Could we start a pedal height register?

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 11 Oct 2006 3:23 pm

"Pot pedals cut the highs in relation to the lows as the volume decreases."

Oh, boy - I guess we better yank the pots out of all those Teles, Strats and Les Pauls as well! Those poor players just don't know their tone is being wrecked!

I've used a Fender volume pedal for guitar for over 20 years, and *used* it...not a scratch, tic, nothing. but have a problem with pot-controlled pedals? OK - optical pedals have been around for years, in the $100 range. Some with added effects, like the George Dennis line.

(FWIW, the high-loss problem is solved by one little bypass cap on the pot. A $.25 fix that guitar players have been doing for at least 15 years. No pot on your guitar? Put the cap on the volume pedal - same thing).

And I found the Matchbox *reduced* the signal...not increased it. My MSA smashed the heck out of effect pedals and amplifier preamps, causing nasty distortion - a Matchbox *controlled* it...not *boosted* it. Pedal steel pickups have MUCH higher output than typical guitar pickups, and the oddball pickup design has created the need to things like Matchboxes, impedance matchers, buffers, etc.

Take a Fender 8k pickup - you can run it into any amp or effect with no "gadgetry". But a 22k steel pickup HAS to have something in line or it blows the heck out of the tone. Which may also be part of the reason steels now usually lack tone and volume controls...even 1 meg pots don't like that kind of pickup impedance.

Makes one wonder how they ever got to that level to begin with - and what the supposed "benefit" is.

Twayn Williams · Post by **Twayn Williams** » 11 Oct 2006 9:31 pm

Oh, boy - I guess we better yank the pots out of all those Teles, Strats and Les Pauls as well! Those poor players just don't know their tone is being wrecked!

Actually, the frequency range of the pickups start being degraded the moment they hit the vol/tone pots. Most players like it, makes the pups seem less "harsh". For years I bypassed the vol/tone controls on my strats to squeeze more high-end out when using dark amps.

(FWIW, the high-loss problem is solved by one little bypass cap on the pot.

Yes, this is partially true, but with a bypass cap, when you turn down, while the high freq. skip past the pot, the mids and lows still get affected. The end result is the tone can become "un-balanced."

I always use a good buffer before the volume pedal to help with capacitance load problems. I find a Bad Monkey in front of an EB Jr Volume pedal does the trick just fine

If, on the other hand, you require NO change in tone from the full off position to the full on position, then a pot pedal just won't cut it, no matter how many buffers you use, and you'll need to go active. The cheaper pedals (i.e. Morley, George Dennis, DOD, etc.) all introduce varing amounts of hiss into the signal path. If you are a looper (like myself) then every time the open loop comes around, the hiss builds and builds till even the tone deaf can hear it. This is why I use a pot pedal (no hiss) and buffer combo. I have not tried the really expensive pedals, i.e. Hilton and Goodrich actives, but assume they have very very low noise floors.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 11 Oct 2006 11:20 pm

Jim, you seem to be fighting everything about pedal steel guitars, wanting them to be more like your familiar 6-string. Years ago steels had multiple low-impedance pickups, tone and volume controls, and cheap pot volume pedals, and they were played through the same tube amps as regular guitars. But people wanted different sounds for steel. Especially with the advent of pedal steel, people wanted to get away from the thinner sound of low impedance pickups, and wanted the beefier, more organ-like tone of higher impedance pickups. They are not "oddball," but rather evolved along with player preferences. For the same reasons players wanted clean amps with lots of power for clean lows and lots of headroom. They also preferred the tone of 15" speakers. Steels evolved different from 6-strings because of player preferences and valid reasons, not from contrariness or ignorance. Most steelers played 6-string before steel, and appreciate the same things about 6-strings that you do.

The Hilton pedals are made with high-end audio components. In addition to giving smooth volume control with no changes in tone, they have a tone control, which is useful for matching an amp, or different playing styles; and they have a volume control that allows you to adjust how much volume you want the pedal to give when it is backed all the way off. The volume pedal is so much a part of steel tone, that a good one is worth every penny. But you should hang on to your old Fender pot pedal. They did make pots better back then. And yours must be the only one on the planet that will never wear out.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 12 Oct 2006 4:40 am

I'm not fighting everything about steel...I just find a lot of things to be either counter to decades of technical experience.

