Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
- Thread starter zionstrat
- Start date
Dave Locher
New member
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
Dunno, but it would eliminate ALL the other variables because they would remain constant. I was sorta joking but it really is the only way to say one way or the other with anything resembling objectivity.
Dunno, but it would eliminate ALL the other variables because they would remain constant. I was sorta joking but it really is the only way to say one way or the other with anything resembling objectivity.
some_dude
Raging BB Gunologist
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
I suspect that happened because of the invention of the cascading gain preamp. I think some of those old methods to improve sustain didn't necessarily improve the sound (i.e., high output pickups, brass nuts, high mass bridges, sustain blocks, heavy ass bodies, etc), and once people could get infinite sustain from the amplifier at somewhat reasonable volumes the focus shifted on to other priorities.
Personally, I think certain modern guitars sustain so well because of improvements to the construction methods. Better design, tighter tolerances, superior materials, fewer moving parts, and the parts that do move have less play within them. I think that's why we're seeing lightweight guitars that sustain so well. Since the current trend is lightweight guitars the best made guitars are typically lightweight, so they're getting the best hardware with the most attention to detail.
If the trend were heavy guitars then those guitars would get all the best hardware and workmanship and the assumption would become heavier guitars sustain better than light guitars.
IMO.
I suspect that happened because of the invention of the cascading gain preamp. I think some of those old methods to improve sustain didn't necessarily improve the sound (i.e., high output pickups, brass nuts, high mass bridges, sustain blocks, heavy ass bodies, etc), and once people could get infinite sustain from the amplifier at somewhat reasonable volumes the focus shifted on to other priorities.
Personally, I think certain modern guitars sustain so well because of improvements to the construction methods. Better design, tighter tolerances, superior materials, fewer moving parts, and the parts that do move have less play within them. I think that's why we're seeing lightweight guitars that sustain so well. Since the current trend is lightweight guitars the best made guitars are typically lightweight, so they're getting the best hardware with the most attention to detail.
If the trend were heavy guitars then those guitars would get all the best hardware and workmanship and the assumption would become heavier guitars sustain better than light guitars.
IMO.
Last edited:
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
Why not bodies out of granite? Marble? Brass? Stainless steel? Titanium? If you want sustain....
I've played vintage Travis Beans and aluminum-necked Kramers. Lots of sustain, not much dynamic range. In a head-to-head test, I much preferred my all mahogany Les Paul '55 Special Reissue, and its woodier tone.
Bill
Why not bodies out of granite? Marble? Brass? Stainless steel? Titanium? If you want sustain....
I've played vintage Travis Beans and aluminum-necked Kramers. Lots of sustain, not much dynamic range. In a head-to-head test, I much preferred my all mahogany Les Paul '55 Special Reissue, and its woodier tone.
Bill
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
I think sustain tends to be targeting the lower frequencies.......this is generally favouring the higher mass (thicker) strings and the low notes generally. If you think about hearing sound from a distance these are generally the notes that travel best anyhow. In making guitars that favoured this you make them less crisp and open. It was great when the amps were all toppy like some of the 70's Fenders/Marshalls etc.
But we want more than just the dull thud as players. We want the detail, less mids that dull out the tone, maybe a more combed sound allows all the range to sound out.
I have not played any old guitars (save my mid 60's Hagstrom).....being a lefty I'm sure I will never ever even see one. But the newer guitars I've made to clone the old classics sustain just fine. I have never built a type of guitar and thought it lacked anything irrespective of wood, construction type or neck attachment.
I think sustain tends to be targeting the lower frequencies.......this is generally favouring the higher mass (thicker) strings and the low notes generally. If you think about hearing sound from a distance these are generally the notes that travel best anyhow. In making guitars that favoured this you make them less crisp and open. It was great when the amps were all toppy like some of the 70's Fenders/Marshalls etc.
But we want more than just the dull thud as players. We want the detail, less mids that dull out the tone, maybe a more combed sound allows all the range to sound out.
I have not played any old guitars (save my mid 60's Hagstrom).....being a lefty I'm sure I will never ever even see one. But the newer guitars I've made to clone the old classics sustain just fine. I have never built a type of guitar and thought it lacked anything irrespective of wood, construction type or neck attachment.
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
My Parker weighs nothing, the tone and sustain are both fantastic.
My Parker weighs nothing, the tone and sustain are both fantastic.
DrNewcenstein
He Did the Monster Mash
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
There are two stages to sustain: the fundamental note, and the resulting harmonic. The differences in sustain with regards to mass and body construction relate directly to these two stages. While any good setup on any guitar of either of the "big three" construction methods (bolt, set, through) will allow for identical sustain times, the main difference is the time it takes for the fundamental to "degrade" into its harmonic state.
A bolt-on with 10s and medium jumbos will generally have a fundamental sustain time equal to a neckthrough using 9s with medium jumbos, based on my own observations.
I cannot speak to the effectiveness of adding mass to the head, as with brass nuts or the old brass Fathead plates you would get for Les Pauls, however, the fact that these even existed and were marketed towards LPs (as opposed to SGs and 335s), disproves the notion that a huge chunk of mahogany would inherently have more sustain, IMO.
Adding mass to the body may increase fundamental sustain, however. I've got maybe a 1/2 pound of studs, spikes, domes, and pyramids impaled on the surface of a Jackson Warrior (the type one normally attaches to leather jackets and such), and have noticed an increase in fundamental sustain over identical models without those additions.
However, this one also has an OFR and is tuned down a full step, and the neck has jumbo frets, so there's that.
There are two stages to sustain: the fundamental note, and the resulting harmonic. The differences in sustain with regards to mass and body construction relate directly to these two stages. While any good setup on any guitar of either of the "big three" construction methods (bolt, set, through) will allow for identical sustain times, the main difference is the time it takes for the fundamental to "degrade" into its harmonic state.
A bolt-on with 10s and medium jumbos will generally have a fundamental sustain time equal to a neckthrough using 9s with medium jumbos, based on my own observations.
I cannot speak to the effectiveness of adding mass to the head, as with brass nuts or the old brass Fathead plates you would get for Les Pauls, however, the fact that these even existed and were marketed towards LPs (as opposed to SGs and 335s), disproves the notion that a huge chunk of mahogany would inherently have more sustain, IMO.
Adding mass to the body may increase fundamental sustain, however. I've got maybe a 1/2 pound of studs, spikes, domes, and pyramids impaled on the surface of a Jackson Warrior (the type one normally attaches to leather jackets and such), and have noticed an increase in fundamental sustain over identical models without those additions.
However, this one also has an OFR and is tuned down a full step, and the neck has jumbo frets, so there's that.
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
I know the original 4.5 lb Parkers, which had this carbon fiber skin connecting the neck and the body sustained forever, so there is something to the coupling idea.
But lots of great music was made on guitars that don't supposedly sustain well- it also depends on the style. Guitarists like Yngwie, Steve Morse, and Blackmore rarely slow down enough to sustain notes that long. On the other hand, it is part of Santana's style. So you have to figure out what's important to you.
I know the original 4.5 lb Parkers, which had this carbon fiber skin connecting the neck and the body sustained forever, so there is something to the coupling idea.
But lots of great music was made on guitars that don't supposedly sustain well- it also depends on the style. Guitarists like Yngwie, Steve Morse, and Blackmore rarely slow down enough to sustain notes that long. On the other hand, it is part of Santana's style. So you have to figure out what's important to you.
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
you might wanna try the wall test as well. Pushing the neck against the wall might alter your sustain.
Good stuff all around
The table trick is fun- I actually practiced that way in college (resting the guitar body on the table) to keep the chops up without getting death threats from neighbors in the days before master vol
Sounds like all agree neck has a lot to do with sustain- Again from personal experience I think this is true because I play, wide 25.5s that tend to be relatively massive.
The Alembec brass block example is interesting- I had been told that it was increasing the mass of the guitar- decreasing vibration of the body and forcing the wave to stay in the string, but it sounds like it may be doing something differnt than I had heard?
Frankly, I'm doing the build, so I might as well play around with it- But I would still love to see the data.
Unfortunately it wont be soon, too many other projects will come first- maybe someone will write a paper before I get back to it
Cheers,
ZStrat
you might wanna try the wall test as well. Pushing the neck against the wall might alter your sustain.
eclecticsynergy
Well-known member
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
I used to take advantage of this effect in reverse. When I was playing rock gigs on bass with big amps (SVTs mostly) I could get infinite sustain by stepping back and pressing the body against the edge of the cab. Worked great, like pedal tones on a pipe organ.
I used to take advantage of this effect in reverse. When I was playing rock gigs on bass with big amps (SVTs mostly) I could get infinite sustain by stepping back and pressing the body against the edge of the cab. Worked great, like pedal tones on a pipe organ.
DavidRavenMoon
New member
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
The FatHeads were made to eliminate those pesky dead spots on some Fender necks. They work great for that. Some builders like Sadowsky won't use ultra light tuners because he found the reduced mass at the head made dead spots worse!
Stiffening the neck with graphite also eliminates dead spots. In both cases they shift the resonant frequency of the neck higher, and out of the range of the fundamentals of the notes that die.
And this is another example of the wood removing energy from the strings by vibrating at a certain pitch, thus killing sustain.
It's all very interesting. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The FatHeads were made to eliminate those pesky dead spots on some Fender necks. They work great for that. Some builders like Sadowsky won't use ultra light tuners because he found the reduced mass at the head made dead spots worse!
Stiffening the neck with graphite also eliminates dead spots. In both cases they shift the resonant frequency of the neck higher, and out of the range of the fundamentals of the notes that die.
And this is another example of the wood removing energy from the strings by vibrating at a certain pitch, thus killing sustain.
It's all very interesting. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Has anyone documented mass vs sustain?
^ Yeah, there are all sorts of odd resonances when you get the 'snowflake' tendency of wood in there.
But I'm not sure why graphite would be guaranteed to work on any neck at all - unless the necks that you have seen benefit from it are so paper thin that the graphite takes over most of the stability. Because you could just as easily create a new deadspot entirely where the fundamental of the rods interacts with the wood.
^ Yeah, there are all sorts of odd resonances when you get the 'snowflake' tendency of wood in there.
But I'm not sure why graphite would be guaranteed to work on any neck at all - unless the necks that you have seen benefit from it are so paper thin that the graphite takes over most of the stability. Because you could just as easily create a new deadspot entirely where the fundamental of the rods interacts with the wood.
