|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 22, 2021 17:14:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Yogi! Ok so I scratched the Göldo off the list. Blackdogmusic recently contacted me and he said he has a tele super switch with a shorter lever shaft— apparently the older models had shorter levers. Great! But he said something like “3/2 switch”, so I emailed him back to ask if the switch he was talking about was truly 3 way and 4 poles. Anyways, blackdogmusic is one option. That switch is slimmer too. Next option is the Schaller Megaswitch swapperoo that you suggested! Great idea, since they are very slim! Thank you Yogi. So I’ll wait to hear from Blackdogmusic for now— the switch thing is settled!
Also Yogi B, what do you think about the out of phase neck blending addition to the Monster? Impossible, will mess up everything? Or easy addition? Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 23, 2021 18:14:19 GMT -5
But he said something like “3/2 switch” Maybe meaning 3-way 2-wafer, IDK. Sorry, yes I missed that. Without proving it I don't want to say impossible, but I will say it's quite unlikely. The obvious thing would be that the volume push-pull would need an extra pole (requiring at least a 3PDT, rather than the DPDT of a regular push-pull), most likely therefore requiring a Fender S1 switch/pot. With only a DPDT push-pull, however, what might be possible is putting 'half' of the neck pickup out-of-phase. What I mean is with both volume & tone pulled it could potentially be possible to blend out-of-phase the part of the necks coil that is the difference between the "low" tap and the full "fat" output (i.e. the section labelled N B in my schematics). But, without testing I wouldn't know exactly what fraction of the full coil N B represented and therefore wouldn't want to speculate how this would sound. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 23, 2021 19:24:44 GMT -5
But he said something like “3/2 switch” Maybe meaning 3-way 2-wafer, IDK. Sorry, yes I missed that. Without proving it I don't want to say impossible, but I will say it's quite unlikely. The obvious thing would be that the volume push-pull would need an extra pole (requiring at least a 3PDT, rather than the DPDT of a regular push-pull), most likely therefore requiring a Fender S1 switch/pot. With only a DPDT push-pull, however, what might be possible is putting 'half' of the neck pickup out-of-phase. What I mean is with both volume & tone pulled it could potentially be possible to blend out-of-phase the part of the necks coil that is the difference between the "low" tap and the full "fat" output (i.e. the section labelled N B in my schematics). But, without testing I wouldn't know exactly what fraction of the full coil N B represented and therefore wouldn't want to speculate how this would sound. Yeah I thought the same thing too for the 3/2. Cool to here about the out of phase thing! Neck blended in half out of phase sounds pretty interesting actually. I was just thinking that the neck and bridge pickup full taps isn’t that useful/necessary, but adding a bit of out of phase spice with higher output (meatier, darker) pickups might be an interesting blues tone. You know something reminiscent to BB King, Albert King, etc. If it can be done without messing up the beautiful schematic you came up with and won’t change the functions already established, then yeah I’d love to consider this and see how it can be added in. However you’ve already done a lot I don’t want you to go crazy! I hope it’s not a big thing to think about. If this helps here are the number of winds for the “low tap” (on the site, the untapped version is called Lion King neck pickup): 8500 turns of 43AWG, A5 mags of course. And for the full wound, a Fat Lion King, it’s 10500 turns of 43AWG coil wire. There is about a 2000 wind different between the taps. Anything you I can help you with, just ask, even though that may not be a lot… |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 24, 2021 14:21:43 GMT -5
Cool to here about the out of phase thing! Neck blended in half out of phase sounds pretty interesting actually. I was just thinking that the neck and bridge pickup full taps isn’t that useful/necessary, but adding a bit of out of phase spice with higher output (meatier, darker) pickups might be an interesting blues tone. You know something reminiscent to BB King, Albert King, etc. If it can be done without messing up the beautiful schematic you came up with and won’t change the functions already established, then yeah I’d love to consider this and see how it can be added in. However you’ve already done a lot I don’t want you to go crazy! I hope it’s not a big thing to think about. If this helps here are the number of winds for the “low tap” (on the site, the untapped version is called Lion King neck pickup): 8500 turns of 43AWG, A5 mags of course. And for the full wound, a Fat Lion King, it’s 10500 turns of 43AWG coil wire. There is about a 2000 wind different between the taps. Anything you I can help you with, just ask, even though that may not be a lot… I think I spoke too soon, having a better look today I can't see what I was thinking -- if I were to connect N B OoP, I'd still somehow need to disconnect N A, which I don't see as a possibility. Additionally even if it were possible, I'd doubt the 2000 winds of N B would give a good result. When combining in parallel the individual pickups load each other. Generally this means that when combining (in parallel) pickups of similar design except turn count the resulting mix of the pickups doesn't change all that much, but the more unbalanced the pickups are the quieter the result. The resulting parallel output is (in idealised situations) the harmonic mean of the individual outputs, thus the result is skewed towards the lower end of the range of individual outputs.
