|
|
Post by headlesshorseman on Jul 3, 2021 18:37:53 GMT -5
I've searched far and wide on google and this board for a schematic wired like this, unsure if it's even possible given the wide number of existing schematics, I figure someone would've done it this way if they could.
Has anyone wired an HHH guitar to work with a 5 position/4 pole switch (rotary in this case) with 2 volumes, 2 tones, and a dpdt switch on each knob that would control coil splitting and phase?
The selector would be wired to function like a standard strat switch:
Bridge Bridge + Middle Middle Middle + Neck Neck
and in my head, each volume/tone knob controls the volume and tone of the pickup pairs when you're in the 2 and 4 positions on the switch, on 1,3,5 one set of pots doesn't do anything. The push/pull switches would be tied to the same pickup being controlled by the pots in each selector position as well.
Is there a different way to accomplish this? I'd prefer not to lose the ability to control each pickup on 2/4 positions with pots.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 3, 2021 22:29:25 GMT -5
Horseman-
Hello and Welcome to G-Nutz2!
Well, a Superswitch (or the equivalent Megaswitch) is a 4P5T switch, so any diagram using a Superswitch will translate fairly easily to your switch.
Just spitballin' here, y'unnerstand. We have 3 HBs, presuming you want to split the coils of all 3, that's three of your P/P pots to do the coil splits, leaving 1 P/P pot for the phase switch. Which is fine, since you're using standard Strat switching, putting the phase switch on the middle pickup will give you both possible OOP combinations, N + (-M) and B + (-M). Since you don't have a N + B combo, one phase switch is plenty.
I'm not sure what you mean here, and this may prove to be the bugaboo in the whole scheme, depending. Perhaps if you made a table of what pots operate in which positions?
Again, not following what you want here. If you want to be switching between pairs of pots in different switch positions, you may quickly run out of poles on the 5-way switch.
If the goal here is to have separate V and T controls for positions 2 and 4, thus allowing presets for the "notch positions", I think you could do a set-up where one pair of V and T pots would operate on the neck at positions 4 and 5, and on the bridge pickup at 1 and 2. The second pair of V and T controls is just wired to the middle pickup. Thus, in position 2, one V and T does the bridge, the other does the middle pup, and at position 4, the one set does the neck, the other the middle, allowing preset blends. In positions 1 and 5, you'd have the one pair of V and T pots on the bridge and neck, respectivley, the other set wouldn't do anything if the middle pickup wasn't selected. At position 3, the middle pickup V and T controls would be active. I think that could be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 3, 2021 22:38:51 GMT -5
Has anyone wired an HHH guitar to work with a 5 position/4 pole switch (rotary in this case) with 2 volumes, 2 tones, and a dpdt switch on each knob that would control coil splitting and phase? The selector would be wired to function like a standard strat switch ... and in my head, each volume/tone knob controls the volume and tone of the pickup pairs when you're in the 2 and 4 positions on the switch, on 1,3,5 one set of pots doesn't do anything. The push/pull switches would be tied to the same pickup being controlled by the pots in each selector position as well. The only way I could realistically see this working is if one pair of volume/tone controls (and associated p/p switches) are permanently wired to the middle pickup, leaving the switch to swap the other set of controls between the bridge & neck pickups. In this arrangement, whereby one of the two phase switches is permanently connected to the middle pickup, the other phase switch would be mostly redundant if it applied to both bridge & neck — i.e. there's no difference between: bridge combined with reverse phase middle; and middle combined with reversed phase bridge. (With the possible exception of which coils are selected when split). However, if the remaining phase switch were connected to either only the bridge or only the neck, that would enable the option of setting up position 2 to be in phase while position 4 would be out of phase (or vice versa) — via manipulating just the rotary switch. I'm thinking that wiring this other phase switch to the bridge pickup would be best, as if it is wired to also change which coil is used when split (which is useful for making the 2 & 4 positions hum cancelling when both of the selected pickups are split, regardless of whether they're in or out of phase) this will give wider tonal variation than swapping between the coils of the neck humbucker. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2021 2:30:23 GMT -5
 im not a fan of Two Volumes the Coil split would need set up I hate to wire these things as the pictures look crazy enough maybe flipping the PINK line to the Volume/Tone, so that the Vol/Tone comes before the Switch. So that this volume cant upset it Position 1&5  I know i shouldnt do this, as people want Point of View type of drawings.. i wouldnt like to wire these things up CHEAT: Get a Dual Gang Pot with a VERY LOW Resistance 1K or Less. Open it up and cut one of the Legs. So that when the volume is at 0 this will disconnect the circuit. So say we have CUT Lug 1 , So the Lug 2 will be the Input, Lug 1 ground, Lug 3 goes to the Other Volume Wafer Lug 2, with Lug 1 on that wafer going to ground and Lug 3 going to Output. Making the Pot in to a Switch on its own. This can Free up the Switching system for the Middle Pickup. And Volumes will not Fight with each other when you have single Pickups Replacing the Volume |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 4, 2021 5:22:37 GMT -5
