Best Wah Pedal?

I think the Dunlop crybaby is perfect for fat, thick tone. The classic wah pedal, and you can usually pick one up used for pretty cheap. The vox ones are similar but not as good , I think-- a little fizzier and thinner-sounding to my ears.

The DOD ones are also cool in a different way, sort of cleaner and clearer-sounding-- less whiny and more sort of plinky and warbly-- more like a wow-wow than a wah-wah, if that makes any sense. Good for clean-tone funk rythm stuff, like a porno soundtrack.

The morley ones are very extreme-- very nasally and weak-sounding at extreme settings. If your footwork with the pedal is skillful and controlled, you can get an awesome range of tones out of it, but it takes practice. They are harder and less intuitive to use than the cry babys, I think, but a skillful operator can probably get a massive range of sound variations.

But of course the best way to pick one is to take your guitar down to your local music store and try a few of them and see which one does the best job of getting you where you need to go.

A word to the wise-- most of the "Artist signature" models are things that basically charge an extra $30 to have a rock star's name attached to a variant pedal, when the rock star in question actually got famous using the original base model. Like Johnny Rocker records a hit record using a dunlop crybaby, and dunlop comes up with a "Johnny Rocker" model after the fact that has some special feature or paint job, and charges extra for it. I'm not saying the Johnny Rocker is bad, just that chances are you can get the same sound he got on whatever record made him famous enough to warrant a special model by using the stock wah pedal.

Cheers.

I'm going to order myself a Morley Bad Horsie 2 when my exams are finished, seems like an excellent hi-gain wah, and with the contour setting you have 2 wahs in one. Might be slightly less good for bluesy stuff, but it's excellent for heavy rock.

You might want to check out Real McCoy Customs (RMC), according to many they make the best wahs on the planet.

Fulltone Clyde
Buddha Bud-wah
Vox Clyde McCoy

in that order

I use a Vox V847. It's got a nice sound.
You definitely need to try some out before deciding. Guitar Center is a good place to play around with many different models.

I added a wah part to a recent song post of mine. It's called "Red Light Blue Night" and it's in the Songs forum. I used a Cry Baby. During the first part of the song I'm running it direct into the mixer. It has a typical clean wah wah sound. As the song fades out you can hear how the wah sounds in conjunction with my Tech 21 XXl distortion pedal. Paired with that pedal, it really squawks! That should give you some idea of what the Cry Baby sounds like.

Hi guys,
I'm sorry for taking us away from the list of classic wah pedals and those stunning boutique pedals to the land of mass produced giggery and pokery, but the BOSS V-Wah for me is the best all rounder.
You also can have a little / lot of drive on there too. (Although I don't use this as it's a boss drive which sucks) The modelling of the Wah's is pretty authentic to my ears and it includes crybaby, vox, morley (Boring, IMHO), has a rotovibe setting and some kind of wacky ring mod model and three memory settings. You can also adjust the range of the wah in all the models.
I've tried many Wah's and have only found the DOD FX17 to be unreplecable, so I have one of those on my pedal board, too.
This si one of the few times that BOSS have hit the nail on the head.
Nice one,
Oddboy
PS: the sonitus suite wah is nice too. I slapped it on a slide guitar solo and the sound makes me smile.

FWIW, Hendrix used a Vox.

If you want a new pedal that's under $100 and want the option of modifying it, the Vox 847 is a good choice. The issue with the 847 is it lacks true bypass switching, so it's a tone sucker when turned off. Another limitation of the 847 is it's powered by battery only.

Right out of the box the Dunlop Crybaby Classic with the Fasel inductor sounds fantastic, has true bypass switching, and can be powered by battery or an adapter. The build quality is spotty, and its unmoddable, but the sound is great. I've been using one the last couple of months and have become hooked. The first one I bought started acting up, but I was able to exchange it for another. The classic has a moderately short pedal stroke, which makes it possible to get the Hendrix/Santana/Led Zepplin sounds, and those great R&B/Soul sounds when played clean. It does the vomity Cream sounds too.

If money is no object check out the Fulltone Clyde, or the Teese picture wah.

Bear in mind that the Vox pedals that Jimi Hendrix used were not the same Vox pedals you will find today at your local Guitar Mart. Same for the Cry Baby pedals, etc. Radically different...

Vox in particular used different suppliers in the 60's such that some were even made in Italy (these are much sought after), while others were British made I think. The inductor is the critical component.

As far as wall warts... there are folks who swear that guitar effects pedals give best performance with battery power. In fact some hard-core afficianados even go so far as to seek out bargain bin non-alkaline batteries for that extra *something*. Check out the "Tone Quest" on-line magazine for more info if you're interested. Myself, I wouldn't go that far, but batteries are cheap and I wouldn't pass up a great deal on a vintage pedal just because it lacked a wall wart.

Many of the greates vintage pedals were battery-only, including the venerable Dallas-Arbiter Fuzz Face and the Vox Tone Bender.

The hard-wired bypass is one modern innovation that is worthwhile. My compromise solution is the Buddah Bud-Wah, that's what I personally use. It delivers the vintage sound but has true bypass. The new Vox pedals are really shrill IMO, whereas the Buddah is *chewy* and round.

Cheers!

Well I disagree (in the most respectful, friendly way I can) about the Cry Baby being very different. The Cry Baby Classic still sounds exactly like the one I used back in the 70's. It even looks the same. Now maybe they changed between the 60's and 70's, I dunno. But I buy a new one about every 8 to 10 years and have noticed no difference in sound or construction since the late 70's. Those pedals are really tough and last a long time. They did change the sound for a brief time but people complained so they brought back the "classic" unit and it sounds exactly the same to me.

Out of curiosity, why is the inductor so important? I've never had to do any electrical repairs on a wah unit before. When they break down its generally the mechanical components that wear out and not the electronics so I've never had any reason to poke around inside one, but I always assumed that it was just basically a tank circuit with an adjustable capacitor via the pedal. You know, like a tone control with a narrow Q being rolled back and forth. I'm not sure why an inductor would help with that or make anything sound different. An inductor usually just steps up voltage. I guess induction could be used in a tank circuit somehow, I really don't know that much about it. I just like to play em.

Well, I read the article but I'm still a little puzzled. Please don't take this as anything personal against you John. But I think the guy with this web page is trying to hoodwink us. Or maybe he actually believes what he's saying. You never know with people. He seems to be trying to make it seem as though electricity has a "sound" and like the type of material used for a cap or inductor "housing" would somehow effect the "sound" of the electricity going through it. I'd like to ask him, "Exactly what does electricity sound like?"

I really think this guy is just attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes while trying to sell his reproduction pedals. I don't care if electricity passes through ceramic, glass, or an oxide compound, it should have no effect on tone. Either you've got the voltage you want or you don't. That's the only deciding factor of electricity on tone. Electricity doesn't care what its housed in or passed through. You can slow it down, speed it up, multiply it or weaken it, but in the end you've either got the voltage you want or you don't. I'm kind of shocked that he admits this to some degree:

"When talking tone, it should be noted that component tolerances were all over the place. This equates to definite tonal variances, one pedal to another. While I've heard more than my share of "thin-cheesy sounding" Clyde McCoy wahs, I've also come across stock Clydes that have had a deep, warm, and powerful tone! Inductor variances and other component tolerances could indeed make all the difference in the world."

Of course they do. When electronic devices age the tolerances of the various components drop. An inductor would be one that changes a lot because its basically just wire wrapped around a magnet (or two). Have you played any old Les Pauls from the 50's lately? Boy, in the late 60's everybody thought the sound of those things was golden. Those strong PAF's were only about a decade old then however, and still had a lot of juice. They sure don't now. People are replacing those "vintage" pickups left and right. What was once a number 5 magnet now has the strength of a number 2. So while I wouldn't put any stock in the type of components used having any effect on the tone, I would say that some types hold up better over the long haul than others and so they'll keep the sound more within the range that it was designed to be. I think that when people say they think one OLD pedal sounds better with one kind of inductor than another that what they're really hearing is one inductor holding up in its tolerances better than the other and that the type of material its made of has nothing to do with the sound when its new. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see how it logically could.

The article it quotes from Guitar Player says:

"Also at this time (1968), Vox and Thomas Organ introduced a new model designated V846 that used a Japanese inductor made by TDK instead of the Italian made inductor. Most purists agree that this change degraded the sound of these pedals, but in the informal tests we conducted, our favorite (because of its almost human vocal quality and vomiting sounds) was an excellent sounding V 846......"

