Bonafied "Modern" Pedal Steel Guitar

[Bill Duncan]

I started playing in the 1970's and my first steel was a six string three legged outfit. Then I built myself a real ten string pedal job. A mahogany body and parts from anything, anywhere. I then got a Pro One Sho-Bud. I played it for a while and one Saturday at a music store I saw a MSA D10. I bought it as fast as I could borrow the money and set up payments.

I said all that to raise a question. Has anyone improved on what MSA did in the seventies?

The workmanship was very good, and the action and precision mechanics are still as good as, or better than many new guitars, in my opinion. I have and have had other brand guitars that I like a lot. However, the old MSA still does pretty darn good!

A good design can stand the test of time.

I am interested to hear what others have to say.

[Howard Steinberg]

I had a 1970's D-10 Classic. It was a great guitar (and likely still is).

Modern improvements:

1. Split tuning
2. Lighter Weight
3. Changers with more raises and lowers.

That said, I think that a 70's MSA is a modern steel. I sold mine in the mid 80's
As parts were not available.

[Lane Gray]

The leverage and other bits of the pull train have improved a bit: Mullen and Zums feel a bit easier underfoot. I'm not sure progress has been in leaps since 73, but steps (I've not played a WBS or Schild, so I don't know what the German/Swiss have been up to).
The fact that three squillion (approximately) MSAs remain in use testifies to their engineering.

[b0b]

I've worked on several old MSAs, though I've never owned one. I found it very hard to time the pulls correctly, so that two notes would start and stop and the same time. There just aren't enough leverage points on the bell cranks.

Also, it's hard to change the copedent, and the round crossrods allow the bell cranks to loosen and slip over time.

There are some good ideas in those guitars, but they are nowhere near as versatile as the guitars being made today, in my opinion.

[Dave Hopping]

A few years ago I had a nice conversation here with Reece about my '70 D-10 8&4.I thought then,and still do,that the MSA Classic is the DC-3 of pedal steel guitars.

[Lane Gray]

Dave, I'd say more like the 707. It's an all-pull, making it Jet Age. But unlike the 707, it's still in widespread use. Although the Air Force still uses them as tankers.

[Bill Duncan]

An area where I think they are lacking is in ease of copedant changes. I don't change mine so it was never a problem. But it can be time consuming to change. They are a well built, tough guitar. I have never had a bell crank slip, but I can see the possibility with round shafts.

[Donny Hinson]

I've worked on several old MSAs, though I've never owned one. I found it very hard to time the pulls correctly, so that two notes would start and stop and the same time. There just aren't enough leverage points on the bell cranks.

Also, it's hard to change the copedent, and the round crossrods allow the bell cranks to loosen and slip over time.

There are some good ideas in those guitars, but they are nowhere near as versatile as the guitars being made today, in my opinion.

I don't find timing pulls to be that critical. The many players who still play push/pulls are evidence of that. I find the guitars with 12 or 14 hole (slot) pullers to be overkill...something akin to the 26-speed bike I once saw. Fer cryin' out loud, does anyone here play smoother chord changes than Lloyd, Dicky, or Papa John? Did they need 14-hole pullers to play like that??? 'Course not! I sometimes believe that 14-hole pullers are just an affectation, a bragging/merchandising gimmick designed to appeal to and satisfy the "mechanics and tinkerers", those who spend more time tweaking than playing.


In almost 30 years of playing my old MSA, the pullers never slipped. (Of course, I used good allen wrenches, not the kind you buy for $4.99 a set that do nothing but round off the hexes when you try tightening things down really firmly.)

Yes, the guitars with non-slotted pullers take longer to make changes, but I don't like slotted pullers, so I'd put up with that deficiency to have a quieter, more precise guitar. Slotted pullers allow slop, which usually translates into noise and looseness. To me, there's nothing as silly as having a new, stste-of-the-art steel stuffed with foam rubber to keep the rods from rattling like an empty shopping cart being pushed across a parking lot.

[Mike Perlowin RIP]

Square cross shafts are indeed an improvement over the round ones, but it really doesn't matter if you're not changing the copedant.

On one occasion, a bell crank broke, and had to be replaced but otherwise I never had one loosen up and fail to raise or lower the strings.

I think the biggest improvement over the old MSA guitars is the advent of tunable splits.

[Bill Duncan]

A plus I can see for round shafts is that you can set the bell crank forward or back infinitely as needed, individually. Can't do that with square shafts.

[Rich Peterson]

A plus I can see for round shafts is that you can set the bell crank forward or back infinitely as needed, individually. Can't do that with square shafts.

That's how you "time" the pulls. My S-10 Classic is a pain to change copedent, but very reliable. At my age, I'd want a lighter weight machine for two necks. But an MSA won't dance across the stage as you play.

[Paul Redmond]

Things have improved a lot. One major drawback to ALL MSA's was that they started ALL of their pulls ahead of center rather than behind center. This also contributed to the cranks working loose on the round shafts. FWIW I have four On-Trak's out there and I use 5/16" round shafts. Not one of the cranks on those shafts has ever moved in 2-1/2 years. My cranks are half the length of the MSA cranks, and their method of attachment is far superior IMO to the attachment of cranks to all round-shaft guitars. When some care and design are figured into the equation, round shaft pulling systems aren't so bad after all. The original MSA cranks were made of too-soft material, were inherently weak, and like a baseball player swinging a five-foot bat, the cranks were just way too long. All that said, MSA has withstood the test of time, and there were a quadrillion or so of them sold world-wide......musta been doing something right!!!
I don't know if it's stubbornness, ignorance, resistance to change, or what, but every time I mention the "over-center principle", I'm resisted and/or challenged immediately. Yet I have used this idea on virtually every guitar on which I've worked over the years. Math-wise, it works out every time. Why every guitar builder on the planet today has not figured this out and is not using this basic principle is totally beyond my comprehension.
You can't use a flimsy crank, hook up a pullrod two inches out in left field, then pull a changer with a too-small radius on the fingers, and not have a crank spin on you. Once that clamp screw is tightened additionally, that's the beginning of the end of that crank.....the metal is now stretched and therefore weakened. It's a matter of time before it breaks.
PRR

[Bill Duncan]

I understand most of what you're saying Paul, but you lost me on the ahead of, and behind center. Are you referring to the pull rods on the changer fingers, or the bell crank positions forward/aft of the rotational center on the cross shafts? If it's the bell cranks on the cross shafts, that could, (I think, if I understand your premise) be changed if it would indeed provide a benefit.

MSA used 3/8" cross shafts, and I have never had a bell crank bend, break, or come loose on mine while playing in 35 years. That being said, it's just one picker, one guitar, and one instance.

All of the builders play with lever lengths and changer radius, but to gain in one area you lose in another. Nothing is free, and there are few, if any, perfect answers. Also, does playing with lever lengths qualify as an improvement? Possibly. All a matter of what you 're trying to achieve, and what one considers a problem.

I could be wrong, but that's the first time I've heard the word "flimsy" used with an MSA. Some of the Sho-Buds maybe.

Earlier someone made an analogy to airplanes, I think that was pretty good. However, I think the MSA would be more like a B52. Big, heavy, but still useful and provides a very good function.

Even though I have an old MSA, I am trying to be impartial, and I am not trying to discredit your views, Paul. I am sure you speak with much experience and knowledge, and I do appreciate that.

[Dan Beller-McKenna]

Lots of important improvements mentioned above, but in essence, isn't the all pull design of the c. 1970 MSA the starting point of the modern pedal steel?

[Russ Wever]

b0b say:

I've worked on several old MSAs, though I've never owned one.
I found it very hard to time the pulls correctly, so that two notes
would start and stop and the same time.
There just aren't enough leverage points on the bell cranks.

The pulls can accurately be 'timed' by 'canting' (leaning) the bell crank away
from being perpendicular to the underside of the cabinet.

For example, if you were to 'cant' (lean) the bell crank at 45 degrees, the
changer would realize only approximately half the pull from the rod than if
the bell crank were perpendicular (straight up & down).

By virtue of the round cross-shafts and using this canting method, the 'timing'
options are vastly increased over the finite number of holes or notches in a bell
crank.

This is one of the few benefits of round cross-shafts.

~Russ

[Donny Hinson]

Lots of important improvements mentioned above, but in essence, isn't the all pull design of the c. 1970 MSA the starting point of the modern pedal steel?

No, what the MSA Micro design really introduced was precision machining of all parts, but the "all-pull" idea had been already around for decades, and predated both the pull/release and the push/pull.

[Russ Wever]

. . . but the "all-pull" idea had been
already around for decades, and predated
both the pull/release and the push/pull.

This might be one of the earliest patents
on a changer that is 'all pull' ~> click

[Dan Beller-McKenna]

Yes, all-pull had been around, but did anyone else have it with the scissors fingers, and bell-cranks with multiple holes, and nylon tuners? It seems like these are the basic components of most modern steels, and the MSA looks to me like the first maker to put them all together.

[Bill Duncan]

I think what Dan says tells a lot. MSA did put it all together in a very good and well built package that is very reliable, and still delivers. The MSA's were very well thought out, built with precision, and given much attention to detail.

[Mike Wheeler]

Just as a side note. I had an MSA Classic Universal that I bought new in 1973. After about a year I could see it was picking up a lot of grime from the bar gigs, and decided to tear it down and clean it up.

After reassembling it, I notice a couple bellcranks were slipping on their shafts. I found that the cross shafts had to be oil free, and needed a slight bit of sanding (220 grit) across the length of the shafts (perpendicular to the bellcrank) to get a good grip for the bellcranks. I never had one slip on me after that.

Also, the concept of using off center bellcrank pull positions (as mentioned above) really works well to get all the pulls timed exactly.

In my opinion, the MSA mechanical design was a stroke of genius. They put a lot of small ideas together to make one heck of a great playing, and long lasting, guitar.

[Jim Pitman]

My first real PSG was an MSA universal, wood neck on vintage body style, ie bigger than the "classic". It was great mechanically but I was never satisfied with the tone. It seemed to lack overtone - almost sounded like a clarinet - alot of fundamental/very little overtone. I attributed it to the heavey thick cabinet.

[b0b]

They tended to sound more Texas than Nashville.

[Jim Pitman]

Well put Bob.
Tell you what though, I recall drooling over the images of so many MSA's in Tom Bradshaw's original PSG products catalog. - probably why I bought one.
And, indeed, you have to give Maurice and Bud Carter credit for knocking it up a notch mechanically. Also, I'm not sure if the "universal tuning" concept would have taken hold without Murice and MSA.

[Chris Grotewohl]

Actually a DC-3. I fly them today and a perfect craft like a MSA.

[Andy DePaule]

Back in my Skydiving days I used to love jumping out of the old DC3's with a huge crowd of other crazy folks.... Never have been a pilot though.
I once read that the DC3 is the only plane ever designed that never had a failure in the airframe. Not sure if that is true but they sure were solid planes made to fly no matter what happened to them. Many still flying around the world even though they date back to the late 30's or early 40's.
Guess they are a lot like an MSA after all.
I also never owned an MSA but was tempted a few times.