Тут вот есть кое-что по теме да и просто интересное, но уж пардон переводить времени нет
сапиенти сат типа
THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITE THINGS!
An Evaluation Of Effects And Pedals
PART I WAH-WAH PEDALS
By Eric Kraft
(Eric wrote this article and let Analog Man put it on our sebsite - Mike)
I made reference to the effects I use in my previous article " hunting THE tone ". This led me to my next topic. Wah pedals are enjoying a new resurgence, so I decided to write an article on them. I wrote a somewhat comprehensive article on Wahs for Vintage Guitar Magazine several years ago, and with Alan Greenwoods kind permission, we are reprinting that article here. This saved me reinventing the wheel. Thanks Al.
The idea for this article came about when I purchased a box of effects pedals from the owner of a music store which closed in the late seventies. Most were new old stock Electro-Harmonix with a few other brands mixed in. I spent several hours deciding which I found useful and thought others might profit from the information. This is a totally subjective evaluation, and I'm sure my opinions wouldn't be of value to a metal player or others of that ilk.I play and write blues, regae, R&B, and classic rock. I have searched diligently through the years for the Duane Allman, Dickey Betts type guitar sound. The violin type sustain of a Les Paul has always inspired me, and I've played a 1959 Les Paul flame top for most of my guitar playing career. After playing through at least 50 different amps the last two years I arrived at the ever popular 1956 Fender Bassman. Mine has reconed Jensen P-10 R's, is outfitted with a matched set of NOS Tungsol 5881's, and after using all RCA 12AX 7's, I went to the original Bassman configuration of 2 12AY 7's so as not to overdrive the power tubes so much. This amp is a dual rectifier amp and sounds delicious at all volumes with all types of guitars. I go in to detail here as this amp was my tone base for all testing. Another point I want to mention here is many acts I've heard and admired over the years were playing in large venues, football stadiums, large auditoriums, etc., allowing the guitar players to overdrive their amps with no worry about blowing the audience through the back wall. Those of us working in smaller venues, clubs etc., have a different problem to deal with. Achieving a singing sustain and fat tone in a small rehearsal space or a club is a different animal entirely. I usually don"t run my amp over 3 or 4 in these situations, and mic it when playing larger venues. My amp only puts out 40 Watts or less and is sufficient for most playing situations.
Since writing the above preamble several months ago some things have changed. First, I purchased a 1966 Fender Vibrolux reverb. It is equipped with Sovetek 5881's and puts out about 35 watts. Although it doesn't sound as good as my Bassman it's quite portable to take to jam sessions and when sitting in at a club. It, of course, has built in reverb and is easy to carry and set up quickly. It also has Jensen speakers and, other than the reverb, doesn't significantly alter the sound of the various effects tested when I A/B the effects between the two amps. The other thing is, with a little help from my friends, and a lot of looking on my part, this article has gone from covering some dozen effects to covering dozens of effects. My initial research has led me to fellow players saying, " hey, if you like the MXR Distortion Plus, try the ProCo Rat" etc. Presently I have three large drawers filled with various effects, seven Wah-Wah pedals, several very interesting articles dealing with the above, and apparently and endless chore! I've come to realize I couldn't possibly review the multitude of effects gizmos gushing forth from the mid 60's to the onslaught of digital signal processing. I am going to cover as much ground as possible, and it is for that reason this article will be two or more parts.
I conclude this introduction by saying I have switched back to all analog effects, and I feel I'm getting a much warmer and more musical tone from my guitar and amp by doing so. Granted there is a trade off in convenience. Rack mounted gear is faster to hook up at the gig, and midi makes programming digital effects easy and versatile, ie. a different reverb for each effect, fifty different chorus types, etc. I use straight guitar with reverb for 85% of my playing, controlling overdrive with my guitar volume knob. As for the other 15%, I just want one excellent chorus sound, or one ideal Wah-Wah, not fifty mediocre digitally synthesized ones. I don't want guitar tone like the guitar player I hear on every beer commercial!
THE WAH-WAH PEDAL
The preceding having been established, it is only fitting that part one of my article deals with the Wah Wah. In the early seventies my primary effects were a CryBaby Wah, a MXR Distortion Plus, and a MXR Phase 90 (both script logo models). Interesting to note here my Phase 90 stopped working during a recording session at The Record Plant in Sausalito. I sent a roadie out to buy me a new one which turned out to be a block logo model. The difference in timbre was so great I ended up omitting the effect on the cut we were working on. It wasn't until a few years ago I found out about the difference between the script and block logo MXR products, but more on that in part two. The CryBaby was the most common Wah of its day and, as I recall, it was quite adequate. I'm sure I wouldn't have kept using it if I found its quality inferior. It employed the infamous TDK 5103 inductor. I know that for a fact because I still own it and I checked. I made the Wah-Wah part one of my article because next to straight guitar tone Wah was the effect I used the most.
