soapbarstrat

Ed Roman is a funny guy and good businessman. He's very detail oriented and very out-front with his personal views about guitars. He goes a little to far, in my opinion, but in a good way .He can't stand a guitar to have plastic pickup mounting rings and usually changes plastic ones to metal on guitars he sells. He's also quite extreme about what he thinks is the best neck-to-body attachment method. I wouldn't be afraid to do business with him. Many years ago he was having seminars about how to run a music equipment business. He charged a fee for it, but when I asked him about the course, he basically said I probably had enough common-sense to already know what he teaches in the course and that the course was for people who didn't have that common-sense. Ok, I just looked at the kit on your link and that looks like a good way to go. The guitar would actually be an Ibanez and that is a big help if you ever want to sell it. I'm quite sure Ed Roman isn't a con-artist like Dan Torres, so it's probably a good and safe buy. But, I always have to say it's better to get something used and fix it up. More fun too, in my experience.

First, make sure you have the truss-rod adjusted properly. .002"-.004" if the frets are really level with each other. More relief if the frets are not that level. After that, if you still get open string buzz, shim the nut to try to get rid of that. If shimming the nut doesn't also get rid of the buzz a littler farther up the neck, you probably have at least a high or low fret or several that are too low or high. Yes, you can just level one side of the neck if that's the only area that there are unlevel frets. Just try everything else first, (nut shimming, proper truss-rod adjustment, proper string height set at the bridge. Unless you are doing "top notch" fret-work, you will need more neck relief and higher string action, or buzzes will happen. I don't know what kind of tools you have, but if you are working without precision ground straight-edges, you are working "blind" . I couldn't do perfect fret-jobs without my 24" straightedge that has a .002" tolerance over the whole length. http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/stra...raightedge.html I think it's probably a little more accurate than the Stew-Mac straight-edge, because their's has a .0015" tolerance within each 12" , so that's .003" over a 24" length. I once bought the shorter set from stew-mac and used my 24" to check them and they were a mess, so I sent them back. I have since made my own shorter ones out of aluminum and plexi-glas and know they are accurate because I use the 24" to check them. You need the shorter ones to "rock" to find high and low frets. I use the 1" , 2" and 3" a lot and they tell me where the problem frets are. A ruler or "yard stick" is not a precision straight edge. I inherited an old combination square with a 12" steel ruler that checks out to be quite accurate against my 24", but a more modern version of that same tool has a ruler that's not as perfect. So that older one gets used for checking flatness but not the newer one. You have to have a reference for absolute flatness, otherwise you have no idea what's really dead flat. Even if you have something that might not have been precision ground, but you assume it's very flat, you still need to check it to be sure. You'd have to find someone with a precision straight-edge and check yours against it. Working with a less accurate "straight edge" can mess you up a lot. I know, because when I was starting out, I tried to do it that way. These are the reason some people who understand fret-work still have someone else do it. When you start buying all the tools you need to do it very well, you find out it's several hundreds of dollars. Add to that the tools needed to make some of the other tools you need and it gets into the thousands of dollars.

I'm always hearing about the "sweet spot" on Les Pauls, in regard to the stop tail-piece height. In other words: it seems you can have the strings down too far with one of those and of course with the design you are talking about, it would take the "down too far" to the extreme. But I have no personal experience or opinion with the design you want, so don't give up on it. Obviously, it is used sometimes. You could also go with a "wrap around" type bridge like Paul Reed Smith, Satriani Ibanez, Scott Ian Jackson, etc.

I like the idea of something like the "earvana" nut because it's reversible. Here's some info on the Feiten stuff: http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?S...RS=PN/6,143,966

I guess I should clarify that I don't set-up a guitar neck so the strings are the same height all the way down the neck. When I give an example of a guitar I've set up with string heights at the 12th fret being 1/32" on the high E and 3/64" on the low E, I should also include that the string heights on that same guitar are about 1/64" higher at the 22nd fret (probably SLIGHTLY more than 1/64"). And at the first fret, they are around .008" for the high E and .015" for the low E. So, from the nut , up to the last fret by the body, the strings gradually get higher. I just assumed all guitars were like this, but some of you guys are saying you have the same height at all frets. And I should also add, that with the low actions I'm able to get, it doesn't take real long for normal fret-wear to cause the need for a fret-dress to avoid buzzes or the strings to be jacked up a bit to avoid some fret-wear buzz. Depends how much the neck gets played and one usually plays a lot more when the neck is really easy to play. What's great about my fret-jobs is that you don't have to practice a lot, to be a good player. It's not like in the old days when the action had to be so high, that you had to build thick calluses on your fingers to be able to stand pressing those high strings all the way down. But, having an easy playing neck, which makes you play more often, does build up your hand and finger muscles, which does help quite a bit when you do pick up a guitar that's hard to play. I sometimes get a kick out of playing a guitar with really high action that the owner can't even play. Of course I know it's just temporary and I'll get to go back to my own guitar before the "in need of vise-grips to play it" action of someone elses guitar get's too boring ( or starts making my hands hurt ! )

WOW ! that site is cooool ! I almost built an exact copy of my real guitar, which is also my 'dream guitar' http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/virt...rtualstrat.html But I must say, you kids today are spoiled !!! When I was your age and wanted to see what my "dream guitar" might look like, I had to make a full sized cardboard model, make the template by hand !, then really paint the cardboard model. I still have a couple from several years ago : http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/coolpaint1.html http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/coolpaint2.html They sure don't look as good to me now as they did back then, which just goes to show..... you put off that "dream guitar" long enough and you end up realizing it wouldn't have even remained your dream guitar for long.

The light purple on the SG looks very good. I just don't like the other color on there with it. But at least kpnutz52 finally got enough money to build his dream guitar

I buy can's of spray adhesive anyway for sandpaper. (Bought a ton of bulk German sandpaper).

I also like the copper foil better than the paint. I think even aluminum foil is better than the paint. You have to put that paint on pretty thick to get a good shield with it and I hate paint anyway, so I sure as hell don't want to have to paint the INSIDE of my guitar (watch out for the hollow-bodies where they POURED shielding paint into the F-holes and moved the guitar around to get the inside of the body covered with the paint !!! Your other best friend in guitar wiring : Star ground I'm wondering how cheap it would be to buy copper foil without adhesive on it and just buy a can of spray adhesive. When mine runs out, I'll look into that.

When I was first starting out 15 years ago, I was using fretting info from Dan E and someone else who was very well sought after by the top guitarist, to have him re-fret their guitars ( not going to say who it is, coz then everyone will bug him with e-mails to find out what he taught me ). Anyway, This "other guy" wasn't using "fallaway" , "drop-off" etc, so that's why I starting doing re-frets without it. And I no longer use "fallaway" unless a customer swears by it and I don't argue with customers unless they're set on doing something REALLY stupid.( I better not say all the things I consider stupid , coz it would start a fight here). Here's the deal : On a 10"-16" compound radius or even a constant radius of 12", I get 1/32" action at the 12th fret for the high E and 3/64" for the low E and I'm quite sure these "fall away" guys are not getting better action than that, so why go taking extra wood off the fret-board ? The action gradually gets a little higher as you go up the neck, so the proper string height and properly adjusted neck, create it's own slight "fall-away". I'm not saying that my 1/32" and 3/64" is the lowest action one can get on a guitar, but it's the lowest I need and almost every player out there. I actually have been cranking mine slightly higher to keep myself from "shredding" (DIE 1980's, DIE !!!) and so I can get a little more aggressive with rhythm playing. Maybe I shouldn't say this, but to be honest, I have wondered if "fall-away" is something that is done to compensate for a less than perfect fret-job. Doing fret-jobs for 15 years, and even using "fallaway" in the beginning (and now and then for the guy who just has to have it ), gives me the right to say it ,though. Usually guys that like really low action, want the action as low as possible in the upper register and you don't get the lowest possible action in the upper register by including "fallaway". Maybe the key is the neck relief. I like to keep it under .004", which is a damn straight neck. I was also using .002-.004 relief back when everyone was saying it should be around .012. My guitars were playing fantastic with .002-.004 relief and 1/32"/3/64" action at the 12th fret, so I didn't understand why everyone else's "specs" were so different than mine. But I wasn't playing guitars they had worked on, I was playing one's I had worked on, so who's specs were the best to go by ? It was simple. My guitars played like a dream and those other guy's guitars played like ? (nothing but crickets chirping)

I think with a gibson style bridge, you need the neck pitched back at least a little, even with a flat body type, otherwise you could end up with the bridge adjusted to it's lowest point and the strings will still be too high off the fret-board. But if you over-do the pitch-back, you'll have the opposite problem ( strings too high even with bridge down at it's lowest.) I like a flat top, with the strings kind of high at the bridge (but with low action on the fret-board). The first good guitar I got was a Fender with a kahler/floyd type whammy that put the strings off the body, similar to a tune-o-matic. I didn't realize the difference until years later when I got a guitar with a vintage fender type trem and didn't like the strings being lower over the body, which is how it has to be with a vintage fender bridge. With my current favorite "hard tail " strat, I have the neck pitched back with a full-sized tapered shim and the bridge saddles at their max height. I like the attack I get on the strings this way. Don't build a guitar design you are not totally happy with. If in doubt, put it off. Bring an abused guitar back to life, if your hands are aching to do some guitar work. Just an idea.

Thanks Rich. That's what I mean. You just said such guitars are at guitar shows, so I'm not too silly trying to find out about this neck. If you forget the cam, don't worry about it.

if the pickup will use a mounting ring or be covered by a pickguard, you could just double-stick scrap pieces as guides and if they are thick enough, you can use a standard straight bit allowing the bit's shaft to "ride along" the "template" pieces. I did my first pickup rout that way in 1987 and it worked fine. I used 1/2" thick wood pieces with carpet tape and a regular straight router bit. Now I have the ball-bearing bit. If you want those deeper ends to be perfect, you need to rig up a dedicated template pattern for just those ends and have a router bit that goes deep enough. The "template pieces" could very well turn out as well as the pro templates, but there's a good chance they won't, so that's why I say to do it that way only if the rout will be hidden. Unless you're not like me and don't go crazy if things don't turn out perfectly. I might be taking something for granted and not giving enough detail. I have a lot of experience with routers and use them all the time in my guitar repair work and my home rehab job work and am currently commissioned to build a special stair-building router jig for a home remodeling company.

Looks like the neck is bound, when viewed from the side, but not when viewed from above.

Thanks for the replies. Not sure if I'll get around to taking another pic of it next to another neck, but I just took some measurements. 20 frets 2" wide at 20th fret 1 5/8" wide at nut (zero fret) 11 3/4" from zero fret to 12th fret, which makes it a 23 1/2" scale Yeah, it's cheap, but I'd like to know as much about it before I try to sell it. If I can sell it for enough to buy a big handful of fret-wire, then that's better than leaving it hang on the wall. If anyone remembers seeing a guitar on the net with this same looking neck, please let me know.

I've had this neck a while, and I want to find out what it goes to. I know it's not likely that anyone knows, but I'm asking anyway, just in case. I'd like to know the brand name and what the body it goes to looks like. I have some bridge hardware that might go to the body, but I'm not sure. I think it might be a 22" scale neck, but I'd have to check that again, to be sure. It also has a 'zero fret', but the plastic "spacer nut" is off the neck. Here's some pics : http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/myst...stery-neck.html http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/myst...tery-neck2.html http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/myst...tery-neck3.html http://www.geocities.com/soapbarstrat/myst...tery-neck6.html

I don't think you want to take a set-neck off a guitar for refinishing purposes. Taking a set-neck off is probably the most difficult "typical" guitar repair procedure. I don't even do it when asked to , because I have not totally mastered it , and I don't offer a service I can't do perfect. It even requires fret-leveling or refretting after putting a set-neck back on (ok, I can do that part). If you really must refinish the guitar, tape off the neck and leave it on (which I don't recommend, because it will take years for the new paint to dry out and sound as good as the old paint, plus you could be doing some serious de-valuing of a vintage, or future-to-be-vintage guitar). If this is a Gibson guitar, please think very very long and hard about this.

I would try to get some "scrap wood" from an area that will be hidden by the pickguard and use that to fill-in the trem rout areas, especially what will be shown. There are a lot of ways you can go about converting trem to non-trem. So far, my method has been to just fill in the upper area, usually consisting of two pieces of wood. One piece is clamped/glued from the bottom side, because the rout is usually bigger below the little "shelf" area, if you know what I mean. I then make a really thick "back plate" out of wood and put metal string "ferrels" ( I think it's spelled different) on the back plate. So it's a string through body, but there's some area where the strings are going through just air, in the trem-block area. I think I might like to try something different in the future : Instead of the strings going all the way through the body, I'd like to try using a bridge-plate with notches cut into the string holes, so the strings can be "top mounted". An area under the bridge plate would be routed out, so the string ends can sit just below the bridge-plate, sort of how a typical acoustic guitar bridge works. That way, you could just loosen the strings, and pop the ends out of the notches in the bridge-plate, and they could be put back in, with no damage to the strings, if you're careful. It's another part of my never-ending obsession with making normal sized bolt-on neck guitars into "travel guitars" ( you would pop the strings off the bridge to take the neck off, to trasport the guitar in a smaller case)

Yeah, the makers of new necks, like Warmoth don't want guys like me to get stainless wire, because anyone with common sense knows it's a better deal to have an older neck refretted with SS wire than paying extra to have it on a brand new neck. Almost all brand new necks need the fret-board re-leveled at least a little after they're a few years old ,if the player wants those little warps, bumps and twists that a new neck often gets to be taken care of. THEN have SS frets put in and the frets and fret-board set-up should last a long time. I haven't used it yet. I've talked with guys who have used it. Some say it's much harder to deal with than regular wire and some says it's not much different. I'd like to try it on my own guitar.

I'm sure he means to *clamp* the neck, not bolt it, since there's no way to bolt it yet. And the string method is probably the best. You need to use a clamp big enough that you can put a padded block against the back of the body and another block on the fret-board, but it has to be narrow enough not to interfere with the E strings. If you haven't installed the bridge yet, then you either have to do that first or install the neck by measuring, then place the bridge by using the E strings, but the other way is better, as far as I know, unless you consider that you might only get the best neck to neck-pocket connection if you just place the neck in the pocket the way it makes the most contact to all possible surfaces. Then you do the bridge placement. I just changed my mind about the string method/temporarily clamping the neck being the best way. I think the other way might actually be better.

