Different kind of finger for different strings - sound?

[Ross Shafer]

Great animations!

FYI, the basic function of the PS210 changer is the same as the Rickenbacker changer that predates it (no knife edge pivots on the Ricky, but with similar engagement/pull rod system). The changers found on Anapeg and Excel pedal steels also utilize this same basic mechanism albeit without the knife edge pivots and with different (more standard) pull linkage/changer engagement mechanics.

Along with the Ricky, the Harlin Bros. Multichord and the Gibson Electraharp steels both have a similar changer engagement systems to the PS.

I had the privilege to mess around with a one of a kind PS112 for quite a while. These steels were very cool and Gene combined some pretty cool ideas from the past with his own, but they were definitely not ready for prime time. They had numerous flaws that needed work if there was any chance of it being a successful product. The one off nature of the one I got to play with provided some extra flaws, that I don't believe the 110's or 210's were saddled with.

Some of these flaws would've been easy fixes and others (pull system in particular) just didn't cut it (in my opinion of course) This was an incredibly tooling intensive rig (casting molds, sheet metal blanking and forming tools....not cheap stuff even back then!) and a total of less than 20 were ever made....a major money hole for Fender to be sure! Being a long time product development/manufacturer kind of guy, I'm surprised that they went so deep on tooling without all the bugs being worked out.

The keyless tuning mechanism on the PS is awesome and works wonderfully (especially when the guitar is belly up on the bench) and the ease of assembly/disassembly of the changer for cleaning, etc is second to none!.....sorry to take the the thread off track.

[richard37066]

Ross -

Not off-topic at all. Thanks for the additional info.

Richard

[mitali]

Well Richard,

I'm hardly a professional at the animation work. These four animations at this site are the first gif-animations I've ever made. I have, however, made many animations with a camera and video editing software, so the idea is not new to me. I just felt words are not enough at this conversation.

For these I've just used GIMP since I run Linux at my home PC:s. You can install it to Windows too and it's free. It's very easy really: I found the original patent drawings and created three layers out of it. Then I used one of them as the background and two others as fingers, wiped out what doesn't belong to the layer and added color.

After that you can turn the layers independently on top of each other and easily determine the turning point by moving it with the mouse. I also made the top layer transparent.

You can make a new layer out of the visible ones and hide it, turn the originals again and make a new one again etc. So you have a pile of layers. Delete the originals and save as .gif with the parameters: save as animation, pause between screens in milliseconds, endless loop. That's it.

Just don't destroy the originals totally - use a different name just in case you're not satisfied with the results. You can automatically optimize the screens for animation at the at the filters-menu - it makes the file a little smaller, because it takes out the parts that are similar.

I'm sure there are better animating programs out there, but since I already know GIMP, it's logical to use it for these little animations.

Yes, it's obvious that you need a roller bridge, as you can see at the picture. Making that is as simple as making the roller nut. The only thing that matters to me, is the sound. I'm not sure what it does to the sustain and timbre. If it ruins them, it's a turnoff for me too.

However: I'm sure this system isolates the clicking sounds that the changer creates at least to some extent, because the bridge is connected to the changer fingers just with the string and the bridge itself does not click (unlike all the other changers out there).

I attach here the original patent drawing I used and the GIMP .xcf-file (the file is zipped just because this forum doesn't seem to allow me to attach a plain .xcf-file), so you can see what I mean.

Mikko

[richard37066]

Mikko -

My thanks for the detailed info. When I get a chance, I'll look into it and see if it's "Richard Friendly". I really don't have the time - or the inclination - to devote to a long, steep and ardous learning curve. We shall see.

As to the roller bridge. I have argued, on many occasions, on the SGF that no one really knows what does, and does not, contribute to "sustain" and tone. I prefer to use the word "decay" since, immediately after plucking a string, the amplitude of vibration "decays" in some exponential fashion. No one has done the research and conjecture abounds. I can make one educated guess, however: - If one were to affix a roller nut and a roller bridge to a rigid and heavy neck - say, 3/4 inch aluminum - then the string should ring "forever". The structure is not lossy - does not absorb acoustic vibrations such as would be found in any wood. If isolated from the wooden body of the guitar - a "lossy" medium - then this would begin to approach the ideal for maximum "decay" time.

As to tone. I've recently become a staunch advocate of a movable pickup as a means of achieving a baseline tone. When a string is plucked, the fundamental vibrating frequency and a variety of harmonics - depending upon where the string is plucked - are there for the asking. In moving the pickup away from the bridge, one detects a greater amplitude of the fundamental frequency in relation to the harmonics. This produces a "mellower" tone as the amplitude of the harmonics remains fixed. The ratio of the two is the only thing which changes.

Now the bugaboo. Since no one has done the research, it's impossible to say what effect the overall assembly has upon both "decay" and tone. We all know that the tone of, say, a six-string guitar can change all over the lot depending upon the method and dimensions of construction. Nothing of this nature has been determined as it applies to the PSG. I recall having heard one Emmons LeGrande II in which some unidentifiable artifacts were generated and which produced the "best" tone that I've ever heard. "Best" - according to my ears - my personal preferences. Unless - and until - someone researches the bejabbers out of the PSG and delineates the mechanisms by which tone is effected, then we're all left to play the guessing game.

Put your thinking cap on, son. You may come up with an approach or two which adds significantly to the quest for "decay" and tone. My best to you.

Richard

[bluesteel]

This is a great thread and Richard, I echo your plaudits for Mikko in proding the animations. I'd have to take issue with you over the Sho-Bud mechanism illustrated, when you refer to the ratios giving rise to the mechanical advantage in operation there. The "raise" advantage is much greater than the lower - I'd suggest about 4:1 and that's more than can be compensated properly by attaching the pullrods in a different place. There has to be a reason why it went out of use.

The Fender mech looks interesting, although to work well we don't have to have knife-edges. The smaller the radius of any articulating surface, the more rapid the wear. A detail change to use pivot pins instead would benefit.

Now I'm going to introduce a tangent here, given the title of this thread. My Curnow (Cornish) steel has aluminum changer fingers. It is dead at the top end, and no, it isn't just because it might need a new set of strings! Bent uses brass fingers. I think he's onto something. Denser metals like steel or brass will conduct the sound better I think. You only have to listen to an engine that's ailing. Alloy has a different acoustic signature to cast iron, for example. Any thoughts on the merits of different metals for the changer fingers, anyone?

Will

[Farmer]

Will,
I worked at a steel guitar company in Ft. Wayne In., which has been long since closed, we used stainless steel for the changers. I had told Bent a few times as he posted he was going to use brass, that he would like the sound and the sustain. Besides would you consider using an aluminum bar ????? Anything harder than aluminum should sustain and sound better. Aluminum is just easier to machine and cheaper...
Mike

[Bent]

Will, thanks for bringing up my brass fingers. Mike thanks for the endorsement that I am maybe doing something right. You were right, Mike. The brass has been received well.Apart from being much heavier than aluminum, brass fingers have at least one thing that might be better. It is much harder to work and from that I gather that you don't get those pesky string grooves. I have had wonderful feedback on the tone of my guitars from some of the best in the business.

Here are some things that puzzle me.
Hang a length of 1X1 aluminum bar by a string and give it a whack with a hammer and the ringing will punch your eardrums out.
Do the same with a brass bar and you get a low, wooly thud. But listen to a ships bell and the crystal clear ringing sustains and sings like no other metal. Why is this?
I shouldn't let this bother me since I have already proven to myself that brass works. I like it so much in fact that I might start using what really goes into bells - bronze. I have a big piece of bronze here that should last my lifetime. I just need to get the money together to start my home foundry - I think one gets better sustain if the part is cast. Stand by please, Mike, I will enlist your help when I get my act together(Mike is quite the foundry man...have him show you some of the pedals he cast)

As a side note...Will, thanks again for the wonderful endorsement you gave me in the British Steel Guitar Forum!

[Farmer]

Bent,
Thanks for the compliments. I wonder if you would hang the brass at the middle that it to would ring. It should be a thin piece also. Have you ever tied string to one of your changer finger and whack it to see if it would ring? Give it a try, and let us know. Like I told you before Bent, I will help you all I can if I am on the up side of the grass...

Mike

[Georg]

As to the roller bridge. I have argued, on many occasions, on the SGF that no one really knows what does, and does not, contribute to "sustain" and tone. I prefer to use the word "decay" since, immediately after plucking a string, the amplitude of vibration "decays" in some exponential fashion. No one has done the research and conjecture abounds.

Right
Research takes time and costs money. Been there, done that, and lost lots of documentation over the years.

I can make one educated guess, however: - If one were to affix a roller nut and a roller bridge to a rigid and heavy neck - say, 3/4 inch aluminum - then the string should ring "forever". The structure is not lossy - does not absorb acoustic vibrations such as would be found in any wood. If isolated from the wooden body of the guitar - a "lossy" medium - then this would begin to approach the ideal for maximum "decay" time.

Reasonably good guess, me thinks. My research shows that the price to pay for long "decay" time will be loss of "life" to the tone, as with no loss of vibrations to, and return from, some form of soundboard and/or body, means decaying string vibrations alone will determine the changes in "color" or "tone".


I've got the rigid and heavy aluminum neck (slightly thicker than 3/4 inch) with strings on, and have tested it isolated from a body that can steal vibrations. "Decay" time is excellent, but the tone is somewhat "dull", IMO.

Sounds better when neck is made to interact in a controlled way with a soundboard, even if "decay" time can be measured to suffer as soundboard sucks energy. It actually doesn't sound like less "sustain" - the tone becomes "richer" as it gets colored by soundboard vibration kick-backs, but string vibrations do "decay" a little faster. A good instrument is a well-balanced compromise.

[richard37066]

Georg -

Right on, my friend.

Richard