"But people wanted different sounds for steel. Especially with the advent of pedal steel, people wanted to get away from the thinner sound of low impedance pickups, and wanted the beefier, more organ-like tone of higher impedance pickups. "

Oddly, if that's true the opposite was acheived, as at a certain point the impedance becomes so high you end up with the "high, whiny" sound that is what a lot of people seem to LIKE about modern steels. When I hear most modern playing, I hear icepick treble and no lows...and with the exception of the early Fendr pdal steels (the long-scale models) the Strigmasters and 400's have much more "beef" in the sound. What the "magic boxes" all seem to do is make up for the inpedance.tonal problems. It was inherent in my MSA, it is to a degree in my GFI, although the impedance is not as ridiculously high.

What's really interesting is that the six-strings can get a much fuller, fatter sound from lower impedance pickups. You tell me what's fuller sonding - a Shobud or a Super 400? No contest, the super 400 will bury the 'bud, which lives in the treble zone, especially without added matching devices.

Which also brings it full circle to the lack of volume and tone controls on steels. Why? Because they don't work with high-impedancesystems unless you go active - which is essentially what you do when you add outboard gear.

It would make more sense to lower the pickup impedance - hec, even add one more - install tone/volume controls, and run to a normal volume pedal/effects/amp rig. If the pickups are voiced properly...and Bill Lawrence plus several other makers seems to be able to make them huge sounding and qiet without stratospheric impedance levels...you don't need all the outboard boxes to "fix" your tone. It's already fixed.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 12 Oct 2006 7:51 am

Maybe it's because it is hard to describe tone verbally, but I can't agree with a thing you just said. Low impedance pickups have the whiny lap steel sound, and the Fender pedal steels are famous for having that sound. Their lows have more bite (so do their highs), but not more beef. MSAs in certain periods of the past, which probably correspond to the very high impedance pickup you describe, are famous for a dark and mellow sound, not a whiny or ice-pick sound. Sho-Buds are somewhere in between. They are not known for being particularly dark or particularly whiny. When you hear them played with the whiny sound, it is simply because of the way the player has the amp dialed in.

The matching devices and the Hilton pedal have the opposite effect from what you describe. They have little effect on the lows, which come through okay with the poorly matched pot pedals. It is the highs that are robbed by pot pedals; therefore they are muffled, and less whiney and piercing with pot petals (in their lower volume range). And it is the highs that are restored by the Matchbox and Hilton pedal - like taking a blanket off your amp. Again, this is only noticeable in the lower volume range of a pot pedal.

It is true that many things about steel are opposite from the "technical experience" of 6-stringers (we need clean headroom, not early breakup and crunch; we need less bite than teles and strats have; we get sustain from a volume pedal and clean signal, not from compression and overdrive; etc.). It's a different instrument. But the technical fixes of higher impedance pickups and matching devices have not been the opposite of what steelers wanted, but have accomplished what steelers have wanted, and that's why they sell. I only know the effects of these devices as a player. Maybe Hilton or someone can explain what is happening technically. Somehow, Jim, your "technical" explanations don't match up with the common experience of the steel community. If you are asking for technical explanations of why your preconceived ideas seem opposite to current technology in steel guitars and gear, then if you ask in the right way (maybe with a post under a new title), I'm sure some of the technically knowledgeable people like Keith Hilton, Brad Sarno and Ken Fox will come on and clear it up for you. If you think your 20 years of 6-string experience qualifies you to "fix" everything overnight for the poor ignorant players and manufacturers of the steel community who have it all wrong - well, good luck with that. I'm sure your new company with your new correct ideas will do well, since we are apparently so poorly served at the moment.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 12 Oct 2006 9:11 pm

"I'm sure your new company with your new correct ideas will do well, since we are apparently so poorly served at the moment."

That was unecessary. I didn't make any personal comments.

Pickups are pickups, impedance levels do certain things, and some pickups have certain sounds. I would have to say some of your perceptions are completely incorrect - do you own& play any Fender Steels? Which years? What is the pickup impedance? What do you compare the tone to...and what type of amp are you using? Do you have an MSA Classic - if so, ever check the pickups there, and listen to what effect a Matchbox has. Ever hear what effect a Matchbox has on a short-scale Fender? How about a long scale? How about a long scale with an ovewound pickup? How about with a Tele...or a Les Paul, just for fun?

It's not guesswork, and I've built amps from scratch, done cutom guitar wiring, had all sorts of one-off pickups made for experiments. Just because it's on a flat instrument played with a bar doesn't mean the rules of electronics change.

"Low impedance pickups have the whiny lap steel sound"

You were done with that one. That generalization is so incredibly off-center and totally incorrect as to blow the rest of the post. Please define "the whiney lap steel sound" and I'll see if I can find it on my Rics. Oh, wait - you didn't mean those?

