| Author |
Topic: A study of two tricones |
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 28 Mar 2024 2:16 pm |
|
I’ve become enamored with tricones and now have two in front of me. As they have more differences than similarities, and because I’m a nerd, I thought it would be interesting to open them up and investigate which factors might affect their strengths and weaknesses.
The tricones:
1) A borrowed Chinese factory made Regal RC-51 with a round neck and nut-raiser for playing across the lap. It looks like most every other tricone out there and is strung up in Open D (D A D F# A D).
2) An USA handmade custom 7-string Morton, tuned to D6 (D A D F# A B D)
What they have in common:
- bell brass bodies
- 6” cones
Exterior physical differences:
- 6 strings VS 7 strings
- traditional cone arrangement VS symmetrical cone arrangement
- Chinese made cones VS Morton-made and National cones
- scale length: 25.5” VS 23”
- body depth: 3” VS 4.25”
- neck: solid wood VS hollow metal
- headstock: wood vs solid milled metal (aluminum?)
- tailpiece: typical tricone tailpiece of lightweight stamped metal VS short and heavy, metal and ebony.
- bridge wood thicknesses: thin vs thick
Internal differences:
- wood support running the length of the body, screwed to the pan and braced against the back by three posts VS completely hollow with a metal (aluminum?) channel running under the fretboard
- Typical pan with contours and indentions surrounding the cones VS completely smooth with a support post that runs up both sides of the bridge and supports the cover plate. This support does not protrude below the pan. This may be the reason the Morton doesn’t rattle. When the Regal rattles, I move the bridge around a bit and it usually solves it. The rattles probably come from the side of the cones touching the contours.
- Screen brazed to the cover plate VS glued.
NOTE: The Morton cones were darker and the volume noticeably suffered. I put the Chinese cones in the Morton and it instantly improved everything. So, I ordered a set of Nationals which are even better. Also, the Mortons are about 1/8” shorter which made the bridge lower than the nut. The National cones are staying and all of the below tests are with them in place.
Sound:
- sustain: The regal sustains a bit longer and it’s really noticeable when I test it with the pinky harmonic Sleepwalk lick. The Regal can sustain all the way through the lick where the Morton loses sustain at the 12th fret and can’t quite make the final descent back to the 7th fret with convincing volume. Curiously, the Morton is much closer to the Regal if I play above or below the 12th fret. Something about the 12th fret seems to dampen the sustain. Is this about the lack of internal bracing and shorter scale length?
- Volume: I had to switch back and forth several times to make a determination. The Regal is a bit louder but my ear might be mistaking tone for volume. See below
- Tone: The Regal is more rough and metallic. I didn’t think it was “plain” until I compared them both. The Morton is smoother and richer. This is somewhat subjective, but when I play them both over the neck, the Morton instantly mellows out and sounds “Hawaiian”. It’s a dramatic change from playing near the bridge. The Regal sounds different when playing over the neck instead of near the bridge, of course, but it still sounds kinda the same. Rough and metallic with the same crisp attack.
- Resonance/ambiance: The Morton easily wins this one. It might be the lack of internal supports and deeper body but the natural “reverb” of the Morton is both larger and more pleasant to my ears.
Other:
- I can do interesting harmonic things with the Morton. For example, I can lift my fingers from behind the bar, play a note at the 7th fret and slide down to the 5th or 3rd, apply fast vibrato to get a very audible harmonic “whistle”. I can pluck behind the bar, high up the neck and slide down to the 12th where the volume will suddenly jump out at you. When the Morton’s sustain starts to die the harmonic lingers so I can slide it around. The Regal can do all of the above to a degree but it’s much more subtle.
_________________
Modified Emmons GS-10 3X4 and too many iPad apps to list. |
|
|
|
Tim Toberer
From:
Nebraska, USA
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 5:54 am
|
|
| Thanks for doing this comparison! It is really helpful to see the internal construction as I design my own. I am curious what the purpose of the spirals on the cone are? I really want spin my own, but I don't think I would try to reproduce them. |
|
|
|
Mike Neer
From:
NJ
|
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 6:38 am
|
|
| Tim Toberer wrote: |
| Thanks for doing this comparison! It is really helpful to see the internal construction as I design my own. I am curious what the purpose of the spirals on the cone are? I really want spin my own, but I don't think I would try to reproduce them. |
I read somewhere that the spirals are meant to add strength to prevent collapse. However, the Beard cones don't have them and I haven't found anyone reporting that they are more easily damaged.
https://www.resophonicoutfitters.com/product/BC-3.html
Eventually, I'd also like to design my own instrument. I find a lot of conflicting information on the web about certain factors and their outcomes so I have the mindset that I'm going to check out as many specimens as I can and make my own determination.
For example, I've read just about everywhere that heavy strings will sound better on resonators, including tricones. I put a heavy resophonic set (16-59) on the Regal and it sounded worse than what was on there before. I asked my friend what he had and he said they were the common plain old D'Addario Medium tension set, EJ17. I put a new set of those on there and the guitar resonates so much more than with the heavy set. I think those heavy strings were strangling it.
I have the heavy 16-59 set on the Morton and they sound great, but it's a significantly shorter scale and I have it tuned to the same tuning as the Regal, Open D. I pushed it up to E to make up for the scale length and sure enough, it sounded subdued.
I also don't understand why the original tricone design had the cones set up with two cones under the bass side of the bridge. The bass on my symmetrically arranged Morton sounds just as loud. The only part that sounds (slightly) louder on the Regal is the unwound treble strings and I think that might just be that they are in a higher frequency, not necessarily louder. That higher frequency twangy metallic tone probably helps it "cut through the mix" like a banjo but I figure the Morton might have a similar outcome if it had a shallower body and soundposts resulting in less warmth.
The Dopyeras knew more than I do but I can't ask them.
_________________
Modified Emmons GS-10 3X4 and too many iPad apps to list.
Last edited by James Mayer on 29 Mar 2024 6:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 6:49 am
|
|
| Mike Neer wrote: |
| John Morton's (RIP) instruments are works of art. If I recall correctly, he hand spun his own cones. |
Indeed he did:
https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2086205&sid=b7f37cc5840bdbec8d075fea6bc78099
In those pics, the cones are shinier than what I pulled out of his guitar as you can see in my pic above where his cone is sitting beside the Chinese cone. I assume that's oxidation but why haven't the 5-years-older Chinese cones darkened? Do they apply a sealant? Is that purely for cosmetic reasons or does oxidation affect the tone?
Of note on the Morton cones.
- In that post, he says that he added the grooves, freehand.
- they don't have the second lip around the outside like the Chinese and the Nationals. My unproven theory is that the outside lip is probably there to allow the inner lip to float more freely resulting in more resonance.
_________________
Modified Emmons GS-10 3X4 and too many iPad apps to list. |
|
|
|
Tim Toberer
From:
Nebraska, USA
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 7:10 am
|
|
| James Mayer wrote: |
| Tim Toberer wrote: |
| Thanks for doing this comparison! It is really helpful to see the internal construction as I design my own. I am curious what the purpose of the spirals on the cone are? I really want spin my own, but I don't think I would try to reproduce them. |
Eventually, I'd also like to design my own instrument. I find a lot of conflicting information on the web about certain factors and their outcomes so I have the mindset that I'm going to check out as many specimens as I can and make my own determination.
|
For me there has been nothing more satisfying then finally finishing up an instrument and hearing it for the first time. Here is my latest creation. I absolutely love it and it sounds as good to me as anything I would bye. The body is hardware store pine, the legs are conduit. I used a cheap resonator kit off Amazon. It feels like a Rolls Royce to me. I may be a little biased however  I plan on putting some pedals on it soon. https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=399158
I think many things can work. Some of the best music I have ever heard is played on the most primitive instruments. Think John and Alan Lomax etc. We are lucky to live in a day and age where many off the shelf parts are available especially for resonator guitars. The true beauty of the Morton guitar is that he built it from the ground up. Truly an impressive instrument! |
|
|
|
James Mayer
From:
back in Portland Oregon, USA (via Arkansas and London, UK)
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 7:28 am
|
|
| Tim Toberer wrote: |
For me there has been nothing more satisfying then finally finishing up an instrument and hearing it for the first time. Here is my latest creation. I absolutely love it and it sounds as good to me as anything I would bye. The body is hardware store pine, the legs are conduit. I used a cheap resonator kit off Amazon. It feels like a Rolls Royce to me. I may be a little biased however I plan on putting some pedals on it soon. https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=399158
|
OMG, that is amazing. I like your choice of routing it like a Fender and using their tuner setup. I've always liked the way that looks.
I'm interested in how that metal roller bridge sounds on a cone. That's a drastic departure from the thin wood bridges on every other resonator. What effect does it have?
_________________
Modified Emmons GS-10 3X4 and too many iPad apps to list. |
|
|
|
Tim Toberer
From:
Nebraska, USA
|
Posted 29 Mar 2024 8:50 am
|
|
| James Mayer wrote: |
| Tim Toberer wrote: |
For me there has been nothing more satisfying then finally finishing up an instrument and hearing it for the first time. Here is my latest creation. I absolutely love it and it sounds as good to me as anything I would bye. The body is hardware store pine, the legs are conduit. I used a cheap resonator kit off Amazon. It feels like a Rolls Royce to me. I may be a little biased however I plan on putting some pedals on it soon. https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=399158
|
OMG, that is amazing. I like your choice of routing it like a Fender and using their tuner setup. I've always liked the way that looks.
I'm interested in how that metal roller bridge sounds on a cone. That's a drastic departure from the thin wood bridges on every other resonator. What effect does it have? |
It's hard to say what effect cause I have never played a "real" spider bridge guitar. It is another chance for unwanted rattles, but thankfully I didn't experience any of that. On my other guitar in the picture it is 22.5 scale and there a bit of noise coming from the bridge cone area and I have taken it apart 3 or 4 times trying to diagnose it with no luck. It isn't that noticeable so I live with it for now.
The Fender inspired guitar is 24" scale. I used pretty light strings and it still sounds good to my ears. The only specialized tool I used in building this was my mill/drill for the bridge and nut. Everything else was done with normal shop tools. Every instrument I build gets a little better, but I am a long ways from Mr. Morton. Enjoy your new guitar! |
|
|
|
