The most overrated attribute......

[Howard Emerson]

.....of an acoustic guitar is sustain.

I'd like NO COMMENTS on this thread EXCEPT ACTUAL AUDIO/VIDEO EXAMPLES played fingerstyle.

Demonstrate via actual example how a piece you're playing is affected, either way, by an instrument you feel is improving the sound, or denigrating the sound.

If you first play a piece showing the 'good', play the same piece afterwards on a guitar that doesn't 'do it' for you, because you feel it doesn't have enough sustain.

In either direction. I don't care what guitars you use, what strings you use, etc, but I want actual examples demonstrating how 'more sustain', or not enough sustain, affected, in some way, the quality of a piece you're playing.

No stop watches, please. Actual musical pieces only.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Howard Emerson

[jpbat]

Considering sustain, I wouldn't go so far. It is important for some player.

Now, for me, I don't know what to do with it, so I go to the point to make mute to diminish it, even on guitars that don't have a lot of it from the beginning.

Case in point :

[Howard Emerson]

Jean Paul,
Tres bon!

That's a perfect example of a musical style of play that requires the note to hang around for a nano second, and if I wasn't watching I wouldn't know it was an inexpensive resonator! I would have thought it was an archtop of some sort.

Love the banjo tuners! I did the same on a 1970 Guild F-50, but I digress......

Can you play the same song on a flattop guitar for a different aural viewpoint?

Best regards,
Howard

[Methos1979]

Timely discussion for me. I recently received an Emerald X20 Custom guitar and one of the things I noticed when playing it amplified was the predominance of excessive sustain on the low E and A strings. I was able to finally solve the issue by dialing the lows way back when playing through the K&K pure pre-amp. It didn't work well just trying to dial it out on the amp itself (Carvin AG200).

Here is a short video thrown together this morning (still in my jam jams with bed hair), half asleep but you get the idea. The two guitars are a Martin 000-18GE Custom and an Emerald X20 Custom. Both have K&K pickups installed. Both have the same strings - Elixir 80/20 lights. I just play (badly) a few chord progressions on both guitars and when I get down to the picking of the Em chord you can really hear the excessive sustain.

When using this guitar live I've had to make sure I bring the K&K pre-amp so I can dial out the low end to compensate for the excessive sustain. I tend to notice it as being problematic on the A string on certain songs when I hit the low A with my thumb and then delicately finger pick the higher notes in the chord. That A just rings and rings an rings - loud! It doesn't feedback, just rings like it's never going to dissipate and drowns out the higher notes.

Note: The effect is most noticeable through good speakers or headphones that play low end well. Small computer speakers tend to dial out the low and you hear mostly the mids/highs.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

.....of an acoustic guitar is sustain.

I'd like NO COMMENTS on this thread EXCEPT ACTUAL AUDIO/VIDEO EXAMPLES played fingerstyle.

Demonstrate via actual example how a piece you're playing is affected, either way, by an instrument you feel is improving the sound, or denigrating the sound.

If you first play a piece showing the 'good', play the same piece afterwards on a guitar that doesn't 'do it' for you, because you feel it doesn't have enough sustain.

In either direction. I don't care what guitars you use, what strings you use, etc, but I want actual examples demonstrating how 'more sustain', or not enough sustain, affected, in some way, the quality of a piece you're playing.

No stop watches, please. Actual musical pieces only.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Howard Emerson

I believe the most overrated attribute is all solid back and sides.

While solid back and sides do have some impact on tone, too often this seems to be the single most important attribute some use to distinguish high-end and low-end guitars. I believe nut and saddle material have more impact than the back and sides being laminate. Laminates aren't the same quality across the board. If one builder is using a foam core and one using a solid core, there's a difference. If one builder is using 3-ply laminate with a thick core sandwiched between two thin outer veneers (as Taylor and Yamaha do) and one is using 7-ply with just a bunch of veneers glued together, that's going to change the tone.

Examples:

Blueridge in one builder that offers several models built of identical quality (aside from inlay and other cosmetic things) that we can really compare the difference in tone

Blueridge BR40 (with laminate back and sides, solid top)


Blueridge BR140 (all solid)


Taylor 114 vs 314. The Taylor comparison is not apples to apples since the 314 is voiced a little different with the forward shifted scalloped bracing and relief route, but it's another example of how laminate back and sides sounds different but not necessarily better or worse. 114 is now discontinued but there was about a $900 difference between these two guitars


It's true that most builders of quality instruments that also produce guitars with laminate back and sides cut other corners on their laminate models. Some examples are heavy finishes, solid top wood not being conditioned as well as on higher end models, etc... All valid reasons to be suspicious of laminate back and sides but some builders like Taylor, Yamaha and Blueridge are exceptions. I own four all solid wood guitars and two with laminate back and sides. I play the ones with laminate back and sides just as often and love their unique voice for what it is.

[jpbat]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Jean Paul,
Tres bon!

That's a perfect example of a musical style of play that requires the note to hang around for a nano second, and if I wasn't watching I wouldn't know it was an inexpensive resonator! I would have thought it was an archtop of some sort.

Love the banjo tuners! I did the same on a 1970 Guild F-50, but I digress......

Can you play the same song on a flattop guitar for a different aural viewpoint?

Best regards,
Howard

Howard,
thanks for the appreciation.
I'm not able at the moment to make a recording of the same tune on another guitar with more sustain, but even if I could do it, I would play it in a way that will mask that sustain, because of the music.

That's where the fondamental problem is: the *music* itself leads to the tone needed.

So we, as players, are constantly modifying our playing in order to play the tunes correctly (well, correctly *for us*, which is the final purpose in my book)
This particular piece I linked to is an extreme example of staccato playing, and yes, the guitar doesn't have gobs of sustain for sure, and this is why I choose it because it helps, but there is a lot more going on with muting (mainly the fretting hand, but also the picking hand).
Although most of the notes are short (the rhythm job with the thumb *must* use short notes in order to simply work), the articulations in the melody need more, and, although some melody notes are kept short, some use longer sustain (with or without vibrato), in order to express the melody (again, in *my* way of express it, and since I wrote that tune, which is part of an entire similar repertoire I created, I do what I want to do)

So, if I used another guitar, I would modify my playing, even without thinking much about it, in a way to output an overall sound that fit with the music.
Playing that same tune on, say, a Telecaster or a Les Paul or a 335, would be a challenge, to the point I would give up (well, I actually tried, and the muting work with the two hands is very difficult, for a deceiving result, so it's not worth it), but any acoustic guitar will do the job, even, say, a Lowden or a Goodall, which are not, the last time I looked, anything like a Macaferri regarding sustain.

I use some acoustic flat tops with more sustain in other styles, more celtic oriented, and it helps, but again, it all comes down to the music itself. The blend of longer notes in modal music is a needed result, and so you need sustain to obtain the result, but sustain until the cows come home, if you don't have strict control on it, will mud the music in no time.

In the end, the instrument is a very small ingredient in the soup.

(I admit this is *not* something to say on such a forum, but, hey, that's the truth. And I love to discuss about instruments as much as the other guy, even if I know that truth. This behaviour has a name, it is called procrastination, of which we are all more or less guilty. It is also called fun, so there is that.)

[jaymarsch]

Originally Posted by jpbat

Howard,

thanks for the appreciation.

I'm not able at the moment to make a recording of the same tune on another guitar with more sustain, but even if I could do it, I would play it in a way that will mask that sustain, because of the music.



That's where the fondamental problem is: the *music* itself leads to the tone needed.



So we, as players, are constantly modifying our playing in order to play the tunes correctly (well, correctly *for us*, which is the final purpose in my book)

This particular piece I linked to is an extreme example of staccato playing, and yes, the guitar doesn't have gobs of sustain for sure, and this is why I choose it because it helps, but there is a lot more going on with muting (mainly the fretting hand, but also the picking hand).

Although most of the notes are short (the rhythm job with the thumb *must* use short notes in order to simply work), the articulations in the melody need more, and, although some melody notes are kept short, some use longer sustain (with or without vibrato), in order to express the melody (again, in *my* way of express it, and since I wrote that tune, which is part of an entire similar repertoire I created, I do what I want to do)



So, if I used another guitar, I would modify my playing, even without thinking much about it, in a way to output an overall sound that fit with the music.

Playing that same tune on, say, a Telecaster or a Les Paul or a 335, would be a challenge, to the point I would give up (well, I actually tried, and the muting work with the two hands is very difficult, for a deceiving result, so it's not worth it), but any acoustic guitar will do the job, even, say, a Lowden or a Goodall, which are not, the last time I looked, anything like a Macaferri regarding sustain.



I use some acoustic flat tops with more sustain in other styles, more celtic oriented, and it helps, but again, it all comes down to the music itself. The blend of longer notes in modal music is a needed result, and so you need sustain to obtain the result, but sustain until the cows come home, if you don't have strict control on it, will mud the music in no time.



In the end, the instrument is a very small ingredient in the soup.



(I admit this is *not* something to say on such a forum, but, hey, that's the truth. And I love to discuss about instruments as much as the other guy, even if I know that truth. This behaviour has a name, it is called procrastination, of which we are all more or less guilty. It is also called fun, so there is that.)

Thanks for your playing and your thoughts on the topic.
Best,
Jayne

[Tony Done]

Ok, here ya go. I'm nothing if not lazy, and I just happen to have two different versions of this same song. The middle section in this, starting at about 0:52

https://www.soundclick.com/html5/v3/...&q=hi&newref=1

Can't remember what it is played on, I'm guessing a Maton dread, but I think it is plenty sustainy enough for that style.

And this:

https://www.soundclick.com/html5/v3/...&q=hi&newref=1

Very, er, biscuit tin.

Don't be too critical, it is intended as a very quick demo, recorded with the laptop mic. It made the Soundclick top 10 in its sub-genre, I have no idea why.

[Orfeas]

What about us who have found and own only one guitar, love her sustain despite the effect on a particular musical piece, and we just love our instrument's sustain whatever that might be?

[jessupe]

So, I will post these but must leave some commentary

Tone is purely subjective and has its roots in an individual persons makeup related to how and what it is they like or dislike in every single niche in their life.

Music, for most people is an inherent part of their development,often times is used as a time marker in someones life.

The bottom line is that there are people who are not "musically racist" and or they like , enjoy and appreciate all styles of music as well as all types of sounds that can be created by all the instruments that exist out there, including electronic synthesis.

And then there are people who are very particular about what they do and do not like related to the above.People who say things like "I hate rap" or "I can't stand metal" or "Gosh country music sucks" . But regardless of what level of like or dislike you have for any particular song, style or sound. We all have the reality of hearing a song on the radio and either turning it up or turning it off,there are very few people who will truly love all music equally, particularly when we factor in the appreciation for skill factor, not all music requires the same level of work, thought, time to create,some people appreciate this factor more than others.

And in all this comes "you" and what you "think music should be or sound like" and much of this is developed by our early childhood exposures to music which is when we start forming our opinions of what something should sound like. Electric tone should be like this,acoustic should sound like that, I don't like the sound of a violin when I hear it like this, but I do when I hear it like that, that sort of thing.

And through this is born our own personal tone snobbery and opinions of what sounds good to us and what does not.

So,on a personal note,related to my personal experience in my musical development and how that translates into my building, When I started building I wanted to make my guitars sound like the way I envisioned they should sound.

And based on my personal experience, related to the time,place and generation I grew up in, what "sounded like an acoustic guitar to me"
was Randy Rhoads playing "You can't kill rock n roll". Now I didn't know anything bout recording, effects, the difference between a 12 string sound or a 6, I just knew I liked the way that sounded when he played it when I was 11. As I grew older and developed a love for all different sounds and styles of music I developed a larger palette of what I like or don't like,but still that recording always stuck in my mind and somehow "invades" my building as I try to make guitars that have a similar "feel" to that recording. And there's lot's of sustain in the tone pallet,but again, it's just what I like, and can only hope some other people will too, but I know you can't please all the people all the time.

I like all my guitars the same, they are like my children, and they will all be different, but even though they are made from very different materials {maple/cedar} vs {mahogany/redwood} to me it seems apparent they come from the same father and that even if no one else likes them, they will always be my children and be a representation of my life and my experiences and I will always love them.

[AndrewG]

While I'm still not sure what the object of this thread is, I'll just say that I prefer my guitars to have sustain/decay horsepower in reserve, and which I can control, rather than a quick decay over which I have little or none.

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

While I'm still not sure what the object of this thread is, I'll just say that I prefer my guitars to have sustain/decay horsepower in reserve, and which I can control, rather than a quick decay over which I have little or none.

Andrew,
Clearly I did not make it clear enough in my original post, so it has been an abject failure.

I didn't want verbose, long winded qualifications, explanations, et al.

Talk is cheap.

I wanted a simple example showing how more, or less, sustain affected, positively or negatively, a musical passage.

My point is that ANY decent guitar has way more than enough sustain to hold notes long enough for any musical passage.

HE

[Michael Watts]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

.....of an acoustic guitar is sustain.

I'd like NO COMMENTS on this thread EXCEPT ACTUAL AUDIO/VIDEO EXAMPLES played fingerstyle.

Demonstrate via actual example how a piece you're playing is affected, either way, by an instrument you feel is improving the sound, or denigrating the sound.

If you first play a piece showing the 'good', play the same piece afterwards on a guitar that doesn't 'do it' for you, because you feel it doesn't have enough sustain.

In either direction. I don't care what guitars you use, what strings you use, etc, but I want actual examples demonstrating how 'more sustain', or not enough sustain, affected, in some way, the quality of a piece you're playing.

No stop watches, please. Actual musical pieces only.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Howard Emerson

Hi Howard,

Back in the day I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Sustain on its own being nothing more than inefficient expenditure of energy. However, when the tone of the guitar is rich and the instrument is responsive enough for you to manipulate that sustained note accordingly... well, then the fun starts.

The best example I have is my opening note here

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by Michael Watts

Hi Howard,

Back in the day I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Sustain on its own being nothing more than inefficient expenditure of energy. However, when the tone of the guitar is rich and the instrument is responsive enough for you to manipulate that sustained note accordingly... well, then the fun starts.

The best example I have is my opening note here

Wow, this is beautiful! Thanks for posting.

"My point is that ANY decent guitar has way more than enough sustain to hold notes long enough for any musical passage."

Now try and imagine that beautiful music played on a guitar with little sustain. The musical loss would be palpable. I'd follow your strict instructions, but I don't own a guitar with little sustain - because I don't generally play the kind of music that likes less sustain. I appreciate listening to it, but I don't play it.

I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't possibly disagree with your point more.

[mercy]

I think the usual definition of Q, that is quality, is sustain so Im of the opinion that the OP's statement is just an opinion.