curtisa

4 hours ago, TKGrey said:

but it seems the 4th position strat is out of reach.

Yes, to my understanding the Kwikplug system doesn't allow you to split-and-parallel a humbucker with itself. You need to get access to all four conductors of the humbucker to do a series/parallel humbucker configuration, and even the version of Kwikplug cable that provides the most connections only gives you access to three (the junction between the two coils in the humbucker is frustratingly hardwired out to only one conductor).

You could potentially wire it similar to an Ibanez RG620, which is very nearly the same as what you're after:

1. Bridge humbucker
2. Bridge inner single + neck outer single
3. Bridge humbucker + neck humbucker
4. Neck outer single
5. Neck humbucker

If you were hell-bent on making position 2 'both outer singles' you could physically spin the bridge humbucker around 180 degrees in the guitar for a quick fix. That just leaves position 4 as being not quite what you were originally after, namely a split humbucker rather than a parallel-wired humbucker.

Sounds a lot like the switching pattern for an Ibanez RG7620. Only exception might be position 2 which used the two inner coils in parallel, but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to modify for outer coils (physically rotating both pickups by 180 degrees would even do it). You wouldn't consider using the Ibanez 5-way switch instead?

What humbuckers are you using? Wiring colour codes will be important in suggesting a diagram.

8 hours ago, Crusader said:

Anyone here got suggestions?

Swap tubes with known good ones is the usual first step. Beyond that you're largely looking at opening it up and examining it looking for obvious visual faults (poor soldering, loose components/wires, cracked/bulging/burnt components etc), or probing various parts of the circuit with the amp powered up, which comes with the mandatory caveats of working on live equipment exposed to high voltages. If you feel uncomfortable with doing that you're probably better off passing it on to your nominated tech. 

Musikraft will do a Fender-style 24.75" neck with the options you want, but it gets pricey quickly:

https://musikraft.com/product/strat-neck-custom-build/

Have you tried asking the vendor of the body if they have the neck that matches their products? Seems odd that they would go to the trouble of making a body for a very specific, non-standard scale length and not offer the matching component.

On 3/9/2024 at 6:19 AM, KuotaGrant said:

QUewstion, is it possiblee to reemove the truss rod, or at least [pull it out a bit from the neck in order to make the sawing easier?  Thanks.

At the time I dd consider replacing the truss rod with something a little more user-friendly like a double-action unit, but it would have been more work than I was willing to expend on the guitar. Complete removal of the fretboard would have been the only way to do it, which I specifically wanted to avoid.

As @Bizman62 points out, the anchor block at the base of the neck, which is permanently attached to the rod. prevents the truss rod from being removed by drawing it out of the headstock-end. In practice it wasn't too difficult to saw through 95% of the heel; it was obvious when the blade finally came into contact with the rod and I could change the angle cutting angle and ease my way down as low as possible without causing damage to the blade. The last two little bits of triangular-shaped wood still attaching the heel to the body were easy to break by wiggling the neck side-to-side.

Edit: out of interest, are you also doing a neck reset on a Yamaha FG acoustic?

4 hours ago, KuotaGrant said:

Unfortunately, no.  I just get the Report and Share options.  Thanks

FWIW your membership automagically advances from 'New Member' to 'Member' after three posts, after which you have the ability to edit. Let me know (preferably via PM rather than in this thread) if this still isn't working for you and I'll have a look.

If it were me I'd probably replace the nut, studs and baseplate with the Floyd Rose (or Schaller equivalent) originals, as they will be the parts that will undergo the most wear. Trouble is once you've done that you're nearly at the point where you probably should have bought a genuine Floyd or Schaller locking trem to begin with in terms of financial outlay.

18 minutes ago, Hamfist said:

The body is for a 22 fret neck ...

24 3/4 scale length 

Again, that only makes sense if you know exactly what neck is designed to fit in the pocket that is already cut into that body. On face value, the specs they've provided don't make any sense, as your measurements showed a discrepancy from bridge to nut of +0.5" (26" vs 25.5"), whereas they're implying that there is a -0.75" discrepancy (24.75" vs 25.5"). But we also don't know what heel shape or position their proposed neck was designed to have for their body, which could shift the neck forwards or backwards from the bridge beyond where this unknown scale reference is (eg, does the 22nd fret on their 24.75" neck overhang the pocket or is in front of the pocket?).

Too many variables...

16 minutes ago, Hamfist said:

Im at the point where i think it would be easier to buy a new body ???

Anyone else think the same ?

Very much so. But you will need to do your homework to establish whether the neck you have is compatible with whatever body you get as a replacement. Doing that with Far-East vendors will very much be a game of chance now that you're trying to match a known neck with whatever body you can lay your hands on. The pocket might fit, but there's no guarantee everything else will line up to result in a guitar that intonates correctly.

This could be a good opportunity to learn how to cut your own neck pocket though... 

2 hours ago, Hamfist said:

I was led to believe both neck and body are 25.5 scale etc .

The body can only be specified for a particular scale length if the builder knows how it will interact with the neck it's intended for. If the body and neck come from disparate (or maybe unreliable) sources then, as you say, all bets are off.

Trying to get a pre-routed body and a neck to match up if all you have to go on is scale length and number of frets is a bit like trying to guess a number pattern if you're only given two numbers in the sequence - If you were shown '1' and '2', would the next number be 3, 4 or something else? The only way I'd personally trust matching a neck with a body is if they came from the same supplier and they guaranteed their compatibility, or if the neck and body were from some kind of authorised reseller like Warmoth or Mighty Mite.

2 hours ago, Hamfist said:

So the distance between the humbuckers is 41/4 in center to center .

2 hours ago, Hamfist said:

With my neck in place it measures dead bang on 26 inches from bridge saddle to the entry of the lock nut .

You might be able to make it work with a 21-fret neck instead. The distance between the 21st and 22nd frets at 25.5" scale is nearly 0.5" (it's actually 0425", but the extra 0.075" could probably be adjusted out with the intonation movement in the saddles), which would get a neck back to being in the right spot relative to the existing bridge and pickup routes.

If you're dead-set on using the 22 neck, the other option is to plug the neck humbucker route and re-route it 0.5" further towards the bridge. The neck pocket would also need to be routed 0.5" further back to allow the neck to sit at the correct position relative to the bridge location and restore its compatibility with the intended 25,5" scale length. A lot more work though, particularly if you're short on tools, time or experience.

2 hours ago, AbramT80 said:

The only thing not working is the led on the kill switch (the killswitch itself is working and cutting out the signal but it’s not lit up), I tested it a week or so ago so I know I don’t have a faulty switch.

How were you testing it? Any chance the LED has been damaged since the killswitch was installed in the guitar?

2 hours ago, AbramT80 said:

You also mentioned a “switched tip output Jack” just curious - what’s that?

The jack has a little 'paddle' that is sprung against the tip lug, which has its own dedicated terminal that can be wired to:

With no plug inserted into the socket the paddle makes electrical contact with the tip, shorting the two together. Inserting a plug into the socket forces the tip connection to separate from the paddle, breaking the connection between the two. If you watch the socket closely as you insert a lead you'll be able to observe the switching action for yourself.

Can be handy if you need to switch something based on whether or not a plug is inserted (not relevant in your particular case though).

Split it into smaller chunks - get the pickup working with the preamp first then work on adding the killswitch.

3 hours ago, AbramT80 said:

a pretty loud buzz

Have you remembered to also include a bridge ground connection?

3 hours ago, AbramT80 said:

I also saw that my output Jack has 4 terminals

The output jack you have has a switched tip connection, hence the fourth lug. 

