Some Interesting Animations From Jackson

[Bent]

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.

Georg, Note that I said "I visualize"- a clear statement that it was my visualization, or understanding if you would, and no attempt was made to "draw you in".
So my visualization was misguided either by lack of understanding from my side, or lack of thorough explanation from your side. And as you have no interest in clarifying, then I guess we are at an impasse. I hope this attitude changes since we are all here to learn - from each other. Don't worry - I won't "draw you in" as you so succinctly put it.

[Georg]

"Attitude" ?

Yeah, maybe I have an "attitude problem" in that I see no point in doing much of anything but good work in replicating the tested and proven 'bridge/changer' combo found on nearly all PSG constructions today - whatever works for others is OK with me. All my own research and work related to PSG construction is focused on having a 'stationary "tone" bridge' at one end and a 'linear changer' at the other (keyhead) end, which means I have next to nothing to contribute to, or learn from, discussions circling around various more or less traditional PSG constructions ... like the Jackson.

To me this means that it doesn't make sense for me to let myself or notes/comments I have served related to my own construction be drawn into discussions where I/they clearly don't belong, and I have neither time nor interest in clearing up technical details/differences in threads where they do not really matter. Would be wrong of you, or anybody else, to read anything but that I am on a different track regarding PSG construction into it, or else we will just throw words/opinions past each other on this forum and not learn a thing. Life is too short for that.


BTW: Bent, I am sorry I could not come your way after the ISGC in St.Louis. My traveling companion had enough of driving on highways at that point, so had to return south.

Richard, it was nice spending time in your company.

[Bent]

Georg I am sure there will be another time

[Dave-M]

With all this knife edge discussion, has anyone considered making the top of the finger resemble a house roof, 90° with an eighth inch radius on top. Then you are always on the 1/8th "edge".

Alternatively, put a small bump on top of a normal rounded finger. This could be a piece of 1/8 th stainless rod lying in a notch.

Re the Jackson method, cut the slope back an extra 10 or 15 degrees to handle lowers.

For a 25 inch scale you only pull about 1/16 inch so the string will only lengthen, or shorten, about 1/4 of a percent (1/400).

[richard37066]

Dave-M -

Your suggestion is analogous to Ed Packard's "Beast" in which he has such a rod used for the bridge. The difference is that his is stationary - the changer is at the other end.

Would the movement of such contribute to increased string breakage? Don't know.

Richard

[Dave-M]

Maybe you can go with 1/4 inch radius, or maybe use a 3/8 nut roller on top of the finger. If it's ok on one end it should be ok on the other end in my opinion, regarding sustain.

Doesn't your stomp-box compression-sustainer give you more than enough sustain anyway, unless you are trying out for world's record sustain champion?

[Georg]

Have considered and discarded "a bump" or cut-off at the conventional bridge/changer, for the simple reason that it becomes a moving point.

Have developed a "linear coupling" that would reduce the bridge radius to 1/4 inch, which solved the problem. I didn't like the impact the mechanics had on tone, so I discarded that also.

Bridge, and that entire end of the PSG, should (IMO) be designed for tone only. Should not be any compromising mechanics there, and the coupling to a "tone-body" should be variable/playable.
Conclusion: changer, regardless of type, has to go elsewhere.

Electronic gismos work on what comes out of the instrument - plus can help controlling feedback from amp to instrument. They do nothing for the instrument's inherent tone and sustain qualities. So although various electronic gismos actually work fine in what they do - and I use a limited few, they are just nice, or less nice, add-ons in the sound-chain.

Dave-M, I don't know what you mean by "trying out for world's record sustain champion" but it sounds unimpressive and boring. I am more interested in building myself a PSG with a much wider inherent, playable, tonal/timbre range, to avoid having to listen to the same old PSG sound no matter what i want to play. So no matter how well a PSG sounds and how well it sustains, if it sounds like "a regular PSG" no matter how I play it I am not interested.

[Dave-M]

Well, Georg, it seems that I must live with the fact that my attempts at levity are just naturally unimpressive and boring. I set myself up to be knocked down, and you got me!

What I was getting at, though, is that unless you need a very long sustain (for whatever reason, maybe a contest!!!) the electronic gimmick can provide it from an instrument with mediocre sustain.

As for tonal/timbre range, I didn't comment on that, but I respect you in your search for it. My tin ear wouldn't know the difference. I just play for fun!

[Georg]

Well, Georg, it seems that I must live with the fact that my attempts at levity are just naturally unimpressive and boring. I set myself up to be knocked down, and you got me!

Sorry, did not intend to.

I just play for fun!

Me to ... when I'm not boring myself too much