frank falbo

Nice reply, Crafty. I agree, and would add that any "release" of contact between the saddles is a direct tradeoff in sustain and vibrational transfer to the body. In other words, the more a bridge becomes a solid mass, the more efficient it is in transfering vibration. The exception to that would be a 2 Tek bridge or an individual saddle bridge where each saddle was very firmly attatched to the body with it's own two screws. Then you'd have separation AND solid contact. The biggest laugh of that "romanism" is that he's talking about a three saddle tele bridge. So there are two strings per saddle! How does he stop those two strings from interacting? It's the same kind of debate when guys say you need the stamped strat bridge to sound "like a strat". But it's clear that a heavier, more solid bridge like the Gotoh HQ butted against the body is "better". But "better" doesn't always sound "better" to our ears. Sometimes less efficient sounds better to us, and we don't need junk science to validate it. We just like the way vintage sounds sometimes. Sometimes cheap crappy guitars sound cool, too. It's art. So I say if he likes the way the bridge sounds with the saddles separated, that's great. Just don't make up some bogus junk science to validate it. Just say "We think it sounds better when the saddles aren't touching eachother, because we feel there's less crosstalk between the saddles." Using acoustics as a validator is plain stupid. It's got nothing to do with one long saddle or individual saddles. It has to do with the huge resonating acoustic guitar top. It has to simultaneously resonate all frequencies across 1/8" wooden plate with bracing interrupting the flow all over the place. Separating the saddles would do nothing for that. I've made electric guitars with one long compensated acoustic saddle and a piezo. They have better string separation and sustain than any other traditional bridge I've played.

The Digitech GSP 2101/2112/2120 units have no dropout IF they have dual processors. Basically the processing alternates between the two. If you are using too much processing, like harmony+multi effects, then you will get the delay.

Is there a grassy knoll nearby? Was he playing one of those 36 fret Washburns during a big solo? Maybe he's just that awesome, that he can shatter a tube. My guess would be a faulty tube/faulty seal. And when the seal finally gave, the tube shattered. Or the tube was hit, and the seal broke.

I could be wrong here, because I've never seen one in person. Also the photos are taken from a steep angle. But to me, the back end of the body route (and therefore the neck shape also) looks like a tighter radius than the one an angled bit would leave. The 45 degree V groove bit would leave more roundness at the back corners of the neck pocket, IMO. Not necessarily right at the base of the pocket, but as it flares out to the guitar's top. The CNC would make that pattern with a straight bit, and it would get you those tighter edges. It kind of looks like it was done with a straight bit to me. I don't know how I feel about that neck joint. One thing's for sure, he makes a huge mistake in his explanation: "And, with a larger contact surface than previous neck joints, more sound is undoubtedly invited to travel throughout the length of the instrument." Unless he's ignoring the side contact on a traditional Strat heel, there's more surface contact on a Strat heel, or at least the same if you consider that the treble side has no side wall for most of the pocket. He went a little too far with his "I'm a tone god" marketing bull with that comment. I'm sure it's a great neck joint, but he's ascribing false benefits where there are none. And he does it in such a sly way with this part: "...more sound is undoubtedly invited to travel..." INVITED TO TRAVEL?! What the heck is that? Does the body send a special invitation to the neck before they are assembled?! "Please, neck, join me in this invitation to travel more sound than traditional neck heels...RSVP at body@marketing.tom" Hey pretty soon I'm going to start calling him "Tom Romanderson"

Yeah Mel spends a lot of time designing and patenting other cool stuff, besides pickups and music industry stuff. The pickups still manage to find their way onto various factory guitars, some signature models, and custom jobs. I spoke with him a few months back and he said they're still making pickups. They are among the best kept secrets, because there's no marketing. It's just them, sitting there running a small business. Meanwhile Actodyne had all the years of Fender muscle behind them to catapult them to where they are now. I don't think they really care about reaching mainstream status. The APC's are truly superior to any comparable Lace product IMO. If you get the chance, try some out. I have an H/S/H set here waiting to go into a guitar I'm refinishing right now.

