aidlook

but then again...the initial question was 'can'.. and crafty?..I hope you're talking about the real budweiser from the czech republic, because that's the drinkable one.

You really think you could notice a difference in sound between different glues??

it's magnets and copperwire basically....it's not really hi-tech stuff. I'd say yeah "unbranded" ones can be good.

Hint: if there are little red dots under a word after you've written it...it's misspelled.

...fill the cavity

First of all I'd like to start of by thanking Brian for this awesome forum and source of information. Best luthiere forum on the net no doubts about it (of course that's my humble opinion). But these picture posting rules are getting very old-fashioned and is a downside of this otherwise great community. At some point it is inevitable that these rules must change, and I think it's about time to revise and update them. Technology moves forward at a rapid rate and the forum should try to keep up with it at some level. At the moment you can get 100/100 Mbit internet connections in my hometown and it is fairly common. I myself is at a 10/10 Mbit connection with a 10 Gb/day bandwidth. Here, this is nothing extraordinary at all. I understand that this is an international forum where standards are not the same all over the world. But broadband is widely available and common in most areas. A 1 picture per post rule seems very silly in this day and age and is very likely to cause annoyance to a majority of the members. It also makes for a bigger workload for the mods to have to edit posts with multiple pictures (the mods on this board are doing an awesome job btw. and it's sad that they now also have to take care of the daily spam, wich in a better world shouldn't even be an issue). Multiple pictures posts would be great and give a better instant overview of progress pictures. I mean, come on, honestly it is very annoying to have to click on multiple links and open multiple windows just to view some small pictures. Of course there should be restrictions regarding both picture size and number of pictures in a post. But these rules definately needs a change IMO (and I don't think I'm alone on this subject). I created this poll to see what other people think, and to try to spark a debate on what would be a better sulotion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people generally want to keep the old rules. But I think that we could make this forum even better by renewing things every once in a while. The rules can remain or change...I will still drop by dayly to be inspired by the talent on this great board. /thank you

masking tape?

3D pictures are usually done in some CAD-software i.e. Solidworks ProEngineer etc. 2D "drawings" are made in 2D-CAD software like Autocad. You can get really nice 2D renderings using vector-based Graphic-software like Adobe illustrator. And of course you can fiddle around in photoshop or paint for that matter. there are some web-based guitar-design software. Works great for rendering "the usual" body styles...

where's queen?

Nice industrial view though...

hehe...funny thing...that lion has nothing to do with göteborg...and I've had it since before I moved here..

Headstock back of neck

Best sounding, most powerful passive, Hi Z humbuckers I have ever heard. I'd throw in a "best looking" as well... I'm really considering these for a future project...They just look awesome.

I read the first post..but couldn't bother to read the whole thread.. But I'd start of with DPDT miniswitches for activating each individual pickup. Then concentric tone/volume knobs for all of them. alternatively I'd get push/pull pots for pickup on/off as well as volume or tone control.

Göteborg....yourself?? Cool Scott French influenced shape! I'm curious about the cutout at the bottom of the guitar. Did you have a practical reason for that or was it primarily an aesthetic choice? Regards, Rob No...mainly aesthetical...But I'm not so shure anymore, might do a completely different shape. I'm getting the wood some time next week, most probably alder, and we'll see what it turns out like once it's cut

How are those neodynium pickups sounding??

I actually don't know what that hole back there is supposed to be...looks like a trem-route...but about 1 dm away from where it's supposed to be.. I'd say just fill in everything... cut the crap...away. Throw on a wraparound. Take your time and do it RIGHT...if you feel the need to suddenly try an "awesome idea"....do it on scrap.

Well, they do say right on the site that it looks "organic" (i.e. it looks like a pile of sh*t). I just know that I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to do a fret crown on one of those! I actually read that if you manage to wear them out they'll replace them for a nominal fee...although the neck is like 600 bucks anyway...

Got a lot of work done last 2 days. Finished pressing in the frets yesterday, made a fret-beveling tool and beveled them all to 45 degrees. Today I made sidedots out of Aluminium TIG welding wire. Glued them in and leveled. Also carved the neck and this is what it looks like now.

I think I have a huge one in the workshop at school....just haven't had time to check it out. Better get one of the experienced guys to show me how it works...

you could still do this

I just carved a neck today.. Used a rasp and then an orbital sander (a REALLY good orbital sander)...

I actually don't believe in the idea at all to be honest....ok it might help intonation a bit....but it looks like ****....And EVERY legendary guitarist ever has sounded quite good without it....also the price is waay to high.

That's what I thought as well, but apparently it doesn't....well except for maybe those extreme ones.. I just happened to stumble across the site because one of the guys of that company writes for the biggest Swedish guitar magazine...

Or there's this... true temperament