Our Souls inc. Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm going to experiment a bit with an old voodoo trick I used to use. I'd add small weights to the back of the headstock because an old-timer insisted it added sustain to your notes...... Now that I'm building them, I wonder if its true, or if I used to add metal to the HS for no reason..... I'll post my results, trying to be as scientific as I can , but--- what's your thoughts / experience with this old myth? Does it hold water, or is it sunk ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestorationAD Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Voodoo... have fun with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I figure as much, but will wait till the stopwatch tells me so.... I'm going to use 3 different guitars, a bolt-on a set and a neck thru. also different amounts of weight, type of weight and single notes on each string as well as chords. Also plugged vs. unplugged. if it makes a difference at all, for the better or worse or nil, the stopwatch will figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripthorn Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 In theory, more mass means you should have a greater impedance through the transfer path of energy from string to body, which means energy stays in the string longer. However, this is if you are talking about the partial differential equation governing string motion. As soon as you stop dealing with a point mass and deal with a headstock that is nonhomogeneous (with many complex natural modes) and then imperfectly coupling a weight to it which itself has even more complex natural modes, it really doesn't have an amazingly dramatic effect. Will you see a difference? Maybe, but do you want to be playing with a 5 lb. weight dangling from the headstock? Then again, being a scientist, I won't tell you not to experiment, because that is the basis for all good science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I never liked the idea,because I make my headstocks as thin and light as possible,and I really never noticed any difference,but Perry tells me I don't know what I am talking about in that regard,so who am I to argue? i think the easiest and most useful way to add mass to a headstock is with a string retainer,heavier tuners,and one of those screw on allen wrench holders...those are really handy to have http://www.gpdusa.com/product.cgi?group=23143&product=27132 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdog Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I used to own a Gibson LP Classic. These came with the kluson type tuners stock, very light. The neck on these was also very thin. The guitar definitely had a very poor sustain. I was trying to sell it when I heard about the added mass trick. I changed the tuners to Grover Rotomatics, which are significantly heavier, and it really was like night and day ! The guitar became a lot mpre resonant and the sustain proved dramatically. Not very scientific, I would not generalize, but in that particular case the difference was really amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 just like a fat finger as a cheaper alternative go and get a clamp and see what effect it has. the fat finger is marketed as providing extra sustain - i believe it does. but it doesnt have the same effect on every guitar and you may not like the effect anyway but it definitely does alter the resonance of the neck and that can be very useful if you have deadspots or something just seems to be lacking. it is ugly though. i have gone for thicker headstocks on many things now and always like the results. My thoughts are that it reduces the amount of wasted vibration at the headstock end and transmits this to the body a bit more efficiently, usually coupled with relatively stiff neck construction choices. its not a million miles away from the weight and clamp tricks, but definitely looks better and i would rather increase stiffness than add too much extra weight i am sure there used to be a slo-mo video floating around somewhere just how much movement there can be in a headstock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 So, they actually sell a voodoo clamp ?!?!? lmbo. I used 2 oz weights when I was doing it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orgmorg Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Oh, so that's what the fat finger is for. I will have to apologise to my girlfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireFly Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Oh, so that's what the fat finger is for. I will have to apologise to my girlfriend. BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 all kidding aside - my findings may very well surprise the heck out of us all. all aspects of its applications, different mounting locations, types of weight and mounting styles ( taped and clamped ) shortened the sustain or made no difference at all. I can bore you with numbers and specs, but in almost every single instance, guitar and bass, the added weight ended the note sooner. Lets see if I can show a bit without droning ..... Neck Through guitar p=plugged/up=unplugged E ................A............. D .............G ...............B............. E 40p/17up ..27p/21up....18p/15up ...11p/13up...9p/9up...5p/5up ^^^ without any weight vvv with 2 Oz. brass clamped to top of HS E ................A.............. D .............G.............. B................E 30p/17up ..25p/20up ....18p/16up.....11p/12up.....9p/8up....4p/4up I checked audible to my ear sounds(unplugged) as well as plugged into studio equipment which measures input level. Case after case was the same result though. So - in my mind- myth busted. Y'all are free to figure it out for yourself or trust my findings... its up to you. it was educational at least ! and I won't be adding any weights to any guitars after finding this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestorationAD Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 all kidding aside - my findings may very well surprise the heck out of us all. all aspects of its applications, different mounting locations, types of weight and mounting styles ( taped and clamped ) shortened the sustain or made no difference at all. I can bore you with numbers and specs, but in almost every single instance, guitar and bass, the added weight ended the note sooner. Lets see if I can show a bit without droning ..... Neck Through guitar p=plugged/up=unplugged E ................A............. D .............G ...............B............. E 40p/17up ..27p/21up....18p/15up ...11p/13up...9p/9up...5p/5up ^^^ without any weight vvv with 2 Oz. brass clamped to top of HS E ................A.............. D .............G.............. B................E 30p/17up ..25p/20up ....18p/16up.....11p/12up.....9p/8up....4p/4up I checked audible to my ear sounds(unplugged) as well as plugged into studio equipment which measures input level. Case after case was the same result though. So - in my mind- myth busted. Y'all are free to figure it out for yourself or trust my findings... its up to you. it was educational at least ! and I won't be adding any weights to any guitars after finding this out. Awesome ... cool that you did that. Told you... "Voodoo" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 interesting! just to clarify though, was this all with the same guitar? i am not surprised by your findings, but its not enough to convince me there is nothing in it. like i said before it doesnt have the same effect on every guitar and you may not like the effect anyway ... but it definitely does alter the resonance of the neck and that can be very useful if you have deadspots or something just seems to be lacking and it seems like your results show the resonance of the neck has been affected slightly - it just happens to be slightly negatively in this case I like a bit of voodoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Wez, I collected data from 3 different guitars and two basses. They were all similar in findings. The thicker strings vibrate longer than the thin ones, but they all lost sustain with the weight added. I posted the findings from the neck-through guitar as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Told you... "Voodoo" Yes.... yes you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 cool! - just done 3 guitars myself and put the results into excel ... just because i seem to be coming down on the side of voodoo recently on these forums and in real life i am actually quite scientifically minded. its fair to say the results were mixed, but here they are for you to see. i did each note 3 times with and without weight. they are all done acoustically and measure how long the note lasts. I randomised the order i did them until i had 3 of each string to try to account for any order effects or changes in my picking technique. the weight i used was a medium sized spring clamp weighing in at 183g (6oz ish) i should also point out i dont think any of these guitars need extra weight on the headstock, they all sound good as they are. and the only effect i was looking into was note length on open strings, which is hardly comprehensive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Wow. Thats the very scientific version of what I did in a notebook! ...and I did the fretted notes at 1st, 5th, 7th and 12th on each string, as well as bar chordsin a few positions. its a lot of plugged/unplugged numbers and I didn't want to bore folks with it. Plus my notes are probably only decipherable by me..... like a doctor wrote it. Or a first grader! Now, the "reason" the weight might diminish the sustain is another debate, one of which I have no interest in. It reduces it - that was all I needed to know. I might have to try one of those spreadsheets with my data, I'm just a hack with paperwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Now, the "reason" the weight might diminish the sustain is another debate, one of which I have no interest in. It reduces it - that was all I needed to know. i am sticking with changes it! And that is what is important to me - coming back to the deadspots thing and altering the resonance of the neck to control them if you need to! to me "sustain" is unimportant with any well set-up guitar - in that any well set-up guitar will have more than i need so some qualitative results related to "tone" : i would say that the guitars made by me were relatively unaffected - but they both have stiffer necks than the average guitar and i suspect this is why. I would say the stratele was slightly more lively in certain positions, and this position changed with and without the weight. The laminated through neck (with fanned frets and CF reinforcement) had hardly any noticeable tonal difference anywhere on the fretboard The yam was shocking - it sounded much better with no extra weight... but then its already heavy neck/light body and i think the weight increased that imbalance too much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangedrop Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Cool thread folks! This brings me back to many conversations I have had with friends/acquaintance about headstock mass, strings wraps on the post etc. Great brain food! I read that slide guys would play the Gibson 12 string necks (335, SG ?) strung six, because the bigger headstock gave a fatter sound and better sustain to the note. As we see with Wes' spreadsheet, there are cases where this holds true and if course when someone gets a great sound, folks are often bound to follow blindly. I can't sound like Johnny Winter just by playing a Firebird through his favored amps. Not until I adopt the proper vibrato and picking technique does the tone approach the master. Wes, how did you insure the "pluck" of the strings had the same energy applied each time? Thanks, John Edited January 31, 2011 by orangedrop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm not sure how Wez did it, I'm under the impression that he listened to the notes by ear, which can have a lot of variation depending upon the din around you. I ran the guitar into a studio meter so I could see that the attack level was consistent ( the pluck ) as well as measuring the cut off time acurately and consistently. I also tried it unplugged and noted both times, but I trust the machines more than my ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 yeah, this was just a quick test so i did it by listening to the note with my ear against the upper bout. not the perfect method at all (it also creates another confounding variable since i used 1 single cut and two strat shaped guitars - the upper bout vibration is different) as for plucking consistently, again i realised this would be hard to do without setting up a mechanical device which is why i tried to randomise order and took the average of a few plucks. If i had done all the E - string followed by all the A its possible my pluck would change as i went along as i got bored - mixing the order if a crude fix for this. my point is simply that you can look at this in two ways. 1) decide it never has any consistent positive affect and ignore it 2) decide it can sometimes have a positive affect and keep it in your toolkit for a potential solution to neck resonance issues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.