Anyone tried this?

http://www.tusq.com/champ/

Technical Specifications

Test conducted in-studio on a Larrivee Acoustic Guitar equipped with GHS Phosphor Bronze Acoustic strings.

One Neumann KM 184 placed 4" directly in front of the sound hole.

Recorded directly into a Behringer ultragain pro-8 digital ADA8000 analog-digital pre-amp converter.

Optically input into a Creamware Pulsar audio card.

Sample rate: 24bit, 44.1 kHz. Recorded using Sonar 4.0 software.

No EQ or filtering was used.

I'm in. thanks for the link...

Me too. Thanks for the link. BTW I thought Tusq sounded better.

Quote from: jimmyd on February 18, 2006, 11:56:10 AM
Me too. Thanks for the link. BTW I thought Tusq sounded better.

Graphtech isn't going to post a recording with the bone sounding better.   It sounds to me like the used a thick rigid pick for the tusq strum and a thin flexable pick for the bone strum.   You can do alot with recordings, without even messing with the actual recording. 

Quote from: woody b on February 18, 2006, 03:15:46 PM
Graphtech isn't going to post a recording with the bone sounding better.   It sounds to me like the used a thick rigid pick for the tusq strum and a thin flexable pick for the bone strum.   You can do alot with recordings, without even messing with the actual recording. 

I would expect they did everything as exactly the same as possible. perhaps even to the point of not telling the strummer which was which. The frequency choosen to measure graphically may have been one which the tusq favors though.

To my hearing the tusq clip was a bit louder than the bone clip. This may well be due to the fact that one material is louder than the other, or it could be that it was altered somewhat. I hope it is the former. Louder almost always sounds "Better" than softer.

I'm going to drop them into my audio editing suite and have a look at them myself. I may even try and match their levels and have a listen to that sample.

Quote from: ronmac on February 18, 2006, 03:28:31 PM
Louder almost always sounds "Better" than softer.

As John Caulkin once said "Give em loud and they will hear tone"

I thought I was hearing more overtones but who knows what exactly was more appealing to me in the Tusq sample.  If you do analyze those samples please let us know what you find out.  I do admit that I've never had a problem with the toine I've gotten from Tusq saddles. I got a bunch of them from a guy in a going out of business sale and have used them in several inexpensive instruments with good success. I still use bone for more expensive instruments. Seems every high end luthier uses bone. 

Most high end instruments used to use ivory.

And Tusq is supposedly engineered to be a synthetic equivalent of ivory...

I put a great deal of stock in what people did prior to the electronic and media age. choices had a tendency to be made more on hard facts and experience rather than who has the fanciest marketing department....

Before I knew which was which, I chose the Sample A because I thought it sounded fuller and richer. Sample B sounded thinner to me. Come to find out, my ears heard it right. 

Jeff

Jeff, you may want to remove the results of the comparison so it is not to bias others taking the test. :WNK>

One strum is not a good way to make a comparision. espcially since they're not even at the same velocity. Sample A is clearly strummed softer and quicker. In Sample B it is blatently obvious that they dig in and take their time, that last string is lagging so far behind. The strummer may have even missed a few bass strings in sample A. Blah, sales gimics.

Quote from: jeremy3220 on February 18, 2006, 11:34:58 PM
One strum is not a good way to make a comparision. espcially since they're not even at the same velocity. Sample A is clearly strummed softer and quicker. In Sample B it is blatently obvious that they dig in and take their time, that last string is lagging so far behind. The strummer may have even missed a few bass strings in sample A. Blah, sales gimics.

Doesn't even sound like the treble was hit in sample A...

So, the debate continues....

I downloaded both samples and dropped them into my audio editing suite (Adobe Audition 2.0 with Ozone 3.0 mastering) and have no problem identifying differences in the two recordings. The difficulty is to make an accurate assessment of why those differences are there. Since the two samples are not recorded exactly the same it is impossible to compare amplitude, velocity, harmonic content, etc. in an objective way.

First off, since the materials are different, you would expect that the bone and tusq would sound dissimilar. BUT, I would also expect that samples taken form different pieces of bone would also be somewhat different. Tusq samples should remain consistant given they are a manufactured product from a composite material. This alone will make any single sample comparisons meaninless.

The only meaningful test is for each of us to decide what works for us. The reason any individual instrument appeals to us more than another, of the same model and materials, is the small characteristic differences of all the material used. The saddle material is just one part of the equation.

One thing has always bugged me about this debate. I have never heard of anyone wanting to swap out their tusq saddle for another tusq saddle in the quest for superior tone. This leads me to believe everyone agrees that since tusq is a composite material, manufactured to high tolerance, it would produce piece to piece similar performance. Why then is it that everyone that tries a new bone saddle immediately declares a winner, one way or the other, simply by trying one sample of a material that is known to be inconsistant?

 

When I put a bone saddle in my D05, I was hard pressed to actually tell much difference. They both sounded good and in the end I left the bone because as a jimmyd said it seems all high end guitars use bone.

Quote from: jeremy3220 on February 18, 2006, 11:34:58 PM
One strum is not a good way to make a comparision. espcially since they're not even at the same velocity. Sample A is clearly strummed softer and quicker. In Sample B it is blatently obvious that they dig in and take their time, that last string is lagging so far behind. The strummer may have even missed a few bass strings in sample A. Blah, sales gimics.

I noticed the same thing. I thought the Tusq sample sounded more compressed but also had more overtones. And yeah, it was louder and there was a heavier pick attack. FWIW, I vaguely preferred the bone sample.

I'm very new to Tusq: I've been playing guitar for 33 years and only met Tusq a couple of months ago. I like the compensated saddles, and both guitars I've spent time with a Tusq saddle sound fine. If I was unhappy with the sound of a guitar I'd certainly try out several different types of strings before I started monkeying with the saddle.

I have guitars with ivory, bone and Tusq saddles. I'd be hard pressed to single out how the saddle material contributes to a particular instrument's tone.

-Jonathan
http://www.e-misery.com

Jonathon - No reason not to have a compensated bone saddle.

man... way too many variables (IMO) to use something like this to prove anything... change the pick angle, strength, material... attack speed... there's one test i trust... putting both in MY guitar with the same strings... did this already with one of my guitars and it was obvious that i prefered bone for that guitar.  i've never been dissatisfied with the tone of my other guitars to even try anything but compensated bone.

They sound very similiar. The tusq clip was a little brighter with a touch more volume and sustain. Although, it took several listens to make that determination. I would be happy with either one. Both materials are far superior to plastic.

I JUST changed out my Tusq saddle for a Colosi bone in my D-09.  Noticeable difference, and the bone is definitely better.
It was a pain to shape the stupid thing though.

Quote from: mdrulez on February 21, 2006, 10:35:44 PM
I JUST changed out my Tusq saddle for a Colosi bone in my D-09.  Noticeable difference, and the bone is definitely better.
It was a pain to shape the stupid thing though.

Yeah, I did that on a all solid wood Washburn last year. It had a plactic saddle. I ordered one of Colosi's bone saddles. It took quite a bit of shaping to get it just right. Huge improvement over plastic. I'm planning to leave my tusq saddle in my L-03. I love the way it sounds right now.

Quote from: mdrulez on February 21, 2006, 10:35:44 PM
I JUST changed out my Tusq saddle for a Colosi bone in my D-09.  Noticeable difference, and the bone is definitely better.
It was a pain to shape the stupid thing though.

I did teh same thing with my D-09 about 7 months ago. It really did make a difference. I am very happy with it, but you are right...it was a pain to get teh shape just right.

Those clips are ridiculous. A single strum to judge the difference in sound? I know that's how I test out guitars. I walk up, strum them once, and then buy them.

I have used both bone and TUSQ saddles. They do sound different, and there is no right or wrong answer. But in every case, bone always sounds better to my ears.

Bone is denser than TUSQ. One quick way to tell is by sanding them down. TUSQ sands down very quickly, but bone takes some time.

I'll point out that density does not necessarily equate to good sound. If it did, people would make saddles out of lead.

neither does density equate to hardness.

Picking the samples the way they are, I prefer the bone sound. It's mellower and rounder. The Tusq sounds brigher, louder and with more sustain. But! Keep in mind that the bone, just to make an example, might sounds good on a guitar and bad on another one. For example: pick a Martin and a Gibson. They sound practically the opposite: bright and loud the first, dark and softer the second. Mounting a Tusq on Martin would only increase the volume and the already high trebles. In other words it would be to multiply its characteristics. By other hand, mounting it on the Gibson, it would to upset a little its classic "in the tube" sound.
Also, alot depends on the strings. So the sample it's good but it must get picked up for what it is.

sounds to me like they hit more strings on the second strum.

that said, i replaced tusq with a colosi bone saddle and i think it sounds better. like the others said, it's a big pain to do it, but it does sound better.

Different strokes (strums?) for different folks.

I have a new OM-03MT, came with TUSQ, ordered a colossi bone saddle to try. The guitar is new, so it might not be justified to judge tone
After running the bone for a few weeks, I thought it was starting muted (maybe this is the round tone people describe). I switched back to the TUSQ and like the brighter louder tone a bit.
Was second guessing myself, so I switched back to bone. No, it sounds nice enough but sort of like it was holding back. Switched back to Tusq.

The MT may be playing into the nature of the tone and which material transmits it better

I rekon I"ll be doing this for the next several years.
I also rekon that as the axe opens up, I will try other saddle options

I picked the Tusq (of course) but bone is definitely better in my L05.

QuoteI have a new OM-03MT, came with TUSQ, ordered a colossi bone saddle to try. The guitar is new, so it might not be justified to judge tone After running the bone for a few weeks, I thought it was starting muted (maybe this is the round tone people describe). I switched back to the TUSQ and like the brighter louder tone a bit. Was second guessing myself, so I switched back to bone. No, it sounds nice enough but sort of like it was holding back. Switched back to Tusq

Wow, that's about exactly what I did on my (now owned by Cybernator) L-03MT.  I kept thinking that bone must be better but my ears weren't buying it for that axe.

Quote from: jeremy3220 on February 18, 2006, 11:34:58 PM
One strum is not a good way to make a comparision. espcially since they're not even at the same velocity. Sample A is clearly strummed softer and quicker. In Sample B it is blatently obvious that they dig in and take their time, that last string is lagging so far behind. The strummer may have even missed a few bass strings in sample A. Blah, sales gimics.

I agree!  That was my first impression.