mid pot.. linear or audio taper ?

[worth]

Which one do you guys usually use , and why ?

[John]

I think normally, tone pots are linear, volume pots are audio. I'm also betting there's exceptions all over the place. 

[alerich]

I have never built an amp entirely from my own design so I can only say I would probably rely on tried and true ideas as a starting point. My 1972 Fender Super Reverb had all audio taper pots in both tone stacks. I built a clone of a Marshall Studio 15 that uses audio taper Mid and Bass controls and a linear taper Treble control (see pic below). It's a little bit different from the usual tone stack layout.

I know this is obvious but it just depends on the surrounding circuitry and how the control interacts with it. One spot where I always sub in an audio taper pot for a linear taper is on the reverb control on Fender amps. To this day I do not understand why Leo Fender used a linear pot for that function. An audio taper pot gives you so much more control of the effect on the lower end of the control sweep.

[tubeswell]

Which one do you guys usually use , and why ?

Depends what sort of mid control you have.

[plexi50]

When i first starting learning about tube amplifiers and there part values i used Audio mid pots until i starting looking at some of the layouts from dougs library and other sites like Thundertweaks/Sonicdeli. Thundertweaks had a lot of great PDF layouts and that made it much easier for me to understand different values and why. I have all the layouts TW ever put out online. Most of them are gone now so im glad i got them all when they were available. Then i got the understanding that most mid pots used were Linear. But it is this forum unlike any other on the planet that is like a family even though most of us have never met in person. Talk about a meeting of the minds. This is the site to get the best education you will ever dream of. And it's all free. Doug should charge at least a few dollars for membership to help with the cost of website and just the serious amount of work it takes to keep a site up to date and running. (oh shit) But seriously this site is priceless bar none

I was wrong about the sonicdeli. All those PDF amp layouts are still there or back. I couldnt find them last year. Oh well

[PRR]

> it just depends on the surrounding circuitry and how the control interacts with it

+1.

> why Leo Fender used a linear pot

Small reverb is subtle. When SELLING an amp in a noisy showroom, a linear gives a WOW! reverb over most of the dial.

Also Reverb generally needs to be "similar" to dry signal. You don't usually go 1% or 2% wet; I've rarely used under 10%, and I have (on DAW) used 140% (to put a too-close-mike track "in a room"). I do agree that if you favor ~~~10% wet, a linear is too twitchy; OTOH a classic 10% Audio will be "dead" 0 to 4. Most modern "Audio" tapers are less dramatic.

[alerich]

Small reverb is subtle. When SELLING an amp in a noisy showroom, a linear gives a WOW! reverb over most of the dial.

Also Reverb generally needs to be "similar" to dry signal. You don't usually go 1% or 2% wet; I've rarely used under 10%, and I have (on DAW) used 140% (to put a too-close-mike track "in a room"). I do agree that if you favor ~~~10% wet, a linear is too twitchy; OTOH a classic 10% Audio will be "dead" 0 to 4. Most modern "Audio" tapers are less dramatic.

That's as good of an explanation as I have ever read. I am in the "splash of reverb" camp. Anything more seems to swamp the tone to me. A linear pot in that application might as well just be a switch.