Volume Pedal Quality

Tim Tweedale · Post by **Tim Tweedale** » 4 Nov 2004 11:01 pm

I've been playing pedal steel for one year, and because I already had an Ernie Ball volume pedal, that's what I use. It has a modification too - a knob to adjust the taper. My question is, what am I missing by not having a pot pedal that's designed for steel playing (like the Goodrich, for instance)?

-Tim

Travis Bernhardt · Post by **Travis Bernhardt** » 4 Nov 2004 11:36 pm

You know what you're missing--that thing sucks your tone like crazy--but the question is will a standard Goodrich/whatever pot pedal be any better, and why?

-Travis

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 5 Nov 2004 2:54 am

I just taught a student yesterday with an Ernie Ball pedal. The angle of the pedal is meant for stand-up players like guitar players. Also the inputs are on the front of the pedal instead of the side. ALSO, the travel on the pedal is excessive, compared to the Goodrich and other pedals. Tonally, I don't think there was a huge difference between his and my L120.

John Daugherty · Post by **John Daugherty** » 5 Nov 2004 8:24 am

Tim, you have probably noticed that the pedal of choice these days is the Hilton pedal. It is more expensive that a "pot type" pedal but if you can afford it, you will love it. I might add that Keith Hilton is one of the finest gentleman I have ever known...........JD
http://www.hiltonelectronics.net/

Tim Tweedale · Post by **Tim Tweedale** » 5 Nov 2004 9:19 am

Interesting... interesting... Thanks for the replies so far. Travis that is a good rephrase of the question; It degrades the tone when not on the full-on position (in the full on position the tone degradation is negligible). Are other pot pedals designed to not do this? (I know that Hiltons are b/c they are non-pot pedals). Btw, I quite like the long sweep of the Ernie ball.

-Tim

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 5 Nov 2004 10:01 am

The basic factor is the geometry of the pedal angle. The Ernie Ball is just plain awkward if you're sitting down. The steel oriented pedals have the right amount of travel and the angles are just right for a person in the sitting position. As far as sonics, I can't see why one pot pedal would sound different from another pot pedal. May be true, I just don't see why it would be.

Brad Sarno

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 5 Nov 2004 11:13 am

The "degrading" of the tone when not in the full "on" position is an inherent characteristic of pot pedals. I put "degrading" in quotes, though, because it all depends on what you want from your pedal.

As you push down your heel to decrease the volume, you also roll off high frequencies. I actually like that effect, if it's subtle enough. When I cut my volume, it's because I don't want to be heard as much. Rolling off the highs at the same time is very organic sounding. It's exactly what I want my volume pedal to do. That's why I no longer use an active pedal.

Back to specific problems with the Ernie Ball pedal (your original question). I believe that many of those pedals are shipped with a 250k pot. A 500k pot is the standard for steel guitar. The higher impedence simply works better. The difference is, I believe, in the way those high frequencies roll off. You have more highs toward the hot side of the signal with a 500k pot.

Many of the Ernie Ball pedals have the jacks on the front of the pedal. That's really an awkward setup for pedal steel. They used to make them with jacks on the side, where God intended.

The height of the Ernie Ball pedal is a problem for me. It pushes my knee too close to the guitar body, making it harder to use the knee levers. I'm a short guy, too. I can only imagine how hard it must be for someone 6 feet tall to use one of those pedals.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 6 Nov 2004 4:33 pm

Listen to Brad...he speaks the truth. Also, the myth about pot pedals "ruining" your tone is highly exaggerated.

Oh, you don't agree?

Well, let me put it this way...

How many electric straight guitars have you ever seen that didn't contain a "pot" for a volume control?

Does that "pot" ruin their sound???

Oh...they don't use that pot like we use ours? Okay...well then...

Have you ever listened to any pedal steel recorded in the '60's (arguably, the "golden age" of pedal steel), when everybody used a "pot pedal"?

Did it ruin their sound?

GOTCHA!

I rest my case. [This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 06 November 2004 at 04:36 PM.]

Travis Bernhardt · Post by **Travis Bernhardt** » 6 Nov 2004 8:34 pm

If, like b0b, you think of the "tone loss" as just being a different flavour, then sure. But you can definitely hear the difference between a guitar plugged straight into the amp and the guitar through a pot pedal. What would regular electric guitars sound like without the volume pot? Not worse, I don't think.

I agree that the loss of highs is a part of the sound, though. I personally think it's part of why the pedal steel seems to have a bit of a "wah" sound--which contributes to the "crying" effect the steel is known for.

-Travis

Donald Dunlavey · Post by **Donald Dunlavey** » 8 Nov 2004 8:22 pm

Oh, I gotta say Donnie Hinson gets my vote on those statements.