Msa Tone

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 30 Jul 2009 2:55 pm

Larry B.....In response to your question. I believe you will find that a slight amp tweak (which may not even be necessary) and provided you can not see the guitars being played, you could not consistently differentiate between the maple or Finnish plyboard guitars.

There was no structural, machining, or tone reason for MSA's departure from Finnish plyboard. We started using maple for two marketing reasons. 1) the enhanced beauty of wood grain, and 2) it reduced the overall weight. As an added incentive for our changeover, maple was much easier and faster to obtain.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 30 Jul 2009 4:48 pm

Thankyou reece, that was the answers i was looking for as to any tonal advantages over 'Dieboard' and 'Maple.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Jul 2009 8:26 pm

Jim Sliff wrote:Donny - the physics of acoustics do not change due to instrument type.

I know that, Jim. But what you're failing to realize is a simple point of logic. If instruments sound different (and the physics involved, as you've so astutely pointed out) remains the same, then it's the instruments characteristics themselves that are causing the perceived differences. Heavy bodies don't resonate as much from an attached plucked string as do light bodies. That's physics, but it's also common sense. A guitar that weighs 40 or 50 pounds (like a pedal steel) is not going to react like a guitar that weighs 8 pounds. Physics dictates that larger masses react less and more slowly than smaller masses. You know that, but you keep trying to imply that everything is the same for steels and straight guitars. I contend that it's not. The physics are the same, but structurally the instruments are very different, and it's the physics involved that makes them different, that makes them sound different!

We're not just talking a plucked string here. We're talking complex systems. Change anything in the system and the result will also be changed. Add mass, the sound will change. Change the body material, the sound will change. Change the string attachment, the sound will change, etc., etc. Because a straight guitar is lighter and more flexible, small changes in the system will have a far bigger effect that similar changes on a pedal steel. Everything works together! You constantly bring up about not being able to change the basic tone of a guitar. It's made and set in stone, according to you and a few others. Yet you're happily adding pickups...adding pickups to a Fender steel! WHY??? Could it be you're trying to change the tone? No wait, that couldn't be. You've already said (again and again) the tone's either in there or it isn't. You can't add "tone". You can't change the tone.

Well, I guess you'd better come up with some other reason, because I'm not the only one getting confused, here.

Talk to Ed Packard. He did a very enlightening piece here a while back on overtones. He described how picking the strings at different places changes the overtone structure of the note. He also told us why pickups placed differently can change the sound of an instrument, change the tone, change the overtones.

Look, I'm no genius or music whiz, but I know when something someone is telling me isn't right. I also know that terms like "best", "good" and "better" are subjective judgements based on past experience, like John Fabian says. You gotta realize that you don't set the standard for what is a "good" sound for everybody else. And apparently, a few others here have to learn that as well.

The "ring" is not necessarily loud - it's tonally rich with desirable overtones.

Desirable...to who? Once again, it seems you've read a book and taken a course, and now you feel you're perfectly qualified to to tell us all what's good and what's bad.

Well, sorry. I can't agree. You see, I've learned that tone heads set up their own little specifications. "A Tele just sounds better than an ES-335". Well, some of us might disagree. It all depends on who you ask. I know guitar players that absolutely hate a solid body guitar. (So do you, I would imagine.)

There's nothing acoustically unique about steel guitar...

Sorry Jim, you can't do that either. You can't get on here and preach like a guru about "vibe", "mojo", "overtones", and tonal differences, and then try and tell us that there's nothing acoustically unique in a steel guitar. In fact, think about me getting on the Fender forum and saying the same thing about a solid body guitar.

"Hey, all you Telecaster players!!! LISTEN UP! There is nothing acoustically unique about a Telecaster, or any other solid body electric guitar."

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 31 Jul 2009 4:34 am

The original idea with solid body guitars was to get rid of as much body resonance and as many overtones as possible. Let the magnetic pickup do it's job, and give a clean, clear, sound with as much sustain as possible.

That brings us to the steel guitar. Built very solid, and heavy, with very little resonance and few overtones, compared to an acoustic guitar, and as much sustain as possible.

People tend to have selective hearing. Prejudices have a great influence on hearing. Watch two people pick up and play the same guitar. Almost without fail, each will tweek the tuning, no matter how well in tune the guitar happens to be.

