stratoskier

SwedishLuthier, Thanks for replying -- and sorry it took so long for me to reply. I've now made a trial template based on the outline and measurements of this trem, along with an examination of a regular Floyd routing pattern. I'm going to experiment on some scrap wood to see if I've got it right. If I need additional help, I will definitely PM you for guidance. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of these non-fine tuner Floyds in the near future. They've gotten considerable attention since Charvel put one on their new Guthrie Govan signature model. Back when these were first produced (mid 80s?) they didn't make much sense, but with the advent of excellent locking machine heads, they have advantages. I'm pretty impressed with the one I put on an Ibanez guitar -- works great and I only have to retune every few days. I'm a believer!

Greetings, I read through a lot of old threads (here and elsewhere), but I haven't run across anything specifically related to the old non-fine tuner Floyds. I picked up a couple of these units used -- one is already installed non-recessed on a guitar, and the other awaits a project body. These trems were originally sold as standard gear on several brands, most notably some mid to lower end Kramers. As far as I can tell, these were all face-mounted with no recess, perhaps as a cost-cutting move. They're basically similar to other Floyds, except they're about 3/4" shorter due to the absence of the "whale tail" for the missing fine tuners. Width and stud spacing are the same as an OFR. However, the baseplate is somewhat thinner by a couple mm. I'd like to recess these trems, but I'm not sure how well the pre-made templates (Stew-Mac) will adapt to this model. I can route and have done pickups, some control cavities and various other projects, but I haven't tackled anything quite this ambitious...yet. I have 3 questions: 1) Does anyone know of routing templates for these trems or know how well the standard ones will work? 2) If I conclude that I'm in over my head, is there anyone here who would undertake this job, or recommend a shop that could do it? 3) On the one guitar I have that came equipped with one of these trems, the studs were about 1/4" further from the 22nd fret as compared to a standard Floyd. That has me puzzled because examining the saddles and overall design, I can't see why this would be necessary for proper intonation. I'm wondering if this could be a manufacturing glitch, or if that is required on these non-fine tuner units. Thanks to all!

Here's that image of the AT100 pickguard properly situated on an RT body having same Wilkinson VSVG trem: See what I mean?

Hey Guys, Don't get overly worked up by this -- the exercise was just intended to be a quick examination to see how much variation there was in where bridge pups are placed, as opposed to some hard and fast "rule." I'm satisfied that yes there is some variation (albeit minor), and that makes sense because the tonality will obviously vary according to where that pup is placed. The differences appear to be pretty minor and I'm not going to sweat it. As I mentioned, I'm not going to reroute the location of the bridge pup on the RT bodies just to nudge it 4-5 mm toward the bridge. Bob - since you're wondering about my measurements. I chose, somwhat arbitrarily, the B-saddle for reference because it seemed to vary the least in position among the guitars I quickly looked at. Just so you know it isn't completely bogus, how bout we go the other way -- distance from bridge side of fret 22 to front (neck) side of pickup? I agree that that is less error prone than using saddles, since it eliminates the variation in both saddle design and intonation slop. Here ya go: RT450 = 121.5mm AT300 = 126.0mm AT100 = 127.0mm So that again gives about 4.5-5.5mm difference between the ATs and the RTs, same as I get going the other direction (bridge to rear edge of pup). I don't have time to redo the other ones. I already knew about the difference between AT and RT--This quest started when I placed the AT100 pickguard onto the RT body (with same Wilkinson VSV trem as AT) and saw that the hole for the bridge pup in the AT pickguard did not begin to align with the routed cavity in the RT body. It's off by ~5-6mm. No way to align them without a new pickguard or some routing. That got me to wondering if one or the other was "right". Nope- just different. I'll try to snap and post a shot of the AT pickguard laying on the RT body sometime today. Take care!

Thanks for the input, guys! To follow up, I did some comparisons to see where the bridge humbucker was situated on other Ibanez 25-1/2" scale guitars. For a baseline, I looked at the distance from the B-string saddle (at the contact point) to the near edge of the pickup. Here are the measurements for various models (again, all Ibanez guitars): Non-locking trem guitars: RT450 (2-post, non-locking trem): 27mm RT150 (vintage 6-screw): 27mm BL1025 (vintage 6-screw): 23mm AT100 (vintage 6-screw): 22mm 442R (2-post, non-locking): 30mm Locking trem (Edge) guitars: 540R: 28mm S1540: 28mm RG760: 26mm JS1000: 28mm So the range is from 22mm (AT100) to 30mm (the 442R), giving a difference of 8mm or around 1/3". It's interesting that the AT model winds up being the closest of all, which I presume was done according to Andy's preferences. The locking trem guitars tended toward having a greater distance at 26-28mm. I think I'll leave the pickup in the two RT bodies in its original position, since that location is well within the ball-park of most of the rest. Take care, Bert

Hi, I have a couple of projects underway which are both more-or-less similar to an Ibanez AT model guitar(Andy Timmons model, with HSS pickups). For these projects, I'm using a couple of old Ibanez RT bodies which are similar to an RG but have non-locking trems (one 2-post and the other vintage 6-screw). I compared the location of the existing bridge hums on the RT bodies to the pickup location on an AT. It appears that the AT has the pickup sitting quite a bit closer to the bridge than the factory routing on the RTs (RT has rear edge of pickup at about 15mm from front of bridge plate, vs 7-8mm on an AT). My questions are: 1) Is there any agreed upon "standard" for positioning a bridge humbucker? 2) Would this location differ on a 6-screw vs 2-post trem? Specifically, would the larger bridge posts on a 2-post trem require a bit more distance between the trem and the pickup routing to avoid bust-outs? Thanks for your input! Bert

I agree with this and just did this exact thing to two square-heeled Ibanez guitars. I compared a pattern of the newer Ibanez AANJ neck joint to the traditional square pattern and found that the only significant change was in the location of screw E. It is true that D is moved very slightly inward (perhaps 1-2mm) but I see no reason to tamper with it for that small adjustment. I've also found that you can use the old location of screw E as a helpful guide when you recontour the heel -- the new arc will just barely remove the old channel for that screw. That is, the new shape will lie just inside of that screw hole, so I make the cut to leave a little of that hole and then sand it clean for the final shape.

Yes, I'm familiar with the myriad discussions surrounding the "24th node = tonal nirvana" (or not!) business. That wasn't the intent of my question, but I agree that once you fret a note the node is shifted. That's obvious. However, the distance between wherever you're fretting and the neck pickup is still different according to whether the pickup is placed at that approximate 24-fret position versus when it's situated further away (as on a 24-fret neck guitar). I really don't care about the underlying physics -- single coils simply sound better to me when they live in that location. Back to the middle pup question -- I guess I'll just put it wherever it looks OK. I was mainly curious why various builders make different choices with regards to its location. I suppose it depends largely on the tonal characteristics of whatever single coil pickup they prefer and maybe also on which coil is on when splitting the bridge humbucker. Thanks for the input, guys!

Hi, I'm working on a project in which I'm converting a HSH guitar (with pickguard) to an HSS setup. The guitar was orginally a 24-fretter with an extended fretboard overhang, but I'm converting it to a 22-fret, with the new neck single coil sitting in the favored spot at approximately the old 24th fret location. My question has to do with where to locate, or relocate the middle pup. The neck and bridge pickup locations are decided (keep old location for the bridge, and neck single loc as described above). I have a number of HSS guitars and it looks like they're all over the place. Some (for example an old Kramer) have the middle pup at the same location as on a regular SSS strat, such that the space between the neck and middle singles is about double that between the middle and bridge humbucker. Other makers seem to almost split the difference, with the two spaces (bridge-to-mid, and neck-to-mid) about equal. And then there's every variation in between. I need to get a new pickguard made for this project, so I need to settle on the location for the middle pup. I'm not too worried about the underlying routing because by the time I routed for the neck single, it's almost a bathtub cavity underneath. I could put the mid pretty much anywhere. Any suggestions? Thanks! Bert

That looks great. I would have guessed that it was stained red rather than candy coated. I haven't tried this approach yet so we'll see how it goes.

