As you may know, popular demand by means of guarded hearsay, was a strong influence heralding major changes in steel guitar production. Trial and error was the rule of the "thumb". Pick-ups have been made in many different dimensions. There is no substitute for a good pick-up, tube amp, and the best speakers made. The fragility of the outer encasement of a flimsy pick-up may have governed priorities leading to producing a rigid bonding of the copper windings. The overall finish (sunburst) may have attributed to a lack of choices in direct conflict with those with discriminating judgment. Identifiable wood grain is a prominant mainstay, and its beauty is unsurpassed. An issue that ties in with pick-ups, of course, is string gap. A silly .064 of an inch may require a juggling act trying to align the magnetic poles of the pick-up. Shifting away from the rugged pick-up inquiry, I cite tuning keys that have made me more prudent, due to a wide range of differences in durability.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 25 July 2006 at 01:03 PM.]

Bill
I don't quite understand your comments. Can you simplify it for me.

Bill, as to your question about the solder used, it was definitely "soft solder" (with a tin-lead composition), and not "silver solder" (which is much stronger, but also far more expensive). That was just as well, as it made repairs much easier.

Tucker asked...

quote:

---

any idea why there is no 'detuning with temperature' on the 1000's?

---

Probably because of those massive pieces of wood they used! (The same thing, by the way, that eliminated "cabinet drop".) Fender used "lumber" when everybody else was content using thin boards.

I only asked about photos of the 1000 with wide pickups because that's what I used to have, and I only have 2 photos of my old steel, and they're not very good. It would be nice to see some Fender promo or catalog-quality photos of the same steel I had, my 1000 was my first pedal steel.

That's all there is to that.

BTW, I read years ago somewhere that some pickup designers say that the flatter, wider pickup coils have more capacitance than a narrow coil, and most of us probably know that more shunt capacitance gives a slightly mellower tone by rolling off some of the highs; also the wide, flat windings will sense the string over a wider area and that will make for a little different sound than a narrow pickup too. This is some of what makes a Jazzmaster pickup sound different than a Strat pickup. Not necessarily better, just different.

As I said, I'm more interested in the early models with wide pickups only because that's what mine was.

Also, my pedalboard used to flex a little too...and I'm not a stomper.

[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 25 July 2006 at 09:26 PM.]

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 26 July 2006 at 06:41 AM.]

However, I never did find an appropriate use for those mechanical mutes, nor was I ever able to find out what the intent was to install them?

Here is a pic of one of the two 1000's I owned back in the 1960's.

------------------

www.genejones.com

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 27 July 2006 at 04:30 AM.]

Great thread and a fine photo of my Cowboy friend Gene Jones.

My Best to all of you who have made this thread so interesting.

[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 26 July 2006 at 03:56 PM.]

Casey

------------------
Known Coast to Coast as
"The Man with The Plan"

Yep. But only in the steel world. Simply - many 6-string guitar companies made...and then discontinued...them in the 70's/80's. They didn't have an affect on breakage, and hurt tone. Steel companies still use them...because they do. Because somehow it got accepted as "fact" without any data.

I've seen lots of technical issues/discussions (like the infamous "total string length" issue) that were dead long ago in that "other" guitar world, where engineers actually studied the facts.

The roller concept proved to be inconsistent. The break angle is far more important than friction, and there's little break angle at the bridge on a 1000. Rollers DO help reduce string breakage to a small degree - but far more strings break at the changer or hog rings (due to the extreme bend and the immediately weakened metal) than the bridge, unless the bridge has a burr. And the rollers HAVE been proven to kill some sustain and hurt tone, so the 6-string world went back to non-rollers, even on a lot of the trem guitars. I like the prototype "shims" on my 1000, as they don't seem to compromise the tone, and IF there is a friction problem it's overcome. But it's solved just as well with teflon or another decent lube.

There are folks who think rollers are a MUST. That's OK. Just realize that there's no hard fact behind it, and in the early late 50's early 60's tooling costs were not the gigantic expense they are nowdays - things could be tried, adapted, tweaked...all without cost accountants and focus groups! there was a lot more experimentation, because a guitar didn't HAVE to be exactly like some other one mechanically to be marketable. But now, if you DON'T have rollers...well, you MUST be wrong.

Tell that to all the Strigbender Tele players who have been sawing away at bars of metal for years - I NEVER broke a string in about a 20-year period of steady Stringbender playing - and that B string go a LOT of pulls over steel, brass, stainless...amazing though that if you pull the string with a *pedal* you MUST have a roller....there must be a huge scientific difference in the tension or something....right?

quote:

---

But only in the steel world.

---

Regular Silver solder wouldn't hold the stainless (although regular steel cables may be OK), so we used some specialist stuff which I can look up if anyone's interested. The flux is VERy important too.

Jim, the straight guitar has little in common with a pedal steel, but still you insist on trying to make comparisons. Why? Also, those old Fender steels (with no rollers) had very poor sustain compared to modern guitars (that all have rollers).

Since you're so "hot" against rollers, do you mind 'splainin' that to us???

quote:

---

Donny, I admire your spunk and stalwart demeanor.

---

Because they DO have almost everything in common. Stringed instruments (using the same types of strings), electromagnetic pickups, bodies built of metal and wood (metal truss rods in those "other" guitars), similar bridges, nuts, same tuners. Add a tremolo or a Stringbender and you have a similar action at the bridge/nut. The *primary* difference is you play one with a steel bar, the other with your fingers.

Donny, I understand you aren't *interested* in "regular" guitar. But to deny the similarities is rather hardheaded...and I guess you sort of admit that anyway.

Rollers do not sustain better than a piece of steel - you lose vibrations through more moving parts. That's been proven. The Fender's "lack" of sustain has a lot more reasons behind it than the bridge; there are changer mass questions, headstock design, and certainly pickup design is a key factor. But oddly, I don't notice a lack of sustain. Nor a "thin" tone - in fact, they sound "fatter" than most "normal" steels IMO.

Ed said "rollers are neccesary to minimize the hysterisis" - OK, he probably knows more about that than I ever will (I wouldn't know "hysteresis" if it slapped me, I guess - "Mechanical energy loss occurring during loading and unloading of a spring within the elastic range" or "The lag between making a change, such as increasing or decreasing power, and the response or effect of that change"???? The pedal steel world seems to define it as something else, but having read several threads on the subject I STILL don't know what THAT definiton is!).

Bobby - the "Stringbending" I'm talking about and Russ also mentioned is EXACTLY the same as a pedal steel. It is NOT manual bending, it's pulling a string over a fixed bridge, usually a full step. And most players get addicted to it and use it TOO often!

Like I said, over 2 decades of daily pulling a rather delicate "B" string over a piece of steel or brass with a much more significant break angle than on steel - and no breakage - leads me to the conclusion rollers are NOT the string breakage solution, and non-rollers are not the "cause".

You might want to try this site for info on Stringbenders so you'll be more familiar with the concept - and try the Bigsby site for Russ's Palm Pedal, and Hipshot for another version, and Brad Higin's site for another, and bill Bore's for another....Heck, Fender made a licensed production model of bender Tele for years. Leo also made two of his own prototypes - I played one of them, and it was also the same idea as early Fender steels - pull a string over a fixed bar. and this was long after the "improved" model with a cam bridge/changer. Funny how Leo didn't seem to think a roller was needed (there's a patent drawing somewhere out on the web).
www.stringbender.com

(not really off topic - because the first one, made for Clarence White, was constructed partially of Fender pedal steel parts!)

Oh - and while breakage most certainly could be related to scale length and resulting string tension, for some goofy reason I could NOT break an .011 3rd tuned up to G# on my 1000. It was there for months until I changed strings and put on the "shim roller" prototype. Moot point as I think I'm dumping E9 anyway - it just doesn't work for me. B6 works really well, and actually Al Perkins' E7 seems a much more natual-feeling tuning for one neck on the 1000 (Personally, I don't seem to relate well to the chromatic strings). And he sure didn't seem to have any sustain problems using that tuning/guitar on the Burritos live stuff he recorded.

I think the 1000 and the 400..and to a lesser extent, the 800 and 2000...will live a long life when maintained well. Some excellent suggestions regarding solder and cable have been give, things I will look into. My main quest right now is for something similar to the small, flat pulleys that are part of each cable assembly - if I could find those, upgrading the entire cable system would be relatively easy - or if there was an alternative to the pulleys, that would be interesting as well.

Well adjusted/lubed, and with a few spring changes, they play very smoothly, very quickly and stay in tune. It's no wonder there's been a sort of resurgence of interest - they have a unique tone, and can be great playing, reliable guitars.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 27 July 2006 at 08:23 PM.]

As I mentioned, pickups are completely different, as are peghead designs and changers. As Bill mentions, the alloys may have a lot to do with it as well.

Also - "If the acoustic transfer benefit of a solid bridge makes sense, why doesn't a Fender 1000 sustain better than a Mullen, an Emmons or a Carter?"

Remeber, those guitars have an integrated bridge/changer, while the early Fenders we're mainly talking about had a lightweight sheet-metal changer and a bar bridge attached to the guitar with two bolts through a couple bent-metal flanges. A huge difference in the string attachment and stability (mainly having to do with vibration/energy loss, not tuning problems, which are nil). the ater models with the cam bridge seem to be much more mechanically "tight" - but interestingly, if you play the guitars without being plugged in the "loose" old types ring much louder acoustically - again implying that vibration energy is going somewhere OTHER than to sustain.

But again, I haven't really experienced the sustain "problem" that seems to be mentioned often (whether on my long or short-scale models, and others that I've playedas well), and when I listen to Sneaky and Al playing the long-scale models I hear great sustain also. One other thought - Pete's earier recordings seem to lack a little sustain, but later ones don't. He used Twins in the 60's, Peaveys later. Could the a combination of the particular guitars AND the amps used in the 60's be part of the sustain equation? I don't know, but it's a thought to ponder.

And I'll mention Al & Pete again as far as tone - unique tone, yes - but undesirable...how?

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 28 July 2006 at 06:22 AM.]

Jim Sliff
Member
From: Hermosa Beach California, USA
posted 28 July 2006 05:45 AM profile send email edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"why doesn't a Fender 1000 sustain better than a Mullen, an Emmons or a Carter? I'm sure there's an answer that has nothing to do with roller nuts."