Archtop sustain?

[Klatu]

I've seen it written in several threads that this or that archtop has gobs of sustain, and that it's the difference between a good guitar and a great guitar. My question is how important is sustain to you with regards to an archtop?

I've got several acoustic archtop guitars. Some have hard attacks and shorter sustain whereas others have softer attacks and longer sustain, but I wouldn't say that the ones with longer sustain are my favorites. On the contrary, my favorite guitar at the moment is a 1946 Epiphone Triumph that has a cannon attack and short sustain. That initial attack is what makes it stand apart from the crowd.

[kris]

Jazz guitars have different bridges.I think guitars with T-O-M have bigger sustain .

[jads57]

Along w/ string choice such as flat wound vs. round wounds contribute to this as well. I air on the round wound side of this generally, but sure love Wes Montgomery's tone!

[mr. beaumont]

Sustain is a little different in an archtop versus say, a Les Paul through a heavily overdriven Marshall.

It's overrated in many applications, imho.

[mispeltyoof]

I personally find that when playing fingerstyle jazz on an archtop the last thing I want is sustain. I dont want notes running into each other and blurring the movement in bass and melody lines.

[kris]

semi-hollows have bigger sustain than arch-tops-different construction...
anyway I like the sustain in Tele...:-)

[2bornot2bop]

Sustain in a piano's soundboard is cherished. I don't see how anyone can suggest that for acoustic playing archtop sustain isn't just as cherished. Perhaps guitar sustain is either an acquired taste or simply a matter of preference. Viva la difference.

[mr. beaumont]

Depends on the application...

Bashing out "le pompe" in a gypsy jazz group? Give me as little sustain as possible...and no harmonics, either.

Playing Eddie Lang-ish "plectrum" guitar? A little sustain...not too much though.

Going for Ed Bickert "electric piano" like comping? Some sustain is nice.

[Klatu]

Sustain in a piano's soundboard is cherished. I don't see how anyone can suggest that for acoustic playing archtop sustain isn't just as cherished. Perhaps guitar sustain is either an acquired taste or simply a matter of preference. Viva la difference.

It isn't "just as cherished" for me. My question was to what extent people favor their instruments based on sustain.

[JensL]

It isn't "just as cherished" for me. My question was to what extent people favor their instruments based on sustain.

I think it is very style dependent like Jeff said. I switched to semi-hollow because I realized I wanted more sustain for somethings I play.

Jens

[Klatu]

Good point, JensL and Mr. beumont. What style do you play?

[mispeltyoof]

I have an acoustic solid wood archtop with a floating Kent Armstrong so very acoustic sound for fingsytle solo jazz so not much sustain desirable. I switch to a semi with twin humbuckers for a warm smoky jazz tone with nice sustain enough to get the honey dripping off a warm spoon sound.

[Spook410]

Sustain as an acoustic quality can be diminished with your fingertips and edge of your right hand. You can't add it in if it's not there. To me it's an indication of quality materials and construction. How responsive the whole body is to the strings vibration as that vibration dies away is a good indicator of the dynamic range and sensitivity of the instrument.

In electric guitars, it's a quite different discussion since it's mostly between the strings and the pickups.

[Jimmy Mack]

Thank you Spook. Too much sustain ?????? Sounds great to me. I can always shorten the notes, by various means. I had a Johnny Smith - no sustain! What a cold instrument - in my hands. My L5, as much sustain as I want. GUess which one stayed.

[kris]

I think the sound on arch-top jazz box is more natural than on solid-body.
I mean natural-more woody,acoustic.Sustain is also natural like on acoustic guitar.
I think every arch-tops has different sustain.

[AlohaJoe]

On the contrary, my favorite guitar at the moment is a 1946 Epiphone Triumph that has a cannon attack and short sustain. That initial attack is what makes it stand apart from the crowd.

I also have a late 40s Triumph and I love it for the same reason. It has moderate sustain but a very rich tone and aggressive attack, exactly what it was designed to do as a swing rhythm instrument. I'll roll up the floater for leads or fills if appropriate and gain sustain that way, so I'm guessing that when folks talk about sustain on an archtop they're usually talking electrics.

[pingu]

I also have a late 40s Triumph and I love it for the same reason. It has moderate sustain but a very rich tone and aggressive attack, exactly what it was designed to do as a swing rhythm instrument. I'll roll up the floater for leads or fills if appropriate and gain sustain that way, so I'm guessing that when folks talk about sustain on an archtop they're usually talking electrics.

Horses for courses .......

But it is very odd that people expect long sustain from an archtop
If you want long sustain you're better off with a 335 or solid guitar

Horses for courses tho .........

[D.G.]

I also prefer a fairly hard attack, short decay, medium sustain and short release. Too long of a decay/sustain and the notes will bleed together and make a mushy sound. It's NOT something you can control with your hands as such.

[Klatu]

When framing the question for this thread, I envisioned a comparison of like acoustic instruments.

The way I perceive sustain is the rate at which sound is released from the instrument. A well made instrument with little sustain will release most of its volume at the initial attack, making for loud volumes for short time spans. The same instrument produced to maximize sustain will produce the same amount of total volume, but will not be as loud at the moment of attack and will maintain its sound over a longer period of time.

[PTChristopher2]

Hi Klatu,

Well yeah, definitely agreed. There is no free lunch. Or in paraphrased thermodynamic-al terms:

- You can't get ahead.
- You can't break even.

So yep, there is only so much noise to go around and you can have much of it up front, or spread it out more over time payments.

And the unfortunate blather,...

Except for some hysteresis in the string and the wood (energy that gets turned into heat) and some direct air resistance on the string, much of the rest of the energy your hand imparts to the string makes some noise.

So within reason, you can have much of the noise all at once, or have the same amount of total noise but spread it out over some time.

There are many wrinkles in this basic idea, but all in all I think you are on the mark for acoustic instruments.

**************
EDIT: I think I am really leaving out far too much here, so it sounds pretty odd. But this already seems like too dull a post on this fun subject so it stays as it is.
***************

For a Les Paul, only a little of the energy gets made into noise. The rest stays on the string a bit longer, and except for some electromagnetic "drag", the string vibrates for a fairly long time vs. an acoustic instrument. Air resistance, some guitar resonance, and the inevitable hysteresis take their toll eventually.

In my opinion.

Chris

[Spook410]

Zero sum is kind of counterintuitive to me.

To use a simpler analogue, say take an electrical wave pulse with a somewhat linear diminishing amplitude. You apply this to two speakers.. one that's efficient, one that isn't. All the way down the line, the efficient speaker will generate more decibels at a given distance.

So if an acoustic archtop produces more volume with the initial input, should it not produce more volume as the string vibration diminishes? Or is there just a perception of more volume (decibels at a distance) because a more fundamental tone being produced? Or maybe the player is unconsciously driving the fundamental focused instrument harder because it isn't as complex as something with more harmonic content?

[mikeSF]

I agree that sustain is a personal choice. I don't like to play chord melody on a solid body because all the notes seem to mush together due to the excessive sustain. on the other hand, some flattops ive had with a powerful attack and instant decay are troubling too. What I do like in an archtop is sensitivity to a light attack and subsequent sustain of the lightly attacked notes. In other words, when I play very quietly, I don't want those notes to be lost.

[gcb]

When framing the question for this thread, I envisioned a comparison of like acoustic instruments.

The way I perceive sustain is the rate at which sound is released from the instrument. A well made instrument with little sustain will release most of its volume at the initial attack, making for loud volumes for short time spans. The same instrument produced to maximize sustain will produce the same amount of total volume, but will not be as loud at the moment of attack and will maintain its sound over a longer period of time.

Fully agree. At the begginning of January I received a Yunzhi. It sounds well, and it could be said very well considering the price. But compared acoustically with my two Gibsons L5 Studio, the Yunzhi fits into your second category, while the Gibsons are two cannons that doubled it in volumen and clarity, so they would fit in your first category. Electrically both of them killed it, but that would be an unfair comparison considering their electronics. Anyway, as in your case, I prefer loud volumes for short time spans. Another interesting comparison (recognizing it was comparing pears to apples), I made between the Yunzhi, with my Martin Concept Gold Two, that has rims and back made of solid maple with a solid spruce top and ebony fingerboard. Again, the Martin stood out as another cannon, but sustains a little more than the Gibsons, also with clarity and musicality.

[Klatu]

Fully agree. At the begginning of January I received a Yunzhi. It sounds well, and it could be said very well considering the price. But compared acoustically with my two Gibsons L5 Studio, the Yunzhi fits into your second category, while the Gibsons are two cannons that doubled it in volumen and clarity, so they would fit in your first category. Electrically both of them killed it, but that would be an unfair comparison considering their electronics. Anyway, as in your case, I prefer loud volumes for short time spans. Another interesting comparison (recognizing it was comparing pears to apples), I made between the Yunzhi, with my Martin Concept Gold Two, that has rims and back made of solid maple with a solid spruce top and ebony fingerboard. Again, the Martin stood out as another cannon, but sustains a little more than the Gibsons, also with clarity and musicality.

Would I be correct in assuming that your L5s are parallel braced while your Yunhzhi is x braced?

[Hammertone]

Hi Klatu,
For a Les Paul, only a little of the energy gets made into noise. The rest stays on the string a bit longer, and except for some electromagnetic "drag", the string vibrates for a fairly long time vs. an acoustic instrument. Air resistance, some guitar resonance, and the inevitable hysteresis take their toll eventually. In my opinion.
Chris

That's why I got me some of those Gibson Les Paul Hysteresis Reissue guitars.
Of course, for those who like the Les Paul but are less hysteresilly inclined, there's always this, which I just saw at NAMM - all-laminated, hollow except for a block of wood under the bridge/tailpiece: