Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Has anyone experimented with decreasing headstock mass as a means of increasing sustain?

I tried this in an experiment with my 2007 last night. My 2009 is not a good candidate for the experiment because it sustains 100% already--any more sustain than it already has would not really be noticeable. My 2007 sustains just fine but the notes will die off after a healthy number of seconds. (10-15 is a good approximation.) This makes it a good bass to try this out on--it's not defective, it plays great, it sustains as well as any other model bass but not to the point of extreme, etc. etc.

First, I found the worst possible spot I could to do the test on. Last night it was the 10th fret, D string, going strong for 9 seconds before dampening. Then I slackened both the the E and the G strings and retuned the A & the D strings (the change in tension will throw them off pitch). I played the same spot--no change. Alright. Tension isn't a factor in and of itself. Well...

I took off the G and E tuners and lo and behold, this note sustained for four more seconds (13) before dampening. And the notes around it were none the worse, either; some were appreciably better. Then I tried adding back just the E or just the G tuner and I found that the E tuner seemed to do the most to cut sustain when added back. The G tuner did as well but not to as great of an extent. They are the same mass so this must have to do with relative heigth or a related factor, even though "mgy" (mass*g-force*height) on either tuner is not going to be very different. Ultimately though it seems to suggest mass is a factor in sustain and that slightly less mass can be a fix. I cut the mass in half in the experiment; replacing the tuners with aftermarket "ultralite" tuners would do the same.

This also reminds me of the Music Man Stingray bass which was said to sustain more because of it's 3+1 configuration (in contrast to 4 + 0 from Fender's offerings). I don't know if that is true or not, but I do find less Stingrays with dead spots than P and J basses. It would also point to having the tuners on the "bottom" side of the instrument as being less restrictive of sustain, just like I found in my experiment, and seems to imply positive things about Rickenbacker's 2+2 configuration.

Interesting results wouldn't you say? Can anyone replicate them?

This is an experiment FOR FUN by the way, I'm not trying to defrock any guitar model or maker, or whatever. You nerds out there ought to understand my intention--to gain knowledge.

Thanks!

joshua

Veddy interestink.

That is interesting........Are you going to try the hipshot ultra lights?

So I guess this means that the old hipshot (?) brass block for the headstock probably won't work too well to increase sustain.

I don't know if I'm going to try anything or not because my bass is in good shape already. I'm mostly interested whether or not people can replicate these results with their own "dead spots".

it's been my understanding all these years that adding mass adds sustain , just put your head stock on the table or wall and pluck a note , will probably sustain for days but there are many factors , where and how the string anchors to the body , break point of the strings and even the pickups ( if amplified ) and string materials , it's very possible the tuners are not tightened or the string does not have the proper break point over the nut or bridge etc.etc. it's also been my understanding that if mass is added the dead spot and hot spot will move up the neck to a less obvious location . Lastly it's different with every piece of wood or composite so some have more or less of these traits . Check this out too , it's an interesting read . I don't claim to be correct either , I am not a Luthier or a Dr. of Physics



http://www.acoustics.org/press/137th/fleischer.html

The problem of added mass is that it is an "energy sink" for the string. Sustain comes primarily from continued string vibration insofar as I understand it. That's why it'd be my guess that those extra weights you put on the headstock (and the extra mass on some bridges) do little to enhance sustain. My experience trying out the Hipshot was in fact in line with this--the RIC stock bridge sustained better than the Hipshot.

Anyone willing to try this?

I recall an Ibanez display at the NAMM show back in the 70's. For a gimmick, they had a solid brass version of their Artist guitar that sustained forever, it seemed. Of course it weighed about 50lbs and had to be mounted on a stand.

^which makes sense in light of the article an experience. If there was 'no flexability' (perfectly rigid) in the neck or body - it would sustain as long as 'possible' (string mass and energy).

That is why i was really {really] upset to find the water damage and the 'hollowness' of the wood in the headstock from the water damage (found the case sitting upside down in a puddle for what must have been weeks )

BUT with the guitar unplugged it still rings/sustains/plays loudly like no other. Still good. I have faith in the re-glue and paint of the head stock (every bit of mass, eh?) to restore rigidity.

So much has been tried over the years - so many theories. Someone recently posted a picture of a metal plate that increased the mass of the headstock to eliminate dead spots. Rickenbacker, for a time, actually put lead weights in the fingerboards (fourth fret). Lakland players noted more consistency after the company started using carbon fiber to reinforce their necks. There does not seem to be a magic bullet though. The results are always mixed.

I will say this much. John Hall shared with me that mass on the headstock of a flexible material like wood (flexible on a micro-scale) will cause flexation and bending when a string is plucked. The less the excess mass, the less flexation and reflexation occurs. It also depends on the length of the scale of the instrument--longer scales generate a greater amount of flexation. These forces contribute to a drain on string energy and cut into sustain. This is why I believe my experiment showed that less mass yielded higher sustain. The lead weights INSIDE the neck are one thing. They may help stabilize the wood. And of course they don't do that anymore. The mass plates on the headstock are a whole other--I am sure they would not help sustain.

Changing the mass of the headstock won't automatically increase or reduce sustain. What it will do is change the resonances of the system (headstock/neck/body). Changing the resonance will, for some frequencies increase the sustain and for others decrease it. It will also, for the same reasons move dead spots to different locations (or quite possibly remove them), depending on the frequencies involved.

Now, since each piece of wood is different, each instrument will have a different resonance profile. What works for one will likely behave differently with another.

That's why I was hoping others would try this experiment.

Actually, I'd guess that, since the design of RIC basses (or any manufacturers for that matter) are pretty similar for a particular model, the effects of changing mass will be similar for different instruments. Of course, to what extent will depend in the individual instrument.

When I get a chance, I'll play with a couple of mine to see how they behave...