smmack
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by smmack on Jul 13, 2020 11:46:37 GMT -5
Hi, I know there are some clever people on here, so after having a brainstorm and coming up with a wiring diagram I thought I'd give you guys a look and hear your opinions on how well it will work. I used a 4PDT on the volume pot for this diagram, you can think of them as two separate push pull pots if that is easier. Positions push pull up: 1 - Bridge in series 2 - Bridge coil tap (pole 1 only) and middle in parallel 3 - middle 4 - middle and neck in parallel 5 - neck Positions push pull down: 1 - bridge in parallel (single coil sound) 2 - no change 3 - no change 4 - middle and neck in series (humbucker sound) 5 - no change Treble bleed on all positions.  |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 13, 2020 14:06:22 GMT -5
'mack, Hi, and  to The NutzHouse1!  I don't wish to go any further in assistance until you tell us where you intend to find and purchase a 4PDT p/p switch mounted to a standard pot (standard for guitars, that is). I have a feeling that your scheme can be made to work, but I'm not so sure about that particular part. If it turns out that I'm correct, then the need for two separate switches may cause you to change your mind about what you want. And that would mean a not insignificant amount of wheel-spinning has occurred, I'm sure you understand.  At least a link will suffice, but a picture and a link, that would be gold.  HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jul 13, 2020 15:24:58 GMT -5
'mack, Hi, and to The NutzHouse1! I don't wish to go any further in assistance until you tell us where you intend to find and purchase a 4PDT p/p switch mounted to a standard pot (standard for guitars, that is). I have a feeling that your scheme can be made to work, but I'm not so sure about that particular part. If it turns out that I'm correct, then the need for two separate switches may cause you to change your mind about what you want. And that would mean a not insignificant amount of wheel-spinning has occurred, I'm sure you understand. At least a link will suffice, but a picture and a link, that would be gold. HTH sumgai Here ya go:  www.musikhaus-zoelch.de/mec-mono-potentiometer-b500k-push-pull-4pdtOr for a 250k audio version: www.musikhaus-zoelch.de/mec-mono-potentiometer-a250k-push-pull-4pdtYou may now proceed. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 13, 2020 15:32:35 GMT -5
reTrEaD, Ah, thanks. Nice to see wire-wrap pins, or were those meant for insertion into a printed circuit board....
'mack, OK, I'm outside right now (well, I'm inside for a quick pit-stop...), working on tearing out a fence while the weather is cooperating. A hole-drilling rig is coming in on Thursday to dig new holes for an all-new replacement fence, and I'm saving some of the cost by doing the demolition work myself. All of which is to say, let me look much more closely at this tonight, and I'll post my thoughts/findings. All right with you? Of course, others may beat me to it, so slurp it all in with gusto - we'll get you fixed up yet! sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 13, 2020 16:44:18 GMT -5
I don't wish to go any further in assistance until you tell us where you intend to find and purchase a 4PDT p/p switch mounted to a standard pot (standard for guitars, that is). I have a feeling that your scheme can be made to work, but I'm not so sure about that particular part. I just automatically assumed that this would be a Fender S-1 switch. If I was designing a Strat scheme with one or two push/pulls, then I wouldn't put it on the most intrusively positioned control, i.e. the volume pot. In the up position with the knob sitting another sixth of an inch or so higher it makes the placement even more obnoxious -- and an S-1 avoids this extra height. However I do note that smmack describes it as a "push pull" where as the switching mechanism of an S-1 is push/push. Some old Ibanez guitars (e.g. SV5470) did have 4PDT push/pull pots, but they definitely aren't widely available, though might be through a specialised Ibanez parts dealer. Actually looking even further, on the diagram I do believe the volume pot does read: "500k 4PDT/S1". Hi, I know there are some clever people on here, so after having a brainstorm and coming up with a wiring diagram I thought I'd give you guys a look and hear your opinions on how well it will work. My first observation is nothing to do with the diagram, but rather the intended switch options. If it were me I'd probably group the series sounds together, that does mean that you loose the ability to have one of the modes be all the typical HSS positions, but gives you greater distinction between parallel mode and series mode. It would also likely simplify the wiring a bit, probably requiring only half the poles of the 4PDT switch so we put those saved poles to use elsewhere if needed. Secondly, in general I don't know that I buy the whole switching between 500k and 250k pots thing: "I want to split this humbucker or put these coils in series, in