Mickguard

Isn't the string spacing really determined by the type of pickups you'll be using? In other words, you'll be choosing a bridge that places the strings over the pole pieces of the pickups. Of course, you can use blade-style pickups to avoid that issue. You are not required to use a TOM with a Bigsby by the way. You can adapt some hardtail bridges to your purposes -- just file the back edge to allow the strings to pass over the saddles. It's easier to do this with Tele-style plates that use three-barrel saddles, of course.

2 mm at the 7th fret? You sure you're measuring correctly? And if it buzzes like crazy, how does that give it more clarity? More likely you nudged the strings a bit closer to the pickups, that's all. And a new nut is not going to get rid of the buzz -- only the open string buzz.

There's just no need for glue. Think about it. The tailpiece provides enough downward pressure, and there's nothing pushing/pulling the bridge otherwise. And there's no real difference between using a bushing and screwing directly into the wood, since the bushing is inserted into a hole in the wood too.

I think he's just all excited and wanted to share the news.

Not to be my usual grumpy ol' morning self, but... You've been a member here since 2003, and you still don't know any of this stuff? I repeat, just take it to a guitar shop, they'll sort the guitar out in five minutes.

Guitar store. Pay the tech to do it.

Two words: Run away.

So what does that sound like? I'm really tempted to make something similar, just to get access to some nice low tones while still playing 'guitar'.

Putty? Huh? Can you post a picture? Did you save the piece that came off? If you have the piece, then the fix is fairly simple, just glue it back in -- no dust necessary. Be very careful that no metal touches the glue (maybe wipe the gap and the piece with naphtha first) because that will darken the glue line. By the time you're finished sanding, staining, grain-filling, sealing, finishing, the line will become more or less invisible. Especially since, as you say, it's on the back toward the bottom -- who's ever gonna look at that anyway? If you don't have the piece, that's a little more complicated. But it's still possible to complete a pretty decent repair -- you'll want to reshape a new piece to match the gap, paying attention to the grain line -- chances are you have scrap from the rough cut, you can grab a piece from the same part of the blank. Use a slightly oversize piece. Since the glue will render the wood a bit flexible, you'll be able to work it into place, then sand as necessary. And I find mahogany to be quite forgiving in terms of this kind of repair, because of the grain and the way it seems to shimmer when it's been sanded. Fixing mistakes like this is a great way to learn about the possibilities of wood.

Wanna bet it's his kid brother? Or maybe his son? Someone's pissed off he wouldn't let them borrow the car, that's for sure! At any rate, there's no way it's fookgub, just look at his other posts, a completely different style. Great story though! It'd make a great reality tv show: call it "I Love Texas Idiots" or something like that.

I'd tape off the rest of the neck first though, and the fingerboard too. No point in scuffing up the finish.

Just a note...when I see the word 'template' I think of an actual cutout of the body shape (using MDF, pine, whatever) that you then use to guide your router. But you seem to be speaking of the plans for the guitar -- in which case, there are a variety of resources for that. Incuding this forum-- if you donate as a member, you'll have access to the downloads section. You can bring the file to a printer if you like (or find a friend who works for an architect or similar) who'll print the plan for you in real size. An A3 size printer works pretty well, and an A4 printer will work too --in both cases, you'd print out various parts of the body, then tape the pages back together. If you don't feel like learning to use Autocad, surely you know someone who already knows how. Now, even with the plan, you'll still need a template ---and like the man says, this is probably the most important step in making the guitar. As long as you're starting out, one way to go would be to take an existing guitar body and use that to cut your template -- you'd use a follower bit for that. It helps if the body's a beater but I've had luck wrapping a guitar in celophane, then taping off the side to give a smooth edge for the router to follow. This only works if you're looking to make an existing guitar design, of course.

I just have a feeling you're overthinking this. Between the existing radius of the bridge and the play provided by the saddle slots, there's no reason why you should have problems. I did notice that some of the TOM bridges had a 14" radius, which would make more sense for a guitar with a compound fretboard moving toward a 16" radius. The nut slot depths will accommodate for that end of the fretboard (i.e., 10 or 12").

That's the mystery for me -- I'm thinking that by definition relief means that there's sufficient bow in the neck so that the strings don't touch the middle frets.

A lot of LP Jrs and Melody Makers have really slight angles too, so I don't think that's the problem. And the lack of an angle would usually mean that you can't get the bridge low enough-- so the strings would never touch the frets anyway--unless the fretboard itself stood high enough. That's because TOM bridges usually stand higher than, say, the Fender style bridge. So I'd think that problem lies elsewhere, like there's no relief in the neck.

I've had both the licensed and cloned versions of a couple of Bigsbys -- the only difference between the licensed version and the copy from what I could tell was the lack of the Bigsby logo -- otherwise it's pretty apparent they're made in the same factory. Although I have to say the difference in price wasn't that huge-- I paid 39 euros for the clone, and 65 dollars or so (back when the dollar was worth something) for the licensed version. I actually preferred the copy because the spring was stiffer. But if you gotta have the logo, then the Bigsby is the way to go. My understanding is that the 'authentic' Bigsbys are made from a different metal and using a different process -- they're more rustic-looking, and the clones are possibly lighter in weight.

This site ought to give you some ideas.

I don't see an issue using 'Stratocaster' since your 'brand' is clearly not Fender. Although I'd suggest that you could easily come up with a play on the stratocaster name too.

I vote for the dud string idea too. Or you might have accidentally put a kink in it. If you put a capo on it, say on the first fret, does it intonate at the 'new' 12th fret? That'll tell you if it's the nut or not, I figure.

I'm still wondering about this, since the other loopers don't have loop outs either -- even the Headrush, which provides FOUR outputs for the tape echo effect, can't seem to offer a wet/dry option for the looper. Maybe on the next reiteration. In the meantime, I've received the pedal and it is indeed wonderful -- easy to use, sounds great, and it's an amazing practice tool, I really should have picked one up a long time ago -- hours of solo wankerage at the touch of a switch! But the lack of a dedicated FX output is a problem. It's especially important for me since I use tremolo pretty often, and that's in the amp. But I don't want tremolo on the Looper. Also, having both the loop and the live wanking going into the same out starts sounding a little mashed to me, especially since it's difficult to control the levels of both (or all three, if I turn up the drum beat). So I'm still going with a dual amp setup, since I already have a dual looper (that is, the effect loop type), which is a good workaround for the lack of FX out. So the guitar goes into the input of the dual FX loop, and the first switch sends it through the entire effects chain into one half of that. I put a Y-jack at the end of the chain -- one half goes directly into the amp, the other half goes back into the first return on the dual loop. I placed a dummy jack on the second loop's send -- this functions as a kill switch for the guitar signal/effects chain. The output of the dual loop goes into the RC-2, which outputs into the second amp. This way I can record the loop, then hit the kill switch, so only the loop goes to that amp. And I can procede to wank away into the other amp. Or choose to go into both amps anyway (gets a decent stereo effect). Instead of having a dummy on the second FX loop, I can also build a second chain dedicated to the looper -- like the octave boxes, since I won't use those as much live. But I lose the kill switch, which is nice to have-- in order to erase the loop, you have to hold it down, which sends a second or so of the loop out anyway --that'll sound weird live. Still leaves open the possibility of getting an amp that will work better with the looper -- maybe one with more clean overhead. We'll see how easy/difficult it is playing with the loops -- next practice is on Friday.

Huh. I didn't know that was possible.

Hold on there, partner. Let's back up a bit. First: did the guitar play properly when you first built it, or did you have the buzzing problem right from the start? Kind of important information. If the guitar only developed the buzzing later on -- how come you didn't just adjust the truss rod? That's what it's there for, to accommodate for the changes in atmospheric conditions that can make a guitar neck move. And since you're in Quebec, it makes sense that the neck will move a bit with the changing seasons. And if the truss rod doesn't work, then you ought to address THAT problem first.

