The Steel Guitar Forum

I knew that I should've kept my mouth shut.

Say Bye.

The welded frame EMCI's are known for their tone and sustain, and only right going knees are attached to the wood deck, with two screws. Everything else is on crossrods into the aluminum frame. On the other hand, Jay Dee's p/p's and Jim Loessberg's wraparound are "loaded" and sound incredible. Go figure. And would this phenomenon be related to the issue of how tight metal necks should be screwed into the deck?

I believe that Richard D. is correct - I seriously doubt anybody knows in general, if there is even a 'general principle' involved here, which is not clear at all to me. From a vibrational analysis point of view, a pedal steel guitar is a very complex object. It seems absurdly optimistic to think that the particulars of the design and implementation - wood, geometric factors, changer design and materials, pulling system design and materials, setup, and probably a myriad of other factors, don't affect this. The nodes that Georg discussed in his post might make a particular guitar sound 'better' or 'worse', depending on the physics of that guitar, and also depending on one's personal tastes. So I tend to doubt there's any simple 'general principle' involved here.

I think Jerry O's comment is also appropriate. If you want to find out for a particular guitar, I think the only way to know for sure is to try it. But I would be wary of extrapolating that result to other guitars.

I also don't see what lap/console steel guitars have to do with this. The changer on a pedal steel guitar is a step-input change from a lap steel bridge. The limit as the number of pedal steel changes go to zero does not yield a lap/console steel - there is a lack of continuity, ergo you cannot draw that type of conclusion. Anyway - lap/console steels are cool (and I have some), but you'll have to pry my pedals and levers out of my cold dead fingers.

Richard - don't y'all let anybody chase you away.

Come back Richard - we need your rational input.

Dave M. Good point re non pedal steels. 2 different animals for sure in any tonal comparisons.

Actually Ken, I played and recorded for a living for -- let's see, add the five, subtract the six, divide by three -- oh, yes, 32 years more or less. Four or five nights a week in some sort of honkytonk, biker bar or or dump. Big fun playing with various famous dead people. I've owned -- hmmm -- four Emmons D-10s, three Professionals, a funky MSA D-10, countless two, three and even four-necked Fenders and one terrific sounding M-a-v-e-r-i-c-k. Still got the '74 Session 400 in the closet I bought when I wen to Jeff's driving-school Steel Center in '75. Drove all the way in a '66 VW bus. That's dedication Ken.

Someday I will be out from under the massive debt of moving back and forth from Japan three times, buying a house and keeping my two Harleys in tires and I will certainly get another Emmons. Or should I get a Maverick, they probably sound better according to your calculations...

Don't know if you can post photos here but I'll give it a stab. This is from 1980 Billy Kretuzmann's wedding You might know him, maybe not, The drummer is Johnny Barbata of the Jefferson Starship, the harmonica player was playing with some iteration of Canned Heat and the bass player was with some form of the Burritos. That's me on the black Yammie, my backup guitar behind the '56 stringbender Tele back in the day. And that Professional on stage made me $$$ for years. Good axe that...



Here's another from a few years before. This was a hot honkytonk band:



And here's this summer Ken, out riding around on one of the Harleys. the FXST behind me is also mine, a friend was riding it that day. I should give it to Ivey...



As my little blurb says, I used to play one of these contraptions.

Regards...

Sorry Richard, if my comments are the cause of your discomfort. Certainly not my intent.

I read Ken's opening post several times. Maybe I'm too daft to understand it, but the question is whether or not additional hardware affects tone. The test seems cut and dried and a simple one to me.

Seems to me you guys are talking about something else re: instrument building theory.

If you're comparing one guitar to another, then there's no basis for your test.

Anyway, that's all I had to say about it, so ya'll have fun.

Playing with dead people must have been interesting Tom. At least they wouldn't complain about you playing out of tune.

Fair comment - you've done a bit. I've been playing much longer so I must be older than you. I can't take the mickey out of your comment about the Maverick. One of the best sounding guitars I have ever played was a ZB Student model. It had incredible tone.

I was a pro steel and lead player for nearly 20 years and sold ZB's in the early 70's. There was a big market in the UK in the 1970's for all things steel guitar. We had people like Jeff Beck, Led Zep's bass player and various other rock guys around the place as they all loved steel guitar.

To get back on topic, it might be interesting if a manufacturer chips in with a view on the possible dampening effect of bracket mounted levers - or the opposite.

I'm 66 Ken. got my first guitar at nine. Played in my first band at 17. Played dobro since I was 23. i was condemned to perfect pitch so I didn't play out of tune much but it drove me nuts playing steel in bands with a piano...

Knee levers, etc attached to the underside, may have a dampening effect. One model Ford Mustang had a steel rod mounted under the dash, I was told it was to dampen a vibration. Could be the same principle????????? Also noticed some KLs are swinging free, while others are snug fitting to stay in place.

Bill

Lets ask Bobbe...!!...

I know what Bobbe thinks. He has told me his views on this, and they are very interesting.

Jerry -

No sweat, my friend.

Ken and Dave - you asked for it - for whatever it's worth.

One could carry the initial question to a somewhat logical extreme: Does the addition of ANY hardware affect the tone of an instrument? Conceivably, it could.

I once worked for many years with a PhD-type whose doctoral thesis was (paraphrased) "The Modes of Vibration In a Cello". As with others who investigated where the nodes and antinodes were to be found in a vibrating plate, he extensively used the Chladni techique of exciting the plate sonically and then sprinkling some form of black powder on the plate which then migrated to the nodes - an area with a relative absence of vibration. If one could determine small areas in which a node was to be found across the entire frequency spectrum of interest - no small task - then a piece of hardware could be attached to those areas with minimal detrimental effect. Given the fact that a node will "move" with a change in frequency, finding a few discrete areas where one might place a screw or bolt is, in my estimation, an excercise in folly. Placing a bracket or other piece of hardware smack in the middle of an antinode would, most certainly, alter the acoustic response of the plate - be it a violin top or the top plate in a PSG.

Given, also, the fact that there's a myriad number of fastenings attendant to the undercarriage it would appear that a prudent approach to answering the initial question in this thread is to start with a bare-bones approach - hence my suggestion for isolating the top from as much hardware as possible.

Can these ideas be construed as "instrument building theory"? In a sense, most certainly - but one should question whether variations in building techniques could - and would - produce a superior instrument.

To say that the addition/subtraction of hardware should be carried out on the same instrument is a valid claim. But how? It would be a nightmare to rearrange things in a dozen configurations. On the other hand, if one began their investigation with an "unencumbered top" - as I've suggested - then all it would take is the addition of fixtures in areas most often found in typical PSG's and then note any changes from the "baseline" tonal characteristics.

Another point to ponder. In order to be an effective ingredient in the production of tone - and sustain - the vibrational energy from the string must be tightly coupled to the top (affording maximal transfer of energy) - in our case through the changer. Is it sufficient to design a changer housing with a minimal footprint or is it more desirous to enlarge that footprint so as to (hopefully) provide a more efficient high impedance path to the lower acoustic impedance of the wood, itself? How much larger can that footprint be made before it - in and of itself - becomes a detriment? There's no doubt a point of diminishing returns and that can only be established through experimentation.

And what of the fixation of the neck to the top? There's, at least, several anecdotal experiences to suggest that the degree of pressure brought by a firmly attached neck - or a minimally attached neck - does, indeed, alter the tone. But how - and to what degree? Experimentation - there's that word, again.

Given these thoughts, my personal judgement is that the addition of any piece of hardware to the top plate of a PSG will undoubtedly change the inherent sonic characteristics of the structure. AhA! - but who is to say that a given cabinet is inherently favorable to the generation of "good" - albeit subjective - tone? The proof will be in the pudding - in the crafting and in the testing of the builds.

I would not - under any circumstances - belittle any inquiring mind which poses such as the original question concerning the effect of undercarriage hardware on the production of tone and/or sustain. My only intent, here, is to present a couple of ideas which allude to the notion that proving such a thesis can be a monumental task. Or, at least, a better-than-cursory attempt by a forward-thinking builder.

Richard

maybe do the research in reverse- take a complete and "loaded" steel about to be redone (refurbished?) play it - record it - whatever to get a baseline ,
then disassemble it gradually in desired steps using
the very same recording steps and equipment for each
step until the very last stage when it looks like a
console model.the guitar has to be torn down anyway
so no harm done.makes more sense to me than monkeying
with brand new stuff.should be enough evidence to tell what's what if good records are kept.
had to "chime"in!
pastor bruce

A (vaugely) Scientific Experiment:

Does anyone have a sitck on peizo pickup? You know somthing that is ment to stick onto a sounboard with putty/goop. This for example : (http://www.deanmarkley.com/Pickups/Arti ... ucer.shtml

Okay, now, stick it to various peices of the undercarrage, plug it into an amp, turn it up, and play some notes. What do you hear? If you year the notes you played, then that peice is having vibrations sent through it by the strings, and therefore contributes to the dampening/sustain/tone/voodoo/magic/??? instrument properties.

If you don't hear anything, then that peice is isolated from the strings, and doesn't have any effect anything. No vibration? No affect.

Now, as far as that dampening/sustain/tone/voodoo/magic/??? It makes a difference, but how much? And to what extent do we hear it? My guess... no.

(monkeywrench) I'm much more suspect of nylon tuning nuts being tone suckers.

It's a moot point for me. I want the number of knee levers, that I want....regardless of any theoretical micro effect on tone.

I think it was John Coop (maybe it was Mike Cass - I'm not sure) who told me that every "hole you drill" has an adverse effect on tone.

Discounting all the Sierras I built in the late '70's, I've added at least two knee levers to every guitar I've ever owned (P/P, Pro II, Zum, ZB) and I've never noticed an appreciable difference afterward....And I'm as much of a devout "tone-junky" as the rest of you.

Ben, If the nylon tuning nut is a tone drag, what about aluminum pull-rods? Say, versus steel pull-rods?

You have an interesting idea with the stick on transducer!

If anyone's serious about experimenting, it just needs a loaded steel played, and then played again with all the relevant bracket screws loosened.

My instinct tells me that the more you attach underneath, the more it will dampen vibrations.
Why not mount this hardware on small pillars, just enough to keep it clear of the body to minimise this.

Would like to know Bobbe's view on this topic, or perhaps Ken can enlighten us.

Bass players have been known to add brass plates on their headstocks for more mass or maybe for a more even distribution of mass...
I`m with Tony, I wouldn`t play a 5-string guitar even if it sounded 0,002 % better than a regular 6-string

Here's a kooky idea--- tone might be in the hands of the player. Ya think?

How many rings on the fingers of those hands Tom ?
This is not simple, you know.

Tony Smart wrote:Would like to know Bobbe's view on this topic, or perhaps Ken can enlighten us.

Tony
I would prefer to hear Bobbe's views straight from the horses mouth if you know what I mean. I like your idea about the pillars. Never thought of that, and well worth experimenting with.

Tony Smart -

Re: - the pillar. Consider the ubiquitous electrical/telephone pole. Even though the wires and cables are attached at the top, the bottom is, nonetheless, still anchored into the ground. Wind and, even, ice loads are transmitted to the earth. Further, the pillar, itself, becomes a lever which will transmit any stresses at its' top to the wood. The pillar would also need to be "L" shaped or "T" shaped at the bottom - bracket shaped, if you will, in order to accomodate the screws. Has anything really been gained? Hope I haven't misread your premise.

Tony Glassman -

I would certainly not discount your anecdote concerning the addition of levers to an instrument. I submit, however, that the top may already have been severely dampened - its' modes of vibration forced by the hardware - such that an additional bracket or two added little to the overall load. This may manifest itself in a barely discernable difference in the tone. Possible? Could be.

As to simply loosening the screws, I'm inclined to believe that these brackets/rods etc., flopping around in the breeze will, most likely, buzz and rattle at discrete frequencies when the instrument is played thus detracting from the tone. Could the ear differentiate between the two? 'Twould be better, IMHO, if one were to completely remove them - and their attendant hardware. The neck, ditto? Working "backward" in this fashion is a crude but valid method in the attempt at noting tonal changes.

This discussion is predicated upon the idea that the top plate is instrumental in shaping the tone of the instrument. Although the above efforts may yield a noticeable result or two I'm mindful of the fact that, among 11,000 or so members, there are those who can hear a dog whistle at a thousand yards and others - like myself - who have to crank up the treble on their sound system in order to hear a balanced reproduction of one's favorite CD. Who's ears are we to trust? In addition, any gleaned results are that of a singular instrument and not necessarily representative of the genre as a whole. Absent is the inclusion of precision electronic measurement of the acoustic qualities to be found - a much preferred ingredient in the mix - at least to my way of thinking.

Having stated my preferences, I nonetheless welcome any efforts in this regard.

Do ANY experimentation, folks, and report the results. It can only tend to improve the breed.


Richard

Richard Damron wrote:Tony Smart -

Re: - the pillar. Consider the ubiquitous electrical/telephone pole. Even though the wires and cables are attached at the top, the bottom is, nonetheless, still anchored into the ground. Wind and, even, ice loads are transmitted to the earth. Further, the pillar, itself, becomes a lever which will transmit any stresses at its' top to the wood. The pillar would also need to be "L" shaped or "T" shaped at the bottom - bracket shaped, if you will, in order to accomodate the screws. Has anything really been gained? Hope I haven't misread your premise.

Richard

If you visualize said bracket with a washer (between the bracket, and body)of considerable thickness, with the id just large enough for the mounting screw, and the od just large enough for support is what I think Tony is speaking. That would in fact take some of the contact area of the part away. Not being an electronics/sound person, I would think you would need an electronic scope to measure the before/after vibrational difference.
From a machinist point of view, you could machine a slight amount 1/8" off the the bottom of said bracket,leaving just enough material around the mounting screws for stability. Whew !!!!

Edited to say..Electronic equipment/sensors would be the sure way to see if what you do makes a difference in the vibrational intensity that your ears maybe couldn't hear. That could not determine any tonal change that your ears may detect.
Bill