Don Ramsay Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Believing that metal fatigue and that the bending of the strings (not friction) was responsible for tuning issues and broken strings, I had to design something different. It worked! http://www.geocities.com/jbstratman/Guitar.html US patent issued, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Eropean PCT group, and other pending. Don Ramsay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclej Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 i'm having some monitor color issues so i can't really get a good look at it but congratulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 That is pretty damn cool...congrats. I tried for a while to build a better mouse trap but that one's great. If ppl cant see how it works (great little video there), there is a lever sprung like a conventional fender/floyd but it moves the bridge backwards and forwards in line with the body rather than tilting...it kind of slides. This would work great with sustainer guitars too, by the way, as the string height remains constant. I like the optional heel trem, although the pushing down on the trem technique is pretty rare, it's cool that you allowed for it! The main advantage I can see is that because the thing slides backwards and forwards it is far less, if at all, likely to go out of tune as a floating system does with heavy string damping. I hope it takes off for you...that must have been a lot of work to get to that stage...hats off... oh yeah...can you give the patent number?... pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I saw Don demonstrate his design at NAMM. He's a very nice guy, but there's a massive list of inherent problems with his tremolo design. Instead of listing them, I figured I'd let the members here have a shot at it. (The AOL-ish site doesn't count) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well...yes kevan...I was trying to see the benefits and be positive. This will entail quite a few mods and there must be friction issues. I tried to make a similar type of thing (moving the trem in line with the string) but found the tilt design superior and so much simpler. You really have to hand it to Leo Fender for that original design. Anything that slides like that must have problems returning to pitch...there are more points of friction for a start! Otherwise...a trem is always going to be pushing and pulling strings so some of the claims are a bit off I think. Metal Fatigue must surely be the same as no matter the way in which it operates, the string will still be stretched and slackened. Floyd Rose identified the main cause of tuning problems were mostly at the nut...hence the string lock and the need for fine tuners as a result. New headstock designs and locking tuners have overcome this to a large degree...but that's not really the trem. This design offers nothing in this area, which was floyds breakthrough really...the locking nut, not the trem itself...IMHO. My experiments in this area used a leaf spring fixed at the back of the bridge to the guitar body and the front to the trem which balanced on ball bearings as a piviot. This provided a very strong connection to the body (transfering vibration) and could be surface mounted (which was the initial aim of the device). It had an action similar to a strat and worked ok...the aim was to make a Gibson or tele trem without the bulk and clunky action of the bigsby or some of the old gibson tailpiece designs. This idea also moved the bridge fore-and-aft and tilted a bit too. My improved mousetrap seemed ok in a basic prototype, but it could not surpass the tried and true fender tilt trem model. Even he couldn't beat it really...a few improvements here and there (2 point fulcrum, etc) but still a classic unlikely to be superceded. But...I have to hand it to anyone who follows through with an idea and as you'd know Kevan, it takes a lot of stamina to take that 1% inspiration to this stage... pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I hate seeing people waste their money on useless patents. This idea will not take off. Too many moving parts, too bulky, too many surfaces for friction problems, etc etc. Just calling it as i see it, hope you prove me wrong in the long term. I saw Don demonstrate his design at NAMM. He's a very nice guy, but there's a massive list of inherent problems with his tremolo design. Instead of listing them, I figured I'd let the members here have a shot at it. (The AOL-ish site doesn't count) Number One: it cant be retro fitted with a tremolno-we-dont-know-when-its-coming-but-itll-be-soon, or the three other very simular products. Do i win a prize?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Why would Steve Lukather be raving about it, if it had a "massive list of inherent problems" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 To you nay-sayers in this thread: I would never have tried to build this trem if I hadn't already had many years of experience in designing and building precision measuring and positioning systems using "frictionless" bearings. I just added 3 short videos to my homepage to demonstrate the key "frictionless" element that makes it all work. http://www.geocities.com/jbstratman/Guitar.html There is nothing "sliding" in the assembly. There are only high precision, highly polished, high hardness rolling elements making contact. These bearing elements" retain their frictionless feel even with hundreds of pounds of side load applied. I would never have spent the money to patent this thing if the prototype hadn't already proven itself. Ask Thomas Nordegg, who witnessed the Hipshot/Peterson tuner & Peterson tuner booths tests at NAMM last year. It is, in theory, correct that there is no true "frictionless" slide (except for an air bearing...which would not be practical here), but the rolling contact "friction" in a clean (and they seem to stay that way without special efforts) and properly pre-loaded bearing set is negligible in this application. It certainly is negligible to the ear, and to your tuner. Additionally, when you bend a wire, do you notice that it wants to stay bent? The heavier the gauge, the more pronounced this effect. This has a huge effect on "return to pitch" in a pivoting system although I've never seem that discussed in any group. It has in fact, a much greater effect than the "friction" mentioned above has on a linear system. Next, there is the much-ignored metal fatigue problem. I had never heard this topic dicussed either, although I know it's effect is very real. When I was a kid, I used to make things from wire. I would break (rather than cut) the wire (even hanger wire) by bending it repeatedly. On a microscopic level, when a wire is bent (particularly under tension), the metal on the outside of the bend strecthes beyond it's elastic limit. When you straighten it again (again...under tension), the metal on the inside of the bend stretches beyond it's elastic limit. With repeated bending, the metal in the bend zone continually grows longer, thinner and weaker until it breaks (not to mention the string pitch continually going flat). This should explains some of the science I applied in figuring out why my old systems didn't work well and what I needed to do about it. Kevin, I would like to hear about the list of "inherent problems" Pete, Perhaps you could share some of the details of your prototype and I could help diagnose it's problems. Rhoads, I do not intend to squander any money on a useless patent. I plan to... A Tremol-no will fit in back just like on others, it will be soon, there is nothing turly similar yet, and I just gave you a prize. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Don- I don't mean to sound negative. You're a very nice guy, and to have Thomas as a friend (and backer of your system) is a real plus. The design is very cool, and it does work as described. I played your personal guitar- the one with the GK unit- at NAMM. The trem is very, very smooth. Since you asked, here goes: 1. MASSIVE modifications necessary to the guitar body. This was stated by you at the show, in your posts on forums online, and on your website. At the show you also said that you were the only one thus far that could properly install one, and that it was a very complex process to retro-fit the trem into a guitar. 2. Intonation issues. When a fulcrum trem (vintage-type, Floyd, etc.) drops the string pitch, it travels in an arc. This gives the strings a little distance to maintain intonation before it is lost. With your system and it's method of travel, intonation is lost immediately. Both when lowering pitch and raising it. 3. Exorbitant production costs. Considering the necessary components, materials, and machine work, even if production was done overseas, you're looking at a $300-400 per unit cost. That would put MSRP somewhere between $900-1200. Plus shipping. For a trem. One that doesn't just drop in. 4. Strings break. They always have and they always will. Claiming that a tremolo/vibrato system won't break strings is hopeful, at best. I only posed the question because the members here are pretty good at figuring out problems and coming up with working solutions. It was an effort to not only address the issues with your system, but also present you with some possible ideas on correcting them...from 5000+ pretty cool and very smart members. I am *not* a nay-sayer. As I stated above, I like the design and the unit feels nice. What I am is realistic. While the Space Shuttle is a great way to travel, it doesn't work well for trips to the grocery store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) Kevin, I am not dismissing your comments as non-problems. I’ve had to, and am having to deal with them all. I will try to explain as well as I can. Modifications to the guitar body: Yes, there is a shallow recess under the bridge's carrier plate, and another to clear the bearing assembly. This is in addition to the standard Fender through routing for the trem block and the rear cavity for the standard spring arrangement. It seems acceptable to everyone using Strat-type guitars to have a hole routed through the guitar body. To have a pocket an additional .300" deeper into a body with an overall body thickness near 2." does not seem like a huge issue to me when the neck pocket (on bolt-on guitars) is several times that deep. The pivoting front-half of the trem does drop right into a "two post" route (after a clearance bevel has been cut near the front) and can use the two existing posts. The additional pocket is used under the back linear half only. After doing the first guitar, I then went back to the original style trem and made a cover that drops into the additional pocket. So if I wanted to go back to my original trem without leaving an ugly visible scar showing, I could. Personally, I would just use the original body if I wanted to go back to the original trem. I am not recommending that anyone retrofit their guitars and I cautiously used replacement bodies for the first units. Hopefully, I will be able to arrange a body or a guitar ready with the required routing. On a guitar that is prepared, the front half drops, the springs are attached, then the rear half/bridge assembly drops in and is attached using two screws. There are no special talents required to do this install although there would be a learning curve. A properly pre-loaded sliding assembly (which does require some practice) could be furnished to the installer. Once installed, a normal and proper set-up on the guitar is required. The normal intonation adjustments are all there. You can also move the bridge around slightly (for adjusting the string placement on the neck) before tightening, something not possible on a standard trem. You can also adjust the amount of travel on this trem using a single screw. You can set the dive range on the low E string for instance to a full and precise octave before the arms hits the pickguard. One cool thing I was able to do at Scott Henderson's house was "hot swap" strung-up "trems and neck assemblies" between guitar bodies to test body woods, trem materials and pickup differences. We could (1) loosen the strings, (2) un-bolt the back half of the trem and the neck assemblies (leaving the front trem halves and strings installed using rubber bands around the neck and strings), (3) swap the assemblies between guitar bodies and attach and then (4) and tune both. Able to plug in and play within a few minutes. Intonation issues: Any tremolo travels. Intonation is always set with a floating bridge at equilibrium. Intonation consequently is immediately lost when off neutral on any floating trem. As you know, setting the intonation sets all intervals (as closely as possible) to land on the frets with slight compensations made for the string's distance off the fretboard, the stiffness of the individual string, the player's fretting pressure and picking attack. These adjustments are always done at the "neutral" floating position. I have never heard a player that pulls up or down on the trem, then tries to plays harmonious chords or licks. Trems are used to vary the pitch, or add character to already fretted or open notes. Also, when a bridge is set up, the saddles are at different heights and distances from the centerline that everything pivots on. The strings whose saddle "witness points" are closer to this centerline travel less. The strings with saddle "witness points" which are further from this centerline travel further. When all saddles are locked to a common "rolling base" the string travels are exactly equal. I am not claiming this bridge can transpose chords (not to worry Ned) as all strings vary in pitch at differing rates with the same amount of travel. They just vary in pitch less in relationship to each other. Some pairs and triads actually vary well together in a musical and usable way. Exorbitant production costs: It is true that this trem, by its nature, is a costly device. The lowest cost I’ve been able to negotiate for that cute little linear bearing is still over $50 (at 100 piece quantities!). Odd to me, in that this brand is vastly superior in quality to the other "equivalent" brand bearings I’ve used in the past costing twice as much. The expensive “machined from solid” approach is expensive too, but fortunately, is not required on all pieces. Nothing I can do about that beyond having tools made to “forge” the required pieces. Stamping, casting, or using inferior materials in critical places is not an option and would certainly have a detrimental effect on the system. The required precision also requires precision grinding after heat treatment, which is another expensive step. If eventual demand ever does drive overseas knock-offs, the pirates can deal with the consequences of using inferior materials. So it is very true that this trem is not for everyone. Neither are most custom guitars. Check the Alembic guitar of the month gallery. $20,000 for mostly cosmetic options? Go figure! This trem will probably end up in the hands of only the more accomplished, successful and **** players. Have no idea how to make it available to the beginners or the low to mid price range market. Massive quantities would certainly would help, but that is way beyond any current projections I have. Strings break They always have and they always will: This was particularly true for me, perhaps using and fluttering a trem too much. My favorite trems (those without tuners and the smoothest working ones) also had the worst problem breaking strings. My personal favorite, a Wilkinson, had a super smooth feel, would flutter forever (a by-product of low friction), and had very “focused” saddle witness points. I would break new strings the first night out and needed a freshly strung spare guitar standing-by. I purchased string sets by the dozen and went through them in weeks. I could never find burrs or rough spots on those saddles. Something else was breaking them. The “flutter” technique (thousands of “bends” in a very short time) also seemed to hasten the string-breaking problem. First clue that “metal fatigue” was the culprit. Second clue was having to tune back up to pitch after every song. Now I go months between string changes, can go right into the next song still in tune, while using my trem more than ever. I am sure of the fact that this group is light years beyond exceptional in their grasp of guitar science. Since they cannot all do a hands-on demo, I am happy to explain my thoughts, theories and discoveries. Who else will get it? By the way, watched Steve Lukather play a Luke with my trem last night at The Baked Potato. Came home happy, proud and tired at 4:00 AM. I then stayed up all until 7:00 AM obsessing over writing counter-arguments. Not complaining, just how I am. . Regards to all, Don Ramsay Edited February 13, 2006 by Don Rasmay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pr3Va1L Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 What's that installing this trem on Vai's guitar?? http://www.geocities.com/jbstratman/Flo2after.jpg Didn't Ibanez say anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Why would Ibanez have any comment? They have spent a great deal developing and protecting their own cool trem designs. I was merely an intruder on any relationship they have with Steve. Although they were incredibly helpful in providing me an unpainted wood Jem body and doing a great post-install paint job (at the Vai camp's request), the project was otherwise an issue between Steve and myself. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarGuy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Is it just me or does this seem like a commercial plug in a non commercial part of the forum? The idea itself is overkill. There are other ways to do the same thing as you are trying to do with this trem with way less work and modifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Is it just me or does this seem like a commercial plug in a non commercial part of the forum? The idea itself is overkill. There are other ways to do the same thing as you are trying to do with this trem with way less work and modifications. The forum has agreed, in the past, to allow inventors to showcase their new ideas and give the community a chance to ask questions and comment on them. When Kevan first introduced the Tremol-No here, he received a lot of good input and response from people like you and me. As far as overkill, well, Chevrolet took a lot of heat for adding a $30,000 engine to the Corvette back in 1990 to build the ZR1, one of the fastest production vehicles of the last century. Bumped up the price of the car to $65k from $35k. A lot of people complained about the price, but never the technology. This is a unique system for very unique players. Are there some design issues? Sure. But none that can't be mitigated in time. I think it's great that someone decided to throw cost and production practicality to the wind and design something completely different and completely cool. Will people pay $1,000 for a tremolo system? Who knows? I don't see Bob Bradshaw hurting for business for his $100,000 rack setups just for ONE guitarist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Don- Thanks for the replies to my points. In regards to the intonation, you said, "I have never heard a player that pulls up or down on the trem, then tries to plays harmonious chords or licks.". Bummer that you missed the jam last night; I did exactly that for the rhythm of an entire song. In regards to string breakage, have you tried graphite saddles on your Wilkie? I'll bet ya dollars-to-donuts that would cure most of your string breaking. Also, where was the string breaking: Saddle? Nut? Above the pickups? Above the fretboard? I'm sure you'll work out resolutions to all the issues. Let me know if you need any help. And, If you'd like, I can repair the typo in your member name. Just toss me an email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 GuitarGuy Is it just me or does this seem like a commercial plug in a non commercial part of the forum? Please note that there is nothing for sale on my page. I am just an individual very proud to have been awarded a new patent. The idea itself is overkill. There are other ways to do the same thing as you are trying to do with this trem with way less work and modifications. I tried to keep it simple and easy. Would love to hear your ideas. Kevan, I'm sure you're an exceptional player. Would love to hear. Have not used Graphtech saddles because of my (perhaps misguided) belief that friction was not my problem. My strings always broke at the witness/flexing point on the saddles (on all my guitars). I'd appreciate any feedback (until they start to feel like needless cheap shots). Please do fix any of my typos if you're willing. I am a crappy typist when allert. Being bleary-eyed and tired makes me even worse. I have been fixing typos most of today and last night. I there a spell checker I'm not seeing here? Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Don- I don't think you're misguided in your beliefs, but when it comes to something like this, you need to try out every available option- steel, brass, plastic, graphite, shaving cream, maple, Oreo cookie (not the filling), etc.- until you find the one that works best with your system. Don't be surprised if the best results go completely against your intial thought(s). I'm still in for the bet on the Wilkie saddles. Just let me know when you do it and I'll have fresh donuts ready. There is no built-in spell checker here. Sorry. You'll get an email in a few minutes regarding the "name change". You won't need to reply; it's just one of those automatic ones. Just make sure to come back and reset all your cookies and put in a new password. Also, we don't do back-to-back posts here (a post immediately after the first one). In the future, please just edit your first post. This keeps the forum organized and clean, and keeps the conversation flowing smoothly. Thanks. P.S.- People call me many things (usually involving a four-letter word, or something that ends in '-hole'), but no one has ever called me "an exceptional player". With good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) Kevan, Thanks again. I will try to be more careful on multiple posts. Not always sure when "post" or "sent" really worked. Don Edited February 13, 2006 by Don Ramsay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maiden69 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 That's a nice invention, I too think like Kevan that you will benefit from the graphtech saddles! On a side note, and I don't know why Kevan hasn't mentioned it... If you don't have anything good to say (or don't know what you are talking about) or a comment on how to help improve his invention, I suggest you don't post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 On a side note, and I don't know why Kevan hasn't mentioned it...It was a moderator test.... If you don't have anything good to say (or don't know what you are talking about) or a comment on how to help improve his invention, I suggest you don't post! ...and you passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 If you don't have anything good to say (or don't know what you are talking about) or a comment on how to help improve his invention, I suggest you don't post! Oh, so we can only praise people now?? Someone offers up a product, we cant pick at it to generate discussion?? Sometimes a little bit of a dig or "bad words" can open up a discussion, and have the inventor spill his guts about the product. Wait, thats what happened here... right?? Or, maybe we should all (inc ADMIN) kept our mouths shut, and been happy with a non descriptive first and only post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Thanks Don for pointing out that the Patent is directly linked from your site! Here's a pic... So...what we have here is the conventional fender/floyd two piviot fulcrum. This is transfered to fore-and-aft movement via the puhing "knob" in front of the sliding bridge piece. Given that, you must have all the conventional problems of friction on the two knife edge piviots and in addition friction on this "knob" that pushes and releases the bridge plate itself (which must produce wear and friction) and any friction inheirent in the sliding mechanism (minimized by high quality bearings, but present just the same). Compared with a floyd/fender mechanism, there are at least two additional points of friction and wear in the device. As far as metal fatigue. You are right in that there is some from the piviot bending the string over the bridge contact point. Generally this is slight anyway and almost non-existant in a double locking floyd style bridge. However, I play conventional trems and although use it a fair bit (but not so agressively) and they are set floating (3 semi tones up for those beck-isms) I cant remember the last time I broke a string...and never on the saddle. The device will keep the strings parrallel by it's movement. But...one thing I actually admire about the tilting mechanism is that when depressed slack strings are lifted clear of the fretboard and pickups preventing them fretting out or being attracted to the pickups magnets. I do have a problem with the reversed up trem in that the reverse is true and the strings are pulled closer to the fretboard as they get tighter...my standard fender style will go up a min3rd but fret out on lower fretted notes from this effect. This design would not suffer from this problem. There are some advantages possible with the system that I can see. Those I mentioned at the start...more sustain (perhaps "tone") through better contact with the guitar's body and a floating device not so suseptable to going sharp with aggressive string damping. But I'm not sure if these are quite what the device was trying to achieve. Some of the design (a shallow break over the saddles, compared with a strat's almost 90 degrees, for instance) do not lend themselves to improvements in tone or function. It is not double locking like the floyd so still relies on the strength of the ball ends in the saddle and any movement or stretch in the string at this critical point. Intonation is a non-issue as this is not a trans-trem and no other trem addresses this so no need to bring it up really. This device would need to be highly engineered to achieve the required performance, and I am sure it is. Many felt that Floyds bridge was way over the top and still does not come cheap. Many fakes of this design do not work any better than a conventional fender style and are more trouble than they are worth. Floyds too require mods and are not a drop in replacement. The thing is that for the type of musical expression a floyd allows, and resulted from it's innovations, these things can be justified and are witnessed by their continued popularity. In this design however, I dont see such a development. It produces a similar result via related but more complicated means. But what exactly does it do to allow greater expression than a simpler tilting device...i can't see it? But I could be wrong and the design may be a stepping stone to moreadventuraous things down the track. But I am not at all implying that this device does not work extremely well. And I still applaud anyone who is prepared to go the yards to actually get an idea like this to such a stage that it can be shown to work. There are afterall, many ways to trap a mouse!!! Without seeing it, I really cant say too much about it. One has to be wary...some of my ideas including some of my work on the sustainer was flamed. There are many things I have made that do work...but are they better or fullfil a function not already filled. Well with many of my ideas, no they didn't! But they did work. Should I invest in a patent...no, cause I cant afford it, cant defend it, and cant profit from it...so I do take Perry's point. Sometimes though, this just ups the ante. With my trem ideas I was working on a couple of things. One was to make something surface mounted to attach to guitars like gibsons...something stetsbar is doing in their fashion, and kahler to a degree, and washburn (using tortion springs) before them. The other was to try and have leavers in the manner of a pedal steel in the trem block to effect alternate tunings much like hipshots trillogy does...but without the bulk and retaining trem function. One thing that many people dont quite realize is that the difference in string travel from tension to fairly slack is measured in millimetres...this bridge would not have to move very much to achieve the desired effect in a lateral way. You can measure it via the amount of distance that the string needs to be let off a tuning peg to become slack. The gears in tuners, or the lever action can give the impression that you'd have to move them a long way...not so! My trem and tuning ideas were related because I needed a stable and locking springing system to allow alternate tunings. The mechanism for each strings adjustment was via levers in the trem block and the whole thing was samller than a floyd and largely hidden in the trem cavity. My 3d leaf spring, surface mount trem idea was to do away with the need for a trem cavity all together! But in the end, though I'd still like to see a bridge that can provide instant multiple tunings without the bulk of hipshots one, and with the trem bridge there is internal room for the levers to make this work...much of the functionality is already provided by other devices. There is little reward to those who dare to follow through with ideas, either in research and thought, or more rarely through craft and action...but I for one encourage it. Anyone who has followed the Sustainer Thread would know that I have presented many original and novel approaches. But for all the 100's of hours invested in it I have had to put them aside. But, what did come of all that work was a slightly better mousetrap. A cheap, adaptable DIY Sustainer with the functionality of the commercial systems, by far simpler means. Sometimes you have to take the long road to get somewhere no one has been. You typically don't find established manufacturers with products on the market, redesigning them from the ground up and making their products obsolete...that comes from guys like Kevan and Don. Project Guitar has always been the most open and enthusiastic to novel ideas...by enlarge the comments whether critical or sympathetic, they rarely become sycophantic nor simple naysayers. Some of the most enthusiasticlly followed threads are just like this, whether the tremol-no or my sustainer thread, or someones drawing of a new guitar design from their imagination. You don't find that elsewhere, so don't be put off by some comments here by me or anyone else. All in all, I hope this idea and all works for you, it must have taken an enormous effort and commitment that I perhaps lack. So good luck Don, Kevan and all the other hero's who step up to the plate and have a go! pete Oh...i see several posts have turned up while preparing this one. Ok...well, the only thing I have to add is that I don't seem to break many strings. I don't have graphtecs on my present guitar, but I did and they really are great. Other than that and a little banter, I guess the above still all applies and gives ground for further informed comment...psw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Perry- you can pick at it, but you better be able to back up what you say. Posting things like "That idea sucks ballz." is not positive nor does it generate discussion. It certainly doesn't help the builder/inventor out either. The theme here has ALWAYS been to help each other out; not hammer them into oblivion. Some people get off on doing that, and they have 100,000 other forums they can jack around on. Start at Harmony Central and they can work their way down. If you have something good to say or positive to present, then post. If not, close the window and move on. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Perry- you can pick at it, but you better be able to back up what you say. Posting things like "That idea sucks ballz." is not positive nor does it generate discussion. It certainly doesn't help the builder/inventor out either. The theme here has ALWAYS been to help each other out; not hammer them into oblivion. Some people get off on doing that, and they have 100,000 other forums they can jack around on. Start at Harmony Central and they can work their way down. If you have something good to say or positive to present, then post. If not, close the window and move on. Simple. thank for insinuating thats what i said. You're the master Kevan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyd Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 HA! ^^^ I thought this was a grownup site! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.