Myka Guitars

Chris, a sanding block will not make a perfectly flat surface in an enclosed area like that. Have you thought about a router? If you can set up some protective covering over the body you can carefully run a template bit over the neck pocket area. This will leave it flat. Or you could use a chisel. Just make sure it is sharp and it will work fine.

Good to see the Stetsbar mentioned already. I was just going to do that. This is the only truly linear design I know of and it is truly surface mount (read: no routing). There is an OEM version that requires minimal routing (3/32" deep pocket) or a retrofit version that doesn't (which can also be installed on a new guitar). There really is no need to design a trem that removes even more material than a standard fulcrum trem, in my opinion.

It looks like this new trem idea is a little of both the fulcrum and the linear design but not a simplified and better working example of either. It has all the drawbacks of the fulcrum setup without any of the benefits. The linear design is a good idea but why retain the fulcrum? The way I see it is that both linear and fulcum designs will ahve friction so why have both? Either a fulcrum trem or a linear tremolo would be much better than this combined bybrid design.

As a luthier this design looks very complicated to install. I look at new trems to overcome the handicaps of the older trem designs. Mainly the big problem I have with tremolos is the massive amount of routing involved. From a tonal point of view this is not a good thing for a guitar to have so much wood removed in front of the bridge. The Kahler designs minimized this and the Stetsbar eliminated it completely. From a practical point of view the sheer number of parts and comlicated installation process would be a turn of to me and my clients. Let's say this tremolo does cost $900. If it takes me 6 hours to install and set it up it guess what happens to the price?

Also there is the issue of the springs. Long springs like standard Strat trem style springs vibrate within the range of the guitar. Eliminating those will eliminate the dissipation of vibrational energy away from the strings (loss of sustain). Again the Stetsbar uses two small dense springs that do not vibrate at all within the guitar's frequency range. I personally do not like the faux reverb effect of trem springs. It takes away from waht I do in the first place which is to build a superior resonating body.

These two issues are what would turn me off from this design. That and the fact that the linear tremolo is already made much more simply and efficiently with the Stetsbar. Why take a pure design like that and add the fulcrum back into it? Makes no sense to me.

Thoughts from an independant builder.

~David

I can't help but think it would have looked that much better without the pickup rings. You seem to have a very 'stealthy' thing going....but the section between fretboard and bridge is too clogged up in my opinion.

I thought of this too. The only problem (if you want to call it that) is that the bridge height is 3/4". That means the pickups had to sit pretty high up so that they could be raised up enough. The bridge pickup is almost entirely above the level of the carved top. This could not have been done without the pickup rings. So all in all it works (and looks) pretty good.

I agree with you on the floating humbucker. Those brackets do not look too pleasing. There must be a better way to go about doing that(although that would be in the hands of the pickups manufacturer, not you, really).

I did think of something a little too late. If I had made a bracket that had a couple rods coming out of the end I could have inserted these into the end of the neck and have it really float. A set screw would have been enough to hold it. Even still, I would have had to remake the bracket and this one was riveted onto an epoxy sealed pickup. The risk of damage too great. SO you aer correct, it would have been in the hands of the manufacturer.

Now if only there were pickups that could mount underneath the top and still have the same tone...

~David

Man, that finish is sweet! It's like red pearl glass. I dig the sign refelction on the finish, could be a cool trademark photo.

~David

It's done! This guitar turned out great. I love the way it plays, and sounds. The single coil setup allows for some very Stratty tones including that position 2 quack. You can get serious country out of this one! It has a very smooth voice. The walnut is incredible wood and the limba just sings. After I strung it up I sat and played it for at least 2 hours the whole time trying to come up with a convincing excuse to keep it around for a few more days! But alas, it is shipping this afternoon.

The only thing I would change if it were mine is I would get rid of the floating pickup and put in my standard Bartolini with a pickup ring. Tonally I like the Shadow pickup but the design would have worked better for me. I just don't like the bracket I had to use.

Here is the gallery for more pics.

~David

That's funny Perry!!! I never looked at it that way!

Yeah, Brian does his own thing. Why else cross a shredder aesthetic with a jazzer configuration? The tuner placement was aesthetic for the reason Setch pointed out. There are a few things about this guitar that are very uniquely Transki. He is getting online soon. I hope to have him join PG and get a website up. He is working on some more cool stuff. I'll see if I can get more pics. His inaly work is incredible. He is doing a dragon inlay now that has 42 individual mother of pearl teeth. Just nuts.

My good friend Brain Transki and I started building guitars in his grandmother's tool shed more than 20 years ago. Our first guitar had tuning keys made from nuts and bolts (a 2-man tuning operation!). Man, we have come a long way. Brian is not online so I thought I would post this for him so that you can all enjoy what he does. This is a very unique guitar. I won't describe it too much since pictures speak volumes more than I could put into words with this one.

Here are the specs:

Left handed guitar

Body:

* Carved maple skeleton design

* Lower bout: 14"

* Body thickness: 2" with skeleton

* Edge thickness: 1-1/2"

Neck:

* Hopnduran Mahogany

* Zirocote fingerboard

* Scale length: 25.5"

* Width at nut: 1-3/4"

* Heavier neck carve, nice and full

* Joins body between 16th and 17th fret

* 2 way adjustable truss rod

* Carbon fiber reinforcement

Custom bridge

* String width: 2.08"

* Ebony/carbon fiber bridge

* Adjustable bone saddles (very cool!)

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki01.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki02.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki03.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki04.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki05.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki06.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki08.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki09.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki10.jpg

http://www.mykaguitars.com/ebay/images/transki11.jpg

Enjoy!

~David

My guess is that the string is bad. Is it an old one? Or is it the same type/brand as the other? I would be willing to bet that the string is either old, dead, or has a slight kink at the bridge end of it. Try getting another string of the same variety as the others. Also the string might be larger than the original you replaced and if so may be getting caught in the nut slot and not seating properly.

As a general rule of thumb when the buzz sounds like it is coming from the bridge it is usually at the nut, and vice-versa.

~David

Myka, who's supplying you with that silver?

I was getting it here but the size is either too small or too large. I think I may go with this company instead and get the 2.11mm size and needle file it out to 2.38mm for the shell dots. I used to be able to get 2.30mm from TSI Inc. That was near perfect.

You really need to get cracking on your builds myka, you haven't updated that site in weeks.

I know, I know. I have 2 more Dragonfly Deluxes finishing up alongside this walnut topped one. I have 2 electrics that are just strarting (wood prep, etc), and I also have 3 really cool projects coming up. One is a client designed 335-ish guitar, another will be a flat topped semi-hollow, and the last will be a Maple/Padauk Sungazer with a 6 inline headstock and an all natural finish. So don't worry, you'll have your eye candy!

Thanks for all the comments. I do appreciate it. This guitar is probably one of my favorite Dragonfly derivatives so far. The tap tone of the entire guitar is just incredible. The walnut/limba combo works great (my personal solidbody is made with these woods and has awesome tone). I have one more identical one-piece top left over and some matching limba. I am debating if I should make another one.

GodinSD, don't sweat it. Anyone can do a search and see that I always encourage criticism and welcome it. Whether it is praise or a flaw it is always helpful. You weren't being mean about it you were just being honest about what you think. I always appreciate that.

The truth is that the dots are not perfectly centered. My silver supply company stopped making the size I need and the new size doesn't fit perfectly. It actually doesn't look that off in person once they have been sanded (as Russ pointed out) but it is something I still need to address.

I will have final pictures posted of this guitar later next week. It is almost done. My last task is to make a new mounting bracket for the suspended pickup. The one riveted to it does not fit the width of my fingerboard at the end (it is about 3/16" smaller!). Fortunately I have a friend who does aluminum plating.

It should be a very cool guitar with some very unique tones. I'll do a write up here when I am finished.

~David

Mattia: I posted those examples so that people could see the variation of bracing design out there. You bring up good points but it seems you are biased towards old school acoustic guitar design and sounds. Nothing wrong with that at all. These tones are what we all have been hearing for most of our lives and some great music has been played on these guitars. But if you like your traditional guitar sounds you won't like a CF top or Kasha bracing. Let's just agree that everyone's opinion is going to be subjective and that there is not a tone or bracing system that everyone can agree upon.

In my experience talking with other builders the reason that most of these newer designs are not common has little to do with how well they work. It is simply that it is more difficult to sell them. That puts them out of reach of most people because the job is left to the smaller builders. Considering the prices and small batches of guitars made by small builders there simply are not that many good examples out there that people can get their hands on. When they do play them if people expect a dreadnaught tone they will be dissappointed. This is the most likely cause of the bad press with Kasha and the like.

But I must admit that I am biased. I like the newer ideas because they are different. I will test and try out new ideas just because they are new. I love experimentation and the new tones and music that results. The people I look to for inspiration are Linda Manzer, Steve Klein, Rick Turner, Boaz Elkyam, Harry Fleishman, and Fred Carlson (and how about Charles Fox's new Ergo!) All equally different in their approach and all very innovative luthiers. I like new, progressive approaches to just about everything. I also like the charm of my spruce top x-braced design very much.

I can only add to waht has already been said as it is all valid and good info. Bracing theory is pretty cool. I am starting to get back into thinking about this and will be building a couple acoustics soon. The way I approach it is dependent on the actual soundboard. A stiffer soundboard requires less bracing and a more flexible one will require more for a certain response. I go by the way it sounds as I tap it. I am not looking for any specific range of tone but I am looking for certain qualities: resonance, sustain, even response across the board, etc. There are so many theories and so many guitars being built using them that it is difficult at best to say which is the best way or even the correct way to do it. Some approaces favor even stiffness across the entire soundboard whereas others brace stiffer on the treble side and more flexible on the bass side of the bridge. And most of the guitars out there brace them like Martins because that's tradition.

Here are some links to some different ideas:

Kasha bracing

Interesting truss inspired design

Fred Carlson with his Oracle harp guitar (cool!)

My bracing design (Harry Fleishman inspired)

Ervin Somogyi's article on guitar design. A great read.

Chris Jenkins approach

There is so much more if you dig into Google.

~David

I build spruce topped hollowbodies that are 3/16" - 1/4" thick around the knobs. They hold up just fine. You really don't need to worry about the knobs breaking through the top unless it is seriously mistreated. A steel plate would be overkill in my opinion.

~David

I don't know why they are so hard to find in those values. How about a 300k/300k dual concentric pot? It's close and with some additional resistors may work for your circuit.

~David

That binding is beautiful --how did you do it? Is it grooved into the wood?

←

Here is an article from Stew-Mac that shows some way sof doing binding. This guitar had a two step groove cut into the edge of the top. The first to hold the binding and the second to hold just the top purfling. The edge purfling was glued to the binding before it was bent. I use a bending iron for it all and sponge water onto the wood right before i heat it. Then I tape it into place as I glue it in. Glueing is a quick process so you have to get the fit pretty tight before you glue it. Some people tape the binding into place and then used thin CA glue to glue it. I tried it but I prefer to use Titebond as it is a thermal set glue so you can close gaps if you need to after it is glued in.

~David

I use a router when I want to roundover flat suraces like guitar backs and go over the freeform areas by hand with rasps and sandpaper. For carved tops I always round over the edges by hand. I use a piece of sandpaper folded over 3 or 4 times to give it some strength. I use 150 to shape it and then go to up through 320. I hold the sandpaper over the edge and let the paper make the radius. With some practice it goes very quickly (5-10 minutes). Routers work perfectly if all your edged are uniform but mine never are so I learned to develop my hand skills. It works as well as a router and allows for rounding over less uniform surfaces.

Here is an example of a roundover with binding, a natural edge on spruce, and a roundover done mostly with a router except the neck and tummy cut.

~David

I actually think that the design will work as originally planned. Padauk is not that heavy and it is very resonant. It will make a great body wood (and neck wood for that matter). Just be sure to hollow it until it rings and sustains the way you want it to. The top being maple is also not a problem. If you use West Coast maple it will not be tinny at all. On the contrary, it will have a nice warm tone. East Coast hard rock maple is the wood to avaoid for tops, in my opinion.

This guitar has a maple top with mahogany back/sides and neck. The mahogany was the South American variety and as such it was dense. As dense as Padauk. In fact Padauk would have been a good substitute. The sustain blows away S. American mahogany (although true Honduran would give it a run for the money).

Since you are building a PRS hollowbody type guitar this will work well. Have you seen Heatley Guitars? Check out

I am building a semi-acoustic out of Padauk with a maple top next month. We'll see how it works but the tap tests of my pieces reveal a very rich tone with complex harmonic content.

Just my $0.02.

~David

Looks cool! I love the wood combo and the work is very clean. I bet the sustain is due to that 4" center block. I especially like the headstock. The detail is very cool. What a great overall design!

~David

RGGR, I got the knobs here at StewMac. From inside the knob I drilled into the pearl (not all the way throgh the pearl just through the brass) and then used a piece of metal to push off the pearl. It comes off in pieces and you have to clean it up a bit but it works. The maple inserts were finished and buffed before being glued in.

I ahve used camphor burl before and it finished great with nitrocellulose lacquer. The color is a bit dark until you sand it then it is like the pictures. The finish will darken it a bit too. The wood I used was a veneer over spruce. The sides are finished in Tru-Oil. Just the top is finished in nitro.

Here's a pic:

Here are more pics.

Hope he doesn't mind me sharing.

←

Not at all. You beat me to it!

Thanks to everyone for all the great comments. This guitar is a new style for me. There are a few things about this guitar that are very custom. In my client's words the ideas was to...

copy everything I loved from every guitar I have ever had (petrucci neck, '89 PRS CE sound, inverted input jack, piezo, 5-way wired my way, string through the body, ect).

The guitar plays great and the tone is awesome. Wicked crunch tones from the bridge and some extreme tonal variation from my 10 way setup (5-way plus series/parallel option). The guitar will be a killer in the right hands. I look forward to the recording with this one. It's a shred machine.

The pickup covers are my client's idea. They are humbuckers and they are also totally removeable, adjustable, and just plain cool. I made them to be the size of a humbucker mounting ring with the center romoved. The pickup screws to the underside of the cover and the screws mount through the cover into inserts in the body with springs for adjustability and stability. It is a high tension fit. I love these and will use them again. It just adds some serious class to a humbucker guitar. Thanks for the idea Adam!

I will have some more pics of some new stuff in a couple weeks. I have 2 Dragonfly guitars and another tiger eye classic with a Stetsbar coming up (this one is a plain rock and roll solidbody with a nod to all the Harley fans out there). Then I get to finish up a pair of Dragonflies that will be a little different...

~David

Pegasus Guitars ukulele kits

More kits, plans, and parts.

I agree with Maiden since I had to do the same thing once. Take a look at this guitar. If you look closely you can see the purfling strips in between the pickups. I was reading the ruler from the wrong end and added an inch of length to the cavity. I filled it in and found a piece of the same top wood and inlaid that into place. Then I added the purfling to make it look like I meant. I still have the guitar and get sompliments on the cool idea! It will look good if you do it right and your work so far looks like you definitely have the skills to pull it off.

I also think that if you added a bridge pickup it would look more like you meant it. And a bridge humbucker screams much better than the neck so you get some raunch in there as well. Just my $0.02

Good luck!

~David

I have built a few of these type guitars. The maple top/mahogany back combo is pretty tried and true. You will get close to an LP that way (or a PRS depending on perspective). So I think the question is about the rosewood necks. In my experience with rosewood is that you get more of a focused higher mids and high end. With the harder rosewoods like cocobolo and bolivian you get some seriously tight low end, no mud at all (les than a standard LP actually). Indian rosewood can sound more dark than the other types but not as much as a mahogany neck.

If your guitar is sounding muddy it is an issue of the guitar's everall response, resonance, and attack and not the neck wood. Muddiness comes down to guitar design in my experience. If you don't want mud but aren't sure how your parts are supposed to 'sound' before you assemble them then go with a double cutaway. They are notoriously clear and articulate (think Leslie West, LPjr all the way).

Wes is right. Pickups have little to do with it. You can't save a dead guitar but you certainly don't have to build one either. That is a matter of design choice. And that comes from experience. The best thing to do here is build that guitar and hear ir for yourself. That would answer all the questions for you

Hey Godin, that's a cool design. I like it. I think the thin body will also be pretty cool. One of the last projects I did had a 1-1/2" thick body. It turned out to be a very comfortable guitar. Looking forward to seeing the progress on this one!