Dumb question about a blender pot and a 3 way switch

Discussion in 'Luthier's Guitar & Bass Technical Discussion' started by BlueHeaven, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. BlueHeaven

    BlueHeaven Member

    Messages:
    2,729
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Location:
    Michigan
    On a guitar with 2 humbuckers, a 3 way switch, 1 volume and one tone can you add a blender that works ONLY when the 3 way switch is in the middle position? I'd like to be able to have full bridge, adjustable mix, and full neck pup tones.
    Greg
     
  2. walterw

    walterw Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    33,569
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    wow, this is actually a hard question, not a dumb one.

    the blend pot would typically replace the 3-way switch.

    are we talking tele-style blade switch or gibson-style toggle? you can find gibson-style toggles with extra contacts, and it might be possible to rig one up so that a blend pot only engages with the switch in the middle, given enough switch contacts.

    if it's a fender-style blade, then a 5-way superswitch might be capable of doing that, with 1&5 being each pickup, and one of the middle settings engaging the blend.

    for me, "blending" is a little less than it's cracked up to be. on a two-pickup instrument, you really don't have an "infinite" number of sounds like people say. what you really have is five sounds: neck, neck "loaded down" by the bridge, both pickups equal, bridge "loaded down" by the neck, bridge.

    (thinking as i type) with that 5-way, you could have another pot acting as an in-line "pad", and have it only engage on "2" and "4", with "2" turning down the neck pickup and "4" turning down the bridge. that would give you your preset "mix" while still letting you switch to full neck or full bridge.
     
  3. BlueHeaven

    BlueHeaven Member

    Messages:
    2,729
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Location:
    Michigan
    Thanks for the response. When you say "neck loaded down by the bridge" or vise versa what do you mean exactly? Is it that slightly less powerful sound of two pups in parallel compared to either pup by themselves? If that's the case then I'll pass. I was looking to have (for example) a SLIGHTLY rounder bridge tone or a neck tone with a BIT of bridge "kerrrrang" if you know what I mean.
    Greg
     
  4. Kingbeegtrs

    Kingbeegtrs Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,926
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Location:
    Lufkin, Texas
    try these:

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

    or

    http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/schematics.php?schematic=3pickup_tele_blend

    I've never used the broadcaster with blend schematic, but I have done several "brent mason" guitars. I didn't find it to be that big of a deal and it seemed like you could spend a lot of time horsing around with it on stage trying to get it right. The broadcaster schematic looks kind of cool...
     
  5. BlueHeaven

    BlueHeaven Member

    Messages:
    2,729
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Location:
    Michigan
    Old Tele man,
    That's exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for. When in the neck pos or bridge pos alone I don't want the other pup to be active and in parallel to it. The thing is, the middle position (unless played real clean) doesn't have quite enough "cut" for the more crunchy stuff my band does. The sound is closer to the neck pup with it's rounder bottom but with more sparkle on top. I was hoping (when in the middle pos) to have like a 75-80% bridge to neck ratio. Having both pups active all the time loses the punch that either pup has on it's own IMHO and since the middle pos is both active and in parallel anyways that's the only time I'd want the blender to funtion.
    Greg
     

Share This Page