The Steel Guitar Forum

Bill B…..Thank you for sharing your personal experience, and for playing an MSA over all these years.

I greatly appreciate your compliment, but I can’t in clear conscience take credit for building your guitar when in truth it was built by the collective efforts of many caring people, some of whom are no longer with us.

David D……Thank you for your comment that you think we conducted our experiments the right way “for our purposes”. To be honest, I would be hard pressed to think of any other purpose to have made such comparison tests other than our original intended purpose as I explained earlier in this thread.

Mr. Reece,
A friend of mine has a '76 or '77 D10 MSA Classic. It has a green lacqer (sp?) finish. What is the cabnet made of? Would it be solid wood of some kind, or is it plywood/laminated?
thank you,
Mitch

Mitch.....Since the guitar has a natural finish, the cabinet is made of solid hard rock maple.

Please thank your friend for playing an MSA.

Mr. Reece,
My friend purchased the MSA used at least 25 years ago, and has been playing it ever since. He's a great player and has always played on a regular basis. The MSA has seen very little "down time" but still works perfectly. It even has the original pick-ups. It has the normal signs of decades of service, but still looks great. He's a smooth player, and get's a good, clean sound out of the MSA. Great tone! I really enjoy hearing him play. I will pass on your thanks to him, and I give you my thanks for this great,dependable instrument.

Mitch

I've been wondering for some time now, If Reece was to tool up his shop and produce a run of carbon fiber cabinets to retrofit those old dieboard Classics, how many would he sell?!? I'd imagine there'd be enough pickers from the "dull tone" camp and the "weight" camp to make it worth his while....

If Reece was to tool up his shop and produce a run of carbon fiber cabinets to retrofit those old dieboard Classics, how many would he sell?

Likely, it would be very few. I'm guessing the price would be well over $1,000 each, and that's far too much for the average player to want to upgrade. Any player who wanted an easier/cheaper "upgrade" would probably use maple, which could be done for a small fraction of the carbon fiber body price (around $200-$300).

Mike P.....Thank you for your suggestion to which I'm glad to respond.

I respectfully suggest such a venture would make "older" guitars cost FAR more than that which we or anyone else offers today. The truth is, the new MSA is much smaller, lighter and has design features we could only dream of in the era of the older guitars.

I'm of the opinion the weight issue has been resolved as well as the "dull tone" which you elude to, and my reasoning is contained within this thread.

Thank you again for thinking about MSA.

Thanks for the replies Reece & Donny,

I know as well as you guys that it wouldn't be cost effective, so I was only half joking... BUT with the economy the way it is, we're seeing people foregoing new purchases and sinking $$$$ into things which depreciate faster and deeper than our old '70s MSAs.

My opinions on the blind tests are mixed. I believe that Reece, Phred, and everyone else involved were as objective as possible. But, for me the psychology of playing involves more than just "hearing" the differences between A & B.... How many times have you played back a performance which sounded NOTHING like what it did when you were in the moment performing it? Maybe you obsessed throughout a whole song about one bum note you hit, or felt that your phrasing wasn't on top of the beat, only to listen back and hear that it wasn't bad at all?!?

Every steel has a different "reactance" (yeah, I just made that up). Mass, materials, design and construction are all variables. As we sit down and play our steels we are essentially creating a feedback loop~ each successive note that we play is audibly processed and combined with things such as the resonance we feel on the pedalboard, or the how the whole guitar moved when I used that knee lever.... all those things affect the next note. An Emmons P/P and MSA Classic may very well send an identical sine wave @ the same impedance down a shielded copper wire to your amp resulting in an identical sound, but how that sound is achieved when at the helm of each instrument can yield a totally different experience. And I guess that's what this whole thread is about. I agree with Reece~ the timbre of my MSA leaves nothing to be desired, but I don't like being told that I can't "hear" the difference between a P/P and LeGrande or Carter w/ or w/out BCT so on & so forth....

all the best,
Mike Pace

Mike Pace: "How many times have you played back a performance which sounded NOTHING like what it did when you were in the moment performing it?"

Nearly everytime I listen to a recording taken through open mikes or the total output of the board. Sometimes,when I'm playing, I think I'm "the killer" only to listen to the recording and find out I've only been DEAD for sometime. And Vice Versa, but not very often.

I think it has to do with the distance from the amp, and really not hearing the overall mix of the band. Those things change when you hear the overall, but just my opinion.

I don't think the tests were made "to tell you you don't know the difference between the different guitars" but to see if the tone of the MSA was acceptable before any changes were made. I can tell you this, a lot of darn good players were fooled, and I really don't know any other way to do an exam like that. What would you propose, and I'm not half joking?

phred

My feelings as to how my guitar sounds changes constantly. At times when I play I think it sounds wonderful. Then another time, maybe even the same day, I'll think it sounds terrible! I go from love to disgust!

Nothing has changed. Only me!

>>>I really don't know any other way to do an exam like that. What would you propose, and I'm not half joking? <<<<

No Phred, this variation on the scientific method has been explained in detail and I agree with the way you guys approached it. But I think whenever Reece first mentioned "the tests" there was a fair amount of skepticism or confusion as to how it was executed... I like idea in David's last post for a flat EQ control group too.

Mike P……I appreciate your comments.

The physiological implications you suggest in your second paragraph are insightful, varied and would be enjoyable to discuss.

You comment about the “feel” of consistent resonance throughout the pedal board and etc., suggests the possibility that inherent resonance/vibration characteristics exists in all guitars of a specific brand. Admittedly without any information or having done any evaluations concerning it, I believe that to be a premise that would yield the same results as our comparison evaluations. I respectfully maintain such things as “inherent vibrations”, (even if proven to exist) has nothing to do with the end result of achieving the desired tone duplication or benchmark tone.

My past comments and observations was not an attempt to tell anyone they themselves couldn’t hear a consistent inherent tone with any specific brand of guitar, possibly you can, as well as others, all I have said is, I have never seen anyone who could do it, or for that matter, who told me they could do it.

If someone tells me they have the ability, all I can say is, that person is unique and I would think anyone who had the ability to make such a distinction, would be both happy and anxious to display what I would consider to be a remarkable ability. To my knowledge no one has ever come forward on the forum who said they have that ability.

My opinion of a flat EQ evaluation is, that while it might be interesting, it would not address the question as to inherent and consistent identification existing in any specific brand of guitar.

Skepticism can be a good thing in that it can promote further discussion and evaluation which can lead to a conclusion. Those who may be skeptics of the evaluations we made at MSA might enjoy making the comparisons themselves in the manner I have suggested. Or if it is felt the procedures of the evaluations were misleading or in error, suggestions on how we could have improved the methods we used are welcome.

Mike,
If the difference is so slight, as to have to go to such lengths in testing to find, then I don't think there is enough difference in inherent tone between brands of guitars to even matter. I don't hear an inherent tone, and I don't believe there is an inherent tone. I don't think Shot Jackson built the early Sho-Buds and did inherent tone testing.

I've read numerous remarks as to some Emmons,Sho-Buds and others being "tone monsters". The testing done by MSA, shows that not to be the case. What inherent tone there may be does not jump out and bite! It ain't even recognizable in a blind test.

Reese
I know its off topic but why isnt the show on rfd anymore the stage band you played in is very professional? ( now back to your regular program)

Joseph.....You should have email.

I got it Reese and thank you I will pass this on to my friends in the area

I am glad (and vast opinion shows) it is recognized that there is defintely inherent tone in different barnds of steel guitars and that some brands are better than others for dofferent people. Long live Emmons and So-Bud.

I am glad (and vast opinion shows) it is recognized that there is defintely inherent tone in different brands of steel guitars and that some brands are better than others for different people. Long live Emmons and So-Bud.

Kevin H......I'm not aware of any opinion poll being taken or having been made about the existence of inherent tone relative to any brand of guitar. Where would one find such an opinion poll being conducted.

Opinion does not equate to evidence.

BTW you have not responded to my earlier questions on Feb.11th which also has to do with inherent tone.

Well the definitive test for inherent tone or timbre, would be to leave the amp EQ flat to remove it from the equation. Ed Packard has posted frequency spectra for various brands, and there are obvious differences. But we don't know how that relates to what we can hear. Many people have strong opinions that some pedal steels are brighter, some darker, some have more sustain, and some less. I suspect the differences in a blind test would be less than many expect, but I'd be surprised if there were no detectable differences at all. But apparently no one has done such a test.

I think that, once we compare a hand full of reasonably well built and proven guitars or any other instruments, it is unfair to state that one or the other brand does not sound "as good" as some other brand(s).
If we look at standard electric guitars... Gibsons, Fenders, Gretsch... what ever, and even the different models among them, we will find that, besides a few "dogs" here and there, they've all found their use and followers.
Given that, to come around and claim that brand, model or system "so and so" has produced the "best", the "only good..." or "superior (exclusively of course)" instrument, tone or timbre, is, if not only unfair, but also a sign of forgetfulness about the instrument's history.

Times, styles, trends and applications change, let's not forget that.
Still today, there are those who regard an original Rickenbacher Frypan or PRE-WWII (only of course!) Rick B lap as the climax of ultimate tone and timbre. Then are those who'd give an arm and a leg to have a Bigsby PSG, an Emmons push-pull... and not just any... it would HAVE to be the bolt-on or maybe only the wrap around or some other very unique one, while others will preach that EVERY PP is IT and again others will walk away from it in disbelieve even it was to be a black one and go back to get high on playing a particularly unique model of some ShoBud.
So, they've ALL found followers... and so have THOUSANDS of "old" MSA guitars, built by a company which at some points in time would not only build but eventually SELL more guitars than all the other manufacturers together. Maybe a few Nashville primadonnas did not go for it... except at LEAST for one Curly Chalker, who not only proved that they had all the sustain one could wish for and cut thru band and mixing board like nothing else.
Besides, at the end of it all, we have to come to realize, that MOST PSG's sold will never record in Nashville. So can Nashville really be the sole bench mark of sound, tone and timbre?
Bench mark sound(s)? You go and ask the builders and designers of most PSG's built now and in the past, as to what THEIR bench mark or goal was and I would not be surprised that you would learn that many have not quite been able to meet or satisfy their own... including one, some just love to label as THE bench mark.

Coming back to the core question about the value of some brand(s) in the used PSG market. Sight unseen if I had to choose between the 3 guitars mentioned, I'd probably pick the MSA, for having the best chance of a lucky strike and to get a playable guitar at a reasonable price.
While the other ones may be seen up for sale at higher prices, the MSA's, even old ones, SELL. And I don't think it's just the lower price, but simply trust in a proven system, product and track record of quality and that includes tone too. I have also seldom heard an MSA player state that he or she only plays it because it was "cheap" but disliked the sound of it... at least not more than folks who have turned away from their Emmons or ShoBud for something "else"... maybe even an MSA, who knows.

Short, once we are talking about a quality instruments with no rattles, buzzes, noises or otherwise "dead"... just like with Gibson's, Fenders and what ever else there is out there... it's not a matter or better or worse... I believe, it's a mater of trends, applications, times and TASTE, PREFERENCES as well as every ones individual hearing.

... J-D.

Even when making comparisons while leaving the EQ flat, I would suspect there to be a wide spectrum of variation between guitars of the same brand. Were that to be true, even if a spectrum was identified, the width of the spectrum would likely be (in my opinion) so wide as to not adhere to the definition of consistency within itself.

I can assure you that Bruce Zumsteg has met his bench mark. Your statement makes no sense.

I would just like to jump in for a single post and comment that I am impressed by Mr. Anderson's (and others') keeping this discussion very gentlemanly. This is one of those topics where strong feelings often rise to the top.

I am learning a lot about a lot of different things by lurking here. I will go hide in the curtains again now.

Keep up the fine discussion, fellows!
-Paul

I am often reading here of persons making claims about possessing the ability to consistently recognize and pick out particular brands of guitars with supposed special inherent tone, and "THE" sound. But so far, Reece and MSA are the only ones that I know of to do a blind test for this ability, and no one participating in the tests could consistently select a particular brand of guitar by it's tone! Some folks could not pick out their own guitar.

As a matter of fact, Reece challenged someone to prove his claim that he could consistently pick out a certain brand of guitar by the sound of it's wonderful inherent tone in a blind test.

If inherent tone is so prevalent, and glaringly apparent in the vintage Sho-Buds and Emmons guitars, and sadly missing in the MSA's, then common sense would seem to dictate one being able to easily pick them out consistently in a blind test, just from the sound of their massive inherent tone.