compensated saddles

[lazybones at 50]

what is the reason for a compensated saddle..and would you recommend one for my taylor 410....i am thinking of buying a graphtech tusq..just for a change???

[stanron]

When you press a string down you slightly increase the tension. This raises the pitch (slightly). Saddle compensation elongates the string to lower the pitch by the same amount as the pressure raises it (ideally). String gauge and action are factors to be taken into account. Is it art or is it craft or is it science? Opinions might vary.

Edit to say that if you notice intonation problems with your guitar it might be worth looking into. If you don't then there may not be any need.

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by stanron

When you press a string down you slightly increase the tension. This raises the pitch (slightly). Saddle compensation elongates the string to lower the pitch by the same amount as the pressure raises it (ideally). String gauge and action are factors to be taken into account. Is it art or is it craft or is it science? Opinions might vary.

Edit to say that if you notice intonation problems with your guitar it might be worth looking into. If you don't then there may not be any need.

Strings in balanced sets run near the same tension (give or take).

The string, as well as being stretched, is being lengthened compared to its straight length.

In addition, the strings have a stiffness, which is dependent upon the stiffness (thickness) of its core as well as the wraps.

Hence, a 6th string is stiffer than 5th due to thicker core and thicker wraps.

With greater stiffness, the average vibrational pivot point will sit slightly in from the saddle peak, nut, or fret. Hence, the 6th string needs greatest compensation.

If it were based solely on tension, you would find very little variation in compensated scale length from string to string.

[Trevor Gore]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

Strings in balanced sets run near the same tension (give or take).

D'Addario EJ-16 12-53 measured tension at pitch E-e (Newtons):
120.3 141.1 146.5 142.1 108.6 111.2 ... so about 40% variation across the set and is pretty typical across brands.

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

The string, as well as being stretched, is being lengthened compared to its straight length.

Isn't that the same? i.e. It's being stretched?

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

In addition, the strings have a stiffness, which is dependent upon the stiffness (thickness) of its core as well as the wraps.

Strings have longitudinal stiffness (dependent mainly on the core diameter) and bending stiffness (dependent on core diameter and wrap). Bending stiffness is largely irrelevant (see below)

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

Hence, a 6th string is stiffer than 5th due to thicker core and thicker wraps.

Yes. Stiffer in both longitudinal stiffness (resistance to stretching) and bending stiffness

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

With greater stiffness, the average vibrational pivot point will sit slightly in from the saddle peak, nut, or fret. Hence, the 6th string needs greatest compensation.

The 6th string needs most compensation because it has the thickest core so rises most in frequency when it is stretched on fretting. Bending stiffness has negligible affect on intonation, because the bending stiffness does not affect the fundamental frequency of the string as it is shortened. This was concluded after tests on a string test rig. A variety of guitar strings (steel and nylon) were tensioned using weights and their fundamental frequency measured as they were shortened in 10mm increments. The frequency measurements were compared with those predicted by the simple Mersenne string formula and a much more complicated formula given by Morse (Vibration and Sound) which included bending stiffness terms (and various other formulae assuming different end conditions). The simple Mersenne formula gave much more accurate predictions, basically limited by the small and random experimental error, indicating that bending stiffness has negligible influence on a string's fundamental vibrating frequency as it is shortened. Details in Section 1.5.9, Contemporary Acoustic Guitar, Design and Build. Bending stiffness does have a significant affect on inharmonicity, though, but that is a different problem.

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

If it were based solely on tension, you would find very little variation in compensated scale length from string to string.

The higher than expected increase in string frequency due to fretting is caused by the string increasing in tension as it is stretched down onto the fret. The higher the string's longitudinal stiffness, the greater the tension increase and therefore frequency increase and the more intonation compensation is required. Calculations for nut and saddle compensation need not therefore include string bending stiffness terms. Mine don't and work fine.

Originally Posted by lazybones at 50

...would you recommend one for my taylor 410....i am thinking of buying a graphtech tusq..just for a change???

I had an idea that Taylors came as standard with a Tusq 9200 series (B compensated) saddle anyway. That one works fine, if it isn't fitted already.

[John Arnold]

Trevor's explanation is correct, except for grammar.
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/affect-effect-grammar.html

In simpler terms, you have two unwound strings and four wound strings. Because of this different composition, there is no straight saddle that will compensate all the strings perfectly.

[lazybones at 50]

thanks guys..very interesting....if i wanted a less bright sound which saddle /nut would you recommend..

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by Trevor Gore

D'Addario EJ-16 12-53 measured tension at pitch E-e (Newtons):
120.3 141.1 146.5 142.1 108.6 111.2 ... so about 40% variation across the set and is pretty typical across brands.

Have you got the D and G strings transposed ? Or is the D string actually under greater tension than the G string?

[Trevor Gore]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

Have you got the D and G strings transposed ? Or is the D string actually under greater tension than the G string?

Interesting point, Murray.

I went back and checked my data, which I have lots of faith in, and looked at results measured at various times. 8 years ago the G was higher tension than the D, 147.6N vs 145.9N. This year, the D is higher tension than the G as recorded above.

I checked two packs of EJ-16s, one a ten pack and one a three pack, both purchased recently on the same date from the same bulk supplier. The ten pack quotes D higher tension than G (13.83kg vs 13.70kg) and the 3 pack G higher than D (13.63kg vs 13.58kg). I rate at 650mm scale length, D'Addario rate at 25.5". The nominal specs of the strings have been the same throughout, so make of that what you will! When I do string measurements, all I take off the pack is the serial number, everything else is measured.

Anecdote:
Last year I was in Perth, WA, visited a few guitar stores and walked out of one with a set of Cleartone 80:20 bronze, 12-53. Normally I use phosphor bronze, so these were effectively bought in error. I strung up with them and they sounded FANTASTIC. Went out to a local supplier (Sydney) and bought some Cleartone PB's, strung a similar guitar, which sounded carp. (Bear with me JA!). Did some investigation (I knew what was wrong straight away but checked anyway). All the core diameters were different. Went back out and bought some 80:20s and strung up with those. Still sounded carp. All the core diameters were the same as the PBs. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I found that intensely frustrating. Why randomly change a product, especially one that was so good to start with? Needless to say, I've abandoned Cleartones. At least the D'Addarios sound more-or-less the same, even though there does seem to be some variation.

[Trevor Gore]

Originally Posted by lazybones at 50

...if i wanted a less bright sound which saddle /nut would you recommend..

I usually find that Tusq is brighter than bone and many agree with that. Others will argue the exact opposite, and also find lots of support. So that one is up to you! If you go for a softer plastic saddle e.g. ABS, that will tend to sound duller. Whether you like it or not, only you can say. If you want fewer high harmonic overtones from your wound strings, go for ones with thicker cores (but no manufacturers publish that data!). Some brands have been offering high flexibility cores. Avoid those if you don't like bright.

[lazybones at 50]

thanks guys much to think about.

[cspencer]

Originally Posted by Trevor Gore

I usually find that Tusq is brighter than bone and many agree with that. Others will argue the exact opposite, and also find lots of support. So that one is up to you! If you go for a softer plastic saddle e.g. ABS, that will tend to sound duller. Whether you like it or not, only you can say. If you want fewer high harmonic overtones from your wound strings, go for ones with thicker cores (but no manufacturers publish that data!). Some brands have been offering high flexibility cores. Avoid those if you don't like bright.

I'm a proud owner of saddles made of Tusq, Bone and FMI (latest acquisition). They are not brighter or darker. I find Tusq to be likened to a V shaped EQ. You get louder bass and sharp highs but scooped in the middle. Bone is the clearest. But at times brash. Now, as for FMI, the sound is more evenly spread. A little less volume overall but well balanced. Depending on mood, I switch them about on the same guitar.

[redir]

What do the experts think about the angle compensation on Classical guitars? I've built with both angled saddles as well as straight, both still compensated for intonation, and have found no real difference in intonation. This leads me to believe that a compensated saddle is pointless given the width of a standard saddle on Spanish guitars but rather the break point compensation, the string length, is what really counts. Thoughts?

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by redir

What do the experts think about the angle compensation on Classical guitars? I've built with both angled saddles as well as straight, both still compensated for intonation, and have found no real difference in intonation. This leads me to believe that a compensated saddle is pointless given the width of a standard saddle on Spanish guitars but rather the break point compensation, the string length, is what really counts. Thoughts?

Classical strings are not as stiff as steel strings, so need less compensation in general, and there is less variance from string to string. A standard EB--GDAE double-slanted saddle will not perform the same on a classical, since the B to G string change does not involve going from unwrapped to wrapped. I have not seen a classical guitar with an "intonated" saddle that has been any better than non-compensated ones.

[Trevor Gore]

Originally Posted by redir

...This leads me to believe that a compensated saddle is pointless given the width of a standard saddle on Spanish guitars but rather the break point compensation, the string length, is what really counts. Thoughts?

It's always the string length that counts. It's then just a matter of how you accommodate those string lengths on a saddle, which then ultimately governs how you manufacture the saddle and bridge. Classical strings can vary widely in material types. Nylons can be very different from each other (and still be called nylon) then their is Nylgut and fluorocarbon and the fluorocarbon fishing lines that are becoming popular. And then there are the different types of core material in the wound strings and the fact that many players mix and match; fluorocarbon G and B, "nylon" e and whatever bass strings take their fancy. All will have different compensation requirements and what the pattern looks like on a compensated saddle can vary a lot. It certainly makes a difference, though.