Mickguard

Looks to me like the neck is too high -- there should only be like five millimeters of neck (i.e. to the line of the fretboard) above the body line. So you'll need to route the neck pocket deeper. I believe the top of the fretboard at the center should stand about 10 mm proud of the body, but everything depends on the neck itself. The bridge should be flush -- you'll be able to figure out how high the fretboard (and frets) need to be by measuring the height of the saddles. Is the body thin, or it that the carve we see?

Maybe lay off the beer before you post. Am I right in thinking that what you want to do is convert a bolt-on neck to a set neck? If that's the case, do a search for that, it's been covered, you'll find advice on how to accomplish that. But you really don't need to add a tenon, just prepare the existing heel for gluing -- if you'll be cutting your own neck pocket, that won't be a problem at all, just strip the heel back to bare wood. There are plenty of examples of setneck guitars that more or less use the full width of the heel as the tenon. You also don't need to remove the fretboard.

I think what happened is that GFS started out as just another Artec reseller, then built up enough volume where they could launch their own pickup designs (still through Artec or another manufacturer although I'm pretty certain Artec is THE big pickup manufacturer). Or at least, their own pickup COVER designs, since really all that's under the hood is wire and magnets. Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what GFS does -- it's all in the marketing. Give the pickup a name like 'Liverpool' and watch sales fly. I just think people ought to be aware that they're not getting anything special here. I've worn Converse since I was a kid. I still do, even though Converse as a manufacturer no longer exists. But I also have a pair of Allstar knockoffs. They're EXACTLY the same shoe. No doubt they were made in the same factory. Mostly though, I buy my boots at yard sales. And avenger, I'm just kidding around most of the time. My smartass levels rise and fall depending on the time of day, how much coffee, wine or beer is in me. Didn't mean to offend. As for the Rick sound thing -- I used to think that pickups meant much more than wood type to the tone of a guitar. That was until I started playing an ash tele - the difference in tone between that and my alder tele is huge (the ash tele wins). So I'm willing to bet that the maple used in the Ricks (and the way they're built) has a lot to do with the sound too.

1) That link doesn't pull up anything. Neither does shortening the URL to the home page. 2) My Google search for "artec pickups" doesn't get that site anywhere in the first ten pages. That's why I asked. But thank you for the condescending tone. I deeply appreciate it. No problem, always happy to help. Don't know why the link doesn't work for you though. And when I typed 'artec' in google it was the second hit listed. I suppose you won't just take my word for it that the link led to a page with 40 or so references to pickups that look exactly like everything GFS sells?

For the rough carving, I use a small Stanley surform with the blade set so the action occurs when I pull toward myself. I like the control I get over that, it takes off the wood fairly quickly, and you can control the depth of the cut as you get closer to the final shape. I use rasps for the transitions points. I like to use 3M sandpaper when I get to the final shaping -- the 100 grit takes off wood surprisingly quickly, just allows you to maintain a smooth surface. In fact, the 3m stuff is so good, I refuse to buy any other type. So I'd suggest that a relatively coarse grit would be all you need to get this neck into shape, since it's already started. With sandpaper, you can really adjust the neck to your hand. But then, carving is probably my favorite step in building, I like to take a lot of time doing it. I'll spend three or four days shaping the neck, just because it's a pleasure (and I'm in no rush).

Well, I'm on the slope toward 50...the farts come out all by themselves I just received a Guyatone Micro Octaver and a Behringer Bass synth....the Guyatone tracks really well, gets an excellent deep bass sound without too much distortion. They suggest placing a compression before the pedal and playing on the neck pickup, which help the tracking. Another nice thing is that the pedal's is really small, helps to fit it on my pedal board. The Behringer (BSY600) seemed pretty great too -- definitely got some great analog synth sounds there, with lots of options for waveforms... except that a few minutes after powering it up the unit fizzed out...takes down the rest of the daisy chain too (when it's plugged in, the other pedals' lights start blinking) and when I try it with a battery, the battery gets hot really fast. On the positive side, Behringer responded to my email within about three hours --they're going to replace the box, and even pay the shipping. So props go to them for that. In the meantime, the Guyatone gets a pretty convincing bass tone out of it -- I'm looking to borrow a bass amp right now, to test that out. I might still replace one of my guitar amps with that.

I haven't been able to find it, a corporate website, or a primary American distributor. Little help? Um...maybe you didn't want to find it... or you haven't heard of Google yet? Artec makes all of your pickups ...you'll also notice that they make all of GFS's mod circuits as well... At any rate, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with GFS or anyone else sourcing their pickups from Artec or any other country. I don't like it when they pretend that they're doing something special though. They've got people believing they're some kind of boutique pickup company, when they're merely an ebay reseller. GFS has definitely encouraged that misperception. I agree, if you want to get closer to the Rickenbacker sound, then buy Rickenbacker pickups.

Artec makes (or made) most of the no-name pickups out there. Just have a look at their catalog, you'll find every one of GFS's pickups there. The same pickups are sold by other ebay sellers. GFS is just branding, as far as I can tell. It's all in the marketing--it's a brand created by an ebay seller, that's all. He's very good at the marketing speak, that's for sure. Of course he claims that they (GFS) 'voice' their pickups or otherwise somehow have a hand in their design. Which probably boils down to choosing the pickups from the different pages of the catalog. And in the last year or so they've had their brand stamped directly on some of the pickups -- it's possible they're no longer made by Artec, of course. Perhaps they've shifted their purchasing to one of the Chinese factories that have been churning out pickups in the last few years. Or Artec has been sourcing its pickups from China, etc. How else do you think all those Asian-built knockoffs get their pickups? But don't kid yourself, there's very little chance that GFS actually designs their pickups. And no chance at all that they have any hand in their manufacture. This is what the world has become, after all. Hard to find anything with a brand that represents a real company that actually manufactures what it sells. There's a reason why GFS sells its pickups so cheaply (and why other ebay sellers sell the same pickups for even less), and why a true boutique handwound pickup costs significantly more. Don't know if there's any real difference in quality between the two, really.

Yeah, I was going to mention the Vox thing. Don't know what Tom Petty uses though.

I'm pretty sure most Rics are made of maple --they're basically hollowbodies, more so than chambered. The Rickenbacker site has some good photos of that part. And I know that some of the Rics use multi-laminate necks. Not sure how much that would contribue to the sound. But a maple body definitely goes a long way. So I'd put that at the top of the list of features. You can buy Rickenbacker pickups easily enough. I have one of their scatterwound pups. Although if you want a three-pickup guitar, that gets pricey. The stuff Guitarfetish sells look good but don't really sound anything like what you'd expect a Ric to sound like, despite the marketing hype. He does admit that the pickups are wound hotter, which of course changes the sound. And they're made by Artec anyway, you can find those pretty cheaply too. I have a set of an earlier GFS model (mini-humbuckers) that do capture some of the jangle. They get kind of microphonic at high levels. I'm not a big fan of the Ric bridge, although I've only had real contact with a shoddy copy of the real thing. Don't know about scale length -- John Lennon's guitar was a short scale.

Heh...too bad all the good solutions would cost me upwards to a grand. We'll see what comes up used around here though. I tried to find a demo of the fat switch and wasn't able too. I'm tempted to look into a baritone guitar --or something like that Fender VI. At least for the songs that need the bottom end more than the top end.

If you do use glue on the toothpick, all you need is ordinary wood glue, not epoxy. It's just to rebuild the wall a bit to make the insert fit snugly. You'd more than likely achieve the same thing with just jamming the toothpick in there without glue. Using the glue would make the fix permanent, that's all. If you wanted to be really precise about it, you could make a shaving of the same wood as the body and glue that in as a lining to the hole. Regardless, the fix will be invisible. Depends on you -- if you're the type who will always be bothered by just the idea that there's a toothpick in there, then go for the more permanent fix. If you were a pro-builder and the guitar was for sale, then you'd be awfully embarrassed if the new owner happened to look under the hood...

Yep, that's probably true. The glue is just to make the fix a bit more permanent.

I'm planning to change the speaker in my Vox when I change the tubes (which won't be until they start to fail). Although I like the sound of the existing speaker well enough -- it'd be nice to find someone with the same amp who has already changed the speaker. I like Pete's suggestion -- a cute female bassplayer would definitely help fill out the bottom end... I'm not against adding a third player, but that's going to have to wait until just the right person comes along. I don't want to add any more hardware though -- I always do this, add more and more gear until I reach a saturation point and end up getting nowhere. I'd consider getting a bigger two-channel amp, the kind that let two instruments plug in at the same time. I'm also going to experiment with adding different octave boxes together-- sort of a poor man's HOG. Unless there's a potential of phase cancellation with that?

Well, how easy is easy? If you turn the guitar upside down, does it fall out by itself? If not, it probably isn't an issue at all. Especially if it's a tuneamatic, since you'll still have the tailpiece applying downward pressure on the whole assembly. I would NOT put epoxy on the insert, since that will make it much more difficult to remove if ever need be. A much easier approach would be to glue a bit of scrap wood (toothpicks, etc) into the side of the hole --that way the insert will press in much more snugly. Removing the inserts is pretty easy, I protect the guitar's surface (cardboard, cloth, whatever) and use a clawhammer with a block of wood as a lever to lift it up (with the stud screwed in a bit). You shouldn't need much pressure at all to lift it.

The only way that would work would be if you were using the exact neck and exact bridge and exact body that the template requires -- in other words, you'll need to make your own measurements and your own template. You're better off looking for full body templates, everything will be done for you.

Please add on to my wish list an Electro Harmonix Hog...with footswitch and expression pedal, of course.

Ah, that's the million dollar question...I'm still working on sorting this out. The music is highly repetitive, rather minimalist stuff -- I'm basically repeating the same riff over and over (with occasional finger extensions), and adding or focusing on notes depending on which section of the strings I'm targeting with the pick. I work with a power drummer, similar to what I'm hearing right now with the Mermen vid (thanks for that...extremely cool stuff), lots of tom work, very heavy hitter. Means I'm required to play fairly loud -- but I'm not interested in blistering my ears (I actually wear plugs when we practice, although sometimes we practice through a headphone amp too). I use 15 watt amps in order to get into the power tube overdrive range as much as possible. So I'm looking to lay down a foundation of sound from which I can make the various 'lead' sounds appear -- the lead sounds (i.e., the bits that keep the repetition interesting) range from just the added finger extension notes and treble strings, to what I can throw off using pedals. Right now I have a SynthWah for that, I'm waiting for a Bass Synth (with expression input) and I'm also searching for the 'right' ring mod (with photo eye if possible). The basic riff sound should sound like a guitar crossed with an analog synthesizer (depends on the song). I'm using a tubescreamer to get a rounder overdrive tone at lower volumes. I'll probably add a fuzz on that side too. But I find we're lacking bottom in the sound -- especially at our gig (our first!) last week, which was outdoor. So I'm trying to emulate/reinforce/produce the frequencies of a bass guitar to inject into the mix. I get pretty close with the 2x12 cabinet and EQ box, but the sound lacks focus. I've added an octave pedal--that helps a lot-- but then the sound farts out a bit (not a great pedal, the tracking is a little shaky -- I have a new one coming in a couple of weeks). I also have a fuzz pedal on the bass side for some of the songs (I like the fuzz placed before the octaver) which brings out more boom. As for the "lead" sounds -- I don't want them to dominate the sound spectrum, I want them to rise up from within, ride on top, fade away again--all the while keeping the repetitive riff driving away. I'm finding it difficult to find the proper mix though. I've tried three amps, but for the moment that's just even more difficult to control. Since the Synthwah had two outputs (dry/wet), I'm wondering if I can run them into a blend box that will allow me to adjust the wet/dry mix before continuing them into the chain? Don't know why they didn't provide a knob for that on the box itself. Maybe even a box with a SMALL volume pedal, that will allow me to adjust the wet levels on the fly.... Maybe I'll try the three-amp set up again, dedicate the third amp for the 'lead' effects, but use a volume pedal...I'm leery of having too much clutter at my feet. Edit: I just tried out the three-amp rig with a volume pedal. This actually works really well, I'm able to control the blend of sounds a lot more, and throw off the 'lead' noises I want. I'd prefer to be able to do this with just two amps, of course (less to drag around and worry about). And I wish the volume pedal wasn't so huge -- I might have to build a second pedal board for the 'performance' pedals, and use the existing board for always-on stuff. Funny how complicated minimalism can be, eh? I should mention that I'm not interested in producing pure noise -- I still want it to remain fairly musical. And of course, people need to be able to hear me sing... I do have a dual-loop -- right now I'm using one part of that for the tuner, the second part's send is for both chains (with no return--functions as a kill switch, because I generate a lot of noise with the various effects-- sounds really cool when I smack the sound into silence). Wish I had the budget for the EH Hog...that would get me much closer to what I'm looking for. But the budget's kind of tight this year...we need a few gigs first...

You asked for our opinions, I gave you mine. To my ears, it sounds exactly like what it is -- a processed digital signal. And I just happen to have a Vox (not the AC30TB, of course) and a Tubescreamer... I also have a bunch of guitars, and I can tell you, at a similar level of gain and distortion, they sound very similar through the same setup. In fact, I count on that part. Anyone who tells you different is full of themselves. Anyway, it all depends on what you're recording for. If it's to sell guitars, then I still recommend you put the true sound of the guitar on there. Find a better guitar player too if you like. Processing it with a pod like that seems dishonest to me. Well, it is dishonest. Meantime, why not try a little experiment: mike an amp and record the guitar through that. You can even do that with the pod -- send the pod with the same setting into the amp, and record that. You'll get a better sound, I promise. And you won't need to overdose it with reverb and delay to make it sound 'natural'. I'm not against digital effects, I use them too. But I like the sound of warm tubes and vibrating speakers. To me that's the 'real' part of a guitar sound.

