# Ways to wire DiMarzio Model P in series with Model J, avoiding humbucker in series with humbucker?

Discussion in 'Pickups & Electronics [BG]' started by NoiseNinja, Feb 20, 2021.

1. ### NoiseNinjaExperimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-droneInactive

Feb 23, 2011
Denmark
So I am pondering if I were to wire the DiMarzio Model P, P pickup, with the Model J, split coil J pickup, while avoiding the boomy mud fest of connecting a humbucker pickup in series with a humbucker pickup, and I am thinking this could possibly be done in 3 possible ways, described bellow:

I would think that if I were to do it I would either have to wire the two coils of each pickup respectively in phase with each other parallely so that they were not hum canceling alone, but then wire the two pickups out of phase with each other in series with each other, to achieve a hum canceling effect, or maybe even better wire one half of the Model P in series with one coil of the Model J and then the other half of the Model P then in series with the other coil of the Model J, either in a split coil fashion, with the 2 coils and rows of pole pieces being positioned opposite sides to each other, kind of like a P with a quite far distance between it's 2 halfs, or more like 2 independent regular humbuckers, one for the E and A string, and one for the D and G string, with a quite far distance between it's 2 same sided coils and rows of pole pieces, and then finally those 2 separate series humbucker sides being connected in parallel with each other, would that be a correct assumption, if this is even doable, or remotely likely to give a worthwhile result, in which case what would should one expect to achieve by each of the different approaches respectively, and which would be likely to give the best result?

Like this:

Last edited: Feb 20, 2021
2. ### Jazz AdMi la ré sol

You're overthinking this. Each pickup is a a complete humbucker by itself.
You can wire the pickups parallel or series to each other just like that and it'll work.
You can also wire coils from each pickup series or parallel, it still is a humbucker.
Leaves phases alone they're fine the way they are in the first place.

BassToGoGo likes this.
3. ### NoiseNinjaExperimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-droneInactive

Feb 23, 2011
Denmark
Yes, but what would be achieved by the different ways to connect the 2 pickups to each other respectively, if one was to avoid connecting a series humbucker with a series humbucker in series, and also not just wire the two split coil style pickups the traditional way, as in in series with them self and in parallel with each other?

Seems to me that that would give at least 2 alternative wiring options (as two independent humbuckers consisting of one of the P coils and one of the J coils each wired in series, then those two indpendent half sided humbuckers wired in parallel, but then having the additional option of choosing the 2 coils of each of the two independent humbucking halfs, either as 1 coil from each pickup being on the same side, like a regular series humbucker would, or opposite sides of each other, like a split coil type of humbucking pickup), which might or might not have their own unique worthwhile tonal qualities.

Like this:

I edited my post to make my actual point with this a bit clearer, which you might have missed (sorry about the confusion this has caused), try to read my updated post.

Last edited: Feb 20, 2021
4. ### mmbongoI have too many basses.Supporting Member

I'm getting a headache trying to figure out what you're trying to achieve.

Here's one thing I have learned about trying to make simple pickup wiring overly difficult: if nobody in the history of electric instruments has wired pickups this way, there's usually a good reason.

5. ### NoiseNinjaExperimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-droneInactive

Feb 23, 2011
Denmark
I am sure they said the exact same thing about the wheel and electricity when someone was in the process of inventing/discovering that.

Not saying that my speculations here of potential alternative ways to wire these specific pickups is even just remotely any where near as revolutionary, just saying that your argument is totally invalid, and that that is the kind of thinking that prevents or slows any form for progress.

People daring to think differently and see things from new perspectives are the people who have the sole responsibility and honor of having pressed history forward.

If everyone was thinking like you we would still live in caves and use unprocessed rocks and sticks as tools, and freeze at night and eat raw meat, because the technique of how to produce fire never got discovered either.

Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
6. ### mmbongoI have too many basses.Supporting Member

Well. Good luck. Please report your findings and post sound clips when you are finished with the wiring.

packhowitzer and BassToGoGo like this.
7. ### dwizum

Dec 21, 2018
I realized my math was wrong in the hypothetical example I based my answer on so I'm editing it out. I don't expect you'll notice a difference in your proposed wiring versus just putting the two pickups in parallel with each other as would normally be done.

