| Author |
Topic: New Steel Design |
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 9:33 am |
|
Considering the cost o B and G string benders, and their simplicity for 6 string guitars, Pedal Steels are actually inexpensive!
_________________
Dr. Z Surgical Steel amp, amazing!
"74 Bud S-10 3&6
'73 Bud S-10 3&5(under construction)
'63 Fingertip S-10, at James awaiting 6 knees
'57 Strat, LP Blue
'91 Tele with 60's Maple neck
Dozen more guitars!
Dozens of amps, but SF Quad reverb, Rick Johnson cabs. JBL 15, '64 Vibroverb for at home.
'52 and '56 Pro Amps |
|
|
|
Fred Treece
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 10:04 am
|
|
Can Microsoft and Apple be kept out of this? I’m ready for Bob’s changer controller right now, if it comes with a top hat decal on it. |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 10:38 am
|
|
| b0b wrote: |
| If you started with an existing all-pull guitar, would the prototype be a lot less expensive? Can we talk you into making one? |
My idea was to build an improved PSG in every way possible - not just a cheaper one, which means even the "standard" body gets in the way. Something like my GFI Ultra might work as base, but would impose serious limitations.
My design (only on "paper" so far) is based on an "all-pull keyhead - keyed - changer", with the bridge optimised as tone-bridge. Going keyless would make it slightly less complicated and save some cost without compromising "tone", but I'm not much for keyless.
If/as/when I get personal matters in order, I may continue with the project. Not much others can say or do to affect my priorities for the time being. |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 2:38 pm
|
|
| Let's computerize the violin. Not. Instruments are about human emotional expression. Not computers. |
|
|
|
Henry Matthews
From:
Texarkana, Ark USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 2:46 pm
|
|
I think it would be a great idea to try for someone that has the knowledge and ability and funds to try. With computer technology of today, a lot could be done to inhance it also. You could have self tuning guitars, guitars that you could change the setup on by the push of a button, guitars that you could change the sound and the possiblitys are unlimited with computer tech. I'm really surprized no one has already done this. I don't know why Al Petty's steel guitar orchestra didn't take over. I played on it and it was quite unique. You could actually play piano, sax, trumpet or really anything that was programmed into it and sounded real. With todays technology, I think all that could be done on one instrument built with computer savey.
After all, the electronic keyboard guys simulate steel guitars, I say we turn it around and simulate them, could be easily done with todays tech.
_________________
Henry Matthews
D-10 Magnum, 8 &5, dark rose color
D-10 1974 Emmons cut tail, fat back,rosewood, 8&5
Nashville 112 amp, Fishman Loudbox Performer amp, Hilton pedal, Goodrich pedal,BJS bar, Kyser picks, Live steel Strings. No effects, doodads or stomp boxes. |
|
|
|
Drew Pierce
From:
Arkansas, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 3:22 pm
|
|
Innovation is a wonderful thing. But for some reason, stringed instruments seem to follow a path of development from rapid and radical innovation in the beginning to a sort of leveling off after that. There are always refinements and tweaks at the margins, but the original, basic designs seem to endure. Violins, guitars, etc., are especially inclined that way.
Another striking example is the Gibson Mastertone flathead banjo. Developed in the early 1930s, the design remains the standard for volume and tone by which all bluegrass banjos are measured to this day. Pedal steels are not much different. There was a steep developmental curve in the '50s and '60s, and since that time, the evolution has been mostly a matter of refinements. I would not, for example, consider the evolution from cable pull to push pull to all pull to be huge evolutionary steps.
Whether a "virtual changer" PSG could improve on - or even replicate - the sound of a classic Emmons is an interesting question.
_________________
Drew Pierce
Emmons D10 Fatback, S10 bolt-on, Zum D10, Evans RE500, Hilton volume and delay pedals. |
|
|
|
Doug Palmer
From:
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 3:26 pm New steel
|
|
How about a combination steel/theremin?
_________________
Emmons D-10, ST-10,LD-10 III, NV-112,Fender Deluxe Reverb. Authorized wholesale dealer musicorp.com! |
|
|
|
Paul Arntson
From:
Washington, USA
|
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 4:41 pm
|
|
| Paul Arntson wrote: |
| […] The key seemed to be getting enough leverage for the limited torque RC motors. Also, it would be challenging to fit all the changers together. |
Right … which is why I ruled out that type of servos long ago, as even with "gears" in the form of more conventional changers and connection-rods they lack either torque, speed or precision, or they take up too much space. |
|
|
|
Nathan French
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 8:32 pm
|
|
| Henry Matthews wrote: |
| I think it would be a great idea to try for someone that has the knowledge and ability and funds to try. |
I've been keeping it to myself up til now but I've been working on this for a little while. I don't want to say to much yet. It isn't terribly hard (nor expensive -- $12k???) to prototype something that controls pitch with a pedal like that guy with the servobender tele did. Technically there's a rudimentary electronic pedal steel on my bench. I don't want to say much more until it's in a more usable form.
I think it's basically a workable concept but I'm still proving some things out (like pitch accuracy). |
|
|
|
Fred Treece
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 9:01 pm
|
|
Holy crap. That guy’s name must be Les Paul Tesla Jobs. Amazing! |
|
|
|
Glenn Demichele
From:
(20mi N of) Chicago Illinois, USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 9:07 pm
|
|
I've thought about it too: i even made a 1 string prototype using a solenoid with positional feedback (using the inductance of the solenoid as positional feedback, George). It bent the string fine, but took a lot of current. The biggest problem I see is the tactile feedback to the pedals, which would require a mess more solenoids (or servos) faking pedal resistance. After the exercise, I was left with the question "why?". Changing your coped on the fly? I have enough trouble with my fixed one, which is Lloyd's 3&4 on E9, and I don't sound like that yet. Automating the picking hand might be a better goal..:
_________________
Franklin D10 8&5, Excel D10 8&5, homemade buffer/overdrive, Moyo pedal, GT-001 effects, 2x BAM200 for stereo. 2x GW8003 8" driver in homemade closed-box. Also NV400 etc. etc... |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 11:02 pm
|
|
| Glenn Demichele wrote: |
| positional feedback |
feedback should be tension, not position |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 22 Jan 2018 11:48 pm
|
|
| Glenn Demichele wrote: |
| I've thought about it too: i even made a 1 string prototype using a solenoid with positional feedback (using the inductance of the solenoid as positional feedback, George). It bent the string fine, but took a lot of current. |
A "low-mass screw servo" with PWM control can be perceived to react as fast as a solenoid - not quite but close enough for even the quickest pedal-stomping to sound flawless, and as slow as one may ever need.
With split-rotation detection on the screw it can speed up to 10000 revolutions if/when needed, and "stop on a dime" (within .5 cents) and stay there. Such a servo doesn't draw any current unless a Pedal/Lever is actually moving, so no heat-up even if a Pedal/lever combination is held for minutes.
| Glenn Demichele wrote: |
| The biggest problem I see is the tactile feedback to the pedals, which would require a mess more solenoids (or servos) faking pedal resistance. |
KISS 
Position-detection on spring-loaded Pedals/Levers will give all the feedback a player need, providing the actual pitch-changes for the string(s) are in perfect sync with the P/L position = no delay.
That is: no actual feedback (apart from an adjustable spring to suit the individual player's preferences for Pedal/Lever resistance), only "feedforward" to "the brain".
| Glenn Demichele wrote: |
| After the exercise, I was left with the question "why?". Changing your coped on the fly? |
• Would be nice to have those "extra" changes that one doesn't need very often, available on a 3P/4-5L PSG on "command". Even already activated Pedals/Levers can then be made to change function while playing
• Would also be nice to tune JI in open, an let the PSG "brain" fine-tune the entire neck JI for any and all possible and impossible P/L combinations. No more "compensators" or tuning compromises for the humble PSG, and - if necessary - no more "body-drop" detuning. |
|
|
|
Jon Zimmerman
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 11:30 am Servo string pullers
|
|
The guy has what it takes to develop/envelope a proto system, but let us return to "real world" performance with it...no one has mentioned: what if a string breaks in the middle of your signature solo?
How long before you've changed it out? 💩 happens.
A spare or two setups standing by? More $$, and higher maint.?? |
|
|
|
DG Whitley
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 11:37 am
|
|
I believe Scotty on StarTrek said it best: "The more you overhaul the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".
Speaking only for myself, I see little advantage to complicating the mechanical functions of a steel guitar. Why add more points of possible failure? What advantage over cost does it add? Just my 2 cents on the subject. |
|
|
|
Jon Zimmerman
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 12:03 pm Kiss?
|
|
| KISS ought now to be KISASS = Keep it Simple as SLIPON SNEAKERS! |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 12:47 pm
|
|
If you play a simple E9th copedent with 3+4, mechanical linkage is fine. But as you add more strings, more changes, compensators, splits and half-stops, the complexity of the undercarriage can be overwhelming. At some point, a programmable electronic changer becomes the simpler solution.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Dave Hepworth
From:
West Yorkshire, UK
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 12:49 pm
|
|
Hi folks,
It seems to me that if I was going to design a new PSG then a digital design would be best ....... negating the problems of servos and extra electro mechanical linkages etc.
Pedal feel could be achieved by adjustable springs and travel by adjustable stops.
The pedals and levers could be used to digitally alter the given pitch of the string.Not sure how the bar could alter the string pitch tho.Would the strings actually have to be strings as we know them provided they had a tensioned feel .Some of you here undoubted know how this could be achieved.
If the guitar was digital it could be midi and therefore sound like anything else you wanted.The possibilities could be endless.
I'm sure the guitar would be extremely light and of course NO cabinet drop. |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 12:49 pm Re: Servo string pullers
|
|
| Jon Zimmerman wrote: |
The guy has what it takes to develop/envelope a proto system, but let us return to "real world" performance with it...no one has mentioned: what if a string breaks in the middle of your signature solo?
How long before you've changed it out? 💩 happens.
A spare or two setups standing by? More $$, and higher maint.?? |
Why would string changing be more complicated than on today's pedal steels? 
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Jon Zimmerman
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 1:05 pm Hackaday
|
|
Referencing the earlier thread..the Tele body with 4 strings going inside actuator solenoid.. works okay, but if a string lets go..
Uh oh!
Steel changers are much simpler to service ..'cause it's all set horizontal on the "table" for fingers to get to. On that I can agree, b0b. 😆 |
|
|
|
Henry Matthews
From:
Texarkana, Ark USA
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 1:23 pm
|
|
| DG Whitley wrote: |
I believe Scotty on StarTrek said it best: "The more you overhaul the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".
Speaking only for myself, I see little advantage to complicating the mechanical functions of a steel guitar. Why add more points of possible failure? What advantage over cost does it add? Just my 2 cents on the subject. |
I don’t see one ever replacing the old standard steel guitar but think it would be great great option to have an electronic steel on the market. There is no end to the things it could do with set ups, tunings, digital sounds, weight and I sure would like to replace the key board player, lol.
_________________
Henry Matthews
D-10 Magnum, 8 &5, dark rose color
D-10 1974 Emmons cut tail, fat back,rosewood, 8&5
Nashville 112 amp, Fishman Loudbox Performer amp, Hilton pedal, Goodrich pedal,BJS bar, Kyser picks, Live steel Strings. No effects, doodads or stomp boxes. |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 25 Jan 2018 2:35 pm
|
|
| Dave Hepworth wrote: |
| It seems to me that if I was going to design a new PSG then a digital design would be best ....... negating the problems of servos and extra electro mechanical linkages etc. |
I see "digital" as something that can be added to any PSG – mechanical or computer controlled – with strings, as an extension when we want to "go where no PSG can go on its own" 
I am reluctant to drop either strings and/or string-tension changes, or the effects of bar-slants, bar-vibrato and pick-attacks for that matter. Too much individual musical expression will be lost if any of the "analogue string-handling" and "noises" gets "lost in translation", and we would end up with "just another synth".
As b0b writes; "If you play a simple E9th copedent with 3+4, mechanical linkage is fine". Much beyond that, and the "programmable electronic changer becomes the simpler solution".
Those who want to go even further, will not only want, but also need, digital sound-shaping in one form or another. |
|
|
|
Fred Treece
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 10:37 am
|
|
| Elementary questions here - Changing a copedent is one thing, are we also talking about changing open string tuning? Wouldn’t that be limited by string guage and tension? |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 10:53 am
|
|
| Fred Treece wrote: |
| Elementary questions here - Changing a copedent is one thing, are we also talking about changing open string tuning? Wouldn’t that be limited by string guage and tension? |
Yes, for a servo-driven system the strings limit what one can do. Digital sound-shaping does of course not have the same limitations. |
|
|
|
