"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 8 Sep 2009 12:11 am

Brint - As I'm sure you know, this general line of discussion has been going on for several years over several distinct forum threads, and I'm summarizing my observations over that period of time.

To put your selective quotes in context - and also noting that you referenced my "simplified" comment made at the request of Bill Duncan, not my full comment: Is it not a reasonable perspective to say that even if two guitars have somewhat different acoustic timbral frequency responses, but after being amplified, critical listeners can't consistently tell the difference between the two in double-blind listening tests of the same player, that from a certain practical perspective, those differences don't exist? To put this another way - if different hands make far more difference in the overall sound than different inherent acoustic timbral signatures, is not spending a lot of time fussing around with different guitars "looking for tone in the wrong places"? BTW - that logic has never stopped me from messing around with lots of different guitars, but perhaps "perceived tonality" is not the only issue.

Consider two drugs that are indeed different pharmacologically, but are being considered for their effect in treating disease. If there is no statistically significant difference between their effect in tests designed to minimize observation problems like the placebo and Hawthorne effects, one would say there is no observable difference between them. The pharmacological and clinical points of view are both "scientific", but quite different.

Point of view is everything. The way I read all this, Reece is arguing from a clinical point of view. This doesn't mean that the guitars are identical from a precise frequency response point of view, simply that the differences are not clinically observable.

Personally, I think this clinical point of view is very reasonable for a performing musician. From a tonal point of view, what do I care about? For me, what things sound like to a critical listener. There are other reasonable points of view, but I think this clinical one is important.

I think it is reasonable to talk about the effect of differences in amplification on this perceived tonality. Perhaps differences that can't be observed through a clean amplification setup will become more prominent when pushing, let's say, a tube amplifier hard - I have observed this with certain 6-string guitars. But I haven't seen this amplification discussion put on-topic yet.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 8 Sep 2009 12:13 am

OK b0b, but in order to hear a steel's inherent tone, one has to amplify it. Thus, references to the sound chain here, can't be avoided.

Unlike most (if not all) who looks for steel tone, I use a neutral amp/speaker chain in a neutral room to test for, and - mechanically - tune, the tone of the steels themselves.
This means I know what steels sounds like "through the board", without any sound-shaping electronics in the chain.
Only when that "uncolored and pure tone" is established, do I switch to more regular "anything but neutral" steel amps, effect units and whatnot, and shape the sound to my liking through those.

I know of no other way to "look for tone" in any amplified instrument, but my approach probably also means my definition of "pure tone" deviates slightly from what others mean by that term. Thus, that I come to slightly different conclusions compared to most who have posted here, does not surprise me. OTOH: I'm pretty sure I'm looking for the steel's tone at the right place.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 8 Sep 2009 12:37 am

I agree, Georg, but IMO, the amplification discussion had not yet been put in context here.

I think it is entirely reasonable to put the white "scientific" lab coat on and try to discern differences in timbre through a pure, uncolored amplification setup. We western-scientific types do just love to decompose every object we study into its constituent components.

But the true clinician often prefers to make comparisons the way things get done in actual practice. If most players run their pedal steels, for example, through pedal steel amps using a bit of reverb and delay, I think that is a valid clinical perspective. With that said, I think it's important to state the scope of that perspective, and recognize that it may not be valid for everyone.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 8 Sep 2009 1:10 am

So in summery, are we saying that to date, no one has demonstrated an ability to consistently identify a brand of guitar solely by inherent tone, in a blind test?

If so, may one then conclude that there is no consistent, identifiable by non-scientific,(meaning use of laboratory type equipment), inherent tone specific to a brand of guitar?

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 8 Sep 2009 1:57 am

Bill Duncan wrote:If so, may one then conclude that there is no consistent, identifiable by non-scientific,(meaning use of laboratory type equipment), inherent tone specific to a brand of guitar?

No, it's much to early to conclude anything ... I haven't heard/tested all steel-brands and -models yet

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 8 Sep 2009 4:57 am

Reece Anderson:

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

Then why have you been unable to produce, in any of the dozens of threads you've either started or joined on the subject, a single example of said research?

