|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 2, 2012 4:07:47 GMT -5
Hi guys,
Finally got around to trying to re-jig my Dano 12 string hodad for series/parallel/phase change and possible tone cap switching and strangle cap switching.
It was a 3PDT switch mounted on the front for 'blow' and the famous 'selectomatic' plus 100k vol/1M tone concentric pots. On the back I cut a rectangle of tele one ply for a new cover and cut 4 slots for mini sliders (I cant put in a fifth due to the pots being only a few mm under the cover, and the others can have as little as 1.5cm clearance.)
The things is even though I spilled superglue on the back and put in a long scratch next to the cover (ouch!) I don't want to cannibalise it too much.
I had been trying to switch sources going to the selectomatic which is configured for series in order to 'fool it' into giving me parallel e.g. swapping middle hot for ground and viceversa so across the first two lugs are bridge/middle grounds and bridge/middle hot for bridge/middle parallel. Only doing it this way the way the selectomatic is connected put the neck in parallel too. In fact I think the middle pup is reversed (this is an RWRP, weaker GFS compared to the other original danos). Now I could change the two phase on/on switches to be on/off/on for in/off/out of phase to take the neck out to make just bridge/middle in parallel although I'm still out of phase I believe and the neck would be left hanging? This would give me B+N in number 6 position and M+N in number 2 position. (Selectomatic: 6 B, 5 BXM, 4 M, 3 MXN, 2 N, 1 BXN.)
Another idea was to 'create' the parallel conditions at the even lugs of the selectomatic, but that would seem to be more difficult to make the selectomatic give parallel 'positions'.
I did think about wiring a switch to switch between output of the selectomatic (for series) and the three in/off/out (of phase) for the three pups. Would that work? Or would various unwanted connections still be made at the 'series' or selectomatic end?
I was thinking of leaving the blow and selectomatic switches if possible, or at the very least remove them and install toggles and/or rotary switches that will give me pickup connections rather than having to constantly fiddle with switches on the back of the guitar to select combos. That is to say have the principle controls on the front.
In the worst case I can just wire for a strangle/neck phase/bridge phase/tone cap switch although switching from 0.1 to 0.047 to 0.033 (0.1 and 0.047 on an on/off/on) does not seem to change much. In fact, the tone pot seems to do little until it is down to 3 or 2. I thought about a 0.1/0.022 on that switch but that would only give 0.1/0.022/0.018, redundancy? What else could I do with that spare switch? Have a I got the tone/vol pots wired right, I havent change the configuration since I bought it, and they seem wired as stock with the hot wire going to the centre lug of the tone pot which is linked to the hot lug of the volume pot.
Any ideas? I seemed to have burned myself out on this, again! :-)
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 2, 2012 5:10:33 GMT -5
Danny, could you give us a bit more of a run down about what the guitar has, pickups, switches pots etc, and what you plan for it? I'm not quite following. Photos and diagrams help too Cheers John
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 2, 2012 5:39:37 GMT -5
New scheme or original? :-) Original seems to follow this scheme: www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=999150Here is the wiring after I swapped the original middle pickup for a rwrp (wrt) other two. Uploaded with ImageShack.usThe pickups are: Neck: Danelectro lipstick (alnico V), 4K DC resistance? Middle: GFS lipstick (alnico II), 6K DC resistanceaccording to GFS. Bridge: Danelectro lipstick (alnico V), 4K DC resistance? Middle seems to be weaker on a tap test though. Tone cap: 0.1uF 3PDT blow switch bypasses 'selectomatic' switch. 'Selectomatic' switch is the control in the centre of the photo. The thin red and white wires are from the pickups. I think this page shows the selectomatic I use: music-electronics-forum.com/t14232/It states "the Select-o-matic 6-way 4-pole switch, here´s how it works": Pole 1 -- C 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pole 2 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 C Pole 3 -- C 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pole 4 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 C Please ask for more information.... Ideally I would like all parallel, series positions, both for in phase and out of phase. Bear in mind restricted to mounting shallow slide switches on back and two toggles on front. Does a strat 5 way in a toggle/rotation switch exist? Like that I could hook it up like my 'strat lovers strat'. One '5 way' a 4PDT for flipping neck and bridge for purposes of the three DPDT controls, plus 3 DPDT (bridge in series, bridge phase, add neck in parallel) and another DPDT for strangle or tone cap switching.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 2, 2012 8:14:03 GMT -5
You seem to have plenty of switches to get what you want. But a nice streamlined way that comes to mind would be based on the Strat sp design in the schematics section. In that, you avoid desires to have all three on at once, and accept that one or two pickups are enough. Then dpdt switches give you series/parallel and phase in all settings where two coils are selected. The scheme would translate nicely to your 4p6t selector switch, with NB N NM M MB B selections.
