Since this is fundamentally semantic, I don't claim to have any "final answers". But let me attempt my physics/engineering/musician take on this. I'm confining myself to the sound emanating from a steel guitar, but applies equally well to a guitar or other instrument.

To me, "tone" has to do with the shape of the waveform emanating from an instrument. For an electric instrument, one could argue pre-pickup or post-pickup. I prefer to think about pre-pickup - just the natural tone of the instrument. This is essentially what is described as the "timbre" of the instrument,

From http://dictionary.reference.com - Timbre:

1. Acoustics, Phonetics. the characteristic quality of a sound, independent of pitch and loudness, from which its source or manner of production can be inferred. Timbre depends on the relative strengths of the components of different frequencies, which are determined by resonance.

2. Music. the characteristic quality of sound produced by a particular instrument or voice; tone color.

I agree with these definitions of timbre, and the resulting implication on the word "tone". I also agree that there is an inherent "nominal timbre" in an instrument. By this, one can imagine simply playing one or more strings in a controlled fashion - strike the strings at a particular place with a controlled attack - and one could measure the frequency response amplitude and phase, observe resonances, and so on. That is "nominal tone" of an instrument. This is the type of thing done in Professor Steve Errede's course on the physics of musical instruments at the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana - you can see the results at this URL: http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys498pom/

But "nominal timbre" or "nominal tone" is not where this concept ends, IMO. Most musical instruments are highly nonlinear devices. By this, I mean that output of various frequencies are not proportional to the input exerted. Further, the wide variations in what the hands can do, as mentioned in Reece Anderson's thread on "The Elements of Tone" - http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/013650.html - can significantly change this signature, or timbre, depending on the way it's played, by exciting or not exciting certain modes of vibration - one often calls these resonances. I hear this, and so do many other players. One can analyze all this mathematically, and believe me, it's possible - at least to some extent - to control modes of vibration - resonances - by modifying the exciting source. In this case, this exciting source is your hands striking the strings. Frankly, by playing hard, one may excite vibration modes that don't exist in the "nominal" timbre. It's a nonlinear system - the frequency response amplitude and phase shape depends on the input.

Now, I'm not suggesting that one can make my 1949 EH-630 Electraharp or Sho-Bud rack and barrel Professional sound just like my Emmons or Zum - their construction is significantly different, and there's no mistaking one type for the other and they share a significantly different nominal timbre. But I think modern all-pull pedal steels share a great deal in common, and the differences are fairly subtle. I agree with Reece and many others that what the hands can do often vastly outweighs relatively small differences in the nominal tonal signature. I further argue that a well-trained player can often manipulate even significantly different guitars to sound "similar" in timbre. Again, don't take my argument too far - but to a large extent, and to modify a commonly used cliche - "many elements of tone are in the hands." IMHO.

just pokin' fun....

t

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 21 November 2006 at 05:26 PM.]