Discussion:Differences - Brass & Steel saddles & trem block

[louis cyfer]

Admin note: the following posts were moved from the G&L will be offering the saddles and block from the DFS ... topic because it clearly became a tangent topic away from the actual topic.

I decided to post again in this thread for a few reasons;

1.) Hurry up with this!

2.) I made a mistake in an earlier post about the block in the Tribute DF bridge. It is brass, not zinc. Pretty sure the DF bridges on the Tributes and USA models are the same exact thing except the saddles, and I'm not 100% sure about the saddles. The tributes might have zinc saddles.

3.) For those who can't wait for G&L steel saddles, GFS sells steel ones that work. I installed them on my 1993 Legacy, and they work great. Just the difference in tone I would expect from going from brass to steel in other guitars. Steel is harder sounding, more of a "ping" to it, punchier, a little brighter, louder. Brass is softer, richer mids, and nice bloom. I will still buy the G&L saddles whenever they are available and replace the GFS ones.
There's no option available to us for a steel block at the moment. Not unless you're willing to convince Callaham to make you one, and also willing to spend a fortune.

4.) HURRY UP WITH THIS!

brass is more of a flat response, steel has a resonant peak in the upper mids. brass also doesn't vibrate as well, hence less sustain.

[Rocktacular96]

I'm not sure what you mean by "flat response", but that's not how I would describe the sound of brass when it comes to saddles or blocks. The mids are more full and richer than steel. It's not as loud as steel. I don't notice a huge difference in sustain between the two.

[louis cyfer]

I'm not sure what you mean by "flat response", but that's not how I would describe the sound of brass when it comes to saddles or blocks. The mids are more full and richer than steel. It's not as loud as steel. I don't notice a huge difference in sustain between the two.

flat response is how it affects the sound of the string. it lacks the hi mid peak of steal, which is where our ears are sensitive at, so the steel sounds brighter and louder. on brass the mids are not fuller, rather the steel has the higher frequency peak, so in comparison, because of the lack of that resonant peak, you hear the mids fuller on brass. what you hear and what actually happens are 2 different things.

[Rocktacular96]

flat response is how it affects the sound of the string. it lacks the hi mid peak of steal, which is where our ears are sensitive at, so the steel sounds brighter and louder. on brass the mids are not fuller, rather the steel has the higher frequency peak, so in comparison, because of the lack of that resonant peak, you hear the mids fuller on brass. what you hear and what actually happens are 2 different things.

Maybe. But what you hear is the only thing that's important when trying to explain to people what the difference are. It wouldn't be much help to those trying to decide which they would prefer, if you don't explain what you hear as the differences.

Besides. Have you ever struck a bell? Tapped on a piece of brass? Nothing flat about it.

[louis cyfer]

flat response is how it affects the sound of the string. it lacks the hi mid peak of steal, which is where our ears are sensitive at, so the steel sounds brighter and louder. on brass the mids are not fuller, rather the steel has the higher frequency peak, so in comparison, because of the lack of that resonant peak, you hear the mids fuller on brass. what you hear and what actually happens are 2 different things.

Maybe. But what you hear is the only thing that's important when trying to explain to people what the difference are. It wouldn't be much help to those trying to decide which they would prefer, if you don't explain what you hear as the differences.

Besides. Have you ever struck a bell? Tapped on a piece of brass? Nothing flat about it.

it's not about the sound brass makes. it's about how it effects the string on the guitar. a totally different issue. but from your response it is pretty obvious you have no idea what flat response refers to, so further discussion would be pretty useless.
understanding what our limited senses are perceiving, and what is actually happening is not a bad thing. what is perceived as more mid is often less low or high end, and what is perceived as less mid is more low or high end. understanding what is happening is a good thing.

[Rocktacular96]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Are you just reading this stuff from a website or something?

I've compared brass, zinc, steel, and titanium blocks on countless guitars. I've compared brass, steel, and zinc saddles on countless guitars. I do it all the time. I work with guitars, as well as work on my own for fun.
And yes it matters what brass sounds like. Tap on a piece of brass, zinc, steel, or titanium. The differences you hear are consistent with the difference you would hear with each of them installed. You would know this if you actually have lots of experience making these changes.

When you change from zinc to brass, the mids increase and fill out. Very bell-like. It adds a nice warmth to the mids. Not an abundance of highs or lows. When you change from zinc to steel, it gets louder, brighter, more high mids, more PING, or ZING, clearer mids, and a harder sound. Brass is not flat, by any means. Unless you mean that flat means full bell-like quality, with softer and louder mids. Then I would agree.
It seems like you are thinking of "Flat" as the opposite of "Bright" or something. But that's not what I think of when I think of "flat". Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed. That's not what brass sounds like. There is also not a very big difference in sustain between steel and brass. Other factors make a bigger difference.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It sounds like you're saying that I'm wrong about brass having more mids, because steel just has more highs and high mids. I don't think I would agree based on my experience, but I don't even know of a way to test that properly. So, I'm not sure what the purpose of even bringing it up is. What I wrote about the differences between the different materials is a good description to help anyone considering which to try. Which was the purpose of my post. What was yours again?

[Elwood]

brass is more of a flat response, steel has a resonant peak in the upper mids. brass also doesn't vibrate as well, hence less sustain.

I think the relative comparison of response curves louis might have been pointing out was somehow
obscured or interpreted as describing brass as having a completely flat response curve in the range of frequencies
that guitar strings produce.
The term "flatter" would have been another way to convey the fact that steel has higher peaks in it's
response curve under identical conditions.
Sustain is a whole 'nother ball of wax (generally not good for sustain ).
I think sustaining the original sine wave from the string is often confused with
re-introduced reflected waves from the saddle/bridge/body/neck/fret/finger chain of mass.
I see it as a dry/wet signal sort of thing ; the dry being the original uncolored string vibrations , the wet being the colored
reflected ones determined by the materials. of course these reflections will more likely than not be out of phase.
That will still contribute to the sustain but it will sound different . Easy to see how it's not always easy to reproduce tones across different guitars considering all the variables factoring in.

Graphs might help.

I guess I'm trying to say there is alot of grey and colored areas that make it hard to discuss if things are generalized too much.


Elwood

[Elwood]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

[louis cyfer]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.

[Rocktacular96]

brass is more of a flat response, steel has a resonant peak in the upper mids. brass also doesn't vibrate as well, hence less sustain.

I think the relative comparison of response curves louis might have been pointing out was somehow
obscured or interpreted as describing brass as having a completely flat response curve in the range of frequencies
that guitar strings produce.
The term "flatter" would have been another way to convey the fact that steel has higher peaks in it's
response curve under identical conditions.
Sustain is a whole 'nother ball of wax (generally not good for sustain ).
I think sustaining the original sine wave from the string is often confused with
re-introduced reflected waves from the saddle/bridge/body/neck/fret/finger chain of mass.
I see it as a dry/wet signal sort of thing ; the dry being the original uncolored string vibrations , the wet being the colored
reflected ones determined by the materials. of course these reflections will more likely than not be out of phase.
That will still contribute to the sustain but it will sound different . Easy to see how it's not always easy to reproduce tones across different guitars considering all the variables factoring in.

Graphs might help.

I guess I'm trying to say there is alot of grey and colored areas that make it hard to discuss if things are generalized too much.


Elwood

I understand what he meant, and I still disagree. I didn't take it as a negative. I have brass, steel, and titanium blocks installed in multiple guitars. I have no personal preference other than what works best for the particular guitar. Brass isn't flat sounding, even with his definition of the word. Yes, steel can have higher peaks in its response curve. That, I agree with. But brass does not just sound like steel with less high mids and highs. It's an overall softer response. Not just eq. So no, I do not agree that brass sounds like it has more mids because steel has more highs and high mids. This makes sense when you think about how brass is a softer metal. It's not just about the eq response.

