Analog Man Wah Wah Pedal Article

7/27/2019 Analog Man Wah Wah Pedal Article

1/11

Analog Man Vintage guitar effects

THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITETHINGS!

An Evaluation Of Effects And Pedals

PART I WAH-WAH PEDALSBy 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 anarticle on them. I wrote a somewhat comprehensive article on Wahs for Vintage GuitarMagazine several years ago, and with Alan Greenwoods kind permission, we arereprinting 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 theowner of a music store which closed in the late seventies. Most were new old stockElectro-Harmonix with a few other brands mixed in. I spent several hours deciding which Ifound useful and thought others might profit from the information. This is a totallysubjective evaluation, and I'm sure my opinions wouldn't be of value to a metal player orothers of that ilk.I play and write blues, regae, R&B, and classic rock. I have searcheddiligently through the years for the Duane Allman, Dickey Betts type guitar sound. Theviolin type sustain of a Les Paul has always inspired me, and I've played a 1959 Les Paulflame top for most of my guitar playing career. After playing through at least 50 differentamps the last two years I arrived at the ever popular 1956 Fender Bassman. Mine hasreconed Jensen P-10 R's, is outfitted with a matched set of NOS Tungsol 5881's, and afterusing all RCA 12AX 7's, I went to the original Bassman configuration of 2 12AY 7's so asnot to overdrive the power tubes so much. This amp is a dual rectifier amp and soundsdelicious at all volumes with all types of guitars. I go in to detail here as this amp was mytone base for all testing. Another point I want to mention here is many acts I've heard andadmired 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 theaudience through the back wall. Those of us working in smaller venues, clubs etc., have adifferent problem to deal with. Achieving a singing sustain and fat tone in a smallrehearsal space or a club is a different animal entirely. I usually don"t run my amp over 3or 4 in these situations, and mic it when playing larger venues. My amp only puts out 40Watts or less and is sufficient for most playing situations.

Wah Wah Pedal article http://www.analogman.com/kraf

of 11 6/18/13 6:48


2/11

Since writing the above preamble several months ago some things have changed. First, Ipurchased a 1966 Fender Vibrolux reverb. It is equipped with Sovetek 5881's and puts outabout 35 watts. Although it doesn't sound as good as my Bassman it's quite portable totake to jam sessions and when sitting in at a club. It, of course, has built in reverb and iseasy 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 oflooking on my part, this article has gone from covering some dozen effects to coveringdozens of effects. My initial research has led me to fellow players saying, " hey, if you likethe MXR Distortion Plus, try the ProCo Rat" etc. Presently I have three large drawersfilled with various effects, seven Wah-Wah pedals, several very interesting articles dealingwith the above, and apparently and endless chore! I've come to realize I couldn't possiblyreview the multitude of effects gizmos gushing forth from the mid 60's to the onslaught ofdigital signal processing. I am going to cover as much ground as possible, and it is for thatreason this article will be two or more parts.

I conclude this introduction by saying I have switched back to all analog effects, and I feelI'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 thegig, and midi makes programming digital effects easy and versatile, ie. a different reverbfor each effect, fifty different chorus types, etc. I use straight guitar with reverb for 85% ofmy playing, controlling overdrive with my guitar volume knob. As for the other 15%, Ijust want one excellent chorus sound, or one ideal Wah-Wah, not fifty mediocre digitallysynthesized ones. I don't want guitar tone like the guitar player I hear on every beercommercial!

THE WAH-WAH PEDALThe preceding having been established, it is only fitting that part one of my article dealswith the Wah Wah. In the early seventies my primary effects were a CryBaby Wah, a MXRDistortion Plus, and a MXR Phase 90 (both script logo models). Interesting to note heremy 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. Thedifference in timbre was so great I ended up omitting the effect on the cut we wereworking on. It wasn't until a few years ago I found out about the difference between thescript 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'thave kept using it if I found its quality inferior. It employed the infamous TDK 5103inductor. I know that for a fact because I still own it and I checked. I made the Wah-Wahpart one of my article because next to straight guitar tone Wah was the effect I used themost.


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


3/11

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 recommendedfor more on the subject.

The first Wah type sounds could be found on Country albums in the late 50'sand early sixties. These were largely achieved by the player working the toneknob. The Fender volume pedal, popular with steel players of the day, may alsohave created a Wah type sound. This pedal varied tone when moved left to rightand volume when moved up and down. There was also the possibility ofcustom designed units. Vox was the first company to have commercial successwith 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 BradPlunkett, a twenty five year old engineer at Thomas Organ. Around '66 Plunkettwas working on a circuit to replace the 3-position MRB, or voicing switch,

with a less expensive potentiometer. A fellow engineer, Les Kushner, suggestedan oscillator design which Plunkett then modified and built. To test the idea, aguitar was plugged in and, as Plunkett describes "all of a sudden people camerunning 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 volumepedal was quickly reworked with the wah-wah circuitry. Apparently Voxmanagement saw lots of potential in this new gizmo, and it was subsequentlyintroduced as the Clyde McCoy wah-wah pedal. Clyde was actually a trumpetplayer 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 Italyand have a picture of Clyde on the bottom. They were distributed in the U.S. bythe 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 modelaround this time that simply said "Wah" on the bottom plate; it was also madein Italy.

The introduction of the Vox Crybaby pedal around 1968 came about because

the U.S. distributor, Thomas Organ, and the European distributor, JMI, bothwanted to sell the Wah-Wah but neither wanted the other to have the samepedal. Vox solved this by slapping the Crybaby name on the same model for theAmerican market. The story goes that when Vox needed a new name for thepedal, they asked one of their distributors to describe the wah's sound. Theresponse was "it sounds like a baby crying." Also at this time, Vox and ThomasOrgan introduced a new model designated V846 that used a Japanese inductor


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


4/11

made by TDK instead of the Italian made inductor. Most purists agree that thischange degraded the sound of these pedals, but in the informal tests weconducted, our favorite (because of its almost human vocal quality andvomiting 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 KingVOX Wahs came from Italy Vox also tried different variations on the wahtheme, such as the bass wah and the fuzz wah. It should also be noted that bythe late '60s there were probably 40 or 50 different manufactures makingwah-wah pedals on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of the more familiar nameswere 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 asTychobrahe, Maestro, Foxx, and Morley getting into the wah-wah game. As thelate '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 issuewith 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, aprofessional player/teacher in the L.A. area. George told me that Geoffrey had modifiedhis '70s CryBaby to old Vox standards and it sounded remarkably better. I called Geoffreyand 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 moreinformation 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 CryBabyto "Clyde McCoy" standards and I agree with George, the mod made all the difference. Ithought the CryBaby was pretty good until I heard the difference in timbre and tonalsweep after Geoffrey reworked it. I introduce Geoffrey here because I agree with what hehad 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.' Irepeat, HOGWASH! The VOX/USA V846 changed much more than just theinductor. Everything but the very basic resistors were changed, making theV846/KING-VOX WAH/CRYBABY virtually an entirely new pedal (lumpedtogether because they all shared circuitry, layout, and componentry). If Clydesare 'thin and cheesy sounding' then why are they commanding such a high pricetag? I rest my case....."


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


5/11

I agree with Geoffrey whole heartedly about the wah sound being much better before theTDK inductor. I also don't have much use for a "vomiting sound" when I'm playing, but Iguess it's all subjective. Another incongruency with the GP article is the naming of theVOX verses Crybaby name used for U.S. distribution. One pedal I tested was a VOXCrybaby made in Italy. This shoots holes in the THOMAS Crybaby theory mentionedabove.

I've had trouble dating the exact years of issue of the Clyde McCoy. If the GP article isaccurate, the Vox Wah was manufactured in 1966. The Vox V846 replaced the Clyde inApril, 1967. This apparently leaves one short year for the picture and signature modelClydes to have been on the market. Thomas Organ signed distribution rights with TomJennings(VOX), in 1964. The original inductor used in these early pedals(the 80-5048-7discussed later) was taken off microfilm as being created on 4/22/63. This makes theauthor 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 generaltype inductors, though the casings looked different. They didn't reallychange 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 andconjectured make up. A way of discerning them. According to Thomas theyused one company to make all their inductors from 1958 to 1981.Porr-Wagner probably made all the inductors, except the TDK, as TDK wasnot listed in the VOX/THOMAS Vendor Files. TDK was introduced in roughly1968 and used up to the close of Thomas in 1983. They still sold oldstock through 1983 when the rights were purchased by Jim Dunlop.

(aNaLoG.MaN Note : The FASEL inductor is a usually red plasticcylinder 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")


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


6/11

style. I've seen some of both types in the Vox Stereo Fuzz Wah, as wellas the Thomas model, though most Vox units came with the 5103.Incidently, the fuzz in the Fuzz Wah is the same circuit design as theV8162 Distortion Booster introduced in May, 1969.

Q) Do you have other release dates of note?

A) A few:The Vox Tonebender- May, 1967The Vox V846- April, 1967Thomas Crybaby Stereo Fuzz Wah- 5/24/74- It's interesting that theStereo 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 somefeel 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 wherethe 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 holedrilled into the shaft 1/8' down from the tip to accommodate theretaining clip to secure the gear.

(aNaLoG.MaN Note : The RMC pots are now available with a specialtaper 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 ofthe on/off switch, readjust the position of the pot, and retune toachieve the correct sweep. I also pull the felt stops from theunderneath side of the rocker panel.

Q) Why?A) The main reason is, you need every bit of travel to use thefrequencies 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 suchan instrumental role in the overall qualities of the the wah. Mr. Teese supplied me with thefollowing explanation, "an inductor is a type of coil that influences the amount of time ittakes 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


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


7/11

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 darkreddish brown material. The original Jennings Musical Instrument(VOX) part number was09-5905-0. Thomas Organ changed this part number to "80-5048-7" in order to conform totheir numbering system. This is the inductor Geoffrey refers to as the "48".The third is theinfamous 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 inthe midwest during this same time period retained the "48" style inductor. The last was aunique find. I bought a Wah Baby made in Italy a month ago. I called Geoffrey because I'dnever seen an inductor like it. The inductor was mounted perpendicular to the circuit boardand was bright red. I was describing it to Geoffrey when I grabbed my reading glasses totell him what it said on the back. It said FASEL! Too hip! I was jazzed. All the inductorsexcept the Fasel were mounted flush on the circuit board. Geoffrey contends that thoughthey have different casings, these inductors are all the same. The only major difference isthe TDK 5103.

I want to mention that the tone of your individual wah may be adjusted to your personaltaste by simply pulling back the rubber retaining loop which applies pressure to the shaftand rotating the pot to change where the shaft engages the pot. This will change the tonerange emphasized by the pot, ie. more or less treble or bass. A brief anecdote here. Myfriend Frank Hayhurst, owner of ZONE MUSIC in Cotati, Ca., had a band named TheBronze Hog in the '70s. They had the distinction of opening for Jimi Hendrix. Frankrelates when he inspected Jimi's rig he noticed the bottom left rubber foot missing fromJimi's CryBaby Wah-Wah. When he asked one of the equipment guys why Jimi didn't fixit, the reply was, "Jimi leaves nothing to chance, it's removed to tilt the wah at the angle hefinds comfortable."

Now the meat and potatoes. One major flaw with my research was I didn't have a ClydeMcCoy to compare with my other pedals. From what I've learned doing this part of myarticle, this was the first generation of inductors and capacitors. However, my Wah Babymade in Italy has the original style caps and the famous Fasel inductor. It looks like aCryBaby except for the white rubber border around the edge of the cover plate. I'm sure itwas a variant of the Vox/Thomas line. This had to serve as my Clyde McCoy stand in. Ievaluated the following pedals. An Italian Vox V846 with the cannister type inductor, anAmerican Vox V846 with the TDK inductor, my original Crybaby model 95-910511 fromthe '70s, originally with the TDK inductor and caps from that period, and then modified toClyde 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 95-910511with the "stack of dimes covered with reddish brown material (this is the type inductorGeoffrey put in my Crybaby when he modified it), an Electro-Harmonix Crying ToneBender, the new Vox V847, a Morley Power Wah from the '70s, a VOX Crybaby made inItaly model 95-9109511 with the canister type inductor, and the new Jim Dunlop Crybaby.

A short synopsis is as follows


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


8/11

I didn't care for the Morley at all which is probably why one sees these chrome, ACpowered, 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 hasused one for years. The next worse sounding pedal is the Jim Dunlop CryBaby, it lackstone and sweep. The best of the reissues I've tried is the Vox V847, but it doesn't favorablycompare with any of my vintage pedals.

My least favorite vintage pedal was my CryBaby. After Geoffrey modified it, it becamemy favorite pedal, just edging out my Italian made pedals. My Vox V846 Italy soundsgreat. It has nasal, piercing highs and an excellent tonal sweep. The Wah Baby soundedalmost identical, it was excellent, but I couldn't discern a noticeable difference between it'ssound and my VOX V846 Italy.

I want to mention that Geoffrey went through all these vintage pedals, save the EH CryingTone Pedal, to make sure they were in top operational condition. My Crybaby was the onlyone he modified. The American Vox V846 and King Vox Wah sound good but lack therange and richness of tone of the others, probably due to the inductor and caps. They bothsounded better than the new Vox V847. The EH Crying Tone Pedal is really interesting. Aknob on the right side of the chassis selects it to be a wah or volume pedal. The first of twoknobs on the left side of the chassis select regular or reverse wah, ie. pressing the pedaldown can make it emphasize bass rather than the normal treble. The second knob selectsone of four tone ranges to be effected. This is a good sounding pedal, but is a little totricky for me. I want just one great sounding wah-wah pedal. The VOX Crybaby made inItaly sounded almost identical to my VOX V846 Italy but with slightly less treble. Theyboth use the canister inductor, but the caps are different. The final pedal I wish to discussis the CryBaby with the reddish brown circular inductor. For some inexplicable reason itsounds 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 stylewah if there was such a thing.

In summation, the original style inductors and caps greatly effect performance. If I were tochoose an unmodified pedal to use on stage, it would unquestionably be an Italian madeVox/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 sawmy Wah Baby and said it looked exactly like his old Gretsch Playboy Wah. After furtherinvestigation, 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 pedalswere 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 likethe V846, but with the white rubber ring around the base. The time line is around the mid70's.


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


9/11

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 clubcalled The Blue Note, running directly into a '66 Fender Vibrolux. The sound drew a lot ofattention. The characteristics of the pedal changed in this louder playing situation. Thepedal sounded good at low volume(2-3) in my home studio, but really shined at thelouder(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. Likeany 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 bethe 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 makesthem endure, other than a specialized sound, like the Maestro Fuzztone used onSatisfaction, or the Uni-Vibe used to get that "Hendrix sound".

The author would appreciate any insight offered regarding wah-wahs. Any correction toinaccuracies or disagreements with these subjective evaluations are also welcome.

Eric Kraft is a singer, songwriter, guitarist from Kansas City. He has playedwith Sly and the Family Stone and currently writes for several musicpublications. He can be contacted through The Music Market @ 707-577-0527or via e-mail, [email protected]

ADDITIONAL WAH INFORMATIONAND WAH UPDATES

by Geoffrey Teese

Since the original research time of Eric Kraft's article, I have learned much more about theVox wahs. I've also updated and/or changed some of my opinions, and would like toclarify as much as I can.

First off, I can't be positive of the actual release date of the FIRST Vox wah-wah. TheService 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 backfrom that date, 30 days to figure production start-up (according to former Thomasemployees), puts possible creation of the wah in January of 1967, or perhaps December of1966. I have been able to date a handful of Clyde McCoy Signature units to the middle of1967, largely because the U.S. made AB Type J pots used in them were date coded. The


of 11 6/18/13 6:48


10/11

"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 additionalItalian made, NON Clyde McCoy, chrome top Vox wah available before the introductionof the V846. Engineering drawings date the chrome V846 rocker at February, 1968, withrelease 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 thanmy share of "thin-cheesy sounding" Clyde McCoy wahs, I've also come across stockClydes that have had a deep, warm, and powerful tone! Inductor variances and othercomponent 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 Isaid in the past. To begin with, you need to realize that there are dozens of different ferritecompounds available to be made into inductors. Each compound has its own specificcharacteristics. The English made "halo" inductors, found in many Italian Clydes, weremade of at least two, verified, different, ferrite compounds. AND, each compound wasproduced in two different physical configurations. Very little is genuinely known about theproduction aspects of the "metal film can" inductors. None of my U.S. or Italian sourceshave been able to come up with any verified historical data on these units. Using moderntest equipment to plot characteristics, while the ferrite is still potted, only gives part of thepicture, at best. The Italian manufactured FASEL inductor, a rarity in THOMAS/VOXbadged 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 materialwas specified in the engineering files. In the U.S., Thomas had been using the samedomestic inductor supplier for years. As far as I've been able to verify, there were twodifferent 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 morecommon two solder lead unit. Production problems forced the change to the second ferritecompound, from a different ferrite manufacturing company. This compound was carefullyformulated 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, whilemaintaining consistency. TDK first produced a copy of the FASEL. While fairly true to theoriginal, the TDK "FASEL" stood too tall to be safely used in the currently manufacturedwah cases. This brought about the creation of the 5103 cube.

The subject ofpotentiometers also warrants another look. Numerous differently tapered

pots found their way into use in the THOMAS/VOX wahs. These included, but were notlimited 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 astandard type taper. Because of this, the effect achieved while using an ICAR pot wasunlike that achieved using a more standard (U.S.) pot. The ICAR was pretty much in aclass by itself. There were, however, some very close contenders that appeared in some


0 of 11 6/18/13 6:48


11/11

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, butapparently, 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 hundredsof 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 totalnumber of wahs produced in their heyday.

Since the ICAR pots have been unavailable for years, I've had a number of 100% accuratepots manufactured for my use in my tunable RMC3 wah. Likewise, I've also reproducedmy favorite brown Vox inductor, based on my microfilmed Thomas files and informationgleaned from the old Thomas supplier. These inductors can also be found in my RMC3wahs, 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 allmusical styles, all over the world.

Real Mccoy Custom wahs product information and history of the Teese wah development.

Return to aNaLoG.MaN


1 of 11 6/18/13 6:48

Documents

Analog Man Wah Wah Pedal Article