The Steel Guitar Forum
Pedal Steel Archive
The Sho-Bud sound (Page 1)
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
profile | join | preferences | help | search
Steel Guitar Strings Strings & instruction for lap steel, Hawaiian & pedal steel guitars http://SteelGuitarShopper.com |
Ray Price Shuffles Classic country shuffle styles for Band-in-a-Box, by BIAB guru Jim Baron. http://steelguitarmusic.com |
This Forum is CLOSED. |
|
|
The Steel Guitar Forum
Pedal Steel Archive
The Sho-Bud sound (Page 1)
profile | join | preferences | help | search
|
| This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 This topic was originally posted in this forum: Pedal Steel |
| Author | Topic: The Sho-Bud sound |
|
Carson Leighton Member Posts: 254 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:00 AM
There are a lot of great steel guitar builders out there today, and I think it would be hard to buy a bad guitar with most brands. A few days ago I had a chance to play a Sho-Bud D-10 Professional. I think it was an early 70's model, a handsome guitar that belongs to my niece. I played it for about 4 hours with our band. It worked and sounded beautiful. I really don't know how to describe the tone, except to say that it had a sweetness that I can't seem to get out of either of my two steels. The highs on that guitar were crystal clear, with beautiful sounding low and mid-range tones. Not quite as deep as my Emmons on the lows, but enough for me. I would love to own that instrument. Can someone tell me what in the heck is in these old Sho-Buds that make them sound so good?.........Carson |
|
Ric Nelson Member Posts: 498 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:14 AM
Shot Jackson and Buddy Emmons and a great bunch of employees. |
|
Kevin Hatton Member Posts: 3049 |
posted 04 February 2002 07:27 AM
Bobbe is the one to answer this. These guitars had mass. They were made for tone. Many of the mass produced guitars today are made for lightness and profit. The guitars makers today have shortened cabinets, keyheads, cheapened the changer, and gone to very light aluminum for the sake of weight and profit. A real well built steel like used to be made should cost at least $4,000.00 (lacquer). It seems the builders are making light weight imitations because people don't want to pay the price or lug the weight. I'm sorry, but like you the old ZB's, Sho-Buds, and Emmons sound better to me than many of todays guitars. |
|
b0b Sysop Posts: 8084 |
posted 04 February 2002 08:42 AM
Moved from 'Steel Players' to 'Pedal Steel' |
|
Lem Smith Member Posts: 1501 |
posted 04 February 2002 08:56 AM
I had one of the "Professionals" in the past, and was talking to Bobbe Seymour about it. He told me that most of the "magic" of the great tone they had was in the particular changer they used on the Professionals. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure Bobbe can elaborate further if he reads this thread. Lem |
|
Tommy Detamore Member Posts: 478 |
posted 04 February 2002 09:53 AM
Ah, the "Bud Bug" bites again! Carson, I don't know what more I can say that my pal Kevin hasn't covered, but I will say that the Professionals and the early Pro II's can be awesome sounding guitars. They are in my mind every bit as important as the Emmons PP in defining classic modern steel guitar tone. It seems that most of today's builders use the Emmons tone as their model, as I suppose that's what most players want. Some come very close, and some end up with something different, but still very nice. It surprises me a bit that more builders do not try to emulate the qualities of the late-sixties, early-seventies Sho-Buds. Maybe that's because a lot of guys don't "know" and consequently want this sound in a new guitar. Maybe there are enough of the old Buds floating around to satisfy whatever demand is there. The prices would suggest that, as you can usually pick up one of these guitars for considerably less than say, a PP of a similar vintage. I think too that maybe a lot of guys, like I did, associate Sho Buds with the later 70's and 80's guitars which, while still good and perhaps better mechanically, were generally maybe not of the same calibre sound-wise of the early seventies guitars. They had made some changes, most notably in the changer, that I think changed the tone. (I guess that's why they call them "changers"?  