Jump to content

SwedishLuthier

GOTM Winner
  • Posts

    2,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by SwedishLuthier

  1. Gibson does not make a straight channel truss rod situated directly under the fretboard. They use a curved channel just like Fender, however they install it from the top side of the neck, rather than the back like Fender. In this picture the wood between the trussrod and the fretboard can be seen. In this picture you can almost see the curved channel Gibson have mede their rods this way from mid 50's Gibson and onwards when they changed from a straight compression type truss rod embedded deep in the neck, close to the back of it, to todays curved rod. BTW, I forgot that Stewmac has a new double action rod available. Read my prior answer in the light of me thinking of the old versions... If you have would like to make a trussrod to learn or from a "do everything yourself" wish, then I could understand it. However if you think that making one truss rod will save you money I think you are wrong. You will need to invest in both tools and time. I didn't really understand were you are but I guess Spain or at least Europe (like me). My suggestion is to check for a lokal supplier. Check out Rockinger.com in germany. They have a double action rod priced at 10.90 euro. That cannot really be too expensive, can it? I don't mean to put you you down, but if you cannot look at the picture of a double action rod and figure out how to fabricate one the task of doing one yourself is probably to hard. Look at this picture: You have one square bar with a nut welded to it at each end. Then you have a rod that is threaded in each end. The thread is threaded counter clockwise at one end as is the specially fabricated nut. The rod is first threaded into the nuts, then the nuts are welded to the bar and finally an allen head is welded to one end of the threaded rod. To do this yourself you need to get a counter-threaded cut and die (I think thats the name), make the special nuts and have access to an arc-welding equipment. The raw material itself would probably more than the the cost of a ready made trusted. My suggestion is still to shell out with the 11 euro and get a fully functional rod from day one...
  2. I have investigated the double action rod really in my "building career". The conclusion was that I rather build guitars than weld truss rods. Here is the factory drawing for the Fender two way truss rod: The Fender is made in a quite different way compared to the Stewmac version. Fender simply blocked the truss rod nut with a piece of wood, drilled so that you still can get an allen key though the hole into the truss rod nut. Stewmac use two threaded rods threaded into two brass blocks, with one of the rods threaded clock-wise in one end and counter-clock-wise in the other. They weld the nut to the rotating rod (top one is stationary) I have used Stewmac trusses without any problem at all. I have however moved over to the type LMII sells, although I buy a slightly thinner version. Both works fine.
  3. For acoustic Rosewood sides some recommend .09" and some others as thin as .08 for tight cutaway areas.
  4. Steam or heat should do the trick. 3/32 is pretty thick, what wood are you playing on using?
  5. I think a lot of guys can help you with that. If you state your location you might get more help.
  6. First: Welcome to the forum. Secondly; Wow! That s lot of options and a lot of switches. Just so that I get it right; you mean that you are using two "hot rail" style (or similar) HB pickups in the place you usually put a single HB? I am very curious about how big difference you will have between, say the coil closest to the bridge compared to the coil closest to the neck. The distance isn't that huge. Anyway, looking forward to see (hear?) the end result
  7. Looking really nice. Not my personal choice for colour, but hey, its your guitar. Congrats on a really nice build
  8. Generally some good points. However the assumption that pickups are not microphonic are not 100% accurate. You have a full range from "completely dead" pickups to "extremely microphonic" when considering how much they react to actual vibrations in addition to the change in magnetic field. You can add a metal cover or have the wire in the coil(s) really loose and the pickup will scream from feedback (in a very un-musical way) if you use even a touch of gain or play at sound level just slightly above bedroom level. That feedback is a reaktion to the pickup reacting to physical vibrations, so for those pickups the above statement are not entirely true. On the other end of the spectrum you have you EMGs and similar pickups, with completely solidified coils, cast in epoxy, with no possibilities to have any internal parts resonating to vibrations. You will however still mount them with a spring loaded system into a ring or pick guard, or directly in the body wood. Now we have eliminated the internal resonance. But we still have a physical resonating system were the pickup *might* move in relation to the strings due to resonance in the body and/or suspension system (screws, springs, rubber tubes, plastic etc). If the pickup vibrate in relation to the strings that will affect what the pickup "read". And the vibration of the pickup will be affected by the physical construction of the guitar. A thought experiment: Test a set of HBs on a solid guitar (any wood, construction etc). Then move them to a typical big body jazz guitar, mounted to a vibrating top made from spruce or similar wood. Will the output (signal level, tonal spectrum etc) from the both guitars be the same? Probably not. It might maybe be a bit extreme to compare those two situations, but it "proves" that there is a difference in sound and the difference is based om the constructions of the two guitars -> how the guitars that the pickups are mounted to vibrate -> there is a difference between how different wood vibrate -> The wood do change the sound of the finished guitar Now to the question if wood type A always will produce a specific sound and if you can scientifically "calculate" the sound of a guitar before you build it based on the wood and construction choices. No you cannot!. I have the same experience as guitar2005. There can even be big differences in sound (vibrational response) from different parts of the same board. To conclude, the thing about pickups being non-microphonic is only partly right. And even with totally "dead" pikcups there will be a certain influence in the tonal output of the pickup depending on how the pickups themselves vibrate in relation to the strings and thus there will be a influence in sound from the wood and the construction of the guitar, however that influence is sometimes widely exaggerated.
  9. First off: Welcome to the forum! I cannot really help you with the wood drying questions as I have never used "green" wood except for one time. That time it was a guitar top made from a lokal timber and I just re-sawed it to just over 10mm, clamped it hard to a very stable wooden shelf with wooden sticks making air circulate over and under each board and let it sit for 6 months. The wood was decently dry when I got it (about 14% moisture content) and I got it down to 4% after those months. Regarding you question about how to monitor moisture content; There are quite simple and cheep tools for this, often available at painters supply shops and similar but those are really only working on freshly cut surfaces. As soon as you cut a bord the surface start to loose moisture but the board will generally have a higher moisture content than the tool will show. If you are going to try to dry this wood yourself I recommend that you seal the end grain as wood loses more moisture through its end grain and if the ends are getting dryer than the rest there is risk for more cracks to develop. Use wax for this The crack will glue nicely with a bit of low viscosity CA, no problem. Wick it into the crack until you see that the crack doesn't suck up more glue and (if possible) clamp the crack.
  10. Thats just so sad. I wish there is anything we could do to help.
  11. 1. I have never seen read-made templates for those bridges. However, if you want to, and if you are willing to take all necessary measurements, I can make a drawing for a template. If you feel that you can make a template from a paper original you should be fine and if not, go to paragraph 2... 2. Look around, talk to your lokal guitar shop, if they cant help you they hopefully have a name locally. 3. Without the guitar at hand it is impossible to say. However you need to measure the string length, not the distance from the nut (or any fret) to the studs. The construction can be different, thus requiring different placement of studs. You need to measure the distance from nut to the saddles of the bridge, or really the break off point for the string to the nut. If you would benefit from help with the template drawing PM me and I'll draw something up. I'll post the result here for anyone to use.
  12. Just beware that the dye might (will) wear off over time. Of cause you can just dye it once again.
  13. Jointing plates - whether it is a decorative top for a solidbody or the soundboard/back for an acoustic - are essential jobs in a guitar workshop. Up until now I have tackled these jobs by clamping a beam to my table top, laying the plate halves on the bench, placing a small baton under the joint and clamping a second beam to snug things up, then apply glue, remove the baton and thus creating enough clamping pressure. This is tedious and time consuming. Enter the LMI plate jointing jig! The jig comes unassembled and is made out of sturdy plywood. The parts have a snug fit although there are some parts that don't align 100%, whist the two ”flat beds” aren't completely flat if a straightedge is used to check them. There were also minor issues with the wedges being a bit rough and getting stuck when inserted between the rope and the plate. Nothing that a bit of sanding couldn't fix, but for this price it shouldn't be required. Will this affect the performance of the jig? Let's see later on. It is useful to note that the wedges have an "up" and a "down" side. The edge of the wedge is slightly bevelled to ease the insertion, something I didn't notice at first. Maybe that is mentioned in on the accompanying DVD. I write ”maybe” as the DVD is of the DVD-R type with a printed label; the label is so thick I cannot insert it in the disc slot of my Mac! After that part failing I didn't dare insert it in the home entertainment system's BluRay player, so I actually have no idea what’s on the DVD. On contacting LMI about the DVD issue I received a very nice letter from the Sales Manager stating that I was the first customer complaining about this issue, however they would look into it to see if there is a better solution. That is how a customer feedback should be handled! The DVD issue aside, the jig is pretty self-explanatory. If you have a look at the online videos at www.lmii.com you should be fine if you happen to have issues with the DVD. I also had a problem with one of the screws getting jammed in the nut. After a bit of effort to get it out, I lightly filed the faulty thread away and started over. No biggie, but again something to watch out for. In Use After you have assembled the jig, usage is pretty straightforward. Place the bottom part of the jig on you bench, apply glue on the jointed board's edges and lay them on the jig. Place the top part on the top and make a repeated figure eight around the top/bottom part of the jig's ”legs” and lock them firmly in the quick-lock fixture. Inserting the wedges applies additional pressure to clamp the joint shut, whilst also aligning the plates laterally. If needed, the wedges can be given a light tap with a hammer to adjust pressure on the joint. Note the holes in the wedges were made by myself as I was afraid I needed them to help retract the wedges. Something that I discovered was totally unnecessary when I did my tests. The use of the tool is really a no-brainer. If my explaining it in written form leaves you slightly puzzled, this video at LMI's webpage demonstrates it perfectly so you should be fine: Talking about no-brainer, this is the bevel on the wedges that I didn't notice. Inserting then the right way up makes things a bit smoother! An added benefit with this jig - compared to my old method - is that as soon as the plates are in the jig, the entire jig can be picked up and put aside, thus freeing up room on the bench. The Result The result of the joint is of cause totally dependent on the efforts you put into jointing the plate edges beforehand. No jig can make up for sloppy craftsmanship there! Or can it? I decided to put the jig to some serious testing....I intentionally left a slight gap between the plates in one of my tests. The edges were perfectly squared off, the ends met each other perfectly but at the middle I had something like a ¼ mm gap. This particular plate was a maple top with plenty of extra width that I could be cut up and started over should the experiment not turn out well. I glued up the plate with that gap still there to see if the jig had enough clamping power to close the gap, and it did. I had to tap the wedges somewhat with a hammer to see a nice glue squeezeout in the middle but the gap was indeed closed. The result was confirmed after the glue dried and I had the glue squeeze out scraped away. Really impressive. The lateral alignment of the plates was close too, but not entirely perfect. I'd say it was on par with my old method. So it handles hard wood tops very well. Lets see how it handles soft wood tops like an acoustic soundboard. Or wait! Let's make up a really rough test. In one of my wood shipments the supplier had used a cracked spruce top as packing material. So I had an un-jointed piece of wood (OK, with the original crack on both sides...), missing a few fibres here and there and its all quite soft. Could I use the jig to glue those scrap pieces together without even jointing them? Well, yes and no. The joint is slightly sub standard with tiny gaps were some fibres were missing but that’s not really the point. I could get away with using it for something simple of for someone having his or her first go at an acoustic guitar. But the main point is that was able to force the plates together hard enough to close almost all gaps from the missing fibres, and crush a few still attached but misaligned fibres to conform to the rest of the wood, thereby making it possible to get a half-decent joint strong enough to hold up to generous bending, twisting and pulling from yours truly, today's product tester. One of my main reasons for doing this peculiar test is to see how the ropes pushing the plates together would affect the outside edges of the top when applying high pressure on a sub-standard joint in softwood. There were some marks from the ropes but really not too bad. On the contrary; it was totally acceptable when bearing in mind the rough time I gave the top! Verdict The jig passed both my tests with flying colours. Since then I have used it on a few more tops, among them the birch top in the pictures. In use it is simple and almost foolproof. The result is impressive, especially with the maple top that got clamped together in spite of the slight gap. The delivered item however, leaves a few things to wish for: General fit and finish. For the price of this jig, the cut surfaces of the plywood should really be kissed with a little sandpaper before shipping.The faulty screw that jammed in the nut. Really? It would be more favourable to increase the price of the jig by a dollar or two purely to include consistent hardware.The DVD issue. Simple on-body printing is a relatively accessible option and better than thick/heavy labels.The alignment of the parts could be a tad better, however I'm being a little picky. The jig works exactly as intended despite any of this.So in the end it is a pricey but very well-functioning tool with maybe a few quirks that really shouldn't be there. If LMI had those issued sorted out (and maybe the price reduced to, say 99$) it would get my 100% recommendation. If I had to rate it, I'd say 3.5 out of 5 “stars”. For the price of the jig, it should be perfect out of the box.
  14. I have only responded to what you wrote, nothing less, nothin more.
  15. My friend. You first state this This is weird... because I never stated that 10 applications of Tru-oil is thinner than 4-5 of lacquer. When you, in an earlier post said this: OK, you stated thin, not thinner, but if that wasn't the quintessence of your statement, please expand Next you continue with this: I never said that lacquer doesn't soak into wood. I said So please have a look at your own style of posting before saying thing like this Stating things like that have a tendency to bounce right back at the originator. Lest agree on refraining from that... To the actual case: To my personal experience (from 25 years of using different types of lacquer and maybe 10 years of using try-oil) true-oil will soak into wood much deeper than lacquer. It also takes a few more applications before you have "saturated" the wood with true-oil compared to when using lacquer. When I shoot lacquer I always have a film build up after the second application, but often already after the first. With Tru-oil, to my experience, you need as stated 2-4 applications. Remember that I stated that I apply the oil in very thin layers, thus requiring more layers before the formation of a film. However your milage may vary And also as already stated: 10 applications (actually a few more when adding the sand level/reoil-process) of Tru-oil is for oil-over-stained-wood to ensure no sand throughs. For true oil over natural wood you can get away with as few as 3-4 applications but generally seldom more than 5-8 applications, once again depending on the type of wood you are working with Everything I state is based on how I make things and are not in any way "laws of physics". I just doesn't agree with you statement that using a few more coats of true-oil is is a waste of time compared to shooting a few less coats of lacquer. You have to look at the total process. When shooting lacquer you need to ad time for spray gun assembling before shooting and dissembling/cleaning after the application. Repeat that up to 5 times depending on your total process (OK kan be as little as once of twice) and you have quite a lot of time spent on spray gun maintenance alone. Then you need to add time for thinking the finish, adjusting the spray gun etc etc. You also need to spend time to buff and polish the finish after maybe 5 weeks of drying. Compare that to using oil; you grab the bottle Drying time for the oil, when applied thin enough is 45-60 minutes. That is a time saving process.
  16. Has to disagree, the 10 applications of true-oil is way thinner than 5 coats of lacquer. The way I apply the oil at least. And ten layers was if doing a Tru-oil-over-stained-wood finish to avoid sanding though the oil. The oil has to go on thin as it will not cure hard enough if applied thick. You have to remember that it takes 2-4 applications before the oils stops soaking into the wood and start to build a film (of cause depending of what type of wood we are talking about). The application of oil might take a bit longer, yes, but you make up for that as you don't have to sand and buff and polish the finish. And I never said that it was a fast finish...
  17. I have applied try-oil over dyed wood several times. There is no more problems than applying a sprayed or other type of wiped on finish. As with all finished you need to learn to work with the stuff and there will for sure be some misstakes (heck, I have sprayed water based lacquer for 20 years and sanded through a trans-tint layer the other day...). To be successful you should really make sure that each layer of oil is as flawless as possible to eliminate the need for sanding (OK, that goes with all types of finishes) and make sure you have plenty of layers on before sanding. Also make sure you don not try to sand all un-eveness in one session. I build up al least 10 layers using a smal patch of cotton (old bedsheets are great) before sanding. When I start sanding I sand ever so lightly using 1200 grit or higher, only taking of the "highs" in the finish. Then I apply more oil, sand, oil, sand until I have a completely smooth surface. Then you can either continue to buff as you would with a traditional finish (I haven't tried that) but that will take away some of the finish and the risk is that you eventually will cut through the layers. What I do is that I apply a few more coats of oil, this time applied with a folded coffee filter, more or less polishing the surface with oil, rather than applying a layer. this will fill the scratches from the sanding process and create a semi gloss surface. There will be a few small specks of dust in the finish but those can often be rubbed away with a soft cloth. This all produces a nice "woody" surface, not a glossy lacquered feeling, but something very organic, and for me, that is the purpose of using oil finishes.
  18. Re the effect of the paint: Have you stringed her up and tested the sound after the repair? I wouldn't be too concerned about ruining the sound unless it is a top notch sounding guitar
  19. My suggestion, for what its worth, is to strip the burst and start over. One rule I set for myself (but sadly not always follow) is to test on scrap material. Obviously you cannot test the reapir on scrap, but the sun bursting technique can and should be tested om scrap. The key to a nice burst is to feather the solid paint very lightly. Start with the spray gun, or the can, at about a 45 deg angle to the top, aiming it at the very edge of the body, almost missing the guitar. Lay down thin layers and build the burst in several applications, taking the guitar out in good light to check the progression between applications. I think that even though you need to have a pretty wide burst on account of the placement and size of the repair you can still make this a nice looking guitar. A simple thing like scraping the binding and abalone (?) purling clean would also help this look better. The main problem I think most see with the burst on display is that it is to wide and to opaque. However my heartfelt suggestion is to not try to fake age. Very few reliced guitars look aged, just reliced, and relicing a guitar is an artform in itself. So if you are not 100% confident on finishing, it might be a too big step aiming for a nice aged look. On the up side you should have lotsa cred for trying a very tricky repair.
  20. There is a album functionality here nowadays if you need to host pictures. And welcome back!
  21. Oh, thanks for the info. I actually got the Pro version right away
×
×
  • Create New...