B. Aaron

i was refering to using it as a shim. i tried several diffent things and it just worked out that a piece of 400 girt sand paper was the right thickness to angle the neck out enough so i didnt have thos screws sticking out.

Haha! Nice.

I think the best reason to go with a shim instead of grinding down screws is that a shim can be removed later, but ground-down screws can't be built back up: they have to be replaced.

Headstocks #1 and #3: those bits coming out to the side might get in the way of your string winder, which can be verrry frustrating when trying to restring an instrument... it goes "knock knock knock" on the headstock every time you give it a turn.

Throw a business card shim (or something similar) into the heel end of the neck pocket to give it a bit of a neck angle, and then you'll need to raise the action a little bit at the bridge and voila, less set-screw will be jabbing your palm.

although i think you should make one explorer shaped so killemall has a proper option to choose

Heehee, zing

I almost made an Explorer-shaped semi-hollow a few years back (kind of like a thinline Tele, but a different shape) but decided not to after coming to the conclusion that I didn't like the way semi-hollows sound. I just thought it would be fun to play an Explorer in the big-band I was playing with at the time, yet still have it sound jazzy.

Akula: "...it just caught my eye first."

That's exactly the kind of feedback I like.

Workingman:

Yes, they'll definitely sit differently. The upper bouts are actually very similar sizes on both guitars when you lay the blueprints on top of each other; I don't think they'll have a huge impact on upper-fret reach. They mostly look different due to how they flow into the waist.

Those are very nice basses! I actually know Sheldon Dingwall - his shop was just down the street from my house until recently.

killemall8: I assure you, they are quite different, though not at a quick glance. Hint: it's mostly in the waist.

Prostheta: if you feel neither has a distinct advantage over the other, I would appreciate your opinions on the two shapes even if you don't put in a vote.

I already know which shape I prefer, but I want to know what other people think.

Which of these two CLASSICAL GUITAR body shapes do you prefer, from an entirely aesthetic standpoint? Things to consider:

- Which looks more harmonious and alluring?

- Which looks more comfortable to play?

- Does one look more classical than steel-string or vice-versa?

- Does one give you more of a good gut feeling than the other?

Do not be concerned with things like "will the sides be easy to bend?" or "which has the larger vibrating surface?" or "I can tell they're different, but I'm not sure how." All I want to know is which one you prefer.

(Note - the bridge blanks are just that: blanks. The actual bridges will be somewhat smaller; they're just there to give a rough idea where the bridge will be.)

Ibanez made a semi-hollow electric guitar with a floating tremolo for a while, which isn't too hard: the trem just gets mounted in the block inside the instrument (i.e. the block that makes it semi-hollow instead of true hollow).

With an acoustic guitar, though, I think you'd end up with a very dead instrument if you actually mounted a floating tremolo in the top.

The problem I see, beyond possible structural and "how do you do it" issues in mounting a floating tremolo in a 2.5mm thick top, is that an average guitar top only weighs 300-600 grams but a floating tremolo (such as the Wilkinson/Gotoh trem) weighs 600+ grams itself. A Floyd Rose is probably even heavier, being so much more massive. If you add that much mass to the soundboard, it's going to have a very difficult time producing sound.

If you have to further bulk up the construction to include a block to mount the bridge in and another block to mount the tremolo springs in, you'll be adding even more weight. You could mount the spring-block on some sort of bar suspended from the sides to reduce the weight and minimize the parts attached directly to the soundboard, but if you do you'll essentially be harnessing the bridge to the sides via the springs, which will probably impede the soundboard's motion even further.

If you want acoustic sounds from a guitar with a floating tremolo bar, why not get electric saddle pickups like Carvin uses and install an "acoustic" pickup in an electric? You can get the saddle pickups for Fender-style, Wilkinson, and Floyd Rose tremolos, and probably more too.

Quite heavy. It's twice as heavy as Alder.

You can buy rosewood bodies from Warmoth. My friend has one.

