Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

[SJ318]

I don't get it.
All my life I have heard that "in general" the heavier the wood = better sustain, like an ebony fretboard or a maple cap on a mahogany body for not only better sustain but better high end. Etc, Etc........ I understand the whole idea of transference of energy, at least I think I do. ** Harder Materials hold a Vibration Longer** has been part of my thinking form articles, interviews with noted woodworkers, just recently someone posted how the ABR bridge (that has the threaded post straight into the body instead of that crap metal sleeve they use on many guitars now.) changed the sound AND sustain 100% better. No need to keep on, you know what I am saying.
So why all of a sudden does an aluminum stop tailpiece, of which I have an original wrap around 50's nickel with the molded "saddles" set for round round strings, now advertise "For Incredible Sustain" at only 100 bucks or so if it's Gibson (don't get me going). The aluminum is 1/8 the mass of the nickel plated stop piece I use now. I mean it feels like a feather compared to the mass of what I use in all my stop tailpieces now. Where is the disconnect? Is it that all the vibrations now focus on the saddles themselves? That makes no sense. The strings are so heavily pushed down just from the angle they hit the saddles as it is! I don't wrap around the top either, I go right from the bottom of the S.T. piece. So what am I not thinking of?
Steve B.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Sustain isn't about weight - the 50's LP's sustain quite well enough as do vintage strats and they were at least 2-3 lbs lighter than the 70's ones where all this nonsense started.

Aluminum tailpieces might sustain better due to better construction techniques and more pure raw materials compared with the mass produced Zamac units that come stock now (and since 75). The big advantage is is the tonal shift - a bit more open tone and less mids congestion.

And the key with all of this is the word 'Advertise'.....nuff said.

 

[SJ318]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

To AlexR,
Thanks. Makes sense. In the same vein, Buzz Feiten said in a recent interview (I respect him greatly) that on his 3 screw T-style hard tail saddle plates he found that 3 was overkill and 2 was all you need. He said the middle screw was too much as it "impeded" or stopped the natural vibration of string through body. Also, he said the same about his bolt on necks; that making the neck bolts too tight had a similar effect of dampening the transference of vibrations. I paraphrase, but you get my point.
This seems also to go against all the "hype" of tighter is better. Aren't glued on Titebond necks like LP's and SG's even a stronger "tight" joining of the neck to the body?
Steve B.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Transfer of vibration is essential. The strings vibrate and sustain due to the back and forth transfer of energy between the string and its anchor points (and anything else on the guitar). The key parts of transfer are first and foremost the string anchor points (bridge/tailpiece and tuners/nut), but the interface between body and neck is critical for the two anchor points to 'act as one' and form a solid base. The vibrations are complex in any instrument, as the back and forth of the energy and its cancellations/standing waves can best be described by chaos theory. There is no way a linear description like 'heavier is better' can somehow explain the complex energy transfer between different bits of wood, glue, metal, bone, plastic etc.

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I have several Les Pauls, including four Historics with LW tailpieces, and a couple of others that I have swapped the factory zinc TPs for LWs. The LW will NOT add sustain...just the opposite...it makes the tone more woody, airy, open, dynamic. They're handy for getting a more vintage tone from the modern Pauls.

To me, a modern Custom. ith the hog+hog or maple over hog, ebony board and the zinc TP is famous for that tight, focused, round and less dynamic tone with the sustain that so many hard rock and metal players love.

Neither is "right" or "better", but they are different. In some of my guitars changing the TP made a big difference, in others not so much. But in general, I can say that I prefer the tone and response of the aluminum tailpiece for my blues/rock/country/jazz repertoire. My next step will be to try a LW on one of my 335s.

I hope this helps.

Bill

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Sustain is mainly affected by technique and amp settings, and it can also be affected by setup and/or special features on an instrument (e.g. the foam mutes on a Fender bass or Music Man bass). IME, the materials used on the guitar have no real-world effect on sustain in and of themselves...at least none that are controllable. For decades, companies have made claims this way or that about light vs. heavy, or this material vs. that material. Woods, metals, plastics, etc. The claims are so varied because they are almost always made for marketing purposes, not made to report scientific findings that have a real-world effect on musicians. At best, they are usually guesses, or old urban myths being passed along; at worst, they are outright lies.

 

[SJ318]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Wow,
Thanks, thats a lot of knowledge crammed into just a few posts! AlexR and Itsabass, I understand what you folks are saying, but I am not sure what you think of Buzz Feitens " looser is better" approach to neck and body symbiosis (sorry for the cork sniffer word, but I couldn't think of any other) and TRANSFER of vibrations from one to the other. Metal to wood, wood to wood. Or I misread your posts. Thanks,
Steve

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I think Buzz might have things backward. If you have everything able to vibrate in its own way separately, its like a whole bunch of people walking across a suspension bridge. For a bit everything might be in harmony, then the reflected energy starts feeding back in an out of phase way and you get that one step where the bridge just absorbs everything - dull tone in other words.

Essentially, Itsabass has things pretty correct, but what I'd add is that the one thing that is controllable is the coupling between various components. A loose coupling will allow for losses during energy transfer. Glues in the neck/body interface are better as hard drying glues like the animal ones as they will be best for energy transfer, plus they shrink as they dry pulling the two surfaces into better contact.

 

[jon the art guy]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

If overtightening a neck made for higher compression points of contact that somehow...altered? the woods and metals at the joint, I guess I could see an altering in tonality. If wood under high compression altered or somehow diverted vibrations somehow...That could be the reason why. (shrug)

Aluminum is a very resonant metal, regardless of the weight of it. The knock test is a very good means to figure out tonal transfer and coloring of both woods and metals, and where an aluminum tailpiece would ring like a bell a pot metal tailpiece, though markedly heavier, would most likely have a small chime and a big thud.

I think the tone transfer in a set neck comes mainly from the high-contact joint. I'd think the glue could be a major detractor. Thassss Y I likea da neck-thrus...

I'm just adding $.02; I don't know much about the specific science of tone transfer from wood > metal, wood > wood, etc., but I will say this; ham fingers will ruin any sort of tonal advantage a more resonant tailpiece would offer.

 

[dystrust]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Wow,
Thanks, thats a lot of knowledge crammed into just a few posts! AlexR and Itsabass, I understand what you folks are saying, but I am not sure what you think of Buzz Feitens " looser is better" approach to neck and body symbiosis (sorry for the cork sniffer word, but I couldn't think of any other) and TRANSFER of vibrations from one to the other. Metal to wood, wood to wood. Or I misread your posts. Thanks,
Steve

I know I'm not either of the members mentioned, but I call 'BS'. A few years ago my brother had a MIJ Squier Strat and the neck screws were getting loose from adjusting the truss rod which is a pretty common thing up here in MN. Anyway, he decided to have the neck redone with threaded inserts which gives you a MUCH TIGHTER coupling than conventional wood screws do. If Mr. Feiten were correct, this should have destroyed the resonance of the guitar, but the exact opposite happened. That guitar resonated and sounded better with the inserts than it ever had with wood screws.

 

[jimijames]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I think sustain is a function of many different things - for example I have guitars that are very resonant at a particular part of the note spectrum, so they'll sustain better if I'm playing the B string at the 9th fret than at the 5th fret etc.

I also think the disparate resonances can be part of the appeal of a guitar - the tele bridge resonates like crazy apart from the wood/neck but that's part of the draw of it. I started a thread ages ago about the "improved" tele bridges which really are - they resonate better and couple better with the body wood - and like 3/4 of the replies mentioned how "it just didn't sound like a tele... lost some of that charm" etc etc.

For sustain, I think if you play with any appreciable volume it isn't a problem, really. I feel like because of how you process aluminum - just massive amounts of electricity and rocks really - that each "alumnium" tailpiece would have a more uniform structure on the molecular level. Again this is just me intuiting the thing, don't really know.

I don't have an aluminum tailpiece, personally, but I figure those tonepros locking studs would have more of an impact than a tailpiece change.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I think Buzz might have things backward. If you have everything able to vibrate in its own way separately, its like a whole bunch of people walking across a suspension bridge. For a bit everything might be in harmony, then the reflected energy starts feeding back in an out of phase way and you get that one step where the bridge just absorbs everything - dull tone in other words.

+1. When things are looser, the vibrations are absorbed by the individual components and net effect is minimized. It makes sense that they need to be in unison, acting as one, to transfer vibrations throughout the instrument. Don't neck-thrus have more sustain, everything else being equal? That would seem to be in contradiction to the 'Feiten loose bolt' theory. I admire his work too, but sometimes wonder if he occasionally gets off track, maybe smelling too many glue fumes over the years (like a luthier Mad Hatter).

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Poeple say neck through is better for sustain than bolt ons and blah blah, and floyd rose trems kill sustain......

Ive played some stop tail, neck through guitars that were complete dogs.......and the kramer '85 RI I used to own had a bolt on neck and a floyd, and it would sustain forever.

It's all just about how the individual pieces fit together

Advertisement = sales = money = happy CEO = continued business (aka the "corporate/business world")

 

[Falloffthebonetone]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Poeple say neck through is better for sustain than bolt ons and blah blah, and floyd rose trems kill sustain......

Ive played some stop tail, neck through guitars that were complete dogs.......and the kramer '85 RI I used to own had a bolt on neck and a floyd, and it would sustain forever.

It's all just about how the individual pieces fit together

Advertisement = sales = money = happy CEO = continued business (aka the "corporate/business world")

My ash bodied screw on maple neck with old nickelwound strings and a bad set up bass slayed a neck through all maple rickenbacker bass in terms of sustain. It even wrecked the gibson thunderbirds there.

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

My ash bodied screw on maple neck with old nickelwound strings and a bad set up bass slayed a neck through all maple rickenbacker bass in terms of sustain. It even wrecked the gibson thunderbirds there.

Just goes to show ya. These companies will throw anything at us just to try and make a buck. And honestly who cares if guitar A sustains for 10 seconds and guitar B sustains for 15 seconds....Thats why we have tons of gain now! Sustain for everyone!!!!! hahaha

 

[Brian Griffin]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Nah...doesn't really matter the material of the metal is, if you want sustain, killer sound, heavy tone, beefy tone, screaming highs, etc., etc., just get the right pickups, amps, and effects. Don't waste your money on buying fancy nuts, tuners, tail pieces, tremolo blocks that are claimed to improve tone. Guitar companies (like any other company) has to make money and buII$hitting the consumers is one tactic to achieve that.

Probably there is a difference when the sound is analyzed by an oscilloscope or whatever, but in reality, let your ear be the judge.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

Just goes to show ya. These companies will throw anything at us just to try and make a buck. And honestly who cares if guitar A sustains for 10 seconds and guitar B sustains for 15 seconds....Thats why we have tons of gain now! Sustain for everyone!!!!! hahaha

I agree with ya man. The same thing goes for guitar effect pedals. These days many pedals incorporate tubes and the manufacturer claims these tubey pedals improve tone. WTF? Just get a Boss and a JCM 900 and you're good to go. The competition is getting tougher out there and margins are squeezed, so if they don't differentiate, they'll flop.

 

[SJ318]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I must agree,
I think Mr. Feiten may be using the wrong words. I only like sustain in the sense that all of the wood and metal are transferring their vibrations (or energy) as optimally as possible. Thanks to to dysrtrust for saying BS. I agree with all of you. Not sure why he would say that. It just seems common sense that when woods are joined as tight as they can be, transference should be optimized. I also understand the idea of Aluminum and "openness". So Buzz says BOTH hard tail plate AND neck bolts should not be too tight. "Airy" I think he said.
The article (which I just re-read to make sure I wasn't miss-quoting him) is in the June issue of Guitar Player on page 34-35. His article starts on page 32. He also doesn't like much tension on the saddles. I like my saddles to be be under a strong pressure. That is why Clapton tossed his SG trem in favor of a stoptail. D.Trucks too, I think. Special kudo's to AlexR for the use of the words "chaos theory" in a guitar forum sentence. A first. Thanks to all of you for a good discussion. Well done.
Steve Buffington
Edit: I know that longer string scale makes for more tension, but I think he is saying that besides that he does not think downward pressure (on any scale length) is good for vibration or "tone" which I also disagree with, for the afore mentioned reasons. I don't get it. I really like this guy and his playing is highly underrated in my humble opinion.
SB

 

[DreX]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

I notice the biggest difference in sustain when I change pickups. The pickups don't change the sustain itself, but their compression and output differences give if much stronger impression of lasting sustain than almost anything acoustic.

I wonder if magnetic pull or string dampening is really a thing. All the pickups makers will boast that their A2 / tiny magnet designs increase sustain due to less magnetic influence on the strings, but I've never noticed at all, and it's the pickups I have with the largest magnets, a straight set of SSL-4's, that seem to ring out the longest on account of the powerful, compressed or compressing signal they push out. I ditched some Lace Alumitones, they were supposed to have an extremely minimal amount of string pull, but output-wise, they made the guitar sound as though it had no sustain at all. The amplitude drop off after striking the strings was severe. People say they're good for signal processing - you're gonna need it.

Then there's the steel vs zinc debate, and people getting into the atomic lattice structure of various metals, again, pickup choice makes about a thousand times greater of difference, approximately.

 

[koshikas]

Re: Why the heck is aluminum "better" for sustain?

i m surprised that stuff made of brass did no appearance on this thread so far. Once upon time, everythin supposedly sustained better with BRASS, guitars has all sorts of brass accessories (saddles, entire bridges, sustain blocks, etc.)