Rebuild a 66 Varitone Circuit

Some of you may know that I just got a 66 335 with a factory varitone. I'm going to replace everything except the switch. It has some kind of choke, it's not the Gibson one. Should I find a newer one? I also would need an idea of capacitors to pickup as well as how to wire it mono! I've found a couple diagrams online but I can't seem to find the right one. Thanks!

I'd love to see how this turns out for you. I've recently been researching quite a few threads on here regarding varitone circuits. I currently have my '64 ES-345 in with a good friend and excellent guitar tech/luthier, Ben Massey, here in Austin. My 345 had a non original harness with no varitone or choke, I sourced an original harness and varitone with choke and Ben is currently rewiring it to be mono, and because it will be mono, it seems plausible that the varitone, which because it is originally a stereo circuit, and has two sides, that it can be bypassed by assigning position 1 to the disabled side and then have the varitone engaged from position 2 on. Theoretically this could give a real (I don't say 'true') bypass in the first position and then perhaps a better over all sound from the engaged varitone positions because they are not summed signals. I hope this works out. I'll keep everyone posted. I wonder if anyone has had success with this idea. It could be useful for you as well. I'll be watching this thread with great interest.

This topic has been discussed many times.
https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/...f-the-Varitone-Controversy&highlight=varitone
And, yes, one can use half of the rotary switch of a Varitone converted to mono to achieve a real bypass of the varitone in the 1st position and have the Varitone functional in the postions 2 through 6.
https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/...assed-mono-varitone&highlight=varitone bypass
Here is a schematic:
http://storage.canalblog.com/65/48/274546/17279181.gif

TinyBabyBrandon said:

I'd love to see how this turns out for you. I've recently been researching quite a few threads on here regarding varitone circuits. I currently have my '64 ES-345 in with a good friend and excellent guitar tech/luthier, Ben Massey, here in Austin. My 345 had a non original harness with no varitone or choke, I sourced an original harness and varitone with choke and Ben is currently rewiring it to be mono, and because it will be mono, it seems plausible that the varitone, which because it is originally a stereo circuit, and has two sides, that it can be bypassed by assigning position 1 to the disabled side and then have the varitone engaged from position 2 on. Theoretically this could give a real (I don't say 'true') bypass in the first position and then perhaps a better over all sound from the engaged varitone positions because they are not summed signals. I hope this works out. I'll keep everyone posted. I wonder if anyone has had success with this idea. It could be useful for you as well. I'll be watching this thread with great interest.

Click to expand...

I've seen a couple videos on YouTube of people comparing the vairtone to true bypass and regular position 1 and they sound the exact same to me, BUT everyone has different ears and opinions. Any idea how much I should pay for an original choke? Could I buy an aftermarket one from Mouser or something?

For the best Varitone advice, I recommend contacting Charlie Gelber at http://www.es-335.org/. He's the ES345, hence Varitone, expert.

Charlie's the man!

I have a ‘65 Epiphone Al Caiola and it has a Varitone with “more” Useable position, but still up towards the top end it’s pretty bright.. you have to have a choke otherwise you just have a switchable tone control..

liams2230 said:

I've seen a couple videos on YouTube of people comparing the vairtone to true bypass and regular position 1 and they sound the exact same to me, BUT everyone has different ears and opinions. Any idea how much I should pay for an original choke? Could I buy an aftermarket one from Mouser or something?

Click to expand...

I found a full harness that was *almost* the right year, January 1965 according to the pots codes, and I for the whole shebang I paid, I think, around $300, which was a pretty good deal. In a pinch, I can't think of someone more qualified to ask their opinion than Charlie Gelber at OK Guitars about choke choices. Besides being a wealth of knowledge on 3x5's in general, he has historically been a proponent for the varitone, while many others have jumped on the rip it out bandwagon. I would definitely ask him.

As for the difference in sound, it's there. Generally expect a loss of treble with a varitone installed, but my personal quest has been how to avoid this and keep the varitone. Wiring mono correctly, and utilizing the varitone in mono and doing what I mentioned (I certainly didn't come up with the idea, only appropriated it), assigning the 1 position to the non functioning side of the switch, you should achieve something at least much closer to a bypassed signal than you would by keeping the varitone wired the same and just doing a mono wiring set up at the jack, which seems common on 345's going from stereo to mono. Redoing the entire harness is necessary and all the changes should get you a better sounding varitone guitar. I guess a good comparison would be a factory mono 355 with varitone vs. a regular 335, if that's even around. I cannot recall ever having seen a factory mono 355 with a varitone.

TinyBabyBrandon said:

As for the difference in sound, it's there. Generally expect a loss of treble with a varitone installed, but my personal quest has been how to avoid this and keep the varitone.

Click to expand...

On my 1959 ES345 the by-pass position of the un-altered original Varitone is a true by-pass. I notice no loss of tone, treble or otherwise, when switching between my 345 and Les Paul. (I mean, the 345 is a different tone than the Les Paul, but the 345 is no less dynamic. It's still a stereo guitar too.)

