Ok gurus, answer me this

[daz]

Maybe i'm nuts, but i removed the tiny shielded cable from the pot to jack and replaced it with 2 seperate wires and a swear it seems a lot better. Not really in the way i was going for. That is, it still doesn't lose as much mud as i hope when turned down, but it did seem to lose some. But the bigger improvement i noticed, assuming i'm not having a bad ear day is that the frequency of thge brightness retains sounds much more natural and flatter. Before it seemed nasally in a really bad way. Maybe the word congested is better. But it sounds sorta like a cocked wah when it hits that point where it sounds like it's all just 400hz. Not anywhere near to that degree tho, i'm just using that example as what i was hearing in a very subtle way but enough to riun the tone. And when you hit the plain strings hard they'd get really nasty. Now that seems much different. But maybe i'm just having one of those days if you know what i mean. All i know is i was really digging the crunchy dynamic cranked amp ala townsend sound it was getting.

[R.G.]

Tried it. Selector switch output to buffer, buffer out to vol pot. Results.....ehhh.....aside from that buffer's coloration, i heard no real improvement in the turned down tone.

Interesting wrinkle. That says to me that the volume and tone pots themselves are the issue or part of at, and not just the pickups.

A volume (and tone, by extension) pot is a compromise. The value has to be high enough not to dramatically load down the pickups, but low enough not to lose a lot of highs to parasitic capacitances. Then there's the interaction with the cable capacitance. It's not always a happy compromise.

I remember an article in a tube-era magazine reprint about choosing a value for a volume pot in a tube preamp. The common practice was to stick in a 500K or 1M and call it a day. The article had several pages of considerations about choosing a value.

Here's a thought. In the circuit analysis sense, a volume pot not only acts like a variable voltage source, it acts like a variable resistor in series with that output voltage. Conceptually, if you put in 1V of signal at the hot end of a 1M pot, you get from 0V to 1V at the wiper depending on the position.

However, that ignores how much equivalent resistance the signal goes through. With the wiper at 0, the output voltage is 0, but it's through a resistance of zero ohms, too, as the wiper is grounded (ignoring end-effects on the pot and wiper resistances). At the top, the output voltage is 1V, but it's also through a resistance of zero ohms; at least, zero ohms added to any resistance the source itself has. With a couple of pages of algebra, you can show that at the middle position (half the resistance of the pot above and below the wiper), the voltage is 1/2, but that acts like it's coming through 1/4 of the total resistance of the pot, added to the source resistance. So in the middle of a 1M pot, the signal acts like it's going through an extra 250K of resistance on top of whatever the signal source has.

I don't know what your volume pot is, probably 250K or 500K, but those have the potential (sorry... ) to add what looks like 63K and 125K of resistance to the already high 4K-to-100K impedance of the pickups. That might well account for some extra dullness in the middle of travel, as the cable capacitance becomes more significant yet.

The answer to that is to buffer before *and* after the volume control for a high-value pot, or just before the pot, and change the pot value down to something dramatically smaller, like maybe 10K. Those have the possibility of removing the interaction of the pickup with the loading of the volume and tone pots, and of removing the loading of the cable from high value volume and tone pots.

It's really unfortunate that you had a tone-coloring buffer. It would be really interesting to buffer before and after the controls and see if that preserved your sound at lower settings.

[R.G.]

I really wish I had a better way to power a set of buffers. I'd build a few and get them tested by a few critical guitarists.

[Leo_Gnardo]

Maybe i'm nuts, but i removed the tiny shielded cable from the pot to jack and replaced it with 2 seperate wires and a swear it seems a lot better. Not really in the way i was going for. That is, it still doesn't lose as much mud as i hope when turned down, but it did seem to lose some. But the bigger improvement i noticed, assuming i'm not having a bad ear day is that the frequency of thge brightness retains sounds much more natural and flatter. Before it seemed nasally in a really bad way. Maybe the word congested is better. But it sounds sorta like a cocked wah when it hits that point where it sounds like it's all just 400hz. Not anywhere near to that degree tho, i'm just using that example as what i was hearing in a very subtle way but enough to riun the tone. And when you hit the plain strings hard they'd get really nasty. Now that seems much different. But maybe i'm just having one of those days if you know what i mean. All i know is i was really digging the crunchy dynamic cranked amp ala townsend sound it was getting.

That little bit of capacitance in the piece of shielded cable apparently was enough to make an audible difference.

<Nasally in a real bad way> = a resonance peak that's ear-unfriendly.

Also I wouldn't give up on using a "brightening" cap from hot to wiper on the volume control. In your case, a smaller value than usual might do the trick. They're usually 470-1000 pF. I'd go smaller, even as little as 47-180 pF might help keep the zing factor going as you dial volume down.

Townsend tone, that's a good thing. When I finally got the re release CD of Live At Leeds, all those extra tracks - superb! What we were missing for all those years.

You got your ears on daz!

[daz]

That little bit of capacitance in the piece of shielded cable apparently was enough to make an audible difference.

<Nasally in a real bad way> = a resonance peak that's ear-unfriendly.

Also I wouldn't give up on using a "brightening" cap from hot to wiper on the volume control. In your case, a smaller value than usual might do the trick. They're usually 470-1000 pF. I'd go smaller, even as little as 47-180 pF might help keep the zing factor going as you dial volume down.

Townsend tone, that's a good thing. When I finally got the re release CD of Live At Leeds, all those extra tracks - superb! What we were missing for all those years.

You got your ears on daz!

I have a 500pf now, tho i've tried every usable value. 250pf doesn't quite allow enough highs thru to give me relief from the lows. But i do like those frequencies a bit more because 500 slightly nasal by comparison.
Live at leeds was the album that really turned me onto the who. The sound was from another planet to me. So big and open because it may have been my 1st live album. Townsends super dynamic tone sets a standard for me to this day. It of course wasn't anything we couldn't easily achieve today. Trouble is, and the reason he was able to get it, was that he had the luxury of being able to play thru amps on 10. In 25 years of bars and some larger auditorium venues i doubt i ever got any marshall past 4 on the master. Pretty hard to achieve pete's tone with a MV amp and at less than 120Db.

[daz]

Speaking of the who, i just found this montage. Man, it's amazing this was about 45 years ago because today people still try and match that kind of magic. When i listen to them live i wanna say man, entwistle was so incredible.....then i think wait, keith was just....no wait, pete....you know, those 3 were just all so incredible in thier own way and unmatched in each of thier ways by anyone since. It's like entwistle and mood together were this incredibly musical and hard driving machine while pete added this mad but utterly musical thing on top of all that creating a wall of sound that was so dynamic amd musical it would just take you away. Each had an unbelievable sense of dynamics and phrasing and sheer musicality that you rarely see in any musician to that degree. To have all 3 in one band, well it's no wonder they wer one of the probably top 10 bands of all time. The Who - Live at Leeds - YouTube

[rjb]

Interesting wrinkle. That says to me that the volume and tone pots themselves are the issue or part of at, and not just the pickups.

Simplifying matters somewhat... we're not concerned about the tone control.

See post #18:

I don't have tone caps in any of my guitars.

[rjb]

...unless something sounds too good to pass up, i'm done with this stuff. I really think the original idea of this post is what i have to focus on....making these pickups better somehow or biting the boutique bullet.

I have another suggestion.
Just don't turn the volume down to 5.

[frus]

If parallel pickup combinations quack, and you arrange so when you switch them together they "see" an equivalent loading as they did before you buffered them, then they will quack the same as they did before. Pickups can't tell one resistor or capacitor, or electron, from another.

I've read somewhere (not sure if it's true) that in parallel, the first pickup is loading the second and vice versa, so if each pickup has its own buffer, I'd need to switch in second-pickup's-like load to the first and vice versa, right?
In a strat or a tele I could put just one buffer right after the switch and before volume/tone controls, but it's trickier on a LP-like guitar (if I want to retain the 4-pot wiring scheme that is)

[Leo_Gnardo]

I have a 500pf now, tho i've tried every usable value. 250pf doesn't quite allow enough highs thru to give me relief from the lows. But i do like those frequencies a bit more because 500 slightly nasal by comparison.

Then perhaps your ideal value is a smidge less than 500 pF.

Live at leeds was the album that really turned me onto the who. The sound was from another planet to me. So big and open because it may have been my 1st live album. Townsends super dynamic tone sets a standard for me to this day. It of course wasn't anything we couldn't easily achieve today. Trouble is, and the reason he was able to get it, was that he had the luxury of being able to play thru amps on 10. In 25 years of bars and some larger auditorium venues i doubt i ever got any marshall past 4 on the master. Pretty hard to achieve pete's tone with a MV amp and at less than 120Db.

Leeds always gets my heart racing. And one day I found out how small a stage & room it was. Sounds like it was a huge festivsl - not. Nonetheless it's an exceptional peformance & recording. Again, those "lost" tracks that show up on the re-release, pure magic.

Stock wired amps of the day didn't have as much overall gain. I've worked on some of those very old Marshalls & Hiwatts, and yes you had to turn 'em up to 10 or nearly so to get a good concert volume. Many also had linear volume controls - most of the gain was in the first 1/3 of the volume control and barely more to be had by dialing up to 10. Or 11. The extra gain stage(s) and master volumes on more modern amps (mid 70's on) were supposed to let you get that overdriven tone - at a LOWER volume - HA! As if guitarists would be satisfied... unless they're playing in the church band on Sunday morning, no dice (and not to knock those who do - that's just how it is.) The human ear interprets distortion as power, but many guitarists still can't help themselves from crankin' up. In order to keep the gigs we gotta comprimise - this explains why 15-20W amps are now popular. In recent years I've put lots of half-power & triode mode switches into amps too. Use of both can knock a 100W screamer down to a 25W "acceptable level" for club use.

[R.G.]

That's exactly the issue I was referring to with a couple of my references to issues with switching. If you have pickups in parallel or series, they do interact. To get an electronic equivalent, the simplest thing to do is to not buffer til after they're switched together. It's easy to come up with situations that are almost impossible to get just right, depending on how the basic guitar was wired.

Buffering is not a panacea - just one more tool to use. And it's not necessarily a simple tool to use.

[daz]

Then perhaps your ideal value is a smidge less than 500 pF.



Leeds always gets my heart racing. And one day I found out how small a stage & room it was. Sounds like it was a huge festivsl - not. Nonetheless it's an exceptional peformance & recording. Again, those "lost" tracks that show up on the re-release, pure magic.

Stock wired amps of the day didn't have as much overall gain. I've worked on some of those very old Marshalls & Hiwatts, and yes you had to turn 'em up to 10 or nearly so to get a good concert volume. Many also had linear volume controls - most of the gain was in the first 1/3 of the volume control and barely more to be had by dialing up to 10. Or 11. The extra gain stage(s) and master volumes on more modern amps (mid 70's on) were supposed to let you get that overdriven tone - at a LOWER volume - HA! As if guitarists would be satisfied... unless they're playing in the church band on Sunday morning, no dice (and not to knock those who do - that's just how it is.) The human ear interprets distortion as power, but many guitarists still can't help themselves from crankin' up. In order to keep the gigs we gotta comprimise - this explains why 15-20W amps are now popular. In recent years I've put lots of half-power & triode mode switches into amps too. Use of both can knock a 100W screamer down to a 25W "acceptable level" for club use.

This is something i didn't mention when discussing the wide range buckers, but this is what i love about them. The difference between a modern master volume amp and the vintage "crank it up for distortion" amps is that with the cranked style of distortion you get that crunchy dynamic townsend thing that you can never get from a master amp at low volume. Well, ALMOST never. Thats what the wide ranges do. I can turn the gain to a medium high amount on my amp, master low, and i get that smooth master volume at low level tone. Good stuff but a whole different thing. Enter the wide range humbuckers. I can plug my strats in and get that smooth modern drive, but plug in the tele with those seths and set the gain the same as th strats and i can get that old cranked amp thing. Exactly to a T ? No, but literally 80% closer than the strats. The sound of those pickups is nite and day different than anything i've used and if i had to describe them to someone in a few words i'd tell then exactly what we've been talking about....that townsend cranked amp crunchy dynamic thing. It does that even in a smooth MV amp. It's why some people love them so much. If you use modern drive via MV and the next song in the set is the who, tom petty, beatles, old stones, etc, pick up the '72 thinline and you're much closer to getting there even with that amp than with a strat or LP or even a regular tele. And also when you DO go for the more modern drive, add a lot of gain and it'll smooth out but retains the intense cutting power and throw out insane harmonic complexity. All this of course assuming we are not talking stock RI pickups They will do it too, but with a lot of flaws included.

[Leo_Gnardo]

The difference between a modern master volume amp and the vintage "crank it up for distortion" amps is that with the cranked style of distortion you get that crunchy dynamic townsend thing that you can never get from a master amp at low volume. Well, ALMOST never.

Part of this has to do with preamp clipping being mostly single-ended, just chops one side of the waveform, while power amp clipping (presumably) is symmetric, chopping both top & bottom. Attempts to do symmetric clipping in the pre often involve a pair of diodes, fuzz-box style, Marshall's Jubilee series for instance, and many others. Rarely does it give the ear-satisfaction of a power amp to deep clip.

Glad you're enjoying the wide-ranges. Good descriptions!

[daz]

One of the goals i had when i spent god knows how long designing my amp was to try and get really rich OD tone at sane levels via preamp distortion but without that too smooth too tame kind of OD most master amps have. In other words, i wanted some of that intensity of a cranked amp sound. It's not possible as far as i know, but i wanted to get whatever bit of that i could and i feel i succeeded. At least it's more like that than any marshall master volume amp i've owned, and i DID own a jubilee too. great amp, but IMO not as good as it always cited. It's best attribute i felt was it's ability to cut thru the mix without losing it's personality in doing do. But the tone itself while very good was not IMO as good as my homebrew by a good margin.

So i got some of that, but you're right, it's never going to be real close. On the other hand tho, lets not forget that cranked tone also involves a speaker thats working very hard, and thats part of the magic that a master amp would have too when played that loud. My biggest regret is that i didn't start building amps till after i stopped gigging. Now i test them with cranked music to see how the amp cuts in a mix. It's the only way to know short of gigging it. But i'll never know the joy of how well it might work onstage at a gig. Well, probably not. every now and then i'll go one with a friend but last one was 3 years ago.

[jazbo8]

@daz - it seems a passive solution is out, have you tried an active system like EMG's?