| Author |
Topic: New Steel Design |
Andy DePaule
From:
Saigon, Viet Nam & Springfield, Oregon
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 4:32 pm |
|
No good reason not to try to improve anything humans have ever made.
Granted that the PSG is an amazing instrument as it is now, but we should never ever stop trying to find improvements.
If that were the standard we'd still be happy to just find a warm cave with some nearly fresh bones to chew on. 
_________________
Inlaid Star Guitar 2006 by Mark Giles. SD-10 4+5 in E9th; http://luthiersupply.com/instrument-gallery.html
2017 Mullen SD-10, G2 5&5 Polished Aluminum covering. Custom Build for me. Great Steel.
Clinesmith Joaquin Murphy style Aluminum 8 String Lap Steel Short A6th.
Magnatone Jeweltone Series Lap Steel, Circa 1950? 6 String with F#minor7th Tuning.
1956 Dewey Kendrick D-8 4&3, Restoration Project.
1973 Sho~Bud Green SD-10 4&5 PSG, Restoration Project. |
|
|
|
Andy DePaule
From:
Saigon, Viet Nam & Springfield, Oregon
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 4:55 pm Not about computer generated music
|
|
| Kevin Hatton wrote: |
| Let's computerize the violin. Not. Instruments are about human emotional expression. Not computers. |
Even the violin was not always as it is known today and was brought to that design over 200 years ago. I can't think of anything that could not use improvement.
The conversation is not about computer generated music.
Servos a just small motors that would act to raise and lower the changer.
The theory is that wires replacing the linkages would save a lot of weight.
Another benefit is that you could pull more strings at a time without adding to the amount of pedal or knee lever tension.
Antonio Stradivari was a great man and he got to where he was by standing on the shoulders of luthiers who came before him. His improvements were a direct result of trying something new in his day. We should do no less.
_________________
Inlaid Star Guitar 2006 by Mark Giles. SD-10 4+5 in E9th; http://luthiersupply.com/instrument-gallery.html
2017 Mullen SD-10, G2 5&5 Polished Aluminum covering. Custom Build for me. Great Steel.
Clinesmith Joaquin Murphy style Aluminum 8 String Lap Steel Short A6th.
Magnatone Jeweltone Series Lap Steel, Circa 1950? 6 String with F#minor7th Tuning.
1956 Dewey Kendrick D-8 4&3, Restoration Project.
1973 Sho~Bud Green SD-10 4&5 PSG, Restoration Project. |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 10:08 pm Re: Not about computer generated music
|
|
| Andy DePaule wrote: |
| The theory is that wires replacing the linkages would save a lot of weight. |
That's pretty much it.
• Might be built around an "all-pull" changer. with two servos pr string, with full split-tuning capability without the need for "split-screws" or "split-rods", replacing "compensators" by adjusting all strings for perfect JI/ET/whatever chords regardless of what changes we apply.
• Might be built around a "pull-release" changer with one servo pr string, but otherwise same capabilities as the above.
• Want old-style "push-pull" changer for that sound? Two servos pr string, and otherwise same split capability as the above when programmed for it, or dominant raises on some or all changes for those who want that. All in the same instrument, and finger-tip selectable.
• Put the changer at the keyhead end, and optimise the bridge for whatever "tone" one wants. Otherwise same capabilities as above. (My preference.)
Further…
Emmons or Day pedals? Lower "E"s on LKR, RKL or RKR? Want any other Copedent variant? Once programmed in it is all there at the player's finger-tips, without the need for more rods, servos or brain. And no added weight.
May for instance tune the PSG ET, and "tell it" to retune itself to JI or "whatever" - or the other way round. Program the individual PSG for zero "body-drop" detuning, almost regardless of how "off" it may go. Opens up for variations in builds for "tone", without having to compromise because of "necessary body-strength" and the complexity of "traditional linkages and other mechanics".
Once working "servo - controllers - sensors - brain" trains are installed in PSGs, only our imagination and usable string-tension ranges set the limits. We still have to play these contraptions though…  |
|
|
|
Andy DePaule
From:
Saigon, Viet Nam & Springfield, Oregon
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 10:42 pm Re: Not about computer generated music
|
|
| Georg Sørtun wrote: |
| Put the changer at the keyhead end, and optimise the bridge for whatever "tone" one wants. Otherwise same capabilities as above. (My preference |
That is what I had in mind as a very real plus in this thinking. Since most steelers seem to be of a mind that the older pull release sounded best but was restricted by the difficult task of working out multiple changes in any one string.
My knowledge of servos is quite limited, but I would love to know if the pull finger could be balanced in a central position and raised or lowered by just one servo per string?
Also as Georg seems to be saying that in any combination of pulls the servos could also be making micro adjustments to all the strings to bring them into a sweetened tuning?
Plus the possibility of reprograming the functions of all pedals and knee levers on the fly with a small control panel on the steel so that you'd have the benefit of many possible tunings all in one neck...
A pedal steel that is 25 or 30 pounds in the case? My back would love that.
As I said, even without knowing all the possibilities, I know enough to know there is still always plenty of room for invention in our instrument.
_________________
Inlaid Star Guitar 2006 by Mark Giles. SD-10 4+5 in E9th; http://luthiersupply.com/instrument-gallery.html
2017 Mullen SD-10, G2 5&5 Polished Aluminum covering. Custom Build for me. Great Steel.
Clinesmith Joaquin Murphy style Aluminum 8 String Lap Steel Short A6th.
Magnatone Jeweltone Series Lap Steel, Circa 1950? 6 String with F#minor7th Tuning.
1956 Dewey Kendrick D-8 4&3, Restoration Project.
1973 Sho~Bud Green SD-10 4&5 PSG, Restoration Project. |
|
|
|
Andy DePaule
From:
Saigon, Viet Nam & Springfield, Oregon
|
Posted 26 Jan 2018 11:16 pm Been done for years
|
|
| Kevin Hatton wrote: |
| Let's computerize the violin. Not. Instruments are about human emotional expression. Not computers. |
Hi Kevin,
Violins have been computerized for years. I was working at Zeta Music 26 years ago making electric violins, violas, cellos and even full sized Bass.
Some were a simple contact pickup under each string in the bridges and others had complex midi controls.
I built the first 360 Stratos model violins and worked on the design of the machinery to produce them faster and better. That was a very good instrument and sold as fast as we could build them.
While I was there the company was bought into by Gibson and later after I left it seems taken over by Fender.
I did only the wood work and not electronics, but they sounded very good and were bought by many many professional musicians. Were they all wrong and you right?  
Did they not have human emotions?
Best wishes,
Andy
_________________
Inlaid Star Guitar 2006 by Mark Giles. SD-10 4+5 in E9th; http://luthiersupply.com/instrument-gallery.html
2017 Mullen SD-10, G2 5&5 Polished Aluminum covering. Custom Build for me. Great Steel.
Clinesmith Joaquin Murphy style Aluminum 8 String Lap Steel Short A6th.
Magnatone Jeweltone Series Lap Steel, Circa 1950? 6 String with F#minor7th Tuning.
1956 Dewey Kendrick D-8 4&3, Restoration Project.
1973 Sho~Bud Green SD-10 4&5 PSG, Restoration Project. |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 27 Jan 2018 4:04 am Re: Not about computer generated music
|
|
| Andy DePaule wrote: |
| Also as Georg seems to be saying that in any combination of pulls the servos could also be making micro adjustments to all the strings to bring them into a sweetened tuning? |
To me micro adjustments on all strings for all change-combinations, is a requirement. Without it a servo-driven PSG won't be much of an improvement over what we have now.
I reckon +/- 0.5 cent tuning precision to be "good enough" for perfect micro adjustments without the bar on the strings. As any form for "auto-tuning" will mess with the player's ability to slide and slant, micro adjustments must be programmable to take up variations between string types/brands and the individual instrument's detuning tendencies.
Letting the built-in brain assist to get it right during tuning procedures, is fine, but during playing the built-in brain must not try to "correct" anything the player does.
Will add that "pull-lengths" should not be left entirely to the servos and controllers, as, for instance: on an E9 tuned PSG, pulling a .0115 gauge 3d string up from "G" to "A" puts about a 1/10 inch stretch on the string itself. All other strings need less stretch for a half-note raise, and lowest strings on an Extended, Uni or C6 tuned PSG need a lot less. Same for lowering of course.
Some of this variation - or gear-down - is better left to the mechanics in and around the changer itself, for instance by arranging how far from the pivot point(s) the various servos are hooked up - just as is done with regular pull-rods now. |
|
|
|
Charlie McDonald
From:
out of the blue
|
Posted 27 Jan 2018 4:14 am
|
|
I like Doug Palmer's suggestion of a steel/theremin, being drawn to touch it, or not touch it....
I gather that the proposed instrument would have incremental raise/lower servos on each string. True?
Would there be controls for the speed of the pitch change? |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 27 Jan 2018 6:27 am
|
|
| Charlie McDonald wrote: |
| Would there be controls for the speed of the pitch change? |
The micro controller equivalent of "direct (rod) coupling" will work best. That is: it should move as fast, or as slow, as the pedal/lever does, without delay.
To do that, the servos have to be able to move the changer faster than any human can stomp on and/or release a pedal, and stop at any point without overshooting intended pitch by more than half-a-cent.
One can think of an about +/- 5 cents "catch zones" around the pedal/lever stops, within which the servos land at perfectly tuned changes (for all strings), and catching half-pedaling in similar "zones" may be added (programmed in) for those who want that.
Most parameters should be programmed in when the PSG is set up by the builder, with the ability to update/upgrade via an internet connected computer/device whenever the owner finds necessary.
The savvy owner/player should of course be allowed to add and modify as much as possible by him/her self, and reset to "factory settings" if that fails.
In day to day use the player only need access to preprogrammed copedent settings, directly at the PSG. No need to complicate things while one is busy playing… |
|
|
|
Landon Johnson
From:
Washington, USA
|
Posted 27 Jan 2018 11:27 am This could be done...
|
|
This could be done using an Arduino, with the added benefit that the servos could react to tuning issues and make sure that the Ps and Ks are all in tune - they'd turn till the desired pitch is achieved. No direct connection between the pedals/knees and the strings themselves means copedant changes at the press of a button (MIDI CC's) and the ability to apply PID to intonate diad changes (C pedal).
Instead of a 'player piano' you'd almost have a player steel...but I look at this like driving - what's the fun if you take all the fun out of it? |
|
|
|
Gary Spaeth
From:
Wisconsin, USA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2018 10:50 am
|
|
| somebody just build it. can't wait to see it. |
|
|
|
