MasterMinds

The strings I use now measure 39 inches - given that I won't be running them through the body I should have some space. I would like to go with 27 inches at least, coupled with a small bridge (mine now is a standard floyd which is all in my face) I should be ok.

Meshuggah uses detuned guitars, if they tried to tune proper on a 30 inch scale their strings would break. SO that doesn't seem to help much.

Dude, that IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEASURED. You're missing the point here. The distance from NUT to 24th fret on the G string IS SHORTER THAN the distance from NUT to 24th fret on the E string. Calculating fret distances will tell you the distance from NUT to 24th fret should be identical for every string, relative to the strings PATH> It is not this way with angled strings! This means that as you move outward on GREATER angled strings, and move upwards where the angle produces greater changes in distance relative to the straight hypothetical strings, you because sharper in pitch. So, your statement proves my point - that the fret spacing is greater - which is exactly what I said the fret space is greater, which means the strings will lie on the frets and be greater.

Devon Headen - By shortening the neck you mean using a 22 or 21 fret instead of a 24? I do need a 24, otherwise I'd get another .8 inches or so, but it's a requirement because many songs i play need those notes! Is that what you meant or is their some other thing I am missing? Thanks for the 27 idea - I was thinking how much I can get the string tension without breaking on a nice bend. I use high E 9's normally and am fine with those, I guess the tension is not so much greater for another 1.5 inches The main thing is I need to make room for myself - I do this by using less pickups (since I don't need but one awesome one anyways, plus a sustainer maybe) and I am going with a fixed bridge, a nice small one so it isn't in the way.

For setting frets, the scale length makes frets larger. But when talking about the tension required on a string to reach an open note on a larger scale length, it is important to consider the distance from the nut to the tuning peg - because this is part of the tension of the string. I was wondering if anyone has seen (links?) guitars (not basses) with a scale length larger than 25.5 inches The reasons are I would like more room between the 24th fret and the bridge, because my hands are large and often bump the bridge while strumming. If there's other solutions to this problem let me know. I would have to extend to 30 inches (part of this can be achieved by symmetrical tuning pegs) just to gain one inch of strumming space. Not the greatest method in the world. Solutions anyone?

Jehle - Very well done. Makes it quite simple to make small adjustments to a scale for artistic reasons. For those of you who want the formula in a mathematical way, here it is if I am not wrong! f(x) = distance from nut to X is f(x) = ( [Z]-[x-1] ) / A + [x-1] Where: X - distance from nut to chosen fret Z - scale length in inches A - "cosmological constant" for guitar - 17.81700000 There ya go - fun stuff! PS: So if you ever want to make a guitar that goes by quarter steps as well, just fit it into the formula!

I'm not going to quible with you on your syntax. The rod pulls against the force of bow, and it takes strength to pull. It's a first grade concept. Again with the strange assumption I am attempting to market this idea? Why are you pulling this from man? This guitar is for me, not you, and you will never be playing it - so why are you so bent on promoting what you and some others don't care for? It's really skewing your value, and I'm seeing you're of no value to me.

Setch - That's why I asked, because I needed to know how the ideas fit. However, the answers I get seem to be quite fundamentalist and narrow, rather than empirical reasons. But your answers without attitude are much more valuable than the latter. One question. You said angled strings (tapered), do not throw the guitar out of tune, however, using pythagoras' theorum one can deduce how this is true. The "high E" string moves from X distance of the center of the neck at Fret 1, to greather than X distance from the center of the neck at fret 24. This is because the guitar has angled strings, not linear ones. Now, try this. Measure the D or G strings on a guitar from the NUT to the 24th fret. Now measure the distance of the high or low E strings from the nut to the 24th fret. You will find they are not the same at all. And yet, calculating fret distance will tell you the proper distance for the 24th fret to be from the nut. So, while the fret remains the same distance for a LINEAR string set - the strings are angled. It's a simplistic calculation, and shows that as strings move further from the center on a straight-freted instrument, they become more and more out of tune. Solutions 1 - use angled strings and angled frets - this works, except for the concepts of bending strings 2 - use straight strings and straight frets - this works much better. the only downside occurs if you do not choose a proper string distance and you cannot form a chord, or you cannot pluck accurately So Setch, geometry (pythag) will show you the difference and that it does throw strings out of tune. EXAMPLE - Here are my measurements for an example, using pythag will produce perfect results, and you can calculate the number of "cents" the notes are out of tune. NUT to 24th fret across G string --- 19 and 2.9/16 of an inch Nute to 24 fret across E string --- 19 and 2.2/16 of an inch That's measured average of 3 guitars, same scale length 25.5 - remember that because distance of frets change on scale lengths, but angles do not (at least they do not correlate), some scale lengths are thrown many cents out of tune. Setch - as you know a "cent" is 1/100 of a half step. Now calculate the distance from fret 23 and 24 - it's about 6/16 of an inch. and our error is 0.7/16 of an inch. From this we see a decent amount of lack of tune - other not a major issue.

What are you talking about "mistaken all this time"? I've not said you're mistaken about anything. Amazing the defensive attitude when I didn't even disagree, all I did was ask! Devon Headen - You seem to think I care if my idea is unique or not, why do you get this idea? I want to make what I want to make - nobody here cares if their idea is original or not, so what makes you think I do? And what do you mean their ideas didn't "take off"? You seem to think I plan on marketing my idea or something. Again, you're getting these ideas from hell knows where.

Can you explain your wiring diagram?

Man, you guys DO get testy when things don't go your way. "if they weren't necessary why do 99% of guitars have them" 99% of guitars use straight frets across angled strings which throws each note more and more out of tune, when it's a sinch to correct. By your own admission, since most guitars do this, it must be necessary! You have a very narrow mind to what a guitar requires - especially since there's plenty of posts proving guitars need NO truss rod on this very forum! jnewman - truss rods provide strength to the neck. You proved that yourself by saying they control the bow of the neck - can the wood bend the truss rod? No, the strings do. Therefore the truss rod provides strength to counter bowing of the wood. It's really that simple. Let's get real guys, it sounds like your building narrows your mind as to how the instrument works.

What basics? I think I have the basics and the specifics down very well - enough to know how poorly guitars are designed and the nee for improvement in accuracy.

"the guy in the store" is notorious for coming up with the most insane statements in history. Never trust "the guy in the store" unless "that dude on that one forum" concures with him. I can't wait to see your custom classical - shoot man I can't find one I like so maybe I'll have you make me one!

RGGR et al - Here is what I found, besides companies selling guitars with this system. http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Truss_rods/Car...07.html#details Apparently what this is saying is, if I buy that rod and the drill bit - I can put this rod INTO my wood neck and, as this is not a truss rod, there is no need for access to either end of the rod for tightening/loosening - it's sealed in like a mummy. Am I right? And is this what you were speaking of? Thanks!

RGGR et al - one other reason I'd love no russ rod is my headstock is NOT angled like most headstocks. I want it to stem straight out from the neck with no angle at all. Therefore, this makes access to the truss rod a bit of a challenge. Let me know on that I will google in the mean time.

RGGR - Both aesthetics AND construction. If there is no need to have two pieces, then why do so? Adding more pieces and more glue can never result in better strength, the simplest solution - using the strength of wood and not glue - is always the best. Plus, I love the look of it - it is very striking to see beautifil silver frets on a naked neck. Also, I like the skunk stripe idea - however RGGR please tell me more abou this carbon neck. I know Viger Guitars uses there "patented 10/90" system where 10% is carbon, and thus no truss rod - but this is a patented idea. Do you know of sources that sell a carbon fiber neck? Or any substance that does not require a truss rod? I would be very interested in more about this - I assume it was a patented secret etc.. Thanks.

Thank you guys, the skunk stripe sounds like a nice solution. I like the way a stripe looks on the back of a neck usually too so that works! feylya - Yes, please reverse engineer it for us Setch - that makes sense I will PM you soon once I can provide some info on it, thank you.

RGGR - It's for a neck without a fingerboard. You can't route it out as the top of it is not covered by a fingerboard.

Hi Setch. I have a question. I want a neck without a fingerboard piece; the frets go right onto the neck which of course is designed to take up the space of the fingerboard as well. I can show some pics. However, I thought I'd ask you, would you (as an example of a luthier) feel comfortable making a truss rod hole for such a neck? You'd have to drill through rather than route - how does that sound to you? And I might as well ask how much you'd charge for a neck with a few unusual specifications - namely a non-angled headstock, no fingerboard per above, and a linear and not angled neck width (strings stay equidistant throughout neck)? Thanks, hope to see more photos to get my ideas goin'

erikbojerik - those were the figures I had in mind. 300 for wood - who knows what for workmanship - as for hardware, this depends on a few factors. I am likely going to go with a sustainer and midi pickup, but not all at once for sure. I would say I will spend 1000 dollars - and of course all the hardware will transfer to a second model if the first is not ideal enough, only the wood will be non-transferable. I may go with a simple setup like I have now, who knows. godinSD - I suspect it will be very close to perfect, but I will have critiques. Most of my calculations are based on ideals in other instruments, just not all in the SAME instrument. Also remember the style is not artistic - my customizations are based on the feeling of playing, not some goofy looking body shape or something. ALL - I will definietely not be making this myself - I have no need for buying tools at all, and could not do this craftsmanship - no time and no money for massive tools! I just measured some things and am putting them into the design on paper, soon I will have some solid ideas in mind.

RGGR - Of course I am hard to please - that is why everyone on this board wants custom guitars, because they have ideas that don't exist elsewhere. And I have a very fine understanding of how a guitar works - and that's why I know that a traditional model is a very poor design which has many problems - the instrument is not even in tune, how much worse can it get! As for the truss rod issue - you seem to be mistaken yourself. A truss rod is used to counter the bowing of the wood, it is the rods strength which counters this, and so a truss rod is definietely used only for strength. Also - many of my needs are based on having large hands - a normal electric guitar is made for a dwarf-man or an 8 year old. It's not designed for modern needs of a modern player. Most of my custimizations are not just for the heck of it - they're corrections to a very poor old-fashioned instrument. I can't help it if nobody makes them up to par. PS: I am sure you've seen 5,000 guitars in your lifetime, and out of that - how many of them are perfect for you as a player? Not to many I bet. PSS: The birdfish looks nice, I'd consider trying one if I weren't going to make a custom. However, that is made for looks and my custom has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with anatomy and physiology only, not style.

mledbetter - I was over exaggerating the 100 bucks for the tuners. If I go with any tuners I will go with those for sure, as they are "something different" and yet similiar enough. Right now I am still making decisions on multiple options for many pieces - and I am just situating myself on what I think will make sense to me long term. JTM45 - Yes tuners are nearly essential, I am just used to double locking systems and so I have not used a tuner but once for each new string so I do not mess with them that much. I certainly do not want a headless guitar as they look very odd and stupid to me. Digideus - THis sounds very interesting. I could see where a very simple tuning element with smaller pegs that have the turning machine on the TOP, not the buttom. This way it is screwed into the body through to the back and held with a nut. Then on the top, the turning machine goes right above the place where the string winds. This would be incredibly simple to make and - being that I work at Home Depot - I am sure we carry all the parts necessary for this very simplistic idea! Let me know your ideas on this we can bounce back ideas. If I did this I'd want it to look subtle and not so space-consuming on the body you know. ALL - Thanks guys, I am learning about more and more options and narrowing them down to what I think fits me the most, especially in terms of bridge.tremelo.nut ideas.

otgordin - very good example of what I was thinking. Do you know much about how one of these is made? I would think it's quite difficult to sculp such measurements into a metal versus a wood. I would love to just go with a more sturdy structure than wood, since wood needs a metal rod anyways, might as well go with all metal. However, this would probably be quite a hard thing to come up with and have made.

GregP. In another thread I posted my "solution" to this (or a very similiar problem). What I said was, regardless of the tremelo you pick (except a unique-string one like th e speed loader) you could use THIS as a nut: http://www.musicyo.com/product_specs.asp?pf_id=225 This allows you to have a headless guitar with ANY tremelo system IF and ONLY IF I am correct in my assumption.... I am quite sure it will work fine though. So you can use that to end the strings, and with the ball end at the tremelo, giving you a headless or naked head, which is my goal. See ya later. PS: I too would like to make a neckthrough guitar, especially since the "wings" (or horns on some) could be extra pieces attached, haven't drawn the spefifics yet. Like you I need it customized because I want to go with no fingerboard (explained elsewhere) and need a zero-angle headstock too TTYL - so my requirements this is why I am never impressed with even a 5,000 electric, doesn't meet my needs.

Here is an idea guys. I need your thoughts What if, I used some tremelo/fixed bridge - whatever doesn't matter, NOT a speed loader. And then... I bought this http://www.musicyo.com/product_specs.asp?pf_id=225 And used it as the nut on a zero fret. Couldn't I then: 1. have a tremelo bridge 2. or a fixed 3. use normal strings 4. AND have NO tuning pegs because of this wonderful piece WITHOUT a matching steinberger 9 million dollar tremelo? Wouldn't that work!!!!!!!! Me thinks so