GregP

Yes, the Transperformance was at the bridge. What makes the headstock end "better" in my personal opinion is that it simply looks better. The Transperformance unit was a pretty ugly beast.

Without knowing for sure, my first response is, "possibly!" lol Seriously, though, there's a reason why that question occurred to you. It seems intuitive to imagine that there will be friction issues and strings getting all bound up, not to mention tuning problems. It's not literally the angle itself, but rather the friction that is created. There's only one way to know for sure, which is to test. But with limited time and resources, my temptation would be to avoid the risk by going through that part of the body at more of an angle. It's true that you'd never know either way whether the method in your diagram would work or not, but you'd probably have more peace of mind that you're building in what is "probably" the safer way. That said, it occurs to me that you could test in some small way without actually needing to build much at all. Take some scrap of the right thickness, make the hole, install some ferrules, and even just use your hands to guestimate the angles from your diagram. It'll probably be enough to satisfy your curiousity, no?

Yeah, he sure likes his effects. But on "Try!" (John Mayer Trio, where he most assuredly is lifting a page from Stevie, but which is one of the great live albums, IMO) I'm pretty sure he's going more or less straight into an amp with perhaps an overdrive and tremelo/Leslie-emulator. If you listen to nothing else by him, and don't even care for his songwriting or 'personality', the guitar tone on that album in and of itself is great.

Oh boy, Wes... You sure have some problems, though I'm sure you'll respond by saying that no, you're just good-natured and having fun. That was some pretty misinformed and (in attempt, at least, if not in actuality) mean-spirited stuff. Shame on you. I'd be happy to provide counter-arguments for each of your weak points, and expose your poor rhetoric for what it is, but someone in another thread suggested we take that kind of stuff to PM. To be honest, I'm not that interested in doing so, and I suspect that for you it's only "fun" if you think you get to look "tough" in the public eye... insecure little narcissist that you are... but if it's really the debate and exploration of logic that interests you (rather than schoolyard bullying attempts), I'd be happy to respond privately. In truth, though, I spot ONLY ad-hominems, multiple red herrings, another straw man, and the weakest and most transparent of rhetoric. I see no substance. It would be extremely easy to contradict and provide counter-arguments for each and every one of your points. Without saying this in a mean way, and purely neutrally, you're one of the worst logicians I've ever seen. You don't even recognize your own logical fallacies, which makes the entire exercise exhausting and pointless. If all you can do is waggle your finger and try to deflect/misdirect, there's not much of a debate, now, is there? For public record, though, I haven't once "posed" on this forum. I always represent my level of skill, and only speak in those terms. I won't say "Poplar gets fuzzy when you sand it," but I might say, "I hear that poplar gets fuzzy when you sand it... perhaps someone can confirm?" I talk about things I learned during my partial build and my lap-steel build, along with my rewiring, upgrading, and shielding. I've made the same templates, truss rod routs, etc., that other people have, but I don't ever claim to have completed a solidbody build from start to finish, and have even been known to take pains to make it extremely clear that this is the case, especially to newcomers. I can find several examples of when I've represented myself accurately and clearly, but YOU won't find any examples of where I've "posed." That's just your rhetoric again, after all, and it's shameful of you to even try to use that one. I HAVE worked relatively extensively on electronics, and I've put as many principles of building into play as I could during my (full and complete) lap steel build. My guitar's progress is halted due to my current situation, and even if I HAD access to a shop, I won't say that it would be done. It'll get done when it gets done, and I'm fine if that's "never." I'm still not "posing". With me, you get exactly what you see. And unfortunately, with you, the same holds true. We get exactly what we see, which is a schoolyard bully with overinflated self-importance, full of pettiness and bitterness only thinly disguised under a "jokey" persona that I for one don't buy into anymore. Check your head.

Nah. The analogies are fine. Glad to hear you smile more than it seems, though. And in that context, I'll dignify your response-- What you're doing is simply setting up a straw man. You're interpreting the analogy in a specific way so that you can tear it down. That's classic straw man. Tsk tsk. One of the fundamentals of identifying logical fallacy. In an ideal world, I could just say "straw man!" and you would say, "Whoops, yeah... you might be right. Guilty as charged!" But since it's not an ideal world, I'll have to elaborate and use more words... so that you can then claim I'm boring and talk too much. <chuckle> My analogies were, quite simply: there are times when automatiion can be appropriate, and NOT in fact symptomatic of laziness as per Godin's joking charge. To return to one of my analogies: a mechanic should ALSO know how to diagnose a problem with a car without just plugging it into some hoses and a computer. That's part of what makes that person a mechanic... the skill to do it manually. I agree that in the same way, a guitarist should know how to tune their own guitar. But with that knowledge under their belt, automating that otherwise routine process isn't laziness, it's efficiency. The only counter-argument remaining is that it's currently hella expensive for what it does... which I agree with. But it's almost a moot point-- a beginning guitarist isn't likely to be able to afford a Gibson "Robot Guitar" and shortcut around tuning their axe, anyhow. Bottom line: the analogy is perfect...for those who aren't looking to set up a straw man to knock down. Only one person was making the analogy seem complicated (! are we reading the same analogies?), and it wasn't me.

I can't help but agree-- but I'm predisposed to prefer minimal controls as it is. Even with 2 buckers and a simple coil-split, I only find I use 2 or 3 tones. If you set up a system with 300 options, you're likely to find yourself with a lot of tonal overlap, tones you don't use, and a difficult time tracking down and using the tones you DO enjoy. But, I've seen crazier wiring schemes, and there are plenty of madmen who love having knobs and switches everywhere. Power to them (you?), but I'm just not one of them.

Of course they do. You don't really understand analogies! And, you're presenting a straw man to knock down (I actually agree about the on-stage thing, so it's obviously a separate point; hence, a straw man) and using rhetoric ("it sucks", they "don't apply" without actually presenting a counterargument). If you want me to school you in why your whole reply (except for the new on-stage point) was useless and lacking in logic, I will... But since Godin already stated it was a joke in the first place, it seems... silly... to take your weird little bait again. Have a great day, Wes! Hope you don't get a tired forehead from glowering at people. LOL Greg

Wow, cool stuff on that site. I like the idea of DIY, even if the cost-savings isn't always "spectacular". Anybody have an opinion on the TS vs. the Guv'nor vs. the BluesBreaker?

Do pianists tune their own piano? Are mechanics lazy for using automated diagnostics? Are programmers lazy for running automated test cases instead of always clicking every single button of their program? There's a time and a place for automation, and if it were cheaper, this is one of them. Very very few of us would leave it off our guitar if it cost the same as standard tuners and worked properly and without fuss. I know it's on a whole different scale, but tuning your own instrument or not doesn't really say anything about you as a guitarist. For cheaper than 500 quid, I'd definitely let my guitar tune itself! When I tune my guitar for recording, I want it done right, which means breaking out a tuner or virtual tuner anyhow... might as well let the robot do it. Wes inadvertently raises an interesting point, though... Imagine knocking your guitar over or into something and you smack those tuners? That's gotta be an expensive repair. !

Try 2 springs. I can't imagine you'll be able to get away without setting the guitar up again, though. You might be lucky.

There's no reason for it to not be accurate. All the technology's in place: - Hex pickups are sensitive enough - Pitch recognition technology is old to begin with, but it's certainly top-notch now - The motors are capable of very fine movements The only "unknown" is if the designers were smart enough to detune before tuning up to pitch. We had a thread when it was only the tuners-- the "Robot" guitar adds 'help' for intonating accurately. Since intonating just requires pitch comparison and in this case, human intervention, there's no reason for that to not be accurate, either. Greg

I dunno the right answer to this... but I can say that it was absolutely hellish to use sandpaper when I stripped my Mexican Strat. I would only wish that upon my worst enemy.

