String height over the body: How do YOU feel it affects the sound characteristics of you non-pedal steel?

[J D Sauser]

Ever since a resemblance to "standardization" of PSG manufacturing looks, we seem to see string way higher the neck -a neck which is often only bolted onto the wooden cabinet and thus often much further apart from the structural and sound board (IF we can still call a cabinet a real "sound board". The last exception and thus contrast would be the 1960's Fender PSGs.

Evidently the change in height is a strong contrast to most lap and non-pedal console steel guitar.

I am interested to hear if you guys feel that the different string heights above the soundboard (the "wood" in most cases) affects the tone and which is your preference and maybe theories or opinions on why that plays a role.

Thanks!... J-D.

[Noah Miller]

I don't feel it affects it at all. It's one thing to say that a different nut or bridge will affect the sound, whether nor not it's the same height, but it's not like a 1/2" bridge will be inherently brighter/mellower/sustain-ier/etc. than a 3/8" nut or bridge.

String height over the pickup is a totally different story. So is break angle on an acoustic, though I assume we're just talking about electrics here.

[Michael Kiese]

string height doesn't affect sound/tone as much as it affects playability.

Some of my old steels have very low string height. When you're feeling the music, and you "dig in", one tends to push the string down.

If the string height is low, you hit the fretboard with your bar.

That can get a bit irritating, as one does need to tip the bar to play single notes while muting the other strings.

[J D Sauser]

Playability is certainly an issue with low string clearance.
And pickup distance is a whole different subject not related to the distance of the strings to the "body".

I feel that if we compare a notoriously low string clearance guitar, like most of the Fender non-and-pedal steels, which additionally had no add-on neck, meaning that the strings were much closer to the BODY than an most of today's PSG where the strings are high over a bolted on neck, the leverage of the strings tension on the body is much higher. This affects stress on the wood and thus possible detuning (flexing the body) but also tone.

I had several Fender StringMasters and an early 800 PSG. Even unplugged they sound VERY different than a modern design PSG.
Sure, today's PSG also have a "Cabinet" instead of a sound board (and I can tell you that DOES make a LOT of difference in the tone), but one of the biggest differences is string height.

Speedy did sound totally different when he played the Marlen. The Marlen was not what I would call a "modern" PSG... but the cabinet, bolt-on neck and string high over both was there, in a strong contrast to the his Fender 800.

My first "real" steel was a D8 Gibson Console Grande, the early generation but sadly with the soap bar pickups instead of the Pre-P90 I think would have sounded better. The strings on that guitar were 50% higher up than on my later Fenders. The Fenders being -excuse me if I ruffle some feathers in saying- crudely built instruments, and many never sounded like much. Many lack even the hint of "sustain", and I theorize that it's the reliance of sheet metal hardware serving as a base for the bridge on a lacquered wooden board which is never really flat. But those which sound good, sound like a Million bucks. And that with a very low string clearance over the soundboard with integrated "neck". My Gibson was a well built instrument, with clear "knife"-style bridges anchored into the soundboard's wood. All hardware (with the exception of the wobbly nuts holding the legs) were in solid contact to the wood. Still, once I had a GOOD Fender, it did not even compete in tone.

... JD.

[Michael Kiese]

The weird thing about string height, is that it's similar to string spacing.

All steels are slightly different, but after 10-20 mins of playing them, you adjust.

The human brain and hand connection is quirky like that.

[J D Sauser]

String HEIGHT afects the LEVERAGE of the string’s tension on the sound-board, body or cabinet, and thus will affect TONE and TUNING STABILITY (the higher, the more “bending” stress on the body). To which audible way it affects to, I don’t know. High or shalow, one or the other may or not be detrimental to sustain and/or dynamics, but it will most likely affect tone “color”.

String SPACING is unlikely to affect tone, sustain and/or dynamics, but will afect playing: slanting with the bar hand, picking speed and grips (reach accros) of the picking hand.

Right now, I intend to keep string soacing pretty close to what is prevalent on modern PSGs.

But, it’s string HEIGHT I am debating.

Thanks!… JD

[Paul Strojan]

I think the question on string heights is more of an issue for pedal steel. With lap steel, the tension is static nothing changes.

[Fred]

I came from playing bottleneck to lap steel and finally pedal steel. It's never made any sense to me to have thick slab of a "neck" with the strings another 1/2" above that.

Years ago I bought a Gibson Consolette that someone had modified with three pedals on the front neck. It was pretty primitive and I wasn't interested in pedals. So I tried it and then took all that stuff off. It had the same "non-pedal, thick slab of wood with strings and a pick-up" both ways.

I've had a pedal steel thought experiment in my head for a while. A 5/4 mahogany "body" (maybe 6/4") with a vinyl or sheet metal "fretboard", a changer bolted at one end and a keyless tuner at the other. The strings would be 3/8" high. Rails on the bottom to hold all the cross shafts. The rails would be attached only at the ends. There would be a small relief between the rails and body isolating the body so there would be no buzzing or interference. The pick-up height is adjusted with washers or shims and solidly attached to the body.