Now that I have some rough numbers, lets work through a simplified example: Say we have two pickups A & B, both wound with 9000 turns and DC resistance of 6k and both produce a voltage of V. When combined in parallel the output of pickup A is subject to a voltage divider formed from its own resistance and the resistance of B, thus it contributes V * 6k / (6k + 6k) = V/2 to the resulting output — vice-versa is true of pickup B, in turn giving the same value. These then add together to give V/2 + V/2 = V, i.e. the two pickups in parallel are as loud as each individual pickup (omitting frequency dependent phasing effects due to the differing position of the pickups). Now if we imagine taking 3000 turns from pickup A and transplanting them to pickup B, and assume the resistances and outputs scale similarly, i.e. A has a resistance of 6k * 6000/9000 = 4k and output of V * 6000/9000 = V * 2/3, and B has a resistance of 6k * 12000/9000 = 8k and output of V * 12000/9000 = V * 4/3. We then have, when combined in parallel: the output from pickup A is V * 2/3 * 8k / (4k + 8k) = V * 4/9; and for B, V * 4/3 * 4k / (4k + 8k) = V * 4/9. Overall this adds to give: V*4/9 + V*4/9 = V * 8/9. So we see that in the second example despite individually pickup B having twice the output of pickup A, when combined in parallel each contributes the same amount to the resulting signal, however this overall signal is lower in value than in the first example. Continuing by transplanting a further 4000 turns to give a very rough approximation of N B combined with the full "monster" bridge, results in the combined estimated voltage being V * 32 / 81 ≈ 0.4 * V. But at this point pickup B (the "monster" facsimile) would be putting out V * 16/9, therefore the resulting parallel tone would be approximately 4.5 times (about 13dB) quieter and that's without accounting for the fact that we'd be combining the two out of phase, which would make the result even quieter. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 24, 2021 17:24:53 GMT -5
Cool to here about the out of phase thing! Neck blended in half out of phase sounds pretty interesting actually. I was just thinking that the neck and bridge pickup full taps isn’t that useful/necessary, but adding a bit of out of phase spice with higher output (meatier, darker) pickups might be an interesting blues tone. You know something reminiscent to BB King, Albert King, etc. If it can be done without messing up the beautiful schematic you came up with and won’t change the functions already established, then yeah I’d love to consider this and see how it can be added in. However you’ve already done a lot I don’t want you to go crazy! I hope it’s not a big thing to think about. If this helps here are the number of winds for the “low tap” (on the site, the untapped version is called Lion King neck pickup): 8500 turns of 43AWG, A5 mags of course. And for the full wound, a Fat Lion King, it’s 10500 turns of 43AWG coil wire. There is about a 2000 wind different between the taps. Anything you I can help you with, just ask, even though that may not be a lot… I think I spoke too soon, having a better look today I can't see what I was thinking -- if I were to connect N B OoP, I'd still somehow need to disconnect N A, which I don't see as a possibility. Additionally even if it were possible, I'd doubt the 2000 winds of N B would give a good result. When combining in parallel the individual pickups load each other. Generally this means that when combining (in parallel) pickups of similar design except turn count the resulting mix of the pickups doesn't change all that much, but the more unbalanced the pickups are the quieter the result. The resulting parallel output is (in idealised situations) the harmonic mean of the individual outputs, thus the result is skewed towards the lower end of the range of individual outputs.
Now that I have some rough numbers, lets work through a simplified example: Say we have two pickups A & B, both wound with 9000 turns and DC resistance of 6k and both produce a voltage of V. When combined in parallel the output of pickup A is subject to a voltage divider formed from its own resistance and the resistance of B, thus it contributes V * 6k / (6k + 6k) = V/2 to the resulting output — vice-versa is true of pickup B, in turn giving the same value. These then add together to give V/2 + V/2 = V, i.e. the two pickups in parallel are as loud as each individual pickup (omitting frequency dependent phasing effects due to the differing position of the pickups). Now if we imagine taking 3000 turns from pickup A and transplanting them to pickup B, and assume the resistances and outputs scale similarly, i.e. A has a resistance of 6k * 6000/9000 = 4k and output of V * 6000/9000 = V * 2/3, and B has a resistance of 6k * 12000/9000 = 8k and output of V * 12000/9000 = V * 4/3. We then have, when combined in parallel: the output from pickup A is V * 2/3 * 8k / (4k + 8k) = V * 4/9; and for B, V * 4/3 * 4k / (4k + 8k) = V * 4/9. Overall this adds to give: V*4/9 + V*4/9 = V * 8/9. So we see that in the second example despite individually pickup B having twice the output of pickup A, when combined in parallel each contributes the same amount to the resulting signal, however this overall signal is lower in value than in the first example. Continuing by transplanting a further 4000 turns to give a very rough approximation of N B combined with the full "monster" bridge, results in the combined estimated voltage being V * 32 / 81 ≈ 0.4 * V. But at this point pickup B (the "monster" facsimile) would be putting out V * 16/9, therefore the resulting parallel tone would be approximately 4.5 times (about 13dB) quieter and that's without accounting for the fact that we'd be combining the two out of phase, which would make the result even quieter. I'm not sure if the DCR of each pickup affects the tone when combined (as some may assume) because the signal from each pickup is still being fed to the output, rather than to ground. The reason the output drops is because the inductance drops. The level of the lower harmonics then depends on the resulting impedance -- less loss of lows with higher impedance cores, but the fact that two pickups are then combining the string vibrations at different locations and levels also affects the result. AFAIK, DCR has very little relevance, and the output of the higher inductance coil drops more than the lower inductance coil when two pickups combine in parallel. So, there isn't necessarily a loss of high end, but it may seem like there's less high end if the resonance peak shifts up above the 2~5kHz critical bearing range. There's also the difference in how much V is generated from the top of the coils near the strings vs the bottom. That would vary with coil dimension and core permeability. It also depends if the taps are wired around or on top of each other. If on top, I'd assume reversing a top tap would create the most low harmonic cancelation (depending on the wind count). If outer taps are wrapped around inner taps, the outer most tap might make the most difference with a low permeable core (like AlNiCo V) due to how the flux lines from the string wrap back around to the string rather than get pulled into the core. Either way, I don't see how the result could be predicted. Guitar pickup function has been misunderstood for many years. I can't say I fully understand it all, but it's not as simple as you might imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 24, 2021 20:26:19 GMT -5
