Alot of us set the knobs on our RIC wide open. I was reading Tuck Andress' ideas (http://www.tuckandpatti.com/tuck_tone.html)
and I thought about doing it to one of my guitars as an experiment (bypassing the tone pots). What are your thoughts Don? Thanks, John
Bypassing the tone pot.
Moderator: jingle_jangle
What he says about the tone pots effecting the signal has some truth in it. It will still be taking a little top end off even when the pots are fully open in theory. It may be more noticeable with Rickenbacker's made in later years where the tone pots were simplified to 250K to match the volumes. 60's Rics commonly used 500K Log pots in the tone and mixer positions, and 250K log pots for the volumes. Earlier Rics would somtimes have 1M pots in the tone postions.
A good idea would be to get a couple of 500K Log pots with push/pull switch from one of those online guitar parts suppliers. You could wire it up so that pulling the knob out removes the pot completely from circuit. You may hear a little extra brightness.
I would doubt that the selector switch introduces loss of brightness. Ric uses a high quality switchcraft toggle that, if in good clean condition, should conduct a high impedance signal with little if any colouration. He then goes on to suggest installing RCA plugs & sockets all over your guitar circuit to test different configurations. So if one Switchcraft high spec switch is going to effect signal through it, what will a host of RCA plugs and sockets do???
A good idea would be to get a couple of 500K Log pots with push/pull switch from one of those online guitar parts suppliers. You could wire it up so that pulling the knob out removes the pot completely from circuit. You may hear a little extra brightness.
I would doubt that the selector switch introduces loss of brightness. Ric uses a high quality switchcraft toggle that, if in good clean condition, should conduct a high impedance signal with little if any colouration. He then goes on to suggest installing RCA plugs & sockets all over your guitar circuit to test different configurations. So if one Switchcraft high spec switch is going to effect signal through it, what will a host of RCA plugs and sockets do???
)-
kennyhowes
- Veteran RRF member
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 1:03 am
- Contact:
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5285
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
-
toneman
Although I think bypassing tone controls makes a bit of a difference, sometimes the way the controls are wired will have just as much of an effect.
I usually try to wire the cap to the wire going out of the pot to the switch. Gibson's always wired their tone pots to the leg of the pot that the pickup wire is on. If you move that to the output wire it helps get a clearer sound(especially when you roll the volume back).
On my Ric I never use the pickup volume controls or tone controls. I set the p.u selector switch to the middle spot and use the blend knob to vary my volume/balance.
My Ric 360-V64/12 is already pretty bright so don't see the need to take the tone controls out of the circuit.
Now, on Ric's it's a bit different since the pickups are wired to the selector switch and then go to the pots. This is pretty much the reverse of all other guitar manufactures. Old Gretsches were done this way though.
I usually try to wire the cap to the wire going out of the pot to the switch. Gibson's always wired their tone pots to the leg of the pot that the pickup wire is on. If you move that to the output wire it helps get a clearer sound(especially when you roll the volume back).
On my Ric I never use the pickup volume controls or tone controls. I set the p.u selector switch to the middle spot and use the blend knob to vary my volume/balance.
My Ric 360-V64/12 is already pretty bright so don't see the need to take the tone controls out of the circuit.
Now, on Ric's it's a bit different since the pickups are wired to the selector switch and then go to the pots. This is pretty much the reverse of all other guitar manufactures. Old Gretsches were done this way though.
I went to the Tuck and Patti website above and read Tuck's ideas on good sound. I agree with Tuck that the best guitar amp these days is a high fidelity reproducer of some sort such as a high quality powered PA speaker (conventional guitar amp manufacturers probably don't want you to hear that, much less understand it). I think the thing to do is to get very high quality pots and switches and wire them like Don mentioned. It is interesting that my father has an old solidbody Gretsch, and my RIC 650D is about the only other solidbody guitar that he likes, tonewise, as much as the Gretsch. The similar way they wire their controls may be the main reason. Wiping the pots back and forth 10 times before startup can often do more for good sound than internal wiring changes.
Ever thought of removing your conventional guitar amp from the setup like Tuck does? This can reap benefits FAR beyond bypassing a tone control. Tuck knows that most guitar amps are ****** (they were designed for efficiency in the old days when high power was expensive) and by their very design of favoring a specific sound, they render other sounds hard or impossible to get. Not good for the widest range of sound, unless you like to lug a dozen different amps around. You only need one tone generator of extremely wide range in your signal path. The old amp setups are worshipped by some, when in reality if better amps had been available at the time, the great musicians of times past would have used something different. Electric musical instruments reached a higher level of development before the amps did. Equipment is now available that allows almost any amp flavor to be easily emulated. Creativity is thus set free from the limits of classic amps. That's why a progressive musician like Geddy Lee uses the SansAmp RBI in his gear rack.
Notice what Tuck said about getting good sound from a cheap guitar when verything else is right. Amplification and player ability make the biggest difference these days. The difference between $300 and $3000 guitars is not nearly as wide as between $300 and $3000 amplifiers. Cheap amps are about the most compromised things in music equipment. A Rickenbacker is probably more than good enough just as it is as long as the parts are in working order, at least in my limited experience with them. THE AMP CHAIN IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE WEAKEST LINK. Guitar manufacturers would have you think otherwise. Star musicians are usually willing to go on stage with whatever guitar gets them the most endorsement fees. Otherwise, you would see Rickenbackers more often because a lot of pros own them. Tuck seemed to place a lot more emphasis on amplification. When amps generally surpass guitars in quality, only then will guitars need the most upgrading.
Ever thought of removing your conventional guitar amp from the setup like Tuck does? This can reap benefits FAR beyond bypassing a tone control. Tuck knows that most guitar amps are ****** (they were designed for efficiency in the old days when high power was expensive) and by their very design of favoring a specific sound, they render other sounds hard or impossible to get. Not good for the widest range of sound, unless you like to lug a dozen different amps around. You only need one tone generator of extremely wide range in your signal path. The old amp setups are worshipped by some, when in reality if better amps had been available at the time, the great musicians of times past would have used something different. Electric musical instruments reached a higher level of development before the amps did. Equipment is now available that allows almost any amp flavor to be easily emulated. Creativity is thus set free from the limits of classic amps. That's why a progressive musician like Geddy Lee uses the SansAmp RBI in his gear rack.
Notice what Tuck said about getting good sound from a cheap guitar when verything else is right. Amplification and player ability make the biggest difference these days. The difference between $300 and $3000 guitars is not nearly as wide as between $300 and $3000 amplifiers. Cheap amps are about the most compromised things in music equipment. A Rickenbacker is probably more than good enough just as it is as long as the parts are in working order, at least in my limited experience with them. THE AMP CHAIN IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE WEAKEST LINK. Guitar manufacturers would have you think otherwise. Star musicians are usually willing to go on stage with whatever guitar gets them the most endorsement fees. Otherwise, you would see Rickenbackers more often because a lot of pros own them. Tuck seemed to place a lot more emphasis on amplification. When amps generally surpass guitars in quality, only then will guitars need the most upgrading.
-
toneman
Well, that maybe Tuck's anyalsis of what he wants to hear. Me personally, I want to hear those vaccum tubes working and being pushed over their limitations. I'd much rather have an amp with British made vaccum tubes and Celestion Alnico speakers. That stuff speaks loud and clear to me. Give me an(old or new Handwired) AC-30 or an old 35 or 50 watt Marshall or Selmer and forget that digital effects **** & Pods into a rack power amp. Those imperfections are what makes it fun. I like my Rick's clean but not HiFi clean. Look at Roger McGuinn with his Vox Treble booster and old tube Fairchild limiter/ compressor's and a Dual Showman. I think Roger in those days would have loved a good AC-30 as it would have given him both aspects very well. I believe they had a deal with Fender though for amps. Much like the deal The Beatles' had with Vox