Top Tickness

[Eldon]

Need to check something, I have conflicting info re the thickness of a pedal steel top. Anywhere from 5/8 " to 1" in 1/8 increments. I'm going to try black ash out of curiosity. If not that then probably birch.

Thanks!

[Storm Rosson]

Make it the thickness that fits your end plates..

[richard37066]

Eldon -

I'm not going to give you a definitive answer since I've seen the same numbers that you've quoted above. I would suggest, however, that you pick the brains of folks like Bent who have built several of these contraptions and determine the dimensions which they have found to be adequate for the job. Bent is readily approachable and free with advice based upon experience. An email might be in order.

I can tell you, however, that the inherent strength of most hardwoods does not vary much from specie to specie therefore your choice of woods is something you might pick out of a hat.

Jus' make it purdy!

Richard

[Bent]

Eldon, Historically, I believe the tops to have been 3/4" thick. This is the standard used when the body is used to create the main structural strength.
This, I think, has been seen to be the happy medium between strength and weight.
On my first guitar, I bought the boards of Birdseye already planed to a nice even 7/8", so I left it at that. The two succeeding guitars were both 3/4".

All material thicknesses in metal and wood being equal on all 3 guitars except for this 1/8 of an inch, there is a huge difference in cab drop. the 7/8" one has 2.5 cents drop, whereas the two 3/4" have 6 cents cab drop on a good day! Here, IM not so HO, we see the huge structural properties in wood.
Now to the modern times where people experiment with not only different types of wood, but fiberboard, composite material, and all metal, to try and combat the dreaded cabinet drop, at the same time further balancing strength and weight. So with that, I say, a lot of the old standards like 3/4" wood tops have gone out the window.
The guitar I am building now, will get a bit of an odd-looking top: It is an SD 10, where the E9th part has the usual 3/4" top. But the pad part will only have a 1/2" top, thereby making it a bit easier to make the top pull rods level with the top holes in the changer for example, because the top is level underneath, without that irksome 1/4" step to contend with.. The aprons will be no more than 5/8" thick. But these will be reinforced with 1/4X2" alum. rails running the full length and bolted to the end plate extensions, at the same time embedded in the aprons and screwed to these as well.
So, hopefully, with much of the wood intact within this aluminum frame, I hope to keep the wood sound and at the same time improve on the structural strength. Time will tell.

That was a long story just to answer your one question Eldon It's hard to stop me when I get going!!

[Georg]

So, hopefully, with much of the wood intact within this aluminum frame, I hope to keep the wood sound and at the same time improve on the structural strength. Time will tell.

Keep us posted, as I extract loads of information about traditional builds and the line of thoughts behind them from actual projects like yours.

I have nothing useful to add, as my two most favored (Dekley) PSGs have very thin top-plates and around 1% and 2.5% bodydrop on a bad day. My least favored PSG (GFI) also has very thin top-plate and 10% bodydrop on a good day. All three have aluminum frames...

My project-PSG doesn't have a top-plate and frame in the traditional sense, but the way you guys calculate I guess you can say that it will get a 5 inch thick, laminated, top-plate - 1 1/2 above and 3 1/2 below regular top-plate level.

[azgoatroper]

Just slightly off topic but something that may be of interest. since you are talking woods and thinknesses I thought that you might light a reference to the Janka Scale. This is a rating of hardness of the different species of woods. There is also a pretty close correlation between hardness, density, machineability, and finishing characteristics. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page. this could also be used to determine just what type of tone you like to achieve as harder woods should 'ring' more so than the softer woods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

Michael

[Georg]

... determine just what type of tone you like to achieve ...

Which is one of the questions I am left with for every steel guitar project - pedals or no pedals - that I follow on this forum. Either I don't understand the English language (highly likely), or "what type of tone" and most else related to instrument-properties the individual builder wants to achieve, and how one plans to achieve it, is not presented in very clear terms.

I am not complaining, as I don't really need to know, but I do wonder since you all seem to put so much work into your projects...

[richard37066]

Georg -

You certainly understand the English language very well and I am firmly in your camp on this issue.

I have maintained (ad nauseum) that no one knows the contribution of the constituent parts in a PSG as they relate to sustain and tone. The research just has not been done. There's the "egghead" in me coming out.

I would love for someone - ANYONE - to explain the dominent variances (if any) in instruments when, in fact, they are all made from essentially the same mould.

I have played a marvelous Emmons PP yet the one sitting right next to it was BLAH.

