Steel Saddles vs Brass Saddles on a Telecaster. Tonal differences?

[AJ Love]

Thoughts on the differences between Steel Saddles and Brass Saddles, please?

On the Glendale page, he describes it as Brass having a more balanced tone while Steel adds an extrea Midrange and a funky "Jerry Reed" type tone. Has that been your experience as well?

I'm considering putting Steel Saddles on a '52 RI.... do any of you have experience using Steel Saddles on a Vintage or Vintage Reissue Telecaster?

[Roe]

steel is much brighter. good for the wound strings

[Big Steve]

I have the Glendale Outlaw saddle set on two guitar (Hardened steel for the E&A string and brass for the rest). The steel adds a little extra bite to the E&A strings. It is a very noticable difference compared to the brass sadddles. I have also tride the aluminum E&A saddle that is a twangier sound. I found the descriptions on the Glendale site to be right on.

[Mark Davis]

With the steel the sound seems to get to your ears quicker the attack is quicker. The brass is a more mellow sound. THis is way more evident at bedroom levels than at stage levels cause on stage with the drums bass and other things playing you cant hear the difference at all.

[fenderfreak1]

I've got steel and brass on various teles/esquires and find the steel to have a bit more sparkle on top and ring factor. The brass is mellower on top but not lacking, just a little less than the steel. For low end twang, steel or the aforementioned aluminum soung killer on your lower strings. I've never had stainless saddles so I can't comment on them, I've always ordered heat-treated steel.

[Jim.Collins]

I have a couple of Teles. Each has an ash body, just as your 52RI has. One of mine has a round lam rosewood board, and the other has maple board, though it differs from your 52RI in that mine has the maple board glued onto a maple neck, whereas yours has a one-peice maple neck. These guitars are not Fenders, but clones made by a well-respected builder.

I have customized these guitars, a little. The rosewood board has a Glendale non-magnetic bridge with heat-treated steel saddles, and the maple board Tele has a Glendale magnetic bridge. The Glendale magnetic bridge is a little different from the bridge you have on your 52RI. The maple board guitar currently has Glendale's brass saddles, but I used to have Glendale's heat-treated steel saddles on it. The brass is a little more mellow than the steel. I've been toying with the idea of putting the steel saddles back on there, just to get a better feel for the difference.

The non-magnetic bridge and heat-treated steel saddles are staying on the rosewood board Tele. They are just too good, on that one.

[genelovesjez]

Paging Mythbusters...

[Jim.Collins]

Originally Posted by genelovesjez

Paging Mythbusters...

Does this mean you don't think there is a difference?

[Ed Bickert]

Conventional wisdom simply says that hardened steel is a "harder" metal than brass. That being said, it should be brighter sounding. Sort of like the craze in the 80's where they used steel nuts.

It's not a myth. Just swap them around for yourself. I found the differences to be fairly obvious. I play squeaky-clean though. No overdrive at all. If you're overdriving the hell out of it, just get whatever looks best to you.

Is there a difference? Yes. Steel will be brighter than brass. But that doesn't mean you'll notice it.

If you want a warmer sound, go for brass. Want a brighter, rock-ish sound, go for steel. But I'm sure it's all a matter of personal taste. If you actually have a preference from a visual standpoint, just get what you think looks best. The differences probably won't be so great that you'll wish you got the other.

[Arlo]

Here is a combination you won't see too often.


(click the pic for a closer view)

Aluminum = E/A
Steel = D/G
Brass = B/E

It's an interesting combo and it seems that the guitar is really crispy clean sounding. I can't say that I hear a whole lot of difference between each of the saddles. But the guitar is very light weight and has a really nice twang. Great for country stuff.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by Jim.Collins

Does this mean you don't think there is a difference?

This is another one of those ideas that gets passed around like it's an established fact, despite the fact that the only evidence to support it is anecdotal and unscientific.

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by AJ Love

Thoughts on the differences between Steel Saddles and Brass Saddles, please?

On the Glendale page, he describes it as Brass having a more balanced tone while Steel adds an extrea Midrange and a funky "Jerry Reed" type tone. Has that been your experience as well?

I'm considering putting Steel Saddles on a '52 RI.... do any of you have experience using Steel Saddles on a Vintage or Vintage Reissue Telecaster?

I've swapped them one saddle at a time and back and forth between Glendale brass and Glendale stainless steel. I hear more treble, a trebly edge to the attack of the note, and stronger mids with stainless steel compared to the brass.

I've tried them on my Classic Series '50s Tele, Classic Series '69 Thinline and several Squier Standard Teles.

You can't hear the tone without some type of saddle so I think it's relative and a matter of your perspective whether steel adds treble and mids, or brass takes away treble and mids.

The best way for you to know the truth of this is to consider everything Glendale and everyone else says about the subject with objectivity, and try them out for yourself.

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by Arlo

Aluminum = E/A
Steel = D/G
Brass = B/E

A different combination than the ones on the Tele in this thread!

I haven't tried an aluminum E/A yet. I have one Tele with stainless steel on the E/A and D/G and brass on the B/E. I had all stainless steel and wanted to tone down the treble on the B/E, and the brass seemed to do the trick.

[giantslayer]

My thoughts on it are as follows: They make a difference in the sound that the guitar produces acoustically. They probably don't make much of a difference in the signal that gets passed through to the amp. So if you're playing in your bedroom, the acoustic sound of your guitar is very noticable and, hence, to your ears, the saddles make a significant difference. If you are playing, say, at a larger venue or recording, then I imagine the difference is small and/or psychological.

However, this is all theoretical as I have no experience around this.

[PeteMac]

Hey Arlo,
Is that the set-up you use on the Pinecaster?

If so - that is the SWEETEST sound. Listening to Lone Pine I just marveled at the note separation and the clarity of each note. (of course it is blatently obvious that your playing is just superb!)

[chickshannon]

Originally Posted by genelovesjez

This is another one of those ideas that gets passed around like it's an established fact, despite the fact that the only evidence to support it is anecdotal and unscientific.

a big +1 on that my friend.....as large a jar of clever marketing snake oil as brass nuts ( oooh 'er..), the mammoth tusk type crap bridge pins on acoustics, and gold tipped jack plugs.

And in a blindfold test how many people could tell one body wood from another !!!?
When alls said and done, there are so many other physical factors affecting the emergent sound that surely it's unscientific to suggest that bridge saddle material makes any difference ...unless one really wants it too. Even if by some stretch of the imagination it did, look at the differences between one persons setup and another.
Fingers or picks ? Make of string ? String materials ? Heaviness of attack ? Type and manufacturer of pickup ? Tone settings ? Type and maker of amp ? Ditto speakers ? Even the room you're in ? How much beer have you drunk....
C'mon !!!!
The only reason I'm changing to brass from steel is the brass I've ordered are compensated......( and like the fickle old slapper I am...they do...er...look nice...)
I wait for the flame............

Yrs Inflammably,
Chick

[AJ Love]

No flame from me, but I do think everything has an effect on tone (yes, including "Fingers or picks ? Make of string ? String materials ? Heaviness of attack ? Type and manufacturer of pickup ? Tone settings ? Type and maker of amp ? Ditto speakers ? Even the room you're in ? How much beer have you drunk....")

When I tried Brass saddles on my '72 Custom (which comes stock with Steel saddles) the guitar had more of a balanced tone and was much more mellow... with the Steel is has more Midrange and more "snarl". I wouldn't say that the brightness is more Trebly, it seems more Midrange and Upper Mids... I like that tone alot

So I figured I'd experiment with Steel on a '52 RI, as well as ask folks here what their experience has been. I was surprised how much of a difference the saddle material seemed to make

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by PeteMac

Hey Arlo,
Is that the set-up you use on the Pinecaster?

If so - that is the SWEETEST sound. Listening to Lone Pine I just marveled at the note separation and the clarity of each note. (of course it is blatently obvious that your playing is just superb!)

The set in the picture above is on my "Barncaster" which is also made out of Pine. That one is 100 year old recycled barn wood. It is not the guitar I used on Lone Pine though. And without hijacking this thread you can read more about it and the audio sample here.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/twanger-c...ight=lone+pine

In some respects though it would seem to have some relevance to this thread in that I did use the Glendale "Twang" set on the Lone Pine song.



I do think that every component of a guitar has a significant role in it's subsequent tone. Debate has been ongoing about the subtle differences between woods and components for a long time.

You can put a guitar in 10 different players hands and it will sound different for each if that player is capable of utilizing it's potential.

I personally feel that the Glendale saddles make a lot of difference. Not only in the tone but in the playability and the sustain. The strings feel more vibrant and alive on my guitars with Glenn's. Opinion's will vary on this particular issue and one has to respect these opinion's as they come from people like yourselves who have experience in the field.

This thread would have been better named:

"The Conjecture of Guitar Saddle Metallurgy"

a Conjecture is a statement which appears likely to be true, but has not been formally proven to be true under the rules of logic. Once a conjecture is formally proven true it is elevated to the status of theorem and may be used afterwards without risk in the construction of other formal proofs. Until that time, experts may use the conjecture on a provisional basis, but any resulting work is itself conjectural until the underlying conjecture is cleared up.


Metallurgy is a domain of materials science and of materials engineering that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements, their intermetallic compounds, and their mixtures, which are called alloys.

A lot of conjecture about scientific fact and show me the proof, is all good as opinion, but like most coin's it has two sides.

Show me the scientific proof and the documented fact that they don't make a difference.

I cannot prove that it does so I am only weighing in with my opinion as a qualified expert that:

"In my opinion it does make a difference what type of saddle you use. Further, that the saddle(s) can and do, in my opinion, contribute to the eventual tonal quality of a guitar. In my opinion based on my experience, all physical aspects of the construction should be considered relevant to the issue."

Is the above statement true and correct based on scientific fact? Hardly.

It is an opinion and like a certain part's of the human anatomy everyone has one.

I think the jury will be out a long time on this one guys.

[byrdbrain]

Well put, Arlo.
I would say that, though, since I've bought two sets of Glendales
just recently – one Twang set and one stainless steel ;-)

[TG]

I've swapped saddles in and out several times and I think there is a difference. It's subtle, but it's there.
Steel goes zing where brass goes zang.

Every bit of a guitar contributes to its sound...even when amplified. There's more to amplified sound than just the pickups sensing a bit of string. Otherwise you could stick Gibson humbuckers on any body/neck combination and sound like a Les Paul.
Nut material, saddle material, body and neck woods.....all will resonate and transfer energy differently.

[herbman]

Have a friend who gigs regularly and saw his band about two weeks ago. One guitar he gigs with is a '62 reissue Tele custom MIJ. After the first set I asked him why his Tele sounded different. He changed to brass saddles. I could hear the difference right away. More clarity and punch.
H

[Brent Hutto]

There are an awful lot of questions of the form "Is there any difference between [some thing] and [some other thing]?" for which the correct answer is not "Yes" or "No". The correct answer is often "It is impossible to tell whether there is a difference or not". I'm pretty sure the steel versus brass saddle question falls into this category.

The fact that somebody changes saddles and claims to hear a difference means absolutely nothing in terms of answering this question. He might be hearing any number of differences caused by things other than the material the saddle is made from. Or maybe he's imaging a difference that isn't there.

Likewise the fact that somebody else listens to guitar[s] with two different saddles and says there's no difference means absolutely nothing. Maybe there is some other thing obscuring the difference or maybe they don't make a difference on that particular guitar or maybe he's just got a tin ear and can't hear a difference that is there.

In theory you could construct a double blind test and repeat it dozens of times under each of a myriad of possible conditions. But that's such an artificial setup that the results don't generalize to whatever real-world difference might or might not exist. A reductio ad absurdum of this approach would be take one piece of brass and one piece of steel, suspended by a thread and tap it with a mallet. That would certainly tell you if brass and steel "sound alike" but it has nothing to do with the sound of a guitar.

In my opinion any valid attempt to answer the question about brass and steel guitar saddles is doomed by the same problem as the absurd example of tapping metal with a mallet. It's either totally subjective (i.e. the question can not be answered) or the answer is based on a totally bogus set of assumptions.

[Arlo]

There are ways to measure tonal frequency changes spectrographically for voice examinations using exemplars. A standard of methodology could be used to do the same in this instance. This coupled with other established methods could be the basis of a forensic examination of the tonal differences.





