probus

And if the claw is tightened as much as it'll go, you might need to throw one or more additional springs in there. It'll also make you work harder to use the trem, but at least you could get the angle under control.

If the tuning was EADGBE before and you took all the strings off, put them back on and retuned to EADGBE (with same gauge strings) you most certainly don't need to put extra springs in there, or in fact, do anything to the springs. The string tension is the same if the tuning pitch is the same. The trem angle should be the same as well.

It sounds like your tuning has changed (drastically) and that means you have to adjust the springs, maybe add one or even do a complete setup. If it's a rented guitar I'd be careful on what you do with it, so the owner won't mind when he gets it back. This all sounds weird though, so you might want to take it back for advice or ask someone who has experience in floating bridges.

Could it be, that the guitar was in a different tuning before? It seems very strange that the bridge angle would change if you only did slight adjustments on the tuning, ie retuned to the same pitch. I would check the tuning again with a meter.

You usually want to tune the thicker strings first with floating bridges because then you only need to tune all the strings a couple of times before it settles (for me anyways).

Looks like they're just rounding the millimeter measurements.

They're almost always rounded, not much of a point in having a 43.434098 mm measurement when it can simply be 43.5mm. Unless of course you're measuring something that requires precision such as slotting fret slots, that's a whole different story!

Sure, except 1 5/8 is closer to 41mm than 42mm. I think that they should give the accurate measurement no matter what unit. I still don't know if the imperial or the metric value is the actual length..

hey, eddie, do you have a printable template (to scale) of the JS copy you made?? if you do, can u pls send it to me at cukaracha20@yahoo.com?? thx..

There are plans for the Radius 540R, which is about the closest you can get, in here:

http://www.speakeasy.org/~sven/site/radius.html

Nice looking guitars you have there!

dh7892-- that sounds about right. I'll retract the word "amplify", which was just kind of thrown into my post without thinking of the actual science. I agree with what you wrote.

probus-- absolutely agree that the main construction should be something dense. But you'll need some sort of spacer between the boxes (for the box in a box design I was mentioning) and rockwool would be as good a filler as any and better than most. I'm thinking that you'd need some sort of absorption inside the box, too, though. Otherwise, you'll end up with unexpected resonances inside the box which will affect your ability to record. A couple layers of heavy carpet might be enough, too... can't say I've ever tried. Gluing or screwing on some random small-sized scraps of the construction material (mdf or whatever) to the "back" and "front" of the inside walls will also help diffuse any standing waves. This can be done before the absorption material is added.

Greg

I still don't quite understand what this thing is, does anyone have a photo or something..? I don't think you need another box inside a box if you take care to decouple the source from the box, for example with rock wool or similar. It wouldn't hurt either, and you would get a bit steadier floor for the amp. Both ways should work.

My recommendation would be a box made out of the thickest mdf or similar you can buy ($$) and put about an inch or more of wool on the inside walls. To avoid standing waves you could make the walls askew, if you feel the sound is too dry you can add some diffusive material on some of the walls. About the only thing you can do is try out different combinations, unless someone has already done it. I'm not and expert or a professional by any means, so just speculating.

mmm u seem to know what your talking about

not sure about the concrete though

like recording studios dont sound proof with meer concrete

i could be(and most probaly are) wrong

Well, it depends. Usually studios aren't located in buildings specially designed for that, and usually you don't need that much of attenuation anyways. For example here is a concrete proofed room in my school, used for measurements where you don't want any outside noise:

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/introduction/tour/k15.html

Room acoustics is a different subject altogether.

I'm looking for materials to build an amplifier isolation cabinet...

I was thinking plywood, but then I thought there's gotta be a better material to use. the goal here is to isolate amp sound from outer noise.

what materials transfer sound the most ineffectively?

You need to separate two things when talking about sound isolation. One thing is to isolate sound vibrations through air, second thing is to prevent mechanical vibrations from transferring through material.

The denser (heavier) the material you use to build the cabinet, the better it will function in isolating the sound traveling through air. So, about the best material here would be concrete. You'd probably want to use mdf for practical reasons. Egg carton won't help you at all. Isolation is always a lot more effective than sound absorption, so concrete is better here than the rock wool.

Other thing is to isolate vibrations traveling through material, so if you would put your amplifier right into that concrete (or mdf etc.) it will probably resonate and transmit the sound that way outside the box. Unless you go into that box in a box thinking or use some sort of soft foam feet to isolate the amplifier as much as you can from the box mechanically.

I don't know exactly what you are trying to do here, but if you’re hoping to record the speakers inside this isolation box I'd also put some sort of absorbers inside to reduce echo to make the recording clearer. Rock wool would be perfect for this, but as has been said, it must be thick enough to absorb low frequencies. If it will only damp the highs, the recoding might come out sounding weird. Yet if your box isn't massive enough it will leak the lows anyways and help the balance. I would start with a layer of one or two inches of dense wool inside the box. That would give you a pretty good isolation against vibrations mechanically as well.

Right. When I said that F-spaced is the "ideal", it was under the assumption that everyone already knew you only f-space the bridge pickup. do they even SELL f-spaced neck pickups?

What's the difference between a neck and a bridge pickup? If you read the thread, you'll find a quote in the last post from dimarzio saying that you should use f-spacing on neck pickups when using a wider nut..

There is a similar thread in jemsite with some pictures (including f-spaced neck pickups), just thought you might be interested:

http://www.jemsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63403

(cough)pinned topic right above this one(cough)

.. doesn't have anything about the trem in question. Or at least I couldn't find anything, and since I don't think it's a good idea to post questions in a pinned topic, I decided to post a new one . That topic should be cleaned from all the unrelated replies, since I could only find eight different trem routs + a link to the rest of the official floyds routs. It has 38 posts..

Of those eight, four are from Ibanez guitars, one is the old edge and three don't specify the trem in question, and so are quite useless. I'd also need some sort of measurement of how far from the nut are the trem anchors.

Hi,

I'm planning a new project for the summer involving the old ibanez radius plans and a new edge pro bridge. Does anyone know where I could find measurements of the edge pro rout? I need to make some adjustments to the plans, because they are made for an old edge style bridge (I believe..). I could measure these my self from the actual unit once I get it (and probably will just to check), but this would speed things up a bit for now. So, what are the differences? Thanks in advance!