Pssst... you... yeah, you there with the wah fetish
- Thread starter Cirrus
- Start date
James Freeman
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,187
How's the Classic and Clyde in comparison to the standard GCB95?
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
Really different.
The Classic with the red Fasel:
Thicker sounding. Toe down isn't shrill, heel down to the middle position is way, I dunno, throatier? Growlier? It's got more gain, you can hear the circuit breaking up in the heel down position. It sounds like a broader Q, or maybe the extra harmonics from the circuit getting crunchy give it a broader frequency range. I think it sounds killer, especially since I use AC30s and my main guitars are a T-top loaded Explorer and Gretsch with Filtertrons; the standard gets peaky toe down. Looks like a DVD player inside - all SMD components, board mounted jacks. It is true bypass, though.
The Clyde:
Physically, really classy. Lighter case, smooth pedal action, feels like a few more degrees of motion. Circuit's nice and simple - case mounted jack sockets, full size components on the PCB. Where the Classic is rough, loud and throaty/ crunchy, the Clyde is precise. Volume feels perfectly balanced relative to bypass sound, and from heel to toe the vol is consistent too. There are no dead spots or heel drop off, which both the Standard and Vox V847 have. The Q seems narrower - it's a sharper, focused sound, really nice for chikka chikka stuff, so I think cleaner funky players, and maybe the Hendrix inspired guys, would love it. For my rig, it gets too bright toe down.
The Classic with the red Fasel:
Thicker sounding. Toe down isn't shrill, heel down to the middle position is way, I dunno, throatier? Growlier? It's got more gain, you can hear the circuit breaking up in the heel down position. It sounds like a broader Q, or maybe the extra harmonics from the circuit getting crunchy give it a broader frequency range. I think it sounds killer, especially since I use AC30s and my main guitars are a T-top loaded Explorer and Gretsch with Filtertrons; the standard gets peaky toe down. Looks like a DVD player inside - all SMD components, board mounted jacks. It is true bypass, though.
The Clyde:
Physically, really classy. Lighter case, smooth pedal action, feels like a few more degrees of motion. Circuit's nice and simple - case mounted jack sockets, full size components on the PCB. Where the Classic is rough, loud and throaty/ crunchy, the Clyde is precise. Volume feels perfectly balanced relative to bypass sound, and from heel to toe the vol is consistent too. There are no dead spots or heel drop off, which both the Standard and Vox V847 have. The Q seems narrower - it's a sharper, focused sound, really nice for chikka chikka stuff, so I think cleaner funky players, and maybe the Hendrix inspired guys, would love it. For my rig, it gets too bright toe down.
James Freeman
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,187
Can you elaborate what dead spots and heal drop offs are?
My first and only wah is the MC404 CAE and I don't hear anything off putting or unusual, I have no other reference except the models in the Helix.
Also what to you think about the stock GCB95 in general?
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
Someone on another forum put it pretty good I think.
The Standard seems to have a few strong harmonic areas, like it's got 3 or 4 resonances and as you move you're like, fading between them rather than getting strong harmonics in between so the choices are like \ | /. Think that's the best I can describe it.
The Clyde in particular has a really smooth sweep so as you're playing you can hone in on every harmonic so it's more like \\\\|||////. You ever sweep an SSL style EQ's mid band, and hear the laser precise focus? This wah's like that The standard's more like a Neve where you can get fixed frequencies but not the in between ones.
Heel drop off: Just that on the Standard and Vox, heel down is quiet compared to toe down. The Clyde, heel down is about the same vol as toe down. The Classic, Heel down is loud and slightly crunchy.
The Standard seems to have a few strong harmonic areas, like it's got 3 or 4 resonances and as you move you're like, fading between them rather than getting strong harmonics in between so the choices are like \ | /. Think that's the best I can describe it.
The Clyde in particular has a really smooth sweep so as you're playing you can hone in on every harmonic so it's more like \\\\|||////. You ever sweep an SSL style EQ's mid band, and hear the laser precise focus? This wah's like that The standard's more like a Neve where you can get fixed frequencies but not the in between ones.