Cool to here about the out of phase thing! Neck blended in half out of phase sounds pretty interesting actually... I think I spoke too soon, having a better look today I can't see what I was thinking -- if I were to connect N B OoP, I'd still somehow need to disconnect N A, which I don't see as a possibility. Additionally even if it were possible, I'd doubt the 2000 winds of N B would give a good result. Ah darn, I see. It's ok Monster and Neck fat in parallel and in phase should be a pretty cool sound anyways! Thanks for taking the time using math to explain to me how the output changes... interesting stuff. Is there anyway at all, in this configuration to get an out of phase tone that blends? |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 24, 2021 20:28:59 GMT -5
Guitar pickup function has been misunderstood for many years. I can't say I fully understand it all, but it's not as simple as you might imagine. Yeah it's very very complicated lol. It just gets more and more detailed as you go into it, like all things. I am going to do an independent study on the electric guitar and how it works. It's complicated but it's interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 24, 2021 22:19:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the DCR of each pickup affects the tone when combined Good thing then, isn't it, that I didn't really talk about tone  If anything, again discounting effects due to pickup placement and shifting of the resonant peak, two identical coils in parallel would have slightly more output. The reason is that the lower effective inductance (and resistance) of the parallel combination causes any following loading to have less of an effect upon the signal. Typically this is so slight that it's far outweighed by cancellations arising from capturing two points of the strings. Therefore a practical demonstration, extreme enough to make this easily observable, might be to bridge the output jack of a guitar (in which two reasonably similar pickups are combined in parallel, e.g. N+M in a Strat) with a 1k resistor — that'll suck a lot of output, especially treble, but should load the signal enough to make the parallel combination appreciably louder than either individual pickup. (Also, the shifting of the resonant peak is itself another example of this, the reduction in effective L & R causing a rise in the cutoff frequency of the LPF formed by those and the loading of the cable capacitance. Overall resulting in more output, even if the actual resonance moves above the range to which our ears are most sensitive.) So, if we had two pickups in parallel but placed say a 250k variable resistor in series with one of them, then varying this resistance should have very little relevance to the resulting sound?Agreed, but if we were calculating the output levels upon a ratio of inductances the estimated drop in output would be far greater than actuality. Assuming the continually varying coil geometry as the windings are added to have minimal effect, output is roughly proportional to turn count and therefore DCR, whereas inductance is roughly proportional to the square of the turn count. I cannot see it being the latter, it's a more complex design to end up with a coil (the lower one) which would contribute a lot less output for the amount of copper used, compared to the other (top) coil. Same here, and I know it's not that simple; the above was only supposed to be a rough back of an envelope type deal. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 25, 2021 1:16:43 GMT -5
This is actually my first time inserting and responding to individual quotes. I'm quite sure I am not doing it the best way. I'll have to look into that.
I'd think it's mainly the output of the fundamental that increases when combining pickups. I'd assume how much it exceeds the drop in inductance depends on the impedance of the preamp input, but also the impedance of the pickup core. When I say DCR has little relevance, I mean to say of typical guitar pickup DCR measurements compared to the effects inductance and impedance have on output and tone (and that DCR varies with wire gauge). At least that is my understanding. I surely may be confusing impedance with effective resistance, but neither are the same thing as DCR. I will say that I was misunderstanding what you and others mean by "loading", and your knowledge of electronics theory is surely much more thorough than mine. So, adding a 1k R in parallel with a typical Strat pickup affects the output differently depending on the coil impedance or inductance? I don't necessarily doubt the conclusion, but I'm not sure what would cause that. That's a good point for me to research.
Is another example of what? The original point became somewhat lost in all the previous details. Are you saying that the signal level at resonant freq would be stronger than that of either coil when two coils are combined? I can only assume it's possible.
I'm definitely not saying L is the only factor affecting output, and I originally thought you meant the loading effect the DCR of each parallel pickup has on each other substantially reduces the treble response. I'm still not clear on that, but I would think it's not the same effect as just adding more resistance to each coil.
That makes sense.
I'm glad to hear you say that. My point is applying inductor theory alone to guitar pickups is not adequate because just how the flux lines from the magnetized string move through the coil depends on other factors. FI, someone once did a test of the effect an Aluminum pickguard has on an electrical signal run through a guitar pickup. It showed a 2dB reduction above ~1kHz, but that did not show the effect the cancellations would cause from the paramagnetically induced eddy currents on the surface of the pickguard interacting with the flux lines from a vibrating guitar string.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 25, 2021 13:47:23 GMT -5