You sanded that decal off ??? Did Fender send some big mean mobster looking dudes after you or what ? That decal is extremely impressive. I wish I had one like that of the Newer looking Fender logo. I have a strat neck that some bozo sanded the 'made in japan' and serial # off of, plus took the bottom of the F off the word 'Fender'. I tried to fix it with some sliver paint and fine black marker, but it looks pretty crappy. Before you spray it, you might want to consider some ways to make it look vintage, such as : Spray a light mist of Behlen 'light fruitwood toner' from 18"-24" away after having first sprayed the neck with a few coats of sanding sealer, sanding, then one coat clear lacqer. One light mist coat of blush eraser to melt the toner coat into the previous lacquer coat. let dry 3 days, then apply decal, let dry overnight, then spray 6-8 coats clear. let cure 2 weeks then sand, polish. Another thing you could try, and it has been done, is to first apply a quick wipe of Watco danish oil. Wipe it on and wipe it off right away. Then spray lacquer over that. I think you let the watco dry overnight before spraying over it. another thing that works , is to stain the bare wood first with waterstains: 1/4 ounce full-strength yellow water stain 1-3/4 ounce water 1 drop brown water stain 1 pencil-tip's worth of red waterstain wipe it on. Water stains will raise the grain, so before wiping on the stain, dampen the wood, then sand w/220. presoak end grain so it doesn't absorb too much stain. This works better than adding tint to the clear, because tinted clear actually makes the wood harder to see. Might be hard to get it just right, so don't get mad if you do it and don't like it. "clearwater" brand is good because it is thick. Stained wood should dry over-night before spraying lacquer over it. If you want a vintage finish with all those little cracks, you can use nitrocellulose lacquer and let it cure enough to where it's ok to final sand and buff ( 2 weeks ?). Supposedly, the longer, the better. Then place the neck in a freezer for at least 12 hours, then take it out of the freezer and hang it in a warm room overnight. Supposedly within the next week, the finish will "check" (get all those little cracks all over)

I was just looking up info about lacquer (for myself) and I came across this site, which mentions oil finishes: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:NhC3J...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I've heard good things about an oil finish called "tru-oil" http://www3.woodcraft.com/Finishing/woodwo...orking/3979.htm although it says it "penetrates deeply", which is what many say is bad about some oil finishes, especially Watco brand. But I have read that Tru-oil is supposed to be better than Watco and Tung oil for tone. I've heard a little about using boiled linseed oil (linseed is also flax seed) I think it's important that no matter which oil you use, you wipe a little on and then off right away, working in small sections. This way, you keep the "deep penetration" to a minimum. The more oil you let soak into the wood, the more it will dampen the wood's tone and sustain. Do some searches on the different oils and the boiled linseed. I wish I had time to research it thoroughly. The oil finishes feel much closer to bare wood than a top-coat finish, such as lacquer.

Changed my link drawing slightly. Used my General ruler instead of my dial calipers.

For the thinnest strings (.008-.013") I use regular Grobet nut-slotting files and a Japanese "feather-edge" file. For bigger strings, I have been getting better results than the Grobet files, by using a system of fine sandpaper, feeler gauges and clamping the sandpaper tightly around the feeler-gauges by using a hinge that clamps the whole deal tightly together with wing-nuts. With the heaviest strings, and especially bass nuts, I use different sized metal rods and also use the hinge-clamp to hold fine sandpaper tightly over those. Just for fun recently, I wanted to see how basic one can go with home-made nut files. I took a nail and "abused it" pretty bad with a file, to make it a little rough. By looking at it, I didn't think it had what it takes to work as a file, but then I clamped a piece of 1/8" plexiglas in my vise and used the nail the same way I do a nut-slotting file. It cut really fast and left a perfectly round slot. The Grobet files often don't give a perfectly round slot, they often create a U shaped slot where the bottom is a little more flat than perfectly round. I've had arguments before on the internet about me saying home-made nut-slotting files are worth making. I hope I don't get that **** here. ( there's some guys who are just " oh, no, you must buy what stew-mac makes, there's no other way, bla bla bla") For the thinnest strings, I have yet to come up with a good home-made alternative (that lasts long), but for the thicker strings, I've surpased the "store bought" ones. Some claim V shaped slots are best, plus they usually still work if you change string gauges. They claim this way is the best because the string always has two even contact points to bear against. But the strings are more likely to "bind" with this method. You can use a couple triangle files for this method. The flattish bottom U shaped slots that happen with a lot of the Grobet files can actually cause a string to buzz sometimes. Just depends on the particular Grobet file you get. They vary in the way they are made.