Tusq saddles?

[Jerry K]

Tusq is a pretty decent saddle material and I have it on several guitars. I also have bone on several. Graph-tech's big selling point is consistency in contrast to bone, an organic material which can have variations in density, etc. As others have said, the tonal response will vary, depending on the instrument, so trying different materials can be fruitful and doesn't cost much. One observation I have. If you look at the saddle after removing a string, you can often see a small indentation on the saddle marking the spot where it was traversed by the string. In my experience, this indentation tends to happen more easily with tusq and gets deeper than with bone. In other words bone seems to be generally harder or more resistant to that indentation.

[Jerry K]

I have heard it said that the homogeneous consistency of tusq is helpful if you have an under-saddle type pickup, because each string's response depends on the part of the saddle directly above that spot on the transducer.

[LesLawrence]

For what it's worth:

 

Prior to the the luthier shaving down the Tusq saddle on my Crow, he hooked the guitar up to his amp. He thought the response was perfectly even.

 

Cheers,

Les

[Jayla]

I have heard it said that the homogeneous consistency of tusq is helpful if you have an under-saddle type pickup' date=' because each string's response depends on the part of the saddle directly above that spot on the transducer.[/quote']

 

I have heard this too. Since I never plug my Gibson in (am actually thinking of having the pickup removed, but that's another story), I was never able to judge the electric performance of the tusq saddle vs the bone.

 

On a related note, I believe Colosi mentions on his site, regarding the tusq vs bone argument, that few high-end guitar makers use tusq and almost invariably opt for bone, the implication being that bone is therefore the preferred material. Now, coming from him that may seem a self-serving argument (no offense intended, Bob), but even if it were, it does seem to be true, i.e. that more high-end guitar makers use bone than tusq. This could either suggest that bone is qualitatively superior, or that folks who purchase high-end guitars might scoff at tusq on their several thousand dollar guitars. Whatever the case may be, I think the best way to respond to the question of the one or the other is to do what folks have been suggesting: try both and go with the one that sounds best to you.

 

BTW, I have read the "scientific" descriptions above -- thanks Thermionik! -- but interesting though they are, unless I missed something (entirely possible) they don't really answer why a saddle of one material might sound better than another on a given guitar.

[Thermionik]

They answer the question implicitly rather than explicitly.

 

The guitar is a resonant thing.

 

Resonance depends on tension and mass, shape, form and size.

 

Change one part of the complex machine and you may change the resonance.

 

Understanding how it works enables educated guesswork as to the likely outcome of said change.

 

And there are not just two choices, either.....

[NevadaPic]

... In my experience' date=' this indentation tends to happen more easily with tusq and gets deeper than with bone. In other words bone seems to be generally harder or more resistant to that indentation.[/quote']

 

This has been my observation as well. It does not take much time for this to be apparent either. Tusq seems to be somewhat softer than bone and more easily worked. It may be more consistent in density, but I'm not sure that it is observable in the small size of a guitar saddle in comparison with bone...

[rcolosi]

One of the things you have to be careful with when replacing those large adjustable Gibson saddles is adding too much mass to the bridge. When you use a natural material saddle of that size it will tend to rob the guitar of a whole lot of low end response. This is one of those rare occasions where the TUSQ replacement is actually a more functional piece, since it generally does not cause as much low end loss. GraphTech makes a replacement for this style saddle as well. Although I don't recommend modifying any guitar with a degree of value in terms of it's vintage status or originality, filling that saddle slot and recutting it for the standard 1/8" Gibson saddle is, performance-wise, one of the better courses of action where this configuration is concerned.

[EScottG]

There you have it from the man himself! You can't beat free advice from an expert.

 

good luck

Scott

[Thermionik]

I am always wary of free advice from people who are selling things.....

 

.....and I like to understand the thing myself, empirical (based on observation, experience, or experiment) evidence

based information always seems (to me) better than hearsay or wishful thinking.

 

ANY change to the mass of ANY resonant machine WILL produce a change in resonance.

 

Just as any change in the link between the string and the soundboard WILL alter the sound.

 

Whether the change is better, or even noticable, is down to the individual playing and listening.

 

A number of individuals and companies produce some extremely high quality saddles (and indeed pins)

which are both functional and decorative. In the vanguard is Bob Colosi. He sells some really good stuff.

 

I am in no way associated with Bob Colosi or his products.

[Taylor Player]

I have Tusq in my Taylor 612C and love the tone. It has held up well for 15 years now and I even tried swapping out to bone in it once... went back to the Tusq because amplified the Tusq was less brittle sounding. I have bone in my AJ and love that. I think tone is personal and depending on the guitar, Tusq is a very good material. Taylor uses it on almost all the guitars they build and most people seem to like the Taylor tone......

[guitarstrummer]

Like has been said several times before on this forum, Gibson continues to use Tusq as their factory installed saddle on many models, mostly the ones with pickups. They've chosen to do that after their testing and evaluation showed it to be superior to other materials for that type of installation. They didn't do it because of cost, as the Tusq is probably more expensive than many other materials. They did it because they wanted the saddle which would make their product perform the best. There's certainly nothing wrong with bone or other materials, but there's nothing wrong with Tusq either. Many sometimes act as if Tusq is an inferior product, but that's simply not the truth. If it works for you and you like it, don't be afraid to use it.

[wonderful remark]

Well said, guitarstrummer.

Although BC said, most guitar manufacturer uses Tusq because of its cost, IMO, if gibson thinks their guitars sound dull(or not very good) with tusq, they wouldn't put tusq in their guitars.

 

When choosing the saddle material, I go with what sounds the best... however I am all about keeping all my instruments stock unless it is broken.

[Thermionik]

.

.

 

Like I said up above though - keep an eye on some of the carbon-fibre and other modern materials.....

.....specifications and designs are coming up fast - maximum energy transfer to the soundboard AND tone.

.

[brians356]

From a manufacturing point of view, using Tusq for the vast majority of models is a no-brainer because the material is essentially 100% homogenous, and a mass-produced saddle cut from it will be what Henry Ford envisioned, an "interchangeable part." Bone, on the other hand, is more suited to custom shop and limited editions, since the astute luthier will have to do some culling. When you get a few bone blanks and examine them you will see what I mean, there are a lot of variations in them, including density, color, and warp, etc. And if you have an under-saddle transducer then homogenous material like Tusq or Micarta simplifies the task of achieving uniform pressure under all strings.

 

And having said all that, I doubt many of us would risk real money taking a blindfold test. Much of what we think we hear when we change saddles material is 10% reality, 90% imagination. This could be proven rather easily in a recording studio in a blind playback test.

[onewilyfool]

Some things can't be explained through scientific formula. Like the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".......if you behold the guitar to sound better with tusq, so be it, with Bob Colosi bone or fossilized ivory, so be it. I've played three of the same guitar side by side in Guitar Center, some with consecutive serial numbers.....and they all sound different!!!! So, if it feels good....do it......otherwise, just play the damn thing.....

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

Some things can't be explained through scientific formula. Like the old saying goes' date=' "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".......if you behold the guitar to sound better with tusq, so be it, with Bob Colosi bone or fossilized ivory, so be it. I've played three of the same guitar side by side in Guitar Center, some with consecutive serial numbers.....and they all sound different!!!! So, if it feels good....do it......otherwise, just play the damn thing.....[/quote']

[onewilyfool]

Some things can't be explained through scientific formula. Like the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".......if you behold the guitar to sound better with tusq, so be it, with Bob Colosi bone or fossilized ivory, so be it. I've played three of the same guitar side by side in Guitar Center, some with consecutive serial numbers.....and they all sound different!!!! So, if it feels good....do it......otherwise, just play the damn thing.....

[gearbasher]

Some things can't be explained through scientific formula. Like the old saying goes' date=' "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".......if you behold the guitar to sound better with tusq, so be it, with Bob Colosi bone or fossilized ivory, so be it. I've played three of the same guitar side by side in Guitar Center, some with consecutive serial numbers.....and they all sound different!!!! So, if it feels good....do it......otherwise, just play the damn thing.....[/quote']

 

Actually, beauty is in the eye, ear and nose of the beholder. I was hanging out with a friend and my brother. I got out my five acoustic "players": J45 RW, J45 Maple, Martin D-60, Guild D-55 & DV-52. We each played them and rated them on sound, appearance and playability. None of our lists matched, except for aroma. We all agreed the Gibbys smelled the best.

[rar]

Some things can't be explained through scientific formula.

 

Well' date=' I can hardly disagree with that, but don't sell science short! The sonic difference between Tusq and bone is nicely illustrated by the graphs used to promote Tusq: the relative absence of peaks and valleys in the energy vs. frequency curves for Tusq suggest that Tusq makes the guitar sound less "interesting" (for want of a better word) to a listener with an experienced "ear". More precisely, the tonal response of the guitar as a function of, say, frequency of the note played becomes more easily predictable by the brain, resulting in more accurate extrapolations, and hence more accurate expectations (or fewer surprises due to confounded expectations, depending on how you look at it), of what will be heard in the near future. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the particular guitar, what music you're playing, how you play it, and how "sophisticated" your audience (including you) is, among a host of other factors. The science to back this up can be found in Dan Levitin's book on perception of music, [i']This Is Your Brain On Music[/i]. (And other places, of course, but this book is a great intro to the subject of how we hear music and why music is so important to many of us.)

 

Knowing all this isn't much help -- well, any help, actually -- in figuring out whether you'll like a Tusq saddle or a bone saddle better on a particular guitar. But it does help explain why you prefer what you prefer, and why other people have other preferences, and that's pretty cool!

 

-- Bob R

[Thermionik]

.

.

 

rar - I have been putting that kind of reasoning foward on this forum for some time now.....

 

.....and some smart-alec usually comes along and says "the covers of your book are too far apart".

 

But I for one agree wholeheartedly

[LesLawrence]

 

... the relative absence of peaks and valleys in the energy vs. frequency curves for Tusq suggest that Tusq makes the guitar sound LESS "INTERESTING" (for want of a better word) to a listener with an EXPERIENCED "ear". Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the particular guitar' date=' what music you're playing, how you play it, and how "SOPHISTICATED" your audience (including you) is, among a host of other factors.

-- Bob R[/quote']

 

Whoa! Alot of judgements in that statement, Bob. (My CAPS)

 

Let's just say they sound different and leave it at that. Here's an "INTERESTING" saddle setup, but not what I would be looking for from my Gibson:

 

 

Cheers,

Les

[Jinder]

if you are using an undersaddle pickup, Tusq is fantastic. Even frequency response all over the place and the only way to make a piezo equipped guitar sound like a guitar when plugged in. In a purely acoustic environment, bone or ivory has an edge over Tusq, though. Having said that, I woud challenge anyone to criticize the acoustic tone of my Tusq-equipped SJ200 or Hummingbird.

[rar]

Whoa! Alot of judgements in that statement' date=' Bob. (My CAPS)[/quote']

 

Les,

 

Not really. "Interesting" was in scare quotes for a reason, and I explained what it meant -- no value judgment was implied. As for "experienced" and "sophisticated", those are backed up by the science. There's a completely objective sense in which much classical music -- as well as free-form jazz, etc. -- is more sophisticated, and requires more experience to fully appreciate, than popular music. It does not follow that it's better than popular music, much less that you're better than a Johnny Cash fan (such as yours truly) if you like it more.

 

After all, popular music is popular because it's easier to appreciate. How is deriving great enjoyment from music that doesn't require the level of training and real-time processing required to appreciate Bach a bad thing? (If there are any snobby Brit Oxbridge grads -- or snobby American Ivy Leaguers, for that matter -- out there who want to argue for the intrinsic superiority of sophistication, go right ahead. But you won't change my mind!) In the right context, gospel music can induce rapture in some listeners, which is pretty much the most one can aspire to musically. And, remember the concert audience in "A Hard Day's Night"? The girl known as the White Rabbit in particular? Surely, listening to that concert was the peak musical experience of her life, the absolute best music -- for her, which is the only metric that really matters -- she'll ever hear.

 

But, if it makes you feel better, feel free to replace "more sophisticated music" by "music of lower semantic entropy" and "has an experienced ear" by "has developed more complex neural, and emergent mental, pathways as a result of repeated exposure to music of comparatively low semantic entropy". :D

 

-- Bob R

[Jayla]

But' date=' if it makes you feel better, feel free to replace "more sophisticated music" by "music of lower semantic entropy" and "has an experienced ear" by "has developed more complex neural, and emergent mental, pathways as a result of repeated exposure to music of comparatively low semantic entropy".

-- Bob R

[/quote']

 

Now that makes perfect sense! (Though I'm mighty curious to hear how you would define "semantic" as applicable to music...)

[powerpopper]

If I may chime in here (and not sure that I should, but what the hey), I hear what rar is saying and here is why. I love guitars. For the most part, I love music that is played on guitars. I'm fascinated by the abilities of those who can coax beautiful tunes out of a guitar. I had an older uncle who, once upon hearing a blistering guitar solo from some song I was into in the 70's, said "why would anyone want to listen to that?" I explained to him that the tones he was hearing matched the speed of the guitarist's finger movements, but he was unmoved. "That's great, but why does it have to sound so...shrill?"

 

As much as I should, by all rights love him, I for the most part, am not a fan of the music of Jimi Hendrix. I don't know why that is for certain, but I have this theory. I think it comes down to a matter of "accessibility" in the sense that some music just resonates with people. For my personal illustration, I think there is a continuum that might stretch, east to west as "non-emotional to emotional" and one that stretches north and south from "non-technical to technical. Emotional music--almost always a big hit with me--but if it lacks at least some technical structure, no thanks. On the other hand, purely "technical" music that I perceive perhaps as "lacking soul"? Also, no thanks.

 

Nevertheless, what is accessible to some is clearly not to others, but when it works, it really works.