I think this would sound more like a lap steel or electric guitar which would make me very happy.

[J D Sauser]

I came from playing bottleneck to lap steel and finally pedal steel. It's never made any sense to me to have thick slab of a "neck" with the strings another 1/2" above that.

Years ago I bought a Gibson Consolette that someone had modified with three pedals on the front neck. It was pretty primitive and I wasn't interested in pedals. So I tried it and then took all that stuff off. It had the same "non-pedal, thick slab of wood with strings and a pick-up" both ways.

I've had a pedal steel thought experiment in my head for a while. A 5/4 mahogany "body" (maybe 6/4") with a vinyl or sheet metal "fretboard", a changer bolted at one end and a keyless tuner at the other. The strings would be 3/8" high. Rails on the bottom to hold all the cross shafts. The rails would be attached only at the ends. There would be a small relief between the rails and body isolating the body so there would be no buzzing or interference. The pick-up height is adjusted with washers or shims and solidly attached to the body.

I think this would sound more like a lap steel or electric guitar which would make me very happy.

As you may have seen, I placed three different threads the same day on the non-pedal forum. All three are related and connected to the same project:
A PSG which would have as close as possible, the same tonal characteristics than a good sounding non-pedal steel.

For that I BELIEVE that I need to retro engineer to regain what was given up with PSG designs:
- clean EDGE bridge (changing how the changer is operating).
- NOT a braced cabinet” design, using a sound board (sound board free “floating” (allowed to vibrate) thus strong (thick) enough to handle the string tension).
- lower string clearance over the sound board with integrated “neck” (Eg. Fender), to help the sound board manage string tensions without being braced to a “chassis”/frame.
- reduce energy-“bleeding” by insulating the sound board from the supporting frame/legs->floor (essentially how a LAP steel sounds better than a “console” which legs are boltet into the sound board (and thus restrict the soun bord to cycle vibartion from sound board material to the strings and back, and bleed energy -> legs into a floor)).

Thus my question on THIS thread, the lesser leverage excecuted on the sound board by a shallower string height set asside, does anybody have an educated opinion, explained theory or even trial experience as to HOW string height affects the TONE, sustain, dynamics and “color(s)”?

… JD

[Noah Miller]

does anybody have an educated opinion, explained theory or even trial experience as to HOW string height affects the TONE, sustain, dynamics and “color(s)”

Several of us have already answered this: string height does not affect tone, dynamics, etc. as there is no mechanism by which it could. You're not going to get a clearer answer than that.

[Paul Strojan]

It’s not string height per se but I think there would be a difference if the body has a cutout for the changer then that would disturb the resonance of the wood. If the changer could be mounted on top of the body that might make a difference.

[J D Sauser]

does anybody have an educated opinion, explained theory or even trial experience as to HOW string height affects the TONE, sustain, dynamics and “color(s)”

Several of us have already answered this: string height does not affect tone, dynamics, etc. as there is no mechanism by which it could. You're not going to get a clearer answer than that.

What if the strings were 1 foot over the sound board?
Really, "no mechanism by which it could"?
Well, leverage for one and thus how the strings pull on the sound board!... at 1 imaginary foot, one could see the "mechanism" a little better. The higher the strings, the more they put bending stress on the body!
As comparison, imagine a steel guitar where the strings would not be on top of the body, but in the middle thru... not functional, but for the argument's sake... ZERO bending stress on the body. One could even change tensions... still no bending effect on the body.
It MAY seem little, when comparing non-pedal steels (which mostly have no bolt-on "neck" but only the look of a neck shaped into the body's material) and PSGs which have a plank-cabinet, often only with a front apron now, and think away the bold-on neck, which in most designs adds little to no structural strength:
The typical non pedal steel has the string just about half an inch over the board, whereas PSGs really often over an inch above the structural plank.
If you want to think, that changing the distribution of forces (leverage in this case" on a musical instrument has no influence on tone, sustain and/or dynamics... so be it, that's your privilege.

But here's is what happens:

The statement that string height cannot affect tone assumes the string force on the body is identical regardless of height. But It isn’t.
A tensioned string anchored above a surface creates a bending moment on that surface.
The bending moment is:
Force × distance
The string tension is the force, and string height above the structural top is the lever arm (leverage).
So if the strings are:
3/8" above the structure
vs
1" above the structure
the bending moment applied to the body changes significantly.

That means the body experiences different flexing forces, and since the body is part of the resonant system of the instrument, its vibrational behavior changes.
This is basic mechanics — the same reason a long wrench produces more torque than a short one.
Even if the string tension is identical, changing the lever arm changes how the energy couples into the structure.
This principle is well known in acoustic instruments. For example, the nut and bridge act as levers transmitting vibration into the top, and greater height increases leverage and energy transfer into the soundboard.
Whether the tonal effect is large or small is a separate question, but saying there is no possible mechanism is simply incorrect from a mechanical standpoint.

