Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to get the most "Quack" on a H-H guitar?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How to get the most "Quack" on a H-H guitar?

    what combinations of split/parallel coils yield the best "2 and 4 position strat quack" on a dual humbucker guitar? would it be neck screw and bridge slug, and neck slug and bridge screw?

  • #2
    Personally, either the inside 2 coils or outside 2 coils, in parallel and humbucking (you might have to flip a magnet) give the best quack sound You need either a Megaswitch or Super Switch to pull this off.
    Dave, Ambassador/Writer/Artist for Seymour Duncan

    Comment


    • #3
      I think adding a phase option and having two volumes to mix would also increase the quack options.
      Originally posted by Demanic
      Incompetence is widespread in a world that rewards mediocrity while punishing excellence.
      Originally posted by GuitarFanatic
      I am currently using Skullcandy headphones I found in the garbage.
      I did find the DS-1 in the garbage.
      I once found a guitar amp in the garbage, a Peavey Studio 110. It caught fire at the first gig I played it at.. But it was at the end of it, thank god.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you don't want to mess with a mag flip, (and reverse wiring), I always love the bridge slug with the neck screw. Works good, sounds great.

        Comment


        • #5
          *Some* amount of quack can be achieved by inner coils of humbuckers in parallel, but it will never be much compared to two single coils - either neck & middle, or middle & neck. Strong quack requires the close physical proximity that only a middle position pup can provide. I just went thru a project finding that out for myself, where i even had 2 bonafide singlecoils installed in a HH guitar and even then, the quack was only subtle. I also tried Half Out Of Phase wiring that is reported to add quack, but i found that the tone it added was more of an acoustic-like strum sound, not a quack.
          Sanford: "The hardest part about tone chasing is losing the expectations associated with the hardware."

          Comment


          • #6
            Spin a splits can make a hum quack on its own. Plus different quack combos with the pups combined.
            Last edited by Clint 55; 11-24-2020, 10:58 AM.
            Originally posted by NegativeEase
            I'd wager that Clint can best GuitarStv at Wat and WAAAT... but not Watts.

            I think in the International System of Units (SI) a "WAT" is defined as a derived unit of 1 Clint besmirchment per hour

            and WAAAT is defined as a derived unit of 1 Clint kilojoule of described Nirvana transgression per post.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jack_TriPpEr View Post
              *Some* amount of quack can be achieved by inner coils of humbuckers in parallel, but it will never be much compared to two single coils - either neck & middle, or middle & neck. Strong quack requires the close physical proximity that only a middle position pup can provide. I just went thru a project finding that out for myself, where i even had 2 bonafide singlecoils installed in a HH guitar and even then, the quack was only subtle. I also tried Half Out Of Phase wiring that is reported to add quack, but i found that the tone it added was more of an acoustic-like strum sound, not a quack.
              I agree with this. It's like the Telecaster middle position.
              Originally posted by Demanic
              Incompetence is widespread in a world that rewards mediocrity while punishing excellence.
              Originally posted by GuitarFanatic
              I am currently using Skullcandy headphones I found in the garbage.
              I did find the DS-1 in the garbage.
              I once found a guitar amp in the garbage, a Peavey Studio 110. It caught fire at the first gig I played it at.. But it was at the end of it, thank god.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by beaubrummels View Post

                I agree with this. It's like the Telecaster middle position.
                It works better with some pickups than others. But to me, it is 'close enough'.
                Dave, Ambassador/Writer/Artist for Seymour Duncan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wasn't there a wiring, either by Ibanez or PRS that did outside coils in parallel, inside coils in series?

                  Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Demanic View Post
                    Wasn't there a wiring, either by Ibanez or PRS that did outside coils in parallel, inside coils in series?

                    Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
                    Yep, that's one of the earliest PRS 5 way wirings. Stewmac hosts a diagram for that, setup specifically for a rotary pickup selector which is predominantly the format that PRS used that 5 way config in. See below.

                    https://www.stewmac.com/video-and-id...eed-smith.html


                    Sanford: "The hardest part about tone chasing is losing the expectations associated with the hardware."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mincer View Post

                      It works better with some pickups than others. But to me, it is 'close enough'.
                      I thought so too with my recent project, until i brought home a Strat w a middle pup to compare Positions 2 and 4 against my SS guitar setup. I also asked my wife to be an objective listener. Even she said that the difference in quack factor was significant btw the two guitars. My SS was setup with a Dimarzio Area 67 in the neck and a Area 58 in the bridge. And I was only using the main coils of each Dimarzio pup (i.e. the smaller hum-canceling coil of each pup was not active). But maybe like you say i might have gotten more quack if the pickups were different.
                      Last edited by Jack_TriPpEr; 11-24-2020, 08:51 PM.
                      Sanford: "The hardest part about tone chasing is losing the expectations associated with the hardware."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ArtieToo View Post
                        If you don't want to mess with a mag flip, (and reverse wiring), I always love the bridge slug with the neck screw. Works good, sounds great.
                        A few members report in this thread at The Gear Page forum that keeping the two coils that are being combined in parallel as NON-hum-canceling yields more quack vs. the two being hum-canceling. At least, for singlecoil type pups. I'm assuming that holds true for splitcoils of two humbuckers.

                        https://www.thegearpage.net/board/in...1597731/page-2

                        And, magnet flipping isn't the only option to achieve hum-canceling inner coils. Intead, one pup can be rotated 180 degrees and then you wire the coilsplit specifically for the two inner coils.
                        Last edited by Jack_TriPpEr; 11-24-2020, 09:04 PM.
                        Sanford: "The hardest part about tone chasing is losing the expectations associated with the hardware."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          how about wiring the neck in parallel, would that get close to the "2" position on a strat (neck+middle)?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Reee View Post
                            how about wiring the neck in parallel, would that get close to the "2" position on a strat (neck+middle)?
                            Wiring a humbuckers' 2 coils in parallel has a "hollow" type sound to me... i don't hear "quack" in that configuration, personally.

                            To your original question, you will get some quack when you wire the two inner coils of an HH in parallel. I was just trying to make you aware that - per my experience - the amount of quack will be far less than when a middle position pup is present, like in a Strat's Positions 2 and 4. So split inner coils will yield the most quack that a HH guitar can provide, in my opinion.
                            Last edited by Jack_TriPpEr; 11-24-2020, 10:02 PM.
                            Sanford: "The hardest part about tone chasing is losing the expectations associated with the hardware."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jack_TriPpEr View Post

                              Wiring a humbuckers' 2 coils in parallel has a "hollow" type sound to me... i don't hear "quack" in that configuration, personally.

                              To your original question, you will get some quack when you wire the two inner coils of an HH in parallel. I was just trying to make you aware that - per my experience - the amount of quack will be far less than when a middle position pup is present, like in a Strat's Positions 2 and 4. So split inner coils will yield the most quack that a HH guitar can provide, in my opinion.
                              allright, quack aside, would a neck in parallel come closest to the 2 position on a strat? the split inners does quack but seems to be a bit more like a tele, i'm looking for that polite, almost acoustic-y 2 position sound that i had on a Jackson DK2, it was a 24 fret guitar with duncan STK-1's in the neck and middle, that 2 position sounded glorious!

                              btw: is the STK1 strat pickup discontinued? shame because i really liked that one!
                              Last edited by Reee; 11-24-2020, 11:11 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X