Tone Matrix Pickup Switching

[UnklMickey]

I had this thought rattling around in my brain. I let it shake a few things loose and here’s what dropped out.

Premise: A 3x3 matrix of mini toggles

.................................neck ......middle......bridge
.............................|----------|-----------|----------|
................on/off....|......X......|......X......|.....X.......|
.............................|---------------------------------|
...............phase.....|.......X......|......X......|.....X......|
.............................|---------------------------------|
.....parallel/series....|......X......|......X......|.....X......|
.............................|---------------------------------|



Requirements: No dead spots except all off. No coils ever shorted. ANY PAIR or all three can be in series.

In the process of imagining the reality of this configuration I recognized there are 2 possible configurations for a series parallel arrangement of 3 coils.

Parallel first: e.g. (neck + middle) x bridge

Which does NOT =

Series first: neck + (middle x bridge)


So I managed to figure out how to do either configuration, using no more than 4pdt on-on switches at the most. (phase switches obviously require only dpdt)

I have figured out how to add a 10th switch to select between series first and parallel first, but not without the requirement of more poles on the other switches. (maybe this fruit will drop later?)

So the question is: Would this any of this be worth bothering with? At present I don’t have a decent way of producing an electronic drawing of the schematic or wiring diagram, so until such time it would be a moot point anyway.

BTW: when i use the term mule, i mean an evaluation testbed or a studio only guitar -- as contrasted with an axe you might actually play on stage.

[JohnH]

“Ok Dude” - JohnH stared steely eyed at UncleMickey – with a dead pan expression

“I’ll see your 3 pup series parallel…” – JH pulled a card from inside his sleeve.

“…..and I’ll raise you one pickup…” – JH placed a 4 pickup circuit with series/parallel wiring on the table.

“…and one less pole” – JH’s circuit uses all DPDT’s, except for, two with 3PDT.

people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/4xseriesparallelMk2.gif

UM, I can see you like switch puzzles, and magic switchcraft!. This circuit was for a guy who wanted a test bed for 4 pups, on the old GN. The idea is that each pup is assigned to either a series chain, or a set in parallel. The coloured lines indicate the series and parallel threads that run through the circuit The on/offs short out coils assigned to series if they are off, and break the connection to those assigned to parallel duties, but off.

It turns out that the series parallel switches are 3PDT for the inner ones, and one less pole is needed for the outer ones. Also, the circuit is modular – you can add as many pups as you want!. The module is shown blue, so delete one to do a 3 pup circuit.

There are no dead settings other than all off. When you note a desire for no coil shorting, is that to avoid magnetic interference with the strings? I tested that with a 2HB guitar and could not hear any effects in an AB test. Some do believe it is significant however.

Another criterion I like to apply to circuits is, when pups are disconnected, they don’t hang with one wire, half connected to the output connection – my worry is noise pickup Connection to ground is OK though.

As drawn it will only do combos like (N+M) x B, not the other way. I don’t know which is better. But it occurs to me that if the outer pups series/parallel are upgraded to 3PDT, as the standard module, then a 2 pole switch will probably be enough to do the 10th series first or parallel first job.

You could also off course, delete one phase switch with no real loss of options.

I think all those switches would be a little nerdish – unless you play Star Trek conventions, but an interesting test bed. – so I voted ‘Mule’

I don’t think my 4 pup design has been built, but it was the basis for a more practical design on the GN2 Tonemonster thread, which Runewalker and I have now built several times and it sounds great, In that design, the series/parallel switches are all amalgamated into a single system series/parallel switch, which can be simplified to a 4PDT. The latest version is here,
guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=1117172128&page=8
which also has a blend system.

Happy switching!

John

[UnklMickey]

johnh said:

“Ok Dude” - JohnH stared steely eyed at UncleMickey – with a dead pan expression

“I’ll see your 3 pup series parallel…” – JH pulled a card from inside his sleeve.

“…..and I’ll raise you one pickup…” – JH placed a 4 pickup circuit with series/parallel wiring on the table.

“…and one less pole” – JH’s circuit uses all DPDT’s, except for, two with 3PDT.

...

:lol:

very nice work. quite similar in some respects to mine, yours is a bit more condensed on the ends. (i'll be sure to use those ideas.)

evidently you and i are on the same wavelength on the issue of creating a series group and a parallel group. imagine putting the two groups in series instead and you get the "Parallel First" configuration. and yes my idea can (as yours) be stacked ad infinitum (or is that as nauseum?) for as many pickups as one wants.

on the issue of the effect of shorted pickups we obviously have a difference of opinion. thats why you can get by with 1 less pole.

johnh said:

...
As drawn it will only do combos like (N+M) x B, not the other way. I don’t know which is better. ...

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you misspoke here.
as drawn yours will actually only do combos like N+(MxB) which is IMHO likely to be preferred!

on one hand, one phase switch can be deleted, but then again, to get the fuctional equivalent of having that coil out of phase with whatever else was selected, all the others would have to be flipped. in the interest of "directness" over economy, i've chosen to include all of them.

i really like that the 4pup drawing was as a schematic rather than a wiring diagram. although someone who just wanted to build it might think otherwise. i find schematics to be SO much easier to analyse.

as i look back over some of your posts i can see that you have quite a bit of experience with S-witchcraft yourself.

thanks,

U.M.




WAIT! i just looked at your drawing again. i'll see your 1 less pole and raise you no dead spots. review your drawing and see if you can tell what i'm talking about.

[JohnH]

I probably got my + and x mixed up - easily done, I am only an engineer.
I much prefer to look at schematics of concept designs. With most wiring diagrams, I cant even start thinking about how they work until I have reverse engineered them to a schematic.
On the issue of shorting pups, lets agree to differ, but note that this sort of circuit could test the issue. Putting the off pups is parallel mode puts them open circuit, in series they are short circuit. You could listen to say the Bridge pup, while the other 'off' ones are changed.

cheers
John

[UnklMickey]

agree to disagree? "no worries mate!"

after looking at your drawing longer, i realize that it wasn't the coil shorting issue that took the extra poles, it was the dead spot issue. a bit of a twist in how that third section of the S/P switch is used eliminates that. it might indeed be useful to build this as is to prove/disprove the effect. it could be easily modified to non-shorting afterward.

i too have to contently check my use of + and x, whats worse is i sometimes think series but say parallel. i'm not sure what causes that!

"...I am only an engineer." Dude! Only! between us and the technicians we make GREAT things happen. i guess i should give some credit to the PhD.s, but they get lots anyway.

i must have been editing my previous post while you were posting your last one. check my last line and see if you agree.

TTFN

U.M.

[RandomHero]

I have a vision of an open control cavity and a soldering iron clipped onto the guitar as being a competitor to all of this. XD

[JohnH]

WAIT! i just looked at your drawing again. I'll see your 1 less pole and raise you no dead spots. review your drawing and see if you can tell what I'm talking about.

Well #$%@^!!! I see what you mean!. It would seem that the series chain can short everything out when it shouldn't. B-G--R!!

It looks like it would occur if each of the pups was either off, or set to parallel. Trouble is; the only way I can see to fix it is extra poles on all the main switches, to make a link that breaks the series chain if that is true.

I don't like leaving half baked circuits lying around on the internet, so here is an updated more complex version.

people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/4xseriesparallelMk3.gif

I'll delete the other in a day or two. For a three pup circuit, it would need 5, 3-pole and a 4 pole switch, plus the phasers. I'm hoping you can do better cos I don't like this one and wont be building it anytime soon! Its amazing, the design that I built with an all series all parallel switch just had 4 poles on the series/parallel. This circuit seems to need an extra 9 poles on various switches, just to achieve the series/parallel combinations.

I haven't checked it much, so if you are keen, you are welcome to have a stare at it an find more problems

Random Hero - your idea is better, but can you rewire a guitar between solos?

John?

[wolf]

I think it is going overboard. As I've said, I came up with my own multi mega switch monstrosity (see 94 Sound Wiring Option) www.1728.com/guitar3.htm and thought it was a waste.
For what it's worth, I think the combinations such as (NxM)+B sound much better than (N+M)xB. (Hope I got that formula right.)

[UnklMickey]

admin said:

I have a vision of an open control cavity and a soldering iron clipped onto the guitar as being a competitor to all of this. XD

yeah, i guess thats what can happen when you turn us wireheads loose on a guitar.

o.k. call me a n006, but what is XD?

_______________________________________________

JohnH,

Wow! thats almost exactly what i had in mind. just turn the 3rd section of the S/P switches "anticlockwise" 90deg, connect the pole to the upper pink wire, the upper (series position) throw to the black where it used to connect to the pink, and the bottom (parallel position) throw to where the pole used to be. -- no shorted coils!

what are you using to produce these drawings? either it's something rather convenient (if so i want to get it!), or you've invested LOTS of time to this (in which case you have my most sincere gratitude!).
_______________________________________________

wolf said:

I think it is going overboard. As I've said, I came up with my own multi mega switch monstrosity (see 94 Sound Wiring Option) www.1728.com/guitar3.htm and thought it was a waste.
For what it's worth, I think the combinations such as (NxM)+B sound much better than (N+M)xB. (Hope I got that formula right.)

i haven't compared the two so i can't really offer an authoritative opinion. my reasoning lead me to the same opinion.

shouldn't your vote be for [2many sw. - k.i.s.s.]? it's a valid opinion, and i value them all!

[RandomHero]

I don't know! If you've seen some of the things people force themselves to be insanely proficient at, I'd dare say you might even be able to rewire midsong! As for XD, turn it one quarter turn clockwise, and you see Calvin-and-Hobbes style closed eyes and a wide laughing mouth.

[JohnH]

unklMickey
The drawings are just done with Microsoft Word, which lets you draw lines, arrows and boxes and move them around. Its nothing special but easier than a painting program. Then I press print screen and paste into a simple graphics program, crop to size and save as a gif.

[UnklMickey]

johnh said:

unklMickey
The drawings are just done with Microsoft Word, which lets you draw lines, arrows and boxes and move them around. Its nothing special but easier than a painting program. Then I press print screen and paste into a simple graphics program, crop to size and save as a gif.

that said, you definitely deserve my most heartfelt thanks!

U.M.