How do you make a guitar that sustains on every note?

Yeah maximum sustain everywhere over the neck will not necessarily make the most pleasing tone as it will need to be fairly resonantly dead. A resonant guitar will have notes that resonate in sympathy with the strings and jump out more, and other notes that resonate out of sympathy and cancel out some of the sustain resulting in 'dead spots'. But it could well have more character as a tone generating machine
Bottom line for me is: Does it inspire me? Do I start spontaneously writing a new song or coming up with fresh ideas? That sort of thing.
 
Sorry but theres too much nonsense in this post. If you study the physical phenomenon of "resonance" you understand that the snake oil thats trying to be sold here is that somehow the resonant frequency of a particular wood can match the resonance frequency of a guitar string (and in most cases 6 different guitar strings at 22-24 different fret positions). The problem is the while the resonant frequency of the wood remains constant, each string (and each string played on each individual fret) will have its own unique resonant frequency, which means that even if you achieve "in-time" resonant frequency ie. pushing someone on a swing at just the right point to maximize (or at the least, increase) amplitude or getting that perfect double-bounce on a trampoline, it would mean that it would work on that particular string's resonant frequency only. And as mentioned earlier, because the wood's resonant frequency is more-or-less constant, it would mean that an in-time RF on one string (or one note) could mean an off-time resonant frequency on another string/note. Thus, if wood and its resonant frequency really had a meaningful impact on sustain, it would be an absolute headache. Other factors such as string length (scale length) or length of the string when played on a certain fret for instance has a much greater impact on sustain. (Its why its hard to get a note to ring out on the 22nd fret as opposed to an open string). It would take a technological revelation in wood for it to be able to modify its resonant frequency to match the note being played so that all notes have increased sustain. Woods having an impact on "tone" is a much more nuanced debate but the argument for longer sustain is one that's cut and dry mythbusted for me.
Too much 'Nonsense'??

All I said is that you need to ensure you are starting with the right moisture content in your Woods, nothing about 'species' and/or their effect on 'Tone'.

There is a reason that dried woods ring so much more, so much longer than 'green' woods because the moisture content saps/dampens any vibrational energy. Its also why things like metal (not all as some may be 'soft') can also 'ring' hence bells that ring when struck too.

Any 'hard' material with a crystalline structure will 'ring/resonate/vibrate' for longer than soft, damp, less rigid materials - which is why you could make a guitar from Glass, Metal etc. Why Xylophones or Glockenspiels work. If you made a Xylophone from Green woods, it wouldn't ring/sustain as long as perfectly cured woods would do...

That is surely something even you can understand and accept. I never once said anything about 'different' species having any impact on Tone at all - all I said was that ensuring the Woods you use are properly dried...
 
Too much 'Nonsense'??

All I said is that you need to ensure you are starting with the right moisture content in your Woods, nothing about 'species' and/or their effect on 'Tone'.

There is a reason that dried woods ring so much more, so much longer than 'green' woods because the moisture content saps/dampens any vibrational energy. Its also why things like metal (not all as some may be 'soft') can also 'ring' hence bells that ring when struck too.

Any 'hard' material with a crystalline structure will 'ring/resonate/vibrate' for longer than soft, damp, less rigid materials - which is why you could make a guitar from Glass, Metal etc. Why Xylophones or Glockenspiels work. If you made a Xylophone from Green woods, it wouldn't ring/sustain as long as perfectly cured woods would do...

That is surely something even you can understand and accept. I never once said anything about 'different' species having any impact on Tone at all - all I said was that ensuring the Woods you use are properly dried...
You're not understanding the fundamental physics here. Just because you hit something and it "rings" doesn't mean it's beneficial at all to sustain. In fact, as I've explained above, it could even be detrimental to the sustain as having in-time resonance on some notes means out-of-time resonance on others. So if you are judging a piece of wood by knocking on it for instance and choosing a wood that "rings" and determining that is the better wood to use, that's pseudoscientific.

Now I do understand and agree with your point that you generally want a denser, harder material as a base as it will dampen the kinetic energy of the strings less as it oscillates back and forth. So in this sense, you actually dont want to use a wood that rings at all, because ringing is a consequences of movement/oscillation. You want the wood to be as solid and immobile as possible ie. Zero ringing. All I would concede is that the effect of wood is >0 but is so insignificant that it's effectively meaningless.

I didn't mean to be offensive by using the term "nonsense", I am using it in the literal sense of the word. It just pains me to see how easy it is for electric guitar companies to fool it's rather sentimental demographic into these falsehoods that help justify big margins for more exotic materials that may mean something to acoustic instruments but just don't translate to the technology that the electric guitar revolves around. I also have no issues with paying out the ass for these exotic materials as I have happily done it many times. I just make sure I'm being realistic with myself.
 
So if you are judging a piece of wood by knocking on it for instance and choosing a wood that "rings" and determining that is the better wood to use, that's pseudoscientific.

This also doesn't take into consideration the tonal change when the material is machined.

And hardness isn't everything either.

Xylophone mallets usually aren't compatible with marimbas because they'll dent the bars. But a marimba sustains longer than a xylophone with a softer material.
 
This also doesn't take into consideration the tonal change when the material is machined.

And hardness isn't everything either.

Xylophone mallets usually aren't compatible with marimbas because they'll dent the bars. But a marimba sustains longer than a xylophone with a softer material.
I did mention in my initial post that I do think subtle tonal differences can be had with wood choice (although quite minimal) because of the slight microphonic capabilities of most pickups. I think the main topic of interest here was sustain though.

As far as Xylophones, Ive never even seen one up close. If I were to guess, I would assume that the mechanics of picking a string that's connected to the wood is different than striking the Xylophone bar(?) with a mallet. The point of contact, though very short, does have a duration in which there's physical interference between the mallet and the bar. So in this specific case, have a softer mallet could be beneficial as there's more to cushion the interference. A overly hard mallet could interfere much more harshly during the point of contact duration. I could be completely offside on this though. I think overall it's a bit apple's to oranges but I understand where you're coming from.
 
All of my PRS guitars ring/sustain beautifully. And all of them have one dead-spot on the neck that kill a note faster than a noise gate. As some have alluded to here, some (many?) guitar builders/manufacturers tend to over-exaggerate certain traits of the materials they use and their finished products. I understand their enthusiasm, but I do think there’s an element of snake-oilery to their claims. I take what they say with a grain of salt, and certainly don’t repeat it all as fact.
 
I did mention in my initial post that I do think subtle tonal differences can be had with wood choice (although quite minimal) because of the slight microphonic capabilities of most pickups. I think the main topic of interest here was sustain though.

As far as Xylophones, Ive never even seen one up close. If I were to guess, I would assume that the mechanics of picking a string that's connected to the wood is different than striking the Xylophone bar(?) with a mallet. The point of contact, though very short, does have a duration in which there's physical interference between the mallet and the bar. So in this specific case, have a softer mallet could be beneficial as there's more to cushion the interference. A overly hard mallet could interfere much more harshly during the point of contact duration. I could be completely offside on this though. I think overall it's a bit apple's to oranges but I understand where you're coming from.
Very interesting observations and analyses. What is your professional background? Materials science? As an engineer, I love reading these types of posts.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting observations and analyses. What is your profession background? Materials science? As an engineer, I love reading these types of posts.

I come from a dinner table full of civil, electrical and mechanical engineers however I am somewhat the black sheep and chose to do a BSc in Evolutionary Biology and a BComm in Finance and Marketing. I'm super passionate about mechanical engineering though, and most other sciences. I try to do a lot of self-study in the things I'm curious about. What kind of engineer are you? It would be interesting to hear your more educated opinion on the matter.
 
I did mention in my initial post that I do think subtle tonal differences can be had with wood choice (although quite minimal) because of the slight microphonic capabilities of most pickups. I think the main topic of interest here was sustain though.

As far as Xylophones, Ive never even seen one up close. If I were to guess, I would assume that the mechanics of picking a string that's connected to the wood is different than striking the Xylophone bar(?) with a mallet. The point of contact, though very short, does have a duration in which there's physical interference between the mallet and the bar. So in this specific case, have a softer mallet could be beneficial as there's more to cushion the interference. A overly hard mallet could interfere much more harshly during the point of contact duration. I could be completely offside on this though. I think overall it's a bit apple's to oranges but I understand where you're coming from.

Oh I don't disagree with you on any points.

I was mainly trying to call into question the logic that states harder materials sustain more using a percussion instrument that was mentioned earlier and another that uses rosewood for it's tone bars. It's still transfer of energy into a material to produce a pitch.

You could go another direction and ask why we aren't using something like 316 SS, tungsten carbide, or titanium for hardware using the "higher density=better sustain" or "more crystalline=better sustain."
 
An excerpt from "The Red Violin"
Not the scene I wanted, but Samuel L Jackson's character has this violin tested, and it resonates/sustains like crazy. The whole movie is great. It's on YouTube. Just fast forward to the testing scene, or watch the whole thing
 
Oh I don't disagree with you on any points.

I was mainly trying to call into question the logic that states harder materials sustain more using a percussion instrument that was mentioned earlier and another that uses rosewood for it's tone bars. It's still transfer of energy into a material to produce a pitch.

You could go another direction and ask why we aren't using something like 316 SS, tungsten carbide, or titanium for hardware using the "higher density=better sustain" or "more crystalline=better sustain."
Point taken! Time to google "marimba" lol.

I think in the case of striking, its a different bunch of variables. Its kind of like if you want to design a bouncy ball, you dont want it to be as hard as possible, what you want is the perfect blend of dampening and rebound that allows the ball to quickly store and release energy during the point at which the ball maintained contact with the surface. There's certainly gonna be a sweet spot with a number of different variables, kind of like why trying to bounce a basketball on a trampoline doesn't quite work.

The mechanics of an oscillating string, is more about trying to release the stored energy in the string over the longest possible duration and the string itself is acting as the dampening and rebounding forces mentioned above in the basketball situation and the things that the strings are connected to ie. bridge/saddle would be the ground. Just as though you would want the ground to be as immovable as possible to bounce a basketball, you would want the bridge, frets and saddles to be as immovable as possible so that the energy of the oscillating strings isn't lost to displacing the entire guitar.
 
I come from a dinner table full of civil, electrical and mechanical engineers however I am somewhat the black sheep and chose to do a BSc in Evolutionary Biology and a BComm in Finance and Marketing. I'm super passionate about mechanical engineering though, and most other sciences. I try to do a lot of self-study in the things I'm curious about. What kind of engineer are you? It would be interesting to hear your more educated opinion on the matter.
My background is degrees in electrical, and industrial engineering. Now in software… no educated opinions on the topic at hand ;)
 
The mechanics of an oscillating string, is more about trying to release the stored energy in the string over the longest possible duration and the string itself is acting as the dampening and rebounding forces mentioned above in the basketball situation and the things that the strings are connected to ie. bridge/saddle would be the ground. Just as though you would want the ground to be as immovable as possible to bounce a basketball, you would want the bridge, frets and saddles to be as immovable as possible so that the energy of the oscillating strings isn't lost to displacing the entire guitar.

I would agree here in this isolated thought experiment.

However, in practice, I don't think this particularly translates well as the full reproduction of all the harmonics in a string can sound "harsh" as the upper harmonics begin to clash with the fundamental. This is really apparent in physical ringing bells.

I think the logic breaks down when we try to transfer a purely theoretical idea to real world applications without considering all the factors. I tend to think the single biggest overlooked factor is that we're trying to force hard data into a subjective experience while disregarding the entire field of study dedicated to that specific task.

Psychoacoustics seems to be untouched in any of these discussions. It's one thing to have superior sustain but what use is it if what sustains isn't pleasing to hear?
 
Well I for one don’t need to know how the watch works, I just need to know what time it is. If the guitar feels good, plays good, sounds good but most importantly, inspires me to pick it up…I personally don’t need to know much else.

I used to be like you brother. It’s better not knowing, a little knowledge is dangerous.
 
Back
Top