fookgub

The problem with using a radius block is that the frets have a certain finite height. This changes the radius such that the radius at the top is the frets is slightly larger than the radius of the fingerboard. It may not seem like much, but if you use a radius block that matches your fingerboard to level your frets, you will end up taking noticeably more material off the ends (ie: the frets will be taller in the center).

Why didn't I think of this? I really need to mix up some color using my old recipe in shellac. That would at least tell me whether or not the dyes I'm using are really the same color. I hope that the colors are fairly consistent batch to batch, as I'm using new red and yellow dye. I suspect that my older dyes have evaporated somewhat (they've been sitting on the shelf for about a year), which would affect the colors in unpredictable ways. I would like to avoid using shellac on the actual guitar, though. I really don't like how it sprays or sands, and I think everything will be a little easier if I stick with a single paint system. Plus I'm finally getting the hang of spraying lacquer. I doubt that the tint of the medium has much effect on the overall color. The shellac I used was quite blond. Still a little more amber than lacquer, but I doubt the tint of the shellac alone is enough to produce the wildly different colors I've been seeing. The dyes seem to "express" themselves better in the lacquer. Especially the black dye.

Can anyone point me towards a systematic approach to mixing dyes for translucent colors? I'm trying to replicate some colors I did a while back. I did these colors in shellac using LMI's MEK-based dye concentrates. Now I'm using lacquer, and the colors coming out are totally different, even though I used the same mix ratios and dyes. I've managed to replicate the red I was using (the recipe in lacquer is totally different), but I had a really nice orange-ish amber that I can't seem to replicate (I'm up to 9 separate tries now, and I'm getting frustrated). Here is a picture of the color. It's a bit washed out and a little too orange, but it gets the idea across. I've got the red, but I just can't seem to get that amber.

I did a little searching today, and most of the instances on the internet I've found that refer to using poly over shellac are referring to hardware store type poly, like Minwax. That stuff is very different from 2k poly. It dries and cures much more slowly, and the final film is generally more flexible. When I used shellac under conversion varnish, it was a disaster. Both of the guitars I did developed heavy cracking, beginning about 1 to 3 weeks after they were finished. I shot about 2 coats of 2# shellac as a sealer, then two more tinted color coats, followed by (IIRC) three more "barrier" coats of shellac. I sanded everything smooth to 220 or 320 grit prior to top coating with 6 coats of conversion varnish. I think that conversion varnish dries harder than poly, so it may be more prone to cracking. I know that at least part of my problem was the thickness of the shellac. If you kept the shellac to a couple very thin washcoats, there would probably be less chance of cracking. I'm still a little unsure about what levelhead has done. Did you dye the wood directly with TransTint, or are you looking for a way to shoot tinted colorcoats? In the first case, I would think you're probably fine to just shoot poly directly over the guitar. I think you could use one or two very thin coats of shellac to "lock in" the color if you want, but you may be better of finding a compatible sealer. Most companies that make polyurethane intended for wood finishing also sell a sealer product. In the second case, I don't really feel comfortable offering much advice, but I can tell you that building a significant thickness of shellac under a 2k product is a bad idea.

Certainly not trying to make any insinuations about your ability or experience, but have you ever done this before, MiKro? I don't have any experience using two pack poly, but the reason that I ask is that I had a lot of problems using conversion varnish over shellac. CV is also a two pack finish.

Is that the same PPG system you're using on the V? Looks like a pretty thick build (not that that's a bad thing). How many coats?

I use a straight piece of 3/4" steel square tubing with sandpaper stuck on with double-sided tape. Consensus around here seems to be to use a flat file (that is, a file that has been checked for flatness) or a flat and stable piece of "something" (either bought or found) with sandpaper stuck to it.

Wow, I started adding this up, but I just had to give up. What are we counting? I figure I've got about $600 in floorstanding tools (I found deals and bought used), and another $800 in benchtop tools (router, oss, scroll saw, etc). I can't even begin to count how much I've spent on tooling (router, drill, and dremel bits, air accessories, and all sorts of other stuff that make the tools actually "work"). And sandpaper! Crap, I have $100 worth just for my OSS. Power tools like sanders and drills I'm probably around $400. What about lacquer, dyes, buffing compound, and stuff like that? I easily have $300 in finishing materials in my garage right now. After that, it gets even harder. I've accumulated so many hand tools over the years I wouldn't even know where to start adding it up. The luthery-specific stuff is pricey, too. Then there's my electronics gear. Does that count? I've probably got about $500 worth of test equipment (found deals, bought used). Workbenches, lights, shelves... that stuff adds up, too. Best guess: the total value of tools and supplies in my garage exceeds $4000 (but hopefully not by much!). That doesn't include wood or project supplies. And I don't even have a table saw, jointer, planer, drum sander, chop saw, or any other big ticket items besides the drill press, bandsaw, compressor, and router table. In fact, the router table & router together are probably my single most expensive tool. Keep in mind than not all of this stuff is due to guitars. I've been steadily accumulating tools ever since I moved out of my parents house about 7 years ago. Having tools is a good thing. You can build all sorts of stuff with them besides guitars. Before I built guitars, it was speakers. I've built a bunch of stuff for the house, too. Spice rack, coffee table, desk, patio table, etc (luckily my girlfriend's aesthetic sensibilities are even less refined than my own). I figure tools are an investment, and you can save a lot of money in the long run by having them and building things yourself. Besides that, I think a lot of people here are like me in that they need to have some sort of "productive" hobby. I can't say how long I'll be building guitars (though my current list of guitars to build is about 3 years long), but I can guarantee I'll be building "something" for as long as I'm alive.

hmm... I don't have any problem with the idea of the PLEK. In fact, I've been wanting to get one of my guitars PLEK'd just to see how good the thing really is. I know some luthiers have their instruments PLEK'd before sending them out. I don't see what there is to be worried about. It's just a fretwork machine. It's not like it eats the soul of the guitar or anything.

Just FYI, I had to use IE to look at your site. It looks awful and doesn't work with Firefox or Opera. Might think about fixing it, since a lot of people are using Firefox these days. The guitar looks good, though.

Why not? I was thinking that putting a bit of a bow in while leveling the board could counteract the neck's tendency to backbow after fretting. Is this a bad idea?

No...the black ones... Those jazz picks blow...everybody thinks they make them play faster...well,maybe they are a bit more fluid,but they take away the pick's attack,and that cripples the rythm... And we all know the rythm IS the song...not all the little hundred mile an hour notes in the lead..... Even on lead,what is speed without meaning?Those stubbies take away the dynamics of the playing...and who wants to hear just one note after the other without dynamics? dude, the small picks don't hurt your dynamics, you just gotta have SKILLZ! Actually, I like these picks for my style of rhythm. I tend to choke up on the pick and chop at the strings, kind of like if you were going to strum pinch harmonics, but not actually pull the harmonics. Gets a cool sound with my thumb slightly muting the strings right after the pick goes by. They also work good for palm-muted sixteenth notes, pinch harmonics (I use a lot of pinch harmonics), tremolo picking, and other guitar gymnastics crap. I still use the big stubbies a lot too, though...

The gray ones? eww... I hate those picks! I like the Dunlop Stubby Jazz in 1mm. Small picks FTW!

Lookin' good. I've always wanted to do a Vee. Seems like a simple but satisfying build. Why the Jackson neck? Didn't feel like making one or was the customer adamant about a "genuine" Jackson? Regarding the heel, have you checked out how Ran does theirs? Really nice contouring (I don't think they do bolt on, though). What are you doing for a finish? edit: Never mind, I see you're going for gloss black. Good choice, that should suit it perfectly.

