A_M

Couldn't you tweak your previously posted head design to get it to work by rotating the sides inward a bit and then rescaling one side (making it assymetric) to better work for a 4&3 design? Something like this, although it probably would need some rescaling to fit the tuners and could be made to look better, but you get the idea.

The Swedish word björk is Birch in English, and I've sometimes seen it used where maple is otherwise commonly used. Ruokangas Guitars use figured arctic birch for tops. I've always thought it'd look cool with Masur (type of figuring) Birch used as a top or headstock overlay, but I've never seen it done before.

If you don't mind the weight and price I think an all macassar ebony or a ziricote neck would be really cool.

Ok, I've never actually wired up a guitar (haven't come that far with my current project) but just by mentally tracing the path from ground to switch/vol control in that 5-way rotary diagram this is what I think: The rotary switch is divided into 4 sections (two on each half), and on a 6-way rotary there'd just be an additional lug in each section. As far as I can see all you'd have to do for each section (imaging them numbered 1-4 from top to bottom, where section 3 isn't used) is this: section 1: connect lug 6 to ground (just as lug 2 & 3) section 2: connect lug 6 to ground (just like lug 5) section 4: connect lug 6 to switch or vol control Again I'm no expert at all (I'm sure those who are will correct me if I'm wrong), but as far as I can see it's just that simple.

Now I'm certainly no guitar wiring expert but I have a basic understanding of maths and electronics. And if my maths serve me right you'd need a -1.5MOhms resistor placed in parallel with the pot for the desired effect. Sadly enough, I've never been able to find any components with negative resistance. Finding a 500k pot and a 750k resistor might be easier... AFAICS two resistors in parallel can never be equivilant of a resistance above the lowest value of the individual resistors. And wiring a resistor in series will as Maiden69 says result in an unwanted shift of the pots range.

Stringed instruments with different scale lengths for each string have existed long before Novax's patent, and I'm fairly certain it is possible to make multi-scale fretboard instruments that work and look much like the Fanned Fret system without infringing on the patent. There was a long and heated discussion about this on the MIMForum but I can't find it now. A multi-scale 5-string bass was also recently posted over there, and it supposedly does not rely on the Fanned Fret concept.

Love the neck, burl and body design. I just have one suggestion on how to make the body (at least to me) more aesthetically pleasing: The way your horns are cut in a kind of curved manner is nice, but when seeing these two curved "cut lines" my mind tries to join the two lines together - which isn't possible with a single simple (non-S-shaped) line following the curvature of the two "cut lines". This, to me, gives a slight feeling that the horns have been somewhat disjointed (the lower horn looks like it should be further up the neck, or the other way around). Although your design is really cool, and most likeley very few would think of what I just mentioned, I would personally trim the horns so that both of the cut edges follow the same smooth curve. Here's an example: Your design on top, where my "mental line" doesn't quite match up with the horns, and below an example where both horns have been cut by the same curve. The cut could probably have been made even better (perhaps with more curvature to the cut line) but I think you get the idea. Just my 0.02 SEK...

A guy named John Catto made an awesome Metal Top LP Style Guitar (pics here) and I believe there was a thread over at the MIMForum dedicated to it were some of the process was discussed.

Another p/w/p vote here. Also, a question about something I've thought about before. I've always thought it would look cool to split the center laminate of a three piece neck vertically, and cut the truss rod slot out of the lower piece, then glue them together again. And then glue on the outer pieces to hide the seam. I'd then use the whole thing w/o a separate fingerboard. So do you more experienced builder think it would somehow be a bad idea to use a laminate for a fretboard like that? I personally think a padouk/wenge/padouk neck built like that without a separate fingerboard would look awesome, but perhaps better suited for a custom designed neck-thru than a JEM.

Some inspiration perhaps? Koll Custom RE 7/6

Alarung, could it be that it's right for the high E and B strings and not the rest is that they are plain steel ("PL"), whereas your input for the other strings are "PB", which tells the applet to assume the strings are phosphor bronze wound. Whereas I believe the D'Addario XL's are nickel plated steel? Don't take my word for it though, I'm certainly no expert and that website clearly states "The results of this calculator are not guaranteed to be correct!"

here --> http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html

i think if you get it to work, your gonna have major problems on a 7 string thats tuned to A, much less G that isnt a baritone. and a 7 baritone is a large guitar. Oops, it seems I neglected to mention that I'm planning for a 27" scale length. Which according to the online string tension calculator I used would give me approximately the same tensions tuned a whole step down as a 25.5" scale guitar would tuned to standard pitch, using the same guage strings.

I finally got the package with wood for my guitar project (my first) last week, and I've been cleaning up the garage and building a simple workbench so I should be able to get started soon. Anyways, while otherwise pleased with the wood I had a big *doh!*-moment when I realized that due to a miscalculation on my part my neck blank is rougly an inch too short for my current headstock design. My neck blank is thick enough to cut the neck+headstock from this single piece (which is what I initially was planning to do) but if I instead opted for a scarf joint for the headstock the neck blank will probably be long enough. I could otherwise easily fix this by making a new headstock design with a different tuner arrangement, which is what I'm probably gonna do - unless you guys think, for stability reasons, using a scarf joint for the headstock is worth the extra work and risk of having the result not looking quite as good? I'm also wondering if any of you guys have had any experience with D-Tuners, particularly the Hipshot Guitar Xtender keys? Anyone know if they can be used for a seven-string guitar? I've been playing a little with the idea of using one for this guitar - which will be a seven-string meant to be tuned a whole step below standard (ADGCFAD low->high). The lever would then drop the low A string to a G. Think that would be a possible?

The walnut that the Lumberlady sells, juglans australis (some kind of South American Walnut), is supposedly very dark - almost black. I've ordered some for the body of my first guitar but it hasn't arrived yet so I can't personally comment on its looks. http://yumahardwoods.homestead.com/walnut.html

While we're at it - Does anyone know where to find hardwood dowels/rods of more exotic species to use for fingerboard dot markers (top, not side)? I'd like to avoid using plastic or pearl/alabone for inlay and have been wondering if I could find some nice hardwood dowels of a species that would sufficiently contrast a Macassar Ebony fingerboard and that doesn't require a finish. If not, I think I'll go with a clean/no inlay look for the top of the fingerboard of this (my first project) and just use small plastic or pearl side dot markers.

Sure they do: http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bindings,_trim..._Materials.html

I thought asymmetric necks generally where thinner on the treble side... Separate drawings found here.

I haven't ever built a guitar yet, nor have I played any redwood-bodied ones - so I can't comment on it's qualities. But I know it's been done before... Ellie Erickson from the MIMF forum has made a few: http://www.ellieguitars.com/content/finished/electrics.php

I've ordered a bookmatched quilted redwood set (hasn't yet arrived) to use as a top for my first guitar project. Anyway, I'm curious about why Warmoth says it's "not suitable for hollow bodies"? I wasn't planning on making a proper hollowbody or anything, just chambering lightly, mainly for reduced weight - could this somehow be a problem? Also, since redwood is quite soft and dents easily, will binding the body practically be a must? (for protection against dings and dents) Also, is there any easy way (I'm more or less a complete newbie to woodworking and such) to treat the wood to make it more durable without taking away from it's looks or tone?

Perhaps an acoustic (hollow) marble guitar? It's not like stone instruments haven't been done before... For example, a stone violin.

I volunteer! soapbarstrat mentioned that one of his favorite advantages of zero fret equipped guitars was that the strings can move around a bit over the zero fret easing string bending etc. Has anyone experimented with placing the nut on a guitar with a zero string further away than just a few millimeters from the nut? Could that ease bending/improve playability even more or would the additional movement over that fret just disastrously increase wear to the zero fret? (I saw a post in the MIMF Library where someone stated that the zero fret on his guitar was not as worn as the 1st and 2nd frets, presumably because of the proximity of the nut hindering the strings from moving around and grinding against the fret so much)

Ok, I probably haven't been clear enough (and maybe had my terminology mixed up regarding baritones). The guitar I intend to build would be a seven string, tuned a whole step lower than what is usual for seven strings, in other words ADGCFAD. I am considering making it a 27" scale for reasons of tone as well as tension (according to an online string tension calculator making it 27" scale would give approx. the same tension tuned a whole step down as a 25.5" scale with the same strings in standard tuning). I have Martin Koch's book "Building Electric Guitars" which states that: Which is why I was wondering if this guitar with it's current specs would require baritone strings or if a normal string set would suffice. And the concept of baritone strings is nothing particularly odd, most major string manufacturers make baritone guitar string sets.

Yeah but aren't baritone strings longer than a normal set of strings? What I've been planning on making is a seven string guitar with 27" scale length, intended to be tuned below standard tuning. However not as low as most baritones (a whole fifth or more below standard). What I am wondering is if I can build my guitar this way and still use a regular set of strings instead of baritone strings - will the normal guitar strings reach all the way from the tuners to the tailpiece of a guitar with 27 inch scale length?

Now this feels like a really silly/stupid questions but I figured being a newbie both to playing guitars and building guitars entitles me to at least one stupid question... So, how long are normal guitar strings generally? (full length not scale length) Or rather what I want to know is how much, if any, margin is there for building a guitar with a longer than normal (>25.5") scale length without having to use baritone strings?