Sustain

[A. J. Schobert]

JQ you are too much!

[Donny Hinson]

(Sigh)

I'm almost ready to admit that old Telecasters are the only guitars that have "sustain". All others are basically just pieces of $#!& played by players that have no ears and probably no talent.

I'm almost ready to admit that Emmons push-pulls are the only pedal guitars that have "sustain". All others are basically pieces of $#!& played by players that have no ears and probably no talent.

I say "almost", knowing there's a slight chance that if I would say that, well...then maybe all those "sustain freaks" would shut up for awhile.

Of course, I know deep down inside...it's hopeless. They will never change. They will go on (and on, and on, and on) preaching about "sustain" until they're pushing up daiseys, as if that was all a player (or a guitar) had to have. You see...

Sustain is their lives.

Sustain is all they live for.

Sustain is all they care about.

(What sheltered lives they must lead.)

Meanwhile, David Doggett seems to have introduced an alternative answer. YES! Sustain comes from the player and the guitar! And the secret (that others always fail to see) is that sustain is sustain is sustain. If the notes last longer because of the guitar or because of the player, the result is still the same...the notes last longer. RIGHT?

This is why players like Buddy seem to have endless sustain regardless of what they play.

[Dave Mudgett]

As Dr. Doggett explains, there are two different questions.

If you're talking about the sustain of the instrument being nominally plucked to let ring with no bar, instruments may well have different amounts of sustain. There are probably a myriad of complex mechanical reasons plus the strings and the interaction of the magnetic field of the pickup which contribute to this. I'm focusing on the mechanical vibration decay rate or the time until the signal envelope amplitude decays to a certain fraction of its peak amplitude. Of course, steel is an amplified instrument, so there are additional effects due to volume pedal, effects (especially compression and distortion or overdrive, if used), plus amp/speaker. But I'm focusing on the steel guitar here.

But as David says, I don't think that was the question asked here. The focus was on above the 12th fret, so we automatically have the bar and any manipulation to sustain the tone. I have heard a few really good players play an instrument right after I played it, and noticed the startling increase in sustain from their picking technique, bar manipulation, and volume pedal use. Hey - I'm not just being self-deprecating - I'm not all that far into this instrument even now, and this was several years back. It made an impression on me. I imagine some instruments are easier to generate a long sustain on than others. But in the end, what the listener hears is the end product of everything, with the player using all the sensory feedback possible to make adjustments to get it the way he or she wants it.

So - I think the answer is - instrument, hands, picks, feet, bar, strings, effects, amp, and perhaps other things all contribute. I have instruments with varying amounts of nominal sustain - at least they sound that way to me - I haven't done any careful measurement a la Ed Packard. But I work, every time I sit down to play, to control tonality and sustain to my will.

To me - the issue is "Which is the weakest link?"

Yeah, Donny - I know you were being facetious. But - actually, my favorite Telecasters are not the ones with the most sustain. Instead, I prefer "Tele quack". In fact, my least-sustaining instruments are my lightweight Teles. If I want long nominal sustain, I reach for a nice, solid, relatively heavy Les Paul.

[David Doggett]

Jim S., I think you set up a straw man for Bob H. He seems to state that he understands the fundamental physics are the same. Nevertheless, regardless of the identical fundamental physics, the practical physics of steel and regular guitar can be very different (notice I said "can"). Although there are exceptions, regular guitars generally have neck joints (I know some have through-the-body necks, but they are one of the exceptions), variations such as trapezes, ball attachment to the bridge or through the body, etc. And they fret with fingers to solid frets and finger-boards. And pedal steels (which are the topic here) have nut rollers, changers, no neck joint (but an overlaid "neck"), and fret with a hand-held bar.

Bob's main point seems to be not the physical differences, but the playing differences. Discussions of how to play with more sustain have some overlap, but necessarily have some differences. Regular guitar players can augment single-string sustain with overdrive. But that does not work for clean playing steel with harmony. Steelers augment sustain mainly with the volume pedal. There is a huge sustain difference between a novice who picks lightly and uses the volume pedal clumsily (or not at all), and an accomplished player who picks hard and adeptly sustains with the volume pedal. Relative to that, if you make heavy use of the VP for sustain on the high frets, single-coil hum becomes much more of a problem, and a humbucker can allow more usable VP sustain. I too am skeptical that vibrato actually adds to physical sustain, but it may affect the subjective impression of sustain. Bar weight seems to have an effect, and I think bar pressure does have an effect. These are some of the things that may be left out of a regular guitar discussion to make it "incomplete" for pedal steelers. And incompleteness was Bob's complaint, not that the fundamental physics are different. (hope I am stating your case fairly, Bob)

[Richard Damron]

David Doggett and Bob Hoffnar are on the money. Glyn refers to not one, but two, areas of consideration.

