I've posted this on another forum with Zero responses. I'm hoping for some sort of feedback.

Thanks.

On an OM, would most agree they would expect to hear a difference between the same guitar without and then with a cut through saddle?

If so, what would you expect the difference to be?

My guess would be better string definition &/or sustain, am I on the right track?

I don't know that I would expect to hear a difference. What about the cut through saddle do you think would make a difference in sound? Why would you get better string definition or sustain from a cut through saddle? I'm not saying there wouldn't be a difference I'm just trying to understand the physics of why there might be a difference in sound between the two...

By "cut through" I'm assuming you mean the vintage style long saddle. If not feel free to disregard the rest ...

I believe the advantage of the long saddles are supposed to be more contact area with the bridge and more vibration getting through the bridge to the top. That makes sense to me, but there are so many variables involved with an acoustic guitar I doubt anyone'd be really able to isolate it as a tonal difference between two guitars, though there's certainly no shortage of people who think they can.

If it's glued in like the traditional Martin long saddles are that'd be a pain. Saddle adjustments are a fact of life over time.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm not sure that there is any difference in tone, but if I was told that there is a difference and asked to guess, I would guess that the increase in size/mass and the fact that more of the saddle is in contact with the bridge/bridge plate would equate to frequencies having better isolation and have it longer on their way to what is voicing them, the top.

Again, I'm asking this question because I've heard people refer to a cut through saddle as if it's a plus. I'm trying to determine why that is. I guess I could of posed my question that way also. It's clear to me that some people prefer the cut through, I'm just trying to understand why. Maybe it's not really a tonal thing at all??

r&rjm,
I've always thought the cut-through-saddle was done more for historical accuracy than better sound.

I received a response from Bryan Kimsey and thought I'd share it with you all.

Thanks again for the replies.

Bryan Kimsey:
"I've converted short saddle to long saddles and I've also done a few REALLY long saddles that run out into the wings of the bridge (.eg Dan Lashbrook style). Assuming a good fit, there at least 4 variables at play here:

1) the depth of the cut. True thru-saddles are typically not cut as deep as drop-ins. Long drop-in saddles are cut deeper than true thru-saddles.

2) the length of the saddle itself.

3) glued in or not.

4) the variance in the individual piece of saddle material.

Having done quite a few conversions (both ways), what I _generally_ hear is actually LESS focus with the longer saddle and more of a "washy" or "blended" kind of sound. Great for rhythm, maybe not so great for leads. With the long, deep saddles, you can generally expect a little more bass (and when I converted my D-28 from a shallow thru slot to a deeper drop-in of the same length, that's what happened).

I actually kind of like the sound of a deep drop-in the best, although I prefer the looks of a longer saddle. What I've been cutting and what all my personal guitars have is a long (normal, not excessive) drop-in saddle in a deep slot."

Thanks for that r+rjm, it's one of those 'questionable' customizations I've wondered about myself and it's interesting that Bryan reckons it veers more towards a rhythm-style improvement... cheers!

peghead, I found that interesting as well.