# Wiring Harness clean up.



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

I was experimenting with different configurations a few months back and when I’m doing that I make a lot of mistakes and get angry and sloppy at times.

As this is one of my only guitars and it is the best one that I have put together, I decided to sit down and rebuild this harness in a more respectful manner with more intention and patience.


















This is a Telecaster 3 way wiring on a strat.
The middle pickup is activated in any position and blended in using the second tone knob. It doesn’t add any volume, just brings in that quack-phase-tastic sound in any of the 3 positions.

I have to say, I strongly recommend it over a 5 way and think that it’s well worth trying on any 3 pickup strat. I find the middle pickup to be shit on its own and don’t much like position 2 or 4 on a 5 way. This gives you a Telecaster as a starting point and then a lot of combinations afterward but with the benefit of a strat neck. It also allows you to blend in the middle on the bridge in such a way that gets very twangy and Tele - like. Very useful especially once you get into pedal combinations.










The cap you see on the volume knob is a 1000pf / 100k treble bleed. Also recommend checking out this article if you are like me and like to use knobs and lower volume / recording applications.









Treble Bleed Circuit – What is it and do I need it?


Have you ever noticed that when you turn down the volume on your guitar or bass that your signal loses some treble and starts to sound muddy and lifeless?




octavedoctor.com


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

Sounds like this is an improvement to me nice job thanks for posting.


----------



## Latole (Aug 11, 2020)

Very nice job , congrat


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

BlueRocker said:


> Sounds like this is an improvement to me nice job thanks for posting.


It’s nice to remove all the wires and solder and start from scratch once in a while. It makes it more organized and easier to access in future. Setting up all of the wires and leads and caps without solder and then being able to do it minimally gratifying.

I’ve more or less had the same wiring harness since my first strat. Switching around one component or another.


----------



## Latole (Aug 11, 2020)

It is a very beautiful work but, it must be agreed, that it does not change at all the sound compared to a "standard Fender factory wiring.


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

Latole said:


> It is a very beautiful work but, it must be agreed, that it does not change at all the sound compared to a "standard Fender factory wiring.


no it mustn’t


----------



## Rollin Hand (Jul 12, 2012)

Given that I can't do wiring worth a damn, that is a nice, clean job. Well done.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Latole said:


> It is a very beautiful work but, it must be agreed, that it does not change at all the sound compared to a "standard Fender factory wiring.


I’m not sure what you mean.


----------



## myyykkee (Nov 25, 2018)

Really clean. Great job!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It better damn well be neat, tidy, and well done, because accessing the electronics on a Strat is only a_ little _easier than accessing them on an ES-335. It's not the sort of thing you want to have to get at a 2nd or 3rd time. Why oh why couldn't Fender have done with the Strat what they did with the Telecaster, Jaguar, and so many others - a plastic pickguard and separate metal control plate?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

That's nice clean wiring. The blend pot makes more sense to me than a second tone knob. Heck I don't even use them when there's only ONE!

Let me ask what may be a very rudimentary question for may of you.

If you go straight from a pickup to a master volume and then an output jack, do you still perceive a loss of treble when you back the volume pot down?

Whether I should or shouldn't, I don't. It seems like just the volume drops and it cleans up. No treble loss. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Am I hearing what I want to hear?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> It better damn well be neat, tidy, and well done, because accessing the electronics on a Strat is only a_ little _easier than accessing them on an ES-335. It's not the sort of thing you want to have to get at a 2nd or 3rd time. Why oh why couldn't Fender have done with the Strat what they did with the Telecaster, Jaguar, and so many others - a plastic pickguard and separate metal control plate?


Or rear mounted controls and no pickguards at all.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

mhammer said:


> Why oh why couldn't Fender have done with the Strat what they did with the Telecaster, Jaguar, and so many others


I reckon for ease of manufacturing assembly, the entire pickguard/pickups/controls assembly could be dropped in place and screwed on, only requiring connection to the output jack.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul Running said:


> I reckon for ease of manufacturing assembly, the entire pickguard/pickups/controls assembly could be dropped in place and screwed on, only requiring connection to the output jack.


Yes, it was a cost cutting idea.

