All pull changer

[Mike Preuss]

I am starting to think about building an all pull guitar. I want a 0 pedal that takes the B's to Bb. I want to be able to split that with my A pedal for B - C. Does this drawing look right to you folks? I based it off Dick Millers Youtube videos. Any suggestions? Ideas?

[J D Sauser]

I THINK I see what you're thinking.
What you are attempting to do, is how Splits were tuned on CARTER steel guitars.

After open-tuning, you would tune:

1- your C# raise normally first (RAISE-bank only)
2- your SPLIT (C# raise against Bb lower) on LOWERING-bank only
3- your Bb lower only with the compensating lower actuated correcting raise.

The whole thing is necessary because your lower has to be tuned to a longer travel against a more tense C# .... so, when you lower alone, and further decrease the string's tension, the travel needs to be shorter. Since we can't affect TRAVEL, you have to raise back a little.

So yes, it works... but it needs to be set at the lower end (longer travel end) on the changer... as the lower only now doesn't rest on any of the two solid rest plates, to be stably in tune.

There is however nothing that impedes you from rather have split tuning rest-stop behind your changer fingers instead for the maximum lower to rest against and then only adjust the split with your lower against the raise. Which I feel is more stable.

... J-D.

[Mike Preuss]

JD,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. "Split tuning rest-stop behind changer fingers".... sounds to me like you are talking about the set screw method of tuning splits. If using set screws for splits is indeed more stable than the extra rod method, I'll be using set screws. I briefly searched for a thread about set screws vs. extra rods to see if there was already a discussion on the topic but came up empty. So I'll take your word for it, thanks!

[J D Sauser]

JD,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. "Split tuning rest-stop behind changer fingers".... sounds to me like you are talking about the set screw method of tuning splits. If using set screws for splits is indeed more stable than the extra rod method, I'll be using set screws. I briefly searched for a thread about set screws vs. extra rods to see if there was already a discussion on the topic but came up empty. So I'll take your word for it, thanks!

I think that since you are using a very simplified All-Pull changer, using the split screw method would seem a wise decision. I'd suggest using FINE thread. The screws actuate VERY close to the fulcrum and thus a "tad"-'offa turn can already affect pitch quite a bit.

... J-D.

[Andy DePaule]

Hi Mike,
Your drawing looks a lot like the early Sho~Bud fingertip system.
They work well, but I think perhaps some of the newer scissor type fingers may give better fulcrum points improving the pedal and knee action.

Certainly I'd listen to what JD has to say because he is very up to date on just about everything to do with PSG's.

[Mike Preuss]

Andy and JD,
this feedback is great. Since this will be my first all pull changer, I want to keep it as simple as possible. The scissor may have a better feel, but this seems easier to me. More forgiving. I can adjust the full-stops easier than re-making 10 fingers. So, that being said here is an updated design with set screws for splits. If anybody sees anything I might have missed or other flaws, I'm all ears!

Andy, your inlaid koa PSG is looking mighty fine BTW. Great detail work.

[J D Sauser]

Please keep in mind that with that "simplified" all-pull system, as the rotation of the changer finger drags the raise-lower finger eccentrically, that finger moves up and down slightly. It's not too significant, BUT:
You need to factor that in so it's long enough not to slip off the lower rest plate and the lower-return springs don't rub on it at any time.

The system, just like any, has it's limitations. But, designed and built well, it can function quite well and evidently, it's easier to build with less parts than a scissor system.

Thanks for the kind words, but I think we got better experts on here than me. I have built a few prototypes and modded some steels (lately two Excel Superb PSG to front-hung v-levers... and I have slept at a Holiday in, a few times.

... J-D.

[Mike Preuss]

That's a good point. Noted, thanks.

[J D Sauser]

... and, while your "drawings" are supposedly only conceptual sketches, it should be noted that the rest bars ought to be slotted so to keep the changer lever guided in all pull/rest positions.

The next question is: To what are you attaching your resting plates (superior AND lower)?
From your choice of changer type, I have a feeling you try to build a "simple".
That however does not mean that you could not look at the "sound"-way to mount your hardware.

Also, I already touched briefly on the subject of return springs.
I feel that most builders have too short return springs. Short return springs get quickly noticeably stiffer as you pull them because of two reasons:
-1 they have to be hard so to be able to keep the finger snug ON the rest plate without being extended,
-2 so when you try to pull them, you are pulling on a very resisting spring..

That is neither necessary nor desirable as it adversely affect the pedal/lever feel (getting stiffer) and also negatively affects solid resting in neutral or raised positions as the coils are so close to each others.

Their pull should feel as constant as possible.
They should be slightly extended (the coils pulled/not touching each other) in the resting position).

... J-D.

[Mike Preuss]

This is why I am here. I never would have thought about slotting my lower resting plate. It makes perfect sense, having a guide for each finger. As to how I will mount the resting plates, I'm not sure yet. The side walls of the body perhaps? Or maybe the end plate? Time to look at more underside PSG pics for ideas. These musical machines are so fascinating.

[Andy DePaule]

Good advice JD,
I'd not thought to slot the lower rest. I was thinking I would make a slotted plate for under the soundboard, but that resting bar is a much better place.
Also the thought on short V longer springs makes very good sense. I do think I'll incorporate both into my PSG.
Thanks a bunch!
Andy

[J D Sauser]

This is why I am here. I never would have thought about slotting my lower resting plate. It makes perfect sense, having a guide for each finger. As to how I will mount the resting plates, I'm not sure yet. The side walls of the body perhaps? Or maybe the end plate? Time to look at more underside PSG pics for ideas. These musical machines are so fascinating.

PERSONALLY, on an AllPull, I prefer to see the WHOLE changer from top to bottom to be bolted thru the cabinet's top into ONE unit.
Basically, like a cage bellow bolted up to tighten in your changer's axle's "ears".

The Ears should either be PINNED into position (fasteners are just fasteners and run thru larger holes) or have a push-plate to be locked in position against in the direction of the string's tension.


Many will suggest having the lower and maybe even superior restplates bolted to the end-plate. That's a traditional method and nothing wrong with that, but it requires a VERY precise and permanently solid connection of the endplates to the cabinet. And remember, the legs are attached to them and the "wiggle"-leverage of the legs to the endplates is huge.


... J-D.

[Mike Preuss]

I recently built a pull-release changer. I drilled, tapped and through-bolted the changer axles ears. I also through-bolted the bridge block in 6 places. It was tight. It held tune. Bolting (or welding?) the rest-plates to the end-plate seems logical to me. And of course, that endplate to cabinet connection will be solid. I plan on welding the threaded leg couplings to the endplate as well. Can't decide if I want to weld straight and drill/tap at an angle or drill/tap straight and weld at an angle.

I built that pull release without drawing it out in detail first and there were some flaws with my cross-shaft/bell crank design. So I'm taking another shot, taking what I've learned and making corrections and improvements. And asking for help when I need it. Thanks JD

[J D Sauser]

I recently built a pull-release changer. I drilled, tapped and through-bolted the changer axles ears. I also through-bolted the bridge block in 6 places. It was tight. It held tune. Bolting (or welding?) the rest-plates to the end-plate seems logical to me. And of course, that endplate to cabinet connection will be solid. I plan on welding the threaded leg couplings to the endplate as well. Can't decide if I want to weld straight and drill/tap at an angle or drill/tap straight and weld at an angle.

I built that pull release without drawing it out in detail first and there were some flaws with my cross-shaft/bell crank design. So I'm taking another shot, taking what I've learned and making corrections and improvements. And asking for help when I need it. Thanks JD

Thanks.
I would advise against welding except for a frame (like EMCI).
I however urge everybody, even unasked (you can ask about THAT around! Ha!) that fasteners were never meant to be "positioners". PINS are. Fasteners tighten things together, that's their sole purpose. As soon as you have more than one bolt, even precision mechanics builders have come to surrender to the fact that passage holes need to be drilled with plus-tolerances to make up for ever so slight miss alignments and secure easy introduction of bolts which don't have a very precise diameter either. I have seen steel guitar builders "knocking" guitars "together" to ram key-heads and changer assemblies into the string tensions direction to run most fasteners against the hole walls. It's a bit a crude approach, but it DID noticeably help with tone, at least for one builder I knew. I still just shook my head and held my little rant-speech about positioning pins. And other builder may only mildly amused remember that I told them too.
Wood expands and contracts as it ages and lives thru seasons. Many builders did NOT take this under consideration and wondered why their endplates would get loose or cabinets have splits because of lack of movement space allowed for. The ancient Egyptians are said to have carved their huge stones using wood in holes and water to just pop those building materials out. Water, and humidity always wins, because physics ALWAYS wins (a lot of dead people could confirm that, if only dead people could still speak).

Btw. (again), I am not trying to be patronizing, but I do have an odd sense of humor.

I think what you have is a basic principle layout which is not wrong.
But for sake of an enjoyable result you deserve and saving money and final aggravation, I would suggest that you will have to develop detailed plans, unless you just want to shoot for an experiment or "having built something".

The Forum has generated quite a good number of "hobby" or one-shot builders which have created playable and enjoyable, often good sounding and even some spectacular instruments.
It CAN be done.
And now that one can look back at almost 80years of Pedal Steel Guitar building (Harlin Bros. and Gibson in the 40's)... there are a lot of good ideas and also a lot which can be re-visited and bettered.


... J-D.

[Andy DePaule]

Hi Mike,
This older Sho~Bud changer is little like your changer design.
They used these on the early Crossover model and had a similar bridge block on the first Maverick's when they were made of nice Birdseye Maple.
Maybe you will get a better idea seeing this one taken apart?
Best wishes,
Andy

[J D Sauser]

Hi Mike,
This older Sho~Bud changer is little like your changer design.
They used these on the early Crossover model and had a similar bridge block on the first Maverick's when they were made of nice Birdseye Maple.
Maybe you will get a better idea seeing this one taken apart?
Best wishes,
Andy

Thanks for posting this Andy.
I had never really delved deeply into that generation of AP-changers.
I SEEM to however see that the DID attach both resting plates to the changer "ears" which seem to be bolted UP into the cabinet from underneath(?).
So, the sound was "caged" and I think that's the correct conceptual approach to follow.
Today, I would build the slotted "comb" guides from Delron or Nylon, to limit friction. Their solo purpose is to keep the raise-lower lever always in line.

Thanks!... J-D.

[Andy DePaule]

Hi Mike,
This older Sho~Bud changer is little like your changer design.
They used these on the early Crossover model and had a similar bridge block on the first Maverick's when they were made of nice Birdseye Maple.
Maybe you will get a better idea seeing this one taken apart?
Best wishes,
Andy

Thanks for posting this Andy.
I had never really delved deeply into that generation of AP-changers.
I SEEM to however see that the DID attach both resting plates to the changer "ears" which seem to be bolted UP into the cabinet from underneath(?).
So, the sound was "caged" and I think that's the correct conceptual approach to follow.
Today, I would build the slotted "comb" guides from Delron or Nylon, to limit friction. Their solo purpose is to keep the raise-lower lever always in line.

Thanks!... J-D.

Hi JD,
Your right about everything you said. Certainly delroy or Nylon would have been better.

Another improvement would be to make the slots and the guide each about 1/8th inch longer because these sometimes pop off on a long pull. That leaves you needing to flip the steel over again and pry the darned finger scissor loose.
Other than that they do work well though they all used the rack and barrel with all it's pros and cons. Later versions had the two hole pullers which I've never worked on or owned.

Most were one raise and one lower hole leaving the unlimited number of pull changes to the number of barrels on each pull rod.
I think the two holes were 2 up and 1 down or maybe 2 up and 2 down?

[Mark McCornack]

Wow! A flash from the past seeing the very picture of the tear down I did of my old Crossover. I thought that layout of the cleaned up changer parts looked awfully familliar It brings back memories seeing that picture again.

Andy DePaule wrote:
Hi Mike,
This older Sho~Bud changer is little like your changer design.
They used these on the early Crossover model and had a similar bridge block on the first Maverick's when they were made of nice Birdseye Maple.

FYI, this was a Baldwin era guitar. I don't know if this qualifies as an early Crossover model or not, or if the changer went through any evolution in the model's tenure, but there you have it.

[Andy DePaule]

Hi Mark,
The Crossover was the same as some later models of Sho~Bud also.
These were used with all the rack & barrel pulling system Bud's.
The rack and barrel was a great idea because you were only limited to the number of pulls on a string by how many barrels you had to put on any pull rod.

The drawback of the rack and barrel was it was not possible to get two pulls to move together. Not a big deal to me, but some guys hated that.
Example, when you pulled the G#'s up to A the 3rd string would start the raise before the 6th would even move though they both got to the A note together.

In the late 80's to mid 90's I had an early Mullen SD-12. Beautiful PSG with rack and barrel.
It was a far more refined copy of the Sho~Bud rack and barrel system.
Like everything Mullen did, he did it better!
I often wished I'd never sold that PSG. Great tone and looks.

There was one issue with these Sho~Bud's and that was if your pull was a tad too long the slotted part would come off the slide stop and jam up.
Then you'd have to flip the steel over and pop it back in the slot.
A real pain in the butt during a gig.

I'd think if I were to copy this I'd make the slot a little longer to avoid that issue.

This was my old Mullen SD-12 5&4. Gee I miss that beautiful steel.



Wish I had a photo of the racks and how they worked.
They were nicely machined parts instead of stamped metal.
The steel was very easy to work on and played better than any of the Sho~Bud's I've ever owned.
I don't ever remember the fingers pulling off the slots with the Mullen.

[Mark McCornack]

Hi Andy,
That Mullen is a real dazzler with that quilted bigleaf front apron! Looks almost as nice as something you would do!

On the Crossover, maybe you recall we discussed this guitar a few years ago on forum prior to my selling it. I have a couple other questions though pertaining to the changer and Crossover history.
My guitar had the Baldwin label. Were all Crossovers made in the Balwin era? You mentioned the disassembled changer shown in this post was from an early Crossover. The changer in the picture came from guitar #7273, but I don't know where that puts it chronologically. Finally, if there was a different changer design used in the Crossover from a different period in its history, can you briefly describe that?

Like the original poster Micheal, I'm interested in all pull changer designs, particularly those within reach of an amateur builder. I have a few tools and an nice old Austrian made Maximat 7 lathe/mill combo that can handle small parts. The changer seems to me to be the biggest challenge in doing a home built psg. It would be very useful to know all this prior art.

[Bruce Zumsteg]

Mike, the location of the raise stop bar is very critical on this design, in order to obtain acceptable action on both the raises and lowers. The guitars that used this concept (Z-B, ShoBud, Klein) located the stop bar on center-line with the raise, but they were basically a single raise system. You might consider putting the stop bar in between the two raises. I suggest you make a pulling unit for one string and put it on a test board, in order to fine tune your design. Use a .014 'E' string for the test. Good luck!

ZUM

[Bill Ford]

Hi Mike,
Your drawing looks a lot like the early Sho~Bud fingertip system.
They work well, but I think perhaps some of the newer scissor type fingers may give better fulcrum points improving the pedal and knee action.

That type system was used on the early MSA guitars (I had one) had the swinging flat bars instead of cross shafts. Built like a tank, stayed in tune forever...Bill

[Andy DePaule]

Hi Mark,
Sorry but I know very little about the history so have no idea when Baldwin was involved with Sho~Bud.
You'd need to ask someone else about that.

As for that Mullen I had. I bought it used from the classified ad's in the news paper back before I had internet about 1987 maybe.
I had never even heard of Mullen guitars back then, but fell in love with that one as soon as I saw it.

The case was a mess. I had a vacation in 89 and we went to Colorado to visit relatives.
While there I found Del Mullen working in a shed behind his house.
He ordered a new case for me and had it sent to me later in San Francisco.
When I saw him there he showed me his new keyhead design with the tuners built into the keyhead. Would be hard to express how impressed I was with him.

[Bobby D. Jones]

Forum member Gene Haugh was involved with Sho-bud. When sold and moved from Nashville to Arkansas. He worked in the shop in Arkansas. He may have some answers to Baldwin's involvement with Sho-Bud. Hope he sees this.

[Bill Ford]

A better drawing of fingertip, and MSA changer.