|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 18, 2018 6:01:37 GMT -5
Hi pj, I can see how what you describe can happen.
The general idea with the PTB is the load on the system is the 250k volume pot, and that is then connected to a reasonably consistent input impedance of and amp or pedal, which is much higher like 1M, or at least say 500k. That way the bass cut cap is fairly consistently loaded. But if the next unit down stream is an old effect like a Germanium fuzzface with a input impedance of say 100k or even less, then that is a very significant difference, increasing bass cut, but which is then increasingly isolated as you reduce volume, so restoring some bass dependent on volume. It could be that bass-cut is not always a great idea to use before such a pedal, but if you have found a good work-around for this scenario then that is great.
the same effect happens generally at the treble end, where the high load of the effect dulls the sound to a thick fuzz when at a high guitar volume setting, but which brightens significantly (and interestingly), with load on the pickup getting reduced as guitar volume is turned down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Mar 18, 2018 8:46:13 GMT -5
I have to report that all of the diagrams I saw were simple shelving types, just like we've been discussing these past few weeks. For whatever reason they call 'reasonable', they use a 500K pot (taper un-specified) with a 0.0022 mfd cap. I personally can't see that as very wide-range of control, but that's their business, not mine. And to put paid to the account, on their very own website they call it a Bass Contour ' that cuts Bass frequencies' so as to give you 'different pickup voicings'. Marketing hype, to be sure, but then again, they've been around for what, 20 years, maybe longer. I'm certainly not gonna say that they're doing it wrong.... just different.  [re: Reverend bass contour control] Good to know. thanks! You don't like their pot value or their cap value, or both? |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 18, 2018 11:43:25 GMT -5
You don't like their pot value or their cap value, or both? Both. As you've been reading in this and other threads, a 1M Ω (or higher value) pot is considered de rigeur, along with a 1nF or 1.5nF cap.
But as usual, different folks like different tone flavors. Add into that mix the fact that some pickups will respond differently to these values, and it becomes a crapshoot to determine what's correct, and what isn't.
We do like to say, here in the NutzHouse, that in circuitry like this, suggested values are probably a good starting point and nothing more. You may find your first effort with the suggested values 'just right', or you may think that we've sabotaged your plans, it's all up in the air. Since we don't have your ears (let alone all of the equipment you own and play), we can only get you so far along the road - the rest is up to you.
Holy Grail of Tone, thy name is "Experiment, experiment, experiment"!
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Mar 19, 2018 23:56:12 GMT -5
JohnH - I'd like to contribute a PTB wiring diagram to this thread. I'd like my diagram to be verified first, though, before I post it. I've probably made errors. I've colour coded the wires for ease of reference. As stated on the diagram, this variant of the wiring is based on using a non-reverse taper pot for the bass cut control. See:
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 20, 2018 0:12:55 GMT -5
Ro_S you'll want to change where the wire from the treble-cut pot connects to the bass-cut pot. It should connect to lug 2 of the bass-cut instead of lug 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Mar 20, 2018 0:33:46 GMT -5
reTrEaDThanks. Is this revision linked below all good now? (the bass cut pot will work in the opposite to normal rotation in this particular variant, correct?)
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 20, 2018 1:16:10 GMT -5
Is this revision linked below all good now? (the bass cut pot will work in the opposite to normal rotation in this particular variant, correct?) All is well now and you are correct about the rotation, young Padawan. Spoilers are a useful way of keeping a thread short and tidy if lengthy sections of post or large pictures are involved. If you use them, posting the image rather than just a link will be just as tidy. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 20, 2018 1:32:40 GMT -5
I think the treble cut pot needs to use ths same lugs as the bass cut pot, if both are normal log taper. ie, centre and right lugs on the diagram. Thanks for contributing this drawing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Mar 20, 2018 1:40:39 GMT -5
is this one correct? {Spoiler}  |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 20, 2018 1:58:42 GMT -5
seems good to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by verboten256 on Aug 9, 2018 8:45:37 GMT -5
Hello! New member here. First of all, I'd like to say a big thank you to JohnH for starting this thread (and your treble bleed threads as well haha)! I've been a fan of the PTB circuit since I got a Reverend Charger HB a few years ago. Now I'm in the planning stages of a 2 humbucker Tele Deluxe build, but I'd like to add a 5th knob for the bass cut giving me individual volume/tone controls for each pickup and a master bass cut. I'm hoping you may be able to help me with a few questions though...
