Msa Tone

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 27 Jul 2009 4:19 pm

Has anybody had the exsperience of comparing tones of the MSA classic, and later models.
Did they change the wood, with the 'Super sustainer' and was the 'tone' different.
I have been interested in one, but i have never played one.
The tone on my 'Classic' 1974 is somewhat 'raspy' compared to other steels i have played.
Maybe looking into a pick-up up grade, but i have the small slot [non standard]
Seems that the later models sounded a bit more smooth, need some in-sight from exsperience please!

Diden't want to start another 'Tone thread'!!

Darvin Willhoite · Post by **Darvin Willhoite** » 27 Jul 2009 6:06 pm

I have a collection of MSA's, a couple of old Classics, a Classic SS, a Legend, a Millennium, a Studio Pro, and a Superslide. I have four sets of pickups for the later, interchangeable pickup guitars, and there is very little difference in the sound of any of them, in any of the guitars. The Classic SS has Lawrence 710's in it and sounds equally as good. My old Classic has original single coils in it and it is a bit brighter than the newer one's which is ironic, being as most people think the older MSA's had a dark tone. I am working on a demo song where I used four different guitars, a different one on each chorus, and each verse. I'll post it on the Forum and see if anyone can guess which guitar was used on each part of the song. The bottom line is, in my opinion, there is very little difference in tone in any of these guitars. Tone is mostly in the hands, the playing style, and the amp.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 27 Jul 2009 7:55 pm

Guess I don't have the ear a lot of guys do,Was listening to some recordings I have done with different people over the years,Was playing a Zum,Bud,Derby,and MSA,If I DID'NT know which one I played on each CD,I would'nt know which was which by listening to them,The only thing that was consistant was my playing SUCKED,But all the above guitars sounded great.My present guitar is a 76 MSA-S 10 with an E-66,Can get it brighter [if I chose to] than I would want to. This is my second MSA CLASSIC, I used to trade a lot,When I got my first MSA several years ago,that STOPPED my trading days,Before the 76 S-10,had a 74 MSA-D 10,The only reason I traded was the D-10 was just too heavy for an old geezer like me. DYK?BC.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 27 Jul 2009 9:11 pm

Thanks gentlemen, i agree with ' the tone is in the hands' but some is in the wood too, and i just wondered if there was any difference.
Would we agree then that a 2008 MSA does not not have a better tone then A 1974 Classic, in the same hands???
I played an 'Emmons Le grande some time ago and a freind of mine said: It does not sound any better than the 'sho-bud'.
I personally, could not hear any real improvement with my simple playing and i really scrutinized the tone!
The sho-bud side by side has a much smoother tone.

My old 74 really needs a pick-up rewind or replacement, i love single coil, but it is very raspy , i also need to polish the fingers some, that can help with smoothness.
But... the tone is in the wood too...

I will say though, there is ' Hands tone' and there is 'Wood tone' and there is ' Amp' tone, and there is 'Talent tone, it's all a 'marriage' or 'divorce'!

It's the BIG 4
Hands, wood, Amp and what i dont have, TALENT!

Micky Byrne · Post by **Micky Byrne** » 28 Jul 2009 1:05 am

Hey Larry, the first time I was in the States (1982) I spent hours at "The Steel Guitar Emporium" in Minneapolis, this was a few years before Clem Smidtch (spell) moved down to Nashville. There were rows of identical steels, Emmons, Sho-Buds etc etc...me and my steel playing pal Duane strummed acoustically all the identical steels and they all sounded "acoustically" different. I guess it's all down to the cuts of wood, the torque of the under carriage on the assembly etc etc. I don't think identical steels sound the same anyway. I remember seeing a video of the great telecaster player Gerry Donohue where he said when he's trying to buy a new guitar if it don't "ring" acoustically, then he won't even plug it in an amp. I guess to a certain extent steel guitars are the same. Some of the same models may sound better than others. In a way it's tough for us here in UK to import a particular steel. Most sound good, but I've know players say their's sounded bad compared to so and so's. You are right though, it "IS" a combination of many things, hands, amps etc, but I think what I've mentioned above comes into it too.
Micky Byrne United Kingdom

www.micky-byrne.co.uk

Mike Poholsky · Post by **Mike Poholsky** » 28 Jul 2009 3:12 am

If you think you need your pickup rewound, try giving Jerry Wallace a call. He'll rewind your old pickup for you. Jerry manufactures the TruTone Pickup.
Good guy to deal with.
http://www.jerrywallacemusic.com/

