Nashville Wiring Brain Teaser

[FloydCustom]

Is anyone familiar with Joe Glaser’s new Nashville Tele wiring setup? In the new configuration there is a 5 way switch, master volume, and (in place of the master tone) a middle pickup volume. The catch is, in this new upgraded version, the middle pickup volume is only in the signal chain while the 5 way switch is in the bridge position. You can roll in some of the middle pickup volume while in the bridge position to tame some of the ice-pick highs, but then once you switch to any other position, the middle pickup volume pot is “gone” and you can get the middle pickup at full volume like normal in the other positions. Below is a link where Zac Childs explains the function.

Does anyone know how this might be wired? And to make the brain teaser a little more complicated; does anyone know how this could be achieved while also using a super switch? I would love to wire my new Tele build with this new “Glaser volume mod” along with the super switch to get positions N, N+M, N+B, M+B, B (with M volume pot.)
Thank you for any insight you might have!

He starts the discussion on the wiring around 8:45.

 

[AAT65]

You can do almost anything with a Superswitch!
Looks to me like you'd use two poles to do the normal Strat 5-way thing and then another two to switch in the middle pickup blend pot.
Pole 1: B B - N N > out
Pole 2: - M M M - > out
Pole 3ot- - - - > out
Pole 4: M - - - - > blend pot
The middle pickup pot needs wired for a blend, so pole 4 links the pickup to the centre (wiper) terminal and pole 3 links an end terminal to the output. So turning the middle volume right down doesn't short the output.
To get your modified switching with N+B in the middle you change the first two poles to
Pole 1: B B B N N > out
Pole 2: - M N M - > out

 

[FloydCustom]

You can do almost anything with a Superswitch!
Looks to me like you'd use two poles to do the normal Strat 5-way thing and then another two to switch in the middle pickup blend pot.
Pole 1: B B - N N > out
Pole 2: - M M M - > out
Pole 3ot- - - - > out
Pole 4: M - - - - > blend pot
The middle pickup pot needs wired for a blend, so pole 4 links the pickup to the centre (wiper) terminal and pole 3 links an end terminal to the output. So turning the middle volume right down doesn't short the output.
To get your modified switching with N+B in the middle you change the first two poles to
Pole 1: B B B N N > out
Pole 2: - M N M - > out

Thank you so much for taking the time to help! I’ve always been a “just follow the diagram” kind of guy when it comes to the electronics side of things, but I’m trying to learn more and more. Would there be any issues in doing this:
Pole 4: M - - - - > Pot > Direct to output jack

Thank you again!

 

[moosie]

Here ya go.

The Blend pot requires some explanation. A regular pot will let a teeny bit of Middle bleed in to Bridge, even when "off". Sometimes this is annoying, other times it isn't noticeable. It'll depend on your ears, and the pickups in question.

If you still hear a tiny amount of blend, even when "off", then you'll need a no-load pot. But using a standard no-load pot creates two more problems. First, the pot will operate in reverse (10 will be 'off' and 1 will be fully blended), and the taper will bring Middle in very fast as you begin to roll back. This will make it difficult to fine tune small amounts of Middle.

If the bleed-through doesn't bother you, then you should use a normal log tone pot, wired "backwards". The pot will operate in the expected direction (1 is no blend, 10 is full blend), and the taper works for you – Middle will come in slowly, so you can fine tune a small amount of blend.

The ideal solution is to use the regular log pot, wired backwards, and to scrape away a small portion of the carbon track, making your own "reverse no-load" pot. There are a few good video tutorials online about making your own normal no-load. Just scrape the opposite end of the track from what they show.

I've drawn it using a regular pot, wired backwards.

Note: to cover all the bases, one could wire the blend pot as an actual vol pot, for middle only. The bleed issue goes away, but for the use case described, this design really calls for a blend, not an independently controlled pickup. With a vol pot, you could have your master vol dimed, blend in a bit of Middle, then turn down the master, and oops! Middle is still at it's previous level, which is now way too loud.

 

[moosie]

Here's one I personally prefer. With the toggle or push-pull down, it's essentially Strat wiring, plus the Middle blend in pos #1. With the toggle UP, you N+B and N+M+B.

I know many people like Middle just for combo positions, but I actually like it alone, too. It's a very direct tone, without the darkness of neck, or the crazy sharpness of bridge. The other added tone is all three pickups in parallel. In the past, if I ever had this, it was a side effect of some other wiring goal. I didn't find it very useful. But on my Bazooka Tele build (bubblegum pink), that is one of my favorite settings. It's more Stratty than my Strats.

I left the blend in the design, because it's the reason for the thread. But after listening to Zac's demo, I'm not impressed. It's not exactly that a bit of blend sounded like Strat pos #2, but yeah... a similar flavor. As well it should be. Zac says he likes it because he feels it chops the shrill top end, without touching the bass (I paraphrase). But isn't that exactly what a properly sized tone cap does? I could hear it affecting all frequencies, again, as I would have expected. But like Zac, I want to retain the bridge low end. I don't want to soften it with a parallel pickup.

To each their own, of course. Zac's stated goal is a good one, making bridge more useful. I think a better solution for me is a regular tone circuit, using a smaller cap, like a .01uf or .015. Alternatively, I'd like to try a very small fixed tone cap just on bridge. Like a 680pf, or smaller.

EDIT: fixed the diagram. Initial post showed Bridge and Neck active in middle position, in error.

 

[FloydCustom]

Here ya go.

The Blend pot requires some explanation. A regular pot will let a teeny bit of Middle bleed in to Bridge, even when "off". Sometimes this is annoying, other times it isn't noticeable. It'll depend on your ears, and the pickups in question.

If you still hear a tiny amount of blend, even when "off", then you'll need a no-load pot. But using a standard no-load pot creates two more problems. First, the pot will operate in reverse (10 will be 'off' and 1 will be fully blended), and the taper will bring Middle in very fast as you begin to roll back. This will make it difficult to fine tune small amounts of Middle.

If the bleed-through doesn't bother you, then you should use a normal log tone pot, wired "backwards". The pot will operate in the expected direction (1 is no blend, 10 is full blend), and the taper works for you – Middle will come in slowly, so you can fine tune a small amount of blend.

The ideal solution is to use the regular log pot, wired backwards, and to scrape away a small portion of the carbon track, making your own "reverse no-load" pot. There are a few good video tutorials online about making your own normal no-load. Just scrape the opposite end of the track from what they show.

I've drawn it using a regular pot, wired backwards.

Note: to cover all the bases, one could wire the blend pot as an actual vol pot, for middle only. The bleed issue goes away, but for the use case described, this design really calls for a blend, not an independently controlled pickup. With a vol pot, you could have your master vol dimed, blend in a bit of Middle, then turn down the master, and oops! Middle is still at it's previous level, which is now way too loud.

View attachment 941577

This is incredible! Thank you so much for that. And thank you for bringing up some issues that I hadn’t considered. Especially your last point about the the master volume excluding the middle volume in the bridge position. Am I correct in saying that as you’ve drawn the diagram currently if I was on the bridge pickup with the middle volume, say, 50% up; if I were to roll the master volume off completely I’d still have that middle pickup at 50%? But by using a blend pot I could be in the same scenario but in this case when I roll off the master volume the signal stops completely?

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to help me. It’s incredibly generous.

 

[moosie]

Am I correct in saying that as you’ve drawn the diagram currently if I was on the bridge pickup with the middle volume, say, 50% up; if I were to roll the master volume off completely I’d still have that middle pickup at 50%? But by using a blend pot I could be in the same scenario but in this case when I roll off the master volume the signal stops completely?

No, I've drawn it as a blend. Yes, with a blend, rolling the master vol down quiets everything. Moreover, let's say you had a 50% blend of middle. When you roll the master vol up or down, you keep the same ratio, 50%, of middle, relative to the changing overall levels.

If wired as a separate vol, you'd see three wires on the pot. And in use, it would be completely independent. You could roll bridge (the master) all the way down, and just use middle, adjusting the middle vol to taste. But that's not very useful in this context. The goal as I understand it is to subtly change the bridge tone, regardless of loudness. It's not to get the ability to use middle alone, etc.

I know Zac calls it 'volume' in the video, but it's extremely unlikely to be wired that way, given how he describes it. He wouldn't be the first to conflate the two, and call them both "volume".

 

[moosie]

Heads up, I just edited / replaced the diagram in post #5, to correct a copy/paste error.

 

[FloydCustom]

No, I've drawn it as a blend. Yes, with a blend, rolling the master vol down quiets everything. Moreover, let's say you had a 50% blend of middle. When you roll the master vol up or down, you keep the same ratio, 50%, of middle, relative to the changing overall levels.

If wired as a separate vol, you'd see three wires on the pot. And in use, it would be completely independent. You could roll bridge (the master) all the way down, and just use middle, adjusting the middle vol to taste. But that's not very useful in this context. The goal as I understand it is to subtly change the bridge tone, regardless of loudness. It's not to get the ability to use middle alone, etc.

I know Zac calls it 'volume' in the video, but it's extremely unlikely to be wired that way, given how he describes it. He wouldn't be the first to conflate the two, and call them both "volume".

I actually just asked Zac if he knew whether it was a blend or traditional volume pot and he confirmed that it is actually a blend pot. It’s very impressive that you were able to identify that just based on the limited info I gave! I do agree that you have a very valid point about “a good tone control will do the same.” My original thought for my build was to wire the tone to the bridge only to essentially get the same type of result. When I found this new “Glaser wiring” it made me want to give it a shot basically just to have something different. Always fun to experiment! Your other option is really intriguing also!

 

[moosie]

Indeed. Always fun to experiment! It's the only way to really know.

Just for kicks, here's another idea. This time, I'm not shooting for the same goal, where the blend cuts bridge treble.

Middle has it's own actual volume pot.

There is no tone pot, but instead a Gretsch style mud switch - three way on-off-on with two treble cut caps, or no cap. Since the entire signal sees the fixed cap, I sized them small, with the idea of just taking off the very tip of the icepick. I guessed at some values, but would be prepared to experiment a bit.

There's a Bridge-ON switch that only works for positions 4 and 5. It wouldn't add any value in the other positions. Wouldn't do harm, either, but what the heck, I had the extra super switch pole...

The result is 7 sounds (plus the cap variations), all ones I happen to like.

The pots are wired like Gibson. They're independent, but if one goes to zero, both are silenced. Just a quirk of passive circuits. I was going to do it the other way, but eliminating that side effect brings on another... it never ends... Then I figured, what the heck, if I want one rolled to zero, that's what the blade switch is for.