|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Mar 8, 2018 7:36:09 GMT -5
I take no credit for creating this method. It has existed on GN2 for over a decade. (Although Gibson and SD still don't have a clue.) A problem exists when a DPDT switch is used to put two pickups in series using the method employed Jimmy Page wiring. There will necessarily be a 'dead spot' in one position of the selector switch. Either the Neck and Both positions of the 3-way will work properly but the Bridge position will be open-circuit OR the Bridge and Both positions of the 3-way will work properly but the Neck position will be open circuit. There are enough poles available but some folks don't recognize how to make the best use of those two poles. Here's the strategy, plain and simple. It makes the position of the pickup selector irrelevant. For any 3-way pickup selector used in a parallel configuration LP, Telecaster, whatever. 
Addendum:Unlike the LP 3-way toggle, with the Fender 2P3T lever switch CAN be used in conjunction with a DPDT to provide a choice of series or parallel in the center position of the switch. The drawings below were inspired by a concept suggested by Yogi B . In some cases it might be desirable to have the Neck pickup stacked on top the Bridge pickup in the series position. In other cases having the Bridge stacked on top of the Neck might be preferable. Hence the two versions. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jun 10, 2020 22:32:36 GMT -5
(Although Gibson and SD still don't have a clue.) A problem exists when a DPDT switch is used to put two pickups in series using the method employed Jimmy Page wiring. I don't want to clutter up this thread too much, but I think there is an important thing to point out with Gibson's Jimmy Page wiring vis-à-vis this improved version. The thing which is commonly overlooked or forgotten is, in Gibson's 'official' Jimmy Page wiring schemes, the "parallel/series" switch isn't: it does switch from parallel to series, however it also simultaneously reverses the phasing, thus swapping from parallel-in-phase to series-out-of-phase. (At least as far as I'm aware Gibson have only included any type of global series/parallel switching on their Jimmy Page inspired models: first the model from '95-'99 which although definitely takes inspiration from Page's #2 isn't a direct clone; and secondly their much more faithful recreations from 2010.) It's actually a pretty clever arrangement as with full, unsplit, humbuckers parallel-in-phase and series-out-of-phase are arguably the two more usable tones and the Gibson wiring aims to have those options only a single switching operation away from each other. We also must remember who we're dealing with here, Mr. Page, a big fan of sudden and dramatic volume/tonal shifts, "light and shade", which is what such a switch offers if the phase switch has already been activated -- then the options become parallel-out-of-phase and series-in-phase -- two polar opposites. So now the "probably at least what Page's actual #2 would fetch at auction" dollar question: how do you create this switching, without the dead spots, with only a DPDT? Well unfortunately the answer is you can't. (In the Gibson scheme's series-modes the 3-way selector must be in the centre position to complete the series-link and thus give any output.)
There is however just a further little twist to this tail, remember we're dealing with the restriction to DPDTs, well that's because Gibson's '90s models used the typical Alpha-style push-pulls and the #2 models have the two pickguard mounted DPDT push switches to handle the PiP/SOoP and phase reversal functions. However the #2 has push-pulls too: on the reproductions HB splitting is achieved with the tone controls, the somewhat familiar SPST equipped CTS 450 series pots; whereas the local series-parallel switching is performed by the volume controls, but this was back before the days when DPDT CTS pots were available and instead they are a part from Honeywell/Clarostat (via State Electronics) -- why is that interesting? Well, these aren't a standard DPDT, disregarding the potentiometers' regular 3 terminals, the push/pull switch has 8 terminals. This is the point where we depart from certainty and enter the land of assumption, but I feel confident that these are pretty safe. With eight terminals I believe the switches would connect two pairs of two terminals in each position, i.e. 1 & 2 connected and 3 & 4 connected when in one position -- 5 & 6 connected and 7 & 8 connected in the other. (Think the outer positions of a Mustang slide switch.) This corresponds to the switching specified on page 7 of this datasheetWhere this gets really interesting is that this 8 terminal switching configuration is enough to achieve the parallel-in-phase / series-out-of-phase switching: In the parallel setting: - the output from the toggle switch is connected to the hot output at the jack socket,
- and the ground side of the bridge pickup (and its associated controls) are connected to ground.
In the series setting the above connections are broken and instead: - the 'outputs' from the volume controls are connected together (B+ to N+, forming a reverse-phase series-link),
- and the ground side of the bridge pickup (and associated controls) are connected to the hot of the output jack socket.
So, why didn't Gibson swap around the switching? Simple, they were concerned with copying the #2 as closely as possible and already had to make a concession on the bridge pickup bobbins' colour (due to DiMarzio's trademarked double cream). If it was even considered at all, optimising the complex wiring scheme was likely a low priority compared to ensuring they had it correct, which was debatable with their reproductions of Jimmy's #1. Okay so onto the next question and another assumption. Why doesn't the actual #2 have the switching swapped round? Well that makes the assumption that is even possible, i.e. that it has the eight terminal switched potentiometers, that's unknown to all but a handful. What can be said though is that in the early '80s Schecter were using that style of pot in their "Superock" wiring harness, though the examples I've seen were Allen Bradley branded pots, but it's certainly true they were available and being put into guitars. There is also the fact that the setup devised by Steve Hoyland makes the most intuitive sense: the splitting and local series/parallel of each pickup is performed by the associated volume and tone controls of the relevant pickup, whereas the global series/parallel and phase functions which control how the pickups combine together are situated closer to a spot between both pickups.
It may also be worth mentioning that rather than completely bypassing the 3-way switch, an alternative wiring could be to use the switch to shunt one of the pickups in the centre position making it possible to have one of either Both/Neck/Both or Both/Bridge/Both in series mode, but for now I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 21, 2022 0:35:17 GMT -5
The thing which is commonly overlooked or forgotten is, in Gibson's 'official' Jimmy Page wiring schemes, the "parallel/series" switch isn't: it does switch from parallel to series, however it also simultaneously reverses the phasing, thus swapping from parallel-in-phase to series-out-of-phase. ... how do you create this switching, without the dead spots, with only a DPDT? Well unfortunately the answer is you can't. Luckily reTrEaD named those who " still don't have a clue" and that's not me... Although, past me is still an idiot for missing something as obvious as this: |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on May 21, 2022 17:41:08 GMT -5
Although, past me is still an idiot for missing something as obvious as this: I think each of us have unique roadblocks that keep us from seeing the obvious. One of mine prevented me from seeing the solution in the OP for a good long while. That's the beauty of Guitarnuts. More eyes, more opportunities that the mind behind those eyes won't suffer from the same roadblock. Where a switch connection is needed is usually the first thing to be identified. But where t he pole is placed, determines a different set of possibilities for what can and can't be accomplished. If you research some of UnklMickey 's work, he made a point of making separate drawings to display the different connections that would be made in each combination, then dissected where the connections remained the same and where they were different. Pole placement was a notable part of his work. But if memory serves, he wasn't the one to crack this particular nut. I think that was borsanova or JohnH . In the very early days of GN2, Runewalker would come up with an idea of what he wanted, but he didn't have the skills to create the circuit to accomplish it. He, JohnH , and UnklMickey would have a series of PMs and/or emails privately, and they'd toss ideas back and forth until they came up with a solution. Then one of them would present it to the rest of the forum. I reckon John and Unk both learned quite a bit from one another from those sessions. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 23, 2022 19:38:15 GMT -5
I think each of us have unique roadblocks that keep us from seeing the obvious. One of mine prevented me from seeing the solution in the OP for a good long while. That's the beauty of Guitarnuts. More eyes, more opportunities that the mind behind those eyes won't suffer from the same roadblock. In this instance, if I remember correctly, I started with the notion that it was impossible and evidently didn't do a thorough enough job at challenging that preconception. Looking at the other diagram with the 8-terminal switch it seems I was determined to have the hot wires as the series link, probably because that's what Gibson's JP#2 wiring does (via the toggle switch, hence why that wiring only has series in the middle position with dead spots either side). I also had an unwillingness to treat the toggle switch as a black box — instead, looking for a 'clever' solution trying to take advantage of the fact that a typical Switchcraft toggle has four terminals, not three (and more so with the extra terminals of a tele