D'Angelico EXL-1-MIK volume and tone pots replacement

[WillMbCdn5]

Hi
So I'm on a bit of a tone quest - it is temporary and will pass I promise ) New floater pickup/new amp/new speaker/new cables all have helped make significant progress towards my achieving a tone I am after. I'm now looking at the controls on my D'Angelico EXL-1 . I'm now getting a comping and single note tone that I really like but have noticed that I like them at different volumes settings. Comp at one volume setting play single note solo at a different volume setting. Problem is the volume pot seems to be linear versus audio( if I understand the distinction correctly)- nothing happens nothing happens and then boom at around 70-75% it kicks in but has a very small effect thereafter up to 100%.So if I am trying role back the volume to comp it is easy to kill the volume almost completely. I am also led to believe that a 250K volume pot will cut some of the upper frequencies ( which I am doing via a Para EQ at the moment) which would be welcome. The factory setup is as follows -

Volume pot marked- JS B500K
Tone pot marked - JS A500K
Rectangular Reddish cap marked- 2A4731

What would you change to set a smoother volume control and warmer tone if anything and what make of parts would you recommend

My EXL-1 has a Shadow Attila Zollar AZ 48 floating humbucker pickup

thanks in advance

Will

[r_cc_c]

A while ago I also felt my pickup (Ken Armstrong resin cast 12-pole floating) too bright.
I replaced the tone knob from 500K to 250K which makes it much better (for jazz)
You may want to play with the cap, too. I am currently using .033uf orange drop.
Try 0.022uf, 0.033uf and 0.047uf to see which one work best for you.
0.022uf will give you brighter sound. 0.047uf will give you darker sound.

enjoy!

[jazzbow]

If its any help I put a 500k log for volume and a 250k log for tone on my gig ready Jazzmaster.
The volume roll off is in %'s instead of a hump like linear. So turning down to 9 is equal to 90% of output technically speaking.
With both pickups on and tone control set to 4 and volume set to 8 I have a nice tone for ballads and jazzy numbers.

Rolling off the volume does darken the tone.
There is some interplay twixt volume and tone on a guitar which I'm sure you are aware of.
I am constantly juggling the volume and tone for some numbers in rehearsal and live due to room dynamics.

My live set up is guitar volume set at 7 through a compressor to tighten and even out the string dynamics while leaving scope to roll up the volume on solos and rock tunes.

So give logarithmic controls a go. You can always switch back if you don't like.

[Ray175]

Volume pedal ?

[gcb]

I guess the "B" in the pot markings is for linear taper and the "A" for audio taper.

As you said, it depends also on how you use the volume control.

Some prefer a 500k audio pot for volume because it would ramp smoothly from one to ten, and also open up the range of a humbucker.

Others state that linear pots graphically have a perfect roll off from 10 to 6, which is where most guitarists work from.

Besides having a smooth and even roll off, from solo to comping, many consider it important to retain treble definition in the process.

I allways play clean, plug directly into the amp, and use the neck pickup volume a tad below 10, and hardly below 9-8 (In two pickup guitars could go down to 7-5 on the bridge pickup).

Have been using linear taper CTS 250k or linear taper Gibson 300k for volume, with good results on both fronts: can get a usable fade from 10 down to 6 (even down to 2 if needed), not affecting the tone, which has less highs anyway than 500ks.

For tone, I use audio taper 500k.

As to caps, you have to experiment. It depends on the instrument (is it too bright, too muddy?) and the tone you search. No only the cap value is important. Also consider a treble bleed, helps avoid a muddy tone.

[WillMbCdn5]

Thank you all for the amazing info- I'm going to order a couple of different pots and caps based on your suggestions and switch them in and out and see what grabs my ear.

Will

[R Neil]

In a similar questions, and another member suggested I read an article by a guitarist who tested treble bleed setups including on a scope to see reality. And concluded a parallel t-b across input and middle lugs of the volume pot with values of 1nF for capacitor and 150k for resistor had the most even response on widest range. Your mileage will vary, naturally. My parts aren't here yet. So I've no personal testing results to report.

Stumbling fingers still need love ...

[gcb]

I have this on a Mojotone harness:

Volume Mod for Guitars

Pickups are Biltoft VVG HB Alnico II.

Can dial a Wes tone with bite.

