WezV

obviously the first stages are to get the body section of the neck blank thinned down appropriately and get the top jointed if needs be.

basically its no more difficult than cutting a neck pocket

i have tried a couple of ways.

the easiest way, if you like the look and have the templates, is to go for a strat shaped end of fretboard. use the strat neck template to shape the end of the fretboard and use the strat neck pocket template to cut the top like this

obviously that is not so good when you need sharp corners

in that situation i still cut the neck pocket as close as possible with a router, then tidy up the sharp edges with chisels and files.

its always a lot easier than i think its going to be

edit: the one you linked to is even easier as you dont need to worry about the end of the fretboard fitting tightly

i fret level everything

even with warmoths, which are fretted very consistently, i still find a slight level will help get the best out of them

a precision straight edge is the msot important tool, a fret rocker also helps (but can be made really easily) the rest can be done with some pretty basic tools

i looked into them. cant remember what they cost, but it was enough to put me off

i think laminates of thin CF is the way to go. not easy to carve the neck, but apparently very stable.

this could be helped with normal cf rods as well

but its always good to see ola's stuff! and i am happy he now has imitators... he deserves to have people want to build guitars the way he does, hopefully with the hardware he designed

thank you for being very clear of your influences

even when i do original designs someone comes along to say i nicked there idea. often i find we just share the same inspiration, which is why i try to cite my influences from the start.

i don't think my Photoshop skills are that good

my point is that as someone who revels in a different approach, you should really celebrate new approaches from others

I tried a mockup without the bottom bevel and I like it as well. I may make a mockup without the bevels just to see how it all looks in real material before I do my second one. .........

this is where photoshop comes into play. I have to record a gig tonite but will do a photochop of the HS just to get a visual.

fkhinhel

let me photoshop one of oursouls guitars till it looks like a les paul

did not think you would be the guy to question something a bit different

This is why I never criticize anyone's work. I own the fact that I suck.

but that is boring

I love constructive criticism, and think it can be very beneficial - when done considerately.

i.e. 'i dont like that headstock, maybe if you tried..." is much more useful than "that headstock looks ****

...

of course, there is always the problem with new ideas like this that people simply wont like it because they are not used to seeing it. Familiarity makes the heart grow fonder. which is exactly why this one looks better to my eyes than the NS version i posted even though the outline and idea are very similar, the bevels create more familiar headstock features

there is certainly nothing to criticise this idea for other than aesthetic appeal.

Our Souls, I know what you are saying. The outline is a little odd, but from the front, the bevels create kind of a faux silhouette that carries the theme from the top horn and truss rod cover. I don't mind if people aren't wild about it. I like it. I know that there have been a couple of projects by other forum members where I have thought "nope, not a fan", but if they like, it's cool..

that is what makes it look better front the front, and also makes it look better than Nathan Sheppard's design - yours gets a hint of parkishness from its bevels.

can you flip the saddle around, sometimes its enough to get you what you need

you need to start measuring scale length and checking the bridge is correctly installed before we go any further. measure from the front edge of nut to middle of 12th fret and double it. now measure from front edge of nut to bridge saddle and see what you get

as an example. lets say front edge of nut to 12th fret is 325mm then front edge of nut to saddle will be 650mm plus compensation. It will never need to be less than 650mm, as a rough guide it should be 2 or 3mm more on a low E

check the measurements first! I have seen people start moving bridges because of intonation issues that turned out to be caused by a dud string

the headstock is certainly prettier than the nathan shepard version of this idea

the other thing i am not sure about is the neck thickness. i like chunky necks, but i think 1 1/4" will make this fairly unusable. you may be able to play it fine, it probably just wont be the guitar you go to

on the other hand, i have a 1930's resonator with a neck that thick and i play it all the time - for slide. so maybe if the neck doesnt survive string tension very well this will be a good candidate for a slide guitar

I used these a lot when I started building as I tend to make fairly thin guitars as well but I've had a lot of problems with them going bad. Some of my touring guys have even resorted to carrying spares as they fail so often. They are my first choice for ease of installation and aesthetics on the thin ones though.