Issues I can see:

• Battery negative lead isn't connected to anything:

  

  Needs to be soldered to the ring lug of the output jack:

  

• Poorly attached white wire to kill switch, looks like it's barely held on:

  

• Can't see clearly what's going on here, but I assume the push-pull is wired for a coil split function? If so, make sure you have red+white attached to the middle-left lug and green+braid soldered to ground (lower-left lug will suffice if this lug already has a connection to ground, or shell of pot will work too). Make sure there are no shorts between these pairs of wires and anything else:

  

I don't see the issue. The tool has been modified to include the ability to measure the crown height of the fret when it's installed in the fret board. To do that the tail needs to slide deeper into the body, which has the byproduct of offsetting the tail from the end by that extra depth, hence the couple of mm difference.

To get around it you just need to zero the tail before using it, which for absolute accuracy you'd typically do with any set of calipers anyway.

8 minutes ago, spindlebox said:

It's also hard to believe nobody else has complained about it and they don't know about it!

I don't think it's 'off' in any way. It's been deliberately modified to offer a feature that other calipers can't do as easily. It just requires a slight modification to your method of usage to continue using it in a more 'traditional' sense.

I've personally never really paid much attention to the extension measurement at the base of a set of calipers, but I think you need to avoid using the movement of the jaws as a baseline reference for the movement of the tail. You're better off using it independently of the jaws altogether - moving the tail so that it butts up against a reference surface first, zeroing the caliper readout and then extending the tail to make your  measurement.

On all but the most expensive, precision calipers there is no guarantee that all three moving pieces have zeros that are equal. Use and zero each one independently of the others. I'd personally have more faith that the inner/outer pairs of jaws will be machined with equal zero points.

Edit: When you look at the 'custom fret crown notch' thingy Stewmac add to it, it's all the more important to not use the opening of the jaws as a baseline for the tail measurement (image credit: Stewmac):

The notch means that the tail needs more room to slide back into the body to allow for negative measurements. The upshot of this is that the tail will always extend further from the base than the jaws will open, and the tail will always give you a longer measurement unless you zero it first.

On 2/20/2024 at 2:42 PM, AbramT80 said:

 I’ve got no idea where to start, I usually just follow diagrams but I couldn’t find one for this

This is what I get when I google for 'Artec EX3 Wiring':

http://artecsound.com/pickups/electronics/wiring/wiring-E01a.jpg

Seems pretty straightforward - the preamp just slots in between the volume pot and the output jack. Substitute everything upstream of the volume pot with your SD Nazgul instead.

On 2/20/2024 at 2:42 PM, AbramT80 said:

Also if anyone knows if you can  hook up the kill switch so the LED turns off when the guitar is unplugged (I have no idea if that’s possible but if it please let me know) please advise, thanks!

Again, this info is provided by the manufacturer:

https://tesiswitch.com/installation

The 'Passive Pickups with Stereo Jack' diagram seems to have everything you need.

47 minutes ago, spindlebox said:

Are these left handed tuners instead of right handed tuners? 

Looks like it. If looking from the rear, the post should be forward of the pinion gear on a righty headstock.

Out of interest, have you confirmed the bridge is indeed off relative to the scale length of the instrument? It seems an unusual error for a bridge of that particular type to be so badly misplaced on the body, as there are no real other alternatives that allow a two-post Tune-o-matic tailpiece to be moved 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch closer to the nut.

12 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Oh, they do exist. "Dual gang slider" seems to be the key phrase

But they won't have the required taper to make them behave the same as the purpose-made blender pot. If you use a linear dual gang fader it will be the same as a linear dual gang rotary pot - you'll get full volume from each pickup at the extremes, but half volume from both in the middle.

Higher values of resistance in a fader are usually pretty rare. Anything over 100k will be quite specialised.

4 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

The dominant pickup changes depending on the switch.

Correct - in the bridge position you're blending the neck back in with the pot, but in the neck position you're doing the inverse and blending the bridge back in. In the 'in-between' positions it gets weirder as you're also adding the middle pickup to that behaviour. I can see why it was offered as a quick mod, as it uses the parts that are already fitted to a Strat. But it's a bit of a hot mess really, and could be one reason why he no longer has it on his YT channel.

