My Pipe Dream

[GregP]

Well,

Until I have even ONE guitar under my belt, this is all just "stuff and nonsense" (ie. blowing smoke), but I've been thinking a lot lately about what my ideal 'home studio' and 'go-to' guitar would be.

And strangely enough, it's turning out to be a lot like what a lot of people hate... the Steinberger L-type (ie. broom!) guitar.

So far, in my preliminary plans, I've been going over some stuff:

1 - neck: I'd like something rigid and durable like the graphite or composite necks, but that's not going to happen. Since that's not going to happen, maple neck with graphite/carbon (?) rods and an ebony fingerboard is sounding good.

2 - body: I think I'll go with a pre-made neck-through... the only one that would then meet the needs of point #1 would be the USACG neck-through. I wonder if they'd do one without the dot inlay?

3 - pickups: active EMGs. I need flexibility, though, so I'm a bit puzzled. I don't know from EMGs, so I'm not sure which combination will give me the bang for the buck. I would like to have single-coilish sounds (the SA pickups I guess?) at both neck and bridge, but I also need/want humbucker sounds at both neck and bridge. A coil tap seems the obvious choice, but perhaps back-to-back SAs (positioned as humbuckers) would be a better option? How about an SA in the middle, too? Getting too crowded?

Any active pickup advice appreciated, since I know nada. The key idea is a broad range of styles, though I don't absolutely need the highest of high gain, since that's the style I identify with least.

4 - bridge: I'm thinking Speedloader, since I don't know of any way to get a Steinberger trem, and I'm not sure that I'd necessarily go for it even if I did.

5 - acoustic sound: This is a low priority, but I was considering looking into piezo and a blend circuit... do piezo-loaded saddles exist for speedloader and/or any other Floyd? Would it even be practical? Perhaps just a single piezo on the trem block instead of saddle-loaded? Thoughts? I know it's a bizarre thing to put on a broom guitar, but it might provide the right tone for certain situations, especially with the option to blend.

6 - that leg thingy for seated playing: where does one get one? Coulda sworn I saw them on MusicYo. Alternatively, I was thinking of a system in which a removable lower bout can slide on/off and clip into place, much like the way removable hard drive bays 'snick' into place. Could probably even retrofit the hard drive clips to do the trick.

7 - other active circuitry - any point to adding anything else to the already tiny body? Would there even be room? Are there circuits worth looking into?

I think that's about it...

Just thinking aloud, but any knowledge shared or advice given is appreciated.

Greg

[Deanneckthrough]

Well, as far as the EMG's go i was just researching the exact subject and installed a set in my dean( EMG 81 in the bridge, 85 in the neck).

if you want the best of both worlds, go with 2-3 SA's with the EMG SPC circuit, heres the description of the SPC from EMG's site.

"The SPC or "Strat Presence Control" is often called the fat control. The original intent of the SPC was to turn the tone of a single-coil pickup into a dual-coil. This is accomplished by boosting the gain in a broad mid-band fashion and reducing the highs. The result is a fatter, louder tone from any single coil pickup, but you can also use it on a humbucking to give you a high output, really fat tone that's great for slide guitar."

[x189player]

my advice would be to mock up the body, like in cheap plywood, and strap it up and check out the ergonomics. I love bodyless guitars too, but a lot lives or dies by the shape, and you can't tell until you actually wear the thing with a strap.

[GregP]

I'm not worried about the shape so much-- the Steinberger "broom" sold quite well and has had enough testing done on it. Also, plywood's too expensive. <grin>

I'm more worried about the components and which to use. There's an ABM (i think that's the company's name) headless system available, but I'm not sure how great it would be, for the asking price. Since the Speedloader's only just gaining some steam, I'm hoping the idea catches on and the strings become more widely available and cheaper.

The three SAs with the SPC sound like an option worth checking out. I always liked the way dual-humbucker Steinbergers looked, but the flexibility is what I'm more concerned about.

[GregP]

HRmm...

I've done some quick peeking around:

- the ABM one I was thinking of is non-trem

- the Speedloader isn't to be found except installed on guitars

I know people have built headless guitars on this forum before... any pointers?

Greg

[skibum5545]

You can get the steinberger system bridges here:

http://www.musicyo.com/brandpos.asp?dept_id=3&Series=Parts

as well as the leg rest thingy. However, the removable horn sounds like an interesting idea, if you can figure out how to make it work.

What about EMG-89's? They allow "coil tapping" insofar as they encase both a single coil and a humbucker in each humbucker-sized box.

I'm pretty sure USACG can make a neck without dots. If Carvin and Warmoth can do it, I'm almost positive USACG could also.

[MikeB]

i have the 89 on my guitar atm, the coil tap is a cool feature - definately handy, especially if trying to simulate acoustic guitars. i have also used the 81 and the 60. let me rant about the 60 some - its a great pickup, and imo the best emg i have used. i used one in neck position for a while, then switched it to bridge, it was sweet - so definately consider this one! its well worth the buck!

i wire my guitars with the no - load tone pot switching as standard - just to get that little bit more output and clarity when desired. i must say i usually leave the circuit open - no load another wise. all this is doing is bypassing the tone pots - so reducing the resistance, therefore more output, and more treble. this works on passives and actives alike. i have wired this on several guitars to great success.

if you want to PM me about anything to do with the EMG's or the wiring, feel free to do so.

Mike

[GregP]

Thanks for the pointers, guys.

Skibum-- any idea if those Steinberger trems include the neck/head(less) attachment, too? They only show the bridge in the picture.

Since I don't plan on doing any trans-trem-like stuff, I imagine the R-type trem would be fine for me. It seems more or less equivalent to a plain old no-frills Floyd.

MikeB-- when the project gets closer, I'll be sure to get back to you about EMGs.

Remember, so far this is a pipe dream. <chuckle>

Greg

[frank falbo]

You need to look into Bartolini systems if you want to have that kind of flexibility. I mean a pair of 89's is okay but if you want to have true coil splitting ability then you can choose whatever Bartolini humbucker you want, and it will be splittable. In other words, it doesn't have to sound like an EMG 85/SA just because that's all EMG offers. And 2 SA's next to eachother won't sound anything like a humbucker because they'll be parallel wired, post-preamp.

But you can also design the active system to involve a boost, like the SPC, but have total control over the frequency as well as level. Bartolini is the only company I know that can truly make a guitar a "swiss army knife" with all the sounds you choose to make available. No offense to EMG, but you're describing all these needs that frankly EMG can't meet.

For the guitar, I'd prefer a mahogany neck but that's just me. I think you'd get a little more "body" (no pun intended) out of a Mahogany neck. Plus in my experience Mahogany seems to work a little better with Ebony throughout climate changes over the guitar's lifetime.

Edited March 7, 2005 by frank falbo

[GregP]

Cheers for the input. I haven't seen any mahogany/ebony neck-throughs available, but by the time this project rolls around, I just might end up making my own again.

I'll look into the Bartolini stuff, too. I didn't realize there were many active options, which is why I mentioned EMG; however, with Bartolini as another option I'll certainly look into it!

Greg

[erikbojerik]

I'd go neck-thru. If you hate the wings, you can always cut 'em off and try new ones.

[GregP]

Oh, I'm definitely going neck-through... the only thing up for debate is if I'm going to make my own or use a pre-made one. I'm looking at options right now, but most of the available ones are maple, not mahogany.

Greg

[ooten2]

Here's a good design by Steve Klein:

http://luth.org/plans/pl34.jpg

My nephew has a MusicYo Steinberger. The neck feels really cheap, but the trem is excellent. I'm not sure which trem it is, but it's not the trans-trem. It blocks in with a flip of a lever, and changing strings is quicker and easier than a standard bridge guitar. The only thing is you have to buy the double ball strings. If that's not an issue, the Steinberger trem is definitely worth considering.

[GregP]

The MusicYo uses the R-type, which is the one I'm considering. Cheers for the anecdotal evidence of quality. They sell for $90 when they're available (ie. not right now).

I'm not concerned about double-ball-end, and would probably get the adapter that MusicYo also sells for an extra $25, allowing use of 'normal' strings.

Cheers for the plans, too. Even with a different body shape, that will be useful-- maybe my lower bout snap-on / snap-off idea could be shaped like the lower bout of the Klein.

Greg

[MikeB]

i think EMG have a good range of available add-ons - check them out, i reckon they would be good!

[GregP]

A new question has occurred to me:

I've always been assuming that I could add the... er... 'head' (ie. string holder thingy) to pretty much any pre-made neck that I just hack the headstock off of.

Now it's occurring that there might be more to it than that. If so, I'll have to consider constructing my own neck for it.

Anybody know if I can cut off a headstock in such a way that enough "appropriate" material is left for mounting the 'head' of the headless? Also, where is the truss rod adjustment on a headless? Probably on the body side rather than the headstock side, right? I don't know if I'll find a pre-made neck-through with that kind of truss rod.

Drat, just when I was thinking it might make a nice easy project after the current one....

Greg

[bassman]

At this time I only build headless basses. I drill an access hole in the "headstock" end string retainer to adjust the truss rod. If you were to cut the headstock off of a neck you would be cutting off the truss adjustment as well. As for a body end adjustment location- I can't think of a single neck thru that uses one- but I am sure they exist.

I use ABM headless hardware and I am pretty damn picky when it comes to picking out hardware/pickups/wood- I like only what I consider to be among the best. It looks as though the Steinberger (it seems the new stuff is pretty cheap- considering the price of a "new steinberger bass~ $300) string retainer is a bit different than the ABM stuff, so it may mount differently. The ABM retainer is simply screwed onto the end of a neck- on the surface perpendicular to the fingerboard. I say simply, but also carefully if you choose to use a zero fret and count on the retainer for appropriate string spacing an centering.

