compensated saddle??

[jhchang]

Taylor's saddle is compensated for B string; my Lakewood uses uncompensated; Sheppard's saddle is compensated for every single string. So what's the actual purpose for it? Would it really improve the tone discernbally?

[Bill Cory]

JH -- The compensation isn't used to improve the tone, but the intonation, of the particular guitar. The tone shouldn't be affected by the compensation of the saddle. But intonation -- how well the guitar plays "in tune with itself" -- is. The B string is most often compensated only because it is usually a pretty light string and because of its position on the fingerboard often is played more aggressively than others, and is often and easily pressed too hard. Also, it's frequency and gauge cause it to sound sharp when fretted -- so, it is made a tad longer to compensate for this sharpness. Being a little bit longer, its stretch is slightly less, and so its sharpness is lessened somewhat. The other strings are also compensated -- on all steel string guitars, the saddle is closer to the nut at the treble side, and farther from the nut at the bass side. How they configure the saddle just depends on the maker of the guitar and how that guitar best plays in tune "with itself."

The other parts of the equation are the ear of the hearer of the guitar and the player. The player, if he/she presses too hard on the B string, for instance, will press it sharp, and it can happen with the other strings, too, and the string can be pressed sideways and go sharp (an unintentional bend). The hearer, too, is part of it because some people can hear tonal variations that are very small; other people cannot discern these variations -- to one degree or another, that's why some people can tune a guitar almost perfectly without an electronic tuner, and other people simply cannot tell their guitar is out of tune.

Hope this 2c helps. --- Will

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by jhchang

Taylor's saddle is compensated for B string; my Lakewood uses uncompensated; Sheppard's saddle is compensated for every single string. So what's the actual purpose for it? Would it really improve the tone discernbally?

Hi jh...
Proper intonation is critical on guitars, and poor intonation is more noticeable the higher one plays up the neck. The strings need to be individually compensated at the saddle if they are not fretting quite in tune.

Once a saddle is compensated, your intonation should be good for quite a while. The things which will throw it off a bit are weather (relief of the neck changes), strings getting old and not playing in tune, and changing string weights.

Also, if one plays very high action, it is difficult to achieve proper intonation since it bends the strings slightly just getting them to the fretboard.

[cotten]

Thanks, Larry. I always thought a compensated saddle was one that was paid for its services....

cotten

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by cotten

Thanks, Larry. I always thought a compensated saddle was one that was paid for its services....

Hi Cotten...
Doesn't it?

[Bern]

Originally Posted by cotten

Thanks, Larry. I always thought a compensated saddle was one that was paid for its services....

cotten

When I used go horse back riding, I always wished for a compensated saddle. Ouch !

[jhchang]

Thanks to all of you detailed explanation. So does that imply the guitars w/ uncompensated may have intonation issue compared to the ones with compensated? Why wouldn't luthiers all use compensated saddles?

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by jhchang

Thanks to all of you detailed explanation. So does that imply the guitars w/ uncompensated may have intonation issue compared to the ones with compensated? Why wouldn't luthiers all use compensated saddles?

Hi jh...
I'd say your statement of implication is correct. Most uncompensated saddles play slightly out of tune.

I suppose if a luthier could invent the perfect design, he/she might come up with a saddle which needed no compensation.

Most luthiers and guitar factories are supplying at least a minimal compensation these days. The reasons they would not is they think that we don't hear the difference, or they are doing the least work possible.

As the guitar playing public becomes better informed, companies upgrade their products.

[chadd]

Luthiers can have other reasons for not using compensated saddles.

When I took my Froggy Bottom to Michael Millard for a neck reset, I asked him about installing a compensated saddle. Since I usually use open tunings, the intonation can get get a little sharp on the bottom string when it's tuned down to D or C. He said that he started getting a lot of similar requests in the late 1980s when players like Michael Hedges and Pierre Bensusan inspired a bunch of players to use open tunings. The trade-off of a compensated saddle on a traditional steel-string bridge (not a split saddle) is that it has to be made out of a thicker piece of material. That means that the downward pressure of the saddle against the bridge is spread out across a larger surface area than with a thinner saddle, which affects the transfer of vibrational energy in the guitar. He said that he experimented with compensated saddles on several guitars and came to the conclusion that, for him, the intonation benefits didn't outweigh the detrimental effect on tone.

[Bill Cory]

It has always been interesting to me that Classical guitars, with nylon strings, do not use compensated saddles, even though their strings are more susceptible to stretching by too much finger pressure: The intonation is left up to the player.

It's also interesting that on many electric guitars, each string has its own individual compensation mechanism -- for an instrument whose strings are more or less expected to be "bent out of shape" or at least out of tune.

[solarbean]

That is an interesting point. Seems that an inverted wedge (top side thicker than the bottom side) would resolve that issue. Perhaps Mr Colosi could produce one?

[rcolosi]

A few thoughts about this thread that may or may not be useful:

1. The "standard" compensation found on many large manufacturer's guitars, i.e. Taylor, Martin ...just two of many examples, is the result of technology. These manufacturers are now able to produce instrument after instrument that are incredibly consistent in terms of their geometry. With a known geometry, a standard compensation can be developed that will apply to each instrument. If you were to develop a standardized compensation for a line of identical instruments produced earlier in the evolution of guitar building technology, the standard compensation would yield scattered results that reflect the differences between the individual units. Additionally, Larry touched on a very strong point.. more and more people are dropping tunings and doing things with acoustic instruments they just didnt do way back, and as the art evolves, so does the ear for it.

2. Although intonation and tone are often spoken of as seperate topics, they are related. An instrument whose intonation is not accurate can show significant loss of partials and overtones due to this issue. Of course this solely depends on the individual instrument, but if you ever hear of people talking about the setup "sweet spot," it's typically not their imagination. As far as playability goes, a good setup in the hands of a great luthier will do wonders not only for the feel of the instrument, but the tone as well.

3. As far as the question, "Why wouldn't luthiers all use compensated saddles?" ..I would hope that any luthier or tech would check the intonation on any instrument being set up and as a minimum, advise the owner what would be best. In some cases the compensation is not necessary, in some it is. The apt tech or luthier will know how to tell the difference.

4. The 3/32" vs. 1/8" saddle is an argument that gets tossed around a lot. I've seen piles of Martins repositioned and recut to 1/8" and not noticed any difference that was worth reporting. The Froggy bottom theory is correct though, you don't want to oversize your saddle unnecessarily. Whether .094 is vastly different than .125 is a matter of opinion in which there are no wrong answers.

5. As far as "Solarbean's" tapered saddle concept, is is a very good idea. (You've got to be an engineer) : ) although it does present some roadblocks on my end:

a.) It would be extremely time consuming to make in a natural material. I don't use any CNC equipment for saddles, it's all by hand so I would inevitably have to charge an arm and a leg to do it. ...and need the guitar in-house.
b.) You'd still be increasing the mass of the saddle which gets you back into a dillemma similar to the 3/32" vs. 1/8" theory.
c.) If I get a 3/32" saddle guitar that has poor intonation, we just refill and recut the bridge slot to the same 3/32" and put the saddle where its supposed to be. If you cant get the intonation close with proper recutting/repositioning, it is a strong bet that the guitar has other issues. This is the method I advocate because it's easy, not as invasive as it sounds, and works every time. In most cases (when done properly) you can't even notice it was ever done, and is a permanant fix. Just as one example, we had forum member "DM3MD's" Martin DM3MD here last year and had to move the saddle to the next area code. No biggy.. plays like a dream now.

I have to compliment Larry J (whilst jokingly picking on him) too.. : ) Olson, Bashkin, Kronbauer .. and the unbelievable attention to detail you give your instruments.. What the heck do you know about bad intonation!

anyway...hope some of this is of use.