Taper The Neck? - Or Not.

[richard37066]

Never gave the first thought to this until I started contemplating building one of these contraptions.

The neck on my guitar is tapered. The strings, at the changer, measure approximately 13/32 wider - in total - than at the nut. Now, I'm well aware that, if ya get the strings too close or too far apart at the changer end that it presents pickin' problems. Should the string spacing at the nut be of much concern? After all, when ya get up into "Hughey Land" you have to negotiate the bar across that wider span anyway.

On my classic guitar I can well understand the need for such a taper. It's a compromise where the ease of picking demands a wider spacing while the left hand formation of chords and scale runs is made easier with closer spacing of the strings.

I've done a little searching but haven't come up with any sort of consensus. Is there some hard-and-fast rule or reason which has escaped me? My first naive' thought is that, on the pedal steel, it shouldn't matter - that the strings being parallel to one another poses no problem or concern.

Please educate me.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Ross Shafer]

this is something I've been asking folks about as well...Check out the "ontrak" thread at SGF...Paul Redmond (brilliant guy) does not taper his necks, but picks what would be the approx. distance between strings in the picking area on a tapered setup and uses that spacing at the changer and at the nut.

I myself have thought that parallel string runs made more sense for a couple of reasons. That said...I'm currently doing some work on a Fender PS112 (the only one in existence) right now. It has parallel string runs and it sure seems weird to play up there near the nut. Being a twelve string...it seems mighty damn wide down there. This is just an impression from playing it only a bit...I've a feeling I'd get used to it in time...the 12 strings are another thing though...10 is enough to hurt my head.

On the same subject...I asked Bobby Bowman (great guy, great steel tech and player, designer of the now defunct "American Steel") his thoughts on this subject a few months ago and he said he didn't think it mattered either way functionally, but selling rigs with parallel strings would be next to impossible because most steel buyers are so traditional.

I always laugh a little when I hear tradition used when talking about an instrument that's only 60 years old or so.

[richard37066]

Ross -

YOU have that PS112? Is it yours or are you simply working on it? Regardless, I am double-green with envy!

As you may have gathered from a previous post of mine, I'm not too much concerned with damnable "tradition". I'm much more concerned with attempting to effect even a little advancement in the design of the instrument as are the members of this forum. With that thought in mind, I must say that I am NOT, in the least, interested in being a PSG manufacturer! There's too many out there, already!

What I AM interested in - for the most part - is the design and implementation of a PSG which will suit my desires and idiosynchrasies such that I can be quite happy with it each and every time that I park my butt in front of it.

I particularly appreciate your remarks about the 12-string spacing at the nut. I haven't decided whether I'll eventually attempt a D-10 or go with a S-12. Right now I'm leaning toward the S-12. You've given me a little food for thought. Gotta ponder it just a tad.

Oh. Ran into an ad for a PS210 that was a couple of years old. Whoever was selling it only wanted $350 for it! I think that I would have taken a second mortgage on the house in order to buy it. It's a beautiful instrument!

Please keep in touch.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Allan]

It's a matter of opinion generally I think but I do see how a 12 string instrument would possibly lead to a differing opinion. This has come up before in the lap steel section of the forum but without that extra consideration being thrown into the mix. LINK
Another thing worth knowing (though it may just be a 'geek' point in real world terms) is that a true , in tune, chord is not strictly possible under a 'slant' condition with a tapering string set up. And, yes, I can prove that. If I can get my drawings and numbers into a digestible, understandable format I will post them. (assuming anyone cares enough to want to see them!)

[richard37066]

Allan -

I've always enjoyed your posts on the forum and have respect for your opinions.

Right now, as you can well tell, I'm attempting to gather together as much information as I possibly can so as to do things right the first time around and reduce the experimentation aspect as much as possible.

And yes, I would be most interested in your drawings and data if it is not too much of a chore to gather it together. I do tend to be a "geek" about a lot of things but believe that there's no such thing as too much information. I think that I'm capable of seperating the wheat from the chaff and end up with the jewels regarding a subject.

My many thanks,

Richard

[Allan]

Hi Richard,

OK, you asked for it! I will try to make this as clear as I can. Firstly, I am only using three strings in the example. Thus, when I say, reference the 'taper version', 'XY' and 'XZ' chords, I am aware that a chord requires three notes to qualify as such. This, and other aspects, are for simplicity of description. I am not interested in getting into hair-splitting, semantic arguments with anyone who may read this.
I am well aware that it is 'geekie' and may (probably does) have no real world significance. In truth, I believe that to be the case since many, or even most, players do use bar slants with total success every day. I have no quantified numbers in the frequency or cents frame of reference so I suspect that the whole thing would vanish into the world of 'too small to really detect' and would, for sure, never be heard inside even the mildest vibrato.

OK, with that said and with reference to the drawings:
From the parallel example we can see that the 'XYZ' chord is achieved with the bar at position 1. (actually 'XYZ+an octave) If we now look at the bar in position 2 we arrive at what I have referenced as the 'XYZ slant chord'. It matters not whether this would make a real chord in the real world of real music.
Moving on to the tapered example we see that the 'XYZ' chord is still available to us at position one. However, the above 'XYZ slant chord' is unobtainable. The partials are available with a slight change in the bar angle between them. If we set up for the 'XY' combination the 'Z' note will be sharp. In the same way, the 'XZ' combination will give us a flat 'Y'.

parallel.jpg (25.5 KiB) Viewed 16733 times

taper.jpg (33.19 KiB) Viewed 16733 times

string table.jpg (26.19 KiB) Viewed 16733 times

Note that the numbers in the table refer to the string length behind the bar but have the same relevence as if they were the vibrating string length.
If this seems complicated it should come clear if the drawings are studied in conjunction with the table.

To keep the drawings readable I have only added dimensions to three decimal places - the calculations were made at thirty places and resolved to eleven places.
The point of the exercise is to show that the same three notes are not possible, on a parellel and a tapered string set and with the same open tuning applied to both, when we use a slanted bar. If the bridge and nut are them selves parallel and the bar follows the same line then the taper on the string set matters not. Half way between nut and bridge will represent half of the string length what ever it's relative angle may be. However, once the angle of the strings varies relative to each other, things change when a bar slant comes into the equation and that is the core of this situation.

Please, feel free to comment or point out any errors.

Still awake?

[Ross Shafer]

Richard; Yes these PS rigs are interesting...Fender made quite a large investment to just dump the project. This 112 is not mine, I'm just trying to get it up and running a good as possible in stock form...then may proceed with some mods to make it work better. This 112 was put together using parts from the more abundant (12 or to total I think) 210's...parts that were not really intended to work as well in the confines of the lesser space under the skirt of this S12.

A PS210 for $350!!!?!!!??..."a couple of years old"...so your talkin' decades ago right? One just sold on ebay last fall for around $3200...a screamin' deal really...I lost that auction by $25 and am now kind of glad I did.

Alan: well done on the differing string length explanato (I know its not a real word). I agree with you on this and also agree that its pretty deep into the geek zone and doesn't cause any problem in real world playing. A similar issue to the differing string lengths caused by linear/pseudo-linear type changers (Excel, Lamar, Anapeg) As well as some older rigs that have finger string surfaces that are not concentric to the pivot...something I was surprised to see.

[richard37066]

Allan -

No, I didn't fall asleep! Tol ya I was a "geek" about such things and your presentation was on the money. In the real world, I tried to find a couple of three-note chords which would resolve to another with a simple bar slant. They sounded sorta yucka but also found out that I could achieve the same chord resolution with a combination of pedals and levers. The usefulness of the bar slant with parallel strings is also open to question since the fret spacings, as you well know, change with distance across the slant. Still and all, I am favoring the parallel configuration. It's one of those intuitive things which says that one thing is "right" while another is sorta "wrong". The point has been made that it would be a boogerbear to sell an instrument with parallel strings since it is not "conventional" or "traditional". To reiterate my feeling stated elsewhere, to hell with "convention" and "tradition". This will be MY instrument and I'll probably be the only one to ever play it. I'll go with what I deem to be "right". Since we all started out not knowing a pedal from a lever, I guess that I can become accustomed to the parallel configuration in short order. Besides, it makes me feel better. Ain't that a good enough reason?

Ross Shafer -

I just had to check my statement concerning the PS210. Went back to "pedalsteelguitars.org" and re-searched the posting. Found it on page 55 of the listings. Further, it was shown as a listing on 9/25/2010 on the site map. Trying to chase it down further, the only available link led me to the Guitar Center site where the trail went stone cold. And, yup, the price shown was $350 dollars. This may well have been an auction, but there was no indication as such. I'd sorta hate to think that the seller didn't know what he had and let it go for a song while someone else made out like a bandit!

I'm mindful that Georg Sortun suggested, in a discussion on the SGF, that the changer on that instrument be the basis for a new version of same. The "knife edges" within the mechanism are simplicity personified. I may just spend some time with it in an attempt to eliminate those long actuating bars and the "flying wings" in front of the changer. Once again, simplicity should prevail. I'm also mindful of the fact that Gene Fields has brought that same penchant for simplicity to the GFI guitars. Mine is a snap to work on.

In sum, I'm learning about a ton of stuff on this forum - thanks to guys like Allan and yourself (and others) so I'm not nearly intimidated by the thought of putting my own version of the PSG together as I was when I first entertained the thought many months ago. To be sure, I'll have some more seemingly naive' questions but I rest assured that someone here will come to my rescue.

Anyone else have some input on the "tapered" versus "parallel" string question? I'd welcome any comment.

Respectfully,

Richard

[burt]

Richard,
I don't know if you have seen this or not, there is a lot of info on the PS 210 here:

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... 0&start=25

[Ross Shafer]

just in case you haven't seen them...Basil Henriques (muchas gracias Basil!!!) has posted 5 or 6 vids on the PS210 on you tube.

here's a link to one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo_2gz_3 ... re=related