4 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

So basically if I wanted the Breja scheme to work with two pickups similarly to the Strat I'd need a two way switch, or a three-way for a full "both" sound?

I'd have to have a think about it - I'm actually not sure you can do what the Breja blend scheme was trying to do using standard parts without it being severely compromised in the way it operates.

2 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

I've been toying with the idea of having a sliding pot instead of a blade switch. As has been said a real blender/fader pot would work just as imagined,

I think you're going to get the same limitations as the single-gang pot blend I suggested, above. A linear-motion fader is the same as a rotary pot, just with the resistive wafer straightened out from its horseshoe pattern into a straight line. Further, I don't think a true blending fader (like the pot @henrim linked to) is something that can be bought off the shelf.

Pretty sure if you lowered the value of the pot (whether fader or rotary) to 100k the tone would darken a little more, but it should still work (inasmuch that it 'works' with the same oddities as previously indicated).

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

As the other pickup will always have some effect, will there also be a humbucking effect in every position of the pot?

Only while the two coils are equally set. Ie, with the pot at mid rotation. Once the blend drifts off to one side or the other the humbucking ability gets gradually knobbled.

Edit: in case I wasn't being clear, the circuit I proposed *does* shut off the opposite pickup fully when the pot is turned to each end. It's just that true 'full volume' operation will always carry some baggage.

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

And if I choose a 500k pot for the blender, would I still need the 22k resistors?

Yes. The two resistors act as passive mixers. Without them you'll only get a blended mix of the two pickups in the middle of the pot rotation and nothing at all at both extremes of the pot. You may be able to fiddle with the values of pot and resistors to get a bit more useful range. But the two resistors need to be equal, and you'll always have less/darker output than you would with a dedicated blend pot or independent volume controls.

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

There's none in the Breja drawing for Strat.

The Breja scheme only acts as a [neck-at-100%-plus-variable-other-pickup] function. And it does it with the afore-mentioned issue of never being able to completely isolate or properly control the volume of the blended pickup. Your requirement to blend the two pickups in varying inversely-proportional amounts complicates things a little more, hence the extra mixing resistors.

19 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

No, I'm aware that regular pots leak a bit and I'm fine with that thought

It's not that they 'leak' - the way the pot is configured means it either cannot fully 'shut off' or 'open up' the pickup.

But if you're happy with that quirk, the below (untested!) idea should work with a standard single gang pot:

Limitations;

• With the blend pot at each extreme the pickup will have an extra 22k resistance inserted in series with the hot lead which will darken the tone a bit
• The blend pot at each extreme will give half output compared to that same pickup should it have been wired direct to a volume pot.
• The blend pot at 50% rotation will not give you full output on both pickups (probably less than half output from both)
• The blend pot needs to be linear taper to have equal rates of cross-fading. Even then, the perceived taper might feel a bit odd (an initial quick rise in volume followed by a long period of little perceived change as you rotate the pot is likely).

In all honesty the dual-gang blend pot linked to by @henrim, or his suggestion of independent volume pots that you set the blend with is the way to go if you want to combine two pickups arbitrarily.

Assyming you want proper nulling of each pickup at the extremes of the pot rotation I don't think it can be done without using something like the Stewmac blend pot.

Note that the tapers of each wafer in the dedicated blend pot are customised so that at mid-rotation the outputs of both pickups are at maximum. Doing the same thing with a regular dual gang pot results in both pickups being heavily slugged at the midpoint, and only reaching maximum output at the extreme ends of rotation.

I think there *is* a way to do a two-pickup blend using a single gang pot, but again it results in compromises in terms of being able to achieve full volume from each pickup and leaving extra resistance in series with each pickup, which is probably not desirable.

Warmoth would be the obvious choice. They have two versions of 7-string necks to choose from - their proprietary 4x3 peghead arrangement and a generic 'cut your own' 7-inline paddle headstock.

14 hours ago, seasaltlatte said:

Will it also work when I am on positions 1 and 3 or just on position 2?

The tone control works equally in all three positions.