I of course remember well the tests we made at the old MSA. I had also heard of the other sound tests you mentioned as well as the end results.

You have a great memory, it was about eight years ago when I played the Dallas show on my E9th Universal and everyone mistakenly assumed I was playing my Bb6th tuning.

quote:

---

Take an Emmons push/pull on the same amp and put any other steel next to it.

---

Why does it have to be the same amp?

Would you have to use the same settings?

Making comparitive tests with other guitars with witnesses on each side of a partition could not possibly result in a rigged result or validate a false premise as you suggested.

One could also have the perogative of being the witness, player or listener. I don't see how it could be more fair.

I'm happy to have the distinction of being the first to accept your bet.

For example, in a faceoff between two guitars - I would first allow one or more skilled players to work with each guitar offline. It takes time to figure out how to get ones tone on a particular guitar. The player should be able to use any amp he or she likes - the "inherent tone" idea is that nothing can really conceal it.

Now, with that preparation, bring in, in sequence, several listeners or groups of listeners. With some of these listeners or groups, the player should fake playing on different instruments, but actually play the same one - these are control group studies. With other groups, the player should play the different instruments. Order needs to be randomized to avoid anybody being able to figure out a pattern to what's being done. In each study, listeners should listen to various passages and indicate which guitar they think is being played. One could tell participants what kind of guitars are being tested, or not. This might give different results.

In the end, one needs to assess if there are statistically significant differences in the power of listeners to distinguish between different but similar-style guitars versus differences heard when playing the same guitar. That, I think, is the thesis that Reece and others have discussed.

While speaking of different amp settings, I'm sure it would be agreeable to allow a slight amp control manipulation to offset the possiblity of a guitar which has a very treble or bassy sounding pickup. But again,..... "if" an inherent tone exists, it would be ever present anyway, so with that in mind, I'm sure noone would object to the slight manipulation.

I do however believe that when making tests in an effort to form a consesus, most would consider like circumstances as a prerequisite for conclusion.

------------------
Turn Up The Steel
Johnny Cox
MSA Steel Guitars

quote:

---

It is my belief there is no inherent tone associated with any widely used steel guitar, therefore no inherent tone can be perceived on a consistent basis by listeners.

---

------------------
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

[This message was edited by b0b on 20 December 2006 at 03:11 PM.]

I fail to understand how the introduction of testing conditions could be perceived as unfair "if" as you maintain....an inherent tone truly exists in the first place.

quote:

---

Dave, there is NO interpetation to the original question. It is what it is.

---

With due respect, I disagree. If one hopes to answer any question unambiguously, one needs to unambiguously interpret what it means. The fact that this thread has gone on for 7 pages without resolution, or even agreement about definitions, is strong evidence that it's meaning is not obvious or generally agreed upon, IMO.

The original question was: 'Is "It" In The Hands.... Or Inherent Tone?'

To say "It" is in the hands does not, IMO, mean that one cannot detect differences between guitars if one strikes the strings in a robotically controlled and uniform fashion. Of course one can. I haven't heard anybody disagree with that.

I think the question clearly goes to whether or not a player can bend the sound of an instrument to his or her desire, and cancel out differences in that nominally-defined and controlled tonality. But it's Reece's question - I think his clarification trumps.

I think this also goes to b0b's question about the relevance of Ed's measurements. Ed can fill us in further, but I don't think they were attempting to measure what I suggested above. Based on what I read about this, I thought he was trying to measure some type of "nominal" tonality. Ed?

------------------
"From Truth, Justice is Born"--Quanah Parker-1904

quote:

---

...and actually measured the tone signature of many steel guitars.

---

That could be significant, it also could be relatively meaningless. No effort was made to try and make the guitars perform at their maximum potential. One guitar might sound good played at a certain fret or using a certain technique, while another may sound better played at a different fret with a different technique. Whenever you restrict the conditions, IMHO, you've gone from a useful real-world comparison to an irrelevant scientific exercise.

In my mind, the significant issue here is...

Can you vary the "basic" sound of a guitar through technique, or is it's sound truly always unique and identifiable, no matter what you do?

To me, if anything (short of sophisticated processing) can make a Defenbaker pedal steel sound just like a Fasbinder pedal steel, or make a Fasbinder pedal steel sound just like a Defenbaker, then it doesn't matter much which one of the two I play, and the basic sound differences (or what some call "inherent" sound differences) then become a moot point.

To me, anyway.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 20 December 2006 at 04:29 PM.]

Kevin H....You are of course right, you don't have to prove anything. Sorry if I mistakenly assumed you wished to discuss and pursue the matter further.

I honestly did not perceive this discussion as an argument as you suggested, and if I said anything which may have appeared as such, you have my sincere apology.

1 - Buddy Emmons was in St. Charles, MO playing a dance at the Moose Lodge and I was standing by the band stand. Right in the middle of song (Darrell McCall was the singer) Buddy looked down and asked me if I would set in for a few minute. I agreed. The equipment he was using was the Emmons steel guitar and the old style Echo plex. The sound was strickly "Buddy Emmons". When I sat down behind the steel guitar I didn't change his settings at all. I had high hopes of sounding just like Buddy. Wrong! The sound immediately became the mellow tone that I always have!

2 - As you know Jerry Byrd gave me his double neck Sho Bud and Excel Frypan. I finally set up the Sho Bud and was excited that finlly, I will have Jerry's Touch And Tone. Wrong again! I sounded just like Scotty!

3 - In 1968 you were the player to play at my very first steel guitar show. I became a dealer and when I sat behind my first MSA guess what happened...I sounded just like Scotty.

quote:

---

By definition I don't believe a precision measurement can be made of tone. It's something you hear.

---

With all due respect to the apparent majority here who feel this way, this seems to me to be superstitious nonsense. Tone is the frequency content of a sound. That's the meaning of the word "tone". There's nothing abstruse or complicated about it. It's the proportions of various overtones present in a sound with a given fundamental pitch. It can be heard, and it can be measured. It's what makes an A 440 sound different on a flute than on an oboe. And it's what makes an A 440 sound different on a Sho-Bud than on an Emmons push-pull. The problem is that the difference between the two steels is MUCH less drastic than the difference between a flute and an oboe, because the basic design of the two instruments is so much more similar. So it's harder to tell. Anyone (well, except the colorblind) can distinguish between red and green, but it's harder to tell the difference between one shade of red and a very slightly different one. Especially if you don't see them side by side--which is impossible with sounds because, by the nature of the beast, you hear them at different times, and have to rely on memory.

quote:

---

Chet Atkins was once told while playing,"That guitar sounds good". Chet then removed his hands and asked the complimentor,"How does it sound now?".

---

Again, with all due respect to both Tommy White and Chet Atkins, both of whom are much better musicians than I'll ever be, this anecdote means nothing whatsoever to me. Who expects an instrument to literally play itself? The guitar didn't sound good or bad when it was silent, obviously. Did the guitar sound better with Chet playing it than with a tone-deaf idiot playing it? Of course! Would Chet have sounded AS GOOD playing an atrociously bad guitar? Of course not! Can anyone seriously argue with either of those statements?

EDITED TO ADD: I went back to page one and reread Dean Parks's post, and I agree with Tommy W. that it is perhaps the most cogent post in this whole thread. It pretty much sums it up for me.
I guess I'll leave that poor dead horse alone now.

[This message was edited by Brint Hannay on 20 December 2006 at 09:03 PM.]

OK
myth –noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event,
with or without a determinable basis of fact
or a natural explanation,
esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods
and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

OK I will go with Door #5 for this one

Various Synonyms:
allegory, apologue, creation, delusion, fable, fabrication, fairy story, fancy, fantasy, fiction, figment, folk ballad, folk tale, illusion, imagination, invention, legend, lore, mythos, parable, saga, superstition, tale, tall story*, tradition

Hmmmm : figment, illusion, imagination, tradition
So these might also apply.

