What component of the guitar contributes the most to tone?

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 20 Feb 2007 10:00 pm

Is it the body? The weight, the mass? The changer? The scale?
The pickup?
I know that it's a sum of its parts, and the player has a lot to do with it. But, for example, people say the push-pull tone is from the way the fingers touch the body, and the Sho-Bud tone is from the type of maple and the size of the body. Generally speaking, is there one component that makes the biggest difference? If there was one thing to change to affect the inherent tone of guitar, what would it be?

Mitch Ellis · Post by **Mitch Ellis** » 20 Feb 2007 11:33 pm

In my opinion, as far as the guitar itself, I would say the pick-up and the strings. One as much as the other.
Mitch

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 21 Feb 2007 12:51 am

Some here believe that steel guitars have no tone. Thats its in the hands. Thats funny. I know, but I aint' tellin.

Billy Carr · Post by **Billy Carr** » 21 Feb 2007 3:14 am

I've always believed it's a combination of several different factors. Each guitar is different, even the same brands made the exact same way have something different. I'm certainly not a builder but I've studied PSG's since 71' and continue to study each guitar I can. I read some information on here last year that Jimmy Crawford had written at one time that was interesting. Might want to do a search and check it out. It was about this topic actually. I found his opinion on the glueing of mica interesting, as well as a lot of other items. I still believe Buddy & Ron nailed it with the early p/p Emmons guitars though. Even today there's so many builders out there that have there own little things to put in guitars that help make the brands so different. Wood cabinets has always been a topic for PSG also, but now, look at the carbon fiber MSA's and it makes you wonder about that. Who knows?

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 21 Feb 2007 5:10 am

I wonder who has really done large-scale research? I mean, did Ron Lashley or Bud Carter make up several hundred different bodies with varying thicknesses of different types of wood, different types of glue, different thickness of formica, aluminum plate etc? It's pretty clear how to make a "good" sounding steel nowadays - copy an Emmons - but it seems as though maybe only MSA has started applying some of the modern advantages of computer modeling to "break the mold", so to speak.

Obviously electric guitars are somewhat similar - copy a Les Paul, copy a Strat/Tele and you'll get a marketable-sounding product. However, there have been so many more guitars made and so many more experimental twitches that some different sounds and material combinations have evolved, like using very light basswood to compensate for the tonal brightness of a Floyd Rose whammy ("brightness" is a charitable word, here). I think woodshop hippies on drugs (WHOD) have contributed significantly to the electric guitars' advancement, look at all the basses using some of the old Alembic ideas. Where are the steel guitar's WHOD's?

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 21 Feb 2007 5:38 am

Kevin H….I haven’t read where anyone said steel guitars have “no tone”, nor can I imagine anyone making such a ridiculous statement. Since you’re implying it " has been said", will you provide a link which will validate your comment?

If tone was inherent (which implies consistency) in ANY brand name guitar, everyone who played it would sound the same. Since we all know they don’t, to what do you attribute that inconsistency?

Many who have followed the recent tone thread will be anticipating your response to these two questions.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 21 Feb 2007 5:47 am

but it seems as though maybe only MSA has started applying some of the modern advantages of computer modeling to "break the mold"

True, and yet the only tonal description I recall was that they have no specific tone - not bad, but variable and not distinct.

I agree - it does not seem like the same experimentation/investigation into tonal effects of different parts/designs has been done in the steel world as the 6-string world. And when you get statements like "builders are trying for the most part to get all steel guitars to sound the same" it sounds like the battel to improve tone is being lost.

No one factor determines "tone" - wood (or lack thereof), alloys used in frames/changers/pegheads, moving parts, tightness of overall construction - these are just a few of the variables. But it appears most modern makers use established designs, and vary the sound via different pickups. They'd likely be astounded if they did something simple like changed to a sliding pickup (with multiple positions), added the seemingly deceased volume/tone control circuits to to the guitar, had multiple pickup options, wood options, etc.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 21 Feb 2007 6:41 am

It's probably the changer design (mass, material, and size) and the way it's mounted. The body also can have a significant effect, with the same parameters coming into play. I believe scale length on a pedal steel (with most of them nearly the same) has very little effect.

As far as the main system we play, though (the amp and guitar), the amp can be far more significant. But for most players, it's not. (Most players just want one tone.)

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 21 Feb 2007 7:17 am

I wonder who has really done large-scale research? I mean, did Ron Lashley or Bud Carter make up several hundred different bodies with varying thicknesses of different types of wood, different types of glue, different thickness of formica, aluminum plate etc?

Bud did this type of research with about 20 cabinets back in 1984 in Waco with the help of the engineering department at the local college.

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 21 Feb 2007 7:22 am

We are hearing lots of different things in a steel guitar tone..
However it can be broken down to audio frequencies.. There is no real magic to it IMHO..

I have said this for years The FIRST thing a Bud/Twin player will do when forced to play a PP/Session 400, will be to set the EQ up to get as close to the sound in his head as he can..

Some guys get so close its creepy..

Yes there are tonal variations among steel guitars... no doubt... However we tend to constantly overblow it as we are headed toward in this thread..If a good player has a good guitar and good amp, and a good ear, the instrument WILL reproduce his or her recognizable sound.

I seem to recall somemone posting a bit of Jim Loessberg playing something that sounded exactly like a 1958 Fender 400.. all that classic "old Fender" tone was there... Later it was disclosed it was actually an Emmons and some VERY good EQ work.. I can't comment too much because it was years ago, but it was an eye opener...

How do you think we get little boxes to make a pedal steel sound like a Dobro???. The various Dobro simulators work great... magic???.. No its just some frequency changes... It can be done very convincingly with just an EQ.. IF you have the ear.. I am the FIRST one to say.. "This steel has the sound".. its just because of MY limitations.. not the steels.. They can all reproduce "that" sound... its all in the frequency spectrum... bob

Charles Curtis · Post by **Charles Curtis** » 21 Feb 2007 10:09 am

I would love to get some input from Bobbe on this subject.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 21 Feb 2007 11:04 am

Maurice, inherent tone implies just the opposite of your statement. Inherent tone implies differences according to the construction of the particular brand of steel guitar. Thats why Emmons, Shobuds, Zb's, Fenders, and Fulawkas all sound different. Everybody knows that. I've heard master players at times get just terrible tone because of the modern rigs that they were playing and their tone settings. When they were playing their older rigs they sounded fantastic. It had nothing to do with there hands.
You can't put lipstick on a pig. Nothing is gonna beat those old guitars for tone. Fulawka is the only new guitar that I've heard with distinct tone, but I'll bet the Jackson guitar has it also. When Gary Morse and Dan Dugmore play their old Sho-Buds their tones are very similar and classic Sho-Bud.

admin · Post by **b0b** » 21 Feb 2007 11:06 am

I believe it's the pickup.

Ron Randall · Post by **Ron Randall** » 21 Feb 2007 11:09 am

The Pickup.

John McClung · Post by **John McClung** » 21 Feb 2007 1:46 pm

My hunchy opinion, Cliff et al: first, the pickup; 2nd, metal or wood necks. That's been my experience with vintage MSA's and Mullen.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 21 Feb 2007 2:29 pm

Kevin H….Thank you for your response.

I notice you failed to respond to my very first question, was that an oversight?

The definition of “inherent“ is… “the essence of “a” thing”. Therefore the definition relative to steel guitars being “a” thing, implies exclusivity relative to each brand name guitar.

Exclusivity means exactly that, and were “consistent inherent tone” to exist in every guitar of the same brand, no matter who was playing it, only then would it adhere to the true deffinition of "inherent" tone.

Do you really believe different players would sound exactly the same playing the same guitar, amp, expression pedal and cords?

Were you to admit there are those who sound different playing the same guitar, that would again indicate the word inherent does not apply.

If some do indeed sound different when others play the same brand guitar, which you still persist has an inherent quality, what would your explanation be as to why each one sounds different?

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 21 Feb 2007 3:10 pm

Out of deference to the topic, I've deleted my post.

Phred

admin · Post by **b0b** » 21 Feb 2007 4:05 pm

I notice that a lot of people aren't answering the question, or are posing different questions. Out of respect for the topic starter, can we stay on topic please?

Kyle Everson · Post by **Kyle Everson** » 21 Feb 2007 4:26 pm

I think the warmth and fullness comes from the cabinet. I think to have good definition and clarity of notes, it's the pickup.

Archie Nicol · Post by **Archie Nicol** » 21 Feb 2007 4:36 pm

I still like kittens.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 21 Feb 2007 4:39 pm

I believe the weight does play a certain role in rich tone. If a guitar has no mass to hold and project vibration and resonation, how can it produce good tone? The added stability of a heavy guitar allows it to properly carry the sound that's produced from the pickups. I once had a modern SD-10 that was about 6-7 pounds lighter than my Pro 1, and it just moved all over the place when I engaged the levers. And it also had inferior tone to my Pro 1, which is very solid and sturdy with great tone.

I'm well aware that there are heavy guitars that sound bad. But I do think that body mass (in the form of great wood) helps the old D-10 Sho~Buds and ZB's in the tone department.

As an analogy, take a 15" speaker out of a large cabinet (say, a Session 400) and set it on the floor. Leave the speaker plugged in to the amplifier. Play your steel through it. Where did all the low end go? Sounds like crap, right? Because there's nowhere for the sound to resonate.

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 21 Feb 2007 5:25 pm

In answer to Charles Curtis, I have many guitars "on the table" as I write this, and now as over the past many years I am testing, observing, trying different things and to be honest, I am still learning things about tone/timbre just as rapidly as I ever have.

This is a wonderful subject and my continued research is as much fun as anything I have ever done in this steel guitar business.

As I type this, I have a Super Pro II, 64' Emmons, three of my own D-10 guitars, one expermental Jackson, A Sho-Bud Pro one about to be scrutinized to the umth degree. This is now and has been a continuing, on going period of research for many years. It's something I need to know. I don't know of anyone anywhere that has even started to do the vast research that we have here with the great ears and opinions we have to draw on. Not to mention the guitars destroyed and the money spent do do this expermenting.

We have tried ever type of known changer, mounted every way possible, every pickup available, many different body dimentions, materials, strings, keyhead designs and so on. We have learned a great amount of pure proven fact on this deep subject. All this along with consulting great minds such as Ron Lashley, Bruce Zumsteg, Del Mullen, Jerry Fessenden and players like Weldon Myrick, Hal Rugg, Jimmy Crawford, Terry Bethel, Dick Miller, and a old friend from my childhood, Paul Bigsby.

As far as getting into it on this forum, I'd rather not argue about it here with folks that have never done any type of deep research, expermenting etc.. However, I do see some great thought here at times and then I see some folks that should be "in the know" that seem to know nothing.

My door is always open and I will be glad to give intelligent/open minded folks access to anything I'm doing in our new facility on this subject.

I'm in this to learn hard facts, not to gain opinions. Opinions are nice, but facts are what is important to the players that can hear the difference.

As I said, my facility is open from 8:30 to 4:30 everyday except Sundays, when I'm in town, which is most of the time.

Important ingredients are, Maple, good clear hi fidelity pickups, fresh premium strings, highly resonate cabinet, a changer that will feedback overtones to the strings and not the floor. The importance of your hands? Sure! The way a string is released from a pick or finger will impart certain overtones that greatly influence timbre. And we all know that the last element in the chain is the amp, and it's importence, but the timber has to be in the vibrating note for the amp tyo amplify.

Amplifiers? In the testing rooms we have three Webbs, two Peavey Nashville 112s, one Peavey Session 400, two Sho-Bud Cain, one Texas Evans FET500, one Fender Deluxe, two Fender Steel kings (one with JBL D-130) and an old Black face Fender twin. A smathering of custom component amps also. Some good, some average, but all pro quality and usable everywhere.

When it comes down to the last word, everything matters to a point, but a great guitar WILL help a bad player, Not much can be done for a bad guitar, and not much can be done for a bad player, but if we all would get the best sounding guitar we can (not necessarly the most expensive) and learn how to release the picked string to insight the most loops and lodes to the primary vibrations (note) in the string, all our timbre will improve to the point of eleminating all of these silly forum discussions about tone.

This is only partly opinion, the rest is fact, you choose.

Bobbe

Fred Bova · Post by **Fred Bova** » 21 Feb 2007 6:14 pm

The Pickup, and the way it is mounted.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 21 Feb 2007 8:31 pm

NEW STRINGS.

I'm surprised in all these inane "tone wars" of late, that Mr Seymour's comment is the first time I've seen it mentioned. I gotta admit I've skimmed over a good deal of the nonsense though.

You know, I'll disagree with somebody at the drop of a hat, and often drop it myself, but I've YET to read anything of Bobbe's that I have disagreed with.

Yet he seems to have very definite and clearly stated opinions.

I'll have to wonder why...

When I get time.

On goes the amp, in goes the plug.

EJL

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 21 Feb 2007 8:50 pm

I think it's hard to stay strictly "on topic" if you are skeptical about the premise that one single physical factor basically determines, or "contributes the most to", tone.

I'm in this to learn hard facts, not to gain opinions. Opinions are nice, but facts are what is important to the players that can hear the difference.

Amen, Bobbe. Sometimes it's hard to get hard facts, but I think that's what we should try for. Man, I've had a few of my opinions handed back to me on a platter by someone presenting hard evidence - served cold. Sometimes it catches me off guard, but I still appreciate it when someone does it, rather than leave me in ignorance.

I'm a systems guy, so my view of this question is that the entire system and its components' various interactions, and not any one factor, are what matters - but the controlling variable is the ears, brain, hands, and feet system.

But maybe that's not correct - only hard evidence will tell, and this is notoriously difficult to extract. Respectfully - I would sure like to see some hard facts on any of this.

BTW - I agree about the importance of the strings. I remember a quote from Barney Kessel, the great jazz guitarist - "The strings are the very life of the instrument." To me, they're the closest thing to the hands, and so must be pretty durned tootin' important.

The Steel Guitar Forum

What component of the guitar contributes the most to tone?

What component of the guitar contributes the most to tone?

tone,etc.

IMHO

been there, done that

Bud Carter Interview

Tone? Research? Years spent full time?