|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 25, 2019 17:27:37 GMT -5
I'm researching what can be a wiring for HSS guitar and I came to the following example. It uses the binary switching concept to manipulate single coils (Neck and/or Middle); the same method is used to select these single coils and/or humbucker. Humbucker can be switched between humbucker wired in series (conventional wiring) and both coils of it (either north or south). The reason to choose coil of humbucker is to allow hum cancelling options with either neck or middle. In addition to that, humbucker's phase can be reversed or "bass cut" can be applied to it. Also, Vol/Tone push-pull pot is used to manipulate either volume or tone. I'm not using humbucker parallel wiring, because there are too much options already. I'm using DPDT and Mustang (they are not practically DP3T) switches because I'm limited in choice of guitar hardware. For this build Stratocaster switch is not applicable. However, right now here 4 DPDT switches and 2 Mustang switches are used, and I'm able to do some replacements if I find the reason to do this. For example, I can replace 4 DPDT switches to Mustang switches, and/or add 1 DPDT switch, and/or replace 2 Mustang switches to DPDT ones.  If the diagram is correct and I have not missed any options (I'm not listing bass cut here), the following switching can be done (55 options): Single coils:Neck Middle Bridge: North coil Bridge: South coul Hum cancelling options:Bridge: series humbucker Neck + Middle Neck * Middle Neck + Middle + BridgeHumb Neck + Middle * BridgeHumb Neck + Middle + (-BridgeHumb) Neck + Middle * (-BridgeHumb) Neck * Middle + BridgeHumb Neck * Middle * BridgeHumb Neck * Middle + (-BridgeHumb) Neck * Middle * (-BridgeHumb) Neck + BridgeS Neck * BridgeS Neck + (-BridgeN) Neck * (-BridgeN) Middle + BridgeN Middle * BridgeN Middle + (-BridgeS) Middle * (-BridgeS) Other options:Neck + Middle + BridgeN Neck + Middle + BridgeS Neck + Middle * BridgeN Neck + Middle * BridgeS Neck + Middle + (-BridgeN) Neck + Middle + (-BridgeS) Neck + Middle * (-BridgeN) Neck + Middle * (-BridgeS) Neck * Middle + BridgeN Neck * Middle + BridgeS Neck * Middle * BridgeN Neck * Middle * BridgeS Neck * Middle + (-BridgeN) Neck * Middle + (-BridgeS) Neck * Middle * (-BridgeN) Neck * Middle * (-BridgeS) Neck + BridgeN Neck + BridgeHumb Neck * BridgeN Neck * BridgeHumb Neck + (-BridgeS) Neck + (-BridgeHumb) Neck * (-BridgeS) Neck * (-BridgeHumb) Middle + BridgeS Middle + BridgeHumb Middle * BridgeS Middle * BridgeHumb Middle + (-BridgeN) Middle + (-BridgeHumb) Middle * (-BridgeN) Middle * (-BridgeHumb) This forum inspired me for this layout. Interesting info regarding binary tree concept: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3769/modules?page=1&scrollTo=27667Humbucker N/S/Series: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/8231/series-wiring-using-gibson-switchOpen questions: 1. Does this make any sense at all? 2. Is it possible somehow to get rid of non-hum-cancelling options and reduce the number of switches? 3. Is it possible somehow to add combinations like "(Neck * BridgeS) + Middle"? 4. Does it make sense to add phase switch to Neck pickup? 5. Does humbucker In-phase/Out-of-phase/Bass-cut wiring look correct? Many thanks for your patience and attention.  |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 25, 2019 20:31:11 GMT -5
I haven't vetted your diagram yet, but to answer your questions:
Yes. It's a second-order binary tree arrangement. My "4caster", a 4 SC Strat-ish thing, was originally to be wired in much a similar fashion, but lack of real estate in the cavity led me to scrap the second-order binary tree, so in the end the two pairs of switches are just combined in parallel via a Gibby 3-way switch, so I can't get series combos of the two binary tree first-order switching, just either tree alone or both in parallel.
