Talking about cable guitars

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 29 Jul 2010 4:46 am

This thread is a spur track that came off the mainline at page 10 of a thread over in "Steel Players". Here's that page where it left off: http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... 6d2cb5beb4

So Bill Hankey said he wanted to discuss some things in my reply more, but not in the wrong category, so I made this thread in the correct category. Here's my reply from over there...

Bill, the guitar I saw cable breakage on was a Domland Stereo. The only other cable guitars I ever remember messing with (and not extensively) were Fenders, and 800 and a 2000. I would wage that the Domland probably had a worse time with cable breakage than the Fenders, because the changer was tighter and the cables were smaller gauge, as I recall. The Domland at least had cables that probably had an especially hard job as far as cable jobs go, having the slack yanked hard out of them every time you hit those pedals, and again, being pretty darn small gauge for the job. Actually, I only broke one or two as I recall, but the owner before me had all manner of trouble with it.

I'm sure you can agree that cables are just like anything else: they come in different sizes, have different construction, are made of different materials, and do different jobs. There may be more appropriate gauges than what that particular guitar had but Bill...that was just one possible reason among many that cables have fallen out of favor.

This has all gotten me thinking about this subject of cables on a steel guitar. I can see one or two other disadvantages — namely the need for a changer that works a different way, and the difference in pull timing — but not too many advantages...except for one: one might be able to make the mechanism quieter and more gentle. As far as cables running out of slack (which, even if this didn't wear out the cables, it's still not a nice feeling) I guess you could insert a tough spring on one end of the cable or the other, and have a positive stop on your pedal and that should take care of the problem. The changer, if you had it like on the 2000 where you had "strips" (I call them that because that's kind of how they were as I recall — whatever they were, they were the members on the changer that you hooked the cable ends directly to) and two degrees of raise for both lower and raise, might not work out for those who want up to three different degrees of raise and/or lower on at least one string. Then again, one might be able to engineer one that had three, and then you could do darn near anything, so that might also be and advantage. The tuning would be even more accurate, in theory. Now as for timing the pulls...I don't know what you'd do about that. If you've got a pedal that pulls two strings, one is really short and one is really long, and if you have a cable hooked to a pulley as on the steels I've seen, the pulls will just get there when they get there. On cross-shaft-and-rod guitars, you can make them go at different speeds relative to your pedal. This problem wouldn't bother everyone, I know, but it might not be a good selling point. Cabinet drop might be affected by the difference between rod and cable, but I don't know how much...negligible I'd guess.

I'm sure that builders would use cables if they were better, but I'm very, very sure that they could tell you more about drawbacks and such much better than I could. But you know, Bill, if I were going to build a steel, I'd give cables some consideration. If I were going for world's hairiest copedent, cables would probably be the best choice.

I like the idea of a positive stop on the pedal and a stretchy spring buffer, actually. That might make for a smooth riding guitar.

Okay Mr. Hankey, let's talk this over...

Gary Cosden · Post by **Gary Cosden** » 29 Jul 2010 5:35 am

I hope I don't regret jumping in here but since I have been thinking about cable guitars lately I will throw this idea out there, hopefully for the purpose of discussion. It's off the wall, I know, but I do wonder if the use of carbon fiber cable might not be worth considering. If interested, check one version out here:
http://www.fibraplex.com/ProductPages/C ... String.asp
Any thoughts?

Allan Munro · Post by **Allan Munro** » 29 Jul 2010 6:30 am

Gary Cosden wrote:I hope I don't regret jumping in here but since I have been thinking about cable guitars lately I will throw this idea out there, hopefully for the purpose of discussion. It's off the wall, I know, but I do wonder if the use of carbon fiber cable might not be worth considering. If interested, check one version out here:
http://www.fibraplex.com/ProductPages/C ... String.asp
Any thoughts?

First look - NICE! Gary, do you have any idea how a loop would be formed in this stuff? Would it be with crimp sleeves, specialist glue/solvent on the coatings?
Thanks for the link - very interesting...

Allan.....

Dave Zirbel · Post by **Dave Zirbel** » 29 Jul 2010 7:40 am

A forumite claims to have had great results with using 80 pound no stretch fishing line on his Fender 400 instead of the steel cables. The problems with Fendr was never about cables snapping but the solder joints coming part from the pulleys and hoops.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 7:51 am

These accounts given are very interesting to say the least. I'm sure there are hundreds of original cabled Fender 400 and 1000 guitars in use by musicians who are slow to change. Of great interest would be how those who own and play the cable driven instruments have made changes to reduce the soldering mishaps.

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 29 Jul 2010 8:13 am

I only had a cable Fender PSG at the house once and for a short while over 10 years ago, so my memory of how it felt is a bit blurred. I was more interested in how it sounded.

Anyways, I truly doubt that the somewhat mushy pedal feel has much to do with the steel cables stretching (as in elongating under tension).

I rather suspect that it is linked to the fact that these cable tend to hang somewhat loose and first need to be pulled back up in an "active" straight position before they effectively generate a solid pull. They must hang in "neutral" actually, or you risk having pull fingers not coming back to "neutral" solidly.
Steel cables also tend to straighten loose around the pulleys, that too adds a feel of uncertain control until the bend firmly around the pulleys when pulled.

I suspect a first easy fix would rather be to have a stack of horizontal "knife"-send back-levers (similar to the ones on the PS210) send the pedal crank pull via a ROD instead the cable going around the master pulley to the changer.
The next step would be to replace the last stretch of the cable from that lever to the fingers with again a rod with a balancing split (like on the old ZB's)
That, if you don't want to build a modern cross shaft/bell crank rodded system... which seems unpractical since the thick wood body leaves little depth underneath to accommodate such a system.

... J-D.

Stephen Calhoun · Post by **Stephen Calhoun** » 29 Jul 2010 8:59 am

My 2 400's have at least 75 years of history, and it seems there's never been any breakage. But, who knows what the actual playing hours add up to be.

I don't have anything modern to compare cables to, since all my (only) recent experience is on a 400, but I assume the whole pedal-to-cable pull is slower and mushier.

Here's a tangent-type question. If you had just Fender pedals, pedal rods-to-cranks, pulleys, and cables w.loops, what modern mechanism would be easiest to integrate the cable contraption with?

(...a marriage only conceivable here on the forum!)

I ask this because it seems there could be a hybrid possibility consisting of the crunchy but versatile cable contraption hooked into the versatile but oft unforgiving (to set-up,) modern changer.

Any hybrid ideas jump out?

What was the most modern-like changer found in those few other cable brethren of the Fender?

Gary Cosden · Post by **Gary Cosden** » 29 Jul 2010 9:09 am

Allan Munro wrote:
Allan Munro wrote: Gary, do you have any idea how a loop would be formed in this stuff? Would it be with crimp sleeves, specialist glue/solvent on the coatings?
Thanks for the link - very interesting...

Allan.....
Allan I have got wonder whether or not a simple square knot might do the trick? Crimping might work but I do think that you could cast an epoxy slug on the cable end very easily since epoxy and carbon fiber seem to work very well together in other applications.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 9:22 am

J D Sauser,

The cables beneath the old Fender models have been taking all the "blame". For shame, for shame. They don't stretch, break, sag, or fail when subjected to a direct and straight pull. Fender's engineers went overboard apparently, (I'm surmising again) by catapulting their energies (all three heads) devising a space age series of pulleys that were mounted in the left corner of the steel. They needed a direct parallel pull to the changers. They even produced unique adjustments to maintain proper cable tension. If the adjustments snugging up the cable had a bit of tension, the changer would fail to compromise for misjudgments. Those little left and right threaded double nutted attachments, were a problem from the moment they were put into use. In all probability, the cables would have soldered more securely, if the pulleys were made from copper and zink alloys. Solder refuses to bite into steel mother metals. For that matter,it will not adhere to some metals as far as I know. Actually,those little Fender pulleys were 10 times neat. However, someone in the Fender camp may have dropped the ball, at some point. It's doubtful that any such duration tests were performed to simulate the test of time.

Chris Lucker · Post by **Chris Lucker** » 29 Jul 2010 9:37 am

Dave

Yes, I tried the deep sea fishing cable with success. It can be knotted to heavy duty fishing snap swivels for ease of connecting to the fingers and pedal cranks. I drilled three 0.0625" holes along the edge of most of the fingers under the guitar for hooking up the snap swivels.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with using the normal Fender 1/16th cable or replacing it with stainless. The trick is getting a proper solder joint, which is easy of you use silver solder, a torch, and the liquid flux McMaster Carr sells for STAINLESS.

Also, for extra pulleys I used stamped metal Erector Set pulleys found on Ebay. Also, the aircraft cable pulleys Wright used are readily found on ebay as well.

Chris Lucker

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 10:23 am

ANNOUNCING:

My homemade CABLE DRIVEN steel guitar has taken all that I could dish out. I've leaned into the maple armrest, playing thousands of familiar melodies over a period of 30 years. I find the standardized rodded steel guitars to be an overload of problems at irregular intervals. I don't care for surprises popping out of the woodwork.

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 29 Jul 2010 11:18 am

Bill, what do you mean by "irregular intervals"?

If you're talking home-built, I can definitely see how a cable guitar would be much easier to get a good quality mechanism with, indeed...but as for my manufactured rodded guitars that I've owned, I really haven't seen much of any surprises pooping out of the woodwork.

JD, those are good observations. I think the little bit of uncertainty when you start the pull is something that I personally could deal with a lot better than when the pull stops, as there always is a little bit of that with a rodded guitar as well.

Stephen, I think if you were going to try making cable stuff happen on a modern changer, you'd need the following: the standard tuning nuts hooked to short little rods — like 4-5"; set collars on each rod; and a matrix of slip joints that the rods could go through and give something for the set collar to make a positive stop against, as well as preventing the rod from rotating when the tuning nut is turned. You could have as many degrees of raise/lower as you had holes in the finger, and you could hook as many pulls as you wanted (practically) onto each rod end/degree of raise and pull. It's similar to how, on a P/P, you had a rod for a certain degree of raise/lower and as many pulls for that degree as you want.

richard burton · Post by **richard burton** » 29 Jul 2010 11:42 am

The first few steels that I built were cable operated.

I had no idea at all about how pedal steels worked, and the obvious way to do it (so it seemed to me at the time) was to use cycle brake cable

The following photos are of a steel that I made in 1985, and gigged for quite a while.
Then I sold it, and it has been left to rot ever since

These are recent photos

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 11:57 am

Duane,

There are a bunch of things that don't set right in the standardized pedal steel. I'll just point out one or two for effect. (1) Those case hardened set screws on the beloved Emmons chew up the adjustment rods, much like a busy beaver gnashing and gnawing at the forested area around swamps, ponds, etc. Those little set screws bite deeply into the 1/8" rods making it difficult to slide them through 1/8" apertures. Overlooked as a minor detail, I surmise. On random models, some are grossly lacking in friction reducing features. My idea of improvement would be consolidation. I mean to say.. what a mass of hardware stashed into a finger's disproportion crawl space. It wouldn't be difficult to improve on that particular feature. The cable's ability to flex is a huge advantage over stiff rods that tend to bend or distort under pressure.

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 29 Jul 2010 12:16 pm

Well Bill, as far as the Emmons and the dents in the rods caused by set screws...I really haven't noticed much difficulty getting them in and out of the pullers myself, and I've probably changed copedents on push/pulls a dozen or more times...set them up many more times than that. They don't really get chewed up unless you are setting them up again and again and again and again...and even then, you can use a file to take off the rough spots pretty easily if you have trouble getting them through. Moreover, those little dents don't affect performance at all.

