3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

[iron_iguana]

I have a hotrails/coolrails/coolrails setup with the following wiring:

switch position:

1- neck HB (cr)
2- neck and mid Split and hum cancelling (cr/cr)
3- mid HB (cr)
4- bridge and mid split and humcancelling (hr/cr)
5- bridge HB (hr)

I also have a push-pull on the bridge tone that turns the bridge HB on when pulled.

I am happy with the pickups and the tones I get from the wiring but I think it could be better. I keep hearing that the cool rails in parallel is real sweet sounding. I was thinking I could add a push-pull on the mid/neck tone to add parallel. Here is what I want advice on:

When the push-pull is pulled, do I want 1, 2, or 3 HB's in parallel? Can adding just 1 push-pull put more than 1 pickup in parallel? Which option do you think I should do?

1- neck CR only in parallel
2- mid CR only in parallel
3- mid and neck CR's in parallel
4- both CR's and HR in parallel (haven't heard a whole lot about HR in parallel)

I am hoping that adding this option won't screw up any of the settings I currently have, so if this is not an easy change, let me know.

Here is my current wiring diagram:

http://www.leisd.ws/education/compo...lt.php?sectiondetailid=14883&sc_id=1199905971

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

One push-pull can only do one pickup in parallel. A 4PDT will do two and a 6PDT will do three, but they're impractical and hard to find.

(And I owe you a wiring diagram.) :blackeye:

 

[iron_iguana]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

OK. Now that I know I can choose only one, should I do neck or middle? Thanks Artie.

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

Thats a tough choice, because there's no real rhyme or reason to do one or the other. If it was me, I'd probably do the middle just because that will emulate a Vintage Rails in the middle. The HR/VR/CR is a popular Strat combo.

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

Hey Erik; I've got the diagram for this about 99% done, but there's a couple snags. First of all, I need to ask, where you got that diagram you linked to above? Its labeled as EP1112, but it doesn't match the one with that same number on the DMZ website. Also, it has a couple of problems.

1. It has the middle pickup wired out-of-phase. This wouldn't be a problem when the middle is used by itself, but having both the neck/middle split, or the middle/bridge split . . . and out-of-phase, I would think would sound terrible. Does it?

2. They auto-split the middle pup in order to save one switch quadrant so that they can use that to select between the two tone controls. Unfortunately, that precludes using a parallel switch for the middle. You would kill the output in the #2 and #4 positions if you selected parallel mode.

I see two simple solutions:

1. Just use one master tone control.
2. Use the parallel switch on the neck pup. (Not quite as useful as on the middle.)

So, if you could give me your thoughts on those issues, I'll finish this up.

Artie

 

[iron_iguana]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

I got the diagram from an email through the Dimarzio website. They cusomized it for me. I wanted the tone control to handle both the mid and neck pos instead of just the neck.

1. I had to change wire colors obviously because SD and Dimarzio have different colored wiring. The middle PU is not out of phase and it sounds fine.

2. That is a bummer that I can't use the parallel on the mid PU. I can live with it though because the setup as is sounds good. Just trying to make it better.

3. Using parallel on neck would be fine for me. Just trying to check out the cool rails in parallel for a bonus on this guitar.

Thanks agin Artie.

Hey Erik; I've got the diagram for this about 99% done, but there's a couple snags. First of all, I need to ask, where you got that diagram you linked to above? Its labeled as EP1112, but it doesn't match the one with that same number on the DMZ website. Also, it has a couple of problems.

1. It has the middle pickup wired out-of-phase. This wouldn't be a problem when the middle is used by itself, but having both the neck/middle split, or the middle/bridge split . . . and out-of-phase, I would think would sound terrible. Does it?

2. They auto-split the middle pup in order to save one switch quadrant so that they can use that to select between the two tone controls. Unfortunately, that precludes using a parallel switch for the middle. You would kill the output in the #2 and #4 positions if you selected parallel mode.

I see two simple solutions:

1. Just use one master tone control.
2. Use the parallel switch on the neck pup. (Not quite as useful as on the middle.)

So, if you could give me your thoughts on those issues, I'll finish this up.

Artie

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

2. That is a bummer that I can't use the parallel on the mid PU. I can live with it though because the setup as is sounds good. Just trying to make it better.

Just to be clear, you can use the parallel mode if you go with a master tone control. Personally, parallel would be worth more to me than two tones, but thats up to you.

I'll put the final touches on that diagram with neck parallel switch, and post it a little later today.

I wonder if DMZ pups achieve rw/rp by reverse-wiring the middle pup. That diagram definitely has the middle pup wired backwards.

