The Steel Guitar Forum

I have always noticed that the mass of a slide bar makes a pretty huge difference in tone/timbre, and most of the time it just sounds better with to terminate the string with a heavier bar..Soooo...going from there, I am guessing that more massive fingers, more mass in the changer in general is most likely going to be a better idea.

Perhaps steel instead of aluminum would be a better choice? And also (inertia issues aside) more massive fingers would be a better idea.

What are your individual thoughts on the sonic character of more massive changers as opposed to lightweight aluminum?

And going further, perhaps even the roller nut could somehow be made to impart more "gravitas"

Thoughts?

Changer should be on the left, and the bridge should be one heavy hunk.

Earnest Bovine wrote:Changer should be on the left, and the bridge should be one heavy hunk.

I don't see any reason that the bridge should not be massive other than the design challenge of "solidifying" the rollers. No doubt a lot of energy gets channeled away to no real advantage on both ends of the strings.

I had a Fender 2000 here before I sold it due to weight. It does have great tone. I think most of that tone was due to better/different termination methods at the ends of the strings more than the pickups and overall mass

The heavier bridge/changer will likely sound brighter, emphasizing the sound of the string itself, and negating the resonances of the body. Lighter bridge/changer assemblies will pass more string vibration into the body, which usually results in a rounder and smoother tone. (Think: the sound of a pull/release.)

My2cents, anyway.

Fat fingers, fat tone. I suggest steroid injections into the fingers.

Donny Hinson wrote:The heavier bridge/changer will likely sound brighter, emphasizing the sound of the string itself, and negating the resonances of the body. Lighter bridge/changer assemblies will pass more string vibration into the body, which usually results in a rounder and smoother tone. (Think: the sound of a pull/release.)

My2cents, anyway.

Rounder smoother tone is certainly the tone I am after, but I have seen a lot of round smooth solid body guitars of all persuasions. I suspect the real enemy is "deadness" due to loss of energy at the ends of the strings. The resonance of the body is certainly worth investigating after I figure out the "mass" issue.

From what I've observed, at least to my ears, a big steel axle and a thin aluminum finger gives me the tone I like. Early Sho Bud permanents and Emmons guitars share this configuration. I think that the big axle adds a lot to the tone, but I think that the thinner aluminum finger is what brings it all home.

Dave

Donny mentions pull-release. We lost something when we moved on. I have never felt that aluminium is a very musical metal. Steel fingers for me, and save weight elsewhere. I sense a danger in this thread of "bridge" and "nut" getting confused, so be precise please

On my Dekley the fingers are chromed and with some hardening process done in the chroming. It does have great sustain but I guess that's a combination of different things. I like Dennis's suggestion of steroid shots in the fingers though. I might look into that.

David Ball wrote:From what I've observed, at least to my ears, a big steel axle and a thin aluminum finger gives me the tone I like. Early Sho Bud permanents and Emmons guitars share this configuration. I think that the big axle adds a lot to the tone, but I think that the thinner aluminum finger is what brings it all home.

Dave

"The big steel axle" probably provides the termination mass in that case.

Ian Rae wrote:Donny mentions pull-release. We lost something when we moved on. I have never felt that aluminium is a very musical metal. Steel fingers for me, and save weight elsewhere. I sense a danger in this thread of "bridge" and "nut" getting confused, so be precise please

Pull release is absolutely the way to go. Raises/lowers on opposite ends is a good trick imo, but I intend to have *less* moving parts

I'm sure they're both lovely - please disregard my mindless prejudice.

There are truly fantastic machines available, and done a lot of different ways. When I say "That's the way to go" ,I am speaking of the economic advantages. One thing that does not need to be compromised is tone. Overall Tone is simply a matter of design and costs nothing extra to achieve. Imo of course.

Pickups, rigidity, mass at the string ends will get you where you need to be.

Duplicate

I agree on controlled rigidity. Mass may be the only viable way to do it considering the fingers have to move.

The first Sho-Buds had skinnier axles than later. The first Seventeen Emmons guitars had skinnier axles than later. The first Emmons fingers were fatter cast fingers. In November and December 1964 Emmons transitioned to a fatter axle and the “normal” Emmons fingers.
The reason why the first Emmons Bolt-Ons from October 1964 did not have a ledge on the tailpiece, as commonly seen on later Bolt-ons, is that the axle was so skinny a ledge was not necessary.
I prefer the sound of the skinny axle Permanents and the skinny axle Emmons guitars. But the other variables, such as solid nuts on the Sho-Buds and the closed rollers on the Emmons Keyheads, and the far fewer moving parts, in my opinion, lend to what I hear as a preferred sound. I like the sound of guitars with few moving parts (solid fingers) and not much screwed into the cabinet.

Mass and solid bridge is Les Paul thinking, vs Stratocaster thinking. I think one of the keys to the Emmons Wraparound sound is that it is the only Emmons where the changer is not solidly connected to the endplate. But, that too is it’s weakness. On the earliest wraparounds the bass side of the E9 neck changer and the treble side of the C6 changer will move or flex when pedals exert a change. These ends of the changers are not given the support of the front and rear aprons. But they sound great, but you need to compensate with the bar. Fall 1964 Wraparound changers had longer feet on the axle pillows, or axle supports, to minimize the can opener effect. Subsequent Emmons designs fixed the changer to the neck, which is bolted to the endplate (typical post October 1964 Bolt-on design) or connected the changer to the endplate ( cut tail design.)

Ian Rae wrote:Donny mentions pull-release. We lost something when we moved on. I have never felt that aluminium is a very musical metal. Steel fingers for me, and save weight elsewhere. I sense a danger in this thread of "bridge" and "nut" getting confused, so be precise please

Back in the 70's I worked as an agent in the UK for ZB guitars. Zane Beck owned the company first, and eventually Tom Brumley bought it. Tom sent over 20 changer roller caps to Eric Snowball, owner of ZB (UK). ZB's were using stainless steel roller caps, and Tom had a number of polished 'aloominum' roller caps made. He felt that they would not make much difference to the tone of the ZB guitar.

Eric asked me to try them out, and report back to Tom on my observations. Once on the guitar, the aluminium caps being highly polished looked no different to the stainless ones. I played my guitar through my amp using my usual settings, and couldn't hear a scrap of difference. The new caps had the same musicality as the old stainless steel ones. They were cheaper to make, and their functionality was fine.

If, and I saw no evidence of this, the polished aluminium caps developed grooves being made from softer metal, it was a 5 minute job to replace them and get more years of use.

When in the case, was the weight of the ZB on the changer, or were their blocks to suspend the changer fingers away from the case? Did the first ZBs go into the case strings down or strings up?
Actually, that is a good question. Which guitar company was first to have their guitars go into the case strings down and when?

Thank everyone for helping me in estimating this. I will add this. That old Fender D10 (1968) by far had the best overall tone I have heard. Obviously it weighed a ton.
I do think I will go with steel for reasons of longevity.

Chris Lucker wrote:When in the case, was the weight of the ZB on the changer, or were their blocks to suspend the changer fingers away from the case? Did the first ZBs go into the case strings down or strings up?
Actually, that is a good question. Which guitar company was first to have their guitars go into the case strings down and when?

Both ZBs I owned in the 70s (a 71 S10 and mid 70's D10) went intlo the case upside down with the body supportec on blocks in thd case. Can't say about prior years.

Interesting what Ken says about those caps. You'd think that the softer aluminium would sound dull compared to stainless. This suggests that it's not the caps that matter but what's underneath.