|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 1, 2019 17:17:22 GMT -5
I did a search on the forum but couldn't find anything about this subject/scheme ...
This scheme involves a third pickup in the middle position which is incorporated in the circuit via a pot wired as a blender and in parallel with the other pickups. Here is a link to a wiring diagram [EDIT: CORRECTED LINK!!!]. Below I'll post a demo video by Joe Gore about this scheme and a here is a link to his article about it. What do people think of this scheme? Has anyone tried this scheme? Does the middle pickup blending pot have a loading on the circuit? (even at zero?) Can the middle pickup be selected alone (if the other volume control is at zero)? Joe Gore advocates the "vastly more blended-pickup options" of this scheme. He says: |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 1, 2019 18:00:24 GMT -5
Ro_s,
I truly do hate to pee in your Cheerios so early in the new year, but....
This scheme involves a third pickup in the middle position which is incorporated in the circuit via a pot wired as a blender and in parallel with the other pickups. Here is a link to a wiring diagram. That diagram shows me no blending, unless one counts the component (allegedly a fixed resistor) hooked between the Mid pup and the output at all times. I can't answer for others, and I've swung both ways (when implemented correctly), so my input is probably not the most trustworthy opinion you might obtain.  But you need to know that this has been done nearly to death for countless decades. Some prime examples are in the Surf music arena, where players add a third pickup to either a Jazzmaster, a Jaguar, or even to a Mustang. But Strats and Teles have also suffered from this "dial-a-quack" syndrome, to be sure. Of course it does, but as with any other blender, the loading factor is variable. Worse, to a small degree it will affect the overall loading of the rest of the circuitry. Fortunately, we can take it into consideration, and reduce most unwanted side effects. Not as shown in your linked diagram, but that can be easily overcome with a judicious application of some logic. Again, my opinion is not at issue here, but if it were, I'd be tempted to remember what my mother told me as a young lad - "If you don't have anything nice to say about a person, then shut up."
I would've sworn that we have at least a couple of diagrams showing blending of a third pup (regardless of position within the N, M, B schema), but if you can't find anything, then I'll take your word for it. I'm fairly certain that other members here will develop, and drop upon you, one or more diagrams that will do the job. When the dust settles from all of that, we'll post the results in a newly created thread under Guitar Schematics. Hopefully that will make any similar search easier, in the future.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 1, 2019 18:15:12 GMT -5
sumgai - oops, I posted the wrong link for the wiring diagram! brb.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 1, 2019 18:19:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 1, 2019 18:33:32 GMT -5
Of course it does, but as with any other blender, the loading factor is variable. Worse, to a small degree it will affect the overall loading of the rest of the circuitry. Fortunately, we can take it into consideration, and reduce most unwanted side effects.
Can the loading effect be eliminated somehow when the middle pickup is not active? Would adding a Gibson style 3-way toggle switch help? (Edit: I mean as an extra, master switch. so would that eliminate the loading effect of the middle pickup's pot/s from the circuit when the bridge/neck pickup selection is selected alone?) Can the loading effect be mitigated against when it is active? thanks |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 2, 2019 14:00:11 GMT -5
Ro_s,
Just reading the mail, so to speak, I can't spend much time right now (eating breakfast myownself), as Duty calls. (That's Duty capitalized, as in the wife is putting the arm on my time this morning. Once breakfast is done....)
If no one else answers you in the next several hours, I'll be back tonight with some additional thoughts. Stand by.....
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 2, 2019 14:08:38 GMT -5
I stayed off the Cheerios today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jan 2, 2019 16:17:06 GMT -5
Has anyone tried this scheme? Not me.Yes, the pot's total resistance is always in parallel with the output jack, that is regardless of the position of the pot's wiper & the blend amount of the middle pickup there's still the 250k fixed resistance between the 'hot' output and ground. Can the loading effect be eliminated somehow when the middle pickup is not active? ... Can the loading effect be mitigated against when it is active? For the most part the answer is to not ground the blend pot, but that means at zero the middle pickup will not be fully 'turned off' so in order to remedy that one would need a pot which goes open when turned all the way to zero. That brings up another question: Wouldn't the middle blender pot be better implemented in a reverse fashion, with fully CCW (0) being fully blended and fully CW (10) being off? Firstly one could use a regular no load pot and secondly wouldn't it give a better sweep? Can the middle pickup be selected alone (if the other volume control is at zero)? Not 100% but maybe close enough (and no), the main volume is wired in a dependent fashion, like the middle position on some (most?) LPs where turning either volume to zero kills the output of both pickups. However even turning down the N&B volume down slightly will reduce the output from the neck and/or bridge significantly, meaning you'll be left with a sound mainly but not entirely comprised of middle pickup, but as you turn down the N&B volume you're also increasing the load on the middle pickup. You'll never get the 100% unadulterated middle coil -- but what you can get might be close enough for you. Would adding a Gibson style 3-way toggle switch help? As is? Kind of, but the best thing you could probably do, if going down that road, would be to redo the scheme more like a regular LP with two dependent volume controls. |
|
|
|
Post by Ro_S on Jan 2, 2019 17:52:45 GMT -5
Yogi B - many thanks. very useful. i'll ponder on all of that.