"Lows have more bite, but not more beef"

Uh - wow. I can't even respond to that.

I think you need to play a late-60's 400 through a Pro Reverb or similar for a while. And work with the controls - yes, controls...they have volume and tone controls. Those DO come in rather handy. You might find a different sound than you're apparently imagining.[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 12 October 2006 at 10:13 PM.]

Wally Taylor · Post by **Wally Taylor** » 13 Oct 2006 3:48 am

Ok guys, back to the subject on hand....volume pedals. With todays technology, don't you guys think it would be possible to build a volume pedal where the heel of the foot stayed on the floor? Do we really need a pivoting pedal when perhaps only a portion of the foot is needed to actuate the volume control? A spring loaded actuator would work I would think. This way your heel could remain in contact with the floor and there would be no height problem. Or even a pedal on the steel guitar much like the the pedals in use now, that operate a volume control through linkage and would be a part of the guitar. This would eleminate having to have a separate volume pedal altogether.
My 2 cents worth anyway.
Wally Taylor
If you can build a pedal to pull strings, you could build one to control volume....couldn't you?

Lee Baucum · Post by **Lee Baucum** » 13 Oct 2006 4:24 am

Wally said:

Or even a pedal on the steel guitar much like the the pedals in use now, that operate a volume control through linkage and would be a part of the guitar.

I remember seeing an inexpensive S-10 in a pawnshop, about 20 years ago, that had just such a pedal. It had three pedals to the left side of the guitar, and one on the right. The one on the right was spring loaded and was hooked up to linkage that was attached to a pot that was mounted under the guitar.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 13 Oct 2006 4:38 am

Wally - thanks for steering it back on track.

Years ago I saw an import line of pedals at NAMM that were exactly that design m(volume and volume/effect pedals - copies of the Morley ideas in a different package). They were touting them for guitar, and when I tried one I thought it was a terrible idea - felt really off-balance.

But for steel, playing in a sitting position, it makes perfect sense - plus you could actually get a much wider sweep with that design, helping avoid the "volume pumper" syndrome. The only hitch is, in a "balanced" pedal like the current ones, it's easy to leave it in a partially-open position. With a "heel down" pedal, it would seem to be difficult to control that without the pedal being very stiff or in need of fairly regular adjustment, as there would have to be springs or something to keep it in one spot.

Wally Taylor · Post by **Wally Taylor** » 13 Oct 2006 5:09 am

Thanks, Lee and Jim. Jim, my idea is a pedal that allows you to keep your heel on the floor and angle the pedal to where your heel is actually the pivot point. Spring load the pedal so that is returns full off and have the pedal angle adjustable so that it could be tailored to fit any size foot and also be adjustable in length from the crossbar to where the right knee activates the knee levers.It could even be attached directly to the crossbar for stabilization. I hope I said that right. I love tradition as much as the next guy, but to me the current design of volume pedals is not ergonomical or even comfortable when you play for a long time. Gee, I wonder why our necks, backs and legs hurt after a while?
My perfect guitar would be one that allows me to angle the neck back towards me, the ergonomic volume pedal we just talked about and 2 pickups instead of just one that is located way back near the changer. Volume and tone controls, switchable pickups, phase switches for the pickups and most of all, the talant required to play this damn thing!!
Whew, I feel better now!!

Wally

Marco Schouten · Post by **Marco Schouten** » 13 Oct 2006 6:06 am

I think that you won't have enough precision in the movement, if your heel would be the pivot point.
Also, with a spring activated pedal, you can't take off your foot while keeping the volume the same.

------------------
Steelin' Greetings
Marco Schouten
Sho-Bud Baldwin Crossover converted to SD-10, Evans SE200

Wally Taylor · Post by **Wally Taylor** » 13 Oct 2006 6:25 am

Good thinking Marco, you are correct. OK, back to the drawing board.

Wally

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 13 Oct 2006 9:59 am

Jim, I apologize if you felt insulted. It just seemed that rather than innocently wondering why modern pedal steel technology is the way it is, you had an arrogant attitude that implied steelers and product manufacturers were so ignorant they were designing things that have the opposite effect of what they want.

…the oddball pickup design…

Oddly, if that's true the opposite was achieved

Makes one wonder how they ever got to that level to begin with - and what the supposed "benefit" is.

This clearly implies that you think the steel community is so stupid it is imagining benefits that don’t exist. I merely responded with a little friendly sarcasm, no insult intended.

In terms of pickup impedance (which you brought up as relating to volume pedal issues), I thought I was in agreement with the conventional wisdom that lower impedance lap steel pickups (and old Fender pedal steels) have a thinner sound with more bite, and higher impedance pedal steel pickups have a thicker, beefier, but mellower sound. If that is not true, then our verbal definitions are failing us and we have a semantic problem. “High whiney” has a derogatory implication. I don’t think the thinner sound of lap steels is worse than the thicker sound of modern pedal steels – I like both sounds in their usual context.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. In the absence of arrogance, I actually like to see people on the Forum thinking outside the conventional steel box. I don’t know why tone controls and multiple pickups were dropped from modern pedal steels – maybe just for financial reasons and lack of interest. They seem useful on my ‘50s Stringmaster D8. I would like to see a split pickup on pedal steel, so the low string pickup could be closer to the changer for more bite, and the high string pickup could be closer to a neck pickup position for less shrillness.

As far as the volume pedal with a heal swivel, the main issue seems to be how to get the pedal to stay in one place when you take your foot off. A spring system might work, but springs are variable. Maybe a pulley with a counterbalancing weight would work.

In terms of ergonomics, for computer keyboards, pianos, etc., the ergonomic wisdom seems to be that the arms should have about a 90 degree bend at the elbows, and the wrists should be straight level, not bent. A steel at the proper height and with a level, untilted playing surface would seem to be what is recommended.

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 13 Oct 2006 6:56 pm

David, it's all good, and I missed the sarcasm, hence my reply. I just like to ask a lot of whys - and honestly, there are a lot of "conventional wisdom" "facts" floating around the steel world, especially regarding electronics, that were poven otherwise years ago. I don't know why it's the way it is, but believe me when I note that others who have dropped in from the 6-string world are as baffled by some of the "facts" as I am.

I do realize tone is a more subjective thing - but when I hear most E9 playing I hear a very trebly, thin sound, which is completely the opposit of what I get out of my Fenders. Many other Fender guys would tell you the same thing - but they're kind of tired of being beaten on for being "wrong".

I've had two Shobuds, an MSA Classic, and now have a GFI Ultra. ALL of them are more treble-voiced than any of my Fenders, or my Ric lap steel, or any of my six-strings for that matter. The GFI is the most mid-promounced and cuts better than the other E9 guitars, and is close to the Fender tone...but it still has a piercing top end unless you control it, which has to be done somewhere OTHER than on the guitar...a feature whose disappearance from steels eludes me and no one has ever explained.

I have many tapes and videos - jo Wright, Herby Wallac, Ken Williams, Steve Palousek; and shot web videos such as the John Fabian Carter Starter demo, and Ricky Wrights "36 licks" (or something lik that) video. All have nice content...but most have icepick-treble sound. The exception would be Buddy Emmons and Herb Steiner - Herb especially, whose Emmons wraparound sounds like an old Strat through a Super Reverb - fat, thick and juicy.

All I can tell you is what I hear. And my comments on Matchboxes was based on practical experience - it *reduced and tamed* the treble of my MSA, making it sound fatter and much richer. Without the box it had almost no dynamic range.

Anyway, back to the pedal thing....regarding height, is there a standard height for the BOTTOM of steels? That's the key factor. If the steels are not consistent, then pedal height is only relevant to a single instrument. I do like the heel-hinge idea if someone could work out the "stay in place" part of the mechanism.

Ed Shimkus · Post by **Ed Shimkus** » 13 Oct 2006 8:59 pm

The piano is, indeed, played with the forearms parallel to the floor. This position facilitates range of motion, dexterity, speed, and comfort. I suggest that the same applies to the PSG.

A few weeks ago, I decided to add the PSG to my keyboard repertoire. I purchased an S-10DB from Carter who, as a matter of routine, built it for my physique. The first detail they sought was my height: 6’ 2”. Then they asked me to adjust my seat height to the height from which I would normally be playing: 21”. Then they asked me to wear the type and style of shoe or boot that I would most likely wear when playing: for me a western boot. Then they had me measure the distance from the floor to the top of my thigh at a point 2” in from my knee: 25”. The result is an S-10DB whose base is 27.5 inches from the floor. I use a Goodrich L-120 pedal (2” at the toe, 1 3/4” at the heel) which Carter suggested based on the measurements I provided.

I am new to PSG and do not know what other guitar makers do. But it seems to me that if one is going to invest in a quality PSG and sit at it for hours, the least one could expect is that it would be built to ones specifications. I suppose the “average” person could sit at the “average” guitar and play well. When I drive – a car, piano, or PSG – I want to adjust the seat and the controls to suit me.