History
The following has been quoted from an article in Guitar Player Magazine entitled Wah: The Pedal That Wouldn't Die, by Art Thompson, May 1992. This article is recommended for more on the subject.
The first Wah type sounds could be found on Country albums in the late 50's and early sixties. These were largely achieved by the player working the tone knob. The Fender volume pedal, popular with steel players of the day, may also have created a Wah type sound. This pedal varied tone when moved left to right and volume when moved up and down. There was also the possibility of custom designed units. Vox was the first company to have commercial success with the Wah, though Ampeg was experimenting with the idea as early as 1961. "Vox's entry into the Wah-Wah pedal business came about thanks to Brad Plunkett, a twenty five year old engineer at Thomas Organ. Around '66 Plunkett was working on a circuit to replace the 3-position MRB, or voicing switch, with a less expensive potentiometer. A fellow engineer, Les Kushner, suggested an oscillator design which Plunkett then modified and built. To test the idea, a guitar was plugged in and, as Plunkett describes "all of a sudden people came running in to see what was making this sound-they just freaked out on it."
After first considering a tremolo-arm method of actuating the control, a volume pedal was quickly reworked with the wah-wah circuitry. Apparently Vox management saw lots of potential in this new gizmo, and it was subsequently introduced as the Clyde McCoy wah-wah pedal. Clyde was actually a trumpet player who had asked Vox for a device that could simulate the sound of a muted trumpet for use with a keyboard.These early pedals were manufactured in Italy and have a picture of Clyde on the bottom. They were distributed in the U.S. by the Thomas Organ Company. Later variants featured Clyde's signature only. Most pedal gurus consider the Clyde series to be rather thin and cheesy-sounding when compared to later models. aNaLoG.MaN Note : No! See below for more info on the great Clyde. Vox also offered a non-signature model around this time that simply said "Wah" on the bottom plate; it was also made in Italy.
The introduction of the Vox Crybaby pedal around 1968 came about because the U.S. distributor, Thomas Organ, and the European distributor, JMI, both wanted to sell the Wah-Wah but neither wanted the other to have the same pedal. Vox solved this by slapping the Crybaby name on the same model for the American market. The story goes that when Vox needed a new name for the pedal, they asked one of their distributors to describe the wah's sound. The response was "it sounds like a baby crying." Also at this time, Vox and Thomas Organ introduced a new model designated V846 that used a Japanese inductor made by TDK instead of the Italian made inductor. Most purists agree that this change degraded the sound of these pedals, but in the informal tests we conducted, our favorite (because of its almost human vocal quality and vomiting sounds) was an excellent sounding V 846......
The next major change occured when Vox came out with the King Wah, the first unit made completely in the United States. aNaLoG.MaN Note : early King VOX Wahs came from Italy Vox also tried different variations on the wah theme, such as the bass wah and the fuzz wah. It should also be noted that by the late '60s there were probably 40 or 50 different manufactures making wah-wah pedals on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of the more familiar names were Marshall, DeArmond, Sound City, Colorsound, Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, and Kay. Many of these devices offered extra sounds like fuzz, sirens, surf, tornado, and God knows what else. The early '70s saw companies such as Tychobrahe, Maestro, Foxx, and Morley getting into the wah-wah game. As the late '70s approached, the wah effect was becoming unhip, and the number of manufacturers dropped accordingly. By the early '80s only Thomas Organ, Morley, and a few other companies manufactured wah pedals."
I thank Mr. Thompson for the above account of the inception of the wah, but take issue with several points he mentioned. At this juncture I'm going to play my 'ace in the hole', Mr. Geoffrey Teese. I was introduced to Geoffrey by my close friend, George Cole, a professional player/teacher in the L.A. area. George told me that Geoffrey had modified his '70s CryBaby to old Vox standards and it sounded remarkably better. I called Geoffrey and since then we have become friends via many telephone conversations. Geoffrey is the "authorized vintage Vox wah repairman", and has done more research and has more information on vintage wahs than anyone I know! Geoffrey has been invaluable in the preparation of this part of my article, and I thank him. Geoffrey modified my '70s CryBaby to "Clyde McCoy" standards and I agree with George, the mod made all the difference. I thought the CryBaby was pretty good until I heard the difference in timbre and tonal sweep after Geoffrey reworked it. I introduce Geoffrey here because I agree with what he had to say regarding the last part of the Guitar Player article quoted above.
Geoffrey :
"GP says pedal gurus consider the Clydes to be 'rather thin and cheesy-sounding when compared to later models.' HOGWASH!-- 'the TDK 5103 square inductor had "almost human vocal quality and vomiting sounds.' I repeat, HOGWASH! The VOX/USA V846 changed much more than just the inductor. Everything but the very basic resistors were changed, making the V846/KING-VOX WAH/CRYBABY virtually an entirely new pedal (lumped together because they all shared circuitry, layout, and componentry). If Clydes are 'thin and cheesy sounding' then why are they commanding such a high price tag? I rest my case....."
I agree with Geoffrey whole heartedly about the wah sound being much better before the TDK inductor. I also don't have much use for a "vomiting sound" when I'm playing, but I guess it's all subjective. Another incongruency with the GP article is the naming of the VOX verses Crybaby name used for U.S. distribution. One pedal I tested was a VOX Crybaby made in Italy. This shoots holes in the THOMAS Crybaby theory mentioned above.
I've had trouble dating the exact years of issue of the Clyde McCoy. If the GP article is accurate, the Vox Wah was manufactured in 1966. The Vox V846 replaced the Clyde in April, 1967. This apparently leaves one short year for the picture and signature model Clydes to have been on the market. Thomas Organ signed distribution rights with Tom Jennings(VOX), in 1964. The original inductor used in these early pedals(the 80-5048-7 discussed later) was taken off microfilm as being created on 4/22/63. This makes the author question the accuracy of the 1966 inception date mentioned in the GP article.
Geoffrey Teese Interview
Q) What, in your opinion, is the finest stock pedal?
A) The old Clyde McCoy.
Q) Next best?
A) The 1st series Maestro Boomerangs circa '68 or '69.
Q) How do you know the 1st series?
A) Just the sound, nothing cosmetically or the S/N.
Q) What makes the Clyde the one?
A) Just the resonance of the sound, like a sonic blender, almost.
Q) What's the difference electronically?
A) Easy, a combination of two things- VOX/Thomas used the same general
type inductors, though the casings looked different. They didn't really
change until the TDK. The inductors are only part of the puzzle, the
second thing is the type of caps.
Q) What is the fasel inductor?
A) To the best of my knowledge fasel refers to the appearance and
conjectured make up. A way of discerning them. According to Thomas they
used one company to make all their inductors from 1958 to 1981.
Porr-Wagner probably made all the inductors, except the TDK, as TDK was
not listed in the VOX/THOMAS Vendor Files. TDK was introduced in roughly
1968 and used up to the close of Thomas in 1983. They still sold old
stock through 1983 when the rights were purchased by Jim Dunlop.
(aNaLoG.MaN Note : The FASEL inductor is a usually red plastic
cylinder shaped inductor used around 1970 on some italian wahs.
They sound very good.)
Q) What are you doing to cop the Clyde McCoy sound?
A) First, put in the NOS Vox inductors.
Q) The fasel type?
A) Yes, they're brown though, and are the 80-5048-7 (I call them "48's")
style. I've seen some of both types in the Vox Stereo Fuzz Wah, as well
as the Thomas model, though most Vox units came with the 5103.
Incidently, the fuzz in the Fuzz Wah is the same circuit design as the
V8162 Distortion Booster introduced in May, 1969.
Q) Do you have other release dates of note?
A) A few:
The Vox Tonebender- May, 1967
The Vox V846- April, 1967
Thomas Crybaby Stereo Fuzz Wah- 5/24/74- It's interesting that the
Stereo Fuzz Wah didn't use the TDK inductor and used the original caps.
Q) What's the next step?
A) The caps.
Q) What type?
A) That's a trade secret.
Q) What about the pots?
A) I personally feel they are of very little consequence, though some
feel differently. I can't hear a difference. They're audio taper pots.
The originals were ICAR, from Italy. In the U.S. CENTRALAB pots were
first used, and then the same design built by ALLEN/BRADLEY.
ALLEN/BRADLEY sold out to CLAROSTAT, and closed their Iowa plant where
the pots had been made.
Q) What about the taper of the pot?
