Jump to content

Entry for August 2018's Guitar Of The Month contest is open to all!
ENTER HERE!

FINEFUZZ

Obol guitar build

Recommended Posts

I missed this thread happening! Yikes. That is very very cool. Nice seeing people going at the design process from oblique angles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the typical approach for spacing out the tuning machines?  As you can see, my spaced distances are not equal lengths,.  This spacing is driven by where the slots will be cut into the nut.  Does this seem acceptable, or do people generally dimension the space between the machines equally?

NN1.jpg

NN2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, FINEFUZZ said:

What is the typical approach for spacing out the tuning machines?  As you can see, my spaced distances are not equal lengths,.  This spacing is driven by where the slots will be cut into the nut.  Does this seem acceptable, or do people generally dimension the space between the machines equally?

That is perfectly acceptable. I tweak mine all the time. If it bugs you, you could probably get them a little closer to equal by reducing the angle just a hair and making that side of your headstock a little closer to vertical.

SR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zoltar said:

This is looking so cool :)

Lots of 'out of the box thinking' involved in this one!

Thanks!  There will be more surprises to come.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ScottR said:

That is perfectly acceptable. I tweak mine all the time. If it bugs you, you could probably get them a little closer to equal by reducing the angle just a hair and making that side of your headstock a little closer to vertical.

SR

Thanks Scott. 

The spacing doesn't bother me since it is a result of geometry.  I had forgotten that I had dimensioned the nut in this manner and didn't understand why my hole locations seemed off.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in distance is pretty small - I doubt whether it would be noticed.

If you've gone to the trouble of cutting your nut proportional to the string thickness, have you done likewise for your machine head spacing? i.e. is the tangent aligned to the centre of the string or the inner/outer edge? :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Norris said:

The difference in distance is pretty small - I doubt whether it would be noticed.

If you've gone to the trouble of cutting your nut proportional to the string thickness, have you done likewise for your machine head spacing? i.e. is the tangent aligned to the centre of the string or the inner/outer edge? :D

The outer edge of the tuning post and the center of the string are tangent.  I didn't even think about factoring in the sting thickness in that regard!

It looks like I will need to adjust my numbers slightly.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacing the tuners inequally is no problem at all in my opinion. If you're aligning them to get a perfectly straight pull through the nut, that's more important than simple equal spacing. It only matters if you're using vintage 6-in-line that butt up against each other and have a common fitting screw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FINEFUZZ said:

It looks like I will need to adjust my numbers slightly.  Thanks!

TBH, my comment was rather tongue-in-cheek :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 10:59 AM, Norris said:

The difference in distance is pretty small - I doubt whether it would be noticed.

If you've gone to the trouble of cutting your nut proportional to the string thickness, have you done likewise for your machine head spacing? i.e. is the tangent aligned to the centre of the string or the inner/outer edge? :D

 

If I get the chance, I usually opt for equal spacing rather than equal centres also. It can be slightly messy when dealing with multiscales, since fundamentally those rely on equal centres to interpolate intermediate scales from the outside in. Generally it becomes far more useful for basses than for guitars, but nonetheless a difference exists. When it comes to string pull, I think that adjusted tuner spacing/locations are a bonus rather than a rule. Still, I plan my headstocks out based on each desired string gauge so that the first wrap butts up against the tuner post. I can't think of whether this level of calculation returns any benefits as I haven't worked it out. Its an integral part of how I work in CAD when planning instruments now, so I do it whether it's useful or not!

I never answered @FINEFUZZ' questions directly....

On 1/24/2018 at 9:33 PM, FINEFUZZ said:

What is the typical approach for spacing out the tuning machines?  As you can see, my spaced distances are not equal lengths,.  This spacing is driven by where the slots will be cut into the nut.  Does this seem acceptable, or do people generally dimension the space between the machines equally?

Taking this in order of course. There is no typical spacing as such, unless the design of the tuners forces it; for example a strip of 6 tuners with common placement screws. Equal spacing between tuners is simplest for most people, especially when an ultra-straight string pull isn't a priority. Even when a straight path is required, the majority of people will be using equal centres and disregard string gauge and its effect where it meets each post. That is, people will often still use equal tuner spacing purely out of simplicity and it going 95% of the distance for a straight (but not ultra-straight) string pull. Visually or practically, any discrepancies will be difficult to notice for most.

Your approach is definitely acceptable, and as I explained, it has become part of my standard approach when planning out a headstock when a straight pull is required. For most it is splitting hairs, however I am of the opinion that you should always do something as best as is reasonable. If this approach is achievable, it should be considered. The difference in spacing for your tuners varies by around 1,85mm/0,073" which is about 1/16". Unless you're placing components via CNC-located holes, you need to be able to work to an accuracy of maybe 1/64". I think this is a reasonable proposition as I work to around this by hand and eye (0,25mm or thereabouts) or a little less than half that when using some more precise tools. A good pair of marking dividers and a dial caliper to measure point distances will get you well into that zone.

TLDR; Not that many do it to this level of accuracy, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't. If you can, you should.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 4:26 AM, Prostheta said:

 

If I get the chance, I usually opt for equal spacing rather than equal centres also. It can be slightly messy when dealing with multiscales, since fundamentally those rely on equal centres to interpolate intermediate scales from the outside in. Generally it becomes far more useful for basses than for guitars, but nonetheless a difference exists. When it comes to string pull, I think that adjusted tuner spacing/locations are a bonus rather than a rule. Still, I plan my headstocks out based on each desired string gauge so that the first wrap butts up against the tuner post. I can't think of whether this level of calculation returns any benefits as I haven't worked it out. Its an integral part of how I work in CAD when planning instruments now, so I do it whether it's useful or not!

I never answered @FINEFUZZ' questions directly....

Taking this in order of course. There is no typical spacing as such, unless the design of the tuners forces it; for example a strip of 6 tuners with common placement screws. Equal spacing between tuners is simplest for most people, especially when an ultra-straight string pull isn't a priority. Even when a straight path is required, the majority of people will be using equal centres and disregard string gauge and its effect where it meets each post. That is, people will often still use equal tuner spacing purely out of simplicity and it going 95% of the distance for a straight (but not ultra-straight) string pull. Visually or practically, any discrepancies will be difficult to notice for most.

Your approach is definitely acceptable, and as I explained, it has become part of my standard approach when planning out a headstock when a straight pull is required. For most it is splitting hairs, however I am of the opinion that you should always do something as best as is reasonable. If this approach is achievable, it should be considered. The difference in spacing for your tuners varies by around 1,85mm/0,073" which is about 1/16". Unless you're placing components via CNC-located holes, you need to be able to work to an accuracy of maybe 1/64". I think this is a reasonable proposition as I work to around this by hand and eye (0,25mm or thereabouts) or a little less than half that when using some more precise tools. A good pair of marking dividers and a dial caliper to measure point distances will get you well into that zone.

TLDR; Not that many do it to this level of accuracy, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't. If you can, you should.

This is great logic! 

I agree, that since the spacing can be calculated to accommodate for the straightest string pull, I will need to factor in string gauge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the pattern mounted and the parting lines defined.

apparently, Plastilina Modeling clay comes vanilla scented -and 24 hours later, my hands still smell like vanilla.

t1.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go as far as to call it logic! Simply, I overthink most things at the best of times. Might as well direct that cannon of obsessiveness at a target! haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the process behind this build, but I'm fascinated all the same. It's always cool to see something unconventional emerging.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Stu. said:

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the process behind this build, but I'm fascinated all the same. It's always cool to see something unconventional emerging.

I am very much making this process up as I go along.  I used to work as a pattern/ model maker, so I am familiar with many techniques and materials.   Building a guitar, however, is new territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this mould to make sacrificial positives of the body to be used in the lost wax casting process for bronze? This is very thorough and nice see being done properly. At least, "properly" as in heading in the right direction! Fantastic, and always good to see somebody raising their targets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Is this mould to make sacrificial positives of the body to be used in the lost wax casting process for bronze? This is very thorough and nice see being done properly. At least, "properly" as in heading in the right direction! Fantastic, and always good to see somebody raising their targets.

That is correct.  This tool will allow me to make multiple casting if I desire. 

This is a very accurate way to translate a form into wax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say. With access to the right casting facilities, you could make one out of most common metals....iron guitar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curios about casting out of aluminum,  but aluminum cools too quickly and probably couldn't completely fill the cavity.  I would need to make a much thicker pattern for aluminum. 

Bronze flows better though thinner spaces and cools slower.  But yes, one could cast in iron, but I would imagine that would be like playing a boat anchor.   Bronze is very dense, but it can be cast thin.  Bronze has also historically been used to manufacture instruments, albeit in different manners.

What is really cool, is that iron oxide, along with liver of sulfur, ferric nitrate (and others) can be used to patina the metal.

Iron oxide makes bronze turn reddish.

 

Now a gold guitar, that is actually very doable.  I just need funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, aluminium is very difficult for a number of reasons including its tendency to dump heat as quickly as it takes it on.

Gold is so yesterday. Nobody has yet made a solid Rhodium guitar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a bronze I did a couple years back.  That process really made me want to explore the idea of utilitarian fine art.  These are the same colors I am aiming for on my guitar body:

IMG_20150624_193710512.jpg

IMG_20150624_193501112.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×