Which Teese Wah?

Discussion in 'Effects, Pedals, Strings & Things' started by Blue Strat, Jun 23, 2008.

  1. Blue Strat

    Blue Strat Member

    Messages:
    30,036
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Sterling, VA (not far from Washington DC)
    I'm in the market and didn't realize there were so many models. Is there a general guide to the differences between models? I seem to be coming up empty in web searches.
     
  2. JLee

    JLee Supporting Member

    Messages:
    2,278
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
  3. DrGonzo

    DrGonzo Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Location:
    Kansas City
    I like the RMC3 for its flexibility. You can find a setting you like and never adjust it again or you can tweak the settings to your heart's content. Mr. Teese is also a very friendly guy with excellent customer service. He answered all of my email questions within a day for each email I sent.

    PS: The white pads he's now using on his wahs are awesome! So easy to spot in the dark!
     
  4. jlagrassa

    jlagrassa Supporting Member

    Messages:
    6,127
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Location:
    Taxachusetts
    I'm using the Teese Joe Walsh Sig wah its an excellent sounding wah and cuts thu nicely!
    Check out http://www.proguitarshop.com/ they have a bunch videos on the teese wahs and others as well!
     
  5. jamison162

    jamison162 Supporting Member

    Messages:
    7,778
    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    FL
    Check out all the Pro Guitar Shop demo clips on You Tube. My favorite is the Wheels of Fire. They have most Teese, Fulltone, and some others.
     
  6. loudstuff

    loudstuff Member

    Messages:
    227
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Mike,

    I was in your position a few months ago. For reference, I love playing many styles (and have to in order to make a living), but was raised on blues, soul, and classic rock. So my wah tone references are those made by the classic rock heroes, but also the Funk Brothers and Booker T and the MGs. Here's what I decided after trying out a couple models and doing some research.

    RMC1- Did not try this, and kind of ruled it out because it's supposed to work best with single coils. I have to use different equipment for different gigs, so this scared me a bit.

    RMC2 and RMC3. These are both very tweakable wahs, with RMC3 having more option. I did not get to try RMC2, but tried RMC3 and liked it. In the end, I didn't choose it because it was too tweakable for me. All it's DIP switches and controls kind of freaked me out. I like to get used to the feel of a wah, rather than tweak it continuously.

    Picture Wah - is a bright, vintage sounding wah, but not bright in a ice pick way. Very reminiscent of classic rock stuff, but can also be soulful and funky. I really dug this one.

    Wizard Wah - is a darker, more modern wah. Cool sound, but not what I was looking for.

    Wheel of Fire - I didn't get to try this, but it's described as tonally in between the Wizard Wah and Picture Wah. It could be a cool sound, but I didn't bother hunting one down because I'm scared of extra knobs and I loved the Picture Wah I tried.

    In the end the Picture Wah worked best for me. Hopefully my rambling will help you find the one that works for your style. Take care.
     
  7. michael patrick

    michael patrick Supporting Member

    Messages:
    9,979
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    I'm a Wheels of Fire user (hmmm, wonder what I gotta do to be a WOF endorsee? I'll have to put "Get famous" on my to-do list..).

    It totally nails the Clapton "White Room" thing, as well as the Hendrix "Rainy Day Dream Away" thing. But you can also dial back on the Q and get a mellower Cry Baby or Vox sound. And unlike the RMC3, the controls are on the outside, which makes it easy for mid-song tweaking.
     
  8. vivalamigra

    vivalamigra Member

    Messages:
    47
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I had an RMC3 for several years but recently e-bayed it and got just about enough $$ for my new blue RMC4 Picture Wah.

    Honestly, the RMC3 was just a pain in my ass with all the internal controls. I had it set on what was supposed to be the pic wah setting and it wasn't even close.

    The pic wah kicks butt, and I love the sweep. My RMC3 had a weird super fast quack that was almost a pop. Maybe it was faulty. I messed with the Q and the dip switches and all of that and it sounded good but it always had that pop. I couldn't seem to lengthen the sweep. The Pic Wah was what I was I looking for. Pic wah has a perfect sweep and tone for me, plus only one internal trim pot for volume, which is the one control I want.

    When I bought the RMC3 many moons ago, I called Geoffery and he had just released the PW. He said if I didn't want to tweak knobs and stuff, this was going to be one kick ass wah. I should have listened to him then. But the new ones are great and they have the Foxrox buffer doohickey installed. It was worth the wait, because now I really appreciate how awesome this thing sounds.

    BTW, i like to play classic rock, blues, and some of the older 70's-80's metal.
     
