"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

Marco Schouten · Post by **Marco Schouten** » 25 Aug 2009 7:53 am

Reece stated this in a previous message:
I believe all mainstream manufactures over the past many years have achieved an acceptable tone, yet none have a consistent inherent tone relative to the brand name.

When we first started the evaluations at MSA, Mark Giles was not building cabinets for many companies and Geo L. was not making pickups, so the similarities of guitars were even further apart then than they are now, and if an inherent tone could not be heard then, it's even more doubtful it could be heard now.
----------------------------------------
Than what was the added value of bringing MSA back to the market?

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 25 Aug 2009 7:57 am

I believe the eyes are a driving force in our decisions of what we like to hear and play. If Haggard could clone his younger self and sang on the Opry looking like Marilyn Manson. I'll bet todays traditionalists would have a hard time accepting that he sounds as good as he would if he sang clean cut wearing a rhinestone suit.

Just my thought,

I am in the middle of the Northern Atlantic on the Faroe Islands recording Haggard, Tillis and many traditional favorites with a Faroese artist with Paul Leim, David Hungate, Brent Mason, John Hobbs, and Bryan Sutton. They couldn't find a good band so they hired this lot.

I'm in between takes. Gotta run......

Paul

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 25 Aug 2009 8:12 am

Jim Sliff wrote:
In the piano world, everybody's trying to be a Steinway. And in the violin world, everybody's trying to duplicate the Stradivarius.
By the way - that is totally wrong. You might actually ASK some piano and violin makers what they are trying to do - or acoustic guitar, mandolin, banjo, etc etc.

Yeah, sure. And this is why Gibson was trying to sue PRS guitars for (almost exactly) copying their guitar? There's a few originals, to be sure, but the vast majority are copying something or somebody. (Don't make me waste bandwitdth by listing how many dozens of builders copy famous Martin, Gibson, and Fender designs).

The high-end makers are specifically NOT trying to clone sounds of other makers, which is part of the real art of instrument making - finding that unique combination of raw materials, shapes, weights, density etc to make something distinctive.

Don't insult me (or luthiers) by trying to put them in the same class as mass builders. For sure, a few hand built customs are designed to be different, but they aren't representitive of what the vast majority of players are playing. Luthiers measure their output in guitars per year. Factories measure their output in hundreds of guitars per day.

Like Paul, I'm continually frustrated when you keep mentioning that Les Pauls and Teles are different. Get off that broken record, please!

Lastly, since you're such a proponent of how important "tone" is, name me a dozen players who were primarily known (read: "made famous") for their tone, and not for their style or playing ability.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 25 Aug 2009 8:57 am

Paul is right. Steel guitar builders differentiate themselves mostly by mechanical innovations, quality construction and appearance, not by tone.

Most steelers desire the same specific tone - it's what attracted many of us to the instrument to begin with. Almost all modern pedal steels produce something very close to "that sound". The differences between brands are mostly in appearance, comfort, playability, ease of modification, etc.

How you feel when you play a pedal steel or watch a steel player affects your perception of its tone. This is why, as I've said many times before, black guitars sound best. The visual aspect is minimized with a black guitar, allowing you to actually hear the tone better.

I know this doesn't fully explain how I was able to pick the black guitar in a blind tone test...

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 25 Aug 2009 9:56 am

I get it now, ear phones are for the ears, I-phones are for the eyes. Since we now hear with our eyes, what out ears tell us doesn't matter,
Just like the most popular rock bands, may sound horrible but just look at them and you'll love them!(ha) Smoke, lasers, jumping around and flying on wires, these guys sound great?

Yep, things have really changed, I'm so old I can remember when the tone of a guitar mattered, not the color. I can remember when a band could be appreciated without the theatrics. Remember bands like Glen Gray? Hank Thompsons "Brazos Vally Boys"? Bob Wills? Glenn Miller? No smoke, no flying in on wires, No screaming distortion guitars? Funny how folks just wanted to hear the band, I'm this way with steel guitars, just a great tone, color is unimportant, I still know what my ears are for and I use them. My eyes are to find the bandstand.

We are all different and I respect the great players of the "New wave", but I also respect the tones of Weldon Myrick, Buddy Emmons, Jerry Byrd, Hal Rugg,John Hughy,Stu Basore, Ron Elliott, and so on and on and on and

Bobbepoux

James Mayer · Post by **James Mayer** » 25 Aug 2009 10:39 am

This topic is obviously interesting as it just keeps popping up. Another frequently occurring topic is "why is steel dying"? They are definately interrelated and should probably start intersecting so some sense can be made of it.

Country is a proudly conservative genre. This thread has several posts proudly proclaiming that it's fine that all pedal steels have the same general tone because that's the tone that everyone wants. This makes sense to you if you have ever said "if it's good enough for Buddy,......". Why would a builder concentrate on a signature tone if that isn't what the players want? So, the homogenization begins and is welcomed. Even the addition of a second pickup started a hot debate. This is true of just about everything in country music. How many bands have telecasters playing clean snappy licks? How many have Parker Flys and envelope filters?

Therein lies the problem with the expansion of the pedal steel guitar's realm. Players that want to sound different are left with frustration. Tone is incredibly important to some (if not most) musicians. A signature sound is incredibly important to most of the great players of any instrument.

I purposefully choose to go with the Lone Star brand because Jim Flynn is the only builder that I found that seems to be open to tonal, as well as mechanical, innovation.

Before anyone gets offended, please note that I love pre mid-70's country music. The innovation stopped around that time, in my opinion. There were plenty of open minds that incorporated new sounds. Spanish guitars, Hawaiian non-pedal, gypsy swing, trumpets, the pedal steel guitar, etc.

Country music is swimming in a very small circle and the sameness of pedal steel guitars and it's players is really just a symptom of that trend.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 25 Aug 2009 10:53 am

James Mayer wrote:I purposefully choose to go with the Lone Star brand because Jim Flynn is the only builder that I found that seems to be open to tonal, as well as mechanical, innovation.

Desert Rose offers a 2-pickup model. Sierra and MSA have quick-change pickup slots. Harmos is all about tone, but their one experiment with pedals failed to generate any significant sales interest.<center>

</center>
So it's not that manufacturers haven't tried - it's that the market doesn't respond. Even with Sierra and MSA where you can change pickups in 5 seconds, most players find a pickup with a sound they like and don't bother changing it from then on.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 25 Aug 2009 10:57 am

Marco S…..Your question after quoting my previous comments was: “then what was the added value of bringing MSA back to the market.” I appreciate your asking the question that has many answers. Here are but a few……….

My love for steel guitar, appreciation and admiration of those who accept the challenge of playing them, to pursue my unending search for precision, mechanical, and cosmetic advantages, to contribute as best I can to the evolution of the instrument, to hopefully provide pride and happiness of ownership, and to continue to communicate with others like yourself in our relatively small steel guitar community who have a sincere love for the instrument…….there’s more, but I believe that answers your question!

Paul……sorry you had to go so far to get a recording session only to find they surrounded you with struggling musicians trying to make names for themselves……that’s a real bummer. Thanks for taking the time to provide your comments.

Bobbe.....the search for truth is revealing and unending, and the probability of continued progress is 100%.

While the dominance of the eyes over the ears does not diminish the contributions of the great players you mentioned and others, it is true they provide the most significant contribution to perception which can be expanded so as to benefit everyone with their personal insight when making the selection of the guitar which provides them the best opportunity to enjoy playing, achieve their sound, and musical goals, which was the original intent of everyone who enjoys playing.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 25 Aug 2009 12:29 pm

I totally disagree that all steel guitar pickers strive for the same sound. Not that I count for very much but, I dislike the sound of tube amps. I despise the slightest hint of distortion, many other pickers feel differently.

Hal Rugg, Curly Chalker, John Hughey, Buddy Emmons, Reece Anderson, Paul Franklin, Ralph Mooney, Alvino Rey, Weldon Myrick, Lloyd Greene, God forgive me I can't remember them all right now but, the list goes on. They all had, and have their sound, and it was, and still is good. Time doesn't change good sound!

Don't kid yourself though, these same guys could, can, and did pick about every type of good music around! They experimented with every tone they could conjure up! These guys set the sound standard we are trying to reproduce today. They did it mostly with equipment that isn't up to today's steel guitars.

To try and convince anyone that the sound was the guitar is balogny!

A story I've heard of Chet Atkins. Someone kept saying how good the guitar Chet was playing sounds. When Chet had heard enough, he put the guitar down in a chair and said: How does it sound now?

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 25 Aug 2009 12:36 pm

There is a Feedback thread about "no simple discussions on the forum." My sense is that it's because most issues are not really simple. One can model them as simple things, but that doesn't change the reality. I think that is in play here and elsewhere.

I think that if someone blindfolded me, put me in a quiet room, and then the same good guitar player ran each guitar through its paces with the same musical figures on a stock 59 Les Paul with humbuckers, a stock maple 50s Strat, and a stock maple-neck 50s Tele, each plugged straight into, let's say, the same 59 Bassman or blackface Deluxe/Twin Reverb set the same, I would be able to not only tell a notable difference between them, but would probably be able to accurately tell you which was which. Each of these guitars in various pickup positions has a pretty striking sonic signature. There are things one can do to make them sound "more similar", but I'm talking about running through the different sounds of the stock guitars into the same amp of the general period set the same, without "trying" to fake me out.

But I think it enormously easier to achieve this feat than to do the same thing with, let's say, 3 modern mainstream pedal steel guitars. The Les Paul has a 24-3/4" scale length and humbucking pickups that are relatively hotly wound with a wide magnetic sensing window and a certain pickup spacing. The body, neck, headstock, and hardware are of a particular design and materials. The Strat and Tele have 25-1/2" scale length, relatively lightly wound pickups with a narrow magnetic sensing window, and a particular pickup spacing. The body, neck, headstock, and hardware are of quite a different design and materials. The sonic differences are really quite striking, and have been exploited for decades by countless musicians.

On the other hand, consider a stock modern pedal steel guitar of mainstream design. Critical variables like the scale length and the position of the pickups relative to that scale - relative to each other isn't relevant since they almost all have only one pickup placed in very nearly the same spot near the changer - are very nearly the same. OK, some are 24.25" and others are 24.0", but the overall tonal signature is also influenced by the exact location of the pickup relative to the scale. Body shapes and materials (mostly maple, correct?) are largely the same. I agree that there are a few departures like the carbon-fiber MSA Millenium, the aluminum-body Sierra, and a few made of some type of dieboard. They are almost always all-pull, with "roughly" similar approaches to changers, pull-rods, and so on. A few are keyless, but most have fairly similar keyheads. They all have a roller-nut of 'similar' design. I don't think this is remotely comparable to different types of even strictly solid-body 6-string guitars - and acoustic and acoustic-electrics have many more individual distinctions.

I think when one takes away significant differences in pickups, pickup placement, and the basic method to anchor the string at each end, it becomes quite difficult to tell the difference between solid-body instruments. Tell ya' what - put a Bigsby with roller-bridge and a pair of Filtertrons on a Les Paul and tell me it doesn't sound have a lot of that "Great Gretsch Sound." I've played Les Pauls rodded like that, and man do they ever have that classic "Gretsch sound". How many of you knew that jazz guitar great Ed Bickert was playing a Tele with a PAF before you saw him the first time? I sure didn't.

This does not mean there aren't differences coming from the body resonance. When I play 6-string guitar, I feel those differences, and it matters to me. But I honestly doubt that most, if any, listeners would be able to distinguish the differences in solid-body resonance alone.

Lastly, since you're such a proponent of how important "tone" is, name me a dozen players who were primarily known (read: "made famous") for their tone, and not for their style or playing ability.

Well - I think that, especially in blues and rock guitar playing, establishing some type of "signature tone" is an important step to recognition. I'm not saying this is done by equipment alone - not at all. But I believe it's very important to establish an identity in that world, and tone is part of that. I think it's essential in blues - e.g., T-Bone, BB, Albert, Freddie, Albert Collins, Otis Rush, Muddy, and most of the greats had (or for the few that are left, have) instantly recognizable guitar tone signatures.

Many blues-rock and rock guitar players are well known to have gone through periods where they played different guitar/amp configurations to very different sonic effect. Take Eric Clapton as a prototype example - the sonic differences of different periods are quite striking. The Mayall/Beano/LP/Marshall-Bluesbreaker period is very different from the Cream/psychedelic-SG/Plexi-Marshall period which is yet very different from the Brownie/Blackie-Strat (through whatever amp) period or the very different modern EC-signature/Soldano-or-whatever-amp period. In other words, guitars of strikingly different tonalities can be used to mold one's sound and image in very different ways.

But I would never argue that the eyes do not heavily influence perceptions of other senses such as hearing, touch, smell, or taste. We all have major preconceptions, borne of previous experience. The problem is that previous experience can never completely cover all the possibilities, so it's easy to get faked out. So just like a Merle soundalike that looked like Marilyn Manson wouldn't get accepted by country traditionalists, a band with matched polyester suits and a clean-cut look probably won't be accepted by people expecting a death-metal band, no matter how great they play the stuff. BTW - that image of Marilyn Manson singing like Merle made me laugh. Can you imagine the reaction to a male cross-dresser with radical makeup on the GOO stage? We already have discussions here with references to "no-class bums who take no pride in themselves" on the GOO because they wear (deliberately) torn jeans as part of their look.

Another example - suppose I make the mistake of dragging along a "non-blues-approved" guitar - let's just say something with a pointy headstock and/or a radical body shape - to play with a group of blues-traditionalists who believe, a-priori, that "the only guitars that have good tone have 'classic' designs". Then there is no way that they will ever give that guitar a chance, even if I've set it up so it has a classic sound. Been there, done that many times, they just can't stand looking at it - it's pure prejudice. MLA's example about '59, '69, and '79 Les Pauls is on the money - good luck trying to pick them out on hearing tests alone. I think a lot of these "holy grail of tone" ideas are mainly about selling gear, not tone.

I think human perception is hopelessly complex. The idea that humans "simply perceive exactly what's actually there" is too simple-minded to take seriously. Even when we try, it's very hard to get preconceptions triggered by competing senses out of the picture, giving rise to things like the Hawthorne Effect and other reactivity biases. IMHO this has nothing to do with "narrow minded country music" - it happens in all styles and is a feature of human nature, not just one particular group. Philosophically, do we ever get completely "out of the box?" I don't think so.

Sorry for the long-winded post, just my take.

Kenny Martin · Post by **Kenny Martin** » 25 Aug 2009 12:42 pm

Amen Bill!

What you have just stated is what i've believed all my life, it's the player!!
I couldn't sit and play Paul Franklins steel and sound like him! I can't sound like him anyway but the point is he couldn't sit behind my steel and sound like me! Yea, he would sound better but the touch, attack and the passion brings out the tone in my opinion!

Sorry, i am by no means putting myself at the level of Paul!!

Joe Miraglia · Post by **Joe Miraglia** » 25 Aug 2009 1:21 pm

Another place where one might look for tone in the wrong place is reading and listening to people who may not have the answers any more than you do. These people are just communicating better than you. A person will soon find the right path to the road of the tone they are searching for. It may take some time and searching but the tone is there.Joe

C. Christofferson · Post by **C. Christofferson** » 25 Aug 2009 2:10 pm

Hello Reece nice to hear from you as always. I'm just wondering where this discussion/debate/argument would go in the face of scientific proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64HWwA8J5Fk

Twayn Williams · Post by **Twayn Williams** » 25 Aug 2009 2:18 pm

If I have a choice between playing a good looking guitar vs an ugly guitar and they both sound the same, I'm going for the good looking guitar. Sometimes. I've been know to play some seriously ugly Dano's in my time

I can't always tell the difference in sound between one guitar and another if someone else is playing, but I can when I do. It's not visually based either. This holds true for PSG's as well as other kinds of guitars, though modern PSG's sound very, very similar to one another.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 25 Aug 2009 2:40 pm

At times frustration channels imagination and determination out of which new ideas, innovations, materials, construction techniques and even new and different tone preferences may emerge.

I see nothing on the horizon that I believe to be harmful to the evolution of steel guitar as a result of all guitars being within the spectrum of acceptable tone. All musical instruments are equally identifiable relative to their unique sound characteristics.

In other words, we identify instruments being played no matter what the tone. I remember when guitar distortion first became popular, and although it was dramatically different, I recognized the sound characteristic as that of a guitar.