Says more about the pod than the guitar, I think. I'm assuming you're working on demos for sales purposes -- in that case, I'd much rather hear the guitar itself, played through an actual amp, than the overprocessed sound from a pod. Just doesn't sound real to me. Hell, any guitar plugged into that setting will likely sound pretty much exactly the same. The recording also emphasizes the sound of the pick on the strings-- which makes me wonder if it's the guitar's fault or the pod's (I'm guessing it's the pod's, but you see what I mean).

Okay, thanks guys. I think I understand where I've been going wrong now. Instead of looking at the setup as a Clean side/FX side, I should be looking at it as a Lead side/ Bass side. The octave pedal I have has a nice drive function -- that plus the EQ box into a 2x12 cabinet gets me a pretty full bass sound, without getting too flabby. I'd prefer a combo though, just easier to carry around. But that's not an urgent purchase. Meanwhile, I can place whatever lead-type effects on the Vox's chain. Right now I have a synthwah for that. I'm looking at picking up a ring modulator or similar, or a feedback looper. I'm also going to have a bass synth in a couple of weeks, seems to make sense to put that on the bass side -- it has an expression pedal input for 'playing' the cutoff filter/resonance filter. I have the bass side going to an echo/delay --but maybe that makes more sense on the lead side? All sorts of possibilities...the major limit is that it all has to fit on my pedal board (which is built to fit into the flight case I have--and to fit at the foot of the mike stand).

Everything. Just post the thumbnails. Guys here have excellent eyes for details --can't hurt, and it doesn't cost much.

Well, I'm specifically trying to reinforce the bass tones, if that helps. The other amp will still sound like a guitar (I can also use the 2x12 cab I have with that too). Anyway, this is the amp that I'm looking at. Price is right, and it won't be too heavy to cart around. I like it that it has a separate levels for the subharmonics and it looks like you can adjust the bass and mid-frequencies? It also has its own effect loop, I can run an EQ through that. And I've always liked the look of Ashdowns.

Still sorting out my sound...the new band played our first gig last night. Went really well, except I'm not satisfied with the sound I'm producing. We're a two-piece -- guitar and drums. I run my guitar through two amps. The first (Vox AC15) stays relatively clean, only gets a tubescreamer. The second (Laney VC15) gets all the effects -- it's main job is add noise/sounds/fuzz. But it only has a 10" speaker so it seriously lacks in bass tones. I can run it through a 2x12 cabinet, which helps, but I don't really want to lug that around to gigs. Not until we have roadies! And besides, it still doesn't fill in the missing bass tones from the sound spectrum. So I'm wondering if I'll have more luck using a bass amp as a second amp. I'm really looking to reinforce the low end -- without sacrifing the midrange (the Vox covers the higher frequencies pretty well, but also doesn't capture the low end much). I'm not trying to emulate a bass guitar--but I do want to be able to capture some of that frequency range (not the ultra lows of course). I do have an octave pedal, but that's only for specific songs, it won't sound right on the noisier stuff we do. Before I go shopping though, I'd like some opinions -- will a bass amp get me where I want to be? I don't know anyone who can lend me one to try out. I might end up using three amps -- keeping the Laney but adding the bass amp. Basically my goal is to create a wall of sound. We'll be putting some demos up on our myspace site soon, you'll see what I mean -- I've been able to get close to what I want by using EQ plugins in the like to boost the lows -- so another option could be adding an EQ pedal to my board...running out of room on that though! A followup question: considering that I'm using a 15-watt tube/12" speaker amp as the main amp, how many watts do I want the bass amp to be? I'm looking at a 180-watt Ashdown for example, has a 15" speaker.

The Stewmac calculator is nice and all, but only works if you use the exact bridge they refer to. There's no substitute for making your own measurements based on the parts you have on hand. I agree with positioning the saddles toward the nut end of their travel -- I always leave a couple of millimeters, but if you've measured correctly, there's no reason you'll need to use that. On the other hand, your low E is going to be set back significantly compared to the high E, so you'll need the travel room. You don't want to have to force the saddle back too far, it'll screw with the break angle over the saddles. The HIGH E saddle gets positioned exactly at the intonation point. This is what determines the placement of the rest of the bridge. And the intonation point should be measured using the actual neck, with the nut in place, and already attached to the guitar. There are just too many variations in 'standard' guitar parts to trust anything but the actual parts you're using. Don't know if someone else has stated this, but it doesn't hurt to make it even more clear. Anyway, since it's a tele -- assuming you're using a tele plate/pickup --then the bridge placement becomes even more important, since it'll determine where you'll route the pickup cavity. Also, I use a laser sight when positioning my bridges -- I think it's important to make certain that the bridge is properly aligned with the taper of the neck --the laser line emulates the string line really well. Just a tip I picked up here that helps me a lot.