  9. Voxshall

    Voxshall Member

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    I have the RMC3LE and love the WOF, Smooth and Sweet, Jimi Hendrix and RMC1 settings I think the RMC1 works great with my Les Paul go figure. I wish I had a Wah with a knob on the outside for these 4 settings that would be me.
     
  10. oxtone

    oxtone Member

    Messages:
    4,755
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Location:
    Edina, MN
    Bluestrat,

    You've already gotten excellent help on this, but I just want to say that the Picture Wah is the best Wah I've ever used. It has that classic Wah tone that is very warm and musical.

    And ditto's on Geoffrey Teese's excellent customer service - I've had two email replies from him today - he's always very thoughtful, and he'll go out of his way to help you out! Truely a very class guy!
     
  11. jamison162

    jamison162 Supporting Member

    Messages:
    7,778
    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    FL
    I've been wondering about that, great idea. They look gay in the light though.
     
  12. GuitarBrent

    GuitarBrent Member

    Messages:
    2,407
    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Mike,
    What kind of wah sound do you want? I have a Picture Wah and a JW Sig Wah. Both awesome.
     
  13. Cary Chilton

    Cary Chilton Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,475
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    I dig the HALO inductor, and that is in the PIC and WOF models. I had the RMC3 and it is VERY tweakable, but so the WOF, within it's expected range and then some and ...the knobs are easily accessible.

    When I tried to explain to Geoff Teese what I dug about the pic wah, he quickly said that character is inherent with the halo inductor. So the WOF was an easy pic..... HOWEVER, that is where the trouble began, since every dealer of Teese wahs was sold out of the WOF. No surprise there, however I finally found one, the last one. I would bet in a 3-5 weeks one or two dealers might have some WOF back in stock. Hopefully those won't be pre-paid orders!
     
  14. Craig Walker

    Craig Walker WHO DAT!! Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    21,240
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Long Beach, Miss.
  15. Don L

    Don L Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    Interesting... my experience was the opposite. I've been using a WOF for about 3 years now. Tried others including the Pic wah, and WOF remains on my board...
     
  16. tlpruitt

    tlpruitt Member

    Messages:
    936
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Location:
    Just west of Baltimore, MD
    Here are some good descriptions of the Teese wahs that Geoffrey Teese himself wrote on another forum back in Dec 2007:

    RMC1 - This only came about because my Japanese importer wanted a simple wah. All I had at that time (late 1997) was the RMC3. The sound was the same sound that I had been tweaking new Vox and Dunlop wahs to, based totally on what people asked me to do the most. Booming bottom instead of attenuated like normal, and a lot thicker mid range to get more (playing) harmonics into the active sound. The bigger sweep cap was to combat the Dunlop inductor screech. The volume boost was because I was sick of wahs that all but disappeared in the mix when activated. However, and this is a pretty big however, the overall sound of the model was developed in conjunction with a 100K wah pot. When I finally dropped my old 100K CTS pot because they couldn't make the taper physically smooth (the "click" in the pot syndrome), the sound didn't work as well as before with my newer 200K pot (but at least CTS could make the taper smoother). Those eventual shortcomings led to the RMC2. Application was originally for any guitar or bass. With the limitations of the newer pot, I tried to steer people with higher output pickups to anything else. I've wanted to drop the model for years but there are those players that still really dig what it does and so I keep on building the bugger.

    RMC2 - This model was to combat the eventual problems I perceived with the RMC1. Multiple sweeps to remedy the overall dark sound of the RMC1 with the 200K pot. A volume control because I got tired of adjusting the output of the RMC1 for some players. Variable Q/resonant peak position (not the Q curve like Dunlop) because that had always been the most changed value in modified Vox and Dunlop wahs and occasionally in the RMC1. I kept the lows and mids of the RMC1 as the starting point becaue it was supposed to be the improved RMC1. Applications are for most any guitar or bass and even keyboards (as I've found out).

    RMC3 - My little Frankenstein's Monster. This grew from the tweak points I mostly used in the modifications I did. I really got tired of re-tweaking the occasional pedal over and over and over until I got it right for the owner. I figured that if I gave the player the ability to do their own tweaks then I wouldn't be seeing the same pedals again and again. This is still my favorite personal model because I can get bored with one sound after a while. That, and as I sit-in with more people (versus a steady band situation) I've found that a sound that works great in one situation can get lost in another playing situation. Because of the versatility, the RMC3 can be used for pretty much anything that can be amplified. It is being actively used for guitar, bass, keyboards, violin, and even electric spoons (OK-only 1 person uses it for this-Geoffrey Richardson of Caravan).