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 28 Jul 2009 10:11 am

when msa first came out with their new mechanically wonderful steels (early 70's ?) they had a decidedly darker edgeless tone...turned me and many others off. but due to their great design those old steels survive today as equals and there are many options pickup and otherwise in the tone department to make them viable.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 28 Jul 2009 11:43 am

Guys,it's just like everything else we talk about here,It's all OPINION. I did'nt know my MSA had a dark tone,If I wanted to I could peel the paint off the walls with the highs. Fellows there is NO such thing as what's BEST.I have seen old ads in the old steel guitar mags,For Buds,Zums,Emmons,ZB'S,MSA'S,Carter,Williams,etc,they all said THEIRS is the BEST,have some features the others don't have,Never saw one ad that says our guitar SUCKS.My favorite guitar is my 76 MSA classic,[and have owned all of the above] Some of you swear your Bud,Zum,or whatever is your favorite,MOST of them are great guitars,just like picks,strings,pickups,tone bars,it just boils down to personal OPINION.If we all liked the SAME thing,there would be only one brand of guitar,picks,bars,etc. Does'nt it sound silly to argue about which one sounds the best ? What ever YOU like is the BEST FOR YOU. OPINION,OPINION,OPINION. every body has got one. DYK?BC.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 28 Jul 2009 3:47 pm

Thanks gents, thats all good stuff.
I had read somewhere that the 1970's Classics were possibly plywood covered with mica.
I once had a an 80's MSA Classic, and it seemed to have a smoother tone than my 70's model.
The question was; side by side, had anybody else felt the same.
All the same it's a killer steel, but i will be having the pick-up re-done by jerry wallace, he saye's;
He has done loads of them.

I wasent trying to start another war on 'tone' but there are a lot of 'MSA' owners out there, and i was just wondering if anybody had put them side by side and heard a big difference, and are they plywood??
I thought i read a post from 'sir Maurice' that said they were ply at that time.
If so, that could exsplain the [ acoustic] tone difference
Mine looks like ply at the apron edges! 1974

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 28 Jul 2009 4:10 pm

The early mica Classics were plywood (die-board, actually) and they have a different sound and feel than the later (solid maple) guitars. Of course, other guitars have been made of die board, and it does have the advantage of exceptional durability and stability. Nonetheless, the solid maple bodies seem to be the most desired, nowadays.

Bent Romnes · Post by **Bent Romnes** » 28 Jul 2009 4:17 pm

Larry, I hope Reece tunes in here...The Classic I owned was a 1976 MSA Classic D10. Definitely wood through and through...aprons, body, neck everything.

I felt it had a lot of brightness, like you turn the treble up. Jeff Newman tried it once and remarked Man that thing has a bite to it!!

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 28 Jul 2009 5:02 pm

Plywood is usually laminated cheap soft pine. Dieboard is usually laminated maple sheets. The glue is actually denser and harder than the maple. Dieboard is so hard and strong it is used for industrial purposes in stamping presses. Gene Fields at GFI said they compared dieboard to solid maple, and the dieboard made the instrument come alive. So maybe some of the prejudice against "plywood" steel guitars is just uninformed.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 28 Jul 2009 5:09 pm

Thanks fellow friend's, thats good to know, so die board it is, i have to agree with donnie, the tone is different to maple acoustically, i am not saying it is better, it has a more sandpaper in the tone than the maple body one's i beleive.
This is good stuff mate's!
Chappy.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 28 Jul 2009 5:11 pm

Bent Romnes wrote:Larry, I hope Reece tunes in here...The Classic I owned was a 1976 MSA Classic D10. Definitely wood through and through...aprons, body, neck everything.

