Hi
A friend of mIne has just bought a jerry cantrell signature cry baby. I have a cry baby original but his Kerry Cantrell sounds so much nicerthan mine.
Is it possible to convert an original to a jerry Cantrell? Does anyone have a schematic of a jerry Cantrell crybaby?
Thanks guys.
Check out at Aron Nelson's schems to start.
Some of the different Crybaby's made by Dunlop are accessible to modify having the standard Crybaby (like the JH1, Zakk Wylde and others).
But to get some like the Kirk Hammett model for example, well, this is much complex.
Remember that some of this models are the Crybaby's rack of these guitar players put it into a wah enclosure.
For what I hear about Cantrell's signature, this emphasizes the sweep of the bass as one aspect among others.
Can you share the gut shots of your friends cantrell wah so we can analyze the circuit?Like pcb solder and component side pictures?
someone said that the cantrell sound was primarily due to increasing the sweep cap to something larger than normal. normal is .01, bass wah is.068. the soundclips ( which i love btw) of te cantell sound like .047 or .068 sweep cap.
do a search here, someone posted the actual value a while back.
Quote from: Luqqas on February 13, 2012, 05:21:56 PM
Some of the different Crybaby's made by Dunlop are accessible to modify having the standard Crybaby (like the JH1, Zakk Wylde and others).
But to get some like the Kirk Hammett model for example, well, this is much complex.
Remember that some of this models are the Crybaby's rack of these guitar players put it into a wah enclosure.
For what I hear about Cantrell's signature, this emphasizes the sweep of the bass as one aspect among others.
I can tell you with certainty that the Dimebag DB02 wah is NOT just a modified CryBaby. Way more complex than that.
true paul, i have a dead soldier here, the massive board from a dime wah. i robbed the inductor and pot, used the shell for a test rig. fortunately i paid zero for it, it was thrown into a bulk buy of CBs a music go round.
Quote from: joegagan on February 14, 2012, 10:21:41 AM
true paul, i have a dead soldier here, the massive board from a dime wah. i robbed the inductor and pot, used the shell for a test rig. fortunately i paid zero for it, it was thrown into a bulk buy of CBs a music go round.
I bought one off of ebay for cheap and tried to fix it, but to no avail. But I got a cool camo enclosure out of the deal! :icon_cool:
all that is missing is proper foot gear to wah it
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ETT8KMAWL._SX385_.jpg)
Quote from: joegagan on February 14, 2012, 11:26:06 AM
all that is missing is proper foot gear to wah it
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ETT8KMAWL._SX385_.jpg)
Whoa. I'll stick to my combat boots, thanks. :icon_lol:
It's my understanding that the Cantrell Wah is based on the older Jimi Hendrix wah (the one with the lowered tonal range and 470k pot). That was his wah of choice in the past. I would expect that it is most likely the same circuit. It only had a couple of changed components (I believe one of the .22uf caps was changed to .1uf, maybe one other component change, and the 470k ohm Hot Potz:
http://www.tubesandmore.com/scripts/foxweb.dll/moreinfo@d:/dfs/elevclients/cemirror/ELEVATOR.FXP?item=P-ECB-24A (http://www.tubesandmore.com/scripts/foxweb.dll/moreinfo@d:/dfs/elevclients/cemirror/ELEVATOR.FXP?item=P-ECB-24A)
I don't know for sure that the Cantrell wah is the same circuit, but I bet it is.
Al
i have inspected at least three of those 90s ish Hendrix wahs. they all had identical part values ( exc the 470k pot) to a like-era gcb95. i suspect dunlop figured out that the pot change alone did the job.
they sound great to my ears. a very pleasing whomp.
Quote from: Paul Marossy on February 14, 2012, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Luqqas on February 13, 2012, 05:21:56 PM
Some of the different Crybaby's made by Dunlop are accessible to modify having the standard Crybaby (like the JH1, Zakk Wylde and others).
But to get some like the Kirk Hammett model for example, well, this is much complex.
Remember that some of this models are the Crybaby's rack of these guitar players put it into a wah enclosure.
For what I hear about Cantrell's signature, this emphasizes the sweep of the bass as one aspect among others.
I can tell you with certainty that the Dimebag DB02 wah is NOT just a modified CryBaby. Way more complex than that.
I'm not doubt of that!
But I've never talked of Dimebag's wah... :icon_confused:
It's -as you well say- a crazy board!
I know that no one mentioned Dimebag's wah, but I thought I'd mention that it's not your typical "signature" Crybaby with only a part or two changed. :icon_wink:
Everything you need to know is in here:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=91315.0
Quote from: DiscoVlad on April 29, 2011, 04:12:04 AM
From the gutshots I've seen (and can no longer find unfortunately) Both of these use the standard GCB-95 board, but with some changes.
Zakk:
Metal film resistors, 22nF sweep cap, Red Fasel inductor.
Jerry:
12nF sweep cap, 5k pot in series on the ground side of the sweep pot.
There's your answer. (emphasis mine)
Thanks for help!
So, before i go hacking up my crybaby, can i just check i've go the right bits identified.
Here's a pic:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/crybaby.jpg
As you can see i've taken out the input buffer and true bypassed it already. Am i right in thinking that the cap circled is the sweep cap that i need to replace with a 12nf and the red arrow is pointing to the lead (black) that the 5k pot needs to be wired to? Is the below correct:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jerryshcem.jpg
I found the below pic. If you look carefully, you can see it's got a 100k sweep pot. I'm going over to my friends place tonight to have a close inspection of his Jerry Cantrell.
http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/magblogs/total-guitar/gear-images/february-2010/jerry-cantrell-jc95-signature-crybaby-wah-pedal-460-100-460-70.jpg
On a slightly separate note, my Crybaby is a good 15 years old or so. It's getting a bit stiff and squeaky in it's old age. Does anyone know a good way of getting a smoother action out of it?
Quote from: Chris oej on February 16, 2012, 09:13:40 AM
Thanks for help!
So, before i go hacking up my crybaby, can i just check i've go the right bits identified.
Here's a pic:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/crybaby.jpg
As you can see i've taken out the input buffer and true bypassed it already. Am i right in thinking that the cap circled is the sweep cap that i need to replace with a 12nf and the red arrow is pointing to the lead (black) that the 5k pot needs to be wired to?
yes, you are correct on these two.
QuoteIs the below correct:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jerryshcem.jpg
yes, except i think the cap value off the pot is wrong.
Quote
On a slightly separate note, my Crybaby is a good 15 years old or so. It's getting a bit stiff and squeaky in it's old age. Does anyone know a good way of getting a smoother action out of it?
sometimes the play in the axle/treadle starts to cause a squeak. taking the axle out and smoothing it with some 400 sandpaper can help. same with the tensioning spring. sometimes just dissembling and re assembling can help, along with a little wd40. sometimes nothing helps and you have a wah that will never be quiet again. on a happier note, the inductor you have can often be a very nice sounding inductor.
please take some gutshots of your friend's cantrell wah if you can, would be fun to see it.
Quote from: joegagan on February 16, 2012, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Chris oej on February 16, 2012, 09:13:40 AM
Thanks for help!
So, before i go hacking up my crybaby, can i just check i've go the right bits identified.
Here's a pic:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/crybaby.jpg
As you can see i've taken out the input buffer and true bypassed it already. Am i right in thinking that the cap circled is the sweep cap that i need to replace with a 12nf and the red arrow is pointing to the lead (black) that the 5k pot needs to be wired to?
yes, you are correct on these two.
QuoteIs the below correct:
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jerryshcem.jpg
yes, except i think the cap value off the pot is wrong.
The cap you need to change is the 10nf (0.01uF) cap connected between the emitter of Q2 and the 0 ohm resistor/33k resistor. Looks like the one circled in your picture is correct, check the value and board traces to be sure though!
The caps connected to the potentiometer (220nF) should be left alone.
Here's the pic of my friends Jerry Cantrell. As you can see, it's almost identical to the GCB-95
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jccrybaby.jpg
thanks for the pic. not surprising. it has a dpdt, but is it true bypass? i see a brown wire, but can't see where it is hooked to on the switch.
yeah it is true bypass (that's what the 5 or 6 components on the left of the board are. the brown wire goes to the 5k pot which works as a kind of tone control.
so, is that 5k pot wired between the ground lug on the wah pot like this thread suggested?
the dearmond 1800 wa-wa volume from 73 74 was mostly a boomerang clone, but had better biasing on Q2 and a 330 ohm resistor between the ground lug on the 30k wah pot. paul marossy has also discovered that some replacement pots in boomerangs can have the treble side scratch remedied by this same resistor placement. makes me wonder if dearmond added this R to solve pot consistency probs. richard mintz of all test devices has reported that he had huge consistency problems with the centralab 25k pots that gibson made him use in the 60s/70s boomers. he had to reject many due to noise probs.
(BTW i have also found some boomerang replacement 25k pots to have this same defect on treble side, must be something to do with he way the traces are manufactured.)
sorry for the derail.
Quote from: joegagan on February 20, 2012, 12:08:26 PM
the dearmond 1800 wa-wa volume from 73 74 was moslty a boomerang clon, but had better biasing on Q2 and a 330 ohm resistor between the ground lug on the 30k wah pot. paul marossy has also discvoered that some replacement pots in n boomerangs can have the treble side scratch remedied by this same resistor placement. makes me wonder if dearmond aded this R to solve pot consisteny probs.
Yeah, I suspect that is the reason why they put the 330 ohm resistor in the circuit. That works fine AFAIAC.
Quote from: Chris oej on February 20, 2012, 07:22:04 AM
Here's the pic of my friends Jerry Cantrell. As you can see, it's almost identical to the GCB-95
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jccrybaby.jpg
I can tell from the way the DPDT is wired that it is wired for true bypass, but it isn't the method that I prefer, which is the one that disconnects the board input in bypass. Still it is true bypass wiring.
There is an article on bypass on the Dunlop Blog pages that lists every pedal they make, and what type of bypass they have. This is Dunlop's wording for the bypass on their pedals: if it says in the description that it is "hardwire bypass", it is not really true bypass - if it says "true hardwire bypass", it is true bypass. Their wording is somewhat misleading, and some guys think their pedal is true bypass, when it is really just "hardwire bypass", which is the same old tone-sucking bypass that the vintage wahs had. However, usually those pedals have the input buffer that is Dunlop's cure for tone-sucking. Some of the "signature" wahs have true bypass and some don't, I assume that the artist picks which type he wants in his sig wah. I'll try to post that article, if I can find it.
Al
I've done the mods. The 12nf cap sounds awesome. However, the tone knob (4.7k) doesn't work. Instead it works as a volume knob. Is this because I removed the input buffer when I true bypassed it?
Quote from: Chris oej on February 20, 2012, 07:22:04 AM
Here's the pic of my friends Jerry Cantrell. As you can see, it's almost identical to the GCB-95
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/chris-oej/lpb1/jccrybaby.jpg
From the picture i noticed every resistor and pot value is the same as the gcb95, i can see the two 0.22uF caps which i believe are C6 & C8 from gcb95 pcb.
The other cap values remain unkown. My main question here is: Are you sure that c5 (12nF) is making a real change in the pedal tone? original is 10nF and this change will lower the gain and also the frequency response, but i think it'll be very subtle.
can you look at other cap values? and confirm that they are the same values as the gcb95? I don't know if you already did it.
a 20% change in c5 can be quite drastic.
There may have been a schematic (and other gutshots) posted either here or the... other site
But anyway, this:
(http://cabbages.orconhosting.net.nz/graphics/joes_rubbish/fx/JC_sim.png)
shows the effect on the frequency response - that of lowering the sweep range, changing that cap from 10nF (green line) to 12nF (blue line) makes to a standard crybaby...
Albeit with a few caveats (different transistors - which aren't the thing under consideration anyway, R25/R26 represent the potentiometer at some position in the sweep, which just happened to centre around 1kHz... lucky guess :icon_mrgreen:).
i modded my wah. Changed C5 and instead put a on-off-on dptd switch to select different C combinations.
In the off position I put a 12nf Cap. In the other switch pins I used 8.2nf & 22nf. So i got 3 combinations
on 1: 12 + 22 = 34nf
on 2: 12 + 8,2 = 20nf
off: 12nf
I liked it better with 20nf.