| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dirk
Platinum Member
Netherlands
1309 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2009 : 18:47:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeFrag
In either case with the wah on or not, the signal runs through both cables.
I see your point but I meant the difference between a single cord or a TB wah + a 2nd cord.
If you didn't have the wah, there'd be no need for the 2nd cord in the first place, so if you TB the wah, you'd now have a twice as long cord when bypassed.
If you hadn't True bypassed the wah, the pickup would be buffered by the wah's internal buffer, eliminating the load of the 2nd cable.
Even Crybabies have some kind of buffer.
On a sidenote, I think this is pulled a little out of context.
Yes, some pedals and cheap cables DO degrade signal, but I also think it's really hyped about on certain guitar forums and the likes, usually by people who can barely play, sometimes aren't even in a band, let alone that they play at places were it really would matter, such as the studio.
So there's a lot of unneccesary freight about signal loss/tonesucking/true bypass/etc. whilst it's not even an issue in a lot of cases.
Just because some people believe everything they read on forums, they claim they can litterly hear their tone getting sucked away by a pedal.
I mean, back in the 60's everybody used coil cables and linked multiple amps by using the high and low inputs on their amps.
Off course their signal degraded, but they just turned it up a little louder and everything sounded just fine.
On the contrary, some of those sounds were conceived that way, by plugging a guitar through a bunch of tonesucking pedals into 3 linked Marshall full stacks using all coiled cables because that was the only thing available.
Listen to Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Stones and Deep Purple but to name a few and you'll hear exactly what I mean.
And do we now think their tone sucks? No, we love it.
Sorry 'bout my long rant, but this is truly overhyped.  |
 |
|
|
DeFrag
Moderator
USA
3409 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2009 : 20:26:25
|
Well put Dirk.  |
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 05:10:42
|
Hey guys, I did some work on the wah, including:
changing the sweep cap to .068uf (bass wah specs)
33K resistor to 68K
390R to 330R
1.8k to 2.7k
The midrange response is awesome, as is the cut in treble, (I finally tested it on a bass today)
However, the bass response is next to nothing, which is what I was trying to accomplish by changing the sweep cap.
Any tips?
Again, I'm trying to make a GCB95 into a bass wah
This is the diagram I used: http://www.wah-wah.co.uk/effects/gcb95.jpg |
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 05:50:33
|
 bump |
|
|
|
Dirk
Platinum Member
Netherlands
1309 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 10:54:28
|
As I replied earlier, the gain and bass mod from that same site did it for me instead of the regular cap change.
If you still need more bass, I can't help you further.
This is about where my knowledge of electronics stops. |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 15:50:26
|
Let me start out by saying I have NO idea if what I am about to tell you will make it better or worse...
I'm looking at the schematic from Free Info Society (http://www.freeinfosociety.com/electronics/schemview.php?id=350) and it seems to me that the input capacitor will in fact kill all your bass. THere are no component numbers, but it is a 0.01�F capacitor - connected to the 68k input resistor. It will be probably be marked "103K". I think if you change that to a 0.1�F capacitor (a "104") or even higher (1�F) it might let through the bass you are looking for.
There is also a 0.001�F capacitor connected to the collector of the input transistor that passes the "dry" signal to the output. No idea where that is on the circuit board - you'd have to trace it out until you find it. Anyway, I'd say increasing that one to 0.1�F would be beneficial too.
|
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 22:08:14
|
You know the Dunlop 105Q Bass Wah? I was trying to locate a schematic for that, but I guess that there isn't one floating around somewhere. I figured that I could try to model the wah after the bass wah components, but maybe that won't really happen.
That's interesting about the input capacitor, I guess that the .068 just isn't cutting it. I'll try the .1uf or 1uf cap instead. I'll also look into the dry signal cap.
To reiterate, the wah has awesome mids and mellow highs, perfect for bass, but when I hit the low E string, I can't get any sweep on it. The wah is just sweeping over the click of the string, or some other harmonic stuff. Once I get to about the 3rd fret on the A string, does it start to "function" I'm trying to lower the threshold there, and have it actually encompass everything from the low E to the G. |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 01:07:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cicatriz ESP
You know the Dunlop 105Q Bass Wah? I was trying to locate a schematic for that, but I guess that there isn't one floating around somewhere. I figured that I could try to model the wah after the bass wah components, but maybe that won't really happen.
The 105Q is WAY more complex. I have one and it is full of IC's...
|
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 01:59:22
|
oh okay, part of the reason for that might be the "smart switch" or whatever Dunlop has been peddling (pun intended :])
Apparently you need only step on it to activate it, not switch necessary, but there are loads of toneloss issues I guess..
anyway, thanks for the tip laurie, I'll try them out soon enough |
|
|
|
timbo
Silver Member
Australia
252 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 04:03:19
|
prob not much help, but here is some internal pics of my 105Q
 |
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 04:27:31
|
aw jeez, thanks for that Timbo! I really appreciate that!
Again, not that it will help much, but still, I appreciate it!
Check out this smiley, he's so bouncy!  |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 05:20:41
|
Well, lots of CMOS logic for the smart switching, but the 33174 is a quad op-amp so the beast is very different...
I don't think there is any real way of getting from the 95 to the 105Q. |
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 23:13:13
|
you're right laurie, I'm just trying to make do in this case.
Hopefully i can figure something out |
|
|
|
Cicatriz ESP
Bronze Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 23:14:59
|
| Btw, where is the inductor? |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2009 : 03:38:13
|
Can't help you much with this. If it was my project, I'd either figure out the maths and calculate what to change, which is way too hard  , or more likely just go through the entire pedal and replace all the capacitors one at a time with something 10 times the value (0.01 to 0.1 etc) and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Wah -> Bass Wah?
