quote:

---

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.

---

As you can see from my earlier posts on this page and exchange with Kevin H., I totally concur. We will get nowhere on this if we don't agree on what we are asking from an "experiment".

My take on this is that Ed Packard's tests show that instruments have a {edited term} "nominal" tonality - just strum the strings in a fairly controlled way, measure the frequency response, take averages, throw out outliers, and, voila, it's there. I don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel with long-winded human experiments.

But I also believe that "It" - what Reece is talking about - is mostly in the hands, and can override that "nominal" tonal signature to a large degree. To get to this, the experiment must be done by highly skilled players who we know have "It", are allowed to use whatever they like to get "their" tone, and then do double-blind studies which also include control groups, as I suggested earlier. Then we can see if it's possible for a player to control the "tone" of the instrument well enough so knowledgeable listeners - good steel players themselves - can't tell the difference from one guitar to the next.

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 21 December 2006 at 08:54 AM.]

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

We had one and a half days at Jim's to do the 32 PSGs...just the E9 section of the D10s, and the
"whatever tunings" on the 12s and 14s. Changing the strings would have been impractical.

The amount of effect of the string age/type on the tests would have been small as compared to the other variables. The resulting data gave an index to the "category" that each PSG would fall into. In some cases two instruments, one brand and generation fell into two categories...because of pickup spacing, and maybe pickup condition. Older pickups had a poor ratio of Alnico magnet length to dia ratio, hence would demagnetize themselves somewhat randomly with time. This would be hastened in hot auto trunks in the CA. desert.

And then there may have been some screw tweaking, or other mods/adjustments by the previous owner(s).

Several models of MSA were involved, including the Plexiglass one. There were Mullen, Fessenden, Anapeg, Sho Bud, Emmons PP, EMCI, Sierra, Dekley, GFI, The BEAST, and more PSGs in the group. Sorry, no Franklin, and no Excels. We even ran the same tests on an old Bakelite Rick for comparison.

The strum response was done with no changes activated, and with P1P2 activated to see the difference that that made.

I took lots of photos, and dimensional/material data were taken by Jim P. string age/type were not in the mix at that point.

Other tests, which I have done on the PSGs that I have, would be cents change per string per degree of temperature...cents change per string for loosening all the other strings, and the like.

What strings(brands/gauges)would you compare? Do you think that the manufacturing batch would count?

Photographers use to test film down to the manufacturing batch level, then buy a bunch of the best batch.

In my opinion, string tests don't belong on the first pass to categorize the instrument. After the PSGs are categorized, the "typical" for each category then gets done with increased detail and resolution(controlled pickup spacing, individual strings, different bars, H land)...the string thing would be included at that time.

Anything more than has already been done probably won't get done in any organized way because this group is heavy on words and light on action.

Is it possible that "it" is in the strings?

[This message was edited by ed packard on 21 December 2006 at 02:27 PM.]

When most players age their tone gets better because of the time they have spent behind the instrument, That is until their hands give out. If our ears go to the point of not trusting them its probably time to stop worrying about tone and intonation and just have fun playing.

Ed,
With all due respect, I have to say your conclusions are premature. There are too many tone variables within string brands and their gauges. The sound of a 20 plain vs a 21 plain or a 21 wound vs 22 wound on the low G# is just one of many measurable tonal differences the string gauges bring to each brand of guitar. Alloys, stainless vs nickel vs swedish steel all change the harmonic response of the instrument. Impractical or not, unless your test used the same brand string, same gauges purchased from the same production batch, your test variances says more about the tonal difference in strings than any tonal difference between each guitar.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 21 December 2006 at 02:56 PM.]

Neither side will concede one iota.

Re my "conclusions": Do you mean that the strings will have a greater effect upon the tone/sustain measurments (open string strum at the 12th fret) than the difference between the PSGs,..or the one about words and action?..maybe both?

Have we pushed this "dead horse" so far that the original question must be expanded to include instrument, hands, strings?

Comparing the data (charts) taken on the PSGs shows that Jay Dee's Emmons PP with fresh strings has more upper register harmonic content loss 2 seconds after excitation than some "lesser" instruments with older strings...in one case I know that the strings were more than a year old though not played nearly as much as Jay Dee's, or as you would have. Those charts are available on one of the PHOTOBUCKET sites given in long past posts.

This is not a conclusion, just an observation of the results.

To make a determination if inherent tone exists, why would the testing procedures we are discussing need to be in great depth? For if such a steel guitar exists, why would it not be identifiable in “all” instances, not just controlled circumstances,....that would be permanently existing?

I’m convinced tests under similar circumstances are necessary so as to come to an acceptable conclusion for most. Of course……there will always be a “hangin chad”!
when the votes are counted....

Paul, respectfully - your statement isn't based on any facts or testing either, just on the idea that strings will make some sort of difference (which we all will assume to be true - but it's not proven how much).

I don't think you can rightly claim the test result variances are due to strings alone without proof, either.

Reece, your last post still didn't address some of the questions you've been asked to address - the guitars you consider exceptions nor how/why you consider tests to be invalid, and on what you base that thought. I would like to know what guitar YOU consider to be "excluded" from the tests, as you do Fenders and Bigsbys, if any. Again it's not an argumentative point...but an important one for players looking for guitars with a "signature" tone to work with as a base of operations.

