Strat CLAROSTAT potentiometers
GoodMan
Strat. How are they compared to CTS?
(intterstingly mine has CRL 5-way switch, which means that Fender put
also some good stuff in Strat in those days)
Its potentiometers' code is 013446 250K Z 19-8138
Jim
> I have CLAROSTAT military grade original potentiometers in my '81
> Strat. How are they compared to CTS?
Honestly...
If a pot works, it works. Whether it cost a nickel or 50 bucks, it's
doing exactly the same thing in the circuit. It's only when they act up
that they're a problem. That's why people try to avoid the cheapest
types. Reliability.
"Military grade" means very little, because there are many different
specifications.
There are plenty of higher quality pots than the standard CTS. But CTS
is more than adequate, and can usually be cleaned many times (if needed).
> (intterstingly mine has CRL 5-way switch, which means that Fender put
> also some good stuff in Strat in those days)
> Its potentiometers' code is 013446 250K Z 19-8138
Something looks wrong. Clarostat EIA code should be 140. Are you sure
that your 19 isn't a 140?
GoodMan
Thanks for your reply.
Its potentiometers' code is 013446 250K Z 19-8138 The code appear
along the rounded side of the potentiometer's enclosure (nothing is
written on the back side where the ground is usually soldered in
Strat), and the word CLAROSTAT appears on the front side that facing
& touching the pickguard. There's no EIA code of 140 anywhere.
How is that CLAROSTAT compared to CTS (I just opened it to clean it
with Caig since it started rattling). Should I just clean it or
replace it with CTS?
Thanks,
GM
GoodMan
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT), GoodMan
> <Strat...@gmail.com>wrote:
> And Military Grade is an ambiguous tag. Here's an example of some
> MIL-SPEC ratings and fields.
>
>
>
>
>
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 500.4 Low Pressure (aka Altitude testing)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 501.4 High Temperature (Both storage and operating)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 502.4 Low Temperature (Both storage and operating)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 503.4 Temperature Shock (How well does the device handle going from high to low temps, and back)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 504 Contamination by Fluids
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 505.4 Solar Radiation (Sunshine)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 506.4 Rain (How does the device do in wind blown rain)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 507.4 Humidity (Can the device handle high Humidity)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 508.5 Fungus (device is exposed to warm moist air in the presence of Fungus to see if it grows on the device)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 509.4 Salt Fog (does the device rust/fail when exposed to salt fog)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 510.4 Sand and Dust (how well does the device work when exposed to sand and dust)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 511.4 Explosive Atmosphere (is the device Intrinsically safe or not)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 512.4 Leakage
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 513.5 Acceleration (constant acceleration)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 514.5 Vibration (constant acceleration)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 515.5 Acoustic Noise (constant acceleration)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 516.5 Shock (either Shock Response Spectrums, or triangle / sine / square wave shocks) ? also transport shock
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 518 Acidic Atmosphere
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 519.5 Gunfire Vibration
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 520.2 Temp, Humidity, Vibration (Traditionally sine wave (pre D), later random vibration ? combined with Temp testing)
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 521.2 Icing, Freezing Rain
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 522 Ballistic Shock
> >MIL-STD 810F Method 523.2 Vibro-Acoustic/Temperature
>
> Bottom line is that there isn't much difference in pots until you get
> into some of the hi-tech pots specifically designed for guitars. There
> you will find an array of styles and the theoretical reasons behind
> the styles.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's forget for a second about the military grade in general. Let's
focus on the specific code 013446 250K Z 19-8138
of CLAROSTAT vs. CTS used for Strat (sold in Angela, ACME etc.), which
one is better?
Besides, THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE between pots just like there is
between resistors, some generates more thermal noise and some are
quieter and more suitable for audio (such as Allen-bradley Carb.
Comp.) Does anyone know how the above mentioned CTS and CLAROSTAT
pots compares in thermal noise?
Jim
So much for that reference site on the net! I just grabbed a
replacement pot that I bought for a vintage Twin Reverb. I would've
liked a correct CTS pot, but the closest I could come was a NOS (still
in blister pack) Clarostat. The code? 19-8352 (52nd week of 1983). So
Clarostat DID use 19 in this time period. Mine is a sealed design. You
can see the cement, and there is no cleaning access hole. It's also a
3W wire wound, which is way overkill for my purpose (I think it's a
reverb level), but will last forever.
Some pots are sealed, but you normally do not open up a pot case. You
normally work the pot back and forth a few times, use the red straw on
the Caig (I use deoxit D5) and give it a quick blast through the hole in
the case, and then work it a few times fast, through the range. Repeat
if you want to make sure it's clean. Follow with the Caig lube if desired.
A sealed pot (like mine above) should never require cleaning.
Replace a pot when it can't be cleaned, or when cleaning only helps for
a little while.
It's your choice what to use as a replacement. If you see that '81
Strat as being something really special, you can hunt for the correct
pot with the right date code. I wouldn't bother. I'd use CTS, and SAVE
the original part (if you didn't destroy it).
Jim
Are your messages honest and sincere? Or are you trying to have some fun?
There's barely any current at all in a passive guitar. And way under
1V. And most guitar players have there volume at 10 most of the time on
a passive guitar. (Yeah, some guys dial down to clean up amp
distortion, even so, they usually operate near 10).
So I just don't see a big tone difference between pot types! Even if
you went wire wound, which is lowest noise. Your Clarostat could be a
wire wound, the one I'm using is.
We aren't talking plate resistors, where composition DOES make a
difference. With a high voltage drop in a tube amp, some guys WANT more
harmonic distortion and noise, so they prefer the old carbon comp
resistors. Others say the harmonic distortion can suffer for LOW NOISE,
so they choose metal film. But we don't have big voltage potentials in
a passive guitar, or current that can cause heat.
Bruce Morgen
Thermal noise is a
non-issue in a passive
electric guitar, which
has no heat-radiating
components -- the
considerations you've
trotted out apply to
amps and other active
electronics, where high
temperature is a normal
operating condition.
Any pro forma "thermal
noise" in a Strat would
be thoroughly masked by
stronger noise sources
like hum from the pickups
and/or internal wiring
and the relatively high
noise floor of the amp
and rest of the signal
chain.
Squier
the thing no one has mentioned is that 'mil-spec' (depending on
the spec & application the military placed their order for) is
that many times mil-spec comes with a close tolerance spec.
In other words mil-spec pots may have come in within a few percent of each other.
Today's consumer graded CTS pots can have spec ranges of +/- 10% or more.
In other words the mil-spec pots may have come in at low 240k and high 260k
with 250k being the average and/or (in statistical terms) the 'mode'.
Today's CTS pots which are stamped as 250k might actually measure
at anywhere from 200k up to 280k. That's a fairly wide spec tolerance.
You are not goiing to hear a great difference (if at all) between
a 250k pot and a 280k pot or a 220k pot - but you might.
And you certainly are not going to hear any tonal or sonic differences
between pots of various manufacturers that measure the same.
What I would suggest to the OP if that he really wants to keep
his tones exactly the way they are - is to get calibrated or verified
pot that measures the same as the original. If the original was stamped
250k then it may or may not actually be that value. it's a ballpark thing.
So if he or she gets a replacement CTS pot - just have the vendor measure
out a pot that matches the value of the pot you are replacing.
Believe - in a bag full of CTS pots (maybe 20 or so..) you might only
actually get 8 or 9 that measure 250k. The rest are supposed to be
within 10% tolerance but I have seen them go out of this range.
Ok. that's my 2 cents.
Jim
I thought they were using 10% pots in Fenders. Even if it's 20% on the
pots, 20% is common on capacitors. So in the tone circuit, the
tolerance of the pot is kind of insignificant when the cap does most of
the tone shaping, and it has such a wide tolerance.
>
> You are not goiing to hear a great difference (if at all) between
> a 250k pot and a 280k pot or a 220k pot - but you might.
> And you certainly are not going to hear any tonal or sonic differences
> between pots of various manufacturers that measure the same.
Agreed. Wire wound might have a better noise floor, though. But noise
from the pickups, even humbuckers, probably make that difference not
worth the expense.
>
> What I would suggest to the OP if that he really wants to keep
> his tones exactly the way they are - is to get calibrated or verified
> pot that measures the same as the original. If the original was stamped
> 250k then it may or may not actually be that value. it's a ballpark thing.
But if it's within tolerance, it's "good as new" for Fender!
>
> So if he or she gets a replacement CTS pot - just have the vendor measure
> out a pot that matches the value of the pot you are replacing.
>
> Believe - in a bag full of CTS pots (maybe 20 or so..) you might only
> actually get 8 or 9 that measure 250k. The rest are supposed to be
> within 10% tolerance but I have seen them go out of this range.
>
> Ok. that's my 2 cents.
But back to your previous comment... I think that a guy is going to
have a real tough time telling the difference when he replaces his pot
with another that is within tolerance. Even if they are at opposite
ends of the tolerance range. Especially when he can't A/B it live. I
don't think it makes a real difference.