GregP

For those on a budget, you could do worse than the "Pro Gear" series from Shure. Strange how it's called "Pro Gear" but it's their budget line.... Anyhow, the PG57 and PG58 are only missing a wee bit of the responsiveness of their big brothers, so if you're mostly just doing it for your own pleasure and mucking about, they'll sort you out fairly well. Greg

Nah, I just meant the expression he gave was goofy, and likely on purpose. No insult intended; in fact, just the opposite.

I'm still using my $40 Altec Lansing PC speakers and my $50 Sony headphones (prices in $CDN). Sure wish I could upgrade, though. Especially to proper nearfield monitors, since I hate working with headphones most of the time. Nyjbkim: no probs about the link. Since I can't stop myself from giving advice, I'll point you to the sets of freebies every computer-based recording artist who can't afford expensive plugins needs, IMO of course. 1. Kjaerhus Classic Series - a set of Bread and Butter VST with usable presets. Love'em. I use the Chorus and the EQ mainly, but all of the plugins are great. 2. Digital Fishphones - no longer being developed, but they are still a vital part of the free plugin community, since the algorhythms are so spectacular. The most heavily used one is the Blockfish (compressor) because it's remarkably transparent. The download links are in small letters on the left side of the webpage. Thought I'd point them out because sometimes people don't see them hiding there. 3. Simulanalog Guitar Suite - the way the page is programmed, I couldn't link directly to the download page, but if you peck around you should find the download link fairly quickly-- or get to it from KVR. Simulations of: - Boss DS-1 (Distortion stompbox) - Boss SD-1 (Super Overdrive stompbox) - Tube Screamer (Overdrive stompbox) - Oberheim PS-1 (Phaser stompbox) - Univox Univibe (Modulations stompbox) - Fender Twin 1969 (Guitar amplifier) - Marshall JCM900 Dual Reverb (Guitar amplifier) 'nuff said. 4. SIR - convolution impulse-modeled reverb. For free. It's ridiculous. If you don't know what an impulse modeled reverb is, that's OK, all you need to know is that they're sold commercially for $500US or more, and that they duplicate the sound of real spaces (one guy modeled the back of his junky van! Another did a cathedral) or other reverb machines (Lexicon or Eventide, anyone?). If you get into convolution reverbs, you can't miss out on Noisevault, either, to download all the impulses you can shake a stick at. I know, it's only a reverb you're thinking... but trust me, it's sick that you can get this much power for free. Also worth mentioning are: Green Machine, who offer a selection of free and shareware stuff. Their shareware Green Machine II is the best amp modeler that you will find for that price. The only thing better, IMO, are Amp Farm (getting old), and Amplitube (kicks all competitors, but costs several hundred dollars). Wes, your sound card can handle the 'sample rate limit' of the Little Green Amp II, but those with older SoundBlaster cards (anything Audigy and lower, and even with Audigy 2 you need either a newer one that came with new drivers, or a download of updated drivers) won't get any satisfaction since they only record at 48kHz. CamelPhat Free - very simple controls... dodgy-looking user interface (IMO), but lauded as one of the most effective ways to add some distortion and punch to any signal. Some people swear by this and its bigger (commercially available) brother. Hope those links were of help to some of you. Greg

I had a good chuckle at the very last picture, with the goofy look and the 'thumbs up'. Inspirational! In a weird way.

Wes, Depending on what software you go with, I'm sure a number of people can help you out in your beginning endeavours. I, for one, enjoy tinkering with recording software, etc., almost as much as I like guitars. (Well, OK, only 50% as much, but considering how much I love guitar, that's not bad) Let me know if I can do anything to help you out. If you want to expand your arsenal of free VST, the forum to visit is KVR, where you'll be able to get advice and access their enormous database of plugins. Be warned, though, once you get into it, you MAY end up downloading every available plugin 'just because you can'. It's like getting access to hundreds of stomp-boxes all at once. . Anyhow, I've been a victim of that, and although everyone has their own tastes, I can certainly direct you to my favourites for the recording guitarist. Hope your endeavour is successful! Greg.

I'd take your word for it, but you haven't tried Tracktion yet. It's actually easier to use than my Portastudio 244. If you're not all that technically inclined, it's as easy as plugging in your guitar and pressing 'record'. The effects chain isn't a bunch of drop down menus, you just drag your effects to an area that you can think of as a 'pedalboard' if you want. Pretty easy stuff. Of course, it's scalable to be as complicated as you want it to be, too, but for basic recordings, you don't really have to do much except press 'record' and drop in a few free quality plugins (these days, free does not equal crappy quality). The difference is that some people still like to have a 'recorder'-looking device in front of them. The tactile experience is hard to ignore, which is why I will continue to read paper books.

I would also recommend a computer. Depending on how many tracks you want to run at the same time, and what quality of microphones, etc., you want to run, you can get yourself set up for as little as $400 USD, including software. I wouldn't get Nuendo, though-- it'll negate the relatively low cost of the computer, as it retails for $1,200 or so. I'm a big advocate of Tracktion, which has only recently had its distribution rights acquired by Mackie. It is still programmed and maintained by its own company, Raw Material Software, where the one and only employee (Jules Storer) continually updates and refines the program, based on user feedback. No, I'm not a shill. krazyderek: That's pretty confusing to me, too... if I were to make an educated attempt, I'd say that it records audio at 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, which is CD quality, and IS in fact a little bit behind in the times, though still perfectly usable. It's what I use, actually, even though I have up to 24-bit 96kHz capability. The 20 and 24 bits refer to the Digital-to-Audio conversion, which USUALLY matches with the sampling rate... so it's weird that there would be a difference... it's possible that the 'behind the scenes' work done by the machine is in 20/24 bit, and then dithered to 16-bit for local storage, so that recordings will take up less space on the drive, and so that it can be burned right to CD without further dithering. The END quality of the recording would be the 'same' in this case, but since there's number crunching done at higher bit depth, effects will sound a bit better in the end result than if the entire processing chain was strictly 16-bit. The 'frequency response' usually refers to the audible range of a microphone, not the recording capability of the machine itself, so that's kind of weird that they'd include that spec. Does the machine come with a microphone? If not, the two things are still independent and I guess they might include it as a selling feature, even though that range isn't the widest-- the device may be 'sampling' at 44.1kHz, which is just the amount of data that streams back and forth, but within the audible range of 20Hz-20kHz. Or in other words, one number refers to the amount of data being processed, and the other number refers to the range of sounds possible (20Hz is the lowest bass sound, 20kHz would be the highest sound possible).

While mucking through various schematics and diagrams, it seemed like the PRS-style switching that uses a 5-position 4-pole switch had the best way of doing what Seth was talking about with all positions being hum-cancelling. Again, as he mentioned, there are no actual discrete single-coil sounds, but the variety you get seems to make up for this shortcoming. Diagram on GuitarElectronics.com Some helpful forum members showed me that even though this diagram calls for a rotary switch, it's really kind of arbitrary that they put "rotary" in there since with a blade-style switch you still have the same number of poles and connection 'nodes' or whatever they're called. If you're super-keen on getting a telecaster or strat sound, you could always consider building a second guitar <wink wink>. Just kidding, though-- I know how alluring having all those tonal possibilities is... but I'm likely going to go with the PRS-style switching just because I want a more elegant look to my guitar. Cheers, Greg

I've heard good things about the Kent Armstrong humbuckers, but don't have any practical experience with'em. I also don't see anything wrong with grabbing those '57s. Can't go wrong with that, though if you're trying to avoid 'typical' LP sound, obviously that's not the route to take.

Good deal! Mm... speed knobs...

I did a marble finish on my first guitar. Let's just say I was glad when it got stolen.

Schecter provides their own wiring schematics. When you select a guitar model, to the left of each picture is a list of specs. At the bottom of this list is a link to schematics. www.schecterguitars.com

'Tis true... though I spend 70% of my time on the acoustic with .12-? strings, and I STILL don't fly on the electric. <grin>

I find light strings don't work for me because I don't have a delicate touch. Now that I have 2 electrics, I've restrung the tele-style with .09s to try to get some of that country lap-steel bending stuff going on, but so far I sound horrible. So I guess it's what you're used to. I think it's hard to argue that lighter strings will help you play faster; but for me, I don't have the same 'confidence' with those little buggers, so I'm still playing faster on the .10s. If you don't have a preference already, .09s would be plenty light... .08s might be a bit TOO light, no?

Guitar Player is the way to go. In 10 years, you'll leaf through an old copy and find a lesson that's still relevant and useful. I broke down and finally got a subscription. The first copy will arrive at the beginning of next month, I believe. I'll still buy Guitar World on a per-copy basis if they have an interesting article or a song I've particularly wanted.

Is it OK for me to be falling in love with Hyunsu and his work? I don't know what the market is like for custom guitars in Korea, Hyunsu, but with energy, dedication, and love for wood and guitars like you have, it will be rewarding for you no matter how many you sell or whether or not you ever get to do it as your full-time job. I want to see the world through Hyunsu-coloured glasses.

The Godin has a routed bit coming from each hold (like the teardrop shape you were referring to), but the strings still end up digging a bit into the wood. No big deal, since it doesn't take long for them to dig in to the point where they won't dig any further. It would be a big deal if the strings were only anchored at the bottom, but Godin uses what seems to be small brass tubes that go through the body up to near the top of the guitar. On the underside, it LOOKS almost like a block from a trem going up into the body, but I think that it's just a flat strip that serves as an anchor for the 'tubes'. I can post pics if I'm not being very clear. Without having seen one in person, it seems as though the Schecter guitars just use ferrules like for the bottom of a Telecaster style string-through. A set at the bottom for the string's ball-ends, and a set at the top to protect the wood. As there is a straight line from the ferrule to the bridge, I don't anticipate the string rubbing against the ferrule too much, but it wouldn't hurt to shape and polish the ferrule to make sure the strings don't break at that point. So far, this is what I'm hoping to do with my guitar, though there's lots of time for me to change to regular TOM + tailpiece or one-piece wraparound PRS-style bridge. Cheers, Greg

OK, so quartered it is. How about option 3 then, with the reinforced strips? Would THAT be overkill? The price of the wood is actually what made me a bit curious in the first place-- though my first response was "why is it more expensive than mahogany" and now it's more like "why is it so inexpensive?" Anyhow, it's the top wood in THIS link. That's $88 CDN. Greg.

Thanks for that. Actually, the Limba IS a little more expensive, as it turns out, but comes as one piece as opposed to laminated pieces. For the neck, they offer the maple quarter-sawn, but one of the books I read seems to feel that it might then be TOO rigid; and unresponsive to truss rod adjustments. I've considered as an alternative using a flat cut piece of maple, but with those graphite reinforcement thingies like in the StewMac catalog. I don't mind the extra routing, but ultimately just using quartered wood will actually end up being cheaper than flat with reinforcements, so quartered SEEMS like the better option. Of course, option 3 is to do both-- quartered AND reinforced, but then I'd worry about being able to adjust the neck.

I would be very surprised if those were active. Without going into too much detail (because I don't fully understand myself, and would look like I'm blowing smoke out of my a$$) an active pickup uses electricity (in the form of a 9V battery which goes into a special compartment on your guitar) as part of its circuit. In the picture, I don't see any battery compartment or leads that might go to one. EMG are known for their active pickups, so you could always try their website for a more accurate/in-depth description. As part of their 'visibility' and brand-name recognizability, EMG went with covers that have no pole-pieces for most (all?) of their active pickup designs. Some manufacturers emulate that look, but still have passive pickups underneath. I strongly suspect that these pickups are passive, with EMG-alike covers. Also, the seller makes no claims that they are active, only that they look like EMGs. A knowledgable seller would use 'active' as a selling feature if they were active. You could always ask the seller, but you never know how honest these folks are. (though I've only had good eBay experiences) -Greg.

I don't have any long-term experience with 'quality' guitar tuners, but the Grovers on the Guild acoustic I've had for 10 years are better than the tuners on any of the other guitars in the house. Smooth but stiff action, and nary a slipped gear. They have the same stable and reliable feel now that they had 10 years ago, and the metal is still shiny and new looking. I'm sure there's better, but if it's a bit of $ you're looking to save, I don't think you'll be disappointed in Grovers-- I would think you'd probably be pleasantly surprised. Greg.

Unless you don't know how to read them. ;-) You're right, of course-- to someone with the knowledge, a schematic is laid out with the proper 'logic'. Any pointers on good websites for teaching myself how to read one? Cheers, Greg

Thanks for the reply, Ed. Reading is always good advice, but I find I tend to over-research things a lot, and then never get around to doing them. So I'm wanting to get into this project before I end up spending more money and time on books and researching than building, ya know? It'll make a bit of a change for me. Don't get me wrong, though... I've read the Koch book, all of the tutorials I could find (I had read that Les Paul one from the other thread, but didn't realize it was linked to from projectguitar.com at the time!) plus as much info from the luthier and supplier websites as I could find. Basically, I've spent over 2 weeks already doing research (which may not seem like much), in addition to knowledge I've gained along the way as a player and gear-head (which amounts to more than it sounds). Time to build!! Although my description didn't get into the tone a lot, you can pretty much safely assume that I want a tone that a Lucille-type guitar would produce (it's not really a 335 sound, since it uses solidbody construction... more like a Les Paul, actually), but since I use neck position almost exclusively for clean and mildly overdriven parts, I've decided to throw a JB into the bridge instead of a chimier lower-output pickup for those times I want to push the amp. The pickups are already purchased and in my possession-- a Jazz in the neck and a JB in the bridge; a pretty classic combination, but I'm not looking to break new ground here. The Lucille uses maple-poplar-maple laminate in its construction, but I'm quite happy with the Godin LG I own, which is all mahogany. On the other hand, the tone will be hugely different because of the P-90s in it. I was thinking that all mahogany construction might be a bit dark, especially coupled with humbucking pickups. So, the maple top adds some snappiness-- but would also having a maple neck take it too far in the other direction and make it TOO snappy? Especially with the ebony fingerboard I decide to put on? Ultimately, I have to confess (and I believe many builders and guitar owners will secretly agree) that I don't believe wood choice has as much to do with the tone equation as the pickups, nut material, and choice of bridge and headstock options. Of course, it IS still a part of the equation, though, which is why I don't want to overlook it. In my travels, I haven't found out any real useful or hands-on information about the white limba, though. For example, the first webpage on a Google says that Limba is Korina... and the page's author goes on to talk about how it's the lightest, best-sounding, best-looking wood. He may be right, but I'd like to hear other opinions and experiences. Actually, now the name sounds familiar-- Ed Roman... wasn't someone rolling their eyes about him recently? Another website has 'lightweight African Korina', but notes that it's scarce and expensive. The blanks I was looking at are the same price as Honduras Mahogany, so that can't be the same thing. None of the websites talk about whether they get 'hairy' around the edges when sanding, the way poplar allegedly does, or whether they're easily worked or not. Anyhow, thanks again for the reply. Looking forward to seeing if you have any other opinions now that you have a better idea of what I want in my guitar. GregP

Hi all, I'm on the eve of purchasing the wood for my guitar... I'll be ordering it for sure early next week. Which means I have to decide my final woods for construction. If you look at THIS for my post with the double-cutaway chambered guitar with the most amount of description, that's the project I've decided to go with. So far I'm going with: 1- 14" X 20" X 1/4" soft maple for the top (not figured maple) 1- 14" X 20" X 1,3/4" honduras mahogany for the body 1- 4" X 30" X 7/8" hard maple for the neck (quartered) Here are the options and dilemnas, that if you have time and the inclination you might be able to help me with: -I have the option to get white limba instead... what are the tonal characteristics and workability of white limba? -Instead of hard maple, would a mahogany neck be easier to work? Maple is the sound that I want (I think), but this IS my first project, so making things easier isn't a bad plan, either. -Is a 7/8" neck blank thick enough for a neck plus heel (likely bolt-on, though I haven't fully decided yet, so I'd like my options open)? If I get a bunch of pieces and laminate them, it might be the right size but it's going to get expensive. That's about it. I'll have a tonne more questions, but I'll be asking them at each stage of the game, rather than all at once. Thanks for any input, Greg

If you're in a hurry to get a guitar-building book for fairly inexpensive, the Martin Koch book is what I went for. I'd like to have the Hiscock book, too, but it's "out of stock" on Chapters.ca, and who knows when (if) they'll get it in... Anyhow, the Koch e-book is printable, and costs only 15 Euros, which isn't TOO bad. buildyourguitar.com Nice looking hunka wood you got there, though. Greg