MSA vs Sho-Bud/Emmons

[Bob Hoffnar]

So the internet is going to make an old MSA sound as good as an old Emmons now !? I know this is a bad idea to write and really it is only my opinion ( which I am well aware that everybody has one !) but it seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone could put a PP Emmons in the same ballpark with an MSA from the 70's. I played, toured and recorded with a 66 bolt on Emmons D10 and a 70's Emmons S10 for years. I checked out MSA's and it was not even close. The first time I saw Reece play I was blown away by his musical genius and skill but once the rest of the band kicked in any notes played below the 9th string on his 12 st MSA got lost in the mud. This would not happen with a PP Emmons.
Back when I was a sommelier I had seen blind tests where wine experts got fooled but that does not mean that a Chilean Merlot is the same as a vintage Cheval Blanc.

[Bill Duncan]

A ball park is a right big place. I think the general consensus has been that what difference there is in sound, is small, and that the pickup, amp eq, amplifier, and picker make a much larger contribution to sound than what the guitar body is made of, or who made it.

I don't know much about wine, I don't really like any of it. I have noticed that the more expensive it is, the worse it tastes to me. I like the taste of muscadine wine, made buy a company in NC. However, I am sure the wine snobs would think it was terrible.

Fact is, if you think PP Emmons guitars sound better, then to you, I am sure that they do.

I am an expert only in the sound that "I" hear, and I think they all sound pretty much the same. I have read where some people think they can tell the difference in the sound of birdseye/quilted and plain grain maple. I doubt if they could, unless they have seen the guitar first. I have heard Bluegrass pickin buddies of my Dad's swear that a rattlesnake rattle in their D28 Martin makes it "sound" better.

I have heard people swear that a rosewood fretboard on a Fender sounds better than maple. I doubt that!

[Bill Duncan]

As a post script to my former post;

I have a super pickin buddy that keeps a piece of Brazilian rosewood for dust to sprinkle in all his accoustic guitars. The dust makes them sound better!

Yeah, Right!!

[Reece Anderson]

Bob H…..Thank you for your respectful comments and compliment.

May I respectfully suggest the tone I was getting at the time you heard me was my selected tone of choice at that particular time. Had I been playing any other brand of guitar and wanted that same tone, it was but an amp adjustment away.

If someone wants your exact tone, what better way for them to get it than for you to let them sit behind your guitar. When they do, most will be astonished to hear the dramatic difference in tone. This in itself is a clear demonstration of how one’s touch can alter the tone of an instument.

Your analogy about wine is well taken and yet another example of the power of vision, which can “influence” and at times completely override the mind. Another example of mental overriding is an acquired preconceived perception, which may be brought about by the power of suggestion and/or association.

Thank you again for your comments.

[Fred Shannon]

Bob H: "So the internet is going to make an old MSA sound as good as an old Emmons now !?"

Bob if this is referencing my post, that's not even close to what I posted. I merely said what I witnessed and I don't care what kind of guitar you or anyone else is playing.

It's inevitable that individuals will compare tones, sounds, maintainability, etc of every kind of product. I did not do that, however, in my post. I merely related what I, and a hell of a lot of other players, witnessed back there in time.

Then I have to wonder why PP player have to always bring up the SUPERIOR ATTRIBUTES of the PP guitar , and why if so superior they aren't produced in a quantity to satisfy all the experts. Maybe someone protesteth too much. I have an Emmons PP that has been in my stable since 1966, and I really don't think any more of it than I do of an old ShoBud I have, tonewise.

I also have a little MSA D10 Super Small with Wallace's TruTones on both necks that has a superior tone, (IN MY OPINION, AND THAT'S WHAT TONE IS--RIGHT--AN INDIVIDUAL'S OPINION)to both of those guitars. However I can put it through an inferior amp along with both of the others and they all three sound a lot like rats**t in a bucket.

In any case, one can compare guitars to their heart's content, and that has nothing to do with my post. My post has to do with "blind recognition and identification" of different guitars, and the results of what I personally witnessed and experienced.

phred

PS: I received a very nice email from Bob expressing several things. Opinions are great and if someone doesn't like something and are on a public forum I certainly respect that opinion and fully expect them to voice that opinion.

Bob, I thoroughly understand where you're coming from, and I think you know how much I respect you as a gentleman and a super player, along with being a great credit to this community.

[Mike Perlowin]

For whatever it's worth, at the L.A. steel jam last weekend we got to hear between 15 and 20 players, taking back to back rides, and everybody had his own unique tone.

