HNS

Thank you all .... it's much appreciated!

Thanks everybody .... It's what I thought. In this case it won't even work on Gibson Les Paul Studio given the difference in the thickness of the maple cap as well, or am I wrong? Cheers H

Thanks a million !

Good day folks I was wondering if a Gibson Les Paul Standard PCB board fit in the cavity of an Epi LP? Thanks for your help Cheers

Thanks onewilyfool, MissouriPicker and Milod. I totally agree with you ! Bone did make my SWD sound thin and jangly, for some reason Run: yes they were the same height, I took Bob Colossi's advice, and used the original as a template for the new bone saddle. I haven't plugged it in yet, because I don't have an acoustic amp where I currently reside, but I can see what you've said about sound being compressed. I'll be sending it to the tech next week for a good setup ! Cheers HNS

fortyyearspicn' I really appreciate your support and comment, and yes I'm holding on to the SWD. I just have a few points to make 1-The "improvement" is neither complete nor totally satisfactory. There was a clearly audible and detectable fullness and loudness before and after the installation of the original saddle - to my ears and to my family's ears - when compared to my Martin D-21 Special. This led me to suspect that the bone saddle may not have been placed properly and hence contact to the bridge was compromised! .... or that there might have been a problem with the bone material itself, but I detected no degradation of sound when I placed the bone saddle in the first place (The Colossi saddle looks perfect to me and flat at the underside). 2- At the same time there is an annoying harsh and metallic rustle to the tone, so tusq cannot be declared "better". I put new Martin SP 7100 strings on both guitars at the same. The Idea was to see which guitar to sell. I didn't change the strings before and after the saddle change though. 3-I never declared that tusq is "better", especially that I still have an issue with tusq. I have no deterministic comments to make. In the world of guitar tone, there can be no overarching "better", it's as you alluded, everything is relative. What was challenged was my blind belief in the tonal supremacy of bone, FMI and Ivory, at least until further notice. I have always accepted that natural materials are higher quality than man made materials, and to be honest with you, I still have that paradigm sunk deep in me. Corian dust for instance is alleged to cause pulmonary fibrosis, allegations like these are much less with materials existing in their original state in nature IMHO. 4- I agree with you that this is not a scientific publishable experiment, but it doesn't need to be, because I wasn't trying to prove anything. At this point, I'd just like to improve the tone of that one guitar to its potential. Any ideas? 5- I agree with you that if we did the scientific experiment, we will not have a unanimous vote. YMMV Thanks again ! Any recommendations to improve tone are highly valued ! QuestionMark I have Corian on my Les Paul, but Tusq on my SWD. Corian was invented by Du Pont as a kitchen surface material and tusq by Graphtec, both are man made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corian "In 2014, the New England Journal of Medicine reported a case of a 64-year-old exercise physiologist who died from lung disease consistent with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis after 16 years of exposure to Corian dust. Dust from Corian was found in the patient's garage and lung upon autopsy. The authors said that the case was consistent with Corian dust causing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, but did not prove causality.[3] Corian's manufacturer, Dupont, responded that exposure to other materials could not be ruled out." You don't get that from Bone or FMI or Ivory. Cheers everyone

Well YMMV ! I agree ... tusq gives this "sharp tone" or what I called "rustle" in a previous post in this thread... that could be annoying in the long run, especially when plugged. It's metallic and a bit harsh, but at the same time, the guitar is fuller to my ears.

My experiences today seem to echo the experiences of vacamartin, ajsc and guitarLight. The supremacy of Ivory, FMI and bone have been busted today, at least in my case. Nothing is a given anymore IMHO. Zombywoof: I too believed that the effect of a bone saddle and bone pins would be marginal, albeit the little brightness you would normally expect from - what I believed to be - a "denser"material. I was setting up the guitar for sale, now I don't think I'll sell it, because the difference was audible to me and to my family, so that must count for something, at least to me. Was something wrong with the bone saddle? the quality of bone (I doubt it)? it's fit (could be)? I really don't know at this point, but there are a few here who had similar experiences. There's only one way to know To my ears, the pins have little or no detectable effect, they just look nicer, YMMV though. I also heard that Tusq saddles work better with undersaddle tranducers. I yet have to confirm this with the guitar in question. Aster1: I believe it's a tusq saddle. There are no specs on the net for the 2005 SWD though, but most 2005 SWD's that were sold had tusq. Mine was before they split them into studio, standard and custom, and some specs have changed since then, like the bridge and fingerboard on mine are ebony while the newer ones have rosewood. The newer SWD's also comes with tusq as per the Gibson website. Well, the saddle I have looks similar to tusq and feels like tusq, but you never know, I could be wrong. Maybe someone from Gibson Customer service can shed light on this. I'd really like to have the specs on my SWD. Cheers

Tone is definitely subjective, but there are a few changes that few people would disagree on, like the fullness and loudness of the guitar. The tone was substantially fuller, that's why I suspected something structural like the saddle not sitting fully on the bridge or anything else, like a porous bone saddle like what Phelonious said. Now I'm beginning to think If I should experiment with changing the nuts on two of my guitars from bone and FMI back to tusq again. That's a totally different exercise though and I'd be too scared to work on them myself. in the end YMMV

I thought so too ... it's the only logical explanation, but it didn't look like it, but you never know. Cheers

Thanks QuestionMark and MissouriPicker I just don't know why I changed them in the first place, if the difference is that big. I too was always under the impression that a natural bone-like material is the way to go, but I never got on to doing that before the late 90's. After that, I always went with FMI, Ivory or at LEAST bone. With the Songwriter deluxe, the guitar counter-"intuitively" came alive with tusq. I was cognizant of the saying that tusq works better with under-saddle transducers, but never have I experienced what I did today unplugged. There's a rustle in the sound after I put in the tusq saddle though, I don't know how that'll sound plugged in. This rustle could be annoying in the long run, I would just have to wait and see ! Some say that a rosewood shim would actually make the guitar brighter. I still have to try that out ! Cheers

I originally had put a Colossi bone saddle and bridge pins in my 2005 Songwriter deluxe since I had it. That was the conventional wisdom then. While preparing the guitar for sale in its original form, I put back the original tusq saddle and the cheap Gibson plastic bridge pins, as well as a new 9v battery. My Martin D-21 special sounded so much better, there was no comparison even when I compared them with the same set of new strings, so the SWD had to go. Then the unexpected happened, the SWD started to sing, much more midrange, bass, bite and sustain! It sounded better and more MUSICAL than the new D-21 Special! I was flabbergasted ! Could it be that the original saddle rested better on the guitar bridge? does bone make the SWD tinny and thin? What could it be ?? Your comments are highly appreciated !