|
|
Post by simes on Jul 9, 2013 18:22:29 GMT -5
Hello.
I have a little wiring puzzle for you.
Imagine, if you will, an arrangement with the following elements:
- A “cool” SC-sized 2-wire HB at the neck (Strat output).
- A moderate output 4-wire HB at the bridge (PAF output).
- Two tone pots.
- One master volume pot with DPDT push-pull switch.
- A 3-way toggle selector switch.
The imbalance in output between the two PU’s is considered desirable, as overdrive or lack of it will be controlled by switching between PU’s rather than by stepping on pedals.
The push-pull switch will provisionally be used for local series/parallel switching of the bridge HB.
Easy enough to wire up, right?
But can you see any significant drawbacks to this set-up? The ones that occur to me are that:
1. The two PU’s probably want different pot values.
2. EQ-ing the amp to make the neck PU and the local parallel bridge PU sound good will make the local series bridge PU dull-sounding, while EQ-ing for the series HB will make the parallel HB and the neck PU too shrill.
Do you think these are a real cause for concern? Could they be remedied by judicious use of caps and resistors? If so, where? Is there, perchance, an alternative to s/p switching (not involving coil splitting or inductors) for thinning out and sharpening up that bridge HB?
Cheers,
Simes
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 9, 2013 21:47:25 GMT -5
Hey Simes-
I don't see a problem with #1. Pot values are often a bit of a compromise, but these are both HBs, although one has smaller coils than the other. I'd think you could safely use 500K pots for all 3.
As to #2, it may be a problem, I think at some point this will turn on one's subjective tastes, and it is also influenced by the specific pickups used. So, hard to say without experimentation.
As far as other options beyond coil-splitting, S/P, and inductors, you can certainly use the P/P switch to switch a cap and/or resistor in/out of the circuit so as to affect the bridge HB alone. Whether that would get you where you want to be is, again, subject to experimentation.
If you had more robust switching (I'm thinking 3 poles, at least, as compared to the two poles of the P/P), then you could switch the HB from local parallel to series, and, at the same time, switch the pots out of the circuit when in series mode. This might brighten up the series mode sufficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 10, 2013 6:57:43 GMT -5
It all seems fine to me. With the two tone pots 'reckon.
If you want to try something other than simple parallel wiring for the HB, bypassing one coil of a series Hb with a cap of about 0.047 to 0.1uF is a nice option, and its what I do on my LP. It keeps the edge of a single coil better than parallel, but with more weight thana a full split. Not noise cancelling though.
|
|
|
|
Post by simes on Jul 10, 2013 19:00:19 GMT -5
Well now, I suppose I could stretch to a 4PDT miniswitch instead of a push-pull.
My concern about the pot values is that the neck PU is specifically a vintage-type Strat replacement PU, and thus rather demands 250K pots, while the conventional bridge HB clearly requires 500K. However, 500K may prove too bright for the bridge HB when in local parallel (or split).
How about:
- 500K volume pot
- 250K tone pot for neck PU
- 500K tone pot for bridge PU
- Some kind of resistor arrangement wired to the spare half of a 4PDT miniswitch to turn the 500K tone pot into 250K when switching to local parallel (or partial or full split) ... not sure how this would be done or indeed if it's feasible - the resistor thing, I mean, not the coil switching.
Cheers,
Simes
|
|
col
format tables
Posts: 468
Likes: 25
|
Post by col on Jul 10, 2013 19:42:31 GMT -5
If you would prefer to not drill another hole, you might use an Fender S-1 switch to replace the push-pull.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 10, 2013 19:45:51 GMT -5
If you decide to do something other than a push/pull on the Volume (although it could still be on one of the tone pots), you could use a dual gang pot- I believe these are available in 250K/500K varieties. Then, the neck SC gets 250K pots and the HB gets 500K.
Another option might be the use of a no-load pot for the bridge tone, so as to brighten things up at "10" (and using the 250K pots throughout).
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 10, 2013 22:25:42 GMT -5
If it was mine, I think Id do either the all 500k pots, or sll 250k with both tone pots no load.
One thing to know is that the tonal effect of 250k pots can be slmosr exactly matched by 500k pots with the tone rolled down to 6 or 7. So IMO, its not worth messing with extra resistors etc
|
|
|
|
Post by simes on Jul 11, 2013 11:13:49 GMT -5
If you would prefer to not drill another hole, you might use an Fender S-1 switch to replace the push-pull. If you decide to do something other than a push/pull on the Volume (although it could still be on one of the tone pots), you could use a dual gang pot- I believe these are available in 250K/500K varieties. Then, the neck SC gets 250K pots and the HB gets 500K.
Another option might be the use of a no-load pot for the bridge tone, so as to brighten things up at "10" (and using the 250K pots throughout). If it was mine, I think Id do either the all 500k pots, or sll 250k with both tone pots no load.
One thing to know is that the tonal effect of 250k pots can be slmosr exactly matched by 500k pots with the tone rolled down to 6 or 7. So IMO, its not worth messing with extra resistors etc
What I’m suggesting is giving the neck PU the 250K tone pot it’s more or less designed for, and making the bridge PU “see” two different tone pot values depending on which way the miniswitch is flipped. Presumably, with a 4PDT switch it would be possible to do “local series + 500K” vs. “local parallel + 250K (or other value to be fine-tuned)”.
I’m just not very clear on how to do this … a 500K fixed resistor in parallel with the 500K bridge tone pot, coinciding with the switch to local parallel?
Presumably the value of the volume pot is practically irrelevant.
Or perhaps it's not even necessary, and the local parallel will sound fine with a 500K tone pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 11, 2013 15:24:49 GMT -5
but..but..If you change from series to parallel, isnt the idea that it sounds brighter?
Ok, having said that. In terms of pot R values and effect on tone, unless the tone control is rolled down below about 6, then the tone and the volume pot have about the same effect on brightness, almost as if they were a single resistor. So the sound with two 500k pots (vol and tone) at max is similar to a 250k volume with no load tone. And two 250k pots is similar to two 500 k pots with the tone rolled back to 167k (resistors in paralle theory.
If you want to have the bridge pickup see a lower resistance when in parallel mode, you could switch in a resistor from volume hot to ground. If this was 250k, (or 270k being the nearest standard value)then the net load from two 500k pots and the 250k resistor would be 125k, which is what you get with 250k volume and tone pots. How about getting a 500k or 1M preset resistor. This could be switched with the third pole of a toggle switch, then tweak it to suit. Or play with different fixed values, maybe higher is better.
But Hey! I think there's are smarter way to to this switching - can use just a two pole switch to do this with seris/parallel. When the usual series/parallel switch is in series mode, it joins coils end to end, and when it goes to paralel, those same ends are seperated and one goes to hot and one goes to ground. Put your new preset resistor bewteen the two coil ends that get switched in this way. In series mode, the resistor does nothing since its shorted out, in parallel, its there connected from ground to hot, adding the bit of extra load that you want.
Thats how we do that!
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jul 11, 2013 18:31:09 GMT -5
I find myself wondering why exactly one would bother with all the switching to get tonal options if we don't want the tone to actually change very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by simes on Jul 11, 2013 19:07:16 GMT -5
but..but..If you change from series to parallel, isnt the idea that it sounds brighter?
I find myself wondering why exactly one would bother with all the switching to get tonal options if we don't want the tone to actually change very much.
There is nice bright (“shimmering”, “present”, “crisp”, etc.) and there’s nasty bright (“shrill”, “harsh”, “icepick”, etc.).
Ok, having said that. In terms of pot R values and effect on tone, unless the tone control is rolled down below about 6, then the tone and the volume pot have about the same effect on brightness, almost as if they were a single resistor. So the sound with two 500k pots (vol and tone) at max is similar to a 250k volume with no load tone. And two 250k pots is similar to two 500 k pots with the tone rolled back to 167k (resistors in paralle theory.
If you want to have the bridge pickup see a lower resistance when in parallel mode, you could switch in a resistor from volume hot to ground. If this was 250k, (or 270k being the nearest standard value)then the net load from two 500k pots and the 250k resistor would be 125k, which is what you get with 250k volume and tone pots. How about getting a 500k or 1M preset resistor. This could be switched with the third pole of a toggle switch, then tweak it to suit. Or play with different fixed values, maybe higher is better.
But Hey! I think there's are smarter way to to this switching - can use just a two pole switch to do this with seris/parallel. When the usual series/parallel switch is in series mode, it joins coils end to end, and when it goes to paralel, those same ends are seperated and one goes to hot and one goes to ground. Put your new preset resistor bewteen the two coil ends that get switched in this way. In series mode, the resistor does nothing since its shorted out, in parallel, its there connected from ground to hot, adding the bit of extra load that you want.
Thats how we do that!
John
Cheers,
Simes |
|
|
|
Post by simes on Jul 14, 2013 5:10:29 GMT -5
In the interest of full disclosure, I posed this same question from a different perspective on another forum prior to on this one. This other forum specialises in a particular brand of PU’s and I asked for a recommendation on which SC-sized HB and which full HB to use to fulfil my requirements.
The problem with this other forum is that, while very helpful and knowledgeable, the members have two default answers to questions: (1) Impenetrable scientific discussion, and (2) Call ------ and ------ and ask, which I can’t because I’m in Spain and don’t want to spend money calling the USA. To be fair, there are usually a few people who chip in with simple, practical advice, more on my level of understanding, but threads do tend to get hijacked by detailed discussions of inductance, cable capacitance, using caps to “colour” a PU, resonant peaks, etc.
I posted there first with the intention of later approaching the question from a different angle here and comparing the answers.
The concern expressed in the other forum about my idea of balancing an SC-output PU with a regular HB switchable between series and parallel was that doing the latter would quarter the inductance of the HB, bringing it below that of the “SC”, thereby wreaking havoc with the EQ and presumably the sacred resonant peak.
Do you think I really need to get bogged down in that kind of thing, or will I be fine with the solutions we’ve discussed here?
To re-cap, I need a practical set-up for a stage guitar which will enable me to set-and-forget the amp, not have to adjust the guitar pots constantly, and get my clean, overdrive and light distortion sounds via the PU switching described in my last post, i.e. using the series HB to push the amp into break-up. By way of illustration, my idea of clean/overdrive/distortion is pre-crash Lynyrd Skynryd.
Cheers,
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 14, 2013 8:40:39 GMT -5
I'm not clear what you were told. By "doing the latter", are we talking about the series/parallel switching of the HB? IOW, they're saying that the parallel setting would not match up with the SC due to the quartering of the inductance?
Maybe. But bear in mind that, in general, neck pickups have higher output than bridge pickups simply because of their location along the string. That's why the bridge pickup is generally wound to a higher resistance when a "matched set" is purchased.
And inductance is important, but not the only factor in the sound of a pickup.
We've thrown out several suggestions, but the bottom line is that you'll probably need to experiment to get exactly what you want.
And, ultimately, there may be no "perfect" solution that can be had internally, inside the guitar, to "re-EQ" with the flip of a single switch. For stage use, a pedal-based solution could also be used- have one of those 7-band EQ pedals pre-set where you want it for the alternate tone, and then a stomp switch selects it when you go to the alternate setting on the guitar.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jul 14, 2013 10:41:03 GMT -5
My main guitar has series/parallel/SC in all three positions and no pots or other loads whatsoever, and I don't have this problem. I know which combinations give which sounds and I use them where appropriate.l
So, there's this issue where the frequency response of the pickup/pots/cable filter is separate from the actual harmonic series captured from the strings.
The neck pickup is always skewed quite significantly toward the fundamental and lower harmonics. The bridge pickup is always closer to flat, which makes it sound to our ears as though it were skewed toward the higher harmonics. This is what the pickups are getting off the strings. The complex RLC filter that we call guitar electronics is applied to that signal, but doesn't really do much to modify that harmonic series. A "light" neck HB will often be about the same in terms of DC resistance and inductance to that of a single coil of a "moderate-to-hot" HB. The bridge pickup in SC mode will probably have about the same frequency response as the neck in series mode.
Sure, okay, obtuse semi-scientific mumbojumbo, right?
The point is that a " bright" neck pickup will still be pretty boomy. There will be some snap to the attack, and a bit of "air" at the top end, but it's still going to be dominated by fundamentals. When playing near open position, these are the frequencies affected by most controls labeled "bass".
The same pickup (or something similar) in the bridge pickup will pass exactly the same frequencies, but will be starting out with significantly less boom. It will start to sound somewhat nasal, and maybe a little harsh, but it's not actually putting out any frequencies higher than in the neck.
So, are you trying to EQ your amp to get rid of the boom of the fundamentals on the neck setting and then wondering why the bridge is thin and nasty? Is there some reason you're not using the bridge pickup which doesn't have those fundamentals to begin with? Or maybe the middle position, which I find to be a pretty darn good middle ground?
And more importantly, have you actually tried wiring the bridge pickup in parallel, with the "too big pot", plugged it into your amp and played? Or is this all based on "conventional wisdom" and the advice of some whackos on the internet?
I'm going to ask again why are you adding these options if you're afraid to use them?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 14, 2013 15:26:09 GMT -5
will I be fine with the solutions we’ve discussed here?
