Different kind of finger for different strings - sound?

[mitali]

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.

Will

Will,

you are right about the ratio, of course. But the problem is not that it wouldn't have enough lower - it has more than enough - I built a prototype and tested it. Fore me the problem is that the raise-function is too short - it makes it hard to be precise.

I'm not going to use the version I first showed - I planned a new one instead. I call it the Seesaw Changer (this one is not my idea either, just my version of an old idea). You can see in the picture that the rods are connected to a kind of seesaw (or teeter-totter) that's connected to the finger (instead of the guitar body). That separates the raise/lower or lower/lower -functions.

This one is a pull/release-changer. I realized that actually lower-function is always a release-based-function. It must always have a spring that pulls the string to the opposite direction of the string's tension and what you actually do is you cancel the spring's tension in one way or another. Technically it doesn't matter whether you do it at the pedal or at the changer. Only advantage you get by making an all pull changer is that you get as many lowers as you want just by drilling more holes and adding more rods.

This new plan of mine is simple and can do the functions I need. I'm looking for a changer that I can produce with my limited amount of tools. The changer must be able to do double raise/single lower, double lower(+ lowering knee lever and pedal pressed at the same time = third lower) and single raise/lower/split -functions. Those ones this one can do.

The reason everybody uses scissors-type these days must be that when you have an all pull system with separate pull/raise fingers, all you have to do to get more raises/lowers is that you just drill more holes to both fingers and you have a triple, quadruple, etc. raise/lower changer (that's a very cheap way to get more functions). The old ShoBud changer was not that versatile nor is my seesaw changer. But as I've said, I don't need it to be a "one changer fits all" -system. I need it to be simple, reliable and capable enough - just enough, anything more is a waist.

I have built a prototype and I have to say it works beautifully.

Sound btw - as we all know - is at the listeners ear. If you want more high end you of course need to use harder material, but the first PSG builders had their own opinion of the matter (I'm not experienced enough to argue):

"When we were building the protoype Emmons' P/P, we tried various metals, radiuses and diameters of changer fingers. We discovered that as the diameter got larger, there was less string breakage, but a lessoning of sustain. We also found that the best combinations was using soft regular aluminum and 3/4" (19,05 mm) diameter fingers riding on a 1/2" (12,7 mm) axle."

Mikko

[bluesteel]

Mikko,

This looks interesting although I don't know how easy it would be to build and to adjust. I think you probably oversimplified when you said:

"Only advantage you get by making an all pull changer is that you get as many lowers as you want just by drilling more holes and adding more rods."

I had a pull/release changer in my old Marlen. It was difficult to balance the efforts required to raise and lower without assist springs - not a feature of the original design. Also, it was a b**ch to get raises and lowers on the same finger, you had to dial in enough slack on the raise that it wouldn't impede the lower. That impacted badly on playability for me. It had the feel of being sloppy and loaded with slack in places where I didn't want it.

I ended up fitting an all-pull changer. Along the way I learned a lot about steels, but the all-pull changer gave me a guitar that started to respond as soon as I asked it to, whether raise or lower. I suspect that's probably why all-pull changers are the norm nowadays, and that that's the primary reason, rather than "ability to add raises and lowers". All these things are compromises one way or another anyhow.

If you build that changer, be sure to keep us advised of progress - this is a good thread. Good luck!

Will Cowell

[mitali]

Will,

guilty as charged - I did oversimplify. It's just funny to me that scissors style changer is exactly the same construction regardless of how many holes you drill. If you have a single raise/lower one you can make it a triple one just by drilling some holes.

I am aware of the problems with a p/r changer. The seesaw changer just solves those problems. You don't need any extra slack that would enable the finger to lower when the raise rod is not attached to the finger itself but to the seesaw.

What you can't do with this design is attach multiple lowers to the same side of the seesaw. The other one would prevent the other one from working. You can, however, make both sides to work as lowers. Then you get two lowers. If you press both at the same time you get a third lower (I wouldn't call that a split since you don't really split a lower but double it). If the string is say E, you get Eb, D and Db and they're all tunable.

I have tested one changer finger with the high E string and it does work.

I attach a picture explaining more. I didn't want to put all the info to the animation because it would have become impossible to read.

Mikko