Sorry for "third wheeling" here but I just want to thank you guys for your tech talk. Yeah it's maybe too complicated for me to learn completely, but when I research the basics, I now know words and concepts to look out for, thanks to this thread. Merci, grazie, arigato, and thank you  I've been thinking of out of phase, I guess I'm in an "out of phase" phase, and I starting thinking about how OoP cannot fit in the current configuration that we discussed and you, Yogi, created. Then I thought: is there anyway to blend in an out of phase pickup OUTSIDE this configuration? What about a 4 way switch, I thought, same thing but the volume knob is a push pull for the neck pickup phase, and the 4th position is what selects the full bridge coil (Monster). But then I realized, where the hell am I supposed to get a 4 way 4 pole switch?? Maybe a tiny micro slider switch, on and off, dedicated solely for the purpose of reversing neck pickup phase? But then is there enough space in the cavity for one, and I'd have to make a hole in the control cavity plate... Ahhh so yeah, out of phase is probably not a possibility. I'm seriously going GuitarNuts right now. So if any of you fine folks can do this for me: Is there really no possible way to include an out of phase blend? Because this will get me out of this out of phase phase for good. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 25, 2021 15:18:22 GMT -5
Hold it right there sir. I might have a solution. Three way 4 pole switch-- everything remains the switch. But in the middle of the two knobs, one will find this little fella: nextgenguitars.ca/products/mini-switch-short-bat-spst-on-off.htmlVery small toggle switch. Whenever the neck pickup is in the mix with the bridge, no matter how much it's blended in, if I toggle this switch, it should become blended out of phase correct? And what type of mini switch would I need: SPST, on off right? Thank you guys very much. This is it. After the implementing this out of phase toggler, the circuitry shall be completed (finally). The only thing left for me would be to order the parts and figure out how to solder everything... luckily Yogi B gave me a schematic for that! Also about the mini switch not fitting: I saw pictures that make it seem that they could:  So that covers up one of my worries! |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 25, 2021 16:06:31 GMT -5
Ah geez, I need a DPDT because the push pull pots are like that right? Usually push pull pots are DPDT and they can be used for phase reversal (that I know for sure-- I did it before!). So this is the chosen one: nextgenguitars.ca/products/mini-switch-short-bat-dpdt-on-on.htmlIt's on on. I think that makes more sense than on off. Because if it's "off" there would be no circuit anymore right? I mean it would be closed (hole in the middle of the train track). Obviously I wouldn't want that (unless I want a kill switch!) Plus SPST only offers on and off I'm pretty sure. Also about the pots: audio taper right? Usually that's how it goes for volume and tone knobs, it's gradual and best fit for the human ear (we hear on a logarithmic scale). Does this still apply for blending a neck pickup? |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 26, 2021 5:51:02 GMT -5
Ah geez, I need a DPDT because the push pull pots are like that right? Usually push pull pots are DPDT and they can be used for phase reversal (that I know for sure-- I did it before!). So this is the chosen one: nextgenguitars.ca/products/mini-switch-short-bat-dpdt-on-on.htmlIt's on on. I think that makes more sense than on off. Because if it's "off" there would be no circuit anymore right? I mean it would be closed (hole in the middle of the train track). Obviously I wouldn't want that (unless I want a kill switch!) Plus SPST only offers on and off I'm pretty sure. Also about the pots: audio taper right? Usually that's how it goes for volume and tone knobs, it's gradual and best fit for the human ear (we hear on a logarithmic scale). Does this still apply for blending a neck pickup? Yes to all 4 questions. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 26, 2021 9:46:39 GMT -5
Ah geez, I need a DPDT because the push pull pots are like that right? Usually push pull pots are DPDT and they can be used for phase reversal (that I know for sure-- I did it before!). So this is the chosen one: nextgenguitars.ca/products/mini-switch-short-bat-dpdt-on-on.htmlIt's on on. I think that makes more sense than on off. Because if it's "off" there would be no circuit anymore right? I mean it would be closed (hole in the middle of the train track). Obviously I wouldn't want that (unless I want a kill switch!) Plus SPST only offers on and off I'm pretty sure. Also about the pots: audio taper right? Usually that's how it goes for volume and tone knobs, it's gradual and best fit for the human ear (we hear on a logarithmic scale). Does this still apply for blending a neck pickup? Yes to all 4 questions. Fantastic! |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 26, 2021 14:38:53 GMT -5
This is actually my first time inserting and responding to individual quotes. I'm quite sure I am not doing it the best way. I'll have to look into that. I don't know if you primarily use the "Preview" or "BBcode" code editor, but I use the latter. Firstly quoting the entire post in order to get the appropriate quote header at the start of each quoted post (so it's obvious who/what you're quoting, and such that a notification is sent to that user telling them that they've been quoted). Then I split the quote(s) by inserting a closing quote tag, my reply, and a following opening tag — i.e. [\quote]reply text[quote]. (More specifically, because it's such a common thing for me to do and I'll likely forget to reopen the quote tag otherwise, I have AutoHotkey set up to expand the "hotstring" [q] into [/quote][quote], and then reposition the text cursor to between the tags.) Splitting a quote in the "Preview" editor is troublesome due the way in which browsers restrict the positioning of the text cursor between boundaries of HTML elements (Firefox is best at this but still not perfect). Theoretically, since this would be restricted to a very specific context, I might be able to add some function to my EditorTweaks forum plugin to enable splitting quotes at the cursor's current location, hopefully making the process simpler. At first I can't say that I was particularly keen on uses of the term "loading" (or "load") either, because it's best understood when thinking in terms of current division which implicitly requires some other external current sink (i.e. following input impedance), rather than as voltage division where if that external impedance is large enough to have negligible effect it can be omitted. However I don't know of a better descriptor as an alternative, and at this point we're probably pretty much stuck with it. It's just a voltage divider: V_\text{out} = V_\text{in} \cdot {Z_\text{out} \over Z_\text{in}} = V_\text{in} \cdot {Z_P \over (Z_S + Z_P)}Where, for the simple three part model: Z S is the series resistance & inductance of the coil; and Z P is the parallel capacitance (and any external load). In the case of no (or negligible) external load, placing two identical coils in parallel is equivalent to halving both Z S & Z P (the two parallel resistances & inductances halve, and although the two parallel capacitances add, capacitance is inversely proportional to impedance). Thus, since simultaneously halving both numerator and denominator, there's no change in the resultant voltage, V out. When not negligible, the external loading (be it from the pots, cable, preamp, or otherwise) is combined in parallel with the pickup's parasitic capacitance. Thus as more loading is applied, Z P is reduced and therefore Z S becomes more significant. Put another way: the larger Z S is, the larger we'd like Z P in order to keep V out as high as possible (this is the mathematical basis behind why, generally, 500k pots are preferred for humbuckers). The addition of the 1k resistor affects the signal similarly — really it is just a way of forcing the magnitude of Z P (which is usually relatively large, except at high frequencies) to be sufficiently small relative to Z S, such that V out becomes much more dependent upon Z S. (I did swap that around with the previous section a couple of times, it seems I made the wrong choice.) It's another example of the parallel combination producing more output, though in this instance not in terms of an overall increase in amplitude, but a broadening of the frequency response — extending the cutoff frequency to above the range that was previously subdued. Yeah, I wasn't specifically saying that, but if not for the fact that the both pickups have inductance, it would be true. For two pickups A & B, the loading effect of B's resistance reducing the treble response of A is both due to A's inductance and limited by B's own inductance — this cancels out as much as possible in the case of identical pickups. The most complete answer I can probably give is just the math, so below is the voltage divider equation for a simplified case of two pickups in parallel where the pickups are approximated via the 3-part model: \begin{aligned}
V_\text{out} &= {V_A \cdot Z_{BP} \over Z_{BP} + Z_{AS}} + {V_B \cdot Z_{AP} \over Z_{AP} + Z_{BS}}
\\
\text{where:}
\\
Z_{AS} &= R_A + 2 \pi j f L_A
\\
Z_{BS} &= R_B + 2 \pi j f L_B
\\
Z_{AP} &= Z_{BS} \parallel \frac{1}{2 \pi j f (C_A + C_B + C_\text{load})} \parallel R_\text{load}
\\
Z_{BP} &= Z_{AS} \parallel \frac{1}{2 \pi j f (C_A + C_B + C_\text{load})} \parallel R_\text{load}
\end{aligned}V A and V B are the coils' induced voltages and, if caring only about purely electrical effects, can be assumed to be some constant. C load is the cable capacitance, and R load is the resulting resistance of the volume & tone pots and preamp input impedance in parallel (for the sake of simplicity: both pots are assumed to be fixed at "10" such that the effect of the impedance of the tone cap is negligible (thus can be omitted), and such that the volume control doesn't complicate matters by the introduction of another voltage divider; additionally the preamp input impedance is assumed to be purely resistive). |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 26, 2021 14:55:04 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining all that Yogi. How all the maths apply escapes me, but please don't bother explaining it further. It will be lost on me, and I'm not sure anyone else is interested. Again, thanks for all the work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 26, 2021 17:34:43 GMT -5
What about a 4 way switch I know you've moved on from this idea now, but you should now have better appreciation as to why 3-way superswitches are uncommon — most people end up wanting more positions. And on this front, if you happened to want two positions where instead of blending a variable amount of the neck with the bridge pickup, you would blend a variable amount of the bridge into the neck pickup — that'd mean you'd want a 5-way switch (assuming that wiring design is plausible) and we know that 5-way superswitches are much easier to get. Because if it's "off" there would be no circuit anymore right? ... Obviously I wouldn't want that (unless I want a kill switch!) Quick side note, a properly wired kill switch works the opposite to the way you might expect: the "on" switch position kills the signal by shorting the output to ground (like turning a volume pot to zero). If instead we simply broke the circuit (using the switches "off" position), this would lead to a somewhat similar situation to an unplugged guitar cable (and you're probably familiar with how noisy that can be). Whenever the neck pickup is in the mix with the bridge, no matter how much it's blended in, if I toggle this switch, it should become blended out of phase correct? Adding out-of-phase options brings two questions to the table. Firstly, with tapped pickups it is impossible to avoid having coils hanging from hot in both normal & reversed phase settings. If you look closely back at the two schematics I've posted in this thread, you should see that both the pickups are connected 'backwards' in one version when compared to the other (in the first version the left-hand ends are grounded, in the second version the right-hand ends are grounded). By switching one pickup OoP you're essentially swapping between these two wiring styles. So the question is, does it make more sense to have the hanging coils in the in-phase combinations, or in the out-of-phase combinations? As I see it there are two pieces of reasoning we can use to answer this: - have coils hanging from hot in the lesser used settings (likely the OoP settings), if they do cause extra noise it'd make sense to relegate that to the settings you'll use least often;
- avoid having the coils hanging from hot in the quieter positions (the OoP settings), if the hanging coils produce extra noise that'll be more noticeable in the settings where the actual intended output is lower.
Obviously those two points are at odds with each other, but on balance I'd probably go with having the hanging coils in the OoP settings. (This is also the version you'd be forced to take with a regular set of Tele pickups where one pickup is RWRP with respect to the other — since you're getting a custom set you could specify reverse polarity but not reverse wound, however I wouldn't risk adding an extra complication in case it turns out that I've missed something and I'm wrong.) The second question is which coil should be flipped OoP? Whichever it is the pickup which contains the coils which will be left hanging. Again there's a couple of considerations: - flip the pickup whose coils (when hanging) are likely to produce the least noise, that is the coils with the fewest turns and the best shielded, in both cases that's the coils of the neck pickup;
- flip the pickup which is easiest from a wiring perspective, that's the bridge pickup due to the complexity of how the neck pickup and tone/blend are joined together.
Despite that second point, I think that while flipping the neck pickup will be more tricky (but not impossible), the resulting wiring will be a little kooky, so I'll want to run it past someone else to check my alleviate my concerns.
Also due to the discussion with gckelloch regarding parallel combinations & loading bringing it to the forefront of my mind, I realised that simultaneously disengaging the tone control and switching to a (blended) parallel combination could result in quite a sharp resonant peak. Therefore when I update the schematic I'll include an optional loading resistor that could be used to help remedy this. (If present, this resistor will also have a minor affect upon the neck only position: pulling the tone knob will continue to disengage the tone control, but rather than being completely no-load it'll be as though the pot was still connected but set to "10".) |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 26, 2021 23:41:13 GMT -5
I know you've moved on from this idea now, but you should now have better appreciation as to why 3-way superswitches are uncommon — most people end up wanting more positions. And on this front, if you happened to want two positions where instead of blending a variable amount of the neck with the bridge pickup, you would blend a variable amount of the bridge into the neck pickup — that'd mean you'd want a 5-way switch (assuming that wiring design is plausible) and we know that 5-way superswitches are much easier to get. Exactly! Good point. Quick side note, a properly wired kill switch works the opposite to the way you might expect: the "on" switch position kills the signal by shorting the output to ground (like turning a volume pot to zero). If instead we simply broke the circuit (using the switches "off" position), this would lead to a somewhat similar situation to an unplugged guitar cable (and you're probably familiar with how noisy that can be). Interesting, I didn't know about that. It makes sense, yeah I'm familiar with the noisy unplugged guitar cable-- now I know why that makes so much noise! It's because nothing is grounded! Adding out-of-phase options brings two questions to the table. Firstly, with tapped pickups it is impossible to avoid having coils hanging from hot in both normal & reversed phase settings. If you look closely back at the two schematics I've posted in this thread, you should see that both the pickups are connected 'backwards' in one version when compared to the other (in the first version the left-hand ends are grounded, in the second version the right-hand ends are grounded). By switching one pickup OoP you're essentially swapping between these two wiring styles. So the question is, does it make more sense to have the hanging coils in the in-phase combinations, or in the out-of-phase combinations? As I see it there are two pieces of reasoning we can use to answer this: - have coils hanging from hot in the lesser used settings (likely the OoP settings), if they do cause extra noise it'd make sense to relegate that to the settings you'll use least often;
- avoid having the coils hanging from hot in the quieter positions (the OoP settings), if the hanging coils produce extra noise that'll be more noticeable in the settings where the actual intended output is lower.
So this out of phase mini switch can work right? Seems like it can! And, because I'm reversing phase, it is inevitable that somewhere, either out or in phase, there will be hanging coils. These are noisy I learned from you, but if I shield correctly is should be fine right? Also the telecaster should be better off at shielding than other single coil guitars because of the metal bridge and the metal neck cover correct? So the hanging coils are potentially noisy, and the "free" lug on the tone/blend knob. since you're getting a custom set you could specify reverse polarity but not reverse wound, however I wouldn't risk adding an extra complication in case it turns out that I've missed something and I'm wrong.) Would do this make it quieter? Despite that second point, I think that while flipping the neck pickup will be more tricky (but not impossible), the resulting wiring will be a little kooky, so I'll want to run it past someone else to check my alleviate my concerns. Yeah I can imagine flipping the neck wires would probably be better (more shielding and less coils)... Maybe put the wires of the neck to the mini switch first, then from there, it goes to the blend/tone knob? Also due to the discussion with gckelloch regarding parallel combinations & loading bringing it to the forefront of my mind, I realised that simultaneously disengaging the tone control and switching to a (blended) parallel combination could result in quite a sharp resonant peak. Therefore when I update the schematic I'll include an optional loading resistor that could be used to help remedy this. (If present, this resistor will also have a minor affect upon the neck only position: pulling the tone knob will continue to disengage the tone control, but rather than being completely no-load it'll be as though the pot was still connected but set to "10".) Interesting! Yeah it should be brighter without a capacitor. Blending in the neck though should make it more round and less bright however. It's like a different type of tone knob. Also the resistor will be added to what? The bridge pickup or the neck pickup blending in? Because the neck pickup shouldn't be too bright anyways, it's the bridge pickup that's brighter (especially in middle position where "Bakersfield" is all by himself at 10). Also the fact that on neck only pos, it would just be on 10 and not no load may not be the best thing ever, but hey, it's easy to try out right? It's something I can take or take away depending on what I like. Thank you very much for adding this. Oh and ALL OF THIS! Thanks for updating the schematic too... Can't wait to see how the mini switch will look within all this! |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 27, 2021 23:24:05 GMT -5
So this out of phase mini switch can work right? Seems like it can! And, because I'm reversing phase, it is inevitable that somewhere, either out or in phase, there will be hanging coils. These are noisy I learned from you, but if I shield correctly is should be fine right? Also the telecaster should be better off at shielding than other single coil guitars because of the metal bridge and the metal neck cover correct? In situations where hanging coils could contribute noise, shielding will hopefully help, yes. Not really, the noise (if any) would just be moved to a different set of switch positions — it'll affect positions where the phase switch isn't flipped rather than when it is. This wouldn't cause an absolute reduction in noise, but may make it less noticeable in some positions — the out-of-phase settings will have less string output (than the in-phase settings), so in comparison the noise floor will appear higher. It's a little trickier than that: unlike a normal pickup with just two leads we have a third, that connecting to the tap. Therefore we need to connect the phase switch after the switching, furthermore because the neck pickup is intimately tied up with the tone/blend wiring it'll have to be after those too... that's the aforementioned kookiness. The loading resistor is added in parallel with the neck pickup so will affect the overall tone less as the neck is blended out. As for removing it: the wiring's the same otherwise, it's just the resistor that needs to be removed.
