The Amp Garage

[rooster]

Billyz, OK, noted. The funny thing here is, cleaning the trace with Deoxit in the Centralab DID wreck the feel, what there was of it - but then pulling the carbon trace and installing a new CTS shaft (brass) and top cap everything was very smooth. I can't explain this except to speculate that it was not - based on this - the Deoxit on the carbon trace. So I have to assume it is the Deoxit drifting down the shaft.

But you have a point. Using the fader cleaner would avoid all of this.

I also have this liquid 'lube tube' I use on the shaft itself. It's some type of synthetic but not clear what it is. It's clear and very viscose. The brass shafts seem to take to it, the Centralab too, but the Centralab shaft is hard to get to with that c-clip.

[davent]

This discussions has pretty much centered on volume pots and i'm curious as to what people are using for the tone pots, do the various higher-end pots discussed offer sonic advantages or will any old generic pot suffice in that spot?

Thanks!
dave

[redshark]

I think in the tone spot any 500k audio taper would work but why not use the same historic pots also for tone? I put four of those in my Les paul style guitar and wired it in 50's style and it works amazingly with the express amp.

[rooster]

OK, going back to the original guitar that I was wanting to test the Centralab pots in, I finally made the swap. What I had installed were two Hamer true 30% taper pots in there - and there was not anything magical about the potting. Alright, this was a very obvious improvement! I have a real variety of tones as I pot up and down, and particularily in the 'both pickups on' position. And I can hear this on my Champ even, very obvious.

So I am a bit confused about this because I have been all into the 30% taper pots and I thought they were working well with my other guitars. In fact, the guitar I mentioned a few posts ago didn't really leave me with this clear a difference as I switched from the Hamer pot to the Centralab. ?? So I am still mulling over the possiblity that certain pickups behave differently to the various tapers. ....I won't ever get a consensus here but I am thinking this way for now.

I will do one of my LPs when the Gibson pots arrive and see if change my tune.

As to the post by davent and his question, I use the '59 style tone pot wiring on my guitars pretty much - and certainly these two guitars I just swapped out, My conclusion is that the Centralab taper really really benefits the tone pot. I say this because I left a 30% taper pot in one of the two guitars and as I compared the two it was very obvious which one had more subtle control. But now that I think about it, most of the stock pots from Fender and Gibson are what I call a 10% taper pot, although considered 'audio taper'. They may be fine for the application. Afterall, I'm looking like the crazy one who got into the 30% taper pots for guitars at this point. YM - and wallet - MV!!

And speaking of this? Would someone please do a graph of the stock Gibson pot? Has this been done? Oh, wait, it this the 511K '06 pot maybe?

[billyz]

[rooster]

<< Just an observation, I would call the centralab a 10% log taper, not 30%. I have measure many old pots in both fender and gibson. I also found them to be about 10%log not 30%. My definition of that is, at 50% rotation you get 10% of the total resistance.>>

I couldn't agree more, billyz.

My reference and interest in 30% taper pots as volume controls in guitars stems from Joel Danzig's interest in same, the taper he used in his Hamer guitars. He heard something here, as did/do many of his customers. It may well turn out that the Centralab pot taper is my new favorite, but for now I still see/hear a value in the Joel path in some guitars.

[vibratoking]

It's all in the Excel data on page 3 of this thread. 09 R9 is a 2009 Les Paul 59 reissue, etc... I'm bummed that you are not looking at it. It tells you alot if you take the time.

The definition of taper 'standardized' as the resistance ratio at 50% of the pots' rotation. Just look at the plots and you'll see what it is for each pot. 10% taper is the goal, not 30%. 30% results in a significant loss of subtle control - on the volume and tone pots IMO.

[rooster]

Moi? Did I not thank someone for posting the graph? It is helpful explaining in graph form what is being heard, of course.

My last point is that it's still a horse race and every jockey has his way. Joel Danzig obviously didn't care for the Centralab taper - and here I can safely assume he had experienced a '59 LP or at least some other early Gibson guitar that used Centralab pots. One man's subtle is another man's 'I don't want this, I want something different'.

For that matter add a Hamer pot graph to the mix to show where it sits against the Centralab.

[redshark]

My search started for only one reason. Finding a pot that behaves like the old centralab so playing a humbucker guitar through the express is more controlable and offer better cleans as shown in Glen's videos. When I met Glen in person @ the Nashville amp show in 09 he kindly let me use his guitar cause it had those pots and my LP classic at that time had the RS superpots. Right at that moment I learned the diference why he could get better dynamics with the express amps.
That search ended with the new 2010 Gibson historic pot. Still I have to agree that this discussion of diferent pots and graphics has been really interesting.

[vibratoking]

[ToneMerc]

I ran across this a few weeks ago when trying verify some NOS pots.

TM

[geetarpicker]

Yep, my old ones have the C2 taper.

[martin manning]

Nice find TM, thanks for posting!

[ToneMerc]

[ToneMerc]