Integrated changer/tuner...opinions = ?

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

It appears that the integrated tuner/changer is gaining some attention/use. What is the opinion of the PSG world on this change?

As far as I know, thePST "BEAST" was the first of the type, then FUZZY/FUJI has had at least two versions of the approach, and I hear that NOEL A in Australia
is working on one.

Jim Smith · From: Midlothian, TX, USA

I believe the Boen was that way. It had a changer at each end and raised on one end and lowered on the other.

Gary Cosden · From: Florida, USA

I am all for it. I like the straightforward approach you took with "The Beast". I have been working on my own design for a while now.

richard burton · From: Britain

If a steel has a changer at each end, then obviously one end will have tuners integrated with the changer (or maybe both ends will have staggered tuners, to give more space between tuners).

I don't see much point in having integrated tuners/changer in a conventional steel, (other than to have it maybe an inch shorter than a keyless steel), as one end would be overly complicated, and the other end would be bare.

J D Sauser · From: Wellington, Florida

Let me share some of my basic believes/convictions relative to that subject:

The FIRST PSG's to ever hit the market, the Gibson ElectraHarp and the Harlin Bros. MultiChord hat the changer on the right.
Why? Was it just a coincidence, an accident?
I don't know much about the Harlin Bros. but I studied the Electra Harp story as much as I ever could and I have come to believe that it's creation was the result of a cooperation of a machinist (John Moore, if I remember right), steel guitar player/multi instrumentalist and Gibson endorser Alvino Rey and the staff of LUTHIERS at Gibson.
If you ever get a chance to have a discussion with a true luthier, you will find that to these people the BRIDGE of an instrument it the HOLY GRAIL of the instrument. They will not let you Mikey Mouse around with the bridge, EVER!
If we believe that TONE is in the player's hands, the other 50% ends at the BRIDGE. Messing with the bridge is a bad idea.
I am thus pretty convinced that this is why the early PSG's had a "lefty" design; to take the mechanics AWAY from the sound side and minimize alterations of the bridge.

Incidentally, Gene Fields in his recount of the history behind the development of the Fender PS-210 (www.gfimusicalproducts.com/Articles/Gene%20and%20Fender%20Article.htm) seems to suggest similar considerations.

Ed Packard has build a keyless Left-change'n'tune (henceforth "LCT") I leave it to him to report here as to his tonal experience with it.
I build my first about 11 years ago and I am currently designing one which as is key HEADED.
Mojo Steel Guitars builds nothing but keyless LCT's (www.moyopedalsteelguitars.com), their sound sample may please or not as to the unique technique of the player, but I am fairly confident most will be able to recognize the clarity of these types of instruments.

I have not have had the privilege to hear Ed's LCT guitar but I can tell you that my prototype blew away anything with pedals on it I had heard so far as to tonal qualities and I expect no less from Al's guitar:

No buzzy noises, falsely labeled "over-tones",
Across-strings balance,
Harmonic responses and richness,
Even(er) decay and sustain - especially up in Hughey land).

And that guitar was "only" a crude prototype of principles build on the frame and body of an existing guitar.
John Hughey and Tom Brumley both plaid it in my room when we brought it to the Dallas show in 1999 or 2000, I won't quote them since they sadly have past since and could not respond, but I can say, I was flattered by the comments.

I firmly believe that the next evolutionary generation in tonal development of the pedal steel guitar belongs to LCT guitars if electronic PSG don't come along before.

I see NO sense to build guitars with changers on BOTH sides. As soon as you have a changer on the bridge side, you WILL experience the at least some of the losses in tonal qualities which is well documented between quality non-pedal steels and most PSG still today.

Radius alone, replacing the edge shape of a properly designed bridge when a changer is mounted on the sound side creates a multitude of tonal disadvantages, including:

Compromised/undefined intonation/scale length (tuning).
Just check the 3 to 4/16" long mark on changer fingers... it's fanned out! It means the strings vibrate (and dig a mark) along that distance, effectively a at variable scale length. This also:
wastes vibration energy (yes, it takes ENERGY to dig marks and burrs in you changer's fingers!), energy which is subtracted from "sustain" and emphasizes;
abrupt initial decay of volume immediately after picky, making the use of a volume pedal to compress the volume on PSGs not an option but a necessity.
High pitched buzzes wrongly declared "overtones", specially noticeable on thin treble strings, as well as a now almost accepted "gwaeing-gwaeing" sound on raised notes on these strings.
Accelerated sustain losses when pedaling changes (back and forth) without re-picking (from the ROLL-on-and-off of the string on the changer and sound board feedback cycle interruption).

