HH 3 way selector/ coil splits / series parallel switch

[axedoctor]

kw (et al)  - 

I am more than willing to participate as directly as anyone might wish and am not trying to be at all difficult. The objectives of this design have only become more clearly defined as you have attempted to assemble the various wiring ideas that you have uncovered or have been suggested by others. Now that it is clear to me that you would like a proposal that would satisfy the design criteria and be free of certain restrictions or side-effects, I will offer the following schematic that includes one approach to using the components you have at your disposal.






I believe that rewiring the 3-way switch as shown will provide Bridge Only - Bridge and Neck - Neck Only pickup selections using all four combinations of Cut or Full Humbuckers and connecting in Series or Parallel in Position #2.

In addition, I have chosen to implement the Series/Parallel switch with a Push/Pull Tone Control rather than a separate DPDT (the vacant lot IMO). Not wishing to squander the hole in your guitar, I suggest inserting a DPDT (on-on-on) mini toggle to select various tone capacitors ( C3 or C3 in parallel with C3A or C3B ) which might prove useful given the wide range of pickup combinations that will result from the other switching configurations.

Lastly, I have shown that you could use the empty poles on the Push/Pull Volume Controls to alter the 500K potentiometers to 250K (or something else less than 500K) when cutting the humbuckers to single coil. It's easy enough to implement and you can test whether it has any positive effect on resulting tones.

respectfully submitted,

your friendly neighborhood axe doctor

PS - it is very possible that there is some glaring error in this design, but that is what malpractice insurance is for, is it not???

[kaustinwright]

Thank you!
Unfortunately I don't have the room to fit a push pull pot on my tone control in the thin Ibanez S body, I wish I did. I hardly have room for the pot itself!

I'm having a little trouble understanding your schematic though, there seems to be a few components that I wasn't aware were in the circuit like the caps etc. And I'm not sure where the coil split is happening.

This very well cloud be due to my lack of expertise in electronics

[axedoctor]

Feb 2, 2017 19:42:18 GMT -5 newey said:

I thought I would repost Ace's diagram so we can discuss it without having to click back and forth.



Seems to me this is more than just a starting point, this has the goods you want, minus the coil cuts. Of course, the switching is rendered schematically, so you will need to translate that into a wiring diagram. So ther eis no confusion, note asmith's "1-2-3" numbering of the lugs on the 3-way; the common lug sits below those. This is then mirrored directly below for the other pole of the switch.

ahhh ... the consummate value of historical perspective

a definite drawback of being a newcomer here is the inability to remember "when we solved a similar problem"

looks like you have landed on an approach that answers the bell for kw

I was busy schematicizing off line while you guys were discussing asmith's architecture

some feedback/critique of my proposal would be appreciated, even if the guitar build progresses in the direction you have been discussing

doc 

[axedoctor]

Feb 2, 2017 23:04:39 GMT -5 kaustinwright said:

Thank you!
Unfortunately I don't have the room to fit a push pull pot on my tone control in the thin Ibanez S body, I wish I did. I hardly have room for the pot itself!

I'm having a little trouble understanding your schematic though, there seems to be a few components that I wasn't aware were in the circuit like the caps etc. And I'm not sure where the coil split is happening.

This very well cloud be due to my lack of expertise in electronics

clearly, I was wondering why you had not considered the P/P approach, but this was never stated in your original post and I am not familiar with the various guitar body styles ... noticing that you were capable of using P/Ps for the dual volume and also adding a third pot and the toggle switch, I didn't expect a limitation for the tone control

the only difference this fact makes is that you will be limited to a single tone cap because the toggle switch is no longer a free agent

one point I neglected to mention was the extra resistor (R1) in the tone stack which is meant to eliminate the mid-range resonant peak that occurs when the tone control nears 10 (minimum resistance) ... totally optional, but perhaps beneficial (just like the volume pot range setting resistors R2 and R3)

the coil cut occurs exactly where you originally placed it - in the P/P DPDT switches ... A0 (common), A1 (push), A2 (pull) in my diagram

[newey]

KW- Your diagram looks OK to me.

AxeDoc- Yours, too.