Before the Post Police start complaining about this thread I want to say. Sure we've hashed out tone before, but what else are you gonna do sitting in front of a computer that is more entertaining than this? Besides if you don't like to talk tone, then don't.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 31 Jul 2009 8:41 am

Very splendid information, i think everybody's input has some truth to it, i agree with bill, if we cant talk about tone and have some opinions that vary!

I agree with donnie also about the view point on tone.
It's like asking a man, if he thinks that girl over there is pretty, almost everybody looks up at a different girl and saye's 'YES!

I agree with jim, if the tone isent to your liking in the wood, the pick-up wont fix it.

Anyhow, my initial question was answered by sir reece, and that was;
Does a 'dieboard body' sound different to a 'Maple' body!!

Oh no, this is like throwing meat to the piranha's!

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 31 Jul 2009 12:39 pm

What about the test Darvin has going on right now?
Pick out the Finnish plyboard. Or pick out the Push/Pull!

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 31 Jul 2009 3:21 pm

I have to stick a few comments in here.

Like Jerry Donahue, I listen to an electric guitar unamplified. But I put it up to my ear, because I'm not concerned with its loudness.

Materials matter for tone, but construction is more important. Look up Taylor Guitars' "Pallet Guitar."

The placement of the pickup has more impact on the sound than you might think. A little too close to the bridge, it's thin or shrill. A little further away gives more body to the tone.

Picking the string at a different place affects the tone, but so does the way it is picked. The more the string vibrates away and toward the pickup, as opposed to across the p/up, the fatter the tone.

Solid body guitars were not developed to reduce overtones. Rather the opposite. In an archtop jazz guitar, some overtones diminish faster than others; the body absorbs them. In a solidbody, the overtones continue to ring, and also in a steel. However, the powerful high impedance pickup in a steel will diminish high overtones. If you want to retain the high overtones, use a buffer preamp between the guitar and volume pedal.

Archie Nicol · Post by **Archie Nicol** » 31 Jul 2009 4:03 pm

Aren't ears great?

Arch.

David Higginbotham · Post by **David Higginbotham** » 31 Jul 2009 6:05 pm

Larry to get back to your original question of tonal differnces in the specific models, I can share my opinion of specific models that I've had.

'73 D-10 Classic mica with single coil pickups: I agree with your analogy and explaination. I found the guitar too bright so I widened the necks to accomodate humbuckers. Better, but still not the tone I was seeking.

'73 D-12. Same as the D-10

D-10 '78-'80 model classic SS lacquered. Excellent tone! Smooth deeper tone than the 74 classic and more sustain. (Best MSA of the bunch that I still regret selling)

D-10 '78-'80 model Vintage XL lacquered. About the same as the previously mentioned lacquered model.

Currently a 76 model classic SS. This guitar has a different tone than the others. If I had to define it I would say Shobud tone with more depth and decent sustain, but not quite as much sustain as the other two laquered models.

Dave

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 1 Aug 2009 8:52 am

Donny, you have missed my point here...and apparently everywhere else regarding "tone"...that it seems almost hopeless trying to explain it to you again.

But I'll try to clarify it. Again.

You constantly bring up about not being able to change the basic tone of a guitar. It's made and set in stone, according to you and a few others. Yet you're happily adding pickups...adding pickups to a Fender steel! WHY??? Could it be you're trying to change the tone? No wait, that couldn't be. You've already said (again and again) the tone's either in there or it isn't. You can't add "tone". You can't change the tone.

The BASIC tone. Read that word again, or substitute the word I often use - "Inherent" (I used "basic" because it seems "inherent" confuses people -Lord knows why). But when did I say it was "set in stone"? If I did, I was speaking in VERY general terms, as that inherent tone can be "focused" by simple physical adjustments to the guitar, or "non active" parts changes - nuts, bridges, tuners (tuners, especially the weight, can have a significant...or almost no...effect on a 6-string's tone, depending on neck wood/construction; it's pretty random and unpredictable - but not a huge element in steel tone).

Changing or adding pickups I have explained several times before, and Donny you support my statements by your mention of Ed Packard's studies - a second pickup will have poles placed under a different portion of string, and will "read" a different point in the waveform. A string vibrates in several ways - not a simple sine wave. I'm not defining this stuff here - if anyone does not understand string vibration he/she REALLY needs to do some basic study, since it's the basis for locating "chimed" harmonics and other specific sections of the string's vibration pattern. All players should understand the basics of string movement, and definitely needs to before adding additional pickups.

It's possible, though unlikely, to place a pickup in a "dead" zone - a point along the "playing" scale length (distance from nut OR bar to bridge) where the string remains relatively stable. Bass players discuss this quite often. With some Fender Precision basses the inherent tone of a particular instrument (due to neck wood and the symbiotic - look it up if you don't know the word; it's important - combination of neck/body assembly ) will have one or two "dead" notes that players learn to avoid. The "dead" point is there no matter what, but is more noticeable on some instruments than others - again, not all Precision basses have the same inherent tone - nor do Teles, Strats, Push--Pulls, Mavericks, Bigsby Steels, Ocarinas, whatever - but if made the same way out of the same type of materials they will be *similar*.

Now, you would think if the dead point is based on string vibration and pickup position it'd be the same on ALL strings, and be at a particular *fret*. That would be incorrect - the string gages and tension cause different vibration patterns to develop. Major ones are the same - your 12th and 5th fret chimed harmonic points, for example. BUt on some instruments you can get a clear harmonic at the 4th fret, while it's almost nonexistent on others. That's construction and materials entering into the mix again.

But the salient (conspicuous; prominent) point is that with a stringed instrument the construction WILL create a repeatable "basic" (inherent) tone.

All the other stuff is "tweaking" from that "starting point" - pickups, effects, EQ, amplifiers - they all "massage" the basic tone emanating from a plucked string and the vibration pattern "allowed" to occur due to the construction of the instrument.

Heavy bodies don't resonate as much from an attached plucked string as do light bodies.

Ah - but studies have shown that a more stable platform *enhances* string vibration as there is no loss of energy - the string is not transferring energy to another item, like a soundboard. The energy does not increase - so a transfer to another object will reduce the original object's (the string) vibration. That's why we saw weird stuff like stone bodies and heavy, massive bridges on 6-strings decades ago...until it was discovered that maintaining string vibration is not the tonal whiz-bang some thought it was - you could increase sustain but with a limited harmonic content (the string did not have as complex a vibration pattern).

The physics are the same, but structurally the instruments are very different, and it's the physics involved that makes them different, that makes them sound different!

Uhhh - yeah - so? That's the point- but within types there are differences as well, as your own statements back up - differences in mass, for example:

We're not just talking a plucked string here. We're talking complex systems. Change anything in the system and the result will also be changed. Add mass, the sound will change. Change the body material, the sound will change. Change the string attachment, the sound will change, etc., etc.

Exactly what I've been saying - but you are stuck on "6-string vs steel" for some reason - yes, the *basic* construction of the the instruments is different as is the playing method (although that's less relevant), however string vibration is string vibration - but PLEASE get it locked in your head that we are both saying that every change in the construction matrix causes a change of SOME kind (many being inaudible) in tone.

And PLEASE drop the "6 string examples are irrelevant" position - it's a waste of bandwidth.

Because a straight guitar is lighter and more flexible, small changes in the system will have a far bigger effect that similar changes on a pedal steel. Everything works together!

Right - and something I've said many times. For some unknown reason you don't want to THINK I did, though.

You gotta realize that you don't set the standard for what is a "good" sound for everybody else. And apparently, a few others here have to learn that as well.

I'm well aware of that, and I think most of us are just fine - YOU "gotta" realize that we are talking about listening for sounds that are pleasing to OUR ears. That's so obvious it's ridiculous to even mention it, but since you're not getting it and seem to think I'm taking the position that *my* "good" tone is some kind of pronouncement of fact from Heaven I need to explain it again.

Each player is going to hear things differently. Some like the tone of a Push-Pull Emmons wraparound model, others prefer the sound of a classic Bigsby. One will strum a Ric model 59 (hollow metal stuffed with cotton rags...for those who didn't know that, the position dots are the color of the torn-up t-shirts stuffed in the guitar - when I rebuilt mine I stuffed it with red ones!) and hear a particular harmonic content they find pleasing - another will strum a bakelite Academy model and hear harmonics pleasing to THEM. No, the VOLUME of the unamplified sound won't be as loud.

And that, Donny, is where you completely miss the point.

The "ring" or whatever you want to call it - all it is is the unamplified sound of an instrument - does not have to be LOUD to be good ("good" being strictly a personal judgement, and not a "category"). In fact, it can be extremely quiet - for example, I cannot properly (to my standards) check out an electric instrument in a place like Guitar Center, where loud music is played over a PA and 30 kids are playing power chords on Squiers and Epiphones plugged into a...any...distortion channel they can find. I need a quiet room at some point.

Desirable...to who? Once again, it seems you've read a book and taken a course, and now you feel you're perfectly qualified to to tell us all what's good and what's bad.

Sigh.

Desirable is subjective - and I did not feel it was necessary to explain that because it is so painfully obvious. I hope you now understand that. My "good" might...or might not...be your "good" for any given instrument.

And I've actually read more than one book - amazing, isn't it? Donny, THAT book was mentioned because it happens to be a pretty good one for a basic understanding of acoustics as they relate to music. Some other texts go into some pretty heavy math, which loses me for sure, as I know it does some others.

It was a book recommendation - NOT a pulpit-pounding "read THIS - it's THE word!" statement.

But I WILL stand by the fact that I have an education in the subject, build instruments, still do tech work, still do consulting for some manufacturers, have assisted with design of 3 halls specifically as the acoustics consultant (and other stuff, but since MOST of what I stated is common sense and was misinterpreted because of the "crime" of mentioning other instruments, I'll leave it at that...) - so I kinda know what I'm talking about pal. And again, if you'll really focus on what I said and strip out the "regular guitar" issues you seem to have, you'll find we actually are saying almost EXACTLY the same thing. In fact...

You can't get on here and preach like a guru about "vibe", "mojo", "overtones", and tonal differences, and then try and tell us that there's nothing acoustically unique in a steel guitar.

...this is another point of proof. It's exactly what I'm saying...the one thing left out being that within the category of steel guitars there are unique tones.

Please read that italicized line about 50 times, OK?

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 1 Aug 2009 10:03 am

Guys, I'm glad I'm too illiterate to understand what the hell ya'll are talking about,might mess my playing up.Last night the guys told me how good my old MSA was sounding,guess they are all dumb-asses to.Getting too technical takes the fun out of it,Some seem to enjoy arguing about this stuff,[That's fine have a blast]untill Armageddon.Think I'll go do something a little more constructive,Gonna fire up my old MSA and PRACTICE. DYK?BC.

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 1 Aug 2009 10:58 am

Bama Charlie, you are right on track. Practice, with open ears and open mind, will improve tone more than a pickup change.

A little less talk and a lot more music.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 1 Aug 2009 11:48 am

I believe........ "only perfect practice makes perfect", and "knowledge equates to success". The more knowledge we glean, the more we learn "how" to practice.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 1 Aug 2009 1:33 pm

I think Reece makes a great point.

Getting the most out of your instrument takes work - not noodling on some favorite tune for 15 minutes a day.

Russ Tkac · Post by **Russ Tkac** » 1 Aug 2009 1:37 pm

- not noodling on some favorite tune for 15 minutes a day.

So that's why I suck!

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 1 Aug 2009 2:35 pm

Jim,

I totally disagree. It ain't work! It's pleasure, fun, relaxing, almost sexual, irritating, and demoralizing at times, but it ain't work!

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 1 Aug 2009 2:58 pm

I just got through [NOODLING] the steel guitar rag for the last fifteen minutes,can't WAIT to get to the club to play it again,I noodle this one every day,Don't know much of anything else,but I can play the hell out of this one, Guess I need to get me one of those [how to books]and learn something else,Maybe Bobbe has a STEELING FOR DUMMYS KIT. DYK?BC.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 1 Aug 2009 8:08 pm

Bill - I guess "work" might be a bad word choice in this context. Perhaps "focus" might be better, or "goal oriented"?

Russ - naw, like me you just suck because of a lack of one fairly essential ingredient" - "talent".

