Zero Bux Series Addition to SSS Strat

[reTrEaD]

EDIT: I've appended to the OP and original portion remains, after the double bar.


Cost:
The only cost is sacrificing one of the tone controls and re-purposing it as a fade-in control.  The remaining tone control is now a master tone, serving all positions of the selector including the Bridge pickup which previously had no tone control when selected alone in position #1. 

Benefit:
Now, additional combinations are enabled via the use of the fade-in control.  With this control fully counter-clockwise, the stock pickup selections are maintained.  By rotating this control clockwise, the Neck pickup is incrementally added in series with the Bridge pickup (or Bridge incrementally added in series with the Neck).

Choices:
There are two versions and one variant of each version.  I recommend using V2.0 or V2.1 to explore all the possibilities.  Then rewire to a different version if you wish to reduce the selection possibilities.

Jumper options:
Each version includes and optional jumper indicated in RED.  I recommend NOT using the jumper unless you've determined you wish to reduce the number of selection possibilities.

------------------

Version 1.0
This one allows the Bridge pickup to be incrementally added in series with the Neck pickup in positions 5 and 4.  Use of the red jumper limits the addition to position 5 only.








Version 1.1
This one allows the Neck pickup to be incrementally added in series with the Bridge pickup in positions 2 and 1. Use of the red jumper limits the addition to position 1 only.








Version 2.0
This gem was presented by the Prodigal Sun, Yogi-B.
It allows Bridge pickup to be incrementally added in series with the Neck pickup in positions 5 and 4.
AND it allows the Neck pickup to be incrementally added in series with the Bridge pickup in positions 2 and 1.
Use of the red jumper limits the addition to positions 5 and 1 only.
It's worth noting that when the fade-in control is fully clockwise, selection 5 is identical to position 1 and position 4 is identical to position 2.  However, when rotated even slightly counter-clockwise they are no longer identical.








Version 2.1
This variation places the fade-in control next to the volume control for easier access.  Additionally, the wiring has been altered so any minor issues from hanging from hot will occur in positions 5 and 4, rather than positions 2 and 1.  Like V2.0, use of the red jumper limits the addition to positions 5 and 1 only.








_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I don't know if this one ever came up before but if it did, I don't remember it.
The old saying goes "You get what you pay for." but in this case you might get more.  The only cost is a little time, some solder and maybe a couple of inches of wire.

I'd be thankful for some eyes on this one to vet it.  It's currently untested.

Targets:
- Retain all original SSS combinations.
- Add a series combination or two.
- Use NO additional parts, just wiring changes.

Path:
Re-purpose controls from Volume-Tone-Tone to Volume-Tone-Fader
Use the section of the 5-way previously dedicated to tone control selection to connect the Neck (-) as needed.

Operation:
With the fader control at zero, all pickup selections are stock.
When the fader control is rotated clockwise, the Bridge pickup is gradually added in series with the Neck pickup.
Only position 5 (Neck) and position 4 (Neck + Middle) are affected.


Variation:
In the following wiring diagram, an optional jumper is indicated.
With the jumper, only position 5 is affected.
Without the jumper, positions 5 and 4 are affected.

[sumgai]

*LIKE*!

One question though.... how 'severe' is the fading action?  Without replacing the re-purposed standard tone control, will there be enough range of motion to be useful as a fader, or will the action be nearly a 'snap' between full-on and full-off?

Either way, fade or snap, this is definitely a useful, no-cost addition to the arsenal of easy mods for the player who wants something different without a lot of hassle.

Gets my squeal of approval!

sumgai

[JohnH]

That looks great!

I can confirm that that blender/fader circuit will work very nicely, its what I have on my Strat. With a 250k log pot, it is very smooth and there are several good tones along the travel that are worth pausing at to explore. By the time you get to 10, the series tone is complete. I have it with a no-load pot and there is nothing audible added as the pot disconnects. (In my case, this is happening with Neck plus one bridge humbucker coil, but I think the results will apply). This series fader is much more interesting than the usual parallel blending of N+B using a pot, which does not have much to say except at each end IMO. Also, whereas NxM can get muddy, NxB stays clear and the fader lets you dial it in to taste.