Keeping a changer device on the sound side, also raises issues of sound board feedback cycle interruption, an issue which has been recognized early on and intended to be addressed with cabinet-stopping changer mechanisms like on the Emmons push-pull, Carter BCT's and ZumSteel Hybrids, but also feeds noises, funny sounds from the mechanical clutter attached to these changers, back to the string.

Every each and ALL these issues are RESOLVED without adverse effects when using a LCT design.

The only hurdle is the acceptance of looks with the logically obvious keyless approach (easier to design and build) or the added complexities of key HEADED LCT system.

... J-D.

Richard Damron · From: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)

Ed -

In my humble opinion, it's the only way to go.

Bye the bye - when can we expect the next installment to "Them Good Vibrations"?

Respectfully,

Richard

Chris Lang · Posted 24 Jul 2010 8:07 pm

Excellent explanation J D!

Excellent.
_________________
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.

Glenn Taylor · From: Denver, CO, USA

I like the combined tuner/changer on the left side of the guitar--as I've been building them since around 1995. Some pics on www.moyopedalsteelguitars.com

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

I think J.D. really hit the nail on the head.

But (and this is strictly a personal quirk) I find the strings being parallel to each other to be disturbing. I want to see them taper as they do in most steels. Can an LCT changer be made thin enough to allow for this?
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin

Sonny Jenkins · From: Texas Masonic Retirement Center,,,Arlington Tx

Doesn't the BMI keyless have this technology (for MANY years now)?,,,,,or am I missing something in this discussion?

J D Sauser · From: Wellington, Florida

Chris and Mike, thanks for the kind words.

Glenn. I mentioned your guitar in my earlier post. I love your playing btw, it's as different as your guitar Smile

. The sound examples on your site proves the point: Evened out string balance across the neck, crystalline clear but harmonic rich treble strings and lively basses. Congratulations, by the way.

Guys, you owe it to yourself to check Glenn's site out and LISTEN to his guitar (videos on the site)!

Tapered string array:
Just like I believe Ed's "Beast", our prototype had parallel stings too.
That was, in our case, purely an issue of keeping things "simple" for the time being.
Maurice Anderson, who had a look at the prototype too (he came to my room early in the morning, we didn't have an amp ready yet), objected to that immediately too. Ever since, it was clear to me that, in order to make it a viable system option to the "population", a tapered string array would be necessary.

There is NO physical reason not to use a tapered string array! The only "problem" is that "we" used parts of an existing changer (basic all-pull scissor changer), modified it so to include the tuning capability and put it on the other side. So effectively, we put a changer's string spacing to the left.
Because of personal reasons I left the US in 2001 and the whole project landed "on ice" just after we had designed, built and experimented with the basic concept prototype.
Ever since, it has lingered in boxes and in my head... where it "fermented".
The narrower LCT system, narrow enough to replicate most PSG's nut string spacing IS absolutely possible.
I have made some basic CAD drawings, not production ready, but of principle and it's not a problem.

Still, while I consider myself as "keyless friendly", it's gotten in my head that I "needed" to come up with an alternate version with a key HEADED LCT system... obviously respecting commonly accepted string spacing dimensions at the nut too (tapered string array).
It's a challenge and I am currently still only sketching. But interestingly, I have so far come up with about half a dozen very different approaches to crack that nut. Some have the keys moving, others the keys rocking, again others the keys moving in one direction and tilting in the other and one even whole keyhead segments moving. Since the movement initiation now happens to the left of the nut, the bulk of the movement occurs there too, thus the whole nut and nut roller issue has to be revisited too.
It's a process of progress and coming back to earlier versions and approaches and go from there again. It's also a slow process of cutting loose from many accepted concepts or systems, like experimenting with completely different changer leverage system.
Then, I got to take a pause and come back to it later... "issues" become more apparent like that... just like when one writes and doesn't SEE little grammar errors, errors which virtually jump at sight days later.

