The Steel Guitar Forum

The materials, geometries, and joining methods used in the making of a PSG will/may all have an effect upon the possible end performance and sound of the instrument; most folk will agree with that statement. I say "possible end performance" because the player has what may be the largest input to that equation.

Ignoring playing ability for the moment, how do PSG manufacturers justify their claims about their use of materials, methods, and techniques on the performance and sound of the resulting instrument?

How important is body material to performance (physical stability, pitch stability, pitch/tuning change with temperature and load, etc.)

How important is neck material?

How important is having the changer mechanism tied to the body, ..to the neck?

How important is the diameter of the changer , ..the nut/rollers?

How important are changer and nut/roller materials?

How about pickup characteristics, and proximity to the string?

How important is the method of mounting the pickup to the neck, ..to the body?

What part does color and or finish play (other than appearance)?

What about cross shaft material, shape, length, termination?

How about the stops material, configuration, location?

Keyless/gearless vs keys is another hot button. Flexing of the plate with changer action on some keyless designs can be an issue, particularly on the middle strings, and particularly on instruments with more strings per neck; Material/geometry tradeoff?

Chances are that each reader/player will assign a different priority to the above list for both performance, and sound. What are your priorities?

Wood (what kind, cut which way), aluminum (machined, cast, extruded), Tool block, carbon fibre = graphite reenforced materials, ..what is your choice and why?

Most of the performance and sound issues can be quantified (reduced to numbers) as opposed to qualified (statements like better, warmer, sharper, etc.) As far as I know, manufacturers claims are not backed up with comparative performance and sound data, ..it sure would be nice to have such a comparison chart, ..I seriously doubt that manufacturers would make an issue of any known weaknesses in their instruments, so let the buyer beware.

First issues of anything (autos, bikes, hearing aids, etc.) have the highest probability of exhibiting defects, and most problems show up early (mean time to failure curve issue).

What are your preferences in instrument materials and construction, and why? Because I like it, or because my hero plays it is an acceptable answer.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by ed packard on 19 June 2002 at 06:37 AM.]</p></FONT>

Ed---
A wonderful project would be to poll all the manufacturers on these issues, then compile their reponses into one comprehensive document. Next, make it available for review or downloading by all Forum participants. Much more meaningful than soliciting opinions from hackers like me, IMO. I notice you're retired........ but I wouldn't presume to impose on your time.

While it is not likely that the PSG would ever be subjected to a "Consumer's Report" test, it would be nice to know.

One thing for sure, one is never going to find it out by talking to the manufacturers. Nor the players. This is due to a human nature quirk that says always, "mine is the best".

Of course the aforementioned magazine has proven this just taint so many times over. I suppose if I had to pick just one review of the thousands I have read, it would be in 1990 in their annual "auto review". They listed the three best cars that the average consumer could afford to buy;

1. Toyota Cressida

2. Nissan Maxima

3. Honda Accord

But the real poignancy of this review was in their recommendations. They said words to this affect,

"The Toyoto Cressida was rated best by our testers. However, it costs $5,000 more than the Maxima. And none of our testers felt that is was worth THAT much more than the Maxima. Therefore we recommend the Maxima."

This of course, is typical in any rating of anything including PSG's. One must weigh the costs against value.

Example: The Anapeg.

Some have stated (including me) that it is the finest built PSG in the world. However, it costs over 6 grand and the wait time is now approaching 4 yrs! So it does not alway follow that the best is the best after all

Ed Packard, where in the pluperfect halleluhjah have you been Son? We beena missin you dear friend.

Love you Ed, and all the rest of you,

carl

"Mine is the best"

Bill Stafford

<SMALL>"Mine is the best"</SMALL>

Bill, in what year was your EMMONS push/pull manufactured?

Rick

HO HO HO!

Bill Stafford

Carlos I don't know about Pluperfect etc but I have been hiding and having a place built in Show Low AZ, ..I wanted it in time for the Forest fires!!!

Mr Stafford, ..as I recall you and Buddy E debated who had the longest little white bar, ..so I will take the "mines the best" comment with a grain of salt.

