|
Author
|
Topic: Volume Pedal Pots - 1 More Time
|
Pedalsteel
unregistered
|
posted 09 June 2000 06:30 PM
I know there are past threads on this topic and I have read them. Recently I talked with Paul Franklin Sr. about ordering some pots to replace those in my stereo volume pedal he sold me some time ago.The pots he told me about, and that he recommended were $15 a piece. He said in his note to me that Bill Lawrence had put him onto these pots. He said they had the same audio taper as the claristat only smoother. When I received them the number stamped on them was RV4NAYSJ504C. The pot had a "Made in Canada" stamped on it. Now in past threads I've read I've seen no number referred to. I trust Paul Franklin Sr. So I'm assuming he knows what he is talking about. However, have any of you out there had any experience with these pots. They seem to be well made, but not quite as solidly built as the old Allen Bradley's currently in my volume pedal. Thanks! |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 09 June 2000 09:28 PM
profile
I am familar with the company that makes the pot your are describing. I think it is "Spectrol",and I hope I have spelled it correctly. Actually they are stamped in Canada and assembled in the U.S.A. I am the one that turned this company on to the world of steel guitar, and got them making this particular pot. I decided I did not want to mess with pots and told a lot of different people to contact the company with my specifications. I suppose word got to Bill Lawrence and Paul Senior. I think the guy Paul Senior is dealing with at the company is David Reed. David Reed and I worked on the taper for some time. I am the one who actually designed the taper. Paul Senior is correct, it is a smoother better taper. The retail price of $15.00 is wonderful, because the Clarostat pots are going for around $28.00 retail. My opinion is that the quality is just as good as the Clarostat pots. They are both made of hot molded carbon.------------------
|
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 10 June 2000 03:08 AM
profile
Good Info. Finally a replacement for the Clarostat model, which had a monopoly on the volume pedal market. I'll have to check into these further and see if I can find a electronics parts house that can get these.
|
B Cole
unregistered
|
posted 10 June 2000 07:26 AM
If anyone has a number or and address for the Co. please post it |
John Lacey
Member From: Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada
|
posted 10 June 2000 08:21 AM
profile
I'm assuming that these pots are standard size and would fit a variety of pedals, ie. Emmons? |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 10 June 2000 09:37 AM
profile
Sorry, I was wrong about the name being Spectrol. That is another company that does make pots, but not the kind steel players need. Now to the name of the Company I was talking about. The name is State Electronics Toll Free number-1-800-631-8083
Address: 36 Route 10
East hanover New Jersey 07936
David Reed Inside Sales--Phone 973-887-2550 Voice mail extension 120
E-Mail---dreed@state-elec.com
Here is the factory prices David Reed quoted me: 50 pieces $13.45,100 pieces $9.95, 250 pieces $8.20, 500 pieces $7.62, 1000 pieces $7.49.
If you look at the address of this company, no wonder Bill Lawrence knew about them, he lives near them.
Take my word for it, these are good pots that work exactly like the Clarostat pots. Jack you are correct about the Clarostat control of the market. They could charge anything they wanted and get away with it. The "FACT" is this, if you wanted a POT, you had no choice, except pay the price and smile! Now, you have a 2nd choice. If a 2nd choice is bad, blame me!------------------
|
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 10 June 2000 10:43 AM
profile
My only other question is the ruggedness of the pot. The Clarostat was made to Military specs, which included being waterproof, thicker resistance element, better wiper contacts, etc. All of that contributed to longer life. How does this one compare mechanically??? |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 10 June 2000 10:50 AM
profile
Jack, with all you just said, seems to me the people selling the Clarostat pots should guarantee them longer than when you walk out the door. Do you know anyone guaranteeing them for 10 days, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. How about 10 minutes? Try sinking your Clarostat pot in a can of water over night! If they are rated at a million revolutions, why are guys complaining about poping and cracking in less than 10,000 revolutions? It is my opinion, for what that is worth, that the pots State Electronics is making are just as good. They will last just as long in my opinion, and they are made just as good.
My pedal has "NO" pot and I have to guarantee it for a full year! If you pay $28.00 for a POT, why can't you get a guarantee that it won't PoP and Crack for at least 30 days???????????????------------------
|
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 10 June 2000 02:27 PM
profile
I must be the luckiest person in the world when it comes to pots. Four or five of them have lasted me through 35 years of playing. I did have one fail after only 3 or 4 years, but I was playing 8-12 hours a day, 7 days a week at the time. |
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 10 June 2000 03:20 PM
profile
Donny, a pot will usually last me two to three years, playing weekends. I just replaced the pot in a Goodrich 120 that I bought at St Louis in either 96 or 97. However, I am not constantly up and down with the volume pedal like I see some do. But, if this other manufacturer's pot is not made to ruggedized mil specs they are going to generally fail a lot faster and the people that can't get 6 months out of a pot are going to be replacing them much sooner.I know Keith is selling his infrared pedal, and I have no problem with that, but the fact is there are a helluva lot of 500K ohm pot pedals in use and still the majority of new pedals being sold. This new replacement pot apparently is electronically equivalent to the Clarostat but if it is not mechanically equivalent too then the $5.00 or even $10.00 difference in price is not worth it as most people will spend more than that replacing them more often. |
Bill Crook
Member From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance
|
posted 11 June 2000 06:32 AM
profile
Very well said, Jack.I use a dual 500k pot, because I like the "Myrick Mod" set-up on my pedal. The Clarostat folks are the only ones that make a dual, Military(sp?) spec pot. Like Jack said..... "If the mechinical stuff isn't as good as the carbon resist, you haven't gained anything." |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 12 June 2000 07:33 AM
profile
Jack, during this POTENTIOMETER discussion, and past discussions, everyone has overlooked one of the most important points.
What is the "exact" degree of rotation? If you look at the specifications of any POT, the degree of rotation is listed. The rotation can be anything. The degree of rotation is just as important as the taper. Seems to me the old Allen Bradley pots were 312 degrees of rotation. I have noticed differences in the degrees of rotation of different POTS in steel guitar pedals. There are "big" differences in some.
If the rotation value is not correct, there will be rotation left, either at the start or the finish. What this means is this: When the person winds the string ,he has a choice of it either not going fully on, or fully off. This problem is compounded in the ,"so called", Lowboy pedals, because they have less movement. Since the Lowboy pedals "have the same" pot as regualar pedals, and move a little less up and down, how could they work the same as a regular height pedal?------------------
|
Jim Smith
Member From: Plano, TX, USA
|
posted 12 June 2000 09:22 AM
profile
Keith, I believe some of the Low Boy pedals use a different pivot point and/or diameter pulley to allow the same rotation with a shorter throw. I believe my Goodrich L-120 has the same pulley and pivot point as the regular pedals, it just happens to work. I don't recall that we used a different pulley on the Dekley Low Boy pedals either, and they used the full travel of the pot, maybe the pivot point was moved. |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 12 June 2000 10:14 AM
profile
Jim,as you say, the L-120 has the pivot point moved further back. What movement of the pivot point actually changes, "most", is overall height. Steel Guitar pedals are made in a wedge shape, like this--- >. The further the hinge point is to the rear, the less height there is in the arc at the hinge poing. With pedal height, there are really 3 height points involved. Height in front, with the pedal fully up, and fully down. Height at the hinge point with the pedal fully up and fully down. Height at the rear end, with the pedal fully up or fully down.
We have a new "ulra-low-profile" pedal. Like the L120,our hinge point is moved further back. Actually 1/8 inch further back than the L120.
We are lower at the hinge point, and lower in the rear end. We are exactly the same height in the front end as the L120. We could be lower, but you can not have 1 3/8 inch of movement in front and have less than 1 3/8 separation between the two pedal halfs in front. Reguarless of what happens in the back part of the pedal, the movement of the front is what determines total distance in volume change. Therefore, we could build a "ultra-low-profile" pedal, which was lower than the L120 but moved much further. The problem then becomes the upward pitch of the pedal, which becomes uncomfortable.
If the pulley that goes on the pot has a much larger diameter than the POT shaft, this slows the taper and limits the degree of rotation. Several years ago,John Hugey took his Emmons pedal and had the pulley cut down for these reasons. I have Terry Bethel's L120 pedal at my shop right now. It does not move up and down as far as that Companies standard pedal. If up and down movement is different, and the pots in both pedals are the same, seems to me there would have to be a difference.
