Rod Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I just changed the pots on my 157 to 500K all around, thinking that this was the usual Les Paul type set up. Seymour Duncan Seth Lover's, 50's style wiring, .022 cap in the bridge, .015 neck. The difference was quite drastic. Drastic enough that it caused me to measure the values of the old pots. The measured value of the volume pots was 355K bridge, 275K neck, .96M on both tones. At this point I haven't played it enough to know if I like it or not. I'm leaning toward not. I'm also only a day into a new (to me) amp, and that could have a great deal to do with my perception of it. I don't know if the pots were original. The most obvious difference is that I used to gravitate toward having the tone pots at zero. I've never done that on any other guitar. Also, the volume and tone seem more interactive now, which is also something I don't know if I'm going to like (I know that is part of the result of 50's wiring). I don't know enough about the mathematical/electrical relationship between the volume and tone and the differing resistance values to understand where I was compared to where I am now.. For instance, would a 250K neck volume on 10 with the 1M tone on zero be relatively equal to a 500K neck volume on 10 and the 500K tone on 10? What is your opinion on this 250K, 350K, 1M pot arrangement? Is this a standard Heritage arrangement? What would you expect to be the result and the positives and negatives of such an arrangement? I'm confused.
HANGAR18 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I'm also only a day into a new (to me) amp, and that could have a great deal to do with my perception of it. Bingo! The amp that you use and how you dial it in will play a huge part in the sound you get. What kind of amp are you using now and what do you have your eye on for the future?
MartyGrass Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You might get a clue as to whether you took out the original components by looking at the soldering. Sometimes it's obvious that extra work has been done. The pots are supposed to be 500K, but Heritage has used a lot of batches of cheap parts over the years, so it's variable. I've not personally been disappointed with stock though. The caps are just crazy. I'd leave your harness the way it is currently. If in doubt, try another amp before changing anything again.
Rod Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Bingo! The amp that you use and how you dial it in will play a huge part in the sound you get. What kind of amp are you using now and what do you have your eye on for the future? The only amp I've played it through is a Mesa Lonestar which I had nearly no time with that when I did the pot change. That amp alone will take some getting used to. I have more time with the 157 through a '68 Super Reverb (blackfaced) and an Egnater Rebel 30. I know I haven't really given it a chance. Those pot values just seemed so specific and intentional... It would have been easier for them to just put in all 500's. I was afraid I was screwing up some sort of magical recipe.
MartyGrass Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Those pot values just seemed so specific and intentional... It would have been easier for them to just put in all 500's. I was afraid I was screwing up some sort of magical recipe. If these values were intentional, the intention did not originate at Heritage. The best CTS pots that Heritage has used have tolerances of about 10%, from what I've been told. The more generic pots have wider tolerances. The guys at Heritage don't tend to care much about these details as long as they can get a decent sound, which they can. The cap values don't make sense. Are you sure that it is 0.96 micro farads?
Rod Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 If these values were intentional, the intention did not originate at Heritage. The best CTS pots that Heritage has used have tolerances of about 10%, from what I've been told. The more generic pots have wider tolerances. The guys at Heritage don't tend to care much about these details as long as they can get a decent sound, which they can. The cap values don't make sense. Are you sure that it is 0.96 micro farads? You're on to something. These are pot ohms values, not caps, but the point you make is accurate nonetheless. I'm not reading the meter right. I was misinterpreting the decimal point, making it fit what I thought it might be. These tone pots are 96K! As I go back and read what they say instead of what I thought they were going to say, it's definitely 96K. (Actually it varies a bit, but for talking purposes...). Sorry for the confusion. So, now it makes even less sense than when I thought it was 1M (Actually I was trying to make it read 960K). Should I conclude that I just had a couple of (almost equally) bad pots? All this aside, I'm leaving the thing alone now. Ever heard of anything having 96K pots intentionally? Thanks for the help!
Hfan Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 If these values were intentional, the intention did not originate at Heritage. The best CTS pots that Heritage has used have tolerances of about 10%, from what I've been told. The more generic pots have wider tolerances. The guys at Heritage don't tend to care much about these details as long as they can get a decent sound, which they can. The cap values don't make sense. Are you sure that it is 0.96 micro farads? I think the op said that the tone pots were .96M..960k. I've been curious myself, not curious enough to deinstall my pots. At least on the volume pots I can't get a good reading on them installed. For 50s wiring I have decided I like it only on my neck pickups. Reversed the last two I did to a bridge pickup. But on the neck it's great.
MartyGrass Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I see what you're saying. The 96K pots sound like they were leftovers from EMGs. I bought an archtop that someone foolishly put a 100K pot in. It was all mud.
Hfan Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You're on to something. These are pot ohms values, not caps, but the point you make is accurate nonetheless. I'm not reading the meter right. I was misinterpreting the decimal point, making it fit what I thought it might be. These tone pots are 96K! As I go back and read what they say instead of what I thought they were going to say, it's definitely 96K. (Actually it varies a bit, but for talking purposes...). Sorry for the confusion. So, now it makes even less sense than when I thought it was 1M (Actually I was trying to make it read 960K). Should I conclude that I just had a couple of (almost equally) bad pots? All this aside, I'm leaving the thing alone now. Ever heard of anything having 96K pots intentionally? Thanks for the help! We were typing simultaneously. Maybe they had some 100k pots around?? Or the pots got toasted from soldering on the pup grounds to the tops..kinda odd. wouldn't happen to both of them though..I'd just be happy with the new 500ks and don't worry about it. So you did 50s wiring to both as well?
Rod Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Yep. Did the 50's wiring. Seems weird to me. The interdependence of volume and tone is (so far) just confusing. I think I like the volume to do the volume and the tone to do the tone. If there's something inbetween-ish that 50's wiring does that traditional wiring doesn't, I don't think I have the ear to detect it. Still, I'm going to leave it that way for a while. One I'm too lazy to change it, and two, a lot of people like it. There must be something to it. Thanks, MartyGrass, for your input. I'm guessing that a previous owner did it. Probably someone who knows about as much about it as I do and thought he was doing something cool.
Hfan Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Yep. Did the 50's wiring. Seems weird to me. The interdependence of volume and tone is (so far) just confusing. I think I like the volume to do the volume and the tone to do the tone. If there's something inbetween-ish that 50's wiring does that traditional wiring doesn't, I don't think I have the ear to detect it. Still, I'm going to leave it that way for a while. One I'm too lazy to change it, and two, a lot of people like it. There must be something to it. Thanks, MartyGrass, for your input. I'm guessing that a previous owner did it. Probably someone who knows about as much about it as I do and thought he was doing something cool. I never noticed the interdependence thing with 50s wiring. Just less muddy when the volume is turned down and maybe less muddy in general. I just did mine like I have on one of my Teles..moving the tone pot to vol pot connecting wire over one lug on the volume pot. Looking at it from above, one lug to the left.
Rod Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 It's pronounced on mine now. When it had those 96K tone pots in it, it was hardly noticeable. If I didn't know it was supposed to do that I'd think there was something wrong with it. I took my time on this wiring job and did it as nicely as I'm capable, so I'm not inclined to go undoing things. If I leave it like that for a while I'll probably love it.
TalismanRich Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 If you want an idea of what changing value to the pots and caps does to the tone response, download this spreadsheet. Its interactive, as you change values and change the sliders, it shows the change in response. http://guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3627/guitarfreak-guitar-frequency-response-calculator?page=1&scrollTo=32056
Rod Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 If you want an idea of what changing value to the pots and caps does to the tone response, download this spreadsheet. Its interactive, as you change values and change the sliders, it shows the change in response. http://guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3627/guitarfreak-guitar-frequency-response-calculator?page=1&scrollTo=32056 Now that's cool! And Hanger18, as far as pics go, I've got another Heritage on the way, then I'll have to figure out how to post pics!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.