A) They are 310 degree taper- 5/8" shaft length-63/1000" diameter hole
drilled into the shaft 1/8' down from the tip to accommodate the
retaining clip to secure the gear.
(aNaLoG.MaN Note : The RMC pots are now available with a special
taper just like the Clyde's ICAR that makes any wah sound better.)
Q) Any other parts that are important?
A) Yes. The power transistors-they maintain the audio level.
Q) Do you check them?
A) Yes. There's also a couple more things I do. I change the depth of
the on/off switch, readjust the position of the pot, and retune to
achieve the correct sweep. I also pull the felt stops from the
underneath side of the rocker panel.
Q) Why?
A) The main reason is, you need every bit of travel to use the
frequencies I open up- that's also why I reposition the on/off switch,
because it allows greater travel.
Inductors Defining what an inductor is and does is beyond the scope of this article. The author felt, however, a layman's definition was in order as the inductor and caps play such an instrumental role in the overall qualities of the the wah. Mr. Teese supplied me with the following explanation, "an inductor is a type of coil that influences the amount of time it takes a signal to go from one point to another."
I have seen four variations of inductors in the pedals I've tried for this section on wahs. The first, in my Italian Vox V846, looks like a small version of the old aluminum film canisters and has 500 ink stamped on the top. This is generally refered to as the "canister" type inductor The second looks like a stack of three or four dimes covered with a dark reddish brown material. The original Jennings Musical Instrument(VOX) part number was 09-5905-0. Thomas Organ changed this part number to "80-5048-7" in order to conform to their numbering system. This is the inductor Geoffrey refers to as the "48".The third is the infamous TDK 5103, a brown cube manufactured in Japan. It's interesting to note here that pedals manufactured in Sepelvuda, Ca. used the TDK 5103 while pedals manufactured in the midwest during this same time period retained the "48" style inductor. The last was a unique find. I bought a Wah Baby made in Italy a month ago. I called Geoffrey because I'd never seen an inductor like it. The inductor was mounted perpendicular to the circuit board and was bright red. I was describing it to Geoffrey when I grabbed my reading glasses to tell him what it said on the back. It said FASEL! Too hip! I was jazzed. All the inductors except the Fasel were mounted flush on the circuit board. Geoffrey contends that though they have different casings, these inductors are all the same. The only major difference is the TDK 5103.
I want to mention that the tone of your individual wah may be adjusted to your personal taste by simply pulling back the rubber retaining loop which applies pressure to the shaft and rotating the pot to change where the shaft engages the pot. This will change the tone range emphasized by the pot, ie. more or less treble or bass. A brief anecdote here. My friend Frank Hayhurst, owner of ZONE MUSIC in Cotati, Ca., had a band named The Bronze Hog in the '70s. They had the distinction of opening for Jimi Hendrix. Frank relates when he inspected Jimi's rig he noticed the bottom left rubber foot missing from Jimi's CryBaby Wah-Wah. When he asked one of the equipment guys why Jimi didn't fix it, the reply was, "Jimi leaves nothing to chance, it's removed to tilt the wah at the angle he finds comfortable."
Now the meat and potatoes. One major flaw with my research was I didn't have a Clyde McCoy to compare with my other pedals. From what I've learned doing this part of my article, this was the first generation of inductors and capacitors. However, my Wah Baby made in Italy has the original style caps and the famous Fasel inductor. It looks like a CryBaby except for the white rubber border around the edge of the cover plate. I'm sure it was a variant of the Vox/Thomas line. This had to serve as my Clyde McCoy stand in. I evaluated the following pedals. An Italian Vox V846 with the cannister type inductor, an American Vox V846 with the TDK inductor, my original Crybaby model 95-910511 from the '70s, originally with the TDK inductor and caps from that period, and then modified to Clyde McCoy specs by Mr. Teese, a Vox King Wah model 95-932011 with TDK inductor, the Italian Wah Baby (no model #) with the Fasel inductor, a Crybaby model 95-910511 with the "stack of dimes covered with reddish brown material (this is the type inductor Geoffrey put in my Crybaby when he modified it), an Electro-Harmonix Crying Tone Bender, the new Vox V847, a Morley Power Wah from the '70s, a VOX Crybaby made in Italy model 95-9109511 with the canister type inductor, and the new Jim Dunlop Crybaby.
