Possible switching logic for SSS Strat with 3-way switch

[jhng]

Hello all,

I've been looking at a new switching scheme for my SSS strat which aims to simplify operation while playing while preserving versatility. Something I find quite frustrating is having to make two changes to get from sound A to sound B (pull a p/p and then move the 5-way). I also find the classic strat 5-way a bit fiddly and often accidentally knock it from 4 to 5.

The idea is therefore to have a three-way 'Tele' blade switch instead of the current five-way switch, together with options for pre-setting the pickup combo independently for each position, so you can then just use the 3-way. I had originally planned a scheme using rotary switches (which newey kindly proof-read for me) but am having second thoughts about using rotaries after having examined one in practice.

My current idea is the following logic. I've already done a schematic for this, so I know it can be done, and I have a 4P3T Tele switch already (before anyone queries the existence of that component!). However, I would be interested if anyone sees aspects of this switching logic that they would find really frustrating/annoying in practice (although I realise that this is very subjective). The blender use is heavily inspired by JohnH. There are no traditional Tone controls (both are blenders).

Three-way Switch:

1. Neck -- Neck Tone blends to NxM (series)
2. See below
3. Bridge -- Bridge Tone blends to BxM (series)

Push/Pulls on the Neck and Bridge Tone:

Default (both pots down): Position 2 is Middle
Bridge Tone Up: Position 2 is M+B (parallel), Position 3 also has a 0.01uf cap added in parallel
Neck Tone Up: Position 2 is N+M (parallel)
Both Tones Up: Position 2 is N+B (parallel)

Push/Pull on Volume pot puts Neck in series with Bridge in position 1 (and also affects some position 2 settings).

You could shuffle the four Position 2 options to have any of the four be the default 'both pots down' option.

The added cap on position 3, which is something I use in my current setup, only takes effect when the Bridge Tone is up and the Neck Tone is down.

Neck Tone Up also adds a cap in parallel with the Neck pickup in position 1, but only when the Volume pot is up putting it in series with the Bridge. This gives a 'broadbucker' option. NxMxB is also available in position 1 via the blender (again when the Volume pot is up for NxB).

Clear as mud? As I say, I've done a schematic for this, so I know it can be done. The question is, should it be done or am I missing an obvious useability flaw with this set up?

[Deleted]

Well doesn't jump out on me how to do all this

[JohnH]

sounds interesting! I like how you can set a series blend at 1 or 3, and the other can still be a single. Neck single to bridge series would be a great lead/rhythm move.

What happens if you move a blender and also operate the push pull switches?

While experimenting, I'd suggest to sample N and B in series, thats my fave!

Good luck figuring out the wiring!

[sumgai]

Jan 7, 2022 10:12:37 GMT -5 jhng said:

......

Push/Pull on Volume pot puts Neck in series with Bridge in position 1 (and also affects some position 2 settings).

This equates to N*B, in Pos 1.

So let's compare that to this configuration:

Jan 7, 2022 10:12:37 GMT -5 jhng said:

......
Push/Pulls on the Neck and Bridge Tone:

Default (both pots down): Position 2 is Middle
Bridge Tone Up: Position 2 is M+B (parallel), Position 3 also has a 0.01uf cap added in parallel
Neck Tone Up: Position 2 is N+M (parallel)
Both Tones Up: Position 2 is N+B (parallel)

Unless I'm sadly mistaken, either there are going to be at least 4 poles on those Push/Pull, or else there is going to be no isolation between the several configuration possibilities. As I see it currently, and I'm just guessing here, if you operate a Tone p/p, then that combo is set up for the next time you move the selector to Pos. 2, right? But just because Pos. 2 in not selected to go to the output, that doesn't mean that the two pickups aren't connected together, am I correct? Or do you have some really wild scheme that can isolate Pos. 1 & 3 from the Tone p/p config?

