| Author |
Topic: Any wiring gurus here? |
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 29 Jul 2009 1:03 pm |
|
I need someone to help me with a fairly complex steel wiring schematic. I want to learn to do it myself so I'm really just asking for consulting. I can attach diagrams to be approved or corrected.
If this thread takes off, it could be useful for aspiring builders to have in the archives.
Anyone? |
|
|
|
J Fletcher
From:
London,Ont,Canada
|
Posted 30 Jul 2009 9:05 am
|
|
| Can you share some details of what you are trying to do?...Jerry |
|
|
|
Pete Burak
From:
Portland, OR USA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2009 9:51 am
|
|
| You might contact John LeMay, the guy who has the new volume pedal on the market. |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 8:54 am
|
|
| J Fletcher wrote: |
| Can you share some details of what you are trying to do?...Jerry |
Most of it is pretty common wiring it's just a matter of getting them all to work together.
- two single-coil pickups, one RWRP
- series/parallel switch
- phase reverse switch
- stereo/mono output
- blend knob as a pickup selector
Some of it isn't so common:
- optional expression jack that controls the blend knob "panning".
I need to send this to the builder of my pedal steel who lives across the country in Texas. I want to be confident that it will work before I send it.
I've got an initial diagram that has everything save the expression control. I really can't find any info out there on how to do that.
 |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 10:09 am
|
|
I think you will have some issues with the TRS jack.
A two conductor guitar cord will short the ring to sleeve, and you probably don't want to to have to use a special cable. It would depend on the amp(s) also, it could get very complex.
Two mono jacks (one switching) like Rickenbacker Rick O Sound might be better.
The only way to do the expression pedal is a 5 pin cable to a dual pot pedal that essentially replaces the guitar mounted dual pot (and would need to switch it out of the circuit also). It is not possible to externally control a passive pot like you want to do unless you are partially shorting terminals to ground which will be an impedance (loading down the pickups too much) problem.
That was all I had time to analyze, may be other issues.
It would be good to post your source diagrams.
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 10:23 am
|
|
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
I think you will have some issues with the TRS jack.
A two conductor guitar cord will short the ring to sleeve, and you probably don't want to to have to use a special cable. It would depend on the amp(s) also, it could get very complex.
Two mono jacks (one switching) like Rickenbacker Rick O Sound might be better.
The only way to do the expression pedal is a 5 pin cable to a dual pot pedal that essentially replaces the guitar mounted dual pot (and would need to switch it out of the circuit also). It is not possible to externally control a passive pot like you want to do unless you are partially shorting terminals to ground which will be an impedance (loading down the pickups too much) problem.
That was all I had time to analyze, may be other issues.
It would be good to post your source diagrams. |
Thanks for the input. This is the kind of info I need. My plan for the TRS jack is to mod my volume pedal to have a stereo input and output, with a stereo volume pot. I would use a stereo cable and split it AFTER the volume pedal with an adapter. Two effects chains into two inputs of my Fender Deluxe Reverb. I could always run it out of two mono jacks, but that would take an extra adapter. No big deal. Another $5 cable on my effects board won't be deal breaker.
Would two mono jacks be better, soundwise?
So, the expression control is just a bad idea? What about panning between two signals in the volume pedal itself? I have a fender volume/tone with two axis control that is currently wired to be volume/expression. I could perceivably mod that to be volume/pan. I would rather have a stereo steel so that I could have one pickup with a preamp before the VP which I find essential for overdrive pedals that occur after the VP. Bridge pickup = traditional clean steel, neck pickup = overdrive and other effects.
I know it's complicated, but I like it that way.
Last edited by James Mayer on 31 Jul 2009 10:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 10:25 am
|
|
Get the metal itself hot enough to melt the solder. Melt the solder against the metal part or wire, not against the soldering iron.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 10:58 am
|
|
Scott, take a look at this.
This guy builds effects loop pedals. He offers optional blending of wet/dry and also expression control of that blend.
"*Blend Expression Pedal Jack 25.00
This option adds a jack so that you can connect an expression pedal (such as the Roland EV-5) to control the wet/dry blend of the signal, and a toggle switch to turn the expression pedal on/off (removing it completely from the signal path)."
This is what gave me the idea. Somehow, he's able to do it cheaply. |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 12:01 pm
|
|
Your plan for the TRS jack will work, although you would not be able to use a regular cord in a emergency. If you alway carry a spare TRS cord no problem.
I believe the Loooper guy is providing a jack where the exp pedal becomes a volume pot for the wet signal, that is not what you are asking to do.
Panning in the volume pedal itself is certainly possible (with dual gang pots of course), but you might get into noise, hum, capacitance and/or impedance issues with the level of complexity you are trying to implement with a passive pickup system.
