Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

[dr.barlo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Artie, yeah I am talking about the first (in your list) kinda wiring. Well I never bothered to check out the second type. Maybe I should, yet did not have any problems with losing all the output in the middle position when turning the vol of either one to 0. Because I simply use 10-5 (audio) on my vol.

B

[ArtieToo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

. . . Because I simply use 10-5 (audio) on my vol.

B

And that makes sense. One wouldn't "select" a pickup, and then turn its volume down to zero.

I'm probably making more of this "volume-interaction" thang, then is necessary. I'm still learning.

Edit: Which, by the way, just gave me a great idea. Film at eleven.

[dr.barlo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Edit: Which, by the way, just gave me a great idea. Film at eleven.

Right on!

B

[idsnowdog]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Well I tried the wiring and it kind of works. The tone control still isn't totaly out of the loop for the humbucker unless the 250k volume pot is at 0. I think I might need a 500k pot for the tone because the 250k tone still rolls off too much of the high end. Originaly I had a 1 meg for the tone.

If anyone is wondering the guitar has a Dimarzio Megadrive at the bridge. Jackson single coil in the middle and a Dimarzio Virtual Vintage 2.0 single coil at the neck.

I also made a brass baseplate for the middle single coil and it really improves the sound. Nice chunk, twang and articulation. I was thinking about selling some on ebay.

Snowdog

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Artie, yeah I am talking about the first (in your list) kinda wiring. Well I never bothered to check out the second type. Maybe I should, yet did not have any problems with losing all the output in the middle position when turning the vol of either one to 0. Because I simply use 10-5 (audio) on my vol.

B

Both forms of wiring are fine, just with the traditional wiring at the extreme low side (like trying to volume roll a pup in) when one control is at zero it will shut both pups off. The down side to the alternate wiring is that it will change the pups tone greatly the lower it ( that pup's volume control) is set(increasing the load upon the pup(s). Also, it tends to change the way the volume taper reacts ... not physically, but it does nonetheless; single coils((read pups with lower impedances)) are effected a bit less by this also.

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

First things first ... The original query ... Artie's III A (Revised, yeah by me ... whadda 'bout it?)...

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Artie's III B (another revision)...

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

In both I figured that you were actually using DPDTs as SPDTs ... If not well, this is still my solution, and they cost like a buck twenty-five more.
In both the tone control is not active unless either the neck or middle pup is selected (it's always active except when the bridge is on by it's lonesome). In both the loading of the 250k (neck and middle) volume control is eliminated by lifting it's ground whenever the bridge pup is active, note that it will still function as an attenuator for the neck and middle pups ... allowing a partial volume control for them. The 500k is then the master volume, this works out well. The difference with the second is that when the neck and middle are combined the impedance drops which makes the tone control setting become a bit brighter when both pups are used ... some people like this, some people don't ...either way. It does give one the option of having one cap value for the neck,one for the volume,and then their combines values when both are used. Of course it will be active if the bridge is added into the mix, but that's no big deal ... of course the tone control will be disabled when the bridge is used alone. The '50's wiring can be done as well, note swap points.
Those white rectangles on the switches (second schematic are where I had to erase a trace, pay no attention to them, there is no connection between those terminals). Maybe I finally fixed all the spelling errors.

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Okay Barlo, your Big Apple (I still call it that instead of double fat strat), LP-ish design should work fine, the '50's wiring will work either with traditional or alternative volume control wiring ... again both pups will see a 250k load instead of a 500k when on together ... this is not a problem because, if the pups are close to around the same impedance their Z will half it's self (or at least be less than the lowest pup) ... Again is you take the example of two 10k pups with 500k controls. One pup/one control (10k/500k):Two pups/two controls (5k/250k) ::... 10/500 = .02; ... 5/250 = .02. The load ratio is the same.
Same thing happens with the tone controls ... one pup/one cap ... (10k/.022uF):two pups/two caps ... (5k/.044uF ) :: Here the numbers are not important and won't be the same, but the frequencies involved are ... hence ... halve the impedance, the cut off moves up an octave; to get it back where it was you double the capacitance (which it does).

[dr.barlo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Cool Kent, thanks. I am gonna be doing that on my Big Apple. I don't want to lose the 2vol/2tone config, and wanna split to get more tones. Cool!

B

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Cool Kent, thanks. I am gonna be doing that on my Big Apple. I don't want to lose the 2vol/2tone config, and wanna split to get more tones. Cool!

B

Now you know you can do more than just rock ... you can roll too ...
if you use one DPDT (or push/pulls) then you can do a simultaneous split of both pups at once; if you use a DPDT for each pup you also have the luxury of going to series/parallel instead of the series/split, and to add on further, if you use stand alone DPDT on/on/on switches for each pup you can go series/split/parallel. There is something else that you might want to do with one of your tone controls, I'll PM you on it later.

[dr.barlo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

I don't care much for parallel. I'd be interested in getting the HB's (full mode) reverse phase tho. You see I love Peter Green but did not do his mod on any of my LPs. Just did not have the heart to reverse the magnet on any of them.

I'd appreciate that! I could use a bunch of mini switches. 2 DPDTs and if need be 2 simple ones. But I definitely wanna keep the 2vol 2 tone config. So dunno if that's possible. You'd know it.

B

[Kent S.]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

I don't care much for parallel. I'd be interested in getting the HB's (full mode) reverse phase tho. You see I love Peter Green but did not do his mod on any of my LPs. Just did not have the heart to reverse the magnet on any of them.

I'd appreciate that! I could use a bunch of mini switches. 2 DPDTs and if need be 2 simple ones. But I definitely wanna keep the 2vol 2 tone config. So dunno if that's possible. You'd know it.

B

All reversing the pup magnet does is put it out of phase with the other when on together, it's the same as reversing it's hot and ground wires (well that and the magnetic polarity of each coil changes, whish matters when split)... I thought there was a bit more to the Peter Green mod than that though, I wouldn't know about the details of that ... the pups are still in parallel in the middle. I assume tht that's what you are referring too?

[dr.barlo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

Yeah, that's what I am referring to.

But of course you cannot or should not do the wire reversal on PAF clones with braided 2c wires. Because then it would mean that the shielding wires should carry the signal, not the best for isolating the output from outside electric interference.

I guess that's all there is to the PG mod. Am not too sure tho, but still, I suppose he reversed the pickup in a naive attempt to correct the magnet reversal. So there are 2 things to the PG mod as far as I know. 1. flip the magnet 2. flip the neck pickup. Am not gonna do the second point anyway.

What I wanna get is:

1. 2vol/2tone setup
2. phase reversal (especially when the HB are full on)
3. HB bridge, HB neck, middle position as in LP; then I would like to split (parellel wiring for each is not mandatory, in fact don't care for it too much) both the HB and control their volumes seperately.

As I am saying maybe it is not doable. Maybe is. Gotta check it carefully.

The tools at my disposal (gotta drill some holes through the pickguard) a 3way tele switch; 2 CTS 500K pots; 1 500/500K dual concentric pot; DPDT (on/on/on) miniswitches and simple on/on miniswitches.

Thanks man, you know I appreciate it!

B

[ArtieToo]

Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?

(Revised, yeah by me ... whadda 'bout it?)...

I love it when you double-check/correct me.

My "great idea" that I eluded to earlier, is actually pretty simple. On a dual volume, (or more), guitar, simply add a resistor on the ground leg of the volume control. This does two things:

1. It prevents you from rolling the volume control, and subsequently both pups, down to zero.

2. It gives you back full rotation of the volume control.

This idea, of course, assumes that one would use the volume control to balance one pup with another, rather than turn it off completely. You can only roll the volume off halfway with this scheme.

The value of the resistor and the value of the pot should sum to whatever the desired pup load is - ie., 250k + 250K for an effective 500k, etc.

Also, one could play around with the values as desired: 100k + 500k would give a total 600k load, and allow you to go 80% down in volume without going to zero. Stuff like that.

Not sure how great, overall, this idea is - its just an idea.



(SHIFT-click image for full-size version.)

Edit: Color codes on resistors are incorrect. I just grabbed them from my archives.