RAT vs RAT2
- Thread starter tktk
- Start date
andrewsrea
Active member
@jwin615 had the correct answers, IMHO.
FYI: Like the original RATs, I typically do not build my versions of RATs with R15. For my taste, it drives output impedance to around 9K. I go with the straig up 100K level (volume) pot and enjoy the extra boost at lower gain settings. I personally don't like the sound of a RAT with the gain past noon.
FYI: Like the original RATs, I typically do not build my versions of RATs with R15. For my taste, it drives output impedance to around 9K. I go with the straig up 100K level (volume) pot and enjoy the extra boost at lower gain settings. I personally don't like the sound of a RAT with the gain past noon.
JHS's RAT myths info page has too many obvious errors, and ironically they actually introduced myths.
Off the top of my head, they didn't introduce the final period RAT with the RAT2 PCB, and they say the no brackets version was only a cosmetic change, which is not true.
The Turbo Rat pics are not of an '89 but a '95. You can clearly see it has the multi RAT PCB, and the serial number shown is about 10k after the serial on my '89 TR.
And the biggest myth they introduced in the article is that they say ProCo replaced the LM308 with OP07 in '95, which is not true at all, but later in the article they also state the LM308 was discontinued in the early '00 and phased out of the RAT production around '05. They clearly didn't even proofread the article.
The chip change actually happened in the early 00s. I had some guy trying to argue with me over this on TGP recently, who was quoting some RAT employee's post who said any post '96 RAT2 which has a LM308 has been modded lol. That was quite embarrassing.
I haven't read the whole JHS page but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a few more errors.
As to the difference of tonal characteristics between the RAT and the RAT2, I'm not the only one who's noticed it but I actually had read many guys saying it before I bought my first RAT. I had been ignoring them for many years because I thought they were just nonsenses by guys trying to sell their old pedals, but I immediately regretted my decision when I bought and played mine because I realized what they had been saying were true. Many of the stuff I've read on gear forums have been BS ime, but there is some truth.
Off the top of my head, they didn't introduce the final period RAT with the RAT2 PCB, and they say the no brackets version was only a cosmetic change, which is not true.
The Turbo Rat pics are not of an '89 but a '95. You can clearly see it has the multi RAT PCB, and the serial number shown is about 10k after the serial on my '89 TR.
And the biggest myth they introduced in the article is that they say ProCo replaced the LM308 with OP07 in '95, which is not true at all, but later in the article they also state the LM308 was discontinued in the early '00 and phased out of the RAT production around '05. They clearly didn't even proofread the article.
The chip change actually happened in the early 00s. I had some guy trying to argue with me over this on TGP recently, who was quoting some RAT employee's post who said any post '96 RAT2 which has a LM308 has been modded lol. That was quite embarrassing.
I haven't read the whole JHS page but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a few more errors.
As to the difference of tonal characteristics between the RAT and the RAT2, I'm not the only one who's noticed it but I actually had read many guys saying it before I bought my first RAT. I had been ignoring them for many years because I thought they were just nonsenses by guys trying to sell their old pedals, but I immediately regretted my decision when I bought and played mine because I realized what they had been saying were true. Many of the stuff I've read on gear forums have been BS ime, but there is some truth.
I always do it when comparing pedals. I would just switch each pedal on/off until I don't know which is on and play, but for the RAT vs RAT2 comparison I don't need to do it to hear the difference because they are not even close. I've read some guy's post saying the RAT sounds more like an overdrive, which I kinda agree. It just feels better. I mean I'm not a fan of distortions at all. Maybe I should've stated it earlier.
Markus Kersius
Active member
Will this work on the Muroidea pcb?
Omitting R9 completely from the board, or do you need to jumper the pads?
Markus Kersius
Active member
Thnx!
I saw r9 is 10k resistor connecting to the 1uf going to volume on the pcb and assumed this was "that" resistor I read about in earlier posts.
Last edited:
andrewsrea
Active member
Omit R15, not R9. R15 is a 10K resistor between signal in ground, in parallel with the Volumen pot which is 100K signal to ground.
R9 (1K5) in the filter circuit can be eliminated by using a jumper wire, but that would just shift the frequencies to be a bit brighter. IMHO, it is already too bright.
Markus Kersius
Active member
I asked for the pedalpcb muroidea pcb.
I don't know if I got a newer revision, but R9 on the pcb is a 10k.
That's why I made the assumption that that was the resistor mentioned earlier regarding omitting it in the posted schematic.
The schematic of the pedalpcb muroidea shows this R9 (10k) to be between the volume pot 3/ jfet and C10 (1uf)
Parts list only goes R12.
Sorry for the confusion it might
andrewsrea
Active member
No problem - I assumed (wrongly) that the schematic on the first page was that. R9 on your schematic cannot be omitted and the resistor being talked about here is already omitted from that Muroidea design. The Mouridea looks somewhat like a clone of a Rat 1.
