# Science! Sustain of Neck Thru vs. Bolt on



## Hollowway (Mar 13, 2009)

OK, so I have a couple of neck thru guitars and a few bolt ons. I debated for a while about an Intrepid Pro or Standard. I ended up going with the pro for meedly meedly access, but I did wonder about sustain. I always figured neck thru's gave the best sustain, but Adam (Elysian) says bolts do. After a quick perusal of the internet (because if it's on there, it _must _be true), I found this 2007 study which says that, when evaluated with listening electronics, bolt on gives the BEST sustain. (Props, Adam.) But they also said that when actual humans listened to individual notes played on bolt ons, set necks, or neck thrus, they couldn't tell which one sustained longer.

So, take home message: Don't let sustain influence your neck decision.


----------



## Sponge (Mar 13, 2009)

I'll bite. Physics overrides opinions. Harmonic frequencies with one wood would give a better guess on sustainability.


Why this page is not informative:

What woods? 
What combination woods?
What string tension?
What strings and gauges?
What scale lengths?


Just a few...

This site is useless unless taking examples from EXACT physical models minus the bolt/neckthru option.

Peace.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 13, 2009)

A single piece of lumber will always sustain better/longer than multiple pieces of lumber joined together via glue or bolts. Period.



And theres alot more variables involved when accounting for sustain with a guitar than just the neck joint.

EDIT: Nevermind, Sponge beat me to it...



Sponge said:


> This site is useless unless taking examples from EXACT physical models minus the bolt/neckthru option.


----------



## amassivetree (Mar 13, 2009)

Anyone have access to the full version of the original study? 

Also it looks like there are two results here 1) bolt-ons sustain more (how much, how measured, etc, as you guys said). and 2) people can't hear the difference anyway.

I am more interested in 2, and the kind of people they tested. I think this is true of a lot of our gear nitpicking that the casual listener may not care or notice : there is even a new study that younger listeners prefer the sound of lossy mp3 compression! I wonder who their listeners were, if they were guitarists/musicians/etc.

Even if it turns out this study was not perfectly done, I think its cool that someone tried to measure it.


----------



## Ruins (Mar 13, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> A single piece of lumber will always sustain better/longer than multiple pieces of lumber joined together via glue or bolts. Period.


this statement could be argued forever. you do not provide any evidence to support this fact.
i had experience with both cases sustaining longer than another. my conclusion is, it's all about the materials used and the build quality.


----------



## loktide (Mar 13, 2009)

Ruins said:


> my conclusion is, it's all about the _*common guitarist's voodoo beliefs about*_ the materials used.



fix'd


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 13, 2009)

Ruins said:


> this statement could be argued forever. you do not provide any evidence to support this fact.



The transfer of vibrations/energy through wood is much easier when there arent variables like glue or bolts in its path. Thats just very very basic Physics.



Ruins said:


> it's all about the materials used and the build quality. i had experience with both cases sustaining longer than another.



I agree with this, in the end the build quality and materials used effect the sustain far more than just how the neck joint is constructed.


----------



## Ruins (Mar 13, 2009)

loktide said:


> fix'd


 yes 



WhiteShadow said:


> The transfer of vibrations/energy through wood is much easier when there arent variables like glue or bolts in its path. Thats just very very basic Physics.


agree on the fact that it is just very very basic Physics how ever things are much more complicated than that.




> I agree with this, in the end the build quality and materials used effect the sustain far more than just how the neck joint is constructed.


i wanted to give some examples but this sentence concludes it all.


----------



## darren (Mar 13, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> I agree with this, in the end the build quality and materials used effect the sustain far more than just how the neck joint is constructed.



Or any other single factor, for that matter.

People are always looking for that single "magic bullet" factor that they can point to and that's simply not the case. Guitars are complicated machines with many different variables that affect their tone, sustain and resonance. Trying to over-simplify it down to any single criterion always misses that critical point.


----------



## Scali (Mar 13, 2009)

I think the reason why bolt-on sustain is considered poor is because Fender is the most common bolt-on guitar, and their sustain is generally not very good.
However, this is also partly because of the pickups used (a Strat with 3 single coils has a lot of magnetic pull on the string, more than humbuckers, let alone an active pickup), and the wood/construction.
I guess that's why most guitarists came to associate bolt-on with poor sustain.

Likewise, I've read that a longer scale improves sustain. I was quite surprised with that, since Gibson makes some of the best sustaining guitars in the world, and they always use the 24.75" scale, rather than the 25.5" scale that most competitors use.
I guess Gibson is also the cause of people associating mahogany with lots of sustain. I have guitars made of alder or even poplar that also have great sustain.

So yea, I've given up on trying to make sense of guitar specs. There are so many factors involved, that it's hard to try and derive the contribution of a single aspect such as neck construction.
Set-neck is my favourite, probably because of Gibson again. I just like how their guitars feel, how they resonate. I have a bolt-on that sustains very well, it just doesn't have the same resonant feel.
Neck-through also doesn't have a nice feel to me, and the tone is too 'plonly', too 'compressed' in my opinion (9 out of 10 neck-throughs have maple necks, and I don't like the overly percussive attack of maple... the 'wings' on a neck-through don't compensate enough, unlike with set-necks or bolt-ons).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 13, 2009)

> Guitars are complicated machines with many different variables that affect their tone, sustain and resonance.



^^^ this.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 13, 2009)

Guitars are like fucking snowflakes, basically.

I have a set neck that sustains MUCH longer than my other set neck, both my bolt ons, and my neck through.

One of the bolt ons is second, then the neck through, then the other set neck, then the other bolt on. Find a formula that explains that.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 13, 2009)

Yeah, looks like everyone on here pretty much agrees that there are so many variables going on, the bolt vs. thru argument isn't really worth making. 

I can't find the entire study, but the author does have some cool "Mythbuster" style studies he did. Check it out: liutaiomottola.com/myth.htm


----------



## ledzep4eva (Mar 14, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> A single piece of lumber will always sustain better/longer than multiple pieces of lumber joined together via glue or bolts. Period.



Yeah, you're right. Fuck science, fact and evidence.





WhiteShadow said:


> I agree with this, in the end the build quality and materials used effect the sustain far more than just how the neck joint is constructed.



That's not even relevant!

We're not debating "What single random thing gives the best sustain?"

The questino at hand is "What neck joint gives the best sustain?"

That is IT.

So a RELEVANT example would be mahogany neck-through vs mahogany bolt-on.



Scali said:


> I think the reason why bolt-on sustain is considered poor is because Fender is the most common bolt-on guitar, and their sustain is generally not very good.
> However, this is also partly because of the pickups used (a Strat with 3 single coils has a lot of magnetic pull on the string, more than humbuckers, let alone an active pickup), and the wood/construction.
> I guess that's why most guitarists came to associate bolt-on with poor [sustain.



Great points!


----------



## lobee (Mar 14, 2009)

ledzep4eva said:


> That's not even relevant!
> 
> We're not debating "What single random thing gives the best sustain?"
> 
> ...


It most certainly is relevant. Taking two samples from the same tree can result in two drastically different planks of wood. Now figure how different two planks of wood from two different trees, or countries, or ages can affect things. 

Also, a poorly built guitar, regardless of neck joint style, will not play as well or have as much sustain as a precisely built guitar. 

There needs to be more controls in order to have an accurate study.


----------



## hufschmid (Mar 14, 2009)

darren said:


> OGuitars are complicated machines with many different variables that affect their tone, sustain and resonance. Trying to over-simplify it down to any single criterion always misses that critical point


----------



## daemon barbeque (Mar 14, 2009)

lobee said:


> It most certainly is relevant. Taking two samples from the same tree can result in two drastically different planks of wood. Now figure how different two planks of wood from two different trees, or countries, or ages can affect things.
> 
> Also, a poorly built guitar, regardless of neck joint style, will not play as well or have as much sustain as a precisely built guitar.
> 
> There needs to be more controls in order to have an accurate study.



Well the best test would be taking the same wood as base ,make 100 guitars of 3 different joint types and see what's the best.
All 100 guitars have to be made in the same luthiers hands since action has a big role.
You should get 100 of the same bridge made in the same machine by the same guy ,cast by the same people in the same pot!

Than you should get 100 times the same strings ,done by the same people with the same materials.

use the same paint and the same thickness of laquer.
Same drying room with the same air filter.

You should let them dry the same amount of time. Oh and everything have to happen in the same season or even day(s).

This is going to be a controled envoirment then. But still ,100 guitars won't be enough or representative enough for it.


----------



## vansinn (Mar 14, 2009)

ledzep4eva said:


> Yeah, you're right. Fuck science, fact and evidence.
> 
> 
> That's not even relevant!
> ...



Isolating a single factor, like the neck joint, is going to be _very_ difficult..

We're dealing with a complete swinging system, with the strings attached at both ends. Everything in-between affects tone and sustain.

And how do we even agree on what sustain means?
It's possible to have good sustain at/near the fundamental frequency of a string, and less at the harmonics/overtones, or in other ways..
This will affect what we percieve as good sustain, even if we don't conciously think of it this way. It's partly a feel, also influencing how we percieve sustain with a clean tone versus a distorted tone et al..


If we were to conduct a scientific study, we'd have to build a range of nearly completely identical instruments with differing options.
Lets try it, and limit the study a bit:

Three body types:
. a solidbody of general size and mass
. a hollow archtop jazz body
. a solid body with routed cavities
Each body type should be build in different woods

Each body should be build for at least four neck joint types:
. bolt on
. set neck
. neck through, with body sides attached
. neck through, glued into body routing

At least two neck types:
. a tapered/speed/wizard neck
. a more rounded/V-shape neck
Each neck type should be build in different woods
Each neck type should be build with different fretboard woods

All builds should be done with different scales
All builds should be fitted with different bridges
All of above should be fitted with different string selections

So, on to the permutations:

```
for each body type {
    build with a range of different woods
    for each body type, wood {
        build with different glues
        for each body, wood, glue {
            build with each different neck (type, wood, glue, scale)
        }
    }
    build with all neck joint types
}

for each complete build {
    mount different bridges
    for each build with bridge {
        fit with different strings
    }
}
```

I'd love to see the resulting spreadsheet.. 
(sorry, I'm into IT and programming; I think in structures and permutations..)


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Mar 15, 2009)

I think the only way to really determine the sustain factor of each type of joint would be to forgo using wood altogether and use a material engineered to exact tolerances like a bamboo or flaxwood. Then at least the test guitars would be much closer in tolerances than wood. The problem is that every stick of wood is so unique that it would be very difficult to scientifically determine for fact. I like the different neck joints for the other factors that they bring to the table. 

bolt-on, easily replaceable neck or body
set neck, also replaceable (not as easily mind you)but can have a shaved down heel 
neck thru, no heel at all. Easier in some ways to construct (for me), no chance of loose fitting neck pocket, not easily repaired if broken though. 

If they were taking bets on the sustain thing and used absolutely identical guitars with different neck joints and used only one perfectly stable and identical material for all wood components I would put my money on the neck thru, set neck and then bolt. But I am willing to bet that the difference would be very little.


----------



## Koshchei (Mar 15, 2009)

Hollowway said:


> OK, so I have a couple of neck thru guitars and a few bolt ons. I debated for a while about an Intrepid Pro or Standard. I ended up going with the pro for meedly meedly access, but I did wonder about sustain. I always figured neck thru's gave the best sustain, but Adam (Elysian) says bolts do. After a quick perusal of the internet (because if it's on there, it _must _be true), I found this 2007 study which says that, when evaluated with listening electronics, bolt on gives the BEST sustain. (Props, Adam.) But they also said that when actual humans listened to individual notes played on bolt ons, set necks, or neck thrus, they couldn't tell which one sustained longer.
> 
> So, take home message: Don't let sustain influence your neck decision.



American Lutherie is not a scientific journal. 

I do think that it's a good thing to challenge conventional "wisdom" because it's usually wrong, but this is just an anecdotal piece.

I think that in order to do this experiment properly, people would first need to agree on the following:

1) What is sustain? Is it merely note duration before decay, or does it exclude certain frequencies, say around the limits of human hearing? Are there different types of sustain, say sustain produced by the acoustic resonance of the instrument versus the pickups or amplifier? Is one type of sustain more desirable than other types? What about combinations?

2) What is tone? Does it include sustain, or is it only a measure of note-quality rather than specific note duration? How do you eliminate tone from sustain so that you can measure them independently?


----------



## proggm (Mar 15, 2009)

vansinn said:


> So, on to the permutations:
> 
> ```
> for each body type {
> ...



That's EXACTLY the way I was thinking about this (way too geeky, btw). Anyway &#8211; there&#8217;s too many variables and I think it&#8217;s impossible to get that study done. So what I say is: 


```
do until user_satisfaction = 1
    try_guitars
loop
```


----------



## Scali (Mar 15, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> I think that in order to do this experiment properly, people would first need to agree on the following:
> 
> 1) What is sustain? Is it merely note duration before decay, or does it exclude certain frequencies, say around the limits of human hearing? Are there different types of sustain, say sustain produced by the acoustic resonance of the instrument versus the pickups or amplifier? Is one type of sustain more desirable than other types? What about combinations?
> 
> 2) What is tone? Does it include sustain, or is it only a measure of note-quality rather than specific note duration? How do you eliminate tone from sustain so that you can measure them independently?



I think this already makes it virtually impossible to investigate the effect of the neck-joint on sustain (as in note duration)... Different neckjoints will inherently result in tonal differences.

Aside from that, wood quality and even slight differences to a guitar design can already change the tone and sustain of a guitar in a major way.
I have two examples of my own experience. One is an Ibanez RG570CT, which has an alder body. So that makes it very similar to a Strat, on the surface. Same woods, same construction, very similar body shape etc. But it doesn't sound much like a Strat at all. Also, purely based on the slight differences, you'd assume the Strat would have the advantage in sustain (block heel, no floating trem, thicker neck)... But the sustain on my RG is massive, almost Les Paul-like. I can't explain why, but it does.

Another is my Gibson M3. It's a Strat-shaped guitar, with poplar body and maple neck+fretboard. So apart from the fact that it has a set-neck, it's very close to a Squier Strat in terms of woods, shape and all.
But again this guitar doesn't sound much like such a Squier... and it doesn't feel like a Squier at all, when you play it. It's extremely resonant, and despite being light and having a very small body, it has pretty impressive tone and sustain.


----------



## damigu (Mar 15, 2009)

i think many of you are focusing too much on the forest. it seems to me that this luthier was only trying to address one single tree that people constantly bicker over. sustain is one of the few things that can be resolved with hard facts, as opposed to other tone factors that are purely subjective.

no one was saying that sustain is more important than anything or that neck joint is the end-all and be-all of tone generation. it was nothing more than addressing which neck joint type dampens the string's vibrations the most. he wasn't addressing tone, he wasn't addressing frequencies--just a matter of straight up sustain/string vibration. that is all.

as someone pointed out, the conclusion was two-fold (clearly, the 2nd conclusion was the more important one):
a/ bolt on *TECHNICALLY* gives the most sustain (regardless of all other tone factors), but
b/ in actual *PRACTICAL USE* it makes no difference since people couldn't tell.



WhiteShadow said:


> A single piece of lumber will always sustain better/longer than multiple pieces of lumber joined together via glue or bolts. Period.



you misunderstand where sustain comes from, then.
when a string vibrates, some of that energy is lost to the guitar body to make the wood vibrate. simultaneously, the body vibrating reinforces the string vibrating.
sustain is a matter of minimizing the amount of energy that is lost in the transfer/recycling of the energy between the strings and body.

i think we would all agree that an all metal guitar would sustain for *WAY* longer than a wood one, right?
but why is that?
it is because metal is significantly denser than wood. wood is actually mostly air due to countless tiny pores/veins/grains and not very dense at all (hence why it floats). the constant wood/air boundaries that vibrations have to pass through steals a LOT of energy that never gets put back into the string's vibration.

but what if you increased density/rigidity of the wood with glue or bolts?
voil&#224;! less energy lost resulting in longer sustain!
(better stated, it's a decreased rate of energy loss, since ultimately the system is not fully isolated and will lose the same amount energy regardless--just at different rates.)
for this same reason, setting a maple neck into a mahogany body results in longer sustain than setting a mahogany neck into a mahogany body. the overall density of the system is increased (since maple is denser than mahogany).

conversely, trying the same trick with a metal guitar (since i brought up the example) would actually decrease its sustain, because the glue and bolts would diminish the relative density/rigidity of the system.


----------



## Scali (Mar 15, 2009)

So what you're saying then is that neck-through gets its sustain, because usually they use a maple neck and wings of a different type of wood, AND there are two large areas with a glue joint?
Or put it another way... if you were to make a guitar out of one piece entirely, it would sustain less than a neck-through construction (even if the wings are the same material as the neck)?


----------



## hufschmid (Mar 15, 2009)

```
for each body type {
    build with a range of different woods
    for each body type, wood {
        build with different glues
        for each body, wood, glue {
            build with each different neck (type, wood, glue, scale)
        }
    }
    build with all neck joint types
}

for each complete build {
    mount different bridges
    for each build with bridge {
        fit with different strings
    }
}
```

This is epic, it looks like a secondlife LSL script 

So like an idiot i went in secondlife and uploaded it to see the result 









now I click save...








Syntax error


----------



## damigu (Mar 15, 2009)

Scali said:


> So what you're saying then is that neck-through gets its sustain, because usually they use a maple neck and wings of a different type of wood, AND there are two large areas with a glue joint?
> Or put it another way... if you were to make a guitar out of one piece entirely, it would sustain less than a neck-through construction (even if the wings are the same material as the neck)?



well, the thing is--as the article alludes to and a few have mentioned--it doesn't really matter.
we're not talking about sustaining for 20 seconds versus 10. i'm pretty sure we're not even talking about sustaining for 16 vs 15 seconds. hell, i don't think we're even talking about the audible portion of the sustain for that matter!

especially these days when changing your pickups can produce a dramatic difference in sustain and have much greater influence than the neck joint type (the DM evolution pickups i had in my jackson kelly [that i recently sold] got *literally* twice the audible sustain as the stock pickups did).

ultimately, the various subjective tonal qualities of different construction methods have a bigger impact.
that's why i think the second conclusion (that people couldn't actually tell the difference in sustain) is *THE* most important conclusion of that article.


----------



## Scali (Mar 15, 2009)

damigu said:


> especially these days when changing your pickups can produce a dramatic difference in sustain and have much greater influence than the neck joint type (the DM evolution pickups i had in my jackson kelly [that i recently sold] got *literally* twice the audible sustain as the stock pickups did).
> 
> ultimately, the various subjective tonal qualities of different construction methods have a bigger impact.
> that's why i think the second conclusion (that people couldn't actually tell the difference in sustain) is *THE* most important conclusion of that article.



Yea, I'll agree with that. As I already said, three single-coils have lots of pull... Humbuckers increase sustain, especially active ones.
Even the distance of the pickups to the strings can change sustain.

For me personally, it's the warm, mellow and smooth sound that somehow seems to be more present in set-neck guitars. That's what I love for high-gain soloing anyway. For certain sounds, the snappy bolt-on sound makes more sense... So I have both... and with alnico pickups, my bolt-ons sound pretty warm, mellow and smooth anyway.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Mar 15, 2009)

hahahaha! wtf! 

i&#180;m pretty sure you can&#180;t find the answer without either advanced physics simulation or actual testing 

syntax error


----------



## hufschmid (Mar 15, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> hahahaha! wtf!
> 
> i&#180;m pretty sure you can&#180;t find the answer without either advanced physics simulation or actual testing
> 
> syntax error



Secondlife power engine does not agree with that statement and refuses to upload the script....



Oh man, that made my day!


----------



## ledzep4eva (Mar 15, 2009)

lobee said:


> It most certainly is relevant. Taking two samples from the same tree can result in two drastically different planks of wood. Now figure how different two planks of wood from two different trees, or countries, or ages can affect things.
> 
> Also, a poorly built guitar, regardless of neck joint style, will not play as well or have as much sustain as a precisely built guitar.
> 
> There needs to be more controls in order to have an accurate study.



You're entirely missing the point. The question at hand is, and is only:

"What neck joint gives the best sustain?"

A condition of this question is that everything else on the guitar stays the same.

For the hypothetical purposes of this question, the two comparison joints are, essentially, on the same guitar - same pups, wood, everything. 

You're answering an entirely different question.


----------



## Koshchei (Mar 15, 2009)

damigu said:


> i think many of you are focusing too much on the forest. it seems to me that this luthier was only trying to address one single tree that people constantly bicker over. sustain is one of the few things that can be resolved with hard facts, as opposed to other tone factors that are purely subjective.



Before you can argue trees, you need to know what a tree is. We can't even agree on what a forest is.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Mar 15, 2009)

i&#180;m imagining the secondlife engine making it&#180;s way into people&#180;s brains, and importing it into secondlife, slowly turning the real world into secondlife...


----------



## lobee (Mar 15, 2009)

ledzep4eva said:


> You're entirely missing the point. The question at hand is, and is only:
> 
> "What neck joint gives the best sustain?"
> 
> ...


No I got that. If anything you're missing my point, which is: How do you construct three identical guitars, with the only differences being the three types of neck joints, in order to test which neck joint gives the best sustain? 


The only way I can see a test like this having any merit is if you did it something like this:

Build a neck through guitar and test the sustain(which wouldn't be the same as the tone we hear, but the actual length of time in which the string is plucked until it stops vibrating).

Next, the neck would be cut out of the guitar into the shape of a bolt-on(don't ask me how you could cut it this way). Test sustain.

Then you can glue in the neck and test again. 

This is all assuming there is a standard way of constructing a neck through, a standard way of constructing a bolt-on, and a standard way of constructing a set neck, which there isn't. Also a machine would have to be built that could pluck the strings at a consistent force.

Basically, it's more complicated than you're making it seem to be.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 15, 2009)

damigu said:


> well, the thing is--as the article alludes to and a few have mentioned--it doesn't really matter.
> we're not talking about sustaining for 20 seconds versus 10. i'm pretty sure we're not even talking about sustaining for 16 vs 15 seconds. hell, i don't think we're even talking about the audible portion of the sustain for that matter!
> 
> especially these days when changing your pickups can produce a dramatic difference in sustain and have much greater influence than the neck joint type (the DM evolution pickups i had in my jackson kelly [that i recently sold] got *literally* twice the audible sustain as the stock pickups did).
> ...


----------



## vansinn (Mar 15, 2009)

hufschmid said:


> Secondlife power engine does not agree with that statement and refuses to upload the script....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, that made my day!



Hahaha.. at least I made some have a good laugh; had a real good one myself 
FWIW, I didn't use Second Life, it's just called pseudo code.
Doesn't matter anyways.. seems difficult agreeing on too many phsudo-scientific things.
You know.. real communication between people doesn't exist, as it's impossible to know what the other part is thinking.
You can call that a syntax error as well 

Anyways.. the band is on stage, and the singer says to the audience:
"Ehmnn, our lead player have a small syntax error with his axe. Why don't you all go have a piss and a beer, and in just 10 minutes time I'm sure we'll all sustain better together.."


----------



## Scali (Mar 15, 2009)

lobee said:


> No I got that. If anything you're missing my point, which is: How do you construct three identical guitars, with the only differences being the three types of neck joints, in order to test which neck joint gives the best sustain?



I guess we'll have to borrow some theory from statistics...
Use a large enough sample set and take the average.
So instead of just building 3 guitars, build something like 10 neck-throughs, 10 set-necks and 10 bolt-ons. All to the exact same specs.


----------



## vansinn (Mar 15, 2009)

^  but even so, it would only show which neck joint is the best sustain-wise for the chosen materials in that specific test.
I have the feeling the same tests performed with other materials may not produce the same results.
As I wrote in my (geek'ish) post, I'd love to see the resulting spreadsheet. No pun intended at all; I'm sure it would be interesting, given a large enough nof test subjects.


----------



## Fred (Mar 15, 2009)

I've never understood this obsession... If you prefer the feel/aesthetics of one type of neck joint to another, go for it. If you want sustain, buy an Ebow.


----------



## ledzep4eva (Mar 15, 2009)

lobee said:


> No I got that. If anything you're missing my point, which is: How do you construct three identical guitars, with the only differences being the three types of neck joints, in order to test which neck joint gives the best sustain?
> 
> 
> The only way I can see a test like this having any merit is if you did it something like this:
> ...



You're once again missing the point, and concerning yourself merely with the practicalities of building three identical guitars 

Was that ever the question? No.

The question is, merely, which joint is best for sustain?

No-one's asking with a view to comparing anything, or building anything, or testing anything out. You don't need to test this, and you certainly don't have to build three guitars 

It's more a science question than a guitar question.

Let's make it a little practical for you.

I have a piece of wood, and I'm going to build a guitar. Just one.

Which neck joint will make the most of sustain, all other factors being the same?

Now do you see the point in this question?


----------



## lobee (Mar 16, 2009)

ledzep4eva said:


> You're once again missing the point, and concerning yourself merely with the practicalities of building three identical guitars


You obviously just like to argue so I'm done after this post, but yes I get your point. Re-read the thread and the rest of my post to understand why. 



ledzep4eva said:


> Was that ever the question? No.


 No it wasn't the question. But it's a question that needs to be asked in order to come up with an answer.



ledzep4eva said:


> The question is, merely, which joint is best for sustain?
> 
> No-one's asking with a view to comparing anything, or building anything, or testing anything out. You don't need to test this, and you certainly don't have to build three guitars


You're right, nobody's asking me to compare, build, or test anything, but looking at it scientifically(read the thread title), that's how you would find an answer.



ledzep4eva said:


> It's more a science question than a guitar question.


Then why are you treating it like a guitar question? "I just want to know which neck joint has the most sustain" doesn't sound to sciencey now do it?



ledzep4eva said:


> Let's make it a little practical for you.
> 
> I have a piece of wood, and I'm going to build a guitar. Just one.
> 
> ...


I'll make it practical for you. My answer is *I don't know* which neck joint gives the best sustain because it's effing difficult to be able to control for error when measuring sustain across different guitars with different neck joints. And overall the difference would be negligible.

Now do you see why this thread is filled with more questions than answers? Because few people, if any, truly know which joint gives the most sustain. My posts were trying to reflect that, but I guess I should have said "I don't know" right off the bat to avoid all this. 

I'm gonna go play some staccato rhythm to try to forget anything sustain related for about a week.


----------



## Scali (Mar 16, 2009)

Fred said:


> If you want sustain, buy a Les Paul.



Fixed


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 16, 2009)

Here's a great idea:
Want more sustain? Stand in front of an amp. 
How often are you gonna hold a note for 6 measures or whatever, anyway?


----------



## hairychris (Mar 16, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Here's a great idea:
> Want more sustain? Stand in front of an amp.
> How often are you gonna hold a note for 6 measures or whatever, anyway?



And if in real need just rest the headstock on the cab and you're away...

The whole argument is, well, mainly academic IMO. 2 guitars built the same way will quite often behave in different ways because of variations in the wood, even within single planks. Build quality will also have a major influence. If you get an instrument built out of good quality materials you would _hope_ that the luthier or manufacturer would know what the hell they were doing with it.

Saying 'all things being equal' is king of difficult because things never are!


----------



## MF_Kitten (Mar 16, 2009)

buy a sustainer! 

or even better, learn how to make one, and make a hexaphonic sustainer!


----------



## HighGain510 (Mar 16, 2009)

Fred said:


> I've never understood this obsession... If you prefer the feel/aesthetics of one type of neck joint to another, go for it. If you want sustain, buy an Ebow.



This.  The endless argument over what joint produces more sustain is a bit silly IMO. I don't know too many folks who need to sustain a single note for 30+ seconds in a song... if you do, add delay.  



Metal Ken said:


> How often are you gonna hold a note for 6 measures or whatever, anyway?



Just saw this, but yeah... what he said.


----------



## Sroth Saraiel (Mar 16, 2009)

IMO... I prefer neck thru but not because of the sustain...

The best sustain comes from the quality of the guitar, no matter if bolt on, SN, or NT...

I have Korean BOs that sustain better that an USA NT guitar? so were are the "basic physics", now I prefer NT cause... I SO FUC**NG HATE THOSE PLATES AND/OR SCREWS ON THE BACK, AND HATE THE SHARP EDGES ON THE BACK OF HIGH FRETS!


----------



## ledzep4eva (Mar 17, 2009)

HighGain510 said:


> This.  The endless argument over what joint produces more sustain is a bit silly IMO. I don't know too many folks who need to sustain a single note for 30+ seconds in a song... if you do, add delay.



Well, no-one wants to do that, but that's not the point anyway.

For me, a guitar with nice sustain holds the notes for a good few seconds without losing ANYTHING. Sustain is noticeable in the space of seconds. When you get a guitar that the notes run right through, ring out loud and clear and hold that integrity throughout the duration of the note, that's good sustain.

It's oversimplifying it to say "wtf no-one wants 5 minute notes".



lobee said:


> I'm gonna go play some staccato rhythm to try to forget anything sustain related for about a week.


----------



## cyril v (Mar 17, 2009)

ledzep4eva said:


> Well, no-one wants to do that, but that's not the point anyway.
> 
> For me, a guitar with nice sustain holds the notes for a good few seconds without losing ANYTHING. Sustain is noticeable in the space of seconds. When you get a guitar that the notes run right through, ring out loud and clear and hold that integrity throughout the duration of the note, that's good sustain.
> 
> *It's oversimplifying it to say "wtf no-one wants 5 minute notes".*



+1.

Simply saying add delay is just silly IMO, if you only wanted certain notes ring longer adding delay would probably just piss you off.


----------



## Sroth Saraiel (Mar 17, 2009)

cyril v said:


> +1.
> 
> Simply saying add delay is just silly IMO, if you only wanted certain notes ring longer adding delay would probably just piss you off.



JAJAJAJA


----------

