POLL: What's the VERY BEST volume pedal?

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 4 Mar 2007 7:51 am

Hilton volume pedals are my favorite these days.

keith has been very responsive to any questions or help I have needed with it. I was one of those guys that didn't want to like it when it first came out but it won me over.

Keith Hilton · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 4 Mar 2007 9:52 am

Basilh, if I were checking if something was digital, I would look for a clock, instead of a ADC, or DAC. You can convert from digital to analog with resistors, a resistor ladder. Nowdays most electronics is a combination of mixed signal parts. For example: Take the OP Amp control I have been working on. The OP Amp is a part in linear/analog electronics, but I am controlling what the OP Amp does with a digital pot. The digital pot is controlled by a digital micro controller. The OP Amp then controls a analog music signal. Humans hear in analog. If a particular part is digital, it needs a clock. Basilh when I first started studying electronics I thought digital meant numbers and counting. That shows how dumb I really was. Hartley Peavey once told me, "Not knowing anything about something is really an advantage". Hartley Peavey told me, "If a person knows nothing about something, then he is willing to try anything". It is true! Sometimes knowing something about electronics only lets you know what you can't do, instead of what you can do. What really matters is the end result. Most devices even if they do have a clock are a combination of analog and digital parts. My pedal does not have a clock, in that sense it is not digital. There are some other aspects of the electronics that might be considered digital, depending on how you look at them. Basilh, from looking at your picture I bet you are a really good steel guitar player. I have been around steel guitar players since I was 7 years old, and a lot of the time I can pick out a good player by just looking at one. You look to me to be a really good player.

Buck Grantham · Post by **Buck Grantham** » 5 Mar 2007 10:18 pm

Hilton all the way. Trouble free and smooth and quiet. I've been using mine for a long time and no problems at all.... Buck Grantham

basilh · Post by **basilh** » 6 Mar 2007 1:33 am

Thanks for the explanation Keith. As you probably know, I use a couple of your pedals and was just wondering about the signal path. I understand that the attenuation is achieved via a digitally controlled "thingumy bob", so the rest of what you've said clarifies that for me.

As for LOOKING a realy good steel player, Looks CAN be deceptive. In this case I can state categorically without fear of contradiction, that I AM the best Basil Henriques (steel Player)in the world, that I know.

Anything I say other than that, is purely speculation, in a similar manner to my comments about electronics, Quantum Theory, et.al.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 6 Mar 2007 4:38 am

basilh wrote:I can state categorically without fear of contradiction, that I AM the best Basil Henriques (steel Player)in the world, that I know.

In fact you're the ONLY Basil Henriques steel player in the world...

Barry Gaskell · Post by **Barry Gaskell** » 6 Mar 2007 4:57 am

An observation and a question.

I have recently put one of the new Dunlop pots in my Emmons pedal. I was looking for an identical taper as the old AB pots, which have the perfect(for me) graduation. It's the first section of the taper, from zero to about one third on, that's the important area. I'm sure there are techies out there who could put it better. The Dunlop pot does not have that smooth graduation that the AB pot has,IMHO.As far as pot pedals go, YOU CANNOT BEAT THE OLD AB POT !!!!. The dunlop has a great clarity, is clean and crisp, but that taper problem still exists. The Canadian pots do not have the AB taper either. I have an Ernie Ball pedal which I love, with an AB pot which does the business, but as the pot is quite old, I'm looking for a potential replacement. Surely it's not beyond the wit of a manufacturer to produce a pot that is fit for purpose
with the same characteristics of a given quality that is successful.
Question.
Has the Hilton pedal the SAME taper as the old AB pots or as I understand, is it adjustable ?.Having tried all the other pot options, whatever anybody claims IMHO,the taper is NOT the same.
If anybody out there has a New Old Stock AB pot I would gladly buy it and be forever grateful to them. I would even do a direct trade with my copy of Roger Millers,'Trip in the Country' which is in great condition.
In desperation, I remain frustratedly yours.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhh,Gnash,,Gnash

basilh · Post by **basilh** » 6 Mar 2007 5:13 am

Alan..But only in the world "As I Know it"
Barry that's because one is Log and the other is Linear taper.. LOG is the one .. Also known as "Audio Taper"

The Hilton taper is LOG as per the AB pots.I believe that Keith can make a "Shade" ANY taper you want.

The confusion arises because you're describing a Smooth Linear transition, but the LINEAR pot doesn't do that as far as the human ear is concerned. You need a logarithmic slope for the ear to hear a Linear (Constant)change, without sudden jumps!!

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 6 Mar 2007 5:36 am

The Dunlop pot is not linear. It does have a different taper to the old AB pot, but it is nevertheless a log pot. Where it scores is its quietness and longevity. Keith Hilton has made a product that works for many players, and the testimonies that his pedal receives on countless posts on this forum supports this.

I just feel that it is a great pity that classic pot pedals made by ShoBud, Bigsby, Emmons, Goodrich, Fender, Ernie Ball et al should be confined to the bin because of a quality problem with moderns carbon track pots. If the original AB pots had continued in production and had been priced at a reasonable level, the demand for the Hilton pedal would have been nowhere near as great. Keith Hilton and the guys at Goodrich have both covered a niche market. There would still be a big demand in my view for a quality and reliable pot with a taper that is right for steel guitar.

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 6 Mar 2007 5:47 am

Barry
You can try a fix with your AB pedal that some pupils of mine used to do in the 70's. The carbon brush can be replaced in the AB pot by carefully removing the metal cap after prising the locking tab away. The carbon brushes used in some old Remington shavers were almost identical in size to those in the AB pots, and cost pennies from a service centre. They could be easily fitted by lifting up the wiper arm and taking out the old brush with some tweezers. The new brush would be pressed into place. A quick wipe of the track with a cloth moistened with alcohol would be the finishing touch before re-assembling the pot. Then it was as good as new. Obviously the locking tabs would snap off after a few times, but it was a very cheap method of maintaining the pot.

Barry Gaskell · Post by **Barry Gaskell** » 6 Mar 2007 6:15 am

Hi Ken
I've already done that on my existing pot and it's working fine again. I've noticed what seems to be a grey substance that I presume to be a type of conductive cement that seats the wiper carbon in its cradle. Some of the old pots have a circlip that enables the shaft to be taken out completely so you can really clean the components without changing the wiper angle or spring integrity, but most have a brass washer that makes dis-assembly difficuly.To do it without taking the shaft out , I think ,may compromises the spring integrity of the wiper.
That's interesting re the carbon wiper in the remington. Worth remembering. Thanks for the info.
Regards
Barry

Michael Haselman · Post by **Michael Haselman** » 6 Mar 2007 10:18 am

Bottom line for me: before Hilton, I used a Matchbox, sounded fine, but when I got my new NV112 last summer, noticeable lack of highs and gain. After Hilton: good-bye Matchbox, hello high end and gain. Sometimes I think people are afraid of that high end that comes through with the Hilton.

Keith Hilton · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 6 Mar 2007 11:14 am

Tapers of pots means how the volume comes on, for those of you who don't know what taper is. It is usually described as linear, audio, or log. Linear taper is usually a 45 degree straight line up, which is not good for audio control in most cases. Audio taper can really be anything except a straight line. There are all kinds of audio tapers, depending on the manufacturers idea of what an audio taper is. Audio taper is actually a logarithmic function which can really be anything. Look in the dictonary for logarithm. Logarithm is: "The exponent of the power to which a fixed number must be raised to produce a given number." It is basically an exponent. 3 to the 3rd power is 3X3X3=9. This can be graphed on an X Y axis in mathematics, and that is where the different slopes and lines come from. I have a university degree in mathematics, so it was pretty easy for me to figure out the exact mathematical "slope/come on rate" of the old AB-Allen Bradley Pots. None of the newer pots have the same "slope/come on rate" as the old AB-Pots. I wish some manufacturer would make a great Pot like the old AB-Pots, for those into the old time sound.
It is all about supply and demand. The old AB-Pots were replaced with digital pots, just like tubes were replaced with IC chips. I am the person who found the pots made in Canada, and turned everyone on to them. There are several steel makers using these pots, as are several music stores. The taper is close in these Canadian pots, but not exactly like the old AB-Allen Bradley pots.

Keith Hilton · Post by **Keith Hilton** » 7 Mar 2007 8:11 am

Ooops 3X3X3=27 My mistake, don't know what I was thinking.

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 7 Mar 2007 11:20 am

Here's a table showing the readings I took comparing the Dunlop pot that Tom Bradshaw sells to a Clarostat Type J, part number JA1N056S504AA (Mexico) that I bought from Goodrich a few years ago. As you can see they are both log type tapered and both come on slowly and then come on faster as the pedal approaches the 1/2 way point. Plot the chart out in Excel and you can see the taper is not exactly base 10 or base e but it is far from linear. See the accompanying wiring diagram, I was careful to make sure that the "0" position is the volume pedal off position. This is where the AMP side is at ground (brown wire).

If one were to mount the pot bracket on the other side of the Goodrich pedal, and reverse the WHITE and BROWN wires, the pot would come on faster from the volume off position. In other words, more of the log taper would be in the beginning of the pedal's volume off to on travel. You might even get away with reversing the bracket on the same side it's mounted on if the pulley stays centered and there's enough room.

Simply reversing the WHITE and BROWN wires would only reverse the volume pedal off and on positions. Reversing the WHITE and ORANGE wires is not desirable as it would allow the pickup to be heavily loaded at low volume settings and even shorted out at "0" volume. As shown in the wiring diagram, the pot sees a consistent 500k ohms to ground through the pot plus the impedance of the amp through whatever position the pot is in.

I don't have an old AB pot handy or I would add that to the chart. Perhaps someone can send me one (can be scratchy) and I'll post the chart on my website. Personally I am very happy with the taper and performance of the Dunlop pot as is. Not a big deal to remount the bracket and get a more aggressive turn-on. Funny thing is the Clarostat pot has pretty much the same taper as the Dunlop but maybe the old original AB's had the carbon track backwards.

Greg

Steve Raulston · Post by **Steve Raulston** » 12 Mar 2007 3:59 am

100% Hilton. I stuck with Goodrich for many years and still have my 120 as backup. Terrible pot issues. My ears simply like what the Hilton delivers.

Jim Bates · Post by **Jim Bates** » 12 Mar 2007 7:03 pm

A Goodrich pot pedal. If you wear boots, try the low-boy (L120), if not then the standard height (120). Goodrich is the smoothest I ever had plus I could always adjust the 'touch' easily.

I alter my volume pot pedals slightly by putting a small byass cap. (100 up to 220 picofarad - disc) across the input(guitar side) and output (amp) jacks which keeps my highs crisp during more of the pedal travel. (Please do not ask me why, or to try to explain it - I know it works!)

Yes, I did buy a new Hilton pedal, but did not like the sound change; guess I was too used to the pot pedal sound.

Thanx,
Jim

PS- of course always use quality cords. A cheap cord can alter your sound big-time.

Tom Mossburg · Post by **Tom Mossburg** » 15 Mar 2007 7:41 am

As if learning to play steel isn't hard enough, these guys gotta bring physics into it. As Greg and Keith pointed out the different tapers of the components make a big difference. People think they hear linearly. They don't. The ear is such that it detects intensity in a logarithmic fashion i.e 10log(p1/p2). The human ear is such that it can barely detect a 1 db change in volume. It takes 6 db difference to detect a doubling or halving of a sounds intensity level. Due to the way your ear works, It takes 10 times the power to make something sound twice as loud. So two amps don't make you twice as loud, you'd need ten!

So the very best pedal is the one your foot and ears like best.

Here's a link to a cool site that explains this with some examples.www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/dB.html

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 16 Mar 2007 5:22 am

I have an ancient Fender and an old BMI, both pot pedals, that have worked for years...in the Fender's case, decades.

I have no reason...and certainly see no justification...to buy a $200 volume pedal. Heck, if I want an optical pedal I can get a Morley or George Dennis for under $100.

To me the whole boutique pedal business as far as volume pedals go is word-of-mouth marketing...people just follow others like lemmings.

Mike Fried · Post by **Mike Fried** » 16 Mar 2007 1:29 pm

Jim (Sliff), I gotta say that although I do wish they were cheaper, the Hilton pedal is a "Cadillac" that actually does what its users are claiming it does - I wouldn't have one if it didn't. I've been around long enough to know hype from reality, and I guarantee it's far superior to a Morley (I can't speak firsthand to the Dennis). FWIW, I believe that word-of-mouth marketing is far more reliable than published spec sheets or advertisements. Of course, one's ears (and feet in this case) are the final arbiter, that's why one should always buy with a satisfaction guarantee...

Jim (Bates), the bypass cap is "bypassing" high frequencies around the pot directly to the output, which increases their proportion in the final output signal (a simplified expanation). If you get the chance, try a silver mica composition cap in place of the disc (ceramic) cap - you might notice a tonal improvement.

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 16 Mar 2007 1:58 pm

Mike.

Amen to that silver mica cap recommendation. Ceramics are notoriously the harshest sounding of all cap's. Great for filtering out RF, but generally a sin for audio, especially solid-state audio. Silver micas are very good performers in small values like that.

Brad

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 16 Mar 2007 3:36 pm

the Hilton pedal is a "Cadillac" that actually does what its users are claiming it does - I wouldn't have one if it didn't.

Well - respectfully, I have not yet heard anything that it does different from any other volume pedal - it changes the volume, right? If there's some other circuitry built in, then it's something other than a volume pedal.

But if what you want is a volume pedal - $200 is outrageous IMO.

Jim Bates · Post by **Jim Bates** » 16 Mar 2007 5:27 pm

Thanks guys for the suggestion of using a silver mica cap. Always had a lot disc caps around that's why I used them.

Let's see (or hear) if I can tell a good difference.

Thanx,
Jim

Mike Fried · Post by **Mike Fried** » 16 Mar 2007 8:22 pm

Jim (Sliff), actually it is a combination volume pedal and buffer amp, using Burr Brown active components and an infrared sensor arrangement. So, it does in fact do something that other passive volume pedals don't do. I guess then technically it maybe is something other than just a volume pedal, although I didn't realize the subject was being so narrowly defined. You might actually try one before judging its merits (and its many knowledgeable fans by extension), I'm glad I did...

Michael Hillman · Post by **Michael Hillman** » 16 Mar 2007 8:55 pm

I still have a Goodrich, but I've not used it since I purchased a Hilton pedal.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 16 Mar 2007 10:05 pm

Mike - if it's a buffer amp as well, it's not just a volume pedal and that changes things. But if the question is "what's the best volume pedal?". throwing in added gadgetry muddies the waters.

I use a buffer (A Steeldriver II) and a volume pedal. They are seperate controls, and I want the buffer controls by my hand...not on the floor.

Anyway, if it's a $200 "something other than a volume pedal" that's a different category.

The Steel Guitar Forum

POLL: What's the VERY BEST volume pedal?

tapers

I vote for Keith's pedals,