This may be the hardest month ever... at least that I can recall. For the first time, I'm going to go down the list and comment on everyone's guitar. I figure it'll help me decide who to vote for, and at the same time, I hope some of my comments can be useful to the builders. pete - I LOVE THIS GUITAR. Really classy and cool. The electronics put it over the top, but everything from the trem and the wide range pickup to the staggered machine heads speaks to me. All that chrome looks great with the blue body, too. I can't bring myself to vote for this guitar because you didn't build the guitar itself (sorry), but the completeness of the writeup you gave just shows how thorough your thought process was. You considered every detail, and it shows. Very nice work. matt - This guitar has been a long time in coming, and it looks great. The shape, I mean. I really don't like the look of purpleheat, but that's just my personal taste. It does go nicely with the walnut. The bevels and the forearm contour flow nicely, and I really dig the fretboard extension. The neck joint is really slick, too. The pickup seems to be a bit further from the bridge than usual. Is that just an illusion? All in all, a good looking build... I just wish you would have painted it a solid color. Trans red over metallic black would have been totally METAL! daniel - Another great looking guitar. I really like the doublecut shape, and the guitar looks nicely compact and comfortable without looking "off" at all. The trans blue over ash looks great, but I really don't like the relic job. Not saying it's badly done... I just can't stand relicing in general. Why mess up such a nice looking finish? Also, the jack placement seems a little funny to me. I would have put it further back, but it's your guitar. Those minor complaints aside, it really is an impressive looking instrument. mr buttman - Really nice work. About the only bad thing I can say about this is that it's just not my kinda guitar. But the finish looks very well done, and it suits the guitar perfectly. Looks like you got all the little details right, too. Nice work. killemall - Man, your builds are getting better and better... and you're pumping them out, too. How many is this for you now? Anyway, I dig this guitar, but there are a couple things I don't like. For one, I'm not crazy about the control layout. Why have the volume behind the bridge where it's hard to get to? Also, it looks like the bubinga has a dark patch in the upper wing area. What's up with that? Maybe a translucent finish would have helped cover that. The heel looks a bit thick (though it's nicely carved)... ever consider setting the neck in a little deeper towards the bridge so you can carve the heel thinner? The headstock looks really nice, though I don't like that you're using someone else's headstock on a guitar that's for sale. Don't take my criticisms the wrong way. It is good looking guitar, and you should be proud. decanentjon - This is an interesting guitar. I really like the deep-set rosewood neck. Both the neck joint and the neck itself are really cool and well done. The outline of the guitar is neat, too, but the forearm contour throws it off in my opinion. I think a more subtle carve would really help the look. I like the Tele bridge and pickups, but I'm not so sure about the control plate, especially since the controls are so far back on the body. I think the guitar would look better if it was rear-routed with the controls placed closer to the player's hands. boggs - I'm having a little trouble telling whether the first four pictures are the actual guitar or photoshop mockups. It would be nice to have some more realistic looking pictures. The shape of the guitar isn't really my thing, but it looks quite a bit better when someone is actually holding it. Still, the guitar is very original, and I think the angled pickups set it off and really help out the flow. Bonus points for being exceptionally light. How does it balance? j 48 - Holy crap this is a nice guitar! I think you made the right choice finishing the top in a solid color. Sometimes too much figured wood can be overpowering, whereas the solid color lends the guitar a cleaner look. I would have left the sides natural, though. I'm not so sure I like the flame maple pickguard and pickup rings. It seems like the guitar could use a little more contrast than they provide, though I'm having troubling coming up with something I think would look better. I really like the detail on the bottom of the fingerboard, and the neck joint really flows nicely. daniel - This is a very pretty guitar. I like how you kept the ornamentation simple and let the wood do the talking. The finish is beautiful, too (please don't relic it!). The extra soundhole is an interesting idea, and I would love to hear how it sounds in person. I like the shape, and especially the cutaway. Clean, classy, and perfect -- that's how I would sum up this build. jvillavicencio - That's a fine looking piece of mahogany you used. I like the shape, too. Clean and comfy looking. I'm not really sold on the headstock, though. It looks a little squished to me. Would have been nice if you included a shot of the back. Is it a bolt on? Those are some pretty hot pickups you're using. How does it sound? bluesy - Congrats on your first build... it looks like you did a wonderful job on it. I really like the wood you used. Fairly subdued, but with enough variations in the grain to keep things interesting. Looks like you had a little trouble with the binding around the cutaways. Is this just the picture? I like the pickguard mounted controls... keeps everything clean looking. I'm not sure I dig the finish on the headstock, though. I would have left the back and sides natural. I think some chrome-covered pickups would fit in nicely if you ever get around to swapping out the Epiphone pickups. In the end, I'm voting for Daniel's acoustic. It's the only guitar that both spoke to me (as in it's something I could see myself owning) and that I had no "I would have done it differently" comments about. Congrats to everyone, though... there was some tough competition this month for sure.

If your jig is just slightly out of square, can't you just alternate the direction of each piece thereby canceling out the error?

Very, very nice! Great spraying weather we've been having lately, huh? Is this a bolt on or set neck?

