Mullen tone

[Erv Niehaus]

Chris,
I called and talked to Mike with Mullen when the G2 first came out. I'm very impressed with their changer design.
He stated that the only reason the bent cross shafts worked was because of the limited amount of rotation on the shaft. They still need to fit loosely to keep from binding, however.
I have worked on quite a few Emmons p/p's and if the back apron is warped in the slightest, the cross shafts will bind in the supports.

[Chris Lang]

Erv say:

They still need to fit loosely to keep from binding, however.
I have worked on quite a few Emmons p/p's and if the back apron is warped in the slightest, the cross shafts will bind in the supports.

They still need to fit loosely to keep from binding, however.

That's my point. How can this be considered "precision"??

It seems like the slack that is allowed to be present on the G2 is to cover for the "physically incorrect" bent crossrods!

Like putting a bandaid on it. Sort of like,: "we'll use the bent rods so we can just have one changer model, but we'll make some extra slack in the end of the rods so they won't bind." (emphasis mine, not Mullen)

That's not right, in MHO.

[Erv Niehaus]

Chris,
Ed Fulawka uses a "self-aligning" bushing on the cross shaft ends on his guitars. I believe this is unique to the Fulawka's.
To my knowledge, Dell isn't utilizing this type of support. I believe he has bearings on the ends of the cross shafts but they're not self-aligning.

[Bill Lowe]

I hear the complaints about the the cross shafts but nobody has stepped up and stated what negative effects this causes. What neg effects do these cross shafts have or will have in the future? (other than they are not supposed to work)? For whatever reason it looks like it is working. I think there are well over a hundred G2's out there. I would think that if someone had the information on a plyabilty issue, tuning issue, mechnical issue or longevity issue they would come forward. The sound speks for itself. Just saying over and over that it is bad and not supposed work is not consistent with all the G2's out there. Where are all the faulty and flawed G2's that failed?

[Chris Lang]

Erv says:

Chris,
Ed Fulawka uses a "self-aligning" bushing on the cross shaft ends on his guitars. I believe this is unique to the Fulawka's.
To my knowledge, Dell isn't utilizing this type of support. I believe he has bearings on the ends of the cross shafts but they're not self-aligning.

I don't know why Mullen is not using self-aligning bearings. With the "bent" crossrod assembly, one would expect that to be essential.

If Fulawka uses them on straight crossrods that are physically correct, how much more would you expect to see them on the "bent" crossrods?

[Erv Niehaus]

Bill,
The only reason the bent cross shafts work is because of the limited rotation of the cross shafts and the slop built into the supports.

[Michael Robertson]

Reading this thread has got me LMAO.
It reminds me of my mother’s Bridge Club Parties.
A bunch of middle age self righteous wenches sitting around talking about anyone who wasn’t there.

When I started to play pedal steel I had to pay attention to my left hand and the bar placement, then the right hand and plucking the correct strings, then came the A pedal and the AB pedals combination, then the BC pedals combination, then the knee levers and how they effected all the above.

Now I am suppose to be concerned about the PHYSICS of this thing and how it can’t work?
According to Physics and Aeronautical Engineering bumble bees aren’t suppose to fly either.

Keep it up fellas this thread and my morning coffee helps me get my day off to a hilarious start.

[Brad Malone]

Erv, this is like building a great car and saying this car will work if you only push halfway down on the gas pedal, if you push more than halfway bad things will happen. I guess there will be some people that would buy a car like that but why when there are so many others that don't have that limitation?

[Chris Lang]

Michael says:

When I started to play pedal steel I had to pay attention to my left hand and the bar placement, then the right hand and plucking the correct strings, then came the A pedal and the AB pedals combination, then the BC pedals combination, then the knee levers and how they effected all the above.

Yeah. You still need to do that Michael.

However you can still have a conversation about the mechanics of pedal steel. That's why this thread is listed under "Pedal Steel-Instruments, mechanical issues, copedents, techniques, etc."

[Erv Niehaus]

Brad,
You are correct.
After I took a look at the G2 changer, I was all primed to buy a G2.
Then I took a closer look at the gutar's cross shafts and had to scratch my head.
Why would you build a guitar with a design flaw?

[Bill Lowe]

Erv, thnks for the response. What I am getting out of this thred is that they are not supposed to work but they do, for this intended application, period. Do we agree that is a fair statement?

[Erv Niehaus]

Bill,
By jove, I think you've got it!

[Chris Lang]

This is what I do not understand:
From the Mullen website:

We would like to introduce the new G2 model Mullen Pedal Steel Guitar.
We have gone to the drawing board and re-designed what we believe to be the best guitar available. This guitar is the result of 5 years of research, study, testing, and design.

They have done a great job on the inline pulling changer, as shown:


But then take away the whole purpose of the changer by using these!!

[Bill Lowe]

Chris, just in case those cross shafts act up on me, I made sure I got a black one. We all know they sound the best.

[Erv Niehaus]

I don't want you to think that I am just picking on the Mullen G2.
I have worked on a number of different pedal steels and just about every one of them have a "flaw" in its design, going all the way back to the Emmons p/p.
Their biggest flaw is inherent in the design of the changer itself. There has to be slack in the pull rods to allow for lowers. The changer design might contribute to the "sound" of the push/pull but it doesn't allow as tight an action as with an all pull.

[b0b]

Sorry I asked. Al Miller posted a reply that was all quote. Why bother - the posts are all right there?

I seriously doubt that the bend is a cost saving feature. It can't be cheap to bend all of the bars precisely like that. Plus there are lots of other parts on the guitar that that are fine custom machine work. I don't see any indication of cost cutting features in this model. It's their top-of-the-line.

Anyone who hasn't played a G2 has no legit standing in this debate anyway. You say that it can't work correctly, but no one who owns one has logged a complaint. According to those who own a G2, the bent crossrods work very well.

All crossbars pull on an arc - that's the nature of the machine. The closer a pull rod is to the center of rotation, the straighter the pull, but it's not something that most players worry about even at the furthest point of the bellcrank. So changing the center of rotation has an effect plus or minus, but calling it a "design flaw" is a real stretch. The design works - that's what matters.

Lastly, this topic is supposed to be about "Mullen Tone". How can bent crossbars affect tone? I suspect that the bend has next to zero affect on tone.

I regret opening the door to a shouting match. I had no idea that this crossbar issue was such a volatile subject among people who don't play Mullen guitars. Why do you even care? If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's really that simple.

[Brad Malone]

Erv, on another subject, how do you like your Excel..I know you have an engineering background and own and play a lot of different brands...how does Excel rank in your ratings?

[Chris Lang]

b0b says:

All crossbars pull on an arc - that's the nature of the machine. The closer a pull rod is to the center of rotation, the straighter the pull, but it's not something that most players worry about even at the furthest point of the bellcrank. So changing the center of rotation has an effect plus or minus, but calling it a "design flaw" is a real stretch. The design works - that's what matters.

Well, that's apples and oranges. The arc on the G2 will vary, as the bellcranks will "rise" and "fall" as the pedals/levers are actuated, due to the 20 degree or so deliberate bend in the center of the rod.

Say what you will but it's just bad math/physics, pure and simple.

[Bent Romnes]

Chris, you have yet to prove to us how this can be bad math/physics.
The "rise and fall" is minimal, not even worth considering to the final result which is: Did that string get pulled(slackened) enough to achieve the change wanted? The answer is yes, it did. Yes can be answered to the question Was it pulled with the same effort as the so called straight pull? as well

This whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Reminds me of so many people getting hung up in details that are new and "different"....with arguments that border on silly.

Also reminds me of the old lady who saw the locomotive for the first time. She says: You'll never be able to make that thing go. The train puttered down the track. She said: You'll never be able to stop that thing again.

Design flaw, Erv? Come on.

How about some faith in the Masters who designed and built the Mullen steel?

[Bill Moran]

I wonder if Henry Ford had this many opinions on the Model T Forum ? I can hear it now. " WHAT " no horse . That thing can't possibly move on it own !

At a boy Boo ! My HWP like's 1 4 5 or is it just me !!

[Chris Lang]

Bent(no pun intended) says:

Chris, you have yet to prove to us how this can be bad math/physics.

What??... Can you not see the obvious faulty physics?

Any high school student can see this.......

Surely you are just kidding...

Bent again:

This whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Reminds me of so many people getting hung up in details that are new and "different"....with arguments that border on silly.

Dude! Attention to details is what the Mullen guitar was supposed to be all about!!

Granted, the changer is very innovative.

But to throw those "bent" crossrods in there takes away from any advantage the changer may have had.


Still Bent:

How about some faith in the Masters who designed and built the Mullen steel?

How about the Masters going back to the tried and true "straight" crossrods that are not a slap in the face of physics.


The Royal Precision..............

[Mike Perlowin RIP]

Give it up Chris. You're making a fool of yourself.

[Bent Romnes]

What??... Can you not see the obvious faulty physics?

Any high school student can see this.......

Surely you are just kidding...


Dude! Attention to details is what the Mullen guitar was supposed to be all about!!

Granted, the changer is very innovative.

But to throw those "bent" crossrods in there takes away from any advantage the changer may have had.
Still Bent:

How about some faith in the Masters who designed and built the Mullen steel?

How about the Masters going back to the tried and true "straight" crossrods that are not a slap in the face of physics.


The Royal Precision..............

DUDE: What is "obviously faulty physics" to you and possibly high school students, does not necessarily spell bad design. You have to look at the end result: Does the shaft pull the finger enough to achieve the pull intended? Does it do so with the same effort as before?If yes, then leave it alone because it works. Remember, the finger ends up getting pulled in the arc intended. The end result is good.

Well, it is you who are calling it a slap in the face of physics. I choose to call it an innovative idea by a steel guitar designer who has proven himself through the decades as top of the heap.
Tried and true is good. So are new innovations.

I could counter with: You are slapping the face of a quality steel guitar builder. Remember: This Bent rod innovation(no I don't mind the pun) is just that- an innovation by a man of many years experience in design and build.
Keep talking in that vein and you will rapidly lose respect.

[Chris Lang]

Bent yet again:

DUDE: What is "obviously faulty physics" to you and possibly high school students, does not necessarily spell bad design.

Wow.... Interesting.


Physics are physics. They are called law for a reason.

Bending more:

Well, it is you who are calling it a slap in the face of physics. I choose to call it an innovative idea by a steel guitar designer who has proven himself through the decades as top of the heap.
Tried and true is good. So are new innovations.

Well, that is your opinion of the builders, and you are entitled to that.

However, when you say:
I choose to call it an innovative idea by a steel guitar designer who has proven himself through the decades as top of the heap.

You and I differ on this. I believe innovation is progress in technology.

Poorly designed, bent crossrods are not a step forward, in anyones book. I don't care who builds it.


Mike:

Give it up Chris. You're making a fool of yourself.

Yeah right. I'm making a fool of myself?

I see the elephant in the room and I speak up. So that makes me a fool?

Yeah........ NOT!

[chris ivey]

this thread is of course ridiculous. it makes me think of all the great music that was played in an earlier era of sho-buds and other steels that could be made or fixed with a hacksaw, vise and file!