Ripthorn

Using a different backer makes a world of difference. Also, the big name guys are using high end pneumatic sanders that allow for much slower orbital speeds than the little electric ones we buy at the hardware store. The closest thing to a pneumatic that isn't one is the MIrka Ceros, which I would love to have, but at close to $500, I will pass. Also, as with all tools, it comes downt to practice and dedication to perfect the technique. The guys at PRS that do it all day every day for years get to know the device so well that they can account for any kind of characteristic that we see as a problem. Much like the guys who use relatively low tech tools to produce works of art. You just learn how to use the tool with all of its flaws and soon you can compensate for them. For the guys like us that don't build that much, it can be much easier and more effective to just go at it by hand.

They way you propose to do it is totally fine. It will work. I think what the others are saying is that in FretFind2D, it is insanely quick and painless, which is best especially for those without access to a full CAD package or the know-how. Either way will get you there. For the multiscales I have done, I've used FretFind2D and quite like it, but that is because, though I know how to use AutoCAD, I prefer to spend as little time on a computer once I get home as possible.

Drill out and put in a bigger one is the best I've got, unless you decide to go with a more elaborate inlay. Of course, fretboard material will govern it some too. If it's ebony, you can probably just use tinted epoxy to fill the hole (after drilling out the off center one) and install in the right place. If it's maple, that is a total no-go.

I just moved from Syracuse at the beginning of the year and I always preferred to wait until it warmed back up to spray, but that is just my preference. I would probably get too frustrated at the level sanding of a hand applied finish, but that is just me.

I give them a little heat before pulling them out. Just a quick hit with the soldering iron loosens them up nicely. I've had them break, but not such that they were not retrievable.

Depth can be done one of two ways. The first is to use the foam like a spring. This lets you adjust the height somewhat, though you will always be limited in adjustment relative to other pickups. The second is to use wood shims (or just have serious depth routing skills) and screw the pickups down tight. This provides more direct coupling with the body, though whether you want that or not or whether you can hear the difference or not is up to you. On old Les Paul's they never used foam, they just cut a channel for the pole pieces to sit down in and the rest of the pickup sat on wood to which the pickup was screwed. My recommendation for routing is to do some tests in scrap first, as a good fitting P90 cavity is a must aesthetically. The slightest bump in the router's path will show for all eternity, and a gappy cavity is not a pretty thing. Make a good template, then test on scrap with the pickups you will be using, as covers can differ in size slightly. I think this is the most important part of installing a P90, as height can be adjusted with shims, wiring can be changed, etc., but once the cavity is cut, it's there to stay.

What kind of gold are you using? I just shot a Les Paul gold top recently and have plenty of crescent 255 and 256 on hand if you need. Also, here were my observations of gold in nitro: - I couldn't level sand without affecting the appearance of the gold, it simply showed whenever I tried - I could get it to smooth out a little when shooting clear - The best solution for me was to shoot the gold in lacquer thinned 50% (I think that's the right ratio...) - Scraping the binding was more difficult than I anticipated, but I chalk that up to having too thick of a film, as I had to shoot a new coat a few times because something got in it (bug, wood speck, something) All in all though, I think gold tops are cool. I just might do another one someday, maybe on a PRS style guitar...

I have noticed that with my file. I have both the standard one that you got, but I recently broke down and got the diamond offset file. Now that is sweet, saves so much time with not having to get chatter marks out and what have you. If you do lots of fret jobs, it is totally worth it. You might also be able to find the right size with their diamond 2-in-1 that is shaped more like the Gurian. Regardless, I second the advice to contact them first to make sure everything works well together.

I've never done it before, but I would imagine a dremel with base could be made to work pretty well, though I would keep the channel slightly undersize for the first go just in case.

I've been using EM1000 and EM6000 for the last couple years, but have experienced the same as you. I am working on a 54 gold top, and you can't do the bronze powder in waterbase, so I bought a gallon of nitro, and am thinking I will probably stick with it. As much as there are things I like about the waterbase finishes, there are some I don't like. I got horrible contamination somehow, and had to completely strip a guitar I was working on a few months ago. Total bummer. The mcfaddens would likely be fine, just cut it a little extra with thinner would be my recommendation, but test on scrap. Comparing the two is a good idea. Because nitro can continously remelt, I don't know if there is quite the same shelf life restrictions as some other finishes. Just remelt and shoot. But, as Levar Burton would say, don't take my word for it.

That would be fine. Usually the woods are chosen for aesthetic reasons, and there aren't really any combinations that won't work, as long as you know a little about the woods. For example, very oily woods like cocobolo can be tricky to glue up depending on the piece. You try to glue multiple pieces of it up, and you have to be careful. But for the standard woods, no special considerations really need to be taken. I am currently doing a neck-through explorer with walnut, maple, bloodwood for the neck and curly maple and alder for the wings.

I've done it both ways. I usually mask the fretboard, then come in after with some really fine grit paper and hit it just enough to make a smooth transition. Of course, I've only ever done a couple colored necks, but it has always worked just fine.

On the subject of experiments, I am building a single pickup explorer because I want to see what a dedicated tone machine does, but I would be interested to see you take data of the bridge pickup with and without the neck pickup installed and see if there are any changes in the harmonic decay. I know some guitarists who swear that the presence of a neck pickup has a noticeable effect, and I wouldn't know because I have only ever played two or three pickup guitars. Just a thought...

Pickup rings would also help tie the headstock cap to the body. Or knobs. I agree, though, that having it in one more place would help balance the overall visual. But still a spectacular looking build.

Looking great. If you aren't going all glassy shiny, I would recommend a simple oil and wax, or perhaps shellac. Both are great finish that really let the wood's natural beauty do its thing.

If it were me, I would probably do something like this: Apply straight oil or perhaps some with a little aniline dye mixed in to make the figure pop; mix a light concentration of white pigment (like mixol) and oil, apply in thin coats until you get the desire coverage; continue with clear coats, lots and lots of clear coats so that you have a good barrier when wetsanding. You could go milk paint, but I would rather go with a universal tint like mixol, as it can be mixed with oil, lacquer, shellac, whatever. I would start light, perhaps a 1% solution, and go from there.

I have a lightly used Stewmac med/wide fret crowning file. Has been used very little, probably only 1-2 necks (I say probably because I don't recrown every fret). This is in great condition, I am only selling because I decided to go with an offset diamond file to use on setnecks. $25 USD shipped to lower 48 states.

I will only speak from my personal experience. I have built guitars out of a variety of woods. As an experiment, I built an entire guitar out of a single white pine 2x4: body, neck-thru, and fretboard. I stuck some leftover parts on it, including pickups from an epi LP, and it sounded like a nice electric guitar. Nobody looking at it or playing it ever suspected that anything on it was pine, let alone the entire thing. I have also built a solid maple neck-thru, neck and body from the same board. Had two different fretboards on it. Sure it was a little brighter than my other guitars, but I chalk plenty of that up to the EMG's I put in it. However, on the flip side, I have one guitar that is a multi-laminate neck thru, and for the life of me, it perpetually sounds mellow, even borderline muddy. The pickups are good quality, as is the rest of the hardware. That leads me to think that the wood in this case (though most likely the massive number of glue joints, type, and quality are the culprits) plays a part. On the whole, my opinion is that if you can learn what each wood's "typical" characteristics are, you can plan with that in mind, whether it be to feature them, avoid them, or make them a non-issue altogether.

I like what you are doing. However, with your three hypotheses, there is a little to be said. A guitar string being a solid material is subject to some non-linearities when it comes to picking strength. This can affect the shape of the slope of the harmonics because the damping characteristics at the beginning of the note will not be the same at the end. Also, while it is true that position will not affect the slope, when you are at a position that has a lower amplitude of a certain harmonic, your effective SNR will be low, so you may see unusually short decay times. Same can be said for pickup type, as certain types may emphasize or de-emphasize the presence of certain harmonics. However, on the whole I think you have a very good approach. Octave is a good choice. I use matlab all day every day doing acoustics work, so I know it well and love it dearly One thing you can do for your 50 Hz hum if you can't get rid of it is to do something like a 6th order Bessel high pass filter on the signal (Bessel is ideal because of its maximal phase linearity and small overshoot, tradeoff is that it has a slower slope, so you need more orders). Or you could do a linear phase FIR, but be careful about how you choose it. Good job and keep the results coming!

There is a company called roarockit that caters to skaterboard makers that sells a kit like this for rather cheap. I watched a video of a guy laminating a 335 top with it and it turned out quite nicely. I think the kit was like $60 and came with a bag and breather mesh. I've wanted to try it, but I also would like a vacuum hold down system for my little milling machine, so I may go that way.

Sounds like a really great machine. I plan to build myself one once I get moved and settled. I have a little cnc milling machine, but plan to have a cnc router, cnc metal lathe, and larger cnc milling machine within the next 1-2 years. I like the option of making my own hardware as well as the bodies and necks. There is a fairly steep learning curve to cnc, but it's totally worth it, and once you overcome it on one machine, you basically overcome it on all machines save for a couple of small subtleties. Good luck with it and post pictures back when you have it!

Mach 3 is kind of the hobbyist industry standard. Extremely capable and well thought out. However, if you don't want to drop the $200 on it, LinuxCNC is free, though it requires the installation of a special Linux Ubuntu OS build. I have a dedicated PC for my CNC (since it is an old PC with parallel port), so it doesn't matter. Works very well, though not quite as fast to get up and running as Mach 3 and the interface isn't as pretty. But it is open source and free, with a good support community. As far as CAM goes, I am still on the trial of CamBam, and like it alright. I still need to demo other programs first, before committing the money there.

An alternative to electroplating or buying new hardware would be to buy some copper leaf. Small booklets are cheap, but you would have to lacquer over it so it didn't wear off.

Prostheta beat me to it. But yeah, ditto everything he said, totally spot on.

People love a good maple dye job. Me personally, I really like the PRS finish faded denim or whatever they call it. Tiger eye is another popular one. Could go with a trans-black or trans-something or other on the back and sides. As for the bridge, a lot of people seem to either want to go from standard strat to either hard tail or 2 point (with some guys going all the way to Floyd). Hard tail seems almost trivial, so showing how to do a 2 point using something like the relatively inexpensive 2 points that are out there would probably help a lot of guys. Seems there are a lot of builders who want to try something without breaking the bank (me included). That also seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the other main page tutorials.