| Author |
Topic: finger changer |
Steven Black
From:
Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 27 Mar 2004 4:31 pm |
|
| What is the width and length of a finger changer, and can they make larger? |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From:
Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 7:07 am
|
|
Steven,
What is a "finger changer"?
carl |
|
|
|
Steven Black
From:
Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 10:58 am
|
|
Carl, the finger changer is the part that the string hooks into with the ball end of the string, as the pedal is depressed the string stretches when the bottom of the finger changer is pulled raising the string,
does a wider finger give a better tone, say the fenders used the wider finger changers where as the newer steels use a smaller narrower finger changer. steveb. |
|
|
|
Fred Shannon
From:
Rocking "S" Ranch, Comancheria, Texas, R.I.P.
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 12:05 pm
|
|
Steven, perhaps you kinda' got them reversed, that's a "changer finger". And I'm not currently knowledgeable of different width's effect on "tone". ('Darn, that word will probably start a new one!')
fred
------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real
|
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 12:38 pm
|
|
Steven, the width of the finger affects only the string spacing, not the tone. The tone (of the changer, that is) is affected, primarily, by 4 factors. These are...
a) The the type of metal used to make the fingers
b) The mass of the fingers
c) The radius of the fingers
d) what the fingers stop against (whether it's the body (as in a p/p), or a stop-plate (as in most all-pull guitars)
Other factors of changer design may enter into the equation (such as how the changer mounts, and the type of pivot used), but these are probably still the "big four".[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 29 March 2004 at 02:37 PM.] |
|
|
|
John Fabian
From:
Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 2:39 pm
|
|
Donny,
Exactly why do you think that the width of the changer finger doesn't affect the mass?
John Fabian
www.steelguitar.com |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From:
Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 3:12 pm
|
|
The following is what the late Ron Lashely Sr told me several years before his untimely death"
(paraphrasing)
"When we were building the protoype Emmons' P/P, we tried various metals, radiuses and diameters of changer fingers. We discovered that as the diameter got larger, there was less string breakage, but a lessoning of sustain. We also found that the best combinations was using soft regular aluminum and 3/4" diameter fingers riding on a 1/2" axle."
I believe they settled on 9/16" axles. Possibly for more strength. I am not sure. He also said that the best sound came when "there was 1/8 inch of metal between the axle and the outside of the finger." So, if this is the case, then using 9/16" axles would have sacrificed a bit of sound.
He never mentioned the width of the finger. So I have no idea about that.
carl |
|
|
|
Steven Black
From:
Gahanna, Ohio, USA
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 5:43 pm
|
|
| Hey Guys thanks for the responses, I was not sure on the changer finger, I noticed an old fender 1000 had the large fingers on it, and everyone said that these guitars had really good tones to them even though the guitar was a cable guitar, but I thought that the changer finger was the reason why it had good sound, not that I am interested in one of these guitars, I am not interested in owning one, just curious why they are not using the large changer fingers today. steve. |
|
|
|
Jim Palenscar
From:
Oceanside, Calif, USA
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 5:49 pm
|
|
| I had a conversation with Carson Wells at the Dallas show where he mentioned that it was his thinking that the addition of very thin(.005")nylon washers on either side of the finger helped the tone and sustain. In thinking about that I could make an argument to support such an idea and wondered if any of you had any thoughts about it? |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 28 Mar 2004 6:17 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Exactly why do you think that the width of the changer finger doesn't affect the mass? |
Because it's only one of many dimensions that comprise the design. Width alone (except for string spacing) means nothing.
Example...
John has a board that's 1" wide
Dave has a board that's 2" wide
Which is heavier?
Obviously, with only one dimension given (the width), not enough information is available to form a conclusion about the comparative masses of the two boards.
|
|
|
|
John Fabian
From:
Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 29 Mar 2004 2:19 am
|
|
Donny,
| Quote: |
| the width of the finger affects only the string spacing, not the tone |
| Quote: |
| Width alone (except for string spacing) means nothing. |
The second quote is not the same as what you said in the first quote. I realize the second statement is what you say you meant.
John Fabian
www.steelguitar.com [This message was edited by John Fabian on 29 March 2004 at 05:28 AM.] |
|
|
|
Roger Shackelton
From:
MINNESOTA (deceased)
|
Posted 29 Mar 2004 3:13 am
|
|
The cable operated Fender guitars have case hardened steel changer fingers that are about 3/8ths of an inch wide.
Roger |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From:
Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 29 Mar 2004 7:54 am
|
|
Roger I do believe you are correct.
This however is the later model Fender PSG's with the newly designed "moving bridge" type changer. The original 400 and 1000 model fingers were very narrow. Probably not much thicker than 1/16". I imagine these were also case hardened. Not sure.
carl |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 29 Mar 2004 2:36 pm
|
|
You're right, Carl! The earliest 400's and 1000's had thin, case-hardened steel (sheet metal, really) fingers that pulled the strings over a fixed, rod-shaped bridge. To me, they sound very similar to the later ("moving bridge", as you termed it) changer guitars, supporting my view that the width of the fingers is inconsequential in the tone of these guitars. Personally, I would speculate that the "sound" of these Fender guitars is mostly due to the massive pieces of wood that Fender used for the body, far more substantial than the thin, glued-together boards that are used on the bodies of most all other pedal steels.
John: I take great pains to be concise in my postings. I regret that you misunderstood exactly what I was trying to convey to Steven.  |
|
|
|
