PatheinRaindropMoe
New member
its good to hear something from the maker occassionally without form of advertisment or hear say of how good or wonderful it is.
The following cut and paste is from somewhere else. Interesting read if anyone into rmc wah...
question: Geoffrey... tell us sometime, please, which wah you consider "the best" which you build and tell us why. Tell us the difference in applications, style, objectives etc. for each build. It would be nice to know straight from the horse's mouth without any adspeak bullshit. I want one to play; to gig with... and I already have several. I'm sure plenty of us here support you and dig your input. I certainly do.
answer:
#1 - This only came about because my Japanese importer wanted a simple wah. All I had at that time (late 1997) was the RMC3. The sound was the same sound that I had been tweaking new Vox and Dunlop wahs to, based totally on what people asked me to do the most. Booming bottom instead of attenuated like normal, and a lot thicker mid range to get more (playing) harmonics into the active sound. The bigger sweep cap was to combat the Dunlop inductor screech. The volume boost was because I was sick of wahs that all but disappeared in the mix when activated. However, and this is a pretty big however, the overall sound of the model was developed in conjunction with a 100K wah pot. When I finally dropped my old 100K CTS pot because they couldn't make the taper physically smooth (the "click" in the pot syndrome), the sound didn't work as well as before with my newer 200K pot (but at least CTS could make the taper smoother). Those eventual shortcomings led to the RMC2. Application was originally for any guitar or bass. With the limitations of the newer pot, I tried to steer people with higher output pickups to anything else. I've wanted to drop the model for years but there are those players that still really dig what it does and so I keep on building the bugger.
#2 - This model was to combat the eventual problems I perceived with the RMC1. Multiple sweeps to remedy the overall dark sound of the RMC1 with the 200K pot. A volume control because I got tired of adjusting the output of the RMC1 for some players. Variable Q/resonant peak position (not the Q curve like Dunlop) because that had always been the most changed value in modified Vox and Dunlop wahs and occasionally in the RMC1. I kept the lows and mids of the RMC1 as the starting point becaue it was supposed to be the improved RMC1. Applications are for most any guitar or bass and even keyboards (as I've found out).
#3 - My little Frankenstein's Monster. This grew from the tweak points I mostly used in the modifications I did. I really got tired of re-tweaking the occasional pedal over and over and over until I got it right for the owner. I figured that if I gave the player the ability to do their own tweaks then I wouldn't be seeing the same pedals again and again. This is still my favorite personal model because I can get bored with one sound after a while. That, and as I sit-in with more people (versus a steady band situation) I've found that a sound that works great in one situation can get lost in another playing situation. Because of the versatility, the RMC3 can be used for pretty much anything that can be amplified. It is being actively used for guitar, bass, keyboards, violin, and even electric spoons (OK-only 1 person uses it for this-Geoffrey Richardson of Caravan).
#4/PW - Believe it or not, this is the one I resisted building for the longest time. I'd always been bugged with that mantra "Build a Clyde McCoy, build a Clyde McCoy." At the time, I couldn't see the sense in doing something that sounded like, or very similar to, a pedal that was available. I finally caved. Vox/Korg used to send lots of people with old, broken down Italian Vox wahs to me (since they didn't even make their wah, and weren't actually the same company anymore) for repairs. That was a connection I just fell into... Anyway, I always blueprinted each wah and stored the info in a database (that OCD thing again). I thought that I would, somehow, figure out the timeline for Vox's wah production changes since they (the current Vox and the former Thomas emplyees I spoke with) didn't know. So, after I decided that I would go ahead and reproduce the "old Vox sound" I went to my database and dug up the one file that I'd noted was the best (to me) sounding Vox I'd had in for repair. I simply used the real metered value of every component on that particular PCB. That is the "secret" as to why the PW sounds so much like an old Vox. I threw my picture on the bottom as a joke. It couldn't be a "Picture Wah" without a picture on it. I didn't want to use Clyde McCoy (good thing as Jimmy Dunlop had trademarked the old "portrait" that same year) and I couldn't get anyone to do any quality line art. It was getting too close to NAMM Show time (release date for the model) and I was out of ideas so I had a friend of mine use my POS digital camera to take my picture. Primarily for guitar, this model works as well as the original for any instrument.
#5/WW - I was doing an in-store meet-and-greet (dealer's idea, not mine) at a dealer and had brought along a prototype multi-wah with 9 switchable wahs inside, along with all the component values to make all the sounds. A guy came in with his big-box humbucker equipped jazz guitar and tried all 4 models (all I had at that time) and nothing "did it" for him. I pulled my proto out of the box and told him to try it and tell me which part of wach wah sound worked for him. He eventually settled on parts of 4 different sounds and so I told him that if he bought an RMC1 from the dealer then I would modify it on-the-spot to match what he'd picked out from the proto. The low end was literally half way between the 4/PW and 1. The mid range was just a tiny bit (and I mean TINY bit) richer than the 4/PW. The Q position and the sweep range was the same as the 1. The resulting pedal/sound made him happy. I started using that tuning as the RMC1 Alternate for a while, for people who had 'buckers and their RMC1 didn't do the job. Since the model before it was called the Picture Wah, I figured I had to have some kind of name for the new model once I'd decided to release it. Since people had been referring to me as some kind of wah wizard on the net I figured I'd use that, and so the model became the Wizard Wah. Hokey, I know. When it got time to describe the sound on my site I was having a hard time. I could refer to the low end and sweep range but I didn't know what to say about the mid range. That's how the "haunting mids" BS came about. I figured that since the wah was the "wizard" then it should have something "spooky" in the description. It sort of seemed natural. Looking back, I should have tried harder as I've caught some real shit for the haunting mids thing. Application - Since this is sort of a no-frills improved for 'buckers RMC1, the usage is for any instrument. It is actively being used for guitar, bass, and keyboards. It has a very balanced sound, no frequency spikes anywhere, and does not get very bright on the top end.
#6/WOF - This is another model I wasn't crazy about putting out. A guy wanted me to make him a stand-alone wah based on the RMC3 tuning he used. I had 4 Colorsound wahs in for repair at the same time and noticed that the RMC3 tuning was really close to the sound of the Colorsound wahs. The volume control was a request and the Q control was simply because the guy didn't know what he wanted for a fixed value. (The low control came about a little later because other people didn't like the booming bottom end as it first existed.) The sweep range is pretty funky because it has to be done with 2 caps in order to match the ass-over-elbows physical sweep of the Colorsound with the "traditional" wah case I use. The original customer started posting on all sorts of music boards about his new wah. What was supposed to be a one-off wham-bam-thank-you-m'am ended up getting requested more and more. After 3 years of special orders I finally added it to the lineup. Once again, the application is guitar, bass, and keyboards although I still think it is something of an acquired taste for the sound.
Well, that's it. Now back to Landgraff...
Peace,
Geoffrey
The following cut and paste is from somewhere else. Interesting read if anyone into rmc wah...
question: Geoffrey... tell us sometime, please, which wah you consider "the best" which you build and tell us why. Tell us the difference in applications, style, objectives etc. for each build. It would be nice to know straight from the horse's mouth without any adspeak bullshit. I want one to play; to gig with... and I already have several. I'm sure plenty of us here support you and dig your input. I certainly do.
answer:
#1 - This only came about because my Japanese importer wanted a simple wah. All I had at that time (late 1997) was the RMC3. The sound was the same sound that I had been tweaking new Vox and Dunlop wahs to, based totally on what people asked me to do the most. Booming bottom instead of attenuated like normal, and a lot thicker mid range to get more (playing) harmonics into the active sound. The bigger sweep cap was to combat the Dunlop inductor screech. The volume boost was because I was sick of wahs that all but disappeared in the mix when activated. However, and this is a pretty big however, the overall sound of the model was developed in conjunction with a 100K wah pot. When I finally dropped my old 100K CTS pot because they couldn't make the taper physically smooth (the "click" in the pot syndrome), the sound didn't work as well as before with my newer 200K pot (but at least CTS could make the taper smoother). Those eventual shortcomings led to the RMC2. Application was originally for any guitar or bass. With the limitations of the newer pot, I tried to steer people with higher output pickups to anything else. I've wanted to drop the model for years but there are those players that still really dig what it does and so I keep on building the bugger.
#2 - This model was to combat the eventual problems I perceived with the RMC1. Multiple sweeps to remedy the overall dark sound of the RMC1 with the 200K pot. A volume control because I got tired of adjusting the output of the RMC1 for some players. Variable Q/resonant peak position (not the Q curve like Dunlop) because that had always been the most changed value in modified Vox and Dunlop wahs and occasionally in the RMC1. I kept the lows and mids of the RMC1 as the starting point becaue it was supposed to be the improved RMC1. Applications are for most any guitar or bass and even keyboards (as I've found out).