John
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 2, 2012 8:47:31 GMT -5
Hi John,
Thanks for that, but you seem to have lost me, when you introduced the super strat switch. I have no idea how to wire the 4P6T switch to achieve the same, except for adding DPDTs... The 4P6T seems very easy to 'burn out', I've already had to re-solder loose connections and would like to minimise work there if possible in case one day I want to go back to stock and sell it. Cheers,
Danny
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 2, 2012 11:31:06 GMT -5
Danny, it seems like these two things... Ideally I would like all parallel, series positions, both for in phase and out of phase. The 4P6T seems very easy to 'burn out', I've already had to re-solder loose connections and would like to minimise work there if possible in case one day I want to go back to stock and sell it. ... are mutually exclusive. Dano designs their wiring schemes around an "all series" string, then uses switches to shunt whatever pickups aren't needed for a particular combination. It isn't conducive to parallel combinations without extensive changes. It would be very easy to add a phase switch to one or more of the pickups. But to do more than that, you'll need to gut the 4P6T wiring and start from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 2, 2012 11:57:44 GMT -5
dh, It's high time we introduced you to Unklmickey and his amazing analysis of series-dominant and parallel-dominant switching schemes. This thread will explore and explain some (most?) of the concepts just mentioned by John: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=3160If you choose to follow some of the links in that post, be prepared to spend some time - take along a lunch and a change of socks, and leave a note for your loved ones, because you'll be a long time getting back! ;D HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 2, 2012 12:51:34 GMT -5
series-dominant and parallel-dominant switching schemes. Interesting jargon. Sounds complicated, but after reading, it seems like it just means "who wins?". It has switches that select Off, Series, or Parallel for each pickup. Select one pickup as "parallel" and the other as "series" and the wiring structure decides the actual result.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 2, 2012 14:03:55 GMT -5
Hi all, Many thanks for all of your contributions. @sumgau: Not sure I want to go down the Brian May route, not least as I don't have enough clearance in the cavity for so many large slide toggles unless I remove the metal housing the stock pots/switches are attached to. As it is I can get one 4PDT on/on and 3 DPDT mini slides on the back. For sure I have two holes on the front where the 3pdt AND 4p6t would be to put two large toggles. You see I don't want to drill any more holes on the front or back (except on the back cover which I made up). reTrEaD: Did you mean just removing the 4P6T? Or did you mean re-wiring the 4P6T? If re-wiring it woulñd give me what I want, then fine. A quick look on Eee-bey though does not show any 4P6T switches, so I'm reticent about exploring that. Anyway, I have already spent 7-10 days soldering/burning/swapping/wiring and so for now I have finished it in an option close to how it was earlier today. For now I have it wired so into the selectomatic we have: (Bg to ground) Bh/Mg Mh/Ng Nh I then have a switch (4PDT) to reverse Mg and Mh around on their assignment and join them to the 1st and 3rd, so I get: (Bg/Mg to ground) Bh/Mh Mg/Ng Nh/Mh I found out that all positions are now nice and quiet except for 6 (was bridge only) and 2 (was neck only) where I get ALL 3 in parallel. I then add 2 DPDT (on/off/on) slides for neck on/off/out of phase and bridge on/off/out of phase. The DPDTs and 4PDTs have the pickups wired to them and they send their outputs to the 4P6T. Unless I'm mistaken, I will check later. I can now get all series positions in/out of phase plus B+N+M/-B+M-N/-B+M+N/B+M/B-M/M+N/M-N in positions 6 or 2. So no mixed series and parallel, nor B+N or B-N. But hey-ho. I do need to check the possibilities after dinner now I can switch the bridge on/off and reverse phase them and see if that changes anything in 5-3 and 1. In my modified strat lovers strat (I wired in the add neck in parallel option and a reverse pickups wiring for the 5 way for neck and bridge so I can get -N+M etc) I get 31 unique combinations (although I may have missed some repetitions). So that could be one option one day if I get a rotary 5 way or 6 way. Is it easier to wire for series and parallel plus phase if its 4 pole rather than 2? Anybody have a diagram for that? Thanks again y'all!
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 3, 2012 8:15:45 GMT -5
BTW The tone control seems to be virtually on/off irrespective of using 0.1, 0.047 or 0.033uF. Would moving to a 250(T)/500(V) be better? Cheers,
D
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 3, 2012 10:11:05 GMT -5
Taper has as much (or more) effect on the smoothness of treble cut vs rotation. Are you using the wiper and CCW lugs of the pot? If you use the wiper and CW lug of an audio taper pot, this will act very "switchy". The clockwise end of an audio taper pot has a large change in resistance in a small amount of rotation.
Text is a very difficult way to visualize a complicated circuit. Any chance you might post a diagram of your modified wiring?
ETA: You currently have a 4 pole switch, but the original drawing was only using 3 poles. (the throws on the unused section were being used as junction points for the pickup wires).
A 2 pole selector for 3 pickups is almost useless for a scheme that includes a series parallel switch. A 3 pole switch is the minimum, but there are additional possibilities with a 4 pole switch.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 3, 2012 11:11:51 GMT -5
Hi reTrEaD,
I have it wired as in the diagram of my second post. I dont know what you call CW (clockwise?) and CCW (counter clockwise) is? Looking down from the shaft or up from under the shell? I expect the former. As you can see then its between the ccw and wiper. BTW I have a 0.001uF treble bleed (220KOhm resistor in parallel) across those two lugs. That change anything? On most guitars I have the CW tone lug grounded and the cap goes from the wiper to the hot (CCW) of the volume pot. Does this 'Dano style' wiring change anything or is there just very little roll off range for a 100k linear/treble bleed volume with 1MOhm Log tone?
I will see if I can draw a diagram later... Half the problem is that I don't understand how the selectomatic switch is wired. Maybe my 'parallel' fudge resulted in poorer noise cancellation due to hanging connections or perhaps I just friend the switch?
My question on the other thread was do with my middle RWRP GFS alnico II when combined with N or B (original 4k? alnivo V? VI?) pickups cancelling more hum in series than in parallel. Could be due to my wiring, or due to non-matched pickups. Would height adjustment help?
On ebeee I cannot find 4 pole 6 way rotary switches, just 2 pole. I wired the my version of strat lovers with a 2 pole 5 way. But will that not give the 'in-between' positions like on a regular 5 way strat switch? If not then it has to be a 5 way 4 pole...
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 3, 2012 16:17:38 GMT -5
Danny, when I mention a rotational direction, that's as if viewed from the outside world looking at the knob. So it sounds like your tone pot is using the correct lugs. But putting a "treble bleed" network across the lugs of a tone pot is a particularly bad idea. No good can come from that. Treble bleed belongs on the volume control.
Height adjustment of pickups strongly affects relative volume of the string sensing but has only a small affect on hum-canceling (if any). If a pickup is mostly recessed in a shielded cavity, the hum signal will be less than an exposed pickup. But to get an appreciable difference in exposure the recessed pickup won't get much signal from the strings. I assume we're talking about the same coil dimensions on both pickups.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 4, 2012 5:18:04 GMT -5
Hi reTrEaD,
Sorry. I'm rbbish at this communican lark. The treble bleed is across the top ganged pot, the one directly under the where the shaft exits, so its on the volume pot.
I checked last night and the RF hum on the middle pickup is about half that of the other two. I have it jacked right up next to the strings, slightly less than the bridge to get similar volumes, still slightly less I would say. Guess I could back off the bridge pup but then I would need to lower the neck which is already half recessed. By the way, as expected, the neck and middle or bridge and middle parallel combos sounded more middle than neck or bridge respectively.
The middle pickup is a GFS RWRP, which I replaced the original non RWRP with. It definitely has a different 'voice'. I know its an A2 and sounds like one, natural 'springyness' and compression going on and not scooped like A5s. I would like to know what the Danos are made from. Some say the originals are A6. This is a re-issue from sometime between 1998 and 2010.
But if they cancel fairly well in series and there is a definite hum in parallel then it must be my wiring. Diagram to follow...