KW, in AxeDoc's schematic, PP2 and PP3 handle the coils cutting duties. AxeDoc intends these as push/pulls, hence the "PP" labels. As for the extra caps, etc. you're seeing, there are a couple of things. First, the extra caps at the tone pot are selectable by a switch, as he describes, so those are "extra". He has also drawn the pickups as one would in order to use an application like 5Spice to model the circuit. Each pickup is shown as a voltage source (the circle with the + and -), having a resistance R and a capacitance C, as well as an inductance.

Electrically, a pickup is all of that, but for the purposes of wiring it up, we can treat each pickup as a "black box" that has some wires coming out of it- we don't really need to know the electrical properties of the innards.

EDIT:Ninja'd by AxeDoc while I was busy vetting his schematic.

[sumgai]

Alright you guys, I represent those remarks!   I thought I made it clear that I couldn't stick around and finish what I started to say, that the wife had put the arm on my time just after I was getting warmed up.  I closed off in haste, I admit, but come on.....

First off:

KW, I'm sorry to say that your most recent diagram (up above about 6 posts or so) has a glaring error, and another hidden one that nobody seems to have caught.  First, you hooked the two pickup "hot" wires (coming from the volume controls) to the common terminals of the YM-30, then on over to the S/P switch, where some unwelcome things will happen.  Trace it out and see for yourself.

Number two is not so insidious, but I'm surprised that John hasn't said anything about it.  Both Volume pots have their "low" side terminals grounded.  In parallel combos, this is the usual case, but when done in series, then the control for the upper pup becomes a Master, affecting the overall volume.  This means that you won't be able to turn down the upper pup (Neck, in your case) and have the lower pickup come out a little bit louder.  Put another way, any blending in series mode will be upper (Neck) dominant.  Whilst in parallel mode, you can blend as you normally would.

For these reasons, and because AutoCAD has been collecting dust on my harddrive for over a year, I'll now correct my omission of earlier today.

Understand that I have resurrected an old drawing from way back in 2007, and merely swapped the tone and volume controls around to suit your needs.  In addition, I show neither the pickups nor the p/p split functions, you've already done that just fine.  Thus, you need only connect the wires from the pickup's hot leads to the Volume control wipers, and the pups' "ground" leads to where I show no symbol.  (Sorry, somehow I can't get AutoCAD to insert any new text at this time, nor to copy old text to a new location and then edit it.  I'll have to look into that....)  Translated to your colors, that would be both red wires to my + symbols, and both green wires to where I show no symbol, but you'd expect to find a minus sign (or a hypen, if you prefer to say it that way).  The wiring for your coil-splits is all good, hook them up just as you show it in your most recent diagram.

HTH

Note to the axedoctor: Your drawing was a bit ambitious, considering what most Nutz are used to.  Most of the time, a diagram with pickups shown as "black boxes" will be OK.  As much so, I understood that lines ending in circles are components that show no outline, but I'll bet that many viewers are confused by this method of engineering depiction. newey expressed it succinctly.... around here we try to pay homage to the KISS principle!

sumgai

[reTrEaD]

Sumgai, you're correct about the problems that result with the "upper" volume control having its "low" terminal connected to ground. But your cure is almost as bad as the disease. Shunt volume controls are notorious for affecting the tone long before the volume as the control is rolled back from maximum. I highly recommend employing the volume controls in the standard three-terminal configuration. We just won't connect the low terminal of the neck volume directly to ground.

[newey]

SG-

First, you hooked the two pickup "hot" wires (coming from the volume controls) to the common terminals of the YM-30, then on over to the S/P switch, where some unwelcome things will happen. Trace it out and see for yourself.

I'm not seeing any problem there. KW's diagram, at least as I saw it, correctly implements what Asmith had. And AxeDoc seems to have independently hit upon the same solution.

It is a bit tricky to trace out. Note that, in the "neck only" position, the bridge pickup shorts to itself, and vice versa in the "bridge only" position.

RT-

That's a neat solution to the volume control issue.

[axedoctor]

kw et al - 


here is another attempt that just implements only the features that you have requested and adheres to the mechanical layout restrictions you have mentioned










once you have completed your wiring, you alone will have to decide how you like the operation of the various controls as compared to what you had in the original stock wiring

I too noticed that implementing dual volume controls as you have it designed will have the "double attenuation" effect when the pickups are connected in series in addition to exhibiting the "normal" Les Paul type interaction when connected in parallel. Another difference from your stock functionality will be the "50s wiring" effect on operation of the tone control given that the original connection between the volume & control pots was likely implemented using the "modern wiring" architecture. 

btw, I think we could get past the "double attenuation" issue when in series mode by making the following change to my schematic :

1) remove the connection between SW1-B2 and SW0-B0
2a) connect the wiper of VR2 to SW0-B0
2b) connect the input of VR2 (CW) to SW1-B2

This change results in the full output of the bridge pickup (humbucker or cut coil) being used as the bottom of the series pair (which will later be volume controlled solely with VR3), but retains separate volume control for the bridge and neck as separate selections or when combined in parallel. I'm betting that this will produce a better sounding series combination and fairly trivial to achieve.





best of luck,

doc

[kaustinwright]

So I will be wiring reTrEaD's schematic up today, I will post another diagram so you can confirm the translation was done correctly.

Thank all of you so much for the help, I could never have spotted these issues by myself. 🎸

[axedoctor]

Feb 3, 2017 4:08:09 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Sumgai, you're correct about the problems that result with the "upper" volume control having its "low" terminal connected to ground. But your cure is almost as bad as the disease. Shunt volume controls are notorious for affecting the tone long before the volume as the control is rolled back from maximum. I highly recommend employing the volume controls in the standard three-terminal configuration. We just won't connect the low terminal of the neck volume directly to ground.

maybe I am missing something here, but it appears that when the pickup selector is in the Bridge position, the Neck pickup, with no return reference (aka floating), is hanging on the output ... not sure that this is an acceptable side effect, but I'm open to some input about why this is a better solution than merely connecting the pickups directly when in series mode and then attenuating the entire lot with the Neck volume control

[sumgai]

reTrEaD,

You're correct of course, the volume pots are not placed in the best manner. You adapted the drawing nicely to show them in the "best practices" manner.   In point of fact, most of you know that I'm not a fan of tone-after-volume, so I wasn't too concerned about the effect of shunting the pickup - the tone is already getting hammered as it is. 

However, I did fully expect AutoCAD to cooperate with me, but after so long asleep, it seems to have lost several of its marbles - editing is now a pain, and in some cases, impossible until I fix whatever went haywire. But in fact, I did point out that I was modifying a previous edition that had the tone controls placed where I now show the volume pots - that version worked well.  (Moving around things like the text labels was OK, it's just placing new things that got hairy.)

newey, I did divine that KW's diagram was actually shorting instead of connecting, but that's not really a good way to go, unless there just isn't any other way.  For starters, troubleshooting shorted conditions is always tougher than pawing through open conditions.

KW, may I suggest that you use reTrEaD's diagram, it will work the way you want.  BTW, we call this "pickup selector dominant", meaning that the s/p switch works only in the combo (middle) position.  Your first iteration would be called "s/p switch dominant" because the s/p switch works in all of the pickup selector positions.  I guess I should've chimed in right away and asked which you wanted this to be set up - my bad.

HTH

sumgai

[kaustinwright]

SG,
Totally not your fault, I definally should be more specific next time about when certain switches are active.

It's all a learning experience.

What is the alternative to tone after volume? I'm assuming it's tone before vol, and that has a better tone you say? I'm interested

Doc,
I'm not sure what issues this "hanging from hot" will cause (not entirely sure I know what it even means), but I'd rather be able to blend one pickup out for another with the volume controls (in series or parallel mode) than have the neck volume control both pickups together, just adds more versatility on my end.

[axedoctor]

I have learned quit a bit by mucking around with this circuit and seeing what other folks have shared. The design requirements and restrictions seem to make crafting a solution that is side-effect-free rather difficult, especially with the 3-way selector positioned before the DPDT switch in the signal chain.

Drawing helps me understand problems, so I will create a version of the circuit after reorienting the switches and compare the two results.

I will also be very interested to hear back from you regarding how you like (or not) the sound you get from various switch configurations once you complete your wiring.



 

[kaustinwright]

Does this look right to everyone? 

Attachments:

[reTrEaD]

Feb 3, 2017 14:11:58 GMT -5 kaustinwright said:

Does this look right to everyone? 

Maybe. It depends on the orientation of your switches. I can't remember if the connections on the YM follow the direction of the lever or if they're like an Oak or CRL and are opposite to the direction of the lever. If lug #3 makes connection to the common when the lever is pointed toward the tail of the guitar, you're good. If #1 makes connection when the lever is pointed toward the tail of the guitar, not so good.

