"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

[b0b]

Apparently the gentleman who started this topic wants it to continue. Please refrain from posting about banjo tone - this is a steel guitar topic.

[Zach Keele]

Banjo Tone????

[Bo Legg]

I thought this topic was closed about a month ago and we agreed not to let this banjo thing happen again.

[David Mason]

No point in closing it, somebody'll just start another one....
Say, anybody wanna talk about Extra-Terrestrial vs. Jesus-Improved tuning again?

Hey - let's not.... Save the bandwidth for something important, like Britney's missing underpants or something.

[b0b]

Reece asked me to reopen it.

[Reece Anderson]

I appreciate b0b’s consideration of reopening this thread. Some may not be interested, but the exceptionally large number of those who "are" interested makes it worthwhile to continue. The reading of this thread is no different than any other, in that everyone has the freedom of choice.

[Reece Anderson]

Georg......I believe you came on later in this discussion, so may I respectfully suggest you read my earlier posts which will clearify what I'm suggesting and discussing..

[Don Brown, Sr.]

Is this not too subjective to ever come to any real conclusion or agreement on?

Everyone is quite different in the overall "Sound/s" we hear. Those sounds add up to the overall "Tone" we each hear. There are no two people exactly alike, in his/her likes or dislikes.

On a recent test, B0B and I came to the exact same agreement, on the "Sound" we liked, and the reasons why that was. However, there were others, who picked out the one's for the top in his/her best choice, as being the first one's we had discarded, entirely out of the equasion.

Although it's very subjective, it's still interesting, comparing oneself to how others hear it as being.

Reece, all I can say is: "You must be a glutton for punishment." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Don

[Reece Anderson]

Don……In answer to your question, I believe it’s possible to come to a conclusion, or at the very least in the beginning, a general consensus.

All it takes to make the comparison evaluation is 3 different steel guitars, a volume pedal, cords, and a steel guitar amp. The question is a simple one, is it possible for anyone to consistently identify a specific guitar when they cannot see it being played?

That which you and b0b agreed on in an earlier tone thread is not what I would consider a similar comparison. To participate in an evaluation which I’m suggesting…1) you decide on the guitar and tone you like best. 2) then adjust the tone of the other guitars being used in the evaluation with the amp so as to achieve a like tone on all guitars. Also, it does not matter who is playing the guitars.

Different players who prefer different tones has nothing to do with what I’m referring too. Anyone can get any tone they like, and as long as they get a similar tone on the other guitars being used in the evaluation, the end result will be the same.

Lastly I would not consider myself a glutton for punishment, but rather a person who is committed to pursuing the truth.

[Eric West]

Lastly I would not consider myself a glutton for punishment, but rather a person who is committed to pursuing the truth. -RA-

I think it's the former Reece, though those seeking The Truth, invariably find it.



EJL

[Don Brown, Sr.]

Reece,

The question is a simple one, is it possible for anyone to consistently identify a specific guitar when they cannot see it being played?

Since you put it that way, and in a blind test. No! I wouldn't be able to.

And, I'd have to be proven wrong, to think that anyone else could either. But, I've been wrong many times before.

Note: The Glutton for punishment remark, was meant as a joke, from all the controversy over the subject, previously....... Don

[Jim Sliff]

Since modern steel manufacturers seem to be aiming for a single, standardized "steel tone" it might BE difficult to identify certain guitars with one's back turned.

Does that exercise have point though? It does NOT prove "tone is in the hands" - it only indicates that modern steels are similar in sound.

But one critical point is still hanging loose, which Mr, Anderson fails to produce:

Reece Anderson:
Quote:
Very extensive scientific research supports the premise that inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist.

Reece has been asked on numerous occasions to produce copies of the research he says exists, or even to the location of such documents. As noted earlier in the thread, college library research desks have been consulted to no avail.

If you make a statement hat scientific proof exists to support your opinion, WHY are you so reticent to produce it?

My guess is the same as before - he can't. IMO Reece thinks his rep should make him an "expert" and the evidence claimed does not need to be repeated.

Yet there are those of us with formal educations in acoustics - covering subjects from instrument design to acoustics of performance hall (and/or have worked for known manufacturers) who have asked for the claimed data.

Reece - same old thing. If you make said point and are the starter of this thread, you darned well should be able to prove your "facts" exist.

[Ward Skinner]

How did "modern" pedal steels get back into this topic? Jim, I pointed out earlier you incorrectly quoted Reece in this thread with the word "modern". He never saId it, you did. These tests he is referring to were done 35 years ago.

You keep asking the question of where's the beef, if you slowed down and carefully read you would see it has already been answered by Reece:

Also I see where Fred Shannon has attested to the fact that evaluations were conducted. Concerning the lack of documentation for those evaluations, I have to wonder how many others have specific records of 35 years ago which at the time did not appear necessary. As many of you know, we were very attentive in keeping records about our guitars, but the need to keep accurate records on evaluations appeared less important. Even if I had records today, it would simply be said they were not true.