I bought a new Pro III in 1978, and it was ok but didn't really do it for me at the time, so I went on to other things. I have since then over the years played a few more Buds from this period that were nice, but nothing about them really grabbed me enough to want one. So this "opinion" that I had formulated from my experience with these Buds more or less remained the same. All of that changed early last year. I picked up a basket-case early-seventies Pro II, and the process of bringing this guitar back to life caused me to totally re-frame my thinking about Sho Buds. It also made me realize that the Pro III that I had years ago was not really representative of what the Sho Bud-sound was all about. Since then I have picked up a couple of cool Professionals, and have just kind of gone goofy for Buds these days. I am very interested in Rick Davis' new Fulawka that is due soon, as he tells me it is very Bud-like in a lot of ways. I have heard similar comments about Terry Bethel's guitar as well. Like I tell most folks, there are a lot of great steels around for sure, and we can argue forever about which is "the best", but at the end of the day everybody should have an old Bud in their stable. Maybe I should stop preaching this so much! Sure seems like I don't see nearly as many for sale on eBay and the Forum as I did last January-February... |
|
chas smith Member Posts: 3168 |
posted 04 February 2002 02:02 PM
Amen, Tommy. The Professional used a "birdcage" changer, single raise, single lower where the fingers were cast aluminum with a dowel pin to hold the string end loop. |
|
Ricky Davis Moderator Posts: 6522 |
posted 04 February 2002 02:55 PM
Wow Tommy you are hooked......Awesome explaination. Kevin nailed it too; and that is exactly what Seymour would say I'm sure. As Tommy mentioned and what is also an original question with the first post/topic; Ed Fulawka builds a new steel with the 60's and 70's classic sound in mind. Bethel also.....So there is some builders that just do not compromise sound in any way. I'm not too familiar with Terry's guitar "yet"....but I will be very soon; as I have to ask some questions first...but I have talked with Ed Fulawka many many times on his design and my new steel that he is building.......and believe me....this man is a genious designer and builder.....like Shot and Buddy were in the good ole days......Oh and I can go on and on about the shobud; and on and on even more about every intriquate design that Ed has in keeping with the traditional sound and quality of the pedal steel; but you should just call Ed yourself and talk to the man.......and then you will know first hand and not from somebody just braggin' on his new guitar; like me..... Ricky |
|
Frank Parish Member Posts: 2327 |
posted 04 February 2002 03:12 PM
I was looking for a Sho-Bud S-12 a while back and was asked why a Sho-Bud. It's easy. It's got some great tone that'll compare with any guitar from yesterday or today. I agree with an earlier post that the metal is thinner on newer guitars and I think that makes a difference in tone as well as cabinet mass. Those old ZB's had some great tone as well and I've heard Marlen guitars I thought sounded very good. If you use a lot of effects you cover up the tone of the guitar but play it a whole night without anything but reverb and you'll know what it really sounds like. |
|
Charles Beshears Member Posts: 45 |
posted 04 February 2002 03:13 PM
Carson,I bought a Sho Bud Professional in 1970. Played it until 1992 when I Bought a MSA Classic SS which i love. But I wish I had kept my ShoBud Nothing sounds like a shobud! I still hear that sound in my head! Charles |
|
Robert Thomas Member Posts: 358 |
posted 04 February 2002 03:40 PM
Hey, I must be tone deaf! I played a Sho-bud, D-10 Pro for 27 years. Bought it brand new for $1100.00 plus my Fender triple stringmaster for trade. I puchased a HWP Mullen D-10, 8 + 4 and have never looked back or been sorry. I have tapes of my Sho-bud and my HWP and quite frankly I can't tell any significant difference other then I think I may have improved. I prefer the HWP so much more. It stays in tune and I can still lift it at 68 years of age. |
|
Mike Kowalik Member Posts: 645 |
posted 04 February 2002 04:09 PM
....a most impressive and authorative point of view presented by Professor Detamore!! |
|
Carson Leighton Member Posts: 254 |
posted 04 February 2002 05:25 PM
Well I really don't know a whole lot about a particular year of Sho-Bud, or much about the different types of changers etc. that Sho-Bud made. It does have brass tuning collars on the pull rods with racks full of holes, but it stayed in tune great after I got it adjusted at the end plate. I am very critical on tuning, but there was no problem at all. I won't say that I didn't have to touch it up a few times, but I have to do that to any of them. This is not the first time I've played this guitar, but it's been a long time since the last time, and it's the first time with the band. I guess I'd forgotten how good it sounded, and I don't think I've ever played better, and that's because it responded so well to what I wanted to get out of it. Our drummer, who loves the sound of my old p/p Emmons said, "it just seems to have something your Emmons hasn't got". Well, that hurt, because I think my Emmons is a great sounding guitar. I was offered an even trade for a black '66 wrap-around. I couldn't get the sound of that guitar out of my head. Has this ever happened to any of you other steelers? Now I'm not going to say that one guitar sounds better than the other, because it's all a matter of taste, but it sure did something to me.......Carso [This message was edited by Carson Leighton on 13 February 2002 at 06:44 PM.] |
|
BobbeSeymour Member Posts: 5664 |
posted 04 February 2002 05:45 PM
Pretty well covered in my opinion, but there is more to it , IF you want to get very technical. Sho-Bud tone that is------ Robert |
|
Richard Sinkler Member Posts: 2896 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:00 PM
I agree that the Professional and the Pro 2 were awesome sounding guitars. In the early 70's I made the mistake of buying a Super Pro. This guitar sucked both mechanically and tonally. I think the "mass" of the older Bud's was the key to the tone difference I heard, and that mass seems to be missing in the Super Pro. Just my opinion  Actually it was the early 80's. ------------------ [This message was edited by Richard Sinkler on 06 February 2002 at 05:12 PM.] |
|
Mike Kowalik Member Posts: 645 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:36 PM
I have been fortunate to see,hear ,and play the Sho-Bud collection of Tommy Detamore on 2 Sunday afternoons last month...and yes I can still hear the sound of those Professional's in my head...a truly awesome sound...I hope to have one someday!! |
|
Ron Whitworth Member Posts: 757 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:47 PM
Hi Guys; A great subject here about the Sho-Buds. Since i am NOT familiar with these i have a couple of questions if i may ask so i can hopefully learn more about the guitars..I am only interested in the LDG models-OK.. What years were the MOSt desireable & why?? You can e-mail me privately if you prefer. I am NOT trying by any means to start a dogfight here- i just want some honest info & opinions..THANKS for all info...Ron |
|
Kenny Davis Member Posts: 779 |
posted 04 February 2002 08:07 PM
When I first got to be able to buy a steel guitar, I was just getting out of high school. I was fond of Fender guitars, but due to their "limitations", opted not to buy their pedal guitar. I was drawn to the Sho~Bud first, due to their visual impact - Beautiful finishes, neat inlay, and exotic woods. I'm thinking the first brochure I got from them was around '67 or so - Five years before I bought my first guitar! Due to a monetary shortage, I bought the "Universal". I fell in love with the tone, but knew I wouldn't be happy until I could get more of a professional model. I'm still playing my Pro II. I'm one of the very few guys that found "their" perfect guitar that suits their desire in sound, playability, and looks. Never have I had a desire to try something else. I see where guys don't like something because it's too heavy. My guitar sleeps in an Anvil flight case that was originally used for a small keyboard for about the last 7 or so years (since my original case self-destructed)and weighs-in at 89 lbs. Pretty heavy, but if it weighed 189, I'd still love it. As far as the Sho~Bud tone goes, I have to agree with the "mass" theory - Solid tone wood, heavier components, great pickups, no flocking, and no bushings! [This message was edited by Kenny Davis on 04 February 2002 at 08:09 PM.] |
|
Kevin Hatton Member Posts: 3049 |
posted 04 February 2002 08:14 PM
Dr. Seymour. Would you please honor us with some technical elaborations? Thank you. [This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 04 February 2002 at 08:18 PM.] |
|
John Russell Member Posts: 455 |
posted 04 February 2002 09:05 PM
I may not be qualified to comment on the "sound" you guys are referring to, but I owned a Sho~Bud S10 model from, I guess the late, '70s. It was double raise, double lower with teardrop knee levers. Kinda finicky about staying in tune but the tone was excellent. I sold it when I got the Zum I now play but I especially miss the bright harmonics that just jumped right out on the 'Bud. I have to step down a little harder to get those on my Zum --JR |
|
BobbeSeymour Member Posts: 5664 |
posted 04 February 2002 10:29 PM
OK Kevin, but just a little, Yes, I totally agree with the fact that the big body ProI,II, and III's sounded a quite bit better than the Super Pro guitars. There is a lot of difference though in the metal neck Super-Pro and the wood neck,NOT because of the neck material, but because of the very different way the bridge was built and how it all fastened together. Remember, it's all in how the string is "back-fed" with overtones re-generated by the body and how the "path back" to the string gets it there to set up the "overtone secondary vibrations" . Tone(Timbre)is a product of secondary overtones that have been backfed into the string from the bridge(pulling mechanisum). (There have been some big body Pro III, metal neck guitars that are as great sounding as any guitars ever built, Depending on the pulling system used.The Pro-III had FOUR in it's life time,74 thru 99). The big body guitars are built to do this well. The wood neck Super-Pro didn't have room to do this the correct way, the metal neck did. Sorry guys, but this is all I'm going to say on this subject as getting into deep tech.talk just leads to no good end,with fighting and killing etc. Robert |
