The Steel Guitar Forum

This picture was taken recently...I bought this guitar new in 1996...It has a real nice sound and works beautiful...I think she still looks pretty good.. ....Carson

Solid color formica looks fine to me, and there are some specialty artistic formicas that are pretty cool. I don't care for the "fake wood" formica because it doesn't have the color variety and depth of real wood. It just doesn't look good to me.

I have 3 pedal steels. One is solid black formica, one has a dark brown wood lacquer, and one is painted burgundy. They all look very good to me.

Of course, the black one sounds best.

It's possible that the attractive wood favored by the "I prefer lacquer" crowd generally doesn't sound as good as the plainer, straight-grain wood used in formica-covered guitars. I can't say that it's true, but it's possible. Just a theory.

If true, it's not the formica but rather the choice of less attractive wood underneath that makes the guitar sound better.

So there are three issues raised by those favoring the mica finish:

1) Appearance: If one in fact prefers the look of a mica guitar, that's purely a matter of personal taste, as is the preference for lacquer. If one likes them equally, or doesn't care one way or the other, there's no issue here;

2) "Durability": Really, it's only cosmetic durability that's under discussion. So this is really just appearance again: those who cite this as a reason to choose mica feel that marks and dings are a negative factor sufficient to determine their finish choice--which is part aesthetics, part philosophy;

3) Tone: Here we get into something that affects the instrument's performance as a musical instrument, which most would agree is a lot more important than looks. But it's a topic fraught with complications and differences of opinion and theories all based on anecdotal evidence derived from subjective experience.

Just look at the several past threads centering around Reece Anderson's contention that people "hear with their eyes," where he got quite a bit of support for that position from various quarters (and quite a bit of opposition). I'd be interested to see a "blindfold" test done (no realistic chance it'll happen) where numerous "blindfolded" listeners were presented with, say, six mica push/pulls and six lacquer push/pulls of similar vintage (to overcome the factor of variation among individual guitars), leaving amp settings untouched, and see if a statistically significant pattern emerged of listeners more often than not correctly identifying which guitars were which finish, or classifying them into similar-toned groups that turned out to separate the two finish types.

Without any such testing, no one can honestly say with certainty that psychological expectations arising from visual cues and/or preconceptions have not influenced their "perception" of tone. Nor can anyone say the opposite. But I think one should take one's subjective impressions with a grain of salt, as a general recognition that such erroneous perceptions are a constant possibility common to all people, oneself included.

One could also A/B lacquer vs. mica MSA guitars. From the late 70s on, they sold good numbers of both.

I think most agree...When it comes to sound and tone, black is the best.

not mine but this is one of the nicest looking mica guitars I've seen. Whats not to like???

Caution! Levity ahead!



I realize that some builders put their heart and soul into building pedal steels, and I certainly don't mean to minimize all they do. However, after you've been exposed to what I would term real craftsmanship ...(instruments like this)



...it's kinda hard to get excited over what amounts to little more than 4 boards glued and screwed together, and then stained and finished (for me, anyway). Of course, there are parallels, even in the piano world, to the cabinets that are revered so highly by steelers...

Yes Donny,....but it's a piano.

I've got one of each...a birdseye maple Pro 111, and a black and grey mica Mullen...I always loved the sound of that old Sho~Bud till I played that Mica Mullen, better sustain, more penetrating sound...My biggest beef with the Mica guitars of yesteryear was the number of "Fake" wood ones, which to me looked dingy, but today, they seem to have a much better lustre to them, and to me they look pretty dang good...as for bar dings on the wood guitars, I've got a few, and didn't get smart till I had a few, What I ended up doing was to make a foam insert covered in the hide of the nauga...no more dings, but wish I'd gotten smarter sooner...So which one is the best...who cares, cause an ugly guitar that is played really well looks better then a pretty guitar that's played poorly...if it sounds good to you when you're playing it, it looks pretty good, Wood or Mica

All this talk about Formica covered guitars. What's wrong with using WilsonArt?

(Formica is a brand name for a company that sells laminate.)

That's real brand recognition - back in England it's not uncommon for someone to 'run the Hoover around..' (regardless of the actual brand) instead of 'the vacuum'. It's a bit like that with Dobros, too, come to think of it. Not for the real boffins of the resonator world, admittedly, but it's commonly said by us ordinary mortals.

I have a Fulawka S10 that is made out of a beautiful piece of curly maple. It sounds like a dream, but it wasn't a conscious decision over Mica. It's just what Ed Fulawka recommended so I went with it. If somebody were to give me a mica Emmons or Zum, I wouldn't complain.

I also feel that imitation wood a mica finish is highly unattractive. I especially dislike the imitation rosewood on some Emmons guitars. And the imitation rosewood on some MSAs is not much better.

But there are some builders like Zum and Mullen who make no attempt at trying to make the guitars look like the front aprons are made of wood, and instead are making creative and artistic designs.

I think the Mullen's new design and finish that is gracing some of the new G2's is absolutely gorgeous.

Mike Perlowin wrote:............ But there are some builders like Zum and Mullen who make no attempt at trying to make the guitars look like the front aprons are made of wood, and instead are making creative and artistic designs......

Sorry Mike - you are wrong.

My Zum - teakwood mica - the Zum web site gives several options for faux wood mica if wanted. I still prefer boring old black for its clean lines.

Ken Byng wrote:

Sorry Mike - you are wrong.

My Zum - teakwood mica - .

I stand corrected about Zum not making some ugly guitars. That is exactly the kind of faux wood that I find so unattractive. But Zum also makes some very attractive mica guitars that don't pretend to be wood. Check out the front apron designs they offer.

And look at these new red and blue guitars from Mullen. I fail to see how anybody could call a guitar with Del's new marble mica finish, cheap looking and ugly.

i like my msa. i think its beautiful. white tidewood mica and pearl tuners. ive thought al the steels ive had were beautiful, just different. mica can have some desireable tonal qualities. i believe in the op it was asked if all is equal, why mica? i think everyone acknowledges the diff in tone. i love laquer gtrs but they arent as present as a mica gtr usually.the most present to me however is a sunburst laquer fender. just awesome. what does it all mean? who cares. find one of your own and play it. mica is also less maint for sure.

Brint,

If perceptions in tone are mostly influenced by eyesight as you suggest, how does that explain leaning towards the negative over the more positive visual response?

I believe wood finished guitars are gorgeous and mica covered guitars somewhat attractive.

Because I hear a difference I chose the later when I got my PP....I thought Mike Smith had a beautiful all wood PP and wanted one just like his, but I chose the mica for the additional sustain and clarity.....The eyes had nothing to do with that decision....My ears convinced me after playing multiple Wood vs Mica PP's at Roy Wiggin's Emmons store.

What I hear is based on my subjective experiences with both.

Paul

Going back to the matter of appearance alone, I must say that I'm underwhelmed by the look of a sunburst finish on a steel guitar. My feeling is that it's a nice option on an archtop guitar when it accentuates the guitar's contours but that the business-like rectangle that is inherent in steel guitar bodies doesn't benefit from that shading.

Hundreds, apparently, disagree with me on this - it seems to be a popular choice on Show-Pros and, of course, there's Lloyd's 'lightning-bolt' guitar on another thread that's drawing 'oohs' and 'aaahs'.

'Mica's my choice, but I will admit that there's a kind of electric-blue/maple finish on a couple of Show-Pros that really speaks to me! (It's a good job I have no spare cash...!)

Paul,

Just to be clear, I didn't assert that "perceptions in tone are mostly influenced by eyesight." I tried, at least, to say in as neutral a way as possible that the subjectivity and complexity of perception makes factors like that playing a role a possibility that can't be ruled out.

It's quite possible, even if such were the case, for someone to find mica guitars unattractive, or not as attractive as lacquer, as a strict question of appearance, and still expect them to produce a more desired tone because they look like they will.

That's not intended to comment on the validity of your, or any other individual's, particular perceptions of personal experiences. I have only played a few steels in my life, and they've all but one (a GFI) been lacquer, so I have no basis whatsoever for having an opinion myself about the relative tone qualities of lacquer vs. mica. It goes without saying that you have surely played many more steels than I have, and from an infinitely more knowledgeable and masterful perspective.

I view the accounts of the famous MSA "blindfold tests" as an opportunity lost, as they made the crucial mistake of changing the amp settings between guitars. So there's no way of knowing whether all those test subjects would have been able to distinguish tone between guitars on a level playing field.

Sustain, at least, seems like something that has less subjectivity to it: either the note is still ringing or it's not.

In any case, scientific-type certitude about these things is really unnecessary, isn't it? Bottom line, music is all about subjectivity, anyway, so we can all appreciate it as such and enjoy.

I believe that you hear the guitar better if you aren't visually distracted by it. That's why black guitars sound best.

Whether the guitar is ugly mica or beautiful wood, it takes some of your brain's artistic value analysis bandwidth away from your tone. Synapses can only process one thing at a time. Those that are occupied by visuals can't be used for music. Black mica has the most neutral visual impact.

Of course, all bets are off if you're sitting behind a couple of dancing hula girls.

I don't find any of my guitars distracting as they all have metal necks. Much of what is visible in the playing position is swirled metal so it is fairly irrelevent what their base colour is.

Some have expressed that they are not keen on sunburst or wood mica, but that doesn't bother me. My guitars are for my own appreciation and no-one else's. I have a blue mica Emmons, a red laquer Mullen and a black and red mica MCI in addition to the 3 displayed here. I will hold them all up against any guitar for tone. We all have different taste thank goodness, but as Bobbe Seymour succinctly indicated in his last newsletter, its great to have a choice.

Yes, Ken - entirely subjective, of course. And, as you'll have seen, I have that 'mahogany' (or is it 'pecan' - I'm never quite sure) LeGrande that sounds super from where I'm sitting.

Choice is everything!

Mica - sound better to me.