ESP M-II type "Invaders" Superstrat

[Prostheta]

My spokeshave is always super sharp and honed before use. By clamping the neck at the heel into a radiused caul with cork coasters (all Ikea is good for) the work becomes a more ergonomic one of pulling towards yourself. Tieing a sock around the volute help protect it from getting bashed by the spokeshape overshooting the mark. All cuts are single pulls end to end. I concentrate over one corner until the shaving becomes wide and harder to cut. I then move other to another corner and repeat. Once the majority of material is gone, I reduce the depth of cut and take light refining shavings around the entire profile.

[Prostheta]

Plenty of room for tuning the final profile. I want to do some more work around the heel, but for the moment this works out fine.

<edit: that's not a lump or bump in the neck, but a dry spot without DNA on it>

[Andyjr1515]

5 hours ago, Prostheta said:

My spokeshave is always super sharp and honed before use. By clamping the neck at the heel into a radiused caul with cork coasters (all Ikea is good for) the work becomes one of pulled towards you. Tieing a sock around the volute help protect it from getting bashed by the spokeshape overshooting the mark. All cuts are single pulls end to end. I concentrate over one corner until the shaving becomes wide and harder to cut. I then move other to another corner and repeat. Once the majority of material is gone, I reduce the depth of cut and take light refining shavings around the entire profile.

That is, indeed, a deep cut!

[Prostheta]

It's as large a shaving as I can make before it chatters or doesn't pull cleanly. Those Stanley spokeshaves are okay once the body is fettled, the iron sharpened and the whole thing set up correctly. Technique is the big part of the equation of course....the grain in the neck is nice and straight and doesn't turn at any point, so it was fairly plain sailing. I'd rather make curls than chips or dust.

[Muzz]

It is so interesting to see all the different techniques different builders use to carve the neck. It is more fun to make shavings than sawdust at this stage, I just hope you got your trajectory just right throwing those curlies so they sailed out of the window in a perfect arc to land around the Gerberas  

[Prostheta]

I sealed the face of the headstock with finishing resin, masked the perimeter and sprayed it black, two coats with a levelling between. I made a quick binding scraper tool to take off the paint from the edges and softened the hard corner manually with a blade. After flattening the second coat, the decal was applied and buried under a clearcoat. This will be left for a few days to cure before I cut that back and apply a second clear. Whilst I was at it, I also applied the third coat of clear to the Invaders headstock.

The two vertical distortions in the first pic are from the window blinds....they looked like wrinkles, but after checking there's absolutely nothing there. Panic! I'm far happier with the scraped binding on Pearly's headstock than the Invaders binding. That could have been a lot better, but this is purely a cosmetic nitpick. I'll discuss binding a little later....

 

[Prostheta]

I don't see this discussed anywhere near as much as I think it deserves, however there is definitely a high level of variance in how binding is finished in manufactured instruments. What got me thinking about this is that I've been near-religiously maintaining that 1,5mm binding thickness around everything so that it can be scraped back reliably and sharply. Then I saw a few photos of various LTD headstocks and noticed a huge difference in final finishing.

In essence, it looks like LTD guitars (cheaper Eastern manufacture, generally Indonesia, etc) tend to have their headstock edges sanded to a curve including the binding, which reduces the apparent thickness of that binding. That is, the "thickness" of the binding meets at the paint/binding transition at a significantly curved/angled edge. Comparing this to a Japanese-made ESP or even an E-II, the binding is much more crisp and the sides of the headstock far less eased with a more definite edge radius than an overall curve around the side. I'm fairly certain than there will be more variation in non-Japanese made instruments, and I know that Japanese made ESPs are not entirely immune to faults in production either, but this is another significant difference in manufacturing approach that I can only presume is directly affected by how labour-intensive each is.

How does everybody here like to finish their binding off? Rounding it into a smoother form around the edges or maintaining crisper lines?

[Prostheta]

I was hunting around for the more egregious examples that got me thinking about this yesterday, and came up a bit short, but also had a realisation based on less than obvious relationship. First, photos.

ESP. Clean, crisp and well-defined. Notice the highlight off the edge of the burst's step at the end. Pearly is showing this because of the hand scraping.

 

Next, an LTD. Not sure of the year. Check out the curve around the corner next to the low E string (this is a lefty). You can also see that the flat top of the binding was encroached upon by sanding a LOT. It's clean and tidy though, but a different approach.

 

This is where things get interesting. This is....not as good as the last one.