I think I like the no-jumper option best.

This is not the first design to get series sounds by rewiring standard SSS Strat parts, but its the only one I've seen that appears to have no compromises in terms adding unwanted loading.

This needs to be built.

Good!

[newey]

I agree, nice job!

Without the jumper, I take it that the fade control at "0" gives you just the N + M. So, given that you don't really lose the N + M setting, I'd also omit the jumper to add that extra sound option.

[sumgai]

Sept 15, 2017 9:11:57 GMT -5 newey said:

I agree, nice job!

Without the jumper, I take it that the fade control at "0" gives you just the N + M. So, given that you don't really lose the N + M setting, I'd also omit the jumper to add that extra sound option.

I think it has more to do with the user having options.  With the jumper, he can "preset" the fade so that Pos 5 has the requisite NxB, but Pos 4 is normal.  If that's what he wants in his tonal arsenal, then the jumper makes him happy.

Whereas the user who loves the 3-pup combo is also made happy, merely be leaving out said jumper.

It's all about the options.  Sing the following to the tune of Monty Python's "Spam, spam, spam, spam":

Options, options, options, options!  Options, Options, Options, Options!!

.....

.....

sumgai

[reTrEaD]

Thanks, everybody!

Sept 14, 2017 15:12:47 GMT -5 JohnH said:

I think I like the no-jumper option best.

I'm certain I do. There's a meandering story about why it was there in the first place. I'll get to that in a minute.

Sept 14, 2017 15:12:47 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Also, whereas NxM can get muddy, NxB stays clear and the fader lets you dial it in to taste.

And I would reckon MxB would also stay rather clear with the bonus of being somewhat hum-canceling, more so when B isn't faded. MxB was one of my original targets when I set off on this little adventure.

I wanted to incorporate both MxB and NxB and just let the three-coil combinations fall where they may. The Middle (-) was also connected to the common lug of the series selector portion of the 5-way. There was a jumper to provide series link to the B (+) in positions 2~5.

After making the drawing, I noticed the horrible collision that occurred in position 2. The pickup selector side was directing Bridge (+) to hot and the series selector side was directing the series link (including Br+) to ground. Yikes.

This was intolerable. Not only did it create a dead selection but the selection it killed was my absolute favorite on a standard SSS. M+B.

The first step in avoiding that was to change the jumper so the series link was only being made in positions 4 and 5. And the ground connection to the M- and N- minus occurred in positions 1~4. The collision in position 4 was far less a problem. It made the series link in position 4 irrelevant but it didn't kill all sound. N+B still worked.

Re-evaluating at that point revealed: Including M- in the series link was pointless. So I re-drew, routing M- directly to ground, same as stock.

Drawing complete and I made a position map.

Then . . . a revelation.
Since I no longer needed to direct M- somewhere in position 3, the jumper was unnecessary. Just leave that lug open. N- would float in position 3 but who cares? N+ isn't connected anywhere in that position.

That allowed a viable series link in position 4 and one more series combination.

Jumper colored red and indicated as an option.
Another row added to the position map.
Done!

I can't imagine anyone starting with the jumper in place. Who wouldn't want to explore an additional combination? The only reason for retaining that choice is because . . . Choices are. If someone were do decide the series combination at position 4 did absolutely nothing for them and wanted to be able to go from NxB to N+M at the flip of a switch without rotating a knob, they could add the jumper.

Where do we go from here?

After having this ratting around in my brain for a day, I'm beginning to think having the Neck in the bottom of the series link might be a better choice. So I twisted this in the opposite direction. The series combinations occur at the tail end of the sequence.

After someone vets this to insure I haven't made any errors, I'll include this in the OP.
Still on the fence as to which variation would be best.

[JohnH]

I think its good to offer the opposite set as an alternative, to bring in the series option at position 1. It would be an instant fix to 'thin bridge pickup' syndrome. The wiring in version 2 would be a mirror of version 1, but in the drawing I'm seeing B going to the position 3 lug on the switch so, maybe it needs adjusting.