lever switch). Similar to flying, it was only because while adjusting frets' diagram to follow the OP I was sufficiently distracted away from the toggle switch that I was able to overcome the roadblock. My mind wandered to the fact that I already know how to switch between series in phase to parallel OoP with a pair of (humbucker) coils, in which the standard series link remains unbroken. Then wondered what prevented that applying to the topic an hand and quickly realised that the answer was, in fact, nothing. I likely didn't think to do this sooner due to an inbuilt reluctance to come at the problem from this angle: I think a lot of problems with other peoples flawed implementations of a global series/parallel switch come from the fact that they've took a version of local series/parallel wiring and embellished it with the toggle switch, volume/tone pots, etc. without much thought of how those controls behave in series mode. True, but one still has to realise that there may be (and often is) more than one possible way to construct each combination (e.g. as above with which ends of the pickups become the series link). And additionally that some connections may be optional (and dependent upon the absence of other optional connections). |
|
|
|
Post by David Mitchell on Nov 2, 2022 10:53:27 GMT -5
Here's the strategy, plain and simple. It makes the position of the pickup selector irrelevant. For any 3-way pickup selector used in a parallel configuration LP, Telecaster, whatever. It's taken me quite a lot of looking at this and trying to work out how to translate it to a wiring diagram, but I might have succeeded. However, if I did figure it out, DIY Layout Creator does not know how to analyze the results. Would someone else take a look? The neck pickup leads are shown as black and white, the bridge pickup leads as striped black and white.  Analysis results: (I'll be adding tone control(s) and any other switching to the diagram later.) |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Nov 2, 2022 12:01:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by unreg on Nov 2, 2022 18:00:17 GMT -5
It's taken me quite a lot of looking at this and trying to work out how to translate it to a wiring diagram, but I might have succeeded. , wow, according to newey, you did succeed!  However, reTrEaD’s diagram has been replaced by: The thing which is commonly overlooked or forgotten is, in Gibson's 'official' Jimmy Page wiring schemes, the "parallel/series" switch isn't: it does switch from parallel to series, however it also simultaneously reverses the phasing, thus swapping from parallel-in-phase to series-out-of-phase. ... how do you create this switching, without the dead spots, with only a DPDT? Well unfortunately the answer is you can't. Luckily reTrEaD named those who " still don't have a clue" and that's not me... Although, past me is still an idiot for missing something as obvious as this: I believe the only change is that, in the diagram-piece on the right, bridge - is not connected to neck +; rather ground is connected to neck +. Thought maybe you were going to benefit from your wiring diagram creation and wanted you to also benefit from sir Yogi B’s brilliance too.  EDIT: Though, the diagrams each have a unique purpose. Yogi B’s seems to be a fix of what he had thought. |
|
|
|
Post by David Mitchell on Nov 3, 2022 12:36:17 GMT -5
newey, awesome, thanks! I better check with the creator of DIYLC about why the analysis says that only the neck pickup is engaged in series mode. Is there a better way to wire the switch than I came up with? David Mitchell, wow, according to newey, you did succeed! However, reTrEaD’s diagram has been replaced by: [...] EDIT: Though, the diagrams each have a unique purpose. Yogi B’s seems to be a fix of what he had thought. , thanks! I think that I'll put out-of-phase on a separate switch if I decide to try it, but I'm not sure. Lots of experimentation may be ahead of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Nov 3, 2022 21:14:35 GMT -5
Is there a better way to wire the switch than I came up with? Not that I can think of. You might be able to eliminate one solder joint, I'd have to consider it closer. But even if so, it's not going to be appreciably different or streamlined. |
|
|
|
Post by David Mitchell on Nov 5, 2022 20:04:29 GMT -5
Is there a better way to wire the switch than I came up with? Not that I can think of. You might be able to eliminate one solder joint, I'd have to consider it closer. But even if so, it's not going to be appreciably different or streamlined. Thanks again, newey! |
|
|
|
Post by stevewf on Feb 7, 2023 15:26:20 GMT -5
I'll go on in an attempt elaborate a little bit on separate volume controls, as there's possible trouble when adding series functionality. In the drawing below, I've added a separate volume pots, one for each pickup, along with new colored wires. 
