting pretty comprehensive ... Again, a product of confusion. Since Newey's last comment, I realise why it was confusing ... lol! I will use this pickup switching and the previous bypass switching and combine it when I get home from work, then it should all be groovy! Newey: No sweat, mate! It helped me really nail some switching concepts anyway, so it's all good
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 26, 2012 7:32:50 GMT -5
I think you'll be able to use mt my posts as a "n00b mistakes" reference soon ... it's getting pretty comprehensive ... Or you could use them as your own reference.
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Mar 26, 2012 7:39:30 GMT -5
This should be it!
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 26, 2012 8:00:03 GMT -5
Looks good. I'm interested in feedback about the tone control after you wire this.
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Mar 26, 2012 20:28:11 GMT -5
Looks good. I'm interested in feedback about the tone control after you wire this. Absolutely! Thanks for the help - I'll probably be back when all the parts have arrived and I have managed to stuff something up ... lol!
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Apr 19, 2012 10:12:19 GMT -5
So this is all beginning ...
Took a long time, but I finally have the parts and, as expected, more questions!
Only this is a simple one ... (I hope, anyways)
I read that the cover for the neck pickup needs to be isolated from the signal-return lead and run to shielding-ground in order to make series wiring viable. I have noticed that the baseplate of the bridge pickup is also wired to it's respective signal-return wire. Is it a good idea to disconnect this? I have read no mention of the connection anywhere but I wonder if leaving it may compromise a clean signal return path? It is connected to the bridge via screws and then to the shielding via a wire (I think I may extend the shielding tape under the bridge as well...) and then, as mentioned, there is the connection to the signal-return wire.
Pretty sure it's supposed to stay ... I guess the question boils down to this: Why isolate the neck pickup cover but leave the bridge pickup baseplate?
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 20, 2012 0:24:02 GMT -5
Why isolate the neck pickup cover but leave the bridge pickup baseplate? If the neck pickup is the one that does NOT have its "signal return" wire connected to ground when the pickups are in series, you MUST run the grounding to the cover separately. Else the cover will be connected to the series link, rather than ground. This will result in hum. If the bridge pickup is the one that does NOT have its "signal return" wire connected to ground when the pickups are in series, you MUST run the grounding to the baseplate separately. But in this case, failure to do so will result in something even worse. Since the baseplate touches the bridge assembly, it will be grounded. And if the signal return for this pickup is connected to the baseplate, the series link will also be grounded. This means when you try to have the pickups in series, you will only hear the bridge pickup. The neck pickup will be shorted to ground. As long as a pickup ALWAYS has its signal return wire connected to ground, regardless of the pickup configuration, you don't NEED to run the ground and signal return separately. But you can, if you choose to.
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Apr 20, 2012 1:19:58 GMT -5
I think I will separate it. Less things to have to try and debug later, if need be.
|
|