I have a colleague who is the worlds leading voice examination, forensic audio and video expert in NJ. His name is Tom Owen and like myself is a forensic audio expert. Tom trained me in forensic authentication and enhancement of analog and digital audio and the methodology and rules of evidence used in forming opinions as an expert. Tom is also a guitar player and has written several guitar books. If anyone could prove or disprove that there are differences in tone using accepted and established methodology of forensic science it would be him.

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/for...l#spectrograph

It would be interesting to see just what the differences would look like spectrographically.

"Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs".136

So, reading the above rule how could we establish a set of principals to examine this or any other aspect of guitar frequency analysis? I think we all here at the TDPRI qualify as the "community" that could establish a basis for analytical examination, principals and methodology for such rules.

You have to wonder if Fender has already invested money in the study. After all why would Fender make Steel and Brass saddles? As a business if it made no difference why would you waste corporate dollars?

And now we have the Titanium saddles emerging into the market. Has anyone tried them?

Man, it gets slow here at the lab this time of the year

[Brent Hutto]

Arlo,

I think you could use technology to see the difference, if any, between two sound samples. The problem is in a real world test to distinguish between a claim like "the difference is due to the brass saddles" versus any number of alternative explanations of the difference.

Let's take you for example. You're a pretty accomplished guitar player and you've got a lot of technique at your disposal for creating the sound you want. Let's say I give you two guitars, one with brass saddles and the other with steel (or it could be the same guitar before and after a saddle swap).

If you expect there to be a difference, I'd bet a nickel that a spectrographic analysis will show a difference between you playing the brass saddle and you playing the steel one. Now was it inherent in the saddle material or did you just play the two guitars differently in some subtle way?

OTOH, if you start out totally convinced there will be no difference I'd bet that same nickel that a spectrogram would show no difference because your technique is sufficient to compensate for the subtle differences between brass and steel saddles on the same guitar.

In other words, there's a feedback loop that involves the guitar and the player's ears and the player's technique and that loop will tend to converge on whatever sound the player wants or expects to hear (assuming the presence of some talent of course).

So the only kind of answer this question admits is the kind mentioned in the paragraph you quoted

...to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

In other words, if just about every good guitar player will tell you that brass saddles are warmer (or whatever the concensus might be) then that should be a good enough answer. Or if just about every good player says it's snake oil I'll tend to believe it. But on this topic the "field" seems to have mixed feelings about it.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto

Arlo,

I think you could use technology to see the difference, if any, between two sound samples. The problem is in a real world test to distinguish between a claim like "the difference is due to the brass saddles" versus any number of alternative explanations of the difference.

Let's take you for example. You're a pretty accomplished guitar player and you've got a lot of technique at your disposal for creating the sound you want. Let's say I give you two guitars, one with brass saddles and the other with steel (or it could be the same guitar before and after a saddle swap).

If you expect there to be a difference, I'd bet a nickel that a spectrographic analysis will show a difference between you playing the brass saddle and you playing the steel one. Now was it inherent in the saddle material or did you just play the two guitars differently in some subtle way?

OTOH, if you start out totally convinced there will be no difference I'd bet that same nickel that a spectrogram would show no difference because your technique is sufficient to compensate for the subtle differences between brass and steel saddles on the same guitar.

In other words, there's a feedback loop that involves the guitar and the player's ears and the player's technique and that loop will tend to converge on whatever sound the player wants or expects to hear (assuming the presence of some talent of course).

So the only kind of answer this question admits is the kind mentioned in the paragraph you quoted

In other words, if just about every good guitar player will tell you that brass saddles are warmer (or whatever the concensus might be) then that should be a good enough answer. Or if just about every good player says it's snake oil I'll tend to believe it. But on this topic the "field" seems to have mixed feelings about it.

Brent,

Your post is right on the money and poses additional questions of how to eliminate any form of bias. You could speculate that it would be better served if the tests were done mechanically and not by human interference.

In other words somehow create a way to pluck the strings so that they were done exactly the same with each subsequent test. And not by a human with a pick. And only one guitar with the saddles only changed.

It is reasoning like yours that would be very helpful in establishing a set of guidelines.

There would be no easy answering these questions. Going in with a pre conceived notion that A. They Do. or B. They Don't as an expert to form an opinion is in it's self problematic.

I would suggest using a non musician for the analysis? Someone with nothing to gain but several thousand dollars and no bias either way.

One other thing, Dale at Glendale could be considered an expert in the production and engineering of saddles and bridges. Should this disqualify his opinions since he profits from the technology that he has helped to establish? I say no. His is crucial and should be considered even though there will certainly be bias. He is an expert in this field. Should he be in charge of the analysis? Probably not and nor should anyone else who has formed an opinion on the subject. Including myself. Yet that shouldn't disqualify me from discussion. Which I am sure that you are not saying here, but I felt that it was important to address.

[AJ Love]

It probably would be tough to do a scientific study wouldn't it? Too many variables. I would imagine that different pickups could change the parameters alot (some might sound better with brass for some styles and vice versa)...

I think with parts you can head in certain tonal directions though: i.e. steel with A3 pickups with Ash/Maple as opposed to brass with A5 pickups etc etc

[Tom S]

Gee, I was doing my best to avoid this thread, but I really can't resist injecting a comment or two (or many).

First, I have to say that it's nice to see some healthy skepticism expressed, and some intelligent discussion on both sides of this issue. It's probably obvious that I'm in the skeptic's camp myself, if you've read any of my other posts related to these issues.

I am of the opinion that just about every part of a solid-body electric guitar probably has some affect on the sound of the guitar. (I am pretty much convinced, at this point, that strap buttons and their screws, volume and tone knobs, switch tips, and probably pickguards, have no sonic roles, although I'm sure someone will argue that I'm wrong.) The question in my mind is, "What is the sonic contribution of a given component and how prominent or obvious is it?" When I read about the dramatic and obvious (and apparently specific) sonic qualities of this saddle material or that, my skepticism meter starts fluttering somewhere near the "extreme" level.

Why? Because while others describe these qualities with great conviction and in certain detail, I am convinced that no one could tell the difference between any saddle materials in a suitable blind test (which is theoretically possible to perform, yet would prove very difficult to actually do, IMO). Chick already alluded to this and listed some of the reasons why:

Originally Posted by chickshannon

And in a blindfold test how many people could tell one body wood from another !!!?
When alls said and done, there are so many other physical factors affecting the emergent sound that surely it's unscientific to suggest that bridge saddle material makes any difference ...unless one really wants it too.

Yes, the placebo effect is a very powerful effect.

Arlo, you have made some interesting and some balanced comments, but I have to take issue with some of them.

Originally Posted by Arlo

You can put a guitar in 10 different players hands and it will sound different for each if that player is capable of utilizing it's potential.

In style yes, but if you asked each of them to simply pluck an open A or a fretted G on the 8th fret of the B string (or whatever), using the same pick and similar attack, and the same guitar and amp settings, the sound should be virtually identical from player to player. Therefore, the inherent sound of the guitar doesn't change.

Originally Posted by Arlo

This thread would have been better named:

"The Conjecture of Guitar Saddle Metallurgy"

a Conjecture is a statement which appears likely to be true...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that these sonic characteristics often attributed to saddle materials have even met this criteria.

Originally Posted by Arlo

A lot of conjecture about scientific fact and show me the proof, is all good as opinion, but like most coin's it has two sides.

Show me the scientific proof and the documented fact that they don't make a difference.

Oh no...it doesn't work that way! Lack of evidence against the existence of something is not evidence that it does exist. That's the same as saying that ghosts must exist because you can't prove they don't. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is always incumbent upon the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, never the other way around.


Brent, I agree with you almost entirely, although I differ a bit with your statement:

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto

In theory you could construct a double blind test and repeat it dozens of times under each of a myriad of possible conditions. But that's such an artificial setup that the results don't generalize to whatever real-world difference might or might not exist.

Assuming this test was constructed and performed properly (assuming it could be done), it should, in fact, mimic real-world conditions, i.e., people can either easily discern the difference or not. That's the bottom line, isn't it?

Further, to Arlo's comment, all the forensic evidence in the world wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if the sonic qualities were not easily discernable by people's ears. The evidence on paper would be, for all intents and purposes, irrelevent.

If, in fact, the only way to conclusively demonstrate the sonic differences between saddle materials is through the use of a spectrograph (as I believe it is), how relevent can those differences be to the sound coming out of your amp? In other words, you shouldn't need to measure them with such refined equipment, because if you listen to what many say, the differences are obvious, often dramatic, and easily defined! But in the aforementioned blind test, I am firmly convinced that no one could identify the differences with any real accuracy, to any degree better than chance, i.e., ~50% of the time.

Another related point that's worth mentioning is that there is no accepted definition of what constitutes "trebly," "mids," "warmth," "twang," or any number of other sonic terminology, insofar as it relates to what people subjectively percieve. But that's really another discussion.

Originally Posted by Arlo

One other thing, Dale at Glendale could be considered an expert in the production and engineering of saddles and bridges. Should this disqualify his opinions since he profits from the technology that he has helped to establish? I say no. His is crucial and should be considered even though there will certainly be bias. He is an expert in this field.

What qualifies him as an expert? I don't know Dale, and I have no grudge against him (I use his saddles), but I don't see how he has provided any evidence whatsoever to validate his desciptions of the tonal qualities of his products. (Although he doesn't appear to be making any claims of being an expert in sonic analysis, either.) So I take any of his sonic descriptions as expected marketing (and I don't really hold that against him). He makes nice saddles, though, at least from the standpoint of their quality of machining and utility, IMO.

Sorry Arlo, I don't mean to pick on you in this post, really I don't, it's just that you have contributed more to comment on. On the contrary, I appreciate your intelligent discussion. And regardless of my positions on this issue, I'd like to add that whatever you are doing in terms of saddles or anything else, it comes through as really enjoyable music from an obviously very talented player. (But I suspect that you'd make the crappiest saddles in existence sound pretty damn good. In fact, I'm sure of it.)

Thanks for the interesting discussion, folks.

[Jim.Collins]

I was an early responder to this thread. I simply stated what I heard, when I made some changes. I don't claim the differences I heard would be heard by everyone, or even anyone, else. Our ears are not the only elements that are involved in the appreciation of sound. Our brains are very involved. One person's ear/brain might be more sensitive to certain frequencies than another's, yet that same person may be less sensitive to other frequencies. It works that way for all of our senses. My sense of smell is all but useless. Most smells I can't perceive, even those that will drive my wife up a wall. There are a few smells, though, that I can readily detect, and my wife will not perceive even the slightest wiff.

[johnspierce]

I think you would need two things: a control sample on say, a 52RI with a mechanical arm to do the picking on each string. Recorded into basically any computer program which will show the waveform. Then, change the saddles and run the test again, using the same strings. Without something mechanical and repeatable to do the picking, there would be too much variation.

Last night a friend of mine was playing the same lead line I just played on my Tele and the difference in tone is rather astounding considering everything else was exactly the same.

I could do all of the above except the mechanical arm thing... :)

JP

[Tom S]

Originally Posted by Jim.Collins

I was an early responder to this thread. I simply stated what I heard, when I made some changes. I don't claim the differences I heard would be heard by everyone, or even anyone, else. Our ears are not the only elements that are involved in the appreciation of sound. Our brains are very involved. One person's ear/brain might be more sensitive to certain frequencies than another's, yet that same person may be less sensitive to other frequencies. It works that way for all of our senses. My sense of smell is all but useless. Most smells I can't perceive, even those that will drive my wife up a wall. There are a few smells, though, that I can readily detect, and my wife will not perceive even the slightest wiff.

I don't argue with any of what you've said. It actually makes my point to a degree, because in the final analysis, we can only go by our individual perceptions of these things. When someone asks a question like "What is the tonal difference between brass and steel saddles," there is really no way that person can be answered with any definitive, or frankly, useful information.

We can only post our own subjective impressions, which may differ significantly from what the inquirer will perceive (given what you've said, and the vast possible differences in other equipment), and therefore that information is of questionable value. But if that's all we can provide, then fine, that's what a forum is for. When a manufacturer makes sonic claims on a website, however, it's another story. That's because it is not presented as opinion but as fact: "This provides this tonal quality." Yet no manufacturer has ever published anything to substantiate these tonal qualities. So the phrase "take it with a grain of salt" should be on everyone's mind when they read this stuff.

[Buckocaster51]

I think we're acting a lot like wine-tasters here...

Back when I was studying physics I fell in with a professor that was also a musician (come to think of it, almost everybody I know in physics plays or really enjoys music) and I convinced him to let me do a senior project that dealt with analyzing the sound of a guitar.

Granted, this was in the '70s, and affordable digital technology just didn't exist, but gee kids...there proved to be just too many variables. We couldn't figure out how to reproduce ONE sound reliably. Trying to get the same "setup" after we had carved a brace (I was trying to look at how scalloping the top braces of a flattop changed the frequency response of the guitar) proved to be impossible. We got results that I "thought" I could see, but they were not really there. It was the "placebo effect" in action.

I have long since decided to set up guitars so they play and sound good to me and try to avoid as much of the woo-woo as I can.

As Ron Kirn keeps reminding us is his ever so succinct way, there ain't nothing that practicing can't fix.

Or something like that.

[marc sosnoff]

wow thing thread has opened wide i wish i could give my opinions from
epxerience but i cant because my parts tele is the only tele i have had
and its got brass saddles i have ordered glendales but they will have brass also i would think the theres more than the saddles to the discussion

doesnt the base plate along with the saddles have a bearing also the pickups that are being used the strings too and the wood and nut

for example if the guitar has a brass nut maybe brass saddles are better or worse than stainless steel or alder instead of ash body may sound best with one or the other etc etc magnetic or non magnetic base plate

i think that you most look into the whole recipe of the guitar and the type or way you will be using the guitar teles are brighter guitars in general than others for me i play mostly jazz and some blues i want my tele to sound like a tele but i want it on the side of mellow less bright sustain more thang twang when i picked the pickups and electronics and wood i thought about all these things i never only thought how one thing like saddles for affect the tone i tried to think about how each thing will work together

marc

[Arlo]

I tried really hard to stay out of this thread too.

I wrote two posts yesterday and trashed em. I take no offense to any of your post Tom on the contrary I welcome it. It is part of the discussion and it is valid and reasonable.

I still think that Dale qualifies in many ways as an expert on this particular subject. Again that is only my opinion based on the fact that he has had to do some amount of research in the matter other than building a website and selling saddles and bridges. He is certainly not the only expert but one.

[Tom S]

Originally Posted by Arlo

I tried really hard to stay out of this thread too.

I wrote two posts yesterday and trashed em. I take no offense to any of your post Tom on the contrary I welcome it. It is part of the discussion and it is valid and reasonable.

I still think that Dale qualifies in many ways as an expert on this particular subject. Again that is only my opinion based on the fact that he has had to do some amount of research in the matter other than building a website and selling saddles and bridges. He is certainly not the only expert but one.

So I'm not the only one who writes posts then decides to can them?

It's been fun chatting, Arlo. On the Dale thing, as I said, I don't know the guy and have never spoken to him personally (ouside of an email order), so I don't know what his qualifications are. I didn't see anything regarding any research on his site, so I can only assume there isn't any. No surprise, and if there were, it would be the first I'd ever seen from anyone. So it's not as if he's doing something that everybody else isn't also doing.

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by AJ Love

When I tried Brass saddles on my '72 Custom (which comes stock with Steel saddles) the guitar had more of a balanced tone and was much more mellow... with the Steel is has more Midrange and more "snarl". I wouldn't say that the brightness is more Trebly, it seems more Midrange and Upper Mids... I like that tone alot

So I figured I'd experiment with Steel on a '52 RI, as well as ask folks here what their experience has been. I was surprised how much of a difference the saddle material seemed to make

AJ, is yours an MIA AV '52, or one of the CIJs? With factory stock straight brass saddles? Which brass saddles did you try on your '72 Custom? Which steel ones are you considering for your '52?

[Arlo]

I think Buck has it right. We are a bunch of wine tasters, well, OK I am tasting Coors Lite right now.

Hey did somebody say Happy Holidays?

[chickshannon]

I know you mentioned this further back in the discussion Arlo....but I think it needs saying again. It's just a gentle observation, but might someone involved in the production and marketing of such beautifully made and undeniably expensive after-market products, possibly not be the most objective or unbiased of " experts "......?

P.S. .....your Wichita Linesman by the way is brilliant....especially for something apparently done on the spur of the moment. Great production too.

[Arlo]

Tom and Chic, thank you for the compliments on my guitar playing. That means a lot to me and I do appreciate it guys.

I guess I look at this from a bit of a different perspective when it comes to experts. Because a person is knowledgeable about a subject, to me, they would certainly potentially have expertise above and beyond that of the average person. Here is what Wiki says:

An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, profession, publication or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion.

To say that Dale does not fit the criteria based on the fact that he profits from that "special knowledge" would be unfair. The word "profession" is in the first sentence.

Please try to understand Tom and Chic that I only stated that he would qualify not be the only or the best expert in the world. In fact reading my statement again I don't see why it causes alarm other than the fact that he makes money off the subject. I do think he would be a biased witness, but that still shouldn't disqualify his input as valid in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Arlo

One other thing, Dale at Glendale could be considered an expert in the production and engineering of saddles and bridges. Should this disqualify his opinions since he profits from the technology that he has helped to establish? I say no. His is crucial and should be considered even though there will certainly be bias. He is an expert in this field. Should he be in charge of the analysis? Probably not and nor should anyone else who has formed an opinion on the subject. Including myself. Yet that shouldn't disqualify me from discussion. Which I am sure that you are not saying here, but I felt that it was important to address.

My thoughts were only to include him in the discussion.

Do any of you know for certain that he has not experimented with metals, engineered, studied, tested, recorded or any other reasonable form of gaining knowledge for basing his claims?

Let me say this, I do not know Dale at all. I just use his saddles and his bridges.

I do not claim that he has experimented with metals, engineered, studied, tested, recorded or any other reasonable form of gaining knowledge for basing his claims, but your argument(s) seems to be based on his profiting from his product. If I am wrong please tell me. I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment of Dale, of me, or anyone else who thinks that they do make a difference. But you have not convinced me that they do not. And I doubt that I have convinced anyone that that they do based on my opinion.

Tom made the best argument on my whole sch-peel:

Originally Posted by Tom S

Oh no...it doesn't work that way! Lack of evidence against the existence of something is not evidence that it does exist. That's the same as saying that ghosts must exist because you can't prove they don't. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is always incumbent upon the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, never the other way around.

Yet, it still doesn't provide a logical explanation of why it doesn't make a difference. Therefore my question stands. It should be proven by extraordinary evidence so that extraordinary claims to the contrary can be disproved.

My writing skills are not the best guys and I think I write part of my thoughts and too much of them at times. This debate could really go on for ever, kinda like the dreaded relic one.

I have been lately buying other brands of compensated saddles to see what differences I can find. Bardens, Stew mac, Giant Guitar all are here. I like the Glenn's the best so far.

This bit of wisdom from Buck is well said and put:

Originally Posted by Buckocaster51

I have long since decided to set up guitars so they play and sound good to me and try to avoid as much of the woo-woo as I can.

As Ron Kirn keeps reminding us is his ever so succinct way, there ain't nothing that practicing can't fix.

Or something like that.

I got up to put firewood in the stove and couldn't resist checking the thread. My feet are freezing and it is colder than a witch's ... in here. I'm signing off for now bros.

[chickshannon]

Very well put !
Arlo, what saddles is " Lone Pine " is recorded with ? Whatever they are, I'm going to get me some if they'll make me sound like that !!! Don't want to hijack the thread but I'm sure no-one will mind if you could kindly tell us what the set-up/gear was on that recording....or can you PM me if you think that's more appropriate ?
Thanks ....I'm looking out across our fields and Lone Pine is making everything in the room vibrate.......terrific.
Chick

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by chickshannon

Very well put !
Arlo, what saddles is " Lone Pine " is recorded with ? Whatever they are, I'm going to get me some if they'll make me sound like that !!! Don't want to hijack the thread but I'm sure no-one will mind if you could kindly tell us what the set-up/gear was on that recording....or can you PM me if you think that's more appropriate ?
Thanks ....I'm looking out across our fields and Lone Pine is making everything in the room vibrate.......terrific.
Chick

Chic,

I don't think it would hijack th thread since to me it is a good example of the Twang saddles and their sound on record. AJ if it is inappropriate let me know and I will remove it.

I am using Glendale "Twang" saddles and magnetic bridge. Bill Lawrence Keystones pickups. Andy Rothstein harness. Eastern Pine guitar with a Fender MIJ neck. Line 6 Flextone III XL amp direct into Pro Tools. It is the same exact guitar as in the video. If you look in this thread you will see the guitar as I built it: 2nd Pinecaster


I changed the neck from the original build as well.
That pretty much sums it up.