Author Topic: Blend knob vs two volumes (Read 675 times)

jorge_s · « **on:** March 28, 2006, 09:07:17 AM »

Does anybody know if there is a benefit to having two volume controls as on a Series I/II vs having a blend knob? I am considering having a blend knob on a future instrument to cut down on the number of total knobs.

palembic · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2006, 12:40:47 PM »

I don't know if benefit is the right word, it sounds a lot different is all I know.
As I said back in the dark ages of the birth of this club somewhere in a thread: it's the difference between 'and' and 'or'.
I set the bridge PU in a certain position I like. Mostly volume wide open and the filter and CVQ on a certain position. This done I ADD a portion of neck PU with that volume knob which sounds deeper but again the filter and CVQ set in a position i find myself comfortable in, in that given situation.
With a blend knob it's about or: you take a part of the bridge PU and you can only have more of the neck PU iff you take lesser bridge.
In a way: a blend is easier to use.
A two volume knob setting is more versatile but a liitlemore complicated for finding the right setting for you a-in a certain situation. Mostly there are volume issues. What is logical because it is about adding two PU's. I guess it's why the master-volume is not a bad idea to add.

Paul the bad one

kmh364 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2006, 05:30:14 AM »

Just my $0.02:

Certain players, like BKBass, prefer individual volumes AND a master volume as opposed to a master/blend scheme. There is a method to this madness: it is more flexible. The blend can be frustrating if you need multiple tones and value quick settings repeatability (i.e., as in a live cover band situation).

Cheers,

Kevin

jorge_s · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2006, 09:01:55 AM »

Thanks for your input. My main issue is that the guitar I would like to have made includes a Roland GK pickup and a small standard body. Valentino already told me that some things will have to go. One of them is the 1/4 in cable output. I would like to keep this feature so I am considering getting rid of the pickup selector and the individual volumes. I hope this saves enough space to keep the 1/4 in output. I just wanted to make sure that this would not be a fatal blow to the Alembic sound.

bob · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2006, 10:11:44 AM »

There was a long discussion on this a while back, which (in my opinion) was inconclusive.

The and/or concept that Paul describes is a nice way of describing how you, as a person, interact with the controls. However, I (and a few others) am convinced that mathematically, you can get exactly the same range of possible pickup combinations with either two volumes, or a pan. They are just two different ways of adjusting the relative contributions of two pickups.

I don't believe anyone offered a satisfying explanation of *why* they would end up sounding different. (There were a few distractions, such as a couple of cases where the pan control wasn't implemented quite right and gave uneven results, but that's a different issue.)

I remain unconvinced that they fundamentally sound different, and personally prefer a pan. In fact, if I did have separate volumes, then I would also want to have a master volume.

To me it's a matter of how you need/want to use the controls, and there are good reasons for either approach, depending on your style. I really don't believe there is any reason to believe you would be sacrificing the Alembic sound, so if the pan is what fits for you, then go for it.
-Bob

bigredbass · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2006, 11:32:55 PM »

A pan is just easier than juggling two volume pots. I agree with Bob (always!), I really doubt you can hear any difference.

J o e y

adriaan · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:45:06 AM »

I only know the pan control on my two Alembics, and the whole idea of having to juggle two pots sounds awkward to me. In fact nearly as awkard as having only a pickup switch and a single volume, like originally on my Spoiler - it's so much more versatile with a pan! As far as I can recall, the extreme and middle positions of the pan sound much the same as the corresponding positions of the pickup selector. But the in-betweens - ah! it's a totally different animal.

But we all seem to be speaking here in terms of a single-channel rig, and therefore a blended signal. I can't recall having heard of a Series or Anniversary package with a pan. Would that be just because of the extra circuitry involved to match the levels in two unblended signals, or is it an electronic no-no?

jorge_s · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:45:50 AM »

Thanks again for your input guys. I think I will go for the blend knob if it is electronically feasable.

kmh364 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:09:44 AM »

Personally, I'm not a fan of the master/pan set-up on my EMW-equipped Orion (with bass/treble cut/boost, filter an Q sw.). I prefer the Series I set-up with the master vol. and p/u selector switch. It makes repeatabilty of settings a little easier with the latter, as opposed to the former. Just having a filter and 3pos. Q for each p/u is a little simpler than ( a master set-up with) two tones and a filter w/Q. I know, I know: I like to repeat the word repeatabilty ad naseum, LOL!

As always, just my $0.02.

Cheers,

Kevin

(Message edited by kmh364 on March 30, 2006)

adriaan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:48:25 AM »

I never have a problem with repeating pan settings. Then again I haven't been on stage with a band for a couple of years.

keith_h · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2006, 10:47:56 AM »

I have both styles of controls. I have never had any issues with the pan versus individual volume controls. I find the pan easy to use for getting repeatable results. To be quite honest I have found my simplest bass (Essence electronics with Q switch) to be the easiest to get repeatable settings. I say go with whatever you are most comfortable with.

Keith

bigideas · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2006, 06:22:12 AM »

I have a couple of schematics that show how to wire a pan pot as a pair of volume pots, stacked and reversed. These can then be wired to a selector and then a master volume (which could be stereo, now that I think about it.) I'm sure with the alembic electronics it's not that simple but I like the idea of having both a blend and a selector switch.

here is a stupid(ish) question. when you switch to a single pickup on a Series II does the volume setting revert to the master or does it stay at the individual volume setting? ie; if you have the bridge on full, the neck just leaking in a bit, and the master at half and then turn the switch to the neck position is it still just leaking through or does it come up to the half volume setting of the master?

jorge_s · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2006, 06:01:45 AM »

It is still just leaking through. The only thing that changes is the bridge pickup goes out completely. The volume would drop big time. It kind of works like a mixer with the pickup volumes being channel faders and the master volume being...a master volume.

adriaan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2006, 06:57:34 AM »

You could drop the pickup selector and keep the two volumes. In that case you lose the option to switch off either pickup completely without changing the volume, and you also lose the mute position - so if you can live with that ...

(Message edited by adriaan on April 03, 2006)

crgaston · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2006, 11:38:22 AM »

I notice that on my '99 Rogue, the overall volume increases slightly when the blend pot is in either full neck or full bridge position. Is there some sort of function which attenuates the volume of one pickup as the other pickup is blended in? It seems like there is, as the volume stays consistent throughout the rest of the range of the blend. Alternately, is it possible that there is a phase problem?

Thanks,
Charles