GregP

Had a small follow-up question. If you'll recall, I had another thread in which I was considering adding a separate piezo preamp into the mix. Forgetting about blends and switches and stuff and imagining I'm tying it directly to the output jack as a first experiment: Assuming the piezo preamp has red for hot and black for ground, to share the same battery it should be a simple matter of adding its red wire to the same spot as the EMG reds, and its black wire to the same spot as the EMG blacks, yes?

Something like this, then:

Man, thanks for your help! I'm going to draft up a completed diagram from the pieced-together info for a final sanity check and for my own reference.

End goal: EMG 89 and 81TW, 2 Volume, mode-switchable ("coil-tappable" but not exactly) via push/pull on the volume knobs. What I have - two dual-mode EMGs, an 89 and an 81TW. Their respective wiring is the same. - two push/pull 25k pots, and a normal 25k pot. I have an appropriate capacitor to use one pot for tone if need be - the older incarnation of EMG wiring... the pickups themselves have the quick connector end, but the other end (and the pots) are not quick-connect, so I'll need more or less traditional wiring diagrams. For all intents and purposes, the quick-connector is a pickup-changing convenience, not a wiring convenience. - a Gibson-style 3-way toggle My desired approach As mentioned, I would go with 2 independent volumes (NO tone), with each pickup hitting a push/pull-equipped knob for mode-switching ("coil-tapping", but not exactly) duties. HOWEVER, my understanding is that with "typical" wiring, in the middle position, you can't "blend" the way you might think. So you have to use a Jazz Bass-style wiring, which I THINK is the kind of wiring used in one of my samples below. Sanity Checking needed! I believe I have hacked together some information, but truth be told it's kind of just trusting that my superficial understanding of things is enough. I don't TRULY understand what happens in a potentiometer and I'm taking EMG's word for it on how to wire up the push/pull. Speaking of which, for the push/pull, the main diagram I come across is this one: Is it a proper assumption that the empty lug is what will get wired up to the switch? There was no one exact diagram (if you find one or know better ones, let me know!) but I did come across this: Here's where the sanity check comes in! Using this diagram as a jumping-off point, my thinking is that I substitute the white that's coming directly from the pickups to being the output of the push/pull. Then I bypass the tone altogether, sending the switch output directly to the output jack. Assuming my ability to mentally re-arrange things in 3D space, I believe the diagram also confirms that the "empty" lug from the first diagram is indeed connected to the switch (the orange and blue in the diagram). So... any takers on a sanity check? Including confirmation that the volumes will not suffer the "in-between" problem of allegedly independent volume knobs? Any opinions on a better setup that uses only 2 knobs? I'm not totally against going master volume plus tone, but that option had me even more confused (and isn't my preference anyhow) when I went looking. Thanks!

Holy Jumpin' Doodle... I totally missed that the wires from the top half match up to pins on the bottom half (the Acousti-Phonic). It seems obvious as soon as you spot it, but I had been seeing them as separate things and was thinking, "where are these wires coming from and going to, out of the blue?" Thanks for your continued help, Curtis!

Unless I'm going crazy, this is a flawed diagram: http://www.graphtech.com/docs/default-document-library/powering-active-pickups.pdf?sfvrsn=2 It seems to have things mislabeled and/or missing. For example, the QSW (quick switch) shows the piezo and mag systems entering, but not what is leaving. But this is picked up later going into the output jack as "SW" (not QSW) I believe. This being the case, I believe that what they are doing is NOT putting active mags directly into the Acousti-Phonic system, but rather using a switch to either alternate or sum directly before the output. Electronically, going directly to the output would be the same as the middle position of this switch.

Thanks for the follow-up, Curtis. Certainly tells me I need to get my ducks better in a row. It's funny; some of the black box preamps show input impedance but not output. Not sure why. Will look into the Ghost system.

Thanks Curtis. I think I might have either been reading incorrectly or just not understanding a spec page (and I don't have a link; I just filed it away and closed the tab). Further research SEEMS to indicate that pretty much any preamp (whether on an active pickup or in a piezo preamp) is concerned with input impedance, but then matches it to "line level". If this is true, then tying them together at the output jack should theoretically work. Probably the big companies would be able to help me out, but I feel bad asking for advice when in reality I'm probably just going to buy some generic $15 preamp. Thanks for the reply! If anyone can confirm/support the concept that the EMG output is "line level" and an acoustic preamp (active, of course) is also "line level", that would be great. Otherwise I guess I'll just move ahead with the experiment. Cheers, Greg

