Mullen tone

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 27 Aug 2010 12:21 pm

Jimmy,
Why don't you just put a cork in it.

Jimmy Lewis · Post by **Jimmy Lewis** » 27 Aug 2010 12:35 pm

Sorry Bob but I have to comment on what Erv just said here. Erv I can't find a cork the size of a tractor tire to put in your mouth.

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 27 Aug 2010 12:41 pm

I love you too!

Lee Baucum · Post by **Lee Baucum** » 27 Aug 2010 1:18 pm

These "discussions" always go down the same old road, much like the "best" discussions.

Click Here

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 27 Aug 2010 2:12 pm

Erv and Chris, perhaps you should try a G-2 out and experience it for yourselves before passing judgment on it.

Remember, every time somebody come up with a new idea, there are those who think there's something wrong with it or that it won't work, and that there have been times when everybody ABSOLUTELY KNEW that the world was flat, or that it was impossible to make a machine that could fly.

Bill Lowe · Post by **Bill Lowe** » 27 Aug 2010 2:28 pm

Other than being able to say it's not supposed to work is there any bad side effects to the music? They have been around for a few years now and I have not heard of any mechanical issues linked to the cross shafts. I know they play good, sound good, stay in tune etc, I am wondering if anybody can hear a problem with the bent cross shafts.

Mickey Adams · Post by **Mickey Adams** » 27 Aug 2010 2:29 pm

Deleted

Jimmy Lewis · Post by **Jimmy Lewis** » 27 Aug 2010 2:30 pm

I have owned 2 different mullen guitars and can homestly say I have never had an issue with either one.

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 27 Aug 2010 2:50 pm

Erv says:

It violates basic rules of physics.
If you were doing this for a science project, you'd get an F.

That's it in a nutshell. I know some of you guys just love Mullen guitars so much, that you are willing to "overlook" this obvious flaw, and that is your right.

I guess I am just disappointed in Mullen. They were all about putting the latest technologies and ideas into the guitar, then whammo!, they throw those jacked up, bent crossrods in there.....

No, Erv is right.

It is not at all correct..............

Al says:

i would have thought they would jump on the Mod statement and ride long before the shaft thing .

No Al, the "mod" has sort of met it's own demise.....
I guess folks finally found out the hard way.......

Tony Glassman · Post by **Tony Glassman** » 27 Aug 2010 4:39 pm

Erv Niehaus wrote:It violates basic rules of physics.
If you were doing this for a science project, you'd get an F.

.....not if it worked!

Mickey Adams · Post by **Mickey Adams** » 27 Aug 2010 5:02 pm

Chris...you might want to change your "quote" in your profile, given your take on this...

'Question the unquestionable, and think the unthinkable! This is what are forefathers did to create this free and great nation!'

Dennis Olearchik · Post by **Dennis Olearchik** » 27 Aug 2010 5:22 pm

Over the years, most well-known PSG builders have released new guitar models based on "improvements" (e.g. Zum Hyrid, Emmoms Legrande III, Mullen G2).

So how can a brand/builder's guitars have a specific sound when over the years that builder may have used different pick-ups, scale lengths, body sizes, body materials, hardware and designs?

I tend to doubt that any "brand" has a specific sound.

I think it's more likely that specific models within a brand "may" have a specific sound.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 27 Aug 2010 5:44 pm

Okay, I'm lost here. What's all this about "bent crossrods"? Are there any pictures of them? I've never seen a steel guitar with bent crossrods. I can't even imagine it. Are they really "bent"? If so how and why?

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 27 Aug 2010 6:08 pm

b0b wrote:Okay, I'm lost here. What's all this about "bent crossrods"? Are there any pictures of them? I've never seen a steel guitar with bent crossrods. I can't even imagine it. Are they really "bent"? If so how and why?

There's a picture on the Mullen web site.

http://www.mullenguitars.com/images/g2c ... utside.jpg

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 27 Aug 2010 7:23 pm

Very interesting. Where is the center of rotation?

I see several more pictures at http://www.mullenguitars.com/g2.htm but I'm still having a hard time visualizing how it moves.

Elton Smith · Post by **Elton Smith** » 27 Aug 2010 8:11 pm

It's 90 degrees from the pivot.It allows one neck to be higher than the other.They pull the same.

