Re: Changer Fingers
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:01 pm
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
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