Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Stock Tusq Saddle vs Bone: Tonal Differene?


Aggie

Recommended Posts

Looking for some advice. I have a 2003 J-45 Standard with the stock Fishman under saddle pick-up. Years ago I switched to a bone saddle--can't remember why. I've read recently that Gibson believes the Tusq works better with under saddle pups. I still have the original Tusq in the case. What, if any difference would there be if I switched back to Tusq? Brighter? Darker? Better sound from the pup. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete...did the same on my L-130. Used "camel" bone. Hated it....took me weeks to finally get used to it. Nowadays, I don't even think of it, I just play the L-130 and get quite a few "nice sounding Gibson" remarks. I was tempted at one time to put the Tusq back in, but not anymore.

On the other hand, I have a Blues King that came with a bone nut and Tusq saddle. The Tusq is staying put :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not really nailed this down, and I don't know if it's "nail downable." To my ear (my personal prefs), bone is a little "too much" for some guitars. Then again, others say Tusq is a little brighter than bone. I generally find it a little warmer. I could be entirely wrong about that, though.

 

My Martin M-36 has a huge frequency response, but especially with new strings, the treble just gets to be too much. It is a very bass-heavy guitar, and its shape brings out orchestral mids that you don't find in all Martins, but it has an Italian Alpine spruce top, and I think I prefer sitka. So... I sometimes think about switching the bone nut to something else, like Tusq, or rosewood, or horn. I like how it sounds better with a capo.

 

Life is strange. It's all so subjective. My J-15, on the other hand--I switched it to bone, and it's still very warm. I don't think I'd swap to bone on anything else in the future, though.

 

I think the reason they say Tusq works better for undersaddle pickups is because it's necessarily very even, where as bone might vary in density from one end to the other. Not sure why they don't at least do bone nuts, then.

 

Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal, and I think it would be totally fine to stick with Tusq nut/saddle and plastic pins, even on fine wood guitars. Heck, they have plastic binding, too, and no one is poopin about that.

 

I need to go to bed. Hope there is something useful in here. If not, hopefully no one reads it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not really nailed this down, and I don't know if it's "nail downable." To my ear (my personal prefs), bone is a little "too much" for some guitars. Then again, others say Tusq is a little brighter than bone. I generally find it a little warmer. I could be entirely wrong about that, though.

 

My Martin M-36 has a huge frequency response, but especially with new strings, the treble just gets to be too much. It is a very bass-heavy guitar, and its shape brings out orchestral mids that you don't find in all Martins, but it has an Italian Alpine spruce top, and I think I prefer sitka. So... I sometimes think about switching the bone nut to something else, like Tusq, or rosewood, or horn. I like how it sounds better with a capo.

 

Life is strange. It's all so subjective. My J-15, on the other hand--I switched it to bone, and it's still very warm. I don't think I'd swap to bone on anything else in the future, though.

 

I think the reason they say Tusq works better for undersaddle pickups is because it's necessarily very even, where as bone might vary in density from one end to the other. Not sure why they don't at least do bone nuts, then.

 

Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal, and I think it would be totally fine to stick with Tusq nut/saddle and plastic pins, even on fine wood guitars. Heck, they have plastic binding, too, and no one is poopin about that.

 

I need to go to bed. Hope there is something useful in here. If not, hopefully no one reads it. :)

I doubt it'll nail it down, as you say, and I agree it's all pretty subjective. For whatever it's worth, I always enjoy your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I appreciate that! I tend to babble nonsensically, so you shouldn't encourage me!

 

You create a particular tingle in my groin for M-36.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You create a particular tingle in my groin for M-36.

 

rct

M or OOOO Martins are very special, I do believe. Would love to own one, not of the 15 series, but have been holding back on serious purchases lately. Something definitely ails me - need to get my priorities back in order and buy a few guitars....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M or OOOO Martins are very special, I do believe. Would love to own one, not of the 15 series, but have been holding back on serious purchases lately. Something definitely ails me - need to get my priorities back in order and buy a few guitars....

 

Every store, every state, Every Single M-36 has made me very happy. D/OM/OOO-28/21, HDs and HDVs, all that, eh. Some great, some not. Every M-36 is a b0ner.