I have heard a wonderful Legrande II in birdseye maple while a Jackson made of the same material and sitting across the room couldn't compare.

No two ShoBuds from 35-40 years ago sounded the same despite being made by the same set of hands.

If one were to believe some of the pundits, then MICA construction is inferior. Tell that to some old Emmons or JCH guitar owners.

Common, ordinary, everyday horse sense says that if someone had discovered the "magic" in a particular variety of wood then everybody and his brother would be using nothing but that.

There are some who claim that a particular changer makes a major contribution to an instrument's tone. If so, then why so many permutations of the basic changer?

The ONLY thing which may be said with any degree of certainty is that SOME THINGS generally yield satisfactory results. Not spectacular, mind you, but just satisfactory. I believe these results to be the end of trial and error on the part of the builders. Some things seem to work, others fail.

Lord knows that I would never put any of the members down given their dedication, intuitiveness, zealousness, and passion in pursuit of an instrument which leaves all others in the dust. Given this, I have yet to note any member making a claim of having created the world's best PSG. Carried over into the commercial world, one sees small innovations accompanied by glowing claims of superior tone/sustain. The endorsement of any singular product by the majority of players is lacking. It's thus safe to assume that the "holy grail" of PSG's has not been found by anyone. This is NOT to say that there are no excellent instruments on the market, but only to, once again, reiterate that a formula capable of replication in a truly superior instrument has not, as yet, been found.

As I stated in my very first post on this forum - I am totally enamored with the look and feel of fine woods. I know, for example, that the velocity of sound and the loss of acoustic energy in woods varies with the grain and across the grain as an example. No one, however, has shown that quarter-sawn birdseye maple is any better than slab-sawn. Intuition tells me that one or the other might very well make a difference in the tone of the instrument but no one has enlightened all of the builders as to the degree of effect of one versus the other. Until that does happen, a builder is left to his own preferences. He may not create a lifeless slug but the chances are that he won't build the ultimate PSG, either - unless luck and the guitar gods were on his side. Could he then articulate the tone-effecting specifications for this "wonder" instrument? I doubt it.

You and I are taking different and diverging approaches to the generation of tone within the instrument. Will one trump the other? Will they be any better than the best being manufactured elsewhere? WHO CARES! It's the venturesome spirit which drives all of us. The end result could fall anywhere from ecstatic to abject failure. Doesn't matter. What does matter in the context of this thread is that, in order to "play it safe" one has to adopt the materials and methods which have worked, in whatever fashion, in the multitude of PSGs floating around in the world.

The phrase "playing it safe" is not in our vocabulary since our bent is to create something solely for ourselves without visions of mass producing it. It frees us to entertain any wacky yet plausible idea which may float through that partial vacuum between our ears. It's really a helluva lot of fun, ain't it?

IF I were to build a wooden cabinet then I would use 3/4" quarter-sawn birdseye maple even though it may not perform any better than a slab of red oak. Why? It's purdy!

Richard

[Eldon]

I seems that I've opened up the can for some interesting comments. It also seems that my current build is going to end up being a compact narrow instrument 71/4 inches wide with an aluminum frame, more on this later. It's going to take the form of a 7 1/4 inch regular guitar neck with a pair of truss rods along the bottom if I can get the prototype to work. There's still some trial & error to work out before I post drawings or pics.

[Georg]

It's going to take the form of a 7 1/4 inch regular guitar neck with a pair of truss rods along the bottom if I can get the prototype to work.

That ... sounds really interesting! (Not often I say that )
Are those truss rods supposed to counteract string tension and subsequent wood-bending?

If one were to believe some of the pundits, then MICA construction is inferior. Tell that to some old Emmons or JCH guitar owners.

Not to mention an owner of a couple of old Dekleys.
All-aluminum frame with a thin MICA-clad and very resonant top-plate...

The phrase "playing it safe" is not in our vocabulary since our bent is to create something solely for ourselves without visions of mass producing it. It frees us to entertain any wacky yet plausible idea which may float through that partial vacuum between our ears. It's really a helluva lot of fun, ain't it?

It is fun alright!

Although I see no future for me in mass production - I have lost all marketing-interest, I do see a future for some of the basics behind my project-PSG. No reason to post about it on this forum otherwise.
I also live and work more or less by the principle that "if an idea isn't regarded as completely ridiculous at first, there's no hope for it". Glad to see some of that attitude on this forum too, as otherwise it would be pretty boring around here.