1.) Given that I'm planning on having a total of 5 potentiometers would 2x 250k Volume, 2x 500k Tone, & 1x 500k (Reverse Audio) Bass Cut be a good starting point on potentiometers?
2.) Will placing the bass cut control after the volume/tone controls & the selector switch negatively impact its functionality?
3.) If no, will placing the bass cut control in that part of the circuit interfere with the functionality of treble bleed circuits on the volume controls?
Thanks again!
|
|
axedoctor
Meter Reader 1st Class
Expert in-Training
Posts: 74 
Likes: 9
|
Post by axedoctor on Aug 9, 2018 9:59:36 GMT -5
welcome, verboten!
I am far from a resident expert here and others may add to or correct my comments ... but, here goes
the bass cut circuit relies on being placed in the signal path after the treble tone control and prior to the volume control path, forming a resistive divider for the lower frequencies
in the G&L circuit with single coils, the in-series 1M potentiometer & 2.2nF capacitor network function in conjunction with the 250K volume potentiometer path to ground to attenuate the bass frequencies with the impedance ratio range being key to its operation
given this topology, your dual humbucker circuit with individual treble tone and volume where the pickup combining happens after the volume controls, placement of a single master bass cut seems somewhat problematic
perhaps you could find enough room to insert a stacked potentiometer with either individual or ganged control to permit duplicating the circuit and placing it as originally intended
just my two cents but hopefully helpful
doc
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 9, 2018 11:23:40 GMT -5
disallowed 16 2, ... I'm in the planning stages of a 2 humbucker Tele Deluxe build, but I'd like to add a 5th knob for the bass cut giving me individual volume/tone controls for each pickup and a master bass cut. I'm hoping you may be able to help me with a few questions though... 1.) Given that I'm planning on having a total of 5 potentiometers would 2x 250k Volume, 2x 500k Tone, & 1x 500k (Reverse Audio) Bass Cut be a good starting point on potentiometers? 2.) Will placing the bass cut control after the volume/tone controls & the selector switch negatively impact its functionality? 3.) If no, will placing the bass cut control in that part of the circuit interfere with the functionality of treble bleed circuits on the volume controls? Thanks again! In order:
1) Since 4 pots tend to load one or more pickups pretty heavily, thus reducing some of the higher frequencies in some small but noticible amount (thus the TB circuitry), I'd advocate for 500KΩ pots in all 4 positions. Common practice is to have audio taper in the two volume slots, and linear in the two tone (treble-cut) slots.... with the advisory note that some players like audio taper in all 4 slots.
2) Yes, you can move the bass-cut circuitry to go between the rest of the controls and the output jack. This is because it does not load the signal path the same way as treble-cut controls - it doesn't short the signal to ground in any degree.
3) The treble-bleed components are independent of anything else, they'll do their job no matter where you install the bass-cut components.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 9, 2018 12:15:29 GMT -5
welcome, verboten! I am far from a resident expert here and others may add to or correct my comments ... but, here goes the bass cut circuit relies on being placed in the signal path after the treble tone control and prior to the volume control path, forming a resistive divider for the lower frequenciesin the G&L circuit with single coils, the in-series 1M potentiometer & 2.2nF capacitor network function in conjunction with the 250K volume potentiometer path to ground to attenuate the bass frequencies with the impedance ratio range being key to its operation given this topology, your dual humbucker circuit with individual treble tone and volume where the pickup combining happens after the volume controls, placement of a single master bass cut seems somewhat problematic perhaps you could find enough room to insert a stacked potentiometer with either individual or ganged control to permit duplicating the circuit and placing it as originally intended just my two cents but hopefully helpful doc Excellent post, Doc. You hit all the high points. The resistive divider terminology does see a bit off. But it's true the resistance of the volume pot and the capacitor in the bass-cut circuit work together to form a low-cut filter. The bass-cut control simply won't function properly if placed after the volume pot.