I think that's interesting because this article was written in 1992... 24-years after the change was made. I would submit that after a quarter century, one of those inductors probably held up better than the other. I would venture to guess that if both those pedals had been manufactured on the same day with the two different brands of inductors that we would have heard no difference in sound. But after 24-years of aging... it's a different ballgame.

Geoffrey Teese says here:

"The VOX/USA V846 changed much more than just the inductor. Everything but the very basic resistors were changed, making the V846/KING-VOX WAH/CRYBABY virtually an entirely new pedal (lumped together because they all shared circuitry, layout, and componentry)."

He's admitting that the two old pedals he's talking about "all shared circuitry, layout, and componentry". So the only thing that changed was the "brand" of the components. Again, I don't see how the way a component is made could possibly effect the tone of a pedal unless its an OLD pedal and those components have had time to break down. Again I'd ask him, "What does electricity sound like?"

The web page finishes with:

"I've also reproduced my favorite brown Vox inductor, based on my microfilmed Thomas files and information gleaned from the old Thomas supplier. These inductors can also be found in my RMC3 wahs, as well as my 847 Rev.A RMC-MOD drop-in replacement circuit board for the "reissued" V847.

"My RMC3 wahs, and modified boards, are now being used by recording artist of all musical styles, all over the world."

It sure sounds to me like he's just trying to sell you his reproductions. Maybe he means well though. You never know. I've seen a hell of a lot of people convince themselves that they could hear things nobody else could....

Now, assuming my Dunlap Crybaby is made from the same "circuitry, layout, and componentry" as the one I used in the 70's, I see no reason why it should sound any different, providing they were both brand new. If I had my old one to test it against, they might sound a little different today because of the component aging factor in the one from the 70's. But hey, sometimes a component can fall low in tolerance and effect the tone for the better! I might actually like the older pedal better because of that. Again, you just never know about these things. I think the bottom line is that you either like the sound of something or you don't. I wouldn't worry too much about why. And we all have slightly different tastes sometimes in what constitutes a good sound anyway. Some people seem to love Hendrix's wah sound. I thought it was winy and brittle. Actually, the only recording of a wah pedal from the 60's I ever liked was on "White Room". And I can duplicate it perfectly with my 3-year old Dunlap. So I'm happy. That's all I really care about.

I did learn something from all this though. Inductors are used a lot in generators and transformers, but I just looked up something about them that I hadn't thought about: They can be used as caps too. I guess that makes sense if its self inducting. Also, according to what I just read, if you put a cap inline with an inductor (depending on how its made) you'll regulate a maximum voltage at a specific phase. I'm guessing this is what's going on in wah-wah pedals. Who knew?

Hey J, you are dead right about the inductor being the critical component.. particularly in those early Vox pedals.

How?

I don't want to be a wise guy. But you know, it really ain't a big deal any way you look at it. A wah pedal has gotta be just about the easiest effect there is to make. Heck, Roy Buchanan did just fine manipulating the tone knob on his guitar for a wah effect. All you're doing is sweeping across a limited frequency spectrum. Its brainless. I mean, we all have preferences but it would be a very poor guitarist who couldn't get by just fine with any wah pedal.

Just for comparison sake I'll post a few samples, all 20-30 seconds each. The first is from a recording I made in the early to mid 80's. I don't really know how old the crybaby unit is I'm playing through here. It could be from the 70's or 80's either one. The next two I made a few minutes ago. One is with my current crybaby, probably about 3-years old. The other is the built-in wah effect from my V-Amp2. I'm not using a pedal with it so I have no control as to when it begins to sweep or by how far, but I think you can tell that I've got the frequency spectrum set to something that duplicates the crybaby pretty well. After that comes a morsel of Hendrix playing through God only knows what wah pedal from the Band of Gypsys record. And then the last is a snippet of Roy Buchanan just manipulating the tone control on his Tele for a wah sound. Really, it just ain't a big deal. I'd be perfectly happy with any of these wah sounds.

Crybaby - 1985

Crybaby - 2003

V-Amp2

Hendrix

Buchanan

PS, I've never used a Morley but I've heard some other people get good sounds with them.

ORIGINAL: Joe Bravo

I don't want to be a wise guy. But you know, it really ain't a big deal any way you look at it.

Not a big deal to you, maybe. But to the original poster maybe it is. Apparently, you thought it's big enough of a deal to dedicate several long posts to the subject. Are we not allowed to disagree? I like my wah a lot and I don't mind recommending it to anyone who may be shopping. Besides, don't we music geeks get in here to talk about these sorts of things because we enjoy it? I do.

Not a big deal to you, maybe. But to the original poster maybe it is.

I just want people to keep their perspectives proper. Its just a wah pedal. I can make a great recording with any of them. I can also make a poor recording with any of them. And nobody would blame the pedal for my success or failure in either case. I mean, really you have a few notable exceptions but the differences between most wah pedals are fairly slight.

There certainly CAN be a difference in quality between different inductors and different circuit paths. Poorly-designed or cheaply manufactured components can create unneccessary resistance, which can lead to signal attenuation, esp. at high freqs, or can become capacitive in ways that exceed the intent, which will cause frequency anamolies and phase-distortion. So people who say that the components can make a difference in the sound are technically correct. End of factual analysis.

BUT, as a matter of personal opinion, I am inclined to side with Joe on this one-- this is an electric guitar pedal. This is super-primitive, soviet-era technology that was for the most part invented in garages by potheads with parts from radio shack.

"Vintage" electric guitar, and the whole signal path through the amp including the speakers, was designed for volume, not for fidelity. The signal path and audio integrity of electric guitar is terrible. Noisy, severly bandwidth-limited, crude, you name it. From the speakers to the cables to the amplification cicuitry, it is DIY-style improvisational technology, and not the audiophile-kind, either.

I'll bet that the original designers of these pedals never conducted any kind of significant testing on the components they used, beyond experimenting with different nominal inductor values (not different chemical formulations). I bet at most they went to radio shack or You-Do-It electronics and bought a few different sizes of parts and when they found one they liked, they wrote down the specs and ordered them in bulk. If the manufacturer and composition of the first factory run happened to be the same as the first prototype, that was probably only because the wah-pedal company, like Radio Shack, was buying from the cheapest supplier.

I doubt very seriously whether many of the guitar gods of myth and legend were sitting conducting double-blind listening tests of different years, makes and models of wah pedals, like a wine connesuier, or a modern-day gear nerd lovingly caressing some "authentic" crappy old leaky, dime-store capacitor from a vintage Fender Bassman.

The placebo effect is real, and there is real "magic" in certain types of gear for certain types of players. I will give away one of my most jealously-guarded studio secrets by way of illustration:

I have a bunch of old guitars. Some of them are valuable "vintage" instruments, some of them are simply old. New clients almost invariably go for the flashier "vintage" ones-- the mid-60s SG, or the burnished old strat, or whatever.

Now, we all know that guitar players get bored. they get tempermental and irritable, and ideas that seemed to them two hours ago like the apex of western art seem like tired old casio keyboard riffs after tuning up and setting up and making the same mistake 12 times in a row. They complain about the sound, they say they're not getting the tone they're after, they want to change brands of string, they think the problem is the wrong brand of tuning gears, they want to switch to doing rap metal or free-form jazz, whatever.

Here's what I do: "You know," I say, "The Les Paul (or whatever they're playing) certainly seems like the obvious choice for this kind of music, but I almost wonder if... nah. You're probably not ready for 'El Diablo'. You wouldn't be into it."

"What? What do you mean I wouldn't be into it? What's El Diablo? I'm ready, BELIEVE ME, I am READY for El Diablo."

"You think so?"

"Are you kidding? I know so! Just lemme try it, El Diablo is exactly what I'm missing! What is it?"

"Wait here. Let me go into the BACK ROOM. That's where we keep... El Diablo."

I make a dramatic show of getting up on a chair to remove a hidden key from above the door and suspiciously, furtively, unlock a supply closet, and jump in, pulling the door shut behind me so no one can see what secrets lie within. A few tense moments later, I emerge with... El Diablo.

