WezV

the stew-mac hot-rods are not really suitable for this kind of thickness, its not just the depth of the rods, generally they need to go a little deeper at the adjustment too. i also use the shallower 2-way rods kammo mentions, its just allows more options

i have not read that particular theory on gibson's scale length before - although obviously its been a topic of much debate for quite a while. have you got a source for the info as i would be interested to see it last one i did with a 'proper' gibson scale i went for 24 5/8ths and the standard method of calculating the slots. its the closest in feel i have got to pre 60's gibbo's - although it is on a design that came later tbh i pretty much came to the conclusion there was not a proper scale length for vintage gibson's . i know it has been 24 9/16ths and has been 24 5/8ths at some points, and there are definitely others which dont seem to fit any logical method exactly so that may be where the rule of 18ths comes in interesting that you mention the older instruments that used this. always been my understanding that many of these did not have any real bridge compensation... and it may well be the simplified fret calculations automatically added the compensation to the frets so less was needed at the bridge. very different to previous debates i have had with crusader (for anybody that followed them) about gibson's fretting practices - I still wont believe for one second they worked out each individual fret position or purposely used a combination of scale length before and after the 12th fret. When they made so many mistakes with the design of the electric guitar before 1958 (they got lucky with the juniors in 55, but they still have design flaws that got sorted on later versions) its hard to accept this idea of them doing R&D on different ways of achieving precisely intonated scale lengths. especially since there is almost no point in such a non adjustable feature.

bass necks dont really need to be any chunkier than guitar necks nearly 27mm at the body end would be too much for me, and i like a fat neck.

its just not worth it. i have done some fairly funky schemes on rotarys, but if you can get the same thing out of controls which show you where you are and are easy to use then why would you ever bother with a rotary? from the settings described a simple master coil split and 3-way switch is all that is needed - why make everything difficult with the rotary? i do like them for doing odd stuff or squeezing many options into a small place - like this switch i drew

i have been considering it again recently - the corvus ideas... even going so far as to get some plans made up

here is the free-way switch http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Components:_Switches_and_knobs/Free-Way_Pickup_Switch.html?actn=100101&xst=3&xsr=49249 wiring diagram for master coil split and normal 3-way pickup selector (same wiring if using a push pull or mini toggle) http://www.guitarelectronics.com/product/WD2HH3T10_01/Guitar-Wiring-Diagram-2-Humbuckers3-Way-Toggle-Switch1-Volume0Tone001.html http://www.guitarelectronics.com/product/WD2HH3L10_01/Guitar-Wiring-Diagram-2-Humbuckers3-Way-Lever-Switch1-Volume0Tone001.html or with independent toggles or push/pulls for splitting each pickup http://www.guitarelectronics.com/product/WD2HH3T10_02/2-Humbuckers3-Way-Toggle-Switch1-VolumeIndividual-Coil-Taps.html http://www.guitarelectronics.com/product/WD2HH3T11_02/Guitar-Wiring-Diagram-2-Humbuckers3-Way-Toggle-Switch1-Volume0Tone001.html I like to experiment too, but its the sounds that are most important to me - and having them easily accessible. dont rule out push/pulls because you have used them before

its easiest to do this with a normal 3-way and two mini-toggles or push/pulls which would also give you neck single coil & bridge humbucker and bridge single coil & neck humbucker. i also find it a bit easier to know which coils are active, which is often a problem on rotary switches if you dont want those extra settings you can use one mini-toggle or push pull as a master coil split or you could use the free-way switch from stew-mac as you pickup selector which offers you the 6 positions you want as standard

some of you may remember this yamaha RGXA2 i modded. i sold it off a few months ago , but the jack socket went a bit faulty so i was in discussions about sorting it out when the guy that brought it said he quite fancied having a midi pad putting in it at the same time so here we are, still need to do some more routing on the back of the body for the new control layout and a double battery box, but this gives an idea of how it will all fit together. the frame is quite a bit oversize, so will need trimming back around the bridge and pickup selector, but the screen fits in the available space, just! it sits about 1mm below the bridge base plate. The first control is volume with n-tune onboard tuner. Followed by the program/channel selector for the pad, turn it for program, push it for MIDI channel. Then a 6-way toggle for neck/both/bridge in either hum or single mode The second toggle is a on/off switch for the midi which was an extra in the kit, normally its on if plugged in :? Finally there is the hold button to continuously send the same MIDI message the touch screen has not been butchered from a kaoss pad like a lot you see on youtube, leaving you with a screen that only controls the korg device... it is a separate midi controller that can theoretically control any midi device the kit came from these guys in poland and i am impressed by the simpleness of it all http://amptonelab.com/xymidipad/en/index.html ok, it involves some fairly extensive routing, but the actual wiring is very nicely done and clearly labelled only problem is, i wont have anything to test it with when done

yeah, i have had a few people bring me necks with that flat back and roundover kind of shape its its comfier than i expected - always been someone who carves quire round shapes before but i am leaning more towards that kind of thing on some necks now

you all know i like to piss about on occasion - this is one of those times! i decided i wanted to try swirling a guitar so did some research, watched some vids and got a general feel for the process after a few test pieces i started to think i was ready to try a guitar. in hindsight - more practice may have been needed so first i did a test guitar, its something i made a long time ago, butchered a few times and left in the corner the results are a very piss poor swirl - but i cant decide if i actually like it or not. basically i had issues with thickness and amount of paint on this one and it glooped and ran, looking like a bloody mess with a bit of a swirl appearing near the top ... anyway, after thinning the red a bit and using less of it i had another go on a copper leafed guitar. this time i still had the odd gloopy spot, but also really struggled to get the water droplets of the guitar so its a bit speckly in places, but much closer to the look i was after so i reckon this one could be good once its cleared and all buffed up. with the copper leaf changing colour in different light is looks pretty interesting so yeah, not awesome results yet - but enough to make me try again at some point and it was fun doing it

well i tried a couple with mixed results. first was a white firebirdish kinda thing as a test. the bottom half was a bit of a failure but the top half worked well - i guess i had too much paint. i have not decided what to do with taht yet second was the variegated metal leaf blazer which i gto a much better swirl on - but found it hard to get all the water droplets off the body, hair-dryer didn't seem to want to budge them. so its a bit bobbly as is but i reckon it should come out all right once i have cleared it pics at some later date

its a different game, doing replica's... but i dont really have a problem with it. my view is if gibson could do a proper re-issue there would be no need for such replica's, but its simply not something they can do well enough without charging massive amounts the logo issue is a tricky one. i am ok with it as long as somewhere there is something that reveals the true origins of the guitar, a note in a cavity or something like that. obviously its not an issue on yours as its technically a rebuild (we do need progress shots you know )

had to be hoogle, if not just for the pain of scraping back 200+ inlays

yeah, we all hate classic guitars design here... take your 335 and leave! right now!!! tbh i have lusted after a 58 ES335DC in natural for a long time.... so can you get rid of that neck binding please... i am not one of these 59 kids!!! glad to see you have the long plate though more pics please

on the blackmachines it is a cavity cover for the wiring to the end pin output jack

like the fender rosewood teles

gibson did it with some les pauls in the 70's, referred to as pancake bodies. Fender also did it when making the rosewood telecasters

so just under 2" - sounds about right. although most of us would call that the thickness of the guitar rather than the width the mahogany is 1 1/8" and the maple starts at about 3/4", with a 1/2" deep carve. if i remember right the maple is actually slightly over 3/4" something silly like 13/16" but i must say precise measurements of thickness are the last thing to worry about... does it really matter if your PRS copy is 1 3/4" rather than 2" ??? it only really matters to people who are making fakes!

best yet, although maybe not the most fun all elements just seem to fit nicely without anyone thing distracting, like some people not liking the bridge, or the hammered back, or certain other choices on the others those pickups need a bit of playing in though, the raw nickel covers continue to age in a very natural way. also worth mentioning the PG blues benefit from having 2 volumes for really controlling the out of phase tone - thank you for putting them in the correct way. I have seen so many people buy those pickups and put them in the usual humbucker way... not convinced it makes much difference to tone, but its not right!

on a normal acoustic i would say no to epoxy, but its the only thing i would trust for a formica/wood join. like i say though, rough up the surfaces first. i dont mean sand, i mean add some thin grooves with a file or small rasp. you dont want torn fuzzy wood, you want fine grooves for the glue to fill to help it grip each surface. never used that epoxy so i cant say for sure, you want to make sure you clean up all squeeze out before it sets fully hard or you will never get it off i should also point out i never won a gotm for re regluing an acoustic bridge ... so if you do find someone who says different and has done it on one of these guitars it would be worth listening to them

i would epoxy, after roughing up the top and bridge to help get the best bond with the epoxy

who knows? we dont know how tall your handmade classical bridge will be draw it out in side profile either with or without a neck angle, whichever you prefer - then design your bridge around that i prefer the feel of instruments with a neck angle and that often leads me towards higher bridges - but i know its just a personal preference thing

i used to have a squier supersonic - 24" scale with reverse headstock. that combined with the trem gave a tension i really did not like on normal strat scale lengths i quite like the reverse headstock, but only when string trees are there never had a real problem with the reverse headstock on firebirds which leads me to think a lot of what makes them ok for me is the angle behind the nut. also, firebirds are odd to play anyway so maybe i just dont notice the extra oddness of teh string tension to me they definitely look cooler, but i am used to the feel of normal fenders and that may make reverse heads feel odder than they really should

i know its a gotoh device, not sure i have seen any of the usual peeps supplying them though so the answer is either in a warmoth pro neck, or contact gotoh

i think aimee was referring to this pic