| Author |
Topic: Simple Changer Design |
Gary Shepherd
From:
Fox, Oklahoma, USA
|
Posted 23 Nov 2007 9:31 pm |
|
Does anyone have a good idea for a simple tunable all-pull changer system that I can make on my pedal steel-building attempt?
_________________
Gary Shepherd
Carter D-10 & Peavey Nashville 1000
www.16tracks.com |
|
|
 |
Chet Wilcox
From:
Illinois, USA (deceased)
|
Posted 24 Nov 2007 4:13 am
|
|
| gary, send e your add and i will ail you one |
|
|
|
Gary Shepherd
From:
Fox, Oklahoma, USA
|
|
|
|
Casey Lowmiller
From:
Kansas
|
Posted 24 Nov 2007 6:22 pm
|
|
The changer on the Carter-Starter is fairly simple. I would think it would be easy to recreate.
I always thought that with a little improvement, the CS could be alot better & still affordable.
Casey
_________________
Known Coast to Coast as
"The Man with The Plan" |
|
|
|
Gary Shepherd
From:
Fox, Oklahoma, USA
|
Posted 24 Nov 2007 6:34 pm
|
|
I agree. There's not much difference in the Carter starter and the pro guitars of a few years ago. The main differences being weight and being able to change the setup.
_________________
Gary Shepherd
Carter D-10 & Peavey Nashville 1000
www.16tracks.com |
|
|
|
Paul Redmond
From:
Illinois, USA
|
Posted 25 Nov 2007 2:00 am
|
|
The Carter Starter has a 'flip-flop' changer that has gone by the wayside unfortunately over the years. The design of their CS changer is IMO well thought out. They intentionally build them so as not to be 'messed with'. However, if all the ratios, etc. are taken into account, the C-S changer is as viable as any out there. Shot Jackson used a similar 'flip-flop' arrangement on numerous guitars eons ago. I worked on one back in the 80's and the thing worked very well. The C-S changer is very uncomplicated in nature and repeats accurately both tonally and dimensionally. The limitations of their application of this basic design are in the pull system. You simply can't shift bellcranks to the locations you'd like. Aside from that limiting factor, the changer itself will work well anywhere. HINT---use some sort of adjustment on the balance springs instead of the one-size-fits-all arrangement on the C-S. It'll do the job...just needs a bit of refinement.
PRR |
|
|
|
Casey Lowmiller
From:
Kansas
|
Posted 25 Nov 2007 12:23 pm
|
|
If you use some better, more tone conducive materials, a copy of the Starter changer could be great. There are a few other ides that might help improve that changer.
It is a fairly simple design & it should be easy enough to make.
Casey
_________________
Known Coast to Coast as
"The Man with The Plan" |
|
|
|
Greg Gefell
From:
Upstate NY
|
|
|
|
C Dixon
From:
Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 16 Mar 2009 7:42 am
|
|
The simplist changer I know of is the Excel Superb changer. It only uses 2 fingers, yet it is an all-pull changer. The Anapeg PSG (built in Australia by Noel Anstead) is similar but more complex. The Excel is very simple in design and application. It has 7 raise holes and 5 lower holes for each string. Amazing!
It also does NOT break strings prematurely. The last I heard, the entire changer was available separately. That may have changed now, not sure.
Jim Palenscar(dear friend and felow forumite) built his own PSG and purchased this changer from Excel to install in it.
The owner (of Excel) Mitsuo Fujii, has just recently introduced a slight modification to this changer, which allows ALL tuning to be done at the changer end. In other words, it is keyless and even the open open string tuning is done from the changer end. As well as the nylon tuners for the pedals and knee levers, of course.
This option is expensive, BUT it does allow the nut end of the guitar to be used (optionally) to change the entire Base tuning of the guitar. Very unique.
Since it is still proprietary I can not post pictures of the changer fingers on the updated one. Or I would.
carl
_________________
A broken heart + † = a new heart. |
|
|
|
Pat Comeau
From:
New Brunswick, Canada
|
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 16 Mar 2009 6:21 pm
|
|
That's a nice looking axe, Carl!
However, I personally can't see where a longer finger with more holes qualifies as "amazing". Different, possibly. Maybe even "innovative"...but certainly not amazing. |
|
|
|