El Diablo gleams sensuously in the dim light of the tracking room. The deep, bloody patina glow of her red-and-black sunburst finish is offset by the crackled, textured, but still-brilliant old chrome of her hardware. The age-mellowed, bone-colored bindings speak of dignity and consequence. The strings resonate with a subtle, ominous, flamenco twang as my fingers shift across them to present the voluptuous curves of her naked painted body to the budding talent before me.

"THIS," I say, "is El Diablo." (sharp intake of breath from the awed recipient). I continue:

"I couldn't even begin to guess how much this would be worth today (true). I doubt you could even find one for sale anywhere-- maybe once a year or so one comes up on eBay or someplace, I wouldn't know (true). Very, VERY few people alive right now have ever played a guitar like this (still true). It took a LOT of legwork, time and effort to get this, and I expect you to be very careful with it (sort of true). I don't usually bring it out for clients (true). Now give it a shot and see how you like her."

Usually, but not always, he LOVES her. He wants to marry her. He makes love to her with his fingers. He swears that it is exactly what was missing, that the sound is so much fuller, richer, sweeter. Better. And you know what, it IS better. The MAGIC is there, that wasn't there before. It is the magic of a creative spirit in the presence of something special, something magic, creating something magic. It was the magic that was in his very first guitar until he learned enough to be embarrassed by it and think it inadequate.

Of course, as you've probably guessed, El Diablo is nothing more than some obscure old yard-sale rehab or flea-market bargain or whatever. Two of my "El Diablos" are funny-shaped old Fenders (bought pre-Nirvana, who drove up the prices for those), Two are ancient archtops of unknown manufacture, one is a weird old single-coil, single-pickup Les Paul of some sort, one is a very antique-looking old yamaha with the name painted over and some modifications done by yours truly that I have been known to exaggerate and say is "custom."

Of course, I don't actually use the term "El Diablo" (not usually anyway, maybe if the guy is high). And I wouldn't try to pull something like that on somebody who was obviously very knowledgeable about old guitars (those people almost always bring their own, anyway, though). And I almost always reveal the man behind the curtain after the perfrormance is done.

In fairness, every guitar I own is one of the best I have ever played-- that's why I own them. From the vintage firebird to the $120 Ibanez knockoff, every one of these guitars is there for a reason, and does something that none of the other do as well. Every one is immaculately set up, plays like a dream, has no or very little hum and no buzzy frets or off-intonation. Every one stays in tune, even with vigourous playing and tremelo bar work, if there is a tremelo bar. i put a lot of work into shielding the body cavities, filing the nuts and saddles to exactly the right height, re-habbing sketchy solder joints, replacing hardware that causes breakage or tuning problems, replacng bad frets, adjusting pickup height and pitch, etc and so on.

I have replaced a lot of elctronics and a lot of hardware and spent a lot of late nights with calipers and sandpapre and files and a soldering iron. I've spent a lot of time shopping for these guitars.

Many (rather most, or almost all) off-the shelf guitars come poorly set-up, with bad fret jobs and variable wood quality and poor sheilding of the electrical components and action that is improperly matched to string gague and pickup height (even expensive ones from big brand names).

Given all this, it is almost safe to say that for many guitar players, I could pull up any of my guitars at random and say, "I bet this is the best guitar you've ever played" and be right (and I'm not really even a guitar player--just a guy who loves good sounds and good instruments).

But the point is, what made "El Diablo" work for Guitar Johnny was NOT the guitar itself, but the magic of a special instrument.

Some really outstanding players can pick up some crappy old POS guitar, badly set up with rusted old strings and plug into a cheap solid-state amp without even looking at the knob settings and create the voice of God. Others can be given a glorious instrument and a magnificent amplifier and a full rack of expensive effects and hours to tune up and dial up their sound and produce something that sounds like soggy limp ass hairs.

The magic is in the fingers, the technique, and the spirit of the player, not in the circuits or the type of glue or composition of the tone capacitor. This is true for all instruments, but it is especially true of electric guitar, which is, let's face it, about the crappiest, most obnoxious, offensive, and annoying instrument on God's green earth. And those are exactly the qualities that make it so compelling when it's done right-- like the wracked-out old voice of damaged bluesman, the crackly, hummy, fizzy, lo-fi noise of an electric guitar is what makes it so real and so compelling.

That's my feelings anyway, not fact.

Cheers.