The only way I could realistically see this working is if one pair of volume/tone controls (and associated p/p switches) are permanently wired to the middle pickup, leaving the switch to swap the other set of controls between the bridge & neck pickups. Looks like Yogi and I stepped on each other's posts. But apparently, great minds think alike  Ditto. But I'm still wondering where this other phase switch is located, since we have 4 push/pull pots and 3 HBs to be split. |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 4, 2021 8:32:03 GMT -5
In this arrangement, whereby one of the two phase switches is permanently connected to the middle pickup, the other phase switch would be mostly redundant if it applied to both bridge & neck — i.e. there's no difference between: bridge combined with reverse phase middle; and middle combined with reversed phase bridge. (With the possible exception of which coils are selected when split). However, if the remaining phase switch were connected to either only the bridge or only the neck, that would enable the option of setting up position 2 to be in phase while position 4 would be out of phase (or vice versa) — via manipulating just the rotary switch. Having slept on it, maybe I'm being overly eager to dismiss the utility of being able to swap which coil is selected when split, for both the bridge & neck pickups. Having the second phase switch affect both bridge & neck, does technically give you a couple of extra tones, but means if you wanted to swap between positions 2 & 4 and also swap between in- & out-of-phase at the same time you'd need to switch both the 5-way & one of the phase switches. So it's a question of what would be most valuable to you. Strange Volume: I flipped the I/O just a feeling that when turned down won't upset other volume! That's true, and why this style of "backwards" wiring is usually called "independent volume controls" and they work fine enough when blending any amount of one pickup with another full-volume pickup. HOWEVER, when used as an actual volume control, independent wiring gives quite poor performance when compared with a regular "forwards" wired (or dependent) volume control. With some rearranging you can do this for both volume controls. We can free up the lowest pole of your 5-way switch as it isn't necessary — bridge & neck pickups are never selected simultaneously, therefore the bridge/neck coil split switch doesn't need separating off behind one of poles of the 5-way. (Instead using both poles of the (DPDT) push/pull to just directly split both pickups.) Then with both volume controls on the 'pickup side' of the switch (rather than the 'output side'), we end up with pretty similar to the standard LP/SG wiring where independently wired volume controls become pretty much unnecessary. Dependent volumes will be mildly interactive in the positions where two pickups are active (in this case 2 & 4), at worst turning one volume two zero will silence the entire output — but if one were to want to silence only one of the two selected pickups: isn't that the purpose of the switch? I'm still wondering where this other phase switch is located, since we have 4 push/pull pots and 3 HBs to be split. Pretty similar to @angellahash's above (or with whichever of the connections made permanent, if applying it to only one of the pair), schematics shortly... |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jul 4, 2021 9:02:56 GMT -5
Ditto. But I'm still wondering where this other phase switch is located, since we have 4 push/pull pots and 3 HBs to be split. If I understand Yogi B 's concept correctly, one push-pull would split the middle pickup and one push-pull would split both the neck and bridge pickups. That leaves one push-pull to flip the phase on the middle and one push-pull for phase to either be dedicated to just the bridge pickup or be available to whichever of the bridge or neck pickup that is selected. However the series wiring for middle pickup is 'stacked', the neck and bridge pickups need to be 'stacked' in the alternate fashion. Two poles of the superswitch would be used to select the end wires of the desired pickup to the neck/bridge volume and tone. The phase switch for that section could either be connected directly to the bridge with the superswitch selecting the output from the phase switch or the the neck pickup. Or that phase switch could come after the superswitch and flip the phase of whichever of the bridge or neck pickups is selected. I think linear pots would be more appropriate for the volume controls. That would make blending out one of the selected pickups more gradual in the 2 and 4 positions. I should think backwiring the volume controls will cause more issues than it solves, and I personally would just live with the problem of reducing one volume to zero killing all sound when two pickups are selected.
Having the second phase switch available to either the bridge or neck pickup requires two poles of the superswitch. So the use of volume/tone controls would necessarily be Middle assigned to one, Bridge/Neck assigned to the other. If the second phase is dedicated to only the Bridge pickup, that frees up a pole. Thus we could have one pole selecting what's connected to the the 'main' volume and tone and the other pole selecting what's connected to the secondary volume and tone. This would be closer to what headlesshorseman describe in his OP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2021 16:38:11 GMT -5
Yogi Yes , the forth pole isnt needed to select the coil split. As only using 1p2t of the switch for a coil split it should go direct. This means from the output of the Neck/Bridge Volume goes to 1,2,4&5 and common to the jack.  |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 5, 2021 7:02:14 GMT -5
I take Yogi B's point that a second phase switch would allow for switching between 2 and OOP 4, or vice versa, with just the rotary switch. Unless that is something you anticipate doing often, on the fly, omitting the second phase switch simplifies things quite a bit. After all, you can still get the sound by pulling the middle pickup phase switch, granted, two operations instead of just one. But it seems IMO a small advantage for an extra switch. @angellahash 's schematic looks fine to me, although I share the question about the N/B phase switch and the coil cuts. Let's get another pair of eyes on this. |
|
|
|
Post by headlesshorseman on Jul 8, 2021 13:40:32 GMT -5
Hello, Please ignore my request for two phase switches, I don't really understand how phase switching works so that's why I made the request, I'm not dead set on having both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 8, 2021 23:03:54 GMT -5
If the second phase is dedicated to only the Bridge pickup, that frees up a pole. Thus we could have one pole selecting what's connected to the the 'main' volume and tone and the other pole selecting what's connected to the secondary volume and tone. This would be closer to what headlesshorseman describe in his OP. Okay, but if we were to have the volume controls swap about how exactly would that look? I can maybe imagine two logical arrangements, though logical may be a bit of a push for the second: | Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge | | | 2 | Bridge | Middle | | 3 | Middle | | | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck | |
| OR | | Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge | | | 2 | Middle | Bridge | | 3 | | Middle | | 4 | Middle | Neck | | 5 | Neck | |
|
And, looking at the first of those I can't help but feel that a master volume paired with a blend/pan pot for positions 2 & 4 would be more appropriate. Neck/Bridge Coil Split If you want North Pickup Second Pole Neck 1/2 Bridge 4/5 If you want South Pickup First Pole 1/2 Bridge 4/5 At work not sure what this will do with the phase after I'm having trouble making sense of that, but in general you're better off switching the series link to ground and controlling which coil is shunted by altering how the coils are connected, i.e. - ground >> - south + >> - north + >> hot, series link to ground will shunt the south coil
- ground >> - north + >> - south + >> hot, series link to ground will shunt the north coil
Doing it this way will cause the the phase switch(es) to also toggle which coil is shunted. This is beneficial in that it offers a way to choose which coil is selected when split, and will keep the OoP split slections hum-cancelling. For example: if by default in phase we have middle north & bridge south selected (in order to be hum-cancelling); pulling the middle phase switch will give bridge south & reverse phase middle south which will still be hum-cancelling; alternatively pulling the bridge/neck phase gives middle north & reverse phase bridge north, also hum-cancelling; finally pulling both gives reverse phase middle south & reverse phase bridge north (as both pickups have their phase reversed, this is an in-phase sound) and again is hum-cancelling. I take Yogi B's point that a second phase switch would allow for switching between 2 and OOP 4, or vice versa, with just the rotary switch. Unless that is something you anticipate doing often, on the fly, omitting the second phase switch simplifies things quite a bit. After all, you can still get the sound by pulling the middle pickup phase switch, granted, two operations instead of just one. But it seems IMO a small advantage for an extra switch. That's not the only advantage of two phase switches, as each also allows toggling which coil(s) are selected when split (see above). A comparison of the four phase switch options I can envisage follows (note, dedicated middle with a separate dedicated bridge is the "normal" complexity row, but I've generalised it to all 3 options where any two pickups are given dedicated phase switches): | Phase Switches | Complexity | Pos2 phase = Pos4 phase | Choice of Coil-split |
|---|
| middle only | simplest | always | middle only | | two, separate dedicated | normal | sometimes | whichever two have the switches | | combined bridge/neck | complex | always | bridge and neck | | middle & combined bridge/neck | complicated | always | all 3 |
Again, see the answer to @angellahash's above quote. Additionally I've compared it to the schematic I had in progress, the only difference I can spot is that I had the middle pickup phase switch the other way around (with the commons as the 'outputs'), and that I made a commitment on which way the default (normal phase) splitting worked: bridge & neck split to north, middle split to south (albeit all were shunted to ground due to reverse stacking the middle pickup, as reTrEaD mentioned earlier). Other than those points, it looks good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 2:06:24 GMT -5
Neck/Bridge Coil Split If you want North Pickup Second Pole Neck 1/2 Bridge 4/5 If you want South Pickup First Pole 1/2 Bridge 4/5 At work not sure what this will do with the phase after I'm having trouble making sense of that, but in general you're better off switching the series link to ground and controlling which coil is shunted by altering how the coils are connected, i.e. - ground >> - south + >> - north + >> hot, series link to ground will shunt the south coil
- ground >> - north + >> - south + >> hot, series link to ground will shunt the north coil
Doing it this way will cause the the phase switch(es) to also toggle which coil is shunted. This is beneficial in that it offers a way to choose which coil is selected when split, and will keep the OoP split slections hum-cancelling. For example: if by default in phase we have middle north & bridge south selected (in order to be hum-cancelling); pulling the middle phase switch will give bridge south & reverse phase middle south which will still be hum-cancelling; alternatively pulling the bridge/neck phase gives middle north & reverse phase bridge north, also hum-cancelling; finally pulling both gives reverse phase middle south & reverse phase bridge north (as both pickups have their phase reversed, this is an in-phase sound) and again is hum-cancelling.. i gotta get better with Hum-cancelling - am reading some of the Hum-cancelling but it can be a bit of a story tail going off ... some times you just want a epilogue with a happy ending of what is needed. as for the Phasing , i do enjoy people whom want both pickups to phase, its ever one or the other its not both. But i get screamed at and told to keep to the Script on the Demands. I could do this in far less BUT i'd be editing parts to get it to work am working on a lever switch that N, N+M, M, M+B, B, B+N and then with a switch of 2P2T becomes NxM, NxB, MxB, NxMxB, KILL (output to ground), N+M+B but that wont work with two Volumes |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jul 9, 2021 7:38:33 GMT -5
If the second phase is dedicated to only the Bridge pickup, that frees up a pole. Thus we could have one pole selecting what's connected to the the 'main' volume and tone and the other pole selecting what's connected to the secondary volume and tone. This would be closer to what headlesshorseman describe in his OP. Okay, but if we were to have the volume controls swap about how exactly would that look? I can maybe imagine two logical arrangements, though logical may be a bit of a push for the second:
| Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge |
| | 2 | Bridge | Middle | | 3 | Middle |
| | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck |
|
| OR |
| Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge |
| | 2 | Middle | Bridge | | 3 |
| Middle | | 4 | Middle | Neck | | 5 | Neck |
|
|
And, looking at the first of those I can't help but feel that a master volume paired with a blend/pan pot for positions 2 & 4 would be more appropriate. If we use two poles of the superswitch to determine which (or both) of the volume/tone pairs are connected to the output, that leaves one pole to determine which pickup is connected to Volume 1 / Tone 1, and one pole to determine which pickup is connected to Volume 2 / Tone 2. IF the Bridge phase and both Neck and Bridge splits are mounted on the Volume 1 and Tone 1 pots, it might make sense to do something like this:
| Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge |
| | 2 | Bridge | Middle | | 3 |
| Middle
| | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck |
|
|
If Volume 1 (and Tone 1) are connected directly to the output, we use one pole of the superswitch to determine whether or not Volume 2 (and Tone 2) are also connected to the output. That leaves two poles (one each, for the input to the volume and tone pairs) PLUS one spare pole we can press into use if needed. I was originally thinking the assignments might look like this, if the Volume 1 and Tone 1 pots were physically positioned closer to the neck than the other pair.
| Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge |
| | 2 | Middle | Bridge | | 3 | Middle |
| | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck |
|
|
But since the phase switches and split switches are assigned to specific pots rather than being able to move, that will lend some confusion no matter how we slice it.
Your idea of having a master volume and a pan/blend pot is intriguing. Are pan or blend pots with push-pull switches available? |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Jul 9, 2021 12:25:06 GMT -5
[table style="float:left;"] Whoops, I forgot to clear up my first attempt at displaying those tables side by side. reTrEaD from your time spent over on the support forum, do you know if there's a plan to allow posts to utilize flexbox in v6? If we use two poles of the superswitch to determine which (or both) of the volume/tone pairs are connected to the output, that leaves one pole to determine which pickup is connected to Volume 1 / Tone 1, and one pole to determine which pickup is connected to Volume 2 / Tone 2. IF the Bridge phase and both Neck and Bridge splits are mounted on the Volume 1 and Tone 1 pots, it might make sense to do something like this: | Volume 1 | Volume 2 |
|---|
| 1 | Bridge | | | 2 | Bridge | Middle | | 3 | | Middle | | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck | |
Yes, that's what the rest of us have been working with for the rest of the thread. Even just as volume/tone switching without the extras I'd find that confusing, due to the lack of symmetry. About half the time I'd probably expect it to work as in the following mirrored version: | V/T 1 | V/T 2 |
|---|
| 1 | | Bridge | | 2 | Middle | Bridge | | 3 | | Middle | | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | | Neck |
If we had bridge & neck in position 3, that'd make the choice fairly obvious: | V/T 1 | V/T 2 |
|---|
| 1 | | Bridge | | 2 | Middle | Bridge | | 3 | Neck | Bridge | | 4 | Neck | Middle | | 5 | Neck | |
But for the same style of arrangement with just the single middle pickup in position 3 we'd have to make a choice from two equally valid options. Theoretically, with a dual gang pot for one of the volumes we could have position 3 be the average of both volume 1 & 2 (and have both tones active), but that will probably leave little room on the 4P5T for any other switching. EDIT: Actually I think that'd take five poles — on an LP it only takes two, but there the averaged volume would be the only time both volume pots are in the circuit. And although this wiring is like an LP with 5 positions, what would be the 'middle' position in that context isn't position 3 but rather positions 2 & 4. Not that I know of, at least not at sane prices. Alternatively we could use a regular push/pull pot to blend out one pickup, and the push/pull to switch which one. But both cases would entail having only three push/pulls for the rest of the switching. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Jul 9, 2021 23:17:49 GMT -5
reTrEaD from your time spent over on the support forum, do you know if there's a plan to allow posts to utilize flexbox in v6? I don't believe that question ever came up on the Support Forum. I can tell you that the editor in v6 is quite different than the one being used in v5. The v5 editor will simply get rid of any bracketed BBCode that is disallowed, when you toggle to Preview mode. The editor in v6 will simply leave anything it doesn't recognize as allowable and it will appear as text. On my v6 test forum, flexbox isn't a recognized BBCode element. I have no clue as to whether or not that will eventually be included. I'll PM you a link to my v6 forum and you're welcome to member-up if you want to experiment there. |
|
