Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 06 December 2006 at 06:53 AM.]

quote:

---

Tone does NOT come from both - tone is inherent in the instrument.

---

Maybe, on a Hammond B3!

But on a guitar? IMHO, no, certainly not all of it.

I can, however, finally understand why some people feel that way.

Again, as even Paul stated earlier - people are confusing "style" with "tone.

What he's doing is a great job of delivering the tone of that guitar in his own style. If he was playing a Fender 800, he'd be doing a great job of delivering the tone of THAT guitar in his own style. But it's NOT ging to sound like him playing the one in the video, unless yhe was to use a bunch of outboard effects to electronically alter the tone of the instrument.

"Is it possible to consistently identify a sound/tone which is unique and exclusive to any specific name brand of pedal steel guitar"?"

Reece, since you say "no", I disagree with you completely. I think it's impossible to diferentiate between SOME guitars' inherent tone, especially some of the more modern ones where the one goal seems to be a "steel sound" of one high-impedance pickup with little coloration that fits the prototypical player locked into one style, perhaps with occasional forays into a pop or light rock tune here and there.

But there are guitars with distinctive tone, and apparently many people who agree with that fact and can hear it.

As stated before, some people really don't care - all they want is a "good" tone, and differences...as long as the guitars all sound "good"...are unimportant.

But to some people, simply having "good" tone isn't enough. Some want several versions of "good" tone available (i.e. through 1-multiple pickups, tone/volume circuits, etc; 2-construction details, materials and methods that create different tones). Some players like having multiple steels for tonal reasons - not because of how they play or look, but because of the inherent tonal differences between them.

It is absolutely no different with 6- (or 12) string electric guitars; basses; acoustic guitars, etc. Some instruments have "signature" tones; some do not. Some instruments are made to copy vintage instruments' tones.

The raw materials can only do so much. Certain woods, for example, are known for enhancing particular parts of the audio spectrum; same with certain alloys. Bridge and nut material, mass and stability can have a significant effect on tone.

The picks, attack, damping. blocking, bar pressure, bar movement, vibrato and such are all elements that manipulate that tone, but within limits.

So are you saying you can take:

An 80-pound MSA Classic
A Millenium
A wraparound push-pull Emmons
A Fender 400
A Lone Star "Skeleton"
A Gibson Electraharp
An Anapeg
A GFI Ultra
A Shobud Maverick
A Little Buddy
A Multikord
...use one 6' George L cable, plug straight in to, say, a Steel King with all tone/volume controls set at 5 and no reverb...

...line them all up, play, say, Steel guitar Rag....

...and by the magic use of your hands, you will make them all sound exactly the same?

Or, are you saying that by use of those same magic hands, you can render the tone of each of those guitars completely unidentifiable, given the same conditions listed above (equipment, song, etc)?

If it's the second case, any player can subdue the inhernet tone of an instrument - competent ones by skilled manipulation, incompetent ones by thrashing about.

But you can't make the tone of the instrument go away. There WILL be those who can hear the difference...and who care.

And here's the critical point - many of us who hear the tonal differences between instruments WANT to exploit and use those differences in a wonderfully musical way. That's the key point - different sounding guitars have specific uses to certain players.

That's something that's totally irrelevant to those who don't care (and just want "good tone" of any kind) or those who simply can't hear the subtle differences...or in some cases, significant differences.

But as far as your "is it possible..." question, it's a great use of bandwidth for those interested in rhetorical questions, and maybe it's nice cannon fodder for those who don't hear it or don't care - but players who DO care about tonal differences already know the answer is yes and I think are simply getting frustrated with those who don't hear it or don't care. Because to us, the question is completely irrelevant - we don't WANT to disguise the tone of the instrument. We want to USE the natural tone of the instrument as the "bedrock" or starting point - and having different starting points is a key value to many players.

But apparently not some.

Herbie

Tone is simple to define and alot harder to achieve. A players tone comes from three basic elements. The hands or players touch, the instrument, and amplification or sound processing. It takes all three elements to define any players tone. Most of the readers on this thread understand this and are on the same page. I don't agree with your definitions.

Your using the words "players style" as a replacement for a "players technique".

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 06 December 2006 at 09:48 PM.]

The point is that each instrument has an inherent tone. that's the beauty of different instruments. Style, technique, whatever terms one wishes to use to call the manipulation of that is JUSt that - manipulation.

The instrument's tone is a basic element...the other stuff modifies it. Sorry if the semantics made it seem like something else...it was not a discussion of a "player's tone" - it was an "instrument's tone". Different animals.

I think if you go back and check this thread and the other umpteen recent ones I've been consistent in describing the "instrument" as a basis of tone. And I certainly don't disagree that the other elements make up a players "sound" - but they do NOT make up an *instrument's* tone. You and I have been on the same page all along except on one post that was a reaction to something never said.

If you own an Emmons, and like the sound of a Franklin and keep trying to use your hands to manipulate the sound to a Franklin-like tone...why not sell you unliked Emmons and buy a Franklin?

I like the TONE of my Fenders (different tones from long and short scale, plus multiple pickups on the short scale), and also my GFI. the GFI sounds sort of Fender-like, but has a very distinctive tone. Same with the Multi-Kord, which is not easy to play mechanically but has a tremendously distinctive tone.

Yes, all the various elements help make up a player's sound, which can be very recognizable (like Paul's in many cases) or can be very generic, depending on your skill and goals.

But no matter how hard you try, there will still be underlying factors of tone that the hands can't change.

Reece said: "Those who believe this to be true would then quite possibly be of the opinion owning a specific name brand guitar provides them an inherent and distinguishable tone!

Can this be true?............................"

The answer is yes.

If you think the answer is "no", then it's a matter of not being able to hear it (which is not a fault, just some ears/brains are more sesitive to tonal factors than others) or not caring enough to notice.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 07 December 2006 at 06:12 AM.]

I build speaker cabs and in order to
convince others that I can produce
a cabinet that may suit their needs.
I can't simply talk about the theories
of speaker cabinet design and building.
I have to show them what I can do.

My website is dedicated to do just
that. I even put some songs on there
just in case someone wanted to know
if actually owned at pedal steel and
could actually play it. This gives
others confidence that I can play
and can build cabinets.

Regardless of the instrument, though (and for sake of discussion let's keep it limited to stringed instruments) there are many instruments that are identifiable - and their "clones" would be part of the same group,( i.e. a Fender Telecaster or a homebrew Telecaster) - they will have the same general tone, but each specific instrument will be different to some extent based on wood, alloys, construction methods, etc. In the six-string world the big issues are all-maple necks vs maple necks with rosewood fretboards, and in the acoustic arena rosewood vs mahogany vs maple vs synthetic sides & backs.

All those factors have an effect on a specific instrument's tone...and a specific instrument built with different woods, neck attachment, bridge design, saddle material and design will differ slightly from a "brother" built to the same physical specs but using some different materials (and pickups also enter into this, but even without being plugged in an instrument has a specific resonant tone, so I'd like to consider that as a seperate issue as far as THIS post goes, although an important one).

The issue really delves into the physics of harmonic production, and how each piece of the instrument's construction puzzle affects the basic, non-manipulated tone. MY playing..or anyone's - is really irrelevant, unless you are just suggesting I might not have any experience or know what I'm talking about. We went through that on another thread and I will not repeat a 'resume" list, which shouldn't be necessary anyway. But simply, my analysis is based on 4 decades of playing, guitar/amp tech, instrument building, soundboard and teaching experience. String-produced vibrations and harmonic are, from a physics standpoint, identical whether you are talking pedal steel, lap steel, or Les Paul. One great resource text is "The Acoustic Foundations of Music", which does not get into specific construction but does a great job of explaining sound waves, harmonics, and how they are produced. I would also encourage steelers who are curious about tone variables and looking for resources o visit the Fender and Telecaster forums - they don't proclaim anything to be etched in stone, but there are excellent discussions of how inherent tonal qualities of instruments are achieved.

IMHO...no, because of the word "consistently" in the question. Too many possible variables such as the pickers technique, the pickers picks/bar, let alone the choice of pickup, amp, speakers, volume level, room size, humidity, et al.

On the other hand (lawyer talk)... "name brand of pedal steel made in the last forty years" sort of groups the sound category a bit so that the sounds are more likely to be similar.

