An Off-The-Wall Idea For Y'all To Chew On

[richard37066]

Background -

Discussions abound plentifully regarding the factors contributing to "cabinet drop", "body drop" or whatever ya want to call it. An equal number of debates center around the generation of that elusive - and subjective - topic called "tone". Beefy side plates on the aprons of the cabinet. A broad-based connection of the changer to the top plate. Some have posited that minute movement of the changer contributes to detuning. Emmons and their attempt to couple sonic energy to the cabinet. Carter and their Body Contact Technology (BCT). On and on and on. Ya get the idea. Fill in the blanks.

The neck of an instrument is mostly a passive contributor to both "sustain" (decay) and "tone" although some have elatedly proclaimed that loosening the screws holding the neck to the body has released a bountiful burst of tonal energy. Fill in more blanks.

WHAT IF: -
• The changer were NOT bolted to the body but, rather, made an integral part of the neck assembly.

• That is, bolt the changer directly to a neck which, in close proximity, completely surrounds the changer and THEN secure the assembly to the body with a dozen 1/2" grade 8 bolts. (Ya know that I'm kidding, but you get the idea).

• Would not the assembly contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the instrument?

• Would not the acoustic energy of the vibrating strings be coupled effectively to the body?

• Any downside to this that I'm not thinking of?

I'm fond of thinking about the various paths of acoustic "loss" in the instrument. The more "loss", the shorter the decay ("sustain"). In comparison to the wooden body, the changer mechanism is rather "lossless" to acoustic vibrations thus transferring more energy to the body which, ostensibly, (and according to many pundits) is the major contributor to the "tone" of the instrument. The combination of changer/neck would provide that much broader base 'twixt it and the body thus - hopefully - transferring more acoustic energy to the body.

Yeh - I know - simply mounting the "pillow blocks" for the changer axle directly to the top of a 3/4" thick neck might place the strings at chest height but an area could be relieved such that the blocks were recessed into the neck such that string height were at an acceptable height.

I'm an old goat and not thin-skinned thus you can flame away at will and eat this thing alive. Just tryin' to stimulate some thinking along these lines for whatever it's worth.

Now, that's the purpose of this forum is it not?

Richard

[Georg]

Sounds familiar ... but the neck on mine is 20mm - not 3/4 inch

[louckswayne]

Hi Richard
I for one could see an advantage to your idea of the neck and changer housing
as all one pc.! It seems to me that this method would indeed help to reduce
cabinet drop. As you said, it would take some design work to make the pillow
blocks work out! This one pc. neck and changer housing could be made (with high
cost and millwork) of aluminum or even all wood! You have stirred my interest!
Most Sincerely
Wayne

[richard37066]

Aw, Georg -

Ya mean that this all goes up in smoke over 0.0374"?

[richard37066]

Wayne -

Don't mean to get picky but I really don't see a major increase in cost or millwork. Many designs have a neck which tends to "wrap around", or "embrace", but does not contact the changer. Given that, an extra couple of inches of material to the length of the neck and a little more milling time doesn't necessarily equate to a prohibitive method of, hopefully, improving the overall design. If Bent, for example, mounted an extended slab of neck material on his TOS miller, then he could easily move from cutting out the pickup cavity to cutting out the hole for the changer without having to remount the entire piece. Without missing a lick, he could then mill a couple of "lands" upon which to mount the "pillow blocks". Yes, indeed, there would be additional milling time and effort but I would defer to Bent to provide us with an approximate figure of extra time and materials.

I, personally, would not use wood in this application. Wood is compressible and, over time, things would loosen up. Further, the amount of extra wood used would not necessarily contribute greatly to the overall strength of the whole assembly.

You've triggered a thought, however. As an alternative, one could machine a broad-based housing for the changer, alone, which is then bolted firmly to the cabinet top. This would, at least, add considerable strength in the area of the changer, if nothing else. Some thoughtful designing would then be in order such that the housing could then be combined with a wooden neck.

Keep the thoughts coming!

Richard

[Georg]

Richard, I prefer metric ... it is less confusing, sounds better and stays better in tune

Anyway, I will throw in two Dekley PSGs with the changer mounted on the neck. The modded S10 should be well known - changer is mounted on lower half and set against higher half.
But, the E9 neck on the D10 is raised with the changer mounted on the lower "step" and steadied against the "real" neck, and it has remarkably low detuning on that neck.

[richard37066]

Aha!

Vindication!

Does the neck completely surround the changer - to the rear, so to speak?

[burt]

Richard,
You have just described my old British pedal steel, called a 'Denley'.

It is a simple pull-release changer system, bolted to a one-piece aluminium neck.

The headstock is a separate piece.

Here it is, in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-OV9O4mi-k

[Georg]

Richard, black sounds best, but makes it hard to see details...

...and it is stationed in Florida so can't take new pictures now.

To me it looked like there's a pakkawood layer shaped to go all the way under the changer and neck, raising it and adding rigidity to the E9 neck. A metal (steel ?) plate under the changer blocks stiffens up the changer mount on both necks, as on all Dekleys I have seen.

[richard37066]

Burt and Georg -

I must admit (my ignorance) that I was not aware of the innovations on those two instruments. It begs a question, however :- Is design dictated more by economics as opposed to solid engineering? The problems attendant to "cabinet drop", "tone" and "sustain" have seemingly plagued the industry almost from day one yet very few have seen fit to address the problem at the drawing board and have resorted to the band-aid treatment in an after-the-fact manner.

Intuition tells me that, at least, those problems could be either eliminated or diminished at minimal cost. At the risk of insulting someone, I fear that there are not enough daring souls who would spend time in identifying the root causes for the above maladies and applying sound engineering principles in an attempt to alleviate the undesirable aspects of current PSG design.

Of gratifying note is the fact that there are many on this forum who are not afraid to question accepted principles and, thus, stick their necks out in an effort to improve the breed. For those who have read my posts on the SGF, you'll recognize that I have repeatedly stated that NO ONE KNOWS what makes a PSG tick. Although that is a truism, virtually everyone on that "other" forum conveniently ignores that fact in favor of offering nonsensical conjecture in an ego-driven attempt at delineating a solution to a given problem. Such acts do nothing more than to muddy the waters with ill-conceived and conflicting notions.

It's unfortunate that, at present, I am financially unable to incur the costs of meaningful experimentation else I would welcome a "wish-list" of things to be tackled on the test bench. This, to me, would be as exciting - if not more - than working on my own "dream machine". Perhaps things will change in the future and I can gleefully stick my nose into the unknown. In the meantime, we'll all peck away at various and sundry things and hope for useful results.

It would appear that my initial idea in this thread has merit - as evidenced by the fact that it has been done before - yet not adopted by many.

It's a start.

Richard