Tone & Sustain comparison

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

For the purpose of making sure that the results of the modifications that I was making to one of my PSGs were in the right direction sound wise, I implemented a method of quantifying the properties of tone and sustain. This method and the results were made available via a previous thread, to those that requested. This is a repeatable methodology.

The equipment needed to make these measurements has been made "portable". The Tone/Sustain data/charts may be aquired for the various instruments for comparison. This may be done wherever the instruments may be found, such as at shows and other gatherings.

I plan on collecting this data for the instruments available at the AZ get togethers in the near future. At present, I have the data for the Sierra Session series with my modifications (combined tuner and changer +), Sierra Session unmodified, Sierra Crown, and a Sho Bud Professional.

Those interested in being on the mailing list (E mail) for the comparison data may do so by E mailing the request to me.

Dean Parks · From: Sherman Oaks, California, USA

Sorry for chiming in late on this thread.

An important component in sustain, I believe, is the changing harmonic content as the note sustains. One extreme is when the highs wane and the fundamental remains, and the opposite extreme is when the fundamental wanes, leaving only harmonics.

In my experience with acoustic instruments, for example, the guitars that are the LOUDEST seem to be ones where the fundamental leaves quickly during sustain. And often the best RECORDING acoustics are not the loudest... because their sustain maintains a better balance between fundamentals and harmonics, or even a lingering of the fundamental after the harmonics are gone. This is made even more pronounced when recording with compression.

Pedal steel, and electric guitars used with a volume pedal to mimic better sustain, bring this component (harmonic content of sustain) to the forefront in long notes.

-dean-

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

Dean; interesting observation re acoustic instruments, ..sound like Stromberg for "bark", and De'Angelico for "balance".

The harmonic content does indeed change as a function of time after string excitation (on the steel). It is different for different instrument constructions, and it is different re the excitation point and method of excitation on the string(s).

These days, one can be more specific than just using the words "tone" and "sustain", which have different meanings to different pickers. Sustain might be broken down into attack, dwell, and decay; all of which might be further parsed into frequency magnitudes vs time. All these make up what is loosley referred to as tone. Applying frequency spectral analysis techniques to the output of the various brands of PSG allows obtaining data in a repeatable (calibrated) way, hence the ability to compare objectively the relative performance of the instruments. That is what I am doing; the results are in graph form (freq components vs time).

The method also allows quantifying the interstring coupling, and the body to string coupling factors.

The same techniques/equipments may be used to evaluate pickup thru speaker performance, in other words, the whole signal chain.

To carry this a bit further, using a tensiometer for pedal/lever stiffness measurements helps define changer mechanism behavior in terms other than "like butter".

The PSG seems to be "stuck in the mud" in a sense, ..the "biggest" comercially available change lately seems to have been a new/modern body material.

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

Last week was the trip to Oceanside Ca. to Jim Palenscar's steel shop. We spent two and a quarter long days doing profiling of 31 PSGs and one lap steel.

Each PSG was measured re body dimensions, materials, pickup location, pickup resistance, dimension from the strings, total string length, scale length, and a variety of other parameters.

Photos were taken of the changer end top, tuner end top, changer end bottom, tuner end bottom, and the undercarriage.

The instruments included several generations of SHO BUD(PRO',PRO'II, SUPER PRO, XOVER, PLUS), EMMONS (66,68,LEGRANDE III), MSA (CLASSIC, SEMI CLASSIC, LEGEND, AND THE ORIG, PLEXIGLASS D10, PLUS), GFIs, SEVERAL DEKELYs, BMIs, ZBs, FESSENDENS, ANAPEG, EMCI, and so forth.

Then the Frequency Spectrum Analyzer work began. The first 8, or so, of the 32 were measured with a 10 meg load, and then looked at with the 500K (pedal) load across them to verify the loss of high frequency signal from the load...then the rest were measured with the 500k load (where most folk use them).

This first set of measurements were taken on the E9 necks by a strum of the open strings with no pedals activated...then repeated for P1P2 activated (A&B). The peak signal at the time of excitation was captured, as was the signal at 2, 4, 8 seconds after excitation. These show harmonic content (tone) as a function of time (sustain).

This data was double smoothed with a .333 cutoff to simplify observation, and both forms were plotted on a graph of frequency (X) vs. Db(Y). The easiest overall chart to look at has the peak,2,4,8 second smoothed signals for both the no changes activated, and with P1P2 activated.

Comparison of these last charts separates the men from the boys. Each instrument has it's own sonic signature. The signature is a composite of the String vibrations, Body/mechanism vibrations, Pickup location/strength/winding/winding location, and excitation point (we used the 12th fret for this test series).

All BRAND X instruments are NOT found to be equal! Some of the differences are probably due to somebody tweaking some parameter, ageing of pickup magnets, messed up wiring, old strings etc...however, even allowing for these artifacts, the differences stand out.

From the above data, instruments having individual outstanding characteristics will be selected and further extensive testing will be done. The further testing will include individual string responses, up the neck performance, old vs. new strings, physical pickup resonances, body resonances, etc.

If our schedule allows, this data and my partner in crime (Jim Palenscar) will be at the MESA show with the data/photos/charts available for anyone that is interested. Hopefully, we will be able to add a few "PARTICULAR" instruments to the list at that time.

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

but if your don't have good bar technique and reliable/consistent left and right hands..

where does all this lead ?

ed packard · From: Show Low AZ

Tony...one never knows untill one trys.
Please define "good" technique. There is a great variation in hand/pick use between the big names. For our purposes, we will use the most simple method available that gives repeatable results so as to minimize the "player" factors.

Charlie McDonald · From: out of the blue

I'll be very interested in seeing this data, quantifying psg characteristics in an attempt to give some comparisons (regardless of whether I have good bar technique or can even pick--those factors are sooo unimportant when selecting a guitar that has specs I can brag on).

I'm kind of in agreement with you, Ed, about the state of steel (witness my topic 'Are steel concepts outdated?' a while back). The reality is that psg development has 'plateaued' (to misuse a word), waiting for the next thing. Maybe your new changer?
I'm betting on increased popularity of uni's as more players trade in their D-10's, and the consequent development of altered systems of musical thought, like PST. Can't wait to get into that myself.

Always enjoy your posts.

Mark Fasbender · Posted 15 Dec 2005 12:29 am

Dean is right as far as Im concerned. The guitars I have owned that sustained mostly harmonics were by far my least favorite.

Dean......... Travis Nelson says hi.

------------------
Got Twang ?

Mark

Forum Index > Pedal Steel		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: