"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

[Danny Bates]

Jeff Evans said:

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

Jeff, are you saying that these Mothers live in fantasy world of steel guitar brand rationalization that may be based strictly on audio hallucinations?

[Reece Anderson]

Dave M…..You are exactly right in your assessment of my comments. Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts and opinion.

Jim S…..geezz…… I would have thought you would have surely done some research about the power of vision before you started making all your wayward comments. Very telling. Anyway……. just google “the power of visual perception” for a start.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of “tone” is….. “variance of a system”, and that “system” in a musical sense is an audible sound. This means our ears make the final decision.

To achieve and validate the final decision, the ears must be isolated from interference of all other human senses, which if not removed, in this instance by not having the ability to see which guitars are being played, will without question distort perceptions, thereby making any “tone relative to the ears” evaluation non-conclusive.

[Georg Sørtun]

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?

As the tonal qualities in steel guitars are caused by choice of material, shape of parts and how they are mounted and work together, I believe you'll find a reasonably consistent brand/model tone, and not so much a specific guitar tone caused by variations/anomalies and what brand of strings it's set up with.

However, this "brand/model tone" will only hold true for steels that really are built consistently - based on same blueprint and using same parts, especially where it matters the most - where string-vibration kicks in and body-response/vibration returns to same strings.

Steels that are "thrown together" using various parts that lay around, and where the main goal is to make them look as a particular brand/model, are anybody's guess sound-wise. This is where "visual appearance" becomes a dominant factor, and brand/model tone risks becoming an illusion - optical or otherwise.

For steel brands/models I know something about, I'm basically only interested in the bridge/changer construction, the neck/top plate rigidity, and how these most critical parts are mounted together. Most of the instrument's tone is created there, and is most easily modified and/or "destroyed" there.

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.

The same piece played mostly the same way by the same person, will usually make it pretty hard to pin-point brand/model tone even if they sound slightly different. Too much personal style and preference at play to even bother listening in most cases. Might as well gamble, or go for "look".

I don't play regular music when I test instruments. Instead, I excite their strings in various ways over their entire range, and listen for response. This approach usually reveals the instrument's tonal qualities much more than "playing a tune" does - also when run through regular sound chains.
But, taking the same approach in a showroom, can result in spoken, or unspoken, comments like "You're not picking it right. Go home and learn how to play that thing first."
Sure, I may be rusty these days, but nearly 30 years of "playing that thing" have thought me a thing or two. A "few" more years playing various instruments and training my ears for "neutrality", haven't hurt either.

[Donny Hinson]

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?

That is Reece's contention, and no one has come forward with unequivocal evidence to the contrary. There's certainly been a lot of hearsay, though!

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, I don't believe we can say that - yet. So far, no one has stepped forward who says they can consistently (i.e. - without a doubt) identify an inherent sound under all (or any) circumstances. There may, indeed, be someone out there who can do this, but they may be hesitant to demonstrate it, due to the possibility that they might be proved wrong.

It's humorous to see how strongly some feel about this, yet they don't want to risk exposure by participating in a structured test. If this teaches me anything, it's that the "tone significance" is far more important to the player than it is to anyone else (e.g. the listeners). Judgements such as "that's a good tone", or "that's a bad tone" are purely subjective, and may have little or no relevance to the opinion of others.

In other words (and IMHO - for there's no way to prove or disprove this), the intro to "Satisfaction", that ubiquitous nine notes forever burned into the psyche of millions of young listeners, could have been played on any guitar, and it likely would not have had any affect at all on the popularity of that song, or of the 'Stones. So, what we hear (or see) first tends to become the yardstick for future comparisons. A player like me, who had seen and heard Buddy playing a Fender and a Sho~Bud (before he played his famous p/p's) might not have the same brand preference as a player who had their first exposure to him when he was playing a p/p. To me, different guitars sound different, not better or worse. Being strongly influenced by players who aren't know for a lot of sustain dictates that I don't have the same "need" for endless sustain that many players seek.

In my 49 years of playing, I've played a lot of different sounding guitars, but never a "bad sounding" one. Playing is mostly a mental thing for me...I was never real good with the physical part. If a guitar has poor sustain, I just play it differently, much like the electric guitar-guy, who plays a Strat one way, and a Redgate another.

[Larry Bressington]

What steel should i buy, i'm looking for great tone, sustain and i want to sound like Buddy emmons because he's famous?????

[Danny Bates]

Larry, this is the guitar for you. Play it with extreme caution...
you might accidently channel Jerry Garcia

[Jim Sliff]

I know some of you think Reece should be able to produce "scientific" evidence proving this type of blind identification is impossible.

Dave, respectfully, Reece himself has said such evidence exists. We don't "think" he should be able to produce it, we "know" he should based on his statement. If he can't, he's a liar. That's NOT an insult, it's a fact:

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

He has been repeatedly asked to provide it, yet deflects those requests with irrelevant comments or insults.

His reply to my latest request for his "research" data, sources, whatever:

Jim S…..geezz…… I would have thought you would have surely done some research about the power of vision before you started making all your wayward comments. Very telling. Anyway……. just google “the power of visual perception” for a start.

Based on his reply...again ducking the request for "scientific evidence" he says supports his position...I'd say he's full of very specific and scientifically identifiable bovine solid waste.

Brint also notes another telling example of Reece's "variable truth":

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."

One time Reece says inherent tone isn't identifiable...then in another post he'll say inherent tone does not exist.. The first MAY be true depending on conditions, and he has yet to accept "level playing field" conditions for testing - a possible reason he won't offer his "scientific" evidence.

The second statement is patently false, and can be easily proven with a frequency analyzer as those with an education in acoustics and waveforms are most likely aware of (I'm not sure Reece could tell the difference between a sine wave and a Pringle, since we're STILL waiting!).

Come on Reece - you said there's scientific evidence - provide it!

[Dave Mudgett]

Respectfully, Jim - he has always talked about all of this in a listening-clinical way. In that sense, if it isn't observable, it doesn't exist, to me at least. I think the problem is differences in point of view and semantics.

Over the course of many threads, quite a few people said that they did Reece's test at the old MSA factory, but nobody yet has argued yet that they could consistently identify guitars purely by blind listening tests. How "scientific" these tests were, I can't say, I wasn't there. But no matter how much "scientific" evidence of people failing the blind listening test, it can never be conclusive. The only way to conclusively resolve this is for someone to step up and show they can really distinguish different guitars in blind listening tests.

Until then, the best anybody can do is say, "There is no evidence that someone can distinguish inherent tone in a modern pedal steel.", which is to say that there is not evidence for clinically distinguishable "inherent tone".

Personally, I think it would be interesting and kind of cool if someone could actually show they can distinguish guitars this way. I also think it would be better to eliminate the hard-line rhetoric on all ends of this discussion. To me, the question is interesting enough to deserve an attempt to answer it.

[David Mason]

I'm not sure Reece could tell the difference between a sine wave and a Pringle

Well, now, of that I am sure:

That's not a PRINGLE, Jim

Where's your audio/video clips, I can't find 'em offhand....

[Reece Anderson]

Jim S…..The evidence and explanation of my premise has been provided to you and anyone else who’s interested. Your post suggests you didn’t take the time to read it for yourself even after I gave you a link. Why should I attempt to prove something already scientifically and clinically proven when it’s instantly available for you or anyone else to examine?

For you to respond with “whatever” after I have provided the evidence you asked for, makes it crystal clear that the only thing you now want to do is CYA for your nonsensical, un-informed, continuously disrespectful, and undignified comments. I don’t have to prove anything about the power of vision relative to perception, it’s already been proven.

Truth be known, I believe you did read the evidence which supports my contentions, and the only response you could think of was….. “whatever”???? There are of course other physiological links available, but you probably wouldn’t agree with them either, so why waste your time.

David M…..Disrespectful comments from Jim S. are expected and are part of his “makeup”, but your post is a surprise. Obviously you also didn’t take the time to look at the evidence I provided.

[Bill Duncan]

This is an interesting subject, and I enjoy the comments. I have learned some things as well.

Playing pedal steel is a passion for me, I love all pedal steel guitars, I love discussing pedal steel as well. I don't care to have it run on an oscilloscope though. Sure there are things that can be analyzed on specialized equipment, that cannot be heard with normal hearing. But we judge the sound of pedal steel with normal hearing, not an oscilloscope.

Also, being passionate is fine, rude is not. Opinions are just that, opinions. We are entitled to our opinions. However, just because they're ones own opinions doesn't make them right. This thread is fun, nothing else. I hope I would never insult someone or hurt their feelings just for fun!

So far Reece, at MSA, is the only one who has done anything approaching real blind testing. HE gave his findings, and that's how it stands. Until someone can come forward and actually exhibit an ability to consistently identify a pedal steel brand by inherent tone, then other than personal opinion, there is no real evidence that inherent tone exists. At least not in a world that uses human hearing as test equipment, and not a whoopi-do tricorder sonic nebulizer from the Enterprise with Dr. Spock in control.

[Clyde Mattocks]

On the old Fenders, the Tone was right up there beside the Volume.

[Jim Sliff]

Bill, I absolutely agree that opinions are fine, and if Reece stated his position as an opinion there would probably be little discussion - and invariably no debate.

But, as quoted above, he's stated a "scientific fact" yet (despite what he said in his last post) has not provided a single piece of evidence. Im not insulting Reece - I'm asking that he provide the proof he's stated exists.

Again, Reece's quote:

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

And:

Jim S…..The evidence and explanation of my premise has been provided to you and anyone else who’s interested.

Reece, I just spent quite a bit of time re-reading EVERY post you made on this thread, and 1) you have posted not a single link, and 2) you have posted no "scientific research" sources. So I will say again, in light of your second quote above:

You're a liar. Agin, not a insult or a swear word, and not an attack. It's simply a fact relating to the CONTENT of his statement. It's untrue.

Now - if you posted said link in another thread you must be VERY familiar with it's location and content. I'm not, and no one else seems to be. So since you are so strongly stating your position about scientific research, if it was presented at some earlier point in time than this threat please post it again so we don't have to spend hours searching for it.

And Reece, an excuse such as "I don't have to re-post something I already presented some time ago" or any other attempt to dodge the subject. If you are a stand-up guy you'll present the "research" source again - IF it exists, as I said before, I'd love to read it, as it would run counter to past experience and education. I've said before I do not mind being wrong - but you haven't shown any proof here that your so-called research exists.

Also, I don't know where you get your definition of "tone" (you stated "variance of a system"), but it certainly isn't a relevant one. It's easy to yank 6th or 7th level definitions out of a dictionary (i.e. obscure or archaic usage) to muddy discussions with irrelevant definitions, but please, if you are going to discuss musical use of the word try to stay in context. Here are a couple, hope you find them useful:

From www.thefreeonlinedictionary.com:

a. The quality or character of sound.
b. The characteristic quality or timbre of a particular instrument or voice.

From www.dictionary.com:

–noun
1. any sound considered with reference to its quality, pitch, strength, source, etc.: shrill tones.
2. quality or character of sound.

Dave Mudgett - You mentioned that Reece has always talked about the subject in a clinical way - I don't disagree that he has tried to maintain that appearance. But if you'd please re-examine his quotes regarding research and the absence of any such research information, I think you'd probably agree the "appearance" of a clinical approach and actually presenting facts in a clinical manner are two quite different things.

Also, if the reference is to "research" concerns anecdotal, proprietary "testing" done at the "old" MSA plant - that information has never actually been presented, only offered as a vague remembrance. The mention of "old" also brings to mind the relevance of that "testing", as no dates have been given. "old" implies it was quite some time ago, and Reece has insisted that the lack of "inherent tone" differences exists with NEW instruments - not older ones, some of which he has specifically listed

IF THAT is the "research" - it's not scientific, it's not extensive, it's not current - and what Reece says about "extensive scientific research" is still untrue.

Dave Mason - Hey, bud - I know you were being funny. And no one, including me, has ever stated Reece isn't one heck of a player. This has absolutely nothing to do with playing skill, and my posting examples of my steel playing would not be relevant - just as you post wasn't, unfortunately. There ARE some examples of me playing other instruments on my Myspace page -just search my name - I'm not posting a link because, again, it's irrelevant and I don't want folks to get sidetracked off-topic like we inadvertently did either with the distortion talk.

Reece, to use an old expression (and although it means what it says, it's used with humor, so please, no "Jim's insulting a HOF member garbage): Put up or shut up.

[Kevin Hatton]

Mr. Anderson has contradicted himself so many times on this subject that it just no longer can be taken seriously. He still has a statement on his MSA website stating that his Superslide has a "distinctive" steel sound. Is there an alternate universe operating here???????

[Bill Duncan]

I believe much of the contention about inherent tone in a pedal steel comes from the fact that the pedal steel is such a new instrument, and that it has been, in most cases, designed and built by the players themselves.

When someone with the phenominal abilities of Buddy Emmons helps design and build a guitar, then puts his name on it, the guitar already has a head start before it ever sees a picker. You know it has to have that Emmons sound!

Same thing with the other leading brands.

Bob said something in a previous post as to how many people remember the tone of the vintage MSA as dark. Probably because Reece played a lot of jazz with the treble eased off. That's what we probably remember.

My D10 is bright and clean. I typically have to keep the highs toned down. It's a good crisp sound.

I am sure pickup type and placement has a tremendous effect on the tone. I am not so sure about the materials used in construction. Most of the guitars use the same material and construction methods.

[Reece Anderson]

Jim S….Why should I baby sit a grown man through the information process, do that yourself. The link I provided will also lead you to other links, and if that don’t satisfy you, go to the library. When and if you do, you will surely find all the explanations I found and more.

Searching for the truth requires an effort and a true desire to learn the truth………..it doesn't appear you possess either of those qualities, if you did you would be at the library instead of sitting there poised at your computer waiting on my next response and thinking of other intellectual responses similar to..…… “whatever”.

Since you mentioned put up or shut up, you surely remember that I offered to come to California and visit a friend if you would agree to a comparison evaluation, and you of course wisely declined.

There is no vague remembrance of test conclusions at MSA, which has also been attested to on the forum. .

Jim, Jim, JIM, look up the definition of “tone”…..even in a thesaurus since you don’t have a dictionary. Surely you can understand the implications of what your saying. You are challenging documented scientific, clinically proven evidence, AND now, you’re saying the dictionary is wrong AND EXPECTING ME TO EXPLAIN IT.

Searching for truth requires a sincere desire for knowledge, an open and receptive mind, and a commitment, none of which you obviously possess.

Kevin H…..Thank you for the compliment, but I don’t do everything at MSA, never have, never will, so your question is misdirected.

[Brint Hannay]

Reece, where is the link you refer to having provided? I just went back and looked carefully at all of your posts in this thread, and I didn't find a link in any of them.

Also, from what dictionary did you get the definition of "tone" you cited? I'm old school--I have two print on paper dictionaries here: Merriam-Webster Collegiate and Webster's New World Dictionary, published by Prentice Hall, and they both have lengthy lists of definitions for "tone" (too lengthy for me to type in here), and I've read them both thoroughly and there is no definition in either that even slightly resembles "variance of a system".

[Reece Anderson]

Brint H.....You might start by googling physiological advantages of vision and if that don't work for you, make a trip to your local library.

To be as abbreviated, perfectly clear and accurate concerning the definition of tone, I used a Thesaurus which said...."variance of a tone system". There is of course a much broader explanation in a dictionary.

Thank you for your questions, it's always good to see those who are interested in pursuing the truth, whatever it may be.

The Thesaurus I have is a Franklin.

[Rich Peterson]

Kevin, this is a discussion of pedal steel guitars. The SuperSlide is non-pedal. Adding a changer necessitates materials and structure to minimize cabinet drop. A builder of a nonpedal steel has much more latitude, and can therefor attain a distinctive sound.

PRS has just introduced a line of acoustic guitars that use carbon fiber truss rods (nonadjustible.) Perhaps by inlaying several such rods a PSG maker could use a greater variety of woods. Maybe even paulownia; that would make a very lightweight and acousticly loud PSG.

And then we could argue whether it sounds different from other steels. Or we could make better use of our time playing and listening to PSG.

[Bill Duncan]

Rich,

MSA already builds a carbon fiber guitar. According to the sound clip quiz done a few weeks ago, there wasn't a lot of tone difference.

I do like the idea of different wood though. We seem to have become attached to maple over the years. Quilted walnut would be nice, with a dark burgundy tint.

I'm working and can't pick, so this is all I can do until tonight.

[Jeff Evans]

SuperSlide has a distinctive, powerful and pure steel sound . . . — http://www.msapedalsteels.com/html/homess.html

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

[Georg Sørtun]

I'd argue that since we can modify a PSGs tone...
timbre
...by making minor adjustments/changes in its mechanics where it matters the most - bridge/changer, and that making the same type of changes to different brands/models does not result in the same, uniformed, tone, each consistently built brand/model has its own, distinctive, tone. Whether or not people can make out the differences between unmodified brands/models in various forms of listening-tests, is, to me, not very important, as the instruments tone don't become indistinguishable by our lack of ability to pin-point what makes them sound different to us.

As for mixing our sense of "seeing" into it; that comes naturally since "seeing" and "hearing" are mostly handled by the same parts of our brains - seeing being the dominant one in most humans. Takes quite a bit of training to separate those two senses completely, so we can make judgments based on only one sense - especially when that one sense is the less dominant "hearing". FWIW: I rarely ever trust what only my eyes tells me, and that "mistrust" isn't limited to PSGs.

No, I can't make out brands/models in a blind-test, if I haven't listened to each of them very closely over a long period of time. In that sense I'd be like a vine connoisseur who has never tasted certain vines - he may be able to describe the flavors to perfection, but not to pin-point the brand/year very well.

I've played and listened to some good but rather plain-sounding and what I'd call "uniformed" PSGs over the years. Apart from a few minor, non-important, strengths and weaknesses when testing their entire range, they just sounded good when played well. Not much "inherent tone" to play on though, so "improvements" had to be added later - electronically.

Some other PSGs seem to have a tone of their own, and although they sounded plain but good when played that way, they really came into their right when played on their strengths and weaknesses. Fine-tuning ones techniques to such instruments, will, IMO, give us more tone variation at our fingertips with less need for electronic improvements.

So my conclusion is that some PSG brands/models have distinctive tones/timbre, while others have what I a bit disrespectfully would call "a dime a dozen uniformed tone". Most of them sound like reasonably good PSGs though, and will work just fine when played well on stage or in studio.

[Reece Anderson]

Jeff...I'm not sure what you're attempting to imply, but I'll respond to your vague implication of the first quote...

DISTINCTIVE because most do not hear non pedal as sounding like a pedal guitar.

POWERFUL, few will argue the George L pickups are not powerful.

PURE STEEL SOUND is in the way it can be played, and many say it has a pure steel sound.

To me there is no question in your last quote. I have already responded to the research question more than once.

I will not use this forum relative to the guitar company I represent. So please direct any questions about guitars to me at our website and I'll be happy to respond.

[Jim Sliff]

As Kevin mentioned, Reece's contradictions serve to make any further statements by him not only irrelevant but suspect and manipulative.

As Brint mentioned, he hasn't seen the link Reece says he provided. either.

Jim, Jim, JIM, look up the definition of “tone”…..

Asked and answered, with dictionary definitions.

even in a thesaurus since you don’t have a dictionary.

I have several, and provided you with definitions from two where a copy-and-paste removes all thought of editing or manipulation.

Surely you can understand the implications of what your saying. You are challenging documented scientific, clinically proven evidence,

What evidence?

AND now, you’re saying the dictionary is wrong AND EXPECTING ME TO EXPLAIN IT.

Uh, Reece - you didn't USE a dictionary - I did. YOU used a Thesaurus, which while a very useful resource, is different from a dictionary in that it may (or may not) provide synonyms, and even when it does they have to be carefully examined for relevancy/context.

Your choice of phrase culled from a Thesaurus, as another poster noted, was not relevant and it's not a "definition" that's on-topic. It's a completely useless phrase in this thread, having nothing to do with the subject matter, which is quite specific.

Reece, your comments directed as personal insults serve to do nothing but lose you respect - you attempt to deflect requests for things you say exist by crap about not wanting to baby-sit...sorry Mr Anderson, but your comments don't do anything but cement the facts that you have NO scientific proof. None.

And as far as the library - there are no books in the LA Country Library system referencing pedal steel brand tonal comparison testing. I had students (one of them my older son, who is very interested in the subject as a former prefessional recording engineer) check two collge libraries as well - one in the Community College system, which has an interconnected database covering the nation; the other the California State University system, which has an international database. The LA County one I checked myself, using their computers and enlisting the assistance of the reference desk.

The "scientific evidence" you claim you have provided one or more links to does not exist.

By not providing a source for the information (perhaps we need to check with the Smithsonian? Cairo? Ur?) you are being both stubborn and evasive.

That indicates (very clearly, I might add) that your statements are fiction.

Oh, no - I totally forgot to check the fantasy and children's books sections! Oh, well...

Reece, your statements are full of holes, unprovable and your deflecting posts show how full of **** you are. You've taken it from a discussion to a comedy act - unfortunately, you've made yourself the subject of laughter. I honestly feel it is very sad to see a man so lost. You'd probably do a lot to regain the respect of many by simply admitting you know of know scientific studies, fabricated the whole idea, and then apologizing.

It's very embarrassing as-is. And not to me, or Brint, or Kevin, or several others. I don't think any one of us wishes you ill-will. We just hope you'll check back in to the "reality" room sooner rather than later.

I wish you the best of luck - I doubt if I'll respond further unless I'm personally named or asked to. It's a wasted effort dealing with someone apparently dwelling in a different time/space continuum than everyone else.

[Eric West]

Amen..

You do come relatively close though.

I remember an easily accessed OT Forum foray where I was accused of trying to hog the "World Stage" by having a differing opinion than someone who weaseled his way into a certain obscure "Hall of Fame"...

Press Here at your Peril..



EJL