Sustain, Neck trough body?

[Hagront]

How much does the neck trough body construction add to the sustain off the guitar?

[jaxn slim]

I was floored at the sustain I get through my Gibson Firebird with neck-through body.

[stormin1155]

Seems like everyone has an opinion on this, but I've yet to see conclusive evidence... My opinion is that it does add some, but I've had set and bolt on necks that sustain like crazy too.

[Mustaine-who?]

 

Seems like everyone has an opinion on this, but I've yet to see conclusive evidence... My opinion is that it does add some, but I've had set and bolt on necks that sustain like crazy too.

 

 

+1

[bowlingshirt]

I have a neck thru with an OFR on it that sustains well, but not as well as a bolt on neck guitar I have with string thru body.

[Wildwind]

I've owned several neck-thru Carvins. My best friend has a neck-thru Charvel. All are very nice guitars, but I don't feel they sustain any better than anything else I have (and those are all bolt-ons).

 

Actually, I found most of the Carvins to be a bit too strident - for some reason, they seem to lack character compared to my other guitars, so all have now been sold. Don't get me wrong, they're great guitars. But I found their set neck and bolt-on neck guitars to be more to my liking. Admittedly I'm an old guy who doesn't play anything beyond classic rock and blues. They may be a dream for metal and other styles.

 

To me their chief advantage is feel. Not having a neck heel is heavenly for playing up above the octave.

 

Greg

[Ancient Mariner]

It has the *potential* to aid sustain, but a lot depends on the strings, set up, hardware etc fitted, plus the same on the bolt/set neck guitar you're comparing it to.

 

I've had a few through necks and still have a couple. 2 offered excellent sustain, while the third (neck cast as one piece with the body) is average, probably due to the hardware fitted.

[Burgess]

It's kind of hard to say since everything else is rarely equal. I've always felt the biggest factor in sustain was just plain old volume. If you're playing loud enough almost anything will sustain like a mofo.

[MetalHeadd]

I don't find that my carvin (neck through, fixed bridge) has any better sustain than my les paul or my PRS (w/ trem). They all sustain about the same.

 

To me it's more in your setup and how you play.

[PR_Tom]

I dont know why it'd be hard to measure. You'd have to measure it unamped of course, equal hardware and general setup (action, radiused bridge/nut of same materials and measurements etc.) then just measure the vibration/level/time/frequency. Longest wins, lol.

 

Surely this has been done? Do we need Mythbusters?

[Roy]

Subjectively - I've strummed and tested all my guitars. I can't tell any difference in heel joints. Even though I tried to strum each guitar consistently, I thought the inconsistencies in my playing far outweighed any effect construction had on sustain.

 

Objectively - Scientifically speaking, wouldn't the amount of sustain be dependent upon the rigidity of the the 2 points the string is suspended between, in other words, the stiffness of the neck? The less a neck vibrates, the longer the string should sustain.

[Procreatur]

depends on the specs of the neck joint i would assume, on top of that the hardware, and then the piece of wood. if the piece of wood has a dead spot(s), then its not going to sustain, but the physics behind it tells me that you're transferring energy(vibration) over the entire length of the neck joint. the neck joint on a bolt on isn't very big, and its a compression joint. a set neck should be slightly larger, like the long tenon neck joint, and would be a little bit larger transfer of vibration. the neck through should be a little over twice the size of surface area of a long tenon joint, and SHOULD equal more sustain. but it all depends on the actual resonance characteristics of the piece(s) of wood we are talking about.

[Roy]

 

...but the physics behind it tells me that you're transferring energy(vibration) over the entire length of the neck joint blah blah blah... and would be a little bit larger transfer of vibration.

 

 

I can understand why transferring energy may a good thing as far as tone goes, but why is it good for sustain? If the suspension points of a vibrating string are also vibrating, then they're acting like a little heat sinks, sucking energy from the string. If one suspension point is allowed to freely transfer energy and vibration to the other suspension point, wouldn't that be a big vibrating mess and be counter-productive to increased sustain?

[lonechicken]

This from ByrdGuitars:

 

Why a bolt-on neck in the first place? While some have claimed superiority of glued in (set-neck) guitars, real world experience has shown that a properly designed bolt-on neck is actually better for two important reasons:

 

First, a well designed bolt-on neck design is tonally superior, providing a demonstrably fuller sounding bass response from the instrument. The reason for this is because a glue joint acts as a "wall" to the transference of resonance between two surfaces, and the neck joint is a critical area of resonance. A properly designed bolt-on neck transfers resonance better than a glued in neck.

[PR_Tom]

I think you're probably right, Roy. In other words the contact of the neck joint is more of a 1 or 0 than a scale of 1 to 100, regardless of how it's attached.

 

I'm sure that energy transfer could be measured too, by tapping on the headstock or something, and measuring it on the body somewhere. A rubber neck would absorb it all, maple would transfer a lot. But how much energy is taken in through the nut anyway? Break out another meter reading lol.

 

Probably a bigger impact is the hardware and how it contacts the body. Some people screw down their tailpiece for example, so it's in hard contact with the top. "better" or "worse" though? It's all mojo stuff. We dont really wanna know.