|
Post by fobits on Mar 30, 2006 18:00:35 GMT -5
This is a design which I worked out for simes, a member of the forum here, after some prodding from unklmickey. It uses two humbucking pickups, a Stewart-McDonald Super Switch and a DPDT switch to give this selection of combinations: Parallel 1. neck HB in parallel with itself 2. outer coils in parallel with each other 3. norths in series, souths in series, in parallel with each other 4. inner coils in parallel with each other 5. bridge HB in parallel with itself Series 1. neck HB in series with itself 2. outer coils in series with each other 3. both series HB's in series with each other 4. inner coils in series with each other 5. bridge HB in series with itself This is a wide range of tones. I named it Big Fat Ten, for lack of inspiration, and all four coils in series could be called "fat". However, it also has a good selection of brighter tones, including the bridge coils in parallel. Perhaps best of all, each one is fully and 100% humbucking. Here is the wiring diagram. You don't have to worry about the part at the top, which is just a bonus for those who are interested in the design process, and what it does in the abstract. There is more information below, for those who are interested. After I posted the plans for my Eight-Tone Humbucker, simes asked if it could be modified to give combinations like the ones above. The 8TH leans toward parallel, and two of the selections aren't switchable. He also mentioned unklmickey's Big Ugly as being close to what he wanted. That one has a full selection of series combinations, but the brightest tone uses a tapped coil, so it isn't humbucking in every position. Would it be possible to put together the best of both? That proved to be harder than it seems at first glance, and the project wouldn't have been finished without the encouragement and advice of unklmickey, who deserves a share of the credit. The problem is that these two are fundamentally different designs. The 8TH essentially arranges the coils in a parallel ladder, and the poles of the switch are used for pickup leads. Big Ugly lays out the coils in a series row, and the poles of the switch are used for hot and ground. With only four poles, it's hard to do both. The key to the puzzle, when it finally arrived, was simple. A lot of good ideas are simple, AFTER you see them. The Big Fat Ten is like Big Ugly, except that the coils are placed in the row in a different order. If the bridge and neck coils alternate in the chain, it becomes possible to use the bridge coils in both series and parallel, and the same at the neck. A price is paid, though, at least for some people. One of the proudest features of Big Ugly is that the combinations can be switched in-phase or out-of-phase, and all except one (the coil-tapped one) remain humbucking. The BFT doesn't do OOP, or at least not without losing hum-canceling. Whether that is important depends on how fond you are of out-of-phase tones. Sharp-eyed readers will also have noticed that #3 parallel is a bit unusual. The one which was requested here was (BNxBS)+(NNxNS), but what comes up is (BNxNN)+(BSxNS). This is still two series elements in parallel with each other, and it's still humbucking, but the coils are arranged differently. I believe the the sound will be a little bit different, but not by very much. Disclaimer: this has been checked and rechecked by myself, and unklmickey has also looked it over, but it has not yet been built and tested.
|
|
|
Post by simes on Mar 31, 2006 1:24:25 GMT -5
I would like to publicly thank and exalt fobits and unklmickey for taking the time to work on this, exchange PM's with me on the subject and finally come up with what looks like a very functional and highly original design.
I will be building this at some time in the next couple of months (have to build the guitar itself first), but if anyone feels like giving it a test run, I'd be interested to hear about the results.
Cheers,
Simes
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 31, 2006 16:44:06 GMT -5
This is great - it looks like it would be a relatively simple wiring job too, having been designed with a nice clean idea.
Can I float a sugestion? Not for the switching, but for what comes down-stream, in terms of controls. Your circuit provides the widest possible range of overall inductance and resistance, ranging from 1/4 that of one coil (all in parallel - does it do that?), to 4x one pup (all in series). That range would react very powerfully to a tone control based on switching in a series of capacitors, as in the Gibson 'Varitone'. This would give a far greater range of truely different voices than would a conventional tone control, particularly with this circuit. The key is to provide a series of small caps in a growing progression. With any one of them the range of pup combos would give a range of resonances over 2 octaves. With say six different caps, this could be very effective.