And yes, the exercise has a point, and if you don't know what it is by now then you never will. This ain't rocket science...that in your resume too?

[Roual Ranes]

Jim,
I sure would like to know your age.
Although I was not present when the test was made, I heard about it quickly. It seems that most of us around Dallas did hear of it very shortly thereafter.
Some have told you they were there. How can you say the test was not done????????????????

[Carl Williams]

Reece, I've sent you a private message. Thanks, Carl

[b0b]

Okay, let's stipulate that the MSA blind tests did occur, and that they were not adequately documented for "proof" 35 years hence. Many people participated in those tests, so can we get past that nit-picking point, please?

[Reece Anderson]

When sales decreased in the middle 70’s as a result of it being rumored our guitar did not have the sound of that of our major competitors, our mission became that of determining what we had to do to remain competitive. Our primary competitors were Sho-Bud and Emmons guitars, so we acquired a new standard model of each and began our experiments.

I remember being firmly convinced I was hearing a different sound from each guitar, both when playing and listening. After many hours of evaluations we found ourselves exactly where we started, in that we had no clue how to define what we believed to be the difference in sound, or what we had to do to remain competitive. To expand our search we included pre-owned guitars on our sales floor, which included a ZB, and anything else we had available. We also asked steel players who visited the factory to bring in their guitars and be a part of the experiments.

As the evaluations became more involved with other guitars, our opinions were all over the place. As our frustration mounted and in desperation for answers, we finally decided to play the guitars while the listener sat in a corner facing the wall with a pad and paper and asked them to identify which guitars we were playing.

Bingo……..after the very first evaluation we knew we were on to something when no specific guitar could be identified. As we continued, of course the law of averages dictates at times someone would correctly identify a specific guitar, but many times when they done so, we would go though the audible sound of switching guitars while they were still facing the corner, yet again plug in the same guitar, and they would invariably identify it as another guitar.

We then had our answer in that……. “we were all hearing the guitars with our eyes, which provided a false perception”. So in an effort to remedy our drop in sales we simply made visual cosmetic changes such as placing the words SuperSustain on the pickups, and later, the necks of wood models. The end result was that of an upsurge in sales which in our opinion could only be attributed to the power of visual perception.

From that moment I began what was to be a search over many years for the physiological reasoning as to that which I had witnessed. At first I was just happy we had found the answer, but as the years passed the reasons as to why vision had dominated all other senses stayed in the back of my mind.

In 1984 I decided to begin teaching extensively and to write instructional material, physiological reasoning remained intriguing to me, and from that again reappeared the nagging thought as to why and how cosmetic changes could alter ones perception of tone/sound. I then decided to visit the library in search for answers. It’s important to remember……..this was “before” the internet.

My search for answers proved far more difficult and extensive than I first imagined, because nothing I found pertained specifically to steel guitar, and little concerning musical instruments, so I then had to redirect my search for logical inferences which even further extended my search, both in time and effort. For a few years I read and scanned books about mental imagery, visual advantages, how perception is gleaned by the senses, and the list goes on and on.

My conclusions are the end result of a compilation of many readings, most of which was done well over 20 years ago. During my search it never occurred to me that decades later I would be asked to identify specific books I had read and scanned. Everything I read then, is surely available today for those who wish to research it for themselves. I expended a lot of time and effort in my research which anyone who is truly interested in the truth can do as well. All I’m doing within this thread is share that which I gleaned from my study.

Although as I said, steel guitar was never mentioned in the many books I read, “the applications and premise of dominating visual imaging relative to perception were consistent throughout my entire study”.

My personal search of 25 years provided the answers I was looking for, and although I will always have an open mind, until someone proves otherwise by consistently identifying an inherent tone relative to brand name guitars, it would appear fair to assume……..it can’t be done.

The search for truth takes time, motivation, commitment, and an open mind. Those who wish to pursue the information are encouraged to document their search, which 25 years ago never occurred to me would ever become an issue.

When I replied within this thread that a person should search for answers themselves, it was not intended as a mean spirited response, rather as a well intended direction/suggestion they may wish to pursue by which they could learn for themselves how, why and even if they agree that eyes are the dominating sense relative to perception. Only after extensive study/research over time, does one glean a perception as to the reality of the dominate influence of vision.

Those who are visually impaired form their perception differently, which is attributable to heightened awareness of other senses……which is another study in itself.

Preconceived perception induced by sight and other methods, such as word of mouth, supports the false perception of a specific and identifiable sound/tone. However when sight is removed from the equasion during evaluation, the truth will become evident, which in this instance is defined as……. “a consistent inherent tone specifically identifiable to any guitar or brand of guitar within the parameters of the guitars to which we are addressing……...

These are of course my findings/conclusions, but I’m convinced anyone who delves into available research, has an open mind, and is motivated to pursue the truth, will at the very least have a better understanding of the enormous complexities as to how perception can be gleaned, influenced and manipulated by the power of vision.

[Donny Hinson]

I can still remember decades ago when a local steeler played a tape of "Minors Aloud" for me. I told him (rather matter-of-factly, I might add) that that was definitely Reece playing a mica MSA. The somewhat "brittle" tone, and the particular jazz idioms used, all led me to believe it was something Reece had done.

Needless to say, I was rather surprised (and embarrassed, as well) when he told me it was Buddy's newest album!

[Eric West]

We then had our answer in that……. “we were all hearing the guitars with our eyes, which provided a false perception”. So in an effort to remedy our drop in sales we simply made visual cosmetic changes such as placing the words SuperSustain on the pickups, and later, the necks of wood models. The end result was that of an upsurge in sales which in our opinion could only be attributed to the power of visual perception. -RA-

I have always preferred Sho~Buds with moderately wound single coil pickups. Made and honestly marketed. The fact that it's possible that a hung over Jimmy Day, or an aspiring shoe salesman that had come to Nashville living in his car MIGHT have made put one together, is enough for me to think that there is some magic in many many of them. Maybe even in the couple of them I have. Coupled with the fact that Shot Jackson helped MANY musicians and their families by providing work, money, or housing adds more magic. Not "creating false perceptions" to create an "upsurge in sales". Just kind of legends and fairy tales that tend to float around monumentally kind and generous people and their enterprises..

So in an effort to remedy our drop in sales we simply made visual cosmetic changes such as placing the words SuperSustain on the pickups, and later, the necks of wood models. -RA-

OK. Now The Truth is as I said, eventually coming out.

I don't feel the least bit out of line to point out the appearant admission the "SuperSustain" labelling was a "false statement" since it admittedly created a "false perception". Both on the pickups, and the necks of the "wood models". NO extraordinary qualities were in either. Again for Donny..

we simply made visual cosmetic changes

I, like many others have been deluged over the years by outlandish claims of "space age materials", and "super-sustaining" qualities of guitar bodies that were probably the cheapest that were available for mass production. From Bakelite and Nylon to graphite/fiberglass and formica covered aluminum, melmac or tupperware... It's not a new phenom. Wood is Wood, and crap... well..

The Sho~Bud I played into the ground after 30 years still sits in the corner of my basement, waiting for me to replace a few grooved fingers, and bushings, and it'll sound as good as new.

The one I play weekly is an old Proff. that a blind guy sold me for 600 bucks in the 80s. I had all the guts ripped out and replaced by Duane and Jeff, for a couple thousand bucks, and a couple pickups would to 16k and some staggered polepieces, white, to match the last 3d fretboards that Bill Ray had, and I painted White.

Both guitars were build for sound, and with musicians in mind, by and for musicians. Steel Players, specifically. One I paid 600$ for and played it for 30 years. The latest one I bought for 600$ spent 2 Grand having it rebuilt, and I won't live another 30 to wear it out. Probably not even ten. I'm old..

Neither was, to my knowledge built with deceptive marketing, or anything but what Shot and his guys genuinely thought "Sounded and played" the best. The other half of the "Sho`Bud" name too I'm sure...

Just like a couple of my old six stringers, that might not have the latest "magic" doodads, I prefer if anything that a guitar has one thing that can't be falsely labeled, or misleadingly hyped:

Heart.

If anything, when they do, and might aftually fall short of the "state of the art gay looking aluminumtones, or Lindys, it tends to make me work a little harder to put mine into it..

I think extensive tests have proved over the years, that that's what it's all about.

JMHO, and I'm glad somebody, and especially you Reece, pointed out the "deceptive hype" side of the manufacturing biz and your stated intimate connection with it.

See what happens when you seek The Truth?

I tend more to seek Inner Peace these days..

Maybe I'll get buggered by a dozen pajama wearing bootlickers...



EJL

[Richard Damron]

Reece Anderson -

Well, ya dun dunnit this time, Son. b0b's gonna have to buy a mega-terabyte hard drive just to store this thread.

Can't contribute anything that's not already been said other than I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Donny Hinson]

OK. Now The Truth is as I said, eventually coming out...

I don't feel the least bit out of line to point out the appearant admission the "SuperSustain" labelling was a "false statement" since it admittedly created a "false perception".

Yeah, almost as bad as calling a guitar a "Professional"...and then filling it with cheap pot-metal parts, huh?

[Brint Hannay]

For those keeping score at home, the guitars called "Professional" didn't have any pot metal parts. Models called "Pro"-whatever or "Super Pro" did, after the mid Seventies.