MSA vs Sho-Bud/Emmons

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 29 Mar 2009 9:58 am

I've learned from this thread that there are some real prejudices about pedal steel guitars, and their manufacture. Most are unfounded in reality though.

The main one is, that there is a pedal steel brand with the real tone. The "Master Tone", (pardon me Gibson), so to speak.

After all of the discussion, it seems plain to me that any of the accepted brands are capable of sounding great! I know my guitar does.

The vintage MSA, is not an inferior guitar in terms of mechanics, looks, or sound quality.

I have been concentrating on tone for a while, and I have found tone to be a continuing destination. There are many things that contribute and it takes a lot of work. I have found tone to be a learning experience as well.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 29 Mar 2009 10:26 am

It seems a little self serving to start your own post then conclude that you are learning from yourself. There are definite inherent tonal differences between different brands of steel guitars. If you can't hear it then you are not hearing what the vast majority of steel players do hear. This whole thread borders on propaganda obviously meant to benefit the manufacturer of one particular brand of steel guitar who may not be selling enough steel guitars right now for a number of reasons. I have heard a few brands of steel guitars that I absolutely did not like. There are classic steel guitar inherent tones as in Sho-Bud,Emmons P/P, Franklin, and ZB that created bench marks for other steel guitar manufacturers to shoot for. Some live up to them, and some don't.

Chris Johnson · Post by **Chris Johnson** » 29 Mar 2009 11:31 am

Its really sad (seriously). Some people just can't learn anything. I think its because they dont want to. $:\$

With some people on the forum, I honestly believe if Jesus came down from the heaven above and told them that Emmons and sho-bud didn't have a good tone, they would give Him the finger

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 29 Mar 2009 12:41 pm

Kevin…There is nothing self serving about Bill Duncan or anyone else who is open minded, honest, and admits they are learning something.

You keep saying time and again there are definite inherent tonal characteristics within specific guitars, meanwhile you continue to decline to come forward to validate your opinion and defend your ability to make such distinctions. However, your opinion, (and a biased one at that) does not provide a basis for conclusion. Meanwhile I'm sure many of us on the forum are waiting for you to make a positive commitment toward determining the truth based on something other than your opinion.

The fact you will not intelligently and respectfully discuss any specifics, speaks volumes to those who “can read between the lines”. The biased intentions behind your continued inaction, misdirected, and idol words, has become your trademark, and your motives have become crystal clear.

I remind you I did not institute this thread, nor to my knowledge have I ever had the pleasure of meeting Bill Duncan. I further call you attention, that not one time have I ever made an insinuation MSA had any advantage on any other guitar(s) either past or present. In fact, I’m saying the opposite of what you insinuate, because NO consistent distinction between any of the guitars has ever been proven.

Further you have absolutely no way of making a valid determination as to how many guitars MSA is either building or selling, so again that to which you elude, exposes your severely biased and uninformed opinion, therefore your sniping comment is nothing more than biased nonsence.

I respect your opinion and your right to it, however for you to continue to “snipe” at everything I say while offering nothing more substantial than your biased opinion, exposes a deep running negative unwarranted biased personal issue either toward myself, MSA or both.

I personally consider that to be unfortunate for each of us.

Bernie Hedges · Post by **Bernie Hedges** » 29 Mar 2009 1:21 pm

I haven't read all of the replies on this topic but I have seen a couple of things regarding tonewoods versus plywood and some very opinionated, highly biased, replies about the supposedly "Best" tone. My opinion is that there is no such thing. I have a 70's MSA that I think has wonderful tone. This is mainly due to the fact that I changed pickups since the old one was going microphonic on me. I installed a George'L E66 which was not easy since I had to do a little routing to make it fit. At the time, about 15 years ago, George L was "THE" pickup to have. It made a huge difference. I can't make any observations about Emmons or Sho-buds since I have never played one. From listening I can't tell the difference except that when its a master player they all sound good. I do have one observation about tonewoods. I don't think tonewoods or the type of construction in a PSG makes a big difference in tone. It makes a HUGE difference in an acoustic guitar. Take the Dobro for instance. The pre-war Dobros are the most sought after, valuable, and some think the best sounding Dobros there are. Guess what! They're plywood! Even today, Mike Auldridge, who I'm sure a lot of you know as a Dobro player in the caliber of a Lloyd Green or Buddy Emmons on Steel, endorses a Beard and plays a Dobro made of laminated Birch, which is plywood. The biggest difference in a dobro is the resonator. I have a plywood (excuse me I mean laminated) mahogany Johnson dobro which I modified by adding a bone nut, a quarterman cone and an ebony capped bridge. I have maybe $500 in the guitar and in a blind sound test I would bet no one would think its a Johnson. It sounds like s Scheerhorn to me. Maybe not quite that good but you get the point. For the slight improvement in tone from my modified Johnson to a dobro made from excellent tonewoods I don't think its worth thousands of dollars.
One other comment about tone and I'll shut my mouth. If people don't think the amp makes a difference they don't understand tone at all. a Blackface Fender amp will make a guitar come alive even if it's a cheap Japanese clone. For steel you don't want that wonderful, natural, overdriven harmonic distortion, you want a clean, lots of headroom, no distortion at all amp. You get that from the early 70's silverface Fender amps, particularly a Twin Reverb with the nice JBL speakers. During the early 70's they made some slight changes to make the fenders ultra clean. That's what I use for my steel. Absolutely the best sounding amp I've ever heard, for that clean sound. For straight guitar I have a 66 Fender Blackface Super Reverb which IMHO is the best guitar amp ever made. I know a lot of people use Peavey's for steel and I'm sure they sound good for that clean sound. I had one once that I used for guitar (2x12 Classic). While I was using it I thought it sounded ok and then I found this silverface Twin for $300, a deal I couldn't pass up and my Peavey days were over. So IMHO I think the biggest difference in tone on a steel is in the pickup and amp, and amp is spelled FENDER TUBE.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 29 Mar 2009 2:20 pm

If you have never played an Emmons or a Sho-Bud I suggest that your experience with different brands of steel guitars and their inherent tone is very limited. Mr. Anderson, I have nothing to prove to you. I offered the statement coming from your own website that directly contradicts your opinion here on the Forum. Therefore, I see know need to communicate with you. I am sorry that we do not agree. I happen to think that the older MSA Super Sustain guitars are a fantastic value. They sound and look great. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one and use it as my primary guitar. I think that they have a classic sound and play great. I also very much like the newer wood body models.

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 29 Mar 2009 2:34 pm

I think a person must own and play a certain brand of instrument before they can really tell the difference. I also think the way a steel guitar reacts while you're playing it makes a huge difference too. Besides tone, the attack, decay and sustain of the notes are factors on any instrument... not just synthesizers.

I have owned a Hammond organ for years. Every Hammond clone sounds fake to me. Clone players swear up and down that there's no difference. On a recording I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It's the same thing with Yamaha and Selmer Mark VI saxophones.

Who really cares? It all really depends on the music you can make on the instrument.

Certs is a breath mint and a candy mint!

Russ Tkac · Post by **Russ Tkac** » 29 Mar 2009 2:43 pm

Danny,

You look good in the hat!

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 29 Mar 2009 2:57 pm

Thanks Russ. Have you seen my band?

Bernie Hedges · Post by **Bernie Hedges** » 29 Mar 2009 3:41 pm

Kevin,
I can see you are a master of the obvious. I said in the very beginning of my reply that I could not make a comment on the inherent tone of Sho-buds or Emmons. However I do know a little about tone since I have been playing guitar for over 40 years. You missed the point of my discussion. I was merely trying to point out that there are too many variables to make a broad statement that one particular brand has better tone than another. You can say that it has different tone but that is all. Even within a particular brand you will find different tone. I'm sure there are MSA's that sound better than some Emmons or Sho-Buds and vice-versa. This discussion is really subjective, but interesting. There is no answer, only opinions. I was merely giving my opinion on tone, and some of the variables that may not have been discussed yet.

Russ Tkac · Post by **Russ Tkac** » 29 Mar 2009 3:42 pm

Danny, You guys look like you own a ranch!

Western swing on an Emmons, Sho~Bud or MSA sounds good to me.

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 29 Mar 2009 4:22 pm

Bernie said:

Even within a particular brand you will find different tone.

This is so very true. One of the worse sounding guitars I ever had was an Emmons push/pull. The best sounding guitar I ever had was an Emmons push/pull also. Tone is a subjective thing.

On the sax forum they sign up on a list to try different mouthpieces. Some guys say... "Worst tone I ever heard... Others say "The best mouthpiece I ever heard". It's the same mouthpiece!

It's really great to read posts from people like Reece and Kevin. Like Bernie said:

This discussion is really subjective, but interesting. There is no answer, only opinions

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 29 Mar 2009 6:57 pm

Kevin….While I appreciate your suggestion, I can assure you I have played many Emmons and Sho-Bud guitars, as well as made comparison evaluations, and I’ve been doing so over the past 30 years.

You might wish to review my post on this thread in which I fully responded to your comment concerning the MSA website that contained no contradictions, which I so stated while providing an explanation.

Thank you for your unexpected comments.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 29 Mar 2009 7:19 pm

.Kevin,

I hope I can learn from myself. I'm with me more than I'm with anyone else.

When one refuses to learn they are destined to become and remain stagnant. Maybe even closed minded and possibly arrogant as well. Ignorance and obstinacy can breed arrogance I think. Just because we believe something doesn't make it true. Facts do!

As I stated earlier I have learned a lot about tone since starting this thread. I have listened to a lot of guitars and pickers from another angle. I have worked on my own tone, and I have learned, and my tone has improved. My guitar sounds as good to me now as any guitar I've ever heard. By stating that, I am in no way putting myself or my pitiful attempt at pedal steel picking ahead of anyone.

I've worked on my guitar, my amplifier, and my reverb. I've worked relentlessly on my picking technique. It is paying off.

Maybe you're right, possibly that is self serving. So, what's wrong with that?

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 31 Mar 2009 11:25 am

Bill......Well stated......I'm continually amazed what can be achieved when one has an open mind, and a positive attitude.

Bent Romnes · Post by **Bent Romnes** » 31 Mar 2009 5:28 pm

Chris LeDrew wrote:J D, the last solo sounds best. (I first watched with eyes closed.)

This just goes to show that it is all in the ear that hears it. Chris, I think definitely the first solo sounds the best hands down. Notice the unbelievable sustain In Making Plans. Chalker pulls 7 notes from one striking of the strings. It sounds like a steel is supposed to sound.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 31 Mar 2009 6:15 pm

Yes, Bent, I totally agree that all ears hear things differently. I think there was some assumption when that link was posted that one would not being able to hear a lot of difference in tone between an MSA and a Sho~Bud, if one didn't know different guitars were being used. I can only speak for myself that I heard a difference, and it yelled Sho~Bud!! when I heard it.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 31 Mar 2009 7:14 pm

There are many variables when comparing recordings. Curly was likely playing different amps, different cords, different volume pedal, in a different environment, and was recorded on different recorders.

In addition, as time goes by many players seek a slightly different tone, and finally,....... the human element of whether or not a person feels an enthusiasm for playing at any given time.

To make a valid determination of consistent inherent tone, all things should be equal and comparative, otherwise it becomes only conjecture.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 1 Apr 2009 3:12 am

There is no Sho-Bud inherent sound or Emmons inherent sound that is, (the sound), that automatically and always comes out of the respective guitars when played. By the same token, there is no inferior sound that automatically and always comes from an MSA when played.

An instrument that is constructed of layers of such heavy wood, with possibly an added Formica covering, as well as several pounds of metal, is not going to lend itself to a large amount of beautiful, ringing, flowing, acoustic properties.

The tone comes from the solidity of the construction of the body, and the mounting and proximity of the pickup to the strings. The amplifier has by far the most influence on the tone.

I've asked for people to give the reason for the supposed Emmons inherent, (the Tone), and I have never had anyone give a coherent explanation. The answer is usually something to the effect of; well, you can't really put your finger on it, or no one knows, it's just there. That to me is silly. There is always a reason for an effect. Things don't just happen, they are always caused.

Simply liking a certain brand of guitar does not ascribe magical properties to it. Only in ones mind.

Reality, can be sobering, and magical properties are not reality.