    RMC4/PW - Believe it or not, this is the one I resisted building for the longest time. I'd always been bugged with that mantra "Build a Clyde McCoy, build a Clyde McCoy." At the time, I couldn't see the sense in doing something that sounded like, or very similar to, a pedal that was available. I finally caved. Vox/Korg used to send lots of people with old, broken down Italian Vox wahs to me (since they didn't even make their wah, and weren't actually the same company anymore) for repairs. That was a connection I just fell into... Anyway, I always blueprinted each wah and stored the info in a database (that OCD thing again). I thought that I would, somehow, figure out the timeline for Vox's wah production changes since they (the current Vox and the former Thomas emplyees I spoke with) didn't know. So, after I decided that I would go ahead and reproduce the "old Vox sound" I went to my database and dug up the one file that I'd noted was the best (to me) sounding Vox I'd had in for repair. I simply used the real metered value of every component on that particular PCB. That is the "secret" as to why the PW sounds so much like an old Vox. I threw my picture on the bottom as a joke. It couldn't be a "Picture Wah" without a picture on it. I didn't want to use Clyde McCoy (good thing as Jimmy Dunlop had trademarked the old "portrait" that same year) and I couldn't get anyone to do any quality line art. It was getting too close to NAMM Show time (release date for the model) and I was out of ideas so I had a friend of mine use my POS digital camera to take my picture. Primarily for guitar, this model works as well as the original for any instrument.

    RMC5/WW - I was doing an in-store meet-and-greet (dealer's idea, not mine) at a dealer and had brought along a prototype multi-wah with 9 switchable wahs inside, along with all the component values to make all the sounds. A guy came in with his big-box humbucker equipped jazz guitar and tried all 4 models (all I had at that time) and nothing "did it" for him. I pulled my proto out of the box and told him to try it and tell me which part of wach wah sound worked for him. He eventually settled on parts of 4 different sounds and so I told him that if he bought an RMC1 from the dealer then I would modify it on-the-spot to match what he'd picked out from the proto. The low end was literally half way between the 4/PW and 1. The mid range was just a tiny bit (and I mean TINY bit) richer than the 4/PW. The Q position and the sweep range was the same as the 1. The resulting pedal/sound made him happy. I started using that tuning as the RMC1 Alternate for a while, for people who had 'buckers and their RMC1 didn't do the job. Since the model before it was called the Picture Wah, I figured I had to have some kind of name for the new model once I'd decided to release it. Since people had been referring to me as some kind of wah wizard on the net I figured I'd use that, and so the model became the Wizard Wah. Hokey, I know. When it got time to describe the sound on my site I was having a hard time. I could refer to the low end and sweep range but I didn't know what to say about the mid range. That's how the "haunting mids" BS came about. I figured that since the wah was the "wizard" then it should have something "spooky" in the description. It sort of seemed natural. Looking back, I should have tried harder as I've caught some real **** for the haunting mids thing. Application - Since this is sort of a no-frills improved for 'buckers RMC1, the usage is for any instrument. It is actively being used for guitar, bass, and keyboards. It has a very balanced sound, no frequency spikes anywhere, and does not get very bright on the top end.

    RMC6/WOF - This is another model I wasn't crazy about putting out. A guy wanted me to make him a stand-alone wah based on the RMC3 tuning he used. I had 4 Colorsound wahs in for repair at the same time and noticed that the RMC3 tuning was really close to the sound of the Colorsound wahs. The volume control was a request and the Q control was simply because the guy didn't know what he wanted for a fixed value. (The low control came about a little later because other people didn't like the booming bottom end as it first existed.) The sweep range is pretty funky because it has to be done with 2 caps in order to match the ass-over-elbows physical sweep of the Colorsound with the "traditional" wah case I use. The original customer started posting on all sorts of music boards about his new wah. What was supposed to be a one-off wham-bam-thank-you-m'am ended up getting requested more and more. After 3 years of special orders I finally added it to the lineup. Once again, the application is guitar, bass, and keyboards although I still think it is something of an acquired taste for the sound.
     
  17. Don L

    Don L Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    I don't know about all that, but when I put a Pic Wah on my board in the same spot the WOF was, it was noisier than the WOF. I also liked the sweep and the sound of WOF better.
     
  18. thewordking

    thewordking Member

    Messages:
    1,726
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Resurrecting this very old thread because 1) 2008 was a great year and I want to revisit it and 2) I'm looking for a Teese wah and I can't figure out which one to get. I'm torn between the 3FL, 4, 8, and 10. If the 3FL can 100% nail the sounds and feel of the others I'd go with that (I don't mind tweaking). But if it ends up being a good at everything, but not great at anything, I'd go with the 4, 8, or 10. Can anyone enlighten me? I'd also love to know which is/was your favorite and why. Thanks!
     
  19. windjamma

    windjamma Member

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    RMC 10 Baby all the way
     
  20. paulydangerous

    paulydangerous Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Pickerington, Ohio

Share This Page