I haven't seen too many guitars that have much of a problem with friction. In truth, most rodded guitars I've personally played had less overall friction than the Fender 2000 I played once, though the Fender wasn't that bad either.

The space where the finger is stuffed into in the changer is not disproportionate, on an Emmons or an all-pull changer. The clearances are close, but they don't touch.

Finally, as far as rods bending goes, the bending doesn't really seem to affect anything so long as they bend to the same degree each time, which they usually do because tuning is pretty good, and the positive stop (which is responsible for accurate tuning) is on the other side of that rod. Now cables, on the other hand, might stretch too much to give accurate tuning if applied the same way; don't quote me on that because I've never tried it, but all the cable guitars I've seen have had their positive stops on the same side of the cable as the changer, and I suspect it's because of cable stretch precluding the ability to configure it the same way a rodded guitar is.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 12:20 pm

Richard,

I can easily see why that creation would quickly fall into disfavor. It featured a nonworking changer assembly. Plus it looks much like the undercarriage of a Mack truck. One plug deserves another. Scrap metal is up in price now. Just hinting Richard.

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 29 Jul 2010 12:23 pm

Bill Hankey wrote:Richard,

I can easily see why that creation would quickly fall into disfavor. It featured a nonworking changer assembly. Plus it looks much like the undercarriage of a Mack truck. One plug deserves another. Scrap metal is up in price now. Just hinting Richard.

Dang... Kinda mean.

richard burton · Post by **richard burton** » 29 Jul 2010 12:29 pm

Bill,
The changer definately worked, I gigged it for a couple of years

I designed it myself, cos I didn't know anything about steels back in 85, but in hindsight I realise it is a type of pull-release mechanism.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 12:34 pm

Duane,

Your outlook features some not too obvious loopholes. I'll just mention one to put you on guard. Quoting you verbatim, "Cables might stretch too much" requires a quick response to alert the readers that your statement isn't accurate. I challenge you to find anyone who is skilled in working with cables to support your statement.

Dave Zirbel · Post by **Dave Zirbel** » 29 Jul 2010 12:38 pm

Bill, can you post pics of your cable guitar with explanations? I'm a fan of the cable driven Fenders but felt they could have made improvements on the design.

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 29 Jul 2010 12:46 pm

Bill Hankey wrote:Duane,

Your outlook features some not too obvious loopholes. I'll just mention one to put you on guard. Quoting you verbatim, "Cables might stretch too much" requires a quick response to alert the readers that your statement isn't accurate. I challenge you to find anyone who is skilled in working with cables to support your statement.

Duane Reese wrote:Now cables, on the other hand, might stretch too much to give accurate tuning if applied the same way; don't quote me on that because I've never tried it, but all the cable guitars I've seen have had their positive stops on the same side of the cable as the changer, and I suspect it's because of cable stretch precluding the ability to configure it the same way a rodded guitar is.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 29 Jul 2010 12:46 pm

The current Clinesmith pedal steels feature a retro cable/pulley system. Very Bigsby-ish, and very nice!

(Edit: pictures originally posted by Todd Clinesmith a few months ago here on the Forum)

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 29 Jul 2010 2:04 pm

Chris,

I'm sorry for overlooking the "Don't quote me" request. An absolute inadvertency on my part. Someone should thank Doug Beaumier for his assist in viewing a masterpiece. The steel guitar displayed sure looks tempting. I can say it! Thanks Doug, in the spirit of cable usage.

Stan Schober · Post by **Stan Schober** » 29 Jul 2010 2:10 pm

...Someone should thank Doug Beaumier for his assist in viewing a masterpiece...

And I will double that Thanks !
Jeebles, Doug ! Is that YOUR Clinesmith ????

...Signed, One Jealous S.O.B.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 29 Jul 2010 2:27 pm

No, it's not mine... unfortunately.

The Clinesmith pictures were posted here on the forum a few months ago by Todd Clinesmith, the builder.