With this setup, and given that others may share the view that B+M is particularly good, then I could see how the jumper option may be preferred since the blender is then just focussed on adjusting the bridge tone and when you find the perfect BxN tone, you still have B+M available for a quick change with just a switch move.

In this case, one could imagine moving pickups around so that B is the RWRP one, so both of these tend to hum cancelation. That would work well with some vintage pickup sets where all pickups are equal, such as Fender CS69's for example. This circuitry will then let the B tone be boosted as desired, instead of using a hotter B coil as in other pickup sets.

[Yogi B]

Sept 15, 2017 15:42:43 GMT -5 JohnH said:

I think its good to offer the opposite set as an alternative

How about both at once? That's what this aims to do:

---

Sept 16, 2017 0:20:50 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Combine them with parenthesis, where needed for clarity.

Are you sure parentheses add clarity?

Sept 15, 2017 16:32:46 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

(Additionally, you can still get the jumpered version by connecting the centre terminal of the blend pot to the unused terminal of the switch.)

---

Attachments:

Zero Bux Strat 2.png (742.34 KB)

[reTrEaD]

Sept 15, 2017 15:42:43 GMT -5 JohnH said:

The wiring in version 2 would be a mirror of version 1, but in the drawing I'm seeing B going to the position 3 lug on the switch so, maybe it needs adjusting.

John, this was drawn late at night but I think it's correct. The jumper on 3-lug brings it to ground, same as 1-lug. This is a mirror of the jumper in version 1 that coupled 3-lug to 5-lug.

But I'm still listening, in case I missed something here.

Sept 15, 2017 15:42:43 GMT -5 JohnH said:

In this case, one could imagine moving pickups around so that B is the RWRP one, so both of these tend to hum cancelation. That would work well with some vintage pickup sets where all pickups are equal, such as Fender CS69's for example. This circuitry will then let the B tone be boosted as desired, instead of using a hotter B coil as in other pickup sets.

I've always favored the notion of having the Bridge as the odd-man-out in magnetic polarities to get hum-canceling when pairing B with N or B with M. N paired with M is okay, but I like the other two so much more.

[reTrEaD]

Sept 15, 2017 16:32:46 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

How about both at once?

Seems wonderful, at least by the position map. I don't have time to proofread the circuit right now, though. If no one else has time to put eyes on it, I'll take a close look at that on Sunday or Monday.

[sumgai]

Yogi,

I'm not sure, but I think you left out an important consideration in your schema.

The reason reTrEaD inverted the signal chain was to allow the user a choice as to which end of the 5-way switch he/she might want to set up for the series combo(s). That said, you've made the choice moot by presenting the player with a "who cares, both ends have the same series option" diagram. But the past half-dozen posts in this thread have dealt with the dilemma of "to jumper or not to jumper - that is the question!".  Do you perchance have a way to eliminate the three-pup combo from Positions 2 & 4, while keeping the 'both ends' scenario going?

On another note: what's with the pipe symbol and the ampersand in your Truth Table?   We Nutz do try to be consistant in our symbology, so as to not confuse the browse-by visitor.  Please, either update and replace your diagram, or make a new one and post it - either way is good with us.  Just remember, a Plus sign (+) means parallel, and the Asterisk (*) denotes a series combo.  Combine them with parenthesis, where needed for clarity. Thanks much.

sumgai

[reTrEaD]

Sept 15, 2017 16:32:46 GMT -5 Yogi B said:

Are you sure parentheses add clarity?

I dunno about sumgai, but I'm quite sure they do. It comes at the cost of some clutter but they perform a very important role. I would guess your sarcasm was directed at the clutter.

I appreciate you conforming to the conventional form of using * (or x) to indicate series and + to indicate parallel. Your use of & and | wasn't difficult for me to decipher but I think it best not to add more variety in our 'language'. It would have been nice to limit our expression of series to just one of * or x but they both gained traction quickly so both have become acceptable.

It should be noted that most of the guitar wiring community has adopted this conventional language. However there are some notable exceptions. For instance, Fender uses + for series and / for parallel. Scroll down to page 4 to see an example of this.
p4.zdassets.com/hc/theme_assets/549136/200076499/010-1400_02A_SISD.pdf

Back to your take on the circuit. I found a little time before my exit to home improvement adventures, to review it. It's very good. It covers all the bases. I try to avoid wiring that leaves unused coils connected to hot such as occurs in positions 1 and 2 when the fader is set to minimum. But that's unavoidable to get where we want to go, without adding switching. I also try to avoid shunting coils and bypass whenever possible but that was inherent in this one, from the start.

With your permission, I'll add your drawing to the OP after the dust settles and we have all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.

res.cloudinary.com/gnuts2/image/upload/zbs/ZeroBuxSeriesStrat_V2.0.png
res.cloudinary.com/gnuts2/image/upload/zbs/ZeroBuxSeriesStrat_V2.1.png

[sumgai]

Yogi,

First, thanks for the update, the Truth Table not only looks and reads better, it now gives players the original option regarding the jumper. I'm now certain that your version will be welcome by a significant number of modders.

Second, aside from consistancy, parenthesis denote the effect of coil loading on tone.  ChrisK did a whole treatise on this, some years ago, and I can't find that posting just now, but in essence, it boils down to this:

(Note to all: Yogi knows all this, but I'm now addressing the casual reader.)

In series, coils arithmetically add inductance.  In parallel, they algebraically reduce inductance. (The formula for that is the exact same as for resistors in parallel.)  Since the symbol L is used to represent inductance, we see that 2 coils in series come up as 2L, and 2 coils in parallel come up as 1/2L*.  We'll now investigate how these differences affect one's tone.

In the current set of diagrams, Pos 4 (as an example) without the jumper yields two possible interpretations, were parens not used: M + B * N could be construed as "Middle in parallel with Bridge, both in series with Neck" or "Middle in parallel with the combination of Bridge in series with Neck".  Mathematically, the first interpretation will give us:

1/2L in series with 1L, for a total of 1.5L

Or it could be the second reading:

1L in parallel with 2L, for a total of 0.66L

 

The first method shows a total of 45% more inductance in the circuit than the second method.  When we consider the loading of one or more potentiometers, and capacitance due to tone controls and one's guitar cord, we see that differences like this simply cannot be ignored.  Thus, parenthesis give the reader a quick understanding of what effect the combination will have on his/her final tone - they pretty much eliminate the need for a reader to review the circuit to see if there will be serious loading issues, or otherwise.

</end of lesson>

TL;DR:

Hooray for parens!

HTH

sumgai

* Here, we assume that two pickups have very nearly the same inductance.  That doesn't always happen in the real world, but for demonstration purposes....

[Yogi B]

Sept 16, 2017 4:20:31 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I would guess your sarcasm was directed at the clutter.

It was directed at the fact that

Sept 16, 2017 0:20:50 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Do you perchance have a way to eliminate the three-pup combo from Positions 2 & 4, while keeping the 'both ends' scenario going?

when I had already addressed this issue, albeit in parentheses (at the bottom of my post).

But speaking of clutter I don't see why, if you are borrowing operators, you can't also borrow their order of operations thus for the usual + and *, series is by default more closely binding than parallel without the need for parentheses, but could be optionally emphasised with spacing if required e.g. A*B + C*D. I will also add that I have thought about using a version of Reverse Polish notation to completely eliminate the need for parentheses, e.g. (rewriting the previous example) A B series C D series parallel or more clearly "A and B in series and C and D in series, in parallel".

Your use of & and | wasn't difficult for me to decipher but I think it best not to add more variety in our 'language'.

I've previously discussed my dislike of the use of + and *, it basically boils down to the fact that I feel they are backwards: impedance is additive in series, not in parallel, and so are 2/3 of its components (resistance and inductance). To make matter worse, expanding an expression for the total impedance of several parallel impedances ends up as a product divided by a sum of many products, so I strongly associate parallel with multiplication. Another thing, that I've only just noticed (or become reaware of), is the would-be alliteration of parallel/product and series/sum.

It might be worth noting that two parallel vertical lines (i.e. || or unicode character U+2225 ∥) are commonly used in mathematics to denote parallel vectors or more relevantly parallel impedances. However my use of & and | stems more from programming where they often represent either the logical or bitwise Boolean operators 'and' and 'or' respectively. I think they are a good fit when thinking in terms of current, i.e.:

• current can flow between two points connected by two components in series if both the first component and the second component are conductive;
• current can flow between two points connected by two components in parallel if either the first component or the second component is conductive.

Fender uses + for series and / for parallel

To confuse matters further I have, on occasion, used - to mean out of phase in parallel and / to mean out of phase in series.

(Note: Though for now QCoils defaults to using &, | and ~ (for phase reversal); it is flexible and will let you input and output and output combinations of coils and gives you the option to use the notation of your choosing, though I might now have to add a version for 'Fenderish')

With your permission, I'll add your drawing to the OP after the dust settles and we have all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.

Feel free.

[sumgai]

Yogi,

Nothing you've posted above is new to me, nor dare I guess it, not to reTrEaD either. Likely as not, there are several other EE types here in The NutzHouse, but as long as I've been here, not one of them has chimed in on how we use notation.  (Anybody, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the venerable ChrisK never so much as peeped about our symbology.)

For us, the bottom line is this: we are guitar people, first and foremost. Any other qualifications are secondary, plain and simple. Outside of The NutzHouse, the world's population is free to notate whatever as they see fit, but inside of this joint, we have conventions that are based on both familiarity and ease of understanding by most newcomers. We encourage the use of these conventions because there really is no good reason to change to something/anything else.

reTrEaD and I have only asked politely that our conventions be followed.  Anyone is free to post as they wish (see Mike Richardson's original diagrams), but most of us longtimers are the ones who have to come in and put things aright when the newbie asks "wha's dat mean?".... usually followed by a "pep talk" of the kind we're having now.

As to getting the same option ability as the original circuit (jumper or not), you posted an Edit to your diagram 23 hours later, or about 18 hours after my question.  Sorry, I admit not having seen that Edit until now.  And yes, I'm happy.  I think your final edition should be in the General Guitar Schematics sub-Forum.  I believe that reTrEaD is about to take care of that little detail....

HTH

sumgai

[col]

Sept 17, 2017 2:34:01 GMT -5 sumgai said:

Yogi,

Nothing you've posted above is new to me, nor dare I guess it, not to reTrEaD either. Likely as not, there are several other EE types here in The NutzHouse, but as long as I've been here, not one of them has chimed in on how we use notation.  (Anybody, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the venerable ChrisK never so much as peeped about our symbology.)

Obviously, I'm not an EE type, but I actually touched upon this a few years ago:

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7271/6-sound-stealth-telecaster

You even commented to the same thread, sumgai! Though, even I thought there was little merit in my idea - I wouldn't expect you or anyone else here to remember my post. But, just to add, I too find the existing syntax less than intuitive and a pair of parallel 'pipes' struck me as the more obvious symbol for parallel pups.

[sumgai]

col,

Thanks for the reminder.

---

All:

Again, it's not a matter of one's training/education/vocation/inclination, it's more a matter of what one is doing when one arrives here at the doorstep to The NutzHouse. I'd stake a lot of money on the vast majority of visitors/members come in here because they are avid guitar players first (even if only as a hobby), and whatever else second. To be less polite about it, the ratio of electronically inclined (read: better than averagely interested) readers compared to people who just want some more sounds out of their axe is pretty high, like 1:50 or even more.  With more than 3000 people passing through our halls over the years, just how many of them were either programmers or electronics whizzes who just happened to also play guitar?  My money is on well under 60, tops.

The question can be restated as follows:  Should programmers and/or Electrical Engineers get to override what the great majority of guitar players can easily understand, having no background in such disciplines?  For that matter, mathematicians (I'm a hobbyist math nut) have still another set of symbols representing the OR, AND, and ELSE conditions, which are similar to what's already been presented.  I can envision a math-head visiting our site, and wondering why things are shown in AND conditions, when in fact the word "AND" simply means "to combine".  And don't get me started on Karnaugh set conditions, they can make Boolean operators look like a child's play blocks.

We can go on, but really, is there a good reason to do so?  I think that for everyone who has a pet peeve about how we use symbols, there are dozens more who are thankful that we keep it simple, generic, and most importantly, consistent.  Perhaps a close second in importance is the fact that The NutzHouse is not the only guitar-friendly website that uses these same notation conventions.  Really, it's a community thing, not just "our" thing.

Bottom line: if programmers, mathematicians and EE's aren't going to try to tell each other how to use notation, where in tarnation do they get off trying to tell guitar players what symbols to use?   That sounds a little harsh*, I agree, but it really should put paid to the account.  I hope.

gumbo: Do I get a Gold Star for derailing this thread well enough?

sumgai

* I anticipate reTrEaD coming back with "Really? Only a little harsh?"  Well, yes, I really did tamp it down as much as I could.

[JohnH]

Im with sumgai and all for keeping notation consistent across our site. We use + for parallel, x or * for series and for any mixed combination we use parenthesis. But to help understanding, diagrams should preferably have a note to define the + and x symbols.

I was trying to think about where these conventions come from (after all, series inpedances and voltages do indeed get 'added'!). I think its for consistency with the very simplest, earliest guitar diagrams and specs, where there is only parallel combos, and they use + to show that more than one pu is active eg N, N+B, B etc. Once the '+' sign is taken, series might as well use 'x'.

[Ro_S]

reTrEaD

I believe that the switching table for either v2.0 or v.2.1 has a typo/error.   With the fader pot fully ccw, is it possible to get the bridge pickup alone?  The v2.0 and v.2.1 state different things in that regard.    In the bridge-side selector switch position with the fader pot fully ccw, v2.0 says 'B' whilst v.2.1 says 'N'.    Am I right in thinking that one (v 2.1?) is incorrect?  Please clarify.  

I'd like to be able to get all 5 normal Strat sounds in addition to the series combos.


thanks

[reTrEaD]

Yes Ro_S, there was a typo. Fixed now, thanks.

[Ro_S]

Dec 1, 2018 10:08:02 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

Yes Ro_S , there was a typo. Fixed now, thanks.

Thanks.

I'm liking the v2.1 scheme very much indeed; it's a great scheme. 

Is it verified?   

Has anyone actually tried either v2.0 or v2.1?

I'm thinking of using v2.1 for my 1982 Westone Concord, made in Japan (Matsumoku factory).   Its stock pickups are very low output.  I don't want to make any non-reversible cosmetic changes to the guitar.

[reTrEaD]

V2.0 (Yogi B's work) is the real breakthrough here. It's a classic Guitarnutz story. One of us comes up with an interesting idea and someone else takes it to the next level. V2.1 performs exactly the same functions but it's twisted around in a slightly different way.

No one has reported using any version of this yet.

[Ro_S]

reTrEaD

Perhaps I will be the first to able to report on it sometime!

How does BxM compare to BxN and which is more useful?  (disregard humcancelling aspect)   Can BxN sound too dark?   Do ppl generally favour BxM series combo or BxN series combo?

[JohnH]

Dec 1, 2018 13:16:31 GMT -5 Ro_S said:

reTrEaD

Perhaps I will be the first to able to report on it sometime!

How does BxM compare to BxN and which is more useful?  (disregard humcancelling aspect)   Can BxN sound too dark?   Do ppl generally favour BxM series combo or BxN series combo?

Not related to this design, but I like BxN very much, and I don't find it too dark since the B keeps it bright. Works very well with e blender too. My Strat has it with blending N to NxB. Mine is using a coil from the bridge Hb to do this, but on a standard Strat set, BxN is not humcancelling, if that matters.

[mcentee2]

Hi

I found this thread in a Google search for neck and bridge series only in position 1, there aren't many other hits out there!

I can follow most of the thread and the wiring etc and am looking at v1.1

I have one question though, regarding leaving hot connections hanging with that version and would appreciate some clarification if possible as I have tried to trace the wiring in each position and can't see which hot connections would be "hanging" in which connection ?

Many thanks.

[JohnH]

Hi mcentee2, and welcome to GN2. I assume we know each other from the Marshall forum! This is the other main place I hang out, and there's no better place to discuss guitars and their wiring design.

John

[mcentee2]

Mar 17, 2021 21:01:40 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Hi mcentee2, and welcome to GN2. I assume we know each other from the Marshall forum! This is the other main place I hang out, and there's no better place to discuss guitars and their wiring design.

John

Thankyou,I've lurked here for a few years, usually following Antigua's posts in pickup analysis, but this is the first time I needed to ask a question

Yes, we do, and the attenuator is still going strong, even doing some duty on a HiTone as well these days, not at full whack though as I need to really build another one with higher rated resistors.

Am keen to try v1.1 above, just wanted some clarification as to what was meant by "hanging hot" in that wiring, and what problem it caused.

[newey]

Mar 18, 2021 0:20:04 GMT -5 mcentee2 said:

Am keen to try v1.1 above, just wanted some clarification as to what was meant by "hanging hot" in that wiring, and what problem it caused.

Because of the way the fader control is used to put the bridge pickup in series, a "hanging from hot" condition can exist. This refers to a pickup being disconnected on the ground side, but still connected at the "hot" end. As reTrEaD noted earlier in the thread, it is at worst a minor issue. His version 2.1 moves the issue from positions 1 and 2 to positions 4 and 5, on the theory that most players will be using 4 and 5 less often than 1 and 2, so any potential issues are less likely to arise.

In theory, a hanging coil could potentially be a source of some noise, because the long windings of a pickup coil, connected at the hot end only, could act as an antenna, adding electrical noise to the guitar signal. So, as a matter of "best practices", we try to avoid hanging coils where it is possible to do so. Here, it is not possible to do so without adding switching- and then it wouldn't be a "zero bux" addition anymore.

The real question is, does the issue cause any actual problems in real-life playing situations, or is it merely a theoretical problem? The short answer is that we here don't know for sure- and probably no one else does either. Noise in one's rig is a multifaceted problem. We have had many people over the years build schemes that had hanging coils, and no one has ever (to my recollection, anyway) complained that a hanging coil was causing noise (or, perhaps better said, that it was any noisier than pickups not hanging, or noiser than the guitar overall). So, unlikely that the hanging coil would cause an issue in most situations.

But the theory is sound, electrically speaking. And people play their guitars in all sorts of places, some of which may be more prone to creating noise in one's guitar signals. The likelihood of a problem is small, but no one can guarantee that, in a bar full of neon beer signs, fluorescent lamp ballasts and dodgy wiring, the hanging coil wouldn't be noisier. And, given the variety of electrical environments around us, there's no way to empirically test for all possible scenarios.

So, bottom line, this is a potential issue but shouldn't stop you from building this design.

[mcentee2]

Thankyou for such a detailed reply, totally understandable re pickup hot being connected but not grounded

At least I know what I am dealing with here. Except I am having trouble visualising which pickup is hanging in which position!

For v1.1 I think I can trace a ground for all pickups in 1/2/3/4/5 positions

Edit: got it I think! For v1.0, when in bridge only pos 1 or B/M POS 2 *and* with the blend anywhere but at the end where it grounds the wiper, then the neck is connected to the 5 way on its hot side but not directly grounded, only through the blend pot resistance.

Is that right ?



In the meantime I can across the Armstrong scheme for a blend pot, that does some of what I am after, so will also look to see if that's can be tweaked.

Maybe if I tweak it enough I will end up with 1.1 anyway!!!

[reTrEaD]

Mar 17, 2021 4:12:06 GMT -5 mcentee2 said:

Hi

I found this thread in a Google search for neck and bridge series only in position 1, there aren't many other hits out there!

I can follow most of the thread and the wiring etc and am looking at v1.1

I have one question though, regarding leaving hot connections hanging with that version and would appreciate some clarification if possible as I have tried to trace the wiring in each position and can't see which hot connections would be "hanging" in which connection ?

Many thanks.

You won't find any hanging-from-hot issues in v1.0 or v1.1. Only in v2.0 and 2.1.