Jack, since you play a Franklin, and Paul Franklin Sr, says these pots are the same only smoother, I would think you would want to try them. I think it is wonderful that there is more than "ONE" pot steel guitar players can buy. I think Paul is a great guitar builder, and it is great to see him with this new POT. ------------------
|
Theresa Galbraith
Member From: Goodlettsville,Tn. USA
|
posted 12 June 2000 12:04 PM
profile
Keith,
Thanks alot, dad will guaranty these pots until January 2001.
These pots have copper conductors and are just as rugged as the Allen Bradley Clarostat. TheresaFor more info:
Franklin Guitar Company
712 May Drive
Madison, Tennessee 37115
#615-865-4754[This message was edited by Theresa Galbraith on 12 June 2000 at 12:06 PM.] |
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 12 June 2000 02:48 PM
profile
Keith, I have a Franklin guitar but I use a Goodrich 120 volume pedal. It really doesn't matter what brand of guitar or (pot) pedal, the pot is the same. I've still got one new Clarostat and probably won't need any for a while, since the last one lasted 4 years. |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 12 June 2000 02:48 PM
profile
Paul Franklin Sr. has had a booth next to mine at the St. Louis Steel Guitar Convention for over 20 years. Plus, I knew Paul back when he was working for David Jackson. I think Paul is one of the greatest steel guitar builders who ever lived. Plus-Paul is one of the most honest people I have ever met. If something is on his mind, Paul will tell you. Paul and I have been known to argue about the price of Tea in China, but friends don't aways agree. Theresa, you are lucky to have a Dad like Paul. Beverly said hello!
I think Paul is the only builder making a stereo POT pedal. I don't know of anyone else making a pedal that has two POTS.------------------
[This message was edited by Keith Hilton on 12 June 2000 at 02:50 PM.] |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 12 June 2000 02:59 PM
profile
Hey Jack, I agree! It does not matter what guitar you have, or what pedal you have. Until now you had to use a Clarostat Pot. Now, Paul Franklin is offering people a choice. ------------------
|
Theresa Galbraith
Member From: Goodlettsville,Tn. USA
|
posted 12 June 2000 05:06 PM
profile
Jack,
Good for you, but for those that are needing something new this may help!
Thanks, Theresa |
ebb
Member From: nj
|
posted 12 June 2000 05:35 PM
profile
Franklin's stereo pedal is my favorite. That's why I own three of them. That would make six pots.
|
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 12 June 2000 08:14 PM
profile
Well Pedalsteel, how to do like the answers to your questions so far?------------------
|
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 13 June 2000 07:51 AM
profile
I just checked the web site for State Electronics and it appears the pot IS mil spec. From their spec sheet it should perform just as well as the Clarostat. Here's the link to the spec page for the pots http://www.potentiometers.com/rv4.htm
|
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 13 June 2000 11:09 AM
profile
Good for you Jack! I am proud of you! Did you think I was pulling your leg?------------------
[This message was edited by Keith Hilton on 13 June 2000 at 11:10 AM.] |
Sutton Reid
Member From: Sebastopol, CA, USA
|
posted 13 June 2000 12:33 PM
profile
Being a newbie and "not really a steel player", but a "fretter who loves steel and hopes to spend some time one of these days..."...The Magnatone lap steel/amp that was given to me also included a volume pedal that is built like a tank (name starts with "d" (I think it's Italian, what is it... I know you know the name, we're talking fifties here). Anyway, I went to my local electronics store and thought I was doing a good thing when I slipped a new pot in. Well, it worked for a little while. None of the local music stores were any help, BTW. So even though this sounds like an old discussion, thanks. And where else in the world does someone post something like "my daddy will guarantee this thing till next year". I mean, that is awesome. |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 13 June 2000 12:53 PM
profile
Sutton, Paul Franklin and other manufactures of steels ,and related products, are some of the best people in the world. They will try and help you! Sutton, the pedal you have is probably a "DeArmond". This is not a popular pedal for steel guitar, because it has a rack and pinion gear. Players can feel the gears meashing. Players don't think the rack and pinion gear is as smooth as a string on a pulley. ------------------
[This message was edited by Keith Hilton on 13 June 2000 at 12:57 PM.] |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 13 June 2000 01:54 PM
profile
Well....we can't seem to lose this pot thing. After doing some reading, here is some more information I've found. When we use pots, they are almost in constant motion. We put a lot of wear on these things. I do know that the old Allen Brady "Type AB" pots were rated with a rotational life of 250,000 cycles. Too bad they don't manufacture "our pot" anymore. The only data I have found on the new Clarostat units says they are rated at 75,000 cycles...a considerable difference! I did further checking at Interstate and Precision, and their pots seem to be rated for 25,000 cycles. This would be unsuitable for our purposes, since the pot moves hundreds of times on a single song. (However, they may have "long life" units that are special order, or not listed.) This bears further investigation. Now, perhaps most pot manufacturers have lowered the reliability of their units because it is not required for "Mil-Spec" use. Well, it IS required for our uses. I know that there are pots manufactured now with a life of 1,000,000 cycles...that's right...one million. This is what we Should be looking at, and using! Perhaps everybody's pot is failing prematurely because they just aren't made as well as they used to be! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? |
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 13 June 2000 02:39 PM
profile
Good point, Donny. I printed out the spec sheet for those pots and "Rotational Life" is 25000 cycles. Also the Mechanical Rotation is 314 degrees. It states "Quality meeting or exceeding MIL-R-94-QPL listed".I don't have the specs on the Clarostat. Or what the Mil Spec is for a potentiometer of that type. |
Sutton Reid
Member From: Sebastopol, CA, USA
|
posted 13 June 2000 03:57 PM
profile
DeArmond is right. Rack and pinion all right, built to last, except for the pot.So if I read this thread correctly, no one has built an electronic volume pedal that sounds as good as a pot? |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 13 June 2000 04:07 PM
profile
Jack, I knew it was somewhere around 312 degrees. Jack, do you happen to know what the "OLD" Allen Bradley pot rotation was? I know Clarostat bought out Allen Bradley, but somehow the rotation might have changed over the years. The degree of rotation is just as important as the taper, since it determines how quick the pot comes on. I put some of these new clarostat pots in pedals, and had a choice of it not going all the way off, or not all the way wide open. You couldn't have it both ways. Seems to me in the old days, the pedals would go all the way off ,and all the way wide open. So, I wonder if the degree of rotations somehow got changed over the years?
I just don't think these new Clarostat pots work as smooth as the old Allen Bradley pots. Seemed like qulaity went down hill when they sent production to MEXICO. Sutton, I know someone who has built one!------------------
[This message was edited by Keith Hilton on 13 June 2000 at 04:10 PM.] |
Eddie Stephens
Member From: Kissimmee, Florida, USA
|
posted 13 June 2000 07:30 PM
profile
I agree with Keith. It is all about having a choice
You will never find a more straight shooter than Paul Sr.,and if he switched to these pots , you know the quality is good.
I recently purchased some newbrand "x" pots only to be dissapointed in the uneven taper and the obvious hot spot one seemed to have at midway, and the resistance left at the end of the run.
I took the plunge and bought one of Keiths pedals.
The difference was remarkable. Extremely clean with great sustain. Especially noticeable to me was the length of sustain I am able to achieve when padding, on ballads in particular. I have always been a believer in the fact that the weakest link in your system will determine the end result.
I am not totally knocking pot pedals, I have used them for years, and still have three.
But if you think something might be missing with your sound, maybe you owe it to yourself to check out Keith's pedal. |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 13 June 2000 07:39 PM
profile
Jack...the Clarostat pots are MIL-R-94 too. Keith, I have a couple of the old Allen-Bradley pots (no, they're not for sale) and I think they are 312 degree rotation. Anyway, I don't think that the degree of rotation is really that big a factor (most players rarely "top out" their pedal on the high side.) The lowest I've seen in this type of pot is 297, and the highest is 330. This is a difference of only 10%, hardly enough to worry about! More important is the mechanical smoothness and reliability. I've tried several D'Armond pedals, and they are anything but smooth. Had they been smart enough to use fine helical-cut gears, most of this problem would have been eliminated. I have tried many string pedals, Emmons, Sho-Bud, Goodrich, ect., and none equal the Fender. Fender is the best shielded, the easiest to work on, and one of the lowest profile designs ever made. They also pivot in the center (which I personally find more comfortable and controllable), and fit big feet (or shoes) very well. The most common complaint I hear about the Fender pedal (and some others) is..."it doesn't fasten to the pedal bar." Well friends, if you can't figure out a way to fasten ANY pedal to the pedal bar, then you should probably be playing a b@njo! The bottom line...use whatever pedal you think is best. I've used the same Fender pedal for 35 years, and I will replace it when something better comes along. P.S. I don't even know if they still make the darn thing.  [This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 13 June 2000 at 08:17 PM.] |
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 13 June 2000 08:45 PM
profile
Donny, I will have to agree with you concerning the old Fender pedal. I liked the way they were made. They were made for mass production. I am totally fascinated by pedals and how they are made. I have a collection of pedals. I have taken them apart ,and continue to look at them, and study them. There is really two aspects to any pedal, the mechanical operation and the electrical operation. I was super impressed when I took a old Fender pedal apart. Granted it was just stamped, chrome plated sheet metal, but the mechanical design was amazing. Unlike most pedals it was hinged in the middle, and operated from two pulleys on either end. One would think the hinge point being in the middle would hinder height and up and down movement. Well, it doesn't at all in the old Fender design. It is very low and has full movement. The only complaint I have heard people say about the Fender design is that the hinge point is not comfortable. I really don't see how that could be. The Earnie Ball pedal people need to take a look at the old Fender design. The Earnie Ball design also hinges in the middle. The Earnie Ball design is way to complex and does the same thing as the simple Fender design. Two of the most interesting pedals I have taken apart over the years was a old Edwards and Morely. The Edwards pedal, made by Don Edwards, in Denver Colorado, was way ahead of it's time. Made around 1960, it was a light beam pedal, made out of a CDS cell. What was really amazing was the fact that it had a 120 volt AC adapter inside the pedal. Ronnie Miller-of the Charlie Pride Show, gave me another old Edwards Pedal that even had a top that rotated to alter the bass and trebble.
Some people collect stamps, some collect beer cans, others collect salt shakers. I just happen to like collecting old pedals and taking them apart.------------------
|
Jack Stoner
Sysop From: Inverness, Florida
|
posted 14 June 2000 03:25 AM
profile
Keith, some of the later AB pots were made in Mexico. I thought AB moved production down there before Clarostat bought them out, but it could have been Clarostat bought them out but initially they still made pots with the AB name. A lot of times when a company buys out another they still use that companies name for a period.As far as the inference that Mr. Franklin would sell something inferior. There was no mention in any of my posts to suggest that. I have the utmost regard for Paul, Sr and his wife Oleda. They have treated us like family over the years. With any product there is a trial period to see if it really does perform as stated. I hope the State Electronics Pot turns out to be a real challenge to Clarostat, who has had a monopoly on the particular volume pedal pot. I don't want to be a pessimist but I've seen too many "this is exactly like so and so" or our "product performs just like so and so's" and it turns out in almost every case it does not. A career in Commercial Electronics/Telecommunications and Computers will do that to you. |
Pedalsteel
unregistered
|
posted 14 June 2000 05:15 PM
Folks,This is amazing. I wish my stock portfolio would produce these kinds of returns! Thanks for all of the useful information. Keith, I'd love to have some information on your light volume pedal. I used to own one of the early Don Edwards volume pedals, as I lived in Colorado for the first 22 years of my life. And mine also had a tone control. Don't have it anymore however.....wish I had kept it along with many of the other steel guitars I went through on my way to my Franklin. I do still have a vintage 1968 ZBC however which someday I hope to refinish and restore to it's original condition. |
Bob Hoffnar
Member From: Brooklyn, NY
|
posted 14 June 2000 05:16 PM
profile
I just had Paul Sr rebuild me one of his stereo vol pedals. He put one of each of those pots(clarostat and the Canadian one) in it so I could see if there is any difference. There is absolutly no difference between the 2 as far as I can tell. These are not new inventions. I have heard of guitar players that have used them for 5 or 6 years with no problems.Bob ------------------
Franklin D-10
|
Keith Hilton
Member From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
posted 14 June 2000 07:55 PM
profile
Pedalsteel, be advised that my new ME262-B pedal is "NOT" a light beam pedal, like the old Edwards pedal. My pedal does not contain a photo-resistor, better known as a cds cell.
It is a new process for which I have a patent pending. If you want to know more, please visit my web-site at: http://www.duanesmusic.com/hilton.html
Great to hear about the test Bob. I am glad that people now have a choice of POTS to buy. We owe thinks to Paul Franklin.------------------
| |
The Steel Guitar Forum
