|
Post by ss "Shane" on Mar 5, 2018 5:38:14 GMT -7
I hear some people say that heavier guitars produce better sustain but in my experience I can’t agree with that. In my experience the lightest teles I’ve owned gave me the most sustain. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by Paul (TRANE) on Mar 5, 2018 7:35:16 GMT -7
I think, based on my own guitars, that weight is not the end all be all....light or heavy. Some heavier guitars sustain and sound awesome and some light guitars sustain and sound awesome. I think it has to do with good set up more than weight in most cases. Of course YMMV. If you find a guitar that speaks to you bring it home.
|
|
|
Post by BritInvasion on Mar 5, 2018 9:15:07 GMT -7
I agree with Paul , I've had 'em both ways. I suspect that the wood in a particular guitar has something to do with it , as well as other factors. Some pieces seem dead , others very lively.
|
|
|
Post by John E. on Mar 5, 2018 9:56:35 GMT -7
I have to have heavy guitars. I mean, I have had and love some light guitars, but I prefer heavy ones. I tend to beat up guitars quite a bit.. Not on purpose, but when I'm playing live, if I'm playing rhythm I get pretty into it. And heavy guitars feel more solid.
I will say, 6-10 hour rehearsals/jam sessions with heavy guitars do tend to make my back and feet ache.
|
|
|
Post by lowbudget on Mar 5, 2018 10:00:39 GMT -7
I haven't found that there is a repetitive rule regarding sustain and tone vs. weight, but I have noticed a distinct inverse relationship between weight tolerance and age.
|
|
|
Post by Maddog on Mar 5, 2018 10:25:16 GMT -7
I don't think there's a steadfast rule that correlates guitar weight with sustain. I personally think it's the way all the parts come together.....ie: a crapshoot. I've had cheapo guitars that sustain forever, and fairly expensive guitars that were total duds....
|
|
|
Post by helmi on Mar 5, 2018 10:42:47 GMT -7
I have to have heavy guitars. I mean, I have had and love some light guitars, but I prefer heavy ones. Your young. in 20-25 years you'll prefer the lighter ones! (lol)
|
|
|
Post by daddyelmis (Greg) on Mar 5, 2018 10:43:26 GMT -7
If heavy made the guitar sound “better” I imagine all acoustic guitar builders wouldn’t try so hard to make them light.
I thinks it’s more about the density of the wood rather than the pounds.
2 guitars using the same wood would resonate differently depending on how much wood is used, but I’ve always believed less wood (less mass) will resonate more freely for longer (sustain).
|
|
|
Post by ss "Shane" on Mar 5, 2018 10:47:55 GMT -7
All I know is that the very best and most sustainable guitar I own happens to be my lightest. The only time I see heavy as described as having lots of sustain is when someone is selling a heavy guitar. It seems to me that their using the term “sustain” synonymously with heavy to make up for weight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 11:04:01 GMT -7
I'm a man, I like heavy guitars. It's always the sum of the parts, never the weight of the wood. I've picked up duds at any weight, but I have found it's harder to hide a dud that weighs 10 pounds than it is to hide a dud that weighs 7 pounds. 10 pounds of dead weight sticks out like a sore thumb. I have some pretty nice guitars in the 7.5 lbs. and under category, but there's just something about slinging a heavy beast over my shoulder that just feels right. I know it's probably psychological.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 11:08:44 GMT -7
Guitar physics are pretty complicated, apparently, but my understanding is that sustain is the product of overall rigidity (a sloppy neck joint or improper neck angle can kill sustain), free vibration at contact points (think about how your fingers can kill a vibrating string--same thing can happen in a grooved saddle or poorly slotted nut), and then transfer of that vibration to the body and neck--so, you want firm bridge contact as much as possible and good, hard materials at the contact points. The body and neck materials don't seem to matter a whole lot compared to these other factors--you can make a guitar out of masonite or lucite or carbon fiber, which you'd think would be the deadest materials in the world, and assuming it's reasonably well put together and the rest of the signal chain is up to snuff, it'll ring like a $10,000 custom shop Les Paul.
That said, these days I'm all about lighter is better. As long as it won't neck-dive on me, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ridgeback on Mar 5, 2018 11:23:57 GMT -7
The only characteristic that is tied directly to weight in a guitar is how heavy it is.
|
|
|
Post by daddyelmis (Greg) on Mar 5, 2018 11:50:32 GMT -7
Excellent summary, Fleabiscuit.
|
|
|
Post by gbowman on Mar 5, 2018 12:43:00 GMT -7
I tend to agree with the idea that build, rather than weight, is the most significant factor in the sustain. However, just to throw a wrench in the brew, I do own a lapsteel guitar made of a single piece of walnut. It is very heavy. I think if I were to open the case right now, it would still be sustaining from last week's gig...
|
|
|
Post by zpilot on Mar 12, 2018 7:16:39 GMT -7
Guitar physics are pretty complicated, apparently, but my understanding is that sustain is the product of overall rigidity (a sloppy neck joint or improper neck angle can kill sustain), free vibration at contact points (think about how your fingers can kill a vibrating string--same thing can happen in a grooved saddle or poorly slotted nut), and then transfer of that vibration to the body and neck--so, you want firm bridge contact as much as possible and good, hard materials at the contact points. The body and neck materials don't seem to matter a whole lot compared to these other factors--you can make a guitar out of masonite or lucite or carbon fiber, which you'd think would be the deadest materials in the world, and assuming it's reasonably well put together and the rest of the signal chain is up to snuff, it'll ring like a $10,000 custom shop Les Paul. That said, these days I'm all about lighter is better. As long as it won't neck-dive on me, anyway. Agree. Physics says that, all other things being equal, a heavier body will sustain more. So if a lighter guitar seems to sustain better it is because something else is at play as you have noted. I like lighter guitars because to me they seem to have better tone, which is another characteristic altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 7:30:03 GMT -7
At this point weight is a factor in every piece of my entire rig. I'm sure there are good heavy guitars but I'll never buy one again. I don't think I've ever experienced "too light". The times that I've played a guitar that did the neck dive thing I'd have to chalk it up to somebody putting Grovers on the guitar thinking they were better. Signed, biggest Chambered guitar fan on the forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 9:11:17 GMT -7
At this point weight is a factor in every piece of my entire rig. I'm sure there are good heavy guitars but I'll never buy one again. I don't think I've ever experienced "too light". The times that I've played a guitar that did the neck dive thing I'd have to chalk it up to somebody putting Grovers on the guitar thinking they were better. Signed, biggest Chambered guitar fan on the forum. I think I could give you a run for your money on the chambered thing. Two of my three Lesters are chambered, my only "solid body" Gretsch is chambered, and my current #1 guitar is a Tele Thinline that weighs 5.8 lbs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 9:17:23 GMT -7
Guitar physics are pretty complicated, apparently, but my understanding is that sustain is the product of overall rigidity (a sloppy neck joint or improper neck angle can kill sustain), free vibration at contact points (think about how your fingers can kill a vibrating string--same thing can happen in a grooved saddle or poorly slotted nut), and then transfer of that vibration to the body and neck--so, you want firm bridge contact as much as possible and good, hard materials at the contact points. The body and neck materials don't seem to matter a whole lot compared to these other factors--you can make a guitar out of masonite or lucite or carbon fiber, which you'd think would be the deadest materials in the world, and assuming it's reasonably well put together and the rest of the signal chain is up to snuff, it'll ring like a $10,000 custom shop Les Paul. That said, these days I'm all about lighter is better. As long as it won't neck-dive on me, anyway. Agree. Physics says that, all other things being equal, a heavier body will sustain more. So if a lighter guitar seems to sustain better it is because something else is at play as you have noted. I like lighter guitars because to me they seem to have better tone, which is another characteristic altogether. I like them because I've got compressed discs in my lower back, so just standing for any length of time can be painful--let alone standing with an 8.4 lb chunk of wood slung around my neck. Tonally I'm not sure I hear a difference between my chambered Lesters and my un-chambered one, but I play with a fair amount of gain, etc., so the signal chain has a lot to say about my tone.
|
|
|
Post by zpilot on Mar 12, 2018 9:32:05 GMT -7
I think chambered bodies are the best thing to happen to guitars in a long time. One of those "improvements" that really have no downside.
|
|
|
Post by gbowman on Mar 12, 2018 9:49:43 GMT -7
One of my "keep forever" guitars is a Guild Bluesbird, a chambered LP type guitar. That guitar has a sweet resonance I've not experienced with any other LP style guitar. (I've owned many along the way) The reduced weight really saved my spine after a lot of years of playing a full weight LP standing up.
|
|
|
Post by greenblues58 on Mar 12, 2018 9:55:37 GMT -7
Both my Corsa guitars are chambered les Paul types and are both resonant and loud acoustically and sustain well ,both are in the 7 to 8 lb range if l remember. My 79 les Paul custom is in the lighter range for a 70,s era lesters at just over 9 lbs but is quiet acoustically, compared to the Corsa's , but sustains and resonates just as well as the two chambered Corsa's. Amplified volume is similar on all three despite one with P90's so that would be down to similar output pickups l suspect. I tend to play sitting down and the 79 gives you a dead leg after 30 mins resting on your thigh!
|
|
|
Post by doctorice on Mar 12, 2018 11:07:15 GMT -7
I'm old and my back/neck/shoulders sometimes act up. Light weight guitars are good. I sold off everything over 8 lbs. My LP is a Corsa modded standard faded from 2008, which is chambered. The lightest I own is a Parker Fly; it probably weighs in around six lbs.
|
|
|
Post by mickey on Mar 13, 2018 5:24:58 GMT -7
From memory all my guitars are around the 8 pound mark, except my Lester which is nearer 9. The only downside is that I'm having more back/shoulder problems these days, but I stick with them. I recently sold my '69 Tele which was a good 8 1/2 pounds, and kept my CS Tele which is about 7 1/2. I've had experience with lightweight guitars which sound lightweight, and heavy guitars which sound dead, though I know that's not necessarily the rule. I have an SG Classic which is no more than 7 pounds, and that sounds great. You just have to judge each guitar on its own merit, IMO. My new PRS DGT is 8 pounds, which seems ideal.
|
|
|
Post by LT on Mar 13, 2018 13:52:10 GMT -7
Add me to the list that likes lighter axes. I grew up on 70's era LP's that, looking back, are generally regarded as the heaviest LP's ever as a group. I much prefer my chambered 2012 LP Std.
|
|
|
Post by ss "Shane" on Mar 13, 2018 18:18:07 GMT -7
All of these statements are very interesting. The main reason I started the topic is because I was surfing around on Reverb and saw a Tele for sale that was 9lbs. I thought this sounded crazy! Then the seller went on to say that the extra weight added to the sustain. A year ago I might have agreed with this.
I do appreciate the seller’s honestly. That’s a good thing these days.
|
|
|
Post by daddyelmis (Greg) on Mar 14, 2018 4:06:30 GMT -7
Add me to the list that likes lighter axes. I grew up on 70's era LP's that, looking back, are generally regarded as the heaviest LP's ever as a group. I much prefer my chambered 2012 LP Std. I saw a review of Gibson recently (due to their financial troubles) where they said the increase weight of those 70’s LPs was due to Gibby running out of their stash of aged woods and having to go with newer, less dried, lesser quality wood. So they marketed the heavier LPs as having “more sustain” due to the weight. Then, of course, they started chambering for weight relief and said that THAT increased resonance and sustain. Fender has used a lot of different wood in Strats, all claiming great sustain, and started the “swimming pool” routing to save money with no admitted impact on sustain or resonance. Go figure. I’m in the camp with electrics that the pickups and bridge are 95% of tone and performance.
|
|
|
Post by sharkboy on Mar 14, 2018 5:52:23 GMT -7
Yeah, as has been stated above, there is no direct correlation between sustain and weight. What I will say is that I don't love the way my guitar sounds when my back is killing me. I'm a big fan of playing mostly hollow bodies and even the thin, solid body Rickenbackers these days. I can't imagine playing a whole gig with a LP these days.
FYI: a friend, who has a budget solid state amp played my ES-330 through my Route 66 and said "my guitars won't sustain like this." I told him to bring them in, because much of it is the relationship between guitar and amp. He did. now he gets it.
|
|
|
Post by LT on Mar 14, 2018 8:30:38 GMT -7
All of these statements are very interesting. The main reason I started the topic is because I was surfing around on Reverb and saw a Tele for sale that was 9lbs. I thought this sounded crazy! Then the seller went on to say that the extra weight added to the sustain. A year ago I might have agreed with this. I do appreciate the seller’s honestly. That’s a good thing these days. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of selling off my deceased friend's incredible collection of vintage Stingray basses. In a similar statement, some others that are also selling these basses actually say that the heavier ones have more of the "Stingray growl". I'm not sure I buy that, but I can tell you that some of these basses are 11+lbs! I feel for our bass playing brothers!
|
|
|
Post by The Bad Poodle Experience on Mar 14, 2018 10:53:01 GMT -7
sustain is one thing..... HOWEVER, I bet there is a correlation between weight and tone. lighter being warmer in tone. i had to get over the emotional attachment to my very heavy 1977 les Paul std after years of trying to warm up the tone and finding it was useless. Also, if you're slinging a guitar around on stage for 3-4 hours a night, your body will feel much better the next day if you had a lighter guitar.
|
|
|
Post by premiumplus (Dave) on Mar 15, 2018 8:13:15 GMT -7
For 18 years my only guitar was a 1970 Les Paul Custom black beauty, the "Fretless Wonder" as it was called back then. That thing weighed between 11 and 12 pounds, it was like slinging a boat anchor around my shoulder. It had nylon bridge saddles so it's no surprise that it didn't have any better sustain than my chambered 2002 premium plus Les Paul. I actually believe the lighter one sustains better.
|
|