"Pot-metal" Sho-Buds and sustain

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 14 Jul 2008 6:54 am

I was going to post this reply in the "What is it that makes a push-pull have 'that sound'" thread, but to avoid hijacking I'm posting it as a new topic.

James Morehead wrote:
Wiz Feinberg wrote:
I had a Sho~Bud Super~Pro before I got my Emmons push pull. It had almost zero sustain; I had to pick at the beginning and end of a slide-down ending chord/pedal on. quote]

You would not have much sustain in a guitar assembled with pot-metal parts, as the Super-Pros were. Thankfully, not all shobuds are created equal. Interesting how important actual setup can make or break a guitar's tone, as well as actual material that it's constructed from.
I don't want to let this go unchallenged. I have a Super Pro that I bought in 1984, and an Eighties LDG. The LDG is stock, with the pot-metal parts intact, except for three of the four knee lever brackets. On the Super Pro I had all the knee levers and their brackets changed to aluminum soon after I bought it.

I'm no expert, but I somehow doubt that the material that the lever bracket is made from has anything to do with sustain. It's not at all unreasonable to speculate that changer finger material might, and I suppose it's conceivable bell crank material might, though I'm pretty skeptical there.

But both the Super Pro and the LDG have their original pot-metal fingers and bell cranks, and both have excellent sustain, well superior to three other all-pull guitars I have, all from makers who regularly receive wide praise on the Forum. I also have a 1973 LDG, with all original, non-pot metal, parts, and it sustains excellently too, but not really any better than the other two Buds.

A different characteristic these three Buds share that differentiates them from the other three guitars that don't sustain as well is that the Buds all have wooden necks.

There's no question the pot-metal parts are a problem with regard to durability--they wear out and break much too easily. But as to sustain, I won't dispute that these guitars might sustain even better with different fingers, but, while of course individual guitars vary, the impression often given here that "pot-metal" era Sho-Buds are junk is quite misleading, in my experience.

The defense rests.

As to how this relates to the topic of the other thread, I have no comment (no experience) on comparative sustain of the Holy Grail, er, push/pull.

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 14 Jul 2008 7:23 am

I purchased a Pro II (wood necks)in 1984 through Washington Music Center. It was actually built that year because I talked to the person who assembled it. Hard to say what vintage of parts was on it but in the first month of use, I lost two knee levers that just flew off the guitar. They just cracked right in half and were made of pot metal. Very light, and very porous casting. The nut at the key end was also made of pot metal. When you struck your finger against it it thumped like plastic, very low density and very light in weight.

This guitar had NO sustain. It was like playing a banjo. It was even deader than taking a normal steel guitar and using a light glass or plastic bar. Total junk. I sold this to a guy who made it into a single neck and was thankful I only lost a few hundred bucks on the deal.

At the time I bought this guitar I was playing an older D-10 Emmons PP with the wrap around changer. Subsequent Sho-Buds I have owned including Jim Vest's old guitar were much better. Not as good as the push pull, but certainly they had the sustain that my MSA Legend has.

Greg

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 14 Jul 2008 7:46 am

The nut at the key end was also made of pot metal. When you struck your finger against it it thumped like plastic, very low density and very light in weight.

You're referring to the nut rollers? I guess they are pot metal--I never thought about it.

I don't know what year either of my late-model Buds was built. Although I bought the Super Pro in 1984 from Oxon Hill Music, the store owner said it had been used in the teaching studio for some time by Buddy Charleton, who had recently stopped teaching there. It doesn't have the red hearts and diamonds on the fretboard, though--(unfortunately; I like those)--which I think dates it to the Eighties some time.

As I said, mechanically the pot metal parts are indefensible.

Carl Vilar · Post by **Carl Vilar** » 14 Jul 2008 7:48 am

Best sustain I ever had in a guitar was from a Pro III pot metal with BL 705's and I have owned other Sho-Buds none pot metal, Emmons PP, Rains, Williams, WBS, and Promat not to say that some of these others are not great guitars but my pot metal had a longer sustain and great tone.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 14 Jul 2008 7:51 am

And the Pro III has metal necks! Guitars are individuals.

Paul Wade · Post by **Paul Wade** » 14 Jul 2008 8:17 am

well

i had one it the 80's it 8+6 and was a great guitar
wish i had another one...

