'A resonant body gives good sustain'. Another myth?

Three-ColourSunburst

I have often read comments from players who say that they know an electric guitar is a 'good' example and will show exceptional sustain as they can feel it resonating when they play it acoustically.

Thing is, when you play an electric guitar (unless you are playing so loud that you are setting up a feedback loop) the only energy the string has comes from being picked. It seems to follow that any energy that is transferred to the body (which will be damped / dissipated by holding the instrument, creating acoustic sound and so on) must be energy lost from the string itself and so lost to the pickups. This suggests that the best sustain would come from having an instrument that does not resonate with the strings at all, leaving all the energy of the string to power the pickup.

Yes, the opposite is pretty much true for an acoustic guitar, but even with acoustic instruments sympathetic resonance is often as much as a problem as a blessing, as with the problem of 'wolf' notes on a bowed instrument, where a certain note will cause the body to resonate sympathetically, the solution being to add damping to the offending string. Again, such sympathetic resonance will typically only occur at a specific frequency, so the idea that certain bits of wood used in the construction of an electric guitar will enhance the sustain of all notes and frequencies seems questionable.

Is the above sound logic or am I missing something?

Funkfingers

Bucket

I'm not fussed about sustain. I just know that when I pick up a guitar and I can feel the body resonating when I play it, I always know I'm going to enjoy playing it.

Ravenous

Three-ColourSunburst said:

This suggests that the best sustain would come from having an instrument that does not resonate with the strings at all, leaving all the energy of the string to power the pickup.

The longest sustain (not necessarily the best) - just a block of cast iron with a guitar string stretched across it. But there will be no damping at any frequency, so it will sound very bright.

It's possible for something to vibrate without losing energy - as long as the vibrations are elastic. If you can feel the body or neck vibrating in your hand as you play, it's the vibrating part against your skin that is being damped by your body - it's not necessarily the whole instrument that's losing energy, just the part you can feel.

Someone could probably do some sort of analysis on a guitar neck being held at different positions, to see what difference that makes to the overall damping. (Already been done for the effect of the headstock, but that's going off your topic.)

You'll note none of what I've said is an answer - just more things to consider. (Apologies.)

Sporky

Bucket said:

I'm not fussed about sustain. I just know that when I pick up a guitar and I can feel the body resonating when I play it, I always know I'm going to enjoy playing it.

But everyone knows that the best music is just really, really long notes.

Preferably with gurning as if it's that that keeps the note going.

digitalscream

It's far more important for me that a guitar is comfortable and easy to play. My favourite guitar weighs just 2.4kg - it's *very* resonant and thus sustains a bit less than its heavier sibling, but I really don't care because it saves my back and means I can carry on gigging.

This obsession with natural sustain seems a bit silly to me. If I want more sustain then I'll just use a compressor and/or more gain.

olafgarten

I never understood sustain. How long are you holding notes for? 

guitarfishbay

I look for a particular transient response rather rrhan outright resonance/sustain on an electric guitar or bass. I like louder and snappier in general, for heavy modern rock playing.

The (often) lighter more resonant guitars can be nicer for cleaner - slight break up kind of stuff, but some of the more extreme examples of those are less happy when you play hard.

With acoustics I like more resonant and responsive. Mine is a total featherweight despite being a jumbo.

I think stiffness/rigidity is as big a factor as the weight or species of wood, and multi laminate/reinforced type builds can combine the lighter weights with additional rigidity. 

There's probably also such a thing as too stiff, though I've not found that yet (inb4 that's what she said...)

jonnyburgo

Sporky said:

Bucket said:

I'm not fussed about sustain. I just know that when I pick up a guitar and I can feel the body resonating when I play it, I always know I'm going to enjoy playing it.

But everyone knows that the best music is just really, really long notes.

Preferably with gurning as if it's that that keeps the note going.

That reminds me of when my son was about 4 and trying to knock a peg into a hole with a toy hammer, I told him he needed to stick his tongue out of the other side of his mouth instead, and he did. Fun times.

Sassafras

I value clarity and good note separation over long sustain. That generally comes over when I play an electric unamplified.

impmann

"Yes, because heavy guitars sustain so much better and sound better. And sound 'bigger'."

Myth.

As anyone who picked up my Les Paul at the Jam will tell you, it weighs next to nothing, it is wonderfully resonant and sounds huge.

Its not hard and fast as a rule.

Three-ColourSunburst

olafgarten said:

I never understood sustain. How long are you holding notes for? 

It's not my obsession, but many players seem to think it is of vital importance. Anyhow, I am just wondering how valid the claim is that a solid guitar that can be felt to be resonant will also be one that has good sustain. I think the physics says the opposite.

digitalscream

impmann said:

"Yes, because heavy guitars sustain so much better and sound better. And sound 'bigger'."

Myth.

As anyone who picked up my Les Paul at the Jam will tell you, it weighs next to nothing, it is wonderfully resonant and sounds huge.

Its not hard and fast as a rule.

Indeed. I don't think anybody considered my ridiculously light Tele to be lacking in tone at any point either...?

impmann

digitalscream said:

impmann said:

"Yes, because heavy guitars sustain so much better and sound better. And sound 'bigger'."

Myth.

As anyone who picked up my Les Paul at the Jam will tell you, it weighs next to nothing, it is wonderfully resonant and sounds huge.

Its not hard and fast as a rule.

Indeed. I don't think anybody considered my ridiculously light Tele to be lacking in tone at any point either...?

Nope. Far from it.

guitarfishbay

impmann said:

"Yes, because heavy guitars sustain so much better and sound better. And sound 'bigger'."

Myth.

As anyone who picked up my Les Paul at the Jam will tell you, it weighs next to nothing, it is wonderfully resonant and sounds huge.

Its not hard and fast as a rule.

Sounds like a unicorn LP. Does it have the 50s neck?

I do actually wonder sometimes if the neck is a bigger factor than the body. I sometimes regret picking such a heavy Les Paul (around 11.5lb) but I tried loads and it just outright sounded and responded better than the others I'd tried.

I agree there are too many variables for observations to be rules, but you can sort of predict within a range of characteristics based on experience I think

impmann

guitarfishbay said:

impmann said:

"Yes, because heavy guitars sustain so much better and sound better. And sound 'bigger'."

Myth.

As anyone who picked up my Les Paul at the Jam will tell you, it weighs next to nothing, it is wonderfully resonant and sounds huge.

Its not hard and fast as a rule.

Sounds like a unicorn LP. Does it have the 50s neck?

I do actually wonder sometimes if the neck is a bigger factor than the body. I sometimes regret picking such a heavy Les Paul (around 11.5lb) but I tried loads and it just outright sounded and responded better than the others I'd tried.

I agree there are too many variables for observations to be rules, but you can sort of predict within a range of characteristics based on experience I think

A Unicorn LP? Nope... it exists and there are photos (and hopefully videos soon) to prove it!! ;-)

Yes its got a 50s neck.

stickyfiddle

I assume the sustain thing came about when Clapton was in perms and velvet and everyone realised the Les Paul had loads of it. But they were mostly comparing to wooden-bridged jazzzboxes, wooden-bridged danelectros, and cheap strat copies and stuff. 

Different guitars have different envelopes of sustain (ie the curve of the volume reduction after you pick a string), but I don't think I've ever played anything that doesn't sustain at all. And I don't think acoustic volume has much to do with it as my SG is not at all loud unplugged, but sustains better than my Jazzmaster which is super-loud acoustically, for a solidbody, at least.

Ravenous

guitarfishbay said:

I do actually wonder sometimes if the neck is a bigger factor than the body.

I think this is probably true. If you think of your hand as a damper attached to the neck in a certain place, it probably makes a big difference.

Compare notes played at the 7th fret (one third harmonic) to a freely hanging guitar with the capo on the 7th, for example.  Should there be a difference?

Three-ColourSunburst

stickyfiddle said:

I assume the sustain thing came about when Clapton was in perms and velvet and everyone realised the Les Paul had loads of it. But they were mostly comparing to wooden-bridged jazzzboxes, wooden-bridged danelectros, and cheap strat copies and stuff. 

I think that much the same explanation stands for the idea that 'mahogany is dark' and 'maple is bright'. People just observed that a Telecaster was bright and has a maple neck, whilst a Les Paul was darker and was made largely from mahogany and, due to being influenced by acoustic instruments, wrongly attributed these differences to the wood used.

guitars4you

Hard to know what sustain levels you are talking about and require

Very few of us need that 'Parisienne Walkways note/sustain' - but whilst I probably don't play many notes that need more than a few seconds of sustain equally I don't want it to die immediately after picking - You can always  stop a note sustaining as required , but you can't easily make a dead note ring - After playing the note I want it to retain the same texture as long as I need it to, be it part of the bar, or a whole bar

I've played heavy guitars that sing and ditto for those that don't

I've played light guitars that sing and ditto for those that don't

I don't think one criteria is responsible for all - so as always play each guitar and evaluate accordingly

Corvus

One Firebird I had resonated a lot and had disappointing sustain, my current one vibes less and has more sustain. Which made me think resonating might well be lost energy, lost sustain.

But it doesn't always matter, I want natural sustain from some guitars and others just not to be like banjos. When assessing a guitar for me it's about the sound, feel, response etc, resonance is one of the last things I'd think about.