GregP

I voted for #1 because it had the most 'character'. I think modifying a Rick to a single-cutaway is a neat idea, but I would take it one step further and stylize the upper bit with a more daring arc/curve. Greg.

It's tough to argue against the fact that schematics are easier than diagrams and/or photos. I mean, they created the symbols for schematics for a reason. But that's not the point-- the point is that it assumes the reader understands the 'language' of the schematics. Many people, like me, do not. I could look at a schematic all day, and even have someone point at it and say "See, this is a resistor... this is a capacitor"... and I will still not understand it. It's not because of stupidity or lack of concentration, but simply a lack of knowlegdge. And I would wager than those of us who don't already know schematic convention also don't have a lot of time or resources to take a basic electronics class first. We just want to solder some stuff together. In cases where the guitars aren't exactly the same as our own, I think most of us are still able to make some creative modifications. That said, it's always a matter of deciding whether your time is well spent in doing a "here's how the know-nothings could do it" exposition, Ansil. Since it's your good will and desire to share with the community that's inspiring you to offer us your projects in the first place, if you decide that it's OUR responsibility to learn schematics if we want to do your (or any other) projects, then I think you're within your rights! Greg.

I love this forum... Just when I have a question that needs answering, it turns out that someone else is already asking it! $99 for a budget bandsaw? That's something I'm going to look into. Only after I contact the school I do most of my supply teaching for, though-- I know they have a shop, but I'm not sure how fully equipped it is. Another option I'm going to consider is calling a few of the local cabinet-makers. They've GOT to have a bandsaw, but it might be a strange request, so I'm anticipating some "You want to do WHAT? I don't even know how much to charge you for that...." Greg

It might just be the nature of the pinky reach you're going for, but it seems that it would be more economical to keep your index, middle, and ring fingers touching the strings they've fretted. As you move to the next string, you can lift the finger, but by keeping it lightly touching the string it was just on, you're not only staying in position for the upstroke, but also putting a more solid mute onto it. That said, you didn't seem to have problems with strings ringing out, so the muting isn't too much of an issue so far. Sounds pretty good! Once you get some patterns down, try moving through a few in sequence (provided they're in the same key) rather than repeating one. You'll get less of a 'widdly widdly widdly' vibe. Also, instead of an extended flurry of notes, they can be used to accent passages rather than BE the passages. Pretty good, though!!! Especially if you're right new at it!!

Holy crap that was funny. I can't believe what the auction closed at.

There's not really much point to installing a FR without a locking nut... just a big awkward-looking set of thumbscrews, knobs, and clamps. I'm pretty confident you can buy the nut separately, but from what I understand it's a bit of a tricky retrofit on a non-locking neck. I've never done it myself, though. There's no reason you -couldn't- use the acoustic bridge. It may look a bit ugly, though, depending on your design. You could either make it string-through with ferrules on the back side of the guitar instead of using pins, or just make sure there's some holes for the strings and pins to go into.

Darkness are cool. Many Americans and Canadians are fans of the British sense of humour. Of course, the Darkness aren't truly a spoof band, but more of a tongue-in-cheek return to an era.

C'mon! There MUST be other English-speaking forums around...?! OK, that was terrible and obvious. I'll get me coat.

Sure sounds like feedback to me. Even some new pickups are prone to feedback. New doesn't necessarily mean that it's been properly potted. Follow the above tutorial and see how things turn out. I potted my pickups in about two hours, though I have to admit I didn't think things through (using a can would have been a good idea... I used a ceramic bowl that I had to wash... ever try washing a layer of paraffin off something? ) so next time it should only take an hour. Also, you don't say how loud your amp is, or how close you are standing to it. You could have the most microphonic feedback-resistant pickups in the world, and ANY guitar will still be capable of sympathetic feedback with the amp. Greg

Looks sweet! Will there be enough room to pass your thumb between the upper horn and the neck? I have to admit, when I saw just the shape drawn out on the wood, I thought, "not my thang", but seeing it cut out and the contours beginning to take shape, I'm loving it. Greg

I like it! What are your plans for the PU? Covered or bare? Mounting rings or direct to wood? Switching config? I have to admit, I look at my fretboard too much to do without fret marker inlay. Do you plan on putting inlay for this guitar eventually, or will you leave it bare for the final version? Cheers, Greg

Also known as GAS-- Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Quite a popular term over on the UK's Guitarist forums. I agree that M-Audio makes some good gear for the buck. My card is their most basic, the Audiophile 24/96, and while it has some pretty serious limitations (only 2 ins and 2 outs unless you connect the optical), they're within my personal parameters. There's only ever me recording at one time, so I can record the mic'd signal AND a direct signal at the same time, which works out just fine. Regarding tuning up your PC for audio use-- I totally agree that optimally you should get rid of all internet and non-music app related stuff. When I get a second computer, I'm hoping to really maximize my audio PC. For those who use XP as their OS and want to tweak it for audio use, you should check out THIS link. It's amazing what you can prune away once you know your OS and know what services you need (or otherwise). Greg.

It wasn't the browser. It was the end loser, I mean user.

Fabulous, Ansil. I sure wish I had the know-how and time to get around to some of these nice projects.

I can't even figure out where the Flash is... Maybe it's my Opera browser...

Not that I've made a guitar yet.... But plenty of guitars have lots of length between the bridge proper and whatever is being used as a tailpiece. But it all comes down to a few things, based on common sense and/or layman's physics-- -With less downward angle after the bridge, there IS a greater chance that your string will pop right off the saddles with aggressive bending. Tuning lower (even less string tension in action) will exacerbate this problem. -With less downward pressure, more of the string's energy will continue along, rather than being transferred to the bridge. If your bridge is a piece of crap tone sponge, that might be a good thing, though I imagine that it's more desirable for most people to have a well-anchored and stable bridge, with good pressure from the strings, which will allow the strings to sustain longer. -With more string length behind the bridge, there's more string slack that will have to 'stretch out' before your strings' tuning becomes stable. Also, with less downward pressure, unless you're using a roller nut, you'll run into other tuning instability problems. I would say that the answer lies in between. I don't think the distance from bridge to tailpiece REALLY matters for making a playable guitar, but it certainly plays an integral part in the guitar's final sound and performance. If it's for aesthetics, give yourself a little bit of room to muck around! If it's not exactly like a Les Paul, or Warmoth's diagram, it'll still work.

Just to clarify-- you are going for a completely back-routed setup? Interesting idea! The pickup routs will definitely end up looking a lot cleaner than the big-ass routs that are often used for pickguard-less single-coil geetars. Without knowing what the rest of your plans are for the unique routing method-- my only concern is that using this method you may sacrifice a bit of structural integrity. Ie. back-routing the cavity thin enough that your pickups will stick out enough. Are they going to be height adjustable? What sort of covers are you going to use on the back once the electronics are installed? I know one thing for sure-- I gotta give you respect for seeing things a different way and trying a new method. I'm very interested in seeing how this project progresses! Greg.

I have absolutely no research behind this-- only educated guessing and conjecture, but I would imagine that there were 2 reasons for "Tune-O-Matic". First, as mentioned, it was probably a trendy 'style' of name for the time it came out; and second, most guitar bridges back then probably didn't have fully intonatable saddles and semi-adjustable bridge height. Regarding the Explorer-- plywood or not... Gibson or not... Explorers are cool.

I can see both sides of the story. Stepping back a bit-- it's Drak's wood, Drak's work... ie. HIS time and money. And anything he wants to do with it is his choice. Also, if it's in his personality to demand nothing but the best, all the power to him! On the other hand, I, too, would have just done a solid colour.

Cool beans. On a related question, it seems to me that the sandpaper thing I heard was for necks that already have a glossy finish but people wanted a less stick 'action' on the neck. For necks that are already finished glossy, is there a sandpaper method for helping the neck feel less 'sticky'?

I agree that the headstock is great, and I agree that you should go for a clear finish. It's tempting to go for 'flash' when you have the opportunity, but I think you'll love the natural finish in the long run.

I don't indend to flame or anything; however, a few points to ease Wes's mind... 1. My Windows never crashes. My MAC computers at school crash all the time. It used to be the case that MAC stability was much higher, but as Windows got better and MacOS (or whatever label they give it now... OSX Jaguar or what have you) got a series of rushed releases, the differences in stability are negligible. Especially if you do the right thing and power down your computer every now and then. Mac users love talking about how their computer has been 'up' for a year continuously or whatever. Bah, who cares. I shut my computer off when I'm done using it. 2. Garageband is fine for what it is-- a smallish piece of software so that people new to recording can crank out some songs. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's brilliant for what it is, and is fairly desirable. However, it's by no means full-featured, and in fact in many ways is severely crippled. Spend the money on Tracktion and don't look back. ;-) I certainly wouldn't get a Mac because of Garageband, that's for sure. 3. Your Firewire logic is flawed. Besides that, unless you're planning on sharing resources between a desktop and a laptop, why bother? PCI is cheaper and speedier. Besides that, it's a moot point as Wes already has a PCI solution. 4. Logic is the polar opposite to Garageband, which I guess means that Apple has all their bases covered except the ground in the middle. What I mean is that Logic is a great piece of software, and a true professional solution-- however it has (debatably, of course! each person is different!) the least intuitive of all user interfaces. Which is negligible when compared to something like Cubase (if you ask me, it's so similar a learning curve that it's only worth debating for the pedants) but is HUGE when compared to Garageband, Tracktion, or Cakewalk Plasma / Guitar Tracks. I wouldn't pay $20 to have my creativity crippled by Logic Audio, never mind $299. If you gave me a liscenced copy for free, in fact, I still wouldn't use it. Don't get me wrong-- there is NO arguing that Logic Audio is a fantastic pro solution, and something that many true home-recording-philes (yay, new word!) would love to own, too-- and the bundled plugins and synths ARE spectacular!! But its learning curve is steep, and the extra power would go unused by many home recording musicians. My verdict-- based on Wes's original requirements (hey, we're not talking about what the 'best' equipment would be, simply about what the best solution would be for his criteria!) is that he has made exactly the right choice. Sorry for the thread hijack!

Bouzouki is a bit more versatile than a mandolin, in my opinion, but mandolin's cool, too. Just like guitar, the things you can do with either are only limited by your imagination. They're 4 (doubled) strings in a different tuning than Spanish. That shouldn't be a limitation. Pretty tricky to do any string-bending, too. Hugh MacLennan of Spirit of the West uses slide on his bouzouki a lot, for instance, along with various effects. I have played some mandolin, and it's pretty easy and pretty fun. I say go for it. If they're a similar price, though, I'd be more tempted by the bouzouki. Cheers, Greg

I'll bump this, 'cause I'd like to know how to do a satin finish for my neck. My understanding is that you can use a regular lacquer, and then the satin finish is produced by hand-sanding, but that's just something I heard in passing once, a very long time ago and I'd like to know if it's accurate. Also, what sandpapers would be best for the job, if indeed sandpaper is what's used. Greg

That picture's even goofier than the first one. I'm still too new to be much of a 'welcomer', but it's good to have you anyhow... maybe you'll be able to help out when I make my guitar with less than adequate tools, too. Cheers, Greg