Not sure, but I doubt it.
Yes, if you add a separate "middle on" switch to add the middle, in parallel (or adding the bridge, or neck- various possibilities here) to whatever the binary tree arrangement is doing. This could be in the form of a P/P for example.
Well, one man's "sense" is another man's "foolishness" . . .or sumpin'
Since you can already put the bridge HB, and/or its individual coils, OOP with either the neck or the middle, adding a phase switch to the neck pickup (or to the middle, same thing) will only give you one additional OOP setting, N OOP with middle (in either series or parallel). OOP settings are most useful when done with dissimilar pickups and/or with pickups more widely spaced apart. So, here, you are adding another switch to get OOP sounds of two similar coils that are close to each other. I wouldn't think that would justify the added switch, but that's my version of sense.
When I get some more time to vet the diagram, I'll be able to answer that one. It looks OK at first blush but this is a complex scheme and I've got to get back to actual work . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jun 26, 2019 4:51:59 GMT -5
If you like the idea of all the switches and options, there's no reason not to go for it. You'd never use them all, but you might find some tones that you like but would never think of trying.
I also like HSS, but after a couple of 'all the bells and whistles' mods, I now prefer fewer switch options. I also found that I never used a phase switch and that the best sounds IMO come from singles or with just a couple of coils in series or parallel.
Out of the 4 coils on HSS, there are 4 humcancelling in-phase pairs. Those 4 in series or parallel, plus 3 single-coil tones are a very versatile foundation. My one does this with a standard five way a dpdt and a blend pot.
So for your scheme, I reckon you could strip it back considerably if you could lose some of the range of options. But I doubt if you could just avoid the humming combos though if you wanted to keep the full spectrum including phase, 'all coils on' etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 27, 2019 17:50:17 GMT -5
Thank you guys for the replies! I forgot to specify that neck and middle will be completely different pickups (this might be a thing to consider while deciding which wiring to go).
I also found that I never used a phase switch and that the best sounds IMO come from singles or with just a couple of coils in series or parallel. Yes, if you add a separate "middle on" switch to add the middle, in parallel (or adding the bridge, or neck- various possibilities here) to whatever the binary tree arrangement is doing. This could be in the form of a P/P for example. I like the idea of adding separate switch for the middle. Probably, I'll try this one. I was thinking how to optimize the wiring, and I thought what if we can control neck/middle pair similar to the humbucker. And I realized that we can use second pole of the North/Series/South humbucker switch. We still can keep phase switching for the humbucker and binary tree concept. However, we are not able to select middle and neck in parallel. But there are only 4 switches instead of 6, 10 hum-cancelling options and 8 non-hum-cancelling ones. I'm curious, would it be possible to add a separate "middle on" switch on that one? (I believe that no, because middle would be shorted while not used here) Single coils:
Neck
Middle
Bridge: North coil
Bridge: South coul
Hum cancelling options:
Bridge: series humbucker
Neck * Middle
Neck * Middle + BridgeHumb
Neck * Middle * BridgeHumb
Neck * Middle + (-BridgeHumb)
Neck * Middle * (-BridgeHumb)
Neck + BridgeS
Neck * BridgeS
Middle + BridgeN
Middle * BridgeN
Other options:
Neck + (-BridgeS)
Neck * (-BridgeS)
Middle + (-BridgeN)
Middle * (-BridgeN) Lost hum-cancelling options not available anymore:
Neck + Middle
Neck + (-BridgeN)
Neck * (-BridgeN)
Middle + (-BridgeS)
Middle * (-BridgeS)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 9:12:31 GMT -5
No Rotary Switches then 2P4T did look at the 2xDPDT could do ONE and a HALF  |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 28, 2019 18:43:01 GMT -5
did look at the 2xDPDT could do ONE and a HALF Sorry, didn't get this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 1:53:39 GMT -5
It gets very tight in a small space, so if you can double up any where it helps same with computers really (what made APPLE big with their first computers)   |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 29, 2019 12:17:00 GMT -5
'bunny, Sorry, but I see quite a few problems with both of those circuits. I'll leave you to figure them out, but the one I'll call out specifically is that you state the DPDT switch is on/on/on or on/off/on, and yet you show no connections for the alleged center positions. Even if you were to say somewhere that they are "Not shown for clarity", which would imply no connections at these terminals, there would dead spots in each of your schemes. Somehow I can't shake the feeling that most guitarists, particularly those that play live, would rather have working combinations instead of these dead spots. Let me suggest that you work out a Truth Table for each possible combo (all four of them, per drawing), and I think you'll find out quickly enough what the problems are.
