#1
Can I get more sustain from my guitar by replacing its original TOM bridge with something better than gibson`s bridges? Also, does the stopbar affect the tone? What bridge do you reccomend ?
#2
No.
No.
No.

/thread
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#3
I don't agree. I have noticed a bit of difference with different bridges and tailpieces. It's usually between types and not brands, e.g. a roller bridge, or one with graphite saddles, or a TP-6 tailpiece vs a stopbar vs a Bigsby. Not surprisingly, bolting a large chunk of metal between the strings and body can have some effect. Depending on the year and spec of the original bridge, it's not impossible that something else might be a tad better. It's probably not worth the money or effort, but it's not as cut and dry as "no."

All that said, they were mostly (with the exception of the Bigsby) pretty subtle, and they were more character changes in tone and not obvious tonal improvements. The Gibson hardware is fine, and if you're having issues with sustain it's almost always a setup and not a hardware issue with any halfway decent instrument.
#4
Quote by ArturPr
Can I get more sustain from my guitar by replacing its original TOM bridge with something better than gibson`s bridges? Also, does the stopbar affect the tone? What bridge do you reccomend ?


Yes, you can.

The old '80's Ibanez Artist guitars like the AR300, and the same vintage Yamaha SG2000s have notably heavier bridges. the Artists have the Gibralter bridge, the Yamaha a very heavy bridge of their own design. In *both* cases, the bridge is actually mounted to a 10.5 ounce brass sustain block, which is in a rout beneath the bridge and screwed into the mahogany body. The AR300 further has a pretty solid chunk of "cloud" tailpiece that's screwed with three screws into the body of the guitar. Note that both of these guitars are also SOLID bodied mahogany and maple guitars (no weight relief, no chambering).

You can see the much heavier solid brass bridge on the SG2000 here, and you can begin to see the solid brass sustain block beneath it. Their stop tail is proprietary as well. The SG2000 was one of the best-sustaining guitars (it's also a neckthrough construction) ever.



The original AR300 (*not* any of the current models) from the early '80's have the same sustain block, a noticeably heavier bridge, and a solid brass tailpiece:

Last edited by dspellman at Feb 8, 2016,
#5
Quote by dspellman
Yes, you can.

The old '80's Ibanez Artist guitars like the AR300, and the same vintage Yamaha SG2000s have notably heavier bridges. the Artists have the Gibralter bridge, the Yamaha a very heavy bridge of their own design. In *both* cases, the bridge is actually mounted to a 10.5 ounce brass sustain block, which is in a rout beneath the bridge and screwed into the mahogany body. The AR300 further has a pretty solid chunk of "cloud" tailpiece that's screwed with three screws into the body of the guitar. Note that both of these guitars are also SOLID bodied mahogany and maple guitars (no weight relief, no chambering).


It's your serious contention that extra weight added after the non-vibrating portion of the strings on a fixed-bridge is a material factor in sustain?

Shit, a solid iron guitar should have nearly infinite sustain...

I'm calling shenanigans.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#6
Forgot one. This is my late '70's L5S. Solid maple guitar (body and neck) with a notably heavier bridge AND tailpiece, and this thing sustains longer/better than a current LP.

Last edited by dspellman at Feb 8, 2016,
#7
Quote by Arby911
It's your serious contention that extra weight added after the non-vibrating portion of the strings on a fixed-bridge is a material factor in sustain?

Shit, a solid iron guitar should have nearly infinite sustain...

I'm calling shenanigans.


Yes, of course it is. That's been established. Here's why. That chunk of brass (and the heavier tailpiece and the solid thick mahogany body) stops (reduces) vibrational energy in the strings from heading into the body of the guitar and being lost. Unfortunately, strings are always transferring energy (if they can) into the bridge and tailpiece of the guitar. That's why an acoustic guitar works -- the bridge transfers string energy into the top and sides (and back, for that matter) of the guitar. That's been established since, I dunno, the early days of single string gourd instruments. Banjos. Where do you think the sound of a resonator guitar comes from? Here's the Wiki:

A resonator guitar or resophonic guitar is an acoustic guitar that produces sound by carrying string vibration through the bridge to one or more spun metal cones (resonators), instead of to the sound board (guitar top). Resonator guitars were originally designed to be louder than regular acoustic guitars, which were overwhelmed by horns and percussion instruments in dance orchestras.

A solid iron guitar is a bit heavy to carry around, but Dan Armstrong discovered long ago that a guitar with a Lexan body would sustain for a very long time as well. The SG2000 and the Dan Armstrong plexi guitar are two of the longest-sustaining guitars on the planet.

Last edited by dspellman at Feb 8, 2016,
#8
Quote by ArturPr
Can I get more sustain from my guitar by replacing its original TOM bridge with something better than gibson`s bridges? Also, does the stopbar affect the tone? What bridge do you reccomend ?


On the other hand...

Don't go throwing money at expensive bits and pieces for your guitar if there's not a substantive change. The guitars we've been discussing were designed from the ground up for a particular result, and while you can approximate some things with tack-ons, eventually you get to a point where the base piece itself needs to be modified or replaced.
#9
Quote by dspellman
Yes, of course it is. That's been established. Here's why. That chunk of brass (and the heavier tailpiece and the solid thick mahogany body) stops (reduces) vibrational energy in the strings from heading into the body of the guitar and being lost.


Bullshit. Typical guitar-fetishist, unscientific crap. Non-vibrational mass isn't a primary component of sustain in a guitar, endpoint rigidity is, end of story. Because lightweight materials can be just as rigid in this application (fixed strings of known mass and tension etc.) a properly designed lightweight guitar can sustain for just as long as a massive slab.

I'm really surprised that a generally forward-thinking guy like yourself would buy into this myth...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#10
Quote by Arby911
Bullshit. Typical guitar-fetishist, unscientific crap. Non-vibrational mass isn't a primary component of sustain in a guitar, endpoint rigidity is, end of story. Because lightweight materials can be just as rigid in this application (fixed strings of known mass and tension etc.) a properly designed lightweight guitar can sustain for just as long as a massive slab.

I'm really surprised that a generally forward-thinking guy like yourself would buy into this myth...


basswood guitars have tons of sustain and are very light. in the late 70s heavy guitars were considered good which is why many late 70s strats are boat anchor heavy. the basswood guitars proved that to not really be true. i would think if putting in a metal tone block really did give exceptional sustain that way more guitars would have them.
#11
Quote by Arby911
Bullshit. Typical guitar-fetishist, unscientific crap. Non-vibrational mass isn't a primary component of sustain in a guitar, endpoint rigidity is, end of story. Because lightweight materials can be just as rigid in this application (fixed strings of known mass and tension etc.) a properly designed lightweight guitar can sustain for just as long as a massive slab.

I'm really surprised that a generally forward-thinking guy like yourself would buy into this myth...


I guess I have the actual guitars and the actual experience that backs it up.

Your first problem is that you're assuming "non-vibrational mass" when in fact, things like bridges pass vibrations and, in most acoustic instruments, are designed to do so.

You might want to explain every kind of acoustic instrument to me.

In every single case, vibrations are passed from the strings through the bridge into the top of a (gee, I wonder why they call it a...) sounding board. That's true of a grand piano, of a dulcimer, of a viola, violin, cello, acoustic bass and so on. As string energy is passed through the bridge into the acoustic component of the instrument, it is reduced in the string and the note decays. Thus, guitar (and all other acoustic instrument) players speak of attack, sustain and decay.

My background isn't in guitar; it's in keyboards and specifically piano, from about age 5. I have an old BS in Chemistry, so I'm not particularly unscientific. I have a BFA in Graphic Design (and a history of marketing), so I have to confess to a certain amount of bullshit and myth there, however.

If you wish, I can have you speak to the head of the music department at Cornell University and have him explain the physics. Myth, my muscular butt.

@monwobobbo: Please don't confuse "weight" with sustain. A pound of feathers and a pound of brass weigh the same, but a string attached to a pound of brass is probably going to sustain a whole lot longer than one attached to a pound of feathers.
Last edited by dspellman at Feb 8, 2016,
#12
Quote by dspellman
I guess I have the actual guitars and the actual experience that backs it up.

Your first problem is that you're assuming "non-vibrational mass" when in fact, things like bridges pass vibrations and, in most acoustic instruments, are designed to do so.

You might want to explain every kind of acoustic instrument to me.

In every single case, vibrations are passed from the strings through the bridge into the top of a (gee, I wonder why they call it a...) sounding board. That's true of a grand piano, of a dulcimer, of a viola, violin, cello, acoustic bass and so on. As string energy is passed through the bridge into the acoustic component of the instrument, it is reduced in the string and the note decays. Thus, guitar (and all other acoustic instrument) players speak of attack, sustain and decay.

My background isn't in guitar; it's in keyboards and specifically piano, from about age 5. I have an old BS in Chemistry, so I'm not particularly unscientific. I have a BFA in Graphic Design (and a history of marketing), so I have to confess to a certain amount of bullshit and myth there, however.

If you wish, I can have you speak to the head of the music department at Cornell University and have him explain the physics. Myth, my muscular butt.


Rigidity, not mass, is the key factor. All your vaunted experience doesn't override physics. We aren't, and never were, talking about acoustic instruments. I don't really like herring, especially red ones. (Sure, technically a straw man, but I didn't have anything for that...)
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#13
Quote by Arby911
Bullshit. Typical guitar-fetishist, unscientific crap.

Why is his claim unscientific and yours is not? You have both proposed mechanisms and reasonable explanations, and neither of you have cited anything. The only thing you have alone is that your post was dismissive.

You can say rigidity is the key factor (though perhaps not the only one? Hmm...) but we have no reason to believe that claim, as you've presented it.
#14
Quote by Roc8995
Why is his claim unscientific and yours is not? You have both proposed mechanisms and reasonable explanations, and neither of you have cited anything. The only thing you have alone is that your post was dismissive.



Go away.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#16
Huh. I always thought electric guitars, pure ones at least (none of the elec-acou hybrids), had some form of limited acoustics in them. Guess I was wrong oh well.

On a side note, to me, an electric is just a frankenstein-esque, built up acoustic, but again I might be off on that Dunno

Can't there be agreeing that everyone has at least a few decent points to make and leave it at that? ....no? Okay

-Sharly
#17
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#19
They're extra buttered
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#20
Quote by Roc8995
Doubling down on being dismissive with no answers. Bold play.


As a fellow forumite, I'll tell you what, when you require the same standard of evidence from others that you've so consistently beaten me up about, we'll chat.

If you're pulling the Mod card, this is as good as it gets when directly referencing guitars. I could go find and post relevant peer-reviewed rigidity studies from mechanical engineering references, but they don't specifically mention guitars to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.cycfi.com/2013/11/sustain-myth-science/
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Feb 8, 2016,
#21
Nobody else is accusing people of being unscientific. We understand evidence is limited, and experience is handy. You're the only one throwing the accusation around, which is why you alone are being held to it.
#22
Quote by Roc8995
Nobody else is accusing people of being unscientific. We understand evidence is limited, and experience is handy. You're the only one throwing the accusation around, which is why you alone are being held to it.


Crap, you pull out this particular hard-on every 6 months or so, don't you get tired of it?

Yes, my opinion hadn't yet been supported either (assuming we ignore the fact that the relation of vibration and rigidity is well documented, and mass is only considered as a secondary function.)
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Feb 8, 2016,
#23
I'm just holding you to your own standards. If that's hard for you, perhaps you could rethink the way you argue with claims you disagree with.

Yes, of course I get tired of it, but you keep doing it, and I think it's worth addressing.

Anyway, this is far off topic and I'm afraid we haven't helped much with the initial question. Take it to the chat thread or PMs if you please.