Tusq vs Bone

[naccoachbob]

I just won a classical guitar that I reference in the Classical section of this forum.
It came with a tusq nut but with a bone saddle.
Do you think I might see some sound improvement if I have it replaced with a bone nut?
It's going to get a setup even though it's pretty close to what I like, and I thought I'd add in that little touch if its worth while.
Thanks,

Bob

[Looburst]

It's a tone question only you can answer.

[mirwa]

The old saying is bone for tone.

Take a piece of plastic and hold it in your teeth tap the plastic, do the same with a piece of bone, the transfer of energy is very distinctive between the two.

Steve

[redir]

Even if it did improve the tone, dubious at best imho, it would only improve the tone on a small percentage of the notes that you are ever going to play anyway, the open notes.

Just leave it... Congrats on winning a guitar that's pretty sweet!

[runamuck]

I agree with redir. After trying it myself I could hear no difference replacing a Tusq nut with bone.

In my experience, saddle material can certainly be heard although I once replaced Tusq for bone on a guitar that was a bit bright for my taste. So bone isn't necessarily the best in all cases.

[mirwa]

Don't get me wrong, not saying it will make the tone better or worse, that is subjective to the player.

It transfers energy better, that transferred energy equates to a tonal change which I believe can be very distinctive, and yes on the open strings only.

There is also a small amount of added mass to the headstock going from tusc to bone.

Steve

[Truckjohn]

Tusq was designed to have about the same density and hardness as bone.... It's not really mushy and sticky like the cheap plastic used in the $2.00 plastic nuts.

The stuff certainly clinks like bone when you tap it on something.

One thing it has going for it is that it is very consistent. Bone is a natural thing - and as such, it's not terribly consistent.

I used it on the nut 2 guitars ago. It wasn't my favorite for working because to me - it worked more like glass filled plastic than bone. But there are a lot of luthiers who prefer it head and shoulders over bone for the same reason. It worked just fine as a nut, though. No complaints on that end.

All that boils down to.. Pick your poison. I probably wouldn't be in a hurry to jettison a good Tusq nut if the setup was already right.... And I probably wouldn't jettison it if the setup was too high... I would just fix the Tusq nut.

[thomasfelty]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I agree with redir. After trying it myself I could hear no difference replacing a Tusq nut with bone.

In my experience, saddle material can certainly be heard although I once replaced Tusq for bone on a guitar that was a bit bright for my taste. So bone isn't necessarily the best in all cases.

Are you using Tusq for steel strings or Nylon string guitars? Maybe both. I build steel string and have been thinking of trying out Tusq.

[naccoachbob]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm going to take the advice to leave it alone right now. I think the guitar sounds good with it. I also have another guitar with the same woods on which I did change to bone, and I like the sound of it. The other guitar is an '81 Yamaha G-255sii, so is a lot older.
I guess if the Ramirez screamed "Yuck" in sound I'd do what I had to do to make it better, but maybe better left alone in this case.
Again, thank you all for the input. The best part of what you all said was that you got me thinking about different things. And that adds to my awareness of sound. That's what I like about this forum - it's thoughtful.
Bob