Author |
Topic: Volume Pedals |
Roger Shackelton
From: MINNESOTA (deceased)
|
Posted 17 Oct 2012 4:15 pm
|
|
Can Someone Explain The Differance Between Active
& Passive Electronics In a Volume Pedal? (Ernie Ball Pedal)
Roger |
|
|
|
Michael Hummel
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From: Topeka, KS
|
Posted 17 Oct 2012 8:00 pm
|
|
Baloney.
Modern active pedals don't use a pot at all...
That website does a good job of explaining the workings of a passive pedal, but falls on its face right after that.
Passive pedals after a guitar without a volume knob will have a certain degree of "tone suck" (if your guitar has a volume knob, it's already "presucked," since the pickup already saw a pot).
Modern active pedals don't do that, so you'll get crisper highs.
I use a buffer to defeat Tone Suck (I use an Izzy Plus, others use a FreeLoader or Black Box or one of the other devices) and use a passive pedal. The classic masters (Lloyd, Buddy, Jimmy et al) didn't use anything but a pot pedal.
Paul Franklin and Tommy White both went back to plain passive pedals.
Many others prefer either the Hilton or Telonics pedals.
Hilton uses a photocell, and Telonics uses magic _________________ 2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Michael Hummel
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 5:52 am
|
|
Lane:
You're right -- I should have read that page more carefully before I suggested it. It does have some errors or at least poor judgement in it.
Mike _________________ MSA Classic 5+4
Too many 6-strings and amps to list |
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From: Topeka, KS
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 6:16 am
|
|
Perhaps calling it baloney was harsh, but I doubt he's looked inside a modern active pedal, other than maybe the hotrodded Ernie Balls (there's a guy on the net that converts them, using a pot to control the output of an op amp).
I really think the volume pedal comes down to personal taste: every technology has high-profile adherents:
Basic pot pedal, without buffer? yup. Don't get much higher profile than Paul and Tommy, does it?
Basic pot pedal, with a Sarno Black Box? yup
" " " with other buffers? yup
Active pedal, Hilton? Oodles (what did he say? 10,000 of 'em out there)
Active pedal, Telonics? a bunch.
Active pedal, other? yup. Even some using the Morley, singled out by Winston/Keith as inferior.
I'd tell a n00b something like "until your hands are getting CLOSE to your ideal tone, save your money on volume pedal experiments. The L-120 will do fine." _________________ 2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From: Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 6:34 am
|
|
The pickup can have some influence on whether a basic pot pedal will work satisfactory or not.
I have Lawrence 710's on my Franklin and I don't really notice any tone difference between a Goodrich 120 pot pedal and my Hilton (although I've used the Hilton almost exclusively since getting it).
However, on my Wife's GFI S-10 Expo with a GFI II pickup I do hear a slight difference between the pot pedal and a Hilton.
The biggest plus, for me, with an all electronic volume pedal is that there are no pots to replace and no string to break. My Hilton is "maintenance free". _________________ GFI Ultra Keyless S-10 with pad (Black of course) TB202 amp, Hilton VP, Steelers Choice sidekick seat
Cakewalk by Bandlab and Studio One V4.6 pro DAWs, MOTU Ultralite MK5 recording interface unit (for sale) |
|
|
|
Keith Hilton
From: 248 Laurel Road Ozark, Missouri 65721
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 7:08 am
|
|
Lane the magic that you talk about in the Telonics pedal is just a simple tilt control system. The good thing about the Hilton,Telonics,and Goodrich is they are all made in the United States. |
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From: Topeka, KS
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 12:24 pm
|
|
I didn't mean the mode of physical control, I meant the fact that it's got a processor controlling the volume, but without converting to digital.
I'm sure I'd understand it if it got 'splained to me, but I'm happy with regarding it as, in the words of Arthur C. Clarke, a sufficiently advanced technology. _________________ 2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 4:52 pm Re: Volume Pedals
|
|
Roger Shackelton wrote: |
Can Someone Explain The Differance Between Active
& Passive Electronics In a Volume Pedal? |
An "active" pedal requires a power source, batteries, wall wart, or just plugging into a line socket.
A "passive" volume pedal requires no internal or external power. It's nothing but a pot, or it could possibly be a pot with a few other passive components (capacitors or resistors) wired together.
Some, but not all, active pedals do contain a pot. But as long as it's an "active" pedal, it needs voltage from somewhere.
Lastly, a "passive" pedal is usually far cheaper, and may affect tone in a positive or negative way. (Those who sell active pedals and their groupies don't like those statements, but they're true, nonetheless.) Players who tell you a pot pedal always affects your sound in a negative way and will cause "tone sucking" have obviously never listened to records from the golden age of pedal steel...the '60s...when practically everything was cut using a pot pedal.
I have no problem with players using whatever pedal they prefer, and all the active pedals on the market now are fine pieces of equipment, but telling everyone that they can't get a good sound with a pot pedal is patently absurd. |
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From: Topeka, KS
|
Posted 18 Oct 2012 6:28 pm Re: Volume Pedals
|
|
Donny Hinson wrote: |
Roger Shackelton wrote: |
Can Someone Explain The Differance Between Active
& Passive Electronics In a Volume Pedal? |
I have no problem with players using whatever pedal they prefer, and all the active pedals on the market now are fine pieces of equipment, but telling everyone that they can't get a good sound with a pot pedal is patently absurd. |
Totally. Yes, they attenuate the highs. but most of us have a LOT more highs in their amp thanthey use. Therefore Tone Suck can be compensated for. _________________ 2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Joseph Meditz
From: Sierra Vista, AZ
|
Posted 21 Oct 2012 10:08 am
|
|
Active:
I used the pedal.
Passive:
The pedal was used by me.
Lane Gray wrote: |
Yes, they attenuate the highs. but most of us have a LOT more highs in their amp thanthey use. Therefore Tone Suck can be compensated for. |
"Tone Suck" is a lightning rod phrase. Pot pedals attenuate highs, but they don't suck tone. I think they sound better than active pedals. So, how can they suck tone?
"If you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding. How can you have some pudding if you don't eat your meat!" |
|
|
|