[joebonni]

Hi,

On the topic of changing things I would like to know that you guys thinks of changing the floating pick up to a set pick up more like a Gibson L5 and possibly more like a 1950's BeeBop sound.

Ok do me a favor don't me why I want to change from floating to set that's not the question.

So throw it at me ...........

The answer to the volume and tone pots and cap.

I like 500k volume and tone

.022uf paper in oil but it does not have to be paper in oil and cap can really do but you will have more a Gibson type sound

[ptchristopher3]

To the OP:

Maybe this was not definitively answered for you.

1. Your volume pot is linear taper. This explains why you are having the response from the pot you describe. A 500K audio taper will work fine, but so will a 250K audio unless you demand ice-pick highs.

2. The cap is .047 uf (this is what the 473 in the code means). More common is .022 uf, but there is nothing wrong , per se, with .047 uf.

The capacitor technology (paper in oil, or unicorn farts in pixie dust) has no effect whatsoever on tone. The remarkably wide tolerances in some caps will make a difference of course.

Best of luck as you get your guitar doing exactly what you want it to do - always a fine and satisfying thing in my opinion.

Chris

[jazzbow]

To the OP:


The capacitor technology (paper in oil, or unicorn farts in pixie dust) has no effect whatsoever on tone.

Chris

Hey, Mr PeeTeeSee! Long time matey.

Good to see you're still the same old Chris.

Welcome back.

[WillMbCdn5]

Thanks Chris - I have a couple of new pots - audio taper - sitting waiting to be tried out - one 500k and one 250k so we will see where the dust settles. I'm holding off with cap replacements thinking one variable at a time approach might be wise

Will

[ptchristopher3]

Hi Roy, Likewise nice to hear from you. Hope all is well in Merseyside.

[ptchristopher3]

Hi Will,

Well either pot will steepen the volume response so that you have a more useful (per your description) volume taper.

Since on the subject,....

Your tone cap is .047 uf with a 500K audio pot. In mild irony, many could find that a linear taper pot would work better with the fairly deep effect of the .047 uf. This would give you finer control of the effect of the cap in the sort of ranges in which it is most likely to be used. So if you find yourself fine tuning the tone pot in the "7 to 10" range, then a linear taper would make the same effect now spread over a range of around "3.177439 to 10" - possibly easier to dial in exactly what you want. You could also go to a .022 uf.

Back to the volume,... if you are not happy with an audio taper volume because it is either a little too steep in the upper range or because it cuts treble too quickly there are things that can be done there as well.

gcb mentioned the Mojo mod above. This one is not exactly my favorite spec. for the components, but playing with the values of the RC bypass (which is what the Mojo mod is) is absurdly easy to do and can really allow one to dial in the volume control in terms of taper and tone balance.

And if you want to really play around,....

Back to the tone control - you can combine the standard variable treble shunt (which is what you have now) with a low end limiter. This is the abominably-named "grease Bucket" circuit Fender uses. The effect is great despite Fender's talent for hiding good things in clumsy descriptions. What the VERY simple circuit does is make the tone control give a more midrange emphasis as you turn down vs. a simple muffling.

Anyway, lots of ways to get exactly what you want.

Or, you can just change the #u(&ing linear volume pot to audio, and go play. Which also seems like a good idea.

Best of luck with this.

Chris

[Gabor]

I've just got my EXL-1, the tone pot unusable, so I've instantly found this thread.

Unusable I mean: tone pot does nothing from 1-9, then suddenly cuts all highs, similarly as described in the original post.

Seeing the original post: Maybe I am wrong but are not the volume and tone pots interchanged during the manufacturing? Should not the tone pot is a linear pot, and the volume pot an logarithmic ("audio") pot?

When we interchange them we got a logarithmic tone, (which is exactly behaves as useless as we experience) and a linear volume (which does not match the human logarithmic sense of volume), so it gives also a bad experience.

Any thoughts?

[WillMbCdn5]

I settled on a 250K audio pot for the volume and left the tone ( audio) pot alone, left the cap alone and got what I wanted - so far seems to work nicely with my pickup/amp/speaker/cable/ear setup

Will

[johnzias]

I kept my EXL-1 for about a week before I returned it. In spite of its beauty, I found it lacking both acoustically and electrically. As a laminated top guitar, I think it would have benefitted greatly from a mounted humbucker. Given the copious availability of value archtops these days, I decided not to invest the $300 or so for a better pickup/pots/caps. I ended up buying an Ibanez PM2 which sounded great right out of the box and cost $500 less in the end.