 

Might come home with one next month.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-36 is either Martin's best-kept secret, best guitar, or both...

 

Mine is a custom, and I was silly to mess with the formula. I got an Italian Alpine spruce top on mine, and the trebles are a little stronger than I'd like. I am a big Sitka spruce fan, and I should have stuck with that, but what did I know? Steve Earle's and others' had the Italian Alpine tops and sounded great in recordings. I wish I'd gone spruce.

 

I also got a vintage sunburst top, which is nice, but I would have been fine with the pumpkin orange toner. I got a modified low oval neck profile, which I would not have needed, bound headstock which was unneccessary... I am glad I got a 1-3/4" nut width and wider bridge string spacing, though. Okay, I'm glad for the sunburst, too... and the headstock binding I guess...

 

Oh yeah, and then to "save money," I got a satin finish on the back/sides. Why did I suddenly think I needed to do this to save money after pointlessly splurging on a bound headstock? Wish I could go back in time and say "No, no, do it like THIS instead..."

 

I'll have the guitar forever, though, I think, even if I never put new strings on because when it has new strings it lifts me off my chair with one strum or knocks me over if I'm standing. Seriously. Should have stuck with Sitka.

 

Edit to add photos:

IMG_0125.jpg

Here it is when it was pretty new, I think

 

IMG_0127.jpg

style 36 is pretty close to style 35, which means three-piece back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-36 is either Martin's best-kept secret, best guitar, or both...

 

Mine is a custom, and I was silly to mess with the formula. I got an Italian Alpine spruce top on mine, and the trebles are a little stronger than I'd like. I am a big Sitka spruce fan, and I should have stuck with that, but what did I know? Steve Earle's and others' had the Italian Alpine tops and sounded great in recordings. I wish I'd gone spruce.

 

I also got a vintage sunburst top, which is nice, but I would have been fine with the pumpkin orange toner. I got a modified low oval neck profile, which I would not have needed, bound headstock which was unneccessary... I am glad I got a 1-3/4" nut width and wider bridge string spacing, though. Okay, I'm glad for the sunburst, too... and the headstock binding I guess...

 

Oh yeah, and then to "save money," I got a satin finish on the back/sides. Why did I suddenly think I needed to do this to save money after pointlessly splurging on a bound headstock? Wish I could go back in time and say "No, no, do it like THIS instead..."

 

I'll have the guitar forever, though, I think, even if I never put new strings on because when it has new strings it lifts me off my chair with one strum or knocks me over if I'm standing. Seriously. Should have stuck with Sitka.

 

Edit to add photos:

IMG_0125.jpg

Here it is when it was pretty new, I think

 

IMG_0127.jpg

style 36 is pretty close to style 35, which means three-piece back

Fine looking guitar it is. I've always been partial to sunburst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hear a big or even discernable difference between the two. Some folks leave a guitar just as it is, while others change most everything that's changeable. It all boils down to what works for you. It's all good and it all works to one degree or another, depending on who you ask. If I really like a guitar, it's doubtful that I'll care whether the parts are bone or tusg. "Parts is parts."[thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer bone but sometimes a new bone nut or saddle can take a while to break in, then one day the scratchy treble is all of a sudden smooth.

 

I have the tusq saddle standard on a couple of Gibsons and I have considered changing them, but then I think why upset the beautifully working fragile balance that is going on....

 

 

Ebony is sometimes good for rounding out 'bright'.

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to play my J-45 with "well" broken in 80/20's. I think I am sometimes missing a little clarity and brightness and I wondered if they would age better with a bone saddle. So I made an order to Bob Colosi. I will report then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried a bone saddle on my J45 Standard and hated it. Went back to Tusq and really like it. Gives it a mellower, deeper, fuller growl, especially on the Low E string. Also removed the horrible stock LR Baggs Element UST and it sounded even better still. Mine has a bone nut and stock bridge pins and I use DR Rare lights with an LR Baggs Lyric through a Venue DI and SWR California Blonde (pre-Fender).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried a bone saddle on my J45 Standard and hated it. Went back to Tusq and really like it. Gives it a mellower, deeper, fuller growl, especially on the Low E string. Also removed the horrible stock LR Baggs Element UST and it sounded even better still. Mine has a bone nut and stock bridge pins and I use DR Rare lights with an LR Baggs Lyric through a Venue DI and SWR California Blonde (pre-Fender).