In this example, when in series mode, I think of the bridge coil as the 2nd coil because I tend to look at the electrical flow as "ground -> components -> output", and when the above is in series mode, the bridge coil comes after the neck coil. It's the wiring of the 2nd coil's volume pot that needs special attention. It's the magenta wire and its placement with the bridge coil's "-". Most drawings show pots with their 3rd terminal connected with the ground. In the case of a series connection, however, it should be connected to the series link instead. I think of the series link as the 2nd coil's "local ground". In that sense, to extend the idea, a separate tone pot could also be locally grounded too, instead of to the overall ground (though I don't know if the two would sound any different). Nutz? If the 2nd pot's 3rd terminal is instead connected to overall ground then turning down the 2nd coil to zero will turn down the whole guitar to zero. If done as shown, it'll turn down the 2nd coil and allow the 1st coil's signal to bypass the 2nd coil. Pertains to series mode, of course. Then, to extend further yet, if this pair of coils is then put in series with yet another coil/pickup (that gets placed electrically "before"), then care should similarly be taken with the yellow wire. Think globally, act locally. But let's run this by the Nuthouse for vetting, and, Nutz, even if the drawing/idea is valid, are there consequences, sonic or otherwise, that I've failed to mention? |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 8, 2023 0:36:56 GMT -5
Steve, Your signal path logic is impeccable, as usual, but there is still the 'bugaboo' about loading. Here, we have a resistance in series with the coil (twice!), and that will tend to dull the tone at some point not very long after turning down from 10/max on the knob. In my estimation, a small cap in parallel with the pot(s), ala the standard Treble Bleed, will likely 'perk up' the overall tonality. One will have to experiment to find the right values, but then again, who here isn't up for a bit of Mad Scientist once in awhile?  HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Feb 8, 2023 3:35:05 GMT -5
It's the magenta wire and its placement with the bridge coil's "-". Most drawings show pots with their 3rd terminal connected with the ground. In the case of a series connection, however, it should be connected to the series link instead. I think of the series link as the 2nd coil's "local ground". In that sense, to extend the idea, a separate tone pot could also be locally grounded too, instead of to the overall ground. Another way of looking at it is that: in the original diagram, the rounded rectangles represent not just the pickups but the entire neck/bridge circuits — further including coil splits as another example of a circuit element which should be locally grounded. If you have separate tone controls for each pickup, then that for ground-most pickup will act locally so it's a matter of consistency. But to answer your question a local tone control within a series combination is essentially the same as a partial coil split that shunts one coil with a resistor / capacitor combination, the result is: full bass output from both coils, zero treble output from one coil, while a slightly boosted treble output from the other coil. The main difference being that the typical cap values used for a tone control (22n to 47n) are significantly smaller than those used for a partial split (100n to 220n), this results in keeping an extended range of mids than with the partial coil split, making the control a little bit more like a low treble/upper mids scoop. The effect is obviously diminished if level of the volume controls is unequal. ... there is still the 'bugaboo' about loading. Here, we have a resistance in series with the coil (twice!), and that will tend to dull the tone at some point not very long after turning down from 10/max on the knob. Treble bleeds are a good thing, as usual, but splitting the controls across two coils versus global controls (assuming the same values would be used in either case) is actually better loading-wise. Continuing on the theme of the global/local tone pot example, (assuming the pickups are reasonably similar to each other) setting the position of two local tone controls equally has the same effect as a global tone control with double the impedance (double the pot's value, half the cap's value). |
|
|
|
Post by stevewf on Feb 8, 2023 17:16:18 GMT -5
Another way of looking at it is that: in the original diagram, the rounded rectangles represent not just the pickups but the entire neck/bridge circuits — further including coil splits as another example of a circuit element which should be locally grounded. That nested, fractal approach... it's part of what seeped in from what Yogi B added in a different thread titled "Guitar circuit design: what's your approach on switches?", specifically, creating what he called networks and then figuring out how they could to be connected to or merged with one another. Aside: after web-sniffing more, I see that this is an elementary approach to those already initiated. But naming a network, say, "B-" indicates awareness of what I called "local ground". Soak the brain in Nutz juice, it'll seep in. Yes. Nested. For the present example, the diagram of the "Bridge" could be exploded to be two coils in series, BS(outh) and BN; then in addition to our "B-" network, we could nest inside them BS-, BS+, BN- and BN+, treating them later on in the circuit design process. Please confirm that I understand: Given=two separate tone controls, each with 33nF cap on a 250KΩ pot; equal single coils, positioned near each other, in series; no volume pots, for simplicity; both controls turned down to 8. Am I right to interpret that this will sound the same as master tone that consists of a 16.5nF cap and 500KΩ pot, turned to 8? "Master tone" meaning we remove the 1st coil's tone control, and replace the 2nd coil's with the new one described? |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Mar 2, 2023 5:45:48 GMT -5
Sorry I didn't answer this earlier, I did mean to, but then forgot to do so. I was reminded because the above would be my approach to the wiring in your other thread if I were limited to using only a standard Tele switch (DP3T). Please confirm that I understand: Given=two separate tone controls, each with 33nF cap on a 250KΩ pot; equal single coils, positioned near each other, in series; no volume pots, for simplicity; both controls turned down to 8. Am I right to interpret that this will sound the same as master tone that consists of a 16.5nF cap and 500KΩ pot, turned to 8? "Master tone" meaning we remove the 1st coil's tone control, and replace the 2nd coil's with the new one described? Yes, but with one quibble: I don't know why you make the distinction between removing the first tone control versus replacing the second. If both the original (individual) tone controls are wired locally (which without good reason they should be — there's no logic as to why you'd introduce inconsistency for its own sake), the point is that then the series ordering becomes irrelevant. |
|
