The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **10 Feb 2012 12:25 pm**

b0b wrote:I believe that you hear the guitar better if you aren't visually distracted by it. That's why black guitars sound best.........

I believed that unswervingly up until a few years ago, until I bought a Rosewood S-10 P/P.

I've always hated faux-wood laminates covered guitars, but as soon as I plugged that guitar in and heard some of the P/P tone I'd ever experienced, I changed my mind!

Though I wouldn't order a rosewood (or similar) mica laminated guitar, I've never had a problem of distraction playing that rosewood P/P. I prefer solid mica or those new Mullen "MOP" laminate finishes.

As far as lacquer guitars are concerned, they are most beautiful, but I'm always distracted by the worry of marring the finish. If I ever buy one, it'll be one that has already been battle-tested and scarred.

Posted: **10 Feb 2012 3:20 pm**

b0b said;
"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. "

I run a water company. Used to read this old guy's meter. Never knew that he had played guitar in Big Bands. When he passed, I went to the "garage " sale. I found a DeArmond pickup, and asked his son about it, and found out about his Dad's career. He asked if I might be interested in his Dad's guitar. "Sure!" I said. He pulls out this old Gibson case. with an L-5 in it. Beautiful guitar! But odd too. Unlike all the other L-5s I'd played, this had straight-grained sides and back. I asked the son. He said, "Dad specifically ordered it that way." I asked him what his Dad did besides play in Big Bands. He said, "Dad was an Acoustic Engineer, and he felt that straight-grains sounded better than fancy grains."

When I got my Kline, I had my choice of Mica or Lacquer. I chose the Mica because I was playing 5 to 7 nights a week, sometimes twice on Saturdays and Sundays, plus studio calls. I knew it was gonna get bounced around a lot. Still looks new, and the leather-grained off-white mica changes color with the stage lights. And,,, Joe didn't use no poor quality woods that needed to be covered up with mica. Long story! Sorry!

Posted: **10 Feb 2012 3:30 pm**

While I think I'll remain in the mica camp out of respect to my clumsiness, and my belief that a dinged-up lacquer finish is a shame, what about a straight-grained cabinet with a purty veneer?
A lacewood lacquered steel would be a thing of beauty, but a lacewood cabinet would weigh more than my MSA D-10
(I've had a lacewood Tele tug on my shoulder before)

Posted: **10 Feb 2012 5:08 pm**

Nothing wrong with mica looks as far as I can tell. I have owned both, but for sound, someone mentioned the sweet sound of the emmons p/p and I agree, they sound great . I am now playing a modified zb steel that someone put conventional works under and the sound coming from that setup with the curly (birds eye) maple finished with polyeurathane is as close to any emmons I have ever played or heard. Aint it purdy?

Posted: **10 Feb 2012 5:19 pm**

Ken Byng wrote:I have 2 lacquer guitars - a Sho~Bud and a Mullen. I have 4 Mica guitars. They all look beautiful to me but in different ways.

Here are 2 classic steels from my collection, and I think they both look beautiful.
ken being a great pal of forty years has some of the best steel guitars you would love to own. he loaned his shobud to go on tour once,before having it restored to his own liking,I did not want to give the shoud back to him at the end of our tour.Now! he has aquired alot of other top makes of steels, one being an emmons push pull .ken was the reason I first was wanting to play the P.S.G.
ALL THOUGH I HAVE NOT PLAYED HIS p,p, and only heard him once play the PP KEN HAS THE KNACK OF MAKING THE SWEET SOUND OF THE STEELGUITAR ON ANY MAKE OF GUITAR HE PLAYS.
BUT HIS SHOBUD WAS THE SOUND THAT STARTED MY STEEL PLAYING CAREEA OFF
UNFORTUNATLY I COULD ONLY AFFORD A ZB STUDENT S10 3 &1 all aluminim.but that smsll starter steel could sing!!!!
BUT!!! like all steelplayers, seeing what is out there now! to buya ,I think we all want a steel guitar that has the lot,like d10 9/8 for to get lost in and conqure
whatever laqure or mica
JMHO,
thanks for reading
tommy

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 10:16 am**

Before this thread goes away, I want to post this for Todd Brown and Richard Sinkler as apparently they dont't care for my choice of finish and pick ups. '84 Emmons LeGrande and an '96 Emmons LeGrande II. Both are black mica with Alumitone pick ups.
Great guitars and great pickups. I would be remise if I didn't mention our departed friend, John Fabian, who adapted the Alumitones for steel guitar. These are the best pick ups ever on these guitars and I have tried many before.