I’ve said many times I have never heard a steel guitar I didn’t like, and it’s because they all have the same unique sound characteristic, and that characteristic is what inspired me for life, and I suspect many of you as well.

I’m continually encouraged in knowing the same unique characteristics that brought steel guitar to the prominence of today when coupled with it’s versatility and adaptability to any kind of music, sound or tone, clearly displays that it’s potential is limited only by our own imagination.

James Mayer · Post by **James Mayer** » 25 Aug 2009 4:03 pm

b0b wrote: Desert Rose offers a 2-pickup model. Sierra and MSA have quick-change pickup slots. Harmos is all about tone, but their one experiment with pedals failed to generate any significant sales interest.<center>
</center>
So it's not that manufacturers haven't tried - it's that the market doesn't respond. Even with Sierra and MSA where you can change pickups in 5 seconds, most players find a pickup with a sound they like and don't bother changing it from then on.

Has anyone tried the Harmos?

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 25 Aug 2009 4:11 pm

Robert Randolph did. It was built for him.

I've played a couple of their lap steels. Very nice, but they don't have as much sustain as I'm used to.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 25 Aug 2009 4:31 pm

Yeah, sure. And this is why Gibson was trying to sue PRS guitars for (almost exactly) copying their guitar?

Over physical design and trademarks.

Please use examples that have some relevance.

Paul, thanks for your post. You succinctly supported one major point, and that's that particular designs have a distinctive tone.

However - I'd say the construction of a Franklin and the construction of an MSA Millenium are vastly different. Further, if you took the two instruments and set them up with identical amp settings, volume levels etc your going to get two different sounds.

No argument that similarly constructed instruments might have similar tone. But several tangents have entered the thread, such as the "everyone" wants their instrument to sound like a "fill in the blank".

And that's a crock outside the steel world. I know plenty of custom builders, and they may make a "t" style guitar (watch your use of trademarks, folks) but intentionally aim for some slightly different tonal focus - that "special" thing other than just looks and playability that sets an instrument apart.

Over at the Clarence White Forum we've had REAL jams where we've lined up close to twenty "t" style guitars, half with chambered backs, some ash, some alder, some with Rhodes pickups and some with Texas Specials, Duncans, whatever.

NONE sounded identical. Now, could a player pick one particular one out of the crowd with his back turned? Probably not, and it's it's a totally ridiculous "test" anyway, because it has no bearing on practical use of the instrument. However, players could turn their backs and pick out guitars the prefer over others.

And that's because there is a difference.

And Paul - go back to my initial list of examples of instrument comparisons in THIS thread and tell me how many guitars I used. You're stuck in the same old mud as Donny and Reece - "Jim unfairly compares everything to 6-strings". In this case I stayed away from them - but thank you for doing it for me instead!

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 25 Aug 2009 6:18 pm

Yeah, sure. And this is why Gibson was trying to sue PRS guitars for (almost exactly) copying their guitar?
Over physical design and trademarks.

Let us be reminded that they lost that lawsuit, and for good reason, IMHO. If somebody really into Les Pauls looks at and plays that PRS single-body, it neither looks, feels, or sounds (to me) very much like a Gibson Les Paul. It's single cutaway, but otherwise quite different - I think Gibson was way off the mark on this lawsuit.

The original PRS guitars are fine guitars - I have an old one, and I like it. But they really are not clones of Gibsons either. At a lot of levels, the originals are something in between a Strat and a Les Paul. The scale length is in between, the weight is in between, the shape is in-between, the headstock shape is different than either, the bridge/tailpiece is in-between. The pickups are humbucking, but different than a Gibson. They feel a lot different than either. Paul went to the McCarty to try to bridge the gap a bit to the Gibson sound and feel.

I think using controlled and double-blind listening tests to distinguish different Telecasters of the same basic design is pretty similar to distinguishing different modern mainstream pedal steels the same way. Ain't no way I would claim to be able to distinguish between 50s, 60s, 70s, or later Teles of the original basic body/neck/bridge/pickup design. No doubt there would be differences - but I would have no idea what to attribute them to. I have a bunch of Teles, and I doubt I could distinguish even between my own purely using double-blind listening tests.