A ganged (single knob) or concentric (two-knob) pot for the bass-cut would allow placing the bass cut where it belongs. Btw, the bass-cut would function if placed before the treble cut, but placing it after will make it less interactive with the setting of the treble cut, so that would be a much preferred placement. I think you might be at the status of Resident Semi-expert.
250k pots will be desirable for volume controls in that they will allow more bass cut. However, with 'hot' winds the lower resistance might cause an inherently dull tone. Use linear in this application if gradual blend is a higher priority than the action of the volume controls with a single pickup being selected. Gibson uses 300k linear for their volume controls in 2v 2t configurations. No-load tone pots might also be a wise choice, especially if you use 250k for the volume controls. |
|
axedoctor
Meter Reader 1st Class
Expert in-Training
Posts: 74
Likes: 9
|
Post by axedoctor on Aug 9, 2018 16:06:05 GMT -5
true that! ... the parallel combination of the bass cut potentiometer setting and its companion capacitor form a complex "impedance" that interacts with the full range of the volume potentiometer to accomplish the desired tonal effect
it is not just a simple resistive divider ... my aim was just to describe the importance of the value of and placement of each potentiometer
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 9, 2018 16:46:01 GMT -5
.... The resistive divider terminology does see a bit off. But it's true the resistance of the volume pot and the capacitor in the bass-cut circuit work together to form a low-cut filter. The bass-cut control simply won't function properly if placed after the volume pot.I'll have to beg to differ here.
I'm under the impression that if we place a capacitor in series with a Vol pot's resistance element, then we're shorting some higher frequencies to ground - at all times. At least, that's how the Tone control usually works.
So how do we ever get a bass cut? Simple. When rotated to maximum cut (the pot's wiper is set to give the most resistance to the signal), the signal is now forced to go through the cap. Put simply, the cap cannot charge and discharge the low frequencies, only the mids and highs, so those mid's and highs are all that get through to the output. Notice here that a resistive element is not necessary for this action - this is the nature of a capacitor, all by itself.
Now, we can't entirely avoid a resistance element somewhere in the circuit following that cap - either a Vol pot, or an amp's input impedance, will be present. (Or the input of a pedal, roughly the same thing.) This additional component allows us to predictably shape the response of the capacitor such that we can achieve a desirable degree of operation. But in the final analysis, a cap doesn't need anything else in order filter out low frequencies... but it's also much harder to predict and control the results.
tl;dr Amplifiers (and pedals) will replace the Vol pot as a resistance element in order to form an RC filter. Some experimenting with values may be required.
It's often forgotten (especially here in The NutzHouse) that the amplifier's input impedance is also an integral part of the tone-shaping circuitry. (The same goes for any pedal.) This impedance is usually pretty high, to effect the best transfer of signal voltage, so it will play the same part as the Vol pot in combination with the bass-cut capacitor.
A simple xSPICE graph from JohnH should clear up any confusion here.
sumgai
|
|
axedoctor
Meter Reader 1st Class
Expert in-Training
Posts: 74
Likes: 9
|
Post by axedoctor on Aug 9, 2018 17:36:03 GMT -5
but isn't it so that the treble tone circuit variable resistance potentiometer in series with its companion capacitor functions as the shunt leg of a first stage variable frequency voltage divider working in concert with the series impedance of the pickup?
this signal is then mostly just divided by the volume potentiometer albeit with some parasitic high frequency roll-off that we correct with the treble bleed compensation circuit
with the bass cut circuit in place the aren't we adding a follow-on series impedance formed by the parallel combination of the bass cut variable resistance potentiometer and its companion capacitor working in concert with the shunt resistance of the volume potentiometer to further attenuate the signal, but with the ability to affect lower frequencies moreso than higher ones based upon the selection of the bass cut "blocking" capacitor whose innate impedance is trimmed with the setting of the bass cut potentiometer variable resistance?