Heel drop off: Just that on the Standard and Vox, heel down is quiet compared to toe down. The Clyde, heel down is about the same vol as toe down. The Classic, Heel down is loud and slightly crunchy.
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
That said, I'm not really down on the standard. I used it at a gig a few weeks ago and it didn't let me down, it's just in comparison to the others it wouldn't be my first pick now.
I've had the MC404, really liked it. I'd have got another this time if those other ones hadn't popped up at decent prices while I was looking. I guess the red mode will be quite similar to the Classic, though I think this classic is a little dirtier than my memory of the CAE wah.
I've had the MC404, really liked it. I'd have got another this time if those other ones hadn't popped up at decent prices while I was looking. I guess the red mode will be quite similar to the Classic, though I think this classic is a little dirtier than my memory of the CAE wah.
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
To paraphrase Gandhi, I think it'd be a nice idea.
Never used one. My first ever wah was a Morley Classic, which I got in 2002 and probably sold in 2004 or thereabouts. At the time I was using a Vintage brand SG and this: An amp so bad that even though I was into REM at the time I played it gain 10, bass 10, low mid 0, high mid 0, and treble 10.
James Freeman
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,187
Thank you for the detailed explanation @Cirrus , exactly what I was looking for.
I know a little about Wah circuits, the Clyde seems to be true to the original un-buffered design with 2 transistors but with true bypass, maybe the purists are right and the additional buffer transistor changes the sound and harmonic content of the original circuit.
The modern Vox 847(A) is a 3 transistor buffered design almost identical to the stock Dunlop GCB95 but the pot is different.
Yes, the CAE has some amount of saturation but probably not as much as the Classic according to some youtube clips, and the bypass-to-active volume is very balanced to my ear.
Yellow inductor has the stock GCB95 range, and the Red inductor has much lower range like the Wylde/Jimi wah, the switch changes the Yellow/Red inductors AND the range capacitor from 0.01u to 0.022u.
I've read that the difference between the Yellow and Red Fasel inductors is non existent, 100% marketing.
They measure exactly the same out of circuit.
I know a little about Wah circuits, the Clyde seems to be true to the original un-buffered design with 2 transistors but with true bypass, maybe the purists are right and the additional buffer transistor changes the sound and harmonic content of the original circuit.
The modern Vox 847(A) is a 3 transistor buffered design almost identical to the stock Dunlop GCB95 but the pot is different.
Yes, the CAE has some amount of saturation but probably not as much as the Classic according to some youtube clips, and the bypass-to-active volume is very balanced to my ear.
Yellow inductor has the stock GCB95 range, and the Red inductor has much lower range like the Wylde/Jimi wah, the switch changes the Yellow/Red inductors AND the range capacitor from 0.01u to 0.022u.
I've read that the difference between the Yellow and Red Fasel inductors is non existent, 100% marketing.
They measure exactly the same out of circuit.
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
The Vox I've got is one of the earlier 2 transistor USA made ones, it's been modded with a 3pdt switch and 9v adapter socket. Scored it for £40 at the weekend, arrived yesterday so I've used it for half an hour or so. I need to spend some more time with it, really - I've not compared it to the Dunlop Standard yet.
- Messages
- 4,569
Not true! Each one has at least 4 different modes!
James Freeman
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,187
One works, the other seen better days.
Cirrus
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
@James Freeman you can tell from the sharp edges around the drill hole in the vox that this prehistoric wah did not survive the trepanning operation.
James Freeman
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,187
It was brand new when I proceeded with my sadistic urges.
I was young and foolish....
Edit: That's the PCB of the Vox 847 above.
I truly have absolutely no idea why I still have that PCB in my junk drawer.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,828
It took me a minute to get used to it, but I do like it. I have the 20/20 version. The boost is a nice touch as well as the contour control.
The only negative I can think is you can't leave it in a fixed position without your foot -- but you know that going in to purchase.