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 1 Aug 2009 9:12 pm

I really get a kick from reading some threads similar to this one,It seems steel players are a different breed than other musicians,Never saw a guitar picker that could write[maybe because most can't write] a three hundred word essay giving an opinion from a limited or personal point of view on why a Tele sounds better [or not] than a Paul,or spend an hour arguing the merits of a Fender flatpick versus an Ernie Ball,etc.or a sax man saying EVERY sax player should use a number five reed,because he does, I can tell by reading here over the years,this forum has a LOT of highly educated,VERY intelligent,sophisticated gentlemen[ Rick Campbell this excludes old country boys like you and I ] Can tell there are also a few among you that are geniuses,at least border line.BUT,when a tread pops up about maybe,the correct way to tune a steel guitar[Saw a post one time where a couple of the BIG GUYS.]WERE READY TO DUEL.A thread can go on and on and on about if tone is in a players hand OR his guitar,Which guitar sounds best,which strings sound best,which picks fit best,which bar is best,which amp sounds best,It's amusing to see grown men get upset at something as insignificant as what is BEST,when there is no such thing,it's just a matter of opinion,BUT DON'T YA'LL STOP, I LOVE IT. DYK?BC.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 2 Aug 2009 4:45 am

Charles D…..There will be those who will consider me an old fashioned optimist (which is fine with me) ……… but I believe disagreements such as those on this forum concerning tone, tuning, guitar color, brand names and etc., are manifestations of well meaning and sincere intentions to share a persons opinion and experience in the hope that their perspective will be helpful to other steel guitar players.

Admittedly, some have stronger convictions than others, but when someone has a strong conviction AND an open mind…..great things may be accomplished.

For those who are open minded realists, the learning journey never end’s.

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 2 Aug 2009 8:41 am

Reece Anderson wrote:when someone has a strong conviction AND an open mind…..great things may be accomplished.

For those who are open minded realists, the learning journey never end’s.

Blessed are the ignorant, for they can learn. Those who believe thay already know it all, cannot.

RP

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 2 Aug 2009 9:22 am

David Higginbotham wrote:Larry to get back to your original question of tonal differnces in the specific models, I can share my opinion of specific models that I've had.

'73 D-10 Classic mica with single coil pickups: I agree with your analogy and explaination. I found the guitar too bright so I widened the necks to accomodate humbuckers. Better, but still not the tone I was seeking.

'73 D-12. Same as the D-10

D-10 '78-'80 model classic SS lacquered. Excellent tone! Smooth deeper tone than the 74 classic and more sustain. (Best MSA of the bunch that I still regret selling)

D-10 '78-'80 model Vintage XL lacquered. About the same as the previously mentioned lacquered model.

Currently a 76 model classic SS. This guitar has a different tone than the others. If I had to define it I would say Shobud tone with more depth and decent sustain, but not quite as much sustain as the other two laquered models.

Dave

My Ears heard the same,I miss my 1978 XL BLUE maple.
Later, i'm going to be in the market to another one!
Thankyou Dave!

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 2 Aug 2009 9:26 am

Reece Anderson wrote:Charles D…..There will be those who will consider me an old fashioned optimist (which is fine with me) ……… but I believe disagreements such as those on this forum concerning tone, tuning, guitar color, brand names and etc., are manifestations of well meaning and sincere intentions to share a persons opinion and experience in the hope that their perspective will be helpful to other steel guitar players.

Admittedly, some have stronger convictions than others, but when someone has a strong conviction AND an open mind…..great things may be accomplished.

For those who are open minded realists, the learning journey never end’s.

Thankyou reece.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 2 Aug 2009 9:34 am

I initally starter this thread, asking if anybody had an OPINION on weather a DIEBOARD body had the same ingredients as MAPLE in the NATURAL WOODEN TONE department on a specific year make and model MSA guitar. It was that simple.
For those that dont like 'TONE THREADS' then dont read them, yes it goes on and on, but it will, it's a great learning debate that really has no end.
I am not at this point questioning; Practice techniche's, Bar weight, skill's, pick-up comparisons, seating posture, amps etc.

IN MY OPINION, i think the '1974 Classic' DIE BOARD, is a bit less smooth sounding than the
'Classic XL' MAPLE body in it's 'natural wooden tone! Electrical' or 'player input' tone aside!
My Ears hear the same as David higginbotham described in his reply. We may be the only two people on earth that hear it. You may not hear it yourself, just like i think a 'sho-bud' is better than an 'Emmons' is it's natural tone.

Dave, I'm going to 'E66' This baby, how did you do the neck's in a professional way for the pick-up slot??

There really is no answer, but i really appreciate it guys in you giving your opinion on
MSA,

TONE!

P;S
I'm an MSA fan, that's why i started this thread. !!!

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 2 Aug 2009 10:15 am

Larry,
You aren't the only MSA fan. They always work, forever.