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?
Comments
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.)
Preferably with gurning as if it's that that keeps the note going.
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.
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...)
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.
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
Yes its got a 50s neck.
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.
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?
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
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.