Changer Fingers

[richard37066]

Burt -

I've gotta disagree with ya, son. I posted my homespun theory about what causes the groove in changer fingers some many months ago on the SGF. No one listened. Now I find a reference - backed up with laboratory experimentation - which supports that same notion. See my "nerdy" reference in a post above. As an example, if you repeatedly played the 5th string on your guitar but NEVER activated the "A" pedal, would a groove be worn in the finger? Most assuredly. In this instance, it's the vibration of the string against the finger which is causing the abrasion. In toto, it should be the sum of our collective opinions - not just one.

Almost in the same breath on the SGF I bemoaned the notion that folks would staunchly defend the use of aluminum for conjectural reasons such as "increased sustain", "better tone", yada, yada, yada. None of that has been researched and firm conclusions drawn. I lauded my stainless steel fingers - for obvious reasons - and was totally ignored. Now, if someone wants to use aluminum fingers - for whatever reason - and is willing to endure the aggravation of having to polish out the grooves every now and then and while attempting NOT to alter the radius of the finger with a flat spot then, by all means, have at it. My stainless fingers have 3 1/2 years of playing on them and show no sign of grooves. Can't hardly beat that.

Ross -

Your precision collet idea is not so nutty. I've seen it used in a couple of laboratory-type experiments so as to precisely locate the termination of the string. If it were used in a linear-pull changer then we're back to that argument concerning the scale length of the string changing with every raise or lower. You'll no doubt recall that brouhaha on the SGF concerning that subject. If I'm not mistaken, Burt made a valid and salient point during that discussion which was just about ignored when the eggheads broke out their calculators.

If you'll look at the Jackson changers I think that you'll find one which does not have an "edge" per se but, rather, a small diameter cylindrical form. The small diameter form follows the research done by the "nerdys" in my reference above. Smaller is, definitely, better both for sustain and for tone in that the higher harmonics are not bled off as quickly as a much larger diameter while the inevitable "scraping" - reducing sustain - is lessened. This is another reason why I am enamored with the Fender PS210 instrument. Gene Fields used TWO roller nuts - one at the keyhead but another one in front of the changer mechanism! There is absolutely NO change in scale length while attempting to optimize both sustain and tone. It makes all of the sense in the world to me except for that nagging question as to what is the best surface configuration for the string to sit on.

Mike offered me a reference in his post above to the Jackson guitars. I commented that the bellcranks had only TWO holes in which to place the barrel connection. So why am I designing a fancy version of the Blanton when only two holes will suffice? Beats me. We've gotta look into this. There's gotta be a simple, logical explanation.

Time for another Nyquil fix and some dinner - if I can choke it down. My tastebuds have died.

Richard

[Ross Shafer]

Hey Ricardo et al,

You are correcto and I should have mentioned it. In fact my steel pal here in town from whom I take lessons (poor guy...talk about patience!) has a Jackson Pro IV, I think it has the smallest finger top radius of any I've measured...if I recall correctly it's a .3125" radius (.625 dia) and it does sound great. My pal Josh is a stickler for tone and he digs his Jackson's sound. Jackson seems to have a different changer on just about every model of guitar!

The strings thru the front of the fingers he does not dig, and while the guitar does not chew thru strings, broken strings are not uncommon for him at all (smaller changer fingers contributing? Inquiring minds want to know!). He plays a lot and I think he changes strings about once a month. The two and some times three hole bell cranks on his (it has both) are something I don't dig, since I'm the guy who works on his guitar and there's been some adjustments we wanted to make that just weren't there to make. It's also requires a little rod chicanery if you want to install a two rod type split which we do. Don't get me wrong all in all the guitar works great, but a wide range of adjustments to satisfy different strokes for different folks does not come with the package.

ciao for niao

[richard37066]

Ross -

Happy to note that my aging eyeballs didn't betray me on that "bump" on the fingertop.

Gonna be like a dog with a bone in its' mouth and not let go of one thing: - Do you know WHY you weren't able to effect some changes with only two or three holes in the bellcrank? I'm certainly not doubting your word - not in the least - but I wonder why Jackson would go with such a design if it left a bit to be desired. Is it just a case of being "good enough" and nothing else? Sure wish I knew.

I'm like you: - good enough is not good enough. If it ain't on the money then I'm not gonna mess with it.

Richard

[Ross Shafer]

just not enough holes to choose from when trying to dial in the travel vs. force..."one man's ceiling is another man's floor"...its not like the subtle changes Josh wanted but couldn't get, have had an adverse affect on his playing...I think he and I both would just prefer to have more options to be able to have it "just so". As I've said, in stock form the guitar does indeed play very well.

Regarding the two rod split I mentioned it just can't be done with the current changes and the space their pull locations allow without using a bent rod...again nothing that can't be worked around...but it does need to be worked around...literally. It does have splits available on the changer mounting block and he's utilizing that for one split, but if you're running a full Franklin pedal that lowers 5, 6 and 10 and you want split tuning on string 5 (vert and a pedal) ya cain't get 'em both without using the double rod, at least I haven't figured out how to if it can be done....I've asked a few people at this point...they've almost all said "sure ya can"...then I ask how..they think about it and say, "hmm, well maybe you can't"

I'm getting old and foggy, so I may be missing something with this split deal...someone set me straight if I'm fulla bulla.

[Bent]

Burt -

I've gotta disagree with ya, son. I posted my homespun theory about what causes the groove in changer fingers some many months ago on the SGF.

Richard, I agree with you . At the same time I have to add that I believe that the grooves can be worn form the guitar just sitting there with the strings under tension. If you go back and read my post where I mentioned my buddy in Norway and his aluminum-finger guitar, this unit has been practically sitting there for over a year, due to his arthritis. So I am getting convinced that an alternative material should be used, like your st. steel or my idea with chromed brass, or (who wrote it?) anodized aluminum, which I think is a heck of an idea, seeing how 2 builders that come to my mind: Mullen and also our forum member Dave Wheelhouse.

I still believe that gauged string grooves in the changer finger is a good idea. Now I just have to come up with a cutter for the mill that will accomplish that.

[Farmer]

Hey Guys, I know this is getting off the thread but, back in the early 60's, I know Richard, Bent, and I go back that far. Do you remember how good those first Sho-Buds sounded, well they just had string ball ends for the keyhead nut, and they seem to be going back that direction again. I have two of their flyers from then, one is 1962, and one a little later, maybe 63 or 64. That is the one with the picture showing the keyhead end. Just something to think about.......Mike

[mac639]

Keyhead rollers... If you're interested in trying those, get some used electric bass string ends. They're approx. 1/4" in diam by 3/16" wide with a 1/8" hole in the middle and made of nice brass. The groove of course is constant for each and is wider than even your biggest string but they work and sound good. I've made a couple of guitars using them and they sounded just fine.

If you put the word out at your local music stores they'll save old strings for you and you can have 'em for nothing.

[richard37066]

Mac -

There ain't NUTHIN' like bein' practical!

I love it!

Richard