They weren't really catering to the back yard guitar mechanics among us.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Yep. Once upon a time, musicians generally didn't own a soldering iron, or even know someone with one. But times are different, now. Doesn't even have to be any sort of custom wiring. Consider just how many posts here, and ONLY here have been about changing pickups on a Strat. The days of buying a Strat and leaving it completely untouched under the hood for its entire tenure as your guitar are few and far between. Fender has produced so many Strat "models" that were only different in their pickup complement, you would think they could anticipate the need for easier access to the underside.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

As the saying goes, "It's easy to be tall when you stand on the shoulders of giants".

Me claiming to have improved on the designs of such people is like a flea claiming dominion over the dog.

Nevertheless, I have different priorities than efficiency in assembly / mass production and with that comes different ideas.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Note that there are Jazzmaster models with everything mounted on one big pickguard, and some models with a 2-parter, using a metal control plate for pots and jack. So it's not like they haven't EVER thought about it.

But since I omitted mentioning it earlier. Kudos for a nice job on the rewiring, 12.

One of these days, I'd love to see a graph of the various compensated volume arrangements that plotted frequency response over each of, say, 5-or-10 standard volume settings. I typically use only a cap straddling the input and wiper. The wiring here uses 1000pf (a larger than common value for this) and the 100k resistor. The resistor changes the taper of the pot, though not in any sort of "bad" way. But that's why I'd love to see a graph comparing what each of the variations does, so a person could look at it and say "Yep, THAT one is the one I need that works best for me".

The Duncan Tonestack calculator - available online: TSC in the web - does a great job showing what changes to component values of a wide array of tone stacks do. I should contact them and ask about a similar thing for volume controls.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Note that there are Jazzmaster models with everything mounted on one big pickguard, and some models with a 2-parter, using a metal control plate for pots and jack. So it's not like they haven't EVER thought about it.


Yes, but still with mass production in mind. Nothing wrong with that. My idea of a Jazzer.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Milkman said:


> That's nice clean wiring. The blend pot makes more sense to me than a second tone knob. Heck I don't even use them when there's only ONE!
> 
> Let me ask what may be a very rudimentary question for may of you.
> 
> ...


I find that the treble bleed for me is just a way of forcing the tone control to do only one job etc.

I like to sit down with an amp or start recording with the volume and tone knob on 5/10 and then by the time I get to a pushed signal or lead of any type, I end up altering one or the other in either direction to accommodate the pickup position or pedal.

I try to reserve all of my treble bleed / cap experimenting to the Tele for exaclty the reason you mentioned. Ease of access. I like the idea that I can retain a certain frequency even with the volume barely on and it forces the tone knob to control how much treble I take away etc.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

mhammer said:


> Note that there are Jazzmaster models with everything mounted on one big pickguard, and some models with a 2-parter, using a metal control plate for pots and jack. So it's not like they haven't EVER thought about it.
> 
> But since I omitted mentioning it earlier. Kudos for a nice job on the rewiring, 12.
> 
> ...


The link that I shared offers some of the popular values and circuit options for treble bleeds.

Right now I’m using 900pf Russian mica’s and 100k pots in both of my guitars, I’m still on the fence about wether I like the way it’s affecting the volume taper. I actually just started really measuring pot tapers and taking them apart and cleaning them and then tinning the entire outer shell etc.

In 2022 I’m thinking about building wiring harnesses and maybe single coil pickups to sell. I’m looking at where I can buy a mid range pickup winder. I really enjoy soldering and wiring in general. I’m beggining to dive deeper into the math behind it, but I’m reluctant lol.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Let me ask what may be a very rudimentary question for may of you.
> 
> If you go straight from a pickup to a master volume and then an output jack, do you still perceive a loss of treble when you back the volume pot down?
> 
> Whether I should or shouldn't, I don't. It seems like just the volume drops and it cleans up. No treble loss. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Am I hearing what I want to hear?


I should have answered this earlier. My bad.
The impact of the volume control on treble is a result of the interaction between volume pot and cable, not between volume pot and what else is in the guitar.

In the scenario you describe with the volume up full, the amp "looks" down the cable and sees two things going from the jack to ground. One is the 500k resistance of the pot. The other is the 7-12k of the pickup/s. The amp "prefers" the lower impedance source as signal and willingly accepts the full bandwidth. If the pot is down halfway, the amp sees a pair of paths to ground from the wiper, one of 250k, and the other of 250k+pickup resistance.

One can look at it from the guitar's vantage point as well. Let's say we have a 20ft cable with a capacitance of 40pf/ft. So, a total of 800pf. From the input of the pot to the cable is zero ohms . But now let's say we turn the pot down halfway. From the wiper to ground is 250k, but from the pickup to the wiper of the pot s now 250k. A 250k resistance into an 800pf capacitance to ground provides a 6db.oct rolloff starting just under 800hz. 

Not sure if that clears things up. Bottom line: a pickup with lots of treble content will perceptibly lose that content as you turn down the volume. The impact will be less if the pickup doesn't have that much treble to begin with.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

mhammer said:


> It better damn well be neat, tidy, and well done, because accessing the electronics on a Strat is only a_ little _easier than accessing them on an ES-335. It's not the sort of thing you want to have to get at a 2nd or 3rd time. Why oh why couldn't Fender have done with the Strat what they did with the Telecaster, Jaguar, and so many others - a plastic pickguard and separate metal control plate?


I remember the first time I opened up a Stratocaster, I think it was a Jayde Pearl MIM and I had been playing guitar for about 6 months and never soldered anything in my life and the first thing that came to mind was “nope.. this spiders nest is not ok”. Since then I have never accepted a factory made wiring job and I am always amazed that I walk into stores and discover the amount of wiring issues on brand new items.

I would literally volunteer for free to fix them. That’s how much I enjoy the smell of lead based solder lol.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

mhammer said:


> I should have answered this earlier. My bad.
> The impact of the volume control on treble is a result of the interaction between volume pot and cable, not between volume pot and what else is in the guitar.
> 
> In the scenario you describe with the volume up full, the amp "looks" down the cable and sees two things going from the jack to ground. One is the 500k resistance of the pot. The other is the 7-12k of the pickup/s. The amp "prefers" the lower impedance source as signal and willingly accepts the full bandwidth. If the pot is down halfway, the amp sees a pair of paths to ground from the wiper, one of 250k, and the other of 250k+pickup resistance.
> ...


Far better answer than what I could provide lol! 
I always just make things up when someone asks me a question about science or math.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks. My own stubborn view has been that all the received wisdom about 250k volume pots for single coils and 500k for humbuckers is absolutely true....IF YOU NEVER TURN YOUR VOLUME DOWN. The undiscussed part of those traditional recommendations is that the moment you turn your guitar volume down even a smidgen, you will have added part of the volume pot's resistance (the part between the input lug and wiper) in series with the pickups. At that point, not only is one potentially increasing the impact of cable capacitance, but one is also "loading down" the pickups. Compensating volume controls attempts to adjust what "escapes" the volume pot wiper and makes it to the output jack, as the volume level is adjusted.

I guess there is an inclination to compare compensated volume controls to the "loudness" control/switch/adjustment on audio amplifiers. The loudness control compensates for the Fletcher-Munson curves, which plot how the frequency-sensitivity of our hearing changes with sound-pressure level. Human hear is optimized for the frequency range of human speech, such that we can still clearly hear upper bass, nearly all mids, and lower treble, even at whisper-level. Content below and above that becomes more audible to us as SPL increases. But music includes sound sources *other* than human voice, so the loudness circuit provides for a little more bass and treble at lower volume-level settings, and tapers that off as the volume control is turned up.

Compensated volume on a guitar, however, is not tailored towards human hearing quirks, but rather towards the electronic quirks of our rigs; specifically the effects of cable capacitance and signal "loading" on the maintenance of pickup bandwidth across volume settings. Some players - and Jeff Beck immediately comes to mind - use that loading as a deliberate strategy. Beck dimes his amp and keeps his Strat's volume control turned down, turning it up occasionally to get more raunch. That he dimes his amp is a clear indication that this is not about compensating for hearing differences at low SPLs. And of course, Hendrix provides a good illustration of how some players deliberately use cable capacitance to achieve a given tone. Marshall amps can be bright, as can Strats, and Hendrix used a long curly cord which normally presents a much higher cable capacitance than the uncurly ones we are familiar with, "rounding off the edges" of his tone. I doubt he selected it FOR the cable capacitance, More than likely he used one so he wouldn't trip over it as he moved around the stage. But at the same time, I doubt he would have stuck with it if he felt it interfered with his desired tone, even if neither he or his crew understood why.

The impact of compensated and uncompensated volume pot settings disappears if there is a buffer stage between the volume pot and output jack, with any resistance of the pot being effectively disconnected from cable and cable capacitance.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

mhammer said:


> Thanks. My own stubborn view has been that all the received wisdom about 250k volume pots for single coils and 500k for humbuckers is absolutely true....IF YOU NEVER TURN YOUR VOLUME DOWN. The undiscussed part of those traditional recommendations is that the moment you turn your guitar volume down even a smidgen, you will have added part of the volume pot's resistance (the part between the input lug and wiper) in series with the pickups. At that point, not only is one potentially increasing the impact of cable capacitance, but one is also "loading down" the pickups. Compensating volume controls attempts to adjust what "escapes" the volume pot wiper and makes it to the output jack, as the volume level is adjusted.
> 
> I guess there is an inclination to compare compensated volume controls to the "loudness" control/switch/adjustment on audio amplifiers. The loudness control compensates for the Fletcher-Munson curves, which plot how the frequency-sensitivity of our hearing changes with sound-pressure level. Human hear is optimized for the frequency range of human speech, such that we can still clearly hear upper bass, nearly all mids, and lower treble, even at whisper-level. Content below and above that becomes more audible to us as SPL increases. But music includes sound sources *other* than human voice, so the loudness circuit provides for a little more bass and treble at lower volume-level settings, and tapers that off as the volume control is turned up.
> 
> ...


You just Sherlock Holmes’d my inner thoughts about sound. I have always had really sensitive hearing and noise itself has always been disturbing to me (ADHd). I find that a audio production and experimenting intrigues me so much is because it gives me an opportunity to organize and control sound.

What you touch on about the human ear and how our ears are programmed to hear and the volumes and SPL of both human voice vs mechanically generated sound is definitely something not discussed often enough in guitar circles I’d imagine.

I am an amateur to the science behind what you are talking about, but I spend a lot of time listening to sounds and amps and guitars through microphones into headphones and studio monitors and it changes the way I look at volume and sibilants when it comes to guitars and amps.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I had the luxury of having Al Bregman as one of my undergraduate profs, and the guy who introduced me to how to really think about human cognition. Al is the creator of the field of "auditory scene analysis" ( Auditory scene analysis - Wikipedia ), that you may find right up your alley. Here's a more detailed academic article about the topic. Computational Models of Auditory Scene Analysis: A Review

Bregman's approach is that, okay, we look out at the visual world and we see objects, shadows, distance, textures, all readily differentiable from each other, and we somewhat take that for granted. The last 100 years have entailed extensive research into just how we do that differentiation, despite having only two eyes. So how on earth do we perceive a world of distinct sound sources, durations, ambience, direction, etc., despite having only two ears? What are the "rules" we apply to organizing all the sound that enters our ears such that it forms "scenes" that we can imagine, even with our eyes closed? Bregman proposed that there are rules very similar to those proposed by Gestalt psychologists in the '30s and '40s regarding the organization of visual stimuli. In a sense, what we hear is not just sound, but inferences about sound. One certainly has to factor in the physical/biological apparatus, and the physical information applied to the ear, but the perceiver and how they categorize and prioritize that information is similarly important. I use that approach in much of how I think about music gear and especially effect pedals and production.

Much like visual illusions, there can be auditory illusions and ambiguities as well, when these "rules" are exploited. For instance, like this illusion. A row of chess pieces or people nodding to each other? Which way one sees it depends on the characteristics or cue/s one initially latches onto that suggest an informative role for other cues, and so on. Similar phenomena happen with sound, such that we draw inferences about sound sources based on some very basic principles, but also how some features "jump out" at us.

Al is now 85 and retired from teaching, but still active. His former faculty position at McGill is now filled by Daniel Levitin, best known for hs book "This is Your Brain on Music".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I asked on the Diystompbox forum about extending the Duncan Tonestack calculator to include volume-compensation schemes, and one of the more astute members noted that the TSC site could be "adapted". He shows how. Request for the Duncan TSC site


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

If you know of somebody that is very familiar with Kylix, here's a link to the source code:




__





Tone Stack Calculator: Linux






www.duncanamps.com


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

mhammer said:


> I had the luxury of having Al Bregman as one of my undergraduate profs, and the guy who introduced me to how to really think about human cognition. Al is the creator of the field of "auditory scene analysis" ( Auditory scene analysis - Wikipedia ), that you may find right up your alley. Here's a more detailed academic article about the topic. Computational Models of Auditory Scene Analysis: A Review
> 
> Bregman's approach is that, okay, we look out at the visual world and we see objects, shadows, distance, textures, all readily differentiable from each other, and we somewhat take that for granted. The last 100 years have entailed extensive research into just how we do that differentiation, despite having only two eyes. So how on earth do we perceive a world of distinct sound sources, durations, ambience, direction, etc., despite having only two ears? What are the "rules" we apply to organizing all the sound that enters our ears such that it forms "scenes" that we can imagine, even with our eyes closed? Bregman proposed that there are rules very similar to those proposed by Gestalt psychologists in the '30s and '40s regarding the organization of visual stimuli. In a sense, what we hear is not just sound, but inferences about sound. One certainly has to factor in the physical/biological apparatus, and the physical information applied to the ear, but the perceiver and how they categorize and prioritize that information is similarly important. I use that approach in much of how I think about music gear and especially effect pedals and production.
> 
> ...


This is the exact kind of study that interests me about sound and film / design for that matter.

I took a course called music in the city which is all about soundscapes and noise pollution and the psychological effect it has one people and different kinds of people as well.

It’s amazing how much we use our latent inhibition to fill in the gaps and arrive at the over all compositions of sensory input. I also have studied adhd in adults and children and how some people with ADHD like myself border on what’s known as Low Latent Inhibition which creates a latency with a recognition of sights or sounds at times when there is too much stimulus. This can actually be an asset for artists as it forces us to look at familiar sights and sounds and feelings and deconstruct / question them. When I was younger an education psychologist told me that this could make you a genius or crazy if I don’t teach myself to not get caught up all the time on the small stuff. It certainly hasn’t made me a genius yet or fully crazy, but it has been a pain in the ass when it comes to music equipment lol. Because I go into a loophole and have to take everything apart in order to arrive at what most people do from the Gestault principles that you mentioned.

I think it’s wild that you were able to study under this Al Bregman. Just looking at the link provided, this guy really advanced this field of study.

Thank you for the share.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You're most welcome. My pleasure.

Prince's former engineer Susan Rogers ( Susan Rogers - Wikipedia ) came to Ottawa to give a talk, pre-pandemic. She got her doctorate in music cognition at McGill. When it came time for questions from the audience, I went up to the mic, and when I mentioned Al in passing, and how I was fortunate to have learned under him, she broke out in a huge beaming smile, and described him as something like her "theoretical godfather" or similar. We can't attribute Prince recordings to Al, because Susan went to school _after_ she had left Paisley Park. But I think Prince prepared her well to learn what Al had to offer.  A number of bright lights in the field also received insights from Al's course. UC Berkeley prof Alison Gopnik (sister of writer Adam) was in my year, and Stephen Pinker was in the year after me. I thought Pinker was in my class with Al, but I wrote to him, and apparently he took it the year _after_ I did. It's nice to be in the midst of such bright people, whether classmates or profs. It took me about 5 months to realize that Al had a prosthetic arm. He was that fluid in use of his arm, and it was that comparable in skin tone, that you didn't really notice.

Many diagnosed as ADHD describe themselves as feeling emotions more strongly than their agemates, right up into adulthood. That has pros and cons. The pro is certainly that one can be more passionate about things. The con is that emotion tends to make people more distractible and impulsive.


----------