I wonder what a MIK EXL-1 with a carved top and better electronics would cost? I really wanted to like that guitar.

[Gabor]

...I decided not to invest the $300 or so for a better pickup/pots/caps. I ended up buying an Ibanez PM2 which sounded great right out of the box and cost $500 less in the end...

No way that PM2 pu is "better" than EXL-1's. You can say that you like more, imho the PM2's pu very muddy, cloudy and and undefined. (just compare it once to a Gibson Classic 57, not talking about SD Seth Lover) Its'a regular Ibanez "Super 58", what are shipped also with the $650 Artcore series like my AM-93.

However EXL-1's Kent Armstrong is very trebly, I admit. Actually the body itself very trebly acoustically too (by intention) and the PU transmits this feature with high fidelity. PM2 is a very different kind instrument for probably different kind of music. Surely it is not intended for acoustic perfomance.

It would be a very interesting experience to drive thought an EXL-1 on Metheny's effect's/gear and hear what is coming out. My guess it would not be worse than a PM2, even would not be worse than a PM200. (Just to be clear I am not stating that EXL-1 is a better instrument than q PM200. I am talking about the sound, when using Metheny's effects)

[johnzias]

Not only did I find the KA floater trebley, but I found it's output extremely wimpy. I raised the screws to the max and still weak. I also wasn't pointing out the Super 58 Custom per se, but commenting on the fact the pickup and guitar are harmonious enough to not make me rush to get a better pickup. Even acoustically, the PM2 had a bigger and sweeter voice than the EXL-1 did. Who knows. Maybe I just got a lemon.

[GNAPPI]

Ears are funny things.

I have a D'Angelico EX-DC (semi hollow) and EXS-1DH (full hollow) and find the volume and tone controls perfect. The two tone controls roll off smoothly down to a very satisfying level without getting muddy and I rarely go from 10 to less than ~7 (no dial increments on either of them) on the volume control, no need to I control the bulk volume on the amp.

As for the pups, I wouldn't change any of them for anything else. They're both voiced differently than an Ibanez or Gibson, and that's a good thing for me.

[johnzias]

Ears are funny things.
As for the pups, I wouldn't change any of them for anything else. They're both voiced differently than an Ibanez or Gibson, and that's a good thing for me.

Did the EXS-1DH have floaters or mounted pickups?

[GNAPPI]

Did the EXS-1DH have floaters or mounted pickups?

Mounted.

I know the floaters from most every maker have mixed reviews (as do mounted) and I'm beginning to pay as much attention to them as I do to "reviews" of mounted pups relying on personal experience instead.

[WillMbCdn5]

Yep ears and personal preferences are funny things ) I too found the stock KA pickup that came with the EXL-1 thin and trebly and switched it out for a Shadow AZ48 Attila Zollar floater humbucker which vastly opened the sound in tonal range and depth. I tried a variety of strings and have settled in with TI Jazz Swings. Output is through a Empress Para EQ with quite a bit of bass cut in the lower Q and some mid boost and treble cut in the upper Q into a Catalinbread Talsiman Plate reverb set to just barely be discernable into the clean channel of a vintage Peavey Redstripe Bandit 112 with Eminence Legend 1258 speaker with the amp vol at 6-8 and EQ at bass 2 mid 5 treble 3 . Guitar tone at around 1/4 and vol at around 6 the sound is very fat ,very clean ,very arcticulate and plenty loud with lots of sustain and bell like clarity. I find the neck of the EXL-1 particularly comfortable and very fast or maybe better said smooth to get around. I love the weight, the balance and the tone. If I have a criticism the finish is a bit thick .

I think most guitars take some getting used too and can benefit from tweaking to an individuals personal taste but if they don't quite fit then they don't quite fit.

jazz guitars I have explored and subsequently sold that didn't quite fit -

Ibanez AF95
Frameworks Modern Classic Nylon
Godin 5th Ave with Shadow AZ48

jazz guitars I have that do fit -

2013 MIK D'angelico EXL-1 with Shadow AZ48
1951 Gibson Super 300

Will