Easter egg

[Cagey]

I saw the first diagram, too. Made my brain hurt.

What you're asking for can only be accomplished by blasting off into space on top of a surprisingly simple rocket, having it fail early on and unexpectedly land intact way off course that puts you on a deserted island where you find an unusual bottle that upon opening, releases a trapped genie with incredible powers to grant any wish you may have. There's a documentary about such occurrences here.

If you can arrange for that to happen, you may be able to get what you'd like.

 

[Don]

Ok but besides showing off your sharp satyric genius,  could you actually point out what exactly makes it impossibile? :icon_biggrin: or is it just plain wrong?
I see it just as a simple 2 humbucker wiring. There are 4 coils. Each is RWRP to the other. That means, supposing that i'm correct, that AT LEAST WHEN ALL COILS ARE ON and each couple is wired in series, you should have an humcanceling effect.
Can at least this be acheived with my configuration? I don't care if it does not humcancel allways
Just for clarity's sake, i want to acheive this:
P90 in neck. Single coil.
Single coil middle.
These two above are RWRP. When both are on, they should be humbucking. (i guess there's a problem here. Can i wire two coils in series mantaining two indipendent volume pots, one for each coil?)
Humbucker in the bridge, and this shouldn't be a problem.
3 tone pots.
Each pot, may it be volume or tone, has to be indipendent from the rest of the circuit (in the sense that i want to able to turn off whatever pickup and let the rest as they are), so parallel wiring isn't possible.
Thanks for the patience

 

[Don]

I think i might have figured out a way to wire it... I'll post it as soon as i can draw it.

 

[Cagey]

No satire intended, implied or effected. I was just illustrating a fantasy solution to a fantasy desire. You can't get what you want from passive systems, at least not without a number of serious compromises that you most likely wouldn't care to make or some serious electronic gimcrackery that doesn't make sense. It has to do with impedance and how it's changed/controlled, most of which has to do with laws of physics that are inviolable. It's why you never see control schemes quite like that, although there are some that approach it. They don't really work very well, either. For example, look at any of the kiddie solutions to control that Gibson and others have offered for years.

With passive controls, there's really only one scheme that works predictably and well, regardless of the number of pickups - a single volume and tone control. And the tone control is of questionable value, other than it's immediacy.

I don't know how familiar you are with Ohms Law, but it's what says that you're going to have trouble with multi-control systems such as you're interested in. Some guitar manufactures and independents tend to ignore it, but they have marketing weenies and/or a deep, meaningful belief in the stupidity of their customers on their side. Being an intelligent individual, you don't have to succumb to that.

You never want to put controls in parallel. It may seem like you're getting more control, but in actuality you're losing it. Things get less predictable due to side effects. I could draw you equivalency diagrams, but if you don't see it now it's unlikely I'd clarify anything. I'll do it if you really want to know, but it's a lot easier if you just take it on faith.

 

[Don]

No satire intended, implied or effected. I was just illustrating a fantasy solution to a fantasy desire. You can't get what you want from passive systems, at least not without a number of serious compromises that you most likely wouldn't care to make or some serious electronic gimcrackery that doesn't make sense. It has to do with impedance and how it's changed/controlled, most of which has to do with laws of physics that are inviolable. It's why you never see control schemes quite like that, although there are some that approach it. They don't really work very well, either. For example, look at any of the kiddie solutions to control that Gibson and others have offered for years.

With passive controls, there's really only one scheme that works predictably and well, regardless of the number of pickups - a single volume and tone control. And the tone control is of questionable value,  other than it's immediacy.

I don't know how familiar you are with Ohms Law, but it's what says that you're going to have trouble with multi-control systems such as you're interested in. Some guitar manufactures and independents tend to ignore it, but they have marketing weenies and/or a deep, meaningful belief in the stupidity of their customers on their side. Being an intelligent individual, you don't have to succumb to that.

You never want to put controls in parallel. It may seem like you're getting more control, but in actuality you're losing it. Things get less predictable due to side effects. I could draw you equivalency diagrams, but if you don't see it now it's unlikely I'd clarify anything. I'll do it if you really want to know, but it's a lot easier if you just take it on faith.

I can't really see how Ohm's laws would cause me trouble in this circuit simply because i just haven't got the knowledge to understand it i know basicly nothing about phisics.
However, if you say its the wrong way, there's no reason i would waste even more of your time, don't worry.

But now the problem is, how the hell do i wire this thing!? :icon_biggrin:

 

[Cagey]

I can't really see how Ohm's laws would cause me trouble in this circuit simply because i just haven't got the knowledge to understand it i know basicly nothing about phisics.
However, if you say its the wrong way, there's no reason i would waste even more of your time, don't worry.

But now the problem is, how the hell do i wire this thing!? :icon_biggrin:

Whether or not you understand Ohm's law has nothing to do with whether or not it has an effect. It's a law, and there's no getting around it. But, that doesn't mean you're wasting my time or that I won't help you. However, I can't help you if you insist on that control scheme. It just won't work no matter how you wire it. The side effects will drive you insane.

What you really want, whether you realize it or not and whether you're in a studio or on stage, is something simple and predictable. That means reducing your control scheme to one volume, and maybe one tone control. You can have all positions more or less humbucking, but how effective that is will vary based on the relative impedances of the coils involved. It's also dramatically easier if you use a blade-style "super switch" rather than toggles or push-pulls.

So, we can go that route, or you can keep looking for a genie in a bottle. Whatever's best for you.

 

[Don]

i know that the laws of physics work even without my agreement  :laughing7: what i meant was that since i didn't study deeply the Ohm's law (i know the scholastic I=V/R formula, but that's far from understanding out it works out in an actual circuit) i don't know why and how it won't make my circuit wrong.

I don't want to use a super switch because i want the circuit to let me use even the first and third pickup togheter and all 3 pickups togheter (i have a mustang with three toggle switches 1 volume and 1 tone that i really like).

So i have two options:
1 wire it as the mustang i have
2 try to wire it as i said before.

I would like to understand why it won't work. If i give up on wanting the humcancelling effect could i just wire it and have 3 pickups 3 volumes and 3 tones as if i wired 3 different guitars with one pickup volume and tone each? I'll try to draw it...

 

[Don]

Would this diagram work allright? I want the push/pull to switch the pickup off when pulled up.
Would it work if i do the same with the other three pickups and wire them togheter to the jack socket as this one?

 

[Cagey]

Yes, that would work as you describe. Although, you might want to consider grounding the output when disconnecting the pickup, lest you have noise on the line when the pickup is disconnected. But, I wouldn't go to the trouble of a switch. You could just turn the pot down to 0 and achieve the same effect without the switch.

If you wire the other pickups the same way, then you have the same situation you had in the diagram a few posts back. Everything ends up in parallel and control goes out the window.

For two single coils and one humbucker, this is the way to do it. If you have an insatiable hard-on for a push-pull switch, you could use one to ground the red/white wire connection on the humbucker to coil cut it so you'd have a single coil option in the bridge position. I wouldn't recommend it, but some guys like it.

 

[Don]

Hmm, i see... So in theory i need three jack sockets to make it work, even though that is absurd...
Are you really sure there's no way to make this config to use 3 indipendent volumes?
If no then i guess that a 7 (?) way switch, volume and tone is the way to go. Even if i don't really like the idea. I hate blade switches that have more than 3 ways  :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

No, you don't necessarily need three discrete outputs; you could use active electronics to buffer and isolate each channel and mix them at the output. But, that's another can of worms.

Individual volume/tone controls aren't as desirable as one might imagine. In fact, they can be a real pain in the shorts. Think about an actual playing scenario. You're bobbing along playing some incredible rhythm/melody that's sure to make the charts with a bullet and stay there longer than Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon". Then you need to switch to a different tone and/or level so you can blow everyone's head off with a blistering, quick-witted and razor-sharp lead, the likes of which the world has never heard. However, you have to deprive the audience of your genius long enough to reach down and move at least one switch and/or pot.

Now, when you look down at the control set on your magical Axe of Doom, do you want to see a huge confusing collection of switches and pots that you have to think about and take careful aim at to nail exactly the right one? You haven't got time. A chord change is coming up in 3...2...1...

Then, because all those controls are in parallel, adjusting any one of them affects all of them. So, when you switch back to where you were, something is out of whack, so you have to adjust again.

What if it was only one switch and pot? No matter what you want to do, pure muscle memory will get your hand on the control without looking because it never moves and it does everything. Don't even have to think about it. It's instinctive.

You have to reach down either way. Why make it difficult or more frequent?

Get on YouTube and find some Jeff Beck videos. He's got three pickups on his guitar(s), and he plays with his controls like their connected directly to the pleasure center in his brain and he gets paid by the adjustment. Count how many controls he has.

 

[BlueTalon]

If I can make a suggestion, or a couple of them...


Have you considered using concentric controls?  That would at least take it from six knobs to three.  If you don't want to do that because of the push/pull switches, I understand that.  But you might want to consider push/push switches.  I know a guy who swears by them, says they are far easier to manage.  They do the same thing as a push/pull, but they do it like an old click-pen. 


The way you explain the way you want your controls laid out, it sounds a lot like my  bass.  I invite you to check out the 3-pickup bass thread, as you might find something useful in it.  Long story short, my controls are successful and the bass sounds great, but it took the help of an electronics engineer to get there.

 

[Don]

If I can make a suggestion, or a couple of them...


Have you considered using concentric controls?  That would at least take it from six knobs to three.  If you don't want to do that because of the push/pull switches, I understand that.  But you might want to consider push/push switches.  I know a guy who swears by them, says they are far easier to manage.  They do the same thing as a push/pull, but they do it like an old click-pen. 


The way you explain the way you want your controls laid out, it sounds a lot like my  bass.  I invite you to check out the 3-pickup bass thread, as you might find something useful in it.  Long story short, my controls are successful and the bass sounds great, but it took the help of an electronics engineer to get there.

Nice build BlueTalon!  :icon_thumright:
However, i don't think your wiring style applies to my build too because mine doesn't have a switch. Sure i would half the number of pots there, but it will take me to the same route of having all in parallel.
I don't mind if its push/pull. This way i can see if the switch is on or off.

No, you don't necessarily need three discrete outputs; you could use active electronics to buffer and isolate each channel and mix them at the output. But, that's another can of worms.

Individual volume/tone controls aren't as desirable as one might imagine. In fact, they can be a real pain in the shorts. Think about an actual playing scenario. You're bobbing along playing some incredible rhythm/melody that's sure to make the charts with a bullet and stay there longer than Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon". Then you need to switch to a different tone and/or level so you can blow everyone's head off with a blistering, quick-witted and razor-sharp lead, the likes of which the world has never heard. However, you have to deprive the audience of your genius long enough to reach down and move at least one switch and/or pot.

Now, when you look down at the control set on your magical Axe of Doom, do you want to see a huge confusing collection of switches and pots that you have to think about and take careful aim at to nail exactly the right one? You haven't got time. A chord change is coming up in 3...2...1...

Then, because all those controls are in parallel, adjusting any one of them affects all of them. So, when you switch back to where you were, something is out of whack, so you have to adjust again.

What if it was only one switch and pot? No matter what you want to do, pure muscle memory will get your hand on the control without looking because it never moves and it does everything. Don't even have to think about it. It's instinctive.

You have to reach down either way. Why make it difficult or more frequent?

Get on YouTube and find some Jeff Beck videos. He's got three pickups on his guitar(s), and he plays with his controls like their connected directly to the pleasure center in his brain and he gets paid by the adjustment. Count how many controls he has.

As i mentioned before, this guitar will be a studio guitar. I think about it as a guitar that has a analog mixer built in. This way i can slowly craft the sound i want to get exactly in that 7 second phrase, and tweek it until it reaches perfection. In a couple of hours.  :icon_biggrin:
I wouldn't have enough muscular memory to manage live a tone change on a Doublecut Junior, nevermind such a switchbox!
You know, if you project and build a tank from scratch, then you can't bitch about how hard it is to find place to park it.


Back to business, is there one of your magical electronic thingies that you can use to isolate signal from passive pickups into a common jack plate witout making the circuit in parallel? Like a jackplate with three isolated hot tips kinda thing?
It's just a guess pulled out of the "great things you would need but probably don't exist" box in my mind, so don't get all mad. Like intelligent women and an easy to park tanks.

One serious option could be to wire it just like a strat with 1 tone and a "7 way mod". It's just a push/pull that toggles the neck pickup allways on, so you can get neck+bridge and neck+midlle+bridge using the switch.