HS Wiring

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
hi guys,

i am again reconfiguring my HS Guitar. Installed is a Häussel single coil with 2 wires and a Seymour Duncan P Rails.

I only have a volume pot and a blade switch and was wondering if i could realize this wiring with a tele 4 way switch:

1. humbucker series
2. humbucker parallel
3. humbucker split coil (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. neck sc

2 and 3 could be in a different order, 1 and 4 must be like that.

alternatively if the 4 way is not possible, i could also live with a 5 way solution. i have available also the eyb megaswitch e, the standard fender 5 way, the schaller p and the schaller m megaswitch.

i would love to avoid any further controls such and use only the blade. nearly all diagrams i find miss the parallel hb option (except for the schaller p, which misses sc options and splitting). the only diagram i found was for the dimarzio dp1112 which will probably not fit my telecaster control panel and which is also not available.

did one of you try something similar and do you think that this is possible with my existing material?

thanks in advance
j.
 

Spud

Senior member
Messages
1,268
hi guys,

i am again reconfiguring my HS Guitar. Installed is a Häussel single coil with 2 wires and a Seymour Duncan P Rails.

I only have a volume pot and a blade switch and was wondering if i could realize this wiring with a tele 4 way switch:

1. humbucker series
2. humbucker parallel
3. humbucker split coil (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. neck sc

2 and 3 could be in a different order, 1 and 4 must be like that.

alternatively if the 4 way is not possible, i could also live with a 5 way solution. i have available also the eyb megaswitch e, the standard fender 5 way, the schaller p and the schaller m megaswitch.

i would love to avoid any further controls such and use only the blade. nearly all diagrams i find miss the parallel hb option (except for the schaller p, which misses sc options and splitting). the only diagram i found was for the dimarzio dp1112 which will probably not fit my telecaster control panel and which is also not available.

did one of you try something similar and do you think that this is possible with my existing material?

thanks in advance
j.
I had a P-rail neck installed with a bridge humbucker. 3 way switch and a mini on on on and could access and the three modes if I remember correctly.
 

JohnnyHardtail

Senior member
Messages
356
Is there a reason you are not interested in the humbucker split + neck combination?
It should be hum-cancelling if you can discover the magnetic polarity of your Haussel single coil.
 

stratamania

Senior member
Messages
9,453
Installed is a Häussel single coil with 2 wires and a Seymour Duncan P Rails.

I only have a volume pot and a blade switch and was wondering if i could realize this wiring with a tele 4 way switch:

1. humbucker series
2. humbucker parallel
3. humbucker split coil (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. neck sc

Off the top of my head, I don't think it is possible. A 4 way switch only has two poles versus the 4 poles of a super switch and the extra poles are needed for the series/parallel manipulation.

A standard 5 way would not work as it also has only two poles.

It could be done with a 5 way super switch.

1. P Rails series
2. P Rails parallel
3. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. ?
5. neck sc

What would you want in 4, the rail or rail and neck, for example?
 
Last edited:

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
Is there a reason you are not interested in the humbucker split + neck combination?
It should be hum-cancelling if you can discover the magnetic polarity of your Haussel single coil.
generally i am interested in this too, having it currently with a 3 way toggle plus 3 way blade switch. the hum canceling position for those two would be the p90 side plus the singlecoil.

Off the top of my head, I don't think it is possible. A 4 way switch only has two poles versus the 4 poles of a super switch and the extra poles are needed for the series/parallel manipulation.

A standard 5 way would not work as it also has only two poles.

It could be done with a 5 way super switch.

1. P Rails series
2. P Rails parallel
3. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. ?
5. neck sc

What would you want in 4, the rail or rail and neck, for example?
the 5 way would be great as well with the 4 being outer coil (p90) + single coil. do you think that could be realized with either the eyb E, schaller P or the schaller M? i am not a wiring expert, but i assume the schaller M with 24 poles will be the most complex one but I am not sure how to bring it together on this.
 

stratamania

Senior member
Messages
9,453
This page has what is possible with the Schaller Megaswitches. https://schaller.info/en/hs

There does not seem to be an obvious pre-diagrammed solution with them for what you want to do. The M Series should be able to achieve it, as could a super switch as they are both have the needed terminals.

1. P Rails series
2. P Rails parallel
3. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side)
4. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side) + neck sc
5. neck sc

I might have a diagram I can adapt for a superswitch which I will have a look for, but then it would need to be mapped it to the letter numbers of the M series referencing the make your own diagram link below.

 
Last edited:

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
yes, i checked all those diagrams and no one fitted. if you have such a diagram and could help me with the mapping that would be super awesome.
 

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
yes for sure, would be great to understand more about the megaswitches, i wired some of them but everytime with an existing schematic and i cannot say that i understood them.

so if you got a fitting diagram for another superswitch, am i right that we just need to map the positions of the switch to the megaswitch m according to their positons? i found this picture of the M. does that mean that the numbers are referring to the switch positions and the corresponding terminals are active? e.g. position 5 would have a g m and s active? but what means the connection to the four letters (f l r x).



1664707866643.png
 

stratamania

Senior member
Messages
9,453
i found this picture of the M. does that mean that the numbers are referring to the switch positions and the corresponding terminals are active? e.g. position 5 would have a g m and s active?

Yes, A, G, M and S are active in position 5 but independent of each other unless something is jumped from one bank to the other.

The mega switches are basically four banks of terminals or poles.

A - F where F is the common, A is position 5 and E is 1. Which is a bit back to front but has a certain logic to it.
G - L is the next bank etc.
but what means the connection to the four letters (f l r x).

The common terminals are indeed F, L, R and X. They are called common as they are connected to whichever position is selected so taking position 5 as an example F connects to A and in position 1 F connects to E. It is similar for the other banks.

If you look at the diagram of the superswitch below each bank of terminals has a common and also positions 1 - 5 which are not marked on the switch itself you just have to know it. I have also drawn how the letters of an M switch would map to a super switch.


1664708992783.png


And this is a bit of a quick and dirty alteration of another diagram that represents superswitch wiring I had that should give the positions you want. The neck pickup + hot wire, I am not sure what colour your single coil has. Not shown is the neck negative - you would just ground to the back of a pot, as that doesn't need to connect to the switch.


1664870911125.png

See post later in the thread for a streamlined version of the above diagram.

 
Last edited:

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
wow thanks for that mate, this is so helpful. understood now also the common terminals, great. i will try this diagram soon and report back how it turned out.
 

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
here is the mapping, neck single coil from häussel have the white wire being the hot output. did i make any mistakes?
1664715336251.png
 

stratamania

Senior member
Messages
9,453
One thing that jumps out immediately as a mistake is X needs to connect to ground. But the green and bare of the P Rails must not connect to ground directly for this diagram. Green could as an alternative connect to X which in turn connects to ground and X still needs a jumper to P. Bare may connect directly to ground as it may give better shielding and if introducing other switches such as phase would need to do so in any case.

Some of the jumpers if you can colour code them similar to what I did on the super switch it will make it easier to read.
 
Last edited:

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
hmm not sure if i misunderstand the diagram, but would the green and bare not be always direct to ground also in your diagram? so when you connect green/bare with p and p with x and x to ground then green/bare, p and x are all directly grounded right?

i redrawed it now again with your colors, do you think it is now correct?
*edit: missed the F-L link*
1664740152242.png
 

Attachments

  • 1664740031192.png
    1664740031192.png
    134.5 KB · Views: 3

stratamania

Senior member
Messages
9,453
It looks much clearer now, thanks.

After checking it through on a larger monitor so I could compare side by side the mapping is correct.

Note discussion below regarding the bare shield wire from the P=Rails.

Per the question...

hmm not sure if i misunderstand the diagram, but would the green and bare not be always direct to ground also in your diagram? so when you connect green/bare with p and p with x and x to ground then green/bare, p and x are all directly grounded right?

Yes, they are indirectly connected to ground, so why do they go via the switch, you may ask.

For the wiring scheme, a switchable ground is needed for the parallel and splits to the P90 side:
  1. Splits by grounding the red and white to cut out the rail coil by shunting it to ground
  2. Parallel (pos 2) by switching red so that both coils + black and red goes to hot and both negatives green and white are switched to ground
As the pickup wires are going to the switch, putting green to the switch makes sense physically as well as electrically. (the bare shield wire could go direct to ground and bypass the switch, as it may reduce noise). So the green is going to the switch for convenience of wiring layout, but also as it is part of the coil wiring it makes sense also if any other switches such as phase switches were introduced at a later time. (in that case, the bare shield wire must go directly to ground, so on reflection put bare directly to ground but leave green from the pickup to the switch)

What else is going on is the banks and poles are used as follows:
  • The commons terminals F and L are used as + outputs to volume and are linked
  • The commons terminals F and L output what we input from the respective poles for that bank.
  • The commons terminal X outputs to ground, and this is our ground bank. (as we need this green, makes sense to go to it)
  • The commons terminal R is different as it is used in this case as an input for white, and that banks terminals as inputs or outputs for specific positions of the switch.
  • The jumper wires between the banks or poles mean that certain connections occur only in certain positions of the switch
If you pick a particular position by tracing what is connected to what and by comparing to other positions, it should reveal what is happening.

A useful set of articles on P-Rails is also useful to read.

 
Last edited:

johnnyj

Active member
Messages
45
okay i tried it today and checked all terminals twice. unfortunately without success.

the wiring resulted in:

1. P Rails series -> works fine
2. P Rails parallel -> works fine
3. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side) -> no sound, just a humming that indicates something is wrong with ground, goes away when you touch some grounded item such as tremolo or control cover plate (grounded)
4. P Rails (outer coil, the p90 side) + neck sc -> seems to be the inner coil and the SC, not hum canceled as it should be
5. neck sc -> exactly similar to position 4

any idea where is the issue?
 
Top