Jump to content

rabjet

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rabjet

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dublin, Ireland

rabjet's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Ok, I'm working through my first guitar, being quite happy with the woodwork and shaping/fretting and all that good stuff, but I will shortly be freaking out as to what to do with electronics/pickups/everything else. The basics of the guitar are all nailed down, and it's decision time (almost). A guitarist friend of mine was raving about Lou Reed's guitarist on their last tour using a digital guitar, with which he was capable of all sound output possibilities, and even modulation to replicate the sounds of other instruments. He claimed that using the Gibson digital system, only one guitar was ever needed (aside from an acoustic or spanish). Is there any reality in this? I have looked in my native Dublin for suppliers (no luck), have looked on the web for more info (Gibson are even scant with information) and now I'm utterly confused. The idea of one guitar encompassing all styles and types of electrics (all things to all guitars - hee hee) is a wonderful one, but is it true?!? Also, if it is true, where the hell would I obtain a digital system? Again, I'm confused, Rabjet
  2. This may be completely off base, but i am a new builder...so would it be at all possible to down-tune some strings - for example, use the 4th or 5th string instead of the standard E and tune it higher so it could handle the tension of a longer scale length guitar (such as a 27 or a 30) Sorta what i was thinking of...if i could ever figure it out... eternally confused, RabJET
  3. Firstly, I would like to apologise - I included a subsequently edited piece of text, which was genuinely offensive and unintentional. Apologies all. Secondly though, I would like to clarify...my little rant (in an ill advised tone) was more of a rant against the mainstream media and public perception, as opposed to the pope. Alice Miles wrote in the Guardian recently about the Ken Bigley situation - people openly and publicly airing their "grief" at Mr. Bigley's death. I must voice now a slightly less inflammatory opinion about this. The death of Ken Bigley recieved as much media coverage as the Tsunami in south east asia. people publicly grieve individuals (great and small) that they have no personal connection with. (I would like to exclude the pope from this - any religious individual could share a personal connection with him). The same went for the funeral of princess Diana. I, personally, loved the icon, the beauty and the person of Diana, but her death, while tragic, did not cause grieving in the direct sense many individuals claim. Alice Miles went on to describe the British and Irish public mentalities as 'unreservedly and unashamedly emotive', which, subsequently explained, meant that personal tragedy no longer held in itself the meaning of the word. People would openly weep at the death of Diana, Ken Bigley, and the pope, but psychologically would not shed a tear for a close relative. I have studied this in University (anthropology), and have genuinely strong feelings on this, as I personally know individuals whodid weep for Diana, but upon the death of their relatives, were callously stoic. The comments Sepultura999 took literally, were not the intended tone of my piece - the "for God's sake" was ironic, not literal. I apologise, Sepultura, I was in no way clear, but in no way, do I feel I disrespected John Paul II, quite the contrary. I just have difficulty with not only the media perception of events (which is blatantly spun and weaved to create maximum media coverage, and therefore revenue from advertising), but also the general public reaction. Hopefully this will serve to transform me from a heartless, cruelly dispassionate axxxxxx, into a slightly less aggressive, considerate axxxxxx. Anyway, my deepest sympathies to anyone who has been genuinely affected by the great man's passing. Regards, RabjET ps - I rather like the way in which skibum5545 put it. Respect. EDIT: Removed/altered offensive words; BP
  4. Well, speaking as someone who joined the forums less that a week ago, I joined to get some good advice. And i have to admit, it's been incredible. All of my other interests (and believe me, there have been many) have been personal, but isolated. The thought that there is a community of genuinely dedicated amateurs/semi-professionals/professionals who all help each other out and have a bit of a laugh doing so gives me just that little bit more faith in humanity....or something I decided to make my first guitar on a train in Belgium a few months back (god knows what i was doing there...) and i started having only checked out a few tutorials. Suddenly i needed help - and the forums here were so fantastic about it that i think that not only have i got the bug for building guitars - i finally found out why forums exist in the first place. I'd like to express my thanks to all members (for existing), to the ones who have helped me so far (cos they've all been great), and to the guys who run this thing....brilliant! I'll be around awhile i think...
  5. Ok, this may be time for a little rant here - but this whole passing of John Paul the second is completely arseways... Firstly, I would like to state that i'm not religious. However, having a great deal of respect for the man, and what he has accomplished (cite Eastern bloc transition), I must bring a few points to bear here. The idiot media, and predominantly idiot world is mourning the pope's passing. These people seem not only bereft of intelligence, but even common sense. A terminally ill man of 84 passed away. Surprise surprise. God's emissary on earth(supposedly) after interminable suffering, passed into death, and by his own belief, the afterlife, and being the pope, probably straight through the pearly gates with a ViP pass. Not exactly what I would consider a tragedy, although the world seems to be mourning his death as though he was being sent to be tortured to death by weasels. Not so. Would people please, please, please for God's sake (tee hee) stop treating this like a tragedy and feel the tiniest bit of envy for a man with so much achieved, so much given, and in his mind, up there living it up with the big guy himself.... My 2 cents, for what they're worth... Edited one word out......Peace, Brian
  6. DannoG - interesting problem i hadn't considered before. Obviously, this is my first build, so i'm relying heavily on the forum and tutorial sections in projectguitar, but do you think there would be an alternate method of improving space at the higher frets without lengthening scale length? One of the reasons i began building this guitar is on many guitars, once you get past 15/16, playing intricate pieces becomes immensely space reliant. I have a Washburn 24 fret semi, which is towards the top of the line, but i want more freedom in the higher frets. My original thoughts were to increase scale length and increase fret number, but as you said, tension may be running high (unlike in the Ring 2), so I'm now a little concerned over how I might approach this problem. I know already that teak and mahogony will stand up to some immense pressure and tension, but WILL this destroy playing bends? I'm unsure. About the hgh tension requiring a bass truss rod - possibly a good idea there - The main idea/aesthetic/misguidance I had in the design of this guitar was greater freedom in the higher frets, and more than 24. The body has been designed large, with a long neck (still not set though, of course). The body was designed large, predominantly for comfort, and solidity. I'm thinking that teak and mahogany will be strong enough to do the job, but will i have to fully redesign? Am i barking up the wrong bridge? Anyway, cheers for the help - i'm looking forward to hearing what comes next...
  7. You're done with neckshaping yet......but haven't decided on scale length yet??? Hmmmmmmm......interesting concept. I alwasy thought that form would follow function. Meaning you start of with your scale length and base the shape of neck on this. Just curious! It seems that once again I have been less than clear - the headstock has been carved out of a one piece, but the width of the fretboard has been left with about an inch of play either side of my anticipated finish (allowing to be cut down once i decide fully on scale length and bridge width. Carving it out of one piece of teak obviously requires a lot of work even before that stage, so that's all i have completed thus far... also, i've left the depth of the neck (at the joint with the guitar body) unhoned at all, so i have plenty of space to work with, with regards to the neck joint (with which i'm going for a through neck...) Scale length - i'm thinking that 28 or so would be nice - as i said, i'm looking for the space down on the fretboard - having checked a couple of other sites (such as buildyourguitar.com) which has it's own fret C program calculator, i can figure not only fret positions for 1-24, but using my own calculations, can continue as far as i want...either way, that's not a problem - done and dusted. The main reason for starting this forum was cos i need to keep working on the neck, and without a proper measurement off the bridge, can't continue with the neck shaping (without taking some rather unneccesary risks...), so i felt advice was needed at this point... Again, thanks for all the help guys - i think decisions will be reached in the next couple of days - i'll get some photos up as soon as i feel anything worthwhile has been done! Cheers guys - RaBjeT
  8. Wow. I'm kinda blown away by the quality and speed of the responses here - i'm really chuffed. Some great stuff coming out as well - firstly, I believe I misquoted the angle of the headstock. Should read just a little under 15 degrees - still maybe just a touch steep. Iroka teak is literally as hard as nails - i was advised against working with it for hand-carving (it's mainly used as construction beams), but I've found it surprisingly good to work with (and it's cheap ), so neck down as far as the join has been cut and carved so far. Looks good enough to work with (my carpentry skills aint too bad...), so i'll stick with it for the time being. (wood sound rules as well though - really nice tone off it (African hardwood)) Was considering working with the same wood for the fretboard, as it's tough, but good to work with (cuts well, and is strong as anything else...) In terms of shape - yeah, kind of an RG with a personality problem sounds about right - and I believe i am working with my 2 year-olds perceptions here with guitars...I started making one cos it seemed like so much fun (and there's so many guitars I want....) The tutorial on scalloping on ProjectGuitar is so perfectly detailed, that I can't imagine there being too many problems (aside from sandpaper burn...) One of the most important things, i think, is the fact that i'm aiming for a large scale length, and decent length fretboard, to allow for comfort in the higher registers (which is why the ibanez shape is being modified and fattened) - if I'm using jumbo frets, it should allow for a longer, more useful neck (for my playing, which is mainly jazz fingerstyle or blues picking in the high register, so space is a premium after fret 15... In terms of style of guitar, and inlay/ornamentation/finishes, all i'll say is that i'll post it when it's up, and it should at least look impressive (even if it plays like a turd...) I suppose the idea of routing the existing shape is nice - semi-hollow body would be kinda cool, but i think i'll stick with solid for the first at least... Almost all of my playing thus far has been on acoustics/semi's, so i have no experience of electrics, or really what they're capable of (which is probably why the amusement on RGGR's part) - it probably sounds hilarious to anyone who knows what they're talking about...my blundering with terms and options...still, it's why i'm here - and believe me, i appreciate the help... (Should i just slap on a pair of humbuckers and a tremolo bridge and leave it at that?!?) Any more thoughts anyone has, i'll try buy 'em a beer sometime... rAbJet
  9. fryovanni - cheers man - i'll just throw a few more details out while i'm at it, and see if anyone has any good ideas - the neck is a one-piece carved out of Iroka Teak, with the headstock (ibanez shape) cut down at about a 30 degree angle. The neck is going to be substantially long - going for at least 24 frets, as the higher end suits my playing style, and i'm aiming to scallop the latter 8 or so frets...ambitious project for a first timer, i know, but i've always aimed high (and occasionally fallen flat on my face...) The body, being mahogony, is a solid, roughly 2" thick piece, in a sorta fat version of an ibanez jem. Obviously, it's going to be a heavy guitar, but having checked out the internet a little more, I have sorta come to the conclusion that I'm going to aim for a more basic guitar than Lucille. Sorta thinking about getting some TOMs, perhaps running with a couple of humbuckers, and a single coil in the middle. Not entirely sure if that'll work well, but it's about the best I got for the time being... If you guys have any more advice on that kinda set up, and if you think it might be worth throwing on the guitar, please let me know... Meantime, thanks for all the help so far - i'm really starting to love this forum!
  10. Thanks RGGR - helps a lot. Honestly, I'm building as I go - solid body mahogony body, imitating an Ibanez Jem(without carrying handle!), with a one-piece Iroka teak neck/headstock. I've been kinda drooling over Lucille in recent months, and if i was looking for something to get a nice jazz sound, would a bigsby tailpiece be what i was looking for? On Lucille herself, there seems to be a locking bridge without tremolo unit, and a high action bridge. That said though, if I wanted the jazz sound with a bigsby tailpiece, am i then looking at a whole range of problems trying to get a bridge which works well with it, or will almost any tailpiece do the trick? I really appreciate the help... rabjet
  11. Having just begun my first guitar, and having most of the woodwork possible done already without having purchased bridges, tremolo units, nuts or pickups, I am utterly bewildered by the sheer variety of possibilities of bridges and locking units available on all of the sites recommended by ProjectGuitar. ProjectGuitar has been a fabulous help thus far, but at this point, to fully shape the neck, fretboard, and decide upon string lengths etc, i need to get a bridge and string unit. How would i go about deciding what locking units and bridges to purchase, and would there be serious compatability issues between different units? Also, is there a serious problem with different bridges with regards to the use of tremolo locking units (ie, is there a specialised unit for specific bridges) Please help!
×
×
  • Create New...