Part of my reason for posting this thread was this: Whether we agree that sustain is desirable in bass playing or not - and I agree that all other things being equal it's better to have it and not use it than vice versa, as long as all other things are indeed equal - there's a definitive sense of 'better instruments sustain more' that posits sustain as a de facto desirable thing.
I'm not convinced. There's an argument that better engineered systems (instruments) resonate more in a previous post, but that's perhaps a by-product of some instruments and not a design feature of all; it is an argument that seems to have become widely accepted however. But you could equally argue that better engineered systems should resonate less; most engineers would prefer the latter, especially those that build bridges :) My second Wal fretless, a MK1, was, like all Wals, a wonderfully engineered and crafted instrument, it was a joy to play and had the most amazingly evocative and nasal tone. But it did not sustain at all, it was articulate as flip, really spoke when I played it, and I loved it, because frankly I found it so much easier to play because it didn't sustain. I also wonder - and this is the 'all other things being equal above - whether the absence of sustain added something to the tone and articulateness, and to the amazing ability that bass had to put what I played straight out of my speaker (it was the first bass on which I was ever able to play Rhythm Stick, and it was fretless!). I have a mandolin that doesn't sustain at all, a US made Breedlove, so again a very well built instrument, and one that I love; my previous mandolin would ring out for several seconds comfortably but again was harder to play.
I get that in some situations sustain is desirable and in others it's not, but this isn't about that. I've just never bought the idea that sustain is a de facto indicator of quality in the way some people argue it is.
Thoughts?