Mu gut feeling right now is that with all three p/p switches up, there's be a direct short from output to ground, which is usually not a desired result.  Unless you did that on purpose, so as to effect a "stage silence" option.....  

HTH



sumgai

[jhng]

Thanks for the comments. Sumgai is very eagle-eyed and has spotted the one compromise that I glossed over. When I said that the NxB switch ‘affects some position 2 options’, one of those effects is that it messes up N+B by shorting the N. However, generally, the p/p system in position 2 is isolated from positions 1 and 3 (and using only one pole of each p/p).

NxB is a great sound and something I currently have, which is why I crow-barred it in with the final p/p, but maybe I should find a way to have it more integrated into the overall scheme. At the moment it is really an add on.

I have a schematic already but it is scrawled on paper. When I have done a neat copy on TinyCad, I’ll put it up.

[jhng]

Here you go, just to prove that it's possible. I may yet refine it a bit more to make NxB more integrated.

[sumgai]

jhng,


I'm getting old and feeble in the thinking department, but if at least a few of my gray cells have fired correctly, then here's what I believe are problem spots:

1 - Pos. 1, Neck has no way to get to ground except through the Bridge pup (and the associated blend control);

2 - Pos. 2, SW2 and SW3 both up - Neck 'hot' and 'return' wires both go to the output, so it'll be Bridge only;

3 - Any Position, SW4 up puts both Bridge and Neck 'returns' at ground (straight or via the blend controls), which of course is not a series connection.

I can see other issues, but that's enough for starters. Could it be that SW4a should be swapped around?

HTH



sumgai

[Deleted]

Hmm 4 switches that's 16 combo
With a 3 way selector 48

Going to take a while to look at them all , the blend with with ground and middle pickup hmm the signal you might get from the middle might be lost as it might be easier for the signal to go via this blend than it is via the other pickups and the circuit


sumgai

2 - Pos. 2, SW2 and SW3 both up - Neck 'hot' and 'return' wires both go to the output, so it'll be Bridge only;
Hmm 110 then bridge only 111 then neck and bridge (gotta remember SW4)


What my Twittchy eyes get as a truth table. ( I've put M in brackets when the "Tone Blenders"comes in to play, More of a Middle cut out. I'm not sure why you need two as very Harry Potter thing going on here, ONLY ONE can LIVE. and i think you would want a LOG Pot for this )
So best way to do this any thing you agree is right then we can ignore.
ones you dont think i got right we can look at again to see who and where went wrong.
SW2, SW3, SW4 i think best to code them 0 and 1 (0 being down and 1 up)
Pos1:001 would be Position 1 with SW2 Down, SW3 Down and SW4 Up



just a little colour to it


NB id missed off a RED DOT (Joint.. someone stop stealing my joints please...)

[sumgai]

ang,


I do like your idea of coding the possible combos, that's a good way to save time when presenting a truth table.

However, I see at least one problem with your latest diagram - SW4:up puts the B(return) and N(return) together.  So, if a series combo were realized, it would be out-of-phase.  Sadly though, it won't be realized - B(hot) goes to SW1a3 only, and N(hot) goes to SW1a1 only. Thus, the series combo will never be heard in any SW1 position.  Did you perhaps leave out a "connecting dot"?

---

jh,

The above brings me to the realization that we've all been busy working on chopping down trees when we should've been planting them in a different part of the forest in the first place. Consider:

You will recall that one of UnklMickey's contributions to the cause was a treatise on series-dominant versus parallel-dominant. I'd link to it, but I don't see a need to send you away from this thread, I can do a short synopsis right here: You need to prioritize which lash-up will dominate over the other. If you want both types of combos, then you must first determine which will take precedence - series will override any parallel possibilities, or vice-versa.

Here, SW4 should be taken completely away from its current location and placed at the input of the Vol pot, whereupon it will select either the series-combined N and B pups or SW1a(common).  The only downside here is that the 0.022 cap is no longer available for selection via SW4. I suggest a separate switch for that, as the Broadbucker tone may be also desired in other combinations. But of course, YMMV.

HTH




sumgai

[Deleted]

Should be a connection near SW4 meets SW1c .. say only same colours

As for the circuit I've not changed any thing as it's not mine to change .
Also I'm not 100% sure what is wanted

[Deleted]

Jan 9, 2022 12:32:22 GMT -5 sumgai said:

ang,


I do like your idea of coding the possible combos, that's a good way to save time when presenting a truth table.

However, I see at least one problem with your latest diagram - SW4:up puts the B(return) and N(return) together.  So, if a series combo were realized, it would be out-of-phase.  Sadly though, it won't be realized - B(hot) goes to SW1a3 only, and N(hot) goes to SW1a1 only. Thus, the series combo will never be heard in any SW1 position.  Did you perhaps leave out a "connectiing dots"

---

So your saying
Pos1xx0 have wrong NxBx(M)
Pos1 via Neck because of SW4a then via Bridge and then on to this funny neck tone blend and middle.

Pos2010 I have as M+(NxB)
SW2a brings middle in to play while SW3a brings neck that then travels to bridge with SW4a that then goes via SW1c to ground

[Deleted]

Sum

I have to keep reminding myself that your American. And admin.. you sound very British in the way you type. Only your spelling shows the American "Z"

You do a truth table what you think each of the 48 states are. Because I get a feeling you are reading it a LOT different than me and I am wondering why.

Lady time I had to show you every state of a circuit. But lucky just 5 .. I'm not doing it for this one. But if you want to point out a state you want to look at because you see different than me. Please do Position of SW1, and as I said I said down is 0 and up is 1..
PosSW1 SW2 SW3 SW4. It brings out the hex in me

[jhng]

Thanks for the further comments, and thanks for Angs diagram (which is much more comprehensible than my original).

I’ve realised, thanks to Sumgai’s comments, that I showed SW4:a the wrong way round. It is shown in the ‘up’ position while SW4:b (and all the other p/ps) are in the ‘down’ position. I’ll correct that — it’s a soldering error waiting to happen.

Also, I think Ang’s diagram misses the ground connection at position 2 of SW1:c (between the two blenders on my diagram). That is essential and is the whole key to how you can have all the parallel combos at position 2, with series stuff at 1 and 3. Basically, in terms of overall architecture, two poles of the three-way switch operate as regular pickup selectors, while the other two poles operate as a series/parallel switch between the Middle and the other two pickups.

SW4 does mess up the neat arrangement a bit. I’ll think about a better way to do that, and thanks for the suggestion to check out Unk’s previous stuff on series/parallel. I remember that he used to make very helpful contributions when I was here before.

[sumgai]

jh,


I agree, ang's diagram works well to organize one's signal path analysis.

To that end, I suspected that SW4a was somehow incorrectly shown.  If I simply reverse the two pins, then almost everything else makes sense.  But pulling up SW4  to establish a series combo will be seen at the output only in SW1,Pos.1 - the other two positions will not see this series connection.  Was that by design, or by way of an acceptable compromise?

Moreover, if you pull up on SW2, SW3 and SW4, watch what happens to N - it is shorted directly the output, and thus you'll have B only.  When you pull on just SW3 and SW4, then you'll get (N x B) + M.  Is that what you wanted?

All of this argues a bit more strongly for considering inserting SW4 between Vol(input) and the remaining configuration circuitry.  None of the above conditions are absolute deal killers, but sometimes it's nice to know you have total control, and don't have to fiddle around to avoid having unwanted tones when playing on stage.

HTH




sumgai

[jhng]

Jan 10, 2022 1:13:26 GMT -5 sumgai said:

jh,

But pulling up SW4  to establish a series combo will be seen at the output only in SW1,Pos.1 - the other two positions will not see this series connection.  Was that by design, or by way of an acceptable compromise?

Moreover, if you pull up on SW2, SW3 and SW4, watch what happens to N - it is shorted directly the output, and thus you'll have B only.  When you pull on just SW3 and SW4, then you'll get (N x B) + M.  Is that what you wanted?

Thanks, Sumgai. The ideal design intention would actually be to have each of the three positions independent, so that pulling the NxB switch would leave positions 2 and 3 unaffected. However, I can't do that in this schematic (without even more poles), so the acceptable compromise is that it affects the N+B and N+M options in position 2, as you note. I do use NxB periodically, so I wanted to include it even though it doesn't fit neatly into the overall scheme. Same with the occasional 0.01uf cap on the Bridge pickup, I use that sound regularly.

I think I will go away and see whether I can revise this one and make it all a bit smoother. The overall design goal is:

1. Blues Neck and crunchy riffs
2. Parallel sounds and Middle
3. Lead sounds

With all the positions adjustable independently. My current set up has a push/pull on the volume with standard strat combos down and the following alternates up: NxB, (N+M)xB, MxB, N+B, B(0.01uf cap). Not sure why I implemented the series/parallel hybrid originally, but the other alternates I use very regularly. However, I'm fed up with constantly looking down at the controls to adjust p/p and pickup selector. Hence, the intended switch to a 3-way set up with each position independently adjustable so it can be preset.

I'll post again when I've revised this one a bit.

[jhng]

I reworked this and a new version is below. Now it works as follows:

1. Neck (with blend to NxB, or NxMxB if SW4 is up)
2. N+B parallel (M+B with SW2 up, N+M with SW3 up, M alone with both up)
3. Bridge (with blend to MxB)

I think all three positions are now completely independent.

I've left out the various caps etc at this stage and will integrate them later.

[jhng]

I think I'm finally there with this one. The schematic is below. If anyone has five minutes to look over it and let me know of any obvious errors, I would be very grateful.

The operation is as follows:

SW1 (three-way blade switch):

1. N
2. N+B
3. B

Neck Blend - In position 1 blends to NxB in series, at position 10 partially bypasses N with a cap to give a 'Broadbucker' effect.
Bridge Blend - In position 3 blends to MxB in series

Neck Blend push/pull (SW2): Changes position 2 to N+M
Bridge Blend push/pull (SW3): Changes position 2 to M+B, AND changes the position 1 blend so it blends from N to NxMxB
With both Neck Blend and Bridge Blend up, position 2 becomes Middle only.
Volume push/pull (SW4): Adds a 0.01uf tone cap across all positions

On my guitar (at least) the 0.01uf cap seems to create a resonant peak with the Bridge pickup for a kind of cocked wah effect, which I use quite often.

[newey]

No time at the moment to vet your latest diagram, sorry. But your original question was whether or not one could live with the switching arrangement, or would it be impractical? If we look at the essence of what you've done here (which is pretty brilliant, I think) is that you've ditched the 5-way in favor of the 3-way so that the N + B is readily available. The middle pickup then gets the "binary tree" treatment via 2 of the push/pulls. Personally, I would find this way too "switchy" to get the middle pickup combos or middle pickup alone. But then again, I'm one of those oddball types who likes position 3 on a Strat and uses it a lot.

[jhng]

Thanks, Newey. Glad you like the design, even if it's a bit switchy on the Middle for you.

One of the things I like about the set up is that, excluding the 0.01cap switch, you can flip between almost any two sounds with only one control action (provided you are set up right at the beginning). The exceptions are:

N+B to M (and vice-versa) -- Requires using two push/pulls
N+B to NxMxB -- Requires using one push/pull and moving the three-way switch
N+M to NxMxB -- Ditto
M to NxB -- Ditto
M+B to NxB -- Ditto

Any other sound pair (I think) can be flipped using a single control interaction (either 3 way switch, push/pull or blender), if you've preset the other controls.

I do use the Middle a bit but only really for jazzier stuff. However, having both blenders pulled leaves the guitar set up as an old-school 3-way Strat with N, M and B, which should do me for that sort of thing.

[newey]

Jan 13, 2022 9:40:16 GMT -5 jhng said:

having both blenders pulled leaves the guitar set up as an old-school 3-way Strat with N, M and B, which should do me for that sort of thing.

Yes, I see that. On the original G-Nuts site, Atchley had his "Double-barrel Strat" design using 2 5-way switches. I had always thought about a design using 2 3-way switches, one for N + B and one for middle off, middle by itself, and middle in parallel with the other 3-way, thus giving all 7 parallel combos. But I never worked that out, fitment issues of 2 lever swithces seemed too daunting, although it can (and has) been done.

[jhng]

I remember the double-barrelled mod. He actually built it and posted photos. I think it looked a lot more fun in theory than practice!

Incidentally, I found a copy of John Atchley's original site hosted somewhere in the Netherlands:

guitarnuts.rotterdaminbeeld.nl/wiring/index.html

Is there somewhere on GN2 where it would be helpful to put the link? Some of the info is still very useful.

Amazingly, there are still some reader contributed mods on the page including what I think is the original Mike Richardson diagram and also some of my own early efforts. The latter include a mod I had completely forgotten ever inventing that uses stock Strat parts to do N, N+M, NxB, M+B, B, with the tone controls on B and N allowing 'Broadbucker-style' partial bypass in the middle position (although I don't recall the 'Broadbucker' term being current back then). I'm quite impressed with my younger self.

[jhng]

Also, re-reading my 2004 comments on the mods I was working on at the time, I see that I was planning a strat with a 3-way tele switch and a blender that faded in the Mid in series in the B and N+B positions, but in parallel in the N position. That's weirdly like a precursor version of this current design.

[newey]

jhng-

Yes, we already have the link to the Netherlands site in our archived original Guitarnuts pages. The guy who did that joined as a member here a while back and posted the link.

[sumgai]

Jan 13, 2022 5:34:02 GMT -5 jhng said:

If anyone has five minutes to look over it and let me know of any obvious errors, I would be very grateful.

Well, it took me much more than 5 minutes, that's for sure!

I see you've made some changes in your desired operating characteristics, and that was probably for the best, all things considered.  So it all looks good now, the diagram comports with the Truth Table, and that's probably a good thing.

HTH



sumgai

[Deleted]

Maybe one take the Position 1 . another Position 2.. . etc

I've not looked at the new on as i know it will take me a few min to look over it and odds on get some area wrong

isnt there some spice age software you can run to show how current will travel down the system maybe
AC Sine wave at JACK end and Ground at the Ground end and see how it travels via the circuit to show which inductors come in to play

[jhng]

sumgai - Thanks! That's really helpful. I promise no more complicated wiring diagrams from me. I only use the one electric guitar, so once I implement this rewire I hope I won't need to crack it open again for another ten years. I will, however, properly document some of the stock parts Strat mods that I've come up at various times and add them the schematics section as a resource for people. I'll do the same for this one and also for a more traditional 5-way version of it (which most people will probably find more helpful).

@angellahash - Spice is all a bit beyond me, but I'm confident that this set up will work nicely, particularly now that Sumgai has confirmed no foolish errors.

[Deleted]

when i get home i'll draw it out on my Android phone and run it there
sadly the software doesnt have a 1P3T or even 4P3T switch so i will do 3 Circuits
but just what you have done above and it runs

[sumgai]

Just an unofficial thanks in advance for thinking of posting some of those circuits you dreamed up to the Schematics sub-forum, I'm sure you're correct, someone will eventually come along and make use of one or more of them.

I freely admit, I was getting set to start writing my last post about how this combo was not gonna work, and that thing was missing, and yadda, yadda, yadda, you get it. Then I re-read your Truth Table, and Lo & Behold, I couldn't find anything wrong. Sad for me, great for you!

Post images and sound clips of the finished product! (Please.)





sumgai