We're about the same--I swapped the Element for a Lyric on my J-15. Unfortunately, I had them swap the nut/saddle to bone at the same time. I feel as you do, that non-bone (particularly Tusq/corian/etc and perhaps also wood or maybe even horn) give a "mellower, deeper, fuller" sound. Seems like it's more noticeable on certain guitars.

 

I guess if a guitar is a little too mellow, one could try bone, and if a guitar is a little too lively, one could try Tusq, etc. I wish it were as easy to swap as bridge pins. If I ever have anyone change one of my guitars for me again, I'll ask to please give me the originals back as well and don't glue in the nut!

 

I hate the new string sound, like VincentG mentioned above--I too prefer highly broken-in strings, and along with the question of whether bone will help someone who keeps strings on too long, I wonder if Tusq would help someone who can't stand the break-in period?

 

When I was younger, I always put new strings on, immediately played for an hour or two, and then they were broken-in and I thought nothing of it. These days, I can't imagine having a block of time to not just put on strings but play for an hour or two as well. Takes me all week to break strings in now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from tusq saddle and bridge pins to bone a few days ago, and I can give my first impressions.

It changed the guitar, drastically.

The first negative impression was that it became brighter, maybe thinner overall, like less fat on each string and slightly agressive on the high strings. It felt sensitive to my playing as I hit often with the tip and roll down to the nails, sometimes hit directly with the nails.

Then the positive aspects for me.

The low E and A became clearer. It lost some "thud" and got tighter.

Some like it tighter, some don't, I like it!

Also the guitar has now more dynamic I think and better clarity. It's more reactive to very light attacks. It feels like I can get volume out of the guitar without playing as hard as I used to.

After just 3 days I start to feel the guitar calming down, like the excessive brightness disapearing and a good balance to settle.

The guitar got very midrangy near the bridge too, both finger or flatpicked, and I like it too.

I feel like I already forgot how it sounded before, I am a gold fish.

 

Finally I would say I get why some love bone and some prefer tusq.

But I think it's choices. A fat blended sound or more clarity, separation? A massive throaty low E or hugely present but tighter "thunder" low E?

The bone saddle will stay a couple if month on the guitar to see how I get used to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Tusq vs bone saddles, pins. Plastic. Ceramic. Rosewood. Ebony. Adjustable vs not adjustable. This is always a toss up.

 

Not only is it subjective, but depends greatly on the dynamics and response of the individual guitar.

 

I remember a thread here where someone went plastic to bone, and then went back to plastic. I've made saddle changes I've kept, but only a couple - and they were both tusq to bone.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been going through a series of saddle changes on my '62 J-50 adj just for the fun of it. Don't know if there's any actual relevance to this thread, but thought I'd share anyhow. The original is ceramic, but is glazed as opposed to the unglazed variety that I've encountered more frequently. The guitar has always had a nicely balanced tone and a good volume. Tried unglazed ceramic first, and discovered just a hint more sweetness straight across. Then rosewood, which immediately changed the guitar into more of a blues box with a quieter response and considerable bass thud. Then Tusq which put it back to nearly the same as the original, but LOUDER to an almost bluegrassy degree. Have yet to try bone, but will order one soon and report back if anyone actually cares. Meanwhile, it's back to the original glazed ceramic which makes me the most happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been going through a series of saddle changes on my '62 J-50 adj just for the fun of it. Don't know if there's any actual relevance to this thread, but thought I'd share anyhow. The original is ceramic, but is glazed as opposed to the unglazed variety that I've encountered more frequently. The guitar has always had a nicely balanced tone and a good volume. Tried unglazed ceramic first, and discovered just a hint more sweetness straight across. Then rosewood, which immediately changed the guitar into more of a blues box with a quieter response and considerable bass thud. Then Tusq which put it back to nearly the same as the original, but LOUDER to an almost bluegrassy degree. Have yet to try bone, but will order one soon and report back if anyone actually cares. Meanwhile, it's back to the original glazed ceramic which makes me the most happy.

Of course what you report here is interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...