Which part of the neck are you umcomfortable making- if not the whole thing?

[GregP]

So far, pretty much the whole thing. I think a lot of discomfort would be alleviated if I had more confidence in making accurate templates. Perhaps it's almost time to consider buying a template or two, even for non-headless.

What it comes down to is that I keep hemming and hawing on my current project even, because I have little idea how to produce any sort of accuracy with the tools I have. I have a paranoia that my neck won't be straight and that when I finally put strings on it, I'm going to notice that it's either not mounted perfectly straight or that it'll turn out that I slipped a wee bit during cutting/routing and produced a curved or asymmetrical neck.

I'll know better after I'm done this project, but for my future projects I don't think I have the equipment or know-how to build completely from scratch again. It's making a 3-month project into a 9-month and counting one, and I haven't even gotten to the finishing stage yet.

Greg

[Daniel Sorbera]

so If I bought this does it come with the thing that goes on the end of the neck and holds tht strings? if not where can I buy that peice?

[mledbetter]

AllParts sells the ABM headless guitar head/bridge set for 285. There is a guitar and 4 string bass model on ebay right not for 209 (search for "headless abm"

I don't know that you can just saw the head off a neck.. however, you can get Tommy at USA to build you a neck that meets that profile on the end. How you're going to saw the end off and not damage the truss rod or otherwise the general structure of the neck, i'm not sure. You may just need to make one. and you don't have to do neck through if you don't want.. You could always do a bolton. Making a neck for a steinberger type project would be even easier. no headstock transition to worry about, just sand till the head plate fits. If you're worried about fretting and such, you could buy a pre slotted fingerboard from stewmac, built the neck, radius it then take it to a local luth or music store repair person and get them to fret it up.

Getting USA to custom build you a neck, you're probably looking at over 200 anyway.. This way you're out 17 for a neck blank, 15 for a truss rod and 11 or so for a fingerboard. Call a music store that has a reputable repair person and see what they would charge to fret a neck for you (let them provide the wire, they are getting it a lot cheaper than you can) I'm over simplifying it a bit, you need other tools to do the neck, to radius it, sculpt the back, shape it, etc.. but

One other thing, reading your last post and your reservations about being able to get it perfect.. Doing a headless neck you don't even need a router. Route your truss rod channel, install rod, glue on fingerboard, set up a taper jig in a table saw and cut your taper and shape and you're done. A headless neck really takes a lot of headache out of the picture. Heck you shouldn't need a template either as long as you have measured well and have everything centered up. The table saw will ensure you a perfectly straight edge. With a headstock you have to bandwaw the profile, clean it up with a router, block sand to make sure it's straight.. etc..

Also, MusicYo sells an adapter, that's basically a locking nut, that lets you use single ball strings on their guitars. Save a littls $$ in the long run but the adapter is 25 bucks.

------

LOL.. i just said you don't need a router, then next sentance was "route your truss rod channel" I meant you don't need a flush trim setup with a neck template, worrying about tearout, etc..

[GregP]

Cheers for the reply!

I have not had great success with straight cuts on a table saw. As soon as it 'binds' a little bit, it's game over. Last time I tried it, I was horrified at the inaccurate result.

I know that it should work in theory, but either my equipment isn't up to snuff (possible!) or the jig wasn't up to the task.

As mentioned in the other thread, ABM do not make a trem model that I've been able to find. If you've seen a link that I've overlooked, that'd be great! Though I suspect that if their non-trem is $400, any sort of trem unit will be even more.

I agree about making the neck myself... it might end up being the better option.

Thanks again!

Greg

[Mickguard]

as well as the leg rest thingy.

←

$35? And they don't even give you screws? Forget it...

Actually, the Bocaster has a similar issue when playing in seated position, because it has a straight side....it slips!

For the moment, I just place my strap under the guitar, that keeps it from slipping. But I plan on attaching a little rubber plate to the bottom edge one of these days. (On the next one, the Bocaster Thinline, I'm going to route a little channel for that).

It doesn't have to be big--really, all you need is the rubber texture to grip onto your pants. So I figure I can get away with just a thin strip, probably less than half an inch wide.

[Marzocchi705]

My mate has that rubber grip that Idch is on about on his V its not the greatest thing but it does work, on the neck thru front could you not rout a little challel on the 'body' part of the neck tru and use a allan key adjustable truss? i cant see why that wouldnt work.

EDIT; Pictures say a thousand words... Truss rod

Edited March 12, 2005 by Marzocchi705

[GregP]

No doubt. Many guitars have a body-end truss rod. I'm just not sure if any pre-made necks have that option.

Greg

[Marzocchi705]

Why not make your own, its not actually as hard as you think. I started making mine on fri, its alot of fun too. then you could have EXACTLY what you want and need. maple/bubinga/maple lam, tasty...