Don, indeed, although it may depend on the situation- Paul F., for instance, is a master at emulating various players and styles, which beyond being entertaining to steel fans, is I'm sure a good reason for his high visibility in the studio scene. Other players here seem to switch effortlessly between several "main styles" that are very different in tonal content.
I've noticed great variations in my recorded output, sometimes purposeful, but other times I think a result of differences in mood or even my unconscious reactions to the musical material and studio vibe.
My live "sound" seems to be more consistently "me", for better or worse. I've been criticized for "not sounding very 'Nashville'", but it does seem to fit in well with the wide variety of different bands I find myself playing with.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty happy with my "sound" generally. It's helped a lot to find and settle on a rig that gives me repeatable sonic results.
Tim's original questions certainly bear a lot of scrutiny- what indeed can we do to improve or develop our tone, or refine what we already like about it? A lot of subtleties that beg attention.
How does knowing theory help in understanding the tone we want to create?
- what a great question. In my case, knowing where I am in a song theoretically allows me to suspend concentration on the mechanics of the progression, and focus more on musical subtleties and nuance, where I think a lot of the beauty lies.
Oddly, one would think that would make the third or fourth take in the studio a "better" one, but often it seems unfamiliarity with the tune brings out different creative connections.
It's certainly fun and educational to ponder, even if a lot of it remains a mystery.