order to achieve a different sound, but I also want to swap out the pots to compensate, thereby minimising the change in tonality" -- that's just never made that much sense to me. Now on to your implementation of that idea, as far as I can tell the 470k resistors are permanently connected between the middle and neck pickups positive leads and ground, meaning that when both are selected in parallel you get the effect of both resistors. This does somewhat mimic the doubling up of the original two tone controls on a Strat, that isn't always a welcome thing ( reTrEaD, for one recently cursed this), but one person's bug is another person's feature. Furthermore with middle and neck in series, they are again doubled up, but in a weird way: with the middle pickup being at the ground-most end of the series 'stack', its resistor is only in parallel with the middle pickup whereas the neck pickup's resistor is in parallel with the entire series combination, both pickups. On a related note, because of the presence of the neck's loading resistor -- and that when in "series mode" the neck pickup is hanging from hot (via the pickups negative wire) in positions 2 & 3, due to being connected to the middle pickups positive wire via poles A & B of the 4PDT -- you have the neck load resistor and the (out-of-phase) neck pickup in series in parallel to the selections in those two positions. You aren't likely to hear any output from the neck pickup being in the circuit, but you will still have about 95% of the effect of the loading resistor. If you are set on the idea of including the 470k loading resistors, then I'd probably just put one of them in parallel with the combined middle & neck tone control -- that should cover all the places where they are currently present. There might be some cleverer idea, like removing the load resistor when you have neck & middle in series, but I'd have to think about it. Thirdly I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the red (orange?) wire from B-1 of the superswitch to D-Down of the 4PDT, all it appears to be doing is connecting B-1 and B-2 (and the rest of the yellow Bridge N+ wire) via an inefficient route, doing so wouldn't be a good idea either as that would short the output to ground in positions 1 & 2, as the brown and purple series link wires are actually permanently connected at D-2 of the super switch. I reckon having B-1 and B-2 directly connected, but leaving D-Down completely disconnected should fix that. Fourthly, realising what I just said: "the brown and purple series link wires are actually permanently connected at D-2 of the super switch", that means that they can't be separated in order to give the bridge coils in parallel, so that selection won't currently work as intended, just giving the north split coil instead.
The combination of the last two issues will require a more in depth look to figure out if they can be solved simultaneously, without forcing your hand on the decisions regarding the first two issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 13, 2020 22:24:34 GMT -5
Some old Ibanez guitars (e.g. SV5470) did have 4PDT push/pull pots, but they definitely aren't widely available, though might be through a specialised Ibanez parts dealer. , quite a bit cheaper than the MEC alternative, though it's only good if you're in certain Central European countries ("Due to special contracts with Ibanez, we only sell Ibanez items to the following countries: Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia.") |
|
smmack
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by smmack on Jul 16, 2020 17:26:54 GMT -5
Hi guys thanks for the responses, I'm just going through them now. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you, I ended up needing a new house this week. So I can only apologise for the delay. "Actually looking even further, on the diagram I do believe the volume pot does read: "500k 4PDT/S1"."Firstly, Good spot. I forgot to mention this. I originally designed this for use with an S1 switch, however once I contacted Suhr customer support weren't familiar with the S1 layout, so I labelled the poles and translated them to the more common DPDT format. My first observation is nothing to do with the diagram, but rather the intended switch options. If it were me I'd probably group the series sounds together, that does mean that you loose the ability to have one of the modes be all the typical HSS positions, but gives you greater distinction between parallel mode and series mode. It would also likely simplify the wiring a bit, probably requiring only half the poles of the 4PDT switch so we put those saved poles to use elsewhere if needed. Secondly, in general I don't know that I buy the whole switching between 500k and 250k pots thing: "I want to split this humbucker or put these coils in series, in order to achieve a different sound, but I also want to swap out the pots to compensate, thereby minimising the change in tonality" -- that's just never made that much sense to me. Now on to your implementation of that idea, as far as I