# Volume Pedals



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

Hello,

I used to be a rack guy and would use expression pedals to control the volume coming from my rack and into my amp but lately I've been using mostly my pedalboard to get the sounds that I need live. I'm looking at adding a volume pedal to do swells and just control my overall stage volume and I'm wondering what volume pedals you guys would recommend? I hear the Boss one is alright and that the Ernie Ball ones are quite the tone suckers. Thoughts? Thanks!


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

I have used the Ernie Ball for years and honest I can't hear any tone suck. And I've put it in a bypass loop to see. Sure, it's just another volume pot in the chain but I really don't hear a problem even when cutting volume. I have the 250K version and I use it for swells and muting. Can withstand a bomb I'm sure. Some have experienced issues with the string and mechanism breaking but mine has been fine. Just bought another one to use as an expression pedal. 

The EB has a toggle adjustment on the sweep. No minimum volume adjustment but I didn't need that. I'm using the VPJrs to save space.


----------



## neldom (Apr 29, 2009)

I use a VPjr 25k and it does need a buffer in front of it, no big deal though. Works great, feels really smooth and solid.
Also works great to switch in and out as an expression pedal, no regrets with the EB.
As for the string thing, don't let the talk put you off.
I replaced it on mine and with the proper tools (two hooks) it is a twenty minute job.
That was the first time, if it happened again it would be quicker.
People say that it takes them 2 hours of painstaking labour and muttering under your breath, but with the proper tools it's a simple job.


----------



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

That's really good to know. I like the construction and the sweep of the EB pedal more than the Boss. I've just read a lot of poor reviews about it being a tone sucker, but I do have some buffered pedals in my chain along with an "always on" EQ that should take care of some loss. 

The fact that the EB pedals may need some mechanical maintenance doesn't really bother me...looks like I'll have to make a trip to L&M later! 

Any other suggestions out there before I pull the trigger? Or better yet, anyone looking at getting rid of their VP Jr. 250K???


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2012)

neldom said:


> As for the string thing, don't let the talk put you off.
> I replaced it on mine and with the proper tools (two hooks) it is a twenty minute job.


And in those twenty minutes you will unleash curses the likes of which would make Satan himself blush.

I've converted two EBs to linear pots and TRS jacks for expression pedal use. Won't do it again. Pain. In. The. Ass.

That being said, I've used EB pedals for many years now and never had a string break. So it's a rare enough thing to not worry about it. If you like the feel, use it.


----------



## neldom (Apr 29, 2009)

That's weird everything I've read online is stories similar to your own.
Honestly mine was completely pain free, might have just been beginner's luck...


----------



## Cary (May 11, 2011)

http://www.long-mcquade.com/product...ound/10th_Anniversary_Visual_Volume_Pedal.htm

Best volume pedal I've ever used, a piece of gear I really regret selling.

It has a switchable active mode on it, so it doesn't eat any volume/tone and it allows you to get a boost out of the pedal when you floor it. 

Best part of it though, is a set of leds up the side, so it shows you where your volume is at, super handy.

Kind of a beast but a great one.


----------



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

Modifications and maintenance definitely do not scare me one bit. I'm used to monkeying around with my gear and have experience building pedals etc, so I'm not shy in that dept. I'm just surprised that nobody has mentioned any experience with the Boss volume pedal. Mind you, it's definitely re-assuring knowing that you guys have had decent experiences with the EB stuff.

Thanks for the suggestion - That Visual Sound one looks a bit overkill for what I plan on using it for. All of my guitars are passive too, so some of those features would just go unwarranted.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2012)

TWRC said:


> I'm just surprised that nobody has mentioned any experience with the Boss volume pedal.


I used an FV-500 as an expression pedal with my Eventide ModFactor. Was nice. Good sweep. Solid. Heavier than the EB but I didn't do a back-to-back comparison. Took up a lot of real estate.


----------



## RobQ (May 29, 2008)

Ernie Ball volume pedals are the bomb.

I also have a Morley that I hate, because there's not enough sweep and it's touchy.


----------



## The Lullaby (Dec 8, 2010)

a passive volume pedal is the way to go, purest signal.


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

I would poke around some steel guitar forums. If anyone has tons of experience with vol. pedals, it will be those guys.
Cheers, d


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) The "tone-sucking" depends on where you insert the volume pedal. Volume pedals were traditionally for either keyboards, or pedal steel. The output impedance of the keyboard was low enough to avoid issues, and for pedal steel, a little bit of treble loss was tolerable. 

If it receives the guitar signal directly (i.e., first thing in line), it will suck tone harder than someone trying to syphon gas out of your car, because a 25k, or even 100k pot is a lousy match for a generally 10k (and higher) output impedance from the unbuffered guitar. Once the volume pedal is situated AFTER some form of buffering, it will play nice with your signal.

