ES-345 what cable do I use?

OKGuitar · Dec 10, 2013

ES345 said:
I like using two amps, put delay on one pickup, a slight over drive, fuzz or wah on the other. Play the middle position on any selection, many great tones available.

zackly.

JJ Blair · Dec 11, 2013

brandtkronholm said:
Isn't this a 'mix-down cable?' I think this will "wimpify" the sound. Better results come from using a stero cable at the guitar and then using a Y-splitter at the amp - so long as your amp has two inputs.

Here's an old post of mine detailing three of my guitars, one of which is a 1959 ES 345 with the varitone intact. The stereo to Y mono mono cable is visible in the picture. There is some discussion about the 345 in this thread. (Warning! The picture is HUGE!)

http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=173138&highlight=345

It is possible to modify your single channel amp to properly accomodate a stereo input without the sound being "wimpified."

Here's another old post of mine detailing the cheap, easy, and noninvasive amp modification to get the true 345/355 stero sound from a one input amp. With this modification, there is no issues whatsoever when switching from 345 to LP.

http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2258059&highlight=stereo+input#post2258059

I'm not getting any tone difference on this particular guitar by summing on the cable. No wimpifying. I would notice it, and wouldn't do it. That was one of the things I tested for, when I shorted my test cable. There was no tonal difference.

Again, this is a guitar where it worked with the jack half way in.

Tom, I suppose you could indeed use an adapter, but I hate adapters for live use. One more thing to go wrong. I just made myself a cable with TRS 1/4" and a mono 1/4", and it's working great, with no wimpiness.

JJ Blair · Dec 11, 2013

I didn't make a video when I was shorting the stereo cable, so I could show you that the tone didn't change. You'll just have to trust me. However, I just plugged into my '53 Deluxe, with the tone and volume at 12:00, using the cable I just made, so you can see that there's no wimpifying going on.

http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/fw190d6/media/IMG_1173_zpsfa9699ae.mp4.html

As I say in my comments, it's freezing in the studio, and my fingers are stiff. Sorry for the stiff playing and a couple flubbed notes.

Hardrockmapletop · Dec 11, 2013

Sounds pretty good to me JJ.
Sounds like we need another shoot out.
The stereo to mono cable vs using some sort of passive or active mixer.
I've just been talking to a guy about making up a small active mixer.
Here's what he had to say,
" Many people don't know that simply combining signals can be problematic. Pedals like my passive mixer help with the use of summing resistors, but the active verion is definitely the best solution. It balances signals with mismatched impedance and eliminates crosstalk--or the level of one channel affecting the level of the other".
I'm having him make a small active mixer with no switching.
I'll let you know how it goes.

brandtkronholm · Dec 11, 2013

JJ Blair said:
I'm not getting any tone difference on this particular guitar by summing on the cable. No wimpifying. I would notice it, and wouldn't do it. That was one of the things I tested for, when I shorted my test cable. There was no tonal difference.

Again, this is a guitar where it worked with the jack half way in.

Tom, I suppose you could indeed use an adapter, but I hate adapters for live use. One more thing to go wrong. I just made myself a cable with TRS 1/4" and a mono 1/4", and it's working great, with no wimpiness.

Awesome! That's great news. These old 345s/355s can be mysterious.

JJ Blair · Dec 11, 2013

My fear of using a mixer is that I want the two pickups to affect each other in the middle position, like any other two PUP guitar would. There's that parasitic capacitance that happens, when you start turning one PUP down, and some LPF starts happening. It's part of the Gibson sound. I'm getting that in this configuration.

Hardrockmapletop · Dec 12, 2013

Yeah, interesting.:hmm
The guy building my pedal asked if I wanted the two signals in or OOP.
I told him to keep it OOP because that's the sound of these guitars, right?
I'm willing to try everything possible before I change components in the guitar.
For me, I need the freedom of a single channel/single input amp.

Mars Hall · Dec 12, 2013

After years of fiddling around with the stereo setups with my ES345, I finally opted out by having it wired mono with the varitone still intact. Had it wired using the schem on the bottom right.

It wasn't a difficult decision because my guitar suffered the wiring dry rot that plagued some guitars from this era. So, "originality" wasn't an issue for me, being a players grade instrument. Much happier with this setup.

Gibbo · May 29, 2016

My 67 walnut 345 has the pick ups wired out of phase but what I did find when I am in the middle switch position using a summing cable is that if I back off one of the volumes by 2 -3 on the knob the tone thickens right up.

This was such a cool find as I can have that hollow BB King, Peter Green thing happening with both volumes equal and then back off one volume and I have a nice thick twin humbucker sound and best of all - no mods to the instrument.:hank

J T · Aug 1, 2016

Continuing the age old 345 confusion questions. Here's another.

I have an Historic ES-345 and the bridge pickup ONLY switch setting is low/thin. The guitar has a MONO output jack, (T/S). So I am assuming 1/4" MONO cable is the correct cable and the only choice. From what I can see without pulling it all out, the varitone electronics are all there.

What I'm scratching my head over is why the bridge Pickup is much lower output only relative to middle position and neck pickup only. So middle position nice full sound in all varitone positions, Neck only is a nice full sound in all varitone positions, but why would the bridge pickup alone just be low/thin output.

This doesn't make sense to me because all I have read says that when the middle position of 345's that are wired stereo, but summed in mono, are thin out of phase sound. But this 345 is definitely MONO output wired.

Is there some sort of test I can do to see why this is?

Is it possible that someone or Gibson just put a mono output jack in a stereo circuit? Ahh I don't know.

The TR cover reads "Custom". Now I'm wondering maybe this is some sort of special request build.

Just head scratching about this. :hmm

Any Ideas on this would be appreciated.

poor man's burst · Aug 2, 2016

Did you check the bridge pickup?

J T · Aug 2, 2016

Yeah see that's kinda sorta part of my question. Since all that is tucked deep inside there, How do I check something like that without removing any of that?

Checking the bridge pickup through a 1/4" attached to the output jack is a correct Ohm measurement of a pickup on a 345?

Reinhard · Aug 2, 2016

I am only 5 years late, but I ended up removing the varitone circuit (weighs a ton) and installed one of Dr Vintage's pre-wired harnesses. He also fixed the one pickup for me and gave the other a once over (turns out one is a PAT number and one is a T-Top). The guitar is a feather weight (probably because of the extra routing they do on these and removing that big hunk of metal) and sounds incredible. My 345 is hardly a museum piece, so I did not feel bad altering it in this way.

latestarter · Aug 2, 2016

J T said:
Continuing the age old 345 confusion questions. Here's another.

I have an Historic ES-345 and the bridge pickup ONLY switch setting is low/thin. The guitar has a MONO output jack, (T/S). So I am assuming 1/4" MONO cable is the correct cable and the only choice. From what I can see without pulling it all out, the varitone electronics are all there.

What I'm scratching my head over is why the bridge Pickup is much lower output only relative to middle position and neck pickup only. So middle position nice full sound in all varitone positions, Neck only is a nice full sound in all varitone positions, but why would the bridge pickup alone just be low/thin output.

This doesn't make sense to me because all I have read says that when the middle position of 345's that are wired stereo, but summed in mono, are thin out of phase sound. But this 345 is definitely MONO output wired.

Is there some sort of test I can do to see why this is?

Is it possible that someone or Gibson just put a mono output jack in a stereo circuit? Ahh I don't know.

The TR cover reads "Custom". Now I'm wondering maybe this is some sort of special request build.

Just head scratching about this. :hmm

Any Ideas on this would be appreciated.

I have to say JT, this is weird. I think the first option is to indeed bridge check the pickup for trueness. Turn the varitone around to bypass and have the volume/tone on full (10). What readings do you get? I'll check my Historic 345 and post readings for the same later in the week. Mine sounds loud and full on all pickup settings, and yes, these should be all mono (Historics).

J T · Aug 2, 2016

Hey guys thanks.

Is Dr. Vintage still around? I can't find his website.

With the volume on full and the Varitone on 1, and a 1/4" plugged into the jack, I get 8.55 on the bridge, 8.25 0n the neck.

You know when I first got this guitar, the bridge pickup was very high almost touching the strings, so I suspect the previous owner was trying to "increase" the volume on that pickup. But, 8.55 leads me to believe the pickup is OK, but there's something else afoot.

J T · Aug 2, 2016

Oh yeah!
I found it!

I peeked into the lower F-Hole and saw a bare wire loose and touching the three way switch. I reached in with a needle nose and wrapped it around where the rest of it was. I carefully went in with a drop of solder on that wrap.

The bridge pickup now sounds like it should!

Woo Hoo!

Boy there sure are a lot of wires in there.

Thanks guys for chiming in.:jim

J T · Aug 2, 2016

So thinking about it, that loose ground wire was shorting the three 3-way switch.

hogy · Aug 2, 2016

J T said:
Continuing the age old 345 confusion questions. Here's another.

I have an Historic ES-345 and the bridge pickup ONLY switch setting is low/thin. The guitar has a MONO output jack, (T/S). So I am assuming 1/4" MONO cable is the correct cable and the only choice. From what I can see without pulling it all out, the varitone electronics are all there.

What I'm scratching my head over is why the bridge Pickup is much lower output only relative to middle position and neck pickup only. So middle position nice full sound in all varitone positions, Neck only is a nice full sound in all varitone positions, but why would the bridge pickup alone just be low/thin output.

This doesn't make sense to me because all I have read says that when the middle position of 345's that are wired stereo, but summed in mono, are thin out of phase sound. But this 345 is definitely MONO output wired.

Is there some sort of test I can do to see why this is?

Is it possible that someone or Gibson just put a mono output jack in a stereo circuit? Ahh I don't know.

The TR cover reads "Custom". Now I'm wondering maybe this is some sort of special request build.

Just head scratching about this. :hmm

Any Ideas on this would be appreciated.

Sounds like a bad bridge pickup. It won't sound "out of phase" in the middle position if one pickup is much weaker.

J T · Aug 2, 2016

It's good for now, hopefully it stays that way. If I find it intermittent, or goes back to the way it was, yeah that would be what that would be the best guess.

Hopefully that loose ground wire wasn't supposed to go somewhere, because it was just hanging there against the switch.:hmm

The only thing I could think of was that it is the bridge ground, but the bridge is dead quiet, no hum. oh well.

latestarter · Aug 8, 2016

Good news! Yeah, with a correct pickup reading something else had to be afoot. Sorry I didn't quite get to read my own for you, but doesn't matter now!

ES-345 what cable do I use?

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member