Over at the Clarence White Forum we've had REAL jams where we've lined up close to twenty "t" style guitars, half with chambered backs, some ash, some alder, some with Rhodes pickups and some with Texas Specials, Duncans, whatever.

NONE sounded identical. Now, could a player pick one particular one out of the crowd with his back turned? Probably not, and it's it's a totally ridiculous "test" anyway, because it has no bearing on practical use of the instrument. However, players could turn their backs and pick out guitars the prefer over others.

The question I have is - if this process were repeated enough times with sufficient time/space between observations to constitute "statistically independent" observations - would players be able to pick out their "favorite" consistently. I think this is very hard to test - even room acoustics and exact amp positioning could have an effect. I swear that I have guitars that sound fantastic through an amp one day, and then another day exactly the same guitar plugged into the same amp in the same place doesn't sound so great. What causes this? Is it changes in the guitar, changes in the amp, changes in the room acoustics, changes in me, or what? (That's a rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer.)

Jim Robbins · Post by **Jim Robbins** » 25 Aug 2009 7:45 pm

Franklin wrote:If Haggard could clone his younger self and sang on the Opry looking like Marilyn Manson...

As we all know, you're a great player, but maybe you've been in the Faroe's too long ...

Roual Ranes · Post by **Roual Ranes** » 26 Aug 2009 2:07 am

Last night I heard a player with a late model design steel. It is well known and very well thought of. I did not like the sound of his steel yet I know another guy that had the same steel and amp and I like his sound. Maybe I have missed something in these 73 years but I know what I do and dont like.

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 26 Aug 2009 2:45 am

Jim R.

Dealing with remarks like yours wears me out.

Paul

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 26 Aug 2009 2:49 am

C . Christofferson……Sorry, I accidentally overlooked your contribution to this discussion. I believe your example proves beyond a doubt, the eyes effect volume levels. Thanks for going to the time and trouble to film the scientific evaluation and share the results.

David Wright · Post by **David Wright** » 26 Aug 2009 5:49 am

Larry Bressington

From:
Nebraska, USA
Posted Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:59 pm
Don't we see women the same way, how many times have we passed up a lovely girl who diden't seem pretty, i'll bet we passed up many a great girl because our eyes told us too!
I think more than likely most players buy what their peers play, because they think that will make them that sound, not all, but most!

I have to say , you hit it right on the head...

Jim Sliff:.....did the doctor hit you on the head instead of the ass

And thank you Paul F, for your insight, have a fun and safe trip...

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 26 Aug 2009 5:52 am

In my search for a better/different tone in my steel - an old Dekley, I tried to separate the entire bridge/changer/neck from the body as much as possible. What I ended up with was a floating neck in solid aluminum, with no connection with the top-plate from fret 11 and up - there's a couple of millimeters gap between neck and top-plate, and this neck carries the bridge/changer.
Changer fingers are kept in line and given attach-point for the return springs, through a "sound-dead" and vertically flexing sheet of aluminum screwed onto the lower edge of the steel's frame. Thus, the entire bridge/changer is as near to free-floating relative to body as it can get, while still being connected to the all-pull rods.

Once this free-floating neck went on and strings were tuned up for the first time - back in 1992, the tone I was searching for was "just there". Compared to the original Dekley construction it can only be described as a clearer but deeper, fuller sound, and twice the sustain. I can now play with good tone and sustain well above 15th fret, and the tone is remarkably stable from fret 1 to fret 24 and above.

My old, converted, Dekley is a pretty ugly-looking PSG now, but compared to the few other PSGs I've been able to test it against it has what I would call a more playable tone. Personally I couldn't care less what a steel, any steel, looks like, since I'm only interested in the sound I get out of it, but, of course, if I found another steel with a tone equal to or better then what mine has now, I certainly wouldn't mind if it looked OK. Good looks would be just a minor plus though.

To me a steel's most important qualities apart from its tone, is mechanical stability, playability and ease of service, and I don't think I'd ever let myself be fooled by super-polished metal and a perfectly lacquered body with inlays. My preferred "color" is black (no color) and I don't much like inlays on anything, but, to me, that has nothing to do with tone