Ed,

Just cause I'm the first to mention the difference between runs of strings, doesn't make my point invalid. Strings from the same batch are more apt to have the same flaws, therefor there is a better chance that the strings will perform equally. No two sets are completely alike.

Reece, I'm with you. The ears are the only true test any musician should trust when it comes to playing and detecting the differences in tone.

Donny, I couldn't agree more and I'll join you on the sidelines. The one thing about these threads, it has been interesting reading the names of players who agree that the hands heart and soul control the personal sound.

Its been fun. Merry Christmas to all. Be safe this holiday season.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 21 December 2006 at 05:49 PM.]

quote:

---

What we have here are two basic camps. One camp says the hands are significant in the tone of the instrument. The other says that the instrument is what it is, and the player has little or no impact on it's sound, or tonal signature.

---

Paul...You were not the first, I should have said the only other that I have heard give credibility to the batch issue, which I had just brought up a couple of posts above.

Agreed, that the strings age/gauge/brand/batch have an effect upon "tone"...but the measurements indicate that they do not change the basic sonic behavior of the particular instrument.

I agree that the hands and personal style
play a huge part in the over all tone.

I agree that some steels have a personal signature,
but a players personal style can cause
great variation in that sound.

Brint, the 1st paragraph was for your comments,
the rest a continuation of earlier posts.

Ed, and Paul.
for me I think to test the instruments
actual consistent resonance qualities,
you would need to:

Build a simple moter driven strum jigg,
and place it at the same coordinates on each steel.

For a full string strum, agree on
a single chord for all strings,
that works as an open chord.
A large C6 for instance.
Or an E chord, but with less tensions.

Really a well tuned major
I, III, V, I, III,V etc. would be best.
This way you don't impart spurious chord resonaces,
out side the norm, to confuse the body.
Let it work on the basics.

Build a sliding bar jig with tensinometer over the bar,
to ensure that at any bar position the tensioning is the same.

Then move that bar jigg across ALL fret positions.
Take readings and record the major peaks and nulls.

Then do the same with each of the most common string types.
Stainless, nickle, swedish steel etc.

If you average this, you will likely see
the body's resonant characteristic,
as seen through the stock pickup.

It will see a total cross section of the instruments responce,
and if each range is averaged,
the totality will be the peaks and nulls of ALL keys/chords,
as they interact with the body / pup.

Other wise you are seeing it as only
one key's resonance qualities of the body.
We know that we all play in several keys.

Doing this on several steels.. yeah, yeah, a long time...

Would likely explain why we pick different guitars for different gigs.
Some would work better in some keys than others would.
And why we pick different pickups to replace stock ones.

Of course in practice, we likely choose pickups
that add to the nulls
and subtrack from the peaks,
to give a smoother tonal balance.

Since pickup technology has greatly improved it is easier to match;

Our placing our right hand at a particular point
to get our 'personal harmonic groupings',
from an particualar instrument.

Our choice about which harmonics in the series
we then want accentuate or mitigate.
_____________________________________

Each of us is daily testing our instrument
for it's factors
and our own technique (hopefully)
as it interacts with the instruments factors.
As well as choosing the down chain additions; pickup and onward,
that most agrandize our percived end product.

Paul F. you are lucky to have had the chance to
help create the instrument to your personal specs,
and that 'IT' so well matches your desired end product,
that it inspires you each time you touch it.

We have the Sho-Bud and PP, because Buddy had that
same great expirence of putting HIS choices into actuallity.
Being the great player he is,
easily explains these instruments longevity.

Merry Christmas to all.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 21 December 2006 at 09:21 PM.]

Yep - and I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that test results aren't available that prove THAT point either. It's certainly posible "dead" strings could affect testing, but not provable (until tested) that varying brands or gages have a significant effect on the "signature" tone of the instrument - playability yes, without a doubt. But does a .021 or .022 make any difference in an instrument's signature tone?

I think what I have said here is very much on the subject, we will sound like us regaurdless what brand guitar we play

Old strings...old by manufacture date, or old by being on the instrument for some time (= used strings)? Many of the "new" strings that you buy were made along time ago.

quote:

---

Is "It" In The Hands.... Or Inherent Tone?

---

I have several PSGs that are going on 10 years old and have not been taken out of the shipping cartons yet. One of these days at least one of them will be added to the "test" mix.

[This message was edited by ed packard on 22 December 2006 at 08:55 AM.]

New strings/ on the instrument.

Strings from the same batch are made at the same time. Sorry, I must have missed something, I thought I was clear. I'm refering to the amount of time strings are tuned to pitch on the instrument not their age in packages.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 22 December 2006 at 09:07 AM.]

We could chase it all the way back to the music wire maker and their manufacturing date et al. This trail has no end...so one tends to stop at the point where a given effect (new/old strings) make less difference in the results than other test components...refinements follow the evaluation phase.

Most importantly there are those who are learning valuble information and gaining insights, some of whom have expressed their appreciation to me personally, which is what the forum is all about.

Eaxample: on most 6-strings I prefer roundwound nickel strings, but sometimes go to flat wounds for a change-of-pace with a different feel and slightly different decay. On others (electric 12-string and a '63 Jag) I prefer flats all the time. Never use stainless - find them too "hard" sounding and harsh in the upper mids.

Can anybody deny the difference in "tone"or "overall sound" when say Buddy Charlton went from Sho-Bud to Emmons. Also the same when Curly changed to his MSA and did it not sound typical of an MSA?