Noll Concentric/Stacked Volume w/Balance and Push-Pull wiring

I need some help in wiring these, and if you know if the taper is M/N for the blend knob, that'd be helpful too. Also, do blend pot's use a single gang (3 connectors, like a volume pot)? That might be where I'm having my issue. I'm wiring it up with two rows of connections, but I'm guessing that this might only be necessary if someone is using something like a volume pot with additional SPDT connections.

I contacted the manufacturer and best bass gear, and neither have contacted me back. Unfortunately, I can't find documentation on them that could help me.

What I really need to know is what each row of connections are for. I'd guess first row is for the volume pot, but not sure which two are for the DPDT push/pull switch, and which is for blend.

Lastly, I'd like to use three of these to take the volume from individual pickups, and output two signals per volume/pickup. Do I need special wiring for this, or should it just work? I want to use a fourth to balance between two outputs.

Link: Noll 500K/220K Volume/Blend Stacked (Push/Pull) Control - Best Bass Gear

 

I realized that an image would help after I posted. Here's some samples of what might work. I think you're saying that it'd look more like the master volume/balance control. How the pots look wired on volume 1-3 can be ignored. The top just represents traditional volume pot wiring schematic's I've seen.

Edit: New image attached. This is the basic gist.

 

I might as well show you why I'm doing this at all. There's more to it, even including the push/pull mods, but the mixing path is one of those things that has given me a large headache, and it's nice to see it laid out plainly. Here's what it looks like with two EQ's.

 

The first dual channel buffer is to protect the previous signals. The second dual channel buffer is to level out the two EQ's output, and allow for balancing the two EQ's with a master balance/blend. I'm not averse to using two active mixers in place of the passive mixes, and remove the first dual channel buffer.

The reason for two EQ's is that they both have quite different coloring and features. Also, it's to easily EQ each pickup separately. Double boost treble? Okay. EQ one pickup completely separately? Alright.

As for the dual channel nature, it's to set two output's output levels independently. There are two inputs and two outputs that can be adjusted independently. With the way I'd like it to be wired, there would be two channels created from the balance pots outputs. If you'd like to call that stereo, you can, but it's really just two identical channels that feed into separate EQs.

 

Could I just remove the ground, or do a no load mod? In reality, I'd like to use shunt volume controls so I can use individual volume controls when in series mode, but I thought that that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

Also, I'm waiting for confirmation on which gangs are for which controls (volume, blend, DPDT) so I can go forward.

 

To be honest, as much as I know, which isn't much, I don't know how. Also, I don't have the pots. I'd rather not order three or four of these to find out that they won't work. I could order one, but my designs are changing as I develop more knowledge. Going hands on makes sense, and I want to, but I'd like to know how they work before that if possible.

Originally, I wasn't going to use push/pulls or blend pots, instead using vol/vol pots, so having them combined into one thing is great, but also more confusing. I'm going to read more on individual blend pots and volume pots with DPDT push/pull, but I feel like I'm in the dark sometimes with plenty of people who know the answer that I can't reach. I'm considering trying to take a guitar electronics course but most only cover basics, which still may help a lot, but I don't know how far they'd go, and I feel so close.

My original post probably isn't clear enough, perhaps especially for me, because many times when I post I realize where I need to do more reading or modify the design. I don't know if a push/pull DPDT uses two gangs or one. It doesn't seem like one would make sense as I think that'd make it a SPDT. Confirmation whether the DPDT push/pull functions exactly like the toggle switch would be very helpful. Then there are balance wirings, most of which seem to need two gangs, but I don't know if that's because they're using pots they've modified to do the job or if all balance/blend knobs use two gangs, and the wiring diagrams I've seen are accurate.

