GregP

LoL

Bainzy didn't mean scale, he just meant the location of the heel. For 22-fret necks, it's often just a fingerboard extension and therefore the heel is in the right spot for aftermarket retrofit. However, we don't know that this is the case-- so Mick's advice to measure it up of course still stands.

awesome. One of my favourite projects to follow along with in a long time. Part of me prefers that you went for the scrap mahogany. ;-) Is it sufficiently dry? Mahogany is pretty stable, and more experienced voices may prevail over me here, but my concern with going to the 'scrap pile' is that you won't be using sufficiently dried wood... is it a concern when it's mahogany?

I couldn't say, but you could probably contact Tronica. The video seems to show them going flat before tuning back up to pitch... the guy's a guitarist, and I suspect that he'd want it done in a guitarist way. But that's just because I give smart people credit for being smart... he might be one of those smartie types who overlooked the obvious. Only way to tell is to contact'im. Jon:

I definitely don't "prefer" to do it myself. That's odd talk from my perspective, since I get no special pleasure out of tuning. I think there IS a justifiable price point, but $900 isn't it. 20 seconds is a pretty long time to tune. It doesn't accomodate alternate tunings. And bass in general tends to be more stable in tuning (once tuned) than a guitar on which a lead guitarist is wreaking havoc. How can this be a bad thing? I mean... I prefer manual transmission cars, because I feel more connected with the car and the road-- I have to make decisions about shifting gears that actually impact the driving experience. So, to me, automatic cars are pointless and counter-productive to good driving. But this is something completely different... there's no enhanced experience in tuning your instrument that I can think of. And if you truly "enjoy" tuning, I have some white robes with buckles for you. I think most of the enlightened people on this forum agree that technology such as CNC isn't inherently eebil, even though some people still choose to not use it. Isn't this just the same? Automating and speeding up a process that not all people enjoy so that they can get on with the part that they actually like? That's just one example. There are many. It just seems strange to me that there could be any other approach than, "It's a tool that has obvious uses, and you can either pay for the convenience or not." I don't think it's a must-have. Not even close. That's never been my point. People have been fine without this technology for decades. But it has utility that can't be overlooked, and it's backwards to appreciate technology's "shortcuts" in some areas and not others. I'm just saying that to argue "against" it strikes me as a strange reaction for something that you can take or leave, but which is still a nifty and useful technology. Greg

I haven't seen any such things in my travels. Your best bet is to Google for a straight-on image, then scale it to size using known measurements (for example, 25.5" from the nut to the bridge, or 12.25" from 12th fret to nut) in a program like Photoshop. Much quicker to get cracking on that strategy than to wait for plans to appear. Of course, the next replyer to the thread could prove me wrong. Since it's a self-made guitar, you can get "pretty danged close" without being to the millimetre and still be proud of it, no? Greg

Heh, investing in PG could only mean eebil, as we become corporate lackeys. I guess I just don't see the technolgy as anything but "extravagent." You can manually tune your guitar if you want after the device is installed. Even "fine tuning maintenance" I really don't mind pressing a button and letting it get to pitch. If I hear that the machine has tuned the B right on pitch and I prefer it a weeeee bit flat to facilitate chords, I'll just tweak it. But going to alternate tunings is another feature that I think is pretty cool... not so easily done as "maintenance tuning." My guitars go out of tune more than I'd like... and that's on a guitar with a graph-tech nut, straight string-pull, and a Tone-Pros TOM+tailpiece setup. That doesn't mean "all the time," but more than I'd prefer. I don't mind the thought of just pressing a button, strumming, and having it be in-tune. To me, that's not disconnecting me from the guitar. The feel of the guitar is the same, and it's the playing that's important. I already know how to tune a guitar either by ear or with an electronic/analog tuner. I usually use a tuning fork that's A=440 and go from there. But I don't get any special kicks out of tuning my guitar, and it doesn't make me bond with the instrument. I just want to play. So if that's automated for me, I really don't mind. The product isn't about fixing what isn't broken. It's about fixing what IS broken. They rightfully talk about stage performance or other performance-related needs (such as alternating between standard and down-half-step ("Hendrix" they call it) tuning)... and that *IS* a "hurt" that many people would like to see "healed." Emergency string changes, tuning 'touch-ups' between songs, changing to different tunings (Drop-D being another one of them... it's easy as heck to go in and out of Drop-D, so maybe not the best example...)-- these are all things that no guitarist in his right mind wouldn't be glad to have 'taken care of' automatically in a live situation. For bedroom players like me, it's a gadget. A cool one, but not a $900 one. Bottom line, though, the soul of the guitar is not in twisting its tuning machine heads, but in making sound with the strings. Trivial technology or not, it's still not the same thing as voodoo or snake oil, it's just... extravagent. Greg