Simon My thoughts about what we have discussed here are that, although i cant comment on how those particular pickups will sound, you have three basic settingsof neck, bridge series and bridge parallel which are solid choices and cover a very useful range, and then you have BN combos too. And since you have tone pots for B and N, you can set those and leave them wherever you find best, plus we discussed how you can trim the tone of the parallel sound if needed, with a resistor. And if you make that a preset, then you can get it all pre-tweaked. You can also adjust output levels by pickup height. So Id expect that you will have everything you need to set the sounds you want just with the toggle switch. But you will have to make your own view of whatever advice you find. So just out of interest, what was the main outcome from the other thread? J |
|
|
|
Post by simes on Jul 14, 2013 18:06:11 GMT -5
Before I go on, consider that I broached the subject first on the other forum because it is the unofficial support forum for those PU’s. I have a set of one model of the manufacturer’s PU’s, which I like, but want to try a pairing of one of these with another model which they don’t usually advise, and I wanted to explore that avenue theoretically before buying. I then came back here, a forum with a down-to-earth approach that I am familiar and comfortable with, to see if the concerns expressed by some at the other forum would or wouldn’t arise here.
I’m assuming everybody’s cool with that. Hmm?
To be clear, although I’m certainly no expert, I’m not entirely a novice at wiring, and have tried S/P wiring before on both standard and SC-sized HB’s, with positive results. So I’m certainly not, ah, “afraid” to add these options. I just don’t want to buy the PU I don’t have experience with only to find it doesn’t work well with the PU I do have experience with, which is why I brought the matter up.
Nor, for that matter, would I be inclined to bandy about terms like “whackos” (they don’t seem to be anything of the sort, just overly technical for me) or “conventional wisdom” (which is quite the opposite of what they deal in), but maybe that’s just me and my knife-edge sensibilities, eh?
So, what did they say in the other forum? Some said the proposed pairing should be fine. Others went into involved scientific discussion, the gist of which was that the bridge HB in parallel would sound too thin (lack of bass) or shrill (undesirable resonant peak) due to a number of factors beyond my grasp. I really couldn’t say what the main outcome of the thread was, as it ended up as another instance of a recurring debate between two or three members.
As I mentioned earlier, my idea for this guitar is 4 usable options (not including N + B(s)), a set-and-forget approach with minimum on-stage fiddling and no pedals, and dirt dialled in by switching in the series HB. I’ve done it before successfully with another guitar (this one with a more conventionally matched set of PU’s) by playing with PU height.
Obviously I do realise I will have to experiment, but I don’t have the PU yet, so I thought it might make for some interesting conversation in the meantime, and count JohnH’s solution as a likely winner.
Cheers,
Simes
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jul 14, 2013 20:16:06 GMT -5
I probably should have put a smiley or winky or something in my last post. Wasnt really referring to anybody specific as "whackos " nor deliberately excluding myself.  I don't really like fiddling with switches while playing. I get most of my tonal and dynamic variation from the way I play the guitar, and both of my hands are generally pretty busy doing that. If I need a little extra boost for single note work, or to get deeper into overdrive on chords, I'd much prefer to step on a pedal than try to reach for a switch on the guitar. That said, I was playing open mics and things like that for a while which led me to explore more minimalist setups. I started running N+B (both in SC mode) for my normal sound, and then flipping the S/P switch for the boost. I actually feel like it's almost natural that the pickup sound darkens up a bit, because the extra distortion means more higher harmonics and that could get a bit harsh or fizzy. I actually built my booster to sort of emulate this, rolling off more highs with more gain. I think the answer to your questions "Can it be done?" and "How?" have been answered pretty well. Far be it from me to tell you not to do whatever you feel necessary to make the guitar work for you. I'm just not completely sure it's necessary, and neither will you be til you've got the parts in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Jul 14, 2013 21:01:22 GMT -5
You might consider something like the "spin-Select" control I used on my HSS strat here... guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/5413/mahogany-hss-contemporary-stratThe version in my gutiar has a small cap in it also and looks like this...  What it does is turn the middle tone into a control for the HB to address this problem. It turns down one of the HB coils, which one is selected by pulling the knob. The HB is full when on 10 and one coil is turned down leaving the other till completely split at 0. Pulled up the coil next to the bridge is in full effect and down the one further away which I prefer for a 'sweeter' single coil sound. About half way balances nicely with the other pus and sounds more 'strat like' and where I tent to leave it, but if I want a bit a boost and HB midrange, I turn the knob to 10. With the coils partially 'tapped' you ge partial noisee reduction. I ahve both splits and parallel on my LP also in the gallery, and on that guitar the sound is very similar and actually prefer the parrallel sound and is completely noiseless too. No need to ahve both really. All that stuff about resistance/inductance is misleading, although it will show as 1/4 the resistance in parallel, that does not mean it is 1/4 as loud or anything, on my guitar it is a great sound n par, if not a little louder than the 'split' of the smae pup. And sure, inductance and everything will change, resonant peaks and all that, but surely that is the point, to change the sound! Not all pups work as well in split and such, but a fairly hot pup will often split well, some are renown for sounding good split, my SD JB model for instance is one and does work well... |
|
