Sustain

Leslie Ehrlich · Post by **Leslie Ehrlich** » 3 Mar 2003 12:14 am

Over the years I've marveled over how many PSG players have been able to get such smooth flowing sustain (i.e. no 'twang') out of their guitars. Since I've started messing around with a PSG I've tried to get that sound, but I always fall short of the mark. At the moment I'm using an early Sho-Bud Pro III (with original pickups) and a Fender guitar amp with a twelve inch speaker.

So what are the necessary ingredients to getting a good smooth clean sustaining sound like the pros get?

Better playing technique?
A better guitar?
Better pickups?
An amp specially designed for steel?
Effects?

Any combination of the above?

CrowBear Schmitt · Post by **CrowBear Schmitt** » 3 Mar 2003 1:07 am

i would suggest the proper use of the volume pedal along w: high volume reserve on the amp
helps maintain or get Sustain.
(i ain't no pro tho'

)

------------------
Steel what?

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 3 Mar 2003 1:12 am

CB is right, also something about the choice of potentiometers and the gearing of the PSG volume pedals has, over the years, been optimised for the sustain effects by the best players. So if your pedal isn't a PSG pedal, you might have a tougher time doing this.
I have a non PSG pedal for lapsteel and it is harder to get this sustain with it than a real PSG pedal. I will get a Hilton soon.

Frank Parish · Post by **Frank Parish** » 3 Mar 2003 5:49 am

There's some part of this that belongs to the guitar itself. Anyone can reserve more volume at the amp and volume pedal for sustain but take the volume pedal out of the equation and then what do you have? I've got an old Sho-Bud that has more sustain than any guitar I've owned and I've had some very good guitars. For some reason that Sho-Bud will hold the notes a lot longer and at any of the higher frets as well. From now on when I sit down to any guitar I'm thinking about buying I'm checking for the sustain factor. If it doesn't have it I don't want it. It makes the hunt a longer one but it's worth it to me.

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 3 Mar 2003 8:03 am

All of the above!

And THE guitar can make a BIG difference. And don't let anyone tell you that they can't. I have personally experienced this. Putting two of my steels side by side, using the same equipment and using obviously the same hands (mine of course), the sustain can vary widely from guitar to guitar.

The best guitar I personally have ever played for sustain is my 37 Rick. Nothing comes close to it that I have played.

The second best was my Emmons' P/P. Sadly the worst was my Sierra Session D-10. Particularly above the 12th fret. A lot of this of course is due to the fact it was keyless. Any keyless guitar (everything else being equal), will have MORE sustain if it is keyed.

So sustain depends on a number of factors, including playing style. But the MAIN contributor is the guitar IMO.

carl

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 3 Mar 2003 9:01 am

Maybe I should just stay outa' this one!

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 3 Mar 2003 9:24 am

This is not an attempt to answer Leslie's question;___ I'm seeking information:

On the SGF I often see this word, sustain used as a noun. I just looked the word up in Webster's New World Dictionary, which implies that this word is only a verb. It lists sustainment as the noun form.

It could be (so), that sustain is an acceptable colloq. form. Can anyone confirm;___anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary?

Rick

Fred Jack · Post by **Fred Jack** » 3 Mar 2003 9:35 am

C. Dixon,
Is it your opinion that a keyless guitar has less sustain that one w/keyhead? regards, fred

Frank Parish · Post by **Frank Parish** » 3 Mar 2003 9:37 am

How about sustain meaning the length of time a note will continue to be heard once it has been played?

By all means Donny, jump right in here.

Chas Friedman · Post by **Chas Friedman** » 3 Mar 2003 9:52 am

Rick,
You can search (at the top of the page) for
words on http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary.
For "sustain", usage as a noun is not mentioned.
I looked at [url=http://www.yourdictionary.com,]www.yourdictionary.com,[/url] and there
the corresponding noun is listed as
sustainability or sustainment.
I've heard sustain used as a noun for many
years, and even if it is an unofficial
colloquialism, it seems much nicer than the
alternatives mentioned.
chas[This message was edited by Chas Friedman on 03 March 2003 at 09:54 AM.]

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 3 Mar 2003 9:59 am

Fred,

Indeed it is. In addition, I know of a pro player who ordered a keyless Sierra. He was NOT satisfied with the sustain. They then built him the same guitar in EVERY way, only made it keyed. He then had the sustain he desired. You say "psychological?" I don't think so. Not this player!

I realize many scoff at this. But I will state that any player who is used to a keyed guitar and sits down to the same guitar (only keyless) will notice it instantly. UNLESS, that player plays mostly not using sustain. The latter is important. I will explain.

Some players (particularly western swingers) play every note as a chord, AND every note/chord is picked. In this case, "sustain" is rarely a problem; be it good or bad. Because the sound "level" is constantly being refreshed.

However if a player is more typical of a Byrd or Emmons type and plays tunes like "Blue Jade", I've Just Destroyed the world I'm Living In" or "Danny Boy", etc, long passages of sustain is vital to these type players.

It is here where it is noticed mostly. Especially AFTER the 12th fret.

Here is another little diddy that is rarely seen. My dear friend Bob Farlow had handcrafted bar made out of the hardest stainless steel known at Lockheed aircraft. The bar was unique in its hardness, high gloss polish and it was tapered.

Bob let John Hughey "test-run" this bar at a show in Dothan, Ala. I saw John put that bar on a an Emmons LeGrande III, pick the strings and simply let the sound go until you could no longer hear it. He then took his bar and did the same thing.

He did not use the volume pedal. He was checking the sustain between the two bars. And they were different! Same guitar, same amp, same picks same HANDS.

So there are many factors that contribute to sustain. But the two biggest factors IMO, is the guitar and whether it is keyed or keyless.

Go figger.

carl[This message was edited by C Dixon on 03 March 2003 at 10:10 AM.]

Ray Montee · Post by **Ray Montee** » 3 Mar 2003 11:19 am

Ahhhhhh...come on Donny. There's room for you and we will always respect your points of view. That's the truth!

I've been playing many years now.... Each guitar that I've purchased has been a stock model, no super turbo this or thats. I do not use gadgets aside from my ProFex II with my EMMONS P/P. I use the ProFex not as a magic wand to overcome my inabilities, but rather as an "enhancement" to my basic skills, offering a host of variables that I choose carefully for the song being played. Throughout my playing career, I've ALWAYS had comments about my "sustain and tone" even PRIOR to adding the ProFex.

I've witnessed fellow players that have gone thro' dozens of very expensive guitars, amps, gadgets, gimmics, "the magic red button", etc.....and they're still chasing that "magic button."

Like Carl, my prewar RICKS have that fabulous "sustain" and tone.....but so does my BIGSBY and EMMONS. My twin Peavy amps, Session 400 and LAX 400, are a factor but I don't believe it to be the ultimate solution.

This past year, as a result of other topics like this one, I've been paying far more attention to what "other local steel players" are doing and NOT DOING. My findings, are that haphazard or lackadazical use of the left hand and bar, has far more to do with the subject of "sustain" than the gadget oriented players might think.

Improper placement and pressure of the fingers behind the bar, failure to vibrato properly and/or the clumbsy use of the right hand palm...mute has an indisputable negative impact on the "sustain" factor.

I do believe one's "HANDS" have more impact on "sustain" than does any electronic gadget now being offered. My personal research into this issue, has convinced me
that I'm right.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 3 Mar 2003 2:41 pm

Absolutly the hands! If you let the strings do their thing and use your hands to support what they do it will give more sustain. Bobbling the bar about only drains vibrational energy from the strings. Changing the preasure of the bar too much from high to low strings has the same effect.
To much vibrato does that also because it changes the resonant pitch and causes internal harmonic damping within the strings. A little vibrato will help with the apearance of correct pitch, too much and the strings fade out.
All of course easier said then done.

VERNON PRIDDY · Post by **VERNON PRIDDY** » 3 Mar 2003 2:59 pm

Frank You Had Better Keep Your SHO-BUD Just My 2 cents. SONNY.

------------------
SONNYPRIDDY

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 3 Mar 2003 4:45 pm

Chas, thanks for the links.

Rick

Whip Lashaway · Post by **Whip Lashaway** » 3 Mar 2003 7:46 pm

First, if you have a keyless and go with the 25" scale you'll have more sustain than you know what to do with. Second, it's in the hands as well. It's hard to put into words exactly how, it just comes with experience, I guess. Strings also make a contribution. When my strings start to get a little worn the first things I notice are sustain and chimming. Sustain drops off and chimming becomes a bit more challenging. Pretty much anything about playing a steel boils down to the player, the steel, the accessories, the amp, the weather, the room, the carpet, the whatever. Hay, if it was easy everybody'd be doing it!!!
Whip

------------------
Whip Lashaway
Sierra E9/B6 12 string
Sierra E9/B6 14 string
78' Emmons D10 P/P

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 3 Mar 2003 8:01 pm

Leslie,
Save your money, turn off your computer and practice more.

Any of those steel players that you heard would have no problem getting that smooth rich sustaining sound out of the gear you already have.

Bob

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 3 Mar 2003 9:29 pm

My Sierra was keyless and had a 25 inch scale. My Excel is keyless and it is a 25 and 1/2" scale.

Neither guitar can touch My emmon's P/P or the LeGrande when it comes to sustain, particularly after the 12 fret.

carl

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 9 Mar 2003 2:43 pm

Well, for what it's worth, here's my 2cents.

As many have mentioned, there's a ton of variables that affect sustain. The playing style (bar and pedal technique) has a lot to do with it, and so do other factors which are a part of the design of the steel itself. That said, there are certain styles which require a lot of sustain, and those that don't. Sometimes, a lack of sustain can actually add to the beauty of a certain song or passage, so I see sustain as a plus or a minus, depending on the particular sound you're trying to make. If you're trying to sound like Buddy on them old Ray Price records, then you probably need more sustain...maybe even as much as you can get! On the other hand, if you're trying to emulate Sneaky Pete, Red Rhodes, or Ralph Mooney, sustain isn't really as important. You might be more concerned with the tone.

I think you have to know your equipment and your own capabilities, and then capitalize on them, to "hone" your style, so to speak. I really like Weldon and Buddy's seemingly endless sustain, but I wouldn't want everybody to play like that all the time. The same goes for Red's sound, or Pete's sound. After all, we don't all have to sound alike, do we? I guess the bottom line is, make the most of what you have, and don't worry so much about sounding like someone else. Rather, concentrate on perfecting you own particular sound and style.

On my recent trip to Nashville, I bought Ray Price's new CD, "Time". The steel playing, of course, is by Buddy Emmons, and the technique is unmistakably Buddy's. But the sound sure isn't the Emmons' sound I grew up with. It doesn't even sound like an Emmons guitar! Tonally, it's much fuller, and more modern, like the tone that Lloyd and Tommy are using right now. (That's not a critique, but merely an opinion. Your own opinions may differ.)

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 9 Mar 2003 3:06 pm

Glad you did jump in, Donny. You said exactly what I feel. Like tone, sustain is both in the hands and the equipment, e.g., the guitar itself.

I always seek out brands with more sustain because I like for the slow songs to weave notes in and out and it's difficult to do that if the note dies mid-stream. My new Fessy has more sustain than my push-pull and I'm lovin' it. You can always mute a note, but you can't add all the sustain you need unless the guitar cooperates -- no matter WHO you are.

re: the word itself
There are many cases where technical jargon or vernacular allows this kind of misuse -- doesn't make it strictly grammatically correct -- just acceptable among those who practice that technical discipline. Bottom line is that there is little doubt among steel players what sustain MEANS, therefore, it is a meaningful term for us to use. The English language, particularly the American dialect, is VERY ELASTIC.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 9 Mar 2003 7:18 pm

Carl Dixon -- I'm curious about your contention that keyless guitars generally have less sustention ("sustain") than keyed guitars (all else being equal).

Specifically, I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) has a theory as to why this apparent phenomenon exists.

Like you, I have a technical background. However, I don't know much about PSG's. My theory would be that because keyless guitars generally have shorter bodies (cabinets) then keyed guitars, the mass of the keyless body is less than that of the keyed counterpart. Generally, a more massive support means more sustention -- right? Therefore, a more massive body would result in more sustention.

However, it seems unlikely to me that such a small difference in overall body mass would have any noticeable effect on sustention. Furthermore, it seems to me that the shorter keyed bodies are likely to be more rigid due to their shorter length, and thus, this would at least partially (if not entirely) offset any gain in sustention attributable to a more massive body. Comments? Thanks.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 09 March 2003 at 07:21 PM.]

Jim Smith · Post by **Jim Smith** » 9 Mar 2003 7:40 pm

Another theory is that while keyless guitars may have a longer scale length than a keyed guitar, the extra length of string behind the roller nut contributes to the overtones and sustain.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 10 Mar 2003 9:30 am

Jim -- thanks for the input. Would there be a scientific explanation for this? How does the length of string behind the nut contribute to sustaining the string vibration b/t nut and bridge?

It seems like it would be just the opposite -- that the length of string behind the nut would bleed off energy from the string length b/t nut and bridge which would actually decrease sustention, but of course, that theory could be, and probably is, wrong.

Also, some strings (e.g. the two center ones) on a keyed guitar are a lot longer than other strings (e.g. the top and bottom), so would this mean that the longer strings on a keyed guitar would have more sustention than the shorter strings?

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 10 Mar 2003 10:11 am

Tom,

I am not 100% sure WHY keyed guitars have better "sustain" than keyless. I simply KNOW they do.

Now having said that, lets back up a moment and talk about the word "sustain". I use it to describe the differences, but it may be the wrong choice of words. But this I DO know, whatever it is; be it sustain, resonance, overtones or whatever, there IS a difference (everything else being the same).

Before I bought my keyless, John Fabian of Carter Guitars was the first to talk about it with me when he said to me in Saluda,

"your coming from a keyed background are not going to like the keyless sound in comparison to a keyed guitar."

He was 100% correct. I noticed it the moment I played my new Sierra. The exact same thing happens on my Excel keyless.

Now here is another fact to muddy the waters. I purposely had Excel make my keyless the exact same length as my Emmons Keyed LeGrande. I did this for more than one reason. Esthetics being the main reason. But, also to see if my theory of less mass was constraining the "sustain". In addition, I wanted to be able to change to a keyed, IF I had to; so I needed the room.

Nope it did not help. IF I set my Emmons LeGrande up beside my Excel with EVERYthing else being equal, ANY one will immediately notice a difference in "sustain". Especially AFTER the 12th fret.

After much study, using experiences with my Sierra, Excel and the Emmons', I have concluded it has to be the string length beyond the nut that makes what ever I am hearing happen. Be it sustain or whatever it is.

One thing is for sure, it is not there on the keyless.

carl[This message was edited by C Dixon on 10 March 2003 at 10:15 AM.]

Hans Holzherr · Post by **Hans Holzherr** » 10 Mar 2003 1:11 pm

It may be premature to coclude generally that keyed guitars have better "sustain" than keyless ones. I have both a keyed steel (S-10, aluminum neck) and a keyless (S-12, wood neck, different maunfacturer), and the "sustain" of the keyless is at least as good or better than on the keyed one, although it's hard to compare because the keyed guitar is louder (both unplugged). How many of the keyless brands have their strings wrap around the nut rollers nearly 90° and proceed almost perpendicular to the top, thus exerting a much greater downward force? With my keyless the angle of the strings across the rollers is very small, much like with a keyed guitar. Maybe that is the point, and the reason why my guitar is an exception.