My opinion is that Ron Epperson's GFI had the best tone. I believe Ron used one of Gerry Walker's stereo Steel amps and some other kind of pre-amp, which undoubtedly contributed to his wonderful tone.

On Sunday, Rick Schmidt changed the settings on my POD, and my tone got 1000% better as a result. Rick's setup is now my default setting. If you compared my tone before and after Rick changes my setting, you'd think it was 2 different guitars and amps.

I have 4 different pickups for my Millennium, and they all sound different. The difference is subtle, but it's definitely there. After comparing them all, I've settled on Bob H's Tone Aligner.

I think the only way to really tell if different guitars sound different is to remove the element of amplification and all it's variables and play them unplugged, using a microphone if necessary.

[Donny Hinson]

I think the only way to really tell if different guitars sound different is to remove the element of amplification and all it's variables and play them unplugged, using a microphone if necessary.

And that would be a totally meaningless exercise, IMHO. After all, no one really uses a pedal steel guitar that is unplugged.

I can make any guitar sound bad, and I can make any guitar sound good (either with, or without an amp). So what?

"Have you heard that guy? His playing really sucks, but he has a nice tone."

"Tone-heads" would call that a compliment.

[Larry Bressington]

My MSA is a 74 mica finish, has the original single coil pick-ups in it.
The 'tone' live on stage is beautiful, it's clean with warm lows, but not bassy, it has all the
'Meat and Potatoes' it is not 2nd to a Sho-bud or Emmons and i have the others too.
There is no problem with 'THE SOUND' It even has a 'Sweetness' that i cant find in the others.
I'm even afraid to up-date the pick-ups, in case i loose something, i like single coils.
It does have it's OWN distinctive sound, but dont they all, they should, i'll tell you what, it's an awsome sounding machine!

Now lets talk about the 'sight illusion' because i agree TOTALLY. Just like an audience hears with their eyes. A band with a hot looking singer is always a better band in most people's opinion as a listener, the eye is a very powerful tool gentlemen.
My freind who plays a great stevie ray vaughn ripp off style was playing in my basement whilst i was upstairs doing something. I shouted; Sounds just like stevie, incredible man; When i went downstairs, he was playing my LES PAUL copy through a pod!
And yes you can sound like lloyd green on an MSA, but you have to play just like him, which is PRETTY HARD to do.
Also; If Lloyd Green was sat behind a curtain and played all his great solo's, not one of us would know any different until they lift the curtain, and only then would any one of say, ah' i knew that was an M.S.A.

[David Doggett]

Bob H., I think you are overreacting to what most of us are saying. I don’t remember anyone saying all pedal steels have the same tone. What is mostly being said is that the differences are so subtle they can mostly be overcome with other elements of the equation that lead to what is heard – pickup, volume pedal, amp and speaker, EQ settings, picking technique. I have played on Emmons p/p, Sho-Buds, Carter, Zum, MSAs. The Emmons p/p definitely is brighter, with richer harmonics (which give better definition on the low strings), and more sustain than any of the others. But it is all more of a “feel” for the player than what is heard by the listener. Even before it gets to the amp EQ, I don’t have to pick the high strings as hard with the Emmons to get the balance I am after. And I compensate for the sustain difference with the volume pedal. So as the player, I can feel the difference in the Emmons p/p, and I think that is why so many players are so adamant about them being so unique. But after each player makes all the adjustments in technique and amp settings to get a typical pedal steel sound, the listener doesn’t necessarily hear any noticeable difference.

Likewise, I completely disagree with your wine analogy. If even the experts are fooled, then whatever differences exist, no matter how real, DON’T MATTER, certainly not for the average wine drinker. It’s a well recognized rule of thumb in oenology that a 10% improvement in taste costs 100% more. So except for rare connoisseurs, people who pay the big bucks are paying for subtleties they can’t even recognize.

I agree with Donny that the unplugged sound is not very relevant. Imagine you tried this on regular guitars, say a solid-body, a hollow-body electric, and an acoustic guitar with a sound-hole magnetic pickup. When you plug them in, the unplugged sound has almost nothing to do with the electrified sound. In such a test I’m thinking most people will have completely opposite opinions about what sounds best plugged in and unplugged.

We are all making a big deal out of compensating for tone differences with amp EQ and other stuff. That makes me wonder about those old MSA blindfold tests. I’m guessing the pickups were not the same. But was the amp EQ the same for each instrument? Did people listen to the natural sustain without the use of a volume pedal?

[Bill Duncan]

David D.

You touched on what I think is the perceived difference in sound/tone from various brands of pedal steels. The picker gets a different sound coloration because of the vibrations and acoustics he detects from being so close to the instrument.

[Reece Anderson]

David D…..In response to your comments concerning our “non visual comparisons”.

The pickups in comparison guitars were those that were standard in each guitar.

All comparisons were made using the same amp, tuning(s), cords, strings, string gauges, and volume pedal.

The amp EQ was first adjusted to the guitar the participant wished to compare with other guitars, and they took as much time as needed to get the sound they preferred. After they established the sound, we made note of the amp settings they had selected and we then adjusted the EQ of the remaining guitars to more closely resemble the guitar sound the participant had selected for the comparison while also making note of the settings of each different guitar.

The participant would select whomever they wanted to play the guitars. Each time a specific guitar was played, the EQ was reset to the previously noted positions.

Odds will dictate that at times a guitar would be correctly identified, and when they were, many times we would unplug the guitar, make the associated moving sounds “then plug in the same guitar”. After doing so I can’t recall anyone identifying the same guitar, and “if” they had got it right the second time, I would have further explored the consistency factor…..but the truth is, no one ever got that far.

These comparisons proved to our satisfaction that an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar, so any specific name brand which it was said could be consistently identified, was a Myth that had been “busted” until and unless proven otherwise.

Yes…..most were interested in natural sustain, but the length of sustain was not considered in the comparison tests which I'm referring too, because as you know, sustain can be manipulated with pick pressure and the bar if utilized. We did however also make sustain comparisons…….but that’s another story.

[Joe Gorfinkle]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. First, "What is good" is totally subjective. In this case as there is no agreed upon baseline. My experience as a musician and as an engineer tells me that EVERYTHING between initial vibration and its reaching our ears (amplified or not) affects the sound. Personal prejudice and brand loyalty can effect our perception. Body materials affect the sound of solid body guitars as well as construction methods. Depending on how you play , an amp may or may not affect the sound a lot. Use a lot of signal-processing and distortion? It will probably be harder to differentiate guitars. Use a very 'flat' amp setup with little coloration and the differences will stand out more.

[Bill Duncan]

OK Reece, Don't leave us hanging on; you've got to tell us the sustain story.

All ears here!

[Bill Duncan]

Joe, I understand the point you make. Construction materials and methods will make a difference, but the guitars in question are made from the same type of materials. Even if you call into question that some MSA's were constructed using wood laminates, the laminates can not be distinguished from the solid wood bodies from their amplified sound.

The premise here is that under normal picking situations, little tonal difference is noticed by anyone other than the picker. Certainly not the huge difference that some people contend is there; or not there, depending solely on whether the guitar being played is a PP Emmons, Sho-Bud, or MSA.

Amplifiers can make a big difference!

[Reece Anderson]

Joe G…..You are exactly right….”what is good”, is totally subjective. However in the instances of the comparisons to which I was referring, “what is good” was relative and subjective to the perception of a specific person and the sound they themselves wanted to hear.

In the instance I describe, the baseline was established by the participant.

You were also correct when you said “personal prejudice and brand loyalty can effect one’s perception”.

Bill D…..Thank you for the suggestion, that will someday make for a new topic. I must however say, I was not in on the sustain evaluations to the same extent as tone comparisons because I was traveling and playing seminars at the time.

[Joe Gorfinkle]

Reece, I appreciate the validity of your tests. And Bill you are correct.I've had discussions about similiar topics about recording gear and guitars. Very few people who listen to music know about the instruments or gear that it was made with or would say, "I really like this tune because the Pedal Steel is a ____". One of the things that stands out is that while there are differences between brands, they are more nuanced than we often perceive.

[Gil Berry]

Interesting subject. I own a '72 D12 MSA black formica over plywood. It does have a darker sound than my other guitars. I don't think this is bad, just different.

One comment I totally disagree with is that about pickups having little to do with sound. The difference in sound from one pick up to another is shocking. I wouldn't have thought so until I tried a couple of different ones in my Sierra. String separation and clarity vary greatly with different pickups. Tonal response is also different, although Reese is undoubtedly right in that a graphic EQ would probably compensate for that.

I think scale length has a great deal to do with sustain....I know it certainly has a great deal to do with the ease of producing harmonics...

The best sounding guitar I own is a Bagget custom universal 7/5 made with African purpleheart and laquered about 12 coats. Unfortunately, it is the worst mechanically of all the guitars I own. To put up with all the mechanical issues for a very slight - and very subjective - difference in sound is simply not worth it. I feel the same about the old push-pulls....but I know I'm definitely in the minority here...

[Bill Duncan]

Gil,

Pickups can make a big difference if they are old and resonate and pick up a lot of pedal linkage and body noise. Mine had gone that way, and I think it made a tremendous difference to install new ones. The fifth and sixth strings don't tend to scream, and are much easier to control. Before the new pickup install, I had a hard time controlling some strings. I am certain that was due to the old pickups resonating.

Here again, I notice the difference, but I am not sure how much difference a listener would notice.

[David Doggett]

The amp EQ was first adjusted to the guitar the participant wished to compare with other guitars, and they took as much time as needed to get the sound they preferred...we then adjusted the EQ of the remaining guitars to more closely resemble the guitar sound the participant had selected for the comparison.

Reece, this is a valid test, but it does not support your conclusion:

These comparisons proved to our satisfaction that an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar, so any specific name brand which it was said could be consistently identified, was a Myth that had been “busted” until and unless proven otherwise.

Rather the described test supports the conclusion that whatever inherent tone differences existed could be compensated with changes in the amp EQ.

To test for discernible differences in inherent tone, one would need to leave the amp EQ the same for each comparison. The fact that you had to tweak the amp EQ to get the same tone argues that there really was some inherent difference in tone between the instruments.

With your experiment, you can validly argue that any real tone differences are unimportant, because they can easily be compensated with simple amp EQ tweaks. But to argue that "an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar" is unsupported by your own test, is counter to the experience of any experienced player who has sat behind a wide range of different instruments, and so will perpetuate the controversy and confusion. Unfortunately, your mistatement of the logical conclusion of your test obscures the one issue your tests did confirm - that the differences are so subtle they can be compensated with simple amp EQ tweaks. I would urge you to consider this logic carefully and rephrase the conclusion derived from your valuable experiment. With the valid conclusion stated correctly, I think you would find a majority consensus accepting the conclusion.

In fact the consensus in this thread already seems to be that there are inherent tone differences, but they are subtle enough to be compensated with amp EQ. And indeed, Ed Packard has measured and graphed the inherent frequency spectrum differences between a dozen or more pedal steel guitars. But it is difficult to look at the graphs and imagine how much different the instruments would sound to the ear. Your tests indicate the differences are minor enough that for practical purposes they can be compensated with simple amp EQ adjustments.

[Fred Shannon]

Come on David, you're putting words in peoples mouths. Here's the quote:

"Reece, this is a valid test, but it does not support your conclusion:

Quote:
These comparisons proved to our satisfaction that an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar, so any specific name brand which it was said could be consistently identified, was a Myth that had been “busted” until and unless proven otherwise."

David, he plainly states he was satisfied with the conclusions that were drawn by the tests performed. If they were satisfied with the test then they were satisfied.

Most of the rest of your post may be arguable to other folks, but the MSA people were "satisfied"

I wouldn't be the one to argue the rest of the post at all, because it is opinion. I can tell you I was one of those who was "fooled" by my own guitar and will admit it. I know of some folks on this forum if they are reading this thread "could" come forward and if they speak with straight tongue would admit they had a few crow feathers sticking out of their mouths back then also.

phred

[David Doggett]

I don't understand your objection, Fred. I didn't put any words in Reece's mouth, but instead copied his quotes directly.

When he stated exactly how the test was done, i.e., changing the amp settings so the tones of the different instruments matched so well they could not be distinguished in a blind test, it is very clear that this was a valid test that clearly demonstrated there was no discernible tone difference ONCE THE REAL INHERENT TONE DIFFERENCES WERE COMPENSATED WITH CHANGES IN AMP EQ. Obviously this satisfied them, because it showed the inherent tone differences had little practical significance, because they could be compensated with simple amp EQ adjustments.

But that is entirely different from concluding "an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar." In fact, the fact that his test required amp EQ adjustments to obliterate the tone differences actually proved the inherent tone differences did exist. If they didn't exist, no amp EQ adjustments would have been required.

I'm merely trying to get the language precise and correct here. As usual, once the language is cleared up, there is less disagreement than expected. Reece has a valid experiment with an interesting and valuable result. But he has overstated, or mistated the reasonable conclusion, and I am simply making the friendly suggestion that he clean up the language of his conclusion to convey precisely what he has proved. Considering how the experiment was done, he has proved there are no inherent tone differences in the compared instruments THAT CANNOT BE COMPENSATED WITH SIMPLE AMP EQ ADJUSTMENTS. He has not proven "an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar."