Although blended piezo and magnetic systems seem to have entered a fairly mainstream space right now, I can't seem to find many diagrams to achieve what I'm after. Here's the idea: On the magnetic side, I have an EMG 89 and 81TW, Both are dual mode (quasi-coil-split). I have 2 25K push/pull pots for mode switching ("coil splitting") duty, plus an extra "normal" 25k pot that was originally meant for tone. The switch is a Gibson-style 3-way. For the magnetic system, the plan is to use the push/pull as 1V, 1T and ditch the normal pot. So, a master volume and a master tone that I'd probably rarely use, and a push/pull dedicated to each EMG. On the piezo side, I haven't actually procured anything yet preamp-wise, but I was thinking of grabbing the smallest acoustic preamp I can find, and finding some space for it, maybe with the panel facing outwards on the back of the guitar. We'll see if I can find one that fits; otherwise I might be back to square one. Assuming the components work out, the piezo elements "tie" together and feed into the preamp, which has its own output. I don't know if the impedances of the magnetic and piezo systems are going to be an exact match because they don't seem to list the impedance of these cheap acoustic preamps... but I'm hoping that since both systems are active, at the output stage there's going to be a match.... maybe that's too much to hope for? Assuming they are a match, this means that each respective system essentially has its own master volume. While a blend pot could be interesting, I'm fine with just two separate volume controls to create my "blend". That being the case, what is the right stage to tie these things together? Both of them just feed the output jack? Thanks for any input you might have!

The router jig worked. The crusty crap was no challenge for the high-speed router bit. Nice and clean and true both front and back. The only issue was that my plunge router doesn't have awesome capabilities for micro-adjustments. I wanted to go like... 1/10 mm deeper, so I ended up having to set my bit flush against the surface and lock it in place, and then raise the surface by 3 printer papers. ;-) Worked as expected. Made the jig with a decently executed design and a bit of serendipity (had some extruded aluminum beams that were PERFECT for the job... it's not like most people just have that stuff lying around). Will post photos.

Nvm. Going with a router jig... hope it's true enough for rock and roll. ;-)

Background: I have a guitar that I'm frankensteining into something new. The original plan was to strip the old guitar's finish, possibly run the body through a quick pass on a planer or router jig to "true up" the top, and then glue a 2.5mm thick sheet of sitka spruce (a ukelele top, actually) for decorative purposes. I'm not expecting the top to actually have much if any of a contribution to tone. It's just that I wanted a natural wood top of some variety, flat not carved, and couldn't find appropriate veneer in my area. This is a thicker veneer surrogate, really. ;-) So I used the heat gun method of stripping the guitar body, and I discovered that this body had already been finished and refinished a second time at the factory... it must've had a bad first time of it, so the factory earmarked it for refinishing with a graphic application. The graphic application came off easily, and the top layer of paint as well. But then... It has a noticeably thick and durable coat of... something... underneath. An epoxy resin maybe? A durable layer of polyurethane? In any event, it is resisting heat gun work. Proposed solutions: 1. Despite the legwork with the heatgun, run it through a router jig after all. Ie. continue with the ORIGINAL plan. The router should have no problem reducing height by a mm or so, exposing bare wood. I should note here that I'm not that keen on using a power sander... I've done that before and I know that I seem to have a tendency to leave a less than even surface behind. 2. Figure out what solvent will work on this exposed layer and try to chemically finish it off. 3. I halt the stripping process (leaving the poly/resin layer intact) and glue the spruce directly to this currently-exposed layer. This is where my questions come in: 1. Which method would you go with? I'm leaning towards lazy (ie. option 3), because this is meant to be a cheap getting my feet wet frankenstein project, not a perfect build. 2. If chemical is recommended, any guesses as to what this layer might be (poly seems most likely?) and what chemical to use? 3. If I go with method #3, I don't suspect wood glue will work... the exposed layer is plasticky and non-porous. But would I be able to get away with something like 2-part epoxy? The spruce has no structural significance and is literally just a decorative layer. Thanks in advance!

Steinberger GL-series? for more conservative shapes, the MusicMan Axis (sorry EVH Wolfgang, you suck by comparison), Schecter 006, or good ol' Tele.

I don't really like it much, but I think it was a pretty clever approach. The black lines would ruin the cleverness of it, which is that the individual colours in the camo are in that pattern because of the natural lines caused by the rotting wood... "inking them in" would take away from the point of it all.

Reaper is only free for 30 days. Except, in not so many words, the owner/writer says, "After 30 days, you can keep using it fully-featured, but you should start feeling guilty about it and eventually give us some money for it." It's really about the best "free to begin with, and free unless you have a guilty conscience" software you can get, though. And if you decide to buy it, you're getting far more than your money's worth; it's at least worth a trial, no? If you buy even an entry-level audio interface some day, you'll usually get a "lite" sequencer program. The Line 6 stuff comes with Ableton Live Lite; the Mackie stuff comes with Tracktion, which is my commercial software of choice. But if you want absolutely purely free, you can't do badly with Audacity or Kristal (http://www.kreatives.org/kristal/index.php?section=details); though Kristal really slowed down in development after its initial push.

12.87 degrees. The 0.13 degrees less than 13 hit that sweet spot which causes the strings to vibrate freely without losing positive contact with the nut. You can go down to 12.63 degrees or so, but once you're in 12.62 territory you start losing tone. Er. Yeah. Seriously, though... I don't have years of experience testing all the different headstock angles and doing scientific tests. 11 to 13 degrees seemed like a well-loved range during any of the reading I've done, and the main two angled-headstock guitars I've played and loved are in that range. I think my quasi-LP is 13 degrees and my Godin LG-90 is 11.

agreed-- further to this, if the metal on the pick guard IS continuous between all those ground points, you'll want to unsolder the ones that go from the back of one pot to the back of the next. Likely, these are all pre-soldered harnesses dropped into a "shielded" pickguard without much care taken for making a nice cleanly laid-out ground. Potential for ground loops seems to abound in that pickguard.

Swinehead pickups has a 2X single-coil style humbucker if I'm not mistaken. 513 does not do this, AFAIK.

I'm pretty much with Paul in spirit, though I impart a significant bit more importance in the importance of the wood. There's going to be a scientifically quantifiable difference in these factors, mind you. Anyone with a little bit of logic and physics will recognize that what some of the above posters have said is pretty much undisputable truth with regards to the way pickups "hear" the strings. The real question is "but how much of a factor is it?" and that's when people like me think that direct-mounted pickups vs. pickup rings is largely a discussion about voodoo. On the other hand, to me wood resonance, transferring through the bridge to the strings, is not going to be much voodoo. That's a huge impact on your tone, which is why different tonewoods produce such different responses. But then it becomes relative again when you talk about gain/distortion in amps. Is the degree to which excited tubes impart harmonic information so much "larger" than the tonewood that the tonewood becomes less significance in the "tone ratio" as it were? Me, I tend to believe so. And in this whole equation is the fact that different pickups sound different. The pickup will impart sonic character regardless of tonewood; regardless of direct vs. ring-mounted. The pickup itself, to me, is the most significant factor in the equation. Diminishingly so for similar pickups, but let's face it... anyone with ears knows that (comparing apples to apples in order to be fair) a single-coil tele, strat, and p-90 sound different, and that classic humbuckers sound pretty different from high-output metal-oriented humbuckers. Not to mention the placement of the pickups themselves. In short, all these things are factors. Even the "voodoo" discussions have a certain degree of scientific merit in many cases. Me, I just choose to let logic dictate factors are the most significant. If you are trying to engineer your guitar down to the molecule, it's all important... but if you're like me, you'll put more weight in the fact that pickups sound different from one-another than the concept (fact) that direct-mount and ring-mount will "hear" the strings infantessimally differently. Greg

I assume you meant "is not" one coil from each pickup. You can get multi-pole 3-way switches that'll allow you to do that with 4-conductor pickups, though. Or put in a push-pull.

That's false logic, kill'em-- The scale length is the scale length, period. And in two guitars where all other things are equal, the scale length produces a tighter string-- more tension is needed to bring the string up to the same pitch. Keep in mind also, that in longer-scale guitars that have a tighter feel (like a strat), there's a very sharp break angle over the bridge saddles and not much slack. So what we're talking about are two different issues, both of which are contributing factors to the feel: The "extra" string length(s) and the scale length. With a longer distance between bridge and ferrules, you're adding more "material" that needs to be stretched when bending, etc. The tension added by string bending, for example, requires a deeper bend in order to bring the string tension to the right amount for the target note. The less "behind-the bridge" and "behind-the-nut" slack, the tighter it's going to feel between two guitars of the *same* scale length. Which is what we're talking about here, since the scale length has been set... the decision remaining is distance from bridge to ferrule. Don't get me wrong; the difference between scale lengths ALSO affects the "tightness" of the feel, but the extra length you're referring to does not simulate the longer scale length. Greg

Am I just going mad, or is the middle part of that guitar carved down "into" the middle as well? So it's a normal carve up to the highest point, and then it dips back down into the middle...? If that's the case, the actual wood where the ferrules sit are likely higher in elevation than the wood where the TOM is, making the angle over the saddles a little less sharp.

While EMG actives are famously used for brutal metal, they are at home with cleaner players, too, including Knopfler, Vince Gill, and Gilmour. I'm not saying those players ONLY use EMGs or that their famous recordings were all done with EMGs; I'm just saying they've all attached their name to the EMG brand and are comfortable playing their styles of music with EMG actives. The flat hi-fi sound Erik mentioned is a great help when using EQ as well. Need a mid-rangey sound? Boost the mids. Greg

Ironically, now that I'm moving into a house and could theoretically make a bit more noise, I won't have the money to buy an amp. Maybe I should at least get the Garnet serviced. ;-)

It "could" absolutely sound better. The distortion is very artificial sounding, and there's a constant... er... don't even know how to describe it... "overtone" that's a product of the distortion circuit which I just loathe. Perhaps "worst. amp. ever" was an exaggeration, but let's face it, it's a $2xx.00 amp. It's not a great amp.