Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
- Thread starter idsnowdog
- Start date
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.
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.
Last edited:
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).
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).
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
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.
Now you know you can do more than just rock ... you can roll too ...dr.barlo said:
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
New member
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
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
Last edited:
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
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 said:
dr.barlo
New member
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
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
Artie
Peaveyologist
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
I love it when you double-check/correct me. :dance:
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.
Kent S. said:
I love it when you double-check/correct me. :dance:
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.
Last edited:
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
Well you can if you want too ... :laugh2:
Of yeah, I keep forgetting that there are those that don't use four conductor cable (or at least 2 conductor with shield) ... come into this century man ...
Just kidding ...
Off hand I don't see in that case what reversing the pup would accomplish, maybe in instances of coil tapping (splitting to use the SD term) ...
And I assume you want all hum-cancelling correct? You also said that you don't really turn down the volume past 5 or so right, so you don't need the pups going to the wipers, you just need some control over blending the pups in and out *somewhat* to get different textures right?
dr.barlo said:
Well you can if you want too ... :laugh2:
Of yeah, I keep forgetting that there are those that don't use four conductor cable (or at least 2 conductor with shield) ... come into this century man ...
Just kidding ...
Off hand I don't see in that case what reversing the pup would accomplish, maybe in instances of coil tapping (splitting to use the SD term) ...
Should work just fine, I'd dump the on/on/on DPDTs though for on/on DPDTs as it's a waste to have them there as you are only going to split the pups (no parallel), also are you planning on splitting the pups individually ... I looks like not from what you wrote above ... you just want to split both pups at the same time correct? And you want both in phase and out of phase options right? If this is what you want then you'll need two on/on DPDTs.
And I assume you want all hum-cancelling correct? You also said that you don't really turn down the volume past 5 or so right, so you don't need the pups going to the wipers, you just need some control over blending the pups in and out *somewhat* to get different textures right?
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
I'll look more closely later on, but you can do a similar thing by lifting the ground on the pots and using them as a varible resistor. Either way though the taper of the pot will be effected, but those are the breaks. I'll have to look it over closer a bit later on.ArtieToo said:I love it when you double-check/correct me. :dance:
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.
Artie
Peaveyologist
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
You could be right about that, but I didn't think the taper would be affected per se, since the resistors are added in series. When the volume is at "0", you'll be at half volume, (or whatever pot/resistor ratio you selected), regardless of the taper. Not really sure about this one.
I'll try this out myself as soon as I get a dual-control guitar. (Which I'm hoping will be in the next couple weeks.)
Kent S. said:
You could be right about that, but I didn't think the taper would be affected per se, since the resistors are added in series. When the volume is at "0", you'll be at half volume, (or whatever pot/resistor ratio you selected), regardless of the taper. Not really sure about this one.
I'll try this out myself as soon as I get a dual-control guitar. (Which I'm hoping will be in the next couple weeks.)
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
Man, one look at the voltage divider equation will show you it will ...
500k-A pot set a 5 ... CW~W:450k; W~Ground:50k ...RT:500k
Voltage in 10V (why...it divides easy)... 10V(450k)/RT 500k= 9V which is the voltage DROP across the 450k ... 10V-9V= 1V ... 1V is 1/10 of 10V ... -20dB
Roughly half as loud (we are dealing with voltage not power or current).
500k-A pot set a 5 with 250K in series with the CCW lug to ground...
CW~W:450k; W~Ground: 750k (50k of pot in series with 250k resistor).
10V(450k)/RT 750k= 6V which again is the voltage drop across the 450k ... 10V-6V=4V ... 4V is 2/5 of 10V ... ~ -7.96dB ... not evenly remotely the same!
ArtieToo said:
Man, one look at the voltage divider equation will show you it will ...
500k-A pot set a 5 ... CW~W:450k; W~Ground:50k ...RT:500k
Voltage in 10V (why...it divides easy)... 10V(450k)/RT 500k= 9V which is the voltage DROP across the 450k ... 10V-9V= 1V ... 1V is 1/10 of 10V ... -20dB
Roughly half as loud (we are dealing with voltage not power or current).
500k-A pot set a 5 with 250K in series with the CCW lug to ground...
CW~W:450k; W~Ground: 750k (50k of pot in series with 250k resistor).
10V(450k)/RT 750k= 6V which again is the voltage drop across the 450k ... 10V-6V=4V ... 4V is 2/5 of 10V ... ~ -7.96dB ... not evenly remotely the same!
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
Yeah, the phase thing will work just fine B.
Hey Barlo, I guess I should ask, you aren't doing anything oddball like using an Ant. pup, with a Non-Ant. pup are you? And both pups are going to be mounted normally right? Good! This is for two Ants. (they offer them with four conductor on request don't they?), or two non-Ants. ... not one of each ... If you want you can ground the wipers of the concentric tone control and run the ends of their respective caps to the wiper of their respective volume controls ... it makes no difference ... I drew it this way because it was easier.
I couldn't resist the title ... :laugh2:
Yeah, the phase thing will work just fine B.
Hey Barlo, I guess I should ask, you aren't doing anything oddball like using an Ant. pup, with a Non-Ant. pup are you? And both pups are going to be mounted normally right? Good! This is for two Ants. (they offer them with four conductor on request don't they?), or two non-Ants. ... not one of each ... If you want you can ground the wipers of the concentric tone control and run the ends of their respective caps to the wiper of their respective volume controls ... it makes no difference ... I drew it this way because it was easier.
I couldn't resist the title ... :laugh2:
Last edited:
dr.barlo
New member
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
Kent,
I am gonna be using 4c HBs no problems there.
As far as I understand the positions will be: (remember the 3 way tele switch)
1. Neck full HB position
1.a. if the second DPDT switch is off it would be neck full HB
1.b. if the second DPDT switch is only the neck will be split, no? Red and white of the bridge going to the second DPDT switch would not affect nothing, as the black of the bridge is inactive. No?
2. middle position
2.a. if both of the switches are off, then it would be the good old LP middle position with 2 tone 2 vol wiring.
2.b. If the first DPDT switch is on and the second DPDT switch is off, then it would be the PG out of phase tone, still controlled by the 2 volumes and 2 tones.
2.c. If the first DPDT switch is off and the second DPDT on it would be in phase, both pickups split, series tone; like a good old tele middle position no? Humcancelling no?
2.d. If the first and second DPDT switches are on, it would be out of phase split tone. Just like a mosquito, virtually not usable, but anyway maybe with the vol control something funky can be played, me thinks.
3. Bridge position: No matter whether or not the DPDT switches are on or off, it would be the full HB bridge tone!
Very cool man very cool. I could not figure this out myself. Gotta admit it. I am thinking of using my excellent 8.40/8.00K PG set, and hence I don't care much for the individual split positions. The only thing that would make this whole wiring the best ever would be to be able to get (1) the neck split, bridge HB full and (2) neck full; the bridge split positions.
But as it is it is excellent. The last thing would require another miniswitch no?
EDIT: Now that I think, **** it! I already have the volume control on both of the pickups separately! Thus in the middle position, I could get more sparkle or depthness by playing with the volumes, instead of splitting only one of the HBs. Hence, this simply could be the most excellent wiring ever!
Much obliged!
B
Kent,
I am gonna be using 4c HBs no problems there.
As far as I understand the positions will be: (remember the 3 way tele switch)
1. Neck full HB position
1.a. if the second DPDT switch is off it would be neck full HB
1.b. if the second DPDT switch is only the neck will be split, no? Red and white of the bridge going to the second DPDT switch would not affect nothing, as the black of the bridge is inactive. No?
2. middle position
2.a. if both of the switches are off, then it would be the good old LP middle position with 2 tone 2 vol wiring.
2.b. If the first DPDT switch is on and the second DPDT switch is off, then it would be the PG out of phase tone, still controlled by the 2 volumes and 2 tones.
2.c. If the first DPDT switch is off and the second DPDT on it would be in phase, both pickups split, series tone; like a good old tele middle position no? Humcancelling no?
2.d. If the first and second DPDT switches are on, it would be out of phase split tone. Just like a mosquito, virtually not usable, but anyway maybe with the vol control something funky can be played, me thinks.
3. Bridge position: No matter whether or not the DPDT switches are on or off, it would be the full HB bridge tone!
Very cool man very cool. I could not figure this out myself. Gotta admit it. I am thinking of using my excellent 8.40/8.00K PG set, and hence I don't care much for the individual split positions. The only thing that would make this whole wiring the best ever would be to be able to get (1) the neck split, bridge HB full and (2) neck full; the bridge split positions.
But as it is it is excellent. The last thing would require another miniswitch no?
EDIT: Now that I think, **** it! I already have the volume control on both of the pickups separately! Thus in the middle position, I could get more sparkle or depthness by playing with the volumes, instead of splitting only one of the HBs. Hence, this simply could be the most excellent wiring ever!
Much obliged!
B
Last edited:
dr.barlo
New member
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
One simple thing tho:
The symbol generally used for ground designates the neck green in the diagram titled "Barlo's Bluesy Big Apple Boogie Machine"! Really sounds great man! :laugh2:
Anyway lemme come back to the question: In the first DPDT that symbol says connect the neck green to B lug of the DPDT miniswitch labelling it as
A D
B E
C F
On the second DPDT it says connect it to A. I think one is a ground the other the neck green no? I think the drawing in the first DPDT one is wrong and B should be connected to ground; and in the second DPDT switch the drawing is right, that is A gets the neck green. No?
Anyway my head is spining now! :laugh2:
B
One simple thing tho:
The symbol generally used for ground designates the neck green in the diagram titled "Barlo's Bluesy Big Apple Boogie Machine"!
Really sounds great man! :laugh2: Anyway lemme come back to the question: In the first DPDT that symbol says connect the neck green to B lug of the DPDT miniswitch labelling it as
A D
B E
C F
On the second DPDT it says connect it to A. I think one is a ground the other the neck green no? I think the drawing in the first DPDT one is wrong and B should be connected to ground; and in the second DPDT switch the drawing is right, that is A gets the neck green. No?
Anyway my head is spining now! :laugh2:
B
Re: Ok Artie how do I fix this one?
Yes to all the above ...
Yes, but the Tele position you refer to is parallel not series ... just so you know, yes hum-cancelling ...
Yeah, good for funk, blending the volumes will produce some cool tonal shades, try that sound with a compressor sometimes ... Hum-cancelling also.
No, the bridge pup gets split also, you didn't say anything about not splitting it in the bridge only position , and when the phase switch is pulled it will select which coil is split (a side benefit), the phase of the pup will be reversed even in full mode, but you won't hear any difference unless it's combined with the other pup (this is normal of course).
Never thought about it,from a hum-cancelling standpoint that idea repulses me ... :saeek: That's more trouble than it's worth, but it could be done with the addition of a on/off/on SPDT or DPDT switch to disable either split.
Yeah I think the dual volume in this set up will work out well ... Everything except for the neck only split and bridge only split will be hum-cancelling, they won't for obvious reasons ... man grab a compressor and try those as well, don't just let them go to waste.
dr.barlo said:
Yes to all the above ...
Yes, but the Tele position you refer to is parallel not series ... just so you know, yes hum-cancelling ...
Yeah, good for funk, blending the volumes will produce some cool tonal shades, try that sound with a compressor sometimes ... Hum-cancelling also.
No, the bridge pup gets split also, you didn't say anything about not splitting it in the bridge only position , and when the phase switch is pulled it will select which coil is split (a side benefit), the phase of the pup will be reversed even in full mode, but you won't hear any difference unless it's combined with the other pup (this is normal of course).
Never thought about it,from a hum-cancelling standpoint that idea repulses me ... :saeek: That's more trouble than it's worth, but it could be done with the addition of a on/off/on SPDT or DPDT switch to disable either split.
EDIT: Now that I think, **** it! I already have the volume control on both of the pickups separately! Thus in the middle position, I could get more sparkle or depthness by playing with the volumes, instead of splitting only one of the HBs. Hence, this simply could be the most excellent wiring ever!
Much obliged!
B
Yeah I think the dual volume in this set up will work out well ...
Everything except for the neck only split and bridge only split will be hum-cancelling, they won't for obvious reasons ... man grab a compressor and try those as well, don't just let them go to waste.
Last edited:
