Talk:Dunlop Cry Baby

This article was nominated for deletion on March 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Crybaby History Before Dunlop[edit]

The Crybaby was the name that Thomas Organ used and was used by other brands such as Jen before Dunlop got their hands on it. Also, as far as the list of artists goes, very few if any of these used a Dunlop Crybaby, they all used earlier incarnations such as the Thomas Organ Crybaby or the Jen Crybaby. There are notable component differences between the newer and older versions along with circuit changes. Jimmy Page did not use a Dunlop Crybaby (or even a Crybaby at all), he used one of the early grey Vox pedals. There has traditionally been a lot of confusion over this pedal due to the ownership changes; the general lack of copyright caused concurrent manufacture by several brands and it has to be said that the Dunlop incarnation only took shape long after the Crybaby's notability had been established. I suggest a serious look into the list of artists listed, an insertion covering the history of the Crybaby and how Dunlop figures in the equation, or simply moving this article from Dunlop Cry Baby to simply Cry Baby and expanding within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop bought the Cry Baby rights from Thomas Organ in 1983. Jimmy Page couldn't have used a Dunlop Cry Baby on Dazed and Confused and Mick Ronson couldn't have used one in the Bowie era because they simply didn't exist. This article is in serious need of a clearout to distinguish the Cry Baby and its history from the Dunlop Cry Baby. In fact, I'd question that it's even notable enough in its Dunlop incarnation. The entire Cry Baby/Vox Wah debacle should all be moved back into the main Wah Wah article as it is not brand specific. Both belonged to the Thomas Organ/JMI/Vox conglomerate and were only part of a marketing ploy to distinguish international wings of the same company.

Crybaby Models Artists, and Songs[edit]

Anyone who knows about artists who use the Cry Baby, songs where the Cry Baby is used, or any more models of the Cry Baby, feel free to add to the lists. --daisy-berkowitz

I added two Jimi Hendrix models to the list. Jhayes94 00:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section removal[edit]

I cut a good amount of text. The "number one selling" claim is unsourced, the "how-to" section is already covered (without any second person) on wah-wah, the section on technical details was non-NPOV, and the list of songs was sketchy; Hendrix, for example, used a Vox pedal more commonly, so "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" is out. Sorry to cut the page like that; anyone with sources, please expand the page. Deltabeignet 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts about the optical sensors is a hugely discussed fact and is found on alot of reviews. Other than that i agree with your changes.
UPDATE: re added fasel information in much better english as of 12:05 GMT

I'd vote for removal of "artists who use" list and replacing it with something brief and useful. In it's full form, this list would list literally thousands of artists and won't show anything good to anyone. I think about making a list of artists who did significant changes to CryBaby design, introduced new (may be signature?) models, used CryBaby in some unique way, etc. --GreyCat 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GreyCat, and if there are no objections, I'll greatly reduce the scope of the artists section, leaving artists who first used the pedal, and artists who used it in new and exciting ways. Jhayes94 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With clear and NPOV designation of why particular artist is in the list ;) --GreyCat 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I whittled it down quite a bit, only focusing on the most famous/influential users, and I also tried to get a good example from a range of genres. Feel free to add anyone else noteworthy to the list, with a similar description style I used. I forgot to sign in before the edits. 70.239.3.68 Jhayes94 04:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, also try to keep them in alphebetical order, by artist's last name. Jhayes94 14:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older models?[edit]

There are discontinued models of the Crybaby, I think it might be useful to list them, but I don't know where to find the information. I know that the 105Q was preceded by a pedal called simply Crybaby Bass, and I've seen pictures of a purple bass wah called the Original Crybaby Bass. If the bass line has two discontinued, I'd imagine the regular line has even more, does andyone know for sure? Gopherbassist (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Info on 535Q?[edit]

535Q - Features tone shifting abilities using the Q control, six different wah ranges, a volume boost, and can also be used as sustain pedal.

the Sustain part is wrong, can‘t find any info on this. 217.110.14.122 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I own a 535Q and it has no capability to be used as a sustain pedal. It does not increase sustain, and has no ability to affect sustain at all. Gmeades (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunlop Cry Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824235134/http://www.jimdunlop.com/blog/?p=384 to http://www.jimdunlop.com/blog/?p=384

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not All GCB95 "H" Revision Pedals Have Red Fasel Inductor...[edit]

I have a GCB95 "H" revision which has a black inductor in it. I wrote to Dunlop looking for an explanation, and I got their response earlier today.

The change in inductors does not relate to the revision identifier on the circuit board at all. The response I received states that from 1966 until sometime in 2003, the GCB95 pedals were manufactured with the black inductor. Sometime in 2003, they began using the red Fasel inductor. So, some revision "H" pedals manufactured in 2003 have black inductors, like mine, while others have the red Fasel inductor, but they didn't change the revision of the circuit board when they did this.

In the response from Dunlop, no mention was made of any revision corresponding to the change in inductors at all, only that the change was made sometime in 2003, and my GCB95, which is a Rev. "H" with a black inductor, bears this out. .

If someone could update the article to reflect this more accurately, it would be appreciated. Gmeades (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

model claims need maintenance[edit]

Firstly, the product descriptions desperately need to be pruned back from sounding like ad copy.

Second, the list of wah pedals is WRONG. A quick visit to JimDunlop.com shows me only THREE pedals. If this sort of list is going to be offered, then it'd better indicate which modfels are actually in current (or at least recent) production.

Finally, until the article can point to true bypass or otherwise properly explain the term, I have removed most mentions.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions 26 models; a big online retailer offers 17. These numbers don't line up well. (The Matsumoto edition might be non-U.S. only, or just out of production.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted one article that briefly defines true bypass: DI unit#Active units. Predictably, no source for the claim is referenced.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]