Below is the updated diagram. My main concern with the phase switch flipping the entire neck 'module' (tone control included) is that this might be liable to cause popping as the polarity of the tone cap is switched, especially if whatever you're plugging into is leaking DC, though if that is the case you probably have bigger issues. |
|
|
|
Post by unreg on Sept 28, 2021 10:46:37 GMT -5
(More specifically, because it's such a common thing for me to do and I'll likely forget to reopen the quote tag otherwise, I have AutoHotkey set up to expand the "hotstring" [q] into [/quote][quote], and then reposition the text cursor to between the tags.) Emphasis mine. AutoHotkey is so helpful; nice brilliant AH idea Yogi B! 👍😀 |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 28, 2021 15:14:58 GMT -5
since you're getting a custom set you could specify reverse polarity but not reverse wound, however I wouldn't risk adding an extra complication in case it turns out that I've missed something and I'm wrong.) Would this make it quieter? Having slept on this, the 'proper' fix would be to have the two coils of the neck pickup to each have individual start & finish leads (like a 4-conductor humbucker). That is, rather than a single wire going to the tap point, the first coil ends with a finish lead then separately the remaining 2000 turns begin with an independent start lead. This would allow for the 'stacking' of the two coils to be reversed when flipped OoP, but would require a 4PDT toggle switch in place of the DPDT. This approach is dependent upon two things: - that Cavalier are fine to split the neck tap into two independent leads;
- that there's enough space between the pots for the larger 4PDT switch, this basically boils down to which pots you'll be using — it'll still be tight but with smaller Bourns/Alpha push-pulls you should be fine, whereas it'll almost certainly be a no-go with the larger CTS equivalents.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 29, 2021 15:43:31 GMT -5
Would this make it quieter? Having slept on this, the 'proper' fix would be to have the two coils of the neck pickup to each have individual start & finish leads (like a 4-conductor humbucker). That is, rather than a single wire going to the tap point, the first coil ends with a finish lead then separately the remaining 2000 turns begin with an independent start lead. This would allow for the 'stacking' of the two coils to be reversed when flipped OoP, but would require a 4PDT toggle switch in place of the DPDT. This approach is dependent upon two things: - that Cavalier are fine to split the neck tap into two independent leads;
- that there's enough space between the pots for the larger 4PDT switch, this basically boils down to which pots you'll be using — it'll still be tight but with smaller Bourns/Alpha push-pulls you should be fine, whereas it'll almost certainly be a no-go with the larger CTS equivalents.
Wow thanks Yogi!! Man you are a problem solving genius! Luckily 4PDT short bat wasn’t hard to find at all! I will be using the Bourns pots, so it should be good! And this “stacking” of the two neck pickup coils means that the whole thing will be reversed in phase. So when the tone pot is pulled up, it will blend only the “low” neck pickup out of phase, and when the volume pot (monster is engaged) is pulled up and when the tone pot is pulled up, the whole neck pickup should be blended in out of phase! If this is correct, this is pretty ingenious Yogi! Ok so for the Pickups, this is what I have to ask Mr. Di Stefano: NECK PICKUP: Twin Lion: Fat Lion King and Lion King Single Tap — 4 Conductor Leads, 1 hot and ground per tap (is this right? I understand how the leads work, but not really how the grounds work). — Alnico 5 magnets — Nickel Silver Cover in Nickel Finish (ok yeah you guys don’t care about these things lol but I’m just writing everything I want to tell him) — Coil Wind Direction and Top Polarity: Clockwise and South BRIDGE PICKUP: Hydra Lion: Bakersfield, Nashville and Humongous (I love this name so much) Lions — Bakersfield: a little less winds so it could be more differentiable from the Nashville — Alnico 5 Magnets on the lower strings, Alnico 3’s on the higher strings. — Are the diameter of the mags 0.197 (the old broadcasters were like this I’ve heard from Mike Lewis of Fender) Can they be? — And for the wires on the bridge, I’m not really sure. I think there’s 4 right? Actually I don’t know, but I do know that there’s nothing special with these wire (unlike the neck pickup) just “normal tap” wires, the way Mr Di Stefano does it. I remember though, Yogi, you telling me that the ground wire on the bridge, the one that usually connects to the baseplate, shouldn’t be. — Coil Wind Direction and Top Polarity: Counterclockwise and North That should be it! Poor Rob, this is quite the order, but I can wait awhile. I’ll send it now though to see if he can do all these things, so Yogi if you can just correct me on the wires since you are the wiring expert and the designer of the circuitry, I will be able to send Mr Di Stefano the email |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Sept 30, 2021 1:19:26 GMT -5
Wow thanks Yogi!! Man you are a problem solving genius! Really it's a pretty common to think about with 4-conductor humbuckers, I didn't think of it initially because tapped single coils typically have the two sub-coils permanently connected during the winding process and people usually already have the pickups in their hand ready-wound and awaiting wiring. You're in a relatively unique situation whereby you have the ability to specify a different option beforehand. Actually, not exactly (at least how I'm reading that) — that description is closer to the previous version which reversed the entire pickup (plus the associated switching and tone pot). The new 4PDT version flips each section of the pickup individually — like two DPDT phase switches (one for N A & one for N B) except operated by a single lever. This is what the new wiring looks like (I've also updated to use the official pickup names): The previous DPDT version had the same overall function, but now since we have complete access each section of the neck coil its leads can be directly attached to the phase switch, without any of the tone/blend control flippery. This is actually a rare case where I'd prefer to use the words "start" & "finish" instead. Which lead is "hot" and "ground" depends upon how the pickup is wired (e.g. they're reversed by a phase switch). Furthermore, assuming the coils with largest turn-count are the innermost, my diagrams (excluding the first draft) hook both pickups 'backwards' (in order to avoid hanging coils) relative to how most people (and other diagrams) would expect. I haven't studied the subject, but it's probably more a case of the magnets weren't necessarily consistently the modern (imperial) standard of 0.187″, Fender would've just used whatever was easy/cheap to get a hold of at the time. Pickups with 5mm (0.197″) poles probably exist(ed) but I wouldn't like to guess whether they were the majority or the minority. It's not that it shouldn't be connected to the base plate, but rather that it should be separate from the any of the wires connected to the coil(s). There's an image of a Hydra on the site that shows this: The coil wires are black, white, yellow, and red; whereas, the green wire is connected to a solder lug washer placed around a mounting screw. Lower down the page, there's a better angle showing the same sort of thing thing, but this time with a regular (non-tapped) pickup: Technically if the bridge (the actual string bridge, not the pickup) is already grounded, the extra ground wire ought to be redundant. I'd still like another set of eyes to check over my (latest) schematic and hopefully give it a thumbs up, to check I've not missed anything. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 30, 2021 9:13:19 GMT -5