I do like the idea of picking 7-10 steels,
all with the same tuning, like C6.

Steels from different eras,
but mostly newer ones, as more relevant to the CURRENT crops differentiations
or lack of them..

Fender String Master or 400/800, Ricky Fryingpan, Gibson Console Grande,
National New Yorker,
Shobud Professional, Emmons PP, Bigsby

Classic MSA, New MSA, Zum hybrid and AP, Emmons Legrande,
Fulawka, Fessendon, Seirra, Carter....
and any others that care to tempt the gods.

All steels should be essentially factory stock,
no new pickups or major modifications.
But certainly exact same pups as normally delivered.

Ideally all the same brand of strings put in fresh,
and played one hour.

Show everyone the steels,
put the amp dead center in front of curtain.
Lower the curtain.... ah the suspense!! :}

Have the same player play the same song,
or exerpt medaly of 2-3 songs, 2 or three styles mixed,

through the same amp set flat,
or eq'd before hand to the best subjective median sound
for ALL steels and THEN not changed during the test.

Say Billy Robinson, ot Tom Morrel playing them all without pedals...
and on the same strings as the smallest has.
Easy enough to tune all to the same tuning then.
Takes the lapsteel vs pedal question out of the mix,
and lets it be 'body to body' comparison.

Use a drum, bass and piano backing.
No guitar to confuse the tonal range of the steel.

Give everybody interested a questionaire:

Musician yes/no?
Steel player or non player?
Years playing?

And the list of steels scrambled before hand in a hat,
so the list is not biased.
Then take the list and scramble again
for order to be played.

Each person uses the playing order number
an writes it next to the steel they pick.
In pencil, because I suspect people will
change their minds over time.

Do this early at the show, and then run it
into a computer Relational Database.

The right set of question criteria will give
very interesting answers. IMHO.

Of course we want a player with super hands...

ie.
he won't change his playing technique, if possible,
for each steel to get more of HIS sound.

UNLESS,
we specifically ask him to;
Get as much of your sound as you can from each steel.

This type of test hasn't been done that recently,
so the old ideas have crept back in.

As I see it in certain catagories, some steel may be noticable to older players,
and many will not be specifically notable.
Not to say not great sounding.

Try and get something relatively objective,
from the subjectivity of the people.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 20 December 2006 at 10:33 PM.]

It's called "testing"...and any valid test of this type uses equal conditions or it's completely useless. It's how equipment reviews have been done in guitar magazines for decades, and the standard method. Your "real world" idea isn't a test.

"There may be a number of players like yourself who believe they can consistently identify inherent tone, but so far you're in a vast minority."

I disagree. I think you're judging that on posters in this thread, which is a completely slanted view of reality IMO.

Go post this same ide on a guitar forum and see what the results are. You'll be very lonely. that's not an insult, it's just the way it is - and steel guitar is wood, metal, strings and elecronics, just like any other electric guitar. The rules don't change....but the perceptions here seem to have quite a bit of "follow the leader" going for them, which have nothing to do with reality...just with "thinking" somebody must be "more right" than anyone else. Kevin has summed things up beautifully several times but been responded to with answers to things that weren't his points, b0b's question regarding testing wasn't directly answered...there's a trend there somewhere.

"To say "It" is in the hands does not, IMO, mean that one cannot detect differences between guitars if one strikes the strings in a robotically controlled and uniform fashion"

Reece appears to feel otherwise, as do others if you look at the posts.

"My conclusion is.... the hands override scientific evaluations, which has been my belief all along."

This, to me, is summed up in the immortal words "my mind is made up, so please don't confuse me with the facts". If your belief is not ignoe the previously-performed scientific tests, than ANY scientific tests, no matter what conditions, would be irrelevant if you can't "change" the conditions using your hands.

That destroys the scientific method, any hope of impartial testing, and leaves you with a "belief" - but absolutely nothing to back it on but your faith that you are correct.

