curtisa

I think it will work, but I suspect it will give pretty unpredictable results. Output will be ultra-weak (project notes warn of this) and results obtained will be largely dependent on the specs on that transformer, for which none are provided, and the awesomeness of the preamp, which won't be that awesome Possibly a fun noise-making experiment, but beyond that..?

TC Electronic Mimiq? https://www.tcelectronic.com/product.html?modelCode=P0DDH

0.375" offset seems a little light on (I'm eyeballing using a plastic ruler, but mine measures more like 0.5" offset), but if you're happy and they're happy, run with their advice. I'd only be a little concerned that at 0.375" offset you're going to need to pull the saddles back further to achieve correct intonation, and that the low-E string clamp screw may end up overhanging the back of the trem route. Scratch that. 25.125" is further away from the nut than mine is at 25", which means there's a chance the legs of the high-E and B string saddles will overhang the leading edge of the baseplate after intonation has been adjusted. Might be inconsequential, but make sure the forward-most edge of the route has a bit of clearance to allow the saddle legs to swing freely without fouling on the body between the trem and bridge pickup.

I don't think it's anything quite that sinister on FRs part. I think it's just a case of their datasheets are a bit weak in terms of the info they convey. We're actually pretty lucky they offer trem cavity routing plans at all - good luck getting the same info out of Gotoh for their GE1996T locking bridge. As a builder you're more likely to purchase one of FR's trems because you specifically want their product in your guitar, rather than because their dimensional drawings are (not) awesome. Once you have it in your hands there's nothing stopping you making your own measurements to fill in the gaps. Annoying, yes, but by no means a showstopper.

Correct, and this was the hardest thing for me to establish when I did my templates. It would have been so much easier if FR had derived all their measurements from this point. All we really need to know is where the saddle take-off point is when it's in it's most forward practical position (NB: 'practical' - don't forget that it's possible to adjust the saddles on a FR so that the legs overhang the baseplate, which will introduce new issues of their own). This is the point where scale length exists; the saddles only go backwards from here. Then just provide us with a measurement from this point to where the trem posts need to be drilled. After all, if you get this wrong then it doesn't matter how much clearance you provide for the trem to sit in, the guitar will never play in tune. All the more reason to try your nominated route on scrap, then. You have a few different, but hopefully usable templates to choose from - pick one and take it for a spin. Massage the results until you're happy to commit the required cuts to your working bodies.

I think they'll both work. One might give you a route with a slightly smaller border around the tremolo outline compared to the other, but I suspect there's nothing wrong with either of them. Don't forget that the cavity only has to allow enough clearance for all the bits to move freely. Assuming you go for form over function (ie, you don't make the cavity so small that it's...well, broken), how much clearance is entirely a matter of subjectivity. If it were me I'd go with the Special routes, only because the two versions agree with each other, and the rear section is marginally longer than the OFR one you've linked to (might be handy to allow for a little more intonation adjustment on the lower strings, where the string clamping screw will stick out further). But y'now - measure twice, cut once and all that... It's handy, but it's also a bit dangerous - it's not an intonation line as such, but more a relative offset from the nut (notice how the offset changes based on scale length - your nominated scale length is different again, so is there an easy way to extrapolate those values to your requirements?). It's also an offset that describes the position of the cavity rather than the bridge, which means it's been positioned based on someones opinion of what route clearance around the leading edge of the bridge looks 'right'. It would've made more sense to show the offset relative to some feature on the bridge itself. I'd ignore it and position the bridge relative to what your guitar needs in order for it to intonate correctly, that being the scale length based on the point where the strings leave the saddles when positioned in the most forward practical position on the baseplate. In my case with an OFR it's about 16mm from the leading edge of the baseplate (ignore my previous recommendation of 12mm - it was dark, I had a drink, it was late...). Pretty sure it was the metric one, but I can't remember if the drawing they have now was the same drawing I used back then. Again, my choices in making those diagrams was more about the appearance of the finished routes (well...plus I had a limited number of router bit sizes to choose from and couldn't be bothered trying to work out measurements to two decimal places by eye...) FWIW, here's some photos of the guitar that was made using that exact set of templates in the article. Excuse the dust: If I were to make the templates again I'd probably bring the top edge of the cavity 1mm or so closer to the leading edge of the baseplate to make the outline a bit more uniform (see first pic), and the back of the recess where the string lock screws need to clear when pulling up on the bar a couple of mm longer (second pic). The low-E clamp screw does clear everything, but I wouldn't want it to go back much further.

Because the saddles are movable. The best they could give you will be a rough guide as to where the intonation point should begin from. If you're after an absolute value, I'd set the scale length point 12mm back from the leading edge of the bridge plate, which is what the OFR measures on a guitar I put together some years back. The FR Special routing templates from the FR website (metric and imperial) seem to agree with each other - R5mm = R0.1969" = 10mm dia. If in doubt can you drill a test hole in a scrap bit of timber a see if your studs will press in OK? Again, I can't see any discrepancy between the two versions of the FR Special routing template drawings. I didn't check every dimension shown, but the 4 or 5 I picked at random seemed to align spot on (values specified in inches multiplied by 25.4 gave me millimetres). I was under the impression that the Special and Original were more a case of 'identical enough for one to drop into the pocket of the other', so that a guitar fitted with the Special may be upgraded at a later date without having to have major surgery to fit it. I might have that wrong though. In any case, are the discrepancies you're seeing enough to prevent your example fitting in the route specified in the Special drawings? If you're doing this on CNC, can you mill a test route in some scrap timber to see if your design will accept the bridge before committing to the proper bodies? This may also be of interest to you: At the bottom of the page are some PDF drawings of the templates I used to make that article. I can confirm the dimensions provided work, although you may want to tweak some of the shapes and clearances if appearances are mission-critical to you. I can take a photo of the guitar that was made using those templates, but the light isn't so good here at the moment.

OK, as I thought - you have each terminal on the switch transposed around by one. The switch you are using is not a like-for-like replacement for the one shown in your diagram without some additional work. Here's what you want. Note that you can simplify the wiring of the tone pot significantly by not wasting an entire half of the switch and connecting it directly to the volume pot instead. I've tried to match the existing wiring colours you've used, but I'm only guessing the bridge pickup is white and the neck is green - it's hard to tell from your photo which one is which. If you wire it up and find that bridge and neck are back-to-front you can either turn the switch around 180 degrees on the scratchplate, or exchange the bridge and neck wires on the switch::

You sure the switch is the same type shown in the EMG diagram? Can you post a clear side-on shot of your switch for us to look at? I assume this is some kind of transplant job using some older EMG pickups. Were they known to be good before they were installed? Edit: you can get the incorrect pickup selection you describe if you accidentally exchange the bridge and common connections on the switch and swap the middle and neck positions. My money is on the switch being wired up transposed by one terminal all the way around, but a clear photo of the two sides of the switch so we can see the layout of the terminals and mechanism would confirm this. Note also that there are some questionable-looking solder joints which may not be helping things either.

OK, I understand how your diagram works now. Yes - the switch shown in that hand-drawn diagram will be the same type as the Dimarzio one I referenced before, which is the same one you've drawn. I think your scheme will work OK. Not sure if it really matters that the mag portion of the preamp does not get muted (QSW blue) when in 'raw mag' mode, because you're disconnecting the output of the preamp and bypassing it directly to the output jack tip at the same time. Perhaps that's why the hand-drawn diagram exchanged the mix and piezo options?

Arrrghh! Your diagram hurts my brains! I think the issue with combining the piezo/both/mag switch (QSW) and the mag bypass switch will be that the former needs to be centre-off, whereas the latter needs to be one-or-the-other. To combine the two functions might take something quite esoteric. You might be able to do it with something like the Dimarzio EP1111 switch. They can be pricey though.

Very odd. Do you get output in the middle position from both pickups when the switch is removed from the cavity? Is there something fouling the switch mechanism when it's stuffed back into the guitar perhaps? You're right - there's not an awful lot that can go wrong with those kinds of switches, but their open-frame construction does make them a little vulnerable to damage. I've personally not had much luck with the import-style three way toggle as the contact metals appear to be of lower quality compared to the Switchcraft equivalent, and go intermittent over time. Usually if I found one that was cutting out I could temporarily get it going again by quickly flicking it back and forth a few times. But it's weird that you've had two switches fail the same way, one new from the packet, yet it test correctly. Will an o'scope tell you anything useful that plugging in to an amp doesn't? The neck pickup is either going short-circuit to ground or open-circuit in the middle position, leaving you with no output from the neck pickup. All that will do is visually show you what your ears already know.

That inline connector in the control cavity - is that standard in an Epi Les Paul? Hard to tell in the photos, but I'd be checking that the wires on both sides of the connector go to where they're meant to be going as they pass from one side to the other: Red wire on switch -> bridge volume pot middle lug Green wire on switch -> neck volume pot middle lug White wire on switch -> output jack tip lug Braid/shield on switch -> ground

If you raise both volumes to 10 and select the middle position do you get output from both pickups? If you touch something metallic, like a screwdriver, to the pickup pole pieces you should hear a pop from each pickup.

Other than the resistance looking back into the output jack not being the value of the pot (which isn't, strictly speaking, an issue in itself) is there something else that's faulty on the guitar?

Fab. Little One is spoilt rotten to have a Grandpa like yourself. So, when is the 'in action' vid being uploaded to Little One's YouTube channel?

Thin/deep. A square section of any material is more bendy than a rectangular section of the same material if bent along its narrowest edge. Similar reason to making a laminated neck with the laminations stacked side-by-side vs one on top of the other.

The scratchplate shouts brand non-specific Hummingbird clone. Do a Google image search for '[insert your favourite 70s import brand] Hummingbird Acoustic' and see how many hits you get. To me it looks like a fairly plain-looking Dreadnought acoustic that's been dressed up to look more like a fancier model. The body has a basic untinted finish. The binding is plain. The rosette around the soundhole is fairly nondescript. The fret inlays are just simple dot markers. The headstock stands out only in that it's been tinted to not match the body, which seems unusual - maybe someone debadged it and refinished it to hide its origins for some reason? Other things worth noting that may point to its heritage: position matker at the 10th fret instead of the normal 9th and the use of a zero fret, which may indicate it's a cheaper model with European origins.

Pickguard and bridge with those two plugs at each end of the saddle are trying to ape the Gibson Hummingbird, which was a very popular model acoustic for cheaper brands to clone in the 70s. Could be any number of makers from that period. With no makers mark on the headstock you'd need to do a bit more examination to have any luck of identifying it. Maybe poke a torch and mirror into the soundhole and look for stamps inside? Definitely not a Yamaha - they were always really good at adding their logo to their products, and the headstock shape is completely wrong. Yamaha did do a copy of the Hummingbird at one point, but it was much closer to the original in terms of looks.

In terms of fixing the volume issues, It shouldn't make any difference. The choice between 50s and modern wiring is largely a subjective one.

From what I can tell there are multiple versions of the Jimmy Page wiring scheme floating around, including one from Seymour Duncan themselves, all of which differ from each other in various ways. As far as I can tell from your particular redraw of it: You have correctly transcribed the version you were given, linked at your TGP thread, into your MS Paint version (assuming that was correct to begin with, which I think it is). Your version changes the order of the pickup coils compared to other versions. You have red = hot, white = ground, black+green = middle of coils, whereas the SD standard is black = hot, green = ground, red+white = middle of coils. However, wiring the humbuckers as you have it does not affect the way the pickup works - all you've done is swap the order of the left and right coils on the humbucker frame. The four switches/pots do the required functions (coils splits, phase reverses, series/parallel, volume and tone) as drawn, even if they do it slightly differently to other versions of the wiring diagram. The above aligns with your experiences that everything appears to work OK; it's just that you can't make the volume pots go to completely silent. Fundamentally, if the guitar is wired exactly as you have it drawn and there are no faults with the various components I think it should work.

Yes - your readings sound a bit suspicious. The neck one doesn't seem too bad, but you should be reading something on the bridge pot. Maybe double check you're making good contact on the back of the bridge volume pot when taking your measurements before writing it off - some pots can have a slightly insulative coating applied to the cases to prevent corrosion that may be upsetting your readings.

OK, one last test - set the bridge volume control to zero and measure from the centre lug of the pot to the case with the multimter set to ohms. Should read zero again. Repeat for the neck volume pot. If there were one you'd be seeing readings above zero on the last couple of tests (maybe a couple of hundred ohms?). The fact that you can't get the volumes to completely off suggests that the pots cannot short out the pickup signal all the way to ground when rotated fully counter-clockwise, which is what should be happening under normal circumstances. The fact that both volumes appeared to be doing it was leading me to believe that it was something common to both pots, hence why I suggested a high resistance ground between the pots and the jack. Another possibility is both pots are damaged internally (maybe overheated when the lug was soldered to the case?), which is what the latest test, above, is trying to check. There's nothing mechanically stopping the pots from rotating all the way to zero? Nothing rubbing underneath the dial? The knob isn't hitting something as it is being rotated?

Shouldn't matter. When you've done that, plug a lead into the jack and measure ohms between the tip and sleeve of the other end of the lead with the all volume pots at 0 - you should also read zero ohms (or nearly zero). If not I suspect you have a high resistance ground somewhere between the pots and output jack.

Can you try this test?: Sorry - I just edited my previous post, you may have missed it.