Inconsistencies in bone saddles.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victory Pete
  • Start date Start date
Light said:
I do.

Well, I contend that none of the commonly used materials make enough of a difference for you to actually perceive it in a real world environment when your ability to hear small changes in sound is all of about three minutes, which is far less time than it takes to change a saddle and ensure that all other factors are exactly the same.

None of which has anything to do with the thread at hand, which I intend to continue reading with a benign smirk while thinking what a waste of time it is to argue with anyone as stupid as VP.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Click to expand...

I was contending that no one had mentioned it in this thread which at the time was correct. It isn't any more of course because you have so..

..well I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You think materials are irrelevant or just the material used for a saddle?
 
muttley600 said:
I was contending that no one had mentioned it in this thread which at the time was correct. It isn't any more of course because you have so..
Click to expand...

I know, I was just being pedantic. As a local writer wrote, "Never argue with a pedant. It frustrates you, and annoys the pedant."



muttley600 said:
..well I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You think materials are irrelevant or just the material used for a saddle?
Click to expand...

Nuts and saddles. I'm not necessarily saying they don't make a difference, just that it is too subtle not to be overwhelmed by other factors. And as we have both said, totally not related to the thread.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Go start your own thread you two! Leave mine alone!
ViP
 
Last edited:
Another observation.

It has occurred to me that the reason for the different sensitivities between the bad bone saddle on the piezo pickup vs the same saddle directly on a bridge with no pickup may be simple. The saddle in direct contact with the piezo revealed the weak section of the saddle more because it is in direct contact with it, yielding a very accurate representation of the unbalanced string output. It wasnt so noticable acoustically because I beleive the wood structure of the guitar acts somewhat as a compressor/limiter in that it may tend to even out the responses of the indidvidual strings. The piezo pickup transmits the inconsistencies more directly to your ear by way of an amplifier. I have always found piezo pickups offensive in this way because every little sound, good or bad comes through the amp unmasked.
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
Go naysay and nitpick someplace else!
VP:p
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO. Too funny, why should I let you ruin an informative and accurate resource with your constant drivel. Tell you what you show me the science behind these wacky insights you keep posting and I shall consider it

As long as you keep giving the interwebs the benefit of your bullshit, I'm gonna be around here to call you out so get used to it.

You keep posting bullshit I will keeping pointing out that it is. There is one way you can help me though, cut and paste this into your signature line.

VP, #| 8ull5h1773r...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
muttley600 said:
You can use practical scientific examples of your research to back it up as it would probably reflect mine. Once you have done that you can conclude that his diagnosis of the fault was bullshit and if he actually fixed it was the result of a fortuitous and simple coincidence.,.
Click to expand...
I still have to go with VP's empirical evidence, rather than vague scientific allusions as to how it's not possible and it is a "fortuitous and simple coincidence.,.." that he fixed it with a new saddle.

He reversed the saddle and the apparent dead spot followed the reversal. He tried the saddle in a different guitar, with no pickup, with similar though muted findings.

For you to say the problem is not in the saddle is nonsense to me, especially with no explanation for what you think the problem really is.
 
crazydoc said:
I still have to go with VP's empirical evidence, rather than vague scientific allusions as to how it's not possible and it is a "fortuitous and simple coincidence.,.." that he fixed it with a new saddle.

He reversed the saddle and the apparent dead spot followed the reversal. He tried the saddle in a different guitar, with no pickup, with similar though muted findings.

For you to say the problem is not in the saddle is nonsense to me, especially with no explanation for what you think the problem really is.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of explanations. As I said I'll PM you the details happily. I'm not sharing them with VP at this point for various reasons.

I'll also PM you the blurb that several notable big brands issue to their authorised repair shops if you want any further evidence. Thats because I am authorised to carry out warranty work on them. It outlines the basics of problems that can occur when fitting or setting up transducers on their instruments. You can of course stick with the nonsense that VP claims. That is entirely your privilege and it won't do you any harm until you attempt to fix one yourself.;)
 
Victory Pete said:
It is funny though, when I swapped it end for end the weak spot was now under the A and D strings. Let me recap: Originally it was the B and G strings that were weak. I refiled the saddle, perfectly flat, no change. The I turned the saddle around, end to end. Guess what? Now the A and the D strings were weak. Conclusion: Weak spot in saddle. Outcome: Happy customer with a refitted saddle. Have a nice day!
ViP:cool:
Click to expand...

You guys mind if I make an observation here?

Victory Pete has a saddle that has a "weak spot" in it, where the peizo output is noticably lower than in other areas. He decides it's because the bone is less dense there. Muttley calls bullshit for a whole slew of reasons that he's elaborated on here.

Victory Pete then tries to defend his original claim, that differences in bone density caused this problem, by continually pointing to the fact that there was an audible difference in the saddle in the first place.

I mean, I don't think Muttley needs any help defending himself here, exactly, but to me it looks like VP is trying to prove a far-fetched diagnosis by simply pointing to the fact a problem existed in the first place, and hasn't actually brought forth any empirical evidence to show that there even was a difference in bone density in the saddle.

If something was wrong with the saddle in that position, be it bone density, be it a bad cut, be it a poor filing job, whatever, wouldn't it sort of stand to reason that the problem would continue to manifest itself regardless of what it was, if you flipped it? I don't see how the simple act of flipping it "proves" anything.
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
You guys mind if I make an observation here?

Victory Pete has a saddle that has a "weak spot" in it, where the peizo output is noticably lower than in other areas. He decides it's because the bone is less dense there. Muttley calls bullshit for a whole slew of reasons that he's elaborated on here.

Victory Pete then tries to defend his original claim, that differences in bone density caused this problem, by continually pointing to the fact that there was an audible difference in the saddle in the first place.

I mean, I don't think Muttley needs any help defending himself here, exactly, but to me it looks like VP is trying to prove a far-fetched diagnosis by simply pointing to the fact a problem existed in the first place, and hasn't actually brought forth any empirical evidence to show that there even was a difference in bone density in the saddle.

If something was wrong with the saddle in that position, be it bone density, be it a bad cut, be it a poor filing job, whatever, wouldn't it sort of stand to reason that the problem would continue to manifest itself regardless of what it was, if you flipped it? I don't see how the simple act of flipping it "proves" anything.
Click to expand...

http://archive.ampage.org/threads/5/gtgd/267349/Ribbon_transducer_question-1.html

There was no problem in the first place regarding the saddle. I had installed new frets in this guitar and the customer was curious to a bone nut and saddle. Flipping it proves it is in fact in the saddle, reseating it and refiling and checking over and over again that it is perfectly flat and square on the bottom proves it is the bone. Refitting a different piece of bone that is noticably less traslucent, almost opaque, proves it. Shall I try to take a picture of the 2 pieces in front of a light? Will some of you finally give a little consideration to the possibility bone can have weak spots?
VP
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
If something was wrong with the saddle in that position, be it bone density, be it a bad cut, be it a poor filing job, whatever, wouldn't it sort of stand to reason that the problem would continue to manifest itself regardless of what it was, if you flipped it? I don't see how the simple act of flipping it "proves" anything.
Click to expand...
Sure. I'm not locked into the density thing. I'm just saying that if the problem follows the flipping, the problem seems to be in the saddle, for what ever reason.

Muttley seems to discount the possibility that the problem lies in the saddle itself, rather than in the structures around it (although Muttley hasn't really given any explanation.)

muttley600 said:
Then explain how the timber on which it is resting doesn't play a far greater role in your conclusions seeing as how it has inherently far more inconsistency in it's physical and mechanical properties than than the bone that is adjacent to it. and also touching the piezo element.
Click to expand...

I think Muttley has let his obvious dislike of and disrespect for VP cloud this issue, with no one any wiser for it. His own explanation at the beginning of the thread would have been helpful - instead he is persisting in acting like a dick.
 
crazydoc said:
Sure. I'm not locked into the density thing. I'm just saying that if the problem follows the flipping, the problem seems to be in the saddle, for what ever reason.

Muttley seems to discount the possibility that the problem lies in the saddle itself, rather than in the structures around it (although Muttley hasn't really given any explanation.)
Click to expand...

I don't want to put words into Mutt's mouth, but I don't think he is - I agree with your assessment that, if the impacted strings really do move when the saddle is flipped (which would cause some major intonation issues, but that's neither here than there) then the problem would at a glance seem to be with the saddle (my hunch is that Victory Pete just did a poor job sanding it, and it was partially rounded off under that section, but without seeing it that's just a hunch), but then again I'm not really an expert on acoustic bridges - most of my experience has been with electrics, and I've only reshaped or swapped acoustic bridges once or twice.

I think his comment re: the timber was more, "if slight differences in the density of the bone can make such a big difference, then why don't the way bigger differences in the wood of the guitar make a more profound difference?" I.e - since they don't cause unevenness in string response, then it's reasonable to conclude that slight differences in bone density also are most likely not a material factor here.
 
Here are the pictures. I reversed the 2 saddles so no one can say it is a shadow.
 

Attachments

  • bone saddles 001.webp
    bone saddles 001.webp
    18.2 KB · Views: 82
  • bone saddles 002.webp
    bone saddles 002.webp
    18 KB · Views: 81
  • bone saddles 003.webp
    bone saddles 003.webp
    19.6 KB · Views: 77
  • bone saddles 004.webp
    bone saddles 004.webp
    18.3 KB · Views: 80
Here it is with increased contrast.
 

Attachments

  • bone-saddle1.webp
    bone-saddle1.webp
    14.5 KB · Views: 88
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top