Fasel inductor

[bigomw]

Anybody retrofitted a Fasel in a GCB 95 Crybaby? Improvement? Also there are 2 types of Fasel available, what sort of simple circuit would I need to wire both into the pedal on a toggle switch? A DPDT minitoggle?

Thanks in advance.

 

[TM1]

The only thing the new Fasel's have in common with the old ones is looks/cosmetics. The new Fasel inductors read very different in specs compared to late `60's. I have a B & K LCR Meter that reads Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance. I have a few old Fasel's and some new ones. the new ones do not read anything close to the original ones. In order for them to sound the same, the specs would need to read the same.

 

[GreenBurst]

The only thing the new Fasel's have in common with the old ones is looks/cosmetics. The new Fasel inductors read very different in specs compared to late `60's. I have a B & K LCR Meter that reads Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance. I have a few old Fasel's and some new ones. the new ones do not read anything close to the original ones. In order for them to sound the same, the specs would need to read the same.

That's interesting can you please share the actual readings with everyone. Then those who have access to a tester can compare to their own measurements. Thanks.

 

[bigtomrodney]

The only thing the new Fasel's have in common with the old ones is looks/cosmetics. The new Fasel inductors read very different in specs compared to late `60's. I have a B & K LCR Meter that reads Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance. I have a few old Fasel's and some new ones. the new ones do not read anything close to the original ones. In order for them to sound the same, the specs would need to read the same.

I'm glad someone else noticed! The new Fasels measure about 620mH which is way off spec. My earliest original measures 530mH and my latest is Mich higher at 560mH but these Dunlop reissues are only related by name. The red Fasels are torrid cores too...you know what else is torrid wound and measures 620mH? A stock Dunlop inductor!

The yellow ones are closer but still way off spec. Try a Whipped, ArielFX or one from WahWah.co.UK. To be honest you'll get more from a vocal mod and true bypass.

 

[zombiwoof]

I'm glad someone else noticed! The new Fasels measure about 620mH which is way off spec. My earliest original measures 530mH and my latest is Mich higher at 560mH but these Dunlop reissues are only related by name. The red Fasels are torrid cores too...you know what else is torrid wound and measures 620mH? A stock Dunlop inductor!

The yellow ones are closer but still way off spec. Try a Whipped, ArielFX or one from WahWah.co.UK. To be honest you'll get more from a vocal mod and true bypass.

Someone on a pedal forum tested a bunch of them, and found that the readings were all over the place, some are close to 500mH, and some are over 600, as you noted. Not very consistent.

And I believe the Halo inductor you were suggesting is the Whipple, not "Whipped" (unless there is another called Whipped). You can find them on Ebay.

Al

 

[bigtomrodney]

Someone on a pedal forum tested a bunch of them, and found that the readings were all over the place, some are close to 500mH, and some are over 600, as you noted. Not very consistent.

And I believe the Halo inductor you were suggesting is the Whipple, not "Whipped" (unless there is another called Whipped). You can find them on Ebay.

Al

Yeah you're dead right, my new phone has a nasty habbit of correcting my spelling when it's already correct :rofl

It is the Whipple. I have one of them here, measures in at around 520mH. I have four reissue Fasels here and they all measure 620mH +/- 4mH. The originals I have myself and have dealt with first hand go up in value with their production year. I have a 1969, solid red Fasel and that's the lowest.

I'll come out and say this though, if you want your wah to sound fat you need a higher-value inductor. I have plenty of halo replicas and a few original filmcan inductors ranging from 470mH to the 520mH and what I will say is that they do thin out the tone. That is great as long as that is what you want (and I do generally) but I think there has been some legend building up that Clydes and film-cans sound really fat. My experience is that the later Jens with the higher valued inductors have the fattest sounds. Another thing is that ICAR-tapered pots aren't the only game in town. The Centralab pots are excellent too. I'll put it another way - if it was made in Italy, it'll sound good. They do vary according to build period but they all kick ass. :dude:

 

[BobV]

I put the red and orange Fasels in my Crybaby with a SPDT toggle (DPDT isn't necessary, both inductors can go on a "Y" connection back to the PCB - if I recall they're going back to ground anyway). There's plenty of room in there to just stick them on the chassis with some hot melt glue or RTV silicone adhesive. The biggest improvement comes with the sealed lifetime pot (it's a Dunlop part, but they don't seem to like to put them in as original equipment). The DPDT true bypass goes without saying (and while we're at it, the Vox pedals make it easier to do the bypass mod on since the jacks aren't PCB mounted like the Dunlop).

The "Red" is a little smoother, the yellow one is a little wonkier. Can't say which one I like better because they each behave differently when the amp is clean as opposed to dirty.

 

[zombiwoof]

I put the red and orange Fasels in my Crybaby with a SPDT toggle (DPDT isn't necessary, both inductors can go on a "Y" connection back to the PCB - if I recall they're going back to ground anyway). There's plenty of room in there to just stick them on the chassis with some hot melt glue or RTV silicone adhesive. The biggest improvement comes with the sealed lifetime pot (it's a Dunlop part, but they don't seem to like to put them in as original equipment). The DPDT true bypass goes without saying (and while we're at it, the Vox pedals make it easier to do the bypass mod on since the jacks aren't PCB mounted like the Dunlop).

The "Red" is a little smoother, the yellow one is a little wonkier. Can't say which one I like better because they each behave differently when the amp is clean as opposed to dirty.

Dunlop has been using that pot in their wahs for many years now.

Al

 

[BobV]

Since they've had the sealed one as a replacement part but still used the cheaper one in production awhile ago, I assumed they still did it that way. I stand corrected and glad to hear it. It's nice to know they've switched the original equipment. That being the case, it would give the Dunlop an edge over the Vox. To do the DPDT mod you just have to desolder and lift a resistor that comes off of the tip lead from the input jack, and run your wire from there to the DPDT switch. I prefer not to dig any deeper into the circuit so I leave the buffer in operation when the effect is being used. I've read the highly regarded Teese wah has this feature - true hardwired bypass when bypassed, but buffered when it's in use.

 

[zombiwoof]

Since they've had the sealed one as a replacement part but still used the cheaper one in production awhile ago, I assumed they still did it that way. I stand corrected and glad to hear it. It's nice to know they've switched the original equipment. That being the case, it would give the Dunlop an edge over the Vox. To do the DPDT mod you just have to desolder and lift a resistor that comes off of the tip lead from the input jack, and run your wire from there to the DPDT switch. I prefer not to dig any deeper into the circuit so I leave the buffer in operation when the effect is being used. I've read the highly regarded Teese wah has this feature - true hardwired bypass when bypassed, but buffered when it's in use.

By the "cheaper one", do you mean the Hot Potz I, the one that has the metal case? If so, that's not cheaper, the new sealed one is cheaper, and many players think the old Hot Potz I was a superior pot. They haven't used the Hot Potz one for many years as I've said. Most guys now use one of the Icar-taper pots that are around, they have a taper that is closer to the ones in the old Voxes than the HP II. The only advantage to the HP II IMO is that it is sealed, and doesn't require as much maintenance.

Also, the INPUT buffer in the Crybaby is not the same as the OUTPUT buffer in the Teese wahs. The buffer in the crybabys buffers the signal to make it low impedance, it's their solution to the tone suck the standard wah has when bypassed. They do this instead of putting in a true bypass switch, which I think is a mistake. The output buffer in the Teese, is as you say only on when the wah effect is switched in, it allows the wah to work in front of a vintage type fuzz (like a fuzz face) without the fuzz ocillating and and sounding bad. The Crybaby doesn't have this, and therefore it still doesn't work well before a vintage fuzz. They are two different things. When people do the true bypass mod to a Crybaby, they often get rid of the input buffer, because it affects how the wah sounds, and install the FoxRox buffer (which is what is in the Teese wahs) or a similar one, to be able to use the Crybaby in front of a fuzz.

There are a lot of sources of info about wah mods on the net that will tell you about these things, you might want to check them out. We've gotten a little off topic here, but I thought I'd respond to some of the things you posted. I know your basic reason to post was the info about the Fasels you installed.

Al

 

[bigtomrodney]

I thought it might be worth updating with a secret project I've been working on. I have a few nice vintage wahs as I've mentioned a few guitarists that are good friends of mine are in the same boat. We all love them but hate the thought of modding them for true-bypass, revoicing, level-balancing and the rest. I decided to bite the bullet and went off on a massive research effort and catalogued anything I could about every one of our pedals.

This is the first prototype I made. Outside of the true bypass and level adjustment it's a clone of my 68. I mean that in terms of values and of course the more correct Italian layout. It sounds just like my '68 without the hissiness.


Next up are a few variations for our pedal boards. A particular favourite of mine is a fat sounding '78/'79 that I'd like to have. There might be some voicing changes too. Of course the wiring in that prototype is nasty, I've since made a few looms up that are far more pleasing to the eye and more mechanically secure. Those Italian wahs really were crow's nests :rofl

 

[BobV]

All I can say is the lifetime sealed pot is superior in my opinion because I don't like to rip things apart to spray Deoxit in there every time the pot gets scratchy. Yes you can get finicky with the taper of the pots, but there's nothing wrong with the lifetime sealed pot.

And does it really matter if the buffer is before or after a wah circuit? It's a high impedance input and low impedance output. If a germanium transistor fuzz is the heart of your pedalboard then buffers are anathema, otherwise they're a good thing.

 

[zombiwoof]

All I can say is the lifetime sealed pot is superior in my opinion because I don't like to rip things apart to spray Deoxit in there every time the pot gets scratchy. Yes you can get finicky with the taper of the pots, but there's nothing wrong with the lifetime sealed pot.

And does it really matter if the buffer is before or after a wah circuit? It's a high impedance input and low impedance output. If a germanium transistor fuzz is the heart of your pedalboard then buffers are anathema, otherwise they're a good thing.

Where the buffer is in the circuit does matter. If it's on all of the time (as it is in the Cry Baby, it's on both when the pedal is bypassed and when the effect is engaged), any vintage fuzzes after it will not work correctly when the wah is bypassed, there will be ocillation and weirdness. That's why buffers like the FoxRox (the one in the Teese wahs) are only on when the wah effect is engaged, which makes it work nicely with the fuzz, and it's out of the circuit when bypassed. That is the whole reason for that kind of buffer, there is no tone sucking with the Teese wahs and similar ones because of the true bypass, and the buffer fixes the problem that exists when you use the pedal in front of a fuzz. Dunlop put the input buffer in the later wahs to address the tone sucking problem that regular wahs have in bypass, but they didn't address the issue of using the wah in front of a fuzz. Many guys install a true bypass switch in a modern Crybaby, remove the input buffer components, and install the output buffer for this reason. As I said, there is a bunch of info on this stuff available on the net, I didn't make it up. And if you are happy with the taper of the Hot Potz II, then by all means use it.

Al

 

[BobV]

No argument - you shouldn't need a buffer when the pedal is bypassed if there's true bypass. It seems though that you're making a distinction between an "input buffer" and an "output buffer" and that escapes me. If the buffer is part of the wah circuit, and lets say it's only working when the pedal is in use because there's a true bypass DPDT on the pedal, then why would you "remove the input buffer components, and install the output buffer" ?

 

[zombiwoof]

No argument - you shouldn't need a buffer when the pedal is bypassed if there's true bypass. It seems though that you're making a distinction between an "input buffer" and an "output buffer" and that escapes me. If the buffer is part of the wah circuit, and lets say it's only working when the pedal is in use because there's a true bypass DPDT on the pedal, then why would you "remove the input buffer components, and install the output buffer" ?

Because the input buffer in most of the CryBaby pedals is on all of the time, not switched in when the effect is engaged. It was put there to fix the tone sucking problem, as I said. If you install a true bypass switch (which is the better solution for tone sucking in bypass IMO) in one of those CryBabys that doesn't have TB already, and you want a fuzz after the wah to work when the wah is bypassed, you need to put in the FoxRox type of buffer, that is only on when the wah is engaged. And with a TB switch, the buffer is redundant anyway.

Al