Is changing nut and / or bridge to bone an upgrade?

[Taildragger]

Sorry, couldn't resist.... 

-mike

[Gary0319]

OK, I'll bite to get a post on this age old question.

I've tried Bone, Tusq, & Ivory on any number of Taylors I've owned. I've not kept an exact count, but about 50% of the time I've gone back to the factory Tusq. The only way to tell IMO is to try it out and see what happens. The good news is that if you do the installation yourself you will have a minimum investment in the new saddle (Bob Colosi is a good source) and can easily change back if you so desire.

My All-Mahogany GC BTO retains the Tusq, while my '94 612c sports a Fossilized Walrus. I've kept a stash of the various saddles I've tried and rejected; so now I can try them out at will.

BTW, I've never had the nut replaced, but I suspect the change in tone would be minimal when compared to a new saddle and the cost would be much more.

Give 'em a try, not much to lose.

Gary 

[Scriptor]

I'll take a bite too ... yes, bone is considered an upgrade ... however, it isn't always an improvement ...  gary pegged all the key points ... my track record with bone is:

Qty -  Description
 1   - made no perceptible improvement
 1   - adverse to tone; revert to TUSQ
 3   - made perceptible improvement; took tone from good to very good/great

[Taildragger]

Gary,

It was a joke, but thanks for biting. Now there is some history for someone that really does have the question.

I hope a lot of the old questions are asked here just to build the history and add value to the forum.

I did have the nut and saddle replaced on my 814 with Bob Colosi products. I do think it changed the tone slightly and maybe added a little sustain. The luthier I use works cheap so the nut replacement wasn't expensive and he did the work while I waited. He's not on the Taylor authorized list, but he does a lot of Taylor warranty work. I haven't figured that arrangement out yet.

It was an interesting experiment, I'm not sure I would do it again.

-mike

[forhim]

I've heard of artists who actually prefer the tusq of over the bone.  If one were to do a simple drop test the tusq would sound very different from the bone...much brighter.

The bone is not as bright and I believe this carries over into the tonal properties each one produces.

Bone, though is much harder and more durable...some players I've heard of use the bone saddle live and then switch back to tusq when not plugged in and hammering their guitar.  I don't do this though.

Apparently, if one were to do a drop test with bone against ivory...there would be many more similarities.

Is it an upgrade...sure if you like the sound it produces...but like anything else...it could just be considered bling if one does it just say that's what they have.

I bought a bone nut and saddle for my Taylor 414ce-LTD and opted to stick with the tusq just because I'm in love with the sound as is.

[Brian Swerdfeger @ Taylor]

For me and my hands, it's not.

Bone is too inconsistent, and my hands are on the bright side - so bone and I are not compatible on most guitars.

Like others have posted above, it's subjective and up to you (and you alone). It's like trying different brands and types of strings - your experience will wary from others, and only your ears (and hands) can decide.

I would say choose whatever material inspires you to play longer.

[andyi5]

I think it's great to rediscuss questions like this and get fresh input. One of the reasons for the high volume of posts on the old forum was the very wide range of discussions and points of view, from very old hands to absolute newbies.

On my GSmini, I've flipped around the Nubone saddle with a bone saddle a few times - sometimes the bone sounds really nice, with more shimmer and sustain, though sometimes it sounds to me harsh and unpleasing. Perhaps it also depends on the strings I've got on - right now some D'Addario mediums, though I'll go back to the coated Elixir's pretty soon, they sound definitely better.

Incidently, I've never been quite clear why Nubone as opposed to Tusq was chosen for the GSmini (I think it's the only Taylor to use this material).

[michaelw]

i'm guessing that perhaps NuBone is manufactured to closely simulate the
density/tone of ... bone & Tusq is supposedly closer to ivory (albeit synthetic)

perhaps, the Mini sounded a bit too 'assertive' with Tusq with the scale length &
string gauge being used & they had better results going to NuBone (warmer?)

using bone on some guitar (00 414mace & 98 414ce), i didn't like the results -
i have a pretty aggressive attack & bone lacked the 'crispness' & definition (imho)

i switched those back to Tusq & was happy -
i like fwi on 'darker' cedar rosewoodesque sounding guitars &
i've swapped ebony pins out for Tusq on an engelmann/maple GA,
just to give it a little more 'accent' (the tone is still 's-m-o-o-t-h )

[andyi5]

The Nubone definitely works on the GSmini, but did sound extremely shrill when I popped it in the Baby Taylor. The Tusq in the Mini was ok, but I feel the Nubone's perhaps the best all rounder. When I use bone in it and play open chords it can sound beautiful, but gets a little dead up the fretboard. Still exploring it though.

Btw - feel very privileged to get a response from a "junior member" - perhaps the only one on the forum at this stage!!?

[michaelw]

The Nubone definitely works on the GSmini, but did sound extremely shrill when I popped it in the Baby Taylor. The Tusq in the Mini was ok, but I feel the Nubone's perhaps the best all rounder. When I use bone in it and play open chords it can sound beautiful, but gets a little dead up the fretboard. Still exploring it though.

Btw - feel very privileged to get a response from a "junior member" - perhaps the only one on the forum at this stage!!?

that's interesting - i've never though to try that, but perhaps the even shorter scale (22.75") &
light gauge strings on the Baby (vs the mediums on the Mini) might possibly have an effect also

i had a couple of solid top guitars that came with very soft plastic saddles in them -
when i dropped the saddle on plate glass, it made a dull 'thud', whereas a Tusq saddle has more of a chimey 'ringing' tone &
when i changed it to a harder saddle material, the tone was quite a bit brighter, verging on the point of being 'strident'

i didn't care for that, so i put the original saddle back in it - i did change the bridge pins to ebony (not for tone),
just because i personally find that plastic pins can be more difficult to remove, especially on a rosewood bridge

andy, you made a good observation & a good point -
thanks for the follow up with some really good info

good to have you here

[DMBfan41]

I've always wondered the same so I'm thankful for the honest, non-joking replies here.

I've considered upgrading the bridge on my RW 414.  Worst case, if I didn't like the tone, I could always switch back pretty painlessly.

IMO, I feel the bridge pin upgrade to be purely aesthetic.  I think once the string breaks the bridge, the pin would hold little bearing (no pun intended) on tone.  I could be wrong of course.

[michaelw]

i agree that bridge pins may have a marginal effect on tone,
although on guitars with pinless bridges, they would do absolutely nil

in terms of having the potential to produce a change in tone in order of diminishing returns, for me, is the pick (material &
thickness) if used, followed by the strings, saddle, nut (more so when open strings are played) & then the bridge pins -
i've tried difference ones (faux tortoiseshell, brass, Tusq) & various guitars have come with plastic, rosewood & ebony

there are bridge pins made of exotic materials that command a premium price & that there are also titanium &
aluminum pins out there & i think that the mass & hardness of the pins can have some effect, albeit minimal

brass pins being the heaviest can have a dampening (warming) effect, although having that much mass at the bridge
might be detrimental to tone (& the possibility of leaving a nice ding on the top if one were happened to be dropped

titanium would most likely be the stiffest & lightest, offering the most direct/unobtrusive connection of string & bridge

a soft material like plastic may have a dampening effect as well, more due to the density of the matieral as opposed to
weight, something along the lines similar to some of the acoustic strings that have a felt/cloth winding just above the ball end

there may be some 'camps' that feel the bridge pins should be the same material as the bridge & fretboard,
(macassar ebony pins would look especially nice. imho) while others have a matched bridge pin, saddle & nut 'set'

at any rate, there are many pins options that allow experimentation, some at a relatively low cost -
i have a set of black Tusq bridge pins with paua dot inlays on a blueburst 614cL2 engelmann because i like the
slight 'crispness' they provide & the aesthetics match the paua rosette/top purfling & fretboard inlays as well

[cjd-player]

I once had a W14ce (cedar on walnut) and I replaced the original Tusq with bone.  I did not like the tone as well, so I went back to the Tusq.

So I agree, as stated above, that it is not necessarily an upgrade.  I believe it depends upon the individual guitar. 

[dkoloff]

I swap out the guitar before I get a chance to swap out the bridge......

[S MS Picker]

Fit in the slot is the most important factor in saddle sound(imho). I've built dozens of saddles out of almost as many materials.
In a new guitar the slot and saddle are both flat at the bottom,ie great fit. In older instruments the bottom of the slot conforms to the top arch as much as the saddle allows(the saddles will warp along w/the slot also). I've routed the slot flat numerous times when I couldn't get a good fit/sound any other way.
I've also used Play Dough to see how bad the slot was bent.Sometimes just a few swipes on sandpaper will match them up & there's that elusive sweet spot.
Steve