Looking for C1M pot for buliding snow white auto wah

[NBguitarist]

It seem that I can't find it here.
What if I use a B1M for the replacement?

Thanks all

[samhay]

alternatively, you could use an A1M and wire it backwards.

[NBguitarist]

Is it really that simple?
Is there any side effect doing this?

[samhay]

yes and yes - the pot will work backwards.

[Kipper4]

Tayda carry them (not affiliated)

[Mark Hammer]

yes and yes - the pot will work backwards.

If that pot was controlling anything where one had some very traditional expectations (like gain, level, or tone), then reverse-wiring a log pot would be confusing.  But since the pot is used for decay time, I doubt the user has strong expectations that clockwise ought to be faster OR slower.

[NBguitarist]

yes and yes - the pot will work backwards.

If that pot was controlling anything where one had some very traditional expectations (like gain, level, or tone), then reverse-wiring a log pot would be confusing.  But since the pot is used for decay time, I doubt the user has strong expectations that clockwise ought to be faster OR slower.

So you think that I can just hook the A1M backward like samhay said?
What if I not to hook it backward? Just asking

[Mark Hammer]

A non-linear pot (whether A or C) needs to be used because of how much resistance change is needed to produce a change in decay time that your brain can detect.  At very short decay times, small changes in resistance will produce detectable changes in decay.  Once the decay time starts to get longer, it takes much larger changes in resistance for your brain to notice/detect changes in decay time.  (Look up Stevens power law for more explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens'_power_law )

Both log and anti-log taper pots will distribute resistance across the full rotation of the pot in a way that makes very big changes in resistance with small movement on one end, and very small changes in resistance with larger movement at the other.  An anti-log pot will have the biggest changes in resistance over on the counterclockwise (7:00-10:00) end of things, while a log pot will have those changes over on the opposite side.

If you do NOT connect a log pot in the "reverse" manner, then what you will find is that useful changes in decay time will all be within a VERY uncomfortably small range of pot rotation, and the rest of the pot will not produce much of a change you can hear.

[nocentelli]

From experience with this pedal, a 1M log (audio) reverse wired will do just fine. The SWAW sounds really good, but it's not a knob twiddling pedal: You will find one setting you really like and stick with it, so the reverse wired pot will not cause confusion.

[induction]

For what it's worth, I used a linear decay pot and have no trouble dialing in the decay rate I want. It's possible the sweep would be improved by an antilog pot or a reverse-wired log pot, but I have no complaints with the linear pot.

It's the only knob I tweak very much on this thing. I find that slow decay does very nice things to distorted solos, allowing sustained notes to mutate as they ring and creating a kind of out of control feeling. Faster decay is nice for quick rhythms and for 'What I Am'-type noodling.

In the factory unit, the decay pot is wired as a 'decay time' control. If you reverse the pot, you can just think of it as a 'decay speed' control. That's actually how mine is wired, because the schematic I used has it reversed. Maybe I'll pop a log pot in there and see if it improves the sweep.

[Mark Hammer]

As with a lot of these things, the audible difference between one setting and another is contingent on how you play.  If you do a lot of string muting with the butt of your picking hand, you may not even notice the difference in decay time.

Consequently, even though it grates against the nerves and instincts of the perpetual setting-tweaker, it is not at all unreasonable to replace a pot like this with a 3-position toggle that selects between fast, medium, and long decay times.  In this case that might be 4k7, 100k and 1M.

[nocentelli]

Consequently, even though it grates against the nerves and instincts of the perpetual setting-tweaker, it is not at all unreasonable to replace a pot like this with a 3-position toggle that selects between fast, medium, and long decay times.  In this case that might be 4k7, 100k and 1M.

Other than being unable to obtain a pot with the appropriate taper, in general I don't understand the benefits of replacing a single pot with a single switch. Where I've done this on my builds, I always end up using it with the switch in one position, which makes it seem rather pointless. It doesn't save much, if any room in the box; It limits you to presets rather than allowing you to choose any setting; It forces you to breadboard and agonize over which is the best 2/3 values of resistor to settle on; Switches look a bit ugly on a pedal (personal and subjective, of course).

I know you're a frequent advocate of switches in place of pots, I'm interested in what the benefits are.

[Mark Hammer]

The benefits?

1) Smaller panel-space requirements, and often lower cost.
2) Ease of repeatability.  I hate it when I'm trying to recreate a sound that required tweaking several pots just so.
3) Wider range of possibilities.  Pots come in predetermined values.  Resistances or capacitances can be anything you want.
4) Less fiddling around.  Cut to the chase.

I've told this story before, but when my buddy Tim Larwill was developing the Retro-Sonic Compressor (a Ross clone), we discussed gain-recovery time.  I offered him up a usable set of recovery-time settings he could implement with a 3-way switch, and he used that.  Some time later, I noticed he had changed over to a pot, and asked him why.  he replied that he simply had to give into customer demand.  Customers felt that they must be missing something by being "limited" to only 3 choices.  Of course, had anyone done the blind testing of those same buyers, I suspect that none of them would have been able to reliably differentiate between anything other than full clockwise and full counter-clockwise.

I'm a sucker for more controls too, but in my old age, I'm getting realistic.  I recently made a Jen Fuzz III clone in a 1590B box.  I retained gain and volume pots, but added more controls.  Specifically, I used three of those little PCB-mount push-buttons like you see on things like the Carbon Copy: treble cut/normal, diode lift, and higher/lower Q2 to Q1 emitter->base feedback resistance (actually Q3 to Q2 in this instance).  I probably could have provided a continuous tone control, and continuous variable emitter-to-base-feedback control, but I kept things at two choices of each parameter.  Between that and the existing two controls, that still provides a broad tonal palette.  Not infinite, but broader.  The pedal should allow me to have more options, but not encourage me to get lost amidst the options.

[NBguitarist]

So if I can wire the C pot backward when A pot is needed?
Again, Just asking.

[Mark Hammer]

Yes, the principle is "transitive".

Again, just keep in mind that, even though it "works, there will be some things you expect to be "more" as you go clockwise.  A C-taper pot wired in reverse so that you get less gain or less volume as you go clockwise will be VERY confusing.

[NBguitarist]

Thanks all. Very much appreciated.