OK -- trans tint or candy coat it will be. That's kind of what I figured but I thought I'd check to see if there were any other options. Thanks!

Hi, I have a finished body which is clearcoated with poly. After finishing, I realized that it's not exactly what I want and I'd like to add a slight green tint to the finish. I'm wondering if there is anything that would work as a wipe on tint, stain, or dye that would add a semi-transparent light green tone to the finish. I'm not sure if the Stew-Mac ColorTone stain or pigment would work for this, since it's intended to be mixed with the clearcoat and sprayed on. It seems like there should be something that would work on poly without completely stripping it, but I don't know what to look for. Thanks! Bert

Thanks for the response! Your #3 (install a truss rod) is an interesting idea. It'd be neat to have an unusual old guitar like this that actually played well. I probably should have played it some more before I dissassembled it to clean it up, but my first impressions were that it had a very nice full tone. I think it'd be beyond my skill level to attempt the truss installation myself, but I'll try asking the local luthier if he'd consider doing it. If not, then your option #2 would be next. Cheers, Bert

Greetings, I picked up a cool ~1939 Kay "violin archtop" acoustic guitar at a 2nd hand store for very cheap. It's kind of a unique model in that it has a curled headstock, much like a violin or cello, rather than the customary guitar style headstock. The guitar is in pretty poor shape cosmetically and the bridge and tailpiece have apparently been replaced. I'm not really interested in trying to do a complete restoration, but I would like to make the guitar playable. The first thing I noticed is that the action is crazy high and I can see a pronounced forward bow along the neck. Being rather ignorant about old acoustics, I started looking for the truss nut, but can't find any truss adjustment anywhere. So I guess there isn't one. After a bit of reading, I understand that many old acoustics simply had fixed steel rods or else they relied on the very thick necks to remain straight. My question -- Is there any way to straighten out the neck on an old guitar like this, or must it become a wall hanger? Thanks! Bert

I pretty much followed the "Material Finish" tutorial here at Project Guitar, except I didn't sand all the way down to bare wood, opting for contact cement instead of wood glue. As in the tutorial, I used 2 primary pieces of fabric for the front and rear. I stretched it as tight as possible by hand and then held it in place using lots of painters tape. The tutorial describes how to do a burst for the edges, but on this curvy JS body I didn't want to burst the edges -- I wanted a nice clean seam. That was the tricky part. I did the back first, and after that dried overnight, I applied one coat of sanding sealer, and then taped a very precise line of painters tape over the fabric where the front-to-rear seam would lie. I then trimmed the rear section along the edge of the tape. Leaving the tape on, I then applied the contact cement for the front piece, trying to avoid slopping it over the tape along the seam. After the front section dried overnight, I applied one coat of sanding sealer, and let it dry overnight. I carefully trimmed it along the edge of the tape and made some small repairs with Super Glue to get a nice tight line along the seam where the front and back now meet. Finally, it's pretty impossible to get the fabric to lay nicely with no wrinkles or bubbles inside the horns. Tnerefore I left a gap between the front and rear pieces (about 1/2") and later glued a separate piece in there. After all the fabric was glued on, I did minor touchup with small artist brushes and enamel paint that was reasonably close to some of the colors in the fabric. That did a good job of disguising any boo-boos or exposed wood. Finish was 4-5 coats (?) of MinWax sanding sealer and many, many coats of semi-gloss polyurethane. I'm not sure there's ever a way to get one of theses fabric finishes perfect on a heavily contoured guitar. But I'm pleased with the result and I'm really enjoying it.