The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Build and Repair

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-19-2019, 08:00 AM
Henning Henning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Umea, Sweden
Posts: 301
Default Optimizing the adjustable bone/"tusq" in the saddle - two thoughts

Now if you remove the bone/tusq material in between the strings, so only the parts that the strings rest on are allowed to fully reach up to the strings. Which would leave the adjustable piece of bone/tusq scalloped to some degree.
Is that a great idea?
Do you practice it?
Have you tried it out?
Should I file for a patent?
If you look on the guitars of the old days, they were oftenly equipped with saddles that had rounded edges, at least the quality instruments. But today most instruments come with saddles that are directly from machinery with sharp edges. Supposedly it doesn't make a very big difference. But it surely looks less attractive. It also "adds some weight" to the instrument.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-19-2019, 11:28 AM
AndrewG AndrewG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Exeter, UK
Posts: 7,674
Default

The bridge (not the saddle), on the Gibson Advanced Jumbo tapers down from the bass end to the treble end. I'd be interested to know what the thinking is behind that.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:12 AM
Henning Henning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Umea, Sweden
Posts: 301
Default

If the adjustable piece of the saddle is of bone, as it oftenly is, it will be a big part of the weight of the adjustable piece of bone + bridge, all in all. So removing weight of the piece of bone will affect the total weight, in some degree. Thatīs it, cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:22 AM
kkrell's Avatar
kkrell kkrell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henning View Post
Now if you remove the bone/tusq material in between the strings, so only the parts that the strings rest on are allowed to fully reach up to the strings. Which would leave the adjustable piece of bone/tusq scalloped to some degree.
Is that a great idea?
Do you practice it?
Have you tried it out?
Should I file for a patent?
Like this (nut and/or saddle)?
__________________
Kevin Krell, Executive Director, International Traditional Music Society, Inc.
A non-profit 501c3 charity/educational public benefit corporation
Wooden Flute Obsession CDs
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=572579
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:51 AM
Henning Henning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Umea, Sweden
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkrell View Post
Like this (nut and/or saddle)?
Yes, exactly, thatīs it! Though Iīd expect the acoustic effect to be bigger at the saddle.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:36 AM
kkrell's Avatar
kkrell kkrell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henning View Post
Yes, exactly, thatīs it! Though Iīd expect the acoustic effect to be bigger at the saddle.
No way I can tell what effect, as there has never been a different nut or saddle on this guitar. How it comes from the maker.
__________________
Kevin Krell, Executive Director, International Traditional Music Society, Inc.
A non-profit 501c3 charity/educational public benefit corporation
Wooden Flute Obsession CDs
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=572579
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:16 AM
Halcyon/Tinker Halcyon/Tinker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,129
Default

I would say that the reduced mass by scalloping those very small areas would be negligible against the weight of the bridge itself. A 1x6" ebony bridge weighs about 28g, a bone saddle 4g, a TUSQ saddle of same dimension 2g. Add 5g for TUSQ pins and 6g for bone, for a total of ~37-38g for bridge/saddle/pins and the amount of mass saved by scalloping the saddle would be basically irrelevant...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:37 PM
Henning Henning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Umea, Sweden
Posts: 301
Default

The density of bone: "The density of compact bone is surprisingly constant through out life at about 1900 kg/m3"
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002...russkaya.shtml
The density of rosewood: the density of rosewood or palisander is 881 kg/m3 or 0.881 g/cm3. http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the...ty_of_rosewood
So bone is approximately twice "as heavy" as rosewood. If you have a saddle where the piece of bone is comparably large, it might be of value to notice that. Keeping in mind the ratio between densitys of bone and wood.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:32 PM
runamuck runamuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,276
Default

Are you sure lightening the mass of your particular bridge is a good thing? It isn't, necessarily, from all I know.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2019, 04:18 AM
Henning Henning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Umea, Sweden
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by runamuck View Post
Are you sure lightening the mass of your particular bridge is a good thing? It isn't, necessarily, from all I know.
No, I am not at all. It has to be depending on a lot of parameters that makes the results very difficult to fore see.
(Weight of the saddle in comparison to the bridge, bridge pins, size of bone piece in comparison to the saddle, the bracing etc. and dimension of strings.)
Some people even add weight to the top to dampen certain unwished effects. As for instance wolf notes.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Build and Repair

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=