Your statement also demonstrates the "Fog" you keep laying out, with the "unidentifiable tone" being brand related one time and model-related another.

If there is verifiable, specific evidence I'd love to read it I don't mind being wrong about something when proof is provided. But all we've seen are statements of fact with no backup data.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 8 Sep 2009 4:59 am

So in summery, are we saying that to date, no one has demonstrated an ability to consistently identify a brand of guitar solely by inherent tone, in a blind test?

I haven't seen any evidence that anybody can identify brand/model of modern pedal steel in a double-blind test.

If so, may one then conclude that there is no consistent, identifiable by non-scientific,(meaning use of laboratory type equipment), inherent tone specific to a brand of guitar?
No, it's much to early to conclude anything ... I haven't heard/tested all steel-brands and -models yet.

I would even go further than that. One can never conclusively prove that nobody will ever be able to demonstrate this ability, no matter how many people have failed to date.

But after a period of time, if nobody demonstrates this ability, a general consensus may form. Why do we believe Newton's laws of mechanics? Over and over again, people tested it and it seemed to work OK. That is, until some guy named Einstein came along and looked at data on the advance of the perihelion of Mercury - and realized that something wasn't quite right and came up with a different idea that seemed to work better.

But Newtonian mechanics is still useful - in its proper domain. That's the same type of scope issue I mentioned earlier. Perhaps under certain conditions, guitars are not distinguishable, and under other conditions, they are distinguishable. I don't claim to know - only critical listening under various conditions will say.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 8 Sep 2009 5:11 am

Georg,

Has anyone to date been able to consistently identify a particular brand of pedal steel by inherent tone in a blind test?

The reason I ask is if one reads the various descriptions given of pedal steels, it's almost as if it's a given that there is a Sho-Bud sound, an Emmons sound, a Zum sound, a ZB sound, a MSA sound, a Mullen sound, a Rains sound, a BMI sound, a Fessenden sound, and so on and so on.

It's almost comical if one reads the statements as to how that unmistakable Sho-Bud tone, or ZB tone, or Emmons tone, or whatever tone always jumps right out and is so easy to detect. Yet when asked to blindly identify the guitar it suddenly becomes only a guess. The aforementioned unmistakable tone suddenly becomes hidden by reverb or echo or something.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 8 Sep 2009 6:05 am

Georg,

Has anyone to date been able to consistently identify a particular brand of pedal steel by inherent tone in a blind test?

Don't think so, but that is probably because no-one has ever been able to perform real tests. In order to distinguish one brand from the others with some degree of certainty, one has to test them all on leveled ground ... using the same, near neutral, sound chain. A common understanding of what such a "near neutral" sound chain consists of, hasn't been established yet.

It's almost comical if one reads the statements as to how that unmistakable Sho-Bud tone, or ZB tone, or Emmons tone, or whatever tone always jumps right out and is so easy to detect. Yet when asked to blindly identify the guitar it suddenly becomes only a guess. The aforementioned unmistakable tone suddenly becomes hidden by reverb or echo or something.

Exactly. Only a small (sometimes very, very, small) portion of a steel's inherent sound survives through all the sound-shaping, making it easy to get fooled. That is after all the idea behind sound-shaping - making it sound like something it ain't.

I made quit a few "trick-recordings" in my younger years, and you'd be surprised by how many who heard them that couldn't even identify what types of instruments I used.
"Nice tone in that guitar, is it a Gibson? Great playing too." ... "oh, that's just two manually synchronized tone-generators, some over-dubbing, and the audio equivalent of stop-motion. No guitar there."

So, I stick to my neutral testing of inherent tone, and the only problem I have is that I don't have access to all that many steels for testing this way.

Normally, when I get to play other people's PSGs, it's through their sound chains with their settings. I can then usually make out some of the PSG's characteristics - usually enough to make a judgment in a matter of minutes on whether the instrument falls within my own preference-range or not, but beyond that I can't/won't say anything about the instrument because I can't hear enough of its inherent tone to be sure.

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 8 Sep 2009 6:42 am

Not to belabour the point, but if the tone is so unmistakable, why would it be so hard to distinguish? Are we in fact discussing something so insignificant as to be unimportant?

Peruse the forum and notice all of the "brand specific tone" statements. Yet in reality the tone can be very mistakable.

If you can't detect it, it probably isn't there. Or at least not in enough quantity to matter.

I believe the unmistakable inherent tone to be negligible, and makes very little difference in the final tone of the guitar.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 8 Sep 2009 7:30 am

Dave Mudgett wrote:Brint - As I'm sure you know, this general line of discussion has been going on for several years over several distinct forum threads, and I'm summarizing my observations over that period of time.

To put your selective quotes in context - and also noting that you referenced my "simplified" comment made at the request of Bill Duncan, not my full comment

Okay, fine, Dave, here's your un"simplified" version of the same statement:

Dave Mudgett wrote:I never heard Reece say there wasn't any inherent timbral quality to guitars - a frequency response chart doesn't lie, and they're all somewhat different. Instead, what I heard him say was that human listeners couldn't consistently detect the differences between modern pedal steels in double-blind listening tests, and that the eyes can strongly bias one's perceptions. I believe that this is not only possible, but very likely.

This phrase: "I never heard Reece say there wasn't any inherent timbral quality to guitars"--could stand on its own as a complete sentence, and its meaning is not modified by what comes after the hyphen. "A frequency response chart doesn't lie, and they're all somewhat different" is YOUR statement--which I agree with--not Reece's.

Your description of my quotes as "selective" implies that I am distorting by taking Reece's words out of context. But I simply found the particular cases that refute your statement quoted above. Particularly the first one I quoted:

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

is a clear and unambiguous declarative sentence, and I don't see anything in the context in which it was presented that makes it ambiguous--do you?

Ward S…..Very informative post. It’s always refreshing to see those who do their research. As I said earlier, there is a LOT of scientific information available even on the internet that supports the power of visual perception, and whether we are speaking of soft drinks, steel guitar or anything else, it still applies to perceptions gleaned for each individual. Very extensive scientific research supports the premise that inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist.

Note that it doesn't say "the ability to perceive inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist"; his statement is "inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist."

I'm not arguing the merits of the issue; I was merely pointing out that your representation regarding what Reece has or hasn't said was incorrect, at least IMHO.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 8 Sep 2009 8:02 am

Bill Duncan wrote:I believe the unmistakable inherent tone to be negligible, and makes very little difference in the final tone of the guitar.

I can't agree with you on this. There are differences, and they matter.

- If you play all steels the same way, and a bit speedy, differences are minimized and may disappear almost completely in the sound chain.
- If, OTOH, you play on a particular steel in a way that favors its inherent tone characteristics, then that steel will sound different from all others, no matter how they're all being played.

For instance: my tone-modified Dekley has some unique tonal qualities - I built and tuned them in. However, it won't really come through as anything but an ever so slightly brighter, fuller and clearer tone compared to an un-modified Dekley, or most other PSGs, when playing "straight". So, normally there's just "reasonably good tone", and that's it.

Now, since I know where my particular instrument's strengths and weaknesses lies, I can make use of its delayed in-sync low frequency body-vibrations, and its improved sustain, and make it "sing" in its own unique way. Its tone "swells" slightly, naturally, in a way most steels only do when the VP-gain is raised very precisely, and it does so when picked hard or very lightly - I prefer lightly.
Won't make much difference if it is played like any other steel, but that's my point; I play on its inherent tonal qualities, and then, and only then, does it respond. I can assure you: it makes a difference.

Most brands/models will respond and reveal their tonal uniquenesses when played favorable for each brand/model. Many threads on this forum touch on that fact. So, don't write off those apparently insignificant differences too quickly ... they can, and do, become quite significant in the right hands.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 8 Sep 2009 8:13 am

Brint - I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken on this. Here is the very first post Reece made on this on the very first thread I'm aware of on this topic, entitled 'Is "It" In The Hands.... Or Inherent Tone?' - http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/013756.html - in December, 2006:

“Is it possible to consistently identify a sound/tone “signature” which is unique and exclusive to any specific name brand of pedal steel guitar manufactured in the past 40 years”?

