Supernova9

Two main methods - either they use a scroll saw and are very careful, or they resaw a small slice the thickness of the cavity cover off the piece for the back and cut the cover from that, then rout the cavity into the back as normal.

I don't think anyone on the board will have a problem with PMs, and if they do, the worst they'll do is ignore it! I remember that pine explorer, was for the 2x4 build-off right?

Mission impossible without re-veneering the top.

Why do bands only have a 15 minute break between sets? So they don't have to retrain the drummer!

Ok, honestly, I don't like it. Not because I don't like pointy guitars, but because the design just doesn't flow, it's like a hodge-podge of thrown together bits. for example, the smooth rounded off circle at the bottom of the centre section just doesn't fit the design - take it to a point and it might fit better. The two side wings don't look right being flat at the bottom. And the upper horn - make it's shape fit the other curves of the guitar. It would look more cohesive if you followed the same theme (i.e. the curves and points of the majority of the guitar used on the whole thing) I'd also either get chromed plate instead of aluminium, or change the bridge to aluminium, because the two together seem to clash to my eyes. I like the general concept with the separate pods, just the design as a whole doesn't come together for me, it needs a bit more work to make it match. I'll have a play with photoshop later to show what I mean by the changes.

Radiusing should be done after tapering - have you tried using a router to taper a radiused board? Mark the centreline of the fretboard, then set your fences apart from that centreline, so say your radius block is 4" wide, draw the centreline on the fretboard, tape the board down on a flat surface, then measure 2" from this centreline on either side, and that's where you fix the fences. Then just sand away.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the design - by the fact you mention structural, I'm assuming you mean more than personal taste in the aesthetics. If you think it'll start unnecessary Gibson flaming, please PM me instead, but I am curious as to what you mean - is this referring to those good ol' neck tenon cross-section shots?

Flipping heck, have you never heard of a LES PAUL? As for the original question - rout a matching slot in the back of the fretboard for the truss channel? Otherwise I don't see how you can keep the neck that thin - 1/16" would be too small for my liking.

Hows about this - tell us what you're looking to build (e.g. type of wood/sound you're looking for, type of pickups you want to use, fretboard choice, neck choice), and we can better point you in the right direction. Just as an indicator for you - my first project (not including tools purchased), cost around £200 in parts. That's a tele-style with a 4A Flame Maple top (1/4" thick), ash body and maple neck/flame maple board, and standard tele electronics. That doesn't include tools or anything like that, which would be easily double to triple that amount.

You will be incredibly hard pressed to find any decent wood for under £20. Your best bet is to go to lumber yards and ask for cheap offcuts. Then it'll need to dry, up to 1 year per inch of thickness. You will definitely not find quilt maple for less than £20.

Hmm, I can see how my posts are a bit hostile, and that's not how I intended it to turn out - it's just we've done this discussion to death about a hundred times since I've been on the board, and we always seem to get some answers that I'd term 'tone voodoo', It gets kinda tiring. I'm not knocking low end fuzz here - his second post was good, useful insight, I think my post came more from a misinterpretation of his first post more than anything - sorry dude. I'd agree with Rich - the key is not so much whether flatsawn or quarter-sawn, but the thorough drying/acclimatisation, and uni-directional grain (i.e. straight down the shaft of the neck regardless of orientation).

I just said it was ridiculous. Where's the insult? It is blunt, I'll give you that, but subtle hasn't worked when asking him to put forward supporting reasons for all these things posted before. The Litchfield of wood choice voodoo on this board.

More expensive does not equal better. Your post just reads like a marketing spiel for a high-end guitar builder, who use (and charge more for) quartersawn necks. Maybe it's actually in their best interest to get you all thinking that quartersawn was the best? Again, I asked for EVIDENCE, not the hype that perpetuates 'tone' myths suggested by many in the industry. Fender and Gibson created the instruments that people covet. They did it with flatsawn maple or mahogany necks. That's evidence.

That is just ridiculous. Essentially you've just said "Flat-sawn is best for 1 piece necks. Use quartersawn." Can you not see how that is a blatant contradiction? I really wish you'd stop posting completely unfounded beliefs, and provide some EVIDENCE as to how flatsawn is more flexible, how flatsawn with quartersawn edges stops side to side movement, or any of the other things you've suggested. [Edit]: And Desopolis - Fender uses flatsawn maple for guitar necks, and bass necks for that fact, why on earth do you therefore think that flatsawn wood isn't recommended? Over 50 years of mass production experience seems to suggest that flatsawn can be used.

-1. I think we all have our preferences and there is a whole array of options to go around. I really enjoy the look of natural woods. But I'm sure I would want to play really good rather than, 'look good playing'. But unfortunately I can't play really good. sigh I think you misunderstand me - I like natural woods, I just don't like purpleheart - too gaudy.

+1. It just looks......bad. Like the only person I could ever see looking good playing a purpleheart guitar would be Prince. I just don't like the natural colouring for anything more than maybe 2 thin lams on a bass neck.

The real question for me is: Why not just bolt on this neck? A properly constructed bolt-on will have no detrimental effect at all when compared to a set-neck.

And what exactly makes a bolt-neck superior to a set-neck? I'm wondering where Gibson got it wrong all these years...

1/4" thick binding is massive. Most binding is less than 1/8" thick! As for the purfling, if I were applying it to the fretboard, I'd taper the board to correct measurements (don't make it wider for the purfling, that'll affect how it feels in your hand, and even 1/8" makes a considerable difference to nut width) , then rout a ledge the width of the purfling into the board, glue the purfling and then bind around that. It's entirely possible though. I'd expect that much MOP would cost a pretty penny.

I'm guessing a GCSE DT Project, am I right? I built a remote control holder for that and got a B - props to you for going the extra mile and doing a guitar! I'd echo the same things most of the people here have said - oh, and does your school have a spindle sander or similar? Would be much easier on your arm muscles than sanding maple!

Or maybe he's waiting for people to do an actual search for once. One search for 'spalt' by 'drak' gives a thread titled "CA Method". How more obvious is it? Click Here

AS HAS BEEN SAID IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD LIKE THIS YOU'VE POSTED: IT DEPENDS ON THE SCREWS/POTS/SWITCHES YOU BUY. Now go out and buy the screws, and then you'll know. Same with all your other parts. As for depth into the neck, on a 1.75" thick body (typical), common practise is to leave at least 3/8-5/8 under the neck to hold it in place. The depth measurement depends on the length of the screw and the thickness of the body/neck, all which can vary wildly.

See how you've got 2 washers and a nut on the threaded portion of that pot? That's to hold it to the body - the hole needs to be wide enough so that the threaded portion can come through the hole, but narrow enough so that the washers and nut don't fall through it. That should do it.

If you paid £17 for 0.944 cubic ft of ash (that's from your dimensions), looking at the price list on their website shows that you bought green wood. If generally accepted convention is to be followed (by guys from far longer ago than 60 years), then you'll need to leave that for 2 years to dry out properly to the point where it'll be stable for guitar building use. That's why proper instrument blanks cost more - the drying of the wood takes time, and therefore adds value, and therefore price to the wood. You've got enthusiasm, but maybe before you start getting all smart-ass towards helpful advice, you need to understand that things like guitar building can require different standards of material than standard joinery.

I think you'll find that your ears combine all those things into one thing as well, to give you the overall sound of the instrument. Soundwaves are typically analysed by the human auditory perception systems for a number of things: Pitch (The notes on a musical scale) Loudness (self-explanatory) Duration (also self-explanatory) Timbre (defined as the 'characteristic' sound of a certain source, be that guitar, piano or voice, that makes it sound different to other instruments even when playing a note of the same pitch, at the same volume, for the same length of time) What can tone - this vague, almost mystical concept that far too many people propagate, be except for timbre? There's a lot of well-researched scientific evidence to suggest that IS the way we perceive it. How do you hear it, if not through the same hearing system as every other human on the planet?