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

Ok, this should do it:

Notes:

1. I took some liberties with your bridge tone control. However, I also made it dirt-simple to undo if you don't like it. The way your original wiring was, if you turned on the bridge pup along with the neck and/or middle, you'ld also add in its tone control. This wouldn't work as separate tone controls, but as dual-tones on all pups. That could be more of a treble hit than desirable. As my wiring is, if you pull the bridge tone push-pull, it disconnects the bridge tone control. This gives you the added benefit of being able to put the 5-way into the bridge position and turning the bridge tone off. (As in a no-load tone control.) If you don't want or like this option, its simple to undo. See the little blue square that surrounds two of the lugs of the bridge push-pull switch? Just solder a jumper across those lugs. Doesn't affect anything else.

2. There's one other small problem with this, (and your original wiring), that I forgot to mention before. However, if it isn't a problem now, it shouldn't be later. By auto-splitting the middle pickup this way, you leave one coil of the middle hanging out on the "hot" side of the circuit when in the #2 and #4 positions. This can act as a "noise antenna". Its not a huge problem, just a sloppy design. But like I said, if it doesn't present a problem now, it shouldn't be later.

I'm going to continue to look at this and see if there isn't some clever way to move the parallel switch to the middle pup.

(Wish I could talk you out of those two tone controls.)

Artie

Edit: Btw - Parallel mode on the neck pickup overrides "split" mode.

 

[iron_iguana]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

You might be talking me out of those 2 tone controls

BTW, I have 2 identical CR neck versions, nothing RWRP. Do HB's even come reversed? I didn't think they did. I wonder if that is why that Dimarzio diagram works for me.

 

[iron_iguana]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

If I have a master tone control, don't I end up with an extra knob? I would have a master vol and a master tone right? What will that 3rd knob do?

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

BTW, I have 2 identical CR neck versions, nothing RWRP. Do HB's even come reversed? I didn't think they did. I wonder if that is why that Dimarzio diagram works for me.

No. There's no need for a humbucker to be RW/RP, because its already noiseless. But that would have nothing to do with out-of-phase. Just look at the diagram you have posted on your "Guitar Club" site. Look at the grounds on the volume pot in the upper-left part of the diagram. Neck and bridge are grounding the green, (which is normal), while the middle grounds the red. Thats out-of-phase. I'm not sure why it works, but then again, I've never messed with DMZ pups.

If I have a master tone control, don't I end up with an extra knob?

Actually, you end up with an extra hole. What to do with it? The sky's the limit. However, I would just use that hole to mount your parallel switch.

But, as I said, you could do anything with it. I'd be more creative, but right now, I'm actually working on that diagram that I promised you months ago.

 

[iron_iguana]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

I like what you did here. I like how the bridge tone gets disconnected when pulled. It gets me another tone option that I didn't have before. Parallel overriding the split should be OK also (so in position 2 when parallel is pulled I would get neck in parallel with middle split?). I haven't had any noise issues so far, so I am good with this plan. Oh and very nice diagram. Really easy to follow. Let me try this option first. I'll let you know how it goes.

Ok, this should do it:

Notes:

1. I took some liberties with your bridge tone control. However, I also made it dirt-simple to undo if you don't like it. The way your original wiring was, if you turned on the bridge pup along with the neck and/or middle, you'ld also add in its tone control. This wouldn't work as separate tone controls, but as dual-tones on all pups. That could be more of a treble hit than desirable. As my wiring is, if you pull the bridge tone push-pull, it disconnects the bridge tone control. This gives you the added benefit of being able to put the 5-way into the bridge position and turning the bridge tone off. (As in a no-load tone control.) If you don't want or like this option, its simple to undo. See the little blue square that surrounds two of the lugs of the bridge push-pull switch? Just solder a jumper across those lugs. Doesn't affect anything else.

2. There's one other small problem with this, (and your original wiring), that I forgot to mention before. However, if it isn't a problem now, it shouldn't be later. By auto-splitting the middle pickup this way, you leave one coil of the middle hanging out on the "hot" side of the circuit when in the #2 and #4 positions. This can act as a "noise antenna". Its not a huge problem, just a sloppy design. But like I said, if it doesn't present a problem now, it shouldn't be later.

I'm going to continue to look at this and see if there isn't some clever way to move the parallel switch to the middle pup.

(Wish I could talk you out of those two tone controls.)

Artie

Edit: Btw - Parallel mode on the neck pickup overrides "split" mode.

 

[Artie]

Re: 3, 2, or 1 single HB's in parallel?

Parallel overriding the split should be OK also (so in position 2 when parallel is pulled I would get neck in parallel with middle split?).

Yes.

I haven't had any noise issues so far, so I am good with this plan. Oh and very nice diagram. Really easy to follow. Let me try this option first. I'll let you know how it goes.

Thanks. I'm trying to find a balance between "schematic-form" and "pictoral-form". Schematics are easier to draw. Pictorals, easier to read.