Telecaster Project

[dasbeef]

First of all I would like to say 'Hello to you' all.

I am currently starting my first projuct guitar. (I am a total newbie to this, so if I come across as stupid, then I probably am!) I am attacking my Mexican Telecaster, and am currently at the planning stage. Here is my plan so far. I would appreciate and comments, pointers, and even ideas any of you may have to help me make this guitar a cracker! So here goes....

I'll start by posting a blank picture of a standard Tele...


Right! Here is the first draft of what I am thinking about doing to it....


Right, the bullet points...

1. The guitar is currently NOT strung thruogh the body, and I quite fancy making it so that it is strung through the body. The back bridge already appears to have holes for the strings to go through, if I were to do this.
I know I will need to drill holes through the body, and put ferrels to hold the strings in the back. I don't know, if anything, what else I would need to do. Any advice?

2. I intend to completely change the metal plate at the back of the guitar, and make a bigger hole underneath so I have room for 2 volumes, 2 tones, an onboard effect, and to move the jack so it plugs in on the front of the guitar.
Not quite decided whether to fabricate something to fit from stainless steel, or buy a square of scratchplate material, and fabricate a scratchplate, that will be one piece, and cater for the alterations at the pots, and selector as well as the pickups etc.

3. Intend putting in a full size double coil. Any suggestions? I played a Seymour Duncan pearly gates pickup once, and it sounded sweeeeeet!!! Also, I own a '72 custom, and may consider putting the humbucker in at the bridge.

4. Two volume pots. Intend to have one for each pickup.

5. Two tone pots. I intend to have one for each pickup.

6. Jack. This is where I intend to plug my lead into!

7. On-boar effects pot. Quite fancy the distortion one, but not quite decided...

8. I intend to turn the original jack point into where the battery will go for the onboard effects.

9. This I am not quite sure about. I have 2 options which I will call 9a, and 9b. Will be open to other suggestions....
____9a. Straight forward on off swith. One for each pickup.
____9b. Three way on/off/on switch. Do the wiring like the mustang so I can have the pickups on off, and in and out of phase. (2x3 way selectors with 8 terminals)

I want the wiring somewhere between a Les Paul, and a Fender Mustang. ie. I would like to have on/off for the pickups, and an out of phase selection like the mustang, but I want each pickup to have it's own volume and tone. I also want to incorporate some kind of onboard effect. (Purely because when I move the jack point, I'll have a gaping hole, and a battery would fill it. Oh, and it would be nice)
I have aquired wiring diagrams for Les Pauls, '72 custom Tele's, Standard Tele's etc. I am struggling howerver to find a good diagram for a fender mustang. Oh, and any wiring suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Any input at all would be appreciated.
Thanks.....
Keith 'DasBeef'.

[CheshireCat]

dasbeef said:

First of all I would like to say 'Hello to you' all.

Welcome aboard.

dasbeef said:

Here is the first draft of what I am thinking about doing to it....

First, excellent graphics.

dasbeef said:

Right, the bullet points...

1. The guitar is currently NOT strung thruogh the body, and I quite fancy making it so that it is strung through the body. The back bridge already appears to have holes for the strings to go through, if I were to do this.
I know I will need to drill holes through the body, and put ferrels to hold the strings in the back. I don't know, if anything, what else I would need to do. Any advice?

Advice? Use a drillpress. More later.

dasbeef said:

2. I intend to completely change the metal plate at the back of the guitar, and make a bigger hole underneath so I have room for 2 volumes, 2 tones, an onboard effect, and to move the jack so it plugs in on the front of the guitar.
Not quite decided whether to fabricate something to fit from stainless steel, or buy a square of scratchplate material, and fabricate a scratchplate, that will be one piece, and cater for the alterations at the pots, and selector as well as the pickups etc.

I wouldn't go that route (no pun intended). If you don't execute it flawlessly, it will make for a major eyesore. Also, Teles are by far the most traditional of all guitars. If you buck the traditional aesthetics, it can come back to bite you. I know from experience, in spades. And, believe me, I am not someone who is in any way enamored of the vintage or purism movement by any stretch. Still, design aesthetics is a different ball of wax entirely.

