The Steel Guitar Forum

Reece, the guitars sound different UNPLUGGED. These differences come through when amplified. Of course I can adjust the amp to minimize them, but that's not the point. The guitars have inherently different tones. The green maple/lacquer one has a deep thick rich warm tone, while the white mica one has a thinner brighter tone. The Milly has the best string separation, and an almost military precision to every note.

The one time I compared all 3, I first listened to them unplugged, and then through the same volume pedal and amp with no adjustments made to compensate for the inherent differences. I did not sit down and play them, but simply raked my thumb slowly across the strings, to hear how the guitars responded. This was the only time I compared them side by side, as I store them in different places.

I honestly don't know which one's tone I like the most.

If/when you are back in California visiting Jim. I'd be happy to drive to his shop with all 3 guitars so you can compare them. (I'd be happy to see you again under any circumstances.) I'm sure that you will hear the difference too.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating; I think MSAs are the best steel guitars in the world. Thank you for building them.

In 1996 I borrowed a D45 Martin guitar from a friend of mine, and built my Dad an exact copy of it. I used toner to "age" the top and body, and it turned out very nice. It is still a great sounding guitar. My Dad has since passed and I have it back.

When I gave it to my Dad he wanted me to go with him to visit a friend of his, and show him the guitar. Dad was very proud of the guitar, and wanted to show it off to his old pickin buddy.

On arrival, after some small talk, Dad showed him the guitar. His friend could not praise the guitar enough, saying it had the "sound" only a Martin guitar has.

We picked for a couple of hours or so, and just prior to putting our guitars away, Dads' friend said again how lucky Dad was to find this great sounding D45. Dad then told him that his son, (me), had built this guitar for him.

Dads' friend, after a few seconds of silence said; you know Buck, I thought that guitar sounded a little strange, it's real pretty, but it just don't have the Martin "sound" like my D45!

As Mike says, his guitars all sound different unplugged. I don't believe two different guitars, whether Emmons, Sho-Bud, Zumsteel or two different MSA's can be EQ'd to sound the same.. maybe a similar type of tone, but there will be differences regardless of how subtle. With feet and knees out of the picture, I believe that I would feel a difference, plugged in or not, through the picks and bar. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I don't think so. However, I think we're getting away from the original topic of the post which was, why do original MSA's sell for less than some of their contemporaries? I gave the reason that I personally place less value on them- tone for what I want out of a guitar, response/feel and looks and because of all that, the weight is a real deal breaker.. this is for me, personally.
So Reece and Mike, as two dyed in the wool MSA guys who love what an MSA does and sound great on them (and Reece as Mr. MSA), why do you think that they are an undervalued guitar?
Also as a little sidetrack- Reece, what's the guitar that you're playing in the youtube video of Honey Suckle Rose? Your tone and your playing on that are such that I feel like an idiot even being in this discussion with you.. but, I guess that's part of the fun of this forum.. what an opportunity for a piker like myself.

Mike,……As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we (MSA) did not conduct any resonant or sustain evaluations while I was preent. At the time of our experimentation we were focused only on the end result of all guitars being compared fairly and equally when being played without the visual advantage.

Our search for answers then, and the sharing of my experiences have only one underlying goal, and that is……..“to make a determination if it’s possible for a specific brand of guitar to have an inherent sound/tone which provides a consistently identifiable/detectible benchmark tone while being played through an amplifier without having the advantage of vision”.

I believe to best pursue the intentions of that goal and arrive at a consensus, the approach should be that of keeping the “end goal” in mind as outlined in the paragraph above, while not introducing (at this juncture) whether the guitar is made of Maple, Finnish Plyboard, formica finish, aluminum, carbon fiber, wood soaked in a lake for a thousand years, resonance or feel when raking the strings while unamplified, whether the system pulls or pushes, or both.

In my opinion when any of these factors are interjected they have a tendency not only to deflect from the intent shown in the second paragraph above, but are subjective, divisive, and they cloud, deflect and distort the underlying question which I believe can only be determined by the ear of the listener, who’s perception (I’m convinced) can be overridden by not allowing the visual advantage, which also eliminates pre-conceived prejudice.

