Some Interesting Animations From Jackson

[LushPyle]

I came across these animations on the Jackson site and thought they might be interesting to others on this forum as well.
http://jacksonsteelguitar.com/news/indi ... g-pullers/

[richard37066]

Yes - very interesting.

It comes as no surprise that the Jackson family - Shot and sons - would innovate into the 21st century. Laboratory experimentation has shown that the decay of a vibrating string - and its attendant harmonics - are altered greatly when the string is stretched over a large diameter support. Translated to the PSG, it simply means that a large changer finger diameter is detrimental not only to decay, but to tone as well.

Their EDGE concept emulates, in part, that to be found in a common laboratory fixture - the monochord - a device used to support a string when investigating modes of vibration, etc.. Ideally, a string should be "stopped" at a well-defined point, e.g., a "knife edge" or other small diameter support.

Attendant to all of this is the recurring complaint that one must grind, polish or otherwise remove the grooves which inevitably are ground into the typical aluminum finger by the vibrating string. At the time of my purchase of a GFI D-10, stainless fingers were offered as an option. I didn't hesitate, knowing full well that I would not be subject to the aforementioned malady over the lifetime of the instrument - or of mine, either - whichever came first. The stainless fingers are now standard on the instrument.

And, yes - as my friend Bent would attest - it requires an additional machining operation or two when fabricating the fingers but, in my view, it would be a most welcome additional feature.

Richard

[LushPyle]

Notice that the lowers, while they are calling them "pulls", are really more like a push-release even though this is not a pull-release changer. This is a unique design. Raises are pulls and the lowers are "releases". The raise rods all run below the cross rods and the lowers run above like an Emmons push pull. Then again perhaps I am nuts?

[Bent]

Yes - very interesting.

Laboratory experimentation has shown that the decay of a vibrating string - and its attendant harmonics - are altered greatly when the string is stretched over a large diameter support. Translated to the PSG, it simply means that a large changer finger diameter is detrimental not only to decay, but to tone as well.


And, yes - as my friend Bent would attest - it requires an additional machining operation or two when fabricating the fingers but, in my view, it would be a most welcome additional feature.

Richard

Yes, interesting animation, although nothing much new.

Richard, I know we have discussed this before and although you say that we have agreed on this subject, there is always room for experimentation. And that I did on "Blue". I installed brass fingers. They measure 1/4" thick by 1" diameter. I needed to try this. Of course no lab to tell me. Sometimes I think we get too hung up in lab experiments. It is out in the field that really counts.
When David Hartley played the BenRom I asked his opinion on all tone related matters...sustain, tone, etc etc. He had only positive things to say.
Hear him here: http://benrom.com/index.php click on the player arrow below his testimonial and picture.

Honestly, Richard, I, nor David for that matter, could not hear undue decay or lack of sustain. Others standing around thought it sounded great. To tell the truth, I was floored by the beautiful tone. David also played two other steels standing there - well known brands. People placed the sound of the Ben-Rom right smack in the middle. A very respected and favorite brand sounded better than mine. My pleasant surprise and satisfaction was that the BenRom stood up to the more known, proven brands.
Maybe we can say that what I allegedly lost in sustain and rate of decay from "too wide" a finger, I gained back from the fact that I used brass fingers?
The question is open I guess. In the end one will go by what sounds good and pleasing to the ear.

With this said, I need to ask the question: are we putting too much reliance on lab experiments? Do we not listen to guitars out in the field enough, to look for what really matters: that it sounds good on record or live?

[LushPyle]

It seems to me that all Jackson is doing here is removing as much material from the finger as possible. They are not reducing the radius, at least not significantly, since that would result in way longer pulls. The finger rotates on a similar size radius as their conventional changer. I really don't see how they are achieving their stated goal at all as far as "the edge" concept goes. OK - I think maybe one of their changers at least uses a 3/4" finger as opposed to your 1". Now if you take that 3/4" finger and remove as much material as possible how does that meet the goal of a reduced diameter finger? Will it really sound any different than the "full size" 3/4" finger? And does a 3/4" finger sound significantly different than a 1" finger? It had better to be worth the trouble since the pulls will be significantly longer. There may be something to this whole theory but I dont see how Jackson is really capitalizing on any potential benefit doing it this way. You would do way better to put the changer at the other end of the guitar if a small diameter bridge is really worth while.
What really is interesting, to me at least, is how this changer works.

[Bent]

Lush, to reply to your post in reverse....
Yes it is interesting to see how a changer works. However, like you stated (more or less) well me too, is that there is not much new to observe except like you also stated, the removal of some of the radius, thereby creating a knife-like effect on a roundish finger. If this finger is machined and also placed (microscopically?) in relation to the string, you will have the knife-like effect on a neutral and raise only, the way I see it. On the lower, where the string contact is off of the knife edge (depending on the length of the lower) and the effect of this specially shaped finger is pretty well negated. Except for one thing and that is what I will for now call the "tickle point".
We can imagine when the string comes straight onto the radius of the finger, how before the string bears down full force on the finger, there is, because of this rounding, a length of string and finger that make less contact, or the string just tickles the finger. This "tickle point" is what I visualize as Richard's, and Georg's argument in favor of a knife edge. I can see your point..haha you can conjure up images of tickle points and all that, but lets stick to steel guitars here...get your mind outa the gutter

ahem..I can see your point.. it stands to reason that the larger the radius, the longer the tickle point and the more apt the string is to decay faster. Am I correct?
Jackson has attempted to eliminate this tickle point by cutting a chunk out of the front of the finger radius. On the lower I think it works like any other 3/4" diam finger. If knife edges and tickle points are your concern, do you think it is enough? Do you think it works as well as a knife edge?

Back to my larger than "normal" radius finger with its longer tickle point... I heard what I heard, so did several others and their verdict was unanimous: A great-sounding steel. I hope y'all can derive some sort of listening quality to that tune which was recorded in a less than favourable setting with my hand held ZoomH4.
Even so, to me it sounds pretty dang good, considering the setting and equipment.

In the end, does it matter that much? Maybe a wee bit to the really discerning ear. Maybe my tinnitus eardrums are made from Saran wrap

[richard37066]

Bent -

Yes, I did hear David play your instrument and found it to be most pleasing. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Your point about the "tickle point" is well taken. I would only argue that the actual movement of the finger is so small that at least part of the "tickle point" is negated.

As to an emphasis on lab experiments, I can only say that one should be quite open minded to all experimental results. True, most may not be actually useful but the information can be catalogued for future reference should someone entertain using the concept. No sense in wasting time if someone has already proven something to be less than desirable, ineffective or, worse, useless! And therein lies the worth of experimentation and my emphasis on same. Everyone here on this forum is interested in improving the instrument. Were there a lack of interest in experimentation then the PSG would be relegated to a "cookie cutter" operation where everyone just stamped out the parts from an accepted form and screwed the whole thing together. How Boring! You may decry the laboratory experimentation but I'm mindful of the fact that you decided to use brass as the material for the finger rollers. I've forgotten your logic in using the material but the fact remains that you have somewhat alleviated the "grooving" problem in aluminum rollers since the brass is a much harder material. You experimented and, in my view, took a step forward in improving the breed. You also rabbetted the aluminum side rails into the wooden rails. Did it help anything? Don't know. It certainly didn't hurt the performance of your instrument. Now, wouldn't it be nice if someone could do the experiments and determine that stainless were a much better material than brass as regards tone and sustain - or that there wasn't a nickels worth of difference between the two!? It's the resultant INFORMATION that counts.

If I ever get to lash together my super whiz-bang PSG then I'd like as much current information as I can lay my hands on. The result should be the best that can be had - given current knowledge! The history of science tells us that current knowledge is a fleeting and temporary condition. Exploring the unknown is the mechanism by which the knowledge - and its applicable use - is advanced.

My scientific background is quite sufficient to tell me that, should I become obsessed with the laboratory stuff - to the exclusion of practicality - then my instrument will never get built. There must come a time when I bite the bullet and say - "enough" - I've gotta start making parts cause dependence upon further experimentation just won't get it done - for whatever time I have left to this life. My latest post under "general discussion" will tell you that I've a new found air of urgency to this whole thing.

I've revisited your website and read the endorsement by David Hartley. I'm happy for you that your instrument was well received and that you may just have an outlet for further builds. As I've said previously - "go gettum!".

Richard

[Georg]

This "tickle point" is what I visualize as Richard's, and Georg's argument in favor of a knife edge. I can see your point..haha you can conjure up images of tickle points and all that, but lets stick to steel guitars here...

Bent, your "visualization" clearly misrepresent my views on these issues, and I have no interest in clarifying them here. Whatever works for others is OK with me, as long as I'm not drawn in.

[LushPyle]

I guess my point regarding "The Edge" is that no matter where the finger is in its travel the string never contacts the edge. It is always resting on the 3/4" radius just as it does on a conventional finger. I personally don't see how removing portions of the radius that are not used in raising and lowering the string can have much impact on tone or sustain. They are not creating a smaller diameter "bridge" they are simply removing portions of the same diameter "bridge" that don't come in contact with the string.

[richard37066]

Not necessarily.

If, at rest, the cut in the finger is in a vertical position then the "edge" will come into play on a raise - a sharp cutoff to the string. Conversely, on a lower, the string will assume a position on the curved portion of the finger. It would appear, then, that the concept is only partially effective. This assumes that, in the first place, an "edge" was deemed to be of benefit.

Carrying this one step further, the position of the "edge" could be adjusted such that it comes into play on both the raise and the lower. Would this tend to promote string breakage? Don't know.

Richard