That reasoning, no matter the qualifications of the person applying it, is faulty, cannot be proven and becomes simply personal opinion.

Personal opinion is great when it comes to subjective matters. But the objective nature if the testing done completely and in total finality negates personal opinion on the subject. The truth and data are present for all to see. Not believing it is just fantasy.

And as stated earlier, the original question changed from all-inclusive to "well, some guitars need to be excluded"...and then no answer to questions about specifically which ones.

Selective reasoning and opinion in opposition to impartial testing doesn't hold much water.

(edited for a typo only)

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 20 December 2006 at 09:59 PM.]

Jim - when I say "robotically controlled and uniform fashion", I mean just that - precisely the same standardized strum on every instrument, as a precision-controlled robot could do. I'm not talking about a human being "playing" the guitar - nothing about "hands". Remember Reece's first statement:

quote:

---

We all know different guitars of the same brand can sound somewhat different, but if there are those who believe a “signature” truly exists and is inherent in any name brand guitar, would they be suggesting the characteristics of sound/tone are consistent within controllable and distinguishable parameters, no matter who is playing the guitar?

---

------- and onward----------------
Using a player with a very defined and refined personal sound,
would be better and asking them to get
as much of their sound from each steel
seems on the mark.
This draws on Scotty's comments.

Maybe ask them to play the peice
on their personal steel in full view
beforehand as a benchmark of their sound.
Then pull the surtain.

I would certainly like to be voting on this one.
Just to see how right and wrong I am.

I would say no volume pedal,
but if we do use one, use a Hilton pedal and Blackbox.
So the stock pickups interaction with the tube can be gaged.

Or just the Hilton, no BB,
in my opinion the most invisible pedal.
In any case the exact same set up.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 21 December 2006 at 08:31 PM.]

1. Do various guitars (whatever that means) have tones so different they can be distinguished in a blind test? To answer this you need a robotic pick, and all other variables equal (pickup, cords, volume pedal, amp, amp settings). There are variations of this test. Let the testers hear each guitar knowing which one it is, then let them try to identify them blinded. Or don’t let them hear them first, and let them pick them out blinded based on previous experience of their tones. Also, can the listener tell if different guitars are being played at all? If he can tell different guitars are being played, can he identify what they are? Actually this is not a very good test with a robotic pick. You really need to hear a song being played on the guitar. So you need an honest player who with try to play exactly the same way each time, which may not be possible.

2. Now, assuming that at least some people can tell a difference in inherent tone, and maybe even identify the guitars (if no one can, these next two questions are moot), can an experienced player alter the sound with his hands (no changes in equipment or settings) so that the difference disappears?

3. If the inherent tone cannot be disguised by the player’s hands, can the various elements of equipment be manipulated to disguise the differences (pickup, cords, volume pedal, amp, amp settings)?

I hate to get into the scientific jargon of experimentation, but you guys are into this so deep, you need to use the tried and true methods and terminology of experimental science to get anywhere. For a valid experiment capable of proving causation (that is, what causes the tone to be what it is), you need one, and only one dependent variable. That is the variable in which you will measure the change, or lack of change. In this case the dependent variable is the tone the listener hears. The variables that can be manipulated to cause change in the dependent variable are called independent variables. In this case the independent variables are the hands, and various elements in the equipment chain. You need to vary those one at a time, holding all the others constant, in order to hear the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. “The hands” are actually a whole set of independent variables together: the strength of picking, direction of picking, distance from the bridge, bar pressure, etc. For question 1 above, you want all this to be as constant as possible. For question 2, you want to let the player change all these at will.

This is a very complicated set of experiments. I advise getting the Great Randy to oversee them. He is a magician who specializes in setting up rigorous experiments to debunk myths. Actually, I’m not sure he is still alive. But being a magician, maybe that doesn’t matter.

Ours is a problem of symantics, I think. Most here are concerned with "basic sound". I, on the other hand, am concerned with potential sound. You might not be impressed with a single strum and a few quick licks on a guitar. But when you really delve into the thing, you find that there's sounds you haven't heard before. A more experienced operator yeilds better performance from the device.

We can test cars on a chassis dyno, do computer simulations on handling, and come up with a fair idea of how the car will perform. All very scientific, all very cut and dried. But if we really want to know how the car will perform, we go to the race track. Sure, there's lots more of those pesky "independent variables" at the track, but we want real-world results, and we know we can only get them on the race track. The car without the human element is just a machine, and certain characteristics can be noted...but the car just isn't used that way! There's always a human at the controls in normal use. Effective testing of a car, therefore, does not eliminate the driver.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 21 December 2006 at 07:03 AM.]

4. If you take several different players, and several different pedal steels, and let the players choose their own preferences for pickups, cords, amps, and amp settings, will a blinded listener be able to hear different tones? If the listener hears different tones, can he identify any of them with a particular brand and model of guitar? Can he pick out particular players? Can he pick out a particular pickup or amp?

Okay that is a legitimate question and test, it just answers different questions than the other 3 questions. The problem with this 7 page thread is that different posters are addressing different of the above 4 questions, and talking past each other. This is killing the rest of us. Define your terms, pick your variables, pick your questions, and pick your test methodology.

All these questions and subquestions make interesting thought experiments (which apparently was the purpose of this thread). But when different people come up with different imaginary answers to the same thought question, how are you going to resolve that?

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 21 December 2006 at 08:04 AM.]

Your brain...

Your brain after speed-reading this thread...

I can agree that if the measurements have no relationship to the "real world" they are just something to do because it is there to be done BUT, you never know what is beyond the next hill till you have climbed it. The basic PSG (with no more than the normal volume pedal load = 500K, or forget the volume pedal altogether to see the difference) is the starting point making possible the least variables.

Volume pedals and compressors do not compensate for the harmonic content loss as a function of time, except to the extent that the ear/brain compensates the spectrum for loudness. We all hear differently, so lets throw out those variables for now...to be used much later in the evaluation.

Simplicity pleads for itself, so to minimize the number of variables, we will take out the bar and finger picks from the experiment, and use just a thumb pick. We will start by exciting the open strings at fret 12. We will excite these via a strum, and measure the harmonic content at 0, 2,4,and 8 seconds. This provides the resonance(s) of the instrument/pickup/body combination for that excitation condition.

For those that say "there will be a variation in the strum"...do it several times (n samples), throw out the high and low responses, and average the rest for each PSG. What you will find is that for the first pass (orientation run)the averaging technique is not needed.

Once this data is obtained, one might want to parse it into the contribution of each string, then what if the strings were excited at other frets, what happens with the bar at fret 12, 24 and in between, what if you summed the output from all frets strummed at all frets, strummed harmonics (flageolets)and so forth.

It would be nice if all the PSGs were in the same place at the same time, and strummed by the same person/thumbpick. This would let the amount of hum from the various pickups be seen.

The test can be expanded to include the results of "famous fingers" and styles, with and without all their gadgetry...How?...by having them record "Stuff" and applying the analysis equipment to the playback.

The "scientific equipment" that was used to profile the 32 PSGs at Jim Palenscar's shop a year ago is just a software Frequency Spectrum Analyzer(FSA)program run on a standard laptop computer with a HiZin buffer amp before the line in on the computer. The "warm up" runs were the ones privately distributed to those that asked. These were done on the BEAST and other PSGs that I have here. As b0b said, the JP shop performance data, in simple form, was made available via the Forum, along with the photos of the changer end, tuner end, underside of the various PSGs.

The same setup can be used to measure the change in response as a function of amp, settings, player, sound pressure after the speaker, frequency nodes and nulls in the room etc...in other words, put repeatable numbers to the many variables including the human.

Your hearing may change with age, sinus condition, emotional condition, and imagination...but the visible record will not.