As for sustain,...I've compared way too many guitars and seen too many times where there's more sustain in either case to be convinced that brass vs steel makes a bigger difference than other factors.
The only thing I might say that I've observed on the matter is that steel would resonate more in the lows. This would translate to more vibrations felt, since low vibrations are the ones most noticeable.

[Rocktacular96]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.

I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.

Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.

[louis cyfer]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.

I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.

Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.

go back to school, learn some physics, and we can talk again. if you think there is no way to test the frequency response of different bridge materials as regarding to guitar, i don't know where we could even begin.

[Rocktacular96]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.

I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.

Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.

go back to school, learn some physics, and we can talk again. if you think there is no way to test the frequency response of different bridge materials as regarding to guitar, i don't know where we could even begin.

Thank you for the advise, even though it is a straw man argument. My advise to you would be to actually have experience with what you're talking about, instead of preaching some pseudoscience you've read on the internet. In other words, please don't waste everyone's time unless you have first hand experience.
There's enough nonsense on the internet.

[louis cyfer]

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.

...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .

Elwood

indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.

I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.

Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.

go back to school, learn some physics, and we can talk again. if you think there is no way to test the frequency response of different bridge materials as regarding to guitar, i don't know where we could even begin.

Thank you for the advise, even though it is a straw man argument. My advise to you would be to actually have experience with what you're talking about, instead of preaching some pseudoscience you've read on the internet. In other words, please don't waste everyone's time unless you have first hand experience.
There's enough nonsense on the internet.

i do. it's not pseudoscience and i did not read it on the internet. get a spectrum analyzer and you can do it yourself.

[meowmix]

I have a titanium block and saddles. Never installed it.
How does that compare?

[willross]

I've noticed the differences to be subtle. To each their own... I'm just getting tired of hearing people stating that slapping together chromatic scales with Blues licks to be rocket science. Most people that loiter around music shops can do it too. However, name a song that uses them. You know who you are... Seacrest out!

[meowmix]

On another note.

My mountain bike has a bell. Before purchasing, I compared both the steel and the brass types. Brass was much easier on my ears.

[Lefty]

On another note.

My mountain bike has a bell. Before purchasing, I compared both the steel and the brass types. Brass was much easier on my ears.

Thank you for getting a brass bell for your mountain bike. When I'm out walking a trail, i really appreciate that some bikers announce their presence with a bell rather than just yelling a startling "Look out behind you" or some other nonsense.

[Rocktacular96]

i do. it's not pseudoscience and i did not read it on the internet. get a spectrum analyzer and you can do it yourself.

Oh, yeah? Why don't you tell us all about how much experience you have comparing zinc, brass, and steel blocks in the same G&L guitar. That should be interesting. How about how much experience you have comparing zinc, brass, steel, and titanium blocks in other guitars. Or comparing the same materials with G&L saddles. Or other guitar saddles. Please, enlighten us all.

I'm not even going to comment on the spectrum analyzer statement.

In all seriousness, Louis. You seem like a nice guy. There's no need to make a fool of yourself by arguing things you don't have experience with.

[Rocktacular96]

I have a titanium block and saddles. Never installed it.
How does that compare?

Titanium is like Steel Plus. Think of the difference from brass to steel. Titanium is more of that, basically. It shares some tonal properties of Aluminum, as well. Very hard and cutting. Very tight response.

[willross]

Whatever is stock on my 90's S-500 does the trick!






Cheers,

Will

* Just kidding about the previous post; I was in GC and it was irritating...

[jakkanen]

Titanium is like Steel Plus. Think of the difference from brass to steel. Titanium is more of that, basically. It shares some tonal properties of Aluminum, as well. Very hard and cutting. Very tight response.

Earlier in the discussion you stated that brass is a softer metal and this corresponds to it having an overall softer response. Why do you think that you find aluminum, which is even softer, to be more like titanium?

[Rocktacular96]

Aluminum doesn't have that "softer" response in the same way that brass has. But it is softer. It doesn't have that ZING and hardness of steel. It can be considered more airy sounding. Plinky. Hollow, even. It's more compressed. I've found the sound pretty much corresponds with how the metals sound when struck or dropped on a table. Try it. Zinc will make more of a thud. Steel will make a PING. Brass will make more of a DING and sound bell-like. Aluminum will sound more plinky, and airy. Aluminum brings out more higher mids, and less lows.

[meowmix]

I was reading somewhere on the web. John Shur said something along the lines of having dog ears to tell the difference between titanium and steel. Think Brian Wilson. Do you really need to spend that much time in the studio to get it right? Woof!

I passed on installing the titanium block.

Here is the weight of the Titanium Block


And Weight of Titanium Saddles

[meowmix]

Thank you for getting a brass bell for your mountain bike. When I'm out walking a trail, i really appreciate that some bikers announce their presence with a bell rather than just yelling a startling "Look out behind you" or some other nonsense.

I used to yell "PASSING". But sometimes they don't hear, or they do hear but they think the sound is coming from another location, like the top of the mountain. I had enough of that! The Bell works much much better. They instantly look behind and give way. I think the bell sound mimics the Ice Cream Man. All those people getting exercise to work on their butts, recognize the Ice Cream Man when they hear it.

[Rocktacular96]

I was reading somewhere on the web. John Shur said something along the lines of having dog ears to tell the difference between titanium and steel. Think Brian Wilson. Do you really need to spend that much time in the studio to get it right? Woof!

I passed on installing the titanium block.

Here is the weight of the Titanium Block


And Weight of Titanium Saddles

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

[meowmix]

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?

[Rocktacular96]

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?

That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.

Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.

[louis cyfer]

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?

That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.

Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.

i have lots of experience with brass and steel. also understanding human hearing. don't have much experience with zinc, titanium or aluminum saddles and blocks. i have tried them, but not enough comparisons to be able to really understand the differences. as far as continuing a discussion with someone who does not understand rudimentary physics of sound, or what the advantage of using a spectrum analyzer is vs. just relying on the memory of the sound in the same guitar, it is entirely pointless.

[Rocktacular96]

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?

That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.

Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.

i have lots of experience with brass and steel. also understanding human hearing. don't have much experience with zinc, titanium or aluminum saddles and blocks. i have tried them, but not enough comparisons to be able to really understand the differences. as far as continuing a discussion with someone who does not understand rudimentary physics of sound, or what the advantage of using a spectrum analyzer is vs. just relying on the memory of the sound in the same guitar, it is entirely pointless.

Louis. Stop it. Please. This is getting embarrassing for you. No, you DON'T have experience with brass and steel blocks in G&Ls. Stop implying that you do. I understand rudimentary physics a lot better than you'll ever know. But please. Go on and enlighten us with your mastery of rudimentary physics of sound. Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up. For what purpose would someone who has no experience with the topic at hand (comparing the differences that Zinc, Steel, and Brass trem blocks make in G&Ls) be bringing up a damn spectrum analyzer?!
Seriously. What purpose? I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do. I know what they do and how to use them. But again,...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?

Go a head. Swap zinc, brass, and steel trem blocks in a G&L guitar and use a spectrum analyzer. Post your results. Then MAYBE you might be contributing SOMETHING worthwhile to this thread. Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story. You probably have no idea why, but that's fine. So yes, having lots of experience with this, doing the swaps MANY times, is way more valuable to others in this thread than some bozo with a spectrum analyzer. Of course, if the experienced person used a spectrum analyzer along with giving his first hand accounts, then that would be something worthwhile.

I also understand human hearing very well. Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG. You came into the thread replying to my perfectly good post that explained very well the differences for anyone interested, and attempted to correct me with nonsense to feel relevant or something. Stick to talking about things you actually know about. Or get ready to be called on it by those who do.

[louis cyfer]

It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.

If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?

That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.

Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.

i have lots of experience with brass and steel. also understanding human hearing. don't have much experience with zinc, titanium or aluminum saddles and blocks. i have tried them, but not enough comparisons to be able to really understand the differences. as far as continuing a discussion with someone who does not understand rudimentary physics of sound, or what the advantage of using a spectrum analyzer is vs. just relying on the memory of the sound in the same guitar, it is entirely pointless.

Louis. Stop it. Please. This is getting embarrassing for you. No, you DON'T have experience with brass and steel blocks in G&Ls. Stop implying that you do. I understand rudimentary physics a lot better than you'll ever know. But please. Go on and enlighten us with your mastery of rudimentary physics of sound. Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up. For what purpose would someone who has no experience with the topic at hand (comparing the differences that Zinc, Steel, and Brass trem blocks make in G&Ls) be bringing up a damn spectrum analyzer?!
Seriously. What purpose? I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do. I know what they do and how to use them. But again,...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?

Go a head. Swap zinc, brass, and steel trem blocks in a G&L guitar and use a spectrum analyzer. Post your results. Then MAYBE you might be contributing SOMETHING worthwhile to this thread. Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story. You probably have no idea why, but that's fine. So yes, having lots of experience with this, doing the swaps MANY times, is way more valuable to others in this thread than some bozo with a spectrum analyzer. Of course, if the experienced person used a spectrum analyzer along with giving his first hand accounts, then that would be something worthwhile.

I also understand human hearing very well. Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG. You came into the thread replying to my perfectly good post that explained very well the differences for anyone interested, and attempted to correct me with nonsense to feel relevant or something. Stick to talking about things you actually know about. Or get ready to be called on it by those who do.

you are a liar. also have difficulty with basic comprehension.

I don't think I would agree based on my experience, but I don't even know of a way to test that properly

I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do

????????

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed

(what does an eq curve have to do with compression?)

I understand what he meant, and I still disagree. I didn't take it as a negative

????????

Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG

where did i say this?

Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story

i didn't say it did. i simply pointed out as a way to actually test the difference.

Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?

it was an answer to this "but I don't even know of a way to test that properly"

I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve

indeed. flatter ( or more of a flat response) would mean those peaks are smaller.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded

not exactly what i said, but whatever. if you take 2 things that have similar output in the mids, but one has more low and high end, the other one will sound to the human ear as if it had more mids. remember, amplitude of the frequencies is part of the curve, and can be compared when measured.

this has been a colossal misunderstanding. you had no idea (still don't) what i was saying, and went on a rant challenging something you misunderstood.
i don't have the patience to try to type slow enough for you to understand. i am out.

[Elwood]

um..wow,
Do you make music rockyT ? I'm sorta curious what it must be like.

I know other discussion boards can be coarse and fleeting insults are no big deal,

that kind of communication stands out here ( like a hi-freq peak in a black granite bodied guitar ) .

Are the differences in saddle materials really worth burning the bridges of good communication
with members here?

[asphalt-abate]

Too bad it became personal because I actually did enjoy this topic. Both parties brought some good information to the table.

[Rocktacular96]

you are a liar. also have difficulty with basic comprehension.

Let's see, shall we?

I don't think I would agree based on my experience, but I don't even know of a way to test that properly

I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do

????????

What are you confused about? How can a spectrum analyzer show a "Softer" response. It would show EQ. How can a spectrum analyzer know if brass has more mids, or that steel just has more highs and lows? You can go by the relative amount of mids in each, but that doesn't take into consideration how much louder steel would be for example. So again, how would a spectrum analyzer test this properly? Stop being a vague contrarian, and give an example to prove your point.

Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed

(what does an eq curve have to do with compression?)

I understand what he meant, and I still disagree. I didn't take it as a negative

????????

Again, what are you confused about? I'm not lashing out at you because I love brass so much more than steel and my feelings are hurt, in case that's the impression you got. Compression is pretty important in what we're talking about. If a frequency range is more compressed, guess what will happen to those peaks you keep talking about.
But the purpose of that particular post of mine, was to explain that the word "flat" usually has that meaning when it comes to music gear. You clarified what you meant(regarding eq curve), and I still disagreed. What's confusing?

Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG

where did i say this?

Right here;

it's not about the sound brass makes. it's about how it effects the string on the guitar. a totally different issue. but from your response it is pretty obvious you have no idea what flat response refers to, so further discussion would be pretty useless.
understanding what our limited senses are perceiving, and what is actually happening is not a bad thing. what is perceived as more mid is often less low or high end, and what is perceived as less mid is more low or high end. understanding what is happening is a good thing.

It also has some other nonsensical filler in there, like the part about how it's not the sound of brass, but how it affects the string on the guitar. OK. You know what meant! Seriously? And thank you for explaining to me that more highs and and lows can be perceived by humans as less mids. Thank you, but DUH! Who the hell argued that? It's so obvious, that I didnt' even address it. Of course it does. Just as less highs and lows can be perceived as more mids. The issue was how you come to the conclusion that this is the case with brass vs steel trem blocks. As I already pointed out, there is a lot more going on than just eq. Even if it were the case, what is the point in bringing it up? There's no practical way to test this PROPERLY, and not relevant to the issue of people wanting to know how they sound.

Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story

i didn't say it did. i simply pointed out as a way to actually test the difference.

So, you're admitting that a spectrum analyzer wouldn't tell the whole story, yet you still think it will test the differences??? Are you having trouble following this discussion? Really. I'll stop if so.
The EQ curve is only part of what's going on. It could help our understanding a little, but prove nothing as a whole. Because of it not telling the whole story, how can you not comprehend what I'm saying about a spectrum analyzer cannot PROPERLY test your claim when a big part of the cause for your claim is in those areas where a spectrum analyzer cannot test?

Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?

it was an answer to this

"but I don't even know of a way to test that properly"

See above. I addressed this already. My statement still stands.

I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve

indeed. flatter ( or more of a flat response) would mean those peaks are smaller.

Yes, in the highs and lows. In that case, I agree with you. But what about the peaks in the mids of brass? They would give the high and low peaks of steel a run for their money. So again, it's not a flat response. It's a flatter eq curve than steel in the highs and lows. Yes, that's correct. But then steel has a flatter eq curve in the mids than does brass.
If that's what you've been trying to say all along, then be more clear about it.

And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded

not exactly what i said, but whatever. if you take 2 things that have similar output in the mids, but one has more low and high end, the other one will sound to the human ear as if it had more mids. remember, amplitude of the frequencies is part of the curve, and can be compared when measured.

Again, DUH!!!. Nobody was ever arguing about that. I understand how this works very well. But once again, there is a lot more going on here than just eq curves. Which is why my explanation of the differences in the sound from the materials is still spot on and helpful to anyone considering any one of those materials. Which called for no response from you trying to jump in and seem relevant and included by being a contrarian. You helped no one, and did nothing but start a <censored word> storm in a helpful and informative thread.

this has been a colossal misunderstanding. you had no idea (still don't) what i was saying, and went on a rant challenging something you misunderstood.
i don't have the patience to try to type slow enough for you to understand. i am out.

Louis, I do understand what you were saying. I understand it very well. All I did was call you out on the claims you were making that you have zero experience with and didn't know what you were talking about. The rest of the thread was you backpedaling and trying to save face by attempting to pick apart semantics of what I said with unfounded claims and no personal experience with the issue at hand.

Stop it already. Get a spectrum analyzer and post your results. That might help the discussion somewhat. Or better yet, go and do these comparisons many times and come back and post about your results. Then, we can have a meaningful discussion on the matter of settling certain disagreements we have over specifics, in a civil manner.

[Rocktacular96]

um..wow,
Do you make music rockyT ? I'm sorta curious what it must be like.

I know other discussion boards can be coarse and fleeting insults are no big deal,

that kind of communication stands out here ( like a hi-freq peak in a black granite bodied guitar ) .

Are the differences in saddle materials really worth burning the bridges of good communication
with members here?

I got personal? In what way? Was it after he told me to go back to school because I wasn't agreeing with his nonsense? Because that's possible.

Sorry. But I don't take lightly people speaking on topics that they have zero actual experience with, while also being a vague contrarian to those who actually do. If he has actual experience with what we're talking about, the conversation would have gone much differently, even if there were disagreements.

I like disagreements and discussions of differing points of view. That's how you learn. But when you're arguing with someone who has zero experience with what you're talking about, it gets ridiculous.

I'm not sure what my music has anything to do with this. For what purpose did you bring that up? And the differences in saddle materials has little to do with what happened here. This was not an argument over how we disagree on what these materials sound like. It was an argument over someone posting in this thread that should've have been. At least, not acting like he has experience when he doesn't. That's the point, and I've brought it up many times here for a reason. Why would Louis keep arguing nonsense here when he has ZERO EXPERIENCE with the issue at hand? I'm supposed to just say that he's entitled to his opinion and move on? No. You have a right to an opinion. You don't have a right to express an opinion based on no experience and not have someone call you on it. Otherwise, that's how nonsense spreads on music forums.

[Lefty]

um..wow,
Do you make music rockyT ? I'm sorta curious what it must be like.

I know other discussion boards can be coarse and fleeting insults are no big deal,

that kind of communication stands out here ( like a hi-freq peak in a black granite bodied guitar ) .

Are the differences in saddle materials really worth burning the bridges of good communication
with members here?

I got personal? In what way? Was it after he told me to go back to school because I wasn't agreeing with his nonsense? Because that's possible.

Sorry. But I don't take lightly people speaking on topics that they have zero actual experience with, while also being a vague contrarian to those who actually do. If he has actual experience with what we're talking about, the conversation would have gone much differently, even if there were disagreements.

I like disagreements and discussions of differing points of view. That's how you learn. But when you're arguing with someone who has zero experience with what you're talking about, it gets ridiculous.

I'm not sure what my music has anything to do with this. For what purpose did you bring that up? And the differences in saddle materials has little to do with what happened here. This was not an argument over how we disagree on what these materials sound like. It was an argument over someone posting in this thread that should've have been. At least, not acting like he has experience when he doesn't. That's the point, and I've brought it up many times here for a reason. Why would Louis keep arguing nonsense here when he has ZERO EXPERIENCE with the issue at hand? I'm supposed to just say that he's entitled to his opinion and move on? No. You have a right to an opinion. You don't have a right to express an opinion based on no experience and not have someone call you on it. Otherwise, that's how nonsense spreads on music forums.

I've got an opinion and ZERO scientific proof to base that opinion on - I'll stick with the brass saddles on all my G&L's.

This discussion has become boring!

[Rocktacular96]

I've got an opinion and ZERO scientific proof to base that opinion on - I'll stick with the brass saddles on all my G&L's.

This discussion has become boring!

Well then. Fortunately for you, scientific proof wasn't an issue here.
Besides, physical sciences don't really deal with "proof" anyway. What is important is evidence, and, most importantly in this particular discussion, experience.

[willross]

I have an oscilloscope & could send it to whom ever wants to conduct a study, but I'd rather be making music. Many aspects of an instrument "color" it's sound output. Be happy that you can recognize them. Let's give peace a chance...


Cheers,

Will

[huck]

I have an oscilloscope & could send it to whom ever wants to conduct a study, but I'd rather be making music. Many aspects of an instrument "color" it's sound output. He happy that you can recognize them. Let's give peace a chance...


Cheers,

Will

AMEN to that Brother!!..GEEEZZZ I hope my new asat special sounds OK when I get it as from what I read it has
a brass chrome plated bridge?