A short synopsis is as follows
I didn't care for the Morley at all which is probably why one sees these chrome, AC powered, Fruehauf truck looking son of a guns sitting gathering dust at many music stores. They are very well built but don't sound good, although I understand Carlos Santana has used one for years. The next worse sounding pedal is the Jim Dunlop CryBaby, it lacks tone and sweep. The best of the reissues I've tried is the Vox V847, but it doesn't favorably compare with any of my vintage pedals.
My least favorite vintage pedal was my CryBaby. After Geoffrey modified it, it became my favorite pedal, just edging out my Italian made pedals. My Vox V846 Italy sounds great. It has nasal, piercing highs and an excellent tonal sweep. The Wah Baby sounded almost identical, it was excellent, but I couldn't discern a noticeable difference between it's sound and my VOX V846 Italy.
I want to mention that Geoffrey went through all these vintage pedals, save the EH Crying Tone Pedal, to make sure they were in top operational condition. My Crybaby was the only one he modified. The American Vox V846 and King Vox Wah sound good but lack the range and richness of tone of the others, probably due to the inductor and caps. They both sounded better than the new Vox V847. The EH Crying Tone Pedal is really interesting. A knob on the right side of the chassis selects it to be a wah or volume pedal. The first of two knobs on the left side of the chassis select regular or reverse wah, ie. pressing the pedal down can make it emphasize bass rather than the normal treble. The second knob selects one of four tone ranges to be effected. This is a good sounding pedal, but is a little to tricky for me. I want just one great sounding wah-wah pedal. The VOX Crybaby made in Italy sounded almost identical to my VOX V846 Italy but with slightly less treble. They both use the canister inductor, but the caps are different. The final pedal I wish to discuss is the CryBaby with the reddish brown circular inductor. For some inexplicable reason it sounds entirely different from the others. Maybe it's the relationship of the shaft to the pot, I don't know. It is smooth and warm with lots of tone. It reminds me of a good jazz style wah if there was such a thing.
In summation, the original style inductors and caps greatly effect performance. If I were to choose an unmodified pedal to use on stage, it would unquestionably be an Italian made Vox/Thomas pedal. This also seems to be the pedal of choice of many big league players. This doesn't rule out the different vintage brands mentioned in the Guitar Player article. I've heard the Gretsch and Colorsound wahs were excellent. A friend of mine recently saw my Wah Baby and said it looked exactly like his old Gretsch Playboy Wah. After further investigation, I found out from Geoffrey that JEN, the Italian company that made the Wah Baby, did produce the entire JEN line of effects for sale in the U.S. with the Gretsch name; wahs, fuzzes, frequency(ring) modulators, etc.The COLORSOUND/SOLASOUND pedals were made by CBS/ARBITER, in Shoeburyness, England. About this time, CBS/ARBITER had rights to VOX, and was making the VOX Wah, the one that looks like the V846, but with the white rubber ring around the base. The time line is around the mid 70's.
Those old monsters, time and money, prevent me from buying and trying more wah-wahs. I am presently using my Teese modified CryBaby on stage. I used it last month, at a club called The Blue Note, running directly into a '66 Fender Vibrolux. The sound drew a lot of attention. The characteristics of the pedal changed in this louder playing situation. The pedal sounded good at low volume(2-3) in my home studio, but really shined at the louder(6-7) club volume. The pedal offered me singing controlled feedback, a nasty treble boost when left in the down position, and a lyrical, almost human voice type wah. Like any effect, I use it sparingly, but when I do it adds a wonderful spice to my guitar sound.
I would like to say that the best sounding effects I've evaluated for this article seem to be the ones in greatest demand. A rule of thumb seems to be the "cream rises to the top", eg. the Clyde McCoy, the Ibanez TS-9, etc. The sound these effects produce is what makes them endure, other than a specialized sound, like the Maestro Fuzztone used on Satisfaction, or the Uni-Vibe used to get that "Hendrix sound".
The author would appreciate any insight offered regarding wah-wahs. Any correction to inaccuracies or disagreements with these subjective evaluations are also welcome.
Eric Kraft is a singer, songwriter, guitarist from Kansas City. He has played with Sly and the Family Stone and currently writes for several music publications. He can be contacted through The Music Market @ 707-577-0527 or via e-mail, kraft@sonic.net
ADDITIONAL WAH INFORMATION AND WAH UPDATES
by Geoffrey Teese
Since the original research time of Eric Kraft's article, I have learned much more about the Vox wahs. I've also updated and/or changed some of my opinions, and would like to clarify as much as I can.
First off, I can't be positive of the actual release date of the FIRST Vox wah-wah. The Service Manual for the V846, from Thomas Organ Company, is dated April, 1967. The Clyde McCoy wahs predate the V846, with the "Picture" model first, followed by the "Signature" model. The Vox wah-wah promotional paper record, recorder by Del Casher, is dated February, 1967. This was recorded with the original, prototype wah. Working back from that date, 30 days to figure production start-up (according to former Thomas employees), puts possible creation of the wah in January of 1967, or perhaps December of 1966. I have been able to date a handful of Clyde McCoy Signature units to the middle of 1967, largely because the U.S. made AB Type J pots used in them were date coded. The "Picture" model primarily used ICAR pots, which were not date coded in usual fashion. According to GUITAR PLAYER MAGAZINE'S Art Thompson, there was an additional Italian made, NON Clyde McCoy, chrome top Vox wah available before the introduction of the V846. Engineering drawings date the chrome V846 rocker at February, 1968, with release for production logged at March, 1968.
When talking tone, it should be noted that component tolerances were all over the place. This equates to definite tonal variances, one pedal to another. While I've heard more than my share of "thin-cheesy sounding" Clyde McCoy wahs, I've also come across stock Clydes that have had a deep, warm, and powerful tone! Inductor variances and other component tolerances could indeed make all the difference in the world.
This brings us to inductors. I must go on record clarifying and correcting some things I said in the past. To begin with, you need to realize that there are dozens of different ferrite compounds available to be made into inductors. Each compound has its own specific characteristics. The English made "halo" inductors, found in many Italian Clydes, were made of at least two, verified, different, ferrite compounds. AND, each compound was produced in two different physical configurations. Very little is genuinely known about the production aspects of the "metal film can" inductors. None of my U.S. or Italian sources have been able to come up with any verified historical data on these units. Using modern test equipment to plot characteristics, while the ferrite is still potted, only gives part of the picture, at best. The Italian manufactured FASEL inductor, a rarity in THOMAS/VOX badged wahs, used another material and in a smaller size than the "film can" and "halo." While all these inductors had to meet certain technical criteria, no actual ferrite material was specified in the engineering files. In the U.S., Thomas had been using the same domestic inductor supplier for years. As far as I've been able to verify, there were two different ferrites used, two different physical configurations, and three different looking finished products. The earlier type came in a four solder post array, as well as the more common two solder lead unit. Production problems forced the change to the second ferrite compound, from a different ferrite manufacturing company. This compound was carefully formulated to be the exact equivalent of the earlier material, made by the other company. The TDK inductors were introduced as a way to save precious, and shrinking, funds, while maintaining consistency. TDK first produced a copy of the FASEL. While fairly true to the original, the TDK "FASEL" stood too tall to be safely used in the currently manufactured wah cases. This brought about the creation of the 5103 cube.
The subject of potentiometers also warrants another look. Numerous differently tapered pots found their way into use in the THOMAS/VOX wahs. These included, but were not limited to: Allen Bradley Type J, Allen Bradley Type EJ, Centralab (two different, non-labeled tapers), Clarostat EJ, Clarostat J, Clarostat NP, Ohmite AB, Alpha, ERT, ICAR, and FRT. The unofficial "right" pot was the ICAR. This unit did not have a standard type taper. Because of this, the effect achieved while using an ICAR pot was unlike that achieved using a more standard (U.S.) pot. The ICAR was pretty much in a class by itself. There were, however, some very close contenders that appeared in some Italian manufactured wahs. The ERT, Alpha, and FRT pots nearly mirrored the ICAR. Interestingly, Centralab offered a pot in Europe that almost duplicated the ICAR, but apparently, they did not sell it in the U.S.
I hope all this info clarifies matters somewhat. I should add that, while I've seen hundreds of vintage wahs, and logged them in my database, I now hesitate to make any 100% definite statements regarding the old wahs. There have been way too many "wild cards" out there in the pedals I've examined, and those are only a small fraction of the total number of wahs produced in their heyday.
Since the ICAR pots have been unavailable for years, I've had a number of 100% accurate pots manufactured for my use in my tunable RMC3 wah. Likewise, I've also reproduced my favorite brown Vox inductor, based on my microfilmed Thomas files and information gleaned from the old Thomas supplier. These inductors can also be found in my RMC3 wahs, as well as my 847 Rev.A RMC-MOD drop-in replacement circuit board for the "reissued" V847.
My RMC3 wahs, and modified boards, are now being used by recording artist of all musical styles, all over the world.
Размещение рекламы