PAF parts

[Possum]

....

I think he used his wah and left it on alot of times.

[RedHouse]

I think he used his wah and left it on alot of times.

I'm sure (hope) you can tell the difference?

[Possum]

...

No you sometimes can't because it wasn't rocked fully forward, his wah isn't piercingly bright either so its hard to tell sometimes. I don't think he had a Rangemaster, they aren't even foot pedals, youhave to physically walk over and turn it on. I'll be curious what Frank says about Page's pickups if he knows anything.

[Possum]

...

Frank, how does Duncan deal with the inconsistency of the REA plain enamel wire? I use 42 gauge alot and about five months ago it suddenly grew in diameter, brightening everything it touches. Must be a nightmare if you're cranking out alot of production pickups at the same time. I've also had two spools drop from 42 down to nearly 43 near the end of the spool. I've gotten in the habit now of mic'ing the wire before I wind....

[RedHouse]

No you sometimes can't because it wasn't rocked fully forward, his wah isn't piercingly bright either so its hard to tell sometimes. I don't think he had a Rangemaster, they aren't even foot pedals, youhave to physically walk over and turn it on. I'll be curious what Frank says about Page's pickups if he knows anything.

Well you should, Page's wah was a bright/thin wah unlike Hendrix.

[Possum]

....

I had a thought, maybe that chirpy pickup actually wasn't the pickup itself, if they did heavy overdubbed edits and rerecording full songs maybe he WAS in the middle position while it shows him playing the bridge.

I don't think those old wahs were quite as shrill as some modern ones....

[RedHouse]

...I don't think those old wahs were quite as shrill as some modern ones....

I would agree with that, the old Wah's used lower gain transistors in the gain range of 300-450hfe, the new Wahs (from early 90's or so) are using a high gain MPS-A18 which is in the gain range of 750-900hfe and an input buffer transistor that wasn't there on the old Wahs. When the transistors are replaced with lower gain ones you will often get back that growl in the low-mid area of the sweep.
(think Hendrix live version of Hear My Train A Comming the one where he starts out with the scat intro)

When the input buffer transistor is removed the Wah's can sound more like Hendrix and Cream era Clapton, where the Wah loads the guitar pickup signal and contributes to the sound. With the buffer in place it's true that it doesn't load the guitar pickups but you also loose much of that vintage vibe. The Wah's they have been making since like 2002 or so many are using SMT parts and now use a few OpAmps in place of the transistor circuit.

Anyway just think about Page's live signal from back in the day for a minute, his live rig went through a Wah, then a Phase-90, then to a Echoplex then to the amps (yes more than one) in modern thought that would be a lot of tone-suck to deal with as none of those effects are true-bypass. His new pedal board appears to be a Pete Cornish, and if that is true it's got more buffered signal because Pete has publickly argued against true-bypass as the most appropriate way to insert-remove effects.



Just for fun, here are some pics of your average Wah specimens:

A real 1967 Vox, notice it's rought but all there, halo inductor and two BC108 or BC109 transistors.

Then an early 90's Dunlop. There were several iterations of this circuit board, most had the added input buffer transistor you can see just under the jack on the left side.

Finally ....and I have to choke-back the laughter and say this with a straight face... the 2003 Dunlop "Classic" Crybaby with a red Fasel inductor. Notice the two OpAmps and SMT technolgy then look back at the 1967 Vox ...classic? NOT.

[frankfalbo]

Frank, how does Duncan deal with the inconsistency of the REA plain enamel wire? I use 42 gauge alot and about five months ago it suddenly grew in diameter, brightening everything it touches. Must be a nightmare if you're cranking out alot of production pickups at the same time. I've also had two spools drop from 42 down to nearly 43 near the end of the spool. I've gotten in the habit now of mic'ing the wire before I wind....

That's a little too personal. I'm riding on a knife edge even being here talking about stuff. I'm kind of here as a pickup enthusiast first, and a Seymour Duncan employee second, but of course I can't use my enthusiasm to compromise the company's efforts.

I can't/won't divulge supplier information, but I can share a few things that might shed some light on why Seymour Duncan might not have some of the same problems/issues as others. As I understand it, we have our PE made specifically for us. The process involved sending old wire for analysis (many years ago) and addressing consistency issues. Also, every single spool is tested using our proprietary methods upon receiving. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't get used. Since each coil of a certain kind of pickup is wound the "same" on the same machines, inter-spool diameter variances would likely show up in DC. (unless they always sorted themselves out by the end of each coil, like each coil had equal range of 42.5 and 41.5 in it) Then each coil is visually inspected (as I imagine each of you do with yours)

Our volume actually helps tremendously with consistency, but I think the general consensus is that the volume hurts our consistency. I always have to stress that I can't say what was happening here before I arrived, only what I see from where I sit. But think of it like this: we make enough pickups that each spool is used start to finish on one coil form/type. So like I said before, inter-spool issues would manifest themselves as an "in-process failure" and since we do have some of those every once in awhile, it defacto proves that we're catching it if it happens. Our volume also means we can put the squeeze on the manufacturer to maintain OUR quality standards, and they can eat everything that doesn't meet it.

[NightWinder]

Sweet

YouTube - Seymour Duncan SFX-07 Shape Shifter Tap Tremolo

Very Cool Video. He does a great job explaining the features in this design. He did another video that was kick-ass awhile back

[NightWinder]

..

Hang-on Lt

I must interject that IMHO Dave's not a bad guy, and though he see's things in a different perspective than me, it's quite fine by me.

Presentation of different views and "disagreement" can be good fodder for dialog, and dialog brings forth ideas, it's not a criticism toward Dave when I disagreee with his opinions. Even if we never agree on anything just the presentation of ideas is a worthwhile exercise as far as I'm concerned and I welcome his presentation of opinions and ideas even though it may seem like I have a counter-point.

We're all peers here and I have just as much right to my opinion as Dave does, no more, no less. Forums ....are a good thing.

I try to imagine us all in a Pub, beers in-hand having heated dialogs and discussion about what we have great passion about, pickups, guitars, wood, amps etc. Members jamming when the time is right, oh yeah what a night!.

If we were all in the same room we could have discussion and agreement/disagreement without malice or grudge.
(hopefully)

Now you know Possum drinks Beer and ice cream for breakfast. There would be no pickups made for at least a week after the gathering....

[David Schwab]

...because Pete has publickly argued against true-bypass as the most appropriate way to insert-remove effects.

Well, yeah. Unless you have a buffer/line driver at the beginning, all those "true bypass" pedals are still running your signal though a crap load of cable. And most likely cheap interconnect cables between pedals. If you use a bunch of pedals, then you aren't getting any true bypass at all!

Bradshaw says the same thing. But a lot of this true bypass stuff is a fad now, the way "vintage" is a fad. You even have people modding Tube Screamers to remove the JFET switching, to make it true bypass. They think their tone is being messed with by going through an active device. These people don't know why true bypass was imprtant in the first place.. it was for the pedals that used a SPDT switch and always had the input connected, and that input wasn't all that hi-z.

I used to own a Clyde McCoy. It wasn't all that special, but back then that's what a wah sounded like. It was noisy. There wasn't much in the way of options. Neither was the newer vintage style Cry Baby wah I had (no op amps or SMT parts). It was drab and dull sounding. It could have used a little more gain. I think a myth has been built up around this stuff.

I think the buffered versions are more consistent, and you can get them to sound like the old recordings, if that's what you are trying to do. I wasn't. I was always looking for more gain and a little more resonance.

They probably use the red Fasel because it's tuned lower... simulates the loaded input. And Fasels are part of the fad now.

And remember that Hendrix used to use one of those coiled patch cords because it warmed up the tone of his Strat! Those things have a lot of capacitance.

I guess people expect more from effects these days. You have to be able to get from one tone to another, so when you take an effect out of the signal path, you want it out.

[RedHouse]

....Well, yeah. Unless you have a buffer/line driver at the beginning, all those "true bypass" pedals are still running your signal though a crap load of cable. And most likely cheap interconnect cables between pedals. If you use a bunch of pedals, then you aren't getting any true bypass at all!...

Yeah when ever I read that dribble it reminds me that these guys must have never seen the guts of a proper mixing console.
(not a board, a console, like as in the 20K-70K range)

Ever seen how much wire goes to a patch bay within a console? ...naw... lets not go there with that miles-of-cable not true bypass myth/arguement.

A guy with a pedal board of 5 units and you add up those 10 pieces of 3"-5" wire you get like a yard and a half of cable, unless it's remarkably shitty wire there's hardly enough there to add any capacitive loading and signal degradation.

This is the same mindset as the oxygen-free cable guys have, and the audio grade power plugs (AC wall plugs) ...don't get me started!

...And remember that Hendrix used to use one of those coiled patch cords because it warmed up the tone of his Strat! Those things have a lot of capacitance.

Why yes I do remember, and likewise have you seen the 30-footer Jimmy Page used back in the day? and another 25 footer taped to the stage from the wah/Phase-90 over to the backline. Watch your DVD closely and see just how much cable Page had on stage.

[David Schwab]

Yeah when ever I read that dribble it reminds me that these guys must have never seen the guts of a proper mixing console.
(not a board, a console, like as in the 20K-70K range)

Ever seen how much wire goes to a patch bay within a console? ...naw... lets not go there with that miles-of-cable not true bypass myth/arguement.

But, that's low impedance... You aren't patching high impedance passive guitar pickups with that setup, right? That's why they made it low impedance. Same with the old telephone lines and stuff.

Plug a guitar into that and come back and talk to me!

A guy with a pedal board of 5 units and you add up those 10 pieces of 3"-5" wire you get like a yard and a half of cable, unless it's remarkably shitty wire there's hardly enough there to add any capacitive loading and signal degradation.

Just give it a try. You can hear it very plainly. Remember the PRS "sweet switch"? It was a passive delay line that simulated like 50 feet of cable because Carlos Santana didn't like the tone of his guitar plugged into a short cord and into a wireless. Eric Pritchard came up with that.

This is the same mindset as the oxygen-free cable guys have, and the audio grade power plugs (AC wall plugs) ...don't get me started!

I agree, that's crap.

Why yes I do remember, and likewise have you seen the 30-footer Jimmy Page used back in the day? and another 25 footer taped to the stage from the wah/Phase-90 over to the backline. Watch your DVD closely and see just how much cable Page had on stage.

They still make those cables. Try one out. You can get one right in Radio Shack. It removes a lot of top end from the guitar. That's one of the "features" of the one of the expensive ones that's currently made. GuitarPlayer did a review on it not that long ago. I have one of those cloth covered cables that look like it was on an old clothes iron. I can't use that for passive instruments. Sucks all the highs out.

Even some of these expensive "tuned" cables. I was in a rehearsal studio in NYC last week, and the bass rig was an SVT-3 Pro (ack!) with two Hartkie cabs. It had a Monster "Bass" cable attached to it. I thought it sounded very dull, so I used my own Spectraflex, and the Monster cable did indeed have less high end. It was only a 20 foot cable. So it doesn't take much cabling to change your tone if the cable is high capacitance.

That's why some people use buffers, like the Redeemer. I use JFET buffers after the tone and volume controls, and you can hear a huge difference when the buffer is in the signal path. It's removing the cable from the tone.

But some people like that darker tone. It's not wrong if you like it. I don't.

[Possum]

....

This gets back to the 7.8K bridge and 7.3K Page neck specs. Its more likely those are right due to the nature of pedals and guitars cords of the period, than the high DCR Duncan claims they were, I think the specs mentioned are Duncan's specs not what was in Page's guitar.

This is also why I wind my strat bridges hotter than vintage specs, guitar cords are just better than back then, and coil cords was just THE cool thing to use. I got all mine back then from Radio Shack. Nice big capacitors those things are.

So, NO ONE, makes an accurate repro Wah? Thats pretty sick. But there's a door for a boutique maker to profit from, does anyone know of anyone doing them the right vintage way?

[RedHouse]

...But there's a door for a boutique maker to profit from, does anyone know of anyone doing them the right vintage way?

Gobs of people out there are doing it, it's been going on since the early 90's. I've de-moderned many myself.

If you want one that is like a vintage one get a Vox, the one with the chrome pedal and no power jack on the side. The Vox still have (last I checked) the normal circuit board and when their transitors are swapped out they do very well. Add a DPDT switch for true-bypass and a couple decent Switchcraft jacks and you have a nice pedal.

The Vox and the Dunlop are one in the same these days, they have some kind of manufacturing agreement going on. In the Vox wah in this picture you can see the pot with an aluminum ring around it, remove that aluminum ring and you will see "Dunlop Hot-Pot"

And just for fun, the second pic is a 70's Thomas Organ (USA) CryBaby circuit, the TDK inductor isn't well beloved but they did use the lower gain transitors, this one's transistor measured 350-hfe and 430-hfe.