As-drawn, your S/P switch will be in series mode if the toggle is pointed toward the top of the page. Pulling the knobs on the push-pull pots will give you single-coil mode on your HBs.

What is the alternative to tone after volume? I'm assuming it's tone before vol, and that has a better tone you say? I'm interested

Not really a better tone. More predicable action of the tone control. Placing the tone control(s) after the volume control(s) causes them to be interactive when dialed back to cut the treble. Reducing the volume will enhance the treble cut dramatically. I think that's very undesirable. But with two volumes and one tone, you don't have many alternatives.

1 - You could place the tone control before ONE of the volume controls. Basically one pickup gets a tone control, the other doesn't.

2 - You could use a ganged pot. Two elements controlled by a single shaft. That allows you to use two treble-cut tone circuits before the volume controls. It's still essentially a master tone control. But it will be far less interactive with the volume controls.

3 - You could use a concentric pot. Two elements controlled by two shafts. A small diameter inner shaft and a larger diameter hollow outer shaft. Two knobs, inner/upper and lower/outer. One treble cut circuit for each pickup, adjusted independently.

Unfortunately, 2 and 3 come with a cost you might not be able to afford. Those pots require roughly twice the depth of a standard pot.

[axedoctor]

that matches what rTrEaD posted, so it seems you are ready to go

I am not sure how effective the existing controls will be at facilitating "blending" of the two pickups when connecting either in parallel or in series, but the proof will be in the pudding as they say

[col]

Feb 3, 2017 4:08:09 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Sumgai, you're correct about the problems that result with the "upper" volume control having its "low" terminal connected to ground. But your cure is almost as bad as the disease. Shunt volume controls are notorious for affecting the tone long before the volume as the control is rolled back from maximum. I highly recommend employing the volume controls in the standard three-terminal configuration. We just won't connect the low terminal of the neck volume directly to ground.

Hi reTrEaD,

I'm not really questioning your assertion about the above generally being considered a better arrangement (when in series) - this has probably been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. It is just that I don't really understand why it is better. It seems to me that when the wiper is in the middle of the pot track (the middle 50% or more) of either pickup - and the pickups are in series - there will be a large resistance in series with both pickups. Does this not greatly affect both volume and and tone of both pickups?

Conversely, the shunt arrangement would only really affect the pickup being shunted. For me, that's just part of the system - a feature if you will - and is more predictable in operation. After all, we are looking for extra tone options by using such an arrangement, and better separation of control functions is usually desirable. Unless, of course, I am wrong about the negative effects I outlined with your arrangement.

[sumgai]

col,


You are correct, to some degree. While the net effect won't be so noticible as you might think, eventually as you turn down either pot towards zero, both pickups will be silenced - tone won't matter at that point.

In series, most modders, use the Les Paul (or generically, the Gibson) method of wiring the pots backwards. Sadly, this is what's needed for those who insist on turning down Pickup A so that Pickup B is louder, but they just can't seem to get the hang of not turning down so far. I mean, really, couldn't they just tweak it a little, without going all Dukes Of Hazzard on the thing? And the reason it's sad is because this isn't the best sounding way to wire pickups in parallel. In order to change between series and parallel, and still have the best sounds possible, we'd need a hefty switch to move a fair number of wires around. It can be done, but at a cost most modders don't see as a cost/performance benefit.

Just now, I've been trying to attach yet another schematic showing just this, but so far, my browser keeps crashing whenever I select Add Attachment and then go to browse my hard disk for a file. Very unsettling, because it worked yesterday - WTHH (W.... Happened?)

Let me work on this for a bit and see if I can't get back to normal operating ability, please stand by......

(Just tried it again.... Crap, still no love! )

sumgai

[col]

Hi Sumgai,

I don't really follow. When are both pickups turned off when one pot is turned down to zero? Of course this happens with normal wiring (and the pickups are in parallel), but you do not appear to be writing about that. Reverse wiring separates parallel pickups from this effect. Neither does it occur in series when shunting pickups or in reTrEaD's scheme.

I guess I'll have to wait until you have figured out your problem with attachments.

[sumgai]

col,


I guessed I might have "jumped gears" on my last missive...

There are multiple problems when pickups are combined in series, where each has a dedicated volume pot. In essence, if you refer to reTrEaD's drawing, that's what we call forward wiring, right? Well, as the upper pickup's pot is turned down, that shunts both the pickup and the volume pot out of the picture, thus the lower pup is allowed to pass its signal through. If I'm not mistaken, that's what has you wondering about my earlier statements, yes?

Well, in a reverse-wired scheme, which I'll show below (yes, I can add attachments now - yippee!), that upper pickup is merely shorted to itself, leaving the entire volume pot resistance is in series with the lower pickup. That's a load that the lower pup could do without.  It's not earth-shattering, but is is annoying.

Now let's turn to the lower pup's pot. If we turn that down all the way in a forward wiring scheme while in parallel, every thing goes away - that's a standard dictum. But in the series mode, we'll find the same story as for the upper pickup - it goes silent, but the upper pup now has to fight that extra resistance from the pot element.

Not a pretty scenario, but what's a poor modder to do?   The only way to overcome all of this is to switch the pot wiring around as you select series or parallel. I'm sure you can see that this will become a headache in a hurry, yes? So really, when the chips are down*, it's a choice that the modder will have to make before going in and doing the dirty work. I present the "reverse wiring" option here, reTrEaD has already covered the "forward wiring" option.


The following diagram is to complete the picture I first started, and will be handy for others who come along later. In fact, I think I'll put a copy (of both versions) in the Modules sub-Forum.

HTH

sumgai

* .... the buffalo is empty!

[reTrEaD]

Feb 3, 2017 20:00:14 GMT -5 col said:

I'm not really questioning your assertion about the above generally being considered a better arrangement (when in series) - this has probably been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. It is just that I don't really understand why it is better.

To understand why, you need to consider the side effects of the way we attenuate volume. In either method, when the volume controls are at maximum, the loading on the pickups are the same. The full resistance of the volume control, plus whatever tone controls, the input impedance of the amplifier, and the cable capacitance. But that's the only instance where both are equivalent. When we roll back either or both of the volume controls, the two strategies differ dramatically.

In the case of the standard voltage divider configuration, we can mostly ignore the internal impedance of the pickup. At the point where the voltage is divided in half (-6dB, a very noticeable reduction but still greater than half volume) we add half the resistance of the element in series with the pickup. This has the adverse affect of forming a high-cut filter with the cable capacitance. Not good, but not devastating. The loading on the pickup is now slightly reduced and the output is marginally brighter because of that. But the effect is very minor. And it doesn't make up for the losses due to cable capacitance. Assuming a 500k pot we can do some quick and dirty math and figure a series resistance of 250k. Couple that with a cable capacitance of say 0.5nf (roughly 40k of capacitive reactance at 6kHz) and we can estimate the attenuation at 8kHz at approximately 11dB. An additional loss of about 5dB compared to our 100Hz reference. Not good.


A shunt volume control is dependent on the internal impedance of the pickup to divide the voltage. When the resistance of the shunt is equal to the internal impedance of the pickup, we'll reduce the output by 6dB, the same as the example above. If we use a pickup with 8k of internal resistance and 3Henries of inductance, the inductance is barely a factor at 100 Hz. The internal impedance is approximately 8.22K So we'll see our 6dB reduction (at 100Hz) when the shunt volume control is dialed back to 8.22k

But what happens at higher frequencies? At 6kHz, that 8k of resistance and 3H of inductance represents an internal impedance of approximately 113k ohms. Coupled with a 8.22k shunt, that gives us a voltage division much greater than our desired half. We're down to about 6.8% of full voltage. A reduction of over 23dB. Our treble got whacked really hard. Relative to the 6dB reduction at 100Hz, our content around 8kHz suffered an additional 17dB of loss. Yikes!

It seems to me that when the wiper is in the middle of the pot track (the middle 50% or more) of either pickup - and the pickups are in series - there will be a large resistance in series with both pickups. Does this not greatly affect both volume and and tone of both pickups?

Conversely, the shunt arrangement would only really affect the pickup being shunted.

In the case where the pickups are in series and ONE volume is dialed back, the shunt volume controls do function a little better than a normal volume control. The shunt volume control will adversely affect just one of the pickups. AND the low resistance bypass allows the full-volume pickup to have its contribution seen at the output with less HF loss caused by the inductance of the reduced volume pickup. So you're right. In this situation, the shunt volume control is actually better. But this is the only situation where this is true.

- Dial both volumes back to reduce the overall volume, and the shunts become ugly.

- Use one pickup and the shunt becomes ugly.

- Both pickups in parallel becomes EXTREMELY ugly for the shunt volume controls. Since we don't introduce and resistance in series with a pickup when dialing back the volume with a shunt control, both pickups stay in 100% parallel with each other, regardless of the rotation of the volume control. We can't blend out the contribution from one pickup to become just a fraction of the total. They both continue to contribute equally regardless of the volume setting. That, plus the tone sucking nature of the shunt, makes them uglier than sin when both pickups are in parallel.

[axedoctor]

amigos -

I have long been considering redrawing the circuit and employing reverse-wired volume controls in an attempt to provide better separation of the two pickups when in parallel mode, but wanted to stay on task to help assess progress towards supporting kw's desire to update his axe with something akin to his original wiring diagram.

my latest offering on the "JP for LP Special II" thread utilizes this architecture, but I am still awaiting feedback from some of you to determine whether it is a well-received approach


the latest version of kw's solution implements some improved pickup blending but does suffer from a parasitic path to Neck Volume Out when the pickup selector is connecting to Bridge Only (position #1) and I have not been able to find a way around this side-effect

however ... I wonder whether adding a connection from Neck Volume Input to position #1 on the Neck- side of the 3-way switch (currently open) might actually help some by creating a short across the entire Neck pickup circuit block when selecting the Bridge Only pickup option

it's hard for me to visualize how the electrons will behave under both circumstances - maybe better, maybe worse

doc

PS - 42hrs to kick-off

[reTrEaD]

Feb 4, 2017 0:19:40 GMT -5 sumgai said:

a reverse-wired scheme

Basically the worst of both worlds. It does exactly one thing that's attractive. When the two pickups are selected in parallel, turning one volume control all the way down to zero won't kill the sound from the other pickup. Other than that, they're pretty nasty. Shunt the pickup to reduce the volume AND add series resistance. That sucks tone by loading the pickup and working as a high-cut filter with the cable capacitance.

The real cure to avoiding killing all sound from the desired pickup by reducing the volume control to zero on the unwanted pickup is to use the bloody pickup selector.

[axedoctor]

reTrEaD & sumgai - 

thanks for such a well presented description of the forward/reverse volume control issue

I had not picked up (pun intended) on most of the negative attributes of the alternate wiring scheme, so I am grateful for the education

totally passive circuits just do not lend themselves to providing both isolation and mixing


glad to be learning,

doc 

[sumgai]

'TrEaD,

Feb 4, 2017 0:44:24 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

The real cure to avoiding killing all sound from the desired pickup by reducing the volume control to zero on the unwanted pickup is to use the bloody pickup selector.

Yes, I agree. In fact, I toned down my post quite a bit, I was going off the deep end on that very topic.

To my mind,..... ah, but I'm about to do it again.  Best I stop now.

But because I don't have the power (nor the desire) to control everyone else's axe (and their taste in tone), I'll leave these diagrams in place.  Like the nice man said, it takes all kinds.

sumgai

[col]

Thanks for the clarifications, reTrEaD and sumgai. That actually fits with what I had previously understood from Chrisk's writings. But in his schematic he utilised true-blend pots, so one pickup is always at full volume, thus avoiding the potential pitfalls you outlined.

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3863/series-parallel-blend-dpdt-switch

[kaustinwright]

Finally got all of the components in today, wired it all up, and everything works perfectly!

The series/parallel switch completely turns it into a different guitar. It opens up a ton of sounds I wouldn't have had with just the 2 stock pickups.

The only thing I can hear that's a little odd is the volume control in parallel mode. There seems to be a mid boost when the volume is just slightly rolled off then rounds off when it's maxed out. A tolerable caveat seeing I have all of the extra tone capabilities.

Thank you guys so much for the help in this project, and I hope I helped some future Nuts in the process! I'll post pics soon

[newey]

The only thing I can hear that's a little odd is the volume control in parallel mode. There seems to be a mid boost when the volume is just slightly rolled off then rounds off when it's maxed out

Yup. This is as expected. ChrisK had some discussion about this effect several years back; if I can recollect (and resurrect) the thread, I will do so. But this is an expected result of the parallel load of the various components. You are not hearing things.

[sumgai]

Feb 13, 2017 22:31:00 GMT -5 newey said:

You are not hearing things.

Yes he is.... but he's supposed to hear them, as you stated. Don't go making KW think he's deef or sumpin'.

sumgai