Volume Pedal Pots - 1 More Time

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 13 Jun 2000 12:54 pm

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 · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 13 Jun 2000 1:39 pm

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 · Post by **Sutton Reid** » 13 Jun 2000 2:57 pm

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 · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 13 Jun 2000 3:07 pm

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 · Post by **Eddie Stephens** » 13 Jun 2000 6:30 pm

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 · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 13 Jun 2000 6:39 pm

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 · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 13 Jun 2000 7:45 pm

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 · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 14 Jun 2000 2:25 am

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.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 14 Jun 2000 4:16 pm

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 · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 14 Jun 2000 6:55 pm

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.

------------------