Further, your two suggested approaches have the disadvantage that you can no longer solo each individual pickup, or even adjust balance between them, without things getting very highly skewed and wonky.

All that said, I know there have been at least a few people who have done close to what you're describing, but usually with two identical pickups (i.e. two P's) and usually with the specific goal of solo'ing a purposefully unbalanced combination. Doing something similar to this with two P's that are close together can get you a method to swap between a normal P and a very skewed reverse P, for instance.

Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
NoiseNinja and Jim C like this.
8. ### dwizum

Dec 21, 2018
One more thought. If your ultimate goal is to seek a unique tone, for instance to put humbuckers in series and not get a ton of midrange, why not learn to wind your own pickups? Then you don't have to be constrained by what's not working for you with off the shelf pickups.

9. ### Jazz AdMi la ré sol

NoiseNinja likes this.
10. ### JackcrowSupporting Member

Jul 10, 2017
North Dakota
I mean you could use some DPDT switches and be able to switch each pickup separately between series/parallel and then another one to switch series/parallel between the 2.

NoiseNinja likes this.
11. ### avvie

Oct 12, 2010
Maui, HI
LMAO

bombpop14, BassToGoGo and Jackcrow like this.
12. ### ardgedee

May 13, 2018
OP, unless there's an large disparity in impedance between the P and J sets, there won't be a significant electrical difference between what you propose and a conventional setup of the P set wired serially, J set wired serially, and the sets wired in parallel.

When you think of the pickups' roles in the larger electrical circuit, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether the left P has a serial connection to the right P, the right J, or the left J, because they present nearly the same load on the circuit.

So wiring half the P to half the J won't do anything special to the tone that you couldn't get with a conventional circuit, it only allows you the ability to control them differently. And this is where your idea will have a distinct, but predictable result. For example, say you have the left P/right J controlled by one volume pot, and the right P/left J controlled by another volume pot. The result would allow you to, say, emphasize the bridge pickup on the upper strings and the neck pickup on the lower strings, or vice versa. And you could wire in tone controls to add further distinction between the upper and lower strings. That could be useful for the music you want to play but it's going to be of limited value to most musicians who are trying to even out the tonal differences between strings rather than exacerbate them.

13. ### -Asdfgh-

Apr 13, 2010
UK
We have perfectly good round wheels so there isn't much of a market for square ones .

If you want a wide variety of tones just add a series/parallel option for each pickup and an overall series/parallel switch and VVTT. I've done something similar (if only VVT) on a bass with two full width humbuckers, had a bass with series/parallel on a P pickup and have two Jazz basses with series/parallel. You gain tone options with ease. Messing with phase gets you relatively little on bass as whilst on guitar losing a lot of low end can help sit in a mix unless you are in New Order, it doesn't help so much with bass.

NoiseNinja and BassToGoGo like this.
14. ### avvie

Oct 12, 2010
Maui, HI
This coming from the guy who didnt just go ahead and attempt his weirdo wiring scheme instead of asking for permission from an internet forum.

15. ### 40HzSupporting Member

That a bad analogy and has nothing to do with bass wiring schemes.

When it comes to passive bass wiring (which itself is about as simple a circuit as you’ll find anywhere) there is no invention or discovery to be had beyond your own personal edification and education. It’s all been examined, re-examined, tried, and done before. Switching schemes, series/paralle, phase switching, coil splitting and coil tapping, cap switching and varitones, passive air coils... you name it. It’s been done.

There’s only so many ways to wire a passive bass and have it produce a useable result - or even work at all. The guitar community has also had something like 70+ years to ditz with it. So there’s no surprises left. Because (to say it one more time) it’s a very simple circuit whose electronics technology goes back to the beginning of the last century.

You are basically four ways to wire two pickups without getting into coil splits:
• in series
• in parallel in-phase
• in parallel out-of-phase
• with each pickup going to it’s own independent output channel either through a stereo jack (e.g. Rickenbaker’s Ric-O-Sound) or two separate jacks like on a Yamaha Billy Sheehan bass.
Out of phase will sound thin and nasally. I doubt you’ll like that sound.

Parallel sacrifices output level for a cleaner tone.

Series will give you more output level but will also produce a hotter more overwound sound.

So it sounds like you want go with parallel rather than series wiring. There are already dozens of wiring diagrams that’ll show you how to do that.

But IMO the Dimarzio Model P and J pickups (both of which I like) aren't all that clean sounding to begin with. If you want a significantly cleaner tone you’ll need to look at different pickups. I’d suggest a Wilde P46 and J45 combination.

NoiseNinja likes this.
16. ### NoiseNinjaExperimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-droneInactive

Feb 23, 2011
Denmark
Well, I don't think my OP in any way insinuate that that was my intention, what it should clearly indicate is though that I am asking people who might have had experience with similar alternative wiring and more knowledge about such stuff than me what results I likely could likely expect getting if I went through with this, and if it even was doable.

I think it is actually perfectly sensible to do some research before just going through with stuff that you know others have more knowledge about than yourself or might even have gone through experimenting with before yourself.

And in the first place my question was really more spawn from curiosity after having realized these potential alternative wiring options were possible, rather than really a wish to go through with it myself, hoping other might have had experience with it or knowledge that could satisfy my curiosity for the outcome of such.

Nothing wrong with being curious as far as I am concerned, and nothing wrong with not doing the experiments yourself if other have gone through similar experiments them self before or otherwise am able to tell what results was likely to be expected from such.

All I really wanted to know.

It was other people in this thread and not me who seemed to believe that I needed their permission to even ask such questions, since seemingly to them even thinking about non conventional potential alternatives apparently was seen as an offend of their conception of reality, and not me.

I am not, and as far as I am concerned shouldn't be, apologizing for being curious about the outcome of seemingly overlooked possible alternative solutions to stuff, and I don't think anything I wrote in this thread indicates that I would or am in any possible way either.

I am asking because I am not knowledgeable enough myself to be able to figure out if such alternatives would be worthwhile, no reason to mock me for my lack of knowledge, since that obviously is the whole point with why I would ask and make this thread, to benefit from other people's greater knowledge about this stuff, and I don't really think that there anything that inherently that should have told me that this was not an overlooked viable alternative, as this is definitely not a matter of common sense and knowledge, and since most people seems to per automatics by conventions, it certainly wouldn't have been the first time if alternative viable solutions would have been overlooked.

This is not even something that you are supposed to know or ought to have learned in school, and I obviously asked in hopes to get an answer to my pondering, not to be mocked and patronized for even thinking about asking that question and not knowing already.

"Shame of you for thinking such an absolutely absurd thought, and you ought to know that perfectly well. ", is not really helpful, and naturally will leave me no wiser about if, and if so why, it really is such an absurd though as the person thinks it is, and I am naturally going to reply accordingly to such replies.

What some people here on the forum seemingly fails to understand is that it is perfectly possible to answer a less knowledgeable person's questions without in the same instance also telling them that they are imbeciles for not already knowing, despite their question in no way being what one might consider common sense or knowledge, and all it really requires is not being a jerk.

Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
17. ### avvie

Oct 12, 2010
Maui, HI
Which would have been fine if you hadn't've have told them that they're idiots who would be trapped in the paleolithic era for questioning your question.

Marihino likes this.
18. ### avvie

Oct 12, 2010
Maui, HI
Anyway, good luck and let us know what happens.

19. ### NoiseNinjaExperimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-droneInactive

Feb 23, 2011
Denmark
Well, they basically insinuated that I was for asking, not going to thank them for that.

"Shame on you for thinking such an absolutely absurd thought, and you ought to know perfectly well why. " (which wasn't their actual reply, but something very similar seemed to be the actual intend of it), is not really helpful, and naturally will leave me no wiser about if, and if so why, it really is such an absurd thought as the person thinks it is, and I am naturally going to reply accordingly to such replies.

Thanks to the people who did shed some light on my original question though (patronizing doing so or not, which I obviously isn't going to thank them for).

Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
20. ### avvie

Oct 12, 2010
Maui, HI
Nobody said that. This was the actual quote, and it is perfectly reasonable:

Marihino likes this.
21. ### PrimaryTB Assistant

Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

Jan 28, 2022