Author |
Topic: steel guitar bodies |
Steven Black
From: Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 7:15 am
|
|
I am curious, but have hardwoods such as poplar, compressed wood, oak, ever been used for producing steel guitar bodies besides maple?. steveb carter D10 8+5. |
|
|
|
Jim Smith
From: Midlothian, TX, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 7:36 am
|
|
GFI uses maple die board and some other companies use it if requested. Dekley used Pakkawood, which is essentially "compressed" wood in that it consists of many thin layers of wood impregnated with resin under heat and pressure. Others have used marine plywood. |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From: Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 7:37 am
|
|
Steven,
Yes they have been tried. And I believe at least one manufacturer is using a "byproduct" wood today. GFI comes to mind.
But hardrock maple has been the stalwart used by many. Emmons' PSG's has always done this to my knowledge. Its hardness and thus resonance is hard to beat when it comes to a material (that is not metal) that can be found. Wood of course is much easier to machine than metal; and usually is considered esthetically superior.
I believe that the new MSN millenium uses a man-made chemical composition, that has been said, "is very stable and, does not have cabinet drop, yet has an incredible sound". Since I have never seen (except in photos) nor played one, I will accept this as fact in the interim.
carl[This message was edited by C Dixon on 23 October 2003 at 08:40 AM.] |
|
|
|
Wayne Carver
From: Martinez, Georgia, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 8:52 am
|
|
Just curious since I play a lap & console, how thick is the average pedal steel body? |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From: Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 9:47 am
|
|
average is one half inch for body and front and rear arpons. But one must consider the neck since it becomes in essence a part of the body on PSG's. Necks average out at 3/4". Some are aluminim necks; many are wooden. Aluminum was chosen to provide a "brighter" sound than wood. I believe this; but there are those who vehemently reject this.
Metel body guitars like the Sierra are approx 1/4" thick with 1" (approx) wooden necks.
carl |
|
|
|
Steven Black
From: Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 11:35 am
|
|
I wonder how metal bodies can even resonate a quality sound being that thin? like the sierra. steveb carter D10 8+5. |
|
|
|
Rainer Hackstaette
From: Bohmte, Germany
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 11:42 am
|
|
Yes, Steven, it makes one wonder, doesn't it? But - it works!
------------------
Remington D-10 8+7, Sierra Crown D-10 gearless 8+8, Sierra Session S-14 gearless 8+5, '76 Emmons D-10 8+4, Peavey Session 400 LTD
|
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From: Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 1:01 pm
|
|
My first "steel" guitar was made from a piece of 3/4" thick oak bolted and screwed to a piece of 1/4" thick steel plate to keep it from bending into the shape of a "U". Built by my father in 1963.
Heavy too.... |
|
|
|
Steven Black
From: Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 3:22 pm
|
|
Hey Ray do you have a picture of it? |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 3:39 pm
|
|
There's lots of good sounding guitars out there, made with lots of different materials. I suspect that the most critical aspect of steel guitar "sound" is the bridge assembly, and how it's mounted. After that, it's probably the body "characteristics". I say that because steels have been made of so many different materials, and yet they still sound good. Some sound different, but very, very, few actually sound "bad". Even the old Bakelite Ricky's have great tone and "sustain", so that shows you the body doesn't have to be made of wood to sound and perform well.
Just about every type of wood has been tried at one time or another. Why is maple used so much? It's attractive., plentiful in this country (not too expensive), and it works pretty well. Also, there's a "tradition" of using maple in steel guitars, and some people are satisfied with the status quo. Cherry is an excellent substitute for maple, but it's not near as plentiful. Poplar (another hardwood) might work (though it's a little lighter than maple), but it's really rather plain and unattractive.
By the way, the terms hardwood and softwood refer to the celluar structure of the wood, and not to it's weight or actual hardness. Believe it or not, both balsa and holly are hardwoods![This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 23 October 2003 at 04:41 PM.] |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 23 Oct 2003 11:18 pm
|
|
I just made a 25 1/2" scale 10 string lap guitar that can bolt onto the side of a console guitar, out of 1" titanium tubing that is .028" wall and ti 6,4 alloy, and I also machined a titanium bridge for it. It doesn't have the "woodsy" I-used-to-be-a-tree sound, but it has a lot of sustain and sounds really decent
|
|
|
|
David Doggett
From: Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 9:41 am
|
|
The GFI is not made with "byproduct." It is layers of hard-rock maple alternating with resin. It is harder than solid wood and is a material that is used for stamping metal.
I personally think the tone function of steel guitar bodies is to be so solid that there is no resonance, and therefore no absorption of vibrational energy from the strings. I think the idea of resonance being beneficial is a misplaced idea carried from acoustic guitars that has only negligible influence on the tone of solid body guitars. But I'm in a minority. The conventional wisdom is that the different "resonance" of various body materials is a major factor in steel guitar tone. There have been several discussions of this on Forum over the years. |
|
|
|
Dale Bessant
From: Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 9:42 am
|
|
Ray, I'll bet it did the job back then,didn't it?... |
|
|
|
John Fabian
From: Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 12:10 pm
|
|
Dave,
Every known thing and/or substance has resonance. The resonant frequency varies from material to material. Simple structural analysis will show this to be true.
John Fabian |
|
|
|
Jackie Anderson
From: Scarborough, ME
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 2:19 pm
|
|
Every kind of material, and every piece of it used in a PSG, is going to "resonate," it's going to absorb some energy, and it's going to "give some energy back" to the strings and affect what the pick-up "hears."
