Spin-a-splits and blend pot set-up -- thoughts?

[RadsRock]

"Doing my first build"  [quotes because I see how often that's posted around here!]

and also:  "Don't have a lot of wiring experience..."   :toothy11:

But I've read a ton over the past few weeks.  And I have an idea for a set-up that I think might be cool.  But maybe not?

So: HxH guitar with Rio Grande "True Splitting" buckers [tallboy(s)/muy grande]

1.  Instead of a 3-way pick-up selector switch, a blend-pot (here).  Not that big of a deal, but seems like it might be fun to be able to dial in different proportions of the bridge or neck.  And... well, its different -- so kind of cool for that reason alone (although I recognize that sometimes there are reasons why certain things are done the same!) .

2.  Then for splitting and tone control:  Two concentric pot pairs (one pair for each PU).  One of the pots is the tone control, and one is the split control.

So I end up with 4 knobs (6 pots) - master volume, tone/split gang x 2, blend pot pick-up selector.

Seems to me has alot of advantages:  pretty simple wiring (I think?), lots of tonal options, good cosmetics.  One possible disadvantage is that it does not offer series/parallel switching, and I am still considering whether I want that.

Whaddya think?

 

[taez555]

I've done the spin-a-split for a series/single split before.  Honestly I found it cumbersome without any real value.  You could definitely get sounds between the splits, but it was so subtle, and most of the time I just felt the all or nothing sounded better.  Taking the time to turn the pot from 1 -10 was just too time consuming when you instantly needed that split.  I ended up removing the spin-a-slit and putting in a on-on-on switch to do the series/paralell/single thing.  I find the exta wiring option much more usful than the subtle nuance of the in between. So far I haven't looked back and have actually wired several of my guitars that way.

erik

 

[tfcreative]

Basses typically have blend pots, and they're tone suckers. I went out of my way to get a rotary switch for mine so that wouldn't happen.

 

[RadsRock]

OK, well, I'm glad we had this conversation!

Seriously.  Although I imagine there are plenty of other opinions out there, those 2 comments are enough to dissuade me from doing something off the beaten path.

Well, at least to dissuade me from that plan.  :icon_biggrin:

Back to the drawin' board.

 

[RadsRock]

OK, now I'm thinking about the following:

1 volume, 2 tone (each w/push-pull), 2 mini-toggles, 3-way selector.

- Mini-toggles do series/split/parallel
- Push-pull #1 puts the two pick-ups in series w/each other
- Push-pull #2 puts the two pick-ups OOP w/each other


Now this seems like it should be fairly standard, no?

 

[stubhead]

You could definitely get sounds between the splits, but it was so subtle, and most of the time I just felt the all or nothing sounded better.

I've wired a few guitars up as testbeds to allow me to access everything possible - and it's fun - but in most playing situations I've been in, you end up wanting about three basic preset positions that you can get to easily, with a volume and maybe a tone that can re-adjust the presets. I grew up using the four knob/3-way Gibson system so I'm pretty adept at keeping the selector in the middle and re-adjusting the volumes of each pickup; even there, I have my "presets" that I know, so I just wire my two-hole Warmoths with concentric volume/tones for each pickup. I like series/parallel switches on humbuckers better than outright taps, cause you don't lose so much volume....

Regarding blend controls and using them to dial in a split, there are some odd electronic balancing acts where a tiny bit of change in values results in a huge tonal change. I know that manufacturers have been moving more towards these "dial-in-a-coil-tap" knobs lately; Washburn? Suhr? - I can't remember where, but I know I've seen a few ads lately. I'd like to try one sometime, but only after making sure I knew what pot values, pickup outputs, and capacitors & resistors were involved in one that actually works well, cause my instincts scream that it's not going to be easy to dial in with beginner's luck. Like, for sure if you were trying to blend a bridge humbucker with a neck single coil, you'd have to wire a resistor in there (parallel to the HB? :dontknow, the size determined by the pickup's relative outputs.... hmmm, maybe I'll root around to see if the net burps up a "blend-knob theory" page, I'll post back if so.

ADDENDUM (de-dum-dum):
http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-discussion-forum/116170-blend-pot-instead-3-way-switch.html

This is one application where you need a linear pot. The hot from each pickup goes to either end of the pot and the resultant blend is taken from the wiper (middle lug).

The other way is a ganged log/reverse log pot but that will be much more expensive.

If you don't understand what he's talking about, you don't want to dick with this on a first build. It's always nice to build a guitar that works right off the bench, to prepare you for the ones that aren't going to... :laughing7: :toothy10: :hello2: :blob7:

 

[tfcreative]

OK, now I'm thinking about the following:

1 volume, 2 tone (each w/push-pull), 2 mini-toggles, 3-way selector.

- Mini-toggles do series/split/parallel
- Push-pull #1 puts the two pick-ups in series w/each other
- Push-pull #2 puts the two pick-ups OOP w/each other


Now this seems like it should be fairly standard, no?

It sounds versatile in a studio setting, but may be cumbersome for live, since there may be so many changes required to change voicing that they can't be done quickly. So long as you know how you intend to use it, anything's ok.

 

[JamesL]

If you do decide to go through with the blends I want to hear about it... It's something I've always wanted to try on guitar.  :guitaristgif: