| Author |
Topic: Integrated Changer tuner |
Olie Eshleman
From:
Seattle, WA
|
Posted 8 Jan 2010 2:20 pm |
|
I am thinking about purchasing on of Ed Packards 14 string sierras. The only real X factor for me is the integrated Changer/Tuner. Ed has been very helpful and has done his homework, and Tom Baker seems to be a more than capable builder.
Anyone besides Ed tried one of these? I am in Seattle and will probably have to buy something without a chance to play it. Just looking for some pros and cons. Thanks!
Here's pic from this link:
http://sierrasteels.com/pages/pst/index.html
 |
|
|
|
Gary Cosden
From:
Florida, USA
|
Posted 8 Jan 2010 2:57 pm
|
|
| I play a Sierra and I can attest to the very high build quality. I don't know Ed personally and I have never played or owned a guitar with this exact tuner mechanism so perhaps my input will not be all that helpful but I just have the sense that Ed's very straightforward design combined with the build quality of Sierra makes for a scenario I would personally have no fear of whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Doug Earnest
From:
Branson, MO USA
|
Posted 8 Jan 2010 4:25 pm
|
|
| If people would accept change more readily most steels would be built like this. It makes perfect sense in my mind. |
|
|
|
J D Sauser
From:
Wellington, Florida
|
Posted 9 Jan 2010 7:46 am
|
|
I built an integrated changer-tuner layout just around the turn of the millennium which was developed by fellow foumite Rob Segal and myself.
It was a quest I had in mind since the first time ever I laid my hands on a pedal steel guitar.
My main goal, was to have a clean "luthier-grade" bridge with NO large radius (form changer fingers) and no mechanical "clutter" on the "sound" end of the guitar. 90% of the time, a steeler's sound happens in between his bar on the left and the bridge. If the bridge is shaped to accommodate mechanical issues (like the bending of strings over an oversized radius) instead of the best possible form for the purpose of TONE (documented by over 1000 years of research thru trial an error) the more solid part of the two WILL AFFECT the tonal qualities of the instrument the most and sadly, in a detrimental manner.
For the first model, we used an existing guitar frame an modified mechanics.
As for a prototype it was enough of a success to prove my point.
After being presented at the TSGA show of 2000 or 2001 to three marvelous players (sadly, two of which have left this world since) we did some further tests, some eventually so drastic that it ended with the destruction of the instrument's frame/body. I still have all the hardware.
Like Ed's "Sierra", it was a keyless design, using existing changer parts, modified to incorporate a "keyless" tuning system. Using an existing changer, put's the string spacing to equal to what one would expect that the bridge, effectively setting the string in a perfect parallel layout. This is not just esthetically questionable but was also criticized by PSG players testing the instrument as to it's ease of playability.
I later designed a completely new keyless changer-tuner design so reduced in width, so that it would place the string at a spacing typical on most PSG's at the nut. It can be done.
However, I am currently designing a similar arrangement (changer AND tuning on the left / clean bridge on the right) but this time with a regular tapered neck and regular KEY HEAD tuner. The system will equal or surpass changing capabilities of current standard all pull PSG's (raising AND lowering at the key head end). This model will now (well now... it's a project I expect could lead will into 2011) be completely built to specs and include other drastic changes from what is today seen produced by the "industry", including a floating sound board, moving instead of tilting levers and so much more.
My main goal, may be different than Ed's. Although we have chatted briefly on and off, I can't make a statement to that effect.
I have always used some of the most famous NON-pedal steels as a benchmark for my efforts, since I feel, that since the introductions of bridge changers, the PSG has lost some qualities and picked up several characteristics of at least questionable desirability. This is not meant to claim a "vintage" sound, but a clear, CLEAN and free of "sizzly" buzzes, with a decay which can be controlled so naturally a volume pedal is not a "must" anymore.
IMO, and subsequently the opinion of one of the most established guitar and PSG pickup builders after having been presented the initial prototype, the basic layout change also opens the door to a review of pickup design for PSG, so much can the tonal characteristics change.
Meanwhile, I will need and welcome help and input from fellow forumites and builders as well as parts makers and people who know of sources for parts needed. I will post later to that effect.
Anyways, this is probably way beyond the scope of the OP's initial question and I hope it will not be perceived as me hijacking his thread.
My recommendation is, if you can handle the parallel string layout, I understand is also found on Ed's guitar, at least give it a try. I for one would love to have that privilege too some day.
... J-D.
Last edited by J D Sauser on 9 Jan 2010 10:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Ross Shafer
From:
Petaluma, California
|
Posted 9 Jan 2010 8:42 am
|
|
| got any pics you can share JD? |
|
|
|
J D Sauser
From:
Wellington, Florida
|
Posted 9 Jan 2010 9:19 am
|
|
| Ross Shafer wrote: |
| got any pics you can share JD? |
Ross, I am yet a bit undecided about if I make this a fully public process. I will gladly show pictures of the past and also, share some input about some of the more "drastic" tests we did (the ones which eventually led to the destruction of the body of our prototype).
Before and all thru the time I and later Robert and I developed that prototype, I toyed about using CAD, but eventually didn't. I also just acquired my first digital camera shortly thereafter. So, it's all in a big ol' folder... on paper. But I want to scan it all in since I've come to hate paper even more than computers (which is a lot!  ).
My next efforts will all be on CAD in 3D... which is something I am now only in the process of learning to be proficient at.
When we brought in our creation to Dallas, I had the whole thing camouflaged. While all artists who plaid it, understood, I felt particularly bad, since Maurice Anderson, whom has always been a personal friend also was not shown what was going on, which I always felt he could have perceived as a token of distrust, but he too understood.
Let me just preview to you, that our guitar did not have the refined looks of Ed's. We just basically butchered an ol' MSA LEFTY we were so lucky to find for little money. Our changer-tuner is as "sophisticated" and I would like to think "well built" as I can see Ed's is... but Ed's whole guitar is clearly a finished and very presentable guitar which could easily grace the cover of a record sleeve or a stage... which ours, being just a prototype of concepts was certainly not. I shudder by the thought that our guitar would have been seen by an unprepared (unwarned) viewing audience.
I think that I will open my own thread, once I am ready and prepared to share pictures and discuss this any further, as my efforts were not the subject of this thread. But I felt I'd share some back ground so the OP and readers would see why I would recommend to at LEAST give Ed's guitar a try... Even knowing Ed and his passion for perfection, science and trial as little as I only had the privilege to, I know, I would give it a shot any time!
... J-D.
Last edited by J D Sauser on 9 Jan 2010 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Ross Shafer
From:
Petaluma, California
|
Posted 9 Jan 2010 9:38 am
|
|
| I understand JD...If can help you with any CAD conundrums lemme know. I sent you an email as well. |
|
|
|
