What component of the guitar contributes the most to tone?

[Jim Sliff]

Dave, the original poster asked "if there was one factor..." and for opinions on what it might be.

Not "what is the one factor?" asking for opinions from people who say it's one item alone.

It was worded, except for the title, as a much more open-ended topic IMO.

[Brint Hannay]

Dave M., Not to dispute with the content of what you say, but the topic here asks about the components of the guitar itself, not the system as a whole. (I was going to post something about the complete system as well, but then reread the thread's subject.)

FWIW, maybe I haven't tried enough different kinds of strings (I've probably used half a dozen different brands for PSG, some nickel, some stainless), but I don't feel they make all that big a difference. Some, but not that major. Perhaps, like the PSGs themselves, there's not that much variation in their design. JMO

Edited to add: Of course newness of strings is important, but that's a given--the question only has meaning if it's about the instrument in optimum condition.

[Jim Sliff]

ud did this type of research with about 20 cabinets back in 1984

John, that's a good start - but do you have any idea how many bodies/necks a company like Fender tests with wood and varying finishes to determine optimum combinations, shapes, attachments, etc?

Back in 1980 we (the coatings company I worked for) had approximately 100 total Strat and Tele bodies, and nearly 100 of EACH neck - simply to put test finishes on as specified for tonal analysis. And we were ONE company out of many.

20 bodies of the same type might get you a benchmark, but 20 bodies of varying types of wood wouldn't even get you a fair analysis of what one grain type does to tone.

[Scott Swartz]

I can state from direct experience that a mahogany cabinet changes the tone quite a bit.

I own one and have directly compared it to the exact same guitar with a maple cabinet.

This is of course logical and consistent with the 6 string guitar world.

[Dave Mudgett]

I view even just the PSG itself as an entire system with numerous components that interact with each other. I actually didn't specify what part of the system I was talking about, although I think my point applies equally well to "just the PSG" system, or the "PSG plus external components" system.

My view is that it's the interactions between various system components that matter most. This is from my engineering experience. Each choice of one component fundamentally changes the way other choices of components interact with that first one. For example, I'd be stunned if one could make sweeping generalizations about this and say something like "the most important variable is always the way the changer is mounted." Maybe on some kind of systems, that variable is a crucial one, and on others, it isn't. That's just an example, but I think the principle is clear.

I'm not saying I'm correct - as Bobbe says, this is all basically opinion. One guy says "it's the changer", another says "it's the way the changer is mounted", another says "it's the pickup" - which is, in some sense, external to the physical guitar construction itself - I view it as part of the electronics that interacts directly with the VP, effects, amp, and so on. Strings, wood, cabinet design, weight, aluminum vs. wood neck, you name it - everybody comes in with their opinion. No problem, but I'm just chiming in with a different view, and my reasoning for it.

[Mike Howard]

OK The topic says: What component of the guitar contributes the most to tone?

"Tone" seems to be pretty subjective.

Most have their definition of good tone, bad tone, acceptable tone etc...

Will the guitar reproduce low lows, high highs? Sustain-duration? Bright? Dark? Does it acoustically "ring"? "insert YOUR terminology here" I'm pretty certain the strings,pickup,body,changer,etc... ALL have an "AFFECT" in that regard.
Also playability issues: pedal/knee-lever action adjusted for "feel/comfort".

Now ALL these issues are going to have an "EFFECT" on MY tone.

I am going to use my "HANDS" and "EARS" to ADJUST, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE GUITAR, the "tone" that is most pleasing to my EAR.

All that being said, I believe "most" modern guitars ARE capable, IN THE RIGHT HANDS, of reproducing a "signature quality tone".

I would ask "how easy/difficult is going to be to get "MY" tone out of this guitar?

Since I have already stepped in it pretty deep, I might as well track it around a little.

That is I've heard how "Buddy" would sound good on a strung up 2 by 4. I am sure he would too. He would sound just like Buddy. BUT he would sure sound
Better on a "insert your brand here" steel.

All that being said, Whew':) I don’t believe 99% of people, blindfolded, could tell if Maurice was playing his universal or Superslide, IF he did not want you too. Couldn’t tell the difference if Buddy was playing a Zum, JCH, Legrand, or MSA M3 either. Our "Eyes" might deceive us, but very,very, few ears could tell the difference.

However YMMV
OK Flame Suit on, go for it!

[Kevin Hatton]

Dr. Seymour is one of my authorities. He taught me well, among some others. He is a factual authority. He knows steel guitar construction inside and out. One of the reasons I play the rig that I do is because of him. I was never totally happy with my sound until he instructed me on it. Now, I am completely happy. I will never move from the rig that I have been playing for a few years now. If you sit down and talk to Dr. Seymour about what sound you are looking for, he can tell you. He's not guessing. Paul Franklin is a big proponent of changing strings regularly. It IS a system.

[Chris LeDrew]

We should have a contest to see who should be crowned.....

"THE MASTER OF TOUCH(Y) AND TONE"

Maybe a history search of these whacky tone threads would unearth the player most deserving of the title. Everybody could chip in on a Sho~Bud for the winner, thereby negating any need for further discourse on the matter.

[b0b]

It's easier to ruin a guitar's tone with a bad pickup than any other way. Without the pickup, you have very little tone. You can hardly even hear it!

[Cliff Kane]

Thanks for all of the great, thoughtful ideas and responses. It's all good, and is giving me a lot to think about. The breadth of knowledge and insights, as well as the serious consideration you guys give, is awesome, and generous.
Thanks!

[Donny Hinson]

It's easier to ruin a guitar's tone with a bad pickup than any other way. Without the pickup, you have very little tone. You can hardly even hear it!

'Course, you could say the same thing about the amp and the speakers!

In pedal steel pickups (other than the humbucker vs. single coil thing), I don't hear what I would call "significant differences" in the tones. Under ideal conditions, and with no EQ changes, there is a small difference between, say, an E66 and a 710, but you're really splitting hairs on most of this stuff. In a band/live context I doubt anyone could ever notice a difference. A one-number change in your amp's mid or shift control makes far more difference than any pickup swap normally made on a pedal steel.

Of course, if you're using an amp without a mid or shift control, a pickup swap may be the cheapest and easiest way to to get that "special tone".

[David Mason]

b0b might really be on to something here as far as reconceptualizing goes -

what's the easiest way to profoundly ruin a steel guitar's tone?

After the requisite "soak it in a bathtub, drink a quart of whiskey" stuff, wouldn't most people agree that bad strings top the list? A vile, hissy little practice amp w/ 4" speaker too, but that's not part of the question. I would also agree that a limited, peaky pickup probably comes next after thumpy dead strings.

[ed packard]

The topic asked “what component of the guitar” and named some of possible components, stopping after the pickup. I take this to mean to the poster that he is discussing the instrument, not the following sonic chain.

Facts vs. opinions: It seems to be a “fact” that most posters have an “opinion”, and often state that/those opinions as “fact”. It may be a “fact” that great players have listened to various guitar “systems” (read through amps) and given “opinions” about them, but their stated “opinions” are only by accident “fact”. What they boil down to is a qualified “I like it”, or “I don’t like it” = taste = subjective.

You can not amplify and “tone tweak” what is not in the output of the pickup unless synth/sample type devices are entered into the chain…I present this as “fact”.

The pickup output is limited by the pickup design, and location = proximity to the strings and along the strings...presented as a “fact”.

The pickup senses the vibrations in the strings…another “fact”.

The vibrations in the strings are limited by the “components” to which the strings are attached…if they were attached to balsa wood the result would be a thump…the latter is an “opinion”, the former presented as a “fact”.

The resonances of the “components” to which the strings are attached can only subtract from the energy of the excited string(s)…presented as a “fact”.

It is this subtraction that is different for different constructions and materials, therefore different “tones” for different instruments even with the same pickup conditions…presented as “fact”.

“Tone” is the harmonic content of the sound = Hz content vs. time. This can be repeatably measured thus it becomes a “fact”…”perceived tone” is a subjective property, hence I class it as an “opinion” when described, where it may be treated as a “fact” by the describer.

And now for my answer…if “weight” and “mass”, which sum up all materials in the instrument, are to be considered as “components”, then I will say that the sum of the sonic impedances within the device are the greatest contributor (more accurately greatest detractor) to the instruments “tone”, assuming that the pickup is a constant.

Sonic impedance is a function of the type of materials touching the strings, the shape and size of these materials, and their ability to conduct sound to the next member….and so on all the way to the pedals etc.

The most critical in the chain of sonic impedances is that which directly touches the strings…IF this did not conduct sound away = damp the strings, there would be more harmonic content vs. time to work with. I would consider this a “fact”…you may consider it as “opinion”, but it can be repeatably demonstrated by measurement using Frequency Spectrum Analyzer equipment/software.

[Donny Hinson]

I would also agree that a limited, peaky pickup probably comes next after thumpy dead strings.

David, are you talking new pickups...or defective (old) pickups? If there's some new pickup which is "limited peaky", can you identify it? (I'd really hate to go out and buy one of those!)

I'm in this to learn hard facts, not to gain opinions.

This is a discussion, and I would think you should be interested in people's opinions. Just blowing people off by saying "No, I'm not interested in your opinion" isn't right. You may not agree, but you should at least listen.

In the same vein, I'm just curious as to how you get "hard facts" about something as subjective as "tone"? You can ask a dozen different famous players, or a hundred, but I believe tone (whether it's good or not) is still mostly subjective. Sustain? Yeah, we can do a quantitative analysis on sustain. But tone? Nope, I can't agree on that. And apparently, with so many famous steelers out there playing different brands - neither can they!

[Bobbe Seymour]

Good stuff Ed, you have touched on the "human" component of communication here on the forum with "fact vs. opinion".
I have read several of your posts over the months and see a very analytical approach to your conclusions. I highly respect this from you.
I have worked hard to seperate fact from fiction on this tone issue over a long, many year period. I had many theories in the beginnig, many of the same I am reading here from several posters. Many of these I have proven wrong.
At the start, these were opinions and beliefs, many of these "beliefs" I have proven to myself to be wrong. These have been removed from the opinion/belief catogory to the fact side of the slate.

I always try to say in my statements whether I am offering an opinon or a proven fact. I won't offer a "Proven Fact" unless I can also prove it to anyone, anytime. I have to be carful here, after making a statement like this I don't ever wish to be "proven" wrong. (I have been proven wrong on two history posts in the past 10 years), Crow doesn't taste good,

Again Mr. Ed Packard (and some others), I highly respect your intelligence, with what you are saying with regard to "communication on this forum" and to your hard core knowledge of "Tone, guitars,and music" in general.

With respect to all,
Bobbe

[Bobbe Seymour]

Donny, since you have singled me out to argue with I'll be glad to "Offer my opinion" to you about what I have seen of your writings in the last few years. But won't do it on this public forum. I am still retaining some respect for you.

Bobbe

[ed packard]

Bobbe...kind words indeed!

There "ain't" nothin' wrong with bein' wrong...staying there, now that is bad!!!! = my opinion.

[Bob Carlucci]

You can not amplify and “tone tweak” what is not in the output of the pickup unless synth/sample type devices are entered into the chain…I present this as “fact”.


"The pickup senses the vibrations in the strings…another “fact"


Ed, I respect your thoughts.. You are a master steel guitar builder and I am a local player, but I must disagree here..

Fiirst off a pickup "senses" nothing.. It merely converts the vibration of the string into an electrical signal.. some will give a stronger or weaker signal than others, but its still more of a "converter" than a sensor.

Your reply states this signal is not able to be altered without digital processing of some sort????


If we take this to its illogical extreme, why do we need bass/treble/mid/parametric adjustments???.. This doesn't make sense to me..

I guess everyone that has ever bought an EQ to shape the tonal output of ANY stringed instrument with an electromagnetic pickup was ill advised...

again, yourself and Bobbe are experts.. on a level beyond most others on this board regarding steel guitars.. However please give the rest of us that are in the trenches ,even on a local level some credit for having good ears...

You are not figuring enough into the entire equation when you just consider the resonance of the body,strings and changer...

If a guitar has GOOD resonance, an awful lot can be done to shape the tone after the signal is passed into the chain... I WILL agree with the fact that a dead, dull body is junk.. not much you can do with a dead sounding body..
However I will say that a body like that is a rare bird in the world of quality built steel guitars... I still say the tone a given player gets is in his head, and with some variation, he will be able to get pretty close to "his" sound on any well made, well tuned, well designed steel guitar and amp set up..
Variations??.. of course, but not enough to argue over IMHO... bob

[Mike Wheeler]

Bob, to be precise, the pickup is a transducer. It converts the physical motion of the strings into a voltage by means of electromagnetic induction. Using the word "sense" is metaphorical and not misleading.

I think you misunderstood what Ed said. What Ed said was true. For instance, if the guitar doesn't produce the high frequencies desired, the pickup won't "sense" them, therefore there will be no output voltage, at those frequencies, from the pickup. "Tweaking the highs" will gain nothing, unless some kind of synth is added to artificially add them to the original signal.

[Kevin Hatton]

Ed Packard and Mike Wheeler. I fully agree with your analysis on the primary contributors to tone on a pedal steel guitar. Mike, I agree with you on whether a pickup will reproduce what the guitar is producing. Very keen observation. This was told to me years ago by some master builders. This is one reason why I prefer microphonic single coil pickups. As long as they are manageable.

[Bob Carlucci]

Mike,Actually I know what a transducer is.. For some reason I figured the term was so grossly overused I would try to re affirm the fact the pickup was not really a sensor it was just taking the string vibrations and converting them to an analog electrical signal.. I was an ASE L1 Master Tech [automotive] for years and dealt with these devices on a daily basis for years.. they all work in a similar way, some devices keep the signal analog some convert it to digital etc etc...

So what you are trying to say, is a guitars tone cannot be altered with basic analog EQ adjustment???

Ok, I'll go with that.. but I'll bet you'll get some argument... My hero the late great Pete Klienow was a master at altering the sound of a plain old Fender steel.. It sounded like no other, even in the days before digital when everything was analog..

Maybe I'm going crazy, but I can recall getting ear shattering treble when I wanted it from my old MSA guitars with the "muddy" SS humbucker pickups, by tweaking various controls, on the amp or EQ, but I will defer to those that are more knowledgable.. After all, I have only been playing 30 years, so my knowledge is limited!! ... We can argue, but I still say a LOT is possible in the signal path, providing its a GOOD signal... bob

[David Doggett]

I'm a mediocre player, not a builder, so I don't have much experimental data (facts) and am always hungry for experimentally derived facts that builders like Reece, John Fabian, Bruce, Zumsteg, Jerry Fessenden, Bobbe, etc. bring. They are forthcoming about some things, but understandably are sometimes circumspect about trade secrets. I am hopeful that Ed Packards measurement experiments will also someday bear some nuggets. But by profession I am an analytical scientist. So what little I can contribute might be some small pieces of advice about how to go about developing instructive experiments and analyzing the data.

The name of the game is control, or at least measurement, of all variables. The one output variable of interest, in this case tone, is called the dependent variable, because it will change depending on all the other variables. All those other variables are called independent variables, because they can be changed at will to see how they affect the dependent variable.

Multi-variable situations are very, very difficult to experiment on. There are multi-variable analysis methods available, but they are very complicated, difficult to carry out, and difficult to interpret, which leads to a lot of confusion and unreliability. Each important independent variable must be just as carefully measured as the single output dependent variable of interest. Frequently this is difficult or impossible. Some important independent variables may not even be known. It is best to avoid these problems as much as possible by controlling all the independent variables. The simplest way to control an independent variable is to eliminate it as a variable by making it the same in every experiment. Ideally all the independent variables will be the same except for one. Then as you vary that one independent variable, you can measure how the dependent variable changes.

In this discussion I would eliminate strings and pickups right off. We've all done the string experiment with new and old strings. We don't need any more data on that. Also, anyone who wants to can buy several different brands of strings of different materials and try them on their guitar. In that case, the strings will be the only independent variable changing, so the result will be fairly easy to interpret. The same can be done with different pickups on the same guitar. The pickup is the only variable changing, so the results will be easy to interpret. So I say we consider the experiment where the same brand of new strings and the same pickup are always used. We are left with the components that a builder can experiment with, but a user cannot. Those are the things I think we are most interested in - the type of body material, its thickness, the various aspects of the changer (design, material, method of mounting, etc.), the neck (presence or absence, material, thickness, method of attachment, etc.), method of attachment of the endplates and legs, tuning mechanism (keyhead or keyless, string length past the nut), the material and design of the nut, and other machanical aspects.

Now in terms of how we measure the dependent variable output, I suggest we forget for the moment the idea of good and bad tone. We just want to know precisely how the tone changes in relation to changes in the independent variables. Does it get brighter or darker, less sustain or more, good string separation or muddy.

So bearing all that in mind, here are some statements from builders I remember seeing on the Forum in the past.
• Bobbe once said that in building the Super Pro, they tried different necks and discovered it made no difference.
• Buddy Emmons, Bobbe and others have said that on an Emmons push/pull, the tension on the neck screws affects the tone.
• Someplace on the Carter site they once said that blindfold tests of identical guitars with either mica or lacquer indicated that the mica was a little brighter, but it was so subtle that it was only noticeable in careful side-by-side comparison.
• Some people say the Emmons p/p bolt-on changer had a different tone, although it was more susceptible to temperature changes.
• On the GFI site they have said that when they used the laminated maple die board instead of solid maple, the guitar came alive.
• I believe it was Bobbe who once said that the highly figured maple bodies look nice, but they may have inconsistencies that detract slightly from the tone compared to straight grain maple.

Those are the kinds of statements I think we are all looking for. In each case, only one variable was changed, and the effect on tone was described (although sometimes not in terms I would prefer). I would love to see this discussion focused on that type of information. Let’s forget the stuff we already know about strings and pickups (or amps, speakers, cords, effects, hands, ears, etc.). I want to hear what was the one thing that changed in the basic guitar, and what was the effect. Please, keep ‘em coming.

[ed packard]

You can not amplify and “tone tweak” what is not in the output of the pickup unless synth/sample type devices are entered into the chain…I present this as “fact”.


"The pickup senses the vibrations in the strings…another “fact"


Ed, I respect your thoughts.. You are a master steel guitar builder and I am a local player, but I must disagree here..

Bob c: Thanks. I just design, build, analyze for my own pleasure…I do no merchandising. I do like to discuss the related subjects and present the results of experimentation.

Disagreeing etc. is fine…often leads to illumination.

Fiirst off a pickup "senses" nothing.. It merely converts the vibration of the string into an electrical signal.. some will give a stronger or weaker signal than others, but its still more of a "converter" than a sensor.

Bob C: the pickup is in electronic reality “half of a transformer”, hence in that parlance, it “transforms” the vibrations in the string at the location at which it “senses” (you might prefer “detects”) them into electrical signals (volts and amps). The windings of the half transformer (pickup) have resistance, inductance, and capacitance, hence it is an electrical filter to the vibrations from the strings, as detected via the flux/field disturbance caused by the vibrating string. The pickup design and location determines the degree and spectral effect of the filtering...pedantic ..what? One definition of “sense” is to detect.

Your reply states this signal is not able to be altered without digital processing of some sort????

Bob C: I believe what I said was “You can not amplify and “tone tweak” what is NOT in the output of the pickup“ ...you can however use external generators such as synths, samplers, distortion devices and the like triggered by the pickup output signal and “tone tweak” the result. Such signal processing is not necessarily “digital”.

If it “ain’t” there, you can’t modify it.

If we take this to its illogical extreme, why do we need bass/treble/mid/parametric adjustments???.. This doesn't make sense to me..

Bob C: Not sure we “need” them…we might want them and or use them.

I guess everyone that has ever bought an EQ to shape the tonal output of ANY stringed instrument with an electromagnetic pickup was ill advised...

Bob C: You might want to include Piezoelectric pickup, condenser pickup in the group…not sure who to blame for the “ill” advice…but you still can NOT reshape what is NOT there, just what IS there.

again, yourself and Bobbe are experts.. on a level beyond most others on this board regarding steel guitars.. However please give the rest of us that are in the trenches ,even on a local level some credit for having good ears...

Bob C: Bobbe maybe, not me. I just bring a bit of hi tek approach (where I made my living) to the instrument.

Re ears: I have no doubt that you know what you like when you hear it BUT everyone does not hear the same thing the same, and the same one may hear it differently at different times…the ear/brain loop is very subjective and to a meaningful (to me) inconsistent.

You are not figuring enough into the entire equation when you just consider the resonance of the body,strings and changer...

If a guitar has GOOD resonance, an awful lot can be done to shape the tone after the signal is passed into the chain... I WILL agree with the fact that a dead, dull body is junk.. not much you can do with a dead sounding body..
However I will say that a body like that is a rare bird in the world of quality built steel guitars... I still say the tone a given player gets is in his head, and with some variation, he will be able to get pretty close to "his" sound on any well made, well tuned, well designed steel guitar and amp set up..
Variations??.. of course, but not enough to argue over IMHO..

Bob C: Again…if’n it ain’t there to begin with…you can’t modify it.

I see in your last paragraph terms like “good”, “dead”, “junk”, well”…these are “opinion” and “tone” (tone as in to set a mood) words…at best, these are subjective terms. If by “dead sounding body” you mean one with NO or FEW vibrations felt in it, I may not agree with your conclusion. If the “no, or “few” vibrations are because of a high sonic impedance between the strings and the body, the string vibrations will be less damped (energy loss) and there will be more for the pickup to sense/detect and then transform into electrical signals = more frequency content to work with in subsequent filtering.

Agreed, the player tends to imagine a “sound” they want to get from their equipment, and “tweak” their hand/feet/knees/EQ et al to make it happen with a given instrument, but different folk want different sounds at different times. The fun to me is in trying to define an instrument that allows the widest range of sonic tastes to be realized. To do this one must minor in subjectivity and opinion, and major in objectivity and repeatability of experiment.

Bob, I like your posts…they are strong in things to consider.

[Mike Wheeler]

Bob, I figured you probably knew that, but went ahead and posted that for the sake of clarification. No offense intended.

As to the control of the guitar's sound via tone controls...yes, of course the tone of the guitar can be changed with them providing there is, as you state, a "good" signal. But you can't change what isn't there to begin with. That's what Ed was saying. If your MSA didn't have the high frequency content coming from the pickup to start with, you wouldn't be able to boost it with all the tone controls in the world...something else would have to change first....like maybe a different pickup...or using a synthesizer to artificially add the missing highs.

I'm with you, Bob.

[ed packard]

DD...your post is a masterpiece sir!