The Steel Guitar Forum

David Mason wrote:Say, do you think ET or JI tuning sustains better?

It's a well known, proven fact that JI sustains better, especially on chords and harmonies. The standing wave from each string reinforces the vibrations of the others. You don't get that in ET, especially on the thirds, because the strings aren't really in tune with each other. Since the vibration frequencies aren't mathematically related, the beats between them tend to suppress rather than support sustain.

And then there's the color black...

David Doggett wrote:This could be as simple as using a humbucker pickup, picking hard, ...and (maybe most important) working the volume pedal optimally.

Yup, b0b's getting to the heart of the "hands" (and feet) part of it. And he's right about how hard it is to do well. I work at it, but I'm so crude up there that I don't play up there as much as I should. Although, it always sounds better with a group than it does home alone. Nobody has ever done it better than John Hughey, the master of Hughey Land.

Jim, we do value your kernels of wisdom from experience as a guitar tech, where it applies. We just hate getting our face slapped while we are looking for those kernels. Few of us have such a claim for tech experience. However, there are some people on the Forum with a good bit of steel tech and manufacture experience. My opinions, such as the y are, only come from playing different types of guitars and steels, and some college physics and guitar mags. I don't go on guitar Forums - I already spend too much time on this one.

ed packard wrote: I have never noticed if John H rolled or slid his bar in the high country.

From the John Hughey section of Pedal Steel Guitar: A Manual of Style, by Winnie Winston et al.:

John uses a sliding vibrato--where the bar is slid back and forth--rather than rolling the bar gently back and forth. Says John, "I've always slid the bar. I guess I could get to where I could [roll it] if I spent some time working on it."

David Mason wrote:How do you guys ever find time to practice?

Actually, I'm working on my sustain technique RIGHT NOW. I hit a note a couple days ago, and I'm waiting for it to stop. (rimshot!) Unfortunately, I'm about a quarter tone sharp. (pow!)

The sad truth is that all my gear is in storage right now, so I'm occupying my time by wise-cracking on the net.

Jim Sliff wrote: 4. Construction. There are two theories, both considered correct and diametrically opposed in approach:
A. The platform much be rock-solid to allow strings too vibrate with no lost energy through platform vibration; if string energy is lost through the platform picking it up, vibration of the string drops off rapidly.
B. The platform must vibrate sympathetically to the strings. This is the "acoustic theory" science thought - the right combination of parts (wood, especially) will vibrate sympathetically with the strings and create a "chain" of vibration feedback, if you will, increasing the time period of the vibration. It's dependent on a ton of factors in construction and is what most guitar makers base their construction methods on, and includes everything from body construction to the weight of tuners.

These are the two view points I am interested in. I would be very interested in data from any physical experiments demonstrating the sympathetic vibration influence on sustain. It's always sounded like a perpetual motion type myth to me. I can believe body resonance can influence tone, such as by absorbing high overtones and thus warming the tone. I am not so sure about body resonance increasing sustain. I don't see how the resonance could be in enough different frequencies to sustain all pitches. And if it only does for certain pitches, that is usually considered an undesirable effect creating uneven response across all frequencies.

The leg vibration thing is sometimes cited as proof of the instrument resonance theory. But to me that is more proof of the solid support theory. There seems to be no question that loose fittings deaden sustain. Likewise, a mushy body that does not transmit vibrations to the legs would also deaden sustain. So leg vibrations merely demonstrate a rigid body and tight fittings, not necessarily sympathetic vibrational boost of sustain. I've had this argument in old threads with Bobbe Seymour and others.

Good points David!

Bob H. - I think you're right. I should set up some lessons with Buddy Charleton. I'm probably about 4 hours from there, and we have some family down that way. I don't know why I haven't already done it - just busy I guess. I agree that ergonomics is a huge issue.

As far as picking technique goes - I play guitar with a flatpick and two fingerpicks. I use the exact same fingerpicks for steel and guitar, but use 3 fingerpicks for steel, along with a "confetti" Fender/D'Andrea thumb pick. The fingerpicks are either Dunlop .020 or a set of Pro Picks, which I think are .025. I think the Dunlops give a bit more high-end, and the Pro Picks are very similar to an old set of Nationals, but more comfortable. I push them quite tight onto my fingers, leaving a little pick edge protruding.

If I was to call attacking the strings directly perpendicular to the string a 90 degree angle, then I attack the strings typically at something like a 45 degree angle, and the pick slides off the string towards the right of the pick. I am in what I think is a fairly typical palm blocking position. But this attack angle probably changes some when I move way up the neck. As I get closer to the bridge, that angle increases some because there's just not much room between the hand and the bridge. Also, I typically sit centered around the 14th fret, so when I'm up past there, there is yet more tendency to pick the strings at a more perpendicular angle. All this may be an issue.

Interesting about John Hughey's vibrato technique - I always assumed he rolled the bar. I was arguing earlier that I find it easier to increase sustain with a sliding vibrato, and maybe that is one key.

b0b - the picking hard scenario may be correct, but it seems to me that picking real hard is precisely what excites the higher harmonics, which tend to damp out faster. Of course, I'm trying everything.

Thanks for the info.

If we could use something soft like balsa wood where the fingers and nut are, most would admit that the sound would be void of high frequency content and brief...same as when you mute with your palm.

As the finger and nut materials are made harder (lead to copper to brass etc.) the high frequency content increases and the sustain increases. We are absorbing less of the energy in the vibrating string.

We have changed (increased)the acoustic impedance of the string body interface. The higher the acoustic impedance, the less string vibrational energy is absorbed by the finger/nut material, thus giving greater sustain and increased high frequency content.

As the finger/nut material hardness was increased, more of the vibrational energy was made available for the body to deal with. The body also presents an acoustic impedance, or rather frequency dependant acoustic impedances (plural). Each material, and each construction configuration will have it's own set of resonances and Q's. Each part of the structure, and the whole structure will have "modes" of vibration. If the Q of each mode is high, it's acoustic impedance will be high. If it's impedance is high, it will absorb less of the available vibrational energy than if it's impedance was low.

That is the extent to which the body affects the frequency selective damping of the string(s) vibration = not at all for a balsa wood like finger/nut material, and according to how the finger/nut materials are connected to the body, and how the body is constructed.

Impedances absorb string vibrational energy...low impedances absorb MORE string vibrational energy, high impedances absorb LESS string vibrational energy.

For multiple strings activated at once, there is also the impedance path from finger to axle to the other string(s)finger. If that is low, the "sympathetic vibration" between the activated strings will be greater than if it is high.

Now we can get into the beats between strings as related to ET/JI...but first consider if the coupling between strings is of significant import re the coupling of string(s) to body.

"sympathetic vibration influence on sustain. "
Wouldn't feedback be included in that definition?

As for the wearing of picks. I have found that wearing my picks at an angle allows a more direct contact with the strings, and minimizes the slide effect to a great extent. I use the picks for both guitar and steel. Note that the index pick is two-sided. I pick quite firmly.

John...any "feedback" must come by way of the Acoustic impedance paths. "Feedback" implys a gain of greater than one in the system = oscillation as in microphone feedback screech. It appears, from the numbers, that that can not happen in a PSG without having the speaker (or other external source) driving the body.

Mr. Billings, where did you ever get the two-sided index finger pick? It's like a take on the mishrab you use to play sitar, right? I want one....


(will it work in "RG" tuning though....)

Ed, thanks for the explanation!

David, get out your soldering iron! Get two picks, and cut the blade off one. Solder the tips together. I had a jeweler friend do mine with silver solder.
I also use a very short (modified by me) thumb pick. This short pick allows me to grip my index finger pick just like I was holding a flatpick. Great for playing 6 string when you need to do flatpick stuff. Great for a brush stroke on either 6-string or steel. I wear my picks very close to the ends of my fingers. Almost feels like I'm pickin' barefingered.
Here's a better pic of the pick.

Interesting discussion. Thanks, guys.

I've just ordered "The Acoustical Foundations of Music" from our local podunk library (which, on a total and unrelated tangent, is remarkably crappy for a town this size...the longer I live here, the more I remember why I left in the first place).

I'll let you guys know what it's got to say regarding:

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.

Since it's been a long long time since I took a class called "Musical Acoustics", I've completely forgotten pretty much everything I learned. (if indeed I actually learned anything in the first place ) It might be a fun read.

...or not.

That's interesting ,so, tuning aside, less sustain time is a reciprocating factor of warmer tone, is that what's been said? By warmer I mean to a degree less high end..IIMO think that steel sometimes has a tendency to sound too tinny, but nothing a little eq won't disguise. Should we be hoping that our guitar has less sustain? Srry if this has already been mentioned.

Have I heard somewhere that in a Steinway or other pianos that the mechanism between key and hammer is made from all non metallic parts? Anyway, I wonder how a steel would sound if it could be made with a wooden changer and nut. I know, I'm just being silly.

It would sound like a banjo!

The key/hammer mechanism of a piano is equivalent to your picking finger and hand, not the changer or nut. The hammers are made of firm felt. They are designed to tap the strings to provide vibrational energy without having any "pick noise," or in this case hammer noise. The complicated hammer arm connection to the key does seem to be made of wooden parts. But I don't know if that has any effect on sustain. Piano hammers work like pick blocking. The string is blocked until it is hammered. If you immediately release the key for a staccato note, the string is immediately blocked again. If you hold the key down, the string is allowed to ring. Since the hammer/key assembly is not connected to the string during sustain, it's hard to see how it can have any effect on it. The nut and bridge are fixed parts of a metal frame that rests on the thick maple sound board. A piano has nothing like a changer.

Dave, those key to hammer parts are wood because of "action" considerations. "Action" is kinda a traditional thing. The pressure and speed and return are important. Remember when synths first came out, they all had "action" like a Hammond organ. Manufacturers made a big deal of it when they actually started to replicate the "action" and feel of a real piano.

I don't see how the resonance could be in enough different frequencies to sustain all pitches. And if it only does for certain pitches, that is usually considered an undesirable effect creating uneven response across all frequencies.

That's the interesting puzzle when it comes to acoustic instrument construction - and to some extent electric instruments (I had a P Bass that had totally dead "B" notes. It made NO difference who played it - hit a "B" and it would sound weaker than any other note, acoustically and amplified. It was narrowed down by myself and several other techs to a strange *lack* of any resonance at those harmonic frequencies. If I tuned it merely a quarter-tone sharp or flat it would be OK. Needless to say, I got rid of it, but it was an unusual instrument).

Acoustic makers often "tap tune" tops to certain frequencies, and the point David makes about balance is very important, although sometimes players don't WANT balance. The late Steve Goodman would play only certain guitars in certain keys because of the sustain and response, all having to do with the natural resonance of the instrument - he could hear things others couldn't, and it bugged him to no end if a guitar DIDN'T enhance certain frequencies (Eric Johnson would likely be his parallel in the electric world as far as hearing things others can't, who places his effects at certain angles and uses batteries of particular voltages and even types...but not power supplies...to get the sound he likes. He can supposedly hear it if one of his effects pedals is shifted 45 degrees. I'm not kidding!).

He can supposedly hear it if one of his effects pedals is shifted 45 degrees. I'm not kidding!

I always wanted to see a double blind test on that. Ever hear of the placebo effect? I think that affects a lot of this "mojo" stuff.

Jim, P basses are known to have dead spots. Not all of them, but it is fairly common.

John - yep, I'm aware of that...but this one was *beyond* dead. It was unbelievable. I've never heard another instrument where a single note (at each octave) would simply "go away" so dramatically.

This has been a most interesting discussion on sustain. But it appears to have gotten a slant on tone, which was quite thoroughly discussed in another thread.

First, let me define my interpretation of sustain as being the capability of a string, when picked, to continue vibrating until it either ceases to vibrate, or, vibrates so minimally that the guitar pickup fails to generate a signal. What this definition of sustain does is to limit the discussion to everything within the guitar itself…amplifiers, computers, digital units, reverbs, etc, should NOT be part of the discussion of sustain, from my point of view. The reason is simple…given my 40+ years in computers, I’m sure it is possible to program a computer to keep the sustain running virtually forever until either a new string is picked or some specific unit of time elapses. Certainly, some electronic gadgetry could also do the same thing.

One other aside, too. The sustaining of a note has to be perceived by the listener, and as such, is qualitative, rather than quantitative, or that which can be measured by some device. Me and my hearing aids will think a note has stopped ringing earlier than someone with super-duper hearing like I used to have 40 years ago.

That said, and without any scientific backing, texts, or anything other than my own observations and some college physics, I’m convinced that there are several things that contribute to sustain.

Probably first and foremost is the condition and type of string being played. I changed my strings on my guitar just 2 days ago and immediately noticed a significant increase in sustain, as well as a significant improvement in tone. As a complete beginner to the pedal steel, I purchased a used guitar in November, and finally got the nerve to replace the strings. What a difference! As a result of the string change, I know unequivocally that the age of the string has a major effect on sustain. I’m led to believe, based on other discussions in this forum, that the “make” of the strings, or, more specifically, the steel (or nickel or whatever) alloy composition of the string itself also affects sustain. My guess is that the amount of tempering, or whatever else gets done to the steel while it is being extruded into a string makes a difference in it’s “springy-ness” and therefore its sustain. For wound strings, the tightness of the winding, and, of course, what the alloy composition of the winding itself will affect how the string plays and sustains, too.

My excursion into the physics classroom 40 years ago as well as what I’ve read/seen since then tells me that the amplitude of the wave form of the string when played will directly affect the sustain. In short, how far the string is stretched sideways when played will impart more or less energy into the string. Having more energy will result in longer sustain, eg, vibrating.

The ‘ridgidity’ of the endpoints of the string when picked will also affect the sustain. If, for example, one were to use a piece of wood in place of a steel bar, or the changer was made of wood, the ridgidity would be less than that of steel. What would happen is that the vibrations would be absorbed rather than reflected by the endpoints. Consider a pool table. The cushions are fairly hard, or rigid, to make the ball ‘reflect’ off. If the cushions were made of sponges, the ball would only bounce back a little. The same is true for a vibrating string. That’s why non-steel guitars have raised frets, and violinists press down hard on the neck…to make a more firm endpoint. This then brings up the use of one’s left hand in determining how much or how little downward pressure is necessary to make the ‘just right’ firmness of the endpoint of the oscillating string. This is where skill and practice comes in…it’s in the players hand…literally.

Certainly one of the factors affecting sustain is the pickup itself. Every pickup manufacturer has some reasons for designing and building their pickups the way the do. As there are numerous kinds of pickups, their very difference makes them subject to differences of pickup ‘ability’ to capture a minimal amount of vibration and still output a signal to the amplifier. I’d also venture a guess that even two pickups from the same manufacturer, even serial number 1000 and 1001, for example, might have some differences in output, simply due to the variability of manufacturing. Even Detroits’ cars vary with 2 identical cars produce on the same production line just minutes apart…one may be a flawless vehicle, and the other blows a transmission after 20,000 miles.

Another factor, I think, that affects sustain is the rest of the guitar…eg, the body, the fretboard, the changer, everything not electronic, and specifically excluding the pickup. Anything wood may be subject to voids, larger or smaller ‘pores’, knots, how it’s cut, the grain, different kinds of wood, how much sap is/was in it, how dry it is, and even the current temperature and humidity levels. The metal parts can vary due to age, wear, alloy composition, whatever. Although what I’ve described here affects primary tone, to a limited degree, all parts of the body will vibrate somewhat, and therefore will ‘vibrate back’ to the string, possibly creating some level of constructive and destructive interference. Think of two stones dropped into a smooth lake…where the ripples meet, they are diminished from the rest of the ripples created. This ‘reverse vibration’, for lack of a better name, would actually have some very small delay in getting back to the changer end and possibly reducing, or, even adding to, the vibration of a particular string.

Another factor affecting sustain is where, along the length of the string, it is actually picked. Thinking of the sine-wave form of the vibrating string, if it were picked at the center – the point of greatest deflection/amplitude, it would result in the longest sustain when compared at picking it at, say, 1” left of the pickup. If this is true, when the tone bar is at fret 3, picking a string at fret 15 or so would yield a longer sustain than picking it elsewhere.

The last factor that I can think of that would affect the length of vibration would be the length of the string vibrating. As mentioned in this thread, the higher notes tend to vibrate less than the lower ones. I believe the reason is again amplitude related. A longer string has a larger amplitude to be played, and therefore, has more energy given to it. It also requires more energy to continue vibrating, but that’s where the mass of the string comes into play. And old rule of physics that I remember is that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest. Given that a lower note has more vibrating mass (weight, if you will) than a higher note played on the same string, it would vibrate longer. I’m also willing to accept that string 10 played on fret 20 played on string 10 will sustain longer than string 3 at fret 20, strictly based on the mass of each string.

The bottom line…sustain of the guitar, separate from the electronics, is in the makeup of the strings, the makeup of the guitar itself, in the hands of the player, and in the ears of the beholder. Unless there can be devised some mechanical means of consistently plucking a string, and some electronic measurement devices used, sustain will remain subjective as there are so many differences in each of us.

Ah, Bruce, it would seem that we are in agreement! But, if a string is plucked in a forest, and there's no one there to hear it, is there sustain?