The reason for the post/thread was to see if the psg world was ready for some "real" design analysis etc.. As the next day another thread started that has led to at least some comparative measurements on the A & B pedal detuning (they refered to it as "cabinet drop") I will not continue with this thread. I hope that the measurement trend continues, but with a bit more specificity, ..such as how long the cross bars are, what materials, what size and shape, how terminated, where the tension of change is applied to the bar (some instruments use the outside(end) of the bar and some the inside) how many strings are changed by how many halftones per pull, where the stops are located, string brand and actual dia measurement etc.

Mr Townsend; Thanks but as you may be able to tell from some of my comments, it would be a rather lengthy happening as I would want to do a side by side comparison of all/many instruments with good equipment such as spectrum analyzers, stress and strain measurement equipment, thermal chambers, etc.. I am up to it, but don't have the equipment at my disposal any more. This is stuff that the manufacturers should be doing but they have the problem of making a living and to do this takes time, money, and a background in those fields.

The approach taken is some of the measurements on the other thread will be fine for players choosing an existing instrument but for a designer a more detailed approach would be of better use.

It is possible these days to model most if not all of the critical materials, geometries, dimensions, stresses etc. including even pickup network and location for various excitation points and string terminations using computer software. Bill Stafford has seen these techniques used on piezo sensors, hydrodynamics of hard disc head bearings, rotating disks, etc.. Too bad that the PSG industry does not attack the problems with these tools. Even the "new" MSA appears to have just changed the body material. I am not sure what the advantage is other than maybe weight and maybe body manufacturing consistancy.

Maybe folk will run another semi quantified thread re changer diameter/material, string type, and number of continuous timed pumps of the B pedal before the G# breaks. The Excel and Anapeg should win as they have a partially linear changer mechanism, ..rate of tension change per pump is important here.

In my opinion, the changer belongs on the other end of the instrument, and can be made completely linear thus increasing the changer capacity re number of raises and lowers as well as the amount of raising and lowering. Any manufacturers want to persue some of the above?

Edp

Ed, I am sorry that I did not see your post before I started my questions about cabinet drop. You are asking the questions that I want to ask but don't know enough to do so. I would like to see quantitative comparisons as well. I dearly would like to see a "best practices" manual with all the answers to your questions in one place. After 50 plus years all of the manufacturers should be fine tuning their products rather than starting from scratch to design new guitars. I would prefer to have a choice of cosmetic appearance and sonic quality while knowing that the mechanical aspects of the guitar are well taken care of. I live in the Pacific Northwest. With the exception of Sierra guitars in Oregon, I do not have any dealers in the area where I can sit down at a variety of steels to compare them before I buy. I am basically "shooting in the dark" when I go to buy a guitar. Unless I spend a lot of money to travel to Texas and Tennessee, I would have to buy a guitar sight unseen. Reputation goes a long way but it ultimately does not make it easy to spend $2000 to $3000 for a guitar without having a clue about its quality.

I am getting off the subject but I would like to see your questions answered because they are my questions too.

Karlis

Thanks Ed for taking my comment with that grain of salt. That is just how it was intended. I am fortunate to have spent time with you regarding this instrument we all love. Have learned so much, and now I just have to remember it....
Hope the fires leave you alone there in Sho Low.
Bill Stafford

ED: Where do I recall the statement: Inquiring minds need to know from ??

In any case, it is a breath of fresh air (and no pun intended here...) to see you posting on the Forum again. I surely hope you come through the fires OK !!

Regards, Paul <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 23 June 2002 at 07:52 PM.]</p></FONT>

Ed, if you had to evacuate from the fires, I hope you took all your important stuff with you, i.e., steel guitar, amps, pictures, kids, dogs, wife...naw..

Seriously, hope all is well and that the fires do not endanger you or yours.

I have been pickin since 1948,if all the manufacturers would send me their latest instrument I would do the evaluation for free.( nice guy eh. )

Just heard from Mr. Packard. He is back home in Sho Low, Ariz., safe and sound. Did not loose his new home. Glad for that. Hope the fires stay away.

BS.

I like the tuning keys on the left side of the guitar (I can't turn tuners with my right hand without removing my picks). I also like to tune the opens without a "tool" (that's why I don't like p/p's and keyless designs).

Yes, I do own a "holy grail" Emmons p/p, but it could never be my "favorite" guitar.

Donny, you probably know this, but...

The Sierra keyless doesn't require a tool to tune it. Neither does the GFI.

Glad to hear that Ed is safe.

------------------
<small><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic) Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6)

Well folks, the great AZ cookout is over for Show Low and area, so back to the PSG "esoteric" stuff, ..thanks for the concern, ..a number of local pickers offered a place to stay but the pup and I wandered the back roads.

Bill Stafford, ..was that a "grain of salts" or did you mean a dose of salts? What you may have learned from me is minor with respect to what I learned about the PSG while hanging around you.

Karlis; Not to worry, ..keep the questions and ideas coming. This instrument is not just for the super pickers, it is also a great mental toy.

Donny; Let me ramble on about the comment re on which end the changer belongs. When the standard (spanish) guitar was laid flat, tuned to a chord, and played with a spike (as the story is told) the tuning keys stayed on the left (for most cases) and the strings spacings tapered from far apart on the right to closer together on the left. Then the lap steels (solid) appeared and used the same approach (tradition). String count was increased and string spacing varied a bit. So far there was no changer mechanism with which to be concerned, but the magnetic pickups had been added. The pickups were/are microphonic, but with no changer it made little or no difference to the pickers.

Now comes the PSG with the changer mechanism on the right, close to the magnetic pickups. Pickups were "deadened" re microphonics by using wax on the windings, and some degree of isloation mounting techniques. This gets us to where the PSG is now, ..its grandfather was a guitar, but the PSG is closer to a concert harp laid flat, squashed together, and having table legs. The string taper from right to left is still there, except for a few pickers instruments.

There are a variety of new pickup devices and techniques available today. As long as the changer mechanism is on the right, the convenient use of devices such as the piezo electric sensors is impeded. These piezos can be used for individual string pickups, thus allowing programmed string groups, and a number of other presently unavailable possibilities, but the piezos will work better with the changer mechanism moved to the left end of the guitar as they are quite sensitive to mechanical noises.

Another blockage to the PSG is the rotary changer. It appears be easier to get more halftone changes, and more raises and lowers per string with a linear changer, ..the problem is that string pitch is a function of both tension and length, hence if the linear changer changes string length we will have a pitch problem at some point. String breakage is a function of tension and of the continual bending (you country boys will recall how to break baling wire by bending). What looks good to me is a constant string length and a linear pull. This can be had with the linear changer on the left, and the string passing over a rod with a low coefficient of friction (such as zirconium) at each end.

The changer might be made so that the string taper can remain the same, but I prefer to have the string spacing a constant, ..wide all the way. With the changer on the left, the maximum amount of string motion for a given change would be at the left end, hence any mechanical noise generated would be at the opposite end from the pickup(s), and dampened by the hand and the bar in most cases.

This is not to say that the PSG as it exists is not sufficient for the sounds that it is called upon to make today, but a redesign could open up many possibilities that are at present not available.

Comments?<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by ed packard on 30 June 2002 at 01:50 PM.]</p></FONT>

Great ideas, ED. Your "programmable" combinations of individual string groups sounds kinda like an autoharp, though. Anyway, I think we all agree that this instrument has potential far beyond anything that has been done with it yet (even though what HAS been done is beautiful listening). I'm sure the instrument, and music in general, will continue to undergo change.

Gil; I had not thopught of the autoharp analogy... To extend the "programmable" concept, ..arpegiation, picking patterns, pitch shift, string bending, and just about any of the existing and "to be" electronic signal processing effects and controls could be applied once single string (individual) pickup technology and "computer control" is applied. External effects boxes/units are used now, but the effects are also found in certain computer programs. Integrating the "hand held" computer concept into the PSG will allow more unique sounds and controls including on board tuning meter, electronic tuning changes, fret boards with programmable information such as scales, chord note locations etc.. The fret board could be an LCD or Plasma screen or similar.

These ideas may not fit with the "traditionalist" but neither did pedals and levers in their early days.

Applying some of the "virtual reality" controls is a further extension of the "programmable" concept, ..MIT's media lab is playing with some great toys along this line.