#3 - My little Frankenstein's Monster. This grew from the tweak points I mostly used in the modifications I did. I really got tired of re-tweaking the occasional pedal over and over and over until I got it right for the owner. I figured that if I gave the player the ability to do their own tweaks then I wouldn't be seeing the same pedals again and again. This is still my favorite personal model because I can get bored with one sound after a while. That, and as I sit-in with more people (versus a steady band situation) I've found that a sound that works great in one situation can get lost in another playing situation. Because of the versatility, the RMC3 can be used for pretty much anything that can be amplified. It is being actively used for guitar, bass, keyboards, violin, and even electric spoons (OK-only 1 person uses it for this-Geoffrey Richardson of Caravan).
#4/PW - Believe it or not, this is the one I resisted building for the longest time. I'd always been bugged with that mantra "Build a Clyde McCoy, build a Clyde McCoy." At the time, I couldn't see the sense in doing something that sounded like, or very similar to, a pedal that was available. I finally caved. Vox/Korg used to send lots of people with old, broken down Italian Vox wahs to me (since they didn't even make their wah, and weren't actually the same company anymore) for repairs. That was a connection I just fell into... Anyway, I always blueprinted each wah and stored the info in a database (that OCD thing again). I thought that I would, somehow, figure out the timeline for Vox's wah production changes since they (the current Vox and the former Thomas emplyees I spoke with) didn't know. So, after I decided that I would go ahead and reproduce the "old Vox sound" I went to my database and dug up the one file that I'd noted was the best (to me) sounding Vox I'd had in for repair. I simply used the real metered value of every component on that particular PCB. That is the "secret" as to why the PW sounds so much like an old Vox. I threw my picture on the bottom as a joke. It couldn't be a "Picture Wah" without a picture on it. I didn't want to use Clyde McCoy (good thing as Jimmy Dunlop had trademarked the old "portrait" that same year) and I couldn't get anyone to do any quality line art. It was getting too close to NAMM Show time (release date for the model) and I was out of ideas so I had a friend of mine use my POS digital camera to take my picture. Primarily for guitar, this model works as well as the original for any instrument.
#5/WW - I was doing an in-store meet-and-greet (dealer's idea, not mine) at a dealer and had brought along a prototype multi-wah with 9 switchable wahs inside, along with all the component values to make all the sounds. A guy came in with his big-box humbucker equipped jazz guitar and tried all 4 models (all I had at that time) and nothing "did it" for him. I pulled my proto out of the box and told him to try it and tell me which part of wach wah sound worked for him. He eventually settled on parts of 4 different sounds and so I told him that if he bought an RMC1 from the dealer then I would modify it on-the-spot to match what he'd picked out from the proto. The low end was literally half way between the 4/PW and 1. The mid range was just a tiny bit (and I mean TINY bit) richer than the 4/PW. The Q position and the sweep range was the same as the 1. The resulting pedal/sound made him happy. I started using that tuning as the RMC1 Alternate for a while, for people who had 'buckers and their RMC1 didn't do the job. Since the model before it was called the Picture Wah, I figured I had to have some kind of name for the new model once I'd decided to release it. Since people had been referring to me as some kind of wah wizard on the net I figured I'd use that, and so the model became the Wizard Wah. Hokey, I know. When it got time to describe the sound on my site I was having a hard time. I could refer to the low end and sweep range but I didn't know what to say about the mid range. That's how the "haunting mids" BS came about. I figured that since the wah was the "wizard" then it should have something "spooky" in the description. It sort of seemed natural. Looking back, I should have tried harder as I've caught some real shit for the haunting mids thing. Application - Since this is sort of a no-frills improved for 'buckers RMC1, the usage is for any instrument. It is actively being used for guitar, bass, and keyboards. It has a very balanced sound, no frequency spikes anywhere, and does not get very bright on the top end.
#6/WOF - This is another model I wasn't crazy about putting out. A guy wanted me to make him a stand-alone wah based on the RMC3 tuning he used. I had 4 Colorsound wahs in for repair at the same time and noticed that the RMC3 tuning was really close to the sound of the Colorsound wahs. The volume control was a request and the Q control was simply because the guy didn't know what he wanted for a fixed value. (The low control came about a little later because other people didn't like the booming bottom end as it first existed.) The sweep range is pretty funky because it has to be done with 2 caps in order to match the ass-over-elbows physical sweep of the Colorsound with the "traditional" wah case I use. The original customer started posting on all sorts of music boards about his new wah. What was supposed to be a one-off wham-bam-thank-you-m'am ended up getting requested more and more. After 3 years of special orders I finally added it to the lineup. Once again, the application is guitar, bass, and keyboards although I still think it is something of an acquired taste for the sound.
Well, that's it. Now back to Landgraff...
Peace,
Geoffrey