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 14 Jul 2008 8:55 am

Brint, I think we are in agreement, to some degree, it all boils down to setup, and individual guitars. All shobuds are not created equal. All Emmons are not created equal. All______________are not created equal. I also might add, even within the same year and models. I have played older Professionals and Pro II's that were real dogs, then played others that were phenominal. Real dogs to MY ears, at least. I believe that goes for any brand guitar, too. It takes more than a brand name on the front to make a great guitar. That's why it's a good idea to play a guitar before you buy it, if you can.

If given a choice, some grades of metal resonate much better than other grades, with pot metal at the bottom of the list. Titanium is at the bottom of that list, also. Even your knee lever linkage is connected to your strings, though indirectly, and contribute to vibration, (or if poor metal, contribute to dampening vibration). Slack in your undercarrage--in the wrong areas, also dampens vibration. Thus the need for proper setup.

Ralph Mooney played the fire out of his black Super Pro, when he was with Waylon. Didn't hurt his career too bad.

But then, some of those same model guitars would just fly apart, and usually at the most high profile moment that you need them. Go figure. If you lucked out and got a good one, great. Even Super Pro's. If you got a bad one----well---------------
Just my honest opinion---your mileage may very much vary.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 14 Jul 2008 1:09 pm

Edited. I had a little dissertation here that entertained me while writing it, but I realized it would be a waste of time for anyone to bother reading it.

Wiz Feinberg · Post by **Wiz Feinberg** » 14 Jul 2008 8:55 pm

I remember having a Sho~Bud "The Professional" rack and barrel steel when I first began playing, in the early 1970's. It had two levels of wood in the undercarriage that was almost 3/4" thick. The pedals and knee levers had step down mechanisms to operate the E9 neck pullers. It definitely had better sustain than the later ones I owned that were one layer on the underside. The fingers were solid hard aluminum and it had lots of brass barrels. It weighed a ton, but what a sound!

Oh, and it didn't like .011 strings at all!

Damir Besic · Post by **Damir Besic** » 22 Jul 2008 6:59 pm

my experience with Sho~Bud is this,

1.LDG sounds out of this world, amazing tone
2.Pro III too brassy tone, didn`t like it at all
3.Super Pro was one of the worst Sho ~Bud`s
4.Pro I , II great guitars

in my book and for my ear, the winner in my Sho~ Bud tone contest is definately LDG with it`s kick a$$ tone. I had few LDG`s and every single one had amazing tone.

Db

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 22 Jul 2008 7:06 pm

But LDGs have NO TONE on C6th!

I don't play C6th. And I love my LDGs!

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 22 Jul 2008 10:10 pm

I was under the impression that LDGs are like the other Sho-Buds made in each period. So they range from Pro II quality to Pro III and Super Pro quality. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But if this is right, there is no single LDG type Sho-Bud.

Richard Sinkler · Post by **Richard Sinkler** » 22 Jul 2008 10:33 pm

Deleted.

I realize I shouldn't be so vocal about a guitar I hated that many people DO like. All I can say about the Super Pro I had was, Thank God someone felt sorry for me and bought it.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 23 Jul 2008 4:51 am

David Doggett wrote:I was under the impression that LDGs are like the other Sho-Buds made in each period. So they range from Pro II quality to Pro III and Super Pro quality. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But if this is right, there is no single LDG type Sho-Bud.

David, you are so correct. As I stated earlier, they ain't created equal.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 23 Jul 2008 3:37 pm

Ralph Mooney played the fire out of his black Super Pro,

There was one made for him, before that one. It was #3 off the line and he really didn't like it, so Red Rhodes got it, when he was still on Cahuenga, and he hated it. At that point in my life, I would buy anything that was black and silver, so I got it. It sounded very very bad, in part because the changer fingers were pot metal, zinc. Sho-Bud could have found a worse sounding metal, but it would have been more expensive.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 23 Jul 2008 5:10 pm

Other than that, how did you feel about that guitar, Chas??

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 23 Jul 2008 6:26 pm

You know, there's no telling. Everybody's different, and, as I said above, guitars are individuals, too. But I have a very, very hard time believing that anyone would feel as negatively about my particular Super Pro as has been expressed above--at least, if they liked Sho-Buds in general. I now have the '73 LDG and a mid Seventies Pro III, and do not feel my Super Pro is significantly inferior to them, if at all. Guess I got lucky--or I have no taste!

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 23 Jul 2008 6:34 pm

You may have a fine individual, Brint. If you like the guitar, and it sounds and plays good for you, then that's whats important. It's down to the enjoyment factor now. That's all that's really important, anyways.

Eric Philippsen · Post by **Eric Philippsen** » 24 Jul 2008 6:42 am

Boy, all the negatives about Super-Pros just don't apply to the one I have played for the last 20+ years. It was my very first steel and it has seen me through job after job after job. Whew, what a workhorse. No tuning problems whatsoever, dependable, comfortable. Yep, a pot knee lever and bell crank broke but I replaced those. I have no complaints about its tone. I put 705's in it a couple of years after I got it but, shoot, the originals were just fine, too. I "retired" it about a year ago when I got a Zum but I would recruit it again in a heartbeat if I had to.

Mike Phillips · Post by **Mike Phillips** » 24 Jul 2008 7:31 am

I traded a Super Pro away for a Push Pull a few years back, and while I am very happy I did so, I still miss that Sho~Bud. Furthermore, while the Emmons SKH I had was a fast machine, it had none of the sustain of that Super Pro.

I wish I could keep them all.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 24 Jul 2008 10:43 am

Ok, first of all, I’m not saying that your Super Pro sounds bad, I’m saying that mine didn’t sound good. Go back about 30 years and I had an Emmons S-10 that I was learning on and then I got a Super Pro. A great player can make a turd sound good, I wasn’t a great player and the Emmons sounded so much better than the Bud. I once saw a Sho-Bud that Doug Livingston was playing and the fingers were so worn out they were actually twisting in the slots when he pushed the pedals, and he sounded fabulous.

I had access to the machine shop and a welding shop at Warner Bros., so I took it apart and replaced the fingers with aluminum, then later when I had a shop, the E9s with brass (it probably didn’t make any difference). The Emmons had aluminum necks, so I welded on aluminum necks made from tooling plate. The keyhead was pot metal and did it sound bad, probably not, but I was on a mission and I replaced it with keyless Kline tuners.

It went through a lot of permutations and I still have it and use it. It has been played on somewhere between 60 and 70 film scores and at one time it had pickups on both ends of the necks, for The Lost Boys. A decade or so, ago, this was the set up.

Then I had MIDI pickups on it as well, to control the Sampler, while the regular pickups went to the rack.

I’ve since removed the EMG and MIDI pickups and installed Tonealigners. This is a nice sounding guitar, with a lot of sustain.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 24 Jul 2008 11:50 am

That's a couple of references now to the "nut" or "keyhead" of a Super Pro being pot metal. When Greg first referred to this, I assumed he could only be talking about the rollers (I haven't had them off in a while, but they may very well be pot metal--they're silver, shiny, and lightweight; the ones on my 80s LDG appear to be brass), because the keyhead/nut structure on mine (and the LDG) is most definitely aluminum, all one piece, differing from older models only in being less massive, having straighter "steps" for the tuners, and lacking the "Gumby" flourish.

But I guess there may have been a change in the later days of Sho-Bud?

Greg Vincent · Post by **Greg Vincent** » 24 Jul 2008 12:39 pm

I have one of those D10 "Fen~Buds", which is basically a Super Pro sold by Fender.

Terrific "West Coast" tone, but I've broken both right-moving knee levers and the guitar has very little sustain.

-GV

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 24 Jul 2008 2:04 pm

Greg, unless I'm mistaken, the Fen-Bud has the same changer that the pedal Fenders had, where each "finger" is slotted and rotates on the edge of the panel/casting/whatever it's called. There's not much there to sustain a sustain.

Greg Vincent · Post by **Greg Vincent** » 25 Jul 2008 6:13 am

Yeah Chas, you're right. The fingers just pivot over a single point. It's very weird --but kinda clever.

So I guess one would say the "top" of the guitar is very Fender-y (even has those Kluson tuning pans) while the underside is very Super Pro.

Thanks for pointing that out, Chas!

-GV

The Steel Guitar Forum

"Pot-metal" Sho-Buds and sustain

"Pot-metal" Sho-Buds and sustain

shobud super pro