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 9:24:29 GMT -5
The middle pickup is a GFS RWRP, which I replaced the original non RWRP with. I haven't done this myself, but I've read you can open the case on a lipstick and rotate the coil/magnet assembly about the long axis. Since you flip both the magnet and the coil, it becomes RWRP.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 4, 2012 10:43:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 4, 2012 12:37:46 GMT -5
Hi, Here's the wiring diagram: Cheers, DH
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 5, 2012 12:32:41 GMT -5
Is it that incomprehensible? I didn't draw the wired up selectomatic switch properly as I couldn't see any more connections but for sure there are some there on the board, no more wires though. D
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 7, 2012 9:59:58 GMT -5
Danny-
I'm traveling and can't check your diagram at the moment. But we also seem to have lost the question here. You rewired it, as per the diagram. You mention a noise problem with the middle pickup. Is that the only problem you are having? All else works as expected? In exactly what switch configurations do you get the noise?
If all works as intended, then the source of the noise isn't likely to be found from vetting the diagram. But if we can zero in, we may be able to better direct you where to look for the problem.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 7, 2012 16:45:35 GMT -5
Hi Newey,
I'me getting good noise cancelling with M in series with B or N. Bettr N actually. When I flip the 2nd switch on the left, in my naive minds eyse I should get all three in parallell, then through putting the 1st or 3rd switch in the centre I should get M+N (or B) which is hum cancelling. But I get hum. Admittedly less than with all three in position. I suspect that somewhere in the circuit there is some inbalance leading to not perfext M+N or M+B. Tap tests are good. The thing is that the middle pup is weaker, its 60Hz noise level is even lower. Maybe this mismatch is ok in series but not in parallel? But that was not what was concluded here. So is it down to unmatched pups? Badly wired guitar Phooey diagram.
Travel safe!
D
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 7, 2012 17:29:15 GMT -5
danny,
It's an axiom of Pickup Law that no matter how you combine three coils (with one of them being RWRP), you will not have a balanced output in terms of hum. Simply put, two coils will be producing a negative-going pulse, and the other coil will be producing a positive-going pulse. Two negatives can't cancel a single positive, sorry to say. Even switching the phase of one pickup (OoP) will still yield these results, only of the opposite polarity.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 7, 2012 19:56:51 GMT -5
danny, It's an axiom of Pickup Law that no matter how you combine three coils (with one of them being RWRP), you will not have a balanced output in terms of hum. ..not entirely true. There are alternative series/parallel universes where three coils will hum-cancel. I stumbled across this on my first guitar, a Shergold Masquerader which was created briefly in the 1970's, due to an electro-phasic discontinuity in the time/space continuum. (and if retread disagrees with this too strongly, I will explain it at very great length). Given three equal coils, A, B, C, in which A and B are producing hum of opposite phase to C, the following are nominally hum cancelling: (A+B) x C (AxB) + C (surprising but true) These arrangements can be developed into fully in-phase or partly out of phase sounds. Taking a normal Strat with an RWRP M pickup: (N+B) x M and (NxB) + M are in-phase, humcancelling, sounding respectively as a thick series sound, and a fairly strong parallel sound. Swapping M with B or N and reversing the other; N or B will give some partly out of phase sounds, still humcaneclling. With different pickups though, all bets are off, and there is likely to be some imbalance, but you can still get lucky. In particular, I believe that two coils of the same configuration, one with more turns of the same wire than the other can hum cancel together in parallel, but not in series (hypothesis - tested but not fully proven). John
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 7, 2012 23:01:13 GMT -5
Johh,
Laws were made to be broken! ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 8, 2012 9:20:39 GMT -5
sumgai, I have to agree with JohnH. But in any case, without wanting to rub salt into wounds. You will notice that I have wired the Dano so when in parallel, all three on, I can switch off the neck or bridge (in theory). Tap test confirms this (to my ear), but they still have louder residual 60HZ hum than their corresponding series positions e.g. n+m and nXm or m+b and mxb. JohnH, Is my wiring scheme bogus? Can I cancel input from one of the three pups in parallel or will the 3rd find some way into the mix through the selectomatic switch? In a worse case scenario, I could move away from default series and single pup switching to 5 way strat like, with series positons available at a flick of the switch either in a strat lovers strat, or interestingly in your 5+5+ (with added phase, tone cap and strangle switching of course :-) ). How would a 5+5+ work with a 4 pole 6 way? Cheers, D
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 8, 2012 15:57:40 GMT -5
OK, Ill have a look at your latest diagram.
(EDIT: OK I had a look, but its hard to follow the intent. Is there more to the main switch than you drew? are you only using one pole? and what is the single yellow wire doing that goes to the lower right corner of the main switch? Perhaps if you give each switch a number, and each main switch position a number, then step us through what you want to happen in each setting)
Your 4pole 6way is a useful thing. You can use it to make any design that uses a 4p5w superswitch, and you have one extra setting for something extra. If you like the idea of the 5+5 design, then the basic idea of that was to have the 5 best single or parallel settings, then change to have the best 5 series settings. So in the parallel mode, you could add B+N, and for the extra series one, maybe another partly bypassed setting. However it is not well set up for the part series/parallel settings I was talking aboiut wrt humcancelling with three pups.
BTW, if your dano switch gets too flaky, there are good 4p6t switches from Alpha, available from mouser. These have two rotary decks, two poles on each. I used the 5way version on a build and they are quite solidly made and they are still good 5 years later.
J
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 8, 2012 23:42:24 GMT -5
John and Danny, While I was whimsical about my last reply, I have to admit that I was hoping to keep it simple, and let it go. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening. Ergo...... Given: Three identical pups located in normal positions on a guitar, and the middle one being RWRP. For our purposes today, these pups will each produce "one unit" of hum. Proven through decades of testing: Pairing of the Mid with either Bridge or Neck pups in either series or parallel will result in hum-cancelling, or at least a great reduction of hum. In theory, we should be observing hum that is nearly 0 (zero) units of magnitude. Given further, and proven beyond doubt: Reversing the wiring polarity of one pup in that pairing (the so-called OoP thing) will increase the observed hum up to two units worth. And given finally: If we pair two pups (presumably the Bridge and Neck) that are not RWRP with respect to each other, we have hum. It follows easily that reversing the wiring of one of them actually reduces the hum. The observed values of hum will the opposite for those of the first pairings. From all of that, we can (and do!) extrapolate thusly: N * M yields a hum value of zero (or nearly so). Placing that combo in parallel with the Bridge, we observe that the Bridge pup's hum value is at one, but with a near-zero value from the pairing, there's nothing with which to counteract (or cancel out) the Bridge's hum. Ergo, (N*M)+B hums at the value of one unit. By the property of transposition, we determine that the same will be true for (N+M)*B - there will be no counteracting hum to reduce that which is coming out of the Bridge pup. It should not be too large a stretch of the imagination to see that no matter how we swap around the pickup designators, the same results will be observed. Worse yet, the above numbers are observed no matter whether the "remaining" pup is in parallel or series to the pairings - it's still two pickups against one (or to be more accurate, it's zero hum units against one.) In short, there's no easy way to force two similar pickups to cancel each other's hum, yet leave enough hum (of the opposite polarity) to counteract a third, and also similar, pickup. EDIT: For reasons explained in the next post, I must add that there is a possible exception, i.e. it may be easy after all..... I personally have never performed the so-called "HOoP" mod to any guitar. My own axe, a 2005 StratAmDlx came with the option, and I spent about 1 or 2 milliseconds ripping that exra cap outta there! However..... I can theorize that a capacitor in series with one pup may indeed cause a reduction of observable hum in another pup. This is something that bears close investigation, but I'm not the one to perform such experiments, that job will have to fall to another member (or lurker? hint, hint!). (/ edit) While I do think these equations will stand up to repeated testing, time and time again, I am more than willing to subject myself to Arthur C. Clarke's First Law.* In point of fact, no pickup is identical to any other pup, they're all unique. Some, perhaps many, of them are almighty close in all respects, but if we look closely enough, we can discern differences in some fashion. From that, it stands to reason that somewhere, somewhen, occasionally a guitar is going to show up in the wild with three pups on it, and one of them will be about equal in "hum power" to the other two. That can, and will, throw all my theories in a cocked hat, to be sure. I can live with that. ;D HTH sumgai * Arthur C. Clarke formulated three Laws, the first of which reads: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 9, 2012 0:24:32 GMT -5
..... notice that I have wired the Dano so when in parallel, all three on, I can switch off the neck or bridge (in theory). Tap test confirms this (to my ear), but they still have louder residual 60HZ hum than their corresponding series positions e.g. n+m and nXm or m+b and mxb. This phenomenon actually has a valid explanation. When pups are combined in series, they tend to raise the overall impedance, which in turn tends to suppress the higher frequencies. When combined in parallel, the impedance goes down (according to the same mathematical formula), and thus higher frequencies are more easily discerned. Now for the kicker. When you hear "hum", you aren't hearing just 60Hz (or 50Hz in some countries), you are hearing all of the harmonics that go along with that frequency. Think about it - 60Hz is just about B♭, or a tiny bit less than the 6th fret of your low E string. But do they exhibit anywhere near the same tonality? I think not. When you fret the string, you're hearing a complex composite of the fundamental and the harmonics, to be sure. But the kicker here is, they're all audio to begin with. IOW, they started at the speed of sound, and remain there throughout the time the string continues to vibrate, as it induces the pickup to produce a signal. Most importantly for our discussion, the fundamental is generated at the strongest level, and each succeeding harmonic is lower in strength.* However, EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference) enters the pickup at the nominal speed of electricity (the speed of light, more or less). The difference is, all of the attending harmonics of the hum are present at the same level - they don't decline in strength as before with the audio signal. From that, it's easy to see that what we hear as "hum" is really a spread-out spectrum of frequencies, all the same level (60Hz, 120, 240, 480, etc.) Now we're starting to talk about frequencies that can be suppressed by increased impedance, such as serial wiring/combining of pickups. And we're at the finish line. The hum is still there in all its glory (or all its infamy!), but we can't hear as much of it in series as we can in parallel. Simple, yes? ;D BTW, this is provable on just about any guitar with more than one pickup. And while I'm at it, nice job so far. Danos have a unique tone, and I'm eagerly waiting for sound clips to be posted! ;D HTH sumgai * For more detailed info, visit this page: Don Tillman on Pickup Response, and click through (at the bottom) to succeeding pages for an interactive app that really shows you what to expect.
|
|
|
Post by dannyhill on Sept 9, 2012 6:10:53 GMT -5
Hi Sumgai, Many thanks for taking the time to reply. There is a lot of information there and hopefully later I will have to time to fully read and reply, but later I'm on the road. For now: In Position 6 of the selectomatic the 4P6T is wired so ONLY the bridge is connected. However, the way I have re-wired the connections TO the 4P6T it should be B+M+N (or possibly B-M+N?) when I 'throw' my extra centre switch at the bottom of my schematic. Now when I disconnect one pup, say the neck and then have just B+M (or maybe B-M) I get less bassy noise (i.e. hum), if I reverse the phase of the bridge compared to the middle pup it gets worse so pretty sure its B+M. So there has to be some extra audio component entering the chain, and that unfortunately can only be deceiphered by removing the 4P6T and check the connections on it. Those are original Dano, and most are printed on the PCB. ( JohnH I need to remove this switch and then label on my schematic the connections and also label each switch and switch position as you say. Thanks for the Mouser headsup) Maybe Sumgai, I am getting series connections coming in at that selectomatic position and hence no way to hum cancel as you rightly say. The cap idea is interesting too. I follow your logic with regards to perceiving less hum in series than parallel, although my limited experience on a strat and two teles suggests the opposite, and without wanting to start a positing war, agrees with what JohnH and reTrEaD posted elsewhere with parallel being better at noise cancelling than series. In reTrEaD words: "If the higher DC resistance is because of more turns, I would expect the hum output to be greater on that pickup (all other things being equal). I reckon (no proof) that the better hum-cancellation would occur when the dissimilar pickups are in parallel. " In JohnH's words: "The overall hypothesis for two pickups would be that if you have two similar pickups, one with more turns than the other, the extra hum created by more turns is compensated in a parallel combo, by the extra impedance. This benefit would not occur in series though." JohnH - I think the simpler 5+5 or a strat lovers could be on the cards if I can't 'fudge' the Dano 4P6T into giving me parallel positions. Unless someone know's how the Dano switch is wired it might be better to check back in once I get it out later this week and draw up the printed connections. Thanks all, D
|
|