This Noll has four gangs, and yet it seems like it would need five depending on how it works. That's why I'm asking what gang does what. Also, I'm not sure what I need to do to have a blend pot output two signals from one output. My brain says that current flows both ways much of the time, so it may not matter if it's input to output is switched, which Passinwind seemed to confirm, but did not explicitly state, and I could be erroneously interpreting. That's why I added the buffers to the diagram. I was going to use them anyway (or two mixers in the first ones place and remove the passive mixing), but I realized, hopefully correctly, that if the two outputs didn't have matched impedance, more signal would be pulled from one side by one of the two EQs. I could try to wire one up, but that would be terrible if it didn't work, and buffers are expensive too.

So, how does a dedicated blend pot work and does it require two gangs, is M/N tapering the best and is it offered by anyone with a DPDT push/pull and volume control, does a push/pull DPDT require six contact points like a normal toggle switch? This is all new to me, and when I ask a lot of these questions, they don't get answered. Perhaps because they're not focused enough, perhaps I'm too ignorant, I don't know. Communication is hard for me, and getting help is hard. I often ask too many questions, and then none get answered. I'm trying to make something complex with no experience, and so the going has been much slower than I'd hoped.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but I'd be able to deduce most of the answers to these questions just by knowing three things: how many gangs are allocated to what feature, and can I wire the blend/volume gangs with reversed inputs and outputs so long as I use a buffer for matched impedance. It'd be nice to know which pot has these features I as well as the best taper for when the blend knob is centered too. If I knew these would work for my purposes, I'd just buy the pots and figure it out. Unfortunately, I seem to find things I think will work, buy them, and find out that they won't work, or not how I'd like. Now I have a bunch of parts, and less money with a bass missing electronics, and the knowledge gap remains.

All this being said, if I knew how to test these, I guess the only thing I'd need to know, because I can't be sure, is if this pot is the one I should go with. I thought the only options was this Noll pot or Warwick pots, but I also thought that a M/N taper was best, and only offered by Noll. If that is a misunderstanding, it's a toss up between this and Warwick pots. The Noll uses 500k pots which might be good if I want to have 500k/???k mods. This would need to be tested, and I have 250k/500k pots to try it out on, so I should be good there.

Now that I think of it, I guess I could try all this besides a blend pot if push/pull functionality is the same as a toggle switch.

I do need to learn to test these things as I know plenty of it will be required once the diagram is nearly complete, and to decide design decisions. I've been putting it off because I'd like to buy the right pot and know that'd it'd work beforehand, but I guess that could be a reason to start. Once I know they're be little left do besides turning to testing.

Edit: I'm going to look into this more, and consider buying cheap parts for testing. That being said, any answers are very much appreciated if for no other reason than validation or confirmation. Also, I get frustrated sometimes but it's usually with the nature of feeling lost. I'm very appreciative of all the help I've received on these forums.

 

TLDR;

I will flesh this out and put the focus on the mixing in an updated schematic sometime this weekend. I like to work on projects late at night on Saturdays usually. The rest of this post is if you want to understand more, but it's going to be seen in the schematic.


So I'm actually using three active EQ's, but two of them are modular, and take the path of the second EQ (EQ2-1, EQ2-2). I'm thinking of placing them in series. EQ1 is an Aguilar OBP-3; EQ2-1 and EQ2-2 are East BTB-01 and Mid Sweep-01; EQ3 is a PMT DMT.

As for the schematic, you can look at it, but I have a much more complicated and complete version that I've avoided showing thus far because it's a lot to take in, and is not in a finished state. I made the current schematic up for this thread, and it's wired weird to give examples of how the Noll pot might work. What I will say is that I'm trying to have two pickups in series, with each combination also including another pickup mixed into the parallel pickup. It will also include a straight series mode for all three pickups, and parallel for all as well. I'm not sure how this is possible yet as mixing seems to be a big issue and contact points start adding up.

I'm not against using active splitters if needed, and that's actually what I went with originally before I moved to balance pots instead of two volume controls per pickup. Then I attempted to add shunt volume controls so that each pickup would have independent volume controls, and it's been a big headache, but if it's possible, it'll add so much more usability. I'm not sure how this can work with active splitters as it would seem that doing the series/parallel stuff before the volume controls would negate the ability to have a volume per pickup as the two signals would collide and become one signal (but it might not, and I have some ideas that need exploring), and the possibility has plagued my mind far longer than I'd like to admit. It's something I have to look into again as it's been a while. Adding series/parallel wiring after the splitter I assume wouldn't work at all, unless I made the thing far more complicated without much benefit. I can't even imagine how big of a headache that might be, but as always, I could be wrong. The active splitter's diagram may have been pulled from that same website, but I'll look into it again over the weekend.

There's a thread I created, that follows up on a post the user fig started which deals with individual volume controls while in series mode. I should explore it again myself. Here's links to his, then mine, I'm not claiming completeness here, but it's a start.

Two series pickups with independent volume and tone controls. Two methods.
Three pickup bass parallel/series switch

The way I'm doing this is by using tons of contact points, for parallel/series options for internal wiring between PU2 and PU3, then series and parallel for the system ((electrical mashups of PU2, and PU3), plus PU1 equals the full system). I call this the prepreamp stage because I think it's humorous. The bottom line is that I was waiting to clean a lot of this up until I was sure that I could use pots that had the spec's I've detailed above, and work out the best way to mix it all. This beginning stuff is all completed and gone over, but the end points connecting to volumes is incomplete as I'm still stuck on how to obtain independent volume controls in series mode, and mixed modes with two pickups in series, and one in parallel.

So what do I have left? How to do the best mix, and confirm it works with two pickups wired in series, and one in parallel, while having independent volume controls, and adding the mod's I want to the DPDT push/pulls. Now that I know I actually have the six contact points for the push/pulls, those should not take long. I plan on finishing a lot of that this weekend. However, the mixing remains, and I've thought about it in about any way I can think of. I just don't know how electrical flow works well enough to know that what I'm putting together will function together. Attenuation? Sure, but two (or three) independently controlled pickups in series possibly mixed with another in parallel, if only two virtual (or traditional) pickups are in series? I'm really not sure how that point where the connections do connect won't mess everything else up.

There's also a fourth EQ, but it is a passive high pass/low pass filter, and is planned to come into play (and replace) EQ2 on PU1 when the vol1's DPDT is pulled out. When it is pulled, it will replace EQ2's half of the balance knob for PU1 only. At the back end, the master volume's DPDT determines if EQ3-1 (passive high pass/low pass filter) get's it's own output on the ring of a TRS output jack, or just get's mixed in with the rest. If it is delegated to the ring of the output jack, the volume from vol1 becomes the only way to control the output volume of EQ3-1. In any case, EQ1 is always active and connected to the left side of the balance knob, while the right side is always active, except when EQ3-1 is active. In which case PU1's right side of the blend knob controls how much signal goes to EQ3-1, while vol1 becomes it's master volume. EQ1, and EQ2-1, and EQ2-2 are always mixed at the master vol pot with the balance knob. This will be made clear in an updated schematic/diagram.

I am curious of the type of tapers blend knobs can possess, and their functionality. A simple Google search doesn't seem to show much at all.

Anyway, the goal here is to have a lot of complexity, and nearly every option imaginable in one bass. One pot is more complicated than most wiring for a whole system. I know that, but I'm trying for something crazy that just might work. If or when, I can get it all together, hot swapping pickups would allow a person to test just about combination and then simplify it. In essence, if this works, I see it as a platform for finding the best options that someone would want to keep. Then a more basic wiring could be achievable by removing things that do not fit the more focused design, or are no longer necessary because they won't be needed in said focused design, or the features are unwanted because of the complexity, or cost.

All this together may essentially be a poopie post, as it may take away from the primary reason for posting anyway. I really need to figure out the mixing without a bunch of extraneous stuff. So the DPDT switches used for nonmixing purposes, 4PDT's, push/pulls, internal pickup wiring, splitting pickups, etc. are all unnecessary to the core tenant of series with individual volume controls, in series mixed with a parallel PU, and how to guide that signal with balance controls, if possible, to their respective EQ's while being mixed at the end as well. I've gone to the point of thinking about multiplexers, but I'd rather that be a last resort. Eventually, maybe, it will be on PCB. I will try to focus on the signal chain, and keep the schematic as simple I can for focus.

As for power, well, I don't know how much these components take, but originally, I thought it was adequate. Instead of 500 hours or 250 hours, I think it was somewhere in the range of 80-100 hours. That was with three active splitters, two or three active EQ's and I think one four channel mixer with one output (won't work.)

It might be worth it to wait until I have modified the schematic over the weekend, unless you just want to tinker with it or think about it. I've been super busy since Tuesday, and spent most of Wednesday improving the readability of this schematic. And it's already time for bed, and I haven't eaten. Blegh.

 

Here's the updated schematic. Like I said, I kept it as simple as I could, and everything that affects the signal chain should be represented. The volume controls are shunt based for individual volume controls when in series mode or series + one in parallel. They also are no load pots (not grounded), except for the master volume. The passive mixing is there to not fudge up the series/parallel side together getting a mixed signal too soon. If that shouldn't be an issue and I can just connect the outputs together even when adding a parallel pickup to two pickups in series, that'd be great, but I'm not sure if it'd be effective or not.

Most will probably have to familiarize themselves with the Freeway Switch Ultra to understand the diagram, or just know that it's basically a 4P6T. CA, and CB are common's. 1A and 1B are in position 1, and each adjourning number can be soldered together, 1A and 2A for example. The common can be used, or one side 1A top or 1A bottom to form a signal path.

The positions and what they do are marked in the diagram. The only thing I didn't do yet that would affect the mixing, or rather power, is to remove the connection from the buffer when not in use, but functionally the signal chain will be the same either way.

I am considering getting custom potentiometers from State Electronics as they provide potentiometers with a modular design, and are supposed to have no minimum order. I'm pretty sure they they have something incredibly close to an M/N taper. It's a little weird as I'd need one for both left and right turns, and they call that two potentiometers in their marketing/spec sheets.

 

Will do. I'm not sure what my budget is. I tried soldering, and it didn't turn out that great. While I would like to do most of it myself, with this level of complexity, I'm almost certain I'll need someone who is excellent at soldering electronics not just someone who can more basic guitar electronics. I'm all for practice, but this doesn't seem to be a place for that

I do realize that creating a PCB is probably also a really good idea even if it was just for wire management. I have not done this before.

As for cost, I'm not sure but probably enough to see this through completion. I'm averse to stating how much I'm willing to spend because I'd rather consider a breakdown price instead of showing my cards, but I really want this thing, and I've put in a lot of time, energy, effort, and money into it already. I'm going to get this thing done one way or another. I have the pickups, and the four switches the full system will require which includes some not shown here. Two 4PDT's and two Freeway Switch Ultras total. I also have the EQ's, and one active mixer. I have a really nice multimeter that I could use for breadboard testing, but I've never used one yet, and it'd probably make sense to use an oscilloscope. I have access to one at a maker space I'm part of. That's where I plan to do the physical modifications to the bass I have. So far, I've probably put in $2,500+ into tools, electrical parts, tuners and bridge, plus six string bass.

As for option 6 being exactly the same as position 3, I had to look up out of phase wiring in relation to series vs parallel wiring, and also how the push/pull DPDT worked. Position 6 will be all PU's in series with PU3 out of phase. The DPDT on vol3 will put the virtual PU assigned to vol3 out of phase when pulled. I call them virtual PUs because some options will include coils from different pickups to form their own humbuckers.

 

I hear you. It may not look it, but I've done just what you've mentioned. Most people just don't understand, want, think it's worth it, think it's possible to pull off, think it's bloated, or agree with my goal.

Yes, I've thought of both, but didn't really give the first the time of day. I'll consider it if it seems necessary, or just a better solution. Currently, I'm thinking of using rechargable 9v batteries, or maybe just regular ones. There just aren't that many good lithium options for guitars that wouldn't add an extreme level of bloat, or cost like $200 for an 18v system. For all I'm spending, it still might be worth it :/