GregP

Well, that's a false analogy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against WOD or burning... though Alex and sbs have made some compelling arguments in the other thread. But the analogy is failed because in one case you have a wood-craftsman with some wood, who might send it to another wood-craftsman who could potentially repurpose the wood. In your analogy, you have an engineer sending off equipment to an operator. The analogy would only work if the luthier built a complete failed guitar and then sent it to a beginner guitarist to learn on. So, the question is... what DOES happen to ferarri's failed design? Probably gets stripped then junked and recycled. The ferrarri equivalent would have to be the engineers gathering together around their failed design, planting some explosives on it, and watching it blow up. Which, while it sounds cathartic and like damn good fun (like the WOD approach), isn't likely what ferrarri does. Also, what confuses me is that people think that the people with tears in their eyes would in all cases want the body as-is, try to attach a neck (or whatever) and call it a done deal. I'm a big fan of Steinberger "broom" (GL?) guitars, and I guarantee you could salvage enough wood from these builds to make a GL-style body or two! Or something like what Boggs came up with. Or a body for a lap steel. Point being, there's salvagable wood, and it doesn't have to be just trying to 'continue' what David (or whoever) started. But I ramble... in case it's not clear, I continue to have no real issue with this approach. Meh. It's their stuff, and if it's cathartic then it's serving a purpose.

Three things: 1) 24.75" scale; 2) Four knobs (two volume, two tone); 3) Thicker body for more mass and a thicker, bass heavier, fatter tone. 4) String-through design for better sustain. Not really a Gibson or PRS feature, but it seems like a good idea. Cosmetically, it will be more of a PRS than anything (assuming I do this right and do not screw up too badly ), but it is basically a Les Paul-inspired guitar with (hopefully) the looks of a PRS double-cut and the smooth neck of a neck-through or a Washburn Idol. Probably nothing all that revolutionary, just looking for Les Paul tone with better upper-fret access. -Cheers Cool, I see now. I still don't think it makes it a PRS/Gibson hybrid, but I can see more of where you're coming from. Thanks for clarifying! 1 - OK, that's def. a Gibson thing. But then, PRS was originally trying to do a "hybrid" with their 25" scale, so what you're doing is UN-hybridyzing it. 2 - The layout of your electronics will have no bearing on tone, but you're right-- this IS a Les-Paul thing rather than a PRS thing 3 - Hrm. That's starting to sound like tone voodoo. People think "physically fatter" will equate to "sonically fatter", but that's not always the case. It's intuitive to think so, and we often just follow intuition, but honestly... there are lots of guitars with "fat" tone that don't weight a tonne. And some guitars that weigh a tonne are not resonant. Low resonance = wimpy tone. 4 - Again, that's kinda voodoo. Do whatever you prefer the look of. If you like the look of string-through, that's the reason to do it. If you prefer the look of stop tailpiece + TOM or one-piece bridges, go for those instead. The whole "sustain" thing makes me grind my teeth. Nothing personal. But yeah. Now that you've clarified, I see more what you mean by it being a "hybrid", so thanks for clearing it up! Greg

Am I the only person who thinks this sounds like... a PRS, rather than a hybrid? In a nutshell, what's the differentiating factor? I can't seem to focus on the description and replies for some reason. Greg

Somehow it seems like the... "bottom" is too thin. Ie., the pickups and neck seem off-centre compared to the body. Cool shape, though! Is it an original creation?

Lookin' Great! Without intentional spelling errors, it's "Sentinel" btw...

I'm not a drummer so I can't make the comparison for you, but I CAN tell you that it's expensive to get something reasonable.

You haven't "made" a new Les Paul Style guitar until you've taken it out of the 3D modeling realm. Probably just a language barrier issue. Good luck with the build.

Some actives use 50K pots. EMG uses 25k. But you can NOT use your 250 or 500k pots.

Plain metal would have looked better than diamond plate, IMO, but that's all personal taste. Besides, the easiest change you could make if you decide to modify it is to swap out the pickguard. Other than that, excellent work!

You could wire them as 2 discrete circuits and then just never use them together. You lose some flexibility that way, but it'd be a relatively easy fix. Keep in mind, though, that the differences in output and impedance are significant. Whatever you're plugging into will treat each of those signals very very differently indeed. Again, though, I'm not a wiring/electronics guru. Someone may be along with a better solution. But in the meantime I don't think that you'd be able to "combine" them just by using separate volume knobs. You'd have to have them on completely separate circuits. for it to work properly. Greg

This is one of those cases of "infantessimal change measurable through scientific instruments only" vs. "desired aesthetic effect." In other words, the change would be so incredibly puny that you should just pick whichever you prefer the look of. Greg

I'm not a wiring guru, but my understanding is that there's a certain effect the pots have, even up at 10... meaning, you'll need the recommended 25k pots. Finding a stereo jack shouldn't be difficult if there's ANY source of electronics parts at all in Malaysia... it's one of the most common things you can buy. That's all the EMGs use is a stereo pot. As for combining the two, that's a trickier prospect. The generally recommended method is to add an additional preamp which your passive will go through, effectively making it "active" and low-impedance. Then the two can usually be combined. I'm sure there's a thread around here, or some information to be found through Google. If you stumble upon any, be sure to let us know! Greg

Looks better already.

Cool beans-- I had never seen one before, so I Googled for the Zeta offering. Wacky! Not a bad shape, though.

You sure it's not an original Warmoth design? I've never seen that body shape before.

Looking better! Somehow, the subtle changes are making even the 'chisel point' look like less of an issue for me. I like the idea of switching into "push -> on" mode instead of kill mode. It might be fiddly to flick a switch and THEN press a button, but you should be able to work out the transition fairly smoothly. To me, it's more intuitive to press a button according to when I want there to be audio (we do this already when we strum and pick) than when I want the audio to cancel. I don't know if it's possible, but a 3-way switch might be an idea-- you have a momentary push-switch for your "audio stutter", and then your 3-way would be 1. kill mode 2. bypass 3. push->on mode Greg

I'll dissent. I think there are certain elements that could be tweaked. IMO right now there ARE a few inconsistent elements in style that could be at least worth considering: - the waist is a little bit "close in" on the top. Too close to the bridge humbucker, I mean - only the upper horn has a "chisel" point (an extra angle), whereas all other points are one angle, barely rounded off at the tips - unlike the Explorer (which DOES look good... I don't think Gibson erred on this point), you could consider echoing the gentle curve of the butt-end of the guitar in one of a few different places - the headstock and body shape also don't complement each other much. Which is not really the end of the world-- many guitars have headstocks that aren't remeniscent of the bodies (though, I generally prefer it when guitars like Explorers and Parker Flys -do- recall the body shape in the headstock). The actual size looks fine. It might look a bit off because the narrow waist makes it look more elongated. You COULD make a compact explorer-type if you wanted to, but there's nothing wrong with just copying the dimensions of an existing proven design, either. Greg

I saw your original reply and thought a pretty similar thing. Not sure there's THAT much need for apologies considering how incomprehensible the post and the question are.

Kahler!

Top Left and then the one under it for me. The one under (middle left) could use a Weeee bit of tweaking, but the base is good.

Right on. Welcome aboard! Plenty of Canadians in these parts.

Dunno, I was only going by the pic in the link, which doesn't even show the bushing. One could always give'em a ring, though! That said, if that's one of their low profile TOMs, they're still recessing it, so it's apparently not low enough. Have to give'em a call to know for sure.

LOL! That's awesome. You absolutely have to do it now.

My understanding is that any combination of EMG electronics, including preamps, can all be run off 1 battery. Some people like to use 2 wired together (not for each separate pickup) for extra headroom, but I honestly don't know what the sonic impact of that is. But no, you won't need 2 individual battery terminals.

Uh-huh. You keep thinking that. It probably buffers the pain I inflict each and every time I absolutely (and handily) destroy you in debates. Even the above weak-tacular high school rhetoric is easily deconstructed, but... well, it'd be embarrassing for me to have to do it... almost as embarrassing as you making weird random ad-hominems in completely unrelated threads. Greg