cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 14, 2020 9:36:18 GMT -5
Hello everybody. I came across this diagram and whoever made this is a saint. res.cloudinary.com/phostenix/image/upload/GuitarWiring/Strat-X2Plus.jpgI have no experience in soldering and i have a lazy repair guy who claims these types of wirings would not work unless i have a diagram for them:) There are two more things i would like to have. Treble bleed(any type is okey) and all 3 pickups in parallel. This diagram already looks complicated but i really need these as well. Could they be added to this diagram?
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 14, 2020 11:51:48 GMT -5
Hi Cem... The Treble Bleed would reside on S1 as with a regular pot and a regular treble bleed. Everyone has their favorite treble bleed values. There are many threads on this forum that talk about treble bleeds. I think you’re very ambitious to try the schematic you’ve posted. Just know that if you don’t have much soldering experience, that layout is going to be very challenging. Take your time. Here are two other diagrams that may achieve what you desire; and would be, a bit easier. With these, you still could work in the TBX. Honestly, I’m not trying to throw a wet blanket on your favored diagram, I’m just cautioning that a novel solderer might pull their hair out doing a fairly “advanced” wiring diagram. The other guys will provide their thoughts too. You’ll be up a running soon !!
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on May 14, 2020 12:01:05 GMT -5
also for the record i doubt you actually *want* all three pickups in parallel. will be SUPER quiet and thin compared to other combinations (if we're just using dcr as a baseline, three 7k pickups in parallel has a dcr of 2k33. i guess some guys like that but I'm not sure i would)
welcome welcome welcome
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on May 14, 2020 16:39:32 GMT -5
Hi Cem and welcome to GN2 That first diagram was by Phostenix, a very well respected creator of guitar wiring designs. Hes not a member here, but recently with his permission, we were able to access his whole collection and rehost them here on GN2. Id say its very difficult to add extra combos to a given Phostenix diagram, since they are so finely worked out already. But there are many, and if you explore you might find one that you want. guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/8876Check out the Strat X series for example, which have all three in parallel. All complex and sophisticated though, not a good first build. Treble bleed is easy to add to any diagram. I recommend a resistor in parallel with a cap as frets posted, and I reckon the optimum is a 120k for a 250k pot or 150k with a 500k pot, in parallel with a 680pF to 1000pF cap (I use 1000pF on all mine)
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 14, 2020 18:50:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies guys:)
I think i should clarify why i chose this diagram. I have been experimenting on my first guitar which is a 2005 MIM strat. After turning it into an hsh, then to an hss, what i found is that i can't live without true single coils. Splitting humbuckers are just not for me (I like them on a les paul though). So i am a typical strat guy but i also like to play slide, plus, every now and then i want to have fat lead tones when soloing. So my primary goal is trying as many series options as possible. After i test this wiring, i will keep the combinations i like and discard the rest.
And this time i am finally changing those stock ceramic pickups with low output alnico 5 ones so i am excited.
Frets, that's what i thought but my repair guy said that with this wiring, treble bleed could behave differently lol Maybe i need to find someone else for this. I trust the guy but he is a traditionalist and he probably has little experience with complicated wirings.
By the way, for some reason i can't view the images you have posted. Does anyone know why?
The tragic hero, that is really interesting because with that combination i can get a very nice notched position sound when i split the bridge humbucker that sounds close to both second and fourth positions but it sounds more defined and doesn't get muddy like the fourth position under high gain.It even sounds slightly more powerful than the notched positions. I wonder why my experience is so different to yours.
Thank you for your recommendation JohnH. I will keep this in mind and also try to learn more about different types and values of treble bleed .
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 16, 2020 3:40:53 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 16, 2020 6:33:10 GMT -5
cem-
No problem bumping your thread, but I think your questions have been "asked and answered", as lawyers say.
1) You asked about adding a treble bleed to the Phostenix diagram. This is easily done, and several member shave suggested appropriate values for the components.
2) You asked about adding all three pickups in parallel to that diagram. As JohnH said, doing so will disrupt the rest of the scheme. And several others have suggested other schemes that might get you what you want, or most of it, anyway.
3) Several members have discouraged you from trying such a complex scheme as a first project. That doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt it, just that you ought to consider the advice carefully, since it comes from people with experience. If you do decide to do this, or a similar scheme (or have a tech wire it for you), go into it with your eyes open. Understand that, it is virtually guaranteed that it will not work correctly the first time you wire it. There will be troubleshooting and rewiring necessary. Plan that, however long it takes you (or your tech) to wire it up, you will likely spend double that amount of time troubleshooting problems. If you (or your tech) are easily frustrated or prone to giving up when met with adversity, find a simpler scheme.
So, at this point, the ball is in your court, so to speak. If you really want the Phostenix scheme and can live without N+M+B, then build that scheme, being mindful of what we have said about its complexity. If you can't live without the N+M+B setting, then explore other diagrams, as suggested, that give you that setting plus some series settings. If none of those diagrams have what you want, tell us what pickup combinations you can't live without, and we can (probably)custom-draw something up for you.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 16, 2020 7:29:22 GMT -5
Hey newey,
Yes treble bleed question was answered. And if my tech gets into too much trouble i might settle for strat x wiring(which i already knew about) which has everything i need. But it would be best if i have more options to check out at once.
The reason i bumped is because i would like to be able to view those 3 images that frets have posted. I can't see them for some reason as i have mentioned in my last post.
Also if anyone else knows of a diagram which has all the options of StratX2 Plus with the addition of all 3 pups in parallel, i would like to know.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 17, 2020 7:07:20 GMT -5
cem- I have no idea why you can't see the images frets posted. This is a test, I copied and reposted one of thoseimages- the treble bleed diagram. Can you see it now? If so, I'll repost the others. As far as adding the "all 3 in parallel" option to the Strat X Plus 2 diagram, there are two verison of that diagram- one with a phase switch, the other without. Which one are you looking to use? One version shows all three pots is use- one as a TBX tone control, the other as a blend control, with the volume as the S-1 switch. No real room to add onto that one. The other diagram, however, only shows 2 pots, the S-1 vol and the TBX tone pot. It might be possible to add a push/pull pot to that diagram (I emphasize "might be", as it will take a longer look than I can give it at the moment). The push/pull switch on the third pot could then (again, in theory) be used to turn the neck pickup (or the bridge, either way) on/off in conjunction with the 5-way switch selections. Pulling the push/pull up would then allow for all three pickups in parallel when you have the M + B selected on the 5-way. Doing so would make an already-complex scheme even more complex, however, and means adding another switch.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 17, 2020 10:25:22 GMT -5
I can see this one Newey, thanks. It would be awesome if you could post the rest. The one i will most likely use is this one: res.cloudinary.com/phostenix/image/upload/GuitarWiring/Strat-X2Plus.jpgIts the first wiring that you see in Strat X2 Plus page. The 3rd pot with push pull to add neck or bridge would be perfect as it is similar to what i have right now on my hss strat. If you ever find the time to look into it i would be glad and forever be in your debt:) Besides, i am waiting for the tbx pot to arrive from the States since all the stores in my country are out of those for some reason. It looks like its going to take 2 weeks at least.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 17, 2020 11:11:03 GMT -5
Well, first off, I'm not sure what you would use the 3rd pot to do. With the TBX as a master tone control, and with a master volume, adding in another volume or tone pot will cause issues. Of course, you could just put a DPDT switch into the hole where the third pot would go, or you could use a P/P pot and just not use the pot portion, just use the switch. This would keep the stock Strat look, anyway. But kind of a waste of a P/P pot.
It would be fairly easy to have a "bridge solo switch" that would bypass the V and TBX controls, and bypass the 5-way switch. This would give you the "all 3 in parallel" that you want, but the bridge pickup would have less loading than the other 2 pickups, it would stand out in the mix.(I'm using the bridge pickup as an example, since most people want a "solo switch" for the bridge, it could just as easily be on the neck pickup.)
I'm not sure if it can be done such that the Vol and TBX controls would still be in circuit when the "bridge On" switch is pulled up. I've been looking at it and not seeing a way to do that. Maybe someone else has an idea.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 17, 2020 11:14:48 GMT -5
Oh, and here are the other 2 images frets posted:
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 17, 2020 13:29:56 GMT -5
Hmm. Could you explain this one? If it bypasses everything and activates the bridge(or neck) how do i select the rest of the pickups. As far as i know this would make the bridge pickup louder and more trebly. Also what do you mean by the bridge pickup having "less loading than the other 2 pickups"? I'm guessing the answer is louder and more trebly right?
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 18, 2020 5:40:41 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. Usually, these switches are wired so as to bypass the other pickup selectors, taking the bridge pickup alone straight to output. But it doesn't have to be that way, it could be done such that the bridge went direct to output but the selector switch stays in the circuit, so you would have the brige pickup in parallel with whatever is selected on the 5-way.
But again, I am not recommending that you do this, as you probably wouldn't be happy with the results. The bridge pickup would tend to swamp everything else, you'd mostly hear the bridge pickup.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on May 18, 2020 6:40:43 GMT -5
also for the record i doubt you actually *want* all three pickups in parallel. will be SUPER quiet and thin compared to other combinations (if we're just using dcr as a baseline, three 7k pickups in parallel has a dcr of 2k33. i guess some guys like that but I'm not sure i would) welcome welcome welcome I have a guitar, a Strat copy with a label of Northern II, that has just that on one of its settings: all three pickups in parallel. It does sound thinner and has even more 'quack' than a Strat on switch positions 2 or 4 and I can imagine that some folks might like it for the same reasons. As expected it is a little quieter than other settings, but not a lot quieter and it is definitely usable. I like it myself as an option on occasions.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 18, 2020 12:29:35 GMT -5
All 3 in parallel is what you're supposed to use when playing Apache!
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 25, 2020 4:27:43 GMT -5
Hello again:) I think i have found what i was looking for and it was on this site all along. But i need your help again. If i'm not mistaken, this wiring has all the options of strat X2 plus and also all 3 pickups in parallel. I had seen this before but i didn't realise that using the blend pot when the s1 switch is down, gives you 2 more options. But there is a couple of things i would like to ask. I need a 1Meg dual concentric pot but that seems to be unobtainable. Phostenix says that a 500k would work as well. Why would it matter? Can't i use a 250k dual concentric? I'm asking because thats the only pot i can find in my country. If this wouldn't work, why? I don't even understand why i need a dual concentric pot. This pot enables you to control 2 things but they are on top of each other right? I am assuming i won't be using one of the pots because i will put a standard fender knob instead of a stacked knob like you normally would right? EDIT: Is this what i need? www.gitarparca.com/fender-dual-500k-linear-solid-shaft-potans?gclid=CjwKCAjwtqj2BRBYEiwAqfzur9SaemRemi3DAvQ_3KzxjNyxR3_wLf-X34fW2Eq22GXUuu34JVlp1xoCIIAQAvD_BwE
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 25, 2020 11:32:44 GMT -5
Cem, That Potentiometer is a Special Dual Gang made by Fender called a TBX. It is wired to be a special tone pot modification. It has two potentiometer wafers that work together. One of these wafers measures at 1meg. It is wired to control treble and bass. This TBX has a special wiring configuration.
What you have a picture of is a regular Dual Gang potentiometer. It is not the special Fender TBX. The Fender TBX can be found on the internet and costs around $12.00-14.00.
The diagram calls for this special pot. It would be best to use one wired in the way portrayed. You could use another dual pot like the one you’ve shown. But it would not perform in the same manner as the special configuration on the TBX control.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 25, 2020 12:57:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 25, 2020 17:48:45 GMT -5
Cem, I’m sorry but no, the pot you found will not work. You need a “Concentric Potentiometer.” A Concentric pot looks like the one you found but they’re’s and important difference. A Concentric has two shafts, an inner shaft and an outer shaft. These shafts turn independently from the other and each one controls 1 of the 2 wafers. It’s like having two pots stacked up on each other. In the circuit you’re building, the Concentric pot works to control the blending of pickups. Take a look at the description on the diagram and you’ll see what Im referring to. Here is an example of a 500k Dual Concentric Pot, See the brass shaft and the other taller shaft? That’s what you need. I looked on the “Gitar Parka” store using the term “eşmerkezli potansiyometre.” Unfortunately, no results. I looked around on the internet and could not find a single Turkish store that had one. Of course, I don’t know Turkish. But they have them on EBay and I’m sure a vendor would ship to you. Lastly, I think a 500k Concentric would be just fine.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 25, 2020 19:05:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 25, 2020 19:24:02 GMT -5
Cem, I wouldn’t do it. It would lower the range of he blends. I wouldn’t go below 500k but that’s me. If “definitive” blending is not that important to you, go for it. It would give what weaker blend it would have, a blend in a more “parallel” sound, and that seems important to you. One other thing I forgot to mention is, you really need a “B” linear pot for the blending to work appropriately. Those are my thoughts.
But remember Cem, those are just my thoughts on the subject. Wait for others to chime in.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 26, 2020 6:32:03 GMT -5
By all means, let's let others weigh in. The scheme is difficult to decipher without a schematic, nad I haven't memorized the switch logic of the S-1 switch, so it's difficult to track exactly what Phostenix was doing here. But my take on this is that the diagram is simply mislabeled; I don't think he meant for a concentric pot to be used, but rather just a dual-gang pot (that is to say, not with concentric shafts, but two resistance elements sharing a single knob/shaft). This would not be a "blend pot" with a center detent, just a "regular" dual-gang pot.
If we look at how that pot is wired, it is blending in the neck with the 5-way switch at "Position 1" (i.e., blends the neck into the bridge at that position), or conversely, blends the bridge into the neck at position 5 (i.e., neck only). To do so, the two halves of the pot are wired together, in opposite directions (having the blending occur in opposite rotations makes sense, since if one had the blend at "max" in position 1, say, then flipping the 5-way to position 5 would result in "no blend", i.e., neck only, until one turned the blend pot the opposite way.).
Note how the two halves of the dual-gang pot are wired together. It would make no sense to have the two elements of a concentric pot wired together, since then turning either the shaft or the collar would accomplish the same thing, there would be no reason to have two separate controls.
But, again, I could well be wrong, so let's let others weigh in. But my take is that this is simply a labeling error.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on May 26, 2020 9:03:32 GMT -5
But my take on this is that the diagram is simply mislabeled; I don't think he meant for a concentric pot to be used, but rather just a dual-gang pot (that is to say, not with concentric shafts, but two resistance elements sharing a single knob/shaft). I agree. A concentric could be used, but it would be clumsy to use. A very specialized type of dual ganged pot would be appropriate here. I recall ChrisK discussing blend pots (as opposed to pan pots or balance pots). I'm not 100% certain but I believe this would work: darrenriley.com/store/fender-500k-pan-alpha-potentiometer-0056097000/
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 26, 2020 14:14:26 GMT -5
Cem, I’m sorry - I hope you did not go out and buy a Concentric. I looked at the name on the diagram and that’s all. I blame it on my ADD. If you did buy a Concentric, just PM me and I’ll buy it from you.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 26, 2020 18:07:48 GMT -5
Cem, I’m sorry - I hope you did not go out and buy a Concentric. I looked at the name on the diagram and that’s all. I blame it on my ADD. If you did buy a Concentric, just PM me and I’ll buy it from you. No worries i didn't order anything:) Guys if you could help me find the right pot it would be much appreciated. Since i am probably going to have to order it from the States i would like to order it as soon as possible. Due to the pandemic, it takes years to arrive.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 26, 2020 21:40:10 GMT -5
Mouser electronics has these 500KΩ ones: www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Bourns/PDB182-GTR01-504A2?qs=U%2FacTlguYxZ0RdtzaHgrKQ%3D%3DThis is a regular dual-gang pot. It has a 6mm knurled shaft, which should fit import-style Strat knobs. It does not have an extended shaft, so it will work on a pickguard-style guitar, you might have problems if you are trying to put it into a guitar with a rear cavity routing like an LP or "Super Strat". RT has linked above to the Fender Blend pot, which will also work, but will work a bit differently. It has a center detent for the "0" position; turn the knob clockwise, you're turning the one element, turn counterclockwise, and you're using the second element. If you are going to go with a center-detented blend pot, be sure to get the genuine Fender part. Many guitar websites sell so-called "blend pots" which are really stereo balance-control pots, i.e., pan pots, which don't work as well for blending pickups. For this use, I think a regular dual-gang pot will work better. Here, you are blending one pickup into the pickup selected by the 5-way (neck or bridge, depending on the switch position). The center-detented dual pots work better when you are blending two pickups together- at the center detent, both pickups contribute 50-50, turn one way and you blend one pickup up and the other down, turn the other way and it's the opposite action. With this scheme, you are not blending two pickups together, you are blending one pickup's signal into the (fixed) other signal. At position 1 on the 5-way (bridge only), the knob blends the neck pickup into the signal of the bridge pickup, with more and more neck signal added as you turn the knob up. But the knob doesn't blend the bridge signal down- that signal is fixed by the 5-way switch *. So, for this operation, I think the standard dual-gang pot is the better choice. *EDIT: However, if you switch to position 5, neck only, then you are blending the bridge into the neck, up or down, by turning the knob. So, if you want a blend of, say, "100% neck, 80% bridge", you have to be at position 5 to get that; to get any blend of less than 100% neck, then you'd have to switch to position one, so as to blend the neck into the bridge.
|
|
cem
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
|
Post by cem on May 27, 2020 1:16:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 27, 2020 5:35:13 GMT -5
... the two halves of the pot are wired together, in opposite directions (having the blending occur in opposite rotations makes sense, since if one had the blend at "max" in position 1, say, then flipping the 5-way to position 5 would result in "no blend", i.e., neck only, until one turned the blend pot the opposite way.). I don't think that's right. It's true that the halves of the blend control have the hot and ground wires switched, however note where the control connects to the pickups: the 'hot' side of the bridge pickup, yet the 'ground' side of the neck pickup. Therefore (in the relevant positions) when the control is turned fully up the lower gang will connect (via the blue wire & selector switch position 5) the bridge 'hot' to the 'input' of the TBX & volume controls blue wire -- with the blend control at the same rotation, the upper gang will connect (via the fuchsia wire & selector switch position 1 {and optionally pos. 2 in 'Strat mode'}) the neck 'ground' lead to ground, note that the neck pickup is permanently hanging from hot. Also looking at the orientation of the blend pot as currently shown in the diagram (i.e. noting that full output of the blended pickup is with the control fully clockwise, "on 10") we know that (as with blending in the centre position of an Les Paul) a log taper is not ideally suitable and linear taper would be better. Better still may be to use an anti-log taper, or use a log taper but wire the control to operate in the reverse direction (full blend at counterclockwise, "0"). They are wired together, but only as much as independently wired volumes on an LP are "wired together" -- although they are in parallel, sharing connections to hot and ground, they still have control over different pickups. But my take on this is that the diagram is simply mislabeled; I don't think he meant for a concentric pot to be used, but rather just a dual-gang pot (that is to say, not with concentric shafts, but two resistance elements sharing a single knob/shaft). I agree. A concentric could be used, but it would be clumsy to use. As detailed above, a concentric pot could be intended, as it would give the option to independently set the two blend amounts, it's just a user preference thing: the simplicity of one knob, or greater configurability provided by separate (stacked) knobs. I reckon both the "blend" pot and "pan" pot could be used here (with appropriate wiring changes), but both would present a significantly different interface to the user: - A "blend" pot could be utilised in a manner halfway to the option of a concentric pot wherein each half of the rotation separately controls the blend of the two pickups. This comes with the decision of whether the centre detent position should be "both on" or "both off".
- A "pan" pot would be useful if one wanted to implement the opposing nature newey described in the previous quote, with the appropriate log/anti-log tapers -- here the centre detent would serve no particular purpose and I'd probably seek to remove it
Anyway, I believe that covers most of what I have to say about the taper(s) of the pot, so now I'll move on to value. A 1 Megohm pot, in any of the dual varieties mentioned is an atypical part (as cem has discovered), so why did Phostenix give it preference to 500k and even omit 250k as a viable option? Well I don't know, but I have a fairly good idea: - Would 1Meg give a better range of blending? No, it is most likely worse in that regard.
- Would 1Meg reduce the amount of excess loading caused by the blend control? Yes, both halves of the blend control are in parallel between hot and ground, regardless of the switches' positions or blend amount.
An alternative solution using 500k or 250k pots would involve modifying the pots to go no-load when the pickups are blended off. This is possible but becomes more difficult when considering pots with two elements, and one has to be sure which end of the pot's rotation needs to be modified. Addendum: Nobody's yet mentioned position 3 of the lower left superswitch pole (connecting neck ground to the brown wire), is it correct? As I see it, with the S1 in 'series mode', this connection would add the middle pickup in parallel with the bridge giving N x (B + M) , not N x B . The terminal should be left open instead.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on May 27, 2020 7:36:43 GMT -5
Yogi B , first of all I'd like to say how pleased I am to see you posting again. This place is always great but it's sooooo much better when you're here. A "blend" pot could be utilised in a manner halfway to the option of a concentric pot wherein each half of the rotation separately controls the blend of the two pickups. This comes with the decision of whether the centre detent position should be "both on" or "both off". If the blend pot is a 'true blend' pot as ChrisK described it, the elements are unlike what we normally see. From fully CCW to center on one element there is essentially no resistance. From center to fully CW the resistance increases slowly when we begin the clockwise rotation and more rapidly toward the CW end. The other element works in a similar fashion, but from the CW end of the rotation. Because of this, the center detent position should be "both on". It also might be worth looking at the 'truth table' which would result if the blend pot was replaced with a DPDT on-on-on switch wired to accomplish A / Both / B. Anyway, I believe that covers most of what I have to say about the taper(s) of the pot, so now I'll move on to value. A 1 Megohm pot, in any of the dual varieties mentioned is an atypical part (as cem has discovered), so why did Phostenix give it preference to 500k and even omit 250k as a viable option? Well I don't know, but I have a fairly good idea: - Would 1Meg give a better range of blending? No, it is most likely worse in that regard.
- Would 1Meg reduce the amount of excess loading caused by the blend control? Yes, both halves of the blend control are in parallel between hot and ground, regardless of the switches' positions or blend amount.
I concur with all of that. An alternative solution using 500k or 250k pots would involve modifying the pots to go no-load when the pickups are blended off. This is possible but becomes more difficult when considering pots with two elements, and one has to be sure which end of the pot's rotation needs to be modified. If these pots are built as I imagine (not certain about that), the end which needs to go no-load would be very obvious. There should be a metallic trace from one end to the midpoint on each element. The resistive part of the trace would be modified at the other end. Addendum: Nobody's yet mentioned position 3 of the lower left superswitch pole (connecting neck ground to the brown wire), is it correct? As I see it, with the S1 in 'series mode', this connection would add the middle pickup in parallel with the bridge giving N x (B + M) , not N x B . The terminal should be left open instead. To be honest, I haven't looked carefully at the switching.
|
|