Another way to state his reasonable conclusion might be that "a practical tone difference did not exist in any guitar." Because in practice the small (but real) inherent tone differences can be compensated with simple amp EQ changes available to anyone. I suspect "a practical tone difference did not exist in any guitar" is what he meant when he said "an inherent tone did not exist in any guitar." But that's just a guess based on how he said the experiment was done. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth.

The point is not to split hairs in an interminable argument. My point is that there is probably more agreement than now appears. Many players will accept that the inherent tone differences are so small they can for practical purposes be compensated with amp EQ adjustments, and that Reece's experiment demonstrates that. I think almost no players will agree that there are no inherent tone differences at all, nor will they agree his experiment demonstrates that.

This is by no means an attack on Reece. He did a valid experiment with a clear and valid conclusion. I'm just trying to make a friendly suggestion as to how best to state the conclusion, so that it settles the issue it was designed to settle (no practical difference). Yet does not contribute to the controversy and confusion by appearing to claim there are no inherent tone differences at all, not even impractically small and subtle differences.

[Fred Shannon]

David, no one says you're attacking Reese. The key words in Reece's quote is TO OUR SATISFACTION. Man that is certainly an opinion and I would bet you would agree that is his right. If it's not your opinion I still agree with some of your post.

Reece's statement is simply that the people at MSA were satisfied with the tests and proved to them that there was no inherent tone. Period. They were actually looking at the prospect of whether the MSA's tone was detrimental to sales and to confirm a yes or no answer they did this test.

Subsequent to the tests THEY WERE SATISFIED there was not that much difference in the tones to warrant changing the guitar and man am I glad they didn't.

You probably have a different opinion and that's certainly ok with me and I respect that. I only wish you could have seen how it was done, some of your ideas may change SLIGHTLY, if not entirely.

BTW the guitar I owned was a ShoBud single. I knew I could recognize my own guitar but I didn't.

phred

[Reece Anderson]

David D……I always appreciate your posts as well as our private exchanges.
I agree with you in that some form of inherent tone exists in all musical instruments, however, I respectfully submit the level of inherent characteristics to which you’re referring, is not a requirement for the achievement of a benchmark tone. (Benchmark tone being similar to what most associate with a good steel guitar sound)

Had we not changed the EQ slightly (in some instances we made no changes at all with which to duplicate a sound similar to that which the participant preferred) there could likely have been a difference in sound, possibly (among other things) due in some instances to the level of inherent tone to that which I understand you’re addressing.

Skewing the end result of determination by not changing other comparison guitars to the similar tone selected by the participant, would have been of no significance. No matter what guitar someone plays, they adjust the amp to their preferred tone. When making comparisons, we simply adjusted each guitar to a similar tone.

Should the end result have proven the benchmark tone was identifiable relative to a specific brand, that guitar would have provided consistent sound recognition and identification. The comparisons we made proved to our satisfaction that was not true.

I appreciate your comment that, in such discussions the language and parameters should be precise and correct. I have done my best to achieve that, but as you well know, many times the discretionary determination of an entry level of a discussion can be very difficult. Possibly I have said in this post something I should have stated earlier, and if so I thank you for calling it to my attention.

I certainly don’t consider your post as an attack, to the contrary I greatly appreciate your comments which have hopefully helped me in my well intended but bungling way, to make myself better understood.

Lastly..... I have to say how gratifying and encouraging it is to observe a potentially divisive discussion which has such insightful and respectful comments.

[Bill Bassett]

I just skipped down to Reeces' comments.

Of course tone is everywhere, bar, picks, strings, pickup, body, wires, pedals, amps, mics, room acoustics, everywhere. But psycho-acoustics are perhaps the forgotten element. Visual cues and perception even make a difference.

Example: When Ralph Mooney was playing and recording with Waylon Jennings, I assumed he was using a Fender. It sounded like a Fender to me and I had heard stories of his old Fender steel guitar so naturally I drew that conclusion. Until I met him and there he was playing a Sho-Bud. It blew away my perception of what a Sho-Bud sounded like. And what a Fender sounded like for that matter.

It's all subjective. I have played and loved my MSA for 33 years and although I have had other brands, I keep coming back to my old Classic. Thanks Reece for building it for me those many years ago.

Bill Bassett
Rimrock AZ

[David Doggett]

For what it's worth Reece, I think you did the experiment the right way for your purposes. You could have left the amp EQ flat or the same for all the guitars. Some small differences in tone might have been detectable then. But we don't all leave our amps the same. By adjusting the amp so all the instruments sounded the same, you showed that, regardless of any small inherent differences in tone, all the guitars were in the same tone ball park, so that simple amp adjustments could get any of them sounding the way the player liked.