Thedirestrat, so what's the reasoning behind only A3 poles on the higher 3 strings of the bridge and not the neck pickup? You may need to have it lower than the bridge pickup on the treble side so the higher harmonics from the neck pickup don't dominate when the pickups are combined, and lowering it to match the output of the bridge will only make the treble strings sound that much thinner by itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 30, 2021 12:18:30 GMT -5
Thedirestrat, so what's the reasoning behind only A3 poles on the higher 3 strings of the bridge and not the neck pickup? You may need to have it lower than the bridge pickup on the treble side so the higher harmonics from the neck pickup don't dominate when the pickups are combined, and lowering it to match the output of the bridge will only make the treble strings sound that much thinner by itself. Good point! I said all AlNiCo 5's because I thought I would want more treble (power on treble strings), but I realize know after what we discussed that's not true. Alnico 3 won't dampen the vibrations that much and they will be able to capture more of the high's. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 30, 2021 14:11:23 GMT -5
I'd still like another set of eyes to check over my (latest) schematic and hopefully give it a thumbs up, to check I've not missed anything. Boy, this one is tough to wrap my head around, there's a whole lotta switchin' going on . . . Give me some more time, Yogi B, to look at it over the weekend but I didn't spot any issues so far. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Sept 30, 2021 14:54:48 GMT -5
Thedirestrat, so what's the reasoning behind only A3 poles on the higher 3 strings of the bridge and not the neck pickup? You may need to have it lower than the bridge pickup on the treble side so the higher harmonics from the neck pickup don't dominate when the pickups are combined, and lowering it to match the output of the bridge will only make the treble strings sound that much thinner by itself. Good point! I said all AlNiCo 5's because I thought I would want more treble (power on treble strings), but I realize know after what we discussed that's not true. Alnico 3 won't dampen the vibrations that much and they will be able to capture more of the high's. Thank you! A recent analysis on this site showed that AlNiCo V poles actually increase the 3rd~6th note harmonics depending on the pickup position: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7998/tonal-effect-pickup-height It doesn't actually dampen anything in the 3-5kHz critical hearing range. What you get with A5 is more intermodulations as the stronger vibrations closer to the poles are pulled sharp, as well as a more cutting attack character and a thinner note timbre from the lower permeability. Nothing wrong with it if you want that. I just prefer a sweeter/fatter note timbre on the treble strings. A2 and A5 are mixed in various pickups, but I don't know about A3 and A5. The Gauss isn't much lower in A3 than A2, but the permeability of A3 is often higher than A2 depending on how it's made. I'd think it would produce a fatter note timbre than A2. Again, you'll need to clear it with Rob. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 30, 2021 20:34:05 GMT -5
I'd still like another set of eyes to check over my (latest) schematic and hopefully give it a thumbs up, to check I've not missed anything. Boy, this one is tough to wrap my head around, there's a whole lotta switchin' going on . . . Give me some more time, Yogi B, to look at it over the weekend but I didn't spot any issues so far. I'm in real real real REAL good hands, that all I gotta say... I really don't deserve it. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Sept 30, 2021 21:04:35 GMT -5
A recent analysis on this site showed that AlNiCo V poles actually increase the 3rd~6th note harmonics depending on the pickup position: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7998/tonal-effect-pickup-height It doesn't actually dampen anything in the 3-5kHz critical hearing range. What you get with A5 is more intermodulations as the stronger vibrations closer to the poles are pulled sharp, as well as a more cutting attack character and a thinner note timbre from the lower permeability. Nothing wrong with it if you want that. I just prefer a sweeter/fatter note timbre on the treble strings. A2 and A5 are mixed in various pickups, but I don't know about A3 and A5. The Gauss isn't much lower in A3 than A2, but the permeability of A3 is often higher than A2 depending on how it's made. I'd think it would produce a fatter note timbre than A2. Again, you'll need to clear it with Rob. Interesting info, thank you so much. You really helped a lot with the pickups. I think A3 will be great. |
|
|
|
Post by thedirestrat on Oct 3, 2021 16:34:08 GMT -5
It's not that it shouldn't be connected to the base plate, but rather that it should be separate from the any of the wires connected to the coil(s). There's an image of a Hydra on the site that shows this: The coil wires are black, white, yellow, and red; whereas, the green wire is connected to a solder lug washer placed around a mounting screw. Lower down the page, there's a better angle showing the same sort of thing thing, but this time with a regular (non-tapped) pickup: Technically if the bridge (the actual string bridge, not the pickup) is already grounded, the extra ground wire ought to be redundant. So is this "good" for the setup? I don't have to ask Rob anything special for the bridge pickup wiring? I just get it as he usually does it? Also Yogi, I'd like to know a bit more about the loading resistor. This resistor will only have effect when the tone knob is pulled up right? So, for example, position middle (both pickups), when the tone knob is down, the neck and bridge pickups should not have a loading resistor on them correct? Now what does this resistor actually contribute to the circuit? Does it make the neck blend in with less volume, like the old Broadcaster wiring? Does it act like a capacitor where it just darkens the tone a little bit? And finally, why 249 kOhms? What does the increasing/decreasing of this value do? Thank you as always |
|
