Saddle/Nut Material Reaction

[RilesMcGiles]

I stumbled across this guy playing an Erik Mongrain cover of Aftermath (which he absolutely nailed to perfection), and saw he had made a video with Pellerin guitars on different saddle and nut materials. He played the same tunes back to back, same strings, just changing the materials.

I know this has been discussed on the forum before, but I just thought it was a well-made and informative video, plus I had never watched anything on it myself.

Also, my favorite sound was graphite, which I didn't expect. What's yours?




Also, his Aftermath cover, because it was stupendous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMFAFOaZclo

[LAPlayer]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. In this case, on this guitar I preferred: Bone, Fossilized Ivory, Tusque.

[RilesMcGiles]

Originally Posted by LAPlayer

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. In this case, on this guitar I preferred: Bone, Fossilized Ivory, Tusque.

Nice! Bone was my second favorite, than fossilized ivory. I didn't even know what tusque was, before this.

[Rudy4]

Natural bone for saddles and nuts.

I tried the rest, settled on the best.

[dnf777]

I like bone for its tonal quality and of course tradition. But since making and fitting my own, I have to admit Tusq is indistinguishable tonally, is easier to work with, and has self-lubricating material, which is very nice for tuning and string life. And the least of my concerns listed, is it seems to be more tolerant of changes of string gauges.

Those are just my opinions based on my experience. Its also my opinion that most bone, tusq, and other quality synthetics probably have minuscule differences in tone, and proper fitting and grooving probably trump material all seven days of the week.

[abn556]

I am getting my new J-45 set up now. It came with a Tusq saddle. I am getting the luthier to setup and bone and the tusq saddle the same way so I can decide for myself which sounds better in that application. All my other acoustics have bone saddles. I expect to prefer the bone saddle on the J-45, but we’ll see what sounds best in a week or so.

[RilesMcGiles]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Natural bone for saddles and nuts.

I tried the rest, settled on the best.

Love it

Originally Posted by dnf777

I like bone for its tonal quality and of course tradition. But since making and fitting my own, I have to admit Tusq is indistinguishable tonally, is easier to work with, and has self-lubricating material, which is very nice for tuning and string life. And the least of my concerns listed, is it seems to be more tolerant of changes of string gauges.

Those are just my opinions based on my experience. Its also my opinion that most bone, tusq, and other quality synthetics probably have minuscule differences in tone, and proper fitting and grooving probably trump material all seven days of the week.

Fascinating - I also saw that tuning peg material can make a difference?? So many variables..

Originally Posted by abn556

I am getting my new J-45 set up now. It came with a Tusq saddle. I am getting the luthier to setup and bone and the tusq saddle the same way so I can decide for myself which sounds better in that application. All my other acoustics have bone saddles. I expect to prefer the bone saddle on the J-45, but we’ll see what sounds best in a week or so.

You'll have to let me know how you like it! No one has mentioned using graphite, I still think that's my favorite, but maybe the least common...

[CharlieBman]

Whenever I hear these saddle material comparisons, both my own and others, my ears always hear the sound coming from bone as more pleasing. Recently replaced the Tusq saddle on my J-45 and it made a very significant difference...almost too much. The previous Tusq saddle sat kind of loosely in the saddle slot (maybe to insure maximum downward pressure on the under saddle pickup?). I took my time making a new bone saddle to make sure it was nice and snug in the slot. I was never really satisfied with the sound of the J-45. While the sound itself was ok, it just felt kind of subdued with very little projection (I don't use the pickup). With the bone saddle the J-45 literally came alive. While in this case I can't honestly contribute the change to the saddle material alone, to some degree my ears always hear the same thing when I replace a saddle with bone. Could be a perceptual bias, but regardless, my ears seem to like it.

[JayBee1404]

The guitar was plugged using a magnetic pickup, so the test is pretty meaningless AFAIC. I’d much prefer to hear it with the guitar unplugged and recorded using good-quality mics.

[RilesMcGiles]

Originally Posted by JayBee1404

The guitar was plugged using a magnetic pickup, so the test is pretty meaningless AFAIC. I’d much prefer to hear it with the guitar unplugged and recorded using good-quality mics.

That is a great point that I hadn't considered, as I assumed while different it would still point to the differences. hmm

[Railroad Bum]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I like bone for its tonal quality and of course tradition. But since making and fitting my own, I have to admit Tusq is indistinguishable tonally, is easier to work with, and has self-lubricating material, which is very nice for tuning and string life. And the least of my concerns listed, is it seems to be more tolerant of changes of string gauges.

Those are just my opinions based on my experience. Its also my opinion that most bone, tusq, and other quality synthetics probably have minuscule differences in tone, and proper fitting and grooving probably trump material all seven days of the week.

I think this is the answer, very insightful comment, and my experience is the same. I also think that people will dwell on things like nuts, saddles, strings, picks, particular tonewoods, etc., much more than actually playing guitar. If you don't play A LOT, you're not going to sound good, regardless of whatever model of whatever brand with whatever specs you have.

[Sasquatchian]

Originally Posted by CharlieBman

Whenever I hear these saddle material comparisons, both my own and others, my ears always hear the sound coming from bone as more pleasing. Recently replaced the Tusq saddle on my J-45 and it made a very significant difference...almost too much. The previous Tusq saddle sat kind of loosely in the saddle slot (maybe to insure maximum downward pressure on the under saddle pickup?). I took my time making a new bone saddle to make sure it was nice and snug in the slot. I was never really satisfied with the sound of the J-45. While the sound itself was ok, it just felt kind of subdued with very little projection (I don't use the pickup). With the bone saddle the J-45 literally came alive. While in this case I can't honestly contribute the change to the saddle material alone, to some degree my ears always hear the same thing when I replace a saddle with bone. Could be a perceptual bias, but regardless, my ears seem to like it.

My 2020 Southern Jumbo mistakenly came with a Tusq saddle and I replaced it, like you, with a hand made, custom intonated bone from a bland I bought from Stew-Mac and it made a huge difference. Then the final improvement and the one that made as much difference as the saddle was switching to StringJoy 80/20 Bronze Brights 12-54, and holy cow, a completely transformed guitar.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I like bone for its tonal quality and of course tradition. But since making and fitting my own, I have to admit Tusq is indistinguishable tonally, is easier to work with, and has self-lubricating material, which is very nice for tuning and string life. And the least of my concerns listed, is it seems to be more tolerant of changes of string gauges.

Those are just my opinions based on my experience. Its also my opinion that most bone, tusq, and other quality synthetics probably have minuscule differences in tone, and proper fitting and grooving probably trump material all seven days of the week.

All this, plus I don't have my reference headphones handy, and without them, I can't hear the difference between any of these. So if I have to absolutely perfect the signal chain to hear a difference? There are bigger fish to fry :-).

Also, it's a small quibble .. however good the playing, if he's trying to put small tonal differences on display, the percussives aren't helping.

[ljguitar]

Hi Riles
What we as players hear behind the instrument, and what others hear in front of it often differ…sometimes a lot.

When we play, we not only hear, but feel, the guitar vibrating. I hold the body in contact with my chest/stomach (standing or sitting).

This negates tests like the one you posted from being useful IF:
I set my guitars up for

• My hands while playing
• My ears while playing
• NOT YOUR EARS…

I think that's what most players do.

If the only time I played was in a studio, only hearing my instrument via over-the-ear cans (headphones), I might make different choices and/or carry multiple saddles.

But I don't live there. To my hands, ears, chest/stomach - bone sounds and feels best when I play. I don't care about audiences, because they don't care. And frankly I don't care about anyone on this forum, my gigging partners, or the sound techs. I'm the player/creator/artist.

They just want to hear music, and I'm happy to provide it for them.

[jmagill]

I've found that many of the guitars I've owned would benefit from a nut & saddle material harder and more consistent in density than bone, so I replaced them with legally-sourced West African Hard Ivory (WAHI). The difference is admittedly slight, but noticeable enough to my ears to make it worthwhile.

In one guitar, I found that I preferred the sound of bone, so I took the WAHI off and put the bone back on, but on every other guitar I tried it on, it was an improvement and well worth the trouble and expense.

In general, WAHI increases volume slightly and adds a bit of crisp clarity across the guitar's entire dynamic range. It's like removing a layer from the sound you never noticed was there until it was gone.
.