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.

Nice guitar, GuitarGuy. Very bold and innovative idea to use Pine for the neck. Looks great too.

What about the guy from Metal Matt's post? The one who built that pine BC Rich Stealth copy. Anyone got his contact info? Anyone seen the original post somewhere?

Or maybe it's a good idea to PM Metal Matt (I don't like it to bother people in private, though).

Thanks guys.

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!

Update. Hello,Here are 2 pics of the front and back.Hope to paint soon

Comments welcome.Thanks.

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.

I guess that one of the key things here is to radius the board BEFORE the fretboard is tapered so that you can guide the radius block along a fence. Make sure you use long strokes that span the entire length of the fretboard.

First time I radiused a board, I did it on a tapered board. It worked out allright because I used long, slow strokes but its much easier with the fretboard straight.

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 see a Les Paul as a flawed and imperfect design but i also understand how nice they can play and sound - even fully aware of those structural and aesthetic imperfections. There are lots of things the Gibson factory do that i disagree with. But who am i to argue:

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?

mahogany can be used for necks?

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.

I know Maple wont be cheap, i know that, but i want a good finish n the look of quitled maple i love so thats why i am willing to go that extra mile for that. Believe me i want to dig deep, i would spend like hell on wood if it was sum great stuff, but i have a car to buy and a drivin test to pay for, bills to pay flights to pay for also...all with what the boss requires adequite for me. In other words he's near enough paying me Jack, i'm only just surviving on it. My first job so i should of expected much. Thanks for all your help though its appreciated. I have Yet to go to my local timber Yard there just around the corner, and they are the opposite of cheap, but if i can get off cuts, doubt they will need them so they might be kind to me

cheers

JP

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.

Hey guys wonder if you cant point me in a few directions, i live in wigan and area in the northwest of england for those who dont know, and have looked around for wood that good value for money and good quality, so far to no avail, i'm also finding quilted maple extremely hard to find. It needs to be relatively cheap, where as my new project has no real budget i do have other things to pay for and buy, so i gotta keep as much money as i can. I've read a few threads on here where come people have bought good pieces of wood for under £20, that i can handle.

Well i hope you can give me a few directions guys

JP

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.

Damn! I think I'm gonna think twice before I post anything else. You guys are tough!

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).

Like Supernova9 said, you just contradicted yourself. Besides, you say you like quartersawn for side-to-side stiffness. It makes far more sense to utilize the stiffness of quartersawn wood in the same plane as the tension put on the neck (i.e. tension from the strings -- front-to-back stiffness).

And Supernova9, I think you need to take a chill pill. No need to lash out at someone. Take your own advice and use EVIDENCE to disprove someone, rather than insulting them. At least that is constructive...

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.

Someone posted a while ago something like "If you're going to build your own guitar why settle with the cheaper options that mass producers are forced into." Thats not the exact quote nor do I remember who said it but the idea still stands. Quartersawn is better but its just harder to get/more expensive.

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.

(IMO) flatsawn is the best for 1 piece necks because you have the flexibility of flatsawn thru the neck with quartersawn characteristics on the sides keeping it sturdy from warping side to side; however, idont personnally like 1 piece bass necks; whereas i would say get (at least) 3 -1" thick flatsawn pieces and turn them on there side and laminate them that way so theyre all quarterd; much easier than finding a 3" piece of quartered stock

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. 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.

-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.

man,i despise purpleheart.

+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.

Although I used to think I preferred setnecks, I've now come around to recognizing the superior advantages of bolt-on necks.

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

ok im in the stages of planing a build every thing is pretty much planed right now but i have a few question as for purfling/binding. i want to use a Mop purfling with 1/4 outsid binding i want to carry this through out the whole guitar but would i need to make a wider neck to fit this in or do i rout the fret board?

randy rhoads body with a 24 3/4 scale

body:

1 1/5"walnut back

1\2maple top

carved top (ik this is gonna be weird on a rr)

inset nobs

neck:

walnut

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!

nobody goes through evey thread...(i used to but don't anymore)

i think drak prefers the finishing section...

seriously, poster....send a p.m. to drak and ask him for his suggestions.he is very helpful

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

What are the size and length of the screws for a bolt on neck?

How deep should they go into the neck too?

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.

I have 2 500k audio pots from allparts. Are all of these holes drilled for the pots, the same size drill bit?

And would it be the same for the switch selector? Btw I'm using a 3 way switch, the circle one, not the long 5 switch selector. Thank you

this is the one that i have here, its a 500k audio pot ts split knurled shaft.

Would this be ok for a volume knob?

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.

Well some of the guys working there have been there for 60 years so I think they probably know what they are doing by now!

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.

well fryovanni; you definatly have science on your side more; good articles; alot of info;

reading some of these points in the thread it seems that some are combining attack,sustain, decay and tone all in to one thing; and their judging these things with the pups; i guess i dont see it that way; i only go on what my own eyes and ears have witnessed

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?