Jump to content

fryovanni

Blues Tribute Group
  • Posts

    3,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fryovanni

  1. Depending on the age and how much use it has recieved you would want to think about several things. The parts like tires, guide bearings or guide material and such are normal wear items. Figure those items will require replacement within a reasonable period if they do not already look like they need to be replaced(adjust price acordingly). You certainly want to run the machine to check balance, and vibration(this can be clues to more costly issues). You also want to check the tension they have been applying, and type of cutting they have been doing. Wheel and motor bearings as well as shafts get expensive, and pushing the machine too hard will lead to failures in these parts. Same applies to the motor and its bearings, caps, windings, and starter overloads. Closely inspect wheels for signs of cracks, same with the frame, and if you notice loose parts on bolted steel frames be cautious. The cost of many of these parts are more than many used 14" saws are worth, so pay attension to clues that may indicate tuff wear. Ideally I would look for a well cared for(someone who new how to properly use the saw) and or a very low milage machine that the individual just never used as much as they thought they would. Ideally a larger machine is going to be a nice find if the person just bought something they decided they didn't need (they are much tuffer machines usually, when put to common woodworking tasks).
  2. Maybe a bit softer than bone, but to be honest I have been happy with them and I have used both. If you have it in your head though that there is a difference on something like that, you are likely to percieve a difference(sometimes pre-concieved notions work that way). Bone is cheap, so give it a try with different dyes. It will likely not penetrate extreamly deep and you may see wear near strings. However the majority of the nut does not get much wear so it may be fine. Either way changing a nut is easy, and cheap so you have very little to risk. Go for it
  3. Nope, I can't say I ever tried. I use black horn for saddles and nuts though.
  4. I also forgot to add that I don't think you should think building a braced instrument (and acoustic instrument) is beyond your ability. I am positive you are more than capable of doing anything you set your mind to. There are some different skills and concepts, but you would pick it up.
  5. It is cool to read all these comments. Since most of what is being discussed is really hard to quantify, and so very subjective. One of those subjects with few absolute goals, and if you honestly want to understand an aspect of the performance you have to evaluate so many indirect variables(many of which are not static). I guess those unknows and the persuit of some sense of control over them is what makes building so fun. I recall something I read in a post by Rick Turner that really seemed like an interesting thought or perspective. He was talking about electrics and how minor changes in the way the signal is picked up are magnified because of the amplification(the electric is a much more sensitive system than an acoustic instruments). I think he said it was something akin to looking through a magnifying glass, not like looking through a window. Maybe, if that thinking is on the right track. The changes to an electrics system can be more subtle and produce significant changes. I think the logic seems to explain why it takes some radical changes in an acoustic design to make significant changes in performance. Just a thought that seemed to make sense to me.
  6. Either an on/on toggle switch or a blend pot. I suppose the absolute bottom line of what I'm trying to find out is how close you can get a solid-body, or chambered as it bay me, to sound like an acoustic without going semi- like a 335. Functionally, the end hope is twofold. 1) If it sounds nice enough, one could switch from electric to acoustic immediately. 2) This would, or at least should end up being a really sweet, mellow sounding guitar. Let's make some design assumptions: 1) 2" - 2 1/2" hollowed out mahogany or sapele body with the back & sides 1/4" - 3/8" thick 2) solid block extending from the neck pocket for the meck pup - a mini hb or a jazz hb of some type 3) 1/8" spruce top with an acoustic soundhole in the center 4) no block under the bridge, or at maximum a small block attached to the top - no direct contact with the back 5) acoustic pup system Questions: 1) What is the structural function of bracing on the top? 2) Does the top need bracing? If so, how thick can you go before you don't need it but still have it thin enough to vibrate? 3) What type of bridge do you use for this type of hybrid and how is it attached? Maybe a good answer to the main question you are posing is to look at what has worked well so far. Much success has been had with piezo systems on solid bodies. It may be that the piezo lends itself to a better platform because of the way it generates the signal, or it may be that it provides a signal that is easier to work with on the pre-amp side. Kinda takes the fun out of toying with non electronic design elements. Some builders are finding they are really happy with the results they are getting from blending more acoustic design elements into pickup based electrics, but I don't think their main goal is to emulate an acoustic guitars responce as much as explore an appealing modified electrics responce. I think you just need to figure out what it is you honestly want. If you want to try to get a very convincing acoustic sound from a high quality electric at the flip of a switch. Then a well built pickup loaded solidbody with a discrete(does not harm the performance of the electric) and convincing piezo system would seem to be reasonable(pretty straight forward). If you want to explore new avenues and possibilities then experimenting with design elements may lead you to something appealing and different. In your list of 5 assumptions, you have basically said you want to build a shallow bodied acoustic guitar(size/shape of the body/soundboard is not real clear), with a pickup attached in the neck position(this is much like a neck mouted pickup, which is done, so you can get a feel for the results), and you want to add an "acoustic pup system". There are a lot of options out there for acoustic pickup systems. Some use mics, some differnt types of piezo(mounting location varies), and some use accelerameters(SP?), and of course pre amps vary. It seems to me that if your goal is to make an acoustic that performs well and you want to capture as best you can that performance, you should build a good sounding acoustic and add a neck mounted pickup. If you create a cheap sounding acoustic and capture that sound, it seems counter productive. I think it really comes down to the electronics system you choose to develop the acoustic sound(like I mentioned some systems really kick butt on solid body guitars). With regards to your questions; 1. To keep the soundboard from distorting and collapsing under string tension, and still allow the soundboard to utalize the string energy as efficiently as possible. 2. Yes, because bracing provides significantly more strength per. weight added to the soundboard vs simply using a thicker soundboard(it is extreamly efficient). If you were to use a solid plate it would likely need to be between 3/16" and 1/4" thick(depends on the Spruce that is used, size of the box, and gauge of strings). It would be very inefficient and likely would not sound very pleasing acoustically(even a solid body vibrates, just not enough to move a lot of air). 3. An acoustic guitar uses a glued on bridge generally, although mechanical assistance(pins, nut and bolt) are occasionally used, but these tend to add mass and reduce efficiency.
  7. You could do this, but it will be very difficult. The jointer is a great tool for a true reference surface, and a lot faster and more reliable than a shaper. As for the back of the neck, a dedicated jig table and hand router with roundover bit for ruff shaping(you could have a special bit made if you want to get closer, but that is going to be a large bit and those can be tricky(prone to tear out) and expensive). A series of dedicated shapers(top quality) with special cutters could make the job faster, but seems like you would need to do a fair bit of volume to make that a reasonable investment. A jointer for your front reference surface and front of headstock is pretty clean and efficient. A bandsaw to ruff the back of the neck, the ruff taper and headstock is efficient and reliable. I use an open ended thickness sander to thickness the back of the headstock. I use a spindle sander to shape my volutes(used to use the end of my bench belt sander). I use a jig that I designed to for a hand held router to shape the headstock, route for the truss, the neck taper is finalized, and bring the thickness of the shaft within about 1/16th. I use hand tools(spokeshave, scraper, rasp, sanding block and paper to finalize the shape of the back. Several tools, but pretty simple. I do have a roundover bit that I can use to ruff shape the back of the necks profile, but it takes too long to set up. It is also removes so much material that I had to take several passes to avoid tear out. A smaller 3/4" roundover could work also(and would be simpler), but you are only avoiding a couple minutes worth of spokeshave work since you would still have to finish shape it after the router ruffs the shape.
  8. Kinda confusing topic with all the variations out there. I think you have to look at the function of different designs and of course the major performance difference. To break down the four general designs; Flat top acoustic, Hollow body(archtop), semi-hollow(speaking to the 335-ish style), and the chambered. Without trying to nit-pick the definition of semi-hollow v.s. chambered, lets assume the chambered is simply routed pockets introduced into a basic solid bodies design. Flat top acoustic. The concept is to transfer as efficiently as possible energy from the strings to the vibrating soundboard. The transfer is through a bridge is attached to the soundboard with the bridge being the anchor point for the strings. The size and structure of the box are critical to the performance. The air in the box is also a critical part of the performance as it effects the way the surfaces of the box vibrate. Key concept though is to transfer the energy from the strings to set the box in motion, thus moving the air about the box(move air=sound waves). Hollow body(archtop). Similar concept to the flat top acoustic, you use the box to move air about the box. The archtop uses a different style of bridge/string anchor(strings are not fixed to the bridge, instead the tail of the body) to transfer the energy. This design uses more downward pressure as opposed to the rotating motion of a flat top bridge. Because of this the structural design differs from the flat top. Both a flat top and Hollow use plates that are similar in thickness(close to 1/8"). Bracing, F-holes, recurve, depth, width of the lower bout and so forth are very different than a flat-top. Of course the sound is very different, and there are many factors that contribute to that difference. FWIW; The sides of an acoustic instrument are generally a strength and support element(although weight may motivate pushing the minimalism). A banjo uses vibrating surfaces and very rigid sides for example. You could certainly route away material to use as sides as is sometimes done with chambered solid bodies, although it would be a huge waste of wood and would likely need to be on the heavy side because of all the grain runout. Semi-hollow(335-ish). Introduced to allow for the use of pickups without having major issues from the thin plates of an acoustic instrument sypathetically vibrating as much. The bridge design of course serves the purpose of anchoring and of course intonating, but is not primarily designed around the transfer of energy to a vibrating surface. Since an electrified instrument does not produce sound by moving air about the box, instead inducing current flow via the pickups. The transfer of string energy to the body serves only to modify string vibration(the body does not produce current flow per. sey). So you have a very different dynamic and set of goals with an electric. You can't deny the design of a semi-hollow does have an effect on the sound v.s. a solid body. It would seem that the body design when as structurally different and different in terms of density, you get a modification in the way the strings vibrate. Chambered solid body. Generally lighter, but minimal difference in the size of the body or strength. Usually uses a typical style electric bridge. So when you start to think about mixing some of these elements. Keep the function in mind, what are you using to generate the sound. If it is string to pickup, focus on what you are doing to the strings vibration. If you want acoustic volume, then focus on optimal efficiency of the transfer to and use of string energy by the box. Just because one style of bridge works well for say an acoustic flattop, that does not mean it will perform in a similar fasion on an electric(the functional goals are just different). Of course even if it doesn't perform in a similar fasion, you may like the way it does effect the performance(just depends). It is a good idea to get a realistic understanding of what will work structurally, so you know certain limits. Remeber an acoustic flatop generally is loaded with more string tension than electrics, and the strings are anchored on a lightly braced soundboard that is usually less than 1/8" thick Spruce. You shouldn't drive yourself nuts with overthinking some of this stuff though. Go with your concept, trust your gut, and see if you may a great sounding instrument.
  9. I usually get confused when I see all sorts of design elements that serve a purpose on a given style guitar mixed into a guitar. I know there are those who say a solid body with proper electronics produces the most convincing amplified acoustic sound(short of micing). I know some seem to really like the sounds they produce when acoustic instrument design is integrated into an electric. I think a lot of what you are doing is likely a crap shoot as to what it will do to the performance, but it may sound really cool. If your really only wanting a pure emulation of an acoustic flat top, I would try to go down a more uniform path. Either have faith in the electronics system(Rick Turner has really dug into this, and may have a system that could have a good chance of solid results) in a solid body format. If you want to go the "capture the performance" way, the K&K mini western seems to be a nice way to go. I would make a box that performs well though if I went that route, since that is what you are trying to capture(the soundboard performance is effected by the box). If your aiming for a semi-hollow sound (which is a pretty broad range of sounds, and often embraces a more, bit of this bit of that sound). Then go with whatever seems like a good idea to you and see what happens, but don't over think it too much you will drive yourself crazy. Really you are way out of the range of true predictability(by that I mean in the "refined" or closely controlled) in design, because your meshing so many bits together. Remember, these builders that have refined their production models have done so after many baby steps and subtle changes to a concept they followed. You would find they persued many concepts only to scrap the idea for this reason or that. It takes a lot of trial and error, and you can't take huge steps because you can't tell what is making this or that happen(at least if you want control over the design). So don't rack your brain too much, or try to micro manage every little thing. Just go with your gut and have fun with it.
  10. Vertical oriention. Expansion and contraction is significantly greater across the grain, and would likely screw with your functionality and stability. That is nice quartersawn bubinga(and wide). "waterfall" figure usually refers to a quilted figure this is just the look you get when the interlocked grain(normal) of quartersawn bubinga is very appearant. It looks like a great bit of wood make the best use of it FWIW; True waterfall figure can run between $30-$75bd. ft., Very nice quartered bubinga like this should run between $9-$15 bd. ft. If it has been dried for a long period of time the value may be 20% higher. Just thought I would toss that out so you have an idea as to the values at least currently on the market.
  11. This is a little bit of info on expansion and contraction rates for these two species, as they relate to flat or quartersaw orientations. This information relates to wood that has been dried to 14% or less and accounts for increases and decreases in moisture content due to seasonal type changes(or possibly other factors that could raise or drop moisture content). Beech; radial- .00190" tangential- .00431" Birch; radial- .00256" tangential- .00338" As an example of how this could be used. Say your Birch top is quartersawn(radial relation across the widest point on your lower bout), and the Beech body is flatsawn(tangential relation to the lower bout width). For the sake of a calculation we will say the woods all drop 2% in moisture content(say 10% drops to 8%), and your widest point on the bout is 13". Birch top shrinks; 13" x .00256"= .0333" x 2(2% drop in moisture)= .0666"( about 1.7MM shrinkage) Beech Body shrinks; 13" x .00431"= .056" x 2= .112" (about 2.8MM shrinkage) Note; the longitudinal shrinkage is a very small amount and will be a tiny fraction of the radial or tangential. The amount of shrinkage and expansion at different widths will vary, and areas that are oriented with the longtitudinal will be slighter. You will also not likely have perfectly quartered or flat orientation so the numbers will vary with averages of these factors. So you will not see a perfectly even expansion or contraction all around the body. I picked a random percentage of moisture for the example. It is possible the wood was at different moisture contents when you glued them, this could make the relative change between the bits of wood even greater. Just some food for thought, Rich
  12. First, if your bandsaw is set up and performing well you can make VERY accurate cuts. Drift and cupping are real possibilites, but not something that you are helpless to control. To be able to consistently maintain accurate and consistent cuts that are +/- a few thousandths is absolutely possible, but again requires good set up and understanding of your machine. I think there is a lot of information in topics and on web sites that can help you with set up, so I won't type a long responce on set up and blade selection. Free hand cutting brings in the operator variable, which means you need to allow tolerance for your ability on top of how well your machine performs. Point fences are worthless to me, because it is not accurate enough for my repetative close tolerance resawing or gets in my way when I free hand cuts. That is just my 2 cents on that, so take it FWIW. As for headstocks. You need control. You can ruff cut with a bandsaw, but must maintain a reference surface so you can plane/sand/route(whatever you prefer) a true surface. How much you have to clean and true up will just depend on how close you can cut with a margin of safety(tolerance). As an example, I use the face of my angled headstocks as my reference surface, and ruff cut the back of the headstock with my bandsaw. I then use my open ended drum sander(referencing the face of the headstock) to true the surface. Then I adjust the volute area with my spindle sander. With a non angled headstock you are going to need to play with the front of the headstock, so it would make sense to use the back as your true reference. Using the end of a belt sander or spindle sander is a great way to deal with volutes or the transition on straight headstocks. Rich
  13. You get what you pay for. In this case a toy with no hardware.
  14. Maybe this would help visualize a little if your looking for a more archtop guitar profile. This link shows contour lines (1/8" increments) per. Bendetto's archtop instructionlink. Notice the contour is not even. Gibson's designs where drawn from archtop construction. Note also that the outer edges have a relatively flat area, then becomes more agressively tapered until you get to flatter center of the plate. The flatter area moves more freely than the inherantly stronger arched areas, which is an important concept in tuning the top plates movement. The LP follows a similar carve pattern(although of course a 13" LP is a much smaller body than a 16-18" archtop). Hope that helps. Rich
  15. It is kinda up to your personal taste, so no right or wrong. I imagine though Jason is probably on the right track. Have a look at an LP if that is what you mean by Gibson style carve. You will notice the carve is more like an archtop with a bit of recurve. Think of it like a ledge that picks up to a stronger curve. Not as even as a smooth graduated curve from the edge. Does that sound more like what you were thinkng? Rich
  16. +1 It is pretty easy to find good quartersawn Black Limba for a neck, and the cost with holes is the same as without. I am just very picky about neck wood. Rich
  17. I have a bunch of Sitka sets and billets. I cut all of them from hand split Sitka so I know the sets are cut with minimal runnout and such. If you want lower grade the factor that brings them down will be visual(which you can tell me what would be acceptable or not acceptable. There are different things that bring the grade down such as small pin knots that may have no real effect on structure(sometimes they are in areas that will be outside the pattern* but I have to degrade because I don't know what will be built with the set, sometimes it is color variance that has nothing at all to do with performance). All my Sitka is very nice old growth with pretty high ring counts(high grade or low grade), the grading is all visual. If you want sets to toy around with(experiments) I have those also. I get a big mix when I cut the raw split bolts, and if anything has a structural issue I just through it away(not worth wasting time with junk when I cut so many). Also, I can shoot you some raw split bracewood if you need. I usually don't sell bracewood, but I do have big piles of the stuff. Shoot me a PM and let me know what you are wanting to build. Let me know what visual factors are most important, and what you can live with. Also let me know if you would like some extra bits for future projects, testing or whatever. It would be best to put enough in the box to make the shipping a good deal(one set and the minimum shipping cost will be silly expensive). I have other wood for acoustics also(back & side sets and what not) if your looking for anything like that let me know what your after. I will make you a VERY good deal, and I will make sure the wood is what you want. Rich
  18. Here is a link to a search at the OLF(the subject of bending temps often comes up). link Bubinga is pretty dense. It is usually tuffer to get the denser woods fully up to temp. I don't think you really need to get much hotter than 325degF (that is of course fully heated to that temp). The problems most likely people have is from not getting the wood fully up to temp. How much water? depends on how well you can contain the steam, if you seal the slats anything more than a spritz is not needed(your goal is to generate steam to help get the heat to the wood). If your setup is not really heating evenly a bit more water can provide scortch protection. If you run very efficient transfer and can heat fast even and accurately, you don't need water at all(see Taylors vids). A low efficiency rig like bulbs or straight up open pipe bending, will require more water. Rich
  19. I will assume this is for a flat top acoustic(regular acoustic guitar* domed/radiused top and not a carved plate). I will give you the skinny on each item you mentioned. Comression. This is referencing the wood that grows around a limb or other point of focused stress(could be the lower part of the trunk). These parts of the tree develop "reaction wood" which refers to the part that becomes more comressed on the part taking the heavier load, and tension wood that is on the opposite area that is being pulled on. You wind up with a difference in the density in these areas because the tree tries to strengthen itself as needed to adjust for the load. It is also possible micro fractures and other defects can occur. This is something we try to avoid or limit as much as possible. Thin pitch streak. Pitch pockets that are large can have negative effects on strength and sometimes create finishing problems. Very small pitch pockets may be less of an issue. Large pitch pockets are problematic, and should be avoided. Runnout. Runnout does have a negative effect on strength(ability to resist load before failure). When you have more than 2-4 degrees you rapidly lose strength. The test I have run show me there is also a reduction in stiffness when all else is equal or extreamly similar(testing wood cut from the same very homogenuos billet, with the only notable difference being runnout introduced by cutting to increase or minimise this). Loss of stiffness at the same weight is less desirable, loss of strength is unacceptable(failure will lead to repair work, if the fractures are repairable). Growth rings. The number of rings and or size becomes a factor because early wood and late wood are very different in strength and density. Early wood is the lighter colored part of the rings. It grows fast with lots of moisture and is much less dense and strong compaired to late wood(dark rings). The overall ratio of late to early growh is really what is important. The more late wood the denser and stronger it will be. This is why many seek wood from that grows more slowely at high elevations where moisture is often frozen much of the year and less available to the tree for growth. You also should onsider ring spacing, as very wild swings from wide rings to skinny will give you wood with less balanced strength/stiffness across the board. Very large differences may lead to focused stress in areas instead of spreading it about the top more evenly. As far as sound, yes all these things effect sound or performance. The way you brace, set the thickness, design of bridge and on and on also effect the sound or timbre. So you should think of the differences in these terms. Will it make the soundboard less predictable for my style of build and my experience(if you are used to building with wood that has some common charictoristics, you will have more predictability. Will the wood reduce efficiency, there are differences in efficiency and the way wood will react to stress. Will the top last and remain stable, this is HUGE. Really if your work fails because of a strucural flaw that would really suck. FWIW; A Sitka soundboard with flaws like this has VERY little value. If you are trying to figure out the worth(given it does not exceed reasonable runnout levels or flaws that compramise structure) the wood is likely worth $5-7.50. Student grade soundboards have very little value, but MUST still be structurally be sound to demand that high of a premium(note; your talking about charging about $15-20 bd. ft. for that Sitka, and Sitka is normally valued at about $5-7 for good lumber grades, YOU ARE PAYING A PREMIUM). The higher priced soundboards base ALL that value on the difficulty in finding wood that meets the specs that meet the demanding requirements. Seek out $15 to 45 dollar sets (2A to 3A-These are top notch structurally and are usually not too bad visually), these are the best value for your projects. If you want to play with some sets or practice/test buy lower student grade in the $5-$12 range. Avoid getting too hyped up on "master" unless your customer wants visual grading factors to be highly important(bragging rights). Luck, Rich
  20. Walnut is fine for necks Cherry is fine for necks Actually, they are very nice woods for necks. Just be sure as with any wood, that you choose good clear straight grain wood that is well aclimated(dry and stable).
  21. I would avoid using anything other than the right tire for your machine. The right parts are not expensive, you risk bad cuts(costly), heavy blade were or damage(blades are expensive), and possible damage to your machine(Bands also help cushion the bearings, shafts and wheels as well as the blade, you snap a shaft and you may very well have a high repair bill). Urathane tires are nifty, but go ahead with stock bands if you can't find special bands(normal bands last a long time, and the cost is not as high). Attaching fixed brushes is a good idea to help keep the tires cleaner. I never use lube on the tires themselves, although I do occasionally use lube on the blade. I have never glued a tire on, they should snap in place snuggly(if they don't you have the wrong tire), and will stay put for a very long time (unless you damage them or they have been in service long enough to wear out). Keep your blade clean also, running it with heavy build up will create uneven wear, as well as cause more heat to be generated during cutting(high heat is really bad for the blade and tires, as well as is a sign the blade is not working properly). Running fine without tires? I can say there is no way in heck I could run my bandsaws without tires(functionally), nor would I want to if I could make it work(my blades are too expensive to trash, I have no interest in damaging the machine itself, and I am no about to lose expensive wood to a sloppy cut). Jason, You can use a stone(don't have to buy those specialty "bandsaw" stones, a regular fine stone works fine). The idea is to true up slight discrepancy in the back of the blade from welding, so that is will track smoothly. If you have a really bad weld or alighnment, I would get a new blade or have it re-welded, stones are not usually used to fix big issues. Peace, Rich
  22. Looks like you picked out a few nice bits of wood Is the body a thinner design? or do you plan on a cap and back set with a core? I see you chose all 4/4 and 2/4(?). I did a sandwich body on my first from scratch bass(Maple/Purpleheart/Maple), and made it thin(around 1.5"). Kinda cool looking way to go. Rich FWIW, Bocote
  23. If your attaching to your applied finish, I am assuming you are very confident in your finish bond. Most of the time you remove the finish under your bridge and make a wood to wood joint(There are a few though who really have their finishes down and attach to the finish). The requirements are somewhat the same as a fretboard, plus consideration for split resistence and weight. I really like Pau Ferro. Nice choice Rich
  24. It is a Steel City 18". Very reasonably priced IMO. The only significant upgrade on the saw is the bearing guides. They come with the same style bearings all the other brands use, I pressed those off and replaced them with wider needle bearings over twin ball bearing style(it is about $125, plus cost of pressing if you have it done buy a machine shop). I have been very happy with it. Rich
  25. It is possible to get a surface squared with a drum sander or planer, but there is a trick to doing it(you guys with sanders and planers know this). First trick is the ability to shim and hold the entire board or as much as possible(in the case of very long boards) in one position while you send it through to level the first surface. If you have a twisted board it will tilt as it passes through, if that is slight you can often put a little pressure on the board and manually hold it in place(although that is for VERY slight twists). If the board is cupped or warped, you need to be able to reference the four corners. If the infeed and outfeed are not long enough and true to the cutter or sander you will get a rising and falling cut as it runs across the infeed and outfeed. On a planer or sander it is possible to make a table or jig to level and carry the board(one plus is that we usually use small board for guitars, so these things can be made without too much trouble, long boards require much larger set ups). I would add that the smaller the machine the harder it generally is to make these work, and the feed system is important. With regards to blades vs sanding. Regular plane blades(same hold true with jointers) are tuff to use on highly figured woods, and must be sharpened and set extreamly well. There is an alternative with the cutter heads that cut smoother, will do better with figured woods, but cost more money. There is a limit to how thin you can safely go with a planer, and that will make it tuff to do very thin work. Accuracy of a planers is very good, but does not allow as close a level of control as with a sander(lets think binding and or acoustic plates). A planer will be able to produce a good surface, but you will have to slow down and make very fine passes. A drum sander can take a surface down with 220 grit(which will be smoother than hand sanding with 220, much the same as with other mechanical sanders). To be honest, I rarely use fine grit paper, because 80 will produce a surface that is very close and easy to finish sand, 120 is extreamly smooth. When hogging off ruff surfaces a planer is faster, but you can use 36 grit on a drum and remove material pretty fast. If you have a lot of material to remove on oily woods the planer will show its advantage, as sandpaper tends to clog if you get too agressive. Forget about leveling fine details or inlay with a planer(WAY too risky). Remeber that if this is dedicated to instrument work, I think most will agree the sander is the more useful tool. If you do other woodworking the planer will offer advantages and efficiency that the sander will not(with the small volume of ruff material we need to surface for instruments I don't see the need for more speed, If I was making cabnets that would be a different situation. For me, I actually like using my bandsaw to square boards(with the use of a locking slider table). If you have a good quality well tuned bandsaw you can get your boards(again I am speaking to instrument billets) very very close and a minimal amount of surfacing is required, plus you get a lot of nice veneer. I use a jointer for neck stock and side blanks. I may pick up a 12"+ planer, and I would use it over the bansaw in probably most simply ruff situations(although the bandsaw would still get a lot of the large form work). I have run a Performax 16/32 for years, and it is an invaluable tool to me. I have a small planer that mostely collects dust, although it has its place. I would say that you should not look at an open ended drum sander like the 16/32 as only something to smooth a body blank or drop top. It's uses with jigging offer a lot of options, with outstanding control(measure in a couple thousandths) and reliability. I did build a sander before buying the Performax, and will say that the conveyor makes a world of difference. The control and accuracy of the Performax is very hard to match and more importantly maintain. If you build 6-12 guitars per. year. I see the speed of a drumsander for initial hogging away material a small, although more time consuming task. The additional use and control will far surpass that issue. Price is a big consideration. Small planers can be had for much less than a small drum sander. That planer at that level will not have the control or reliability of the next step up in planers, which will be comperable to the cost of a drum sander, yet still not have the features of the drum sander. You will have to sink several times that much into a wide enough jointer to be able to get the leveling job done efficiently. It all comes down to budget really, if a drum sander would take a little saving and then become an option, I would consider it over a planer. If that is not in the cards and or you have a need for other plaining(cabnets, furnature, etc...) consider your planer options(again the next step up may serve you much better if it is an option). Think about these tools as 10-20+ year companions in your shop. Rich
×
×
  • Create New...