I am trying to build an instrument, a better instrument (trying to). So, I can't be afford to just think "bah, doesn't matter!"

Believe me, I don't mind people opining, I do too, and I just recently had to declare myself wrong and even then managed to mud up my rectification with a typo.
But excuse me if I am not entirely satisfied by "nay-sayers" or comments along the lines of "why would you even want to know?". If everybody would think like that, we'd still have to invent rigging coat hangers thru the tuning pan.

So, with your kind permission, I will continue to research this and other ideas and welcome folks to share experiences.




... J-D.

[Paul Strojan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02tImce3AE

[Rick Aiello]

The height of the strings very well may affect the tone of hollow box steels … but I guarantee it had no effect on my solid cast aluminum steel guitars.

I hade a cast B6 replica with very low clearance and my favorite “line” of six strings had extremely high action, Sounded perfect.

IMG_2214.jpeg

IMG_3569.jpeg

But these were 15 lbs of A356 alloy

[Noah Miller]

That means the body experiences different flexing forces

Again, no, it doesn't. It means that the force normal to the body is slightly different, but it will not cause the body to flex at a 90° angle to this. Your whole argument defies basic physics.

[J D Sauser]

The height of the strings very well may affect the tone of hollow box steels … but I guarantee it had no effect on my solid cast aluminum steel guitars.

I hade a cast B6 replica with very low clearance and my favorite “line” of six strings had extremely high action, Sounded perfect.

IMG_2214.jpeg

IMG_3569.jpeg
But these were 15 lbs of A356 alloy

And you went and casted an aluminum B6? That’s cool.

We see classical instruments where the strings go high above the “body”. Some Asian stringed instruments are even more accentuated. To some people they sound great, I would assume that the tonal “colors”, sustain or absence of it and their dynamics are considered “desired”.
I am NOT even trying to debate one or the other sounds “better” or “worse”.
I would love to hear if -all other things equal- some one had some experience on HOW it affects tone when string height is changed.
You Rick, built a good bunch of similar, and I may assume fairly “equal” guitars.

Look it goes next to our debates Decades ago about “string thru the body attach” - to be or not to be.
I still think that it is far superior than anchoring a string thru a lousy piece of sheet metal. But then we can look at a ling line of “tail piece” anchored instuments, acoustic to electric which made it into history for their sound.
What if instead one would anchor the string to the bridge instead, like in a way it has been done for Centuries on “Spanish”/“Classical” and even so called Western guitars? It totally changes HOW the string’s energies are transferred into the “body”… AND back. The stess on the body is different. “Selmer”-style or “Gypsy Jazz instead have a tailpiece anchor desgn, people use the for their particular tone and projection and dynamics. That dies not mean that one is inferior than the other.
Sure, we are not building acoustic instuments, but even electric “guitar” type instruments, even HOW we anchor or string will become part in shaping the tonal characteristics of the instrument.

I would suggest that the higher the strings are in an electric guitar, the lower the sustain will be. If we imagine an utopically high string clearance, we should “see” that the break angle at both, the nut and the bridge will excersise an higher bending tension. PSG players report “body drop detuning”, some, certainly not incorrectly, argue that it stems from the pedals pulling downward on the body. Besides the geometrical fact that the higher the string the more this will detune them, some report that phenomenon also when using knee levers, where there is no downward action on the body. This is then atributed to tension changes excercised on the body! Well again, if the strings hypotetically would go thru the middle of the body, we can “see” that neither string tension nor changes in tension will excercise any bending on the body, but the higher the strings are, away from it, the higher the bending forces.

One could “see” that strings high above the body generate more angles than just pure longitudinal “contraction” at which the wood is stressed and thus also “exited” by ringing strings.
Which in turn should seem to color the tone fed back into the strings more.
That MIGHT be desirable.
And I suspect, that the higher elasticity of a body under bending stress from such higher string clearance should could also raise perceived “warmth”, which again, may be desirable. But warmth, being a shade of damping (by the flexed body) may very well come at a cost to sustain.
If I am not totally wring with my suspicions and thoughts, it would mean that the otherwise totally equally built instrument with a shallow string clearance, distributing the strings’ tension closer to longitudinal against the woods fibers with little bending stress on the bold be perceived as brighter, with tighter basses, less warmth but more defined over tones (due to the lesser damping).
Anyways, we can theorize all day and night.

I welcome imput from someone who’s built many guitars and I am prerty sure has exoerimented a bit.
I wonder if I really am going to have to bite the bullet and build a test instrument I can change string clearance on. I wishe I wouldn’t have to.

And Noah, on this subject, I agree that we disagree. I hope you can agree to that too.

Thanks!… JD