it is also very true that the capacitance of the instrument cable coupled with the input impedance of the amplifier or pedal will provide yet another filtering affect, but counting on it as the primary shunt portion of a signal divider would seem to render the tone control somewhat ineffective with higher impedance inputs
I have read articles where folks have advocated merely placing a selection of low-value capacitors in series with the output signal to work in concert with the amplifier input impedance - I suppose this is somewhat akin to placing the bass cut circuit after the volume controls as originally proposed
purely passive circuits seem so simple ... until you start to clump them together and look at them in detail ... I know that my intern-level experience clouds my ability to garner a clear view at many times
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 9, 2018 18:35:57 GMT -5
I stand corrected. Placed after the volume pot, the bass-cut control will function properly ... as long as we define 'properly' as a hot mess that's horribly dependent on the wide range of load impedances presented by different pedals and amps. tl;dr Amplifiers (and pedals) will replace the Vol pot as a resistance element in order to form an RC filter. Some experimenting with values may be required. Since a decent guitar amplifier has an input impedance (primarily resistive) of at least 1 meg and in many cases substantially higher, the value of the bass-cut cap will need to be proportionally smaller and the bass control proportionally larger. Our guitar cable becomes more of an antenna for hum less of means of transferring the guitar signal. Experiment to your heart's desire but the results will vary wildly depending on the resistive component of the load impedance. Would you want a control in your guitar that does very little unless you plug into a second-rate amp or an antiquated pedal? axedoctor brought up a great point about the cable capacitance. At some point that becomes more significant than the resistive loading of the amp. Then the series capacitor meant to be an element of a a low-cut filter becomes the higher impedance element (both the series element and the element in parallel with the output are both primarily capacitive) in a voltage divider. Less of a low-cut filter and more of an attenuator. Ugly is. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 10, 2018 11:14:57 GMT -5
Looking at most amp schematics (I have hordes of dead-tree books with schematics dating back to the 1940s, and not a few digital collections as well), the nominal practice is to shunt the input jack with a resistor of 47KΩ to 100kΩ. Fender has, almost from its inception, used 68KΩ for their tube amps.
This places most tube amps in the range of 40 to 70KΩ of input impedance, and makes them somewhat frequency independent. Not entirely, but not noticibly capable of shaping tone in and of itself, either.
Most solid state amps have about the same input impedance, give or take a decade of value. This is usually set by the first stage's feedback loop, but not always. Discrete versus IC, there's room for a lot of variance, but in the end, any such amp has to play nice with a guitar (or a pedal), so the impedance value won't be too much higher or lower.
Speaking of pedals.... I've seen a limited number of them in my lifetime of repairing amps, so I'm probably not the one to talk, but... Most of these are not designed by truly capable electrical engineers. I won't go so far as to insult anyone by calling them any names, but take my word for it, there are some truly Gawd-awful examples out there of how not to design a circuit. For this reason, I'll only say that the input impedance for any given pedal may range from less than 5KΩ upwards of 100kΩ, possibly even higher. That's a lot of range for a guitar to contend with.
Enough. We're here to encourage experimentation, not to lay down the Gospel. Anyone wishing to avoid serious mistakes that could cost a bundle of dead presidents, or possibly a physical injury, I'm cool with that. But if you know which end of a soldering iron to not grab, then you are probably just as qualified as I am to dig in with a handful of parts, and see what happens if....
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by verboten256 on Aug 10, 2018 14:57:58 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone for the input! You’ve given me a lot to think about & it definitely looks like I have some experimentation in my future!
I first became interested in my 5 knob tele project when I saw Reverend’s Kyle Shut Signature with a volume for each pickup & passive master bass cut & master treble cut controls. I’ve only been able to find one wiring scheme ( “https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/21112-three-must-try-guitar-wiring-mods” - diagram 1c toward the bottom) matching the 2 Vol, 1 Bass, 1 Treble functionality & seeing the bass/treble controls wired after the selector switch is what lead me to thinking “Hey, I’ve got all this spare room underneath my giant tele deluxe pick guard. What’s-stopping me from adding a 5th bass knob & keeping the standard functionality?” Haha
I can see now how my original inquiry was taking things farther & farther away from the originally posted PTB circuit & discussion though. For one thing - The no load tone pot suggestion was a great. I was only considering the load on each individual pickup (3 pots like my current PTB Reverend) rather than the combined total load in the middle selector switch position (5 pots). For another thing I hadn’t considered the potential impedance issues that could arise from placing the bass cut cap/pot just before the output jack. I have a loose understanding that the amp/pedal input plays an important part in the functionality of the guitar circuit & that amps/pedal must receive a specific range of impedance/load in order to function properly, but to be honest most of that discussion went over my head. Haha. I wonder if this the aforementioned 4 knob reverend suffers from any of the pitfalls mentioned in earlier posts?
