MSA Classic, wood vs. mica

Al Carey · From: Dublin, NH USA

For any MSA experts:

I've seen MSA Classics in mica, and also in what appears to be solid wood. Does this reflect the age of the guitar? Was solid wood an option? Is there an generally accepted opinion of the difference in durability/tone/tuning stability, etc?

Thanks!
Al

Ransom Beers · Posted 14 Mar 2012 1:44 pm

It's the builders discretion as to use wood or mica but MSA built both,it's also the players choice as to what he likes or doesn't.Me,I like mica for the simple reason they're easier to care for & don't show dings,scratches,elephant footy prints or dust bunnies,oh wait ,they do show dust bunnies but the guitar don't mind.MSA also builds one with composite matrls. too.

Bob Carlucci · From: Candor, New York, USA

The mechanicals are the same in mica and lacquer body MSA guitars... All other things being equal, I feel the lacquer/ maple body MSA guitars sound and sustain better, by a good margin.. However , I like ANY wood body guitar better than any mica guitar , so take it with a grain of salt.. ANY MSA guitar is a great working, great playing, and great sounding steel guitar... bob
_________________
I'm over the hill and hittin'rocks on the way down!

no gear list for me.. you don't have the time......

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

I had one of each, liked them both and used them interchangeably on gigs.
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin

Quentin Hickey · From: Nova Scotia, Canada

I'll agree with you Mike, Ive played both and I like them both. They both sounds equally good, it just comes down to personal preference. You have the right idea, own one of each. I may someday soon too. Smile

Al Carey · From: Dublin, NH USA

Thanks for the responses, guys. I like the solid wood, purely for aesthetic reasons. I'm glad to hear that at least equal to the mica models.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Mostly, the mechanicals of the mica and wood/lacquer guitars are very similar. However, there are some important differences in the two. The early (mica) Classics featured a double raise/lower changer, and the D10's came with a center (bushing) cross-rod support. The underside was also "flocked", and the pickups had no aluminum surround (pocket). The later wood/lacquer guitars were lighter, both due to the elimination of the center support, and also due to the non-laminated bodies. The Classic XL model was about the same size as the old mica classic, but featured a wood/lacquer body with an aluminum pickup surround. Shortly after its introduction, that guitar went to a triple raise/lower changer. The Classic SS (SS signifying "Super-Small", not to be confused with "Super Sustain", which was a new pickup) featured a smaller body than most any other guitar, and also featured the triple raise/lower changer, and alumninum pickup surround. For general tones, the wood/lacquer guitars are considered superior, but the mica models have a phenomenal bass and low-midrange sound, and this is why Curly Chalker preferred them.

Michael Belkin · From: Washington, USA

I've had a MSA mica classic forever and didn't realize how weak it sounded (for regular steel sound) until I recently obtained a wood one with the aluminum pickup surround and super sustain pickups. Wow what an improvement.

But the mica one sounds great for rock slide guitar Gets a real full distorted sound when cranked through a Mesa amp. Pickup is updated to George L.

You can listen to that bluesy MSA mica tone here on Stole My Baby Away
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11206128

Darvin Willhoite · From: Roxton, Tx. USA

I recorded a song a couple of years ago and used four different guitars on it, just to see if anyone could guess which guitar I played on which part of the song. It was a lot of fun, and pretty much showed that most of the tone of a steel guitar is in the hands, and the amp/effects, not the guitar. The biggest majority of the respondents thought the old MSA Mica Classic was the Emmons P/P.

Here's the link to the original post.
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=163772&highlight

Here's where I revealed which guitars I used on which part of the song.
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=164394&highlight
_________________
Darvin Willhoite
MSA Millennium, Legend, and Studio Pro, Reese's restored Universal Direction guitar, a restored MSA Classic SS, several amps, new and old, and a Kemper Powerhead that I am really liking. Also a Zum D10, a Mullen RP, and a restored Rose S10, named the "Blue Bird". Also, I have acquired and restored the plexiglass D10 MSA Classic that was built as a demo in the early '70s. I also have a '74 lacquer P/P, with wood necks, and a showroom condition Sho-Bud Super Pro.

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

Bob Carlucci · From: Candor, New York, USA

I must disagree with some of my good friends here.. The mica MSA guitars don't have the sustain the lacquer guitars have, and are much more bassy- all other things being equal.
The aluminum surround makes a big difference in sustain. Ask any builder why its there.
Otherwise why bother with it?. Its there for a reason. My old MSA mica steels were much beloved by me, and I played one 4-5 nights a week for years and years,,, When I finally got a lacquer MSA I was shocked at the difference.. Much more sustain, and a more harmonically complex, brighter tone.
A more "traditional" steel guitar sound..
Certainly an "MSA sound", only brighter and sweeter with much better sustan.. agan, there is reason the guitars were changed in my opinion. I was told y someone that knows, that the aluminum surround makes a big difference , thats why most of the builders went to them pretty early on. bob
_________________
I'm over the hill and hittin'rocks on the way down!

no gear list for me.. you don't have the time......

Forum Index > Pedal Steel		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: