incoming mki tonebender

ICBM

Sorry, I was improving the conciseity of that while you were typing .

Yes, that's my point exactly - choosing to wire the switch slightly differently gives you a better chance of surviving a failure with at least the bypass working, whereas the standard scheme actually reduces it, even compared to the normal alternative scheme.

Arcane

I disagree - keeping signal is dependent on which lug fails.

I am still curious as to where I can have a look at you work. care to provide a link?

allicio

I was wondering that also...

ICBM

Arcane said:

I disagree - keeping signal is dependent on which lug fails.

No, not if there are two contacts in parallel. Either can fail and the other will still keep the signal path operating.

Arcane said:

I am still curious as to where I can have a look at you work. care to provide a link?

I'm a repairer not a builder, and I don't have a website.

ThePrettyDamned

Arcane;395571" said:

I disagree - keeping signal is dependent on which lug fails.I am still curious as to where I can have a look at you work. care to provide a link?

I think (if I understand it right) is its more saying "why put all your eggs in one basket?".

If I was paying top money for a pedal, I'd like to think the builder had thought out every aspect of it, and if a simple change of the switch wiring scheme reduces the chances of silence at a gig, even if only by a small amount, it's something that's worth considering.

Arcane

ICBM said:

I'm a repairer not a builder, and I don't have a website.

I see.

Well, I will be sure to let DAM, PigDog, Skreddy, Cornish and the hundreds of other builders know they are doing it wrong and direct them to you so that they may properly wire their 3PDTs in the future.

ICBM

Arcane said:

Well, I will be sure to let DAM, PigDog, Skreddy, Cornish and the hundreds of other builders know they are doing it wrong and direct them to you so that they may properly wire their 3PDTs in the future.

That would be nice, since it will reduce the number of broken pedals .

Think about the bypass path routing in a switch wired the way I described above. For what it's worth, I came up with that to fix a faulty pedal which another well-respected builder had made in such a way that replacing the switch was extremely difficult. 'x'-wiring it fixed it without needing to replace it - in fact if it had been done that way in the first place the owner would never have noticed the problem.

Just because something has always been done a certain way does not necessarily mean it can't be improved. Seeing how things fail can be useful.

It does really puzzle me why so many pedals are wired not just a less-good way, but the worst possible way.

allicio

It does kind of beggar the question though of why nobody's using it?
There must be a reason

Arcane

What puzzles me is why a person would come into a thread and claim a builder is wiring their pedals "wrong" when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the wiring in the least. It says a lot about a person's character especially when that person does not have any body of work of their own. Very poor form and disrespectful.

Arcane

allicio said:

It does kind of beggar the question though of why nobody's using it?
There must be a reason

I personaly would not use ICBM's scheme as the lead dress is not going to be as short nor routed as well. Having a well laid out pedal is an art form in itself. There is far greater chance of issues with poor lead dress than there are of switch failure of the variety ICBM raises. Running the in/out jacks and the PCB in/out wiring in proximity to each other is poor form. Having them on opposite sides and away from each other is ideal especially with higher gain circuits. Lead dress and routing is something that is far more likely to cause noise and oscillation.

ICBM

Ok, in that case you just swap the second and third columns in the layout I posted. That keeps everything neat and symmetrical and on opposite sides.

1&6 - circuit input
2&9 - input jack

3&8 - output jack

4 - LED ground connection

5 - ground

7 - circuit output

(This also puts the grounded pole in the middle, which will help with shielding.)

Why does it matter that I don't build pedals? If anything's bad form it's to try to put someone down because of who you are rather than actually addressing the problem. I have not criticised your workmanship at all, which is very nice - just your application of a particular wiring which is a known cause of failures. I fix things, that's why I know that. (Likewise shakeproof washers on the jacks, since jacks coming loose is also a minor issue, particularly when they're also used as ground connections.)

Also for what it's worth, of the builders you listed, Skreddy uses the grounding scheme and Pete Cornish doesn't use true bypass at all.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nsvZ1rXQwes/TGh_1h4ClhI/AAAAAAAAAls/ty4oSUUYCSo/s1600/3pdtSwitchWiring.gif

http://www.petecornish.co.uk/case_against_true_bypass.html

As to reasons why the scheme I suggested is not used by other builders, I can only assume it's because it's not the 'standard' way of doing things. There is absolutely no penalty to it other than assembly time, and even that's very minor - just two more connections. Although as far as I know I've never seen it used in any commercial pedal, I don't make any claim of originality for it because it's just an application of perfectly standard parallel-redundancy practice in order to reduce failures.

In all this I forgot to say welcome to the forum, by the way!

TheCount

One above is my fave but I use pcb's these days which is much faster and neater. Probably wouldn't want to if you're going for the 'vintage vibe'

At the end of the day, all 3pdt are crap no matter how you wire them. Too noisy and unreliable

Arcane

ICBM said:

Why does it matter that I don't build pedals? If anything's bad form it's to try to put someone down because of who you are rather than actually addressing the problem. I have not criticised your workmanship at all, which is very nice - just your application of a particular wiring which is a known cause of failures. I fix things, that's why I know that. (Likewise shakeproof washers on the jacks, since jacks coming loose is also a minor issue, particularly when they're also used as ground connections.)

Also for what it's worth, of the builders you listed, Skreddy uses the grounding scheme and Pete Cornish doesn't use true bypass at all.

As to reasons why the scheme I suggested is not used by other builders, I can only assume it's because it's not the 'standard' way of doing things. There is absolutely no penalty to it other than assembly time, and even that's very minor - just two more connections. Although as far as I know I've never seen it used in any commercial pedal, I don't make any claim of originality for it because it's just an application of perfectly standard parallel-redundancy practice in order to reduce failures.

You use generalizations and they are pure rubbish. You are a pompous fool if you think your way is better than everyone else's way. Again, your posts put your poor chgarachter on display but conveniently have no work of your own for others to view.

I have used that last wiring scheme before - it is no better than the one I use now but it still is poor wiring practice in my opinion. I have not had any failures on 3PDTs because I solder properly. That is the cause of failures of switches - not the wiring scheme. Skreddy does not use that for all of his pedals and Cornish has used true bypass in the past. 

This is an occasion where arguing with a pig will only get you muddy.

Arcane

TheCount said:

One above is my fave but I use pcb's these days which is much faster and neater. Probably wouldn't want to if you're going for the 'vintage vibe'

At the end of the day, all 3pdt are crap no matter how you wire them. Too noisy and unreliable

The PCB wiring are brutal for repairs or modifications. I personally would never use one and I refuse to fix a pedal with these installed. Of hundreds of pedals I have built, I have never had a switch go. They are only unreliable if you do not have good soldering technique.

ThePrettyDamned

Arcane;395850" said:

TheCount said:

One above is my fave but I use pcb's these days which is much faster and neater. Probably wouldn't want to if you're going for the 'vintage vibe'

At the end of the day, all 3pdt are crap no matter how you wire them. Too noisy and unreliable





The PCB wiring are brutal for repairs or modifications. I personally would never use one and I refuse to fix a pedal with these installed. Of hundreds of pedals I have built, I have never had a switch go. They are only unreliable if you do not have good soldering technique.

I've had the switch itself fail.

So that's nothing to do with the wiring, but the mechanical nature of the switch. I just wired a new one in, problem solved.

If another went, I'd use the scheme ICBM posted because, like I said, why not? It's not exactly more work, it can be made symmetrical if looking at guts is your thing and it means the switch is less likely to leave me with silence at a gig.

It actually makes it easier to diagnose a faulty pedal on a board. Rather than looking for one that's always silent (where everything will be silent anyway because no signal can get through) you're looking for a pedal that's silent with effect engaged, but allows a bypass signal when off.

That's... Really useful for a band on the road.

Edit: pcb's are also repairable, though I agree it can be harder work.

If the switch has gone, it might be more economical to just grab a new one and new pcb. Super tidy, easy, quick. Obviously it isn't for everyone though.

ThePrettyDamned

Arcane;395845" said:

you are a pompous fool if you think your way is better than everyone else's way. Again, your posts put your poor chgarachter on display.

I don't think @icbm has been rude at all, nor foolish, nor pompous. Nor do I think his posts reflect, in any way, poor character.

ICBM

Arcane said:

This is an occasion where arguing with a pig will only get you muddy.

TheCount

Arcane said:

TheCount said:

One above is my fave but I use pcb's these days which is much faster and neater. Probably wouldn't want to if you're going for the 'vintage vibe'

At the end of the day, all 3pdt are crap no matter how you wire them. Too noisy and unreliable

They are only unreliable if you do not have good soldering technique.

So every builder that's had a switch go has bad soldering technique????

Well that must be about everyone, other than you

Lew

Arcane;395845" said:

ICBM said:



Why does it matter that I don't build pedals? If anything's bad form it's to try to put someone down because of who you are rather than actually addressing the problem. I have not criticised your workmanship at all, which is very nice - just your application of a particular wiring which is a known cause of failures. I fix things, that's why I know that. (Likewise shakeproof washers on the jacks, since jacks coming loose is also a minor issue, particularly when they're also used as ground connections.)

Also for what it's worth, of the builders you listed, Skreddy uses the grounding scheme and Pete Cornish doesn't use true bypass at all.

As to reasons why the scheme I suggested is not used by other builders, I can only assume it's because it's not the 'standard' way of doing things. There is absolutely no penalty to it other than assembly time, and even that's very minor - just two more connections. Although as far as I know I've never seen it used in any commercial pedal, I don't make any claim of originality for it because it's just an application of perfectly standard parallel-redundancy practice in order to reduce failures.





You use generalizations and they are pure rubbish. You are a pompous fool if you think your way is better than everyone else's way. Again, your posts put your poor chgarachter on display but conveniently have no work of your own for others to view. I have used that last wiring scheme before - it is no better than the one I use now but it still is poor wiring practice in my opinion. I have not had any failures on 3PDTs because I solder properly. That is the cause of failures of switches - not the wiring scheme. Skreddy does not use that for all of his pedals and Cornish has used true bypass in the past. This is an occasion where arguing with a pig will only get you muddy.

Ouch just walk away now. You may have come here with good intentions but your over defensiveness and rudeness has made you look very poor.

Arcane

The problem here is that we have an armchair "repairman" saying the entire industry is wriring pedals "wrong" according to him. There are many perfectly fine methods of wiring a switch and none of these are any more prone to failure than the next but folks do have preferences for using one over the other. All switches will fail eventually - they are tactile.

I have hundreds of pedals out there and the experience to back it up along with all of the other hundreds of builders who are also doing it "wrong". If my or any other wiring scheme were prone to failures you would hear a lot of unhappy owners of very expensive pedals out there. Do you know why you do not hear of eveyone's DAM have a faulty switch or why their pedal went silent on stage? The answer is simple - this ICBM fellow is full of hot air and likes to hear himself talk. It sure is easy to criticise when you have no body of work of your own on display.