jaga, You're on the right track... sort of. The fact that you have so many duplicate combos should tell you that you've over-complicated the design, and things could be simpler - 'bunny's correct about that one. Ponder this for awhile, and try again. Please.  sumgai |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 18:22:00 GMT -5
'bunny, Sorry, but I see quite a few problems with both of those circuits. I'll leave you to figure them out, but the one I'll call out specifically is that you state the DPDT switch is on/on/on or on/off/on, and yet you show no connections for the alleged center positions. Even if you were to say somewhere that they are "Not shown for clarity", which would imply no connections at these terminals, there would dead spots in each of your schemes. Somehow I can't shake the feeling that most guitarists, particularly those that play live, would rather have working combinations instead of these dead spots. Let me suggest that you work out a Truth Table for each possible combo (all four of them, per drawing), and I think you'll find out quickly enough what the problems are.
www.mouser.co.uk/Electromechanical/Switches/Slide-Switches/_/N-5g2x?P=1z0z2xkZ1z0z2qcI'll take the tone and naff off. Hope you welcome others better tho Up north Middle is north and south Down south With the SPST Up north liked to south Middle south Down south Up south Middle north linked to south Down north With SPST Up dead space Middle dead space Down north and south |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 29, 2019 20:17:22 GMT -5
'bunny
No one asked you to leave, trust me on that one. Please do recall that the reason The NutzHouse exists is to help others improve their understanding of what goes on inside (and outside) of their guitars. You have certainly contributed more than anyone could ask for in your postings so far - you are helpful, no one can discredit you on that score.
But much to my dismay, I have to not only apologize, but eat some words I've been espousing for a long time - you drew a schematic, and all of us here are used to seeing representational wiring diagrams - schematics are in the vast minority of most postings. Where I went wrong, and where you made too large of an assumption, is that you numbered your terminals, and then numbered the switch positions as in positions, not as connected terminals. I admit, I got crossed up, and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. (Actually, I did that twice.  ) But while I am at fault, I surmise that you could've made things easier for everyone, if you had used letters for the terminals, instead of numbers... I probably would've caught on to your intent much more quickly.
Oh, and it would've been immediately obvious, had you included the Truth Tables the first time around! 
So. Are we cool? 
sumgai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 5:38:33 GMT -5
I could no get my head around the 2P3T slide Switching so i ignored it, and just use the two wires coming out of it. used a mixture of 2P2T (on/on/on) and (on/off/on) switches but i HOPE its cut it down by ONE. Personally i think the Toggle Switches are Easier to make a Hole for than a Slide Switch. And the First 2P3T Slide switch could be made in to a 2P2T i think. >But i'll leave that to someone else< In Truth i could replace the 4x2P2T Toggle switches with ROTARY switches (BUT they are BIGGER) so Dont gain or lose just a different way to turn. 
Looking at the HUM, (NOTE: i can not understand this, as from slide switches i know the POLE is one in pin, to me its some strange cross over system!) so I've drawn it out first part out with a 2P2T (on/off/on) toggle, and the second part with a 2P3T switch, with a cross over (Phase) and guessing what is going on with the Capacitor.  I changed things for my own understanding, and i hope to correct the 2P3T system (THO i do NOT KNOW MUSTANG SWITCHING system, i would be shocked if they didnt take a normal one as it would be cheaper)  Neck/Middle improvement On/on/on switch: Neck + always on output On/off/on switch: 5 to 2 and bridge + |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 30, 2019 21:31:22 GMT -5
Mustang-style slide switches have an interesting history.
