Official Luthiers Forum!

I've lurked here long enough, now I've got a question and a bit of my own work to show.
I built a long scale (688mm so one fret longer than a standard 650. He tunes to D) 12 string for a virtuoso player who uses percussive stuff as well as regular playing. We discussed pickups at some length and decided on the B-Band UST / AST / two channel preamp combination so he would have some separate control over his tapping. Initially this worked fine but a few months later I lowered the action and ever since then the bottom two pairs, particularly the very bottom pair, have been much louder than the rest of the strings. I have some experience of under saddle pickups - tho' not the B-Band - and the B-Band instructions continue at some length about the causes of and solutions to imbalance. They certainly aren't hiding the fact that it can happen! So:
The obvious - everything is clean and flat as far as I can tell.
I've worked the bridge down till the string break angle is the same as it was before altering the action. There is an intrinsic problem with pin bridge 12 strings and break angles but I don't think that's relevant here.
I already had segmented the saddle.
I've tried softer materials above and/or below the pickup. They suggest paper or "soft wood". I tried a shim of 1/16" obeche from the model plane shop, pieces of regular 0.5mm veneer and plain printer paper.
I've tried packing individual strings. They suggest that extra pressure may increase OR decrease the volume - I'm not hearing any difference either way nor from any of the other changes.
All this on a 12 takes a lot of time so I'm getting to the hair tearing stage when I crack the (segmented) saddle. So now I've got a fully intonated 12 string saddle to carve again. Two other things are touched on in the instructions and are my specific questions for the forum - though any other advice much appreciated at this point: How tight should the saddle fit? and does the saddle material matter?
My understanding has always been that the saddle should be loose enough to move with the vibration of the strings but not so loose that it rattles. B-Band say "the saddle should be so tight that you cannot pull it away with your fingers". That sounds tight to me.
I always use bone for my saddles. B-Band say: "Bone is a natural material and the density and grain my not be consistent. ... We highly recommend a man-made material for the saddle". If not bone what do you recommend?

Otherwise it's in English cherry that I converted from the log with the help of a local house carpenter who has a serious band saw. Mahogony neck with hot rod truss rod and twin carbon fibre inserts. Sitka front, Behlen waterbourne finish. The "horny halo" logo is the musicians own. It sounds as tremendous as you'd expect from a large long scale instrument and the pickups function fine - B-Bands seem to my ears to have a very natural sound - as long as you don't use exclusively the UST sound.

Thanks,
Ian

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Hi Ian: I have to tell you that this is one of the best looking 12's that I have ever seen - beautiful!!!

Ok first I have a question for you. You refer to the "bottom" course of strings and with absolutely no insult intended this may be a case of two people's separated by a common language.... Here in the states the word "bottom" usually refers to bass and at times Kim Kardashian as well.... Regarding bass.... do you mean the physical bottom course or the treble strings or the low E course?

Before we hear back from you on that one USTs are often problematic but after reading your excellent description of the situation it seems that you have covered many if not all bases here.

Regardless one of the single most common problems with USTs besides the fact that some seem to suck... and don't work all that well regardless of manufacturer's claims... is the saddle slot. We go to a lot of trouble to have the bottom of our saddles uber flat but when we mate this to a saddle slot that may not be truly flat the resulting pressure in the various locations of the saddle slot can vary widely. This change in pressure can result in poor performance with the balance being affected one way or another. So I have to ask how sure are you that the saddle slot is perfectly flat, the saddle too?

Another issue with USTs is that some of them don't pick-up as well near the ends. With braided USTs we often drill a hole to slightly insert the tip of the UST in so that the saddle sits further away from the UST end and this can increase treble response if that's what one is after.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with this manufacturer's favoritism of man made materials over quality bone. Sure bone can vary in density but I fail to see how this would be an issue in the small length of a saddle.

As for fit the with a UST the saddle should as you indicated be free to move up and down with only finger pressure and light finger pressure at that but should not be loose fitting in the slot at all. If the saddle can rock less of the flat bottom of the saddle may be in direct contact with the surface of the UST impacting performance, balance, etc.

Something else that I picked up on is the tuning to D. This turning has less tension on the strings and consequentially less downward pressure on the saddle and the UST. It may be that this tuning and this pickup are not a good match in respect to how much tension and pressure this UST needs to work well.

Also as one lowers action one also reduces downward pressure on the UST. Something to think about and in combination with turning to D there simply may not be enough pressure on the weaker side of the balance, regardless of what the word "bottom" is intended to mean here to stimulate the UST element.

Anyway hopefully something here is helpful. 12's are always an exercise in compromises and rarely in my experience will not suffer from things such as poor break angles and balance where we would not wish it to be.

Might be interesting to tune the guitar to standard tuning and see what you have too in an effort to possibly eliminate saddle pressure possibilities. The manufacturer's notion that the saddle should be very tight in the slot is a departure from what every other UST manufacturer indicates and is suspect to me too.

Thanks

Thanks Hesh. Yes 'bottom' means bass. I suppose I'd usually refer to strings / courses / pairs by their note but this case is confused by being all along intended to be tuned a tone down. It's an interesting thought though, I may experiment with - gingerly - raising the pitch. Extra scale length not withstanding.
Good point you make about the bottom of the saddle slot. I routed it so it was flat that day but I bet there's some belly movement since then. Hmmm - thinking out loud - of course I can't meaure it under tension ... but it's worth a bit more thought.
Meanwhile you and me both agree that bone is good for saddles and not a single soul has so far voted for any alternative. Since I have to make a new saddle I'll stick with bone and start with it a tighter fit than I would usually like so I can try what the man says in his instructions. Then it's easy to loosen it slightly when that doesn't work ... And if, against our combined wisdom, B-Band are right about bone then a different bit of bone will be, well, different ... we'll see.

Thank you for your kind words about the intrument. I love the look of that guitar too as does its owner. Somehow the combination of a Lowden-ish jumbo shape and a Somogyi inspired cutaway just seems to hit the spot. Talking of Lowdens, that style of pinless bridge does make for better and more consistent break angles across the saddle. But at a heavy price in terms of hassle when working on the saddle or a UST.

I love that phrase "two people's separated by a common language". I went to Oklahoma once in search of The Old Chisholm Trail. My, I was in a foreign country!

Ian Chisholm

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Hey Ian: Let us know if the snugger fitting saddle as per the manufacturer does help. I still think that this is wrong on their part but they should know their own systems better than we do you would think.

The last time that I was in Oklahoma I felt like two people's separated by a common language too so no worries...... Actually where ever I go I feel like that too..... I'm about to go upstairs from my basement, home shop and will probably feel that way as well.....

Seriously though huge fan of Lowden and his superb creations here too. He has a design eye that the rest of we mere mortals can only envy. The Somogyi cut-away makes for a very contemporary as well as elegant look too.

I've got two 12's in the shop at present. One is an Ov*tion with a head stock crack that we are repairing and the other is a very nice 1963 G*bson 12 in a sunburst. Just did a fret dress from hell on that one and now I have to repair a plethora of cracks, a cracked X-brace, etc. I'm just happy that I was able to save the original nut even though the slots were too low the fret dress corrected that. No biggie making nuts but 12 nuts take me longer and I have a short attention span.

On the Ov*tion 12 though the pinless bridge was a real pain when doing saddle work as you indicated. It's a lot easier to be able to pull pins and strings instead of having to work with the strings in the way.

You say you have segmented the saddle, but then talk about cracking it.
Have you just partially cut through it?
I have found that for UST balance, cutting the saddle through completely into 3 sections between A and D strings and B and G strings works wonders.

Ian, If you want to check out the Chisholm train come on over it runs through my back yard.
Heres a fun story about the town I live in.
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-hide ... fight.html

_________________
Say what you do, Do what you say.

I had a similar problem and called B-band about it.
Was very surprised about the bone comment. I believe he recommends tusq.

The one suggestion he gave that you didn't mention (and you did most of what the manufacturer told me to do) was to crown the bottom of the saddle the way you would crown the top of your frets.
He said it may focus the energy better into the UST.

He also said that this is a common problem for B-Band UST when the saddle or slot are changed. The pickups conform to the saddle and slot over time. When you change that joint (as you did when adjusting the action) it can mess things up.


If Hesh is right and you have reduced the force onto the pickup, this might help

Good luck

Dave

Thanks for all the advice.
I cut part way throught the saddle, as suggested by B-Band. Fully segmenting it sounds an interesting idea. However in this case when, after a lot of messing around, I finally cracked the sadlle it didn't seem to make any difference.
I've ordered a tusq saddle blank but it's a nominal 1/8". I had used the thickest saddle blank I had which I think is nearer 4mm, anticipating 12 string intonation issues. Since I want to start off with the new saddle tighter than I'd normally use - again following B-Bands instructions - I may not be able to use the tusq. It's not here yet and the guitar is back with its owner while I think things over.
Thinking of the saddle width brought another possible issue to mind. The saddle is definitely wider than the UST. I need to have everything in front of me but I'm guessing 4mm vs 3mm. It could be that taking steps to ensure the UST is centred in the slot could make a difference even tho' we're only talking very small dimensions. In anycase crowning the bottom of the saddle sounds an interesting idea, as a way of getting the pressure point centred.
I'm certainly not planning on letting this one get away! It may be a while till I get the guitar back in my shop but when I do I'll report back.

Thanks for the Chisholm Trail bit. My Scottish father was mad on all that old west stuff and was sure Jesse Chisholm must be related. I came across a biography a while back. He was half Cherokee and the Chisholm side had been around since the 18th C or earlier. So lost in the mists of time I think.

Found a picture of the back of the 12 so I've attached it (and in doing so spot I need to do something about that strap button ...). I did like that cherry, got half a dozen guitars and some mandolins out out it but now it's very nearly gone. Wood is such wonderful unique stuff.

Ian

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Beautiful guitar Ian!

Yes please do report back in so much as you have me interested in how this comes out too.

You know since you mentioned that the UST is more narrow than the slot this may be very much part of the issues. Perhaps something to shim the UST to the middle of the slot on each side of it making sure the shims have less height than the UST and then see what you get?

I don't like the crowning the bottom of the saddle idea and here's why: When our creations leave our charge there is no telling what music store mouth breather (MSMB) may be asked to resolve an issue. What are they going to do with a crowned saddle bottom if they see the fix as needing more height or less height on the saddle? Off the crown comes, problems start all over again, etc. So in my way of thinking having to crown the bottom of the saddle makes for a less serviceable install.

I'm also very skeptical that Tusq will perform any better than decent quality bone. I could be wrong, often am, but I would prefer bone over tusq any day and even though bone is organic and Tusq is synthetic I fail to understand that bone is going to have much in the way of density change in the very small span of a saddle. I work with bone daily and do see flaws on rare occasion but can't recall ever noticing the workability with my files being different within a single piece of bone.

Anyway if the UST is centered, the saddle moves freely up and down, is not loose in the slot so that it can tip a bit lifting the bottom surface away from full contact with the UST and the saddle slot it true and flat this only leaves the following: Break angles and downward pressure and the sensitivity of the UST element.

Let us know what you find out please?

I love that headstock inlay do you have a closer picture?

I'm equally sceptical about tusq and in anycase I suspect it will be to thin. But if all else fails, follow the instructions! I think the discrepancy in width between the UST and the saddle is my best clue - the UST was in a good spot originally but after I lowered the action it shifted. It shouldn't be able to shift. Closely followed by the inevitable altering of the break angle with the action. The reason the break angle is second is that I have already worked on that without seeming to have any effect.
I'm waiting to hear from the owner as to when I can get the guitar back for another attempt. I'll report back as to how I get on.

Picture of the headstock attached. The halo alone repeats on the 12th fret. It's the musician's own logo, see http://www.thehaloprojectonline.com/

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

So, I got the guitar back and I've finally made a difference. It's still not perfect but I think I'm near the end of what I can do.
I made a new, very snug fitting Tusq nut - so following B-Bands instructions to the letter. No difference. At least it wasn't any worse.
The UST is 2.5mmm wide, my saddle slot is 3.2mm so I used sticky tape to ensure the UST stayed central in the slot. I also got to wondering whether the problem had any connection with the UST cable entering at the bass end of the saddle so I widened and sloped the hole to make sure there was no stress there. No result. Finally I got to wondering whether there was just a sensitive spot on the pickup. I moved the pickup towards the bass, pushing it back through the hole till the treble end of the UST was just a few mm past the first string. Finally I had an adjustment that made a significant difference. It's still not perfect but a lot better than it was and that's where I'm going to leave it for a while.
One possibility is that my saddle is a generous 88mm (say 3.5") long as compared with a regular 6 string at about 75mm, less than 3". It may be the bass pair of strings was just too close to where the cable joins. I looked to see if B-Band do a longer pickup specifically for either 12 string or classical guitars but they don't. However I discovered they do make a wider version of the UST. I'd be very surprised if that made the difference but at some point I'll try the swap. Right now the owner wants his guitar back and I've got lots else to do!

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Ian,
I just noticed the detail in your thread about the width of the saddle slot.
They make two ust pickups for different width slots.
2.3 mm and 3.0 mm
It sounds like you need the wider ust.
The listed active area is 3"

Call b-band. See if he will swap a wider pickup. Mention that this has been going around the forum and that you could have the opportunity to advertise a solution to the problem for him and he might just send it out.

Good luck.

My woes are over. I did crown the bottom of the saddle and segmented it. The instrument sounded fantastic through a huge sound system tonight.

Good advice Dave. My supplier lists the alternative but describes it as for classical guitars - it was only when I went looking on B-Band's own site I realised the salient difference was the width not the length.
Pleased your system is sounding so good - this one is nearly there and the more I think about it the more I reckon that the wider UST will just make the final step.

For various reasons I'm going to be away from my workshop for a few weeks, after that I'll find a time that's convenient for the owner and try switching transducers.

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Does your client need a UST? In my experience, these are the most problematic pickups, and produce the worst sound. Yes, they are a little less sensitive to feedback, but a good sound system will make up the difference (and sound much better). I've seen outboard mikes used effectively in large venues (Doc Watson). I've seen internal soundboard transducers (K&K, Schatten, Baggs I-Beam) used at very high volume, very large venues with no feedback issues.

So my customer came by, pronounced himself more than happy and the guitar has flown the nest. So I'll never get to find out if the width of the UST was the core problem but I have to assume that it was at least part of the issue. However moving the UST towards the bass was what seemed to fix things in this case.

The guitarist uses a lot of percussice stuff, tapping the body of the guitar, and was looking for a pickup that would let him independently control the string and body volumes. The Baggs Anthem sort of does this but it's pretty clear that they intend the two components to be set up and used together rather than to be player controls. Also it's a lot more expensive. I wondered about two pickups and two jacks but he wanted the controls on the guitar (and who wants two batteries?). So we ended up with the B-Band, he ended up happy and I learnt a bit. But where possible I'll stick to K&K, they seem to work for me, I won't be looking to repeat this experiment again.

Thanks for all your help.

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Thanks for letting us know how it turned out. The way I see it, as long as the player is happy then I'm happy .

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"