can tell the 470k resistors are permanently connected between the middle and neck pickups positive leads and ground, meaning that when both are selected in parallel you get the effect of both resistors. This does somewhat mimic the doubling up of the original two tone controls on a Strat, that isn't always a welcome thing (reTrEaD, for one recently cursed this), but one person's bug is another person's feature. Furthermore with middle and neck in series, they are again doubled up, but in a weird way: with the middle pickup being at the ground-most end of the series 'stack', its resistor is only in parallel with the middle pickup whereas the neck pickup's resistor is in parallel with the entire series combination, both pickups. On a related note, because of the presence of the neck's loading resistor -- and that when in "series mode" the neck pickup is hanging from hot (via the pickups negative wire) in positions 2 & 3, due to being connected to the middle pickups positive wire via poles A & B of the 4PDT -- you have the neck load resistor and the (out-of-phase) neck pickup in series in parallel to the selections in those two positions. You aren't likely to hear any output from the neck pickup being in the circuit, but you will still have about 95% of the effect of the loading resistor. If you are set on the idea of including the 470k loading resistors, then I'd probably just put one of them in parallel with the combined middle & neck tone control -- that should cover all the places where they are currently present. There might be some cleverer idea, like removing the load resistor when you have neck & middle in series, but I'd have to think about it. Thirdly I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the red (orange?) wire from B-1 of the superswitch to D-Down of the 4PDT, all it appears to be doing is connecting B-1 and B-2 (and the rest of the yellow Bridge N+ wire) via an inefficient route, doing so wouldn't be a good idea either as that would short the output to ground in positions 1 & 2, as the brown and purple series link wires are actually permanently connected at D-2 of the super switch. I reckon having B-1 and B-2 directly connected, but leaving D-Down completely disconnected should fix that. Fourthly, realising what I just said: "the brown and purple series link wires are actually permanently connected at D-2 of the super switch", that means that they can't be separated in order to give the bridge coils in parallel, so that selection won't currently work as intended, just giving the north split coil instead. Ok I thought I might've made a kerfuffle of this. I love Suhr guitars. However I ended up with a Fender Custom Shop SSS in a unique design due to price and risk differences in getting the same design custom made from scratch by Shur and shipping to the UK. The SSS is nice every now and then for specific songs, however I am finding myself frequently missing the humbucker in the bridge. I started out by using Shur wiring to add in a humbucker, but then discussed with Suhr and considered a parallel push pull option in the bridge. This way I could have both the normal auto coil split when combined with middle along with suhr HSS wiring from 470K resistors, and an option to quickly change back to a single coil bridge sound when needed, granted it would probably be though a 500K pot unless there is a way to change that too. I am not fussed at all on the neck and middle in series tbh, I will probably never use it if the humbucker volume is balanced with the single coils. I just saw 6 empty poles on the S1 and decided to use them up thinking "hey why not put a humbucker sound in the bridge too". Without realising that I had made things a bit too complicated for the parts to handle. I would actually prefer to use the spare poles to send the parallel humbucker mode through a 470K resistor and to a 250K pot, so it sounds a little more realistic in single coil mode if this is possible, if not I will be fine with knowing that the previous design will work. Here is the previous design. HSS Suhr wiring, with a parallel bridge push pull.  |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jul 17, 2020 8:15:42 GMT -5
Firstly, Good spot. I forgot to mention this. I originally designed this for use with an S1 switch, however once I contacted Suhr customer support weren't familiar with the S1 layout, so I labelled the poles and translated them to the more common DPDT format. If you are interested in using a Fender S1, you might find this useful:  guitarnuts2.proboards.com/post/64052/thread |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 17, 2020 23:01:00 GMT -5
I am not fussed at all on the neck and middle in series tbh, I will probably never use it if the humbucker volume is balanced with the single coils. I just saw 6 empty poles on the S1 and decided to use them up thinking "hey why not put a humbucker sound in the bridge too"... You mean neck right? But putting that to one side, we're quite familiar with that mindset around here: The First Law of GuitarNutz is: Leave no lug unsoldered!
I don't know that I'd go quite as far as to say that it's too complicated for the parts, not yet, but more complex? Yes, definitely. I had kinda anticipated this, putting the extra resistor in parallel when the humbucker is itself in parallel mode doesn't actually require an extra pole over the standard series/parallel switching, just clever placement of where the said resistor is connected. Routing to another pot would, however, usually require that extra pole -- but that just leads me onto the question of which other pot, the 250k tone pot for the middle & neck pickups? Wouldn't it be better to keep the bridge pickup on it's own tone pot? That's what I'd aim to do. While waiting for an answer to the above, here's what I'm currently thinking: use a dual gang 500k/250k tone pot for the bridge tone control, the 500k section can be wired as normal, whereas since the additional 250k section is new and therefore not connected elsewhere we can use it (and its tone cap) to replace the parallel resistor. Technically in the setting with the HB in parallel, that then leaves both sections of the tone control in parallel: the 500k pot section effectively takes the role of your planned 470k resistor with the exception that when the control is rolled down you'll get both tone caps in parallel, but that's not a bad thing. With two coils in parallel their impedance is lower (half of that of individual coils, or a quarter of both when in series) as such in order to get the same amount of treble roll off via the tone control you need a larger tone capacitor. Luckily capacitance actually adds in parallel, therefore by putting the two sections of the tone control in parallel we happen to naturally end up with a larger capacitance. Even so, I still might be tempted to up the value of the capacitor wired to the 250k section up to 68nF, thereby giving us a total of 22nF + 68nF = 90nF, in other words approximately four times the 22nF as used with the series humbucker, almost perfectly offsetting the difference between series and parallel wiring. As I mentioned, the above would mean that you would still have the two spare poles on the S1 switch. Therefore could still have the option middle & neck in series, but it'd be unlikely that we could do anything equally clever regarding the middle & neck tone control in that position. So, more precisely, here's what I'm thinking: (Click image for full size version) (To the others: I think this is the way that minimises any hanging coils but I can't be sure.) |
|
smmack
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by smmack on Jul 18, 2020 4:41:10 GMT -5
but that just leads me onto the question of which other pot, the 250k tone pot for the middle & neck pickups? Wouldn't it be better to keep the bridge pickup on it's own tone pot? That's what I'd aim to do. Technically in the setting with the HB in parallel, that then leaves both sections of the tone control in parallel: the 500k pot section effectively takes the role of your planned 470k resistor with the exception that when the control is rolled down you'll get both tone caps in parallel, but that's not a bad thing. With two coils in parallel their impedance is lower (half of that of individual coils, or a quarter of both when in series) as such in order to get the same amount of treble roll off via the tone control you need a larger tone capacitor. Luckily capacitance actually adds in parallel, therefore by putting the two sections of the tone control in parallel we happen to naturally end up with a larger capacitance. Even so, I still might be tempted to up the value of the capacitor wired to the 250k section up to 68nF, thereby giving us a total of 22nF + 68nF = 90nF, in other words approximately four times the 22nF as used with the series humbucker, almost perfectly offsetting the difference between series and parallel wiring. As I mentioned, the above would mean that you would still have the two spare poles on the S1 switch. Therefore could still have the option middle & neck in series, but it'd be unlikely that we could do anything equally clever regarding the middle & neck tone control in that position. So, more precisely, here's what I'm thinking: (Click image for full size version) (To the others: I think this is the way that minimises any hanging coils but I can't be sure.) Amazing work. I'm happy with that. It should give a Suhr wiring HSS strat, with the option to sound like a real SSS, without having to change the pickguard and rewire back to the original SSS layout, or having confusion about changing controls while playing. The 68n Cap makes sense too, just so that the "single coil sounding" mode won't have a 75% volume drop when compared to the neck and middle. I'm fine with two empty lugs, I can't see a way to mess around further with only two open lugs. If it's still unverified I will probably end up trying it anyway when the time comes and upload a video to get views on whether something needs to change. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 18, 2020 7:24:30 GMT -5
YogiB-
Correct me if I'm not seeing something here, but isn't the neck pickup's phase being flipped between Positions 4 and 5 on the 5-way, with the S-1 switch up?
Also, it is very hard, on the diagram, to see the dark blue jumper wire between Pos 5 (BL) and Pos. 4 (TL), since 2 other wires overlay it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 18, 2020 22:22:29 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm not seeing something here, but isn't the neck pickup's phase being flipped between Positions 4 and 5 on the 5-way, with the S-1 switch up? Well, yeah? See the top line of writing above the schematic. Or is the emphasis on "with the S-1 switch up"? It's flipped in position 5 in both modes but it's only relevant to eliminating the hanging coils in 'alternate mode' (well not exactly "eliminating", because it doesn't, rather it has them hang from ground rather than from hot -- meaning that they shouldn't contribute noise). I will note that that the phase of the neck pickup is only reversed (with respect to the other coils) in position 5, i.e. the position where it is the only pickup selected. Therefore, there are no actual 'out-of-phase' tones (because that would require it to be used in conjunction with one or more other 'normal-phase' coils). However, I have just realised I'm a bit being too clever for my own good: flipping the phase between positions 4 & 5 means that while switching between those positions with a standard make-before-break switch, there'll be an instant where hot and ground are shorted together, and thus a deadspot with no output. So perhaps there is a better alternate way to wire something essentially equivalent but with a better way to avoid hanging/shorted coils, or since it's only exists in 'alternate mode' position 5 maybe the best thing to do not flip the phase and leave the coils hanging from hot -- I mean it is a duplicate of the regular position 5 which does not have the potential issue. (Deadspots between positions seem to be a thing I'm doing a lot of recently, and speaking of which I should go and update cem's thread.) Changed. It should be better now. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 19, 2020 9:26:38 GMT -5
It's flipped in position 5 in both modes but it's only relevant to eliminating the hanging coils in 'alternate mode' (well not exactly "eliminating", because it doesn't, rather it has them hang from ground rather than from hot -- meaning that they shouldn't contribute noise). Got it, I had forgotten your mission to eliminate hangings coils here. |
|
smmack
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by smmack on Jul 19, 2020 10:38:08 GMT -5
What would this all mean in terms of actual playing? I'd like to fill up free lugs, but not if it takes away from the way it sounds when played normally.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 19, 2020 10:57:34 GMT -5
What would this all mean in terms of actual playing? I'd like to fill up free lugs, but not if it takes away from the way it sounds when played normally. Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Explanation of First Law of G-Nuts needed on Aisle 2, please! Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 19, 2020 11:22:32 GMT -5
Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder!  Present and Reporting for duty, Sir! smmack- sg is referencing an old joke around here, one that will go right over the heads of anyone who has registered here fewer than 7-8 years ago. But my (admittedly humorous)philosophy was to try to use every lug possible. As for your scheme (and being serious for a minute), no need to use extra lugs, as you say, just for the sake of using them. And there really aren't any extras, anyway, just a few unwired lugs which have to be left that way. There are no unused switch poles, just unused lugs on switch poles already in use. If you had a spare switch pole, that might be useful to add an extra feature of some sort. |
|
smmack
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by smmack on Jul 20, 2020 11:28:35 GMT -5
I was querying the reverse phase neck pickup in pos 5. mentioned before, and the dead spot caused by changing that polarity during the "normal mode". Would that cause a noticeable issue or change while playing (I tend to change pickups a lot while playing), If so, would it be better to take the neck and middle series option out of the equation? Or is it something that I'd never even realise is there if someone weren't to point it out. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 21, 2020 6:26:46 GMT -5
Or is it something that I'd never even realise is there if someone weren't to point it out. That's my thought. If it becomes that much of a nuisance to you, it could always be changed later. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 23, 2020 2:51:38 GMT -5
I meant to quote this last time (but obviously forgot): The 68n Cap makes sense too, just so that the "single coil sounding" mode won't have a 75% volume drop when compared to the neck and middle. The larger cap isn't about normalising volumes, its purpose is to keep the behaviour of the bridge tone control roughly consistent between the two settings. Furthermore although, yes, the impedance does drop by 75% for two (similar) coils in parallel compared with the same coils in series, the voltage output will only drop by 50%. Also while rereading that post, the sentence previous to that jumped out at me:The series middle & neck setting being where it is doesn't exactly tally with a pure sss mode. As said previously, usually I'd want organise the humbucker-ish and single-coil-ish tones into separate modes, but I do also acknowledge that can also be its own downside as it makes switching from e.g. series bridge HB to neck single coil more complicated, by requiring the user to toggle two switches rather than one. Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Present and Reporting for duty, Sir! When searching for the above quote of sg outlining Rule #1, the earliest reference of an initial phrasing of the rule was by you, but from the context where the rule was explicitly stated as a rule, I didn't figure out who the BPB was. I guess now I know. I was querying the reverse phase neck pickup in pos 5. mentioned before, and the dead spot caused by changing that polarity during the "normal mode". Would that cause a noticeable issue or change while playing (I tend to change pickups a lot while playing), If so, would it be better to take the neck and middle series option out of the equation? Or is it something that I'd never even realise is there if someone weren't to point it out. That's my thought. If it becomes that much of a nuisance to you, it could always be changed later. The phase reversal itself should be imperceptive, the related deadspot would likely manifest itself like a small 'click' when swapping between positions 4 & 5, somewhat similar to dis/engaging a stompbox though less extreme. I say 'click', in quotes, because really it's the opposite of a click: a click is an instant of noise -- this would be the opposite, an instant of silence. Therefore it will be most obvious if switching during a sustained note/chord. If you do decide to change it in future, then it's only a case of swapping both white and both navy blue wires connected to the position 5 terminals of the two left-hand (as oriented per my diagram) poles of the superswitch. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 23, 2020 9:21:40 GMT -5
Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Explanation of First Law of G-Nuts needed on Aisle 2, please! Paging The Beta-Particle Bombarder! Thank you! Present and Reporting for duty, Sir! When searching for the above quote of sg outlining Rule #1, the earliest reference of an initial phrasing of the rule was by you, but from the context where the rule was explicitly stated as a rule, I didn't figure out who the BPB was. I guess now I know. Well, now you know, with certainty. But for extra credit, ask newey just how he got that particular sobriquet.... (I'm not gonna spill the beans, such data is newey's to tell, or otherwise. Confidentiality agreements and all that, you understand.) |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 23, 2020 15:18:47 GMT -5
But for extra credit, ask newey just how he got that particular sobriquet... I don't even remember that myself. I made some analogy to bombarding something with beta particles but I don't recall the context. But it apparently tickled sg's funny bone. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 24, 2020 15:38:30 GMT -5
But for extra credit, ask newey just how he got that particular sobriquet... I don't even remember that myself. I made some analogy to bombarding something with beta particles but I don't recall the context. But it apparently tickled sg's funny bone. Since my memory is now officially shot, I can only say that, over some of the best fish dinner ever to be served anywhere in Seattle, you told me that your wife came out with it one time, after she asked you what you were doing on the workbench. Or something to that effect, I dunno. All I'm better-than-50%-certain of is, your wife had a hand in the name. After that, it's pretty murky now. Sorry. |
|
to The NutzHouse1! 