Welcome aboard, Michael! Cadillacs are certainly interesting guitars. I like unconventional shapes, myself-- and while the Caddy isn't my favourite, it's still pretty cool. Hope you have fun! A single P90 on a Cadillac is going to be sweet.

I'd hesitate on any sort of Big Brother policy. I doubt that all businesses that advertise on the radio, TV, or in the newspaper (even on a small scale like in the Classifieds or the weekly flyer) are checked by the publisher for the worthiness of their business. I would absolutely hate to see anyone ripped off, either, but it's impossible to police and is ultimately the buyer's responsibility in terms of checking things out. I think a middle ground good be something along the lines of a disclaimer inviting browsers to solicit opinions on this very forum. Gives them a good reason to sign up, too. Greg

Pretty funny, and actual information contained. Not quite as funny as that one that went around a year ago or so. Anyhow, here it is: http://www.5min.com/Video/Metalocalypse---...fee-Solo-486955

Not sure what you mean. "ChromeDome" is a particular product-- a single-coil pickup made by Lace. If you want your two coils of your humbucker to have "chrome domes" I think you're outta luck. However, non-polepiece chrome covers are easy to come by and plentiful if you wanna go that route.

Beat me to the ChromeDome suggestion. Like you, I've only seen them in sets of 3. You might luck out and find someone parting them out for whatever reason on eBay.

Definitely lifted not only a page from SRV's book, but shoplifted the whole book. That said, I really like him as a musician, and in some ways I could listen to his albums more often than SRV's. Maybe due to using fewer "standard" chord progressions and patterns than SRV and not claiming to be a "bluesman" per se.

I'm pretty sure you worded it right, it's just that a link might have provided us with more information to make a better reply. I can't find much technical information on the Big Dippers in general, never mind the specially-voiced ones, but suffice it to say that they're still pretty much classic single-coil Fender strat-style pickups. I wouldn't be surprised if they just use less mid-rangey components (brighter-sounding magnets? certain guage of wire?) and have slightly lower overall output. But they're still just standard normally-wound single-coil pickups. I doubt Mayer had "exacting" specifications, either... a lot of that stuff is marketing hype. What they likely did is simply work together with Mayer saying "Nah, too loud... too bright... too much wool..." until they came across one that worked. It's probably just a Big Dipper with slightly fewer winds. Have you heard the pickups in question? No words can really describe what a pickup sounds like. If it's really "mid-scoopiness" that you're after, I can't help but continue to recommend active EQ. Or even off-board, like in an EQ pedal.

I have to confess, I don't know what you're talking about. A link would be helpful. In general, pickups marketed as "midscooped" don't work. There is a linear relationship between pickup (resistance, inductance?) and frequency attenuation. The more in general, the more (winds, resistance, inductance?) a pickup has, the more high frequencies are attenuated. You can't use traditional pickup construction techniques to scoop the mids. That's a job for active electronics. If you really want a mid-scooped sound (which strictly personally, I don't recommend as a good guitar tone anyhow) you should use an active EQ. Greg

I'll be the odd man out and say that it's not a tele. Without the metal bridge plate, without a 6-in-line headstock and string trees, and being loaded with 3 humbuckers and a Khaler, it's a tele in body style only. But it sure kicks @$$.

So awesome. The tele pickguard is sweet.

That plasti-dip stuff looks neat, and I can imagine being a geek who insists on using it for any number of things. (no, not that...) As for the warmoth part, do you have a link for the lazy? A push-push is certainly easier-sounding than a push/pull.

Bleah... I guess the "pretend you don't want to reply to them and then REALLY do just that" was too difficult, but if you insist... I'm apparently always game for more boring blather. Be warned, this one's a doozy-- and despite the friendly way your last post was written, I'm not really interested in pretending that I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy from it, so I'm not going to bother. I suppose that'll make me a boring wet blanket. <eyeroll> I don't know what you want, Wes. You're the one trying to drag an absolutely boring debate out of me (twice bumping a thread 2 months dead) and then calling me on saying nothing interesting. I can say an awful lot on many given subjects, but I certainly can't (and don't care to) "divine" what it is you want me to say. This whole thing is a non-debate in the first place, and is boring primarily because you insist on dragging it out. Good lord, man, take some ownership for how tear-jerkingly boring this all is. I, on the other hand, am quite positive that nobody CARES about these particular posts. It's not that they're bored per se...though they might be, and it's still an irrelevant ad-populem point... but like me, they just really couldn't care less about the 'entertainment factor'. You're the only audience for these replies, and most people wisely skip past. And as I already stated (but apparently must repeat), I'm not even trying to entertain anyone, least of all you. So, not only is your point ad-populem, but also a straw man. While you're the only person actively interested in trying to demonstrate to me how "boring" I am (or whatever), I've had countless PMs on this and other forums thanking me for my approach to peer-based support, as well as friendly chatter. When I'm actually writing and hoping to entertain, I'm successful enough (for example, writing an email travelogue of a long-distance bike trip I took). You win some, you lose some, and since I was never trying to "keep you interested" in the first place, I'm quite fine with losing you. Not everyone likes to read Jose Saramago, either, but some people find him absolutely compelling. <shrug> Well aren't you a saint? Crusading on behalf of the legions of people who have complained that I'm... er... a boring poster with what some might see as a "wandering" style. Congrats. You've sure taught me a lesson and brought justice to the world. Never again will they have to skip past my posts, because thanks to you, they'll now be more interesting! New and improved interesting! Oh wait, no they won't... and oh... oops... skipping past them is actually a perfectly valid solution to the "Greg bores me" problem; one that you yourself could easily take. Nice try with the follow-up phrase, btw, but frankly it's a non-statement. "The verbosity devoid of meaning that is your meat and potatoes" doesn't even truly make sense, though I can suss your meaning. Ironically, you're not cutting to the point. What IS your point? As far as I can tell, it's, "Greg, I'm calling you out as being someone who bores me and uses too many words. Haha, gotcha!" Since I never claimed to be entertaining you and I enjoy my own "verbosity" enough (it's just a part of who I am that I'm not ashamed of... plus I type at blazing speeds that make it a non-effort...), it's just another straw man to add to your growing army. As for humour, sorry, but not quite. Your posts did not communicate a sense of humour until this most recent one, which WAS ultimately a success as a lighthearted reply. Rather, your previous posts communicated pettiness and perhaps some bitterness, too. And that's on you, not on me. You can't just say, "Look, I was being funny" and make it so. Either you were funny or you weren't. And Wes, you weren't. Actually, it wasn't concise at all. "Your own words say more about you than I can" is a vague and evasive statement that puts the onus of interpretation back on you. That's your style of rhetoric, and I was praying beyond all hope that it would finally Shut you TFU, but no dice. And yet it's being mentioned as a step toward concision. :-/ Dude, you over-glorify your own insights. Surely you don't think you're the only person who has achieved a level of self-actualization, and you must know that you're not the only person who fancies themselves an observer of other people? It's practically a cliche. I gave up that conceit ("conceit" in the literary sense) years ago when I noticed the astonishing number of people who are rather insightful and self-actualized, and realized that I wasn't so special in that regard after all. You'll get there some day, too. More importantly, if you had simply ASKED, "Greg, what are your own personality shortcomings?" I probably would have listed my tendency to over-explain and subdivide my points into smaller "teachable" units. Not everyone needs to be told what a "straw man" is... they either know, or they can look it up in Wikipedia (or wherever). Nonetheless, I DO tend to explain stuff like that. You don't get a merit badge for that insight. Like I said, you don't even realize it. You totally trolled. As for the