Donny, you have missed my point here...and apparently everywhere else regarding "tone"...that it seems almost hopeless trying to explain it to you again.
But I'll try to clarify it. Again.
You constantly bring up about not being able to change the basic tone of a guitar. It's made and set in stone, according to you and a few others. Yet you're happily adding pickups...adding pickups to a Fender steel! WHY??? Could it be you're trying to change the tone? No wait, that couldn't be. You've already said (again and again) the tone's either in there or it isn't. You can't add "tone". You can't change the tone.
The BASIC tone. Read that word again, or substitute the word I often use - "Inherent" (I used "basic" because it seems "inherent" confuses people -Lord knows why). But when did I say it was "set in stone"? If I did, I was speaking in VERY general terms, as that inherent tone can be "focused" by simple physical adjustments to the guitar, or "non active" parts changes - nuts, bridges, tuners (tuners, especially the weight, can have a significant...or almost no...effect on a 6-string's tone, depending on neck wood/construction; it's pretty random and unpredictable - but not a huge element in steel tone).
Changing or adding pickups I have explained several times before, and Donny you support my statements by your mention of Ed Packard's studies - a second pickup will have poles placed under a different portion of string, and will "read" a different point in the waveform. A string vibrates in several ways - not a simple sine wave. I'm not defining this stuff here - if anyone does not understand string vibration he/she REALLY needs to do some basic study, since it's the basis for locating "chimed" harmonics and other specific sections of the string's vibration pattern. All players should understand the basics of string movement, and definitely needs to before adding additional pickups.
It's possible, though unlikely, to place a pickup in a "dead" zone - a point along the "playing" scale length (distance from nut OR bar to bridge) where the string remains relatively stable. Bass players discuss this quite often. With some Fender Precision basses the inherent tone of a particular instrument (due to neck wood and the symbiotic - look it up if you don't know the word; it's important - combination of neck/body assembly ) will have one or two "dead" notes that players learn to avoid. The "dead" point is there no matter what, but is more noticeable on some instruments than others - again, not all Precision basses have the same inherent tone - nor do Teles, Strats, Push--Pulls, Mavericks, Bigsby Steels, Ocarinas, whatever - but if made the same way out of the same type of materials they will be *similar*.
Now, you would think if the dead point is based on string vibration and pickup position it'd be the same on ALL strings, and be at a particular *fret*. That would be incorrect - the string gages and tension cause different vibration patterns to develop. Major ones are the same - your 12th and 5th fret chimed harmonic points, for example. BUt on some instruments you can get a clear harmonic at the 4th fret, while it's almost nonexistent on others. That's construction and materials entering into the mix again.
But the salient (conspicuous; prominent) point is that with a stringed instrument the construction WILL create a repeatable "basic" (inherent) tone.
All the other stuff is "tweaking" from that "starting point" - pickups, effects, EQ, amplifiers - they all "massage" the basic tone emanating from a plucked string and the vibration pattern "allowed" to occur due to the construction of the instrument.
Heavy bodies don't resonate as much from an attached plucked string as do light bodies.
Ah - but studies have shown that a more stable platform *enhances* string vibration as there is no loss of energy - the string is not transferring energy to another item, like a soundboard. The energy does not increase - so a transfer to another object will reduce the original object's (the string) vibration. That's why we saw weird stuff like stone bodies and heavy, massive bridges on 6-strings decades ago...until it was discovered that maintaining string vibration is not the tonal whiz-bang some thought it was - you could increase sustain but with a limited harmonic content (the string did not have as complex a vibration pattern).
The physics are the same, but structurally the instruments are very different, and it's the physics involved that makes them different, that makes them sound different!
Uhhh - yeah - so? That's the point- but within types there are differences as well, as your own statements back up - differences in mass, for example:
We're not just talking a plucked string here. We're talking complex systems. Change anything in the system and the result will also be changed. Add mass, the sound will change. Change the body material, the sound will change. Change the string attachment, the sound will change, etc., etc.
Exactly what I've been saying - but you are stuck on "6-string vs steel" for some reason - yes, the *basic* construction of the the instruments is different as is the playing method (although that's less relevant), however string vibration is string vibration - but
PLEASE get it locked in your head that we are both saying that every change in the construction matrix causes a change of SOME kind (many being inaudible) in tone.
And PLEASE drop the "6 string examples are irrelevant" position - it's a waste of bandwidth.
Because a straight guitar is lighter and more flexible, small changes in the system will have a far bigger effect that similar changes on a pedal steel. Everything works together!
Right - and something I've said many times. For some unknown reason you don't want to THINK I did, though.
You gotta realize that you don't set the standard for what is a "good" sound for everybody else. And apparently, a few others here have to learn that as well.
I'm well aware of that, and I think most of us are just fine - YOU "gotta" realize that we are talking about listening for sounds that are pleasing to OUR ears. That's so obvious it's ridiculous to even mention it, but since you're not getting it and seem to think I'm taking the position that *my* "good" tone is some kind of pronouncement of fact from Heaven I need to explain it again.
Each player is going to hear things differently. Some like the tone of a Push-Pull Emmons wraparound model, others prefer the sound of a classic Bigsby. One will strum a Ric model 59 (hollow metal stuffed with cotton rags...for those who didn't know that, the position dots are the color of the torn-up t-shirts stuffed in the guitar - when I rebuilt mine I stuffed it with red ones!) and hear a particular harmonic content they find pleasing - another will strum a bakelite Academy model and hear harmonics pleasing to THEM. No, the VOLUME of the unamplified sound won't be as loud.
And that, Donny, is where you completely miss the point.
The "ring" or whatever you want to call it - all it is is the unamplified sound of an instrument - does not have to be LOUD to be good ("good" being strictly a personal judgement, and not a "category"). In fact, it can be extremely quiet - for example, I cannot properly (to my standards) check out an electric instrument in a place like Guitar Center, where loud music is played over a PA and 30 kids are playing power chords on Squiers and Epiphones plugged into a...any...distortion channel they can find. I need a quiet room at some point.
Desirable...to who? Once again, it seems you've read a book and taken a course, and now you feel you're perfectly qualified to to tell us all what's good and what's bad.
Sigh.
Desirable is subjective - and I did not feel it was necessary to explain that because it is so painfully obvious. I hope you now understand that. My "good" might...or might not...be your "good" for any given instrument.
And I've actually read more than one book - amazing, isn't it? Donny, THAT book was mentioned because it happens to be a pretty good one for a basic understanding of acoustics as they relate to music. Some other texts go into some pretty heavy math, which loses me for sure, as I know it does some others.
It was a book recommendation - NOT a pulpit-pounding "read THIS - it's THE word!" statement.
But I WILL stand by the fact that I have an education in the subject, build instruments, still do tech work, still do consulting for some manufacturers, have assisted with design of 3 halls specifically as the acoustics consultant (and other stuff, but since MOST of what I stated is common sense and was misinterpreted because of the "crime" of mentioning other instruments, I'll leave it at that...) - so I kinda know what I'm talking about pal. And again, if you'll really focus on what I said and strip out the "regular guitar" issues you seem to have, you'll find we actually are saying almost EXACTLY the same thing. In fact...
You can't get on here and preach like a guru about "vibe", "mojo", "overtones", and tonal differences, and then try and tell us that there's nothing acoustically unique in a steel guitar.
...this is another point of proof. It's exactly what I'm saying...the one thing left out being that
within the category of steel guitars there are unique tones.
Please read that italicized line about 50 times, OK?
