DeArmand 600 volume pedal Ok Y/N

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 7 Apr 2003 8:15 am

I am bidding on an old 50's volume pedal.
What's it worth and does anyone have good or bad expirences with this.
It is the cable attached version.
I will get a short Hilton some time this spring, but I thought this old thing would be nice with my lapsteeel and 50's Fender Champ.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 7 Apr 2003 8:36 am

David, my first volumn control was a DeArmand, and it worked as well as any I ever owned UNTIL I bought a Hilton!
A pot pedal is a pot pedal.....irregardless of the brand! www.genejones.com [This message was edited by Gene Jones on 07 April 2003 at 09:38 AM.]

Michael Johnstone · Post by **Michael Johnstone** » 7 Apr 2003 10:16 am

The problem I have with DeArmond volume pedals is the short stroke,stiffness of action and the fact that the input and output are on opposite sides of the pedal.I never saw one w/an attached cable but that doesn't sound like a very good feature either.I tried to use one with my first steel (a Fender 400) and even with no experience and nothing to compare it to,I could see it wasn't gonna work and had to keep looking.I settled on some no-name Italian pedal for a while and finally moved on to Fender,Sho-Bud,Dekely,MSA and a few others.Goodrich and Hilton are your best bet these days.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 7 Apr 2003 10:27 am

*[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 20 January 2005 at 04:24 AM.]

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 7 Apr 2003 10:58 am

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 02:20 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 7 Apr 2003 11:49 am

Gene did you use the DeArmand on your CD in the forum store? Or had it been retired before that.
I figure it would be just a nice match with the tweed Champ and the Supro 6 for the long run; a nice vintage set up.
I have a volume pedal, but I hate it with the sho-bud, so I figured to use the DeA with that till I can get a Hilton. I don't think I might go much over $60 one way or another. I hope the other bidder isn't a forumite LOL.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 07 April 2003 at 12:50 PM.]

Michael Johnstone · Post by **Michael Johnstone** » 7 Apr 2003 2:26 pm

Gene-
I would never want to be viewed as admonishing someone for voicing his opinion,and yours is a valid one - I'm just spewing mine,which is based on my experiences. I would however,gently admonish your use of
the non-word "irregardless"

-MJ-

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 7 Apr 2003 2:52 pm

Well the question is moot now.
The seller didn't like me being in France and cut me off the auction.

Jeez louise, not all people in France are Chirac.

I WOULD have bid $3 more than he got too!.

So Gene you keeping your old pedal?

It would go well with your CD that arrives shortly!

Be well all.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 7 Apr 2003 4:03 pm

You didn't miss out on much, IMHO. The De Armond was better than no pedal, but just barely! If you'd have got it for $3, you'd have paid about what it was worth.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 7 Apr 2003 5:20 pm

David, I replaced the DeArmand with a Fender pedal in 1949 or I would send it to you.

...and Michael, the bad aspects of the pedal that you mentioned were plusses for me back in 1947-49 when I was first learning...I was a "pumper" and that short-stroke helped me get those "Gene Autrey slides" at the end of each phrase!

...and my wife also keeps telling me the same as you about, "irregardless" so it looks like you guys are ganging up on me!

Gene[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 07 April 2003 at 06:28 PM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 8 Apr 2003 1:27 am

Hi Gene.. you replaced the pedal 7 YEARS before I was born LOL.
You don't look THAT old in on the CD cover LOL.
I do like the riverboat gambler vest!

"short-stroke helped me get those "Gene Autrey slides" at the end of each phrase!"

Actually for the Lapsteel that would be a plus for me since I want a retro sound for that. A real western sound from 1952. The PSG I want clean and modern.

Two forumites Fred S and Crowbear have offered to loan me pedals till I get Hilton. Fred has a DeArmand and CB a Ernieball. I'll be out at the bear lair in a week or so, so I'll try that one then.
Another instance of how much this places is familly for steelers who don't steal!

Merci le deaux mecs![This message was edited by David L. Donald on 08 April 2003 at 02:28 AM.]

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 8 Apr 2003 3:39 am

.....David, in your reference to my age, I've been re-coned and refinished!

....

Here is a picture of the DeArmond pedal...next to the argyle socks! (those were also popular before you were born)

Seriously, in my experience a volume pedal has one purpose, and that is to sustain a note at it's original volume until the next note is played. When the ear detects the decay, there is an automatic response by the foot to adjust the volume pedal, and my experience has been that the minor differences in the mechanical action of various pedals is adaptive within a few minutes. So, from a mechanical function only, I find all of my pedals to be interchangeable.

However, in addition to volume adjustment, pot pedals sometimes cause changes in the characteristics of the note played that are avoided by the Hilton pedal, which is why it is my preference. www.genejones.com

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 8 Apr 2003 8:05 am

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 02:21 AM.]

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 8 Apr 2003 8:34 am

Thanks Fred...I always thought it was a step backward in technology when the mfg's replaced that little spring-loaded metal cog gadget, with a string that wrapped around the shaft....but then, what do I know? I once bought an Edsel!

www.genejones.com

CrowBear Schmitt · Post by **CrowBear Schmitt** » 8 Apr 2003 8:57 am

yep Good Medicine here

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 8 Apr 2003 9:34 am

If I remember right, you didn't have to fool with a string. They employed the old rack and pinion system to rotate the pot. I started out with one and still have it. Now, tell me, how many of you still have the old DeArmond tremolo unit? The one that shook the glob of mercury to get the effect along with quite a bit of noise!
Erv

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 8 Apr 2003 10:44 am

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 02:21 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 8 Apr 2003 11:47 am

So Gene was this before or after the invention of color photography?

I know those old memories get grayer with time! But not the socks... I have some LOL.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 08 April 2003 at 12:51 PM.]

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 8 Apr 2003 12:32 pm

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 02:22 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 8 Apr 2003 1:18 pm

Hey it WAS the 60-70's then LOL
And I remember some of it too.
Like the shirt; white sleaveless with fluorecent orange and yellow flames.
Neo-post-punk-new-wave.
But I still did country gigs too. (different shirts though!)[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 08 April 2003 at 02:23 PM.]

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 8 Apr 2003 1:35 pm

David, the shade of the socks are perfect.....in those days all of my underware and socks were that exact same faded shade because until I got married I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to wash my white & colored clothes together!

...that little picture of "grandpa jones" superimposed on my otherwise classic picture was sneaky...

Fred, I'll have you know that I had dimes in those loafers to match that high-dollar shirt with the diagonal zipper!

Gene

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 8 Apr 2003 3:31 pm

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 02:22 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 9 Apr 2003 12:44 am

Let's see now dimes in the loafers, dollar for the shirt; big spender!
Argyle underwear...hhmmm.

I don't think many Scot's from Argyle actually wore "Argyle underwear"! Seems like there's an instrumental song crying for that title.

But as the wee bonny lass noted, the Scots rarely wore underwear under the kilt and sporan! Gruesome, really gruesome!
Ah the sartorial splender of my anceistors.

I thought the wall seemed a bit bare. So a historical timewarp was in order. Nothing sneaky here, just your face in your face.

I think they needed to sweep the stage too LOL.
The, now old, Kodak dyes for slides and negatives for thes period are so oddly faded many color images are not so far off from this colorized version... more nausiatingly yellow, but I wouldn't inflict that color scheme on anybody. Let alone someone like Gene.

I did my laundery once and got some nice colors on the whites and my mom put the hammer down. "Here's how you do it... in MY washer." Now my whites are whiter, my colors brighter.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 12 Apr 2003 7:35 am

.....now, to "tie" all of this together.....Oxydol keeps your DeArmond volume control clean!.....

www.genejones.com

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 12 Apr 2003 8:31 am

And oxymorons keep my brain from getting to fogged!

And to tie this all together from the origin, a forum member has dug around in his boneyard and found me a monkey brown DeArmond for a decent price. I should have it end of next week. Not officially posted, to buy n sell, but a donation will forthcoming.
This should "Tide" me over till I get a Hilton.

Retro rides again. Hi Ho Electroperc, AWAY ! ! ! : : : ; ; ; , , , . . .____ [This message was edited by David L. Donald on 12 April 2003 at 03:44 PM.]