You can call it what you want, but I call it messin' with the Q. Need Help!

[darron]

i modified my friend's bass with a humbucker to run single coil, humbucker series, and humbucker parallel off a three way switch.

[stm]

i modified my friend's bass with a humbucker to run single coil, humbucker series, and humbucker parallel off a three way switch.

I did the same to my Epiphone Genesis guitar (originally it had a switch for humbucker series and pseudo-single by shorting one coil).  The difference between humbucker parallel and single mode was so slight that I thought I had a mistake in the wiring.  After triple checking I found wiring was OK, so I just left Humbucker Series and Humbucker Parallel and discarded the noisier single mode.  Did you notice anything like this?

[darron]

i modified my friend's bass with a humbucker to run single coil, humbucker series, and humbucker parallel off a three way switch.

I did the same to my Epiphone Genesis guitar (originally it had a switch for humbucker series and pseudo-single by shorting one coil).  The difference between humbucker parallel and single mode was so slight that I thought I had a mistake in the wiring.  After triple checking I found wiring was OK, so I just left Humbucker Series and Humbucker Parallel and discarded the noisier single mode.  Did you notice anything like this?

it gave him three slightly different tones out of his bass. i guess there's less processing involved so anything different that he could get for different songs was good. they did sound similar though as it was the same pickup in the same wood, exact same position etc.

edit: it was a bartolini pickup with their wiring guide.

[MikeH]

I have a solid state Yamaha amp with an onboard parametric EQ, and I can Tele or Strat sounds out of my LP using it.  So, I'd try some sort or Parametric EQ- didn't Anderton have one in his book?

[vanessa]

Two questions:

Is Joe's suggestion the same as Mark's?

if you can get away with turning down the pickup a smidge and kicking a boost (possibly with some eqing to assist n the tele-tone), try a treble bleed cap, i use one with an onboard control , as below. it is amazing the amount of control this gives

If you stick a compensation cap in the volume pot, a la Tele, but make the cap a higher value, then as you roll down from max volume, it turns into a bass cut control and volume pot at the same time.  A value of 2200-4700pf can result in some surprisingly pleasant bark from a humbucker or P90, without the muscle usually accompanying it.  Not sure if that is what's being requested.

Ideally, this is the sort of thing you implement with a push-pull switch pot sdo tha you can cancel the bypass and have a regular volume pot when you need it.

And is this Mark's suggestion? A cap going from the selector switch to the volume pot? (Mark if you're listening),

http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/schematics.php?schematic=1953_tele

[Mark Hammer]

This diagram from Joe essentially illustrates a variable treble bypass.  It DOES NOT provide any treble cut like a conventional tone control.

That is not a criticism.  Rather, you would need to add a conventional tone control if you wanted to be able to trim treble as well.
What I had suggested was a more extreme bypass cap (2200-4700pf) directly jumpering volume-pot lugs 3 and 2.  Normally, on many Fenders, this will be a cap in the range of 470pf or less, sometimes with a series resistor, whose intent is to simply preserve some of the upper end sheen as the volume pot gets turned down and the loading begins.

Joe's mod lets you adjust how much of that is introduced, where mine doesn't.  However, where his is directed at retaining top end, mine is directed at dumping bottom by providing bypass for so much of the signal that the volume pot starts to act like a bass cut as you turn down.  You can get some real chicken-pickin tone with it even with buckers (though obviously without the top end of single-coils).  The downside, as noted, is that you have to have some means to defeat it since it doesn't permit you to simply reduce volume without affecting bass.  One of the upsides, though, is that pinky-finger swells can become more dramatic since the introduction of more "body" to the note as the volume swells cvan increase the sense of contrast in the sound.

[Alien8]

I've messed around quite a bit with different pick-up wiring schems, built a 21 sound strat, a 40 sound Les Paul, a vari-tone, and all kinds of tone controls.

Having a bridge and neck HB out of phase is by far the cheapest thing for you to try first.  The sound of my current set-up is very AM radio like with a honk to it that is great.  A trick I've been successful with is to run the neck as a single coil, and then phase bridge and neck and balance the volume knobs a bit.  You can get a good spank out of this, yet retaining a little bit of character from the neck pickup - dialed in to your taste.  Its really easy to do... flip the wires from one of the pickups (eg put the black where the white is and white where the black is).

An expensive solution is to buy an EQ pedal, but you would be able to tweak it close to what you want, and it would be better to use the tele in this case and fatten it up to Les Paul tones - but it's quick and about the same price a experimenting with pots, caps and pick-ups.

Here's the way I see it:  Try the phase switch to put bridge and neck out of phase.  Find a simple filter like the two from Mark and Joe (which are similar but not the same) and add it.  If these don't yield some thing usable to your taste, and you don't want to chase this for years, go to the guitar shop and try and EQ pedal with your guitars. 

Spend $100 vs. 50+ hours of your time?  Something reliable that you can kick on vs. something that you have to set every time you use it?

sure it's fun to experiment, that's why were all here, but there is a balance to be had in this case...  Good Luck!!

[vanessa]

Having a bridge and neck HB out of phase is by far the cheapest thing for you to try first. 

I'm not sure you can do that with metal pickup covers can you?

[joegagan]

good call mark hammer ( how are ya buddY?)

i agree with everything you said.

i should have pointed out that my setup always includes a traditional tone control as well.

i know it seems like a hassle to lower the volume on the guitar and kick in a boost, but the controllable treble bleed has been a wonderful tool both in the studio and live.  it think with a llittle tweaking ( caps in the treble bleed and boost pedal) for the actual guitar and HB, i could get a very close simulation of tele twang with this setup. wish i knew how to do this when i was trying to gig with a hB guitar .

one of my favorite telecaster tones is Roy Buchanan. his classic 52 was said to have a microphonic lead pickup , which i am sure added to the 'howl'. such an awesome sound. Scorcese's recent movie 'the departed' used roy's  'sweet dreams' as the outro music, very emotional .

btw, lot of great ideas in this thread

[Mark Hammer]

Starting off my day with a friendly greeting from you, Joe, AND your agreement, means that I'm doin' pretty damn fine.   So a great big back at ya, buddy.  (Judging from what I saw on the news last night, you folks have been hit by the same kind of ice storm that we got here in Ottawa nearly a decade ago.  Or are you further south than that?)

It surprises me that the sort of tone control used in old volume+tone Fender amps has not been used more in guitars.  That control can be found on amps like the 5F2-A Princeton (easy to find on-line) that has been my trusted companion for 30 years now.  In that configuration, the wiper of the tone pot is tied to the input lug of the volume control, and a cap goes from one of the outside lugs to ground.  That side of the tone control functions as always.  The interesting part is that the other leg of the tone pot goes to a cap which is then tied to the wiper of the volume pot.  In other words, it works like a traditional treble-cut pot in one direction and exactly like Joe's variable bypass in the other direction.

I suspect the reason why this sort of dual-function tone control has not found its way into guitars is because one needs to tailor it a bit more to be truly useful.  The taper and resistance amount that may be ideally suited to retaining or rolling off treble by the traditional "cut" side may be quite different than the taper and resistance amount ideally suited to the treble bypass side.

My guess is that something like a 1meg reverse log pot may be what's needed.  In addition to the variable bypass (Joe's circuit) around the volume pot, you'd probably want an existing bypass cap (e.g., 470-pf) that works all the time and is supplemented by the variable bypass.  As well, since the amount of resistance in the tone pot may well be too large to be practical for the variable bypass, I suspect you'd want to stick a fixed resistor in parallel with that leg of the pot to bring the resistance amount "down to earth".  Note, finally, that just like the old amps, the tone and volume controls interact big time.  That's not a problem per se, it's just more "organic" and requires you to think, as well as offering up an almost infinite array of sounds.  The 5F2-A and similar amps, by the way, use a .05uf cap for the treble cut side, and a .005uf cap for the treble bypass side, in tandem with a 1meg tone pot and 1meg volume pot.  YMMV.

The chief challenge here is, I suppose being able to identify a position where the amount of treble bleed via the traditional tone cut and the treble bypass essentially balance off against each other and you get and untainted/unshaped pickup tone (whatever the heck that is).

The end result, if I managed to have lost you so far, is that you'd have a tone control that could achieve extra bite at less than maximum volume, and could achieve softening and muting at any volume setting.

Like I say, I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more on guitars.  Most of all, I'm surprised it hasn't shown up on mine!

[Paul Marossy]

Starting off my day with a friendly greeting from you, Joe, AND your agreement, means that I'm doin' pretty damn fine.   So a great big back at ya, buddy.  (Judging from what I saw on the news last night, you folks have been hit by the same kind of ice storm that we got here in Ottawa nearly a decade ago.  Or are you further south than that?)

It surprises me that the sort of tone control used in old volume+tone Fender amps has not been used more in guitars.  That control can be found on amps like the 5F2-A Princeton (easy to find on-line) that has been my trusted companion for 30 years now.  In that configuration, the wiper of the tone pot is tied to the input lug of the volume control, and a cap goes from one of the outside lugs to ground.  That side of the tone control functions as always.  The interesting part is that the other leg of the tone pot goes to a cap which is then tied to the wiper of the volume pot.  In other words, it works like a traditional treble-cut pot in one direction and exactly like Joe's variable bypass in the other direction.

I suspect the reason why this sort of dual-function tone control has not found its way into guitars is because one needs to tailor it a bit more to be truly useful.  The taper and resistance amount that may be ideally suited to retaining or rolling off treble by the traditional "cut" side may be quite different than the taper and resistance amount ideally suited to the treble bypass side.

My guess is that something like a 1meg reverse log pot may be what's needed.  In addition to the variable bypass (Joe's circuit) around the volume pot, you'd probably want an existing bypass cap (e.g., 470-pf) that works all the time and is supplemented by the variable bypass.  As well, since the amount of resistance in the tone pot may well be too large to be practical for the variable bypass, I suspect you'd want to stick a fixed resistor in parallel with that leg of the pot to bring the resistance amount "down to earth".  Note, finally, that just like the old amps, the tone and volume controls interact big time.  That's not a problem per se, it's just more "organic" and requires you to think, as well as offering up an almost infinite array of sounds.  The 5F2-A and similar amps, by the way, use a .05uf cap for the treble cut side, and a .005uf cap for the treble bypass side, in tandem with a 1meg tone pot and 1meg volume pot.  YMMV.

The chief challenge here is, I suppose being able to identify a position where the amount of treble bleed via the traditional tone cut and the treble bypass essentially balance off against each other and you get and untainted/unshaped pickup tone (whatever the heck that is).

The end result, if I managed to have lost you so far, is that you'd have a tone control that could achieve extra bite at less than maximum volume, and could achieve softening and muting at any volume setting.

Like I say, I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more on guitars.  Most of all, I'm surprised it hasn't shown up on mine!

Now this idea sounds very interesting. I hope someone tries it and reports back to us on it. 

[Mark Hammer]

Just as an addendum, the end/side of the proposed 1meg reverse-log pot that should be used for the treble cut should be the end where resistance changes fastest, just so you can produce enough change in tone without having to rotate that sucker 80% of the way.  Although, I suppose a 1meg log pot would work nicely too, just wire it in the opposite direction.

[alfafalfa]

Are you a Rory Gallagher fan , Vanessa ?


Alf

[vanessa]

It surprises me that the sort of tone control used in old volume+tone Fender amps has not been used more in guitars.  That control can be found on amps like the 5F2-A Princeton (easy to find on-line) that has been my trusted companion for 30 years now. 

Too funny Mark, One of my first thoughts was to implement a tone control like you find on those old tweed amp's. 

But I was under the impression that you need a gain follower stage to make up gain loss. I too have not seen them in guitars and thought that this was the reason and I did not want to add active electronics to the guitar (those pesty batteries!).

Would you need a gain follower stage?

[Alien8]

Having a bridge and neck HB out of phase is by far the cheapest thing for you to try first. 

I'm not sure you can do that with metal pickup covers can you?

Yes you can, you are only essentially changing the direction that the current flows past the magnets, and nothing else.  The out of phase sound is thus created because of the (forgive my crudeness) subtracting the tonal similarities of response from the neck p/u and the bridge p/u. 

The metal pick-up covers are simply local shields, and thus the will still perform as normal.


I like the sounds of adding these tone control ideas that Mark and Joe have presented.  Its also fairly simple to build, find parts for and would be in the $10... price range.

[Mark Hammer]

One of my first thoughts was to implement a tone control like you find on those old tweed amp's. 

But I was under the impression that you need a gain follower stage to make up gain loss. I too have not seen them in guitars and thought that this was the reason and I did not want to add active electronics to the guitar (those pesty batteries!).

Would you need a gain follower stage?

There IS no gain loss to be worried about, any more than you would need to be worried about a traditional tone pot.  Remember, the treble bypass part lets signal through without attenuating it.

So wire it up with my blessings, kiddo.  It should work just fine from the get go.  No preamp necessary.  No batteries included.

Incidentally, while I still like the idea of a bidirectional treble-cut pot, as I have often blabbered on about (each ouotside lugof a single tone pot goes to a different value bleed cap to ground), the only difference between that and the type of tone control we have been discussing here is that instead of the smaller-cap side going to ground, it now goes to the wiper of the volume pot.  How's that for simple?

[vanessa]

There IS no gain loss to be worried about, any more than you would need to be worried about a traditional tone pot.  Remember, the treble bypass part lets signal through without attenuating it.

So wire it up with my blessings, kiddo.  It should work just fine from the get go.  No preamp necessary.  No batteries included.

Incidentally, while I still like the idea of a bidirectional treble-cut pot, as I have often blabbered on about (each ouotside lugof a single tone pot goes to a different value bleed cap to ground), the only difference between that and the type of tone control we have been discussing here is that instead of the smaller-cap side going to ground, it now goes to the wiper of the volume pot.  How's that for simple?

I like the idea a lot. I'm not really trying to make a Tele clone, I have a Tele. I just want a little more snap, bite, and maybe some twang? The other thing I like about this setup is I would not need to install any push-pull pots (me no drill me guitars...  ) and like you said it should turn out to be a very versatile tone control. You said it best, those old tweed amps have a very interactive volume/tone control that yields a lot of tonal variations. If this does anything like that I'm in. "Dealer, shuffle the deck!"

[slacker]

I did the same to my Epiphone Genesis guitar (originally it had a switch for humbucker series and pseudo-single by shorting one coil).  The difference between humbucker parallel and single mode was so slight that I thought I had a mistake in the wiring.  After triple checking I found wiring was OK, so I just left Humbucker Series and Humbucker Parallel and discarded the noisier single mode.  Did you notice anything like this?

I did the same with a mini humbucker on one of my strats and got the same results. The parallel wiring sounds virtually identical to the single coil sound but without the hum.

[stm]

I did the same to my Epiphone Genesis guitar (originally it had a switch for humbucker series and pseudo-single by shorting one coil).  The difference between humbucker parallel and single mode was so slight that I thought I had a mistake in the wiring.  After triple checking I found wiring was OK, so I just left Humbucker Series and Humbucker Parallel and discarded the noisier single mode.  Did you notice anything like this?

I did the same with a mini humbucker on one of my strats and got the same results. The parallel wiring sounds virtually identical to the single coil sound but without the hum.

Hi Ian.  Good to see someone had the same results.

In my case I had just replaced the pots with 500K ALPHA's, which worked fine for the HB series mode.  The HB parallel mode (almost single coil) sounded overly brittle now, so I finally included a 150k resistor in parallel with the volume pot to tame the high frequency resonant peak.

[vanessa]

Interesting stuff, I was doing a Google search and I found a thread on a forum that spoke of using 500k-1M volume pots and bypassing the bridge tone control completely on Les Paul's for more (as they said) "bite and bark". Something about the load resistance with the tone pot removed.
That's interesting to me because on certain Gretsch guitars (the twangy ones ) they do not use a tone control at all, they have a three position tone switch, center being bypassed. Most twanger's that use Gretsch guitars (country, rockabilly) leave this switch in bypass mode when using the bridge pickup for the Tele like spank. 

Now I'm getting all glittery...  Tweed tone control + tone control bypass switch (ala push-pull pot)?