Many -- but by no means all -- of the materials that seem to find their way into good sounding PSGs we tend to describe as "hard" or "dense" or "heavy." However, the characteristic they really share which, I believe, leads to their actually making some kind of positive contribution to the sound of the instrument is their "elasticity" (more properly put, they have a "high modulus of elasticity"). Believe it or not, steel itself is very "elastic" as that term applies here. You will find the term defined as "stiffness," but "springiness" would say it better. If you dropped a steel cue ball onto huge block of steel, it would bounce very high! That steel is not absorbing energy, it is "giving it back."
By the way, good billiard balls are made of ivory. Ivory has quite a high modulus of elasticity. It works pretty well for guitar bridge saddles and nuts, too.
Among woods, maple and ash, both very successfully used in making PSGs, each have a very high modulus of elasticity in comparison to other woods. But, interestingly, aluminum, titanium, spruce and carbon fiber/resin composites also have very high modulii (?) of elasticity, AND they are used to make some great sounding instruments -- and unlike steel, maple and ash, they are "light" and "soft" and not so "dense." Hmmm.
What that second set of materials have in common, and also have in common with the first set, is a high ratio of "stiffness" or "elasticity" to their relative mass. It also happens, perhaps as a result, that sound is transmitted through them at higher speeds. Hmmm.
I wouldn't state that a high modulus of elasticity and a high ratio of that to mass automatically mean that a material will "sound good" in a PSG: I think trial and error, to see what really sounds good, is still indispensable. And as others will point out, there are lots of other factors that influence the sound. In woods, for example, there are differing speeds of sound with the grain, accross the grain, around the "rings," etc. Everything counts, even how you cut and place the wood.
So, I don't think "hardness" or "heaviness" as such are really the relevant common properties of "successful" materials; at least, I haven't come across a good explanation that would indicate that. However, there are other properties that seem to give us some pretty good clues about what works well, and why.
Hmm. Ash and aluminum. Jody, Leo knew, didn't he? And carbon fibre composite -- Reece and gang have done some work on this, too, haven't they? And titanium -- too bad it's so expensive and hard to machine, eh Chas? How about talking to Ruger about investment casting....
[This message was edited by Jack Anderson on 24 October 2003 at 03:21 PM.] |
|
|
|
Ed Naylor
From: portsmouth.ohio usa, R.I.P.
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 3:37 pm
|
|
Everybody has a different take on "Bodies". In the late 60's I built the Pedesonic fibergalss guitar. By the standards at that time "Metalflake", machined end plates, keyheads, necks etc. were too wild. Dekley came out with the "Paakawood" and it was a good guitar. I have always been a "Bakelite" fan so I have a prototype that I am waiting to see what reactions it will get.I am still experimenting with pickups to get that "SOUND" everybody wants.Ed Naylor Steel Guitar Works. |
|
|
|
Winnie Winston
From: Tawa, Wellington, NZ * R.I.P.
|
Posted 24 Oct 2003 7:04 pm
|
|
Most steels I've seen used 3/4" for the tops.
Joe Kline once made a *pine* steel (the one Bobby Calwell cut in half at St.Louis one year). It was a full Kline without the undercarriage. It sounded very thin and had no sustain.
Noel Anstead (Anapeg) uses *Gidgee*-- a very dense Australian wood-- and it has great sustain.
JW |
|
|
|
Steven Black
From: Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 26 Oct 2003 5:50 am
|
|
I would think pine is not good, it would sound dead. steveb. |
|
|
|
Jackie Anderson
From: Scarborough, ME
|
Posted 26 Oct 2003 8:45 am
|
|
Not surprisingly, it appears (from a little Googling) that gidgee has among the highest moduli (?) of elasticity of the woods found in Australia. Here is a great web page (belonging to an Australian luthier) laying out the relationships between elasticity, density and sound "admittance," with some very interesting comparisons of different woods: http://www.noyceguitars.com/Technotes/Articles/T2.html
|
|
|
|
David Doggett
From: Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 27 Oct 2003 1:58 pm
|
|
John et al., I don't doubt that everything resonates. But the acoustic sound waves created by the resonating thin top of an acoustic guitar is worlds away from the idea that a 3/4" slab of wood, bakelite, steel, carbon fiber, whatever, resonates and somehow influences the magnetic field of a pickup. I suppose the body could resonate and feed back to the strings, but at all frequences and overtones? It seems unlikely that each material has a single resonance frequency that is independent of body length, width, and thickness. Therefore, as with strings or a speaker cabinet, wouldn't the resonance frequency of a solid guitar body be characteristic of the size and shape of the body, as much or more than the material? And unless it was tuned like a bass reflex cabinet, wouldn't it be just as likely to unbalance the sound at certain frequencies, as to enhance it?
It seems like to me a solid body guitar has more sustain than a hollow body because the solid body resonates less, and thus absorbs less vibrational energy from the strings. Likewise, among various solid bodies, the ones with the greatest sustain and richest overtones would be the ones that resonate the least - possibly a block of granite, or diamond would be the best. Now maybe that sound with all its overtones would be too trebly or brassy for some. One might get a more mellow tone with a less hard body that absorbed some of the highs. So maybe in that sense, that different materials by resonance attenuate and mellow the tone, I could go along with this resonance idea. But the simple idea that one maximizes sustain and tone by maximizing resonance - I'm not sure about that for a solid body electric guitar. |
|
|
|