In an effort to bring things closer to the original PTB post circuit - would a wiring scheme with independent tone controls, master bass cut, & master volume be a more appropriate compromise? That would still allow for placement of the bass cut part of the circuit in between the treble cuts & the volume control. (which would bring the added benefit of not having to rout space for that 5th knob haha.)
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 10, 2018 22:01:45 GMT -5
In an effort to bring things closer to the original PTB post circuit - would a wiring scheme with independent tone controls, master bass cut, & master volume be a more appropriate compromise? That would still allow for placement of the bass cut part of the circuit in between the treble cuts & the volume control. (which would bring the added benefit of not having to rout space for that 5th knob haha.) That certainly is a viable choice. It puts the bass control in the optimum position in the scheme. However it does require you sacrifice a volume control. So no blending. For me, that wouldn't be an issue. For some it would be too dear a loss. If you have enough depth in the control cavity to allow for stacked pots, you could keep the two volume controls. Your treble-cut and bass-cut pots could either be concentric (two knobs each) or ganged (one knob controlling two elements). And you'd still only occupy four holes. For what its worth, Diagram 1c in the PG article to which you linked is exactly the circuit described by Sumgai when he stated you can place the bass-cut between the rest of the controls and the output jack. In my estimation, the bass-cut will do precious little if placed there. But it's endorsed by Premier Guitar so that means it must be okay, right? [/sarcasm] |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Aug 11, 2018 18:16:20 GMT -5
The schemes that put the volume control last-thing before the jack can generally be made to work OK. But if you want a really effective bass cut, its still worth considering higher-value bass cut pots, and also 250k volume rather than 500k, and compensate with no-load tones. But in any case it's all fine. But bass cut after volume is a really terrible idea! (ie like in the PG article scheme 1c) The problem is that even though you might try to find a small cap value to give a good low frequency / high pass roll off when there is only about 1M of amp input resistance downstream, it all gets messed up by the cable capacitance, which is of the same order. This means that only a small bass cut is possible, and then as you try to reduce the cap further, it morphs more into a volume/mid cut as the bass cut cap forms a voltage divider with the cable cap. Some GuitarFreak plots to illustrate: These are just the electrical response of a guitar based on a Pearly Gates pickup with 500k pots. The dashed dark-blue line is base reference, with no bass cut. The lowest two lines show bass cut between treble and volume, as usual per PTB, using a 2.2nF bass-cut cap, with one being a 500k bass pot (red), and green showing how a 1000k bass cut gives a bit more extra cut if wanted. The pale blue is bass cut. with 1000k bass cut pot, placed after the volume. I tried with different caps, and a 2.2nf was the best available at reducing bass without messing higher up. But even with the high pot value, much less effect is available and you can see it already starting to limit high frequencies too..  |
|
|
|
Post by verboten256 on Aug 12, 2018 22:21:00 GMT -5
Thanks again for all the input & the graphic from JohnH gives me a great visual representation of how placing the bass cut at the end of the circuit won’t yield the most desirable results. Haha. I could probably work with individual tone controls, a master bass cut, & a master volume - that’d still give me more control than my Charger HB. Buuuut...
At the risk of hijacking the thread, or posting in the wrong place, or just beating a dead horse (someone please correct me if I’m breaching etiquette *nervous laughter*), I’ve got one more question... Would it be feasible to add a neck pickup volume control to the neck tone control before the toggle switch? To make a long story short - Neck Vol, Neck Tone, Bridge Tone, Master Bass, & Master Volume would let me put the bass cut before the master volume while still giving me all the functionality I’m looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Aug 12, 2018 23:11:54 GMT -5
Thanks again for all the input & the graphic from JohnH gives me a great visual representation of how placing the bass cut at the end of the circuit won’t yield the most desirable results. Haha. I could probably work with individual tone controls, a master bass cut, & a master volume - that’d still give me more control than my Charger HB. Buuuut... At the risk of hijacking the thread, or posting in the wrong place, or just beating a dead horse ( someone please correct me if I’m breaching etiquette *nervous laughter*), I’ve got one more question... Would it be feasible to add a neck pickup volume control to the neck tone control before the toggle switch? To make a long story short - Neck Vol, Neck Tone, Bridge Tone, Master Bass, & Master Volume would let me put the bass cut before the master volume while still giving me all the functionality I’m looking for. You didn't start out doing so but since this is likely to be a continuing dialog, we might just move the posts from this thread into a new thread in Guitar Wiring specifically for your situation. We'll just take it as it goes, no big deal. (This is John's thread, so we'll leave that decision up to him.)Since the neck volume (or a simple variable resistor rather than configured as a potentiometer, to allow blend-out of the neck pickup when both pickups are selected) will be before the treble-cut, you'll experience some undesirable effects. Let's say you have just the neck pickup selected and the treble-cut rotated ccw for a substantial treble cut. The position of the neck volume or neck blend-out pot will determine how much deeply the treble is cut. Moderate treble cut if the neck is full-on. VERY strong treble cut if the neck is dialed back. When both pickups are selected (or just the bridge) this probably won't be an issue. The added resistance in series will only affect the treble content from the neck pickup. The treble cut on the bridge pickup wont change with adjustment of the neck volume or blend out. But when in the neck-only selection, you'll definitely hear this effect. Whether or not that's a deal-breaker is up to you. But at least you'll know to expect it. It won't come as a surprise. |
|
axedoctor
Meter Reader 1st Class
Expert in-Training
Posts: 74
Likes: 9
|
Post by axedoctor on Aug 13, 2018 12:25:02 GMT -5
verboten -
given your initial description of your existing instrument and your vision for performance enhancements, it seems to me that the simplest route to your stated end goal is the following :
1 - drill no holes
2 - replace existing volume controls with concentric 250k/500k audio potentiometers wired to provide 500k treble tone control plus 250k volume control for each pickup
3 - replace existing treble tone controls with 1M reverse audio potentiometers wired to provide a bass cut control for each pickup
this configuration is quite straightforward, supporting standard pickup blending while allowing for individualized tone controls (treble & bass) for each pickup given the ability to install different capacitors in each signal path
the parts to assemble such a circuit are all readily available and the probability of success is quite high
best of luck
doc
|
|
|
|
Post by verboten256 on Aug 14, 2018 14:32:26 GMT -5
2 - replace existing volume controls with concentric 250k/500k audio potentiometers wired to provide 500k treble tone control plus 250k volume control for each pickup 3 - replace existing treble tone controls with 1M reverse audio potentiometers wired to provide a bass cut control for each pickup I’m not a huge fan of concentric pots, but that kind of wiring scheme is definitely my backup plan for if/when I can’t finagle an electronically sound alternative that still meets my functionality demands. I plan on posting a new thread in the guitar wiring section later today to further discuss my options. Thanks for your input though! |
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Nov 4, 2018 2:18:55 GMT -5
Hello,
I have a question, please, about the bass cut pot:
Will the pot applicable to the BASS CUT load the circuit in the way that volume and normal tone pots do? Is there a load when the bass cut attenuation is at nil effect? And what about when it is attenuated?
thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Nov 4, 2018 6:35:44 GMT -5
The bass-cut pot doesnt add load to the pickup. At max bass, it is at zero ohms and has no effect on tone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Nov 4, 2018 6:58:35 GMT -5
JohnH - That's great to know and to have confirmed! Many thanks, as always. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Dec 15, 2018 5:18:02 GMT -5
JohnH - The original G&L 'PTB' scheme was for single coil pickups. Why do suppose that Leo Fender elected to use a 500k value pot for the treble-cut tone control rather than a 250k pot one given that the latter was the norm for his earlier Strat and Tele designs? Do you suggest a different capacitor value than 0.0022uf in respect of the bass cut control would be better suited for humbucker pickups? thanks
|
|