What do you mean by floating bridge?

"Best" depends on what kind of sound you're going for, and whether you're taking the physical balance of the instrument into consideration. Generally speaking (with all other factors being equal), a heavier neck should produce more efficient use of string energy (and thus possibly better sustain and/or volume), while a lighter neck should have quicker note decay. Some styles of music need lots of sustain (romantic era classical guitar) while others need quick decay so the notes don't run into each other (bebop). A lighter neck might also be more responsive to some expressive techniques such as vibrato, some sources suggest.

Also, a heavier neck might make the instrument neck-heavy.

Average (there's always variation...) stats of the neck woods previously mentioned (plus a few that got left out), from lightest/most flexible to heaviest/stiffest:

Spanish Cedar: 30 lbs/cuft, ~1,000k psi stiffness, ~570 lbs Janka hardness

Khaya Mahogany: 31 lbs/cuft, ~1,390k psi stiffness, ~830 lbs Janka hardness

Honduras/Genuine Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla): 31 lbs/cuft, ~1,430k psi stiffness, ~800 lbs hardness

Soft Maple (Acer rubrum): 35 lbs/cuft, ~1,640k psi stiffness, ~950 lbs hardness

Black Walnut: 40 lbs/cuft, ~1,800k psi stiffness, ~1,000 lbs hardness (lighter & softer but stiffer than Sapele)

Sapele: 42 lbs/cuft, ~1,700k psi stiffness, ~1,500 lbs hardness

Hard Maple (Acer saccharum): 44 lbs/cuft, ~1,830k psi stiffness, ~1,450 lbs hardness

Information about the, er, information:

Weight is obvious: it's how heavy the wood is, which has an effect on how much it is affected by string motion (and thus how much energy it sucks up).

Stiffness reflects how much energy is necessary to make the wood deflect a given amount, which is important both structurally and again in how much string energy it might eat up.

Hardness is, simply put, how hard the wood is. Softer woods are usually easier to carve by hand, grain patterns aside.

Data collected from the species library at WoodWorkersSource.

Just remember that when you go to carve the neck profile, a thicker fingerboard means the whole neck might have to be thicker. You still need adequate wood behind the truss rod to make sure it can't break through the back of the neck.

There's nothing wrong with getting finish on your frets, as it does come off when you level/polish the frets.

There's nothing wrong with getting a little finish on your inlays. It really makes no difference.

Why do you need something on top of the true-oil? I was under the impression that the true-oil IS the finish when you go that route?

On top of that, a fret being out by 0.5mm won't make much difference if it's the first fret, but it'll make a much larger difference if it's one of the high frets... and it's the higher frets that are the farthest from the nut, and probably the hardest to get an accurate measurement on simply because it's hard to get looong calipers.

If you neeeed an unusual fingerboard length, check out lmii.com before you cut your own because they slot and radius fingerboard blanks to quite a wide range of scale lengths that you won't find at StewMac or Warmoth.

Yes, that would be my point. I never said mahogany was muddy - merely that it tends toward a darker tonal response.

What you do with the materials has as much of an affect on the tone as the materials themselves, but you're still stuck working within the tonal potential of the piece of wood you're using.

Okay,well then consider this.The Explorer is solid mahogany,front to back and end to end...yet it is not muddy.In fact,it is as cutting and edgy a high gain tone as you will ever find...

The only reason this is so is because of the 500t at the bridge,which is a pickup made to compliment that particular wood tone.Still "dark",yes...but not ,muddy.

Emphasis added to point out a few of the things you said, because they conveniently fit into what I was saying about wood potential. If an all-mahogany Explorer were predisposed toward a bright, sparkly tone, it would not need specially voiced pickups (which you say are the "only reason" it has a cutting/edgy (yet also dark) tone). If all-mahogany Les Pauls were naturally bright and crisp, they wouldn't need to be retrofitted with Seymour Duncans or EMGs to bring out the clarity (as was implied in another user's post earlier).

As we all seem to be agreeing on, mahogany is usually predisposed toward a naturally darker tone (than Alder, for example). Depending on what you do with it, it can probably range from dull and lifeless to vibrant and vocal... but it doesn't have the potential to be as bright as the same guitar in something like Rock Maple, just as the Rock Maple guitar wouldn't have the potential to have the same complex low-end granted by mahogany.

Putting bright/clear/crisp/edgy pickups into a guitar does not change the resonance of the wood itself or the way the strings interact with the wood. Changing pickups, to me, is a little like changing a vocalist's microphone in the hopes of improving their voice: it might change what the PA system hears, but it's still the same person singing into the microphone.

Regarding WezV's perceptive post regarding SG vs Mahogany Les Paul tone, I think there are a few things at work here: first, how much more easily the SG soaks up (i.e., wastes) vibrational energy from the strings and (thus) eats up sustain, and second would be pickup placement.

Consider the overall mass of the body: because the SG is lighter, it is easier for the strings to make it vibrate, and thus the body reflects energy back into the strings less efficiently than the heavier LP would. Thickness affects the stiffness of the body, but I think the mass is the bigger factor there.

Also consider the longer, thinner SG neck: after doing some rough math, I'd postulate that a (1960s) SG neck is only about half as stiff as a (1950s) Les Paul neck... and never mind the tiny neck tenon of an early SG compared to the much more solid anchor the early Les Paul had. It all adds up and contributes to the unique, punchy, crisp sound of an SG compared to the sustain of a LP.

Pickup placement: many SGs have their neck pickup sitting farther away from the fretboard than a Les Paul does: on a Les Paul the front polepieces are near the 24th fret, and on an average SG they're well past it (though the SG shape and layout have changed so much over the years that that's not always true). If I remember correctly, the SG bridge pickup might be a little closer to the bridge than on the LP (am I right about that?) which can have a huge effect on what the pickup "hears."

(The math behind that neck estimate: stiffness has a cubic relationship to thickness, and an inverse cubic relationship to length. 2x as thick is 2x2x2=8 times as stiff, and 2x as long is ½x½x½=1/8 as stiff. Make a minor change in neck length and thickness and you can make a huge difference in the flexibility (and energy-absorption) of a neck.)

The studio indeed has a maple top. It just isn't figured maple.

It's true, mahogany doesn't automatically make a dark guitar, but as I said, it can "push the tone into a darker direction." What you do with the materials has as much of an affect on the tone as the materials themselves, but you're still stuck working within the tonal potential of the piece of wood you're using.

Whereas if you talk to some of the great Classical guitar builders out there (i.e., José Romanillos), they'd suggest that "somewhere around a hundred guitars you start to get a feel for the soundbox," which never made sense to me when I was just reading all the "how to assemble a classical guitar" style books, so I ordered a few expensive texts to see what the fuss was all about... I'm starting to realize how magically intricate they are now that I own both of Ervin Somogyi's "The Response Guitar" books, as well as "Left Brain Lutherie" by David C Hurd.

which is all well and good, but you know they will still sell those first 100 guitars. but what they should have after the 100 is consistency and hopefully be starting to develop their own voice

with electrics... i do agree that 10 is a good general number to be starting to look at profit, but just like with acoustics you cant claim to be an 'expert' after 10

Of course they'll sell them! Probably not for pro acoustic prices, but it's hard to find storage for 100 guitars.

I think that more importantly, once you've built that many guitars you will have a pretty good idea how to make a guitar sound a certain way. There won't be so much "I wonder what would happen if I did this?" guesswork going on at that point, so much as well reasoned, intentional decisions made to voice the guitar to meet your customer's demands... a sense of "I know how to make the sound box do that" more than "I hope this one works out!"

Actually, in some Les Pauls (copies, mostly) the wood CAN push the tone into a darker direction. Not the nice Gibson ones so much, but rather ones that say things like "Epiphone" or "Ibanez" or "LTD" on their headstocks: many of those guitars have a flame maple veneer bent over an otherwise all-mahogany body, which lets them say "maple top" in the sales brochure without going to the trouble of actually having a 5/8" thick top laminated on there. (They also rarely have "genuine" Mahogany bodies - it's usually a wood that's merely nicknamed mahogany, such as Agathis or Sipo.) In a case like that, you're basically playing a mahogany guitar without any tone-brightening maple to speak of.

On a related note, an ESP Eclipse (their LP copy, and I'm talking about the JAPANESE ones, not the Korean ones), has a flame maple veneer over a solid plain maple top. You can't see this in the pickup cavities because they hide it there, but if you pull the bridge/tailpiece bushings out of the body you can clearly see all the layers: thick clear coat, thin transparent color coat, 1mm flame maple veneer, a thin glue line, the plain maple cap, and mahogany down at the bottom of the hole.

In regards to your build in particular: With a maple top and a maple neck-thru, your bridge probably won't make much contact with the mahogany (if any at all). I don't think you're going to have any problems with mud in your tone.

10 is also a target for me, when Ive built that many I should have a good understanding of the process. Number eleven is what I plan to show around to some pro players to get their opinion on quality, feel, overall finish etc. -Vinny

Whereas if you talk to some of the great Classical guitar builders out there (i.e., José Romanillos), they'd suggest that "somewhere around a hundred guitars you start to get a feel for the soundbox," which never made sense to me when I was just reading all the "how to assemble a classical guitar" style books, so I ordered a few expensive texts to see what the fuss was all about... I'm starting to realize how magically intricate they are now that I own both of Ervin Somogyi's "The Response Guitar" books, as well as "Left Brain Lutherie" by David C Hurd.

Strat necks do not sit flush to the top of the guitar. They sit a bit proud of the top. Do a Google image search for "stratocaster neck joint" and you'll see pictures of what I mean.

What color of hardware + pickups + fingerboard will it have? That affects things too.

Well, it was just a guess as to whether or not the walnut would work as a fingerboard! If you've tried it and you know it works, then I'm just straight up wrong about how hard a fingerboard needs to be. (Gluing the frets in would certainly help, as you do!)

For the body, I know that Carvin makes walnut-bodied neck-through guitars too (DC400W). It's not like it can't be done... they just aren't very light!

What kind of tamarack do you have access to where you live? (Which species?)

I love the pyramid fretwire once it's on the instrument. I've used it on 5 of the electrics I've built for myself. My only gripe is that it's no fun to bend compared to something skinnier.

Some material considerations BEFORE you start cutting:

Black walnut is probably not hard enough to use as a fingerboard, as it is about 30% softer than Hard Maple and 40% softer than East Indian Rosewood. It would likely wear easily and the frets might work themselves loose after a couple seasons of fingerboard expansion and contraction.

It will also make a very heavy body wood if it's the only thing you use, as it is about 40% heavier than Alder and 30% heavier than Mahogany. You CAN use it for a body, but it's bound to make your shoulders sore. It makes a lovely top wood for electric bodies, though! I've used it for top plates with great success in the past. Perhaps pair it with a lighter back to reduce the weight and keep its tonal presence?

The neck: I would choose maple over Tamarack. Although most kinds of Tamarack are nice and stiff and strong, many species are veeery soft (i.e., some are nearly as soft as western red cedar) and prone to nicks and dings. Being as this guitar will be a neck-through, you definitely want to make sure you never have to replace the neck, because you basically can't: it needs to be perfect on the first try, and it can't age poorly. (This applies to the walnut fingerboard too.)

StewMac pyramid frets: I like these better than their super duper jumbo frets because they're quicker to level and re-crown, but their Medium-width/highest fretwire is essentially the same height and easier to bend by hand if you don't have a fret-bending machine. It's very close to 6105 fretwire. If you're bending by hand, you might consider the medium/highest instead of the pyramid just because it's easier to work with.