|
Post by Michael Messer on Mar 7, 2011 12:21:23 GMT
Hi Tymus,
What I meant was that the difference between hard rock maple and boxwood would be dramatic, not the difference between a softer maple and boxwood. There is a difference, but not so noticeable.
Of course all these things are subjective, but the harder the bridge, the more brittle the sound. A hard bridge will give more power to the highs and lows, but less warmth. With an instrument that is designed to be something like five times more powerful than a regular acoustic guitar, I don't think 'more power' is required, but I do think there is room to add warmth and that is what boxwood should do.
The whole theory of ebony capped bridges in resonator guitars started on Dobros, not Nationals. I think it was Tim Scheerhorn that started doing it and it was picked up by other Dobro makers and then found its way into the world of Nationals.
If you have some boxwood, I would be interested to hear your opinion of its affect on the sound of your Deco guitar.
In addition to changing the saddle; to get the best out of a Tricone the cones should fit into the little bowls of the T bridge 'perfectly'. Any looseness there will take something away from the sound of the guitar.
As a continuation to my comments about cones and knowing your skills with metal and guitar making; you can make cones thinner by sanding them with wet'n'dry...............
Get a bowl of wet sand, put cling film on the surface of the sand, get a cone and push it down into the sand (upside down) to give a nice firm base to work with, then get some very fine wet'n'dry and take a little off the inside of the cones. WARNING!!!!! > I must warn you that this is pretty risky and in the wrong hands would wreck a cone, but I have a feeling that in your hands it may work. I learnt this from Steve Phillips who many years ago did it successfully.
If you want to try it, I am sure I could ask Robin to send you a cone to try.
Shine On Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Tymus on Mar 7, 2011 15:38:41 GMT
Thanks Michael,
That’s kind of what I guessed your answer might be, it’s inline with how different materials effect tone on other types of instruments, Hard = bright, harsh, trebly, sharp attack, Softer = warmth, bass, smoothness, less sustain. As you said resonators have plenty of volume and to sacrifice some of this for a sweeter tone would be a trade I’m more than willing to make, so I’ll be making a new boxwood saddle, when its done I’ll let you know how it sounds! I have tried many different materials for bridges/saddles on other instruments (maple rosewood ebony bone ivory brass aluminium etc.) and have found that sometimes very similar instruments require different materials to get the best sounds out of them! Of course sound is subjective and what appeals to one person might not to another, Psychoacoustics (how we hear) must play a big part in this. I have seen on some mandolins banjos and violins, under certain strings (usually the plain treble strings) a “V” notch has been cut in the maple and filled with ebony, I assume this is to enhance the tone and attack of that particular string!
When I had my tricone apart I tried to find the source of an occasional slight high pitched buzz which turned out to be one of the cones not seating correctly in the soundwell due to a slight distortion caused by a neck stick screw. Whilst looking for the buzz I noticed that the saddle was not seated fully in the slot in the “T” bridge under the treble strings. With the bridge removed from the guitar I squeezed this slight gap closed but this caused the bass end to lift slightly, the saddle was rocking on its centre point, this was easily fixed by removing a tiny maple shaving from the offending area. When the guitar was restrung I was amazed at how much the clarity attack and tone of the plain treble strings had improved, even though I had not been aware that the tone was lacking beforehand!
I’ve been wondering how a tricone and a biscuit cone compare as regards downward pressure on the cones seating, assuming same gauge strings and break angle etc. The length of the rim on a 9 ½” cone is approx 29 ¾” whereas the combined length of a tricone is approx 56 ½” (nearly twice as much) therefore the pressure on a one inch length of rim would be roughly twice as much on a single cone than on a tricone! This would seem to infer that a tricone would be somewhat more robust than a single cone, from this could I assume that a tricone could handle heavier strings (higher tensioned) than a single cone? Also could this lower pressure be a contributing factor as to why tricones are more susceptible to rattles and buzzes. Do you know of any research that has been done into this?
I’m interested in the idea of thinning down cones although I’m sure it would be a time consuming delicate operation and incredibly hard to get an accurate even thickness, but it would be a great challenge and fun to have a go! Do you know to what thickness Steve Phillips thinned his cones and was that a single cone or tricone? I seem to recall reading somewhere that National used thinner metal for the tricones than that used for the single cones, I wonder if this might be the result of their testing for the cones optimum weight/thickness against strength and that the reduced pressure exerted on the tricone (as mentioned above) would allow thinner aluminium to be used. I would be very interested to read any information on this.
One last thought, in these days of modern technology has anyone made cones from carbon fibre or other high tech materials? Maybe varnish stiffened paper or resin impregnated cloth even!
Cheers Tymus.
|
|
|
Post by gaucho on Mar 7, 2011 17:06:37 GMT
I may have been incorrect about the "hard rock maple". I got the tricone bridge from Resophonic Outfitters (Paul Beard) along with the cones and some other goodies. I checked their website and it says "traditional maple tricone saddle". Sounds good so far!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Mar 7, 2011 17:50:11 GMT
Hi Tymus,
In my earlier post today I mentioned that original and NRP 6 inch cones are thinner than Continental 6 inch cones. They also have different folds on the outer edge and all modern cones are made of a different alloy to original Nationals. The closest to it nowadays is Mike Lewis, his cones are made of an alloy that is 'almost' identical to the original. NRP are close, but theirs is not as soft as the original alloy, which was called Duralumin. You would know more about this material than I do. I do not have the gauges to hand, but I can find them if you want.
Pressure on cones; Your comments about Tricones and single cones are interesting. Certainly a Tricone can take a lot of pressure, but they are seriously prone to buzzing and rattling when the pressure changes. Most of this comes from the top of the cones, not the edges. Which is why I said that fitting the top of the cone to the T bridge is so important. In the old days, 1920s and 30s, most Hawaiian steel guitarists tuned their Tricones to AC#EAC#E, which is pretty darn high! These days people are scared to do that because it can cause problems. My Tricone (square neck) is usually tuned to GBDGBD, even that is considered risky by some people. The most durable of all resonator set-ups is the spider bridge Dobro. This can take any amount of pressure and tuning changes without buzzing.
I hope that helps answer some of your questions
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Tymus on Mar 7, 2011 19:38:05 GMT
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reply, all interesting stuff! I would be interested in those thickness dimensions if you can find them easily, as this kind of information seems very hard to come by!
I believe Duralumin is a high quality aircraft grade aluminium alloy.
Cheers Tymus.
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Mar 7, 2011 20:59:20 GMT
It maybe that Dobro and others put the ebony cap on the bridges just to improve the strength of the string-slots and the tone difference was accidental. I have asked about getting a sample of resonator alloy tested (there`s some large box of tricks here in Cambridge that can do it BUT I need a 1cmX1cm square ) Pete T
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 7, 2011 21:09:15 GMT
Surely there must be some crushed original cones knocking about?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Mar 7, 2011 21:54:16 GMT
Pete, why do you want to test it? Mike Lewis, Don Young and a few other people know what it is.
Tymus, I have the metal gauges somewhere. Actually I think they are on this forum,....SOMEWHERE!!!
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by SoloBill on Mar 7, 2011 23:52:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Mar 8, 2011 10:45:23 GMT
Thanks Bill. I knew the information was on here somewhere!
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Tymus on Mar 8, 2011 11:42:01 GMT
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the link!
Tymus
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Mar 9, 2011 14:23:01 GMT
Why do I want to know what the cones are made of? Well when I wanted a cone I thought I`d make one,This was around 1978 , so no `Inter-web`, no books on resonators, I had to start from the ground up. The nearest spinner was 20 miles away and at the time I had no car so I ended up getting a Dobro cone Pete T
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Mar 9, 2011 15:30:41 GMT
Pete, I am sure I can find out the details of the metal (Duralumin). If not, you are welcome to analyse one of my old cones.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Mar 9, 2011 16:08:33 GMT
Thanks for the offer but I have so many other projects ( sink-guitars, amps etc) I`ll never have time to make cones. Pete
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Mar 9, 2011 18:47:31 GMT
I recall reading somewhere that NRP cones are made from .008" thick material with Continentals just a hair thicker. Spinning material that thin is not for the feint of heart. I have seen thicker spinnings flail into oblivion! It's quite impressive! Then there is the profile at the outer rim of the cone. There is much shrinkage and stretching going on. Stretching is one thing but then getting it to shrink down after stretching is another ball game altogether. Having successfully got that far, how to swage the cone without trashing it? You couldn't just freehand it with a jenny, and definitely not if the swages are spiral too! Using a press tool to achieve a spiral swage on a cone and not deforming it locally? These cones may look superficially like mountains, but that's no reason to climb them "just because it's there" I know the feeling of being able to say "I made that and it would not have existed without my labours" but unless someone can educate me otherwise as to how Don Young et-al manage this feat, I'll just stick to marvelling at laid back Don on that NRP video. IMHO, they are very inexpensive for what they actually are, even the NRP ones.
|
|