I'm about to put some new pickups in a Gibson-style guitar, I'm wondering if it's worth it to try the 50's-style wiring, which puts the tone control in a different place in the circuit, and supposedly helps maintain some of the highs as the volume is turned down. Has anyone tried this, and if so, is it a worthwhile improvement over standard wiring? Thanks.
Modern Wiring or 50's Wiring?
- Thread starter rspst14
- Start date
line6man
Epic Member
- Messages
- 6,443
You end up varying the parallel resistance of the pots against the pickups when you don't use the wiper terminals of the volume pots as outputs. This changes the behavior of the resonant circuit. I've always seen it as a much better idea to vary the pot's parallel resistance against the output, which will then be connected to a high impedance input that doesn't care what feeds into it. That way, the pickups see a constant resistive load that does not change with the volume setting. Trying to gain independent control over pickup volumes is rather useless anyways, as you have to deal with issues of insertion loss and sometimes dissimilar pickup impedances. Some people like to try to have more control over their guitars' wiring schemes, but at the end of the day, you hit a limitation of what is practical in a passive setup, without the aid of buffers.
This is just my opinion, of course, and I'm always opinionated. :blob7:
This is just my opinion, of course, and I'm always opinionated. :blob7:
line6man
Epic Member
- Messages
- 6,443
rspst14 said:
I am assuming that you are referring to the usual swap of the wiper terminals of the volume pots from pickup to output, or vice versa? The tone pots always run directly parallel to the pickups, because if they run parallel to the output, they will both act as masters when both pickups are selected, regardless of volume settings.
I guess it's one of those things that I'll have to try before I know if I'll like it. I've heard some poeple say that it makes the controls seem more interactive, and that it prevents the loss of treble when the volume is turned down. I've heard others say it made things seem brighter in an unpleasant way, and they went back to the standard modern wiring.
line6man
Epic Member
- Messages
- 6,443
rspst14 said:
When the volumes are turned all the way up, there is no difference in circuit behavior. It only affects the way the controls work when turned down. If you vary the pots' resistances against the pickups, you can lose highs, because you end up loading down the pickups. If you vary the resistance against the output, not much happens, which is why it is preferable to wire that way. The disadvantage, of course, is that both volume pots vary output impedance, so you cannot adjust the individual volumes very well. This is most notable when you turn one pot down and see that it kills the output completely, despite the other pickup's volume being up.
Patrick from Davis
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,197
If you are used to the behavior of a modern wired Les Paul wiring system, it will seem odd. I tried it and did not like it. It was interactive, but did not seem intuitive. Of course, I was used to the other style of wiring.
Patrick
Patrick
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
If you use one volume and one tone control, there's nothing to get used to. The pots are always in the same place and they always do the same thing so adjustments become second nature. It also costs less, is easier to wire/maintain and easier to deal with during a performance. The whole multiple volume/tone thing with all sorts of switching options has always just been a marketing ploy. Improve the "knobs per dollar" ratio, and the kids feel like they're getting something more.
Patrick from Davis
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,197
I personally like the Gibson wiring, the modern one, better than the single volume wiring. I use the different pickups at different levels, and that wiring system provides me with what I want. If you don't, I can see Cagey's point. But, I do not think it would be proper to dismiss it as simply a marketing ploy. It works with what I do, so I prefer it. The single volume set ups were always a pain for me to get what I wanted the guitar to do, and I despise using them when I play a guitar with that system. The 50's style of wiring was hard for me to adapt to, I was used to the modern setup, so I use the modern two volume system.
Patrick
Patrick
bagman67
Epic Member
- Messages
- 9,106
To give a practical example of what Patrick's talking about, I believe I read an interview with Eddie Van Halen in which he said he used a Flying V on "Hot For Teacher" specifically so he could switch between neck and bridge pickups set at different volumes when going between the vamping verse (comparatively low volume) and pre-chorus and chorus (loud).
to each there own. the gibson wiring has many compromises that simple single vol/tone dont have but offers slightly more "versitility". wheather new gibson or 50's gibson there is no way around the less predictable tone characteristics, but it does offer more sound combinations. the ideal situation would have individual tone controls directly connected to the pickups and solid state buffers (active electronics, eww batteries..) with a resistor to set the input impedance then out put that to the volume controls. of coarse you could buffer the tone as well in another stage but most musicians seem to like the passive sound where the cap and pickup and pot create an lrc resonant circuit. but even then the purists would still prefer one of the quirky gibson setups.
as far as my personal opinions go the tone hooked to the pickup and not the volume output is the more versitile way and is likely the "brighter" 50's style, but im a bit rusty on my diagrams for production guitars. if the tone is on the output of the volume before the switch like joey said the tones act together in the middle position while tone in parallel to the volume input and pickup will allow each pickup to have different effective lrc values when you are at partial volume. its a bit more predictable with the tone parallel to the volume output but somewhat negates the purpose of two tones, it also will muddy the sound up in partial volume situations more than the alternative.
but as far as what i run i never use multiple volumes because of the compromises it introduces. maybe it's ok with a properly designed active system but it's not for me. if you cant make the guitar sound good without tweaking 4 different knobs, or cant change volume/tone/picking tecniques mid song without using the selector then by all means use it but i feel it makes more bad sounds and more confusion in the end.
as far as my personal opinions go the tone hooked to the pickup and not the volume output is the more versitile way and is likely the "brighter" 50's style, but im a bit rusty on my diagrams for production guitars. if the tone is on the output of the volume before the switch like joey said the tones act together in the middle position while tone in parallel to the volume input and pickup will allow each pickup to have different effective lrc values when you are at partial volume. its a bit more predictable with the tone parallel to the volume output but somewhat negates the purpose of two tones, it also will muddy the sound up in partial volume situations more than the alternative.
but as far as what i run i never use multiple volumes because of the compromises it introduces. maybe it's ok with a properly designed active system but it's not for me. if you cant make the guitar sound good without tweaking 4 different knobs, or cant change volume/tone/picking tecniques mid song without using the selector then by all means use it but i feel it makes more bad sounds and more confusion in the end.
line6man
Epic Member
- Messages
- 6,443
Dan0 said:
While buffers are a good thing, their use also presents arguable compromises. (I'd say "differences," vintage purists might say "disadvantages.") I don't know just how audible the differences are in practice, but if you take a look at the application of any buffer to a passive guitar, there are a number of changes made to the behavior of the circuit. A buffer does not inherently change the tone of a guitar, but the pickups will each see a constant input impedance which is nearly resistive. (No complex part.) Since the input stage loading characteristics of the buffer are not subject to change, the resonant circuit between a pickup coil and its buffer will function the same through any amp/effect/DI/whatever, regardless of its input impedance or any other loading characteristics, and regardless of pickup selection. When two pickups are ran parallel in a passive circuit, great changes occur in the circuit as impedance, resistance and inductance drop and capacitance increases. In a buffered setup, the pickups do not run directly parallel, but rather, the outputs from each pickup's buffer are combined, much like channels can be combined on a mixing console.
Furthermore, though it can be compensated for with extra component choices, the lowered output impedance of the signal after buffering changes the behavior of the low pass filter which is usually created between the resistance of the pickups and the parasitic capacitance of your guitar cable. With the resistance lowered, the cutoff frequency shifts upward, giving a slightly brighter tone. Many people find this desirable, but then some people like their "dark cables." (As I understand, curly cables are popular for their higher capacitance.) You can adjust it to taste with an extra capacitor on the output.
Also, you might see a slightly higher impedance load against each pickup going straight to a buffer without the usual volume and tone controls loading you down. A couple of resistors and a capacitor can fix this, if you can hear the difference. :blob7:
Every possible way to wire a guitar presents some compromise to someone. It just depends what you find important. I think buffers can do great things for basses. They don't seem to appeal to most guitarists, though. In any case, I honestly don't understand why so many people find batteries horribly unappealing. EMG makes a few pickups with 80uA opamps. If you want to go the discrete FET route, you can get up to a couple of milliAmps. Not worth worrying about, as far as battery life goes. Plus, unplugging your guitar after you play is only mildly inconvenient. Then again, half the time there is no reason for anything fancy. Guitars are fine in the passive realm, when you wire them in a practical way. My preference is always for as few controls as possible, because anything else presents too many compromises.
good post. and yeah i understand the cable and parallel pickups arguments, the cable could be emulated with a cap and the parallel position could have a different cap and resistor to act somewhat like a lower inductance but the way it would interact with other gear would certainly change. most people find a guitar that is perfectly imperfect. whats perfectly imperfect for each player can differ greatly.
The guitar in question is a Washburn USA Idol. It has the two volume, two tone setup. I don't usually play with both pickups selected, it's almost always one or the other. I'll probably get around to wiring it up next weekend, maybe I'll give the 50's wiring a try. If I decide I don't like it, I think it's only a matter of resoldering two wires.
line6man
Epic Member
- Messages
- 6,443
Dan0 said:
Capacitance is the opposite of inductance. I suppose a differential amplifier can be used with a few resistors and capacitors to simulate the behavior of an inductor, but it's not practical when you're talking about something as inductive as a guitar pickup. Plus, you've got to model the rest of an equivalent circuit. If you want to be extremely obsessive, a dummy coil probably works best to simulate the complex impedance of a second pickup on each buffer's input. But that's just being ridiculous. :icon_jokercolor:
