mistermikev

looks like that particular circuit is booster... on the sm site you can find baja's direct clone of an emg... .different animal - a differential amp. that would use the lm4280 but more because of it's low battery drain than specific sound qualities... or so I'm told. afa to active or not to active... for me... I also hate batteries in a guitar... but since I play bass I have given into the dark side because active eq up front is so useful there.

in answer to your question... sure. you COULD factor in some mm for action... but you have already kind of done that with your 2mm of slop. That said... if you lay out your items in a simple graphic editor like paint even... you'll find that there is a LOT more variability to it than one might first suspect. esp if like a les paul... you put a pickup plane AND a neck plane in... you can literally make any angle (1deg to 5deg) work by just lowering or raising the neck. getting back to what you are asking... I think giving yourself 2mm of slop is more than you need... and giving more you risk issues with the bridge sitting too high. It's not enough imo to get it to work... you need it "not too high" and "not too low"! EDIT: forgot to mention... you also may consider that the typical tom bridge - you are going to file down into the saddles approx 1mm for string grooves.

I appreciate your dedication to "unique construction" methods. for me, that stands out as bravery among luthiers - so many things can go wrong and end up taking so much time. Seems doing your own shape is the first thing we think of in terms of 'originality', and seems sometimes that originality in construction is often overlooked by many. All this is to say: bravo.

just eager as hell to put things in the "finished" column yesterday after all I've been through this week. this one is option A for the vintage version - granadillo... has some really nice tight grain. have another piece of what was billed as "old growth purple indian rosewood" that i'll do next and would be option B.

so... this is just a fretboard I bought w precut slots (allenguitar?), anywho... idk if I'm even gonna use it or how it factors in but I think I just wanted to get something done that was right for a change, so I cut the inlays! this week has been bruta for mel!

absolutely right as usual. taking the z axis apart learned me a lot! I replaced the bottom flanged bearing too and little by little I am gaining confidence afa that goes. ultimately I'd like to re-build the y axis and use linear rails and extend it to 1000mm and while it'll be a long time before I'm ready to take that plunge... this is one more step in that direction and for that I thank you!!

so... it took me over a week to do one fretboard hehe. This week I learned twice how to thread a ball nut onto a ball screw! trickier than you'd think! finally got her on there and got a new coupler on and got everything dialed back in (thanks again @MiKro for your help!) and my z axis is better than it's ever been... nice and tight. anywho... this is more than just a fretboard for me. This is what I'm calling a DOUBLE COMPOUND fretboard. Afa I know it's something I can claim as original albiet not "LIFE CHANGING" or anything. the idea is I have an 18" to 24" compound radius on the EAD, and a 10" to 16" radius on the GBE. My hope is that it makes things a bit more ergonomic as the high strings drop in altitude a bit more than the low strings. also of note... this piece of ebony - my 3rd piece... has some cool flame to it that I hope will show up a bit more when it is polished. all that said... I think I oriented the 1st fret inlay wrong doh! rookie mistake but at this point I'm just overjoyed to be back making things! do

nicely done.

Not much to add here... but since no one mentioned this I thought ole cap'n obvious here would throw in two cents. your fret crown can contribute to difficulty intonating. if you don't get a razor thin center apex... then the intonation will be off one way or another. I mention because initially it wasn't clear what your problem was... seems you've sorted it with using harmonic vs fretted method to set.

right on, now I see them. lovely bit of ebony there. v cool.

using chrome?

I want my money back! I clicked on it... but I saw no alder goodness. now I have blue balls. something going wrong with your images partner. they come up as little thumbnail boxes for me fyi.. it does SOUND nice!

not sure it's accurate to say the only old violins that are sought after are strats... just like guitar this is a point that violin players debate to the death. You can find studies where they do blind testing and conclude that violin players can't tell the dif... and others that try to explain why old violins sound better. it is eerily parallel to the guitar. Similarly you find (acoustic) guitar builders who swear that the ornamental flamed maple back and sides don't sound as good as the plane mahog/koa/cocoboa/all-sorts. and others who insist there is magic in the variation in density of flamed maple. anywho, getting off into the weeds here on such a subjective topic, and off topic from prostheta's thread... I'm sure the top he will choose will be unique and outstanding!

don't know much about them either (violins), so on that note I read a few articles and afa I can tell there isn't a strong preference for qtr sawn other than for the top, at least according to those sources. Like anything else I'm certain it varies by builder. was surprised to learn that quilt and even birdseye are oft used for backs as well. Sounded like it was more for ornamental qualities than anything else tho. who can fathom the mind of the violin maker!?

so a while back I did the below and it was my first experience with doing a set neck "the les paul way". this was all done pre-cnc and what I found to be the most difficult was just getting a good join at the typical lp overhang. I used the typical "put a piece of sandpaper in there, close the gap, and pull it through" and I got a pretty good looking join, but it was an awful lot of detail work. this part won't be any easier w cnc because of the nature of it... you'd have to mount the neck in a 4d jig and spin it to do with cnc... which would be an awful lot of work... but in my first post I have included the jist of a jig I plan to build to hopefully make it a 'no brainer'... emphasis on the hopefully!

right on. not sure I set out for this... but I like to think that most of my builds so far I've tried to make them as different as possible from the orig but still staying within the format. this 59 burst will really be the first time I've ever tried to make something as identical as possible. Just trying to build out my skill set!

Right, no, I get it... didn't feel like you were and didn't mean to imply that! I knew at the start of this project that that(scale length and rule of 18) is one of those details that folks care about... so I researched it just thinking "well, maybe there is something to it". Thru that process it just seemed to me that it would make more sense to copy the scale length, but do it using modern accuracy. When building any sort of guitar that is based on another guitar, we all make our own choices about what we'll duplicate and what we'll throw out. Most of my guitars to this point have used a two way truss rod with access thru a fret, for example, and I feel that is a superior setup in many respects (would strengthen the achilles heal of the les paul model - the headstock)... but in the interest of "studying the masters" I felt the single action compression truss rod setup was a foundational aspect that I could learn a lot from - so that was one of those choices I went the other direction on. Not right or wrong to do it either way (truss rod OR rule of 18)... those were just the choices that made the most sense to me. It's all good I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments.

I have read that very close flame like this was much more desirable to violin makers (for backs) and is considered as part of the grading process (ie something that would contribute to bumping a top into 4/5A territory). Idk how accurate that is but I've always found it very appealing. have a chunk in my garage that is very tight like that... saving for a special occassion as I think it's a lot more rare than the typical flame... and that contributes to its' "specail-ness" for me. That is a sweet looking top there!

well... the rule of 18 is "the rule of compound errors". iow, the actual number is 17.817... but back in the day they rounded off because no one could cut with that sort of precision anyway... so essentially at your 12th fret you get enough rounding error to end at 24 9/16 starting from 24.75. I was sort of alluding to that in my earlier post but perhaps did not come across direct w it. As with many things on this build... I'll stop short of copying mistakes - nothing magical about those! btw and for the record... ordered the coupler @Mikro suggested and got it... but it's 36mm around. These things are SUBSTANCIAL - I like it. Unfortunately the opening in the aluminum is 27mm so... went and found a single diaphragm version that is 26mm od... gonna be close, but I think it should work ok so ordered one. for now, the coupler that was on there was ok, just loose. I think I'll drill it for set screws and file a flat spot in my ball screw end and put it back together while I wait. thanks again for the suggestion! Hoping to cut a 'quad-compound' fretboard this weekend!

my z axis is 6.35 to 8mm. I just ordered the one and when I get a chance to look at the others I'll by replacements too. turns out the coupler was just loose... but it aslo is NOT the type with a set screw! will have to find the equiv m4 tap

thanks @MiKro very much appreciate the input. I have replaced my x w that sm coupler when it had some issues... they were all the spiral type. this one has been rock solid. I wondered about the set screw too but just left it as is. I'm glad you chimed in, I will take this advice to heart. Was planning on buying replacements for all... as soon as I get them off and figure out the size. have a tap and die set so will do the sm. very much appreciate it!!

welp... some days you're the winshield and today I'm the bug. so started to cut some lovely indian ebony for a fretboard... and things were going along just great... then it all went to hell. was watching from my phone as it cut the fret slots... and a couple slots in it just went to shit. the z axis... just started following down commands but not up commands. well... took a look at it and sure enough it is slipping on the screw. Hopefully this is just a broken coupler. is def a mechanical issue as even with the machine off and working the thumbscrew she slips downward. Unfortunately I have to take all sorts of things off to get at the coupler. pretty tired today... so I'm gonna give up and live to fight tomorrow. on the bright side... so I've had this idea in my head for a while and I've mentioned it b4... a dual compound radius. I've decided I'm going to bring it to life and have encorporated it into my latest fretboard design for the marlin version. so... if you think about a radius and the centerpoint/apex of that curve. no reason one can't decide to not only do a compound radius... but to do one compound radius on the high strings... and another completely dif compound radius for the low strings. Was thinking that I'd go with an 18" to 24" compound radius on the e/a/d and a 10" to 16" on the b/g/e. The idea is that I'll essentially raise the low e side of the fretboard a bit and lower the high e side a bit and this should make things a bit more ergonomic. not a huge amount of dif... but I know the hand can feel very small differences so... I'm hopeful this will be cool at the least and comfy at the most. anywho...

hehe, for sure... the legend is alive here at projgtr!

along with there inconsistency is a lot of urban legend! I've heard that story, but only heard it ascribed to their issues with frets being 'off' not a dif scale. I've read that the issue was that the blades (similar to chop saw but super thin and only like 6") would warp as they got hot over time... and this would lead to some inconsistent frets. I've read many things about the 24.75 being advertised and then gibson "compensating" on the actual to match the advertised figuring that 24.75 was at the string... not the base plane... idk if that's truth or myth. I know that it is widely accepted that b4 1953 they did actually use actual 24.75 on a lot of their acoustics and the early lesters. I am not aware of any common knowledge as to why they would change from 24.75 to 24.625 or 24.5625... seems a silly small change.

toying with the idea of weight relieving the back of my top on the marlin version here... design paralysis! So... the way that I'm mis-using my design software is to keep everything in one file... the top, the initial body thickness, and the full thickness... rethickness back to .625 and manipulate the 3D for the top by creating an inverse. Due to the constraints of how i setup my material... the max thickness I can do w/o severe reconstruction is .2". iow... I leave .2" of top after carving the back (it's complicated). Is that enough? well w the modern style weight relief it'd be no problem because essentially there would be 'struts' stengthening the top. With the full hollowbody version I'm not so confident. is there enough there at the studs to prevent disaster? also not confident. On the fish on bass... the purpleheart version... I used the sm studs I'm going to use and they are half inch od... and I believe I went to a 1" surround and my buthole was tightly clenched when I pounded that thing in! Here we have 1.25" surrounding the tailpiece studs... well if you want to build something experimental you are going to have to endure some risk! Further, as currently drawn... there is .9" between the end of the backside top carve and the "lp custom style" 7 layer binding. (hangs head) that is probably cutting it a bit too close! so... back to the drawing board! Mostly just thinking out loud here... helps me organize my thoughts... but would welcome any input.