second part, I can only imagine that you're being sarcastic-- after talking about how boring it is, you must mean "scintillating" ironically. Which again brings us to the question-- "then why continue, if it's so boring?" Classic. This rhetoric positions you as the light-toned one between us, while also asserting your upper-hand or "superior" position as the "older brother". It's transparent; to me, at least. I don't buy it and it doesn't really wash. You know, I'm not even sure you realize what you do with your rhetoric sometimes (which is a shame, because I could then at least give you credit for being clever about it), but half of the "boringness" you provoke in me comes down to explaining to you that your poor logic and weak rhetoric don't fly in these parts. As for the actual point you're making: objectively speaking, I can't imagine anyone reading either of our posts would see us as anything other than equal peers. There's not really any sibling dynamic at all, never mind an "older/younger brother" one. Taking it even further, and perhaps me being a bit condescending (though, since being patronizing and condescending is your specialty, I shouldn't feel guilty about it), it's really more the opposite. I've had rich and varied world experiences (which you might even know about had you ever asked about instead of making assumptions about), I tend to approach people with more respect than you do, I try to be genuinely helpful where possible (I only know X amount about guitar building, but I always cop to my actual level), and I don't pop into threads seemingly for no other reason than to make value judgements about people's character. And yet, I wouldn't deign to try to play "older brother" to you. I suggest you fine-tune your power of insight if you really do feel like the "older brother," because that's a rather shaky delusion. Which brings me to my final point: While you are claiming to be an observer of "foibles and fallabilities", I tend to take the opposite approach. I try my best to instead look for the good in people. It's easy to find people's flaws. It's tougher to notice their flaws and still be willing to look for value. So congrats for noticing that I can be boring and long-winded. It wasn't hard to spot. But instead of saying that I "regurgitate", you could have remembered the countless times (including this very post) in which my information or arguments were forwarded with nothing but my own words and thoughts. Even when you try to question my logic, I counter and run circles around you (of course, with my own words and thoughts) until you run behind your usual insults and half-jokes. Instead of also seeing my guitar-related posts as "regurgitating," an insightful Wes would have noticed that I simply absorb new information like a sponge and enjoy sharing it with people who haven't found it yet. Long-windedness, another criticism of yours, can also sometimes be "explaining things from different angles to accomodate all readers." (Or, it can be "long-windedness", I don't deny it). Then, instead of passing a blanket judgement on teachers that was negative, you could have also noted the positive that comes from the profession. I had a grade 6 student (an age at which the boys are starting to try too hard to be badasses) tell me that he sees me as a second father, and a "slow learner" succeeded in my math class because I worked at finding alternative ways to explain the concepts to her. The list of judgements and counter-arguments could go on.... Too tricky for you, or does it just make you feel more "clever" to be the sarcastic negative type? Or are you just hardwired to enjoy pointing out flaws too much to bother taking pleasure in noticing something else? So there it is. I get to be the "a-hole" after your relatively friendly post, but I don't mind. The casual reader, and even YOU, Wes, might think I took something too hard or too seriously, but that's fine... I know the score (I didn't take anything "too hard", I'm just tired of you), and that's enough for me. Long-winded or not, this post DOES contain my points in no uncertain terms, explained in a way you'd be hard-pressed to ever duplicate. I'd be just as hard-pressed to duplicate the way you evade and veil yourself behind half-clever 2-liners (though, when I do, I seem to score unasked-for "Wes Points" from it), so I guess we're even. Either way, I'm not really interested in derailing the thread more. I'm rather sorry that I made my (actually jokey and actually light-hearted) comment about you that started this all up again. It would have been better and more predictable to wait for you to bump the other thread in another 2 months. I haven't the faintest clue how a wooden wraparound bridge would work, btw, for the OP.

Just a word to the wise, I'm pretty sure your signature graphic is breaking forum rules. Don't have a rulebook handy, but I'm pretty sure no images are allowed, and text is limited to X number of lines and content as well. The outlining job looks good! It's certainly usable by anybody else, though they might need to scale it on their own end. Well done.