I felt it had a lot of brightness, like you turn the treble up. Jeff Newman tried it once and remarked Man that thing has a bite to it!!

Thanks bent, i 'll bet they went to maple in about 1975/6 ish i think reading up on the horses mouth in a magazine.
I'm somewhat tone anal and i can hear the difference acoustically.
Oh man.... I hope i haven't opened another can o worms!

Darvin Willhoite · Post by **Darvin Willhoite** » 29 Jul 2009 6:59 pm

Here's a link to a demo song I threw together to see how some of my guitars sounded. I used a different guitar each of the two verses, and the two choruses. The guitars were a '75 Emmons P/P with original single coil pickups, a '75 MSA Classic D10 with original single coil pickups, an MSA Millennium with Truetone single coils, and an MSA Studio Pro with Truetone single coils. I used an Acoustic Image amp and recorded directly into the computer through a Tascam US144 interface. I also used a Boss RV-3 for reverb and delay. Anyone care to guess which guitar is playing which part?

(Don't pay any attention to my rough playing, just listen to the tone.)

Go here to download the song.

http://www.savefile.com/projects/808725986

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 29 Jul 2009 8:44 pm

Darvin-Very nice E9th playing, fine tone all the way through. I liked the sound of the very first one you played on the record. But I am not going to differentiate between them..nice Demo...al.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 29 Jul 2009 8:49 pm

I remember seeing a video of the great telecaster player Gerry Donohue where he said when he's trying to buy a new guitar if it don't "ring" acoustically, then he won't even plug it in an amp.

That holds true with any stringed instrument that's amplified.

The hands can only manipulate the "raw material" of the guitar by picking position, direction, and strength. Your hands can't change the tone of an open string once it's vibrating (well, unless you deaden it!) and bar movement isn't really a "tone" function- it's style...and maybe a little sustain.

I had an MSA Classic bought off the 'net that was the single most dead instrument I ever owned. Better pickups will improve better instruments, or change the tonal center, or tweak other tonal details - but they will NOT "fix" an acoustically dysfunctional instrument.

In my old tech business I reluctantly changed pickups at the insistence of customers who "knew" the whiz-band latest pickup would "fix" their guitar. I would warn them in writing and only do the job if they acknowledged my opinion. Not one time did a player disagree after hearing his "improved" instrument. And I gave most of them refunds AND put their original parts back.

A pickup change is fun to "tweak" your tone (I do it all the time) - but a pickup change is NOT a "repair" unless the pickup is defective. If the guitar sucks with one functional pickup, it'll suck with another one.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Jul 2009 2:58 am

I remember seeing a video of the great telecaster player Gerry Donohue where he said when he's trying to buy a new guitar if it don't "ring" acoustically, then he won't even plug it in an amp.

(sigh)

I thought we were talking about steel guitars?

At your next convenience, please introduce Gerry to a bakelite Rickenbacker (a famous, fine sounding and sustaining steel guitar that has all the "ring" of a bowling ball).

A few players (even some famous ones) "assume" that if they don't like a certain guitar, that no one else should.

Pinheads.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 30 Jul 2009 3:03 am

Brent....My position/opinion concerning tone differences and the components thereof, are found in the forum archives, so I won't bore anyone.

I will however say, it's been almost a year since I provided my findings, comments, conclusions, and they were discussed at length. At that time I also asked anyone interested, to conduct the same or similar tests to those we made at MSA long ago and suggested they consider posting their findings.

Because this is such an important, informative and highly discussed topic, one would think at least ONE person would have come forward who has made the comparison using similar parameters discussed within that thread.

It's been over 35 years since the first comparisons tests were made, and........ I'm still waiting to see one person pass the evaluation. Until my conclusions are proven wrong, I consider the idea of an audible "consistent inherent tone relative to any specific brand of guitar", to be a myth that has been busted.

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 30 Jul 2009 4:29 am

Charles Davidson wrote:Fellows there is NO such thing as what's BEST.I have seen old ads in the old steel guitar mags,For Buds,Zums,Emmons,ZB'S,MSA'S,Carter,Williams,etc,they all said THEIRS is the BEST,have some features the others don't have,Never saw one ad that says our guitar SUCKS.DYK?BC.

That statement is inaccurate. Carter has never claimed to be "the best" or even better.

Claims of being the best are mere opinion and/or hyperbole with no information on the metrics upon which those statements are measured. Those types of statements also tend to undercut the claimant's credibility since they are trying to sell you something.

"Good tone" (as determined by your preferences and references) resides in almost every guitar. Some guitars, however, do require less technique and equipment than others to realize that "good tone"

Gary Lee Gimble · Post by **Gary Lee Gimble** » 30 Jul 2009 4:37 am

Some guitars.........

I'll take one.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 30 Jul 2009 6:09 am

Donny - the physics of acoustics do not change due to instrument type. Guitars, harpsichords, mandolins, steels, whatever - they all use a plucked vibrating string. The instrument does not have to "sound good" acoustically to sound good electronically, but a trained ear CAN pick out overtones when a solid-body electric instrument is not plugged in. The "ring" is not necessarily loud - it's tonally rich with desirable overtones.

I've had bakelite Rics and they are NOT acoustically loud, but you CAN hear the richness of tone. I've heard a few that were dead as doornails as well, and sounded lousy plugged in.

Some folks seem to think mentioning anything but a steel guitar on this forum is irrelevant, which I find humorous. I suggest they read The Acoustical Foundations of Music by John Backus. It was the primary text for my college acoustic theory course. My term project was a study of steel guitar and the string pull affect on both string and sound waveform (I did not play steel - I borrowed a friend's. Part of the project involved comparisons with a Stringbender (Pullstring at the time), but I could have used a harp had one been available ( some have pitch-changing mechanisms).

There's nothing acoustically unique about steel guitar, nor is the pickup/body symbiotic relationship any different than that of any other electrified instrument.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 30 Jul 2009 8:50 am

I agree with jim sliff.

All other talents aside [hands, technique, blah blah] and suchforth.

If you take a '24 by 4 inch' slab of 'maple' and you do the same with 'Dieboard' and you run a nail at each end and tighten up a string, it's natural tone will be different from Maple to Dieboard.

Is that correct or not?

So my initial Question was this;

Does the 1974 Classic that's 'Dieboard' body have a different 'natural tone' to say a 1979 model that was a 'Maple' body??
Are we saying that side by side and all other talents equal that they sound identical in their natural
'wooden tone'?

Why did they go to Maple?

Does 'dieboard' sound better or worse than 'maple' in your opinion.

I want to buy another MSA soon, but i want some research done and opinion's from exsperienced player of that time era, i like the late 70,s early 80's model.
Most 'MSA's sound awsome, but mine has some ingredients in it's natural tone that i dont like. My other MSA that i used to own, and my SHO-Bud of present are and were full 'maple bodies'.
These guitars did not have these 'ingredients' [that i am not fond of] kind of a sandpaper grit in there!
Maybe it's just me.
I used a stephescope to hear the wooden tone, and it's in the wood.

David Wright · Post by **David Wright** » 30 Jul 2009 12:55 pm

Darvin,
Very well done, Now, heres my take on this.
If you hadn't said you were using different steels while doing the recording I would have to say, didn't hear a difference, one must remember, just moving your hand towards or away from the changer will change your tone, I do it, being I play one neck, and try to get two different sounds from it with out changing my setting on my amp ... I do it with my "Hands"... and where I "pick" on the neck, for "me", I have two different styles of playing, 1. for the Country sound, 2. for the "Fatter" sound...

I don't want to open the tone thing, hands, bla`bla`` But... your hands play such a very big part of tone...and the eyes sometimes tells the ears what they hear, with out seeing, all you have is your ears....I think you proved a point..

This is my take on what I'm hearing, and mine alone..

Darvin Willhoite · Post by **Darvin Willhoite** » 30 Jul 2009 2:50 pm

If you've ever read the book by Bob Benedetto on building archtop guitars, there's a picture of an archtop in the book that Bob built from common lumber yard pine. The editor said it sounded like a Bob Benedetto archtop. So does the wood really make that much difference?