I greatly appreciate your open mind and willingness to take part in comparison evaluations. I have no doubt our dear friend Jim will be delighted to accommodate an evaluation comparison.

Brian H……Before addressing your comments may I first thank you for your very kind and flattering comments. I haven’t seen the youTube video you mentioned in a long time, but I believe that was before we introduced the SuperSlide, and if so, I was playing a Boen 12 string guitar.

The original topic was why older MSA ‘s sold for less than some other guitars, (among other things) and I perhaps wrongfully assumed most had accepted the premise it was likely associated with the number of guitars produced and the reputation of mechanical reliability.

The other things contained within the original post of this thread included sound/tone and cabinet material, which I believe has allowed my comments and that of most others to remain on topic.

Likewise I appreciate the opportunity to converse with you. I don’t consider you or anyone else who loves steel guitar as a “piker” , and It will always be a pleasure to hear from you. Hopefully someday I will have the opportunity to shake your hand.

When considering my extended interest within this thread, I trust you nor anyone else misconstrues my participation in this discussion, which I can assure everyone, is not intended to appear to be argumentative, prejudice, defensive, divisive, condescending, undignified or disrespectful to anyone.

I've been thoroughly enjoying reading this thread. Some very interesting thoughts have been expressed. I have just a coupl'a remarks to throw into the mix. Thanks for indulging me.

First: a BIG thank-you to you, Reece for all you've done for the world of steel guitar, from your fabulous playing to helping to create the great MSA guitars ("Classic" through "Millennium" and "Legend").

Second: in the past I've stated, as my opinion; although there are tonal differences with each guitar, there are also playing differences with each picker. The ultimate solution for each picker is to find the correct instrument to complement his or her playing idiosyncrasies. There, ye shall find "nirvana".

Third: there are, as we all know, players who are able to transcend limitations of any brand of PSG. And I emphasize ANY brand. In the hands of those individuals (Reece, Buddy, Lloyd, Paul, et al), any instrument will sound it's best... it'll sound GREAT. To that extent, any one of the aforementioned can, undoubtably, make a shoebox with rubber bands sound better than I can make my '77 push/pull sound. And I accept that. Does that mean a shoebox with rubber bands is better than my '77 push/pull? Nope. But it does tell you, concerning tonal quality, NO steel guitar "is out of the running" and NO steel guitar is "hands down" better than any other. Regarding resale/collector values, I can only attribute the difference of an MSA with other brands as purely fickle. The same holds true for the resale of another great brand, Sierra. Both well designed and constructed, but for whatever reason, just not CURRENTLY as popular as some other brands. This could change at anytime.

That said, and in the interest of adding a little entertainment, here are two YouTubes of the Texas Sapphires band in a live performance. The steel sounds great. Right up there with anyone's tonal expectation. What brand? An MSA (Classic I think). By the way, does anyone know who the picker is?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHZmERk9iWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X8Xu6hD8eo&NR=1

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

Reece, you're welcome for the comments on you're playing and tone, they well deserved indeed.. and believe me, compared to that, I am a piker! I notice that the tone you got on that Boen guitar is a very twangy but fat tone, one of the best sounds (I think) of any guitar pedal, or non-pedal.. and the band was smokin' on that! That's just a great perfomance all around.
Anyway, you're answer of the number of MSA's is most valid.. I forgot how back in the 70s/ early 80s you couldn't turn around without bumping into an MSA.. one of the reasons I had a few. However, I'm confused by you're mention of their reliability.. I would think their excellent mechanics would raise the prices, if anything. [/i]

So Reece and Mike, as two dyed in the wool MSA guys who love what an MSA does and sound great on them (and Reece as Mr. MSA), why do you think that they are an undervalued guitar?

I'm neither Reece or Mike, but here's my perspective anyway.

Why are the finest archtop guitars on the planet - painstakingly crafted and tap-tuned by the most celebrated luthiers of all time like Elmer Stromberg, John D'Angelico, Jimmy D'Aquisto, some of the senior builders at Gibson, and so on - so much less expensive than the cheapest 1958-1960 Les Paul Standard? Anything but the most extraordinary archtops are even cheaper than the most ordinary plank-of-wood pre-CBS Strat or Tele. You can get a nice vintage 50s ES-175, the standard for archtop jazz to an awful lot of people, for a few thousand. A 50s Tele or Strat is more like $30-50,000. From a luthiery point of view, there's no comparison in terms of the difficulty or artistry in making these guitars, especially the difference between a first-class archtop and the Fenders.

There are two aspects to markets for older instruments of any type. Of course, there is the utilitarian aspect, which is driven by what people prefer (or think they prefer) in terms of sound, playability, major player emulation, or whatever. Older MSAs seem to be more identified with major jazz pedal steel players while older Emmons and Sho Buds seem to be more identified with major country pedal steel players. I think it's pretty clear that there are a lot more country pedal steel players than jazz pedal steel players, much the same as there are a lot more rock and blues guitar players than jazz guitar players. I think the weight is also a factor, especially as the mean age of pedal steel players continues to increase.

Then there is a collectibility aspect. When players or collectors get a whiff that something is "rare", "collectible", "moving upwards", "made of dwindling resources like good old wood", "cultural icon", or whatever, they tend to stampede in that direction, regardless of the utilitarian merits. Why are Bigsbys the most expensive pedal steel guitars on the planet? Is it really because that's the sound and feel most pedal steel players are looking for in an instrument?

Note that "dieboard" MSAs and Dekleys seem to be the biggest bargains. Solid maple older MSAs seem to do better in the marketplace. When I hear good players using these dieboard guitars, they sound great.

So I wouldn't take the differing prices of different brands of older pedal steels to indicate anything about the so-called "quality" of the guitar. It's about market preferences, period. I wouldn't be surprised that if - hypothetically - the dominant force in the guitar or pedal steel worlds was jazz, both archtops and older MSAs, respectively, would be stronger in the marketplace.

In the meanwhile, consider that we simply have some real bargains in the pedal steel world. There are similar bargains in the vintage 6-string world. I think it's great that a younger player starting out - who maybe doesn't care too much about the weight - can get a high-quality instrument at a reasonable price.

My opinions, of course.

Well said.

Glen S…… I too have enjoyed reading and participating within this thread. Having the pleasure of corresponding with so many kind forum members both on the forum and privately has been enjoyable. I don’t recall seeing a “hot button” topic that has been as interesting, non-confrontational and respectful. If such a trend were to continue, it would be a wonderful thing and much would be gained by many as a result.

I believe there to be individual guidelines that will allow every player to find both their mental and physical “nirvana”. (to use your word) A very wise man once said. “what is the question”? The meaning being, if someone can phrase precisely the right question to the right person, the question can and will be answered in it's entirety.

The statement you made is exceptionally insightful, and it can be made into one of “the” questions to which the wise man was eluding. You said, “the” ultimate solution for each player is to find the correct instrument to compliment his or her playing idiosyncrasies"…..and if I may, i would include mental perspectives as well.

With that question defined it poses another question, how does one make the correct decisions which best adherer to their overall perspective and manifest itself in a positive manner which emanates from the mind through the hands into and out of the guitar?

I believe the first step begins with an open mind and the ability of someone to “remain in touch” with their individual likes and dislikes while diligently investigating every aspect of steel guitar from mechanical design to aesthetic design, and yes, even the color.

Brian H…… I appreciate your kind response and positive comments……I still don’t think you or anyone else is a “piker”. I would venture to say that had you sat behind a guitar as often as I have surrounded by great musicians, you could likely play circles around me.

Lastly, I apologize for my confusing comment. I was referring to reliability as being relative to the mechanical aspect.

Dave M……As usual, well stated and very insightful.

Note that "dieboard" MSAs and Dekleys seem to be the biggest bargains.

Just to clarify, Dekley never used dieboard.

Sorry Jim, but the distinction between "dieboard" - as used in, let's say, a GFI - and pakkawood seems, to me, to be very subtle, as discussed in this thread - http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26469

Let's go with "laminated wood", which is totally generic.

FWIW - my point was that I don't think there's any intrinsic problem with the tone, even though there seems to be a significant market bias against using any type of laminated wood.

Dave, I'm not here to argue or change the topic of this thread, but the differences are not subtle at all.

As Gene Fields said in that thread from 2002:

The old MSA used birch plywood in some instruments, a good material, but not in the class of all maple die board.

Likewise, Pakkawood is different from both, as the resin that bonds it completely replaces any air and moisture in the wood.

"Plywood" is a generic term, only describing wood laminated from thinner sheets. "Pakkawood" is a specific product wherein the wood has been impregnated (as well as bonded) with plactic resins. It's very expensive, and also quite hard and heavy, and nearly imperbious to moisture. Other than the decorative aspect of the wood grain, it's much closer to Bakelite than it is to wood, in most respects. "Die board" is also a mostly generic term, literally a board that is hard enough and tough enough to use for metal forming dies. But just as there are many types of plywood, there are many types of die board. While Gene may have found that the poplar die board he had experience with was inferior to maple die board, such is not always the case. A lot depends on the manufacturer as well as the individual specifications called for by the customer. Qualities of these "engineered woods" vary considerably, and differences found between them are due more to the manufacturing process than they are to the types of wood they are made of. Therefore maple die board is not always harder or stronger than poplar die board.

I don't want to get into an argument as to what kind of wood, or material, the many different pedal steels were made of. I have no idea as to the construction materials used in any guitar for sure other than mine. My particular MSA has a laminated wood deck and apron with maple necks. It has a aluminum perimeter.

It sounds very good! It looks very good. It plays smooth and holds tune without a string breaking problem. Is that not what we all want from a guitar?

I think what happens to some people is, they get a guitar, it sounds good and they like it, other people compliment them on how good it sounds, and they begin to imagine that because of a certain design element certain things are going on.

Things like end plates vibrating adding tone, rods vibrating adding tone, changer fingers touching this or that part and transmitting massive vibrations. Don't forget the special maple from a special tree grown on the north slope of the mountain giving a special tight grain that amplifies sound so efficiently, adding even more tone.

I hate to be the one to say it but, that probably ain't so. Just because we hear something we think is exceptional, does not mean it's coming from vibrating pedal rods and super maple wood!

Almost invariably when investigated closely and correctly, things are not as we imagined!

Vibrations can tend to cancel. Some vibrations are not good, especially when it comes to musical instruments. If the strings are vibrating, the body is vibrating, the rods are vibrating and the end plates are vibrating, then for sure there is cancelation going on. That can be good or bad, it depends on the particular guitar and what the picker likes I guess.

I’m certainly not a wood expert and no records were kept at MSA relative to construction materials in specific guitars…..and we used different woods, so how does one make the determination that Finnish plyboard is the body material on any specific older MSA?

The guitars made in that era were covered with formica and the bottom side had felt over it. If the felt were removed, it would then of course expose the wood, but would that provide any visible grain characteristics which would have identified it?

If all steel players were to collectively compile a list of all the things everyone believes contributes to a specific sound/tone, either good or bad, it would likely be as long as the “Dead Sea scrolls, and when completed there would be opposing opinion on each side of the fence about everything on that list.

When MSA was considering how to make a valid determination, we knew it was necessary to remove everything on that long “list”. MSA believed the true answer to be…… “the end result of all things considered”,……. and that end result was….THE COMPARISON EVALUATION OF THE SOUND THAT CAME FROM THE AMPLIFIER, which was after all, “the sum total of all things combined”.

After we made that determination we believed we also had to remove the visual advantage because that would also remove the components of bias and pre-conceived perception. This is why we believed listening to guitars without the visual advantage to be the ONLY way to EVER make a determination about a benchmark tone, consistent inherent tone, any component, or anything else.

I have to believe that had anyone watched and participated in extensive and continued evaluations over decades as I have, and not ever seeing one person who could pass the evaluations, they would arrive at the same conclusion, and that is everything relative to sound/tone is in the ears, and everything else is “smoke and mirrors”.

As I have said repeatedly, it is of course possible someone can do it. I once saw a man who could invert his entire body and stand on his index finger, and I wouldn’t have thought that to be possible either!

However, consider that IF only one in a million had the ability to consistently make such determinations of inherent tone and etc., that would have little or no impact on the decision making of those who can’t tell the difference anyway, I being one of them.

Bodies do have some (very minimal) resonance, but certainly not a lot. By the time you take that wonderfully resonant piece of wood, and those beautiful bell-toned endplates and keyheads, and attach legs, a neck, a changer, aprons, cross rods, brackets, braces, pickups, pedal rods, fretboards, stops, springs, levers, tuning keys, inlay, changers, switches, flocking, some sort of finish, and all the other acoutrements, and then fasten them all together, there really isn't much resonance left.

Take a plastic screwdriver handle and tap on a drum or an acoustic guitar, and you'll hear a nice, ringing, acoustic resonance. Tap on the top of an Emmons, a Bigsby, a Franklin, an MSA, a ZumSteel, a Rickenbacker, or an old Fender, and they all pretty much just go "thunk". Don't take my word for it, tap on yours and try it yourself! About the only place you'll get anything approaching a ringing resonance is the legs.

I'm eating this up, this is cool!

Chet Atkins has always been an iconic hero of mine. He absolutely was an authority on great tone! Through the years I've heard him say in interviews and read in magazine articles about trying to tame the resonance of the hollow body guitars he played.

He tried unsuccessfully to get Gretsch to use a through the body neck. He used painted on "F" holes as well. He did this to get rid of resonance so his guitar would sound cleaner and clearer.

To my way of thinking, and in my experience, when it comes to electric guitars, (which is what a pedal steel is), solid, with less resonance, is always better, if you want clean, clear, bell tone.

Virtually all of the accepted brands of pedal steels offer a very solid, stiff, platform for the pickups, with very little body resonance. Almost everything done in the course of pedal steel construction is "anti-resonance".

Solid, multiple layers, of thick wood and aluminum, along with lots of steel parts, does not an acoustic guitar make.

Now, you can imagine all you want about end plates with great tone. Aided by wonderful sounding pull rods, back feeding melodious tones into the strings for the pickups to digest, and send to the amplifier as inherent tone. Then beautifully singing out to you from across a crowded, smoke filled room like a beautiful blond siren. But, it ain't so!

I realize that there are resonances in a pedal steel guitar body, that is a fact of physics. But, their effect on the final sound is not a lot. The best we can do in pedal steel guitar construction for good tone, is to supply the pickup with a solid foundation to attach to.

Also very important is to have sufficient down pressure by the strings on the nut and bridge, (changer).

The material used to make the changer and nut makes a difference in tone as well. Aluminum is not as good as steel or brass in my opinion. Stainless steel is generally terrible in terms of tone. However, with all of the varieties of stainless available there may be some that are good.

Semmie Mosley, came to Jonas Ridge, NC in the 1980's to build his guitars, and one of my closest friends and picking buddies worked for Semmie. Mike, my friend, did the finish and final assembly.

Semmie was a genius and an artist, with a great ear for tone. He built everything used in his guitars in house, (except for tuners and strings). He was constantly testing construction materials, looking for something better.

He ran exhaustive tests on bridge and tailpiece materials. Mike, worked very closely with Semmie conducting these tests. The sound qualities of various metals tested was very evident; aluminum was fair, stainless was awful.

The wood Semmie used for body construction varied, his tone did not. Virtually all of his solid color guitars were made from basswood when he could get it, he used maple for the grain when it was visible through the finish. These were almost all solid body guitars, and the wood type made very little difference in tone.

I learned a lot from his tests, the most important thing I learned was things are not always as I imagine.

Since "Turkey Day" last year I have owned 5 yes five pedal steel guitars . I started with a ZB, traded for a single neck sho-bud, traded for a double neck sho-bud, actually owned two of these sold them and bought a GFI single 10 and Finally wound up with an MSA double 10, I have not had it very long but I think it is the one that I will keep, I love it, the feel, sounds great to me played through a Vegas 400 also have a Fender Blues Delux, They have a different sound but both amps sound good. MY Msa is about 30 years old looks like it came from the factory yesterday,has the SuperSustain 11 pickups and rings into next week!!It is solid wood with a Laquer finish and not a scratch, anyway its a keeper!!! Nuf Said

Since the subject came up: Body resonance of PSG's.

Around the year 2000 I started building a prototype PSG with the help of fellow Forumite Robert Segal. The main idea of difference is not at subject here.
Our concept was built onto a lacquer MSA (again, the brand is not the subject, we just used that one because it was available and it was a mechanically ideal platform for our tests). This MSA had a bolted all-around frame, and the wooden body only had a front apron and was bolted onto the aluminum frame which holds all the shafts and stuff.
Anyway, Maurice, as well as John Hughey and Tom Brumley, plaid it at the 2001 Texas steel guitar convention in our room... for feedback.

Among other things, it was my opinion that steel guitars should have a free floating soundboard only positioned to the chassis but not bolted on.
So, after our little show off tour, we went on and locked the changer and unscrewed the wooden body from the chassis. Sure, the tuning went South a bit, as the body flexed... but we got it tuned up again and when we played it, we noticed how it took a big breath (sound wise).
Then, Robert Segal went on and knocked off that wooden front apron. Once more, the tuning evidently went South... we cranked it back up and again, the sound took like an other big breath. The guitar, while trashed, sounded H U G E .

The test proved;
a) that a PSG would benefit from a "free" soundboard,
b) that the channel(front and optionally rear apron) design prevalent among most modern day PSG's is not of advantage to the sound of PSG's,
c) and that a PSG's body can have a resonance and that the more one lets it have it, the better the sound.

Besides addressing the subject of body resonance, it proves another thing, which brings us back to the original subject: As minimal differences in engineering and materials used on different brand or model steel guitars may appear today, they can and mostly WILL have repercussions on how the final product sounds. The sum of all these differences may cancel some differences in sound out and bring most quality brands and models looking pretty much similar to sound quite similar however.


I still have the hardware for this steel but I can't find a way to build a more final prototype here in the Dominican Republic... so, for the time being, it's in boxed.

... J-D.

JD, do you mean the sound got huge acoustically, or amplified? There is a trade off between acoustic volume and sustain. Thinner sound boards that resonate more are louder acoustically, but don't have as much sustain as thicker or solid bodies. The faint acoustic volume of solid-body guitars is made up for with amplification, and they have increased sustain. Also, resonance absorbs higher frequencies preferentially. So solid-bodies, with less resonance, have a brighter sound with more overtones (some would describe it as harsher). Bobbe Seymour has said that if you get rid of all the cabinet drop, presumably by eliminating body resonance, you lose some tone.

So it seems that body resonance is a factor in tone, sustain and acoustic volume. But resonance for resonance's sake is not the only goal in designing for tone and sustain in solid-body electric instruments.

I agree that resonance is not necessarily good or bad. If a resonance creates a sound the someone prefers, then it's "better" to that person. If relative lack of resonance creates a sound that someone prefers, than that is "better" to that person. I also agree that more resonance tends to cut sustain and evenness of response. That may be good or bad, depending on one's preferences.

In general, there is no good or bad - there are just perceptions of differences (or lack of differences), plus preferences. Once you get into human perception and preferences, I think everything gets pretty muddy. I think it's pointless to rank-order anything based on perception and preferences. To make it meaningful, one must know that the participants share the same core belief set about whatever is being discussed.

My friend Mark Thompson plays a 1974 MSA D-12 Rosewood Mica that he's had since new. He still gets a great sound through a Peavey Vegas 400 amp! I had a chance to sit down at it for a few songs and other then getting use to the 12 strings it sounds and plays real nice. I would have no problem getting use to an MSA. Very well built steels and a bargain today.

Steel guitar is an electric instrument, therefore no matter who’s playing or who’s listening, the sound/tone which comes from the amplifier,……. is the end result of the contribution of all things combined.

IF the material components, resonance characteristics, integration of the cabinet and all components, or anything else, does not provide the ability to consistently identify a specific guitar when compared with other guitars capable of a like benchmark tone, then I suggest it to be logical that all the things I have mentioned makes little contribution to the end result.

The benchmark tone of yesteryear is not the benchmark of today, nor will the benchmark of today, be that of tomorrow.

The ones who will carry the torch of steel guitar into the future are now among us, and they will undoubtedly seek their on benchmark tone which will set them apart from most others and chart a new direction for steel guitar which will place them in the annals of the history of steel guitar.

The beautiful and unique characteristics of our instrument, IS THE VOICE of steel guitar, and THE SOUND that captivated us and changed our lives forever, and just think, that was before we even thought about the meaning of a benchmark tone.

This is why I’ve always said……….“I’ve never heard a steel guitar I didn’t like!

David Doggett wrote:JD, do you mean the sound got huge acoustically, or amplified? There is a trade off between acoustic volume and sustain. Thinner sound boards that resonate more are louder acoustically, but don't have as much sustain as thicker or solid bodies. The faint acoustic volume of solid-body guitars is made up for with amplification, and they have increased sustain. Also, resonance absorbs higher frequencies preferentially. So solid-bodies, with less resonance, have a brighter sound with more overtones (some would describe it as harsher). Bobbe Seymour has said that if you get rid of all the cabinet drop, presumably by eliminating body resonance, you lose some tone.

So it seems that body resonance is a factor in tone, sustain and acoustic volume. But resonance for resonance's sake is not the only goal in designing for tone and sustain in solid-body electric instruments.

Actually both, unplugged and plugged. My approach was and still would be to get the tonal qualities of a good non pedal steel. Apart from the changer issue, one thing that sets most PSG's apart from non-pedal steels has become the use of channel shaped bodies which are either the frame to which the legs and mechanics are attached to, or attached firmly (bolted) to some sort of framework or chassis.
The reportedly best sounding (sustain, timbre etc.) sounding non-pedal steels have been lap steels (non-consoles), although that is argumentative as a herd of Fender owners will tell you "their's is/was better.
A steel guitar's body HAS to be thick enough to support sting tensions, and in the case of PSG's, constantly changing tensions. This thickness obviously will affect the soundboard's (as I would prefer to call it) ability to vibrate. Yet, the tests I have made, seem to suggest, that a thick soundboard will sound sweeter and have more breath than a thinner board which is reinforced with aprons (channel).

As to the unplugged/plugged controversy, here's a test most who own both, a non-pedal and a PSG can do:

Unplugged: play either guitar first with no bar. then play it with a bar at lets for the example's sake say on the 5th fret. Most likely you will find one big difference between the two instrument types: The PSG will sound about half as loud (if at all that much) with the bar on than it did without the bar on. The non-pedal steel will in most cases, experience much less of that loss with the bar on vs. playing open.
There are several reasons for it (not just the body/sound board issue. But it would at least prove that a free breathing soundboard can't be detrimental to the instrument, when we come to realize that most PSG's when PLUGGED don't have the sustain and more even decay when barred, most quality non-pedal steels will have.

I agree with Maurice, that at the end of all days, the instrument is an electric instrument and that the tone which matters really, is what can be appreciated amplified, which obviously brings into the equation pickups, amps, speakers, EFx and even little details like cables and volume pedals... and lets not forget the player's picks which leads us back to the players HANDS.

Still, I think there have been inferior as well as outstanding instruments. Yet, as I tried to bring into the discussion repeatedly on this thread, I think that once we compare good quality instruments (excluding a "dog" here and there) it does not make much sense to say that this or that brand is better and therefor the other one or all other bad. Different is OK too and many different things can be good, even excellent in their own way.

... J-D.