RandomAccess

I was thinking of trying a Carvin kit myself, as a good way to experiment with a Carvin guitar (All I hear is good things about them) but I cant seem to find them on the site anymore; it appears as though Carvin has done some revamping and lost some content and gained some broken links along the way. Any ideas? -Random

I think it all depends on what you consider ugly I think that guitar in the pictures looks "plain". A guitar is a beautiful thing and some just look more flashy than others. Besides, when youre on stage playing, and you get lost in the music...are you even looking at the guitar? Who the hell CARES what it looks like...its all eye candy, a selling factor. Its hard to break myself of that habbit.."ohhhh...it looks so preeetttttyyy..." too bad it sounds like crap -Random

*bump*

Wow guys, thanks alot. Can anybody elaborate more on this secondary harmonics thing? And I thought the string trees on fenders were to keep tension by putting the strings on a straighter angle with the tuners, which is the equivilant of angling back the headstock...or am I wrong about that? My C1-Classic has a TonePros bridge (which I neglected to mention ) and string through the body. my bridge is locked in place with or without strings on it, so the string rattleing wouldnt be a problem, and besides...If you use string through body (which I had planed on doing...but also neglected to mention ) wouldnt that give a good enough yank on it anyway? Really? Do you have any idea what would cause it? Ive never really heard of such a thing... and Nouseforone...it depends on the bridge, but on a bolt on neck guitar, you just need to add shims to the back side to raise the neck angle if you use a TOM style bridge...that is, if you modify it to use a TOM...it it comes from the factory or you build it with a TOM bridge you would just angle the end of the neck that fits into the neck pocket. (If Im wrong about that...someone please tell me :D ) Anyway...thanks again, been tons of help already -Random

Well I understand the need for good action, obviously; but to my knowledge, if you just sink the posts (and the actual bridge itself, you rout a cavity for the bridge to sit in) on a TOM style bridge, you can level the neck, bringing the strings parallel to the body and neck, but still giving you great action...I think...:-p -Random

Hello out there, I was wondering if anyone could tell me why the neck of a neck-thru guitar needs to be angled back. Is there any reason why you couldnt "sink" the bridge down into the body (neck)? That is assuming youre using a tune-o-matic style bridge; but why couldnt you use a hardtail or trem style? Wouldnt that allow you to keep the neck perpendicular to the body wings? Ive seen that on carvin guitars, they are made this way, or a variation of it at least. I have a Schecter C1 classic, and it has an angled neck and an angled headstock. If i were to lay the guitar on the ground, all the weight rests on the headstock because its farther back than the bottom of the body. This seems "not-good" (for lack of a better term) although, I dont think it would cause that much of a problem, I still dont like it. Does anyone know any benefits to angling the neck? Im considering making my guitar a neck-thru, but dont like this angling thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks alot -Random