Buffering each pickup signal and using low impedance pots (10-50K) in the pan/volume could solve these issue though.
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 12:52 pm
|
|
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
Your plan for the TRS jack will work, although you would not be able to use a regular cord in a emergency. If you alway carry a spare TRS cord no problem.
|
I figured that, if the stereo cable failed or was left at home, I could just flip the switch to MONO (both signals to the tip) and use a regular cord in the traditional fashion. No? |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 3:53 pm
|
|
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
Panning in the volume pedal itself is certainly possible (with dual gang pots of course), but you might get into noise, hum, capacitance and/or impedance issues with the level of complexity you are trying to implement with a passive pickup system.
Buffering each pickup signal and using low impedance pots (10-50K) in the pan/volume could solve these issue though. |
I started looking into buffers and realized that I currently use a Electro-Harmonix LPB-2 as a preamp before the volume pedal. Two INs and two OUTs. |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 31 Jul 2009 9:27 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
I figured that, if the stereo cable failed or was left at home, I could just flip the switch to MONO (both signals to the tip) and use a regular cord in the traditional fashion. No?
|
It looks like that works on the end you have pictured, but can't tell if there would be inadvertent shorting on the other end through the pedal/amp/whatever
Are you sure the LPB2 is a true stereo buffer that is not my understanding...
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 1 Aug 2009 4:18 am
|
|
| What I actually have is the LPB-2ube. It's definitely stereo. [/url] |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 1 Aug 2009 9:25 am
|
|
Since you already have the dual buffer available, I would recommend moving the blend to the pedal.
Keep the other stuff on the guitar, stereo cable to buffer, out of the buffers to the pedal with blend and volume in the pedal using 10K or 50K dual pots.
Blending in the guitar will be very sensitive to cable capacitance, its similar to 2 volume pedals set to 50% when doing equal mix.
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 2 Aug 2009 1:40 pm
|
|
Yeah, I've got some decisions to make. I was hoping to have both a blend knob on the steel and eventually having one in the pedal as well. I could use whichever I feel like at the time.
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
Blending in the guitar will be very sensitive to cable capacitance, its similar to 2 volume pedals set to 50% when doing equal mix. |
I found this on a bass guitar forum:
"On a passive Jazz Bass, a blend knob like this is a real problem. When you turn down the volume pot on a passive bass, you're increasing the series resistance, and because the tone control and cable present a parallel capacitance, you end up rolling off the highs as you turn the volume down. So, a blend knob on a Jazz bass is bad news because it's the same as turning both pickups down halfway, and will dull the tone."
Later in the same post, the same guy also describes a newer special blend pot:
"People are clever, so you can actually buy a special blend pot at places like Stew-Mac that tries to fix this problem. Here, they build a ganged pot that has special tapers in each element. One side has an audio taper for half it's rotation, then stays at full volume for the other half of the rotation. The other side is full volume for half the rotation, then reverse audio taper for the other half. When you use a pot like this, in the center position both pickups are at full volume, so there's no treble loss, and one pickup or the other tapers off to either side. This is pretty good, but if you think about this, you're now blending a fraction of one pickup against the full output of the other pickup. You should be able to dial in any relative ratio, but it's still not exactly the same. You can dial in 100:60 for sure, but you can't really get 80:48. And, if you remember, because this mixing is happening before the preamp, there really will be a tonal difference between 60% and 48%. "
Have you tried this second type of pot? Sounds like it could be ideal. Tell me what you think about it.
I could start with the blend in my steel and see if I like it and if I don't, move it to the pedal and replace it with a three-way selector switch. |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 2 Aug 2009 2:30 pm
|
|
Here's another interesting tidbit:
"if you're trying to use a blend/balance pot without loading the pickups at all, try this: don't run any grounds on any of the blend pot tabs! (this assumes a proper "m/n" pot that fully shorts one side of each pot to the center tab when in the middle)
i tried this with a 250k blend/bal pot on a jazz bass, and it works great. the pickup ins and the hot outs to the volume pot are run as normal, and the pickups are themselves grounded elsewhere of course; but by not grounding the opposite tabs of the two pots of the B/B pot, it becomes just an in-line variable resistor (rheostat), blocking the hot of one pickup or the other when turned, but not letting any pickup signal to ground like a regular pot does. therefore it has no effect on the tone when dead center, and no effect on one pickup when "dimming" the other.
this trick also causes it to "dim" the pickup in question a bit more gradually than a normal B/B control, affording a smoother sweep, and as a bonus, there's no volume dip in the middle at all." |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 2 Aug 2009 9:26 pm
|
|
None of those ideas are as good as low impedance mixing IMO
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
Scott Appleton
From:
Ashland, Oregon
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 7:55 am not true sterio
|
|
The output of your PU's are not sterio so the best way to make that happen is
with the volume pedal. Most active pedals have two outputs so you can run
sterio effects or two amps.. most floor effects have a mono input and sterio output. putting a sterio jack on the guitar only adds holes and cables dangling off the side. Seems to me better to put the sterio outputs on the ground were they
run to the effects or amps. |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 8:28 am
|
|
Scott, thanks for all your help and suggestions. You've made me aware of some possible pitfalls in my plans. I've already learned a lot from this thread.