|
BobbeSeymour Member Posts: 5664 |
posted 04 February 2002 10:43 PM
The quality of sound is determend by sympathetic vibrations returned to the vibrating string from the reasonating body (and parts)to create loops and lodes that add timbre to otherwise "flat" uncolorful sounds. Some guitars reasonate and "feed back" well, others don't. Some guitars only feed back a bad or harsh overtone. Sho-Bud and Emmons(and a few others over the years) have been famous for getting this strange job done well. Tone subjective? I know good from poor,I think a lot of folks do. Others just like to kid themselves , and us! Bobbe |
|
Kevin Hatton Member Posts: 3049 |
posted 04 February 2002 10:50 PM
Guys, this is why I repect Bobbe Seymour so much. He is an authority. It comes from years and years of being around steel guitar when it was all happening. If any of you ever get a chance to visit Bobbe's shop and discuss guitar construction, you will gain alot of insight. The reason I play the Sho-Bud that I play and get the tone I get is directly due to Bobbe and one other big gun in Nashville that I will not mention. I looked for years to get that sound. Bobbe educated me. Thank you Doctor S. |
|
BobbeSeymour Member Posts: 5664 |
posted 04 February 2002 11:13 PM
(you slick talker) |
|
CrowBear Schmitt Member Posts: 6016 |
posted 05 February 2002 01:27 AM
When i decided to step up from my beginners Maverick to real Steal i found Bobbes SGN (thanx to the b0bs links) and i got my first D10 from him. a 1970 Professional. i must have chosen a good one, or been lucky cause i have'nt been deceived. Budget bein' the boss, i could'nt afford a Mullen, Franklin, or Emmons. Even though it does'nt have the original PUs, i find it sounds great. i had to figure out how to tune, adjust, modify changes, etc... Considering this Bud is over 30 years old, it stays in tune and works well. agreed that it weighs !!! i know it's an old axe. That there are some real fine models bein' made nowadays that are improvements to the past. Just to say that i'm happy as a pig in muck w: mine ! Thanx for the good thread Carson. Hey Sayz'more, when i get my next Steal, i'll be checkin' you + Brandy out first. Steel funky now ! |
|
Tony Prior Member Posts: 4672 |
posted 05 February 2002 04:19 AM
Hey Carson, I am with you and everyone above on the old SB tone, especially the "Birdcage" Professional. I have one from around '73 , without screws thru the dual pole pickups, so it is the somewhat later version. I play out and practice on my Carter but the Sho-Bud D10 professional is one outstanding sounding guitar. Although mine only has 2 knee levers ( I have two full knee kits to install) I do plan on playing out with it but will be particular where I bring it. It's old, in great shape and looks real fine and I want it to stay that way, kinda like an old Fender , Gibson ,Gretsch or Guild.. Totally different tone than the Carter, both excellent, but the Sho-Bud is defining. I pretty much just like looking at it ! TP |
|
Gil Berry Member Posts: 250 |
posted 05 February 2002 05:23 AM
I still like the tone of the old non-pedal Fender 8-string multi-necks better than any pedal steel I have ever played. Is it because of the longer string length? (I think 26 inches??) Anyway, I guess that high G# is the main reason for shortening the neck on the pedal axes? I do know that for harmonics (chiming) pedal guitars just don't come close to those old Fenders. (IMHO). Comments anyone? |
|
BobbeSeymour Member Posts: 5664 |
posted 05 February 2002 08:18 AM
Gil, You are comparing apples to oranges! |
|
Erv Niehaus Member Posts: 5803 |
posted 05 February 2002 08:56 AM
Ron: I don't know beans from buckshot about the different LDG models, but I do know, that I have one and really like it. When I bought it, it was a grungy old bar guitar. I took it home and with a lot of TLC, I took it apart, cleaned it up, reassembled and adjusted it. It is now one fine sounding guitar! I used to play it all the time until I wanted to start working on a C6th neck and packed it away. BTW, I guess it's the nature of the beast, but the green laquer is faded on it. I could really tell it when I took it apart. Erv [This message was edited by Erv Niehaus on 05 February 2002 at 08:59 AM.] |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 05 February 2002 10:15 AM
I've owned two Sho-Buds. Neither of them had the awesome tone that people here describe. I think that only certain models have that great resonance. I had a 1973 S-10, and a Baldwin crossover. Both worked well, but I could never get the tone I wanted from those guitars. When I had the S-10 I also had a killer Fender Pro Reverb with 2 12" Altecs in it. I was so frustrated that I ran an equalizer in line. When I later got a push-pull Emmons, I left the equalizer at home. The Baldwin crossover sounded better, but it didn't have the sustain or versatility of tone I've grown used to over the years. All Sho-Buds are not created equal. ------------------ |
|
Al Udeen Member Posts: 1164 |
posted 05 February 2002 10:35 AM
In 1977, when I was with Gretsch, we introduced the first Super-Pro, at the Chicago NAMM show, I was able to take that guiar with me after the show, I played it for 16 years, not only did I think it had great tone, I got the same comments from other steel players on a regular basis, How about when Jernigan was playing those black Super-Pros on the Opry, No greater tone anywhere! au |
|
Rusty Hurse Member Posts: 194 |
posted 05 February 2002 01:50 PM
I wanted to find out about a SHO-Bud that I got in 1975 or 76. I just cant remember.This was about the finest SHO-BUD years that I remember.This guitar Shot built for me when I was playing at the Orange Blossom in Mt.Pleasant TX.The guitar was a beautiful blue and had the abalone inlay on the front with a heart,diamond,club and spade in the half moon shape in the front apron. Shot sent me the guitar which had metal necks but I had told him that I had wanted wooden necks on the guitar.He had said "YES SON NOW I REMEMBER" he told me to send the guitar back to the SHO-BUD factory which I did. When I got the guitar back They had put the most beautiful wood necks with the abalone inlay in the center of the necks.The guitar had 9 floor and 7 knee levers and were the curved type. The key heads were the large curved type with Grover keys I think. During the time that the guitar was sent back they also changed to the nylon tuners and you could mount a new Sho-Bud volume pedal to the pedal bar which they sent back. Big Jim Murphy also got a SHO-BUD around the same time as I did and his had the (HERBAL PLANT LEAF) inlaid on his guitar.This was one of the best guitars that I ever had. The shame was that in 1979 I had to sell this guitar so I could pay my tuition to medical school.I would love to find this guitar again or one in this year range if I could.I sold the guitar in TX so if anyone know where it might be please let me know or if anyone has a SHO-BUD that would like to sell please let me know. I still have my Emmoms I used for many years but that is for my "LITTLE RUSTY" .I am very happy to be playing the DERBY and Charlie and Margit Stepp are great people to work with.I would just like to get an old SHO-BUD back for my collection. |
|
Rusty Hurse Member Posts: 194 |
posted 05 February 2002 01:59 PM
I think MR PAUL FRANKLIN SR. and DUANE MARS put this guitar together when they were with SHO-BUD.They had the MAGIC HANDS THERE, and still do. |
|
Theresa Galbraith Member Posts: 2369 |
posted 05 February 2002 03:59 PM
Rusty, I'm sure dad would want me to Thank YOU! Hey, I worked there too! LOL Theresa [This message was edited by Theresa Galbraith on 05 February 2002 at 04:03 PM.] |
|
Jim Phelps Member Posts: 2936 |
posted 06 February 2002 12:33 AM
Out of 5 Sho-Buds I've had, only one of them had that magical Sho-Bud sound, and that was an old D-11. I was told it was built for Bobby Garrett but I really don't know. I don't have it anymore (DARN!!!) but would love to know more about it if anyone knows something. It had the old white fretboards, maple top and necks (I think), and the front appeared to be walnut. I also had an early '70's S-10 (not a Maverick) that worked awful but sounded pretty good, a late-70's D-10 with metal necks that was not too good, an early '80's D-10 Pro II that was also so-so, and a late '70's S-10 Pro I with a great mechanism but so-so tone. That fantastic Sho-Bud sound must be something in the older ones, I can't for the life of me figure out what anyone could find to write home about in the late '70's and '80's models. Yes, I know tone is subjective... BTW, my first doubleneck was a Fender 1000, nice tone, but pulleys and cables...Then I got a ZB Custom, natural birdeye maple top with cherry-stained necks and front. THAT guitar had a SOUND, but that mechanism, yikes. When you stepped on the A pedal, the 5th string went up great, then to get the 10th to go up too you had to really put your weight into it. Sure would love to have it back. [This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 06 February 2002 at 12:40 AM.] |
|
Carson Leighton Member Posts: 254 |
posted 06 February 2002 04:30 AM
