The Steel Guitar Forum

I think of the days when my former brother in law was proud as heck of his recently purchased 17 year old Cadillac. Powerr seats broken, 3 power windows didn't work. Cruise control busted... but Hey!, it was a Cadillac.

More automation means more things that can go wrong, break, need calibrated, etc.

Hi Georg: It is an inspiring idea which combines mechanics, electromechanics and software to get it going. I love the idea of a 5 second string change too. If there was a way to cram it all into the head, including the nut; that would keep everything away from the pickups, and makes it more adaptable to any instrument. For your economy of scale, engineering a single-string module with an I2C interface would let you sell more units into many applications. You could assemble as many slices you need, like 6 for a Dobro, 4 for a Stradivarius (ha ha).

Donny Hinson wrote:As the saying goes..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Adding needless technology would only harm the instrument, IMHO. Then we'd probably wind up with a "Steel Guitar Forum", and a "Servo Steel Forum", and most of the time would be spent arguing which was best. (You know, like the tube and solid-state guys argue now. )

I hate to be a hard-ass on this, but people simply need to learn to tune it, and they need to learn to play it. You don't need gizmos or technology to do that, you just need time in the seat.

Donny, I by no means am for the idea of a gizmo steel but it is inevitable that down the line, someone will invent another way of pulling strings and who knows, it may work and may even be better and it may even be cost effective. After all, electronics are cheaper now to make than something machined. I, like you, prefer to play the old way by never can tell what's in the future.

Scott Duckworth wrote:As for the pedal or knee "feel", if you will look at the second link I posted above, and scroll down to the pedals, you'll find that guy already has a good handle on it.

Yep, Scott. That is a very informative link. He has a good handle on the subject. He is using a pedal design that senses the press depth and offers some resistance. His pull activator is a servo, which may be better suited to a smooth continuous pull, than a stepper motor. He has also taken pains to filter signals to reduce noise in the pulled strings.

Ray Minich wrote:More automation means more things that can go wrong, break, need calibrated, etc.

Donny Hinson wrote:As the saying goes..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Adding needless technology would only harm the instrument, IMHO.

My preferences are very traditional. I play a Sho-Bud Pro 1 through a Fender all tube amp, with a little spring reverb, and no effects. I hate being told what kind of light-bulbs to use in my home, and I despise those AWFUL CFL lamps. But I was an early adopter of LED flashlights, and I'm really excited about the LED lamps showing up on store shelves.

More technology could mean more things that can go wrong. OR... just different things.

WHAT IF someone can actually build a PSG with an electro-mechanical changer?

WHAT IF it could be built without crossbars, bellcranks, pedal or pull-rods? How much weight would that save? 10-20 pounds?

WHAT IF you could program your copedent, and program any pedal (or lever) to change any string 3 half-tones up or down?

WHAT IF you could easily load a saved copedent and auto-tune it?

Such an instrument, if done badly would be a nasty machine with no soul. But if done well? Consider a 4x5 S10 for under $1000, with auto-tuning, programmable copedent, 40 pounds in the case. Think about a growing pedal steel community. At some price/value point this could happen, so I'm keeping an open mind.

Dan

Field of Dreams - "If you build it they will come."

Georg Sørtun wrote: Wish I had more time for such a "useless" project ... especially now that I am (at least temporarily) physically handicapped and therefore cannot play my regular PSGs very well. Oh well...

The mother of invention, hardly a useless idea.
Someone will do it, as it's progress; however, is progress our most important product?

I'm reminded of playing a touch-sensitive keyboard that lacks the feedback to the fingers, or on-off damper pedals like the Tele,
without the feel of a mechanical pedal. Bonding tactically with the instrument is important, or else we'd be playing polyphonic Theremins.

A mechanical repair can be done in the field; I have my doubts about these electronic devices.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... 24#2363624

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=268388

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=268331

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... 59#1798359

I know there are different opinions of this topic. That's good, that's human. But here's a thought:

Guitars have been around for years. Ukeleles have been around for years. So have banjos, autoharps, pianos, etc, etc. Pedal steel guitars will exist exactly as they are for years to come.

But why stifle experimentation in technology? Maybe you don't want it or need it. GREAT! It could be that a system could come out of this that folks with disabilities that preclude them from operating a pedal or knee could use this new system to be able to play pedal steel guitar!

I'm reminded of something a woman said to me at a church I no longer attend. We were exploring a remodel of the front of the church. I brought up that the only place someone in a wheelchair could go in the church was the basement. I suggested we look at adding a ramp to the front entrance. The woman replied all huffy like and said these words" "Well, if the need all that, they need to go somewhere else!"

To my knowledge, no one has even been a member of that church in a wheelchair...

Pedal steel needs new folks of all types. And ideas of all types. We need those that experiment in copendents, and we need those that experiment in the building of a pedal steel guitar.

Interesting thoughts and concepts, but I think the current system works very well.

Henry Matthews wrote: Donny, I by no means am for the idea of a gizmo steel but it is inevitable that down the line, someone will invent another way of pulling strings and who knows, it may work and may even be better and it may even be cost effective. After all, electronics are cheaper now to make than something machined. I, like you, prefer to play the old way by never can tell what's in the future.

Henry, I only prefer the old way if it's better And I think it will be...for a long time to come. Fact is, the really big-volume factories, Fender, MSA, Sho~Bud, and the old Emmons place, are now gone, and I don't believe any of the low-volume builders that are left would be willing to take this project on, with it's relatively small R.O.I.. The instrument simply isn't popular enough anymore, and it's getting harder to play every year by all the players who want to keep changing it. I think that without some modicum of standardization and acceptance by the majority, popularizing the instrument will become increasingly difficult.

Also, it just happens to be my considered opinion that you don't become a better player by adding changes and altering tunings, you become a better player by mastering what you already have.

Also, it just happens to be my considered opinion that you don't become a better player by adding changes and altering tunings, you become a better player by mastering what you already have.

Donny, I agree with that whole heartedly.

Dan Robinson suggests that the pedal actuation would be by a switch, and bemoans the lack of "feel" from any mechanical resistance. So he sets out on a Luddite path, although he does soften his position later.

This thread crops up every 2 years or so, and there are a lot of people working on it quietly behind the scenes. There is NO suggestion that there would be "on-off" actuation, as in a switch. I'm amazed that anyone would ever make this "point". Everyone is looking for analogue sensing of pedal position, with active "feel" from springs at least.

I started sending pedal position using Hall effect devices and magnets. But it's way too non-linear. My current design uses these tiny 3-axis accelerometer chips which are so cheap now because of mobile phones and game controllers. This looks the best technique yet.

The potential to correct string 6 ONLY when 8 & 5 are raised (A/F), and similar combinations of "tweaks" which are only needed at times, would be easy with such an instrument. Better yet, several different copedents could be programmed in, or if a player is to sit at the instrument and he hasn't used it before, it would take seconds to program the pulls for him and store them.

The idea is "over the top", sure. But this sort of thinking is the engine of human endeavour. Who knows where it might lead?

It also appears that a sizable portion of players like the tone of heavy-fingered pull-release guitars. Servo, or stepper or whatever technology could probably allow a return to those fingers, with a spring nearly balanced to string tension, it should be fairly feasible.

Lane Gray wrote:It also appears that a sizable portion of players like the tone of heavy-fingered pull-release guitars.

Strange, it was always my opinion that the vast majority of players preferred p/p or all-pull guitars, and that most of those who played the pull-release guitars bought them because they were cheaper. And later, most all of them ditched their pull-release guitars for something more versatile and user friendly. I can't think of a single pro back in the '60s and '70s that played a pull-release guitar for any length of time. The Marlen camp (probably the most popular of those guitars) was always suspiciously devoid of big-name players.

I don't really care much what people play, but those, at least, have been my observations.

YMMV

Donny,
Bobbe Seymore mentioned many times how much he preferred ShoBud Permanents!
JB

An electro-mechanical (I like that word) changer would disassociate the stiffness of pedal action and length of pedal travel from the changes being made. Pedals and knee levers could be adjusted for the comfort of the player. Good ergonomics = less leg pain.

And another thing:

I discovered some years ago that my personal muscle memory can't handle more than 5+5. I often wish I had a a pedal that did something different, but I'm maxed out. I also notice that in any given song I don't use more than 3+4. But it's a different 3+4 for each kind of song. Being able to switch what the pedals and levers do on a song-by-song basis would make me very happy.

I have no doubt that in the 1950's, there were many players who resisted the idea of pedals. Imagine if the SGF had been around back then.
Donny says, "I don't really care much what people play...", and I agree. Let people who want the advantages of new technology develop and play electro-mechanical steel guitars. Time will tell whether it's a good idea or not. I'm just happy that there are a few inventors going in that direction.

i think all this servo-electro-mecho-computer-ish stuff could be taken the extra step to actually
play the steel for you.

Maybe one could play it using a keyboard! And a synth module!

An Electro-Mechanical Changer pedal/knee lever WILL happen. Traditional changer steel guitars WILL remain. Thats what I think anyway.
Consider the piano.
We now have touch sensitive, really fantastic sounding electric pianos for a fraction of the cost of a "real" piano. Yet "REAL" pianos remain and have not changed much in design, only in construction methods because of .. yup.. the industrial revolution.
By the way, someone earlier in this thread mentioned a polyphonic therimin. Thats my approach to the electric steel guitar with pedals. Make the thing talk.
The talent part is and will remain, how to draw the sounds out of the instrument that one hears in their head.

Will Cowell wrote:Dan Robinson suggests that the pedal actuation would be by a switch, and bemoans the lack of "feel" from any mechanical resistance. So he sets out on a Luddite path, although he does soften his position later.

Ouch, not so.... perish the thought, Will.

What I said was

The PSG has a certain "feel" when a pedal or knee lever is pressed. The sound of a change depends on how fast a pedal is pressed and released. So there should be some tactile feedback from the system. It's got to be more than just ON/OFF. A simple button press (mouse click) won't do it. ... there must be some graduated... tension for the duration of the pedal travel. Changer activation should track the amount a pedal is pressed.

And I did credit the design to which Scott shared a link for using

a pedal design that senses the press depth and offers some resistance.

I do not subscribe to "luddism" nor do I support the idea that "my karma ran over your dogma."

I think todays mechanical dedigns are brilliant. But how often does someone say they want to add a third pull to a pedal, but the action becomes too stiff. A good E/M system would offer a solution. Heck, you could even configure it to offer resistance proportional to the number of pulls and the gauge of those strings.

I can see advantages to a GOOD electro-mechanical design, and I would give the new instrument a LONG look, with a VERY open mind.

Dan

Bud Angelotti wrote:An Electro-Mechanical Changer pedal/knee lever WILL happen. Traditional changer steel guitars WILL remain. Thats what I think anyway.

I agree, there are possibilities not even mentioned (although B. Emmons once dreamed of further modifications,
like changing the tone with his mind via biofeedback sensors; why not change tunings and chords? Or body colors?)
Ultimately, the mind could play the thing. Look ma, no hands~
This is the sort of discussion that makes us look at the instrument, keeps us looking at the future.

Consider the piano.

You can feel the difference in mechanical keys and weighted keys.
You can feel the difference in a mechanical sustain pedal and an electronic one,
you'll feel the difference in a steel pedal. Tactile feedback IS important, or else, it's the polyphonic Theremin.

Think about the electric piano. When the first came out, there was no way the keys felt like a real piano. Now, in 2015, on many of them, you can't tell the difference.