Instead of using a wide spread like that, try this . . .




Here's why:

dasbeef said:

4. Two volume pots. Intend to have one for each pickup.

5. Two tone pots. I intend to have one for each pickup.

All that can be best executed using stacked concentric dual pots, which is quite common, and really easy to pull off, especially with something like tone and vol controls. Ergo, no need for a doublewide.

Now, that said, I think your bang for your buck on that would be minimal. If you want to make this puppy a monster, try some EQ instead. The EMG-BTC and EMG-VMC circuits come to mind. I use them on all my stuff and they work great.

(Incidentally, they are generally referred to as EQ circuits for bass guitars. True, they work well for bass guitars, and I have them on my bass, but they also work very well for guitar as well. In fact, I couldn't imagine playing a guitar with out one [short of using some practice guitar].)

Also, I prefer master volumes to individual volumes, but, then, of course, I have four (soon five) pickups on my guitar, and that's just counting the magnetic pickups, so I can't go that rout anyway. And that's not even counting the Piezo and MIDI which will be going in later. But I digress.

If you want the seperate tones and volumes for each pickup, go dual concentric.

dasbeef said:

3. Intend putting in a full size double coil. Any suggestions?

That's doable. I would also suggest perhaps doing a mini-humbucker version of the Pearly Gates (assuming Duncan has one) for the middle position, one for the bridge position, and having a classic neck pickup. That helps maintain the Tele aesthetic.

Still, if you want the Pearly Gates in the neck position, that's workable.

dasbeef said:

6. Jack. This is where I intend to plug my lead into!

Space on a Tele is at a premium. Don't waste a control space on the jack. That's what the hole on the side is for.

dasbeef said:

7. On-board effects pot. Quite fancy the distortion one, but not quite decided...

I generally frown upon onboard effects on a guitar, when it's in some sort of clunky, bulky, obtrusive, jury-rigged fashion. That said, the Artec QDD2 would be an excellent choice, and one that I am considering for my Utah, because it is very small (only one control space), smaller than most EMG circuits, gets 3000 hours of life to one battery, and has not one but four excellent forms of distortion, from true bypass, to clean boost, to blues overdrive, to rock distortion, to metal. That coupled with a tube amp and the Tele would be a winning combination.

dasbeef said:

8. I intend to turn the original jack point into where the battery will go for the onboard effects.

Once again, don't. That's what battery boxes are for. If your battery dies onstage, the last thing you want to do is dig out a battery from a jury-rigged compartment. If you are installing a commercially available battery box, such as a Gotoh, into the jack cavity, then that will still be incumbersome. That and the fact that the only battery box I know of that might work is rather big and clunky, and designed to go into an acoustic guitar, which is far more forgiving (unless we're talking a thinline).

dasbeef said:

9. This I am not quite sure about. I have 2 options which I will call 9a, and 9b. Will be open to other suggestions....
____9a. Straight forward on off swith. One for each pickup.
____9b. Three way on/off/on switch. Do the wiring like the mustang so I can have the pickups on off, and in and out of phase. (2x3 way selectors with 8 terminals)

First, move those switches down to the pickguard, like this:



The pickguard is perfect for it because you can take out all the wood you want and it will all be masked by the pickguard, and, second, if you do install that over the open body, then you'll have to back route from behind, and, let me tell you, as someone who has the very same config that you're going for, you don't want to go that route (once again, no pun intended).

See, it worked in my case because I already had a rout going, and I needed a bigger cavity area anyway for some other stuff, so it worked well that I do that, but for you doing two jag sliders right next to the neck, that would be tight at best.

dasbeef said:

I want the wiring somewhere between a Les Paul, and a Fender Mustang. ie. I would like to have on/off for the pickups, and an out of phase selection like the mustang, but I want each pickup to have it's own volume and tone. I also want to incorporate some kind of onboard effect. (Purely because when I move the jack point, I'll have a gaping hole, and a battery would fill it. Oh, and it would be nice)
I have aquired wiring diagrams for Les Pauls, '72 custom Tele's, Standard Tele's etc. I am struggling howerver to find a good diagram for a fender mustang. Oh, and any wiring suggestions would be very much appreciated.

The important thing isn't whether you want the wiring to be a bit like an LP or a Mustang, but rather for you to be clear about what selections you want, and why, and how you want your guitar to operate during a song.

To that end, there are many excellent schematics for expanded Teles. To be honest, I don't know if you can do any better than the T-Riffic, which is one of Johnny A's masterful mods from the original GN site. If I had a Tele, and I was just sticking to two pickups, that's the one I would use. And, all the switching can be handled by just one SuperSwitch, without any tandem toggles to create more sounds.

The Selections it gives you are as follows:

1 N
2 N>B, OOP
3 N+B
4 N>B
5 B

That's every combination you can get in a Tele, short of N+B, OOP, which I think is a bit overkill.

Ultimately, I believe that the T-Riffic gives you everything that you said you wanted, and it only involves one switch to get all those options, so I would seriously look at that. You could also work in a mini-toggle for splitting the humbucker(s).

Now, speaking of stangs (jags, so on), you could ring in a vol pot in the form of an embedded rollerwheel. That would be a clean way of doing things. Or, you could also do a killswitch next to the splitter, both sitting adjacent to the SuperSwitch, as in that sample pic.

That would then give you a control plate with the following controls:
1a T-Riffic Selector Switch, 1b Splitter, 1c Kill Switch
2 EMG-BTC
3 EMG-VMC
4 Artec QDD2

That should all cleanly fit on one Tele control plate (albeit snuggly) and give you all that you wanted in terms of masterful tone control, onboard effects (try four different ones), all the sounds you wanted in one switch, splitting for your bucker, and a simple killswitch for your volume needs. Everything else looks the same, save the bucker in the neck.

If you really, really want seperate tone/vols for each pickup instead, then just trade out the EMG circuits for dual concentric stacked pots and you're where you wanted to be.

Does that all make sense?

Chesh

[dasbeef]

Welcome aboard.

Thanks

First, excellent graphics.

Thanks again. I kind of did a cut, paste, and touch up job from the schematics on the Fender site to simply display my intentions.

Advice? Use a drillpress. More later.

What I am basically asking here is, appart from the ferrels at the back, do I need any other parts? Also, should I drill the holes the exact size of the holes on the bridge, or slightly larger so that the string does not touch the wood internally?
I have access to a drill press.

I wouldn't go that route (no pun intended). If you don't execute it flawlessly, it will make for a major eyesore.

I would make this piece first, and try the asthetics. If it looked rubbish, I would start heading another route. I think it looks pretty sweet on the drawing? I know, I know! In real life it may well still look cack!

Instead of using a wide spread like that, try this . . .

In reference to your pics, where do you get those wonderful toys? Seriously!?
I have considered mounting the switches on the scratchplate. I also see by your pics that there is space for 3 pots, a selector, and two little switches on the control plate. (I saw these switches on another site, and found out what they were, but I can't recall at the moment. There's my first stupid!) Anyway, where could I aquire a customised control plate? Can I get a blank one whick I could just drill the holes I need?
If I could get one with space for 4 pots, and no selector, I would seriously consider abandoning the jack move, and the onboard effects.

If you want the seperate tones and volumes for each pickup, go dual concentric.

Take it that just means one pot, 2 functions. Pull out, push in?

That's doable. I would also suggest perhaps doing a mini-humbucker version of the Pearly Gates (assuming Duncan has one) for the middle position, one for the bridge position, and having a classic neck pickup. That helps maintain the Tele aesthetic.

Still, if you want the Pearly Gates in the neck position, that's workable.

Nothing is set in stone with what I am doing, especially as far as the pickups are concerned. I am still considering puting the humbucker in the bridge as well. (I have a '72 custom, and I want this to be a good bit different from that) I do want to have only 2 pickups, and I do want one humbucker, and one single coil.

Space on a Tele is at a premium. Don't waste a control space on the jack. That's what the hole on the side is for.

Basically I wanted to do this as it would look different. Also from my original design, I would have plenty space, but as mentioned earlier, that may change if I can get a different control plate.

I generally frown upon onboard effects on a guitar, when it's in some sort of clunky, bulky, obtrusive, jury-rigged fashion. That said, the Artec QDD2

Thats the very one I was eyeing up!!!

First, move those switches down to the pickguard, like this:

As I said earlier, I may consider moving the switches to the scratchplate. If I did do that, I think I'd want them above the pickups, al-la-mustang. Thoughts on that?

two jag sliders right next to the neck, that would be tight at best.

In the diagram I drew, they weren't exactly where I was going to put them. They were going to sort of be there, but at diagonals. Anyway, were already talking moving these....

The important thing isn't whether you want the wiring to be a bit like an LP or a Mustang, but rather for you to be clear about what selections you want, and why, and how you want your guitar to operate during a song.

Essentially, my idea is to have the switching like the mustang, on/off/out of phase, but have a tone and volume dedicated to each pickup. I may consider just on/off though, and a volume and tone for each pickup.

Thanks for the link to those diagrams as well. You are spot on with that. That would still give me the control I want. Will have to seriously check that out, and have a good hard think about it. I kind of want the Mustang style switches, essentially cos I'm used to it, and it will look different on a Tele. I am trying to make something that will both look, and sound different.

Thanks very much for your reply. You have given me a lot to think about! (******* loads infact)
You obviously took a while on your response, and I thank you again on that.
Cheers,
Keith 'DasBeef'

[sumgai]

Keith,

Put the pup switches where you want 'em, but you might consider using a Jag-style switch plate to hold them, on that upper bout. Otherwise, you're in for some back-routing, then fitting a piece of plastic into a recessed lip on the resultant hole.

Rollerwheel controls are cool, but they are not for the quick of hand. Leo designed the whole upper-bout thing based on Forrest White's earlier design of having a "preset" rhythm channel. That explains the nearly out-of-the-way controls. Cool, but not practical for most guitarists outside of the "lounge" genre. (That's where one doesn't dare change anything from the expected ordinary tones - the drunks would suddenly become very sober, and start taking loud exception with your "messing around" with the tone. Presets are a gawd-send for this scenario.)

My only other comment would be on your chosen location for the battery. Have you thought about how it will be 'contained' within that cavity? You'll have to enlarge it to hold a standard 9v jobbie, and then how are you gonna keep the thing from falling back out? Just screwing down a plate isn't much better than lifting off the control cavity plate in the first place, is it? What you need here is a battery holder that 'pops' the battery out at you when you press a certain spot. Those are usually located on the upper bout, because an errant movement with your knee could "press the button", and your battery is making like The Little Soldier (although not standing at attention, I'm sure. ) But that's not to say that you shouldn't consider this avenue, it would be neat if you found a better holder than I've seen so far, at the usual outlets (Digikey, Mouser, etc.).

And just to cap this off, you've got 31 possible tonal combinations, are you gonna try to get all of them, or have you decided yet what you are going to limit yourself to? ;D


sumgai

[dasbeef]

Hi!

Thanks alot for your input. I have posted my intended project on a few forums, and have some very similar feedback. So here is what I am considering now....

Leave the jack input where it is, and ditch the onboard effects - The main reason I wanted onboard effects is that I had space with my original design. (and I didn't want to leave a big bare space of metal) I wanted to move the jack originally, and would've ended up with a hole, which could've been filled with a battery. I did have 3 potential battery holders that I was eyeing up.

Control Plate - I now intend to fabricate a control plate identical to a normal telecaster, except have 4 pots on it. (2 volumes, 2 tones, and no 3 way selector) If anyone knows where I could get a blank one that I could just drill holes in, that would be great?

Switching - Still sticking with the mustang style switching, but moving it to basically the same place as where the switching is on a mustang, as in, above the pickups.

One other thought - I have a '72 custom tele, and I want the project to be a good bit different from this, so I am considering puting the humbucker in at the bridge. Anyone think this is a better plan, or should I stick with the idea of puting it in at the neck? (Basically I want one humbucker, and one single coil, and can't decide which setup would be best)

Your thoughts on this re-vamp?

(PS. I do intend to gather as much information, advice, and ideas, as I can before I come up with a final design. I want to make sure I plan this properly before I go ahead and hack up my beautiful telecaster. All input so far has been very helpful. Thanks guys!!!!)

[dasbeef]

Sorry if I come accross as dumb, but would anyone be king enough to explain to me what difference there would be between using 250k, 500k, and 1meg pots?

Also, I'm thinking of mounting the Pearly Gates humbucker in the bridge position. (I decided I like the neck pickup on the Tele more) I know I will need a new bridge, but what problems will I encounter with this in respect to the routing and fitting?
Thanks...

[UnklMickey]

dasbeef said:

Sorry if I come accross as dumb, but would anyone be king enough to explain to me what difference there would be between using 250k, 500k, and 1meg pots?....

Dasbeef,

i don't know if "king" was a typo or if you were asking for me, specifically. .:lol:.

the lower the resistance of a pot, the more it loads the pickup(s).

since a pickup has a large internal inductance, the loading causes a slight loss of treble.

typically 250k pots are used with single coils.

typically 500k pots are used with HBs (they are basically 2 SCs in series so the have twice as much inductance.

1 meg pots could be used when you primarily use 2 HBs in series with each other, or if you just want a slightly brighter tone when using normal HBs.

there are no hard and fast rules about this.

those are just guidelines.

there are some folks that use 250k pots with HBs, because they like a darker tone.

and there are others who use 500k pots with SCs because they like a brighter tone.

if you mix HBs and SCs in the same build, just decide if you want the HB to be darker than "normal" when using it alone. or if you prefer to instead have the SC to be a bit brighter than "normal".



hope that helped.


i'll leave your question about mounting the PG open for someone else.





unk

[dasbeef]

I was asking for you specifically!!! ;D

Thanks for that. That helped loads.
Only thing I'm not sure about is, what difference does it make when it comes to volume? I get the tone bit. (Not sure if you have explained this through the impedance part. Would putting a 250k pot on a humbucker make it louder than if you put a 500k on it?)

I currently have two 250k pots on the Tele. Would it be a sensible move to buy two 500k pots, as I intend to have 1 single coil, and one humbucker? And then that would alow me to swap them over should I be unhappy with the sound?
(I like the idea of getting a darker sound from the humbucker, and a brighter sound from the single coil)

Also just out of curiosity. You said a humbucker is essentially two single coils in series. Does that mean if I wired my tele to have the 2 standard pickups in series, it would essentially give me a humbucker even though one pickup is at the neck, and the other is at the bridge?

[UnklMickey]

dasbeef said:

I was asking for you specifically!!! ;D...

Keith,

thanks for playing along.



pots are not all that expensive, so IMHO, it would be nice to have the option of experimenting with the values, for a slight change in the basic tone.

"You said a humbucker is essentially two single coils in series. Does that mean if I wired my tele to have the 2 standard pickups in series, it would essentially give me a humbucker even though one pickup is at the neck, and the other is at the bridge?"

simple question, complex answer.

yes and no, all at the same time!

if your SCs are of opposite magnetic polarity, they will hum-cancel when used together.

and that is true, regardless of whether they are connected in series or parallel.


if you connect those 2 SCs in series, that will cause them to have one of the factors that make a HB sound like a HB, the darker tone caused by the series connection.

but another factor, the spacing between the coils, is radically different.

so the series connected SCs at the neck and bridge will sound quite different from having them connected in parallel.

but they will also sound quite different than a HB.




unk

[dasbeef]

Thanks for that. Just a wee side thought. I was just thinking about doing the wiring for my project, and messing about with the original pick ups before getting a humbucker! Interesting answer though... I may well try that!

Anyone any answer for the volume pot question?

[sumgai]

Keith,

Thanks for that. Just a wee side thought. I was just thinking about doing the wiring for my project, and messing about with the original pick ups before getting a humbucker! Interesting answer though... I may well try that!

Anyone any answer for the volume pot question?

Your call, but I'd leave them alone until you've decided that what you're getting just isn't good enough. No point in installing other components, deciding they aren't right, and then going right back to where you were in the first place.


sumgai

[dasbeef]

Thanks for that. I see your point.
Anyone any advice for me mounting the Pearly Gates at the bridge position?

Also, would anyone be kind enough to give this the once over...



It's my first draft of a wiring diagram with a Pearly Gates humbucker at the bridge.
It should be wired so that the humbucker can be split, the pick ups can be on off, and in and out of phase. Also each pickup should be controlled by it's own volume, and tone. I have put the values on the pots and the capacitors.
Any help, or pointers here would be a big help. And of course any pointers with installing the humbucker at the bridge....
Thanks in advance!!!

[sumgai]

Keith,

Looks good, with two things......

I'd say you've got the volume pot values reversed for the pups. I know you said earlier that you would probably be interested in what the rest of us consider 'unnatural', but I think there's more to the matching thing than what we've stated so far in this topic. My advice is to try it, but don't cut the leads up tight against the pot terminals - leave some working room in case you decide to exchange the pots. You can always dress things up after you've made all final decisions vis-a-vis switching and other tonal options.

The other things is, your pots are wired "forwards". This is good from the amplifier's viewpoint - you turn a pot down, and the amp becomes quiet (the input is fully grounded). However, this also kills whatever signal is trying to come out of the remaining pickup. That explains the way Gibson hooks up their instruments - 'backwards'-wise, the wiper goes to the pickup, and the end goes to the output jack. This is bad for noise when looking at the amp, but it prevents the "kill all sound" scenario I just described.

Other than that, looks good! Party on (with your soldering iron)!


sumgai

[dasbeef]

The other things is, your pots are wired "forwards". This is good from the amplifier's viewpoint - you turn a pot down, and the amp becomes quiet (the input is fully grounded). However, this also kills whatever signal is trying to come out of the remaining pickup. That explains the way Gibson hooks up their instruments - 'backwards'-wise, the wiper goes to the pickup, and the end goes to the output jack. This is bad for noise when looking at the amp, but it prevents the "kill all sound" scenario I just described.

I'll be honest, you are losing me a bit here. Does that mean that using this set up, if I had both pickups on, and turned down one volume completely, I would have no sound coming from the guitar? If it does thats not good. Shall have to study my diagrams again.
Could you please explain this 'backwards' concept if you wouldn't mind...?

[dasbeef]

To get the control I want, would I have to wire the volume and tone pots like they are wired here www.seymourduncan.com/support/schematics/humb.html minus the three way selector of course?

[UnklMickey]

hi Keith,

no, that will give you the "no sound if both selected, but one volume at zero" problem.

John Atchley has the diagram on Guitarnuts.com:



you'll notice that the pickups are connected to the wiper (center terminal) of the volume pots.


also, your tone pots as shown will cut when turned clockwise, which is opposite from normal.

nothing wrong with that, if thats what you want.

if you want to have full treble (no cut) at 10, the more common way, you will use the center and right side connection of the tone pots.

it doesn't matter which end of the circuit goes to the tone pot, and which end goes to the cap.

it also doesn't matter if the cap is connected to the wiper, or the end of the pot.

all that really matters is which end is in use.

that will determine whether the cut is at 0 or at 10.

this all assumes that you have drawn your diagram looking at the back of the pickguard.

if not, your volume controls needs to have their ground connections on the left side terminal.




as far as mounting HB at the bridge,

here's a bridge for $16. ($18 in gold)

store.guitarfetish.com/chhubrforteg.html


i don't know how teles are routed, if you have a big rectangular opening that will accomodate the HB, or if it just has enough room for the stock diagonal SC.




unk

[dasbeef]

Thanks very much for that. I have the diagram drawn as looking from the outside of the scratchplate, and I think I know what you're on about.
I think all of this is finally falling into place.
I will re-draft my wiring diagram, and re-post it as soon as I can.

[dasbeef]

Here's wiring diagram draft 2. Sorry it's a little messy, it's just because I updated the original. Anyone see any faults?



Should hopefully have independant volume and tone control on each pickup, and could turn one down completely without killing the sound.
Any observations, ideas, tips will be greatly appreciated.

[UnklMickey]

it looks okay to me.

i see you stayed with the "looking through the scratchplate" view.

be sure to keep that in mind when you wire it up.


interestingly, the way you have the coil cut, even when you change the phase on the HB, you maintain hum-cancelling. (or the lack of it, depending on the position of the phase switch for the SC)


unk

[dasbeef]

i see you stayed with the "looking through the scratchplate" view.

be sure to keep that in mind when you wire it up.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to give this a once over. I am a complete newbie to this, but I feel I am beginning to get a better understanding.

Here is what I am taking from what you said.
When I wire this guitar, I will be wanting the capacitor at the left hand side of the tone pot (as viewed from above) so when the pot is turned down fully, the capacitor will bleed off the treble.

When it com,es to the volume pot, I want the wire from the jack going to the right hand side, so when the pot is turned up full, I am getting maximum volume.

Am I correct in this train of thought?

[UnklMickey]

Keith,

that is correct.

the connections are exactly correct, if you had a transparent plate, and the KNOBS are FACING you.



most of us draw our diagrams, as viewed from behind the scratchplate, so things will look similar to the drawing as we are doing the wiring. (knobs are laying on the table and the backside is facing us.)

but since you drew it as viewing with the knobs facing you, remember to keep that in mind when you are doing the wiring.

you will be looking at the backside when you are doing the wiring.



i think you are "good to go".



unk

[dasbeef]

Almost, almost.

Next thing I'll be hoping you guys will give the once over is the equipment I intend to use. I'll try to describe this as best I can.

First, for all the switches i intend to use...



These are 3 way on/off/on switches. (I know I only need a two way for the humbucker split, but I figure I should make them all the same, then if I modify further in the future, i'll have options open) DPDT mini 3 way switch. 6 terminals.

And for the pots I need some advice...



I was going to use mini pots in the hope that I would be able to fit all the pots, and the 3 mini switches onto the control plate I fabricate. The ones I am looking at are alpha pot range mini. They come in....
A&B 250k mini
A&B 500k mini
2xA 250k mini
2xB 250k mini
2xA 500k mini
2xB 500k mini
B 500k short
A 250k short
B 250k med
A 500k med
B 500k med

The short and med are for the regular type, and refer to the length of the split shaft. So we shall ignore these for now.
I am not clear on what the A&B are? Anyone know?
Also, are these pots the right choice, or am I totally barking up the wrong tree?
And would using just regular pots, instead of mini's be better?

Still looking for some advice on how to fit the humbucker in the bridge position if anyone could tell me? Will I need a surround etc etc? Things like that? I know I shall need a new bridge, but I have sourced that.

[sumgai]

Keith,

Mini-pots work just fine, many quitars come with them as standard fittings, and they last for years, albeit you'll still have to clean them out just as often as a regular sized unit.

"A" and "B" mean the 'taper' of a pot. "A" stands for 'audio', and is logarithmic in operation - from full off, turning it up a little ways yields a large change in resistance, and hence, in the resulting volume. A "B" taper is linear - a given percentage of shaft rotation yields the same percentage of change in resistance. Opinions vary as to which ones give the best results. I'm up for linear ("B") on both volume and tone, but there are many members here who would advise you to go with log ("A") style pots. It doesn't really matter, IMO.

As far as control placement is concerned...... have you checked out some of the pictures in the Schematics sub-forum here? You might be pleasantly surprized at what can be done in a small cavity. For starters, try Chris's ToggleCaster. His TeleBlender may also tickle your fancy.

I have nothing to offer in re: your HB-into-bridge position scenario, sorry. I'd assume that the source of the modified bridge would know somewhat about this, did you inquire therein?

HTH


sumgai

[UnklMickey]

Keith,

while it is true, in the case of the Alpha min-pots, that the A indicates audio taper, be careful.

there is a disparity between manufactures, and chronologically as to what the letter designations for taper mean.

in some cases A means linear.

this causes lots of confusion, so the best advice, is to do a bit of research, if you are using anything other than Alpha.


regarding mounting a HB in the bridge assembly:

it's unlikely you will need a bezel (ring) to mount the HB.

the pickup opening in the bridge is probably designed with holes in the proper places, such that you use the screws and springs and mount the HB directly through the bridge plate.

"A" and "B" mean the 'taper' of a pot. "A" stands for 'audio', and is logarithmic in operation - from full off, turning it up a little ways yields a large change in resistance, and hence, in the resulting volume. A "B" taper is linear - a given percentage of shaft rotation yields the same percentage of change in resistance. Opinions vary as to which ones give the best results. I'm up for linear ("B") on both volume and tone, but there are many members here who would advise you to go with log ("A") style pots.

Sumgai,

it comes as no surprise that you prefer linear pots.

it has become obvious, from what you are saying here, and in that other thread:

guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=wiring&thread=1147378795&post=1147814407

that the pots you have been using are NOT audio taper.

Frank and I have corroborating data that shows, there is a SMALL change in the resistance between full CCW and the mid-point on an audio taper pot.

so if you try some audio taper pots, you might actually like them.

of course YMMV.



unk

[sumgai]

unk,

Keith is buying new pots, so he shouldn't encounter the old taper codes. But if he had asked about "NOS" parts, then you'd be spot-on.

The taper labeling system changed something like 20 years ago, may 25 years, I don't recall at the moment.


sumgai

p.s. I'm sure you've seen by now my reply in 'that other thread', so I'll not address that issue here.

[dasbeef]

On my wiring diagram I posted, is my volume pot wired the wrong way?
(Looking through the scratchplate)

[sumgai]

keith,

On my wiring diagram I posted, is my volume pot wired the wrong way?
(Looking through the scratchplate)

No, for this application, you've done it correctly.

We call this "backwards" wiring the pot. The accepted correct method is called "forwards", and in that method, the wiper goes to the output jack and tone controls. However, doing that with two pots (one per pickup), as in your circuit, well, just imagine what happens when you turn down one pot all the way - the whole output dies! The only way to avoid that is to use the "backwards" method of wiring. That way, you can turn down either pot at will, without affecting the output of the remaining pickup.

HTH


sumgai

[dasbeef]

Right! I've not been on for a while. Had problems with parts, funds etc.. but I am now very, very close to putting this whole project together. (Most likely in about 2 weeks time!)
Here's what I've got and what I am thinking of doing for the finished product...

No joy with sourcing a 3 hole mounted humbucker Tele bridge. Have a 3 hole mounting hardtail bridge, and a metal pickup surround which wil work together in the bridge position.

A blue pearloid scratchplate.

Got a Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates Bridge Position Humbucker in Reverse Zebra.

Got three 3-way on/off/on mini switches. (Currently thinking of aquiring one 3-way on/on/on switch and adding series/split/parallel to the humbucker. Minor modifiction to my original wiring)

Got 2 linear 250k, and 2 linear 500k mini pots.

Fabricated a rough prototype control plate from aluminium that holds 4 pots, and 3 switches. Currently looking at getting a professional one made, but 4cm longer than the standard Tele control plate so there'll be a bit more room for the knobs.

Got a router and a drill press at the ready!!!

I now just need to get that other switch (still just a possibility) and a capacitor, and I'm good to go!

Any thoughts, ideas, or alterations on this?

[sumgai]

dasbeef,

Right!

........

Any thoughts, ideas, or alterations on this?

Yeah, I got a thought.... You've been slacking off this long, and still haven't finished it? Get busy! No more excuses!! ;D Don't let nothing but the fear of Gawd and the chain on your butt hold you back!

Good Luck!


sumgai