GregP

Nothing will ever replace sheer volume and guitar-specific cab (rather than studio monitors). That's a vibe that can't be emulated. On the other hand, I'm never in a position to crank an amp... live in an apartment, when I do record (rarely), it's late at night. That's when Revalver Mk II steps in. Not that I'd pimp a particular product.

Well, if it's already stripped and torn apart, have at'er. I'm sure someone will be along with advice on the switch itself. The switch that's on a push-pull is just a DPDT switch, so any of the wiring diagrams you see with such a switch will also work.

Sorry, no suggestions-- it can be done, of course, I just don't have the information. Gotta say, though... sounds like a bad idea. Filling and refinishing an area is tough work, and in this case I don't see returns on the investment. Push-pull is cumbersome enough, IMO, but I like the way it stays out of the way. But that's on guitars that already have a switch of some sort and would need an additional switch for tapping. If you only have one switch as it stands, I don't really see any good reason to switch (no pun intended) from elegant (or at least normal) switch to cumbersome push-pull. Everyone gets to pick their own design and their own mods, and I have no problem with whatever anyone cares to do-- I only mention it because of the ditching and filling of the selector. The work outweighs the benefits. For a from-scratch built, to each their own; or if you were already planning to refinish. But otherwise, sounds like a lot of work for a dubious return. Greg

To me, the black rings with the Mighty Mite hardtail.

The angle at which the high E string is going to be will actually usually -negate- the need for a string tree. String trees are used to ADD angle across the nut, so that there's positive contact between the string and the nut. Don't forget to take pics! I love the look of 4:2, and I'd be curious to see how yours turns out.

Rich: I must've just misunderstood. We're all clear now.

It'll work. Lots of pickups are marketed as "bridge or neck" or "any position", and in some cases when you specify the location, the neck is wound a bit less hot so that the natural higher-volume of the neck position will balance it out and make it more 'equal' to the bridge pickup. Sometimes bridge pickups come "F-spaced", meaning the polepieces are a tad wider so that they line up better with the strings. But the importance of this is pretty debatable. I personally think having perfectly-matched output isn't all that particularly important anyhow (don't most people want to flip into "lead" position and get a boost?). Worst case scenario? You hate the way one (or both) of them sounds, and you then buy a replacement. <shrug>

You got it right. One of the 4 actual wires ends up being the signal return (ground), while the braid is for shielding (and to properly shield, it needs to go to ground). Some pickups have 4 insulated wires plus a bare, with the bare and one of the insulated wires both going to ground. I dunno what's up with that, but the same rule would apply... the bare and the insulated wire in question would both go to ground. --extra unasked-for info alert:-- If you ever get around to shielding your cavities with conductive tape, it's better practice (and you might even "need" to) to solder or otherwise "add" the braid to the conductive shielding material rather than to your main "ground". Ultimately this shielding DOES go to ground, too, but you don't want the braid shield and the cavity shield to go to ground separately.

I'm not pimping the GTR3. (if I were pimping something it would be Alien Connections' Revalver MkII, which can be found HERE, but I don't tend to pimp stuff, so I wouldn't do that) However, I thought that it was pretty cool to see Paul Reed Smith himself playing some guitar on what seems to be a custom 513 (of course, he can have any sort of custom PRS he wants). He's one of those classic-rock with blues-influence players, but does some cool texturey stuff as well. Be prepared to laugh when he (in all seriousness, from what I can tell) busts out an 80's chart-rock classic. lol Here's the parent link: http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=93 And then at the very bottom of the right column there's a "Making of GTR3" video. (not just the "watch video" link to the ad... the "making of" video is the one you want)

That's a non-point. I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but you're implying that just because all changes can be quantifiable on some molecular level, anybody who says "don't bother worry about it" is crying "voodoo". I'm just crying "common sense". Common sense, not "voodoo avoidance" dictates that you shouldn't really choose the silhouette of your guitar as something that will impact your tone goals. Just design something you like and are happy with, within certain general parameters like mass/thickness/etc. If I dent up my guitar with a spoon, it's going to impact the tone on some molecular level, too, but I'm not about to try to strategically place tone-enhancing dents. If you can't identify what the impact will be, then it's not a design consideration. It's that simple. Greg

This basically just says what Maiden already said: Nothing to it. Pickups get screwed directly into the wood. As Maiden says, they have to be as long as they have to be. There's no way of knowing for sure what size you'll need. You don't have to think specifically in "guitar world", though-- you're screwing one object into another. That's it. The screw needs to be the right size for the pickup's mounting hole, and it has to be the right length to secure the pickup without going all the way through the wood and poking out the back. Greg

Now I've seen it all. The body shape in terms of its silhouette is pretty much a non-issue. I've not once heard of someone saying that something sounds better because of its shape. :/ Overall mass will matter to a certain (even quantifiable) degree, of course, and I guess the shape CAN impact the strength of the neck joint in some cases... but really, it shouldn't be on your list of considerations except in terms of wood mass and aesthetics. Even in terms of mass, not many people feel that a Steinberger "broom" is particularly horrible-sounding due to low mass... not everyone likes it because it's "clinical" (active pickups, earlier models used more synthetics in place of wood), but the small body isn't cited as a tone problem so much as an aesthetics ("yuk!") issue. Your second question begins with a good thought-- I imagine MOST people design a shape because it fits a certain genre they're thinking of. You want a metal sound, you might in some cases be inclined to make a pointy-sharp guitar. But then it goes wacky again. I've never heard anyone say that a tele is inherently louder than a strat... they certainly typically have more bite, but that's down to the pickups and other construction elements... not the shape. Your original question said "all things being equal," and I think that if you took a strat and made a tele-shaped strat (all other things being equal includind wood, hardware, etc) you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that one is louder than the other.

It looks like more or less standard direct-mounting of the pickups, Jorge. The special touch is the care he took to make the cavities exactly accomodate the pickups, including the polepiece screws and what seems to perhaps be a bar magnet under the single-coil. The rest is normal direct-mount pickup strategy... just get screws that aren't as long. Awesome-looking guitar, though! In the world of "superstrats," it's always the natural finish ones that appeal to me, and this is no exception. Fantastic.

Their proprietary system is just a Graphtech strat saddle installed on individual bent-steel pieces. You could make that yourself, which I believe was mentioned earlier in this thread, no? If not, it seems obvious...!

That would be my guess, too. Hard to call it a "trem" if you can only do one string at a time, though; and if it requires your fingertips, it'll interfere with as many techniques as it adds. I'd like to see a technical drawing.

I never noticed that-- I assumed that the little bar things were for individual wiggling or retuning (there's probably a "snap in place" mechanism like the TransTrem) but that there would be a global wiggle stick, too. I don't see where it would go. They need to put up more info if they want customers.

fook: sorry, I mis-phrased. You CAN build a floor unit, even one that uses those joystick buttons. I just meant that trying to rapidly tap your foot in time with something is a lot more cumbersome than the kill-switch idea people use. However, what you said reminded me of a recent thread, in which someone was talking about a kill switch. The idea was to have an "on" switch instead. It made sense to me. It's more intuitive to press the button in time with what you want to hear... like any other method of percussion. So you'd have a toggle switch that first cut the signal, and then you'd use the momentary switch (like the arcade switch) that actually turned the signal back ON. Of course, you could wire the toggle so that it did either. "on" mode, "kill" mode, and with a 3-way, even "bypass" mode so that you couldn't accidentally wack the button and screw up. I rather like that idea. I don't use that Morello-style effect, but if I was going to wire up a 'kill switch', that's the way I'd do it. There's something to be said for simplicity, mind you-- with a toggle-style "kill switch" you still get the intuitive percussive feel, because you first kill, and then flick the switch percussively into "on" mode from there. I just think your "arcade buttons" would give you some possibilities a toggle can't. Greg

IF you're going to use killswitch effects, it has to be on the guitar. Won't work properly on the floor. Most of the rest I agree with completely.

2 tele bridge pickups won't fit together like that. You'd have to use strat-style, which in turn might not fit into the tele style bridge plate. I say just get 1 stacked humbucker... as per an earlier poster, more pickups != better sound. Overall, I like the general idea of the pointier lower horn. I agree that it gives it a bit of edge, but in a retro attitude way, not in a metal way. Greg

Why swap the bronze for steel? Are you specifically looking to make it sound more electric-guitarish? The bronze-wrapped strings, as you know, will still generate a signal on a traditional pickup.

I used the Dean Markley one, too. It's just a low-profile (also low-but-sufficient output) single-coil with integrated cable. I've been thinking of making my own soundhole pickup for a while now, and while having it low and sleek like this or the Dean Markley would make changes quick and easy, you should be able to design almost any sort of removable mount that will accomodate almost any pickup, if you're willing to go with one that can only be switched by severely slacking or removing the strings. In other words, a full-sized humbucker mounted in a special wooden "frame" would likely be too tall to just slip under the strings and into the soundhole, but you could still come up with a mounting mechanism that would work when the strings aren't an issue. Greg

Are these the same as the Guitarheads ones? Perhaps the same OEM and just different branding?

2005 isn't exactly "news", but I admit, it IS news to me. I wish the website more thoroughly explained what it does and how it works. Couldn't find any material linking the unit to Eklund, either, though of course I believe you that there is a connection-- I was just disappointed because I was hoping to find a YouTube video or something with the trem/unit in action.

3 - mass will have some contribution, but it won't necessarily filter out the high frequencies and leave a stronger bass. Mere mass is not the way to achieve the tone you want. More specifically, if you use Les Paul construction, but then add mass, you're not going to have "fatter" (an unquantifiable term anyhow) tone in the way you're probably expecting. Think of the most bass-heavy thumping guitars out there... jazz boxes with 'buckers. You need more resonance, not more mass, in order to maintain bass frequencies. I have no alternative to suggest... partially because I'm not qualified (since you're new, I'll make it clear that my experience level is the pits... I mostly talk and read, and don't have easy access to a workshop). But more importantly because I think the woods you're leaning toward will be right for the job. So it's not a matter of offering a better idea (though, the other repsonses above all have good info, too!) but a matter of saying there's nothing wrong with standard LP thickness if you want bass frequencies... just choose a particular pickup or use active electronics. Or tell the soundman to add some bass on the PA. Many ways to skin the cat, but a heavier guitar isn't going to give you the effect you want. It'll just give you backache. 4 - it's not exactly voodoo as in, "there is absolutely NO difference," it's voodoo in that people attribute a greater effect than what's really there. Especially for sustain. And sustain in general shouldn't be your goal-- what are you planning to do, go onstage and hold a note for 30 seconds in a good chunk of your songs? I can't remember the last time I heard a song by anyone ANYWHERE in which they just held that note and let it sustain. If you need to do that, just find the right spot on stage and mark it with some tape. Feedback will give you better sustain than the 10ms that a different bridge might. I mean, I'm sure it's quantifiable. But a stringthrough with the wrong "break angle" across the bridge could potentially perform worse than a stop tailpiece combo, y'know? What it's more likely to affect is the way bending feels. The stretching of the string is distributed across more material with a Carvin-style string-through, though it's distributed LESS with a tele-style string-through. In any event, yes, there ARE quantifiable differences in both sustain and string-bending, so it's not "voodoo" in the sense of "completely false". But to me, it's more important to get the one that LOOKS right to you. If you cosmetically prefer stop or one-piece, that's what you should go for. When's the last time you heard someone whining about the crappy lack of sustain in a Les Paul?? Greg

I don't buy that argument. WOD is fine and dandy, but it's not preservation of name/reputation. It's catharsis. To justify it as preservation of brand identity and pride isn't accurate. There are innumerable ways to pass along something that would have no possible way to be tied back to anybody. Just playing Devil's advocate... as far as I'm concerned, catharsis is a fine reason to do something. I just don't think there's any point trying to make highbrow justifications for what's essential a primitive and joyful act. As for the analogy-- that's got nothing to do with English. An analogy isn't tied to a language but to logic. It's tricky to make good analogies; when you do, they strengthen your argument. But when you don't, head-scratching ensues.