Junior Knight · Post by **Junior Knight** » 1 Apr 2009 4:18 am

Well...I shouldn't do this but what the heck...
The best sounding steel guitar made...is the one you like!

David Wright · Post by **David Wright** » 1 Apr 2009 4:48 am

well Jr, your right!! but on the other "hand" I've never heard you sound bad on what~ever guitar your playing...gee, could it be in the "hand"...??/

J D Sauser · Post by **J D Sauser** » 1 Apr 2009 7:07 am

Chris LeDrew wrote:Yes, Bent, I totally agree that all ears hear things differently. I think there was some assumption when that link was posted that one would not being able to hear a lot of difference in tone between an MSA and a Sho~Bud, if one didn't know different guitars were being used. I can only speak for myself that I heard a difference, and it yelled Sho~Bud!! when I heard it.

No Chris. I did not seek to suggest that they sounded equal when posting that link.
I did however intend to underscore my repeated argument in my earlier post and give an example that an MSA can cut it. Some will prefer the Sho-Bud others the MSA... bottom line is, that both sound not just acceptable but good.
Being an MSA friend, I too, have to say, that among this three cuts, I like the sound heard on the last one better. To me, it is bright without being shrill and rich in nice overtones... sweet!
Yet, as Maurice subsequently pointed out, there are many factors which may have altered the final result we are hearing on that youtube clip, even further to the particular amp used, but the recording, and the many format conversions leading to this clip.
Lets also not forget, that we could have used that particular example to discuss amps (as, as Maurice pointed out, two different generations of amps were used.) and then, there (rightfully) would be those who'd point out that it may not only be about the amps, but the different guitars too... and the recording quality and technology and the format conversion and youtube and, and, and.

Reece Anderson wrote: ... it was my understanding that at the time when Curly was using the Sho-Bud he was also using a Sho-Bud/Evans amp, and when playing MSA he had changed to Peavey.

I know I prefer the sound of a Sho-Bud AMP over most any Peavey amp as I played several of both brands with my Carter back around the Millennium, and also with my prototype build on a MSA base. And this is not meant to take any credit away from the Sho-Bud GUITAR used or the Sho-Bud guitar brand either.

A re-post of the link to the 3 tracks mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b75msHFynvU

Again, not an assumption but merely a suggestion that either brand sounds good... real GOOD (and that Mr. Chalker was one tasteful E9th player too).

... J-D.

Bill Hatcher · Post by **Bill Hatcher** » 1 Apr 2009 6:52 pm

I am highly suspect of players who "box in" the steel guitar into a certain sound "corner" and won't let it out. Is is not sad that there are not more players who DON'T want the Emmons/Bud sound.

I have seen pics of some players who don't play country and there seems to be nothing wrong with the MSA guitars they were playing. What is wrong with the so called "dreaded dark" tone of the classic vintage MSA?? It would be perfect for the right sonic situation.

There will always be certain musical situations that will work for these fine MSA instruments no matter what the current tone snobs think. There has always been a tendency in the guitar world to use instruments that sound a bit different by a more adventurous group of players that seek out different sounds and are not musically handicapped by the ball and chain of the group mentality.

There are many uses for these older MSA guitars. The fact that so many of them are still on the air and functioning well is a tribute to the design and the construction. You can't argue that fact. They have so much potential as a platform for all sorts of modifications. They are probably the best value in a used steel. I have bought and sold maybe a dozen or so. I never turn one down if the price is right. D12 and D10 models in lacquer and mica for $500-600 were readily availiable just a few years ago and every now and then someone turns one loose for that.

Fine instruments and still in business. I can't really say anything detrimental about them or the folks who carry on the MSA legacy. I have said this several times. The early 60s recording of Reece playing "I'm Old Fashioned" on a very early version of the MSA guitar is sonically and musically light years ahead of 95% of todays modern day recordings using modern guitars played by modern artists.

There is a lot of room at my musical table.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 1 Apr 2009 9:12 pm

I have to say - Amen, Bill.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 2 Apr 2009 4:53 am

Hey, I loved my MSA!

Sho~Buds just seem to fit the style of music I'm playing a little better. If that's not a valid argument concerning this topic, there's not much I can do about that. But as I said, my old Universal was great.....just a bit too much guitar for me.