Bone or Tusq

[gitmo]

I have two pieces of bone, both saddles. I've filed and sanded both to tune the actions on the guitars on which they were installed and found one to be noticably softer than the other. One was similar in hardness to Tusq, the other I felt powdered like chalk when I filed it.

 

I was working with Tusq on another occasion and dropped it on to my tile floor and was suprised at the tone it made. It was obvious that it's an amazingly hard plastic.

 

Listen to the difference between my hardest piece of bone and a Tusq saddle dropped repeatedly on the tile floor from the same height. Recorded with my Blue Snowball USB mic.

[seagullplayer77]

Which one came first? The Tusq? It almost sounded like dropping a piece of glass. Very interesting test . I've never bothered to try anything like that, but it's cool to hear the results.

 

IIRC, Tusq is formulated to simulate ivory. According to the Wikipedia entry for ivory, the chemical structure of teeth and tusks is the same for all mammals, so I guess ivory qualifies as teeth. I'm not sure if a tooth is harder than a bone or not . . . probably, right?

[gitmo]

Which one came first? The Tusq? It almost sounded like dropping a piece of glass.

 

The Tusq is the one that sounds like glass or steel.

 

No wonder Taylor is proud to put it on their guitars.

 

Personally, I'm sold on it. Add to that that the nuts come pre-slotted and the saddles intonated at VERY reasonable prices.:love:

 

BTW, "I've never bothered to try anything like that".

Me either, it was dropped on the tile by accident.

 

I'm not sure about which is harder bone or teeth. One is calcium and the other enamel, at least the cover of a tooth is enamel. I'll defer to our resident dentist or a doctor on that one.

[BLUtunes]

Fascinating demonstration. Thanks for sharing that, Gitmo!

[GuitarVlog]

There is such thing as bad bone. I'm no expert but I try to examine my blanks for quality as best as I can.

 

I try to look for signs of excess porosity and fragility. Those blanks I reject. If a blank seems very dense and has a ring when tapped with a metal mallet, then it goes into my "to-shape" box.

 

Tusq is pretty good too, but I think even Taylor puts bone on their highest-end models.

[gitmo]

There is such thing as bad bone.

 

No doubt.

 

How about bad Tusq?:poke:

 

Roll the dice? I would probably use bone in some situations but Tusq is easy and fool proof. Bone is quaint.

 

I'm not dissing bone, but it's high maintenance-metaphorically. If you want to get it right the first time get Tusq IMWO.

[Oldskool Texas]

I've used both, and like them each for different reasons. Bone is great because you can work it yourself - sanding and shaping is a no-brainer, even for a ham-fisted guy like me. The Tusq, however, is foolproof and very consistent.

 

As for the tone, I honestly can't tell any difference when playing them. None at all.

[gitmo]

 

I've used both, and like them each for different reasons.

 

 

I think natural materials have value. Wood, Ivory, leather and bone to name a few. If I built a guitar I would probably use bone for the nut and saddle purely for nostalgic reasons with the knowledge that I wouldn't be sacrificing tone.

 

I'm wondering if I can shape the tone of an instrument using different desities of bone. I'm probably going to try it in the future. I'm curious to see if my two identical Silvercreek guitars' tone is different because they are different woods, 160 vs 170 or because the bone saddles were noticably different densities. Probably a combination of the two.

[gitnoob]

I did a similar "drop test" a while back with Tusq, bone, and whatever CA uses in their carbon fiber guitars.

 

The CA saddle had the highest frequency ring, followed by tusq, and bone was the lowest frequency.

 

I assume that higher frequency implies more sound energy is reflected vs absorbed, but I'm not sure I can really tell the difference given everything else that goes on with a guitar.

 

Ultimately that sound energy has to be transmitted by the rosewood or ebony bridge, and those bridge materials don't ring out very well.

 

Maybe we all need to upgrade to ivory bridges.

[gitmo]

I did a similar "drop test" a while back with Tusq, bone, and whatever CA uses in their carbon fiber guitars. The CA saddle had the highest frequency ring, followed by tusq, and bone was the lowest frequency. I assume that higher frequency implies more sound energy is reflected vs absorbed, but I'm not sure I can really tell the difference given everything else that goes on with a guitar. Ultimately that sound energy has to be transmitted by the rosewood or ebony bridge, and those bridge materials don't ring out very well. Maybe we all need to upgrade to ivory bridges.

 

Do you have an audio file we can listen to?

 

I would think higher frequency would be a factor of hardness.

 

CA? I'm curious, who/What is CA?

 

I was thinking that to extrapolate, perhaps we should try a diamond saddle. Seriously, I was pondering other materials. If Tusq is good, what other modern material is cheap and possibly harder? Is harder better? Back to shaping tone with material.

 

In summary what I'm pounding the table about is the quality, convenience, availablity and price of Tusq are VERY appealing as a solution.:phil:

 

Also, agreed the bridge material will only allow different saddles to take us so far but I will fall back on my rubber saddle argument.

[Hudman]

I don't think there is any difference between the two other than appearance. Bone can be polished up to look nice and shiny and everyone knows how much Fly Pancreas loves shiny stuff.

[gitnoob]

Do you have an audio file we can listen to? I would think higher frequency would be a factor of hardness. CA? I'm curious, who/What is CA?

 

Sorry, I didn't record the drops. I think I might still have spare saddles for each, so I guess I could if I become motivated.

 

This funny looking thing is a CA (Composite Acoustics):

 

 

They sourced their saddle from somebody other than Graphtech, but I don't recall who made them.

 

[gitmo]

Sorry, I didn't record the drops. I think I might still have spare saddles for each, so I guess I could if I become motivated. This funny looking thing is a CA (Composite Acoustics):

 

If I had to make a WAG by looking: graphite composite or-drum roll-carbon fiber. It seems to be identical in color to the guitar giving me the impression it's carbon fiber. I know it's just a guess but look at the difference in the color of the bridge pins, everything being black so color can serve as a clue although in no way conclusive.

 

I'm curious about carbon fiber. I wonder if it is harder than the plastic used by Graphtech?

 

I just ordered a Tusq nut for my Strat. I didn't get the graphite nut because it's a hardtail. Would be interesting to hear someone comment about how hard the graphite products are and give it a drop test.

 

Mmmmmm, carbon fiber bridge too.

[boxorox]

I'm a boner. Yes, as a natural product, there can be variances in hardness, density, and mass. TUSQ is consistant, and many like it as well or better than bone. While TUSQ is consistant, guitars are not. On some guitars I've noticed TUSQ has a "zingy" overtoney effect, and is not appropriate. On others, don't know, as I hate the "zingy" sound and hence bone everything.

 

I've also noted that strings don't seem to seat as well, as positively as they do in bone. While it may be synthetic ivory, the way that it wears is definately dfferant. Well, definate I can't prove. By my observation, I should say.

[gitmo]

I'm a boner. Yes, as a natural product, there can be variances in hardness, density, and mass. TUSQ is consistant, and many like it as well or better than bone. While TUSQ is consistant, guitars are not. On some guitars I've noticed TUSQ has a "zingy" overtoney effect, and is not appropriate. On others, don't know, as I hate the "zingy" sound and hence bone everything. I've also noted that strings don't seem to seat as well, as positively as they do in bone. While it may be synthetic ivory, the way that it wears is definately dfferant. Well, definate I can't prove. By my observation, I should say.

 

Most of the more experienced guitar tuners and builders argue that bone is AS hard no? If so, it should be as "zingy".

 

I would like to do some experiments shaping tone with materials such a bone, ebony and Tusq. One of the problems, and I've alluded to it is the inconsistancy of bone and other natural materials which is a huge negative IMO. What would you do if your favorite brand of strings didn't sound the same when you changed them?

 

Having said this, I'll reiterate that I am quite fond of natural materials and am willing to work with their inconsistancies given time and my limited patience. When I want to play the instrument, and I don't feel like fooling around, Tusq!

 

Also, and this is huge, I'm more than happy to concede that even my hard piece of bone is probably poor quality, it's a cheap a$$ed guitar.

But I like it.

[bigald18]

Does this mean that if you dropped the git with the bone saddle on the floor and the git with the tusq saddle on the floor that the tusq will sound better??

 

BigAl

[gitmo]

Does this mean that if you dropped the git with the bone saddle on the floor and the git with the tusq saddle on the floor that the tusq will sound better?? BigAl

 

Actually Al, I don't believe I claimed one sounded better than the other.

 

I thought you told us you were going to lose the hat?

[bigald18]

Actually Al, I don't believe I claimed one sounded better than the other. I thought you told us you were going to lose the hat?

 

I am wrong and I am a liar!

 

BigAl

[FlyingPancreas]

I don't think there is any difference between the two other than appearance. Bone can be polished up to look nice and shiny and everyone knows how much Fly Pancreas loves shiny stuff.

 

Bone is shinier than tusq.