Elton Smith · Post by **Elton Smith** » 27 Aug 2010 8:29 pm

Could also allow for extra rodding,to keep the necks level with each other.You have to take that space up somewhere.

Elton Smith · Post by **Elton Smith** » 27 Aug 2010 8:35 pm

I swore I wouldn't get in this.

Mickey Adams · Post by **Mickey Adams** » 27 Aug 2010 9:31 pm

Deleted

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 27 Aug 2010 10:17 pm

I am not a physicist, nor an engineer. From my layman's perspective, the bent cross shafts seem as though they wouldn't work ideally, from a theoretical mechanical standpoint--I picture there being stresses or inefficiencies in principle. But I would think that even if my concepts about that are technically correct, "the proof is in the pudding". If it didn't work, for all practical purposes, just fine, surely we would know about it from dissatisfied users by now?

OTOH: the only benefit I know of so far from the bent cross shafts is to the builder: They don't need to have two different changer versions, for front and back necks. Is there any other benefit I'm unaware of?

And on the other other hand: If there's no real-world effective downside to the bent cross shafts, why should anyone begrudge the manufacturer the production benefit of them?

richard burton · Post by **richard burton** » 27 Aug 2010 10:56 pm

The reason for the joggled cross-shafts (joggled is the correct engineering term) is that the E9 and C6 changer fingers can all be identical, hence less inventory for Mullen to carry.

As the degree of rotation is very small, the tolerance in the end bushes will allow free movement.

Obviously the joggled cross-shaft would be an engineering no-no if it had to rotate a full circle, but that's not the case, and I would be surprised if the rotation was more than 20 degrees maximum, for any pull.

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 28 Aug 2010 5:07 am

b0b says:

Very interesting. Where is the center of rotation?

That's just it b0b, the crossrods are not centered, and they cannot physically pull inline. Period.

Then Mickey:

Anyone that knows Del Mullen knows that a lot of thought, experience, ingenuity, and testing went into this design, and It would NEVER have been released to the public if it had any DESIGN FLAWS, INFERIOR PERFORMANCE, OR POTENTIAL QUALITY CONTROL issues.

Well Mickey, I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. Evidently not as much thought went into the crossrod design as you would like to think. The bent crossrods are a design flaw, yet no one wants to acknowledge it. It's like an "elephant in the room"

Like I said, everything about the Mullen G2 was looking good, until the unveiling of those physically incorrect, "bent" crossrods.

I can't understand why Mullen would do this, given their previous reputation for persuing "precision".
The Royal Precision lived up to its name, however, the G2 does not. It cannot be precise, because the operation of the crossrods will not physically allow precise, inline pulling.

I realise that some folks do not want to talk about, or acknowledge this, especially if they "endorse" the guitar, but facts are facts. If you are happy with the Mullen G2, then great.

Brint says:

I am not a physicist, nor an engineer. From my layman's perspective, the bent cross shafts seem as though they wouldn't work ideally, from a theoretical mechanical standpoint--I picture there being stresses or inefficiencies in principle. But I would think that even if my concepts about that are technically correct, "the proof is in the pudding". If it didn't work, for all practical purposes, just fine, surely we would know about it from dissatisfied users by now?

OTOH: the only benefit I know of so far from the bent cross shafts is to the builder: They don't need to have two different changer versions, for front and back necks. Is there any other benefit I'm unaware of?

And on the other other hand: If there's no real-world effective downside to the bent cross shafts, why should anyone begrudge the manufacturer the production benefit of them?

Richard says:

The reason for the joggled cross-shafts (joggled is the correct engineering term) is that the E9 and C6 changer fingers can all be identical, hence less inventory for Mullen to carry.

Well, maybe it is a cost saving attempt. If so, then wouldn't that be reflected in the price of the guitar. It is not.

Regardless of what you may think of the G2, the "joggled" or "bent" crossrods are not physically correct. Just a simple fact. Am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room??

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 28 Aug 2010 5:59 am

Chris,
No, I see the elephant in the room and he's pink!

The way I see it, the bent cross rods weren't put in the G2 to make it better, they were put in there so the guitar could be built cheaper.
In order to work, there has to be a certain amount of slop built into the cross shaft supports or they would bind up.

Al Miller · Post by **Al Miller** » 28 Aug 2010 6:01 am

Chris Lang wrote:b0b says:
Very interesting. Where is the center of rotation?
That's just it b0b, the crossrods are not centered, and they cannot physically pull inline. Period.

Then Mickey:
Anyone that knows Del Mullen knows that a lot of thought, experience, ingenuity, and testing went into this design, and It would NEVER have been released to the public if it had any DESIGN FLAWS, INFERIOR PERFORMANCE, OR POTENTIAL QUALITY CONTROL issues.
Chris , Myself and im sure others want to see and play ANY!! guitar you have designed and built in the past,present or futre . you remind me of a kid i had to work with a few yrs ago in the UAV field. I fly and Build Model airplanes and have for alot of yrs. and i do it well i might ad. well i was hired by a UAV company to Build and test a new design elec UAV. (The Snake Eye) BIA Areosystems. to be sold to our military. all was well until they hired this "ENGINEER" dont get me wrong he was a good kid and pretty Book Smart however he was an Idot when it came to common sense and argued every design and change that ever went into that aircraft well needless to say he was relieved of his dutys and that aircraft is still in use in iraq,afganistan,and pakistan saving some young man/womans life as we speak inspite of its "DESIGN FLAWs" as he argued most every day. even after the aircraft was doing what is was desined to do. you must be miserable living in a world where Black is always black and white is always white sometimes things just work . and you may as well face it the Mullen G2 Pedal steel guitar in all its Glory WORKS!! And Del Mullen is a smart fellow with yrs of building and Playing steel guitars under his belt. if you think he is wrong that is your opinion however dont run down a company and its reputation because of your own narrow mindedness. its been explained why it works and shown how it works so the arguement should be over.
Boo
Well Mickey, I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. Evidently not as much thought went into the crossrod design as you would like to think. The bent crossrods are a design flaw, yet no one wants to acknowledge it. It's like an "elephant in the room"

Like I said, everything about the Mullen G2 was looking good, until the unveiling of those physically incorrect, "bent" crossrods.

I can't understand why Mullen would do this, given their previous reputation for persuing "precision".
The Royal Precision lived up to its name, however, the G2 does not. It cannot be precise, because the operation of the crossrods will not physically allow precise, inline pulling.

I realise that some folks do not want to talk about, or acknowledge this, especially if they "endorse" the guitar, but facts are facts. If you are happy with the Mullen G2, then great.

Brint says:
I am not a physicist, nor an engineer. From my layman's perspective, the bent cross shafts seem as though they wouldn't work ideally, from a theoretical mechanical standpoint--I picture there being stresses or inefficiencies in principle. But I would think that even if my concepts about that are technically correct, "the proof is in the pudding". If it didn't work, for all practical purposes, just fine, surely we would know about it from dissatisfied users by now?

OTOH: the only benefit I know of so far from the bent cross shafts is to the builder: They don't need to have two different changer versions, for front and back necks. Is there any other benefit I'm unaware of?

And on the other other hand: If there's no real-world effective downside to the bent cross shafts, why should anyone begrudge the manufacturer the production benefit of them?
Richard says:
The reason for the joggled cross-shafts (joggled is the correct engineering term) is that the E9 and C6 changer fingers can all be identical, hence less inventory for Mullen to carry.
Well, maybe it is a cost saving attempt. If so, then wouldn't that be reflected in the price of the guitar. It is not.

Regardless of what you may think of the G2, the "joggled" or "bent" crossrods are not physically correct. Just a simple fact. Am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room??

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 28 Aug 2010 6:04 am

Erv, you could be right. I can't imagine any other advantage except that for using those bent rods..............

Al says:

And Del Mullen is a smart fellow with yrs of building and Playing steel guitars under his belt. if you think he is wrong that is your opinion however dont run down a company and its reputation because of your own narrow mindedness.

Al, Al, Al.............

It's not about Del personally. It is about the faulty "bent" crossrods. Can you not see the error in using them?

BTW, I am only pointing out the design flaw in the use of the "bent" crossrods. NOT "running down a company", so don't put words in my mouth.

because of your own narrow mindedness.

You say that I am narrow minded?

Why is that Al? Is it because I see an obvious flaw and question it?

IMHO, Mullen has been a very good builder of pedal steels. It is just recently with this "bent" crossrod issue that has disappointed me.

I have a right to an opinion as well as anyone here.