Passive MM humbucker wiring?

[TRBboy]

Hey folks! 👋 😊

 

I'm currently plotting a project to build a 5 string P style bass, but with a single MM humbucker instead, positioned in between the traditional P and MM positions. Not sure yet whether I'm going to build from scratch again or buy a cheap bass to mod, to prove/disprove the concept.

 

I'm looking to wire it passively, with just volume, tone, and a 3-way series/split/parallel switch. What I'm not sure about is what pot and cap values would be recommended? What say the BC collective? I'm leaning towards 500k vol, 250k tone, and a .047 cap.

 

Thanks for your help! 😊👌

[itu]

First of all, 3 pos is not necessary. Do trials and choose two sounds out of three: series is the other and parallel or single is the other. Those latter ones are very similar. Parallel gives slightly higher level, single a thinner and brighter sound. But the difference is small.

 

If you want brighter sound, put 500k or 1M pots.

[TRBboy]

44 minutes ago, itu said:

First of all, 3 pos is not necessary. Do trials and choose two sounds out of three: series is the other and parallel or single is the other. Those latter ones are very similar. Parallel gives slightly higher level, single a thinner and brighter sound. But the difference is small.

 

If you want brighter sound, put 500k or 1M pots.

Thanks Itu, I'm okay with the switching, I've done it before, and are there's not a huge difference. What value cap would you suggest?

 

Edit: I have also considered doing a G&L L1000 style switch, with parallel/single/OMG 👌

Edited August 7, 2024 by TRBboy

[Hellzero]

Here are the G&L 1000 and 2000 wiring diagrams.

 

 

[itu]

4 hours ago, TRBboy said:

What value cap would you suggest?

This so subjective. I have two different caps behind a rotary switch (OFF/C1/C2/ON; thanks to @KiOgon) in one of my basses, and both sound good in their respective music styles.

[bremen]

I can't comment on cap value, but I've done a 4 way switch and can confirm that series is way different from the others, but there is an appreciable difference between parallel and either of the singles (and a slight but definite difference between the two singles). I actually prefer the singles, though the humbucking effect of series or parallel is useful.

[TRBboy]

Thanks for all the info guys, very helpful. Am I right in thinking the original Stingrays were wired parallel? I believe parallel is more 'open' sounding but lower output, and series is more ballsy with higher output? Is this correct? Been a long time since I played around with this switching 😅

[bremen]

Series is a huge level and pretty boomy. Parallel is scooped. Individual sounds most natural to me, more like a p. But writing about sound is like dancing about architecture so take that with a pinch of salt.

[Hellzero]

2 hours ago, TRBboy said:

Thanks for all the info guys, very helpful. Am I right in thinking the original Stingrays were wired parallel? I believe parallel is more 'open' sounding but lower output, and series is more ballsy with higher output? Is this correct? Been a long time since I played around with this switching 😅

Yes to all questions.

[drTStingray]

2 hours ago, TRBboy said:

Thanks for all the info guys, very helpful. Am I right in thinking the original Stingrays were wired parallel? I believe parallel is more 'open' sounding but lower output, and series is more ballsy with higher output? Is this correct? Been a long time since I played around with this switching 😅

As far as Stingrays are concerned the original 4 strings were wired in parallel. However Stingray 5s (single H) were wired in series, but with a parallel/single coil/series switch - bearing in mind they started with alnico, moved to ceramic (1992 ish-2008) and then back to alnico. 
 

The passive Stingray available these days (short scale) has the same system you describe, with a rotary switch for series, parallel, single coil and a tone control - the pick up is neodymium however. I have a long scale (Tim Commerford signature version) - the series is a fatter sound, the parallel a little more scooped and the single coil is a bit like a Jazz with the bridge pick up soloed. You can probably find a wiring diagram on the EBMM site. 

[Hellzero]

You seem to have forgotten the Joe Dart models, and the Nate Mendel Sterling by Music Man model too @drTStingray... 😉

[Jackopie1]

Hi mate, I have done this recently, using a Warman humbucker in the traditional stingray spot.

 

I used 250k pots and it sounded fine.

 

I know someone here suggested differently, but I would strongly suggest having parallel and single coil options available- I didn't find series very useful in a passive setup.

 

I used the single coil closest to the neck most of all- one of the few times our band's usually dour sound engineer has complimented the sound of my bass was when using this!

 

 

[ead]

On 09/08/2024 at 22:44, Hellzero said:

You seem to have forgotten the Joe Dart models, and the Nate Mendel Sterling by Music Man model too @drTStingray... 😉

 

Do you not mean the Pete Wentz SBMM passive Stingray?

 

[Obrienp]

I did this recently too. I would stick with your series/parallel/single coil idea. There is plenty of tonal difference IMO to make it worth doing. My preference is for the front coil but it’s all personal choice. I tried 500k pots first and it was a very loud bright and not particularly pleasant sound. I swapped out for 250k pots and in a moment of madness a 0.1uf oil in paper cap. That cap was probably a bit too dark and I changed it for .047 that rolled off enough top end without going too dark and muddy. The 250k plus .047 gave a much more pleasant, less brittle sound than the 500ks at the expense of a little volume but still plenty loud enough. I tired both a Kent Armstrong and a Warman pickup. Both were powerful enough to use in a passive circuit. The Kent Armstrong had more finesse to my ears and the added bonus of covered pole pieces, meaning you couldn’t inadvertently touch a pole piece and get that horrible buzz.

Edited August 15, 2024 by Obrienp

[Hellzero]

12 hours ago, ead said:

 

Do you not mean the Pete Wentz SBMM passive Stingray?

 

Isn't he the same guy? 🤪🤔🤦😉

 

I stand corrected.

 

Thanks.