BUT...the different "name brands of pedal steels" in that category, and beyond, as well as same brand same year, DO have a unique and individual "signature" when excited at the same place, same way, same picker same day etc. This can be seen (not heard) by instrumentation that captures the the sound spectrum at specific moments after the strings are excited.

The Oscilloscope is good, but the spectrum analyzer is better for this purpose. Tone is not a constant, but is like individual frames from a movie film...each frame is different in content. The tone (harmonic content)of the steel varies with time; sustain therefore consists of the change in harmonic content, and amplitude (actual, and as perceived)as a function of time.

The player can control and accentuate the differences in any given instrument to obtain a desired "sound" for the occasion.

The differences/similarities for 32 PSGs were instrumented at Jim Palenscar's North County Steel shop in Oceanside CA. last Dec, and the resulting photos and charts are available on my PHOTOBUCKET site listed in an assortment of other posts.

------------------
Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Example: On a recent Eagles tour, they did "Hotel California" with a mostly acoustic guitar background and an all-acoustic ride. Personally, I thought it sucked - big time. To me, it ruined the whole sound and mood of the song! Nevertheless, the audience was mesmerized...wailing, cheering, and applauding their new interpretation?! Clearly, I was a minority of one.

So, would I expect any others to respect and understand my viewpoint?

Certainly not.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 07 December 2006 at 09:26 AM.]

This all adds up to saying to yourself, Oh man, my tone sounds awful tonight.

No different steel, effect, or amp setting is gonna change the fact that you're executional playing is just not happening, and in turn your tone is suffering.

Now think of when you were playing with total confidence and the skill to back it up... taking no prisoners, just rippin' with both hands responding faithfully to your every command.
Your thinking, Oh Man, My tone is killer tonight!

This can change from one extreme to other in one songs time.

When I find myself in that bad mojo vibe thing, I say to myself, quit playing like a wet towell!... What would Robert Randolph do?!?! [insert name of player who inspires you to play "over the top" here].

Lett'er Rip Bay-Bee!!!

This example removes ALL tonal effect of instruments & equipment from the equation.

It gets right back to the "either you have it, or you don't" thing... and even a good player will (when things are going good), or "won't" have "IT" in the tone department when flustered by whatever random distribution of reality is affecting their playing at any given time.

Funn Stuff!
Pete B.

[This message was edited by Pete Burak on 07 December 2006 at 09:43 AM.]

True. But that wasn't what Reece's question was.

There are folks here that like to pick the fly specs out of the pepper ! But
here is why I think its in the hands .

singers all have a voice ! so do steels -I have one that has a voice of
Phillis Diller ! but that don't mean it cant sing .

Pick a singer ! any one you like - that is ! back when there was a difference in them .
Lets say Bing Crosby - Louie Armstrong - Frank Senatra - all different voices !
But its the way they deliver that voice .

My steels all have a voice ! I can hook up all the stuff to them
and it just another voice , so that only levies the operator to make it sing .
its the way your hands deliver that voice ! with out the hands
My Phillis Diller steel would be no more that a pice a trash !

It would be my opinion , if you - BE - LG were to play my Phillis Diller , there
would be questions like - How did you get that sound ? what amp ? what setting ?
etc. so it would only have been in the hands of the player to make it sing .

Thank you Reece for the thought provoking post .

Hick

[This message was edited by Bob Hickish on 08 December 2006 at 11:27 AM.]

------------------
Steelin' away in the ozarks and life,
Scott
www.scottyhenderson.com

John D'Angelico

Hmm, even that ol' guy knew there was more than one "voice" in a guitar!

Maybe some of you can only get one sound, one voice, one particular tone, from each brand of guitar.

I' sorry, I never had that problem.

(Oh, and by the way Jim...that last post of mine was a response to you, not Reece. )

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 08 December 2006 at 05:55 PM.]

Donnie, I realized that. But what you said wasn't what the thread was about. It wasn't about "good" tone, which certainly you can get from lots of guitars - that's already ben mentioned. And, sure, some guitars are capable of different tones - that's WHY I have two pickups and a tone circuit on my 400 - and every 6-string I own! But they STILL have an inherent tone based on the construction. D'Angelico's statement is very valid - you CAN manipulate the sound, which I've agreed with through every thread...but you can't change the basic, bedrock tone, because (as has been stated many times, and as anyone who has taken any course in acoustic theory would know) once the string is in vibration and reaches a relative equilibrium, the tone will not change...unless you touch it with something AFTER that initial "steadying" point.

