Before and after recording..... Taylor 314CE Tusq vs Bone

[Cougher]

As promised- here is a recording with the different saddles (the stock tusq and Bob Colosi's bone saddle). Also added some of Bob's bone bridge pins with the ebony inlay, and some Gotoh 510's in Nickel (looks better than chrome IMO). I would add pictures but it is telling me it is too big. Gotta love these forums.

 

Note: Make sure you watch in HD

 

 

 

Forgot to add- they are the same light Elixir strings before and after, and also the same pick. I didn't want there to be variations. I recorded with the mic's built into my Zoom H4n.

 

So- the differences I can notice are slight but apparent. The guitar sounds a bit less "shrill". I'm thinking it rolled off some super high frequencies. Not that it's a bad thing. (I wish someone would create a wave comparison.) Listening to the recordings it sounds like the mids have increased with the bone, which isn't so apparent in person. One thing for sure- the guitar has more sustain with bone. There's no doubt about that. As far as usability, I think sustain is lower in my list of needs, but I thought I'd point it out. Tell me what you guys hear/think! I added a poll, please vote. Thanks!

[Freeman Keller]

Thanks for going through all the work of making the recordings. The guitar and your playing sounds really good. I'll be honest - the combination of 70 year old ears and cheap speakers on my PC I frankly can't tell a lot of difference. Maybe if I heard two versions of the same song, say Norwegian Wood back to back it would be better.

 

A long time ago I also had a 314 (no C or E) and I too boned it (just the saddle) frankly I couldn't hear much difference on mine either. When I isolated bridge pins during that test I thought I could tell a difference between ebony and both bone and plastic (which sounded pretty much the same). For my tests I tried playing individual notes and chords - they were presented as mp3's and you could play two of them side by side - but I've got to say the difference is subtle.

 

If you want to do a "wave comparison" there are two things that are pretty simple. First, play and record individual notes - say each string open - just pick the note and let it ring. Then open it in Audacity - it will show the wave form in the time domain. The height of the wave is the loudness or strength of the sound, and you can see how long it rings so you can compare sustain. You can open more than one session of Audacity so comparisons are easy. If you really want to get esoteric, you can transform into the frequency domain (called a "FFT") - Audacity will let you do that. The frequency domain tells you all the harmonics and partials that your single note includes - that's the "warmth" and "complexity" of the sound.

 

Remember that Tusq is a synthetic that attempts to mimic bone or ivory, but is easy to mold and can be cnc milled which is why Taylor likes to use it - bone tends to be more inconsistent and is quite a bit harder to work with. I guess the bottom line is that the guitar and the way you play it sounds great with either saddle and if there is a difference, more power to you. Not everyone will agree with the results, but I at least appreciate your posting this.

[Cougher]

Thanks for going through all the work of making the recordings. The guitar and your playing sounds really good. I'll be honest - the combination of 70 year old ears and cheap speakers on my PC I frankly can't tell a lot of difference. Maybe if I heard two versions of the same song' date=' say Norwegian Wood back to back it would be better.[/quote']

 

 

Thanks! My 26 year old ears can't hear much of a difference either- so don't let it make you feel bad. There is a difference, but whether its good bad or indifferent I can't tell. The strumming part on Stairway to Heaven sounds the most different to me (if you listen to the recording they're at 1:00 and about 5:05). I made the video specifically for everyone here on the forums, because I was trying to find comparisons and came up short. I tried to play as many different "styles" as possible to demonstrate whatever nuances there may be. Would I have reconsidered getting a bone saddle had I heard this video? Probably not- I'd probably do it all over again Not sure why, but I think I like the bone better. Not sure why or how or even if science can explain it (other than it being a placebo effect..!)

[DarkHorseJ27]

To me the bone has has a warmer tone with more depth and volume, though volume could be attributed to mic position or the playing. There was also less high end, but in my experience tusq has a shrill high end that I could never stand.

[Cougher]

To me the bone has has a warmer tone with more depth and volume' date=' though volume could be attributed to mic position or the playing. There was also less high end, but in my experience tusq has a shrill high end that I could never stand.[/quote']

 

I agree with what you said- it is warmer sounding. As far as any differences in playing or mic setup I tried to do it as identically as possible. If there was any difference in playing or the mic, it would've been very slight. I think what you are hearing is the actual difference with the bone.

[DarkHorseJ27]

 

I agree with what you said- it is warmer sounding. As far as any differences in playing or mic setup I tried to do it as identically as possible. If there was any difference in playing or the mic, it would've been very slight. I think what you are hearing is the actual difference with the bone.

 

In my experience bone does get more volume. However, every guitar is different and can behave differently with particular changes. I was just putting my own caveat in there, that what I was hearing might not be because of the material, since I didn't know all the variables.