 

AAAAGHHH! Whut. Well, aside from the terrible lines, there's a fundamental manufacturing difference between these, or at least in LTDs. That is, I suspect that the headstock is cut using a 2,5 axis CNC on the same plane as the neck/fingerboard purely as it's less time on the CNC and a far less complex production method. This means the edges of the headstock are no longer perpendicular to the face of the headstock. As home builders, we rarely consider this aspect as we tend to cut headstocks using templates referenced from the headstock face, and hence produce perpendicular edges. I'm sure that this discrepancy doesn't entirely throw off the binding work to the point that it absolutely requires additional shaping/sanding work, however it does reveal some interesting artifacts that manufacturing pressures impose upon the final instrument.

 

[Prostheta]

It's things like this that help me feel less bad about the binding work on the Invaders neck.

[Bizman62]

I haven't done much binding so far but now you made me think about it...

Some smoothing has most likely to be done if there's any clearcoat over the binding as a sharp edge would be prone to chipping. So that raises the question about the radius to be used for a crisp looking lines - would 1/4 mm be crisp enough yet providing a round enough corner for the clearcoat to be shockproof? Or an even smaller radius? Or perhaps just beveling the binding so that there's no 90 degree edge which would also make the binding look thicker? Ooh, my brain hurts!

[Prostheta]

It isn't something that comes down to measurements really unless one sets a guideline. Breaking a corner is usually enough, with the right about of clear added with the right level of feathering. Generally these things are done by experienced hand and eye. Consistent application of scraper and abrasive. A Japanese worker will likely have the time to apply themselves to ensuring that the form of the binding is good and hence concentrating on the quality of edge transition. A mass manufacturing worker in say, Indonesia might just be belt sanding or rotary sanding the entire edge to achieve throughput without focus on these finer aspects. Goal oriented manufacturing as opposed to process oriented.

I'd actually be interested in seeing how say, Korean manufacture at World Musical Instrument Co. compares on this scale, or whether they have internal variance based on end goals. If I recall, they make the mass manufactured lines for companies such as PRS (this has changed I believe), Chapman, Ormsby, BC Rich, Schecter and dozens of other known names including ESP's LTD brand. They're absolutely ENORMOUS.

Personally, even though the intrinsic difference between a WMIC-produced Chapman/Ormsby GTR/LTD are likely not that great I would opt for an Ormsby every time since Perry's guys do the QC and fine setup personally and have high standards. One might even say, "uncompromisingly bastard-like standards". After all, you can clearly tell a guitar that has been made and scrutinised by human hand and eye with care just as much as you can tell one that was just another on an endless line of identical planks with zero mental investment in each.

[killemall8]

On 1/30/2022 at 3:40 AM, Prostheta said:

I was hunting around for the more egregious examples that got me thinking about this yesterday, and came up a bit short, but also had a realisation based on less than obvious relationship. First, photos.

ESP. Clean, crisp and well-defined. Notice the highlight off the edge of the burst's step at the end. Pearly is showing this because of the hand scraping.

 

Next, an LTD. Not sure of the year. Check out the curve around the corner next to the low E string (this is a lefty). You can also see that the flat top of the binding was encroached upon by sanding a LOT. It's clean and tidy though, but a different approach.

 

This is where things get interesting. This is....not as good as the last one.

 

AAAAGHHH! Whut. Well, aside from the terrible lines, there's a fundamental manufacturing difference between these, or at least in LTDs. That is, I suspect that the headstock is cut using a 2,5 axis CNC on the same plane as the neck/fingerboard purely as it's less time on the CNC and a far less complex production method. This means the edges of the headstock are no longer perpendicular to the face of the headstock. As home builders, we rarely consider this aspect as we tend to cut headstocks using templates referenced from the headstock face, and hence produce perpendicular edges. I'm sure that this discrepancy doesn't entirely throw off the binding work to the point that it absolutely requires additional shaping/sanding work, however it does reveal some interesting artifacts that manufacturing pressures impose upon the final instrument.

 

I had always wondered why ESP made the long edge of the headstock at an angle in reference to the face of the headstock.

[Prostheta]

I haven't explicitly seen this on an "ESP-ESPs" as I presume they mill their necks on a 5-axis CNC, however I've seen it a lot on mid and lower end "LTD-ESPs". It makes sense since there is a significant advantage in throughput and simpler tooling. Quite likely the machines used to churn out LTD necks are ganged and mill several simultaneously, ESP necks are likely done individually.

Glad you have an interest in these quirks, Luis. I think a lot of people don't even notice.

[Bizman62]

7 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I think a lot of people don't even notice.

Or rather, most likely they'd take it as a feature.

I had to think twice until I figured out the reason why that would be easier to manufacture. Yet another tidbit learned!

[mistermikev]

not sure I've ever given it quite that much thought... just broke the edge on my binding so it wasn't sharp.  admittedly, the slight fade on the finish into the binding is a classy touch... might have to try that sometime.

[Prostheta]

This is exactly the sort of subject that I have put an inhuman amount of thought into....how something is made, not simply that something can be made. The latter part of that is just the entry fee to the fun times of the process  Manufacturing, process design and creating the roadmap on how to produce a thing is what I enjoy the most. Most years, ESP do these crazy one-off custom shop flash guitars to show what they are capable of doing, which is absolutely awesome to watch for many reasons. Mostly I'm examining the process and logistical issues, mentally trouble-shooting and identifying the problems along the way. The custom shop stuff tends to be without restrictions once the can is ticked off. Being cognisant of the implications within the how to achieve an end result with various restrictions is the real challenge. Those restrictions being the usual ones of time, money, materials, available tooling, throughput and efficiency, etc. Finding the right key markers and balancing them all off against each other as priorities/compromises is the real party. In my mind, I visualise this as a children's mobile that you hang above a cot or whatever. A tree where everything has its own place within a fully-balanced system. Every priority requires a certain degree of compromise, and hence rebalancing the system as a chain of consequences up that tree.

I suppose that this is partly why I enjoy making guitars more than the formality of finishing them. The end result is not always the sole driving force. If I were tasked with a Mars mission, I'd probably figure out a nice efficient repeatable solution but when asked "well what are we going to do when we get there?", I'd likely answer, "not sure....play golf like we did on the moon?".

7 hours ago, mistermikev said:

not sure I've ever given it quite that much thought... just broke the edge on my binding so it wasn't sharp.  admittedly, the slight fade on the finish into the binding is a classy touch... might have to try that sometime.

Do you mean feathering the clearcoat, or some sort of burst?

[mistermikev]

5 hours ago, Prostheta said:

This is exactly the sort of subject that I have put an inhuman amount of thought into....how something is made, not simply that something can be made. The latter part of that is just the entry fee to the fun times of the process  Manufacturing, process design and creating the roadmap on how to produce a thing is what I enjoy the most. Most years, ESP do these crazy one-off custom shop flash guitars to show what they are capable of doing, which is absolutely awesome to watch for many reasons. Mostly I'm examining the process and logistical issues, mentally trouble-shooting and identifying the problems along the way. The custom shop stuff tends to be without restrictions once the can is ticked off. Being cognisant of the implications within the how to achieve an end result with various restrictions is the real challenge. Those restrictions being the usual ones of time, money, materials, available tooling, throughput and efficiency, etc. Finding the right key markers and balancing them all off against each other as priorities/compromises is the real party. In my mind, I visualise this as a children's mobile that you hang above a cot or whatever. A tree where everything has its own place within a fully-balanced system. Every priority requires a certain degree of compromise, and hence rebalancing the system as a chain of consequences up that tree.

I suppose that this is partly why I enjoy making guitars more than the formality of finishing them. The end result is not always the sole driving force. If I were tasked with a Mars mission, I'd probably figure out a nice efficient repeatable solution but when asked "well what are we going to do when we get there?", I'd likely answer, "not sure....play golf like we did on the moon?".

Do you mean feathering the clearcoat, or some sort of burst?

it looks like the edge on that one is uniformly tapered off as it goes towards the binding.  like it has an arc going 1/2" in around the headstock.  it gives it sort of a nice 3d quality to the gloss.  not what you'd get if you just flat sanded the clear.  idk if that's intentional, or just part of their process... but it's a nice detail.  

i may have mentioned this b4... but their custom shop was right on the "rock walk" in hollywood a couple doors down from the carvin shop - this is back in 94ish.  Was a very broke student at the time and would go drool at that store (and carvin, mesa, tom anderson, etc).  that one angel guitar was in the window there for a few years... just amazing.  They apparently built their cs guitars right in the back of that little store - very small couldn't have been more than one guy.  I remember seeing some green machine that they used to build guitars and what i would guess now was some sort of manual mill.  i wish i had taken more time to look into the back!

[Prostheta]

Probably an overhead pin router. Those are essentially a "manual CNC".

[mistermikev]

4 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Probably an overhead pin router. Those are essentially a "manual CNC".

probably... back then i wouldn't have known even what that was... looking back through 17 years or so it's a bit foggy!

[Prostheta]

I'm hanging back instead of rushing these to completion. I'm running an idea in my head about a switching circuit as an alternative to a blade switch, likely for a future build anyway. I'm starting a new position with a large established company working with their CNCs, however as to whether I can pursue own projects....not yet known.

The idea is to take the switching of pickups and make it electronically-controlled rather than mechanically. I hate switch noise. My idea is to construct a CMOS SR flip flop fron NAND gates ahead of an audio multiplexing IC. Change the pickup selector to an (ON)-OFF-(ON) momentary, and instantly we have a way of switching from the bridge to neck pickup (and vice versa) noiselessly. For me this is a nice setup as I use pickups individually rather than with a middle position. Moving on from these two guitars and producing the copy of my old carved top Mirage/Horizon transitional prototype would be ideal for this setup.

If anything the idea provides a simple distraction whilst I get things in order with a new job and how best to finish these two guitars up. I need some polishing compound....

[mistermikev]

8 hours ago, Prostheta said:

I'm hanging back instead of rushing these to completion. I'm running an idea in my head about a switching circuit as an alternative to a blade switch, likely for a future build anyway. I'm starting a new position with a large established company working with their CNCs, however as to whether I can pursue own projects....not yet known.

The idea is to take the switching of pickups and make it electronically-controlled rather than mechanically. I hate switch noise. My idea is to construct a CMOS SR flip flop fron NAND gates ahead of an audio multiplexing IC. Change the pickup selector to an (ON)-OFF-(ON) momentary, and instantly we have a way of switching from the bridge to neck pickup (and vice versa) noiselessly. For me this is a nice setup as I use pickups individually rather than with a middle position. Moving on from these two guitars and producing the copy of my old carved top Mirage/Horizon transitional prototype would be ideal for this setup.

If anything the idea provides a simple distraction whilst I get things in order with a new job and how best to finish these two guitars up. I need some polishing compound....

an interesting idea. i had at one point considered basically taking the flip flop circuit from a boss pedal and using... but it's a fair amount of components and battery draw for just a vs b.  with that in mind, a while back I went looking around on the internet and found a switching system that you could buy that had some options... but as I recall was around $100.  edite: here it is: https://guitarelectronics.com/programmable-guitar-pickup-control-system/ apparently still not available.

look fwd to seeing what you do with that: is a cool idea and would def be unique.  

[Prostheta]

That's a bit overwrought! I was thinking of "simple as required for the purpose". That would be great if it combined coils by phase, level and other powerful presetting. It looks like a gadgety multiplexer, slow to use in practice.

[mistermikev]

On 2/17/2022 at 8:30 PM, Prostheta said:

That's a bit overwrought! I was thinking of "simple as required for the purpose". That would be great if it combined coils by phase, level and other powerful presetting. It looks like a gadgety multiplexer, slow to use in practice.

was kind of what I was thinking... running a screen like that is going to make short work of a 9v... but as I understand it it would allow you to create presets that could have any combo of phase/pickup/series/parallel.  it's been "in development" since last I checked it 4(or so) years ago tho!  so pretty low expectations on that.  Look few to seeing what you come up with... simple is always better.

[Prostheta]

I'm pretty simple when it comes to pickups, at least in these builds. Neck or bridge. No middle position. No splits, parallel/series. I'd do that for another instrument (the LPish PE that haunts me) but one that is intended for a very player-oriented use doesn't need that distraction in order to be an absolute player. That's just my interpretation anyway. Even with a dual humbucker guitar that has three-way switching plus series/parallel and taps, I'd probably want to geek myself down the path of more complex digital multiplexing. Noiseless, buffered and totally geeky. Mechanical signal routing is so 19th century, but the mechanical switches can be put to use still.

I think that LCDs such as those are only consuming power when changes are made to the display. Maintaining it is pretty frugal, but I might be wrong or thinking about something else. @curtisa might have something to chime in here. In principle that sort of system shouldn't be that difficult to develop, but gaining enough market traction to fuel development....that's another story entirely.

Funny thing about signal processing is that you can do a lot of things that are otherwise impossible with simple routing of the "real" signal. Take the neck-most coil of a neck humbucker, use its signal with the other coil and you have a humbucker. You can duplicate that signal independent of that humbucker and mix it with some other coil elsewhere, or have it as a second signal. Stereo output (think, Rickenbacker Rick-O-Sound) can drive multiple amps seperately, especially with signal processors like my Helix with multiple inputs and processing paths.

It doesn't take a lot to get really autistic about this and end up far from the path you intended. 

[mistermikev]

afa power draw... well where I'm coming from is pedals... and in the case of all preamp/dirt pedals the led is drawing more power than the circuit itself.  This is true for all but delays/phasers/flangers/etc.  I imagine just lighting the screen is going to use more power than actual circuit.... but i guess it depends on the type of display, and if it stays on constantly.  Either way... not something for every guitar.  agreed that the achiles heel there is going to be interest. 

rick-o-sound... is an interesting circuit... in practice I'm just not convinced those types of dual out setups are worth the overhead.  I guess for live it'd be cool... for recording it's pretty easy to record oneself twice and get the benefit of the natural "chorus" effect plus two distinct pickup sounds.  I guess it has it's charms.  ok you've convinced me... I need one (hehe).