New Information about the all new Jackson Steel

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 12 Nov 2005 10:34 am

V.D.D.: Verb Deficit Disorder. I think, therefore I are...

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 12 Nov 2005 10:50 am

As an aside, I think the design of a pedal steel is far more important than who builds it. Problems in setup and build are usually easily corrected. Problems in design often remain in a steel throughout it's lifetime.

I've yet to see a steel that didn't have what I consider "significant" design problems.

Lee Baucum · Post by **Lee Baucum** » 12 Nov 2005 12:30 pm

Ricky - I get the same results.

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 13 Nov 2005 12:06 am

Ricky - I get the same results.

Then Lee; you have yourself a good pedal Steel, pal.
Ricky

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 13 Nov 2005 1:12 am

Just wondering, Lee, are you checking only the first and last E on the tuner, or the E's every time you release a pedal/lever too?

Billy Carr · Post by **Billy Carr** » 13 Nov 2005 5:07 am

Personally, I'm going to give the makers/designers of the new "Jackson" guitar a chance to put there products out on the market and test them before I make a decision. When and if I have the chance to sit down to one and play it and then checkout the craftsmanship under it and the other things that make a fine guitar will I give an opinion. I seem to remember at one time, I talked to a lot of players that were negative towards the lighweight Carters that were being built in Texas. I just recieved my 4th new one Oct.5th!

Rick Nicklas · Post by **Rick Nicklas** » 13 Nov 2005 6:31 am

Ricky..... glad you posted that. That is the correct way to check the hysteresis hysteria. I used to always have to lower my E string to correct the previous raise. That was before I owned a Kline (problem solved).

------------------
Rick
Kline E9th/S-12, Session 500, Goodrich L-10k

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 13 Nov 2005 6:53 am

I wonder if there's going to be a problem

with trademark infringement? There is

already a "Jackson" guitar on the market.

Erv

PS: In doing a search, I find that "Jackson" is a registered trademark.

[This message was edited by Erv Niehaus on 13 November 2005 at 07:19 AM.]

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 13 Nov 2005 7:29 am

Erv,
This seems to be called Jackson "STEEL" Guitar Co.?? I don't believe you've got a case.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 13 Nov 2005 8:34 am

Isn't mentioning competitors trademarks in their advertising ("Mullen, Marlen, Remington, Excel, Derby, Fessenden, Gibson, Taylor") also a risk, legally speaking? I'm no lawyer, but I always thought that you couldn't do that. (And why is Gibson and Taylor in that list? They don't make steel guitars!)

It's probably a fine steel guitar, but they should have a lawyer go over their ad copy, IMHO. Trademark infringement lawsuits can sink a small company.

Regarding raise then lower, if the last action before the experiment was a lower to D#, then E>F#>E>D#>E will bring you back to the same pitch. The middle E of the sequence will be flat of the first E, though.

If the last action before the experiment was a raise to F or F#, the last E of the E>F#>E>D#>E sequence will be sharp of the first E.

This "hysteresis" effect is the reason that Lloyd Green decided not to lower the 4th string in his copedent. If your guitar doesn't do this, you have an exceptional instrument!

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 13 Nov 2005 9:26 am

Since we're off on a hysteresis tangent (and since there aren't any first hand Jackson Steel sightings that can be used to corroborate the jibberish on the website) -- I'll relate the following:

Although I thought I'd seen hysteresis on the 4th string of my Fessy b4, I just tried it

4th string
(Ricky's expt)
E - D# - E - F - E
returns to 0.0 cents (where it started)

(b0b's expt)
E - F# - E - D# - E
also returns right on the money

The main place that it bothers me is with whole tone (or more) pulls on wound strings

I raise my 9th string (B same as 10 on a 10 string) to D on a lever and to C# on the A pedal.
B to C# to D to C# returns with the C# about 4 cents sharp of where it started -- without 'Jerry's fix'. This consists of a knee lever stop mounted behind the bellcrank that limits the movement of the B to C# pull. You actually tune that change there.

The problem is that when the lever pulls the string to D the bellcrank on the A pedal B to C# pull goes further than the pedal stop allows. Restricting the motion of that bellcrank solved the problem 100% for me.

YMMV

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Alan James · Post by **Alan James** » 13 Nov 2005 9:38 am

Here's some information the legality of this practice:
http://searchenginewatch.com/resources/article.php/2156551
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/A20673AB-676B-43D5-826517CBCE04A322/catID/D067F3DC-202E-4EF7-AAEEEFB60061533D/310/266/ART/
http://www.unc.edu/courses/pre2000fall/law357c/cyberprojects/fall01/Metatagging/meta_basics.htm

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 13 Nov 2005 10:45 am

Geek note about the Jackson Steel page:

The text I quoted is not in the invisible meta keyword tag. It is in the body of the message. Modern CSS-aware browsers render it very tiny in a 1 point font, but it displays full size in legacy and text-only browsers like lynx. It is also read aloud by programs that read web pages for blind people.

I didn't quote the meta keywords for the page because they are not a part of the body content. If readers of this thread are interested in what the meta keyword tag contains, they can "view source" on the page in most browsers. Meta keywords are used by some search engines to index web pages.

Steel Guitar Forum pages contain no meta keywords.

Rodney Garrison · Post by **Rodney Garrison** » 13 Nov 2005 11:24 am

My 4 year old Carter Starter tunes true and stays tuned. Bud and John did GOOD!
RG

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 13 Nov 2005 2:32 pm

Is hysteresis overcome by a better changer or by a better string?

Hysteresis is avoidable with a keyless head!

------------------
I'd rather be opinionated, than apathetic!

Lee Baucum · Post by **Lee Baucum** » 13 Nov 2005 3:01 pm

Larry - Have you checked the 4th string on your Sho-Bud? I found a very old post in the archives, started by Earnest Bovine. He mentioned that his 4th string always returns true on the Zum he had at the time, but not on his Sho-Bud. The issue with the 9th string B>C#>D>C# was one of Carl Dixon's pet peeves, along with the 4th string problems. I have that change on my Mullen U-12. I tune the C# to 439. The final C# in that sequence is 439. I tune the D to 439 also, it's at 439 after stopping at C# first.

Is this a function of a well-designed changer, roller bridge, or keyhead? A combination?

Lee

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 13 Nov 2005 4:44 pm

No, I haven't, Lee
Actually the Bud is up on the grease rack right now, waiting for a part from John Coop and isn't playable until it comes. I'll certainly try it and the push-pull -- I'm curious now. The Fessy certainly came through with flying colors, though.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 14 Nov 2005 5:01 am

What kind of guitars are you guys playing, anyway? I just checked my Carter and it come back perfect on every combination I could think of, using a fairly standard C6th setup (except I lower my 2nd and 5th strings a whole step on levers). You must be playing some of those "heavy, weak, bad sounding, ugly, low-tech old guitars", to quote Bobbe Seymour (umm, I think he's trying to sell you something....)

Using settled-in old strings helps a lot, of course. It seems to be a near-universal practice to evaluate instruments with squeaky-new strings only, and this doesn't reflect real world conditions for most players who don't have the time, money, or guitar techs to change their strings after every third note. Fortunately, in this particular case - it seems to me that strings are at their most cooperative about three days in, on a steel guitar at least. (If I could play 12 hours a day, it might come at midnight of the first day, but ah, those pesky real world conditions...)[This message was edited by David Mason on 14 November 2005 at 06:04 AM.]

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 14 Nov 2005 7:03 am

Trademarks are divided into different catagories. For instance, if I were to come out with a left-handed monkey wrench and call it a "Jackson" monkey wrench, there wouldn't be a problem. However, I think maybe David is going to be running into some problems with the name "Jackson" when we're talking musical instruments.
Erv

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 15 Nov 2005 2:42 am

ok then, after all this talk..
where is ...

"The Jackson Steel was unveiled on July 24, 2005"

is there only 1 ? 2..?

I somehow recall that when a product is introduced there are a few around to see and test drive...

anyone seen or played one ?

I don't want to talk about them anymore,

I wanna see one and play it....or at least hear from someone or several who have.

t[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 15 November 2005 at 06:15 AM.]

KENNY KRUPNICK · Post by **KENNY KRUPNICK** » 15 Nov 2005 11:57 am

I'd like to see,and play a new Jackson steel.With today's modern mechanics,and technology,it should be a deluxe Sho~Bud.