I guess that would have made more sense, but like Mikro said... just funnin' you guys. I've spent my fair share of time trying to decipher and answer some pretty wild questions, so I thought I'd see what it was like to be on the other side. Anyway, my post did sort of stem from reality. I was having a little trouble coming up with some sawdust last night. The dust collection on my hand sanders is worthless, and my disk sander is full of graphite because I'm always sharpening pencils on it. So I discovered that I could just make a couple passes on the side of the neck with 220 grit paper (after filing the fret ends flush, of course), and presto... fret slots filled with sawdust. Probably old news to a lot of you guys, but I thought it was cool. I've been a little quiet around here lately, but I'm actually working pretty furiously. I'm actively working on 3 refinishing projects and a set neck guitar, plus I've got two bodies waiting for necks (sidelined until I get the other stuff done). I've taken to waiting until right before I start finishing before I post my work... that way it looks like I work faster. On a related fretting note: I finished hammering the last fret into my fretboard yesterday, then promptly when upstairs and ordered a set of fret press cauls. Exciting stuff! Hammering is such a drag.

well ill have to wait till tomarrow to try it cos i dont have ne sand for the sander and the guy the sold it to me said i had to go buy teh sand at like home despt or sumthin but i dont want to go in there again because the guy there will probably call the cops again and pretned like i'm stealing the sand or something. but neways i dont see how teh sander would make suwdust becouse all it does is to shoot the sand at the wood i dunno maybe theres some dust but its all mixed in with the sand. what if i just get a chian saw isnt that how they make the dust at shops and stuff???

well i went to home deepo yesterday to get som suwdust and i saw sum under this big saw they had so i asked this guy hoe much it would cost to get some but he told me i could take as much as i wanted for free. so i was all like cool and i put a bunch in my pockets but when i walked out this manager guy got all in my face and was wanting to see what i had in my pockets and he said i was stealing thier sawdist. i treid to tell him that the guy said it wuz free but he said i was lieying and called the cops and the cops showed up an took me to jail even though i told them the the one dude said i culd have it free. but while i was in jail they had a bunch of sawdus therer that the put on the floors and stuff... i dunno why but whever. so i would have took some but they took my close and all i had was this jump-suit thing with noe pockets so i couldnt take any, but i asked the guy in charge if i could have some whem i left and he said ok... but then when i was leaving i forgot to take sum cos they just kicked me out real fast and they said the home deep droped the shof-lifting charge but they were keeping the sawdust i took for evedence or sumthing... so newayz i guess i sander could work i have like 8 of them but how do you make the dust????

itried to make it with a chizel but olny big flake an noe sawdust get made.... i tried rubbing it on teh driveway and it made dust but i couldbnt seprate teh dust from the dirt... can i just use dirt instead???

i'm working on my 2nd neck from scratch and i read that ppl use sawdust and glue to fill in gaps under the frets on the edges of the fretbaord but i looked online and i couldnt find anewhere to buy any sawdus but some1 must sell it cos i know ppl use it for stuff..... can ne1 tell me where to buy sum sawdust???

The Anderton circuit is called the Tube Sound Fuzz, and it's described in his book Electronic Projects for Musicians. It just a basic fuzz circuit, but using a CMOS inverter for both the amplification and clipping. The transfer characteristic of the chip in that circuit is somewhat tube-like. Anyway, I'm not sure whether you're referring to a polyphonic sustainer (something I have plans to eventually tackle) or just polyphonic distortion. Pete has, I believe, messed with polyphonic sustainers (right?). You add a lot of complication to the circuitry by going the polyphonic route -- 6 completely separate signal paths as opposed to one. That hex buffer probably won't help you too much. You still need output stages, and I don't think that chip has enough current capacity to drive a sustainer coil. Polyphonic distortion for guitar has been around for quite some time now. It's actually very much like you describe, but the lack of intermodulation distortion makes for a somewhat strange (at least "un-guitar-like") sound. Sounds more like a synthesizer than a guitar when playing chords. The Anderton circuit would be worth a look if this is the route you're thinking of taking. The circuit uses two inverter stages and minimal supporting circuitry. So with a pair of hex buffers and about 40 resistors and caps, you could build a six-channel version.

Craig Anderton built a distortion around a similar chip. Sounded pretty good, but I wouldn't try getting a decent clean tone from one. As pete said, they're not particularly hi-fi, and there's no good way to set the gain.

+1 more. I tried the one in the tutorial and it didn't work. The other one works great.