Lefty55 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 If you've replaced the factory tusq saddle on your J200 with a Colosi bone saddle I'd like to hear from you. Did the J200 sound better with a bone saddle? Worse? No difference? Did you use the Colosi B compensated saddle that he has listed on his website? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 If you've replaced the factory tusq saddle on your J200 with a Colosi bone saddle I'd like to hear from you. Did the J200 sound better with a bone saddle? Worse? No difference? Did you use the Colosi B compensated saddle that he has listed on his website? Thanks. many here have done it...and the debate goes on..wether it makes a difference. i changed the factory saddle for a Collosi bone on my HB TV... i noticed a brighter..slightly louder tone from the bone. I think !!!! If im honest one of the reasons I swapped them is because I didnt want plastic saddle in such a high end Gibson..and I was happy I will be leaving my new j35 saddle as it is.. just cos she sounds so sweet alreadY (The HB did too..but im a bit of a poseur haha ) good luck btw..if ya gonna do it..Bob Colosi is the way to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullmental Alpinist Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I replaced the Tusq saddle on my Hummingbird with the Colosi B-compensated bone saddle. The difference in sound when played acoustically was amazingly better. The sound through the Baggs pick-up was worse, but I expected that. I would replace the Tusq saddle with bone on any guitar I wasn't planning to play primarily plugged in. Remember: the switch is very easy--Bob supplies excellent instructions. The saddle is inexpensive versus the results it gives. And if you don't like it just swap it back--there's no mod to the guitar itself. FMA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 . I did it with Colosi on my J200. I wasn't happy with the factory tusq saddle. To my ear too muffled and muddy. I liked the bone better. Tusq is supposed to be better for UST, but I found the bone was no detriment to amped sound. My J200 has a factory bone nut, Colosi bone saddle and pins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty55 Posted August 31, 2013 Author Share Posted August 31, 2013 Thanks for the replies. The stock tusq saddle on my J200 does not look as compensated as the Colosi bone saddle does in your photo. Is that a problem? My factory saddle looks almost perfectly uniform. One more question, is the saddle glued in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 . My original tusq saddle was compensated and so is the bone one I got from Bob (in the pic above), but you can get an uncompensated saddle. I have a Baggs Element UST style pickup - Under Saddle Transducer. The UST lays flat in the bottom of the saddle channel route and the saddle sits on top of the UST. No glue. The bottom of the saddle must be filed/sanded as flat as possible to properly transmit the vibrations to the UST. If you get a self install saddle from Bob, it will come with instructions on how to properly fit the saddle. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchristo Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Thanks for the replies. The stock tusq saddle on my J200 does not look as compensated as the Colosi bone saddle does in your photo. Is that a problem? My factory saddle looks almost perfectly uniform. One more question, is the saddle glued in? no the saddle is not glued in.......when you call Bob, just tell you have a J-200 and he will know how much to compensate the saddle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasAK Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 On my j45 the tonal affects was great clarity, a little brighter, louder, and more sustain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul E Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I replaced the Tusc saddle on my J-200 standard with a fossilized walrus saddle. I think it brightened up the sound , I also have the same set of pins like Big Kahune has on his. I bought all this from Bob Colosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacamartin Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Lefty........went all the way and did the nut and saddle on the L-130. At first I was devastated>the sound I liked was gone. But a short time later it began to settle, and long story short, now it's terrific. I also had the nut filed for 13/56...big difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpicker Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 My experience with replacing the Tusq with bone mirrors vacamartin's in that at first, sometimes, I question why I did it but over a little bit of time as things settle in I start to like the sound of bone. Bone is such the traditional material for the nut and saddle that it's hard for me to let my acoustics have anything else. I have heard some ebony nuts and saddles I like and it got used in earlier guitars enough to where I'd consider ebony if I was seeking a different tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Debates over the quality, even the audibility of small audio changes rage on in audiophile forums, but the science is pretty clear, and very well tested and verified: Our auditory memory is very, very short. For humans to identify subtle differences between audio examples in complex signals (like the strum of a guitar), they have to be able to switch between them almost instantly and compare them against each other. Unstringing your guitar, removing the Tusq saddle, putting in a bone saddle, stinging back up again,,,,doesn't qualify. So you may think you hear a difference, but you probably don't unless something was terribly amiss with the saddle or the installation of one or the other, preventing it from functioning properly. Or if you changed the strings while you had them off :). In any case, your choice of pick, or the condition of your nails will make a much bigger difference. Technique? That's the ten pound hammer. But I've still changed some guitars from Tusq to bone, just 'cause. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry K Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I dunno, I think saddle material does make a big difference in tone. I can hear it. I know scientists say I can't but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Go for it. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodehopper Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I will politely disagree with Phelonious Ponk and do think that there is a noticeable difference in sound between tusq and bone saddles. Been there, done it and believe that the brains sound distinguishing ability is greater than he suggests. just my humble opinion.... I have switched all my guitars over to bone saddles, but I have to admit that my new J-35 is the first that will stay with the OEM tusq for a long while. This guitar is already nice and bright so no reason to brighten the sound with bone along with the UST based PUPs do better with Tusq since it is a more uniform man made material with out the organic inconsistencies possible in bone. At some point I would like to remove the UST and have a K&K mini installed. All my other guitars have K&Ks, I love the K&K pick ups and I also have the opinion that removing the UST and having direct saddle to guitar contact improves the acoustic sound of the guitar. When I remove the UST I will have to replace the saddle then so I might try Bone first just to hear it.. As has been said... swapping saddles is a cheap and reversible project to try and get the guitar to sound its best. JUst like strings and picks etc. all things us guitar geeks love to play with, discuss and evaluate....so go have some fun with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 ... Our auditory memory is very, very short. For humans to identify subtle differences between audio examples in complex signals (like the strum of a guitar)... This science crops up often enough, and it suggests that people should select instruments without regard to sound/tone. It also suggests that a musician, who may have owned their instrument for years, doesn't know the sound qualities of that instrument. Rid!culous. I will continue to select instruments and accessories, like strings and saddles, based on how they sound to me. . B) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodehopper Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Yes the science around human auditory abilities is very interesting..things like peoples ability to recognize a mothers voice out of a large crowd or recognizing a friends voice on a recording or over the phone after having not spoken to them for decades or being able to hear and focus on the Oboe and Piccolo while deliberately diminishing the brass section in our mind during a full orchestra performance shows there is more to our brains abilities..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasAK Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 When I changed mine to bone I was not anticipating increased brightness. I was actually disappointed. The greater sustain was also something I was on anticipating. I believe that would be a measurable quality. The scientific method is not absolute. It too has weaknesses and limitations. chasAK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry K Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 When I changed mine to bone I was not anticipating increased brightness. I was actually disappointed. The greater sustain was also something I was on anticipating. I believe that would be a measurable quality. The scientific method is not absolute. It too has weaknesses and limitations. chasAK The scientific method is still sound. Apparently the science hasn't caught up to our ears yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 This science crops up often enough, and it suggests that people should select instruments without regard to sound/tone. It also suggests that a musician, who may have owned their instrument for years, doesn't know the sound qualities of that instrument. Rid!culous. I will continue to select instruments and accessories, like strings and saddles, based on how they sound to me. . B) . I don't think the science suggests any of the above, What it suggests is that very small differences in sound require the ability to switch back and forth between them quickly to differentiate them. Maybe you hear such big differences between bone and Tusq that none of that applies. I personally do not. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacamartin Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Debates over the quality, even the audibility of small audio changes rage on in audiophile forums, but the science is pretty clear, and very well tested and verified: Our auditory memory is very, very short. For humans to identify subtle differences between audio examples in complex signals (like the strum of a guitar), they have to be able to switch between them almost instantly and compare them against each other. Unstringing your guitar, removing the Tusq saddle, putting in a bone saddle, stinging back up again,,,,doesn't qualify. So you may think you hear a difference, but you probably don't unless something was terribly amiss with the saddle or the installation of one or the other, preventing it from functioning properly. Or if you changed the strings while you had them off :). In any case, your choice of pick, or the condition of your nails will make a much bigger difference. Technique? That's the ten pound hammer. But I've still changed some guitars from Tusq to bone, just 'cause. P That be as it may, the proof of density transference of sound waves actually favors a dense saddle, ie. ivory, fossilized bone...and Tusq! If you switch your Tusq out to a non-dense bone saddle(Chinese cow bone) you WILL hear a difference. I went through this with one acoustic. Right back to the original saddle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 That be as it may, the proof of density transference of sound waves actually favors a dense saddle, ie. ivory, fossilized bone...and Tusq! If you switch your Tusq out to a non-dense bone saddle(Chinese cow bone) you WILL hear a difference. I went through this with one acoustic. Right back to the original saddle! But doesn't that just say it transfers faster? Or does it also say more completely/efficiently? P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacamartin Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 But doesn't that just say it transfers faster? Or does it also say more completely/efficiently? P Best analogy would be this...two strainers filter water. One has larger holes, so the water runs out quicker. The water is retained in the smaller sized strainer for a longer time. Sound does the same with porosity . The denser saddle will retain the vibration transference for a greater period of time, thus giving a fuller sound..a.k.a. sonority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 My experience with replacing the Tusq with bone mirrors vacamartin's in that at first, sometimes, I question why I did it but over a little bit of time as things settle in I start to like the sound of bone. Bone is such the traditional material for the nut and saddle that it's hard for me to let my acoustics have anything else. I have heard some ebony nuts and saddles I like and it got used in earlier guitars enough to where I'd consider ebony if I was seeking a different tone. I'm with MountainPicker on this one. It took a fair while for a couple of my guitars that I swapped to bone stuff to settle. Most of the top of the line guitars seem to have bone nuts, or even ebony like my National, so I guess the guitar makers know something. BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.