Sometimes a bone saddle- Cumulative results...combined threads

[vindibona1]

There was an earlier "issue" this thread "Sometimes bone saddles aren't the answer. I wrote a subsquent thread with more information. And so I'm combining these two threads and hope no one minds. I will be deleting what I can of other thread as to keep the discussion in a single thread. Thanks for your understanding.

New updated thread...

As I came home with a new (to me) guitar that had a *very* short return period I had to put this thing through it's paces in short order. Of course it sounded differently when I brought it home. But thought it worthwhile to see if I could make it sound as I anticipated it to in my "mind's eye". It was a stock 1995 Taylor 910 with 3rd party EMG piezo UST. Everything other than the UST was stock, including TUSQ saddle and presumably nut, ebony bridge pins... and of course Elixir strings.

I did some initial testing and found that while the guitar as purchased was pretty good, I liked the nuanced sound of swapping the D and G bridge pins with Buffalo horn- a slight improvement. I put some new Elixirs on the guitar, not knowing how old the others were, but very little change in sound. While I liked the sound with the Elixirs, I thought the sound might be a bit stident for my taste, so I installed Gibson Masterbuilt 12's Phos/Bronze. These strings definitely warmed up the sound. While it was a close call, I kept the buffalo pins in the D&G.

I wondered how a bone saddle would sound with this guitar and Macnichol Guitars rushed two saddles out to me which I received yesterday; one bleached and one unbleached bone. They were both sanded to the exact spec of the original TUSQ saddle, within 1/1000 mm in all three dimensions.

I was surprised that neither bone saddle was an improvement over the TUSQ saddle with the Gibson strings. I ended up reverting to that TUSQ saddle. The mojo returned with the Gibson/TUSQ combination.

A while later I wondered how the guitar would respond with the bone saddles with ELIXIR STRINGS. I had a set that was on this guitar for 4 days before trying the Gibsons. So on went the Elixirs and the unbleached bone saddle and stock ebony pins (full set)...

... I don't know that I was surprised as I believe the result would be pretty much as it was. But the bone saddle mellowed out the stridency of the Elixir strings. There doesn't appear to be any need to modify the stock bridge pin configuration. I liked the sound a lot and left the guitar in that configuration, with stock ebony pins across.

I don't know whether I'm surprised or not, but (subjectively, of course) based on what could re-envision in tone and response was the similarity in sound and response between the Elixir/bone combination and Gibson/TUSQ/bridge pin mod combination. I think the Elixirs have a little more sparkle and clarity without being either bright or strident as I perceived them to be with the TUSQ saddle, especially with all ebony bridge pins. And conversely, I was kind of surprised at how different the guitar sounded when I put the bone saddle in with the Gibson strings. I felt no need to switch back to the TUSQ with the Elixir strings as I knew what I had experienced consistently for a week which prompted me to do the string pin and saddle testing in the first place.

But I think the important take-away is that I think that a lot of things can work- but they all have to work TOGETHER... and small tweaks matter. The bottom line is all about our own satisfaction. You know it the moment you strum your guitar and your soul seems to go "ahhhhh". It may not get any better after that, but sometimes your mood wants it to be different... Easily done.
__________________s a side note... I've got some GHS strings on order to compare with the Gibsons. Stay tuned on that one.

[L20A]

Guitar sound/tone is very subjective.
If you do your test in a month or so and use different strings, you might find your results will change.

The good thing about Tusq is that it is very stable and constant from one piece to another.
Bone can vary a lot from piece to piece.

Find what works best for you and enjoy your guitars.

[KevWind]

Lets keep this discussion civil please

[Pitar]

Bone is porous. Man made material is not. The latter comes in various compositions that vary in frequency transmission based upon hardness.

I've never had luck with bone material, despite the many claims made for it, because I wasn't lucky. Porosity varying between bone blanks, luck is exactly what's in play with obtaining the right sound. I toned down the shrillness of one guitar (think Taylor sound) by making an ebony saddle, and enhanced the tone of another with a brass saddle.

I did all that stuff around 2004 when everyone else was suffering the bridge pin treasure hunt. I also made a 3-18 stainless steel saddle while exploring results with different metals. The sound was not distinctive between those metals and it finally hit me that signal transmission was attenuated or enhanced by density.

Wood and bone cannot be relied upon to have constant density values so it's a crap shoot achieving desired results from them. But, they can be experimented with to attenuate the shrillness of certain frequency amplitudes. Taylor tonal differences between porous materials is very noticeable and I don't doubt many appreciate the taming of their brightness with bone.

Anyway, saddles being the much more difficult to render and experiment with, the average joe will go the bridge pin route. I think the saddle is the proper focus to start with with.

[maxtheaxe]

You had me at "Sometimes a bone saddle isn't the answer". I agree; I've found that I generally tend to prefer the sound of Tusq on guitars that have a stronger midrange response...it just sounds more balanced to me. Others, bone sounds great, is indeed the answer, but I prefer to source these from Colosi, because I know that he really cherry-picks his nuts & saddles for consistency. I find that many seem to think that bone is the only acceptable thing to use on a fine guitar, and it certainly is...except when it isn't.

I also find that what my ear likes can vary from day to day, depending on factors such as what my hearing has been exposed to that day, my level of stress, the humidity in my studio...all different kinds of things can affect the way we hear stuff, even from one day to the next...and that's not even counting the subjective factors involved.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

The short response is (except for the slightly overboard with the pins and... ) this is what should be done with every guitar after buying it. Evaluate, experiment, change, re-evaluate and - then sit down and play it for 20 years. Learn what works with for you with your guitar and make music.

I know that you and some think my bridge pin exploration is "overboard" and I can see how you might think that. But I've found that this is something that, other than swapping complete sets, selecteive pin swapsis completely undiscussed territory. The discovery is as new to me as everyone else and the more experimentation I do the more I learn. I share it because much of the time the results aren't what I expected and often go against the grain of "common acceptance". And to be honest, what *I* have learned from some of these discussions makes it all worthwhile. For those that don't appreciate any of it, that's fine. There are many threads I don't both reading either.

You've posted some pretty good stuff in the past Steve and I do appreciate your reply and am always open to polite challenge and love it when people disagree so we can talk it out. I love learning things and learn from forum members continuously.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by maxtheaxe

You had me at "Sometimes a bone saddle isn't the answer". I agree; I've found that I generally tend to prefer the sound of Tusq on guitars that have a stronger midrange response...it just sounds more balanced to me. Others, bone sounds great, is indeed the answer, but I prefer to source these from Colosi, because I know that he really cherry-picks his nuts & saddles for consistency. I find that many seem to think that bone is the only acceptable thing to use on a fine guitar, and it certainly is...except when it isn't.

I also find that what my ear likes can vary from day to day, depending on factors such as what my hearing has been exposed to that day, my level of stress, the humidity in my studio...all different kinds of things can affect the way we hear stuff, even from one day to the next...and that's not even counting the subjective factors involved.

Everything you said I agree with. I think to clarify one point, which might not have gotten through when I merged two threads [you may want to re-read the first post as it is very different now...

What I found fascinating is that it wasn't just about the guitar, but the COMBINATION OF STRINGS AND SADDLE. What I experienced was that the Elixir/TUSQ combo took the guitar in too strident a direction while Gibson/bone made the sound flat and unexciting...

... But when the string/saddle combinations were reversed with Elixir/bone and Gibson/TUSQ, these different combinations sounded quite a bit better and amazingly similar to each other, where the other way around the sounds were radically different and neither took home the prize [even though this guitar would sound good to most with anything you put on it].

[AndrewG]

Similarly I thought that exchanging the stock saddle in a Gibson AJ for bone would enhance things. I was wrong; the result was harsh, metallic and generally unpleasant. The stock saddle was replaced.

[TBman]

V, why don't you record a couple of covers or originals, one with bone and one without and post them in Show and Tell so we can hear the impact of the saddle change in a full song?

[zmf]

Originally Posted by TBman

V, why don't you record a couple of covers or originals, one with bone and one without and post them in Show and Tell so we can hear the impact of the saddle change in a full song?

Practical suggestion. Would be interesting to assess the impact when a guitar is used for its intended purpose.

[JonWint]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

They were both sanded to the exact spec of the original TUSQ saddle, within 1/1000 mm in all three dimensions.

You're shaming me with your shop equipment and bone machining ability.

Please tell me how to sand and measure to within 1/1000 mm?

I've made some saddles but never with that level of precision or repeatability.

[tippy5]

Originally Posted by maxtheaxe

, but I prefer to source these from Colosi, because I know that he really cherry-picks his nuts & saddles for consistency. I find that many seem to think that bone is the only acceptable thing to use on a fine guitar, and it certainly is...except when it isn't.

I agree Max. I tried eBay materials; camel bones, cow, fossilized walrus tusks, martin bone blanks. Bob Colosi has the best that I have found.

I do like TUSQ on my Gibson J45 rosewood. I love bone on all other guitars. My luthier also likes the compensated Colosi bone saddles.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by JonWint

You're shaming me with your shop equipment and bone machining ability.

Please tell me how to sand and measure to within 1/1000 mm?

I've made some saddles but never with that level of precision or repeatability.

Perhaps I got one too many digits in there . Two decimal places on the caliper. Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't know that I can machine it within that spec of even hundreths of a mm, but I try. I measure to that spec and try to get close. If I don't try to be that precise I can feel the difference if it's too high or hear the difference if it's too low. With that, I hand sand a few strokes at a time using a 90° guide to keep the bottom of the saddle square. It isn't hard when the saddle vendor does 90% of the work and makes it almost drop in.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by TBman

V, why don't you record a couple of covers or originals, one with bone and one without and post them in Show and Tell so we can hear the impact of the saddle change in a full song?

It may sound weird, but my playing goes in the toilet when I try to record. I have a totally different and more relaxed mindset when I play live, but trying to record myself and play- sometimes takes several takes to play something simple that I could play in my sleep. And the last time I tried recording something one of the members blasted me that he could hear that the mic might have been one to two inches off from recording to recording.

What I have determined is that it is all cumulative. The strings, saddles and pins... and picks... and hands... are interdependent- if you're fussy about the sound and have particular sounds that you create. When I had the TUSQ saddle Elixir strings had too much "zing" and a very "forward sound" (ask Knives&Guitars for an explanation on that one) with a bit of a midrange scoop. The Gibson strings sounded quite good with the TUSQ saddle, but Elvis seemed to have left the building when I switched to bone saddle with the Gibson strings. I reverted to TUSQ with the Gibsons still on and the mojo returned. However, Elixirs' agressive zing was moderated with the bone saddle and the GHS strings I put on last night sound "meaty' with the bone saddle.

[vindibona1]

It was time to test DR Sunbeams. I cut my time short with the GHS PB's. They just weren't doing it for me on the 910.

The Sunbeams went on with the bone saddle already installed. As you might imagine, the Sunbeams are lusher sounding than Elixirs. The bone saddle did improve the sound of the Elixirs significantly, rounding out the harshness that I found objectionable. So I played the Sunbeams in for a couple days and wondered if the TUSQ saddle would add back some additional articulation to the Sunbeams. So the bone was swapped for the TUSQ.

The result of the Sunbeams with the TUSQ saddle wasn't anything like I expected. I almost can't explain it. Not only did the TUSQ fail to produce a more articulate sound there was a "muddy echo" going on inside the body of the guitar. I don't even know how to explain it. I know this isn't it exactly, but it was like an echo of an out of tune overtone happening inside the body. I'm not sure if I would have even identified it had I not had the bone saddle on this guitar with these strings only moments before. I promptly switched back to the bone saddle and while there was a hint of the aforementioned effect, most was gone. Weird, I know.

I truly expected to like the TUSQ saddle with the Sunbeams, but that wasn't the case. However, I suspect I will prefer the TUSQ should I return to Gibson strings on that guitar, but that seems unlikely as I prefer the Sunbeams. The Elixirs with the bone saddle are different, but I think I like the way they settle in on this guitar as opposed to the Gibsons, which I still think are incredibly good sounding strings.

That's the update.