** EDIT: Apologies, mods, please delete. The thread's already going off track, and I'd rather it die than wander.**
Last edited:
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mods pls delete
- Thread starter FerruleCat
- Start date
You want tonal variation, but you only want 100/0 and 100/100 volume settings for the two pickups. Those two things contradict each other.
I don't think your thread wandered all that far in one response! It is rare for any post on TB to NOT generate an "everything you say you want to do is wrong" response. People's opinions on pretty much everything vary so much that you are bound to hear from those whose tastes are the complete opposite of your own, don't get bent out of shape by that. They are trying to be as helpful as everyone else.
I don't know if lz4005 quoted your entire post or not since you have deleted the original. I have a PJ bass and like a lot of people here I basically use it in two modes: P only and 100% P plus 100% J. Oh, it has a blend pot and I can hear differences with different blend settings but to my ears those differences are so subtle that only the extreme positions are of much practical use. When I want tonal variation I play with the EQ settings in active mode or the tone control in passive mode. PJ basses usually come from the factory wired in parallel, that is a good way to run them. Some folks like having a series mode too, or series mode exclusively. You'd have to try it to know how useful that is to you. But to my ears your proposal to switch between P only and PJ parallel is perfectly acceptable. It's only disadvantage is that it does not allow the operating modes that I rarely use so not much disadvantage at all. I do occasionally use the J pickup soloed with a foam mute when I want to get a DB like tone but this is rare. If you used push-pull pots on both volume and tone you could wire it to have that capability too, just wire one pot to turn the P on and off, wire the other to turn the J on and off, and then you could select either pickup, both, or none (mute).
I don't know if lz4005 quoted your entire post or not since you have deleted the original. I have a PJ bass and like a lot of people here I basically use it in two modes: P only and 100% P plus 100% J. Oh, it has a blend pot and I can hear differences with different blend settings but to my ears those differences are so subtle that only the extreme positions are of much practical use. When I want tonal variation I play with the EQ settings in active mode or the tone control in passive mode. PJ basses usually come from the factory wired in parallel, that is a good way to run them. Some folks like having a series mode too, or series mode exclusively. You'd have to try it to know how useful that is to you. But to my ears your proposal to switch between P only and PJ parallel is perfectly acceptable. It's only disadvantage is that it does not allow the operating modes that I rarely use so not much disadvantage at all. I do occasionally use the J pickup soloed with a foam mute when I want to get a DB like tone but this is rare. If you used push-pull pots on both volume and tone you could wire it to have that capability too, just wire one pot to turn the P on and off, wire the other to turn the J on and off, and then you could select either pickup, both, or none (mute).
Thanks, khutch. I appreciate your substantive response, which went a nice step further with the dual push-pull option.
My only point in mentioning "tonal variation" was to clarify that I wasn't looking for a volume boost with the bridge pup added. For maximum "tonal variation," each pup could have independent tone and volume controls with coil splitting and phasing, but part of my priority is to have a two-pot solution.
I overreacted to lz, even though his response was worthless. I've been around long enough to know that half the responses are going to take issue with what you want. Had I realized my fuse was so short today (home sick) I would have held off on asking the question.
Thanks again.
My only point in mentioning "tonal variation" was to clarify that I wasn't looking for a volume boost with the bridge pup added. For maximum "tonal variation," each pup could have independent tone and volume controls with coil splitting and phasing, but part of my priority is to have a two-pot solution.
I overreacted to lz, even though his response was worthless. I've been around long enough to know that half the responses are going to take issue with what you want. Had I realized my fuse was so short today (home sick) I would have held off on asking the question.
Thanks again.
Worthless? I thought that his post was very constructive, because he was trying to get clarification about your unclear motivations. Why do you think it is worthless for someone to point out the holes in your reasoning?
My "motivations" are irrelevant to a clearly stated question. I wanted wiring information within the stated parameters, not unsolicited Freudian analysis. People can go look clever at someone else's expense; I'm not having it today.
This is why I want this thread deleted. It's only downhill from here.
This is why I want this thread deleted. It's only downhill from here.
I never saw the original post, so I don't know what was being asked, but it looks like you are having a hissy fit because someone said something that you didn't find useful.
He wants a P/J. He wants to turn the J on and off with a switch. He doesn't want a big volume change when he does it. That's all. Somebody said 'that's stupid.'
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,793
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
I stand corrected then. (Though the OP referenced Iz4005's post.)
The best way to prevent volume change would be to place a small resistance in series with the lower impedance pickup.
As David explained, I just asked about a two-knob scheme where one knob would be a push-pull to toggle between P only and P+J. I used the phrase "tonal variation" to try to communicate that in adding the bridge pup, I was after tonal range more than a volume boost (which, I surmised, would call for a parallel vs. series wiring but wanted to confirm).
Then lz says that my requested scheme contradicts my goal of "tonal variation." This claim is worthless because it ignores the question asked. Moreover, it's a false claim; a system that toggles a bridge pup and has a tone control does provide tonal variation. Now if I had asked about the maximum possible tonal variation, I would have asked about adding a couple more pots and phasing switches and an array of capacitors, but that wasn't the scope of my question.
It doesn't help my mood that I've been laid up for three days and am starting to get restless. So while oboyle's "period" above isn't quite right, I am apparently a bit edgy.
Then lz says that my requested scheme contradicts my goal of "tonal variation." This claim is worthless because it ignores the question asked. Moreover, it's a false claim; a system that toggles a bridge pup and has a tone control does provide tonal variation. Now if I had asked about the maximum possible tonal variation, I would have asked about adding a couple more pots and phasing switches and an array of capacitors, but that wasn't the scope of my question.
It doesn't help my mood that I've been laid up for three days and am starting to get restless. So while oboyle's "period" above isn't quite right, I am apparently a bit edgy.
there's been quite a few "delete" threads as of late. usually people see them, and come to post some silly video or picture.... me?...
Of course, answering the question as asked has its limits, too. My wife and I recently ate at a restaurant where the server was fairly clearly on the Autism spectrum. She ordered in the form of a question: "Could I please have the chicken salad?" He answers, "Yes." A few seconds pass before she says, "OK, I'll have that." He writes it down...
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
I've got a passive PJ wired in parallel with a VVT control configuration. There is a very slight volume drop with both pups on, but it is not enough imo to make wiring in a resistor worth the trouble. For the most part, I run either full volume on the P, or full volume on both P and J. There's definitely a pretty good tonal palette between just those two sounds and a passive tone knob. I think doing a two knob configuration like that would be pretty cool. And I would do it in parallel if it were mine. Although, I also think khutch's suggestion of using two push/pulls would be worth the extra bit of wiring.
Aw, dont be so reactive. This is Talkbass. Every thread gets its share of derailments, unwarranted criticism psychoanalisis, arguments against Fender basses, arguments for Fender basses, praise of thine holiest of holy tort guards and carrots. ...And thats usually in response to threads in the amp forum.
Thats the beauty of it! If this was simply an efficient question and answer forum then the entertainment value would be lost and half the knowledge base would dissappear. Believe it or not, some of these trolls actually know quite a bit.
So relax. And if there be jerks in your threads then let them be. We can all plainly see them for what they are and the same anonymity that protects them protects you as well.
By the way. The answer to your question is parallel. Parallel will be fine.
Thats the beauty of it! If this was simply an efficient question and answer forum then the entertainment value would be lost and half the knowledge base would dissappear. Believe it or not, some of these trolls actually know quite a bit.
So relax. And if there be jerks in your threads then let them be. We can all plainly see them for what they are and the same anonymity that protects them protects you as well.
By the way. The answer to your question is parallel. Parallel will be fine.
let me get this straight:
You want the P always on and the J on-or off, but never J solo? At the same time, you can't decide series/parallel for the P/J combination.
You could try two push-pull pots where one turns the J on/off, the other is a series/parallel switch. With the J off, the output should be the same regardless of the Se/Pa switch position.
Another option might be a stacked Volume/Tone pot with a rotary selector - it will still look like a 2-knob bass but you could have all kinds of funky stuff going on inside - P, J, PJ-Se, PJ-Pa. You could even wire in some trim-pots to allow you to pre-set the blend(s) without affecting the solo levels. IME this is essential as the success of a blend depends massively on the two pups 'playing nicely' together. Being able to balance them, even as an internal pre-set will mean you are not stuck with something that does not work or is not quite what you want and you will carry less risk if you decide to replace one or the other pup at a later date.
You want the P always on and the J on-or off, but never J solo? At the same time, you can't decide series/parallel for the P/J combination.
You could try two push-pull pots where one turns the J on/off, the other is a series/parallel switch. With the J off, the output should be the same regardless of the Se/Pa switch position.
Another option might be a stacked Volume/Tone pot with a rotary selector - it will still look like a 2-knob bass but you could have all kinds of funky stuff going on inside - P, J, PJ-Se, PJ-Pa. You could even wire in some trim-pots to allow you to pre-set the blend(s) without affecting the solo levels. IME this is essential as the success of a blend depends massively on the two pups 'playing nicely' together. Being able to balance them, even as an internal pre-set will mean you are not stuck with something that does not work or is not quite what you want and you will carry less risk if you decide to replace one or the other pup at a later date.
Last edited:
