Vibrations

[Kevin Hatton]

My point exactly. All the computers in the world will never match the master builders and players. It's already been done, we don't need a computer to confirm it. What a waste of time.

[Bud Angelotti]

Ed,
May I suggest, since you like to spend your time analyzing using computers and graphs and such, which is NOT a waste of time, TO YOU (thats what you like to do - so do it ), that you do some kind of comparison of the three methods of mounting a string to a steel guitar. It might be of use to builders, might physically enable the instrument to evolve. There are so-o-o many physical variables involved, let alone "feel", which is unvarifiable. Which is why a black P/P is best!

[Georg Sørtun]

Lane, Does that assumption exclude the old school builders? If it does? that assumption is the bad that comes from this.......Buddy, Shot, Harry, David, Ron, Chuck, Zane, Duane, Dad, and many others from that era have spent their lifetime delving into what's going on through the best test that only the ears can measure...Their end results are not by accident, they are intentional according to the research they have conducted over decades of experimentation......

Hmm, it is strange how well my line of thoughts was received by David and Harry, but as David said: "no use talking to players about it this way, as they wouldn't understand what you're talking about".

Different approaches, same conclusions, maybe..? May have to let them build me a Jackson with the right combination of their ideas (and mine), to my detailed specs, one day.

In a nutshell, these scientific studies are just redundant proof of what they already know and understand first hand. Maybe it would have helped before any of them designed guitars and went on the few decades of trial and error experiments? I actually believe the great sounding instruments we measure new ones by, exist because their designers were not making decisions based on charted data......

Probably right - I was not there at the time so can't really say, but if they had collected more, and more detailed, data as they went along, we would have known more about how to build equally great instruments today.

Another factor is that not all of us necessarily think the best steels (or other instruments) were built in the past. I for one do not.

Plenty of things to improve for those who feel so inclined, and those who do think old style steels were/are best have plenty of originals and copies to choose amongst so they should not have a problem with a few "outsiders" that have different thoughts and goals and ways to get there.

[Franklin]

George,

Since you feel the best is in the newer instruments.....You must realize you are in the minority.....Building instruments for purchase is a business....Aiming for something pleasing to the majority is a smarter business move.....

The majority of great pro engineers and players on all instruments use old recordings, old instruments, old Microphones, tubed gear etc as the benchmarks......Modern builders have made more misses than hits when aimed at the past, so anyone with the desire to depart from the sounds of old gear should always have plenty to choose from.

PF

[Georg Sørtun]

Paul,

It looks like we can agree on most things then, but look somewhat differently on how best to get to wherever we want to go.

FWIW: the ideal sound chain in studio or elsewhere - to me - is the straightest line with zero filtering or coloring. Rules out most old (tube) equipment, and definitely makes it hard to find anything new worth investing in. I think the latter has something to do with development and production being geared towards the masses instead of towards optimal quality, which makes sense the way markets work.

I do not mind being in a minority here, as it definitely saves me a lot of money since there isn't much worth buying. Also gives me something to do in my retirement, as since I can't buy what I want I have to make it myself.

[Bud Angelotti]

60's technology, which was built upon previous technology, put a man on the moon and back to earth safetly. No small feat. 60's technology will not put a man on mars and back safetly. By building upon 60's technology, and technology since then, will we get to mars and back, and further.
I just finished a book about the life of Issac Newton. I was shocked. According to what I read, he left his regular job, teaching, to get away from the general population, to avoid the black plague. Went to his family estate in the country and tinkered and thought, and came up with his theories of gravity. Talk about turning lemons into lemonade!
Keep going Ed!

[Dave Mudgett]

Does that assumption exclude the old school builders? If it does? that assumption is the bad that comes from this.......Buddy, Shot, Harry, David, Ron, Chuck, Zane, Duane, Dad, and many others from that era have spent their lifetime delving into what's going on through the best test that only the ears can measure...Their end results are not by accident, they are intentional according to the research they have conducted over decades of experimentation......They simply tried all the materials available within a design, And have the most important data available to anyone, "the feedback from players" about guitars with natural wood, Wilson Art, laminated wood, carbon fibre, casted parts, machined parts, steel, brass, aluminum, longer scales, shorter scales, etc, on how they affect the tone.

Is this design information available in any organized way that anybody else can access? When these people (and others, as you say) are retired or gone, who's going to carry on? How will this information be passed on? I realize there are some general ideas floating out there, this forum has been good for that. But I don't see this information in any type of organized format that someone new to the field could study and then carry on. That's one of the main points about scientific inquiry - document what's been learned so that future generations have giant shoulders upon which to stand.

This sort of issue was very relevant in the 6-string guitar world. Great designs were developed in the 1930s (acoustic guitars) and 1950s (electric guitars), but corporate takeovers, increasing mechanization, and the retirement and/or death of many of these innovators, plus exhaustion of some of the important materials (old-growth wood like Brazilian rosewood, German spruce, for example) led to radically reduced quality by the 1970s or 80s. By the 80s, things were so bad that both old (e.g., Fender, Gibson, Martin) and new builders needed to essentially re-discover the secrets of how those great guitars were built. They had to get old examples and measure in a thousand ways, and then spend 10-20 years figuring out how to do it again, to the point where I think some of the instruments are comparable to the great old ones. This is an honest question - if that happens in the pedal steel world, is there enough of a market for anybody to even bother to try to unearth what the masters did? I realize the situation is different - there have been no corporate takeovers of pedal steel companies, it's a small-shop situation. But have we really covered the bases to make sure this critical design information is passed on? I wonder.

In a nutshell, these scientific studies are just redundant proof of what they already know and understand first hand. Maybe it would have helped before any of them designed guitars and went on the few decades of trial and error experiments? I actually believe the great sounding instruments we measure new ones by, exist because their designers were not making decisions based on charted data......

My take is that the human mind and hands are better suited to bold, new approaches - I think the pedal steel itself was a bold, new type of instrument that no computer or set of instruments would have come up with. So perhaps the main contribution of instrumental analysis would be to analyze and document the results. But perhaps it can also give new insight on what makes them tick. I don't necessarily think "everything's" been done - is there really no room for improvement in design, and are there really no mysteries left to figure out?

I have a short story that I haven't mentioned here before, to my knowledge. One day, a few years ago, John Fabian called me - I didn't know him at all, but he had read some posts and thought maybe I was the guy to talk to, so he found my phone number and called. He wanted to document certain design ideas at Carter and wondered if I could do it. He didn't really give me any inside info - e.g., that he was sick and that things were about the change radically. I was pretty crazy busy at work at the time and couldn't take on a project like this right then, and I had no idea that the time was so short. I also suggested a friend who teaches mechanical engineering and really is an expert in vibrations (he actually did write 'the textbook' on it). I talked to that friend, who was interested in perhaps collaborating, but also buried with work - teaching, research projects, and so on. So nothing came of it right then. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was so dismayed to read John's death notice not so long afterward. So I do think that it is important to document things. The old-school tradition is to do this via apprenticeship, but is that going to prove to be a good model for future generations? Again, I wonder.

[Ransom Beers]

IE: Emmons vs Zum vs Franklin vs Sho-Bud vs Rains,the thing is, tonal quality is in the ears of the listener as is the vibrations as to the sounds one hears(does that make sense?)Prolly not but I says it so it must be true

[Franklin]

Probably right - I was not there at the time so can't really say, but if they had collected more, and more detailed, data as they went along, we would have known more about how to build equally great instruments today.

George,

How do you conclude things are lost with steels of the past?

..Actually, nothing is lost and I can speak for Dad here....If he wanted the sound of a PP he would build an exact copy of the PP using the same material compositions...Same with the Sho-Bud permanent. By building exact copies using the exact types of materials anyone can get the same tonal quality as the copied brand of instrument....Just look at the copies of teles and strats for tonal verification.

George I'm not pointing this statement at you....Most discussing these tonal issues either dismiss or overlook this fact....Builders can not interchange mechanical and cosmetic structures from this and that guitar and expect them to sound specifically like a brand that was made differently from their decisions to mix things up a bit.......Change the guitar from its original design and you will change the sound. Its really as simple as that if the desire is to copy a brands sound.

For the record....The Franklin was not designed to accomplish another guitars sound......I wanted long sustain and recordability and more mid's than my PP had and I wanted a balanced tone across the strings, up the neck because my PP had a dead spot around the twelfth fret which frustrated me in the studio....I'm very happy with Dad's result. I love the fact that my guitar does not sound like the other brands of the 60's era, yet to my ears and thankfully to those who hire me, it sounds as though it came from that vintage period.

PF

[Franklin]

Dave, I really enjoy your take on all of this.....Unfortunately all great instruments are made by a skilled luthiers hands. I worry about the same knowledge and skills getting lost.......

Great builders know how to adjust issues and make compromises as they build and tweak a guitar......That can only be handed down personally through the apprentice......Just like good old improvisation....I can analyze and document everything possible about Chalker but he's gone and so is his style in the way he could play and create it...Its his heart and soul behind what he plays that makes it great...No amount of analyzation will get me inside his head.....Instruments the way I see them are individual creations. Unfortunately I don't believe there is a better way to maintain these skills and the knowledge behind them than becoming an understudy of a master builder or player....

PF

[Franklin]

Probably right - I was not there at the time so can't really say, but if they had collected more, and more detailed, data as they went along, we would have known more about how to build equally great instruments today.

George,

How do you conclude things are lost with steels of the past?

..Actually, nothing is lost and I can speak for Dad here....If he wanted the sound of a PP he would build an exact copy of the PP using the same material compositions...Same with the Sho-Bud permanent. By building exact copies using the exact types of materials anyone can get the same tonal quality as the copied brand of instrument....Just look at the copies of teles and strats for tonal verification.

George I'm not pointing this statement at you....Most discussing these tonal issues either dismiss or overlook this fact....Builders can not interchange mechanical and cosmetic structures from this and that guitar and expect them to sound specifically like a brand that was made differently from their decisions to mix things up a bit.......Change the guitar from its original design and you will change the sound. Its really as simple as that if the desire is to copy a brands sound.

For the record....The Franklin was not designed to accomplish another guitars sound......I wanted long sustain and recordability and more mid's than my PP had and I wanted a balanced tone across the strings, up the neck because my PP had a dead spot around the twelfth fret which frustrated me in the studio....I'm very happy with Dad's result. I love the fact that my guitar does not sound like the other brands of the 60's era, yet to my ears and thankfully to those who hire me, it sounds as though it came from that vintage period.

PF

[Lane Gray]

I see you have another reply or two, Paul, and I find reading your words as fascinating as listening to your playing. So pardon me if I'm jumping in the middle, but the old builders (and current ones, too) approach/ed their research in the usual way (not to mention the method that gave us the Martin D-35, the Stradivarius and Mike Auldridge's '36 Regal), while Ed and Georg are putting scientific instruments to work quantifying (or attempting to) what exactly IS that "zing" that The Blade has, or Lloyd's Bud. I personally would think it intellectually cool if Ed could point to a spot on the graph that was there on the sound of The Blade and absent on Larry Behm's (just to pick a push-pull at random) and say "Ziss!! Ziss is der Zing." (sorry, I picture scientists with German accents. Bonus if Ed has Gene Wilder hair)
I remain skeptical that knowledge of the nature of the "zing" will get anybody closer to reproducing it. After all, only some guitars had "it," despite being made by the same hands.
I think reproduction of "it" will more likely happen through signal processing (like Fishman's Aura) than through guitar manufacture.

[Dave Mudgett]

Paul, maybe you are right. I certainly agree that great guitars are made by great builders, and I'm absolutely not arguing against apprenticeship - that is tried and true. Maybe this will work for building pedal steels, since it's a small-shop business, even though most everything else in the culture appears (to me) to be moving in a very different direction. But I'm concerned that the increasingly fast pace of life and need to obsess over financials to survive is making this kind of apprenticeship harder and harder.

I also don't get the impression that this is how, for example, Fender or Gibson figured out how to re-create old-school style Teles, Strats, and Les Pauls. From what I understand, they literally took them apart, measured everything they could, of course talked to as many of the original designers/builders they could, and then it took some time before (IMO) they really started getting them right [e.g., my 1999 '63 closet classic Tele is perhaps the best playing/sounding Tele I've ever played]. But I think a lot of the original folks were gone by this point, and I sometimes get the impression that many new guitar builders don't understand the 'design rationale' for some of the old guitars - 'why' people did things the way they did. If you got there by copying, that rationale doesn't necessarily make itself clear. It's one thing to copy an old guitar as exactly as possible. But that doesn't mean they understand how to adjust seemingly small things that can make all the difference. To me, that's what separates builders and guitars.

If that design rationale passes on without someone documenting it somehow, then there will need to be a way to study instruments in an organized way and re-learn it. I just wish I had more time - there are way more projects to do than I will probably ever live long enough to finish. If I'm still in good shape when I retire, I know I'll never run out of stuff to do.

[Bud Angelotti]

In my MOST HUMBLE amateur pedal steel guitar playing opinion, I believe that those who are succesful, as in $$$, should be SUPPORTING the trailblazers.
Got to go tile a floor now, so I have the $$$ to get a new set of strings, so I will hopefully sound good at this week-ends free gig that we play for FUN, playing mostly 60's & 70's music which we LOVE.

[ed packard]

A general outline of the initial BEAST vs BOARD tests is as follows, with comments:
The Photo album is at the link below:

LINK 1
http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/ ... ?start=all

For the BOARD…Here are the FSA “group” behavior traces for “system profile”, “up the neck strums”, and “hammer shocks” to various parts of the body.

Vertical scaling is in db, horizontal scaling is in Hz = frequency = cycles per second.

Vertical scaling goes from +10db at the top, to -60db at the bottom at 5db per large division. A loss of 6db = ½ (50%) voltage. A loss of 12 db = ¼ (25% )voltage. A loss of 18db = 1/8 (12.5%) voltage. A loss of 40db = 1bout 1 % signal left.

Horizontal scaling goes from 20Hz at the left to 5KHz at the right.

CHART for BOARD group traces .



For the BEAST…Here are the FSA “group” behavior traces for “system profile”, “up the neck strums”, and “hammer shocks” to various parts of the body.

CHART for BEAST group traces.



Points to consider are:

Does the BOARD show any FSA difference re a strum at different frets?
Only the expected spectrum shift, plus more amplitude at the higher frets.

Does the ZIRC bar change the BOARD FSA strum results…open strings no bar vs fret 1 with bar?
No show stoppers here.

Are there any notches/glitches/dead spots to be found in the BOARD’s FSA response?
None noted.

What is the BOARD “system” FSA profile into HiZ?
What is the BOARD system FSA profile into LoZ?
Quantifiable high frequency loss with LoZ load.

Repeat above for the BEAST .
Any signal differences noted via FSA?
Slight spectral differences due to different tunings.
Amplitude differences because of pickup to string spacing differences.
Use the eye/brain loop to associate the “hammer shock” results with the “up the neck” traces and see what section of the spectrum is excited in the strings….How do the BEAST and BOARD and compare?

In general, it appears that the PSG (BEAST) gives lower amplitudes, the pickup output is less dependent upon body resonances which do have some association with the “up the neck” traces.

The NON PED (BOARD) has greater output level, and the pickup output is more dependent upon body resonance which have a distinct association with the “up the neck” traces.

The amplitude differences are in large part due to pickup to string spacing = “one quarter” for the BOARD, and “two quarters” for the BEAST.

The non ped (BOARD) is basically a bow with 400pounds of tension = a simple system. The PSG (BEAST) is a much more complex system having more parts to damp vibrations.

Question is how do they sound…I know but won’t comment yet…can’t communicate sound in words anyway. It is all captured on videotape, and on the R24.

Much more to be said and seen re these two group charts…question: do you want body vibrations or not…if yes, tuned to what part(s) of the spectrum?

[Georg Sørtun]

I personally would think it intellectually cool if Ed could point to a spot on the graph that was there on the sound of The Blade and absent on Larry Beam's (just to pick a push-pull at random) and say "Ziss!! Ziss is der Zing." (sorry, I picture scientists with German accents. Bonus if Ed has Gene Wilder hair)

Will Norwegian accent and wild beard do? Not much hair left so get no bonus there

I am not so sure if the "Zing" is present in some PPs and totally missing in others, even if players can't play it out in all. Varying degree of "zing", yes, but I think most PPs can be mechanically tweaked to produce some "zing".

I know some about how to put some of that "PP zing" into a few non-PPs, so that's not the problem. To make a potential AP candidate produce the "zing" it has to be modified quite a bit around the bridge/changer, and very few players seem to like having their lovely instruments irreversible "destroyed" by the necessary modifications - they lose market value.

My problem is that the "PP zing" is not what I want in my steels because it tends to dominate - found no good on/off button, so that is one characteristic I left out. May introduce it again in my next model, where I am designing in an adjustable "edge" near the bridge to produce effects of that kind.

When done - some time in the distant future I guess - I will release description for how to produce anything from a "deep growl" to a "sustaining zing" to those interested (will make sure the notes and measurements don't get lost this time), as I won't ever build for sale.

In the mean time I prefer to be in a minority of one about how I want a PSG to be constructed, sound, play and look. Doesn't make playing a good, regular AP PSG - preferably an old Dekley - less of an experience.

[ed packard]

The more I stare at the charts, the more info I see.

The next set of charts will be re dwell and decay...think sustain.

I first got involved with the sound analysis thing while working on a tribal language recording and translation problem (synthesizing the informant), and on vibration work on weapons systems (nuke boats).

Here is a link to see some of the latest software available for sound analysis tasks.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/Raven/ ... rview.html

[Georg Sørtun]

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/Raven/ ... rview.html

Most interesting.

[ed packard]

Vertical scaling is in db, horizontal scaling is in Hz = frequency = cycles per second.

Vertical scaling goes from +10db at the top, to -60db at the bottom at 5db per large division. A loss of 6db = ½ (50%) voltage. A loss of 12 db = ¼ (25% )voltage. A loss of 18db = 1/8 (12.5%) voltage. A loss of 40db = 1bout 1 % signal left.

Horizontal scaling goes from 20Hz at the left to 5KHz at the right.

A more “standard” PSG (the PST 13 series) is being added. 25” scale, 14 strings, Sierra Session series hardware, changer on players right, keyless/gearless tuner.

Photos have been added at:

LINK 1
http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/ ... ?start=all

CHART for PST 13 group traces:



Again…engage the eye/brain loop to associate the strum responses with the “shock/hammer noise.

[Scott Swartz]

Ed,

It appears to me the right 1/3 of the graphs is a result of the pickup inductance and frequency response rolloff.

The actual string vibrations will have harmonics at higher frequencies than shown, and if the pickup had a wider flatter frequency response wouldn't that make it easier to see differences? I wonder if there is good info being masked by the heavy wound steel pickups.

[ed packard]

Scott...good observation...the high frequency rolloff is mostly from the Inductance in the pickup winding. It is worse when the pickup is "loaded" by the VP, and worse still when the pedal is pressed full on as there is then the VP across the amp input as loads.

Let's say the pickup inductance is 10 Henrys. The reactance for 10 Henrys is XL = 2 pi f L...L is the inductance. Frequency = 5000 Hz, XL = 314K ohms...if the load were 314k 50% of the pickup voltage would be lost for 5000Hz.

The signal from the common pickups falls off at about 2oooHz. Profiles of pickups for 30 PSGs may be found at:

http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/ ... STRUMENTS/

The CHARTS are at the end. These charts were taken with the pickup directly into my :instrumentation amp = input megohms. The present run is into the ZOOM R24 HiZ =???.

One could get a feel for how hi the harmonics go in the strings by using other types of pickups.

The next CHARTS will show dwell and decay for the same three instruments. These may be compared with the CHARTS in the above link.

[ed packard]

Redundancy deleted.

[Jerry Fessenden]

Seems like there is a lot of guys that take offence to the reseach Ed is doing. He's not charging us a cent and somewhere this stuff could make a difference . For example , with all the regulations that the gov. puts on us , we could be looking for different materials . Another point is this . All of the major guitar companies have reseach labs and all these graphs too. I've been in some of the labs .... and Bill Lawrence himself has used meters to show some of the things we have been shown here. JF

[Georg Sørtun]

I have the same thoughts as Jerry about people's reaction.

About materials: "engineered wood" is the only wood I'd like to see in a PSG, so luckily future availability and regulations won't be a problem.

[Bent Romnes]

I have a problem with engineered wood.
First, natural wood is tried and true. It has been time-tested for continuity of grain, voids, knots and a plethora of other perceived "problems".

What, then, with plywood, pressed wood etc?
Do we want several layers of glue to play a role in our hunt for "that" tone? Do we want no grain direction at all to conceivably play havoc with what some say the "warm" tone coming from an all-wood steel guitar body?

I for one, and many with me, shy away from using plastic products of any kind in a steel guitar. My opinion is that plastic is a tone and vibration killer and certainly not an enhancer. I consider glue on the same line as plastic. Think about all the glue that goes into a piece of plywood.