Regards, Jay Thompson

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 11:11 am**

What did Richard say? Did I miss something? Jay, You and a few others seem to take my dislike of the APPEARANCE of mica covered steels personal. You shouldn't. I didn't mention anything about Jay Thompson's two Emmons LeGrande's. I didn't mean to upset the applecart with this thread, here. Like I said at first, just a little friendly discussion.

Your guitars are beautiful. I don't know what has been said about Alumitone's either, but a friend has them on his mica Carter's, and they sounded great last I heard. I think they look cool. I've seen them in black, too. Look really nice.

It's all a matter of personal taste right? I think we all knew that, when I started this thing. Some has been said about the difference in tonal qualities from straight grained vs. figured wood. I'm not gonna be the fool to argue with Paul Franklin's ears, here. I bet everything I'm worth(which ain't much), that's the difference in tone, mid-range, or sustain that everyone hears. Almost all pro mica covered steels are Hard Rock Maple. Most of your lacquer finishes are Birdseye, or Curly maple.

Check out the thread on black lacquer guitars that has just started. Look at Darvin Willhoite's black Push-Pull. Again, just my opinion, just oozes quality, and way more than a black mica guitar ever will! Why not more Hard Maple bodies with aluminum necks and a lacquer finish?

After all the other work that goes into building psg's, it can't be a couple pieces of cheap plastic, glued to the body the gives you the "holy grail" tone.

If this is true, I sure don't want to believe it!

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 12:22 pm**

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.

I've heard this argument dozens of times, and it still doesn't make any sense to me, simply because we always use an amp! We're playing a system, and changing anything in that system can change the sound. So if the amp can make the guitars that don't sound the same sound "indistinguishable", what difference does it really make? You see, when you say that changing the amp could affect the results, you're admitting, in effect, that changing the amp settings changes the guitars sound. If I could change the settings and make a Carter sound like an Anapeg, what would be the point of buying an Anapeg (other than looks and bragging rights)?

To give you some sort of analogy of the effect of the "you can't change the amp settings" premise, I'd use this: We're going to select cars on the basis of which has the most comfortable driving position. Now, they all have adjustable seats and steering wheels, but you can't change them - you have to use whatever positions that the wheel and seat are already in when you get in the cars. Now, do you really think that test be of any use?

Re: the formica/wood argument

Actually, it's my own opinion that the reason that mica guitars may sound different is that the resonating parts (changer, nut and keyhead) are mounted on the hard mica, and not on the (somewhat) resilient wood. I believe that if you took off all the mica except that which was under the changer, nut, and keyhead, there would be no discernable difference in the sound. In other words, it's not what the guitar is covered with, but what the parts are mounted to that makes the major difference.

I've done experiments along this line, i.e. mounting a thick metal plate on a board, and a same-sized metal plate on a board that had first been laminated with a small piece of formica. Tapping the metal plates with a hammer produced a decidedly different sound, despite the fact that both boards and both metal plates were, as near as possible, identical.

I do believe that different guitars sound different, but I don't believe that anyone can identify a guitar brand by it's sound 100% of the time. There are just too many variables in the equation.

So, enough of this armchair quarterbacking...just pick the guitar you like, and play the darn thing. And, oh yeah, it might be best to keep the "I think your's looks cheap and tacky" remarks to yourself.

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 12:36 pm**

Let me just say that when I had the 2 MSA classics, one lacquer and one mica, they sounded different even unplugged. I can't say which one sounded better, or even which I preferred. But there was a difference in the way they sounded.

As I said before, comparing them was like comparing oranges and tangerines.

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 2:16 pm**

Hope I'm not slipping too far off topic here, but did you have a Milly and a Classic around at the same time, Mike? Just curious about the difference there, esp. the unplugged tone. Maybe you've addressed this elsewhere?
BTW, cool link about the Beatles contract there.

Chris

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 2:29 pm**

Donny Hinson wrote:
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.
I've heard this argument dozens of times, and it still doesn't make any sense to me, simply because we always use an amp! We're playing a system, and changing anything in that system can change the sound. So if the amp can make the guitars that don't sound the same sound "indistinguishable", what difference does it really make? You see, when you say that changing the amp could affect the results, you're admitting, in effect, that changing the amp settings changes the guitars sound. If I could change the settings and make a Carter sound like an Anapeg, what would be the point of buying an Anapeg (other than looks and bragging rights)?

To give you some sort of analogy of the effect of the "you can't change the amp settings" premise, I'd use this: We're going to select cars on the basis of which has the most comfortable driving position. Now, they all have adjustable seats and steering wheels, but you can't change them - you have to use whatever positions that the wheel and seat are already in when you get in the cars. Now, do you really think that test be of any use?

The disconnect is happening because you and I are framing the issue differently. Before determining if an experiment is effective in answering a question, one must clearly define what the question is that you're trying to answer.

I think there's a difficulty arising from confounding two distinct questions:

1) Do different guitars, as a matter of empirical fact, have different tonal characteristics, in and of themselves, detectable by human ears in the absence of other input or preconception that could influence their perception? If so, what are those differences?

2) Does the answer to question 1 make any practical difference? Or, how much does it matter?

MSA's tests were clearly directed at answering question 2. The problem is that in interpreting the results of those tests, many erroneously draw the inference that they prove an answer to question 1.

Changing the amp settings makes perfect sense in seeking the answer to question 2. It does, however, make the tests of no use whatsoever in answering question 1, which was my point.

You say "So if the amp can make the guitars that don't sound the same sound "indistinguishable", what difference does it really make?"

Well, apart from the pure science point of view, in which one wants to know for the purpose of adding to one's knowledge, I would cite this excellent post from Dean Parks in 2006, particularly the second paragraph:

I think that each player has his own ideal sound, and he tweaks everything within reach to make that tone, on any instrument he's playing.

It may take a lot of "doing" to get that tone on some instruments, and that extra effort may cramp his technique considerably. He MAY find an instrument, and/or an amplification chain, which gets him there with less strain, or maybe even with some unexpected added inspiration (it could be sonic, or ergonomic). If so, he wants that instrument, because of the bottom line: he finds he can make his best music with it.

Otherwise you wouldn't have great players be so extremely concerned with their equipment.

I also think that inspiring equipment breeds inspired technique.

Equipment is not everything, but it's not nothing.

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 3:00 pm**

Further thought on the MSA tests: The mere fact that they found they needed to change the amp settings to achieve as close as possible to the same sound already proves that the guitars did have inherent tone differences. Had they carefully recorded exactly which control settings were changed and by how much between guitars, those records would have served to provide some useful information about the differences in tone characteristics.

However, I think many people feel (you may disagree) that there are timbral differences between guitars that are more subtle than the controls of an amp can fully compensate for. I'm not arguing for or against this proposition, but I don't think even the MSA history, in which no actual detailed records were kept of the tests--all we get is summarized conclusions--makes this a settled question.

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 4:01 pm**

Some excellent points, Brint.
Personally, I would say that timbral differences between instruments are a given.
I would also agree that amp chain settings can considerably reduce the differences.
However, EQ settings aren't going to have much effect on the envelope; that is, how the note's harmonic content and amplitude evolves after it has been sounded. This seldom mentioned aspect of tone is an important component of the total tonal equation, and varies considerable with the different body materials. Mechanics come into it too. ( push pull vs. all pull, anyone? ) Not very noticeable on fast lines, but it really is audible to a critical listener on slower solo pieces.

Excellent quote from Dean Parks, BTW.

Chris

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 4:09 pm**

Chris Reesor wrote:Hope I'm not slipping too far off topic here, but did you have a Milly and a Classic around at the same time, Mike? Just curious about the difference there, esp. the unplugged tone. Maybe you've addressed this elsewhere?
BTW, cool link about the Beatles contract there.

Chris

Chris, I had the 2 classics, lacquer and mica, for about 25 years. I briefly had the first Milly along with both, but seeing as how I don't need 3 steels, I sold the mica one, and then, after I got the second Milly, I sold the Lacquer one.

At one time I compared the 2 classics and the Millennium. The each had a distinct sound and personality. The 2 Millies though sound identical.

I feel that the Millennium has a more precise sound. Each note is more distinct. One could almost describe it as military. The 2 wood guitars had a warmer tone, but not as clear. The lacquer (with a carved solid maple body) had a deeper tone. The mica one, which had a laminated body, was brighter. And yes, I did compare them all unplugged.

There are many things I like about the Millennium. But once again, it's impossible to say which guitar sounded better, or even which one's tone I preferred.

Oranges, tangerines and tangelos.

Posted: **11 Feb 2012 6:13 pm**

Mr. Milly Man Mike,

A few years ago at a Perl Jam at the Mexican restaurant your Milly sounded very nice indeed even, dare I say, better than most.

Joe

Posted: **12 Feb 2012 3:57 am**

Roger Rettig wrote: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...!)

yeah, sunburst is so ugly its beautiful. i would have a hard time owning a fender cable steel in any other finish. the finish you hate to love lol.

Posted: **18 Feb 2012 10:27 pm**

Hey Todd, Check out this Sho-Bud on Bobbe Seymours website it looks like a black mica Sho-Bud. Says the guitar was a personal guitar of Hal Rugg.

Posted: **18 Feb 2012 11:39 pm**

Yeah, I've seen that one, Jeremy. Looks way better now than it did before! It used to have an aweful brown mica on it before being restored.

Posted: **19 Feb 2012 2:36 am**

That mica 'Bud guitar is just awesome. It was in Bobbe's store a while back when I visited him, and I thought it was the best looker on the floor. Testimony to the craftsmanship of the resorer - Mr Cass.

Posted: **19 Feb 2012 2:38 am**

Duplicate post

Posted: **19 Feb 2012 1:46 pm**

Ken, Is the sho-bud a pro III or super pro? Does the guitar have the potmetal parts underneath it?

Jeremy

Posted: **19 Feb 2012 1:57 pm**

Jeremy, I guess it's kinda of a pro III, because of the aluminum necks, but it was a custom build for Hal Rugg. No pot metal under there. Smooth pedals and shorter Gumby keyheads, too. This is one of the very few Sho-Bud's that were covered in "mica".

Posted: **19 Feb 2012 2:14 pm**

Todd is right - Pro 111. That guitar will sound more Emmons than Sho~Bud.

Posted: **20 Feb 2012 1:47 pm**

I'm in agreement with with you who don't like the wood-grain mica, except for one wood grain pattern __ Zanzibar Ebony __ EPIC!
There used to be one (D-10) on the old Carter website.
But, I've never seen one up close.

Posted: **20 Feb 2012 2:05 pm**

Donny Hinson wrote:

I believe that if you took off all the mica except that which was under the changer, nut, and keyhead, there would be no discernable difference in the sound. In other words, it's not what the guitar is covered with, but what the parts are mounted to that makes the major difference.

From another industry, its definitely true that high frequency transmission and damping are affected by joints, the number of joints, contact finish, clamping force, and material properties. In general, more joints, softer materials, and less clamping force reduce transmission especially above 2000 Hz. Your's is a good theory to pursue.

The Steel Guitar Forum

Mica Covered Steels-why do you play/prefer one???

pedal steel

Mica Covered Steels-why do you play/prefer one???

Differences?

@ Mike P.

Re: Differences?

Differences

Re: @ Mike P.

Sho-bud

sho-bud

Re: Differences?