I see mainly TWO big advantages with the key headed LCT system over the keyless:

1) Visual acceptance: Not just among steel guitarists, but in general. A PSG is a very mechanical looking musical instrument, and it's tough enough to make it visually only evident that it indeed IS a MUSICAL instrument. "Chopping" the for stringed instruments so typical "key head" off does not help further that image.
2) Pedal arrangement: Key headed guitars are longer and thus offer more space to the LEFT to start the pedal arrangement. Some players seem to have a hard time getting used to being moved further to the Right, especially players with longer legs.

LCT guitars have one more challenge:
Rodding over the pedals: Typically, PSG's have their pedals start on the far left. Given that over the 3rd or 4th pedal, you start also having knee lever clusters, that side is pretty crowded with rods and leverages. When you now also have the changer on the left, the changer can be virtually "on top" of the first pedals. On a typical sound side changer layout instead, you only have to find space for RKR.
When then, you also want to add a key headed changer, things REALLY get crowdy.

Still, I think it's a worth while approach. After all, our instrument is all about TONE first and having a CLEAN uncluttered bridge is the big ticket to good/better tone, no doubt.
There are only TWO ways to achieve that:

1) Move the changer to the "other side".
2) Do away with mechanical changer systems all together and replace it with electronic pitch alteration at each strings sound output.

Since I am not knowledgeable in electronics, I can only concentrate on option "1" and leave option "2" to others.

Sonny:
Zane Beck's keyless BMI design raises on one side and lowers on the other. I suspect that the main goal could have been to build a single finger (no scissors) system which would allow for any major change (the longest pitch change) to stop against the cabinet (the push pull advantage but WITH the added ability of combined changes). Additionally, that systems would allow for a pull-only array of the undercarriage rods. Good.
The problem it does obviously NOT resolve, it that the bridge, instead of being shaped like one, remains a moving, large radius with all the effects this in my opinion has on the tone of the instrument.

... J-D.

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

The link below is to a number of photos re the PST integrated tuner/changer…my hand made prototype changer fingers.

http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/edpackard/PSG%20INTEGRATED%20TUNER%20CHANGER/

Here is the basic PST tuner/changer.

The FUZZY/FUJI latest integrated tuner/changer is shown in another contemporary thread by Bill Stafford re his new (coming) EXCEL.

Photos of a previous FUZZY/FUJI integrated tuner/changer are on the Forum somewhere (a year or two ago)…A search under CARL DIXON and EXCEL should allow finding them.

If anyone has photos of other integrated tuner/changers, please post them, or a link.

RB…re over complicated…check out the photos at the above link…in my opinion quite simple. Added the tuner fingers without even removing the changer. No string yanker needed when changing strings. No string balls dropping into the changer. No wrench etc needed to adjust tuning when the finger tweaking knobs are used.

JD…super! It was my privilege to have been around Elmer Stromberg and his dad. Elmer spent a lot of time on the bracing of the body. The bridge and bracing were optimized to cause the string vibration to excite the body = most energy transfer = less string vibration sustain.

I think that the SG/PSG should reduce this energy loss/transfer in order to increase the string vibration available to the mag’ pickup.

Richard D…The ”them good vibrations” thread will be continued this fall…after the Zirc Bars thing cools down, and the individual string pickup and pedal/lever to digital prototypes are checked out. I should have these stuffed boards next week.

GT…interesting.

MP….sorry to have disturbed you! Yes, changers for the players left can be made for the conventional string spacing. I like the 11/32” par’l strings for hammer ons, pull offs, and finger pulls behind the bar.

The objects behind the PST integrated tuner/changer design were:

1. Get rid of the string yanker for changing strings.
2. Provide shallow string angles over bridge and nut.
3. Allow changeable bridge materials without removing strings.
4. Integrate the tuner to the changer without removing the changer. If designed “into” the changer, replace the lower rotating axles with an axle built into the changer, onto the changer finger would be loaded for a permanent attachment, or alternativly “hooked” for individual finger removal if wanted
5. Allow the use of long wrap wound strings.

RE the name “BEAST”…that is a b0b ism. He looked at it at the AZ show way back when and said “Wow, that is A BEAST”...and the name stuck.

Edp

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

BTW Ed, how much does the beast weigh?
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin

Richard Damron · From: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)

J.D. -

Since, as I've indicated in a post above, I'm very much interested in favor of moving the changer to "the other side", I'd ask you to consider a couple of thoughts.

First - visit the GFI site here: http://www.gfimusicalproducts.com/ and view the photos of their "keyless" system. You'll note that there are 10 bright and shiney aluminum knobs sticking straight up in the air. Not "keys", mind you, but reminiscent of keys nonetheless. Is this arrangement sufficient to gain some "visual acceptance"? I, personally, enjoy the convenience of those tuning "knobs" right at hand as opposed to having to use a hex key for adjustment. The nut is, perhaps, 1/2" to the left of the A pedal rod - the rod being a couple of inches shy of where it would be found on a typical, "keyed", guitar. There would certainly be no harm in extending the body of the instrument so as to accomodate the changer/tuner mechanisms.

Forgive me if I have misread or misunderstood your description of the keys "moving" or "rocking" but this is quite mindful of a system employed by Jackson in which the raises are accomplished at one end and the lowers at the other end of the guitar. The keys do, indeed, pivot or "move". Does Jackson, by any chance, have a patent upon such a system? I don't know.

Regardless of the import of any of the above, I urge you to continue your persuit. Please keep us apprised of any, and all, developments.

Respectfully,

Richard

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

MP...would you believe 34 pounds?

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

I really like the design of the Sierra lap steel. The "aluminum(?) sandwich and Tele style strings going through the body make for a really nice tone.

http://sierrasteels.com/pages/laptop.html

Obviously this design cannot work on a pedal steel guitar with the changer on the bridge end. But it could be done with an LTC changer.

I think A PSG built this way would sound wonderful.
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin

J D Sauser · From: Wellington, Florida

Ed, thanks!
Vibration loss: As I stated before, our first LCT prototype was build on an existing PSG frame we just butchered up to do our test of principle.
We subsequently did further test of other ideas which had nothing to do with LCT, including SEPARATING the sound board from the frame or "chassis".
I'd ideally like to see a LCT PSG have a "free" vibrating sound board. We also experimented with the shape (cross section) of the sound board and it became evident to us that the channel shape (deck with apron) is NOT furthersome to a good sound. It certainly gives strength to the body without adding much mass but a thicker board with the same strength, but heavier will "breath" better.
The way I'd like to build, is to have a strong sound board with all the "hardware" on it, merely held in position on the "chassis" which hold the cross shafts, rods, pedals and obviously the legs.
Most of today's PSG are so much ONE unit... they drain a lot of vibrations right down the legs into the floor. I used to play steel in a old building with wood floors... at night and thus with headphones. Still, the neighbors downstairs complained about the "noise". It TAKES ENERGY to make a floor vibrate so that people can hear it... that energy again is being subtracted from you sustain!

Richard Damron · From: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)

J.D. -

May as well add a little more fuel to the fire, so to speak.

If you will recall, Ed Packard and Jim Palenscar (?) measured some 30+ instruments a few years ago and Ed published the ensuing electronic graphs on his site. If you will also recall, his "Beast" seemed to have considerably more sustain than any of the other instruments.

If you are familiar with the posted results then I'm certain that both of us would be very curious as to what Ed attributes the marked difference in sustain between his "Beast" and virtually all of the other instruments.

I've not specifically asked him this very pointed question. Perhaps you will or, should he read this post, offer his assessment as to what he considers to be the major contributor(s) to such a notable difference.

Inquiring minds and all that sort of rot.

Respectfully,

Richard

Richard Damron · From: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)

J.D. -

You appear to be quite thorough and open to independent thought.

Forum member Georg Sortun has an interesting take on sustain and which he explains somewhat in the following thread. He also supplies a link to his site which, presumably, has much the same - or more - information.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1520248&highlight=#1520248

Ya suffering from information overload yet?

Hope this is interesting and, perhaps, helps.

Respectfully,

Richard

John Billings · From: Ohio, USA

J-D,
Very interesting! Do you have any pics of the bridge end? What was it like playing that guitar in the open position, and on the first fret?

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

JD...thanks for the pics...as they said on Laugh In...Verrrry eenterestink!

One of the problems in talking about the tonal effect of the various parts of the PSG is language that communicates in a meaningful way. The "energy loss" approach is useful, but would be better if it was used in a relative as opposed to the absolute mode.

The transfer of energy between the elements of the PSG are a complex maze of resonances and impedances. I touched upon the impedance/resonance approach in the threads leading up to and including "Them Good Vibrations".

Use was made of this approach in the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) done on the materials and configurations to be used in the BEAST. The Frequency Spectrum Analyzer (FSA) was applied to the resulting animal and some of the data presented in the above mentioned threads.

The "30+" PSGs analyzed at Jim Palenscars shop" were also subjected to FSA, and the physical and frequency data made available to the Forum.

As far as my conclusions are concerned...I prefer to present DATA and let the readers form their own conclusions. We will get back to the "vibrations" thread later...at this time the Zirc bars, and the circuitry for the pedal/lever position, and the individual string pickups takes priority.

It is good to see that some others are working on pushing the PSG along.

Any of the things used in the BEAST may be used by whoever might want to as far as I am concerned.

Fuzzy/Fuji and others were asked to build the finished item (drawings and photos of the prototype supplied) but they declined. Then Sierra arose from the ashes. Tommy Baker had wanted to build it before Sierra went under, and when they came out again, pushed for it. Don Christensen was brought back for the machining and design refinement, and I finally got my toy. It is not a quick and easy road.

David Griffin · From: Jimmy Creek,Arkansas via Cowtown, USA

Cool thread! I may be showing my ignorance here (wouldn't be the first time! Mr. Green

)but,would there be any advantage to having an adjustable (for intonation) bridge like on a 6str. electric guitar? Has anyone tried that approach? That's something I've thought about a lot. Just wondering. Also,speaking of bridges:check out the bridge on a non pedal Carpsteel. I just got one off of Carp last week for a homemade 10 string nonpedal steel I'm working on.It looks very promising.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/davidagriffin

J D Sauser · From: Wellington, Florida

Richard and Ed:
It seems we are about to sway away from the original subject of LCT to ALL aspects of PSG building. Interesting, but potentially bound to become an over amount of information and ideas to handle in ONE thread. Maybe, we can win b0b over to give us a PSG BUILDER Forum?

I remember Ed's posts discussions about the frequency measurements. It reminded me the approach my father would have taken if only he had been interested in SG.
While, I think that theses tests are INTERESTING, at the end of the day, it's the ear which judges... mirror, mirror on the wall... It would then be interesting to see if we can see (graphs of resonance tests) WHY one suggestively sounds better than the rest.
There are many theories, there are finds and repeated signals throughout the history of the instrument, which would seem to at least some rules.

Keeping vibrations in the instrument, vs. loosing the energy into the floor or by activating mechanical clutter to rattle.
Choice of materials: Metals, woods, resins...
Mass, density, molecular structure (porous/fibrous).
Union of elements: How to POSITION and BIND elements correctly.

I had not seen Georg Sørtun's thread (Richard), but Georg and I had some e-mail exchange since last year.
I understand his approach and I feel he also tries to keep as much energy IN the guitar (in his case "the guitar" is a neck with it's changer and keyhead, floating away from the "cabinet" which then becomes the supporting table.
It's a bit like attaching a Rickenbacher Frypan to a PSG frame.
I still think however, that his quest would be even better served by moving the changer to the left, because, even if he could make his aluminum "guitar" float 100% contact free from the frame, once he pedals a change, much of the energy on the sound side WILL be drained thru the changer fingers to the pedal stop -> the frame -> the end plates -> the legs -> the floor. If his changer was on the left, only a fraction of that energy would be lost that way.

Here's a test you ALL can do with your PSG, no mater what brand:

Knee down behind the steel, pick a pedaled or levered string while holding the linked pedal or lever in your other hand, and then, while the string rings, move the pedal or lever with the hand only and feel as suddenly vibrations appear in that pedal or lever as the pull lifts the finger from the resting point! IT TAKES ENERGY to make your hand feel vibrations at the end or your pedal or lever... energy which is being sucked away from your sustain!
And not just that: As energy get re-routed, from playing un-pedaled to in-pull and eventually bottoming against a stop somewhere (PP's have an advantage there) you are effectively playing THREE different guitars. One more reason you get that "gwaeing" sound from pedaled pitch changes... which is very different from doing the same pitch change by moving your bar.

