Nuts & Saddles

[GeorgedeA]

Should we all be upgrading our nuts and saddles if these are not made of bone ?
I’m a bit befuddled on this question and would appreciate some objective guidance .
During the course of a recent set up and pick up installation on my 1998 Yamaha LL500 I opted to install a Graph Tech Tusq nut and saddle to replace the originally installed kit - plastic apparently !
I detected some improvement in tone .. clarity , sustain , projection & was generally very pleased with the result …. and remain pleased .
I thought to myself …. Taylor use Tusq ( dont they ? ) & they are a modern guitar builder of some repute ; they must be doing this for a reason ?
A recently bought Furch OM35 ; a guitar that has been put together with the very best of materials and hardware … has a Tusq nut and saddle installed . Furch has absolutely not cut corners anywhere in the construction of this ….
so …
whats it all about ?
Is it a case of off with my nuts at the first available opportunity in the quest for tonal nirvana ?
The consensus appears to be that bone is the thing …. ?

[Jim Owen]

Hi George,

I think your nuts are safe, so don't panic.

The argument for a synthetic material such as TUSQ is that it is consistent; hence, if you have an undersaddle transducer, it will be a very good choice (as bone might have spots of differing densities).

I'm probably in the minority here, but I believe that if your guitar sounds and plays well for you, you needn't worry about changing nuts, saddles, and pins to some other material. I've had saddles of all sorts in my instruments over time, and have never swapped one that wasn't broken or too loose.

I see you're a Geordie--cheers. Anywhere near Berwick?

[GeorgedeA]

Originally Posted by Jim Owen

Hi George,

I think your nuts are safe, so don't panic.

The argument for a synthetic material such as TUSQ is that it is consistent; hence, if you have an undersaddle transducer, it will be a very good choice (as bone might have spots of differing densities).

I'm probably in the minority here, but I believe that if your guitar sounds and plays well for you, you needn't worry about changing nuts, saddles, and pins to some other material. I've had saddles of all sorts in my instruments over time, and have never swapped one that wasn't broken or too loose.

I see you're a Geordie--cheers. Anywhere near Berwick?

Very much appreciate those reassuring words Jim ... phew !
Actually from Oxfordshire once upon a time so not really a Geordie but .. yes, we're between Berwick Upon Tweed & Duns .... & its very windy ( great tune by The Association ) this afternoon .
All the best to you
George

I've never met a Tusq saddle that I didn't love to hate. To my ear they impart a fuzzy, muddled tone. IME it is difficult or impossible to find a better saddle material than good quality bone.

[GeorgedeA]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

I've never met a Tusq saddle that I didn't love to hate. To my ear they impart a fuzzy, muddled tone. IME it is difficult or impossible to find a better saddle material than good quality bone.

Thats interesting Todd - fully respect your view and its clearly a strong one .
Am I right that Taylor use Tusq on their guitars ... all models ?
I've been really pleased with the results on my Yamaha .

[Gypsyblue]

I like the way my guitars with Tusq saddles and nuts sound...and Tusq is relatively inexpensive.

I do think bone sounds better but a bone nut and saddle have to be carved from scratch and that makes it a more expensive choice.

Tusq sounds very good and since it's molded into the proper shape already, only final shaping and fitting need to be done, making Tusq a much quicker and less costly installation than bone.

If your guitar is worth it and you want to squeeze that last drop of available tone out of it go for bone.

Otherwise, Tusq is cheaper, sounds excellent and seems to me to be a more appropriate choice for relatively inexpensive guitars and guitars not made from solid woods.

[perttime]

People look for different sounds in their guitars. There is no one sound, wood, size, construction, or one nut and saddle, that will please all.

You might like the sound with some moose leg bone, or you might not. If you want to experiment, sure put on some bone parts - but don't discard the ones you have on now.

[GeorgedeA]

Originally Posted by Gypsyblue

I like the way my guitars with Tusq saddles and nuts sound...and Tusq is relatively inexpensive.

I do think bone sounds better but a bone nut and saddle have to be carved from scratch and that makes it a more expensive choice.

Tusq sounds very good and since it's molded into the proper shape already, only final shaping and fitting need to be done, making Tusq a much quicker and less costly installation than bone.

If your guitar is worth it and you want to squeeze that last drop of available tone out of it go for bone.

Otherwise, Tusq is cheaper, sounds excellent and seems to me to be a more appropriate choice for relatively inexpensive guitars and guitars not made from solid woods.

Thanks for your thoughts .
Mine is an all solid wood instrument ( a 1998 Japanese Yamaha ... top of their range at that time ) .
I couldnt imagine any tonal improvement in all honesty ... the Tusq sounds just fine & I'm a fairly fussy 57 year old who has been playing for many years .
I'm curious about this ... dont Taylor fit Tusq to all their guitars ?
The difference in cost is quite small in the scheme of things ?
Unless I'm looking in the wrong places the cost of bone is not significantly different ... not here in the UK anyway ...

[zabdart]

This gets discussed a lot around here. Basically, your guitar's nut is going to have very little effect on your instrument's tone unless you play exclusively in the 1st position with a lot of open strings. Every time you fret a note, the influence of the nut should disappear.
As far as bridge saddles go, it depends on whether you play your guitar primarily unplugged or plugged-in. If it's the latter, something like tusq is actually a superior material in that its molecular density is more uniform, thus creating a better response from string-to-string from the UST or SBT.
A lot of people don't do their research and insist on replacing the bone saddles that come stock with the instrument (like with the Gibson Advanced Jumbo) with other bone saddles, figuring that if it's factory-issue it MUST be wrong. Some people just like to spend money, I guess.

[DanPanther]

Todd, How would you list bone in order of quality ?
Water Buffalo bone is very inexpensive and in a powerful light has very minimal density variation.
Would the use of xray be the definitive way to obtain an accurate density evaluation ?

Dan

[GeorgedeA]

Originally Posted by zabdart

This gets discussed a lot around here. Basically, your guitar's nut is going to have very little effect on your instrument's tone unless you play exclusively in the 1st position with a lot of open strings. Every time you fret a note, the influence of the nut should disappear.
As far as bridge saddles go, it depends on whether you play your guitar primarily unplugged or plugged-in. If it's the latter, something like tusq is actually a superior material in that its molecular density is more uniform, thus creating a better response from string-to-string from the UST or SBT.
A lot of people don't do their research and insist on replacing the bone saddles that come stock with the instrument (like with the Gibson Advanced Jumbo) with other bone saddles, figuring that if it's factory-issue it MUST be wrong. Some people just like to spend money, I guess.

Thanks for your comments - all makes very good logical sense .
I play mostly unplugged .

[GuitarLight]

I think it is safe to say you are just fine with tusq. I have a Gibson Hummingbird that came with tusq saddle. Thinking it would sound SOOO much better with a bone saddle..I ordered one from Bob Colossi, then had it fitted and installed to perfection. The difference to my ear was just incredible.

The bone saddle instantly desdtroyed the fine and sweet articulation of my beautiful Hummingbird...it became louder, deeper and more unrefined, and less focused. I just couldn't believe it, but I hated it...and removed it within an hour and returned the tusq saddle....instantly that sweet, clear, clean, crisp and focused articulation of the tusq came back to my Hummingbird. I was quite relieved to return the tusq saddle, even tho I had bought and paid for a custom Colossi bone saddle...(which was high quality bone by the way.)

Now for those who believe louder, and deeper and thicker base is always better...they will always go for bone.....for those who prefer clean, crisp, clear, distinctive note clarity with out the loud volume and extra base that bone often gives...then they will prefer tusq.

If you decide to go with a bone saddle..you WILL hear a difference...but that difference just may NOT be what you expected...in which case you can always return the tusq saddle to your gutar.

[GeorgedeA]

Originally Posted by GuitarLight

I think it is safe to say you are just fine with tusq. I have a Gibson Hummingbird that came with tusq saddle. Thinking it would sound SOOO much better with a bone saddle..I ordered one from Bob Colossi, then had it fitted and installed to perfection. The difference to my ear was just incredible.

The bone saddle instantly desdtroyed the fine and sweet articulation of my beautiful Hummingbird...it became louder, deeper and more unrefined, and less focused. I just couldn't believe it, but I hated it...and removed it within an hour and returned the tusq saddle....instantly that sweet, clear, clean, crisp and focused articulation of the tusq came back to my Hummingbird. I was quite relieved to return the tusq saddle, even tho I had bought and paid for a custom Colossi bone saddle...(which was high quality bone by the way.)

Now for those who believe louder, and deeper and thicker base is always better...they will always go for bone.....for those who prefer clean, crisp, clear, distinctive note clarity with out the loud volume and extra base that bone often gives...then they will prefer tusq.

If you decide to go with a bone saddle..you WILL hear a difference...but that difference just may NOT be what you expected...in which case you can always return the tusq saddle to your gutar.

Thanks for sharing your experience . I'm staying put as I'm not looking to improve the sound in all honesty ... I'm working on my playing though !
There is much that I can do on that front .
I see a lot of very fine builders using Tusq so that will be fine for me !

[GuitarLight]

Originally Posted by GeorgedeA

Thanks for sharing your experience . I'm staying put as I'm not looking to improve the sound in all honesty ... I'm working on my playing though !
There is much that I can do on that front .
I see a lot of very fine builders using Tusq so that will be fine for me !

I think that is a good decision. Good luck on your playing...you will be as great as you choose to be! Your desire will take you far my friend! And your fine Yamaha will help!

Originally Posted by GeorgedeA

Thats interesting Todd - fully respect your view and its clearly a strong one .
Am I right that Taylor use Tusq on their guitars ... all models ?
I've been really pleased with the results on my Yamaha .

Taylor does use Tusq on most, if not all of their guitars. I dislike it compared to bone. However, I don't doubt that you can hear an improvement compared to a soft thermoset plastic saddle. I think bone would offer even more.

Originally Posted by DanPanther

Todd, How would you list bone in order of quality ?
Water Buffalo bone is very inexpensive and in a powerful light has very minimal density variation.
Would the use of xray be the definitive way to obtain an accurate density evaluation ?

Dan, I haven't noticed a huge difference in bone regardless of the source. Some people prefer camel or some other bone, but I just haven't noticed a difference in sound or workability. Most commercially available bone comes from cows. That's what I use.

I occasionally get a saddle blank with a visible flaw, but that's rare. Most of my stuff comes from StewMac, LMI, or Elderly, and I think buying from a reputable source cuts down on issues. By the time they're cut down to saddle blank size, most flaws will be obvious. I'd guess that xray would be overkill compared to the value of the blank. If you get a bad one, throw it away and go to the next one.

Ivory (not fossil ivory) might be the only thing that competes with bone IMO. However, I think bone is so good that I just don't bother with ivory. Even on vintage instruments I don't mind substituting bone. The structural quality and tone are great, plus no one ever has to wonder if the saddle is original.

Bob Colosi offers only first class stuff. If I wasn't making my own from blanks, I'd probably get everything from him.