Comparison of the new Fleor brass shaft pot to a CTS
Sept 8, 2021 19:21:00 GMT -5
b4nj0 and unreg like this
Post by frets on Sept 8, 2021 19:21:00 GMT -5
Many of you will remember me posting a picture of the new Fleor P24K Series A500k pot that is slated to compete with the CTS A500k dishback in looks and inferred quality.
Here is my overview analysis.
At first glance, the Fleor Series 24 is a vast improvement over other Chinese manufacturers of brass shafted pots. It is only when placed next to a real CTS 450GT that deficiencies in quality are apparent.
The comparison is as follows:
- Fleor fit in construction appears excellent and equal to that of a CTS;
- However, the casing on the Fleor is a shiny, with an almost “chromey” looking appearance;
- Furthermore, the comparison of the thickness of the casing material as measured by inspection of the “tangs” (tongues that hold the casing onto the internals of the pot) and “give” (resistance when bent) revealed that the Fleor was of a thinner metal.
- But, on the lugs, this difference is not that apparent. The Fleor’s lugs are as hard to bend as on the CTS.
- The actual brass shafts indicated a difference; whereby, the Fleor was shinier than the CTS. CTS brass has always reminded me of a shell cartridge or Alloy 260. The Fleor being yellow brass is supposed to look like Brass 272 (shiny brass). All in All, the shafts will probably last forever; but, as a quality variable, the Fleor Brass looks cheaper;
- Threads are of equal quality with ease of nut down equivalent;
- The top washer of the CTS is thicker than the same on the Fleor. It is a substantial difference;
- The real inferiority of the Fleor comes when examining its internals.
- The carbon composition on the resistance strip appears shinier on the Fleor’s than the CTS. I do not know what this would mean in terms of quality. Perhaps the engineers can weigh in;
- You can see the cheapness of the plastic that holds the carbon element on the Fleor. You can just see the superiority in construction of the CTS pot. But, I guess one has to ask how substantive does the plastic structure need to be if it performs it’s function. All that can be said is the CTS plastic structure holding the resistive component is more than that of the Fleor;
- The Fleor’s wiper looked to be of a different alloy metal to the bronze on the CTS;
- A huge difference is the lack of any lubricant within the housing of the Fleor. CTS is known for their shaft lubricant;
- I have yet to solder to the Fleor pot so I have no comments as to the actual solderability. From what I can see of the casings, I surmise that soldering to the CTS would be somewhat easier. But, for the novice solderer, I would recommend the CTS or Bourns over any other brands. One thing I can say about solderability to the back of the Fleor pot is there is not as much real estate to solder to in comparison to the CTS. You can see the differences in the dishback configurations of the two.
- A huge difference was found in resistance between the Fleor and the CTS. I have two Fleor’s. They measured 542k and 534k. I grabbed another CTS and the measurements on those two were 503k and 505k. So it appears that the Fleor’s run hot. Although within a 10% tolerance.
- Price - the Fleor retails at $3.15 a piece and that includes shipping. The cheapest CTS brass shaft A500k I could find was $8.99 USD on EBay. So, a $5+ difference.
- The taper of the Fleor had a little drag in taper when rotated. I find this to be typical in the Asian pots. Rollback will be faster with the CTS but not by a huge amount in comparison to other Asian pots that have quite a bit of taper resistance.
So, what will happen if I put the Fleor’s in my guitar? And will it fail before the CTS? Dunno…all I know is that CTS has a proven track record. Is the CTS worth $5 more? All I can say is that if I am asked what pots to put in a guitar, it would be CTS, Bourns or Alpha (Korea - although the Taiwan pots are well made for pedals and such). But, I probably am going to put these Fleor’s in one of my guitars.
Here is my overview analysis.
At first glance, the Fleor Series 24 is a vast improvement over other Chinese manufacturers of brass shafted pots. It is only when placed next to a real CTS 450GT that deficiencies in quality are apparent.
The comparison is as follows:
- Fleor fit in construction appears excellent and equal to that of a CTS;
- However, the casing on the Fleor is a shiny, with an almost “chromey” looking appearance;
- Furthermore, the comparison of the thickness of the casing material as measured by inspection of the “tangs” (tongues that hold the casing onto the internals of the pot) and “give” (resistance when bent) revealed that the Fleor was of a thinner metal.
- But, on the lugs, this difference is not that apparent. The Fleor’s lugs are as hard to bend as on the CTS.
- The actual brass shafts indicated a difference; whereby, the Fleor was shinier than the CTS. CTS brass has always reminded me of a shell cartridge or Alloy 260. The Fleor being yellow brass is supposed to look like Brass 272 (shiny brass). All in All, the shafts will probably last forever; but, as a quality variable, the Fleor Brass looks cheaper;
- Threads are of equal quality with ease of nut down equivalent;
- The top washer of the CTS is thicker than the same on the Fleor. It is a substantial difference;
- The real inferiority of the Fleor comes when examining its internals.
- The carbon composition on the resistance strip appears shinier on the Fleor’s than the CTS. I do not know what this would mean in terms of quality. Perhaps the engineers can weigh in;
- You can see the cheapness of the plastic that holds the carbon element on the Fleor. You can just see the superiority in construction of the CTS pot. But, I guess one has to ask how substantive does the plastic structure need to be if it performs it’s function. All that can be said is the CTS plastic structure holding the resistive component is more than that of the Fleor;
- The Fleor’s wiper looked to be of a different alloy metal to the bronze on the CTS;
- A huge difference is the lack of any lubricant within the housing of the Fleor. CTS is known for their shaft lubricant;
- I have yet to solder to the Fleor pot so I have no comments as to the actual solderability. From what I can see of the casings, I surmise that soldering to the CTS would be somewhat easier. But, for the novice solderer, I would recommend the CTS or Bourns over any other brands. One thing I can say about solderability to the back of the Fleor pot is there is not as much real estate to solder to in comparison to the CTS. You can see the differences in the dishback configurations of the two.
- A huge difference was found in resistance between the Fleor and the CTS. I have two Fleor’s. They measured 542k and 534k. I grabbed another CTS and the measurements on those two were 503k and 505k. So it appears that the Fleor’s run hot. Although within a 10% tolerance.
- Price - the Fleor retails at $3.15 a piece and that includes shipping. The cheapest CTS brass shaft A500k I could find was $8.99 USD on EBay. So, a $5+ difference.
- The taper of the Fleor had a little drag in taper when rotated. I find this to be typical in the Asian pots. Rollback will be faster with the CTS but not by a huge amount in comparison to other Asian pots that have quite a bit of taper resistance.
So, what will happen if I put the Fleor’s in my guitar? And will it fail before the CTS? Dunno…all I know is that CTS has a proven track record. Is the CTS worth $5 more? All I can say is that if I am asked what pots to put in a guitar, it would be CTS, Bourns or Alpha (Korea - although the Taiwan pots are well made for pedals and such). But, I probably am going to put these Fleor’s in one of my guitars.