Note that what matters is NOT how many pedals you have ahead of it, but whether there is ALWAYS some buffering in front of it. So, if you have 3 straight-wire true-bypassed pedals in front of it, if at least one of those is on, then your signal will be buffered for the volume pedal. Once you turn them all off, however, all buffering is removed, and we're back to the tone-sucking of guitar-into-volume-pedal. 

So, either build or otherwise install some buffering into the volume pedal, the cable, or the guitar, or else make sure you stick it *after* something that uses electronic switching and provides a buffered output at all times (i.e., when engaged or "bypassed"). The other alternative is to score yourself a much higher value volume pot, like 500k or even 1meg, though that may be tricky for some folks.

2) Probably the most critical aspect of any volume opedal is how expressive it feels. Part of that is pot taper, and part of it is the way it feels under your foot. You will often be using it like your vocal chords, and if it has a feel that does not correspond to the way YOU want to express emotion, then it will be irritating to use, rather than a pleasure.

One of the reasons why people tend to like the EB units is because they use the string pulley, rather than rack-and-pinion, yielding a smoother feel and a different range of pot rotation that is available with R&P. Folks also like the Goodrich units, which, IIRC, are optically-based.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

I use a EB with a 250k pot in it and when I read threads like this I get to wondering what all the fuss is about. I've tested my pedal board out with and without the EB, even had a buddy take it off my board as I was playing just to get the best comparison and it seemed just fine, no or very little tone loss. Now that I read what mhammer is putting down it makes sense why it sounds fine to me, I have 2 true bypass pedals in front of the volume pedal but one of them is ALWAYS on, just to boost/shape my tone, I'm guessing it helps by doing some buffering and whatever else witchcrafty it's meant to do. Explains, makes sense.


----------



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

I'm a firm believer of having some buffered pedals in my chain; however as it stands, everything I have on my current board is true bypass except for my Eventide TimeFactor. My Source Audio EQ is an always on pedal though and it's pretty late in my chain of effects and it makes a huge difference. 

Thank you Mark for the explanation. I do plan on running the pedal last in my chain, so in theory I shouldn't have any tone loss as long as my EQ is on. Now I think it comes down to the sweep of the EB unit vs the Boss unit. I would love to get a Goodrich unit but would rather spend the extra money elsewhere.


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

iaresee said:


> I used an FV-500 as an expression pedal with my Eventide ModFactor. Was nice. Good sweep. Solid. Heavier than the EB but I didn't do a back-to-back comparison. *Took up a lot of real estate*.


I bought an expression from this guy http://saturnworks.blogspot.ca/
Put that on my board no fuss He does a volume too.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2012)

bzrkrage said:


> I bought an expression from this guy http://saturnworks.blogspot.ca/
> Put that on my board no fuss He does a volume too.


I don't see an expression pedal on that page. Where is it?


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

iaresee said:


> I don't see an expression pedal on that page. Where is it?


At the bottom of the page where the volume pedal is, there is an "Older Posts" button. 
it's on the top of the next page.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

For a passive pedal, Goodrich 120 which comes with a 500K pot.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2012)

bzrkrage said:


> At the bottom of the page where the volume pedal is, there is an "Older Posts" button.
> it's on the top of the next page.


Yeeeaaaa. Cute but not quite what we're talking about though. Doing anything accurate with that and your foot on the fly would be a disaster.


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

bobb said:


> For a passive pedal, Goodrich 120 which comes with a 500K pot.


I've never used one but these Goodrich volume pedals have been used by many steel guitar players for years. Something to look into if you are looking for a really good volume pedal.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I've been thinking that there aren't nearly enough volume pedal demos on youtube.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I have the EB VPJr and have had no problems.


----------



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

Agreed. Judging from everything I've read online, it looks like the Boss FV-500H will serve its purpose. I'm just waiting for my local L&M to get one in so I can compare it to the EB side-by-side. 



butterknucket said:


> I've been thinking that there aren't nearly enough volume pedal demos on youtube.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I've had several over the years, starting with a John Bellone's (Remember the London store? Still there.) back in the mid '70s, to my current Ernie Ball passive model. I like the EB a lot. It's always at the end of the signal chain unless it's the only thing I'm using, like last week when I had it in my acoustic rig as a simple volume/kill to control feedback in a weird room. There have been a few multi-effects unit with a volume pedal too, like my current Boss and previous Digitech and Zoom units. Still, the Ernie Ball has been my favourite, built like the proverbial tank, smooth operation, tuner out, big footprint and pedal, flawless and reliable operation.

I wouldn't mind trying this: http://www.jimdunlop.com/product/gcb80-high-gain-volume

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

TWRC said:


> Agreed. Judging from everything I've read online, it looks like the Boss FV-500H will serve its purpose. I'm just waiting for my local L&M to get one in so I can compare it to the EB side-by-side.


I've compared both side by side extensively, and I prefer the sweep of the EB.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

For a couple years, in the late 70's, *MY* volume pedal was an EHX Hot Foot connected to the output control of a Univox Compressor.sigiifa

Ultimately, you want something that feels good to your foot.
Next, you want something that doesn't pose impedance matching issues and loading.
Finally, you want something with the right taper, that situates the changes in level at that arc of pot rotation where you have the most articulate and expressive foot movement.

Of those three objectives, the 2nd and 3rd can always be addressed with a bit of electronic intervention. For example, read _The Secret Life of Pots _to learn how to tweak the taper of pots http://www.geofex.com/article_folders/potsecrets/potscret.htm, or insert a simple one-transistor buffer. The old Anderton Volume Pedal Retrofit (I have two sitting around) tries to get past pot scratchiness and impedance issues. What you CAN'T easily fix with some post-purchase finagling is how the thing feels under your foot.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2012)

mhammer said:


> Of those three objectives, the 2nd and 3rd can always be addressed with a bit of electronic intervention. For example, read _The Secret Life of Pots _to learn how to tweak the taper of pots http://www.geofex.com/article_folders/potsecrets/potscret.htm, or insert a simple one-transistor buffer. The old Anderton Volume Pedal Retrofit (I have two sitting around) tries to get past pot scratchiness and impedance issues. What you CAN'T easily fix with some post-purchase finagling is how the thing feels under your foot.


Hey Mark, maybe this is a good time to bring up something about that Secret Life of... article I've never been able to figure out. Jack shows examples of how to log-taper linear pots, but can you do the reverse? Can you linearize a log taper pot?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In principle, yes. Remember, all you're doing when log-ifying is making the resistance on one side of the wiper change/reduce "faster" (per degree rotation) than it normally would. In theory, linearizing a log pot simply means sticking a resistor in parallel with the side where the resistance changes/increases fastest. So, if I have a 1meg log pot, the resistance between the ground side and wiper goes from zero ohms to around 950k between 7:00 and 12:00. If I placed a resistor across those two lugs, say 100k, I'd have 50k on one side of the wiper and 90.5k on the other. Not quite linear, but getting there.

However, you can see that the total pot resistance has been radically altered (140k in our example), and is actually changing. At the 9:30 mark, there'd be 250k on one side of the wiper and 88k on the other, making it equivalent to a 338k pot.

So, you CAN make it more linear in how the resistance changes, but typically one would use linear pots in circumstances where you'd want the total resistance to remain stable (e.g., a Baxandall-type boost/cut circuit). As well, though not always the case, there are plenty of situations where one wants the "middle" pot position to be meaningful (e.g., a channel balance or blend control), and log pots nudged in the direction of linearity may not necessarily have that quality. In contrast, log pots are not often used in roles where their mid-point is interpreted to mean something specific (and especially something specific in relation to something else, like BOTH treble and bass set to 12:00), so "error" in logifying a linear pot or adjusting the taper of a log pot to expand or contract some range of pot settings, is quite tolerable. Attempting to linearize a log pot might not work out as well.

I think it is important to remember that strict adherence to a log response is not common. It might be a bit off this way or that from what is shown on the graph. Tapering via parallel resistors allows for adjustment in the desired direction; either diverging or converging with the "ideal" log function.

Case in point. Because of how so many LFO circuits work in modulation pedals (flanger, chorus, phaser, tremolo), one regularly finds a reverse-log pot used for LFO speed. The smaller the pot resistance, the faster the LFO speed. If one had zero interest in the slowest speeds, however, and far more interest in subtle differences between the faster speeds, you could simply tack on a parallel resistor to effectively "hyper-log" it and get through the largest resistance values of the pot faster, such that maybe 80% of the pot rotation was taken up with rates from 1.5hz to 10hz - greater "dialability" of fast speeds. The circuit itself does not assume the middle position means anything in particular, and couldn't care less what the min/max resistance values are other than simply setting the fastest and slowest speeds.

I can see where someone might feel that far too much change in level happens in that last 1/2" of treadle travel, and that they'd like to move some of that level change a little farther back in the treadle travel, so that it isn't all bunched up.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2012)

This is awesome information Mark. Thanks!

It's for linearizing pots for expression pedal applications so a strict resistance value isn't required -- it's all done via measuring the differential between the center lug and the outside lugs.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Okay, now you make me want to dicker with the pot taper on an old Yamaha expression pedal I have that I want to use for my M5....especially in conjunction with the Whammy setting.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2012)

mhammer said:


> Okay, now you make me want to dicker with the pot taper on an old Yamaha expression pedal I have that I want to use for my M5....especially in conjunction with the Whammy setting.


My thinking was I wouldn't have to completely disassemble the EB if I wanted to convert it for use an expression pedal -- I could live with the log pot in it and just wire a resistor across the lugs on the (easily accessible) output jack. No screwing around with that string assembly.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Absolutely. The jack you plug into doesn't really care where the resistance is physically located. It only cares about what it sees.

And thanks for the idea. Now I won't have to take apart MY expression pedal.


----------