And Donny, I ALWAYS respect your opinions. We may not always agree, but I have great respect for what you say and your right to express it.

Funny how I could never get my red Mullen to sound like Mike Johnson's red push-pull...

The formula:

Very well put. b0b also said that, as did I in a couple threads and several other people. I still don't understand what's so confusing about it, or how anyone could get sucked into believing it's all in the hands...or even that it starts there.

I know some people think it's beating a dead horse, but it's really not as long as there are so many misinterpretations.

A guitar has an inherent tone.

Hands have no tone whatsoever. Well, maybe if you clap them or something...

;-)

Here are 5 different players on 5 different Push-Pulls........I'm hearing commonality of tone. Just take a minute to click on each one and make up your own mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeI5NO4t6DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT65hOF_0Ck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJf2GWDWeGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeEHv2m2LQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXaAKoHWNGk&mode=related&search=

I'm a Sho~Bud player myself, but can't help marvelling at the consistent beautiful chimy tone the push-pull delivers. It even sounds good on video, a feat most other brands do not pull off (so to speak) - as youtube diplays in many other videos. Five sets of hands, one definable tone IMO.

quote:

---

...but you can't change the basic, bedrock tone, because (as has been stated many times, and as anyone who has taken any course in acoustic theory would know) once the string is in vibration and reaches a relative equilibrium, the tone will not change...unless you touch it with something AFTER that initial "steadying" point.

---

Jim, that isn't true. It would be if a musical instrument were a purely lumped, linear, time-invariant system. Then, no matter how you excited the system, the basic frequency response of the sound emanating from it - its "tone" - would be the same. It wouldn't matter where you picked it, how hard you picked it, or anything else. That basic tonal signature wouldn't change.

But a musical instrument like a guitar or steel guitar is a distributed and sometimes nonlinear system. The way it's driven can fundamentally change the way it reacts to that driving force. First, you can change the place you drive it and get a change in the basic response. That's because the system is distributed. Second, you can change the way that you drive it at a particular place, and get a change in the basic response. That's because as the system is driven harder and harder, the response often becomes a nonlinear function of the driving force. If this occurs, even the freely vibrating tonal signature of the instrument changes as the decaying envelope subsides.

So, IMO, to insist that the "tone" of the instrument is only that sound produced after a string is plucked and is decaying is fatally flawed. That is a "nominal" freely-decaying vibratory response. Even if I accepted that the freely decaying response is the only issue (it isn't because the strings can continue to be driven after they're plucked), then how do you decide where and precisely how to pluck the string(s) to get that nominal "signature". The answer is that there is no way to do this, except to say "here is how I'm going to do it, that's the way I'm going to define the nominal response." It's completely arbitrary. The "tone" - the frequency response of the sound emanating from the instrument - depends inextricably on how the instrument is driven.

Of course, the other critical point is that a serious player manipulates his or her "tone" - the relative frequency amplitudes and phases emanating from it - either with the left hand fingers (guitar) or the bar (steel guitar), continuously. It's a forced vibration, not a free vibration. You should listen to Paul Franklin.

Let me add this - there's an entire engineering field of active vibration control. The idea is that one can design an input to a vibratory system that results in a desired vibrational output. One typically uses vibration feedback from a sensor to actively synthesize a signal to control undesirable modes of vibration. Common uses are to control undesired mechanical vibrations in a vehicle or aircraft, noise cancellation, and many others. This is the same basic principle behind using ear-brain-hand to adjust finger or bar movements to control the vibrations in a guitar after the string has been plucked.

I even agree that it's pretty tough to completely eliminate the effect of the various natural resonances purely with finger or bar movements, but a significant degree of "tonal control" is possible. I'm better at it on guitar than on steel, but that's one of the things I work at every day. I think it's one of the big things that separates good players from poor ones.

BTW, for reference - here's what Bobbe said in his newsletter:

quote:

---

Many people seem to think tone is all in the hands. To say that tone is all in the hand is no where near the truth. A great player who gets good tone with good technique will always sound a lot better on good equipment than he could ever sound on poor equipment.

---

Note that he says that it's not true that tone is "all in the hands". By implication, I think it's clear he argues that "some" of the tone is in the hands, and "some" is in the instrument. A very wise man.

quote:

---

...and as anyone who has taken any course in acoustic theory would know.

---

Surely you jest. Another wise man said "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 08 December 2006 at 10:50 PM.]

No mater where or how you put the string into motion, there is a point of equilibrium where a tonal "signature" is reached. That's a recognized effect studied and published by Ned Steinberger among others.

And AGAIN - the hands and other manipulation affect the overall sound...I've NEVER disagreed with that. But each instrument still has an inherent tone. That's a simple, proven fact. Stel is no different than any other stringed instrument in that respect.

You CAN split scientific hairs - but the basic tonal signature of an instrument DOES exist, especially from a practical standpoint.

And no, I don't jest. Most people commenting on this stuff have no education in acoustics. Obviously, you do - but you are including in you analysis manipulation of the instrument after the string is set in motion...which, while it does not alter the inherent "tone" of the instrument, will affect the overall sound - as I've already stated.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 08 December 2006 at 11:57 PM.]

quote:

---

No mater where or how you put the string into motion, there is a point of equilibrium where a tonal "signature" is reached.

---

The "equilibrium" configuration for a string is its resting position - a straight line. One disturbs the equilibrium by plucking or otherwise driving the string. The system is not in equilibrium as the string decays.

So, I assume you are talking about some kind of "frequency response entrainment" - the idea that the frequency response would converge to some set pattern, determined only by the static physics of the instrument, and not the way it's driven.

quote:

---

That's a recognized effect studied and published by Ned Steinberger among others.

---

Why not cite references on this kind of thing? Is Steinberger talking about strumming string(s) with hands off? What is the envelope of variations in the way the strings are struck? What kind of guitars did he test? What would be the effect of a bar - steel guitars use a steel bar, obviously - and how might that change the results? And so on.

I clearly acknowledged that it's possible to get a "nominal" signature tone in the way you describe, but I argue that signature tone can be varied a lot, and depends heavily on how it's produced. Just take, for a simple example, an SG or Telecaster like I have sitting in my hands now, and strum it at the twelfth fret and then right at the bridge. For a pretty long time, one can hear the much stronger higher harmonics from the bridge strum. Do they eventually die out and the entire frequency response eventually entrain to a single small-signal linear response? Perhaps, but not necessarily. How about when striking a harmonic? I'm not running it through a spectrum analyzer as I do this right now, but it sounds very different for a long time. In either of these cases, from a very practical point of view, the tonal signature is very different. One has to really study a lot of different types of guitars and really put them through their paces with the full gamut of driving techniques to conclude that even small-signal entrainment of the frequency response happens.

But even if small-signal entrainment occurs, the point about driven vs. free vibrations is critical. Good players don't generally play guitars and just let a single note ring freely with no ear-brain-hands feedback. Who cares about the "nominal" signature of a nominally "lightly plucked" decaying Stradivarius tonal envelope? It's the bow-driven tone that matters. It's the same with a guitar or steel. It's the way the instrument responds to various kinds of driving that makes for practical "tone". I am talking from a practical point of view. You're treating this as if it's a lumped, linear, time invariant system, where the driven response can expressed mathematically as the convolution integral of a single impulse response (what you call its "tone") and the driving force. It's not lumped and may not even be linear. That changes everything.

quote:

---

And, sure, some guitars are capable of different tones - that's WHY I have two pickups and a tone circuit on my 400 - and every 6-string I own!

---

So, if you have two pickups on a guitar, and they give you two or three different tones, then which is the "inherent tone"?

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 09 December 2006 at 04:58 AM.]

If there truly are those who can consistently identify a specific guitar in controlled like circumstances, this question would be answered.

Contrary to what has been said , I think this has been a good topic. - Very controversial, but thought provoking.

[This message was edited by Tony Smart on 09 December 2006 at 05:40 AM.]

Back on topic, 30 years ago, with less brands on the market and more distinctive sounds, I think there would have been a good chance of identifying a particular steel, but it's not so easy now. If many newer steels have less distinctive sounds then the players "hands" don't seem to be having much effect. - But their style is still there.
Just my opinion.

[This message was edited by Tony Smart on 09 December 2006 at 06:35 AM.]

Just a thought.

Geo