Coming back to the floating deck idea: Georg separated the neck, I thought about it too, but I've come to prefer to separate the whole sound board from the "chassis". I don't think that one or the other has to be better... only test will prove and as Paul Franklin interjected on the other thread, I'd believe what I hear.
Why the sound board? I play with the idea to build something like a Fender style sound board... ONE piece of material shaped to include the "neck" relief but ALSO the bridge. The only parts added to the sound board would be the LCT but with all stops at the sound board. Basically, un-rodded, you could lift off the soundboard and the guitar would remain in "open" tuning.
Stacking parts in the construction of the sound board is in my opinion at least a source of risk of inconsistencies.

The "chassis", a welded aluminum frame, would hold the cross shafts, pedals & levers, and the legs.

The contact between the "chassis" and the sound board, would be limited to a positioning bellow the nut and a "tie-down" at a very determined point. Btw, her's another little test you all can do if you have a little lapsteel sitting around:

Find a little triangular or upside down "T" channel you can put on your concrete floor. Position your lapsteel on it so the pointed side of the channel is supporting the guitar right under the nut.
Now try to find a marble or other very hard ball of similar height as the channel under your guitar's nut and position it at different distances from the nut (imagine this would be your "tie-down" point) while you strum your guitar (unplugged!) and HEAR the DIFFERENCES in sound, tone, volume etc... it's VERY noticeable! There are positions which will even deaden (is that really a word?.... well, you know... like "kill") the tone, and others which will generate different "colors" of tone. Imagine you could build that guitar with 3 or 4 selectable "tie-down" points... you could virtually change the timbre of your guitar!

There is so much!
I would like to do away with the pedal rods! Wouldn't it be fun to be able to play PSG with pointed toe boots without risking getting hopelessly entangled in pedal rods?

Knee levers should not tilt. They should MOVE. Why?
Because when you have clusters with vertical levers, if you actuate one going sideways and want to add a vertical one with the same knee, the leverage on the lateral lever changes to the player's disadvantage. There is no need for that to happen. Likewise verticals should move FLAT along their width! That's simple.

But tone comes first... LCT! Wink

David. I have thought about adjustable (intonable) bridges... until I had an original Frypan. No need.
Intonable bridges are mainly necessary on guitars with a wide "action", like hollow body Jazz guitars where the player needs to push strings down onto the fretboard significantly. The string stretches so the scale length is changed to compensate.
The Frypan has a bridge like an classical guitar, and inserted "blade". It stays in tune like no other steel I have all along the fretboard... which a chord tuned instrument you notice! Smile

Some strings, like the plain o.o22 on E9th's middle G# tend to detune in a disproportionate manner in relation to the others. That's an issue of improper gaugeing. I would rather try to address that instead of again adding moving parts and other clutter to the bridge. But yes, since the bridge is now essentially changer-free, one could replace it with an intonable bridge.

John Billings:
I was ashamed to put a picture with the bridge end up, because I had taken all BEFORE I had build a "neck" for the guitar (I put it together the night before I went to the Dallas show with it... these pictures were shot around midnight. I called Rob. Segal as soon as I got a sound out of it... I was as excited as the first time with a girl! Rob urged me to make up some kind of neck... as you can see, it looked AWFUL with that fretboard printout slid under the strings. I DID make a neck and even added TWO knee levers! The neck was made of styrofoam covered with "chrome" adhesive vinyl! Very Happy

Anyways... the bridge was not what I'd want but it was a clear edge with a 30Deg. angle with V-cuts to lead the strings to the lock screws (the string ball threaded thru the LCT... the plain end was held with screws behind the bridge). Future designs will have the string-thru-body attach behind the bridge as favored by most non-pedal players and the string locked at the key head end.

I told you, it was a CRUDE principle testing prototype only! Very Happy

But even people I plaid it thru the phone to, wanted one!

... J-D.

John Billings · From: Ohio, USA

Thanks J-D!
Any response to this question;
"What was it like playing that guitar in the open position, and on the first fret?"

About like a Kline? I find my Kline to be quite comfortable down there, but others really don't like it.

Forum Index > Pedal Steel	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic