Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It's doable. An e-bow and a kill switch should work. Not that it's significant, but I would use 36.8% of initial amplitude as a metric. That's the definition of time constant.
I expect there needs to be more than one measurement. And there could be various test conditions to be considered. Is the instrument on the bench or hanging from straps? What's the initial amplitude? What's the distance from the pickups? Do you measure just the open strings, or more? The list can go on and on.
Like any specification, it will be nuanced, spun, and abused by the marketing department.
I expect there needs to be more than one measurement. And there could be various test conditions to be considered. Is the instrument on the bench or hanging from straps? What's the initial amplitude? What's the distance from the pickups? Do you measure just the open strings, or more? The list can go on and on.
Like any specification, it will be nuanced, spun, and abused by the marketing department.
This thread below may be of interest. It was a project by my daughter that involved measuring sustain.
The effect of string gauge on sustain.
The effect of string gauge on sustain.
Here's one of the graphics we used.
You can see that we cut off the initial attack of the note. We measured that and then calculated 20% of that figure and measured the length of time to get to that part of the wave.
You can see that we cut off the initial attack of the note. We measured that and then calculated 20% of that figure and measured the length of time to get to that part of the wave.
Comparing sustain on different basses seems to be a somewhat subjective exercise. The method I have heard espoused is to pluck a string and time how long you can hear it. So, you are never going to pluck the string the exact same way any two times, and you may not hear the end of the audible portion of the vibration consistently. This may be close enough for most purposes, but I have been wondering about using a more consistent, repeatable process that would aid in a more objective comparison between instruments.
Sustain is just a form of decay, not too dissimilar to radioactive decay, I think. Radioactive decay is measured in half-life. Could this also be applied to the decay of sustain? Pluck a string, and, using an oscilloscope, record when the amplitude of the tone generated is half of what was initially plucked. This time would be the half-life of the instrument's sustain. Do that for each string and you might have a specification that could be objectively compared between instruments.
Now, I'm not an engineer, so I could very well be missing something, but I would like to hear what others think about this.
And no, I have not been drinking more whiskey than is considered helpful...
EDIT:
I really only care about having enough sustain to carry through maybe a couple of bars at the most. My reason for bringing up this question was centered around the fact that discussions about sustain didn't have a way to objectively compare basses. Using the methodology that is applied to radioactive decay seemed like it might be a possibility. It is more idle curiosity than anything else.
Well, for one, I wouldn’t use vintage flat wound strings for your test...
I agree 100%, it doesn't matter.
To the OP: I also don't think the measurement concept is sound because sustain is not like radioactivity. The measurement makes the assumption that there is linearity to sustain, that the 50% drop in level would be the same regardless of when the two levels were measured. Sure, you can measure it for fun but as an experiment it will most likely show that there is no correlation in how quickly the levels drop. For example, how many seconds after the attack do you start measuring? How many points along the way should be measured? What constitutes 50% change in level, 3dB, 10dB, something else? Etc.
how is this 'sustain' measurement useful in practical terms?
what if your instrument has the longest sustain ever measured? --- and then you join a bebop quartet.
Of course the thing about "sustain" in practical terms is not the measurement but more how your ear perceives what is going on. So even though harmonics may have different sustain you ear sort of mushed it all together and and you brain says the note lasts about "this" long!
The longest sustain is infinite sustain which implies it lasts forever!. You might say that never happens but it does. The way you can get it (as every guitarist knows) is you get your guitar in front of the amp so you create a positive feedback that keeps the note going as long as you hold it there. Old rock trick. Another such is the E-Bow which works on the same principle. The device has a pickup to sense string vibration and a coil that will drive the string feeding back into it. The result is again a note that can be sustained as long as you like. One thing I'll say is that unless your string damping skills are really honed playing a long-sustaining bass can really be a pain in the butt.
Honestly I don't believe it is something that could be a standard value. There are just too many variables:
Bass body wood
Neck wood
fretboard wood
frets
tuners
bridge
nut
pickups
strings
temperature
humidity
freestanding or hanging on a strap (I think a skinny guy is going to get more sustain than a chubby guy)
Even using a mechanical plucking device, all other things being equal we all know that two of the exact same bass can have very different characteristics as long as they are made out of wood of any kind.
So, I think it would be possible to have a standardized sustain measurement for strings only, which would only be marginally useful since what you really want to know is how the instrument itself sustains. I also can't imagine any manufacturer ever adopting such a standard and actually testing it on every bass they produce since doing so would invariably create more supposedly defective instruments than already occur.
I still like the idea though.
Bass body wood
Neck wood
fretboard wood
frets
tuners
bridge
nut
pickups
strings
temperature
humidity
freestanding or hanging on a strap (I think a skinny guy is going to get more sustain than a chubby guy)
Even using a mechanical plucking device, all other things being equal we all know that two of the exact same bass can have very different characteristics as long as they are made out of wood of any kind.
So, I think it would be possible to have a standardized sustain measurement for strings only, which would only be marginally useful since what you really want to know is how the instrument itself sustains. I also can't imagine any manufacturer ever adopting such a standard and actually testing it on every bass they produce since doing so would invariably create more supposedly defective instruments than already occur.
I still like the idea though.
The post wasn't about whether or or less sustain matters. The OP was discussing his wish to measure a quality of a bass to satisfy his curiosity. Apparently, that has become a trigger for ridicule and snarkyness around here.
No one has the guts to follow my example. I simply didn't see an interest in the subject and chose to not participate. Who knew I could be so brave....
(for the extra snarky-driven, I commented on the adolescently-negative comments directed at the OP. Not the subject. May be hard to believe, but there's a difference)....
Not any more.....
I don't think I was ridiculing the OP, or being snarky. At least that was not my intention.
And yes, there's nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity. The OP is perfectly free to ignore my opinion and forge ahead in the quest to accurately measure sustain. Who knows? This could result in the development of an entire new branch of acoustical engineering. Far be it from me to stand in the way of progress!