Tusq vs Bone - surprising experiment !

[HNS]

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 !

[QuestionMark]

I have found that each individual guitar responds differently to different things, materials, saddles, bridge pins, etc. While generally I prefer bone saddles...I have one guitar in my collection that just sounds a whole lot better with a tusq saddle than a bone one. Same thing has occurred with bridge pins. Generally, I use wooden bridge pins which to me seem to add a little mellow wood-like sustain which I like...except one guitar, it doesn't do a darn thing for, but bone bridge pins produce a more favorable (and opposite) brighter sustain sound.

 

So, every instrument may respond differently.

 

QM aka "Jazzman" Jeff

[MissouriPicker]

Since I first began playing guitar, I've heard (and often from folks more knowledgeable than I) that bone is the way to go. I know for a fact that on my J60, bone definitely sounds warmer and far-less bright than the diamond saddle that was on it when I purchased it "used." The diamond saddle, which offered lots of volume, was very bright sounding, so I replaced it with the original bone, which the original owner had kept. However, on practically all of my other guitars, I've kept what the guitar came with. Have not replaced pins, saddle, or bridge for years. Whatever is on the guitar is what it still has. For me, my Gibsons sound great, and in all sincerity I don't really know if the saddle/pins/bridge are bone/plastic/tusq. I'd have to look it up. I'd like to know if there is a definite answer. Lots of factors play a role in this sound/tone issue.

[HNS]

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

[Phelonious Ponk]

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

 

It could be that the bone saddle wasn't seated properly, or it could be that it is a porous piece of bone. Or it could just be that you like the sound of Tusq on that guitar. I don't assume that bone is better, but I've swapped back and forth on a couple of guitars and the difference isn't usually as dramatic as what you describe. My guess would be that bone saddle wasn't seated properly into the bridge.

 

P

[HNS]

It could be that the bone saddle wasn't seated properly, or it could be that it is a porous piece of bone. Or it could just be that you like the sound of Tusq on that guitar. I don't assume that bone is better, but I've swapped back and forth on a couple of guitars and the difference isn't usually as dramatic as what you describe. My guess would be that bone saddle wasn't seated properly into the bridge.

 

P

 

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

Cheers

[archtop tom]

Wow, funny you should mention this. It's something that haunts me to this day & often comes up in 'conversations' with my wife - usually heated ones. A while back I went on an upgrading spree and replaced nuts, saddles and p-ups on a bunch of guitars. One of them was a Yamaha NTX elec nylon classical. I had the plastic saddle switched out for a handmade bone one. The work was impeccable, but when I got it home and played it for her, it had lost all its soul. Not to say the sound wasn't beautiful - it was, but that's the point. It was perfect to the point of being generic and had lost all the dark earthiness of the plastic. My take-away from this: Tone is subjective, not only from listener-to-listener, but from instrument-to-material. Maybe it's a 'lipsitck on a pig' thing, but some materials just sound inherently better on certain instruments. Hope I didn't derail the topic, but like I said it still haunts me....

[HNS]

Wow, funny you should mention this. It's something that haunts me to this day & often comes up in 'conversations' with my wife - usually heated ones. A while back I went on an upgrading spree and replaced nuts, saddles and p-ups on a bunch of guitars. One of them was a Yamaha NTX elec nylon classical. I had the plastic saddle switched out for a handmade bone one. The work was impeccable, but when I got it home and played it for her, it had lost all its soul. Not to say the sound wasn't beautiful - it was, but that's the point. It was perfect to the point of being generic and had lost all the dark earthiness of the plastic. My take-away from this: Tone is subjective, not only from listener-to-listener, but from instrument-to-material. Maybe it's a 'lipsitck on a pig' thing, but some materials just sound inherently better on certain instruments. Hope I didn't derail the topic, but like I said it still haunts me....

 

 

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

[vacamartin]

Similar experience when I went from Tusq to bone on the L-130. I learned a valuable Gibson lesson....when I got my LG-2ae there was no way the Tusq was getting swapped out!

[ajsc]

I did the same thing. Put the plastic bridge pins, & Tusq saddle, back on my J-45. I like it better too. To my ears the bone is brighter sounding. The guitar lost something when I changed to bone. It's the guitar I fell in love with, again!

[Aster1]

So does Gibson state that the man made stock saddles are really TUSQ? My Gibson stock ones sure sound different than the Tusq brand replacements I bought (when dropped lightly on a hard counter) & also in the guitar. Went thru that with the Reissue J-160E and the J-45 Custom. I was presuming the stock Gibson ones are really Corian not Tusq Brand products. I really don't remember reading any specs either way so it IS a question I don't know the answer to.

 

Aster

[zombywoof]

I think all this saddle and bridge pin stuff is way overblown and based on the belief that folks will hear what they are expecting to hear what they want to hear.

[vacamartin]

I think all this saddle and bridge pin stuff is way overblown and based on the belief that folks will hear what they are expecting to hear what they want to hear.

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's not overblown. In my case it was immediately noticeable....still is. Pins I might question...but the nut and saddle are something I've experienced. Like I stated before...I learned a valuable Gibson lesson.....

[GuitarLight]

So does Gibson state that the man made stock saddles are really TUSQ? My Gibson stock ones sure sound different than the Tusq brand replacements I bought (when dropped lightly on a hard counter) & also in the guitar. Went thru that with the Reissue J-160E and the J-45 Custom. I was presuming the stock Gibson ones are really Corian not Tusq Brand products. I really don't remember reading any specs either way so it IS a question I don't know the answer to.

 

Aster

My Gibson Hummingbird (2013) came with Tusq nut and saddle according to the specs in the Gibson web site. http://www2.gibson.com/Gibson.aspx ....I also called Gibson directly and asked them if it was actually Tusq, their answer by phone was a clear yes. They told me Tusq works best with the pick up installed. Therefore most, but not all, new Gibsons have at least a Tusk saddle, and some a Tusq nut as well if they have pick ups installed.

 

At first I was not sure I would be happy with the Tusq on my Hummingbird, because except for previously owned Taylors, I have always had bone. ....However having played it in, it now sounds perfect to me with the Tusq, and I would not even consider changing them. I did install Ebony pins, which seem to soften the Tusq just a bit, but am not sure on that, but I did want the cheap plastic pins OUT. Either way, I feel it plays as perfect as can be with the Tusq installed from the factory, for both pick up and acoustic unplugged work, and will not tamper with it.

[HNS]

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

[Sitedrifter]

So does Gibson state that the man made stock saddles are really TUSQ? My Gibson stock ones sure sound different than the Tusq brand replacements I bought (when dropped lightly on a hard counter) & also in the guitar. Went thru that with the Reissue J-160E and the J-45 Custom. I was presuming the stock Gibson ones are really Corian not Tusq Brand products. I really don't remember reading any specs either way so it IS a question I don't know the answer to.

 

Aster

 

On my J200 it was a tusq saddle and in fact I ordered a replacement to practice making my own saddles and it was the same exact material. Tusq gave too of a sharp tone to my J200 so I replaced the saddle and nut with bone. The same went for my SWD of which both guitars sound like they should (now)

[HNS]

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.

[BluesKing777]

I have done a bit all combinations and really like bone parts, but I have left the Tusq stuff, mainly because it does sound good and I don't want to ruin things.

 

Another thought is that someone in the Gibson scheme of guitar designers must think the Tusq sounds good or they wouldn't want to risk losing sales?

 

 

BluesKing777.

[Sitedrifter]

 

Another thought is that someone in the Gibson scheme of guitar designers must think the Tusq sounds good or they wouldn't want to risk losing sales?

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

I can guarantee you that is not why Gibson uses Tusq. Gibson uses Tusq so there is something to upgrade too.

[fortyearspickn]

HNS, At 10:30 you asked what could have caused he improvement in sound when you pulled the bone saddle you put on and returned the saddle that had been there. At 5:30 you declare tusq is better than bone or ivory... but you admit the fit could have been off on the bone saddle and that you aren't sure what the material is of the saddle you put back in. Plus you put a new set of strings on. So, while I'd agree this was an "experiment", I don't think you can say it was scientific enough to prove tusq sounds better than bone. A true scientific experiment would have to control all the variables and switch out 50 or 60 bone and tush saddles, with the guitar equivalent of taste testers who have a highly developed sense of hearing sitting as judges. As you said YMMV. I believe our ears hear differently so a truly scientific experiment would only prove some people prefer the sound of one, while others prefer the sound of another. The bottom line is, you've fallen in love again with your SongWriter, and that is all that matters. Glad you're going to hold on to it.

[QuestionMark]

Do new Gibsons use Tusq or Corian unless they specify bone? What exactly is Corian BTW. Any insights?

 

 

I'm curious.

 

 

QM aka "Jazzman" Jeff

[HNS]

HNS, At 10:30 you asked what could have caused he improvement in sound when you pulled the bone saddle you put on and returned the saddle that had been there. At 5:30 you declare tusq is better than bone or ivory... but you admit the fit could have been off on the bone saddle and that you aren't sure what the material is of the saddle you put back in. Plus you put a new set of strings on. So, while I'd agree this was an "experiment", I don't think you can say it was scientific enough to prove tusq sounds better than bone. A true scientific experiment would have to control all the variables and switch out 50 or 60 bone and tush saddles, with the guitar equivalent of taste testers who have a highly developed sense of hearing sitting as judges. As you said YMMV. I believe our ears hear differently so a truly scientific experiment would only prove some people prefer the sound of one, while others prefer the sound of another. The bottom line is, you've fallen in love again with your SongWriter, and that is all that matters. Glad you're going to hold on to it.

 

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

[onewilyfool]

I find that bone saddle and pins sometimes make the guitar sound thin and jangly……I've replaced the same on two of my Gibsons, only to go back to factory spec. You win some, you lose some…..

[MissouriPicker]

Yep, sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. We each do what we feel makes a difference for the better in our guitars. We might change something. We might leave things alone. There are many things that contribute to how good we believe a guitar sounds. The most important one is what each individual hears when they play the guitar. A thumpy or muddy bass might be the same thing to you, but different to me. What I think is bright might be mellow and warm to you. Someone's "holy grail" might just be a guitar to others. There's no right or wrong with this. It depends on what you and me like about our guitars....My opinion doesn't necessarily make me right and someone else wrong........although I think I'm right....lol I often think that we humans enjoy and need to make things more complicated than they are...Good thread too.

[milod]

I guess I figure two things:

 

1, if it ain't broke, don't fix it;

 

2, technique and string and setup match can change the tone of any guitar to an incredible degree without change of nut/saddle/pins.

 

Maybe it's because I started on a classical and worked from that perspective that I continue to do so regardless of the type of guitar I play. If variation in technique makes the classical guitar an entire orchestra in itself with great potential for tonal variation, why not a flattop, archtop or "board" guitar?

 

m