martin d42 tusq vs bone saddle comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- here's a video several folks including the owner wanted me to do, it demos a bone vs tusq saddle, same pick used, same strings, same guitar, same set up, only the tusq saddle is better intonated. it's a tough call but I think for myself on this particular guitar after playing it a few days I prefer the bone saddle. thanks for checking it out!
/ pretorious
To MY ears, the bone saddle suits that Martin far more than the Tusq one. Guess that's just what those particular guitars were meant for all along.
I like both. Im choosing tusq for my acoustic. Thanks Randy!
It dont matter what instruments or materials you used...you can make any stringed instrument sound awesome Randy.
Hey Randy, I had to get my good headphones for this one. The bone seemed to boost the mid range frequencies. The tusq sounded much warmer across all frequencies, while boosting the volume.
I would choose the tusq for this guitar. It sounded beautiful through my Sony MDR-V700 headphones.
Really great video editing, it made choosing a saddle much easier.
Have to agree-I used Sony MDR headphones also and heard the same things.
So , that's what it is . Thanks . Bone sounded better to my old ears anyway .
The TUSQ really brings out the shimmering highs and clarity of tone and the definition of the guitar. Randy is right, it seems to be without sacrificing the low end. For me, the TUSQ wins hands down. (Surprised at the amount of difference it made!)
can't decide which I like better, on my phone, the bone saddle seams to have more volume and bass tones, where as the tusk saddle has a more even sound range through high, mid and low, either way I enjoy watching your videos and I have learned a lot. Great job, keep the videos coming.
Well done sir! An audible difference for sure. To my ears the bone was deeper and fuller while the tusq was more clear, a bit brighter - with individual notes just ringing out. I think the bone would be best for solo playing, and the tusk would be better in a band situation with other instruments. So the obvious solution is to have two D42's, one with bone, one with tusk - problem solved! 😃
I have read all kinds of opinions all over the net but this vid confirms that the bass is the same the Tusq is just more shrilly...More ring in the high notes...It seems less forgiving which contradicts its usefulness especially to 90% of us...Most players are not as good as they think they are...
Yeah this is why I'd go with bone.
Randy, I enjoy listening to your playing. I own 2 martins and 2 gibsons, I changed out the tusq saddles on the Gibson guitars to bone, but returned to the tusq. On the 2 Gibson guitars. I think the tusq on the gibsons is better sounding. The martins came with bone, so I left them alone. The tusq on the martin you are playing, has a brighter sound. That guitar sounds great with either. A very good guitar.' Thank you for the video Randy.
The tusq definitely brightened it up a little, but I think I agree maybe a little too much.. I actually prefer the sound a little bit darker so the low-mid side stands out. I had been debating the tusq saddle but I think maybe I'll go with bone as that sounds closer to what I like.
Love the videos man these are all great, especially with the comparisons so we can actually hear the difference. Keep making more, you got yourself a new subscriber today!
I'm thinking of trading up my Martin HD28-LSV, so listening to quite few vids on either D45 or D42. This vid has really helped me decide. D42 has it, and I much prefer the return that the bone provides. Great to be able see/hear this too. Thanks for your work and putting this 'up there' on the 'interweb'!! Really appreciate your talents Randy.
thanks so much Nick, I'm glad the video helped, and thanks for checking out my videos!
They both sound good. to my ear the Tusg saddle had a touch more sustain and I liked it. Thanks for the demo comparison.
The Martin D42 and a good player. would even sound good with plastic.
The tusk is much brighter. I guess it really depends on what kind of music you play ps
Nice picking..
They both sound great, but the bone seems to have more volume and better tone to me. Great video!
Thanks for the nice comparison. I hear a definite shift to the treble end with TUSQ brighter and clearer. Bone has fatter sound to me, just what I am used to hearing on a Martin. I would be happier with the bone.
Me too. Bone sounds as what I expected, while TUSQ making it clearer to each note, it just doesn’t feel right to me. Kind of emotionless. Maybe sometimes too much clarity isn’t a good thing
Nice job with the picking and info. Tusq def sounded more balanced and crisp to my ear in each example. My D41 amber has tusq and it gets compliments every time I play out. Both are wonderful instrument. I tell my lady all the time, it is an inspirational kind of guitar and restores my hope in humanity.
Both sounded good to me, the Tusq was definitely brighter - treble forward, and the bone was smoother and rich and probably flatter across the spectrum. So, if you were playing that guitar with a group or a band and you need it to stand out a bit from the others, you might want that Tusq nut. Other than that it all comes down to the preference of the owner. In either case this was a very cool and informative video. Thanks Randy! I wouldn't have guessed that there would have been THAT much difference between the two. Think I would have shipped it back to the owner with the bone nut in the guitar and the Tusq nut as an option if he/she likes a brighter tone they could easily swap them out. I'm not trying to be overly diplomatic, I just think it's cool as hell to know you can have 2 distinctly different voicings in the same acoustic guit by just changing out the nut!!
That’s some awesome music Randy. I zoned out listening and forgot about saddle and nut materials.
I own an identical d42 and swear by bone for the bass it provides. Also the best choice I ever made was to replace the pins with some chamel bone ones from jp guitars. The harmonic dynamics doubled instantly to my ear. Looking forward to hearing her when shes truely broken in. Keep up the good work Randy! All the best from England!
I put cheapo "buffalo bone" bridge pins in my HD-35, they made a big improvement in volume and overtones compared to the plastic pins from Martin. Now my HD-35 sounds outstanding! It now has a bone nut, saddle, and bridge pins. Best strings I've tried on it so far are D'Addario Nickel-Bronze, or Martin Retro (monel). 80/20 bronze is good too, a little thinner bass, but still not thin. I tried D'Addario EJ17 Phosphor Bronze, but the bass was too pronounced and overtones were ridiculously thick. EJ17 strings are better on guitars with less bass potential.
😇🥰❤👍
We all need to take into account that we all have differing tastes as far as brightness goes in guitars but another poster (Martin Scott) points out that the string separation is much better on the Tusq and he hit the mark with that. I would have liked it if you would have compared sustain a little too. I would bet that the Tusq would sustain better as well. I use all bone and thought Tusq was just some more snake oil in the luthier trade but now I think it may be worth the extra cost. I will get some and play with it.
@@ADRNG yes
Hi Jason, I am with you for personal taste.
I like tones balance and prefer to have richer bass sound, especially play along with someone singing.
I enjoyed your playing, Randy. I think it is strictly a matter of preference, how you play, how hard the pick is, etc. . I have done the same test, Tusq vs bone saddles, on several guitars. Sometimes it goes one way, sometimes the other. I lean towards bone on this guitar, but it depends of how and what the owner likes to play.
The bone saddle definitely sounds "fuller" and more "rounded" to me. Very interesting comparison. I have tusk saddles on my Taylor acoustics which can sound a little bright at times. I may try bone saddles to see if it changes the top end prominence. Many thanks for the videos.
I put a Tusq saddle on my Martin 000-10E to replace a bone one. Tusq is the original factory component and I like it better.
Dude! I love your playing! Bone, to me sounded richly blended while the Tusq was brighter and individual strings seemed more distinct.... I actually liked the bone only slightly better. Both sounded great. Given your talent and this being a Martin... Haha, I can't say bone in my guitars would equal the Tusq. The drop test was telling!
I saw a video where the Luthier took a bone saddle, a tusc saddle, and a plastic saddle and just dropped them on the table one at a time. The bone and the plastic saddles both just kind of made a dull thud sound, the tusc however, had a definite ring to it! My Taylor came with a tusc saddle and I've been pleased with the sound. I had a bone nut and saddle put on my Gibson and I like it too. My high dollar Martin 00028-EC came with plastic bridge pins! What a gyp, I replaced them with Tusc yesterday. The jury is still out on the Martin.
The drop test makes all the sense I would have done the same thing in contemplating changing nuts on my guitars that's probably what Al exactly do but this has been done already So thank you for the information
Wish he had been sitting in the same position with the sound hole point the same in both. His classical sitting position in bone vs picker sitting position in tusq changes what the mic is picking up. At least to me. It affects the earlier test most. He kind of pivots the guitar face to the mic more at the end so I get more apples to apples instead of one off axis. The later stuff Tusq sounds best.
Excellent point.
Bone made the guitar sound boxy, nasal, thin and tinny, at first l thought you were strumming closer to the bridge with the bone ( and yes you strum very close to the bridge!) However you were in the same area, what a nice difference the tusq makes!!! I was not expecting a blow out but it just simply was.. l would trash the bone and tusq will go in my guitars! I just fit a bone nut in my HD28 which had micarta from Martin and it was a nice upgrade in projection and tone overall.. I ordered 2 tusq compensated that should be here tomorrow! I truly do not believe the nut (being it's not connected the the soundboard top) is as much of a factor as the saddle...great vid and a REAL shocker!! Thanks!!
Great comparison! Anyone who doesn't believe in dropping a saddle or tapping on it as a simple material test has never pulled one of those cheap, no mass plastic saddles out of a ukulele or guitar and replaced it with a quality material. You are a master of your craft!!! Sounds amazing great playing too! I like the bone better but my taylor 714 is so bright the factory tusq some how calms it down and keeps it in the pocket. My J45 gets bone all the way, I need a martin! God bless
Hey Randy. Listen, there are a few things wrong with the concept of comparing the sound of one component vs another over a recording on u tube. The acoustic environment where it was recorded "your shop" could just as well be Carnegie Hall, but, you have no control over the equipment it will be replayed on, you have no control over the quality of hearing of the remote observer or their environment... Now, to my point. I have a two month old Seagull S-6 (right out of the box) original that came equipped with Tusq bridge and nut from the manufacturer, I checked intonation on this one as soon as I got it home, I was very pleased! I couldn't figure out why the tonal quality was fading in such a short amount of time, (!?!). I had the shop where I purchased the guitar lower the action and replace the strings to my specifications to fit my style of play (fingers). I take all precaution to protect my guitars from types of polishes/oils to temp and humidity when and where stored. Friday I decided to investigate "why the sudden loss of tone" in this one guitar, what I found was that the bridge had notched and collapsed under the strings. I will be replacing the bridge and nut with hand shaped bone at my earliest opportunity, I'm even considering fashioning the bridge from brass... This is my first experience with Tusq, and, my last. Thanks' for the video, It's always good to have others assessments.
If i had to choose i would go with the bone, just sounded a little sweeter to me but honestly that guitar sounds killer either way. NGL all the dead animals on the walls is real creepy but this guys playing is fantastic, could just sit and listen to him play.
Really good video. I think Tusq is probably the best synthetic on the market (at least that I know of), it has very balanced articulation and response across the entire dynamic range (although in this video, it does seem to accentuate top end/treble). The bone seems (to me) to better emphasize low end/bass response).
I think the slight variations in density in the bone allow it to have a little more "personality." As a result, I seemed to hear more overtones with the bone.
But, at least in this video, I better understand why a lot of recording artists prefer Tusq - consistent sound from saddle to saddle; where the bone has more individual response.(At least in IMO!) :)
clearly a difference between the two. single notes I preferred the bone but the chords rang with more chime with the tusq. nice comparison Randy.
This was really a nice comparison and it does seem like it really shows the difference, nice work Randy. Now I really wish the owner would do another comparison between these two and Jerry Rosa's antler saddle. I'd love to hear if antler would work or would it be too treble'ly on a very good guitar like this. I also wonder if you asked a studio engineer, which would be better for recording... This was a great series.
Hi Randy. Thanks for posting this. I Don't know why I didn't see it before. But I gotta say, I like the BONE ***so*** much better than the Tusq. Bone was warm full and rich. The TUSQ killed off the bass, turned off the warmth and thinned out the sound. That's what these ears are hearing.
I'm for the bone. The Tusq to my ears seem to soften the tone, which if that is the goal it would be a most suitable fit, a studio recording would be nice with that Tusq. The bone to me though seems to accent that signature Martin tone that was lost with the Tusq. So bone for me cause that's why you have a Martin, for that signature tone!
I fiddle with Tusq a bit on guitars that pass through my hands and occasionally it's a perfect fit. Often though I find the result is too much overtones and sustain, but when it does work it works well. I just fitted Tusq bridge pins to a Tacoma DM10 that was lacking in both sustain and over tones so it worked well with that guitar so I'll leave the Tusq in there.
Had to get my dark glasses out - so much bling on that D42! Beautiful guitar. Fab sounding with both saddles. Bone has it for me, although I did wonder if the mic was placed differently - you have the guitar on opposite (is that the right word?) legs in the bone and Tusq clips. I also wonder if that means the guitar had less contact with your body in the bone clip. Anyway, I have an HD35 and a J40, but with bone, and if I'm quibbling this much there's no way I'd think about changing (Especially at over £10 UK for a Tusq saddle). Thanks for doing this, Randy. A pleasure to watch.
This is just what I've been contemplating - switching saddles. My D28 has bone, and even though I've never been crazy about the guitar's overall tone (I've tried many different strings too) I believe that based on your very informative comparison, I'll save the myself the hassle and expense of switching the saddle. Thanks!
First of all I enjoyed your playing. I first listened to the sound without watching and to tell you the truth I couldn’t hear that much of a difference between the Tusq and bone saddles. When I played it back it seemed the Tusq rang out with a little more clarity but there could be other factors that influence the sound like picking attack and position in relation to the mic. That D42 sounds great with either saddle.
I should have faced the camera straighter with the tusq the way I did with the bone saddle, it would have been a more fair comparison. thanks for watching Dale, I've been spending a little more time playing lately.
Thank you for the education. It’s seems to be a “no brainer” to go with tusq. From what i’ve read it’s not only because tusq is generally more dense than most bone saddles you’ll find, but also because the density is consistent throughout, whereas bone density varies widely in any give piece of it.
Side note suggestion: I noticed that your sitting position and angle of the guitar in reference to the camera/mic might have been different enough to affect what we could hear. While playing the bone saddle the guitar and soundhole were facing directly square to the camera, whereas it was slightly 4-5” lower and facing a tad (maybe 5-10 degrees) to your right when playing with the tusq. Im not sure how much that could affect what we could hear, but it’d be interesting to find out. Maybe you could do a double “vs” video at some point….for instance, a comparison of tusq/bone AND a test of the affects of slight differences to physical presentation/alignment of instruments in relationship to the mic in your videos. I’m a dork. I do appreciate whatever knowledge you’re willing to bestow on us. Keep on keepin on. Grateful in Montana.
My findings...having owned martins for years and owning a similar repair shop (not that that makes my opinion any more valid than anyone else’s) is that your “string contact” material....nuts, saddles, pins....it all comes down to which naturally occurring frequencies you want to massage. Do you want a LITTLE more warmth and low end response? Try some ebony pins. Are your open chords dull and lifeless? Get that awful, plastic nut out of there. While these things, individually, aren’t going to overhaul your tone, they’ll help it lean in the direction you’re trying to go. The thing to be aware of is that you need to know the difference between “this is a good sounding guitar but I think I can make it sound even better” and “I don’t like the sound of this guitar so I’m going to make some changes”. The former will help you make a great guitar transcendent....the latter is a long, winding road that usually leads to disappointment.
I can't decide only because I'm curious how the sound was changed based on how you were aiming the guitar at or away the microphone. I think it made a difference to get the bone a bit of an advantage. Really, I'm curious to try tusq now but I just switched from plastic to bone and I'm pretty happy with the outcome so far.
I like the bone better. You can have so much density that sound and vibration won't travel or deflect well.
Nice job Randy. It sounds louder and more full when using the bone saddle. Also to me it sounds much better when you pluck the strings over the sound hole and not below. It sounds too metallic and tinny when played underneath the sound hole. This is not a critique, just an observation. When I play my own guitar (Blueridge BR-73A) it sounds more melodious and mellow when I play across the sound hole. Maybe this is just my own personal preference, because I witness many people on YT playing closer to the bridge. What do you think. Try a video where chords are strummed across trhe sound hole vs. nearer the bridge and see what people prefer and why!?
Some guitars if you use light/extra light strings on them (and some guitars in general) don't sound great when played over the sound hole, kinda "bluhh," and you have to play a little further down to get a crisp note. I use extra light strings, so I play a little closer to the bridge especially flatpicking, to get more "plang" and less "blunnng" out of it. This can often translate thru videos to sounding really tinny or ringy, depending on how the audio is being recorded, but in person its usually because that particular guitar/setup doesn't sound pingy *enough* to the ear, so they migrate down a little bit for a little sharper attack on the note.
If you have a guitar that's really bright already like a taylor or gib/epi then usually you're able to play over the sound hole and get some more volume/resonance out of it, while not sacrificing that sharp "pang" of the attack, but if your guitar is a little darker-sounding then you might lose a lot of that when moving more over the hole.
Close call but think I'm preferring the bone. Been thinking about upgrading my Martin dm
I have replaced my Yamaha apx600 nut and saddle with tusk it makes my guitar louder and brings it to life , all my other guitar have bone saddles and nuts .
Man I was really surprised that the tusq saddle wasn't brighter than it was. I believe I stated in an earlier video that it wouldn't sound good with that guitar but I was wrong. It didn't sound bad at all. That being said, I believe the bone saddle had a warmer sound though. I have bone nut and saddle in all my acoustics and maybe my ears are just used to that sound. I prefer the bone myself. But honestly, I don't think even plastic would sound bad in that guitar. That baby is sweeeeet. Thanks for the comparison, brother. I definitely just learned something. Take care, my friend, and we'll catch you on the next one. Now where did I put my beer......
I didn't think tusq would sound very good in this guitar either and was shocked how well it handled it, after playing the guitar a LOT lol I finally decided on the bone saddle being my favorite. thanks for tuning in brother!
I prefer the bone, too, but I couldn't really tell you why. I think it is the way the bass sounds. I don't know if it's better, just different and the sound I like better, for me. Nice comparison.
I understand why Martin is going to Tusq for their "E" guitars, because the density is more consistent for the pickup to work better.
I have to say bone saddle but I prefer tusq on my hummingbird and j45
Great video Randy, as always. I was debating which saddle to put on my 12 string, and this made my mind up for me. They both sounded great, but for me, the mids were a little too strident for my taste on the tusq, although the tops had a really nice brittle quality. The tusq will be too much on my 12, especially with the brass pins I've fitted. The difference was pretty obvious to me as a pro musician and studio owner. Oh, I did have a good 4th of July thanks. I'm English! My girlfriend did video call me from Minnesota though, and I watched the fireworks over Superior while it was sunrise here 6 hours ahead. You can imagine the good natured banter between me and the Americans! Take care my friend
Hey, Randy. Very interesting, as always. I appreciate the trouble you go to to A-B these important sound components. I have a 1999 D-41 with a bone nut and saddle and I'm keeping it that way. In your video, the Tusq didn't add anything to the sound, at least to my ear. I did replace the stock tuners with gold Grover Rotomatics, as I just prefer those. I also had the stock pickguard replaced with a Tortis one.
So you took a D-41 and made a half-way D-28 out of it. Brilliant.
Very nice playing man! The bone to my ears sounded warmer and that makes sense since it’s less dense. The Tusq sounded brighter and a bit louder to my ears. Both sounded great, but for me I’d choose bone over tusq.
Great video and excellent work and playing
thanks man and thanks for checking out my videos!
Tusq definitely sounds like glass. Bone sounds like a guitar. Better to my ear. I would say the mystery saddle was bone! Thanks for all you do man!! Best channel on UA-cam!!
THAT instrumnent sounds stunning. While I hear the differenece I'm not sure I would lean one way oe the other. Both sound fantastic. The Tusq certainly seems to be a bit fuller, richer in sound.
Yes I do hear the difference. I don't know what "Tusk" really is but that is the saddle I would prefer for this particular Martin. It sounds clearer and with more sustain to my ears. Is this suggestion? I don't know. I do like it better this way.
What I noticed about the drop test was the bone was lighter than the tusq so the tusq was noisier but not better
Both sound fine
Nice playing as well
thank you my friend and thanks for watching!
the tusq adds highs and mids as you said, but without sacrificing warmth - to my ear
Great vid!
I especially liked the drop test and was surprised how metallic the tusq saddle sounded when dropped. There’s a noticeable difference when you’re playing them. That was likely somewhat affected by your playing the bone on your left leg (classical playing position) and the tusq on your right in more of the cowboy picker position, since the angle of the soundhole and top (relative to the mic) changed.
Regardless, I was surprised how much chimier the tusq saddle made that Martin sound. I have a D28 with a bone saddle and and a Taylor 816 and Breedlove Bridges signature with tusq saddles.
I prefer bone on Martins and my classicals but think the tusq fits the different sounds of the Taylor&Breedlove. It’s probably because I expect/want less chime and more of that woodie tone with a Martin.
That D42 sounds awesome with either saddle.
I wonder how much difference is from having the soundboard of the guitar pointed in different directions for each saddle. I can hear a difference in room ambience from the orientation of the guitar. Also, were the strings new for each saddle test?
I just had a TUSQ nut put on my Strat to help with its inherent intonation problems. I can't say if the tone changed that much. It really helped with intonation.
I can see that you do great work and pick pretty darn good, too. Thanks for the video.
The Bear looks really mad at the outcome of hangin on a wall...... The bear said - go with Tusk...
you are the MAESTRO, you play and fix your guitar. thanks for sharing.
Bone for this one. The tusk seems to amplify the highs
Agreed
To be honest, you played the bone upwards and the tusq downwards: different micro input. Plus you had a dark shirt on the bone and a sort of brown on the tusq ;-)
This is a great comparison ! Really shows the difference and my, is it huge. I never thought a saddle could have so much impact on the sound. I play classical guitar and just installed a Tusq saddle. To be honest I really don't like it. It seems to take away a lot of the warm character and makes it sound too flat and artificial. I hear the same thing happening to your guitar. It sounds great with the bone saddle, but it is less 'alive' when you play with the Tusq installed. I will say that harmonics sound way louder and clearer when using the Tusq saddle. I like that about it. All this is subjective ofcourse. Lovely playing in the video !
Great answer. I guess changing factory stuff will make it not sound why you choose it in the first place…
Great playing there!
I think the bone is fuller tone?
Tusq a little thinner and glassy with more highs?
Did the angle of your guitar that changes in the video between the two samples have anything to do with the mic pick up?
I like the tone of the bone better, for what's that's worth. LOL Good video.
after playing this guitar a while I decided I liked the bone saddle better for this particular guitar too.
I am with you!
and I am with you!
@@ivanguban7143 me too. i used bone and nyt saddle. maybe, ill remove my piezo to get maximum sound projection
It's hard to hear the difference in tones, but I think the bone is "clearer" than the tusq
Just a really great sounding guitar with both saddles.
Wow great work Randy! I love the orchestral qualities of that guitar, with either saddle. But maybe I prefer the bone just a little. Beautiful either way...
The Tusq sounds mellower and more bluesy. I like it better. I just put a Tusq nut and saddle on my acoustic and really like the difference. I got an Oscar Schmidt at a yard sale for $10.00 and it sounds great ! lol.
I also got an OS from a yard sale for $40 though (4x yours but still not bad), and it's a nice-looking, nice-sounding guitar I tell ya whut. Not too harsh on the fingers either, could probably use a better set-up but it's not bad. I really like it, especially for the price. I haven't even changed the saddle or anything yet, just pulled off the ugly red pickguard and put new strings on it and it's very bright and very loud.
I'm thinking bone nut/saddle for mine though, because it's already extremely bright and ringy, I'd like to darken it up a little bit. Right now it sounds too "churchy" for my tastes if you know what I mean.
i.imgur.com/mU7jTP6.jpg before & after pg removed
In fairness you could use a saddle made out of chocolate, and that Martin would sound good. She's a beauty mate. Great video randy.
I have tusq saddle in my j45 and bone in my hd28 excellent playing really enjoy your videos
Oh I have no idea why but I think the bone has more .....something . What a beautiful guitar .
I recently changed the bone saddle out of a 40 year old acoustic that sounded amazing with just a string change - the guitar just sang - I had to change the saddle because the strings over all these years had worn into the saddle about 2mm and was causing fret buzz. I ended buying the Tusq saddle and pins and was surprised that it sounded like glass when dropped on a table and when the pins shaken in the packet it came in - they jingled like glass too. I thought this is going to be awesome. Ive now changed the Tusq saddle and pins in and I have to say though the tone sounds very sharp and kind of nice - it feels like something is missing - a possible warmth that the bone gave - When Randy said this might be to much for this guitar Im kind of thinking the same thing as well - Anyway, as an exercise in curiosity Im thinking of buying a bone saddle and pins and putting them in to see the difference.
sometimes you can mix them to get the desired sound you want and like, I've found that on most medium to high dollar acoustics a bone nut, tusq saddle and ebony bridge pins really wakes up the top, you still have the warm mid to lower tones you mentioned but you also have more mids and highs, not to mention much more volume.
I currently have the original bone nut in and will put the bone saddle in when it arrives - ill definitely try and mix it up a little with the combo of bone and tusq for the saddle and pins thats great advice - thank you for that...currently have the guitar humidifying in its case so wont be able to do anything for at least another day - but I cant wait to try it all out.
I like the clarity and opaqueness of the bone saddle. The tusq seems to give up some of the bone solidness for lushness. My new Martin GPC16e rosewood will be back from the luthier this week with a new bone saddle (removed the UST too) and set up. Very interested to see (hear) the difference. Thanks, very telling video, I heard a very apparent difference between the two materials.
my bet is you'll hear quite a difference, I hope it is to your liking. thanks for checking out my videos!
@@Mr.PhatsVarietyVibesShow yes very good, you can get them intonated too, not sure how well intonated they are but the ones I've install were right on, so I would assume they all are. thanks for watching!
The Tusq saddle seemed to have noticeably better intonation (it was on pitch), It also seemed to be brighter and clearer.
Bone saddle has a balanced warmth. If I hadn't heard the bone saddle along side the tusq, I would have thought the tusq sounded great. But comparing them, it's not even close. The bone sounds more musical.
I thought the bone saddle sounded the best for the D42, has a little more bass. I don't blame you for keeping her over the holiday....it's just to hot inside those delivery trucks. Hoold Ooon!:)
I ended up liking the bone saddle better too, some guitars tusq just doesn't work so well on. thanks for checking it out! hold on! :)
great comparison! considering one right now.. Was that first song a Tony Rice diddy? It's one I grew up listening to but can't place it! thanks for posting!
Aren't choices lovely!
If you really want to get crazy, you can try mixing things like a tusq xl nut with a bone saddle and pins - I personally love the idea that we can shape the sound of guitars with different materials like this - such great fun
@JohnBee I have on my Gibson G-45 bone saddle and pins, and tusq nut. It sounds great 🙋
i love the balance on tusq
me too man, thanks for checking it out!
Blue Railroad Train? I just purchased a Gibson J45 with Tusq nut and saddle. I was going to switch out to bone but now I'm not so sure. My Martin M36 has bone on both ends and I;m not touching it. Sounds just fine the way it is.
Nice video Randy. I am in the process of upgrading my inexpensive acoustic guitar to a bone nut from its original plastic nut. That has to be a big improvement in sound ... at least on open strings. I had to remind myself of that listening to you play with your comparisons. Only the open ringing strings can be compared to one another. I think if there are big differences between the two nut materials they would be more easily perceived with guitar in hand and picking up all of the ambient sound. I want to say that the bone sounded better than the tusq one did ... but that could just be my bias. Thanks.
It's just a matter of taste. The Tusq is brighter, and the bone is warmer. For acoustic guitars I prefer TUSQ. In a stratocaster I switched back to bone because TUSQ was too brittle. My 2 cents.
The bone seems more bassy ,but both sound great 👍
I could hear a difference. I would not say one is better or worse than the other but the bone was warmer and the tusq was brighter.
I guess it would depend on what the individual liked best. thanks for watching!
Both are very nice, and imho the tusk is brighter. But, that Martin is amazing and the player aint bad either!
As soon as I get a guitar I change the saddle to Tusq. It's just so much more resonant. It's one of the best & cheapest upgrades you can make to a guitar. Takes my $240 acoustic & makes it sound like the ones from Nazareth.
Dave Monty what do you have on yours? it mite need the brightness you won't know till you try it .
Krusty Buzzard I had bone on it. I now have Tusq. Way better overall sound.
the 3 guitars I play most all three have tusq in them, I won't say it's the best for every guitar but most of the time it seems to improve them. thanks for having a listen guys!
I got a epi Hummingbird artist & it has plastic nut & saddle , I have a Epi Dove Pro & it has a Tusq Saddle & nut I thought it was plastic when I was sanding the saddle down. It's a huge difference.Those Epi "Pro" edition's come with Tusq or something a lot like it they don't say on the spec sheet but it is not plastic. Man that thing is at the right price on MF Honey Burst w/double parallel inlays on the neck bound in rose wood or maybe they did a Great Job on the frets hiding the tangs, $127
James Guthrie..........Hey James, you're right about the 80/20 bronze strings. I've owned quite a few decent to upper shelf acoustics, wherein a couple of them actually sounded better with the 80/20 bronze. Most of my acoustics didn't of course, but for whatever reason, the 80/20 really improved the warmth in tone on 2 of em. I don't even remember what the saddle material was, it's now been over 25 yrs ago. Since that time, I've encouraged a lot of guys to at least try the 80/20 bronze to see if they like the tone better. Quite a few did, while others did not. But ivory or tusq vs bone certainly makes sense, now that ya mention it.
The tusq gives the sound more clarity. And the bone sounds good too(how could a Martin not, right?). But the tusq is brighter.
Definitely bone on this one. I like more of a cutting tone with good note separation. Maybe tusq on this guitar sounds more mellow and forgiving. If that's what the owner wanted, then good for him.
Drop testing the saddle is a good indicator as is knock pinging a block of wood to test for the right piece to make a body. You are looking for that resonance and the ability for any substance to transfer the proper frequencies and pitch. I had a difficult time deciding because between the two comparisons I think the sound hole was aimed differently towards the mic and possibly that changed the tone qualities. I would rate either over a plastic saddle though, they have always irked me. I had a friend in the '70's that made a saddle for an old beater Kay guitar out of aluminum and it rang out phenomenal for what it was....go figure. If Tusq was really what it was named for (which we can't have) it would probably rate well but ...save the ephelants and walruskeseses and stuff and try to imitate nature....maybe one day we will get it right....."you tell me which saddle this is?" ....it's the bone....because you left your polishing cloth on the table for the bone demos.....yeah...uh huh.
for me with the bone it gets a vintage sound
I had an old '90's LP-Style Epiphone electric that I beat to hell. Sounded like turds. One day I made a project out of it, put in Duncan p/ups, GT Tusq bridge/tailpiece and nut. Redid all the wiring, Switchcraft jack; Bourns pots, myriad overpriced wire and shielding tape for shits and grins. Sprague OD cap, and a treble-bleed to boot. Now that shitty old $150 Epi sounds better than any electric I've heard, and plays amazing, as well. A lot of the credit goes to the circuit and especially the Duncan Jazz/'59, but the Tusq nut/saddles definitely made a considerable difference. One day I'm gonna take on the tuners, grab a Warmoth neck, and finish the complete custom job. Now it's an heirloom piece, imo.
They sound different, but I like both. The bone is more mellow. But again I like both. Man you can play. Randy
Thanks for the demo! I prefer the tusq on your "brazilian" skit. I think the last part is tusk.
I'm such a purist that i'd say I prefer bone and if I had a Martin, i'd set it up on bone no matter what... If I had 2 or 3 i'd go for tusq on one of them... or rosewood like on my FT45.
Wow, really enjoyed your playing Randy! Didn't read the other comments, but I like both saddles! But if I had to pick, the bone I think had crisper? Lows. But my phone sux.. it was almost like adding a tone pot with the tusk saddle for the lows listing on this.. but great comparison 👏
Just received my Tusq Saddle in the mail today, as soon the kids go to bed, I will pull the bone off and install the Tusq on my new HD-28, plus im polishing the head stock. Make it look shiny :-)
coolness! my bet is you'll like it better than bone! I know I usually do! thanks for viewing!
Randy Schartiger you are correct, I do love it, its more of a fuller sound, and I believe the tusq transfers the vibrations more consistently, to my ears anyway.
Love the vids man, Keep up the great work!
@@chrism.4600 exactly! tusq is more dense throughout whereas bone is inconsistent, the best combination on most guitars to my ear is a tusq saddle and bone nut, seems to work well on most guitars, however a tusq nut also makes a huge difference. thank for checking out my videos man!
I think bone for many guitars is the middle ground. Once you start using harder/denser materials, the tone gets harsher.
Without a recording studio mike I still can hear the difference. The Tusq is a tiny bit more brighter. But not so much as to make it tinny. As long as you are not going to put a peizo pickup under it I think it sounds fine. But I would be cautious if it were to have a pickup. I have installed bone on all my guitars and a few of them with pickups are difficult on an amp with even just the bone. Just my 2 cents worth.