We'll have to disagree for the first time. It's not snake oil, even though it's technology. Not everybody really wants to buy additional guitars, lug them around to gigs (not just live, but session gigs, for example) and spend their clients' money retuning their guitars. Tuning guitars isn't fun. For the price, I can handle tuning my own... but that's just saying, "Nah, it's not worth $900." That's not saying that as a concept it's completely crap. The feel of the guitar doesn't change, so I don't understand the second paragraph. It's just a tuner. I don't think they make a tele version yet (though, an enterprising person might be able to retrofit the strat version themselves), but in any event, the guitar itself doesn't lose its planky or slinky feel. That's a non-issue. The Les Paul in particular still has a stop tailpiece and TOM, same as it always has. The nut is the same. The instrument isn't really changed. ! And the leap from, "Hands free tuning via servos" to strings whose molecular structure readjusts is quite a huge one. One is just a practical reality, already proven not just as a concept but as a product. The other is science fiction. It's also not about shunting "responsibility" for tuning. Who doesn't know how to tune their instrument? It's about facilitating it. For less money, I bet more people would be on it. I tend to tune by ear because it's convenient for me, but a lot of people (especially for gigs) will rely on a machine anyhow, and scramble to mute their instrument, squint at a stompbox or rack-mounted tuner, and rush to tune quickly so as to not interrupt the flow of their set. It's not that they don't know how to tune, it's that using a tuning machine makes things quicker for them. How can anything possibly be wrong with making it even quicker? Whether it's a servo moving the machine-heads or your fingers, to match the electronic/analog tuner's readout, what difference? Facilitating tuning can't possibly be seen as sucking the soul out of guitar... it's just a mundane task that's being automated for people who would find it convenient or useful. I'm one of them. Just not for $900. The founder and the actual company itself (tronical) seem like an OK bunch, and they're not seemingly out to ONLY stockpile cash, though nobody goes into business expecting to NOT make money. He's even an actual guitar player and busts out some mean licks. I might agree that Gibson should put more effort into quality control, but I hardly think that they've neglected it for the sake of integrating Tronica's tuning technology.

Even better, a tele-style guitar. No trem cavity, belly carve, or arm bevel.

So, it's basically a distribution agreement, since it IS in fact available for other guitar brands, according to those articles. Definitely Tronical; their website links to the Gibson deal press release. The Transperformance system was the first one I ever heard of. It is certainly nifty, but also bulky and expensive. The Tronical offering is a lot sleeker as well as cheaper. It'd be neat to hear the guitar morphing from one tuning to the other. I wonder if you could fool the servos into tuning to particular intervals in order to do pedal steel effects. Probably not, because it's likely a relatively slow and deliberate mechanism, and if it works effectively, will go lower than pitch at first and then tune up to pitch.

For a Les Paul Standard, only around $900 USD. <edit: the source I was looking at was quoting for the system ONLY! Which makes sense... $900 for a USA LP Standard is already too cheap-sounding>

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Feat...une_%20Gibson_/ It's not the first time a self-tuning guitar has been introduced. Didn't Hipshot have something cost-prohibitive at some point in time? Too bad the Gibson item isn't available as a 3rd-party accessory. Available factory-installed on Gibson guitars only. Greg

Something like that.

I'm mucking around with open tunings on an acoustic that I've retrofitted for lap/slide playing (see footnote). I've been using open G, D, and DADGAD (which I already knew was more "Celtic", so I wasn't expecting different), and rather than trial and error on all the various tunings, I was hoping someone could point me to the most country-friendly tuning. For "major-sounding" country, Open G has been just fine. But I'm not very good at understanding modes and intervals in order to consciously create a tuning that would lend itself well to a more "minor" and "moody" sounding country tuning. Any suggestions? The seemingly obvious answer is to tune to a minor chord, but I'd rather approach something that has at least a bit of a catalogue of music to it rather than something "experimental" or "made-up" so that I can start learning some passages by ear and adapting them to my own style. Thanks for any help! Footnote (longer than the actual post!): So I inherited this crappy "Jasmine" (Takamine's budget brand) acoustic from a guy whose ex left it behind at his apartment. It seemingly has a preamp, but when I put a battery in, no dice... so beyond trouble-shooting that, I thought I would hang onto it for a "Nashville Tuning" guitar. Never got around to that, and after much mussing with the neck, I've realized that the action will always be way too high to play chords reliably in tune anyhow. See, the neck is severely bowed, and the truss rod is at about maximum tension-- heck, I'm afraid if I try to force it another millimeter, the whole neck is going to explode! Be that as it may, the action was still a bit too low for comfortable slide work in the lower frets. Kept bangin around and generally feeling too "precious" in attacking the strings. So, I got a piece of 1/2" aluminum angle, sawed it down to size, and used a rotary tool and burr to smooth down the rough edges. One side of the "L" had to be shortened significantly (down to about 1/8") so that it would fit over the nut and rest against the fretboard. Dabbed the strings (still on the guitar) with a marker, and then touched the angle against the marked area to transfer the ink. Voila, hassle-free string spacing, sort of. A small triangular saw and some extra-fine (600?) sandpaper later, and I had created some string slots. I filed deeper into the slots in order to make the strings "level" on their tops, winging it for the most part. The "winging it" caused me to deviate a bit off-course for the low string, but the rest were still spaced properly, and the low string is within acceptable parameters. I might take another shot at it when I'm bored some day to make it "perfect". The end result is that it seems to work fine. You can buy the commercial "nut overlay" things and they're not that expensive. But I already had aluminum angle on hand, and it was about 15 minutes of work. There is sufficient sustain, and the strings haven't broken yet even though I do "behind the bar" bends when playing lap-style. Putting old junk to good use! Some people might recall this guitar from a "when is a gift not a gift" thread, in which I lamented that the only salvageable bit of this "found" guitar turned out to have a use after all! As a lap or slide guitar.

Yup, but if memory serves, Chris used a CHUNK of a radius block, and still pressed them in one at a time.

See, this time it IS Voodoo. But practical voodoo.

You're right. I wasn't thinking about it in terms of sustained production runs, and of course that's who it's meant for.

Seems a bit... er... overpriced!

I say why not. I trust members who feel that it's a bit "vanilla", but plenty of guitars have been made with it. If your pickups and neck have enough character, I would think (judging only by what I've read) that it should be plenty fine. I love your headstock. Have you confirmed that the tuners will work properly with that bevelled edge? It looks so danged awesome.

It's a good question, though. What should I have for dinner tomorrow?

You said it yourself-- situations depend. Unless you did an A/B with the identical guitar in an identical rig, you probably weren't in the right listening environment to make much of an assessment on the DiMarzios. Maybe you just didn't like the guitar the Blaze was in. OTOH, people rave about Air Nortons, Tone Zones, Evos, and many others, all the time. Nothing wrong with a Duncan Distortion from what I've read and heard... haven't really tried one myself. If it seems like the right pickup to you, go for it. Ultimately, it's still a humbucker. Your guitar still has a lot of traditionally "bright" construction to it, with the wood choices... but a Duncan humbucker is still not going to be as strident as a P90 or a tele bridge pickup, and those have appeared on some pretty "bright" guitars. I can't see any reason the Distortion wouldn't work, if it's what you would typically go for on a more-mahogany guitar. Greg

Thanks for that link, Marksound. That guy has some mad-cool projects under his belt!

Any "standard" body size is going to be pretty similar for traveling, so I wouldn't sweat it too much. It's a cool shape, though-- I haven't seen one before, and I kinda like it! Haven't seen any kits for sale, so if you like that body you're probably going to have to buy the guitar, or make your own body.

Looking great.

Yup, much to their shame. By most accounts, the Atomic sounds quite good. But... I dunno... I think they coulda done something a little bit more forward-thinking than that.