The APC ones I'm referring to are indeed magnetized. But I don't know what the secrets were. It was manipulating the magnetic field in some way, I believe narrowing it for a sharper attack. And since they were about 3/16" thick, simply applying them raised the magnetic field that much closer to the strings. So you had an increase in output. Some of that was the proximity and some was legitimate. When I used to try them I would put the pickups right near the strings, and then compare that with lowering the pickups and applying the device.

If they were smart, the guys at Sweetwater, Musician's Friend, Sam Ash, Guitar Center, or some other "big box" retailer would issue an "Everything at cost + 10% to churches affected by Katrina" program. They could probably even write off the loss in profits between cost+10 and regular price. It would be a nice gesture and probably gain them some lifelong customers. I understand the church priority. And getting the church back in business doesn't somehow make it take longer for the homes to be rebuilt. But in the mean time having a clean, functioning church to go to would be the perfect refuge for people in these times. It's a totally reasonable request, and it's clear that Jay 5 was just referring to the closeness in time between the first and second post, not the content of the first post.

I'm referring to a Warmoth body/neck combination. They brand both of them, and with the misalignment you're losing contact from the neck in some areas, the body in others, and both at points where they meet. I don't care about any double blind experiment with it because it's a stupid practice. It wouldn't matter if no one could tell the difference, it's the principle. It's like getting the sound of a shimmed pocket in a way, and there's no good reason for it, just like there's no good reason for a paper label to be in there. (Hey paper is a wood based product though, haha) Other companies use ink stamps. I realize you can't bar code with that, but they get by somehow. I also realize that factory guitars are what they are. Some loss of the craft is to be expected to increase efficiency in a factory environment. But Warmoth is making parts, supposedly so the guitar handyman can make a "better than factory" guitar. Luckily, Warmoth cuts their neck pockets a little shallow for my tastes, so in the past if I've ever gotten a Warmoth body I'll completely redo the neck pocket, sometimes adding an angle, but removing the indentations entirely. -Kudos idch. Flat and raw is the best, even with that metal shim BTW, with that metal shim, be sure to countersink the holes in the neck. Perhaps a little on the body, and the shim itself, too. The neck holes will tend to lift a little right when the threads bite. On a wood to wood connection, that usually just compresses indentations in the body wood. The metal shim will not be forgiving. So as long as you have a flat neck heel, keep it flat by countersinking those holes a little. Once the neck holes lift a little, screwing in harder won't press them back down because the threads have the Maple locked in between them. If you shim holes are really oversized, then I guess it's not an issue either.

Not to hijack, but it brings up another point that I'd like to rant about. Companies like Warmoth (well, they're the worst) burn a huge logo/Fender license into the neck and body, so that you really have about 30% less wood to wood contact overall. A dark, wet ink would penetrate just as deep, and still leave contact. The thing about the Fender neck is that it has a thick finish. So it really doesn't matter what's under there, be it paper, a guitar pick, dust, etc. You're making contact with poly. So unless you sanded the finish off the heel, you can leave whatever's under the poly. Or sand the heel until you get through most of it, but still leave a little on there to keep it sealed, and so the amber color blends with the rest of the neck. If you take it to bare wood it will be a lot whiter.

One other benefit to using a "stereo jack" (referred to as TRS-Tip/Ring/Sleeve) is that you can ground the ring tab. It's quieter if you have to unplug and plug in while the amp is on, because the tip contacts ground right away, even while it's still touching hot. It also adds another point of ground contact so no matter how dirty it gets or how much cord strain there is it should be free of crackle. The absolute BIGGEST payoff for this is when using Ibanez style barrel jacks, because the tabs in there are so small and weak anyway. I will ALWAYS choose the TRS jack, and ground both ring and sleeve. I have saved jacks from death on some of my guitars simply by grounding the ring and they're 100% crackle free now.

Here's what you do. (maybe it's been suggested/done before) Take some rotten spalt like you have there, and go ahead and remove some of the soft spots at random. Then inlay them (like your blue epoxy areas for example) so it looks like molten pearl is blistering through like lava rock. If you did it right, it would look as if the pearl was left behind like scar tissue as the wood's wounds opened up. I know that's gross sounding, but its the only way I can describe it.

Less math, more touchey-feeley. All that math still doesn't account for fret height, action preference, and most importantly, neck relief. Neck relief can account for some bridge lowering on a guitar once it's built. It's also why we put a slight fall-away at the end of the fretboard during leveling. And depending on the kind of body it is, you can expect some slight tilt at the neck joint, too. It might take years, but there will be some pull where the neck meets the body. Still, you want to start with a little extra neck angle IMO. The 1.68 or whatever that calculator gives you is probably what you should use for your first time. By now, I can look at a guitar and know what kind of angle I should cut. But I've cut literally hundreds of neck angles over the past 15 years.

I would remove enough from both sides of the neck to be left with a "center strip" and then laminate a Maple or alternate wood strip to both sides, so you have a symmetrical 3 piece neck. You can follow the route all the way into the guitar, to where the neck joint ends.

Hey someone should sell phenolic impregnated spalt. That would be a real time saver, to soak it and press it so you ended up with a solid, workable plank. Nice work Drak, will you burst it? I think a real thin burst right around the edges would look nice on that, because the spalt is going all over the place, and I think it needs something to reinforce the outline of the guitar. Just my 2 cents.

I've saved the Duplicolor clears for other silly stuff, like to seal wooden truss rod covers, or for use in general household stuff. It flashes pretty quickly but takes...um...how long to cure? The clock is still ticking! One great use I found for it was to lacquer pot pickups as I'm winding them. Because of the quick flash, I can soak the coil in it and resume winding again shortly thereafter (without a splash of lacquer on the first few turns) I think that's my new exclusive use for that stuff. Since it never really cures, I would classify it as somewhere between beeswax and nitro as a potting material. It's totally consumer grade, so that some weekend handy-mom or dad can shoot their kid's bike or some flower vase and get great results. Deft is clearly the favorite around here, and no one has reported any problems with solvency or adhesion. So that's the way to go. But since Duplicolor is an acrylic based product, the ultimate would probably be a pro-grade automotive acrylic clear.

Yeah me too. I feel that it's a much better design, as is the new Ibanez ZR trem (basically a front loaded Kahler) The clear Kahler advantage is the stable saddles/string height, like a Bigsby. But I still love the fulcrum bridges too, so it's no big deal either way. I'd like to see a Kahler with a lock for the ball ends, or a Floyd-like string lock back there. Then again, the ZR has string locks, so maybe between the three of them there's a fancy trem that's right for everyone.

Right. GM said he usually uses Maple. So I'm sort of limiting the comparisons to Maples. Generally with Maple, softer means more flexible/less stiff. And with a Maple neck, I will always prefer the stiffer piece. There are reinforced necks made out of Alder, Basswood, etc. so it's not like I think every neck needs to be made out of Hard Maple or anything. Less stiff woods with reinforcement can work okay, too. But then you're not just hearing and feeling the wood. You're hearing the sound of the reinforcement material too. But yes, from species to species, hard doesn't always equal stiff and vice versa. Spruce very stiff but soft, Oak is hard, but not very stiff. So with Maple, I will always test the flex of the piece. It's not about the weight. You can test the flex a bunch of ways, but basically when I have it planed down to thickness, I simply sight the line while pressing down on the middle of the board. And I know what I'm looking for, just because I've flexed a lot of Maple over the years. Figured or not, it should be stiff. Sometimes you deliberately trade stiffness for beauty. And you just build the guitar around that. You might compliment it with other woods that sharpen the attack, like a semi-hollow Ash body and an Ebony board for example. A thick Ebony board will stiffen the neck greatly, so you can afford to use a figured neck blank with more flex.

Well, it's not so much about the travel of sound waves "through" the wood grains, but rather the way the piece vibrates as a whole. I haven't experienced any negative sound effects from figured woods, unless the wood is too soft, as some flame & quilt is. But I can tell that before I build with it. I've never built with softer figured maple, but I've played plenty of necks that I knew were soft. But they would sound lousy whether they were figured or not.

I would use it for sure, but I'd definitely cap it and I would hollow it out if it were me. It's such a resonant wood that I would think an experienced builder could get that guitar singing. It would have great attack. I wouldn't even use Maple for the top wood, rather something like Lacewood, Walnut, or even Hard Ash. Lacewood would be my first choice, because it would be like a hard/softwood intertwined grid over the top of this hot sounding back. If you don't do it send it to me.

For a solid body you could always start with 9/4 stock and resaw 1/4" back from it. After resurfacing you'd have grains that were less than 1/4" away from your actual back surface. So you could then cut all your plates from the exact corresponding location on that piece. If you were doing a thinner guitar, then you could still start with 8/4 stock and saw it down too. Otherwise get some wood that's a "good match" and anyone who's "normal" isn't going to care about a slight mismatch.

I don't think he's saying it's a Fender. Unless a lot of wood was removed, you have to flatten it. You don't want an abnormally thin heel though. If it was really thinned out on the bass side, then it might be firewood. No pics=no verdict.

Are you suggesting that a 25mm body will need a truss rod? ← Ha! No. I just thought it was funny that you said necks were "holding up fine" because they're not. Without the rod they'd be bananas. It just sounded funny the way you made your comparison. That's why my first point was to agree with the feasibility. But it is true that guitar bodies can move over time. I've seen many guitars get a slight bow to them. Sometimes it manifests itself as less pullup on a trem, because the bridge has to sit a little deeper. Sometimes the pickups and/or T-o-M bottoms out. I've seen it on SG's, Sabers & Stealths, Melody Makers, etc. I started looking for it a long time ago with straight edges. I was interested in the effects of years (and decades) of string tension. Somewhat of a "the anatomy of vintage" study. Wood moves over time anyway. So while you couldn't say string tension was responsible, I never saw a body that bowed backwards. So to this day, I design my guitars with the bridge to have ample downward adjustment, like even until the strings rest on the fretboard. Byron, you'd be wise to do the same. Also I'd go with an Ibanez style barrel jack. It solves all your problems. You would even have room to recess it a little, and recess the control cavity cover. There's room on that guitar for vol/tone pots, too.

It's not so much the pickup route itself, but the screws it takes to mount it. I'm not sure I made that clear. Especially with a traditional pickup that has the ears lowered. You'll never get a good mount that way. You could put the screws in from the back and put foam under the pickup. Just drill two holes from underneath and countersink them. With no neck pickup the guitar should be fine. Take the neck joint all the way into the bridge pickup route so it disappears inside there.

For the higher frets, just switch to mandolin frets with scallops. Just make sure the height is the same as the other frets. It still will be relatively useless, but...um...less useless. I don't think 2 rods is necessary, and I don't think it's necessary in a 6-string bass either. You should be fine because your scale length is shorter than a 6-string bass, and your tension will be lower too.

While I do think the thin body will work, I had to point out that guitar necks aren't "holding up fine" and that's why they all have truss rods. If there's a chance to bust Perry on his choice of words I have to do it. Furthermore, the main section of the guitar will be drastically thinned out under the pickup routs. So there is a possibility of some movement. The good news is that it should all be within range of adjustability at the bridge over time. If you leave enough meat around the neck joint, your neck pickup route shouldn't be an issue either. But I would say a bolt neck is completely out of the question. You also say the pickups will be direct mount. I don't think that's a good idea because there won't be that much wood behind the route. You might pop out the back, or not have enough wood for a good thread bite. As for the attitudes, I don't see any that are out of line. If you think you see some attitude, just stop and ask the person if you're understanding them correctly before getting defensive. Perry's first answer was lighthearted as I read it.