However, I have heard that some of the later Varitones, say post 1962, when in the by-pass position, do mess with the tone...but I've never personally experienced it.
97% of those who say the Varitone sucks the tone out of the guitar are probably using a stereo-to-mono mix-down cable which really just screws things up.
The other 3% may actually be hearing something. I don't know what they're hearing, but it may actually be there.

Call Charlie Gelber. He'll set you (and all of us) straight.

brandtkronholm said:

However, I have heard that some of the later Varitones, say post 1962, when in the by-pass position, do mess with the tone...but I've never personally experienced it.
97% of those who say the Varitone sucks the tone out of the guitar are probably using a stereo-to-mono mix-down cable which really just screws things up.
The other 3% may actually be hearing something. I don't know what they're hearing, but it may actually be there.

Call Charlie Gelber. He'll set you (and all of us) straight.

Click to expand...

True- the original varitone is certainly different than the later ones with the chips post 62. Also true that the switch to mono is generally done in a simplified way. Not only does it create a crappier sound that way, but it messes with how the knobs function. I believe all knobs are always engaged if done in the simplified way. Converting the harness to mono is actually a pretty in depth process from my limited understanding of it. I think its also possible that running a 345 as intended probably does sound great, albeit impractical for most applications. But in doing so, running to a stereo Gibson amp or 2 amps, (which essentially is what a stereo Gibson amp is anyway) could very easily trick you into thinking you're hearing more than you are because of the two signals through two amps together. I tend to run a version of a wet dry rig and it sounds absolutely huge, even at low volumes, compared to running normally into just one amp. That could be the difference maker there. There have been so many A/B varitone/nonvaritone comparisons, almost always, no matter the era varitone, the conclusion is that there is some loss there. I'm sure there's always an exception, but in general, that is the accepted consensus.

Going slightly off topic now...
Here's a picture of one way to plug a stereo Gibson into one amp - and make it work properly. (In other words, here are a few ways to avoid the simplified/crappy improperly modified mono sound on your stereo Gibson.)

A stereo cable comes out of the guitar (ES345) and is split into two separate signals which then go into one amp - provided that amp has two inputs. I really dig the Out-of-Phase sound so I plug both inputs into one channel of my Super Reverb (196?) The middle position starts funk and gets funkier with a small turn of a volume knob on the guitar. I even use the Varitone - I like setting "2" the best (2=two clicks of the chicken-head).
Also, I'll run two wah pedals (Vox, please), one for each pickup.
I have modified the Boogie amp in this picture to accommodate a stereo input that is identical to the two inputs on the Super Reverb. There is absolutely no loss of tone whatsoever.

I) A detailed LPF post with a non/flash picture can be found here:
https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?173138-Two-Photos-of-My-Three-Electrics-(Some-Vintage-Content)-BIG-PIC&highlight=three+guitars

II) A thread started by Steve Craw about his magnificent 1964 ES345 and exclaiming the virtues of the Y-cable into separate channels of a Silver Fender can be found here:
https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?212208-Another-ES-345-Wiring-Solution&highlight=ES+stereo+buffer+box

The picture below (and the picture in the linked thread above (I)) were taken on the same day back in 200?. I need new pictures...


An alternative is an ES Stereo/Mono Buffer Box which is discussed in this thread.
I have one and it really does the trick - and keeps the middle out-of-phase!
https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?203999-1960-ES-345-solution/page2

Admittedly, it would be a bit easier if the guitar was correctly modified from stereo to mono, but I'm reluctant to alter an otherwise original 1959 ES345 - save for the gold Schallers which were installed in the 1970s - well before I acquired it. But then, if it were mono I couldn't run two wah pedals. Seriously, the craziest "Woman-Tone" ever: Neck tone =0, Neck wah on and all the way back while the Bridge tone is =10 and the Bridge wah is off. Fiddle with both volumes for taste. I digress...

I do something similar. I run the "Y" cable to separate challes of my Deluxe Reverb. With this , I have a channel that I can EQ to each pickup. Lately, I've been running mono a lot. By using a standard cable, plugged into the guitar until I feel the first click, then plug into one channel of the amp. Both pickups work, and I can use a single bank of effects. There is NO need to convert an ES 345 to mono.

Steve Craw said:

I do something similar. I run the "Y" cable to separate challes of my Deluxe Reverb. With this , I have a channel that I can EQ to each pickup. Lately, I've been running mono a lot. By using a standard cable, plugged into the guitar until I feel the first click, then plug into one channel of the amp. Both pickups work, and I can use a single bank of effects. There is NO need to convert an ES 345 to mono.

Click to expand...

Did you not see that I mentioned your method in my lengthy post #11? :hee

Oops!

Steve Craw said:

Oops!

Click to expand...

:salude

I forget all the details of your previous posts - how do you feel about the various Varitone options? Do you use any? If so, which are your favorites? (Do you address this in a previous post?)

I rarely use the Varitone. Sometimes I'll use #3 for " I Feel Fine".