frank falbo

Drak mentioned somewhere that he finishes the cavities. Search some hollowbody threads he's in. I'd take the position that the inside of an acoustic should not be finished in any way for tonal reasons. But a hollowbody electric should have a sealer of some kind for stability. An acoustic is so thin that the finish on the inside would just dampen the vibrations even more. It's widely accepted that a thin, open pore finish, or a french polish will produce a more vibrant sound on an acoustic than a thick, poly glass coating. On a semi-hollow, the back and sides are so thick that a little sealer coat won't hurt anything, but could cut down on the expansion and contraction, which will cause grain telegraphing through the finish over time.

Claiming that a higher value pot will actually incur more treble loss/capacitance from the cable is like saying if you use too much salt in the stew, it will taste less salty. There is more high end to be attenuated, and more is attenuated, but there was more to begin with. The only thing it would affect is the taper. The capacitance during travel is irrelevant. If you're trying to say that a 500k pot at 50% will have less treble loss than a 1Meg pot at 50% because the 1K pot allows a higher impedance at 50%, I'll still disagree with it's relevance, even if it can be proven scientifically. The payoff of a 1Meg pot is at the top, when it's wide open. Any slight change one way or the other in the tone during travel is not worth factoring in. This whole post is "IMO" by the way. I don't have the degree in electrical engineering either. But sometimes that education makes you miss the forest for the trees.

Your question is posed as an either/or equation. If you have to choose only one, either for budget reasons or input limitations, then use the condenser. It is most like the human ear, and most forgiving regarding placement. Otherwise listen to the previous comments.

Yes, but then you lose travel, or have to have longer rods. Ours was very similar with Thompson linear bearings, and we used a large steel plate to connect them. It's possible that your small steel strip that only connects one side is allowing some movement, or perhaps you're not perfectly straight between the two. I don't like the way you're using the bar clamp as the bearing connection on the outside. I think you can have some rotation there. Also, I'd avoid using wood as any go-between bearings. No matter how thick or laminated, it is still not as stable as steel.

I read an article a few years back that Clapton had some of his "player" guitars finished that way. But he did it so it would feel natural, like raw wood. The idea was to soak the raw wood with CA, and then sand it back so what you had was basically impregnation, but not a surface coating. Then the neck could feel like raw Maple, but have better protection than an oil finish.

It's not hard. I do it all the time. I usually convert the whole thing to 4 conductor. You don't have to run two wires if you don't want to though. You can just put one wire on it. For a typical install they're wired together anyway. You probably can't reuse the tape, just because its so old. So once you remove it the stickiness might be gone. If it's got a lot of wax on it, sometimes I've rubbed (quickly) the soldering iron over it to melt the wax back down after I reapply the tape. That way the wax is your bond. You can leave the tape off too, because the coils themselves will be taped.

The reverse explorer isn't a lefty because the control plate is on the "right handed" side. It's ugly either way, but I'm into smaller treble horns and longer bass horns, so with some redesigning that idea could be made cool.

I think they're playable, just silly. The reverse explorer style is okay, but still not proportioned well. The guy gets an "A" for ingenuity at the very least.

It just depends on if you can get in there and splice it. If you can't then you have to replace the wire. Or tap some thick solid core brass rod into that hole, so that hopefully its making contact, and solder a ground wire to that.

The only thing I don't and wouldn't ever use is an out of phase switch. I think it's utterly useless. It's a sound I would never want, and basically could duplicate with some filtering if I ever did. But I use all the coil cuts, and multiple pickup combinations I can. And I play them live too. But I have always been that way. So I don't try to push that onto the people I make guitars for. Or if I do, it's just maybe one push/pull so otherwise the guitar behaves normally. I do a lot of coil cuts where the coils can be chosen, too. 4-pole 5-ways are the greatest. You can do so many things with just three poles, that the fourth is a bonus. I've used the fourth to route certain positions to the tone control while others bypass it for the purest sound. On one guitar, the middle three positions are wired through a hi-pass filter and the outer positions are wired to a tone pot.

I've done recessed mounting rings a bunch of times. The Ibanez Frank Gambale has recessed mounting rings. Ibanez routed them before they painted the guitar, so there was a paint lip, and sometimes they had to dremel out the excess finish. I do it after the paint so it's a really tight fit, and just give a little wetsand/buff to the edge of the route. BTW, Drak abbreviated purpleheart "P-heart". Which seems harmless enough, until jmrentis eliminated the dash. Then it read quite differently.

I think that's the guitar's owner, Frank. Hence the big smile on his face. I wonder if years from now we'll have an annual "lifetime achievement award"

If it's for the purpleheart guitar, did you say that you can still use a template on that? I seem to recall the high sections of that carve being "flat" or level with the top so you could still secure a flat jig to the top of the guitar, and it would be supported by the cutaway sections and the bridge area. If that's the case, just use a normal template like these guys are all saying. If you use a pickguard one with no ears, you can also use a forstner bit for the ears, either before or after you route your rectangle. If you use the forstner bit after the rectangle is cut, it will be clean but have the tendency to walk on you. So I'd clamp it to the table or use plenty of arm strength. If you use it before, then you could have tearout where the walls meet the forstner hole. I don't think direct mount "with ears" looks cheap at all. I believe the cool "angle-in" method could be done with an oversized bit after the fact. Its just easier before you mount the top. If you did that, another mounting method would be to put foam under the pickups. Then instead of a small hole in the top that would suspend a pickup height screw, you could make a slightly larger hole that would pass a small wood screw. Then you could direct mount the pickups with a small screwdriver, while maintaining the "no ears" look. I have one pickup that's direct mounted but the guitar had a ring, so I left it on. But now I adjust the height the same way as I'm describing, by placing a little screwdriver through the mounting hole. This angle-in method relies on the depth of the hole as much as the sub-level width. You could route one side (bass side for the neck pup) twice as deep so the pickup really angles down in there. For the bridge pickup, you could orchestrate the electronics cavity to join with the pickup route so you have total sliding ability. Like you are sliding the pickup into the electronics cavity. You could do that by using the oversized router bit in both the pickup cavity and the electronics cavity. So they meet in the middle. And the Parker Fly pickups idea is also awesome. Just screw them pole pieces right in. I think both Dimarzio and Duncan sell Parker compatible pups. Maybe just Dimarzio.

What a great month! This is the first time I've ever been "judgemental" about anyone's work. But I was in last month's gotm so I abstained from commenting on that batch. In order: Maiden69: Fantastic guitar all the way around. Pre-made neck, but with enough custom work to it to take ownership in the whole guitar. Jabi: Interesting idea for the back end, both with the trem recess and the bottom curve, but overall a hodgepodge of incoherency. The design doesn't flow for me. But the workmanship looks good. 82DeanZ: Great guitar aside from some general misalignments. I think I'd prefer a black middle single, but maybe in the pics it's contrasting too much. Maybe in person it looks better. The neck is gorgeous. Stew: Can't pay you enough compliments. (other than my vote) That's rattle can?! It looks like a thick marine/spar finish. Design and implementation is flawless. And way back when I first glanced at it here, I didn't like it. Before I digested the concept I dismissed it as a typical multilam. Boy was I ever wrong. The garehanman: Beautiful work, and a close 2nd. neocon58: Looks great for a first, and the paint looks great too. Perry: You're at a different level. Your guitars aren't an "of the month" but rather an "of the career" You'll always make 100% quality items. This one didn't have anything out of the ordinary. Malmsteen: Nice looking guitar, very clean looking. Some of your fret slots are off, and some are angled. But the scallops look real good and the rest of the work is clean. I guess I put a heavy element on design for gotm.

You have my full support. This move sounds more consistent with my preferences than the previous, now retracted ones.

You just have to get the adjustable chuck for the Dremel. Then you can go down to any size.

I don't know if you've discussed it elsewhere, but if we knew what kind of guitar you had then we could probably make more specific recommendations. I don't know whether to tell you to block your Floyd or mod your T-o-M with locking bolts. Aaahhh. I've followed your link to find a picture of a Danelectro. If that's the guitar in question, you can tighten the trem springs so there's ample downward pressure against the body.

No, it's like where the body wood (usually the top) or parts of the guitar get caught in a woofy howl. A guitar with a floating top can do that, and in that case, the F-hole augments it like GregP said, by opening the door. It's not the strings.

You're thinking clearly, but I just route the trem cavity a little longer. Then you have more travel on the spring claw. The traditional trem cavity cover leaves a good 1/4" or so of room for expansion. I do that on almost all the guitars I make regardless. Nothing is worse than finding yourself bottomed out on the trem claw when you can't or don't want to add another spring. Also some claws are deeper than others, so find a short one.

Have a look at this: http://www.fvcc.com/music/guitar.html It's a deep set neck. The neck goes to the bridge humbucker cavity. The body is +/- 1 1/4" most of the way. It's a Maple bent top over Mahogany. So the Mahogany has the arch in it and the Maple is 1/8" throughout. It was cut from larger stock of course, and the thinness was carved into it from the back. I don't know if you can tell from the pic, but the back follows the arch of the top, but flattens out around the recessed electronics cavity. Plus it's thicker by the neck joint, too. You could almost consider that like a real shallow "volute" where the neck meets the body. So the Mahogany stock was probably normal 8/4, or perhaps I used 6/4 because I knew I was adding the 1/8" top. But the thinness was absolutely perfect for that guitar IMO. The low B string was tight, with a clean attack and no mud on the decay. Part of that was the string through and the custom bridge. I have another 7 string that's 1 3/8" solid quilted Maple, to be finished this summer. That one is an AANJ bolt on with 5 bolts. If it weren't Maple I wouldn't have done that. I'm making a 6 string bass from that same stock some time in the next year, but I'll do a deep set neck on that one. The trem has to have a shorter block. You can get one or cut your own. I also cut grooves in the blocks so the springs sit flush with the block. You can round the back edge of the block too. Ibanez angles it already, but the OFR is squared off. Also usually on an OFR you can do away with the metal plate between the block and the tension piece for another 1/32". When you dive bomb, the springs actually arch out away from the body a little because of the angle of the trem block. So actually instead of flush, I recess the springs in the slot a little. For a bolt on, I'd recommend a neck plate over ferrules because you don't want to lose any more wood than you have to, unless it's really hard like Maple. And all my super-thins have a neck angle regardless of the attatchment method. Electronics all fit, minus a strat 5-way. The import box 3-ways are shallower than the right angle gibson types. Mini toggle on/off pickup selectors work great, or build up a piece for the 5-way as on the Ibanez S series. If the strings will sit closer to the body I like the short metal dome knobs. Use a flush panel output jack, traditional jacks take up way more width. Use forstner/brad point bits for your bridge studs so you can drill deeper without risking coming out the other side. I've never had balance issues, but I use longer bass horns than normal. I have one Ibanez Saber with a 5-piece Maple & Ebony laminate neck I made, w/Ebony board. That neck is very heavy, but the guitar balances fine. You only notice it when you go back to a "stock" Saber afterwards. Use mounting rings if you can, there's not as much wood for a direct mount pickup screw to bite, and it can come out the other side.

I see what you mean Drak, although so far, nothing said has been contradictory or combative. We're miles ahead of the curve. But, um..now I'm responding so... Sorry Digideus I really want to minimize the"bootjack". It's all so theoretical that the only thing I can think of is to just reinforce the constants. Just keep the focus in your mind on what it's doing to the bridge, and the types of vibrations the bridge will send back to the strings. When you take wood away, you alter the way the body and bridge react to the string energy. These questions are really best answered by playing a bunch of guitars, and if you have the luxury, building a bunch of them too. High energy music favors a tight attack and bass. Usually that's best suited with solid woods. "Loosening up" the wood surrounding the guitar's core and bridge will also loosen the attack and swell the early decay of a note. It also makes the guitar vibrate more in the hands of the player. That can be psychosomatic. A good hollowbody changes the way the player plays just as much as it produces it's unique sound. Sidenote on feedback; I was referring to sympathetic feedback, but that includes feedback between the pickup and pickup mounts. That's sometimes misinterpreted as microphonic because if you hold the pickup steady it goes away. If the pickup is microphonic it will feedback in anything regardless. Let's all try to search INWARD for our own answers to these types of questions, shall we? Seriously, hollowbodies are so much more responsive to the player's technique, that the same guitar can mean different things to different players. There's really no right answer, because a good hollowbody will augment each player's technique. So one guy says "I like XYZ hollowbody because the attack snaps back at you. It's got good bark." The next guy, on the same guitar will say "I like it because it's so mellow and smooth." and it's all because of the way the guy's playing it. A maple neck through "floydeyemgee", for example minimizes those variants. Also it's common knowledge that a pointy headstock will negate the effects of the chambers.

Some quick non-hypothetical, non wannabe principals: If the chambers come up under the bridge, they'll affect the way the bridge vibrates. How thin the wood is under the bridge affects the sustain. If a guitar has a bridge area that "floats" a lot more acoustic sound will be produced, vs. one that has the bridge area glued to the back wood. Both of those things will be audible electrically. The size and shape of side chambers can impact the acoustic resonance, but are less likely to affect the plugged in tone. Most of the plugged in tone variance is from the fact that the sides are hollowed out at all. When chambers are connected from treble to bass side, a lot more air can be moved around. Sometimes that will sympathetically affect the vibrations of the bridge area and neck joint area, and that does affect the plugged in sound. Especially when an amp is blasting back at it, developing new vibrations above and beyond what the strings are producing. But moreover, connecting the chambers in the middle, between the bridge and neck can weaken the body's rigidity (in a good way) and that's how it's affecting the strings vibration and the plugged in tone. Try to think about the kind of sound your internal frame will make, without thinking about how the outer shell will reflect the sound internally and externally. The only way an F-hole can affect feedback is if the guitar was feedback prone to begin with. Primarily that's going to be in "floating top" guitars. Regardless of whether there's a center block for stability, if the center block isn't attatched to the back all along that main section, it's still floating IMO. Is that spouting garbage? Feel free to let me know if it is, but I think they're some basic principles that can get a newbie started, without the voodoo. Of course there's always this simple equation: chamber=good

Are you talking to me?

I was going to vote in that poll but it took too long to load. Seriously, I'm on 56k and no DSL in my area until possibly early '06. Plus the phone lines themselves are old and dirty so I have connection issues. It's just something I've learned to deal with. But some things are unnecessary, regardless of connection speed, like pics repeated in multiple quotes. Or huge 5-paragraph rants that are then immediately quoted with a one or two line response. As if I need to re-read the huge rant again, I just read it! That's why your post came AFTER that one, right? But I accept my connection speed as my own deficiency. I don't expect any changes on the part of the forum to accomodate me. The argument about rules being broken is seperate, and valid. It doesn't matter how crazy the rules are, you should follow them. So we have two sub-topics going really: 1. Is it okay to break the posting rules? No, ignorance notwithstanding. 2. Should they be changed to accomodate new technology? Maybe.

The only guitar I liked it on was the purple crackle Washburn with the 29 & 36 fret necks. And that's probably subconscious because I liked the look of that guitar. So I probably liked the guitar before I liked the finish, and then my mind rectified it. Otherwise it's always looked bad to me. I like it less when you can see and feel the cracks. But I will say I don't have anything against it. In other words I wouldn't say anything to discourage you from using it. It's just a personal preference. Red/Black will probably look more like flowing lava rock than blood though. Here's an idea, just do certain sections, so it looks like the guitar is holding together in some parts, and breaking apart in other parts. It might look cool to put a violin-esque purfling lip all around the top, and just crackle the top. So it looks like the guitar has a back, and sides, but the top is a pool of liquid poured into it.