To paraphrase:

All things EXTRANEOUS to the instrument can, and will, be debated ad nauseum until the cows come home but without actual proof. Such is opinion to which all are entitled.

Acoustical qualities INTRINSIC and due to the construction of the instrument have not been established - as yet. When such information becomes available as a result of appropriate research it then becomes fact and, thus, not debatable.

For those of us who, for decades, have had our noses stuck into acoustics as applied to musical instruments it would appear that an attempt to marry a 6-string - be it Tele, Strat or hollow body - with a PGS for comparison purposes would be a short route to divorce court since the overlap 'twixt the two is minimal. The PGS is, as we all very well know, a unique instrument and demands a singular study with, as I suspect, equally singular results.

Maybe some day - but not now.

[Donny Hinson]

I suppose we could design a computerized picking apparatus, one that would play every guitar in exactly the same way. That would eliminate the player from the equation. Then we could go about rating guitars for this one quality. However, that's not how instruments are played. They're played (hopefully) by talented musicians who make adjustments, adjustments that can negate some of a guitar's shortcomings (if they really are shortcomings, that is).

We always seem to have extremes here, always the yin and yang. One player says bellcranks should have a minimum of 14 adjustment holes for timing accuracy. Another player brags that his guitar, though it has only 2, is a far better playing and sounding guitar. One player raves about the solid-state amp he just bought, while another tries to tell him that it sounds like sterile junk next to a good tube amp. One player raves about his new, complex guitar, and another points out that Lloyd remains famous while using a very old and simple guitar.

Yes, we're a strange lot, alright!

[Curtis Alford]

If the steel's response good from the 1st to the 12th fret, but is weak from the 12 fret up,this is assuming the same person is playing with the same amount of force the entire lenght of the neck, the pick-up is not responding to the frequences produced on the upper end of the scale.
I have had pick-up that do not respond to all frequences equally.Some respond much better to the lower notes than the higher notes. The Higher ohm pick-ups seem to respond better to all frequences.
The mid's setting on some amps as well affect this.
If we have solution for all situations with this problem I'm we would have corrected.

[Bob Hoffnar]

Glyn,
A couple of things you can work on to get better sustain and tone from up above the 12th fret:

1. Make sure your left hand is relaxed. If you are gripping the bar you choke off tone and sustain. Its also difficult to play in tune with any tension in your left hand.

2.Pick firmly and evenly by pushing the fat part of your finger picks threw the strings. There is a spot on the string towards the middle/right (between wherever the bar is and the bridge) where you can get the most resonance if you pick the string with just the right amount of force. Get as much pick on the string as possible. This is a real key to getting any sound you want out of any steel.

Once you gain control of your picking you can adjust the tone/sustain of the notes as you play. For example, to get a rich pearly sound you push threw the string with the fat rounded part of the finger pick. If you want more briteness and attack you snap the end edge of the pick off the string. You know, that sort of thing.

And when you get the chance check out different brands of steels and find the one that sings for you up there.

[Jim Sliff]

Attack is not sustain. That's different subject, Once you energize a string into vibration your hands are useless UNLESS you move the bar, which will lessen sustain. Change the wavelength, lose energy...lose energy, string vibrates less...string vibrates less, there is less excitement of the magnetic field in the pickup...less excitement of the magnetic field in the pickup, less output....less output, less sustain and volume. Physics 101. This is not rocket science, it's basic physical laws of energy.

If you are gripping the bar you choke off tone and sustain.

Bob, please explain that in technical terms. Tell us how "gripping" the bar changes string vibration, and at what rate it slows. Also, it'd be interesting to read a treatise on what "choking off" of tone is, and how "gripping" the bar (and perhaps a definition of what "gripping" is as opposed to "holding" ) affects tone.

I'm sure the waveform analysis will be particularly revealing.

Relative to that, if you make heavy use of the VP for sustain on the high frets,

That's not sustain either - that's increasing volume of a decaying signal.

Guys, Buddy Emmons isn't an exception to physics, and can't make a steel guitar sustain any better than anyone else. You may want to *think* he can - or you may be hearing **volume pedal** use on decaying notes...but that's not the same thing.

I'll say it again, because I'm reading the same stuff that's based on repeated quotes from steel icons who were NOT well-versed in physics - go read a book or a series of articles on the subject that treat it scientifically, not via "steel voodoo".

David D. - The construction of the guitars does have a huge effect on sustain. Please re-read my posts, because you're comments about neck joints, bridges, etc. are EXACTLY what I was talking about as the "platform" scenario. You're simply disagreeing - again - because you saw 6-string mentioned and therefore assumed the comparison is invalid.

Nope.

[Dave Mudgett]

Jim, I think everyone acknowledges that nominal sustain may indeed vary with different instruments. But the question is about why the final result is different:

I hear other players on youtube and other vid.clips, going way past the 15th fret and have sustain that just rings on , while others seem to " run out of steam" anywhere past the 12th fret.

I`d like to know why and what can effect this particular part of our beloved instrumnent...it doesn`t appear to be "brand specific"..seems to me that almost any make or model is affected to some degree.
Could it be the strings?
The bar ?
The pick-up?
The pick-up height ?
Can amp. settings have an effect ?

The question is about the final result, as perceived by the listener, not just the physics of the instrument. We're arguing that the perception of sustain, as perceived by the listener, can be controlled to a large extent by a player who knows how to do it. I fully believe that is true. The fact that any particular individual can't do that - me, you, or Joe Q. Player - is beside the point. I've heard it in side-by-side playing experience by different players on the same steel with the same volume pedal into the same effects into the same amp, juxtaposed in time. That's good enough for me. By focusing on just that one thing the last year, I think I'm getting better. Nowhere near where I want to be, but I perceive a difference in where I was a year ago - on the same guitar and equipment.

Once you energize a string into vibration your hands are useless UNLESS you move the bar, which will lessen sustain.

I guess I disagree that moving the bar necessarily increases damping. Again, I have heard players add energy to the string via vibrato. I think this is also pretty routine on guitar. I think this is easier to do when there's some (even a little) regenerative feedback interaction between the guitar/steel itself and what's coming out of the amp. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons some steel and electric guitar players tend to like to be enveloped in their sound, to some extent.

I agree with Richard Damron that none of this is remotely simple.

[Jim Sliff]

Again, I have heard players add energy to the string via vibrato.

Sorry Dave - you and agree on most things, but this time I have to disagree, and while I don't have time to pull out all the studies on this, the gist of the matter is that if you change the length of a waveform (via vibrato, moving one of the attachment points - on a guitar that would be the bridge or nut) or any other method, there is an energy loss. Always. There are NO exceptions. The only way to increase the intensity of the waveform would be to "re-excite" it. That's what the principle a violin bow is based on - a continuous energy source. Sound waves coming from the amp can also re-excite a string via (hopefully controlled) feedback, which is the essence of the playing of some rock guiraists - Carlos Santana comes to mind as one who plays right on the edge of control and can milk long, sustained notes - because the amp/speakers are vibrating the strings. Turn his amp or guitar down and he's playing shorter-duration notes. Again, this is all widely-studied, proven science.

When you pick a string, the vibration decays instantly and continues decaying.

Not to be sarcastic, but would everyone please read that last sentence again, because that's the scientific fact that governs the whole thing.

IF you could somehow make it NOT decay without re-exciting or re-energizing the wave, you would have created the mythical perpetual-motion machine, a concept that scientists have puzzled over for centuries. Once something begins moving, it WILL slow unless outside forces cause it to move again - and bar movement does not fit that description. It doesn't put energy back into the string. Maybe an electric bar with a movement device that could energize the string would work, but that's it.

You'd need to use a vibrator as a bar....



And FWIW the subject of "note duration" - which involves use of a volume pedal to make up for a decaying signal - is a totally different subject than the subject of "sustain". I do notice steel players mix the two quite often, but if you're going to talk simply about sustain then you're into the physics of the instrument, not "effects" (and a volume pedal, as it's used in steel laying, IS an "effect"). I think what Dave is hearing - a supposed increase in sustain resulting from vibrato - is a combination of volume pedal use and a "deception" that vibrato creates; it can (and this has been widely discussed as well) make the listener *think* a note is not decaying, because it draws your attention.

[Dave Mudgett]

Again, this is all widely-studied, proven science.

Jim, I'd like to see the science on that. Seriously, any references? Just a link - you don't need to explain. I've never seen anything that I'd call hard science on this.

I've done no hard science on this myself. But my counter is that one can actually start a note with hard-pumping left-hand vibrato alone. Something like Jimi Hendrix's intro to "Foxey Lady", for example.

Or try this - I'm sitting here with a Strat as I write. Sound a note, let it decay. Now, sound the note, but with a hard fingernail, very aggressively make a wide vibrato using the fingernail right in back of the fret. One can start the note this way with a left-hand tap. I could hold that tone all day. My finger would get tired and it would tear the blazes out of the fretboard if I did it for a real long time. But I am actually adding energy to the string's vibration with this periodic excitation provided by my finger. No jokes please, this is a family forum

Like I said - I've also heard people do this on pedal steel with a bar. You do not necessarily need to excite a string at the vibration frequency to add energy at that frequency. Especially if you have the amp set up so you're not too far below the regenerative feedback point, it doesn't take much energy to keep the oscillation going.

Remember also - I think most of us are talking about the perceived sound through the guitar, VP, effects, amp, speaker chain. I totally agree that natural free-vibration sustain may differ significantly on different instruments. In fact, a separate thread was started to talk about that. http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=129576

[John Billings]

"one can actually start a note with hard-pumping left-hand vibrato alone."
That's because you're actually scraping the string against the fingerboard and the fret. If you put your ear right down there where you're pumping, you'll hear the scraping that actually excites the strings. My Tele goes to an expert luthier twice a year for seasonal adjustments which include any needed fretwork. I buff my frets with a Dremel buffing wheel and compound every four or so string changes.
The frets are mirror smooth. You can still hear the scraping. It's not loud, but it's enough to energize the string. Add massive distortion, high volume feedback, and it's really easy! I sat front row center when Jimi played the Scene in Milwaukee.

[Dave Mudgett]

That's because you're actually scraping the string against the fingerboard and the fret...

Absolutely.

This is very much the same effect as moving the bar back and forth along the string of a steel guitar. If one does it extremely, one can excite the string significantly.

But with the overall guitar-amp-guitar feedback loop gain smaller than but close to unity (one), even much less exaagerated bar movement can excite the string enough to keep it sustaining, IMO. I guess that is my point with all of this - the string can be excited by bar movement.

[John Billings]

Dave, with a good hard-plated or highly polished tone bar, there just is too little scraping to do the job. Maybe if your volume pedal is floored, and so is your Twin,,,,,,,,, People from companies who make tone bars go through a lot of trouble to eliminate any "scraping." I don't think the 6-string analogy is a good fit, at least on this particular point.

[Dave Mudgett]

John - when I'm trying to sustain a note, my volume pedal is gradually going down, and may even get down to the metal. Even my BJS makes some noise, especially with the wound strings if I do a back and forth vibrato fairly hard.

Here's an example - you can clearly and distinctly hear the rubbing at 3:24 and even a distinct increase in volume at 3:32: Click Here.

This is a BJS bar on a Franklin D-10 into a Pod 2 using a Deluxe Reverb or Twin Reverb emulation, into a Princeton Reverb set on, perhaps, 3 or 4, and miced. It was not particularly loud - certainly not loud enough to be anywhere near the unity-gain regenerative feedback point.

IMO, even with a good smooth bar - even a BJS - it's not hard to generate some friction if you want it. I was going for that back-and-forth vibrato sound I was describing above. It isn't hard to get it. Playing traditional country, I would use a completely different technique specifically to avoid this kind of "noise", but in this case, I wanted it.

I admit this isn't traditional country steel playing. But I assume Jim will be the first to understand that isn't the only relevant case.

[John Billings]

NICE TUNE Dave!
I don't think the volume pedal has anything to do with actual sustain. We use them like a foot operated compressor. If the string isn't sustaining, even if you floor the pedal, there'll be no sound. As for hearing the rubbing? I sat in front of too many drummers for too many years! Jerry won't even let me try to set up the guitars we put together! You gotta speak loud to me! And hearing women? I just nod my head a lot, and say, "Yup! Uh-huh!" Seems to work almost all the time! They don't care about what I might say anyway.

[Jim Sliff]

What John said, Dave...and what I said. You're starting...or re-starting string vibration that way. A string against a fret *scrapes* to a point, as a fret, no matter how polished, has a narrow-radius and is not perfectly smooth....quite unlike a bar on a steel, unless the bar is beat to hell; you could try to argue that string windings rub against the bar, but then you'd defeat the argument that you can sustain plain strings the same way. So what is it?

If you want me to find the textbook that I spent a college semester studying the subject in, I'll dig it out of my garage and mail it to you - give me a couple weeks to get to it and I'll be glad to if you don't believe it. But there have also been countless less-formal articles in guitar mags (oh, but somebody here will say THOSE are invalid, since we're talking about pedal steel - and it's exempt from the physical laws of the universe...) if YOU'D take the time to do any digging. It's also just basic physics Dave - and I'd think you among most of the people here would comprehend that you can't have perpetual motion. SOMETHING has to re-start it, and I'll turn it around, since you claim it does - show me the proof that a bar can continue string vibration and not decrease energy. Where's the evidence?

I gave you the name of one book as a reference, but you want me to give you the studies as well.

So far, I've seen zip except assumptions and oft-repeated claims that were debunked in that other guitar world quite a while ago.

I'd say I've made my point.

[Dave Mudgett]

Jim - I'm well acquainted with the basic laws of physics. You made this statement:

... the gist of the matter is that if you change the length of a waveform (via vibrato, moving one of the attachment points - on a guitar that would be the bridge or nut) or any other method, there is an energy loss. Always. There are NO exceptions.

I asked you to cite - just give me a reference for - a study that shows that when one moves a bar back and forth against, let's say, a steel guitar's strings, or when I use finger vibrato on a guitar, that this always reduces the amplitude of vibration. I've never heard of such a study, but I'm very much open to looking at one if it exists. You don't need to send me any physics or engineering vibrations books - I have tons of them. I honestly doubt that such books would study anything as specific and practical as this - but if you have one, just tell me what it is. I have a truly huge university library at my disposal to get any technical book imaginable.

I already agreed that to contribute to sustain, one must add net energy to the string vibration. I believe that the kind of vibrato I'm talking about can, in fact, add net energy to the string vibration. The examples I gave were to that effect. Even with a very smooth bar like a BJS - I have 3 - I can hear the sound of the strings scraping against the bar moving back and forth, as I decrease the attenuation on the volume pedal to increase the overall gain. I believe that this type of excitation can contribute to increasing sustain. Of course, it could also contribute to decreasing sustain. In order to increase energy, net energy inflow from the excitation would need to be greater than the frictional losses.

FWIW - many pro players here have written on changing tonality and sustain through bar manipulation. Paul Franklin was particularly eloquent on one of the "tone threads" in the last year or two. But we don't have to agree. I just call it the way I see it - no biggie.

[Gil Berry]

Interesting discussion. Jim, I think you are looking at this in too much black and white. With the PSG, as you well know, there are dozens of factors that influence tonality AND sustain. The biggest difference I see between a six-stringer and a PSG is the damping of the string vibration through the mechanical gizmos necessary to make the note change - namely the roller nut and the changer itself. While your physics leaves nothing to be desired, you neglect the consider that the string doesn't vibrate as a single wavelength producing a sine wave, but rather is loaded with harmonics - both odd and even - and that is determined by a basketfull of factors as well, most importantly the point along the string where the initial "plucking" is done - pick the string exactly in the center of it's functional length and get fundamental and even harmonics. Pick it near the changer and get all kinds of harmonics - especially odd harmonics. AND, moving the bar back and forth (bar shimmer) is likely to selectively excite those harmonics as the string length changes to become more resonant to those harmonics. So, I think Jeff may have been right - but I'm not gonna put any money on it...
Gil

[Jim Sliff]

Gil, you lose some of those harmonics when you move the bar - they don't mysteriously reappear when the bar is moved back unless there's feedback, something I already discussed as an *external* influence...and that is most likely part of what Dave is hearing, as the volume level created by such "bar scraping" acoustically is almost nil (note I say "almost - yes, you can hear it...but not enough to amplify at any level with a band UNLESS you are getting sympathetic feedback, a factor already discussed.)

I'm also well aware of the many factors that influence tone and sustain; I already listed many of the factors you're talking about. There's also more than one thread going, and I'm trying to NOT be redundant. Dave, I already gave you something to read; I don't recall if it has the exact information regarding wave damping (also important in aeronautics and aerospace design - and yes folks, it's just as relevant as 6-string comparisons when you discuss harmonics and sympathetic waveforms), but it's a darned good starting point regardless, and if you haven't read it we're not on the same wavelength (pun intended). You're offering (as the "pros" apparently are) anectodal "evidence"; How many spent a college semester studying the subject? How many have studied instrument design and built both electric and acoustic instruments? How many have worked with architects on acoustic design of halls and studios, other than saying "I think we should tack up some foam on this wall; "why?"; "well, I've seen it in other studios"...I plead guilty to all the above.

[Dave Mudgett]

Jim - it's ok for us to disagree. But I still don't know what specific study you have suggested anybody read. It needs to be shown that it is directly applicable to this specific problem. To say something like "Physics 101" or "Just read any physics book" doesn't cut it. I have read lots of them, and also very technical books on vibrations - and I've never seen anybody discuss this particular problem in enough specificity to believe it's directly applicable.

The notion of "scientific fact" is a subtle and difficult concept. With most scientists I know, there are simply theories and evidence. To me, what separates a scientist from other people is a willingness to put theories up for scrutiny, and be open to the possibility that evidence can falsify them.

If someone says "For all relevant cases, Theory A implies Consequence B", and someone shows believable evidence that "There exists a relevant case where Consequence B doesn't happen", then Theory A has a crisis. One either needs to show that the evidence is either false or not relevant, or accept the notion that Theory A may need to be revised. To me, science is the practical application of this philosophical concept to specific situations.

As I wrote earlier - my evidence that there is a problem with the theory you advance is

1. I can, under certain circumstances, add excitation to the string purely using vibrato - either on guitar and steel. Not as smoothly or nicely as I'd like on steel, but I can do it.

2. I have actually heard really good players do it very nicely - as smooth as anybody would want. Right after I played, someone else played on the same rig, and to my ears, I heard significantly increased sustain from their picking technique, bar manipulation, and/or volume pedal manipulation, without anything else being touched.

3. Other "experts" - players whose knowledge and playing ability I have great respect for - have also testified to this innumerable times.

This is enough to convince me that I should work on developing and honing this skill myself. In this case, I believe the "anecdotal" evidence I'm describing is an existential falsifier to the universal predicate statement you have made. I have absolutely no problem if anybody else believes differently.

That's as far as I can reasonably take this. Please understand that I respect your opinion, Jim. But in this case, I'm going to go with my eyes and ears, as well as the "expert" testimony from people who have been doing it a lot longer than either of us.

We're actually not that far apart. We both agree that to increase sustain in the way I describe, one needs to impart energy to the strings. If your experience tells you this isn't possible, you should not agree with me. At this point, my experience tells me otherwise.

So, believe it or not, we are philosophically in accord. We are simply operating under different premises. I feel no need to show anybody is "right" or "wrong". Anybody reading this can easily draw their own conclusions and go whatever way they want to with it.

[Bob Hoffnar]

I don't think that the strings are made to vibrate any more after the initial picking. In my experience it seems to be more about picking the string properly in the first place. Its pretty subtle like playing harmonics. If you pick in the wrong place or too hard you agitate the string. It doesn't resonate evenly and you lose sustain. With the bar if the amount of weight you put on the strings and the way you vibrato can choke off sustain if not done in a relaxed and even way. I'm not sure if you can add much sustain with vibrato but you can maximize what sustain you have with it.

[David Doggett]

Relative to that, if you make heavy use of the VP for sustain on the high frets,

That's not sustain either - that's increasing volume of a decaying signal.

David D. - The construction of the guitars does have a huge effect on sustain. Please re-read my posts, because you're comments about neck joints, bridges, etc. are EXACTLY what I was talking about as the "platform" scenario. You're simply disagreeing - again - because you saw 6-string mentioned and therefore assumed the comparison is invalid.

Well, now that you are defining "sustain" as being purely the string vibration alone, with no regard to the downstream effects of pickup, volume pedal, amp, speaker, etc., of course it is obvious the VP has no effect on that. But the original post also addressed how certain players get more sustain. So I don't think he had your technical definition in mind; and volume pedal finesse is the main way steel players get sustain for the note heard by the listener, regardless of the fact that the actual sustain of the string alone is dying off.

I know those construction elements I mentioned are "EXACTLY" what you are talking about. That's why I mentioned them as differences that may be reasons why 6-string discussions may not have complete overlap with steel discussions. In many cases there are fairly major construction differences. Where the construction is identical, a 6-string discussion is relevant. Where they are not it isn't. Your constant rant that 6-string knowledge is holy, complete and perfect, and steel knowledge is ignorant drivel is obnoxiously condescending, gratuitously self-serving, and completely beside the point.

[b0b]

When I really need a lot of sustain, I use an Ebow. I wonder if Ebow technology could be built into a device that would sit under the strings, that would reinforce vibration in any string that was already vibrating. Just a thought...