DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

[jrbowen81]

Hey guys,

I was just talking to Aceman about something related to this a few days ago, and... Currently I have my Strat wired up with a Chopper in the neck, Fast Track 1 middle, Fast Track 2 in the bridge. I have 2 mini switches installed, 1 wired to the neck and bridge for coil splitting, and 1 as a "neck on" switch. While I do think I'm getting some pretty good sounds out of this arrangement, my curiosity is still running wild about doing each these switches up as dedicated "series/parallel" controls on the neck and bridge. For anyone who has experience with this, how does it sound in comparison to coil splitting? I know I gain the advantage of retaining the hum canceling qualities, but what are the pros and cons tone-wise? Will it improve the interaction of the neck and bridge with the middle pickup, especially in pos. 2 & 4?

 

[Hank-]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

If you can get the middle to split as well then that would make the 2 & 4 positions to sound more quacky, wiring might get tricky. Pararell wiring woud be something for you to try out to hear it, normally it gets kinda cocked wah sounding or something along those lines, hard to describe, its easy to wire up so just give it a try on either one of the pickups & then do it on the other one as well if you like it.

IMO, considering the pickup choices, this is now a more rock oriented strat. I wouldn't waste too much time trying to get it to do traditional sounds perfectly because once you compare the quack or individual sounds on it(after all the effort put in) to that of actual single coils, then it will leave a lot to be desired. I got me a cheapo strat for traditional sounds & use my hss which has cruiser bridge/area 67(m)/super d(b) for more modern sounds.

 

[Demanic]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

I vote for parallel. Similar boost in treble without hum.

 

[jrbowen81]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

If you can get the middle to split as well then that would make the 2 & 4 positions to sound more quacky, wiring might get tricky. Pararell wiring woud be something for you to try out to hear it, normally it gets kinda cocked wah sounding or something along those lines, hard to describe, its easy to wire up so just give it a try on either one of the pickups & then do it on the other one as well if you like it.

IMO, considering the pickup choices, this is now a more rock oriented strat. I wouldn't waste too much time trying to get it to do traditional sounds perfectly because once you compare the quack or individual sounds on it(after all the effort put in) to that of actual single coils, then it will leave a lot to be desired. I got me a cheapo strat for traditional sounds & use my hss which has cruiser bridge/area 67(m)/super d(b) for more modern sounds.

Good points. Like I said earlier, I do like the sounds I'm getting, but I'm just curious if having series/parallel instead of series/split would be "better". I know it's mostly subjective, but you know what I mean. Lol... I suppose I'll just have to try it and see, whenever I'm not feeling too lazy to open that guitar up again. Haha

 

[jrbowen81]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

I vote for parallel. Similar boost in treble without hum.

Does it have as much volume drop as splitting?

 

[Demanic]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

I don't find it looses nearly as much volume as splitting. I still find it surprising that splitting is more popular than running in parallel.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk

 

[jrbowen81]

Re: DiMarzio Chopper & Fast Track 2: Split vs Parallel?

I don't find it looses nearly as much volume as splitting. I still find it surprising that splitting is more popular than running in parallel.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk

Cool. I was wondering because I lose a LOT of volume on my clean channel when I split these, especially the Chopper. Not so much on my dirt channel because of all the compression going on.