John
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Mar 31, 2006 18:57:12 GMT -5
Unk has politely pointed out that the all coils / parallel option is a series/parallel one. Thanks for that. Still - I reckon the caps would make a good tone control option.
cheers
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Mar 31, 2006 20:07:59 GMT -5
Thanks, JohnH, for the kind words. No, it doesn't have all in parallel. Somehow that one was missed The lowest inductance is two parallel coils and the highest is four in series. So the inductance varies by a factor of eight between the extremes. That's a good deal, but less than sixteen. Guitars with humbuckers usually have a 500k tone pot, so at full treble the capacitor is well isolated and would have little effect, whatever pickups are used. As the control is turned down I expect that it's effect would vary somewhat in the different positions, especially near the extremes of inductance. That's something which I hadn't thought of, and it's because of unanticipated things like this that I cautioned that it hasn't been tested yet. Now there is something which I hadn't seen before. Those who are interested can check it out here... Filter curve at: www.blueshawk.info/varitone.htmWiring diagram at: www.gibson.com/relations/schematics/diagrams/dsbhwiring.pdfThis is a tone control of a whole different species. It's actually a notch filter rather than a high or low cut. It has a long series chain consisting of the inductance of the coil(s), a 10 M resistor, a capacitor and a separate 7.2 Henry inductor. Then there is a regular tone control in parallel with all that! Whew! It would be educational to dive back into the textbooks and refresh my memory about how to calculate the resonate frequency and Q-factor for such a circuit, but I'll pass on building it. I don't think that you would have much luck finding a 7.2H inductor at Radio Shack anyway. Thanks for pointing this out, and someone else is welcome to take up the challenge, but I'll stick to the simple kind.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 2, 2006 20:52:17 GMT -5
fobits, A Varitone circuit is always nice, but it does add some complexity to the scheme of things, so I understand your reluctance to get this involved. The neat thing here is that this whole shmear is passive. I've always wondered what the effect would be of using a switched capacitor circuit, but that's active (and I didn't want to stick a battery in my guitar just for this). Now, with the advent of remote power to my rig (for the hex piezo pickup), I just may go back and re-visit this topic in more depth. Your links were cool. Sadly, there are some mistakes in the arithmetic on the first one (BluesHawk), but that's nit picky, and not worth the effort to dissect them. ;D sumgai p.s. Nice diagram in your initial post, very clean and easy to understand. Should be more postings of that caliber.
|
|
|
Post by simes on Apr 4, 2006 1:12:42 GMT -5
No, it doesn't have all in parallel. Somehow that one was missed Presumably all four in parallel would sound different to the outer coils in parallel, but functionally the two sounds would serve the same purpose. For me, anyway. The way I see it, if there's (a) a good lead sound at the bridge (b) a good lead sound at the neck (c) a pseudo-quack (inner coils) (d) a nice open rhythm sound (outer coils) (e) hot versions of all these (series mode), then I've got everything I need. Whatever the middle position on the switch produces is a bonus, and although you don't get the traditional 2HB middle position or all four in parallel, I think that function is covered elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Apr 5, 2006 17:48:06 GMT -5
Adding some enhancements (or complications) The diagram for the Big Fat Ten doesn't show a tone control. It just assumes that a standard control will be placed between output and ground, and will affect all combinations. JohnH's LP Maximiser in the schematics section also has a series/parallel switch. One pole of the switch adds a tone-shaping capacitor to the circuit in series mode (only). Hummmmmm..... This version uses a four-pole switch as the mode switch. (It really only needs three, but 2 and 4 are standard items.) It has two tone controls, one for series and one for parallel. The one which isn't being used is disconnected, so both are never active (or drawing current) at the same time. None of this has been built yet, it's just something that occurred to me while looking at the Maximiser, and I thought I'd toss it into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 6, 2006 5:30:30 GMT -5
Thats good fobits. By chance, Runewalker and I have been working on a wiring diagram for a version of the Strat Lovers Strat, from GN1. One of the options on this also has a similar series and parallel tone control set up. This wiring diagram will be coming to a schematics page near you soon. My view is that with two such tone controls, the smaller cap should go on the series control. The higher impedance of a small cap is a better match for the higher impedance of a series wired pup combo. BTW - you should also put your excellent BFT design on the schematics page cheers John
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Apr 6, 2006 16:28:05 GMT -5
The more I look around at other designs, the murkier the picture becomes. A 500K pot with a .047 uF cap seems to be almost universal with series humbuckers. So far, so good. When it comes to single and parallel coils, opinions vary. Strats have 250K with .022 uF, but others argue that 500K is better for keeping the tone bright. So what capacitor goes well with 500k and parallel coils? Apparently, anything from .047 uF all the way down to 3.3 nF, depending on the designer. That's quite a range! Perhaps I should put a question mark after that value, or an asterisk with a note saying "Toss all of your capacitors in a pot, shake well and grab one." Thank you. I'm quite proud of it myself, but that's a biased opinion. If you think it qualifies, I'll be happy to put it there. Frank
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 6, 2006 17:04:54 GMT -5
...Perhaps I should put a question mark after that value, or an asterisk with a note saying "Toss all of your capacitors in a pot, shake well and grab one." ... NO, NO, NO!whaddaya tryin' ta do here? upset the apple-cart? we carefully plot out our cap values in a radial pattern. ....................and then throw a dart! unk
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 6, 2006 18:47:13 GMT -5
And not just any dart, no, that won't do either. It's gotta be made of South American Kokobola wood, a tip made out of titanium, and fletched with the feathers of the famed Foo bird! Yessiree, that's the only way that the dart will fly straight and true, and actually stick into one of the capacitors! ;D sumgai p.s. Of course, the "selected" capacitor will be worthless with a dart sticking out of it, so flip a coin, and take the next one on the right if it comes up heads.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 6, 2006 19:13:51 GMT -5
Frank, Oh, you wanted a serious answer? I'm sorry, you should have said so in the first place, I'm sure The Unkster and I would have been glad to accomodate you, right Unk? Wellsir, it's like this. Instead of worrying about what exact value is reputed to work best with your pickups, why not just try a few, and see what happens? You do realilze that the tone control is that last thing in the signal path before said signal gets to the jack, right? So what's to prevent you from jury-rigging another tone pot outside of the guitar, complete with a number of capacitors at hand, all ready and waiting to be inserted into the circuit for testing? Answer: nada. Just reach in and disconnect the current tone control circuitry, so there're no hidden influences on your tests. My personal take would be, a 0.047 is rather large, and will likely act very quickly. I think I'd start with a 0.03 or 0.033, about the same thing in this case. Work your way downwards until the control has almost no action from full CW to full CCW. Pick the one in the middle of that range, but wait, you're not done yet. Now start with that "middle" choice, and change pot values. Any significant difference? Then do the capacitor-dance again. If you've been keeping track, even with just simple "Like/Dislike" results on a notepad, then you should be able to tell which combination works best, according to your ears. And that is the name of the game here, right? It's OK to use the stock values if you are fixing a guitar for someone you don't know, and they haven't expressed any wish to change the tone. But if you're out to obtain what you think is the ultimate tone (why you're here), then you may find yourself using values quite a ways distant from the so-called 'standards'. At that point, it doesn't matter one whit what those standards are, does it. Oh yeah, I'd stick with a linear taper in both cases, but if you've got log pots, and wanna try them, by my guest. You might take good notes, and report the results here for inclusion in the upcoming FAQ! ;D Once you've made your choices, and soldered the components into your rig, put your test jig in the Hock Shop forum, others here will wanna use it. ;D Failing that, take pictures of the rig for posting here. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Apr 6, 2006 21:03:28 GMT -5
Mr. sumgai, meet Mr. JohnH. He says that they should be swapped around with the .047 on the other one, and you say that it's too big and you wouldn't even bother testing it. This is turning into fun.
My Beringer had 500k tone pots with .047 caps, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. Nobody argues with Beringer.
As for me, I'm still trying to work up the ambition to test the bass-cut tone control discussed in another thread, now well down the list. I've got the circuit made up, with input and output jacks and little alligator clips to hold the capacitor and resistor for quick changes. Now I just have to tear myself away from the computer long enough to test about 20 different combinations to see if any of them work.
That's enough for now.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 6, 2006 21:14:27 GMT -5
...My Beringer had 500k tone pots with .047 caps, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. Nobody argues with Beringer.... HooooooooooooooooooooooBoy! still a newbie, posting schematics, AND a sense of humor! this guy's a natural. +1 unk BTW:
Σgai,"we carefully plot out our cap values in a radial pattern." means you put the paper on the dart board. but that image of the titanium tipped dart penetrating the cap was worth the post. but Foo bird feathers? Scheesh, get it right. that's only for 'paul cap selection. for a strat, naturally it has to be duck feathers! also, we don't flip a coin. we throw "spin a fortune wheel" or "throw dice".
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 6, 2006 23:03:36 GMT -5
unk, I thought you of all people would have gotten the joke I referenced with the Foo bird, but with that 'paul cap thing, I don't know...... And how many sides does that die have to be, anyway? sumgai p.s. Nice play on the partial translation of my name into Greek. It was meant to be all Oriental, but I like the way you think! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 6, 2006 23:14:29 GMT -5
Frank, That's why I prodded you to do your own testing. This is the "different strokes for different folks" world that we're playing in here, ain't no two ways about that. To put it another way, how do you know that you and John, unk, myself, any other person, how do you know that you like and dislike the exact same things as any one of us, in the exact same amount? Not too likely, eh? A good starting point is all that John or I can recommend, based on what worked for us. It's up to you to carry through for yourself. Which it looks like you're prepared to do. I'd be pleased as punch if you'd kindly keep track of your results, and share them with us after you've buttoned everything up. Please? sumgai
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Apr 7, 2006 9:03:31 GMT -5
unk, I thought you of all people would have gotten the joke I referenced with the Foo bird, but with that 'paul cap thing, I don't know...... And how many sides does that die have to be, anyway? ... as in: "if the Foo... . ...wear it!"? the 'paul thing was just a set-up for the strat-duck thing. 2 dice (6-sided) = 11 possiblities. (inherently center-weighted too!) unk
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 13, 2006 4:40:29 GMT -5
I'm glad to see that someone else is coming up with "odd stuff"! I have a similar setup that is a bit more conventional.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 14, 2006 13:13:07 GMT -5
I'm glad to see that someone else is coming up with "odd stuff"! I have a similar setup that is a bit more conventional. What's this, a gen-u-wine Mike Richardson post? Won't wonders never cease! Hi, Mike, glad to see yer mug 'round these part again. Are yer plannin' on stayin' a spell, or you still being called "The Breeze" for a good reason? ;D sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 14, 2006 15:59:56 GMT -5
Actually, I was cleaning out my favorites list a while back and accidentally deleted the link to this place. I couldn't find the URL anywhere. I tried to Google "guitarnuts2" in different forms, with no luck. I finally went back by the original Gnuts and found the link.
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Apr 14, 2006 16:25:52 GMT -5
M. Richardson:
Your design posted on the original GN1 and referrenced here in GN2 is ledgendary, at least has devoted followers. Nice to communicate with a legend. How's the walking on water thing working? ;D
This is off topic of this thread, but it would be helpful to document your design in the Schematics page. I have only seen hand-rendered drawings. And while there is a retro chic to those, and a stated prefernce from some for that 'style', do you have or are you aware of a more modern computer rendered wiring diagram that is postable to the Schematic page? Of course some of the EE types also want the electronic schematic.
RW
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 14, 2006 22:29:21 GMT -5
Mike, M. Richardson:
Your design posted on the original GN1 and referrenced here in GN2 is ledgendary, at least has devoted followers. Nice to communicate with a legend. How's the walking on water thing working? ;D
This is off topic of this thread, but it would be helpful to document your design in the Schematics page. I have only seen hand-rendered drawings. And while there is a retro chic to those, and a stated prefernce from some for that 'style', do you have or are you aware of a more modern computer rendered wiring diagram that is postable to the Schematic page? Of course some of the EE types also want the electronic schematic.
RW Hell, Mike, if you're tied up for time, or you don't wanna learn yet another 'puter proggie, or even if you're just not inclined to "upgrade" the drawing, I'll be more than honored to do that for you, as I'm sure anyone else here would also be. But it would come across so much more smooth if you did it, instead of one of us hacks. ;D Pretty please? sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 15, 2006 0:00:58 GMT -5
Well, I suppose I can do that. What exactly do I have to learn, program-wise?
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Apr 15, 2006 0:27:55 GMT -5
Mike:
Some of the supergeeks here use Autocad, which is the howitzer of rendering. At the other end of the spectrum is paintbrush, which is a little tedious.
John Hewitt hit on a method just using MS Word, because once its drawing objects are used you can use the connector objects that retain anchors to the objects as you move them around.
In fact you could just lift the objects from his Word TM-II file (DPDTs, pots, etc) and position them as you like. I've played with that and it is very easy. However the conectors sometimes have a mind of their own.
Others like the real right angle linear style, but the Word approach is easy.
I'll PM this to JH to see about getting you a copy of the file itself. That would accelerate your rendering, in case you like that approach.
RW
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 15, 2006 0:32:59 GMT -5
Mike:
Some of the supergeeks here use Autocad, which is the howitzer of rendering. At the other end of the spectrum is paintbrush, which is a little tedious.
John Hewitt hit on a method just using MS Word, because once its drawing objects are used you can use the connector objects that retain anchors to the objects as you move them around.
In fact you could just lift the objects from his Word TM-II file (DPDTs, pots, etc) and position them as you like. I've played with that and it is very easy. However the conectors sometimes have a mind of their own.
Others like the real right angle linear style, but the Word approach is easy.
I'll PM this to JH to see about getting you a copy of the file itself. That would accelerate your rendering, in case you like that approach.
RW +1 for coming up with a bona fide "quicky course" for Mike! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 15, 2006 3:47:03 GMT -5
Well, I'll have a look at Autocad, then.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Richardson on Apr 15, 2006 3:57:13 GMT -5
Howitzer, my eye! Autocad is a weapon o' mass destruction!
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 15, 2006 15:01:35 GMT -5
Mike, Yeah, we do tend to refer to it as sort of like using an H-Bomb to kill a housefly. ;D Seriously, if you haven't ever used it before, then the learning curve is gonna send you to the nuthouse. Just because it's the program of choice for a few of us doesn't make it the best choice for everyone. I still think that Rune had a good idea in using Word (and by extension, WordArt) to arrange small files on a page, then draw "connector objects" to make everything come out right. I'd give that a go, just to keep from going bonkers with the high-priced spread. Or, you could try something relatively easy like PaintShopPro, or even PhotoDraw, both good choices for someone who just want's to draw lines and drop in a little bit of text, without a lot of hassle, and with a short learning curve. Their best feature is that they can store small objects separately, and you can reuse them as often as you wish. Their worst failing is that they don't have any kind of anchor system - if you move a group of objects to another location, any lines (think "connecting wires") that cross your "selected objects window" will not move accordingly, they'll have to be manually manipulated. Even Word can keep one end of a line in place while you move the other end with a group of objects, which is why I second Rune's suggestion of it. Once you've laid out some complex things, then realize you need more room right in the middle, you'll appreciate not having to erase a bunch of stuff and redrawing them in the new positions. Just some criteria that I consider necessary to think about before jumping in with both hobnailed boots! sumgai
|
|
sci4us
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 27
Likes: 3
|
Post by sci4us on Nov 23, 2019 0:07:47 GMT -5
Hello! I like this Big Fat Ten wiring schematic.
Question: on a HH guitar, with this wiring, would I be able to put either pickup out of phase (with push/pull pot) by simply taking the black and green (Seymour Duncan wire colors) and wiring to push/pull first, then to the corresponding spots on the Super/Megaswitch? Would that work, or is there something else to that? P.S. I know of the Big Ugly, but can't see the actual wiring schematic, due to the IP grab done by Photobucket....
|
|