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
| None of those ideas are as good as low impedance mixing IMO |
Does "low impedance mixing" = blend pot in the volume pedal after a buffer? |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 8:58 am
|
|
yes and the pots must be low resistance 10K - 50K to minimize effects of cable capacitance.
This applies to normal passive volume pedals also. If you are using a buffer prior to the volume pedal, you can minimize the high rolloff through the pedal sweep by using a lower value pot, once again 10K - 50K instead of the normal 500K.
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com
Last edited by Scott Swartz on 3 Aug 2009 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 9:26 am Re: not true sterio
|
|
| Scott Appleton wrote: |
The output of your PU's are not sterio so the best way to make that happen is
with the volume pedal. Most active pedals have two outputs so you can run
sterio effects or two amps.. most floor effects have a mono input and sterio output. putting a sterio jack on the guitar only adds holes and cables dangling off the side. Seems to me better to put the sterio outputs on the ground were they
run to the effects or amps. |
Stereo effects is not the point. In fact, "stereo" is not the point. The overall goal here is to have two distinct mono signal chains that, while seems complex in wiring, is far more natural to use in a live situation than a mixer or multiple-effect-loop device. I don't like tapping several pedals and readjusting volume levels to change sounds. I like to get setup an play. Retuning is all the maintenance I want to do once the set starts.
Currently, I am using two six-string necks that are physically joined together but not wired together. One neck is clean and one is affected as described above. I love the way this setup works out. I get everything set and never have to fidget with pedals while. I can simply concentrate on the music.
Here's a studio recording where I'm playing clean and affected in the same track. I can pull all of this off live and never take my hands away from the strings with the exception when picking up the bar to switch necks or to tweak the tape delay into oscillation.
The two choices that I'm faced with will get the job done, but both have their pros and cons.
Splitting a mono signal at the volume pedal:
- PRO:In my case, could allow for hands-free panning with the foot swivel if the VP is modified.
- PRO: less cables needed as there is only one mono output on the steel
- CON: doesn't allow separate effects that occur before the VP. This one is very important to me. The key to getting my overdrive pedals to sound good is to put them after the VP and hit them with a tube preamp that is set before the VP.
Splitting at the instrument itself:
- PRO: allows me to use different preamp settings before hitting the VP.
- PRO: allows me to use both inputs of my two-input amp (phase cancellation is remedied by the on-board phase reverse switch).
- PRO: allows me to have the pickup itself be part of the effects chain. It's position (they are movable pickups) and it's independent tone pot setting are important factors in their respective chains.
- CON: panning means taking my hands away from playing.
- CON: possible/probable audio degradation as described by Scott Swartz, above.
There's also the choice of having stereo steel running through stereo VP with stereo blending. Wow.
Last edited by James Mayer on 3 Aug 2009 9:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 9:28 am
|
|
| Scott Swartz wrote: |
yes and the pots must be low resistance 10K - 50K to minimize effects of cable capacitance.
This applies to normal passive volume pedals also. If you are using a buffer prior to the volume pedal, you can minimize the high rolloff through the pedal sweep by using a lower value pot, once again 10K - 25K instead of the normal 500K. |
I haven't seen any blend pots or stereo volume pots other than 500k. In fact, THIS is the only one I have been able to find, period.
EDIT: I found a 25k blend pot. It's also called a "balance" pot so I didn't find it, initially. |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 3 Aug 2009 11:17 am
|
|
Here's a diagram for the VP mod. It has a mono input, a SPDT switch that chooses stereo/mono and activates the blend pot.
I've been running a preamp before this VP for over a year now and have been happy with the way it sounds so I'm leaning towards leaving the original 500k volume pot where it is. Sometimes, I play small jams or busk with a battery powered amp and zero pedals. I think I would want that 500k pot for those occasions. Does mixing a 500k and 25k defeat the purpose of either or both?
It would be cool if there was a way to toggle between 500k and something lower, like 25k.
[/img] |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 4 Aug 2009 4:45 pm
|
|
Ok, I was compromising in that previous diagram because of lack of parts. I've located a 25k stereo volume pot and a 25k blend pot. The new schematic has stereo input/output and an on-on-on switch that gives the following settings.
1) mono input, no panning, mono output
2) mono input, panning, stereo output
3) stereo input, panning, stereo output.
This looks finished to me. Are there any problems that I'm overlooking? |
|
|
|