They were first formulated quite some time prior to WW2, being designed for use in battery operated radios. Essentially, they did the following: one pole would turn on power to the filaments (heaters) of the tubes, and the other pole would turn on the "high" voltage (B+). Remember, this was well before the days of the transistor (1947), so these radios often used so-called "peanut' tubes - tiny little things that could work on 6 or 12 volts of DC. Operational circuits could increase the voltage as needed, sometimes up to 90vDC for the B+ line.*
Of course, the idea was to combine the two functions in one switch in order to save panel space, so the need for three positions is obvious. In the parlance of radio makers and users, these positions were known as Standby and On... exactly like our tube amps, dating from the 50s to current production models. Not to mention, with the exact same functionality. However, with our guitar amps being powered with wall current and not with batteries, the amount of current requires two separate switches that each can carry much more current.
For more detailed information, Bingle for "History of Radio", or some such.... Don't forget to bring your towel, because the trip is gonna take awhile.
HTH
sumgai
* How do I know? Because the military was still using them in the 1960s, during my time of service, and I had the job of fixing the little buggers! 
p.s. Certainly there other uses for them, even only in the radio field. For instance, they were often found in "hi power/lo power" situations, or even Receive/Transmit setups, though those were often spring-loaded (as in, momentary contact). Outside of radio, they had their uses, but recall again, this was in a day-and-age when Radio was the "Next Big Thing", it would be awhile before things like appliances started using "oddball" switches like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 12, 2019 16:28:21 GMT -5
jaga, You're on the right track... sort of. The fact that you have so many duplicate combos should tell you that you've over-complicated the design, and things could be simpler - 'bunny's correct about that one. Ponder this for awhile, and try again. Please. sumgai Hi sumgai! Thanks for the reply! Could you please clarify, are you referring to the diagram in the first post, or the second version featuring 2 less switches? Both versions don't have duplicate combos, but the first one have a lot of similar ones. I'd say that the second one is simplier in terms of usability, not in terms of wiring though.  While I like the second version better than the first one, I'm curious, would it be possible to add some modifications to it like the following ones: 1. Retrieving lost hum-cancelling combinations like Neck + (-BridgeN)? Actually, this can be done by not combining Neck/N*M/Middle and SouthBridge/HB/NorthBridge poles together in 1 switch. 2. Adding some simple switch to be able to choose Neck + Middle? 3. Adding a separate "middle on" switch on the second wiring? I believe that no, because middle would be shorted while not used here. Personally i think the Toggle Switches are Easier to make a Hole for than a Slide Switch. And the First 2P3T Slide switch could be made in to a 2P2T i think. >But i'll leave that to someone else< There is some ideological reason to use slide switches. While I like toggle ones, I'm building some jaguarish offset stuff, so let there be slide switches only I can ignore DP3Ts (they're not in fact DP3T...) and use DPDTs easily though. P.S. go back to this forum, this is a very nice community |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 23, 2021 18:37:19 GMT -5
One day I will finish this. In the meantime I'm still wondering what would fit better for me. (Better try than think, I know, but I'm not very fast. For example, my bass was disassembled for several years. Now it is pretty cool, but I'm still polishing it.) I think that I would like to use original control plates for now. I'm going to use 2 extra slide switches though instead of roller pots (I made custom adapter for this). So it would be totally 6 slide switches, where 3 of them can be DPDT, and 3 can be either DPDT or 3PDT or 4PDT (I don't think that bottom 3-switch plate will accomodate 3 3PDT switches). Also, a rotary switch can be incorporated since I'm not going to use a Tone control. I also have the Middle pickup RWRP with the Neck one, so HH set up can be really considered. For now I have very nice schematics made by Yogi B. I will quote it in this thead from the Mustang switch thread since here it is not offtopic (it is not much related to the Mustang switch itself). I would like also to thank Yogi for this, since it is really clever and complex switching. I really don't understand how such schematics one could create from the head. Probably I'll think how to add some out-of-phase combinations to this one using 1-2 4PDT switches. I've also remembered another potential issue with this idea: sourcing roller pots that have a more appropriate value & taper (or even some appropriately sized wafers for swapping in). AFAIK it's very difficult to get the appropriate CTS thin-shaft mini-pots in anything other than 50k linear & 1Meg linear, so if CTS mini-pots are what you already have, you might end up needing a new mounting bracket & thumb-wheels -- in addition to new mini-pots. Alternatively, the 1Meg linear pot would work okay for volume, but we could think of some other use (rather than a regular tone control) for the 50k pot (or another 1Meg pot). If the HSS guitar is indeed the Jaguar, with the standard control layout (4 slide switches, main V&T, plus roller-pots) I have an idea that I reckon should be possible which might be of interest to you. Whilst not comprehensive it does include what are likely the most usable tones, and all but the individual single coils can be made hum-cancelling with appropriate pickup polarities. Lower three DPDT switches: | Sw B | Sw M | Sw N | Selection |
|---|
| off | off | off | None |
|---|
| on | Neck single |
|---|
| on | off | Middle single |
|---|
| on | Middle + Neck |
|---|
| on | off | off | Bridge HB in parallel |
|---|
| on | Bridge outer coil + Neck |
|---|
| on | off | Bridge inner coil + Middle |
|---|
| on | Bridge HB in series + Middle + Neck |
|---|
All of these selections would be controlled by the main volume & tone. You might notice the lack of the bridge humbucker in series by itself in this list, that's what the fourth switch is for, and where this idea becomes less feasible. Switchcraft make a 4PDT version of the Jaguar-style switch (part number 50212L) Switchcaft Catalog (p. 292), Mouser, Digikey. At 0.781 inches (19.8mm), it's a shade over one and a half times wider than the DPDT version, but might just fit below the upper control plate with little to no modification of the control cavity. This fourth switch would be somewhat similar to the regular Jag rhythm/lead switch -- bypassing the other switching and main volume & tone, and instead engaging the roller-pots -- but rather than selecting the neck only, we'd get the (missing) bridge series selection. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 23, 2021 19:06:34 GMT -5
BTW, measured everything and it possible to use only 2 4PDT or 3PDT switches in Jaguar (in the upper plate where roller pots are). So, it is possible to use 4 DPDT switches and 2 4PDT/3PDT/DPDT totally. In any case upper control cavity requires modification (not if using only 1 4PDT switch and keeping roller pots).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 23, 2021 19:15:15 GMT -5
So may I kindly ask some questions regarding this design by Yogi B  Lower three DPDT switches: | Sw B | Sw M | Sw N | Selection |
|---|
| off | off | off | None |
|---|
| on | Neck single |
|---|
| on | off | Middle single |
|---|
| on | Middle + Neck |
|---|
| on | off | off | Bridge HB in parallel |
|---|
| on | Bridge outer coil + Neck |
|---|
| on | off | Bridge inner coil + Middle |
|---|
| on | Bridge HB in series + Middle + Neck |
|---|
Is it possible to add Neck * Middle combination or replace Neck + Middle to it? Is it possible to add (Inner coil * Neck) + Middle combination?
Thanks for your ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 23, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5
Is it possible to add Neck * Middle combination or replace Neck + Middle to it? Is it possible to add (Inner coil * Neck) + Middle combination? As it stands now, there are no series combinations excepting the full bridge HB. All combos of the N and M pickups are in parallel only. And, all the poles of your switches are being used to do that switching. You would need to add switching to the scheme in some fashion, therefore, for either one of these possibilities to happen. A separate DPDT switch, for example, could do series/parallel between the N and M pups, and something similar could be done at the bridge end (probably could, anyway, have to look more closely) with the split inner coil. But I would think you'd want the bridge outer coil with the neck, just as you have it now in parallel, for purposes of hum-cancellation. |
|
) But while I am at fault, I surmise that you could've made things easier for everyone, if you had used letters for the terminals, instead of numbers... I probably would've caught on to your intent much more quickly.