I think it's a good thing that we have different brands to pick from, or "on". It wouldn't be much fun if they all sounded the same, now would it? An Emmons should sound like an Emmons, etc. Honestly, before I knew what Paul Franklin was playing on, I thought he was playing a Sho-Bud. There is a certain timbre to his sound that reminds me of a good Sho-Bud. This old guitar that I was playing has a tone very similar to Franklin's guitar. It was giving me goose-bumps and the hair on my arms was standing up, and I'm not joking. In a way I wish I wouldn't have played it, because now I want it, and it's all I've been thinking about. Yes Tommy, I've been bitten, and there are probably steelers out there that don't know about this particular tone. I think there is good and not so good in all guitars, both mechanical and sound. I think there are some secrets to the Sho-Bud sound that not too many know about, if any. A lot of it could be in the changer, just like the P/P Emmons. I would like to thank eveyone who replied to my post, but I would like to hear more about "what makes these old guitars sound like they do".........Regards, Carson |
|
Sage Member Posts: 525 |
posted 06 February 2002 10:49 AM
Chas Smith has the best sounding Sho-Bud I've ever heard (except for Lloyd Green's when he's playing it). Chas, do you care to comment on your modifications, and the principle of tying everything together to get that harmonic backfeed? T. Sage Harmos |
|
chas smith Member Posts: 3168 |
posted 06 February 2002 10:49 AM
quote:Oooooooh, I'd love to know where that one went also. Good possibility that it was made for Bobby Garrett, I have his D-11 Emmons and a Sho-Bud T-11,11,16, that was purportedly made for him. I would wager that the front was rosewood, not maple, on that guitar. |
|
Jim Phelps Member Posts: 2936 |
posted 06 February 2002 10:56 AM
Actually I thought the front was walnut, not maple, and rosewood was my other guess. I had it in the late '70's and at the time didn't know they used rosewood so I thought it was walnut. Hearing that Sho-Bud made some rosewood-fronts, I'm sure that's what it must have been because I remember I thought it was "somewhat unusual-looking walnut", ha! That one left me in Amarillo, Texas. Maybe it's still around there somewhere. I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but it seems like the inlay stripes on the necks and body had the shape of little stars...? This'll kill you, I paid $275 for it, complete with original case which I think might have been metal. The steel was in great shape except for some reason a couple of the rods were missing the brass ends which were simply a cylinder with a set-screw, so I took one of them to a local machine-shop and had them make some for me for a few bucks and it worked great. Super-smooth pedal feel and beautiful tone. The pickups however were pretty microphonic, if you were sustaining something and had your volume pedal fairly open you'd get mechanical noise too. I didn't know at the time all I'd have had to do was to pot the pickups in wax. Phooey. I don't have any photos of it. Sure would like to see some photos of that T-11,11,16. [This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 06 February 2002 at 11:17 AM.] |
|
chas smith Member Posts: 3168 |
posted 06 February 2002 11:30 AM
Yo Sage, synchronize computers, we both came in at 10:49, with you upstairs. Basically, I started with a 'basket case' Professional. On top, I 'trued up' all of the dimensions with a Bridgeport mill, by that I mean, I squared the ends of the necks and I squared the surfaces of the castings so that the neck, the keyhead and the changer all had maximum contact with each other and the top plate of the guitar (ideally, there would be no paint between them either). Since string vibrations and sound itself is mechanical energy, the more solid the guitar is, the better the transfer. Underneath the guitar I remade the mechanism and I made 3 bars to hold the crossrods and bearings, one for the front apron, one for the back and one in the center to accomodate the 3/4" height difference between the necks. These were made from 3/8 2024 T8 aluminum flat bar, this is an aerospace alloy and a bit of overkill. The cabinet drop is unnoticeable, if I stand on 4 pedals, the 4th string drops 2-cents. Back on top, I mounted a guitar string-lock mechanism for strings 5 and 6 in the opening of the keyhead. The thing that seems to have made the most difference, though, is I welded some tabs on the ends of the changers and wrapped them around and bolted them to the end plates. This effectively ties the top together. On the guitar I made for Joaquin, I also had the keyhead wrapped around the end plate, but on the Sho-Bud, it would have compromised the shark fin. It also has Danny Shields Bigsby copy and Lawrence 705 pickups which seem to compliment each other nicely. |
| This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are Pacific (US) | This is an ARCHIVED topic. You may not reply to it! |
Note: Messages not explicitly copyrighted are in the Public Domain.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46
Our mailing address is:
The Steel Guitar Forum
148 South Cloverdale Blvd.
Cloverdale, CA 95425 USA
Support the Forum
Bobby Lee - email: 
