|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 24, 2012 6:22:47 GMT -5
Principles of designThe idea is to get as many different tones out of the standard two-pickup Telecaster as possible. The scheme must be "invisible" as well -- no extra switches or knobs drilled in the control plate. Each possible position of the switches must give a unique arrangement with no redundant positions. The controls must be reasonably intuitive. HistoryThese were designed a while ago for a home-build project. As yet no actual building has occured for various reasons, so it's a waste not sharing them. The schemes are based off a few previous schemes. Most notably the principles of the five-way switch selection are heavily indebted to sumgai's 4-Way Tele. I had something similar with the Pezzecaster a while ago, but the redundancy of the phase switch in positions 1 and 5 bothered me. Implementing two extra "Half out of phase" selections seemed like a reasonable progression forward. SchemesOption 1 Option 2 Option 3 The only difference between the schemes is the specific "Half out of Phase" arrangement in position 1U. Each gives a unique tone, but as I said I haven't built these so I'm not really sure of the nuances of each. For what it's worth when I do build, I'm most likely to use Option 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 24, 2012 6:40:06 GMT -5
Nice work, asmith!
In addition to the caps, one would have to wire it to see the extent to which moving the tone control in/out of circuit really alters things. But overall, a good way to eliminate the redundancies.
As a note to others who may wish to build such a beast, the new "narrow Superswitch" avoids the need for cavity modifications in a Tele. Using a regular Superswitch will mean some shaving of wood.
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 24, 2012 9:57:30 GMT -5
Hi asmith!
I have a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms. Your notation of (B) for Bridge out of phase is not common. At the very least you should note that, for the sake of the rookies among us. You have 4 capacitors. Suggested values for each would be useful. Also, you might number each of them to make it easier to keep track of which one is connected (and how) in various positions of the switches.
The switch map at the right is of limited usefulness. You indicate which pickups are in play, series or parallel, and phase relationship. But you don't indicate how the tone pot and any of the caps are used. It might be helpful to expand on that in the map, rather than notes at the bottom of the page.
For instance, a Parallel half out of phase combination with a master tone control might look something like this:
[(B)xC2] + N + [TxC1] where T represents the tone pot
A Series combination with the tone pot (no cap) shunting the Neck pickup might look like this:
B x [N +T]
(imho) Since there are so many changes between the 10 combinations, being explicit in the switch map would be easier to follow than a list of notes.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 24, 2012 12:02:43 GMT -5
As a note to others who may wish to build such a beast, the new "narrow Superswitch" avoids the need for cavity modifications in a Tele. Using a regular Superswitch will mean some shaving of wood. Indeed, I should have noted this in the OP. Thanks for pointing it out Newey.  Your notation of (B) for Bridge out of phase is not common. At the very least you should note that, for the sake of the rookies among us. Point taken. I'm positive I took a leaf out of somebody's book with the parenthesis notation for phase but I'll be damned if I can find it. Who knows, I drink a lot. Ah, I'm loath to do this. If this is built, each different pickup will suit different cap values, according to different builders' tastes. Although I'd be more than happy to denote values in the region of what I had in mind -- "~6nF, experiment to taste" for example. Yes, yes, yes. Love me tender and call me Elvis, why didn't I do this in the first place. I agree that the table could be more in-depth. Though I feel simply replacing the current notation with something along the lines of " [(B)xC2] + N + [TxC1]" has the potential to be more confusing than my uncommon phase notation. I think adding an extra column marking out the individual arrangements along the lines of what you suggest, including controls and caps, is a good idea. Maybe you had this in mind in the first place. Your thoughts? Newey (+ sumgai, if you're reading): I'm unsure of the netiquette on expanding upon posts in the "Schemes" subsections of the Guitar Wiring forum. Should I edit my original post -- none of the wiring has changed, after all, only notes and markings -- or repost below? Or perhaps we should move this thread to the main Guitar Wiring forum, only re-posting the diagrams to Truly Nutzoid Schemes once absolutely finalised. Advice appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Aug 24, 2012 23:39:18 GMT -5
We dont use (B) for out of phase? What do we use, a minus? N-B
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 25, 2012 7:45:46 GMT -5
Minus is used, parentheses are used.
To quote the Late One: "Math is."
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 25, 2012 8:38:34 GMT -5
Yes, yes, yes. Love me tender and call me Elvis, why didn't I do this in the first place. Glad you liked the idea, Elvis. I agree that the table could be more in-depth. Though I feel simply replacing the current notation with something along the lines of "[(B)xC2] + N + [TxC1]" has the potential to be more confusing than my uncommon phase notation. I think adding an extra column marking out the individual arrangements along the lines of what you suggest, including controls and caps, is a good idea. Maybe you had this in mind in the first place. Your thoughts? All I had in mind in the first place was a table with explicit notation. In the second place, an extra column might be even better. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 25, 2012 8:54:30 GMT -5
Even the Late One was inconsistent with his phase notations. However, I'm going to follow in the footsteps of this scheme of his, and use (-B) to mark that the Bridge Pickup is out of phase, for example. All I had in mind in the first place was a table with explicit notation. In the second place, an extra column might be even better. I agree. Something like so: | SW1 | SW2 | Basic Pickup Arrangment | In-Depth Notation, including Tone Control (RT) arrangement | 5 | D |
[/center][td] B [/td][td] B + ( RT x C1 ) [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] 5 [/td][td] U [/td][td] ( (-B) x C2 ) + N [/td][td] ( (-B) x C2 ) + N + ( RT x C1 ) [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td] [/tr] [/table] Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 25, 2012 9:51:16 GMT -5
I think the Late (Great) One probably changed his notation depending on what he was trying to say at the time. The subject of notation seems worthy of a separate (and lengthy) discussion. We probably won't arrive at a universal consensus, but some good could come from it. Something like so:
| SW1 | SW2 | Basic Pickup Arrangment | In-Depth Notation, including Tone Control (RT) arrangement | 5 | D |
[/center][td] B [/td][td] B + ( RT x C1 ) [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] 5 [/td][td] U [/td][td] ( (-B) x C2 ) + N [/td][td] ( (-B) x C2 ) + N + ( RT x C1 ) [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td] [/tr] [/table] Thoughts?[/size][/quote] When using parentheses () as part of phase notation, I like to use brackets [] for grouping. It's easier for my brain to process, but YMMV. | SW1 | SW2 | Basic Pickup Arrangment | In-Depth Notation, including Tone Control (RT) arrangement | 5 | D |
[/center][td] B [/td][td] B + [RT x C1] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] 5 [/td][td] U [/td][td] [(-B) x C2] + N [/td][td] [(-B) x C2] + N + [RT x C1] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td][td] ... [/td] [/tr] [/table] |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 25, 2012 18:52:26 GMT -5
The subject of notation seems worthy of a separate (and lengthy) discussion. We probably won't arrive at a universal consensus, but some good could come from it. I'll open up some of that can of whoop-butt right now, if'n y'all don't mind. "Out of phase" is a reference to something that's already extant, i.e. we have a referent for our pronouncement of 'being out of phase'. Hence, to say [( -B) x C 2... is putting the cart before the horse.... how can that Bridge pup be out of phase - we haven't yet seen anything that we should be considering as "normal", to act as a reference. Following on that idea, this Forum, and most others I've run across, doesn't mandate that any particular pickup must be mentioned first.... meaning, Bridge first, Middle first or Neck first, it's all the same to the reader. Which then allows for notation to be "correct" when the "out-of-phase" designator is used on succeeding pups. Ergo, while it's proper to say, in English, that the Neck pup is out of phase with the Mid/Bridge pair, it's "poor form" to express it as -N + M + B (or (N) + M + B) Instead, one should use B + M + (-N) which then allows for a cleaner reading, as one encounters either the Plus sign for parallel or the Asterisk for series designators. As we complicate (ever more!) our diagramming, we need to incorporate additional components, and the way they are connected. I'm in favor of C for capacitors, and subscripts for denoting which one of several possibilities. That also extends to V and T, with subscripts for mutiple choices therein. (As in, choosing a pre-set Tone control/cap, not to be confused with, for example, a Les Paul where the controls are hardwired to their respective pups.) My last word here would be, pay close attention to the way that caps (and controls) are connected - if you shunt the component across a pup, it's in parallel, and a Plus sign is called for. Ditto vis-a-vis a series placement, and the Asterisk. But by denoting those connections, parenthesis and brackets are called for, again to make reading easier. Alternating them when stacked, or even using the curly-braces, seems like a self-evident solution.  HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 25, 2012 23:09:27 GMT -5
I'll open up some of that can of whoop-butt right now, if'n y'all don't mind. Okay, but be advised some of those cans are packaged under pressure instead of vacuum. Please wear an apron. We wouldn't want you to get any on ya. Ergo, while it's proper to say, in English, that the Neck pup is out of phase with the Mid/Bridge pair, it's "poor form" to express it as
-N + M + B (or (N) + M + B)
Instead, one should use
B + M + (-N)
which then allows for a cleaner reading, as one encounters either the Plus sign for parallel or the Asterisk for series designators. Eloquently phrased, but I disagree with the premise. The expressions we use are simply shorthand. Just as it is in "English", an expression is no less valid when the referent occurs later in the expression. In my humble opinion, the supposition that the first element of an expression should necessarily be in-phase, is arbitrary and somewhat myopic. Any element(s) in an expression can be declared out of phase with all other (undeclared) elements, regardless of its position in the expression. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Aug 26, 2012 2:30:08 GMT -5
Good thoughts on these schemes.
My own opinion on the arrangements would be, in this case, just let the tone control act consistently as a normal master tone control. With 10 switched settings from two coils, I think theres enough variation if you hardwire the best version of each.
So if you have a setting where the tone pot was just acting on the neck in a series mode for example, I'd just hard wire the cap there. In settings like that, I find the fully-bypassed-by-a-cap, or not-at-all settings of series mode are a nice contrast, but the in-between ones are not so important.
Similarly when the tone pot is acting as a volume control. i'd suggest to do some tests to find the best setting then wire a resistor to do it instead.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 26, 2012 11:58:15 GMT -5
I like the way that John thinks here - don't over-complicate the operation of your axe. After all, the devil is in the details, or in our case, he's (she's?  ) in the preparation beforehand. Meaning, if you take your time and experiment out the gazoo, you'll eventually find the few settings that you can't live without (aka, Your Tone), and all the rest can be safely put back in the box, so to speak. At that point, my Risk Factor flag starts waving, and it's saying that if you reduce the number of possible misfires, then life will follow your playbook much more closely. ;D IOW, play around during practice, or in the studio, but when it's time to take the stage, be prepared to give your best show. To quote ChrisK, Simplicity Is. I'll open up some of that can of whoop-butt right now, if'n y'all don't mind. Ah, but my can looks more like a sippy cup. And they make me wear a bib when I do things like that, so......  Hmmmm. I did say that I'm open to other thoughts, so I guess I better not get too fired up, had I? We see things differently. If you'll allow me, I'm going to suppose that you see things in a more free-flowing way, ready to suspend your need for finality until the whole enchilada has been presented. Whereas I can't do that, at least not without effort. I need to have things nice and tidy, because my attention span is so short that by the time I finish reading the equation, I've already forgotten what the first terms were! (Just ask gumbo about those pregnant pauses in some of our phone conversations!) Based on that supposition, I can't (and won't) fault your thinking. After all, if I'm not mistaken the only thing that counts is that when the conversation is over and done, did the recipient of the information take it all in successfully, or were there still questions in his/her mind. Chalk it up to habit, plain and simple.  sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 26, 2012 13:26:36 GMT -5
We see things differently. If you'll allow me, I'm going to suppose that you see things in a more free-flowing way, ready to suspend your need for finality until the whole enchilada has been presented. Whereas I can't do that, at least not without effort. I need to have things nice and tidy, because my attention span is so short that by the time I finish reading the equation, I've already forgotten what the first terms were! (Just ask gumbo about those pregnant pauses in some of our phone conversations!) Differing points of view aren't necessarily a bad thing. Neat and tidy are admirable. But what one finds preferable, another might find constricting. One size doesn't always fit all. Mostly it boils down to a difference between the "rules" that we choose to adopt for ourselves being a subset of the "rules" of accepted convention. After all, if I'm not mistaken the only thing that counts is that when the conversation is over and done, did the recipient of the information take it all in successfully, or were there still questions in his/her mind. Bingo! In our quest for brevity, we should be mindful of maximizing clarity and minimizing ambiguity. While there is no singular "right way" to express an idea, there plenty of ways that fall short. asmith, I'm having difficulty visualizing the wiring of your circuit. The view of your push-pull pot is like nothing I've ever seen before. Below are a few examples of what are commonly used:  The far-right view is a 2d rendering that seems to be an accepted convention. The shaft of the pot goes downward through the page and the push-pull switch is "folded back" so that the terminals are visible. It functions well as "viewed from the rear" as if we were actually doing the wiring. The only way I can imagine your wiring, we're looking through the front panel and the switch hovering, disjointed from the pot. Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 27, 2012 6:55:39 GMT -5
With regards to JohnH's hard-wiring simplification, I'm going to disagree personally. I had a tone control hardwired to the neck and middle pickups on my Strat. When playing B*M or B*N, I found the range of sounds from "just a little cap" to "right before the end" to "all the way" to all have their separate tones that fit in their own places. Also, I can see using the tone knob as a volume control for the neck when in series having much more marked effect when the two pickups are out of phase with each other. I like that one could gradually increase the "amount of out of phase." There could be several sweet spots in there. For sure, this one merits experimentation. asmith, I'm having difficulty visualizing the wiring of your circuit. Ah. That's because I'm a terrible person. When I draw out this stuff I have some pre-drawn switches and pots and other components etc. that I cut and paste. Let's mentally label the lugs and pot on my drawings: A B
C D
E F
PotIf we take the drawings as just a cartoon representation of a component, then obviously C connects to A and B connects to D when the switch is "Pushed," and C-E and D-F are connected when "Pulled." But when the wires get drawn, I swap into visualizing the switches as if they were stood on the desk in front of me. With the pot at the top. While the drawing hasn't changed, my spatial imagination of the switches has. And with that, I end up with wonky diagrams. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Sept 12, 2012 10:52:41 GMT -5
I ran with Option 2 with this redraughting test, as it's my favourite of the schemes. Here's a labyrinthine bastardized schematic:  Here's a photorealistic wiring diagram:  Label the superswitch lugs 1-5 from left to right. This means the lugs of each "half" of the switch are arranged as per usual: Common, 1-5, 1-5, Common. The superswitch is referred to as SW1 in the table below, with the switch-pot as SW2. Taking on the suggestions of the thread, here's an updated truth table: | SW1 | SW2 | Basic Pickup Arrangment | In-Depth Notation, including Tone Control (Rx) arrangement | 1 | D | N | N + [ Rx * Ca ] | 1 | U | N * [ ( -B ) + Cc ] | ( N * [ ( -B ) + Cc ] ) + [ Rx * Ca ] | 2 | D | N * B | [ N + Rx ] * B | 2 | U | N * ( -B ) | [ N + Rx ] * ( -B ) | 3 | D | N * B | [ N + ( Rx * Cb ) ] * B | 3 | U | N * ( -B ) | [ N + ( Rx * Cb ) ] * ( -B ) | 4 | D | N + B | N + B + [ Rx * Ca ] | 4 | U | N + ( -B ) | N + ( -B ) + [ Rx * Ca ] | 5 | D | B | B + [ Rx * Ca ] | 5 | U | [ N * Cd ] + ( -B ) | [ N * Cd ] + ( -B ) + [ Rx * Ca ] |
I drew the wiring diagram first, then the schematic afterwards. While the schematic's switching arrangements could be drawn a little simpler, I think it's more important for it to accurately reflect the simplest real-world wiring I could muster. |
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Sept 13, 2012 8:45:11 GMT -5
Here's a photorealistic wiring diagram: whoa, that's pretty cool. Havent seen a diagram like that before. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 13, 2012 9:43:26 GMT -5
+1 to asmith for a diagram that's just plain pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 13, 2012 11:56:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Sept 14, 2012 17:37:38 GMT -5
retread has nothing to say? This whole world's gone topsy turvy.  and I exalt thee, asmith. How is it asmith has but 5 karma? |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Sept 15, 2012 6:14:01 GMT -5
Thank you, folks. I hope that drawing is easy to read enough that one can simply wire up using it as a reference. I realised I still haven't suggested cap values for the scheme: Cap | Description | Values | Comments | Ca | Main
"Tone"
cap | 15nF-47nF | Anywhere between the two. This is the main tone cap for the scheme, and is very dependent on personal preference. Some like a little "tone-colouration," others like a more pronounced treble-cut. Up to the player. | Cb | Neck
"Bypass"
cap | 15nF-22nF | This ought to give a nice mid-cut to the tone.
See JohnH's analysis using 22nF (click here). | Cc | Bridge
"Bypass"
cap | 22nF-33nF | This cap is only active when the Bridge is out of phase with the Neck. I imagined taking off a fair bit of the Bridge pickup's treble to create a frequency range that was sat "in the middle" of the freq. range of the Neck pickup. This would leave the Neck pickups treblier and bassier tones intact, while the mid-frequencies are out of phase. Hence, this cap is reasonably large-value. Still merits experimentation. | Cd | Neck
"Series"
cap | 3.3nF-9nF | This cap is in series with the Neck pickup when it's out of phase and in parallel with the Bridge pickup in position "5U." My intentions with this cap are similar to those using cap Cc. The idea is to cut the bassier end of the Neck pickup's frequencies, to leave a frequency spectrum that corresponds with the mid-range of the Bridge pickup. As before, this is with the intention to leave the trebles and basses of the Bridge pickup intact, while the mid-frequencies are out of phase. |
Since both C c and C d are dependent on the frequency spectrums of the individual pickups, there's quite a range suggested there to play around with. It goes without saying I'm not a qualified electrical engineer and I'm always open to suggestion or correction on any scheme. JFP: at the end of 2011 I asked sumgai to reset my karma. |
|
|
|
Post by ChristoMephisto on Sept 24, 2012 16:55:06 GMT -5
There's great schem/layout drawing you made, agreed, easy to read.
In the first layouts, you had the tone pot acting as a volume pot when the two were parallel, like the old Teles. Hopefully not reversed like the original, but acting as two individual volumes with no tone.
Guess you changed your mind and went in series instead,
but how does the tone (second volume) pot parallel to the neck pickup work in position 2?
Can't see there being much variation with the total resistance.
Doesn't it have to be in series with the pot or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Sept 25, 2012 10:53:46 GMT -5
In the first layouts, you had the tone pot acting as a volume pot when the two were parallel, like the old Teles. Hopefully not reversed like the original, but acting as two individual volumes with no tone.
Guess you changed your mind and went in series instead,
but how does the tone (second volume) pot parallel to the neck pickup work in position 2? 'Fraid not. In the original diagrams, the tone control acts as a master tone control in the "B+N" position. However, in the original Options 2 and 3, I actually made a mistake in the drawings and neglected to run the sky-blue wire from the output to lug "4" of the top-right pole of the superswitch. In the "B+N" position, the Neck wasn't even on. The tone pot works like the variable resistor in this crude diagram:  Each pickup is zapping out electrical energy. Some comes out the Neck pickup, and carries on from left to right. It meets the Bridge pickup, which is giving out its own electrical energy, and they combine together to make a stronger amount. Then that electrical energy passes through the amp circuitry etc and back to the beginning of the circuit. But when the variable resistor arrow is at the top of the zigzag resisting bit, then there's a path going directly from the rightmost bit of the Neck pickup to the leftmost bit. Then the electrical energy coming out of the Neck pickup just says to itself, "Go through the Bridge pickup and the amp circuitry? Sod that, it's loads easier just to nip down that path." So the Neck pickup gets short-circuited. Also, the electrical energy coming out of the Bridge pickup goes through the amp circuitry etc, reaches the leftmost bit of the Neck pickup, and says to itself, "Go through the Neck pickup? Sod that, it's loads easier just to nip down that path back to the Bridge pickup." So it does. And when you do that by a variable amount using a variable resistor, it works like a volume control for the Neck pickup. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by ChristoMephisto on Oct 14, 2012 10:05:02 GMT -5
Could of just said it was a coil tap connected to the tone pot
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 18, 2013 15:59:10 GMT -5
Guys,
Option 2 and 3 are the same as 1U will sound the same. A cap parallel with one pup to ground affects both pups when in series exactly the same as if it was placed after the other pickup.
Right?
BTW Why did you drop the Broadbucker?
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Sept 18, 2013 20:21:18 GMT -5
 To the extent that the two coils are not in the same physical position along the strings, there will be a difference across which coil the cap is placed for both Broadbucker and HOOP settings. If you're talking about the two coils of an SC-sized side-by-side HB, there may be no noticeable difference. If you're talking about N*B, there will be an undeniable, not-at-all-subtle, difference. |
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 19, 2013 3:27:23 GMT -5
I agree with you on the HOOP, as the cap is in series with a pup when the pups are in parallel.
I'm talking about the series position, both in phase and out of phase. When I run Spice models for two pickups which are not identical (identical also produces same result, naturally) and swap their positions I get exactly the same dB vs freq trace. In series with the cap in parallel (to ground) the pups see the cap equally, this is AC remember! If the cap was in series with a pup, that is a different story...., it does matter which pickup it is in series with when the two pickups are in parallel, it does not matter which pickup is reversed though.
At least that's how I understand it.
D
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Sept 19, 2013 15:43:18 GMT -5
And that there is the problem with modeling these things! You're seeing the filter action, but you are not seeing the effects of the two coils being at different positions along the string. Firstly, a coil closer to the neck will tend to have proportionately more of the lower harmonics, while closer to the bridge will have a balance skewed further toward the highs. On top of that, at least some of those harmonics will be more or less out of phase between the two pickups. The actual spectrum when the two are combined comes from mixing these harmonic series, with the phase interaction, and then applying that filter curve. Actually, in Broadbucker it's even more complex since the filter affects each harmonic series differently, including some phase smearing of its own, before (during?) the combination process. I do have a guitar which allows either pickup to be bypassed by the cap, and in fact if you look in the Samples section for my thread called "Wanna Hear My Rick?" I think I demonstrated a pretty wide range of Broadbucker tones. My demo style is a little different from others, so can't promise it'll answer your question, but... Edit - Here's the Link to the Rick DemoYou might also be interested in my Baritone, which has Broadbucker both between separate HBs, and between the individual coils of each HB. |
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 20, 2013 5:57:42 GMT -5
ok, so adjusting the inductance and capacitance only filters the generator source and that cannot be modded in SPICE to simulate different pup positioning? Nor the harmonic cancellations?
Hmm.....
Interesting sounds in the two samples by the way.
Thanks!
D
|
|
) in the preparation beforehand. Meaning, if you take your time and experiment out the gazoo, you'll eventually find the few settings that you can't live without (aka, Your Tone), and all the rest can be safely put back in the box, so to speak. At that point, my Risk Factor flag starts waving, and it's saying that if you reduce the number of possible misfires, then life will follow your playbook much more closely. ;D IOW, play around during practice, or in the studio, but when it's time to take the stage, be prepared to give your best show.
