GregP

Conversely, you could shield your cavities with heavy duty aluminum foil from the grocery store, and spray adhesive from your local craft shop. You can't solder aluminum, though, so you'll need to make sure you have some folded-over bits for interlocking pieces if you want it all in one continuous ground. No matter what you use for the cavity (paint is reportedly less effective, but it WILL still work, especially if you do enough layers), using aluminum foil and spray adhesive is the easiest way to do the pickguard of a guitar, and the performance will be only marginally inferior to copper foil. I have to admit, when I used aluminum foil, I did a bit of a messy job. It works like a charm, but if you like your stuff to -look- professional as well, you can't rush through it the way I did. The pickguard and control cavity cover are stellar, though.

I'm going to see if I can build a guitar without buying ANY tools. If I'm lucky, one of the various schools I work at (I'm a supply teacher) will not mind if I do some work in their shop during certain hours. But when it comes time to buy some stuff, I'll certainly keep what LGM said in mind. I find that it's the same with almost anything-- it's not the money (LGM would agree with that, I'm sure) but the shrewdness of the consumer. Before committing to a sequencer package for home studio recording, I researched for about 3 months. In the end, I got Tracktion for $80, instead of Cubase SX 2.0 for $1,000. On the other hand, when I went on a bike trip last summer, I spent $1,500 on a bike and panniers, rather than thinking that a $300 CCM bike would hack it. By the end of the trip, one of my travelmates' bikes had crapped out entirely, and it wasn't even lowest-of-the-line, but it was meant for city commuting, you know? I know I'm just repeating what's already been said, but it's all about researching, investigating, and being smart about purchases. Someone mentioned tools being tax-deductible... if I'm not mistaken, I can set myself up as a business in Canada and get tax deductions for any equipment I buy, as long as I honestly have the intention of turning it into some sort of business venture. Hey, I'll sell some guitars if I get good enough at it...! In the mean time, I just might be able to get some use out of the guitars I build as part of refining my craft....

I've been looking through the usual websites that people talk about on here-- StewMac, Warmoth, Universaljems, LMI, etc., but I'm wondering if there's a Canadian source that might stock supplies for similar prices and cheaper shipping. I'm starting right from scratch, so I will be needing-- 1. Appropriate woods 2. Luthier tools (for slotting nuts, radiusing, etc.-- I have enough power tools to start) 3. Hardware such as pots, bridges, tuners, etc. I don't really need recommendations for specific brands or anything like that, but I'm curious about where the Canadians on this site get their supplies and materials. Thanks, Greg

I find there's less finger noise with Elixirs, too. They're pretty expensive, but worth it if you ask me, since you change them less regularly. The price still doesn't QUITE balance out, but I'd estimate I'm only paying about 10% more than a normal set of D'Addario, overall.

The ogee bit looks like it would do what I was thinking-- as long as one got the right sized bit so that the 'shelfing' at the top doesn't happen. I would only want the curvy 's' portion. Cheers.

Well, that's another example of why to vote "Guitar" in the Guitar/Girlfriend poll. That's too bad that you haven't been able to document it. If you have even a wee bit of extra cash lying around, get yourself a disposable camera and then scan the pictures in after developing. Hell, if you want to send them all the way here, I'LL scan them for you. As I'm still in the learning and gathering phase, I'm pretty much devouring any sort of information I can get, so I've quickly added "bloodwood" to my list of possible woods to consider, though the toxicity DOES scare me off a bit. In any case, I'm sure all of us would love to see photos of the build, so see what you can do! Cheers, Greg

Guitar. Man, that was the easiest poll EVER!

Is there a way to set the bit dept shallow enough on the kind of bit on the left so that you could use a combination of those two bits? Start with the one on the right, then switch to the one on the left, with the ball-bearing guide riding somwhere about 1/2 to 2/3 down into the initial rout? I know it wouldn't be a true "carve" and wouldn't look like one, either, but it might be an interesting 'semi carve' effect if it would work..?

It's possible that prices will go up, IF Fender wins that case. Either way, it's a bit nefarious for guitar manufacturers to allow other companies to establish themselves as "copycat" companies for many years BEFORE suing them. I guess Gibson may have acted quickly enough that they don't look the fools-- the PRS singlecut hasn't been around forever, and who knows when they actually STARTED legal proceedings. However, with Fender...? People have been making copies for decades (except, as mentioned, for the trademarked headstock). Even if the courts show that they have the legal right, how is it ethical to start suing companies that have been using the strat-like shapes for years and years? Likely both Fender and Gibson are not actually worried about other companies using their body shapes. More than likely, they are simply going for a cash grab, and will license those shapes instead of suing companies. If a company knows they have the 'option' to license the body shape, they will probably send some money Fender or Gibson's direction rather than wait to be sued. Some of them may even decide to work on original body shapes, which would be a great thing for guitarists... and with that much more of a personal 'investment' in the company, the owners mind find themselves in a healthy chain-reaction leading to higher quality as well. For the PRS single-cut, if they're selling THAT well (and I believe they are), PRS might just swallow their pride and remunerate Gibson for the sake of at least making SOME money from them. As for the PRS double-cut, I don't think any of us would think that it's in danger. If Gibson tried to sue them, it would be fairly easy to prove that their standard (a la Custom) body shape is unique. Santana's guitar is a bit too much like an LP DC, but the Custom body shape is easily argued as unique. Another successful body shape to come out recently that I wouldn't worry about is the Musicman Axis. It could be argued that it is "tele-like" OR "Les Paul-ish", but since the truth lies somewhere in the middle there, and it's not a direct clone of any sort (most people would instantly identify it as an Axis rather than either of those other two) it would likely escape legal recourse. Just my $0.05. (inflation) Greg

That's another excellent idea... you can get one of those belt-clippable Marshalls for peanuts. Of course, it all depends on how long you'll be "backpacking" and whether or not you'll be able to carry enough batteries. Then again, batteries don't need to be a big deal: a) I play my electrics without plugging them in all the time anyhow If you hollow out a chamber of some sort, you'll get a BIT of acoustic amplification, anyhow.

I was looking at an ad for the Martin backpacker earlier today, thinking, "this might be a fun kind of guitar to build." By looking at it (and I might be wrong about this), it isn't constructed with the usual sides, purfling (?), bracing, etc. that a regular acoustic would be. I don't know any specifics on how it's made, but I imagine even someone without true skill in acoustic guitar luthiery could throw something together. It won't sound any good, but I don't imagine anyone's expecting dreadnought or parlour tone from a wee backpacker guitar. It seems to have similar construction as a thinline-type 'solid body' (I know, that's a contradiction, but I'm just referring to construction technique) guitar.

I haven't done any guitar-building (yet), but my Godin LG is done with a recessed TOM-style bridge. It's exceedingly simple. All you want to do is basically sink your TOM 'into' the top of the guitar deeply enough that you no longer need to angle the neck. Figure out where you would normally screw on your TOM, then rout a channel there that's a few mm deep (deep enough to eliminate the need for an angled neck), only slightly bigger than your TOM itself, so that it can sit down there in that channel. It's one of those things that's so simple I don't understand why it hasn't always been done this way... and it's so simple that it's almost hard to describe! Google for guitars that have "recessed tune-o-matic" and you've got to find a picture sooner or later, if you still can't visualize it.

As an alternative to a wack of string trees, you could get one of those gizmos that lies across all 6 strings just after the nut. I don't know if those tend to bind up at all for trem guitars, but they'll do the trick for set bridges. Also, another opportunity to add metallic shiny stuff in the finish of your choice.

I haven't experienced them myself, but lots of people on the Guitarist forum have recommended Kent Armstrong pickups as excellent value for the money-- as good (some people say better, but we all know about subjectivity) as Seymour Dunc or Dimarzio, but 2/3 to 1/2 the price. That's still not as cheap as a set of $14, but as Kent Armstrong pickups have garnered a solid reputation and favourable reviews on various sites, at least they're a company you can stand behind while at the same time increasing your profit by $40-$60 per guitar in place of using more expensive brand names.

3 months ago, I would have said Yamaha. I have an acoustic and a tele-style Pacifica, and while they're not the fanciest guitars around, they win in terms of "bang for the buck". Now, that prize has been stolen easily and swiftly by my Godin LG, which was just as light on the pocketbook, but compares in terms of quality to "pro" instruments. Therefore, I vote: GODIN.

Uh-oh. You lot are my students. I've been known to draw guitars in Math class... though usually after assigning some worksheets or having them work independently on projects. Greg.

Questioneer: Gotcha. See? All I need sometimes is a wee little plain language explanation. ;-) Of course, I could always learn how to read schematics, and open myself to a whole new world... Well, some day.

Love it. Want one. It's interesting that you went for the inside and outside coils combined in your switching scheme, rather than the option of a single neck and a single bridge. I have no idea what the heck a Carrie finish is (something psychotic with blood dripping down? ), but I can say that your guitar probably would have looked great with almost any finish. Greg.

If I'm not mistaken, a coil tap will actually divide the coil part way into the wind itself. Using one of a humbucker's coils as a 'single coil' is actually splitting the coils, though as time goes on it's becoming kind of pedantic (I'm a pedant!) to make the distinction. Usually when people refer to a 'coil tap' they're talking about splitting a humbucker. Of course, I may have those terms backwards... If so, feel free to deliver a slap to my left cheek. Not the right. That's my handsome side.

Interesting, I kind of figured that the theory was 'sound', but given how bizarre intonation issues are with a non-fanned system, I thought that figuring out the bridge position would be a bit trickier-- but even on the Novax website, if you look at the screen shots (maybe they're not 'set up' just to make the photos prettier...?) the bridge is pretty much a straight line between saddles, as well. As for having 'multi scale', to be honest I never really thought of it that way. To me, the whole 25.5" vs. 24.75" thing is a fairly substantial argument over something that is essentially arbitrary anyhow. I'm sure when PRS moved to a 25" scale, many consumers (ie. non-luthiers) even thought, "I didn't know you could DO that!" without even realizing that the classic scale lengths aren't based on any particular science. Instead, I think of the fanned system not as a way to have multiple scales on one neck, but rather to accomodate the natural shape of the hand, as Brian and Frank have already mentioned. Also, it would look kinda cool. Having tighter lows isn't such a bad idea, either. I don't think that a fanned system of 25.5 - 24.75 would throw off your string guages enough to make them feel out of whack, but if one wanted to spend a bit of time and barely more money, one could assemble a custom set of strings and just buy 'singles' in bulk to keep the costs down. Regarding Ralph/Novax-- interesting information there, Frank. Even just from exchanging a few e-mails with Bill, the GM, I'm convinced that Novax is a company that is more concerned with respect and getting the idea out there than just money. He even advised me that Allparts will be stocking Novax retrofits, for less than Novax sells necks for. Sure, they still see a portion of those profits, but not as much as a true Novax neck. Maybe I'm just too generous by nature (and have no head for personal finance! Hence, I'm broke) but $75 doesn't seem like much when I shelled out more than that today to get my oil, wipers, and transmission line fluid changed in my car today, none of which are exactly difficult mechanical operations, and which I could learn if I were so inclined. I guess it depends on your perspective-- there are people out there who would also say, "You paid $200 for THAT small hunk of wood???" Glad to know that my observation isn't half-baked, though... I'll take that as my first step into understanding the 'mysteries' of guitar crafting. That 'winged' fret system sounds interesting, too. Since I haven't even fretted a normal fretboard, though, that kind of thing would be way out of my league. Cheers, Greg

Alright, moving into a new thread instead of hijacking the other one-- Does anyone have any theories or experiences regarding coming up with a fanned fret system? I have a few theories, but I haven't even made a NORMAL fretboard, so the odds of me actually making one of my own are slim. Also, I would like to add that I've been checking out Novax, who license their system for $75 US. A letter from Bill Carrico, the General Manager, informs me that this includes not only the details (plans?) and instructions on incorporating the system, but also some personalized interaction with Ralph Novak himself, regarding your design, scale length, bias point (whatever that is! ), etc. For anybody that's interested in a fanned fret system, I would highly encourage them to check out the website (www.novaxguitars.com) for yourselves, and consider paying the license fee. I certainly am. On to the point of discussion-- Premise 1 for the experiment: We will not be using a standard bridge, unless someone knows of something out there that will work. Instead, we will use a separate saddle for each string, which we can mount wherever we need it. Premise 2: We will need to get our hands on some sort of long nut, since standard widths won't work, either. Premise 3: We'll assume that we have the proper tools and jigs for cutting a proper groove at various angles. Premise 4: The craftsman will mock this all out on cardboard first, rather than wasting his/her wood! ;-) Premise 5: I have used fairly round numbers just to make the math easier... they're probably not the optimal scale lengths to use. Now, I know for sure that I have some flawed logic here, since scale length isn't really an exact science, but let's take the following scenario and see what anybody thinks: a) Set your low E so that it measures 26" from its slot on the nut to the contact point on its saddle. Set your high E so that it's 24" from its slot to its saddle. The saddle will be moved up 1" closer to the neck compared to the low E. The nut will be angled so that the high E's contact point is 1" closer to the body compared to that of the low E. c) At this point in time, the 12th fret will therefore be at a right angle. In other words, it will be 13 inches away from the nut on the low E, and 12 away from the nut at the high E. d) Using a fret scale calculator, mark where the rest of the frets would go for the high E and the low E. Obviously, it would be tough to do this with enough accuracy (you can't just freehand it!), but we're still talking about theory. Connect the dots, which will result in a fanning shape. The biggest obstacles I can see are: -doing it with sufficient accuracy -getting the bridge saddles in the right spot... we all know that following the directions above, the guitar won't intonate properly for us... hopefully the saddles will have enough wiggle room without having to completely re-attach them -Figuring out what our starting point scale lengths should be, because I somehow doubt that our lives would be as easy as selecting 26 and 24. Maybe even a less radically fanned system would be worth considering-- 25.5" at the low E and 24.5" at the high...? Anyhow, that's not a real 'plan' per se... mostly it's something that I was thinking about and this seemed like the ideal forum to do that thinking 'aloud' as it were. Cheers, Greg

I'm hopelessly stupid when it comes to capacitors, diodes, etc. etc.. I'm the kind of guy who needs a simple line art diagram labeled in plain English, ya know? So for this Black Ice thing, I'm a bit confused... If I get the StewMac one, straight forward enough-- solder it to the appropriate spot and you're off to the races. But for the homebrew version, what does it come down to? Are there multiple components, or is it one simple diode that StewMac have repackaged to seem like more than it is? Ie. if I have the part number of some little gizmo that is used in circuits, can I buy it for $5, wire it up the way the Black Ice is wired, and I'm off to the races? Or does the 'cube' contain multiple parts that I need to shop for, figure out how to put together, etc. Is this in another thread? I'm still learning to navigate this forum. <laff> Any help will be mucho appreciated.

I guess I'm a neo-modernist New Critical archetypalist psychoanalitical traditionalist. ;-) Don't worry about the silly questions-- they will come, and they will be laughable, indeed. <grin> When it comes time for practical advice, I'm mostly going to be nagging people for techniques on getting my guitars playable. Yeah, I want them to look sweet, too, but if I never want to pick them up and play them, then I've pretty much failed in what I want to accomplish with this pursuit. I'm not expecting masterful action with the first couple guitars (though one can always hope!) but what I do want is to do a decent job of the fretboard, and mating up the strings from nut to bridge nicely so that the guitar feels like a proper guitar regardless of what the body looks like or how crooked my pickup routs turn out. Er... looks like I'm not all that scarce around here so far... But this is one verbose forum! I looked at "new posts since your last visit", and there are many... I should fit in OK, then.

This will be my first post on the forum, though I've browsed through a bit. I've been wanting to build my own guitar since I can remember, though the dream has somehow transformed from a tele-style guitar to the current DC LP style vision. Unable to afford a whole bunch of resources, I've been scouring the internet for weeks, picking up bits and pieces here and there... but only found Project Guitar a few days ago, if you can believe it. I must have been Googling with the wrong keywords! I've been a player for 13 years or so, ever since I 'graduated' from running a beer bottle along the strings of my dad's Fender acoustic to my own (Made In Mexico) strat. I really enjoyed not just the playing, but the 'gear' side of things as well. I was often more interested in the columns in magazines that revolved around set-ups and product reviews than I was in tabs or artist profiles. Shortly after getting the strat, I swapped out the bridge pickup for a Hot Rails, slapped in some Graph-Tech saddles, and thought I was done. Nope. Took it apart and sanded it down completely (hand-held belt sander! Not the most precise tool...) before repainting it with a black and green faux marble kit. I never got around to lacquering it, because it was eventually stolen. Since then the only 'mods' I've done to the replacement guitar (a tele-style Pacifica) have been replacing the bridge with a mini '59, and adding a switchless coil splitter (engaged by turning the tone knob to full, and disengaged from 'level 9' on down). Oh, and fully shielding the guitar. My guitar roster now includes a Yamaha dreadnought, a Guild D-20 Dreadnought, a Godin LG, and the tele-style Pacifica. I have my single-coil machine, my P-90 machine, and now I figure it's about time to get a humbucking blues/jazz beast going on... and I've elected to build it. In the next little while, I'll try to scour the forum for old posts, but I'm a bit lazy by nature... so don't be surprised if I ask some of those same questions that have been asked a million times! Also, I have to admit that I don't have any plans to do any hands-on building for at least a few months, so I'll be a bit of a sporadic presence around here. About me: I'm an English teacher in Ottawa, Ontario, , with a healthy respect for outdoors activities... I've cycled from here to Charlottetown, PEI, and I'm currently training for a full marathon (ugh!! I'd rather play guitar!). Musically, like most of you, my tastes run the gamut. When I PLAY, though, I'm one of those that tends to stick more or less to pentatonic blues patterns (learned not to stay in one position, though, at least!) and basic chords. On a typical day, you'll hear me trying to do some SRV-style rhythm with sub-standard blues solos over top. If I can get something done some day like the few guitars I've seen Lex make, I'll be a rather happy fellow. ;-) That new bass is everything I ever look for in a bass myself, and then some! Well, enough of that... I'm a bit overly verbose at times! See you around, Greg.