Post by farren on Mar 24, 2013 12:21:54 GMT -5
I've recently begun to think more "outside of the box" (I can't believe I just employed that cliche...) about guitar wiring and have some interesting ideas to implement. Nothing truly original that has never been done before, I'm sure, but nonetheless...
I'm currently restoring an old MIJ HH Jackson I have and, assuming I'm happy with the results of my re-fret and refinishing work on the neck, I'll be dropping some pickups into it. I have another guitar I don't play (it is dead: a neck-through Carvin with a horribly warped neck courtesy the factory's failure to properly cure its mahogany before assembly and my ignorance as a kid for keeping it despite the fact that it played like garbage) that I'm going to strip for its electronics. It has an X2N in the bridge and a (plain) Norton in the neck. This was a great combination for me back when I had to rely on my pickups to produce a hot enough signal to get a decent overdriven tone out of crappy amps, but it no longer suits my needs (or tastes) as I have all the amp I can handle now.
I'm going to put the Norton in the bridge of the guitar I'm currently working on, and the X2N in the neck. This is a serious output mismatch and probably seems like a horrible idea. It's like the opposite of the already extreme Michael Romeo setup--the Norton being a little tamer than a Tonezone, but in opposite positions. It will have one vol, one tone, and a 3PDT.
The first thing I'll do to work towards some semblance of balance is lower the X2N as deep as it can go into the route. That's not going to have tremendous effect in cooling it down, though, because the ceramic blades have range that render them nearly impervious to distance.
Another idea is a resistor in parallel with volume when the switch is set to neck. This will lower overall output, yes, but it will disproportionately affect treble and may cause mud on the lower strings using higher gain channels. This might be okay as I favor neck pickups for leads.
I could, of course, only wire the X2N for parallel performance, but I'm not sure I could handle not having series as an option even if it's for the sake of balance. A similar idea is to use bridge + neck series rather than neck series. That sounds sort of boring to me, though, as I'd rather have distinctive bridge and neck tones.
Another idea is limiting max vol in the neck position. This threatens to color tone unless a cap and resistor(s) are selected especially for 9, 9.5 or whatever the target volume level is. Plus I'd rather not have to manage volume manually...
Volume mismatch isn't going to be a big problem: I'll just go opposite the traditional route and set my lead patch to ~-3 dB relative to rhythm rather than the opposite... A lead cut rather than lead boost.
I've only just begun to consider this, but that's all I have so far. I don't think it's enough. Any other ideas for lowering neck output? I'm sure there's some wiring option I just haven't considered.
I'm currently restoring an old MIJ HH Jackson I have and, assuming I'm happy with the results of my re-fret and refinishing work on the neck, I'll be dropping some pickups into it. I have another guitar I don't play (it is dead: a neck-through Carvin with a horribly warped neck courtesy the factory's failure to properly cure its mahogany before assembly and my ignorance as a kid for keeping it despite the fact that it played like garbage) that I'm going to strip for its electronics. It has an X2N in the bridge and a (plain) Norton in the neck. This was a great combination for me back when I had to rely on my pickups to produce a hot enough signal to get a decent overdriven tone out of crappy amps, but it no longer suits my needs (or tastes) as I have all the amp I can handle now.
I'm going to put the Norton in the bridge of the guitar I'm currently working on, and the X2N in the neck. This is a serious output mismatch and probably seems like a horrible idea. It's like the opposite of the already extreme Michael Romeo setup--the Norton being a little tamer than a Tonezone, but in opposite positions. It will have one vol, one tone, and a 3PDT.
The first thing I'll do to work towards some semblance of balance is lower the X2N as deep as it can go into the route. That's not going to have tremendous effect in cooling it down, though, because the ceramic blades have range that render them nearly impervious to distance.
Another idea is a resistor in parallel with volume when the switch is set to neck. This will lower overall output, yes, but it will disproportionately affect treble and may cause mud on the lower strings using higher gain channels. This might be okay as I favor neck pickups for leads.
I could, of course, only wire the X2N for parallel performance, but I'm not sure I could handle not having series as an option even if it's for the sake of balance. A similar idea is to use bridge + neck series rather than neck series. That sounds sort of boring to me, though, as I'd rather have distinctive bridge and neck tones.
Another idea is limiting max vol in the neck position. This threatens to color tone unless a cap and resistor(s) are selected especially for 9, 9.5 or whatever the target volume level is. Plus I'd rather not have to manage volume manually...
Volume mismatch isn't going to be a big problem: I'll just go opposite the traditional route and set my lead patch to ~-3 dB relative to rhythm rather than the opposite... A lead cut rather than lead boost.
I've only just begun to consider this, but that's all I have so far. I don't think it's enough. Any other ideas for lowering neck output? I'm sure there's some wiring option I just haven't considered.