Very difficult to find players around here (boondocks, France). Took me years to find the drummer. But we're definitely open to other players. It just might take a while to find the right one. In the meantime... I'm not afraid of the technology (I've been working with synthesizers since the early 80s), so the looper should be a fun extension for a few of the songs. Some of the songs are quite simple -- really just a guitar riff and drum beat--no need for the looper there. Others are a bit more layered. Some are downright tortured. And yes, one of the reasons the drummer wants to move towards an electronic kit is to have a better control over the sound -- that way we can use the drums exactly as Pete's suggesting, to add in the missing bass tones, other notes/sounds the songs might require. Although it's unlikely I'll be laying down multiple loops live -- most of the songs really only require a backing riff to work. And then for the most part it'll be a matter of launching the riff before launching the rest of the song. Which means we'll still be able to set the tempos 'live' (that is, according to our mood, not according to a preset's tempo). I'm also not trying to reproduce a recorded sound onstage -- I like the live show to be different from what we've recorded, and each live show to be different from the last. The drummer's had experience playing with samplers and the like in his last band, so he's not afraid of the challenge either. I've always been reluctant to use them, because I hate being locked into the same tempo all the time. But for one or two songs a set, that won't be a big deal. The looper can also be used for non-time-based loops too you know .... And yeah, it's surprising but none of the loopers in this range (the RC-20XL, the Jamman, the Headrush) has a dedicated output for the effects. Still, the looper should let me get rid of the extra amp --less to carry around, less to worry about. I should point out that part of the concept of the band is that we're not necessarily working toward a collection of songs which share more or less a similar sound, but more toward an entire show -- that is, the song styles themselves are able to vary fairly widely (held together by a couple of constants, especially my vocal delivery). So each song offers a different opportunity to experiment with the sound. As for the 2x12 thing -- so that will leave me with just 2 x 12 anyway (the Vox's speaker and one of the cab's speakers). Maybe I'll change for a different cab then. Something lighter Oh yeah, another idea I'm working on -- I have an octaver (2 octaves down) and I'm expecting an octave up as well -- I'm wondering if I can feed the inputs of both from a Y-cable , and the use a second Y-cable to blend their signals back together again before moving on in the chain. This way each box will respond to the original signal (and not have one attempt to process the signal of the other). If it works, it should be give an interesting sound... But yeah, the pedalboard's full now ...time to move on to other gear territories....

I have an old Boss EQ that gives a 12db for each frequency range and for the global output, so that works pretty well through the effect loop. I'll definitely be looking into some EH goodies in the future, but for right now I'm also trying to keep my pedal board down to a manageable size (i.e., it has to fit in the flight case I have). On the other hand, I've been rethinking my dual-amp concept -- I've come to the conclusion that it's just not enough to double the guitar signal, I really need to be able to work with multiple parts. So I've ordered a looper -- the Loop Station RC-2 . I chose this one because it'll fit on my pedalboard and it has a few slots for preset loops, so I won't have to do all the looping live on every song. I'll have an octaver and a bass synth on the pedalboard, so generating convincing bass tones will be easy. One thing I don't understand about loopers is that they don't seem to have wet/dry outputs -- they seem oriented to use with a single amp. But I like the idea of streamlining the rig to one amp anyway, just less to carry. I can run my Vox into the 2x12, which I believe will give me a 3 x 12 rig...should be enough to handle the lows? * Also, the drummer's considering going electronic, either with a full kit or an octopad type rig, so we'll have more options for adding in the extra tones we need that way too. * Followup speaker question: the Vox requires a 16 ohm exterrnal cabinet in order to use the internal speaker as well -- my 2x12 has a switch that operates in 16 ohm, which turns it into stereo -- is that good enough? But does that mean I have to use both input jacks on the cab, or just the one on the stereo side...and in that case, is it looking for a stereo jack? Don't have a manual for the cab... I don't want to blow up the Vox...

Touchy touchy. If you're going to make bad jokes, why can't we make our own in response? Do yourself a favor and research the idea of converting a bolton neck to a setneck first.