|
|
bluemurder
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
|
Post by bluemurder on Jan 16, 2019 6:02:05 GMT -5
I tried it when I put my Mason-Tele together, and first thing I did is to abandon it again as I did not find it useful for me. In addition, with the three controls it was very hard to operate the controls.
I then set the guitar up with a regular 5 way switch, 1 volume, 1 tone and one miniswitch adding the neck pickup to any combination selected so that I can get neck, neck+middle, middle, middle+bridge, bridge, bridge+neck or all three. No series or out-of-phase combinations so it's pretty basic.
Cheers Stephan
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jan 16, 2019 14:52:35 GMT -5
IF a variable resistor (as opposed to actual voltage divider potentiometer) gives a reasonable range of blending, THEN:
A) Even all the way down, the Impedance of the pickup at meaningful frequencies is insignificant (almost within tolerance) compared to the pot. It almost might as well be ground, and
2) A "No Load" pot will completely disconnect the middle pickup. I think you'd want the track cut at the opposite end from a typical No Load T pot, but with most normal pots it's simple to open it up and cut it yourself. It'll leave the pot itself waving in the cosmic wind - hanging from hot if you will. In a shielded cavity, it's probably not an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 16, 2019 15:07:49 GMT -5
Agree with Ash, definately if you just want to blend in a pickup in parallel, a no-load pot is the way to go, just using it with two lugs on the hot side of the pickup.
The best blending happens in the low range of resistance, say 0 to 50k, with just a small tone change after that. So I'd suggest that to get the best sweep from a normal log pot, the no-load cut should be where it usually is, so it cuts out with no load and zero blend at 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jan 17, 2019 0:06:08 GMT -5
So I'd suggest that to get the best sweep from a normal log pot, the no-load cut should be where it usually is, so it cuts out with no load and zero blend at 10. In this case, the blender works "backwards", where the mid pickup will be all the way on with the knob at "0". I assume that's the intention because the low side of a log pot has finer resolution. Why not just use a smaller pot and/or different taper? |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 17, 2019 13:58:08 GMT -5
So I'd suggest that to get the best sweep from a normal log pot, the no-load cut should be where it usually is, so it cuts out with no load and zero blend at 10. In this case, the blender works "backwards", where the mid pickup will be all the way on with the knob at "0". I assume that's the intention because the low side of a log pot has finer resolution. Why not just use a smaller pot and/or different taper? Sure, a 50k or 100k linear pot, with no-load cut at the other end, works quite well, unless one wants to find a reverse taper log and no-load it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 7:11:54 GMT -5
Do like that sound of that... If in a Strat body gives you 3 Holes and one 3/5way switch 5way switch will let you Pick BRIDGE/NECK and will let you Phase too 1) Bridge + 2) Neck + 3) Bridge - 4) Output 5) SwitchA/Ground 6) Bridge - 7) Neck - 8) Bridge + Using Push Pull Switching on the Tone pot to give the Middle a Phase and using a Push Pull on the Middle Pickup Volume Pot "SwitchA" to give you Middle Pickup or Series with Neck/Bridge (Works off 5ways) That can leave you another Push Pull switch "SwitchB" for Changing the Cap on the Tone, or a bleed etc etc  |
|
But you need to know that this has been done nearly to death for countless decades. Some prime examples are in the Surf music arena, where players add a third pickup to either a Jazzmaster, a Jaguar, or even to a Mustang. But Strats and Teles have also suffered from this "dial-a-quack" syndrome, to be sure.