We all know different guitars of the same brand can sound somewhat different, but if there are those who believe a “signature” truly exists and is inherent in any name brand guitar, would they be suggesting the characteristics of sound/tone are consistent within controllable and distinguishable parameters, no matter who is playing the guitar?

Those who believe this to be true would then quite possibly be of the opinion owning a specific name brand guitar provides them an inherent and distinguishable tone!

Can this be true?............................

IMHO, Reece has always been talking about the concept of clinical identification of a steel guitar 'signature' tone by brand/model. The fact that many have turned the conversation elsewhere does not change this fact. This original post shows that Reece is absolutely aware that different guitars have different frequency response curves, but he believes that the clinical effect is too negligible to be able to distinguish in double-blind listening tests, and that the hands have more to do the overall tonality achieved.

That is why I think parsing out only part of that thought of mine was inaccurate, and emphatically not what I meant.

I think we should agree that there are many different levels and points of view that one can look at this issue. The POV of vibrational physics is different than that of the psychology of perception, which is different than that of music performance. Insisting that "my POV is the only valid POV" will go nowhere.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 8 Sep 2009 8:26 am

Geeze, Dave, I didn't say that was the ONLY thing Reece had ever said. Nor did I say it was the main thrust of his argument. Nor did I mean to suggest that was the sum of your thoughts on the topic. I only pointed out that he HAS said what you said he hadn't. Yes, it was not consistent with some of his earlier statements, probably unintentionally. I just happened to see a statement (by you) about which I happened to remember recent evidence to the contrary, and tried to correct the record.

Junior Knight · Post by **Junior Knight** » 8 Sep 2009 8:48 am

Ok..get your flame guns ready..
(or popcorn)...
I have had 1 or 2 steels in my playing days, and to my tin ear,there were tone diffrences in EACH brand. MSA old and new..Sho-Bud..Emmons..Mullen..Carter..Zum
and now Rains.
Each guitar..I said each guitar... had its own sound! That being said,could I tell each ones diffrent sound without looking at them?...I would like to take the test and see..OK guys..flame on!

Bill Duncan · Post by **Bill Duncan** » 8 Sep 2009 8:58 am

Georg,

You touched on something I had not thought of. Playing to the strengths and weaknesses of the guitar. If I accept what you're saying as true, does that hold true as being inherent tone to a specific brand, or just to a specific guitar

Could I then buy a certain brand guitar, with the expectation of a consistent inherent tone? Or is it just an anomaly of one specific guitar, and not the brand?

Also, from the tests performed at MSA, persons could not consistently pick out their own guitar in a blind test. Much less a specific brand. This seems to reinforce the idea of sight having much to do with the perceived sound of ones guitar. Maybe even touch, as in the feel of ones guitar when played.

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 8 Sep 2009 10:01 am

To me, b0b settled the matter in the third post in this thread. Modern PSGs sound very similar, unlike the old Fender/Sho-Bud/Emmons triumvirate. It is an unavoidable consequence of the demands being made on the instrument.

Comparing to the fretted sixstring is less helpful than contrasting. Since PSG strings are not pressed to frets, there's no issue of body/neck/fingerboard tone. Maple or dieboard, the rigidity of the wood is of greater importance than tone as more strings and more pulls have been added. The strings stretch between the metal of the changer and the metal of the roller nut. And, like the wood, the metal is chosen more for strength and hardness than for tone. No one is making changers out of bell brass.

The point Reese was making in starting this thread is that expectations affect perceptions. If you were told that the steeler in the band had gone from playing an Emmons to a Carter, and you couldn't see the stage, you might say the Carter just doesn't have the sound of the Emmons. And at the break, with the dancers off the floor, realize he was still playing his Emmons.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 8 Sep 2009 10:14 am

Sometimes I hate the sound of my Williams, and other times I'm simply amazed at how good it sounds. I don't believe that any mortal has the requisite skill to hear tones uncolored by the many stimuli that are affecting our judgment at any given moment.

(How am I doing, Bill H.?)

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 8 Sep 2009 10:21 am

And at the break, with the dancers off the floor, realize he was still playing his Emmons.

And if that Emmons was a black push/pull, you would know that all the time you were hearing the best sounding guitar ever made!

Sorry guys... It was just a joke ok? I'll go back to my room now... (with the padded walls) $:\$

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 8 Sep 2009 10:27 am

b0b, I might be able to change the sound of your Williams by slipping quarters under eith the front or back legs. Tilting the guitar that little bit would alter your attack and bar pressure enough for you to notice.

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 8 Sep 2009 10:28 am

Good post Danny! Yep!

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 8 Sep 2009 10:44 am

While I was posting, b0b said:

I don't believe that any mortal has the requisite skill to hear tones uncolored by the many stimuli that are affecting our judgment at any given moment.

(How am I doing, Bill H.?)

Sorry bob, you will need much more abject sesquipedalianism to get even close to Bill H's verbal skills.

We love you Bill!

Jeff Evans · Post by **Jeff Evans** » 8 Sep 2009 10:44 am

To defy (perhaps unknowingly) our natural tendencies because of the influence of others opinions (although many times well intended, and in some instances somewhat helpful) is to defy that which adheres to our individual perception and has the potential to lead to personal disappointment and dissatisfaction of both the instrument and…….”the tone”.

Some novelistic creations continue to develop with the passing of time. Others have been known to fade into the recesses of a myriad of lost arts. Scrutinies and close observations may very well reject many of the interminable successes bestowed upon those occupying novelistic arenas. Novelistic creations have been known to become less attractive over time, depending strictly upon their practical usefulness.

. . . 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.

In a blinding test of taste, four out of five choosy mothers were unable to distinguish our fine text from the leading brand.

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 8 Sep 2009 10:55 am

That's what I always say!

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 8 Sep 2009 10:59 am

Geeze, Dave, I didn't say that was the ONLY thing Reece had ever said. Nor did I say it was the main thrust of his argument. Nor did I mean to suggest that was the sum of your thoughts on the topic. I only pointed out that he HAS said what you said he hadn't. Yes, it was not consistent with some of his earlier statements, probably unintentionally. I just happened to see a statement (by you) about which I happened to remember recent evidence to the contrary, and tried to correct the record.

I think Reece's statement that you quoted was completely consistent with what he's been talking about from the beginning. From Day 1 - Post 1, he has talked about "inherent tone" from the clinical point of view of being able to identify it by listening to it. To isolate that one comment and talk about it from a completely different point of view than he has ever talked about it is, IMHO, inaccurate. To my knowledge, he has never said that two instruments don't have unique acoustic frequency responses. Instead, he has argued that, from a clinical listening point of view, it doesn't matter enough to be able to distinguish them in critical, double-blind listening tests. I don't even see what is controversial about this - this has nothing to do with instrumentally-obtained frequency responses.

Personally, I haven't seen real evidence that anybody can identify brands/models of modern pedal steel in a fair blind listening test as Reece has suggested. Quite to the contrary, what I've sensed is that it's easier to identify pickups than steels, but that is purely anecdotal. Nobody has to take the 'blind listening test' as a challenge unless they want to. But I will remain unconvinced anybody can do it until someone shows they can.

Sometimes I hate the sound of my Williams, and other times I'm simply amazed at how good it sounds. I don't believe that any mortal has the requisite skill to hear tones uncolored by the many stimuli that are affecting our judgment at any given moment.

I agree with that, but I'm open to impression. All it takes is one person to clearly demonstrate this skill to disprove that.

I know some of you think Reece should be able to produce "scientific" evidence proving this type of blind identification is impossible. That is, in itself, impossible since it requires showing that nobody can ever identify instruments this way. No matter how many people do his test and fail, it can never be conclusive because someone could always step up to the plate and do it successfully.

On the other hand - if you believe some people can consistently identify distinct guitars this way, all you have to do is bring one counterexample to Reece's conjecture to the table.

The Steel Guitar Forum

"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

sound chain for reference