i was beginning to think it was just me that had problems with them

also, i used locking neutriks for a while but stopped because they are only secured with 2 screws and the locking mechanism is very sturdy - they probably would rip straight out the guitar if you stood on the cable

looks good but i dont think i would have carved under the bridge

When I built that sorta-can-opener looking one, I thinned out the body where the tuners came thru . Down to headstock-thickness. It allowed me to use regular tuners with no issues.

think you will find he has already taken it down to headstock thickness for the steiny tuners - the main problem with normal tuners is the low E tuner button which gets hard to tune

works on a bc rich 10 string with only 4 tuners in the cutaway but no way to get 6 on a corvus without changing the shape or accepting the low E will be hard to tune

even so, given the shape and the era the corvus was designed i still insist they fully intended it to be headless and chickened out for some reason at the last moment

what is the cool stuff? that bottle looks dangerous

I was not telling you to use a different gauge of string... i was telling you to use new strings. I would never try to intonate a guitar without using fresh strings, just stretched in.

9 out of 10 times when people cant get a guitar to intonate new strings will solve the issue. even if it turns out not to be the issue its always worth spending the cost of a pack of strings before you start moving bridges.

you think the bridge needs to be closer to the neck to cope with using 8's on the 24 3/4" scale length. You are correct, in that it will need to be closer to the neck than it does with 9's and if you used heavier strings it would need to go further away from the neck. and the low action does mean it will need to be shorter too... but try not to forget that the string should never end up shorter than the scale length

set the bridge saddles to their midpoint and see if you can measure along the high and low E strings.

High E

Front edge of nut to middle of 12th fret =

Front edge of nut to bridge saddle =

Low E

Front edge of nut to middle of 12th fret =

Front edge of nut to bridge saddle =

That will allow us to tell you instantly if the bridge actually needs moving

just after an attractive bikini-clad lass dives in.

surely that needs to give john inspiration for an inlay

So I guess I will just have to live with a guitar that can't be intonated properly.

drummerdude i would be very surprised if that is actually the case. I have come across very few guitars that cant be intonated with a normal gauge of string and tuning.

if you are struggling to get it intonated the first thing you need to do is buy new string as, as the gauge you are not sure of that came on the guitar will possibly be a pile of crap and are not what you want for adjusting intonation.

i think you need to step back a bit from this guitar, we have had numerous threads about its problems and now you are stating it will never intonate correctly..... you need to step back and see 'the big set-up picture'.

the chances of the bridge being in the wrong place are actually quite minimal. i wont say it never happens, but i have never seen it happen on a new guitar made in that last 10 years. the only times i have considered moving a bridge on a new guitar is when it was required to do a very low tuning with very heavy strings.

Glad you are now happy with the set-up.

You have already learned that a slight change can make a big difference, you just need to realise there are many slight changes you can make and they all make a big difference... that is what i mean by 'seeing the big picture'. trial and error set-ups never work as anything other than learning exercises, you need to start learning how all those little adjustments work together!

fwiw my guitars average 1.2mm at the 12th fret and all are buzz free. oh, but then someone comes round who is a bit heavy handed and now none of them are buzz free. 'the big picture' is not just about realising how all these things affect each other, its about realising how they can be made to work for different playing styles

i quite like the look of that colour - what is the hardware and pickguard choices? that blue screams chrome and a white plate to me, maybe with black pickups and knobs, maybe not

try buffing it out with some compound,

or just stop looking at it, it is a used guitar

i have seen worse. loosen the neck screws whilst strung up. pull the neck in the direction you want till it looks right, tighten again.

it does seem the bridge spacing is a little wide for neck neck - which you can see clearly on many fenders. but if there is a little movement in the neck pocket it should see you right

dont get me wrong, i quite like the sound of a rosewood guitar by itself, like the fender rosewood tele's for instance

but how well does that tone actually work when competing with drums, cymbals and bass? rosewood can be quite warm, and if not careful is easier to lose in the mix than paduak with its poweful mids

yeah ... make use of holes on the guitar. at the headstock you have the obvious tuner holes, but dont forget you generally have a jack socket and control cavity at the body end that you can thread through too

linear or audio taper Pot?

its unusal to have no sound up to 6, but its not unusual to have a sudden increase in volume at some point in the pots travel.

you will see different recommendations like liner for tone, audio for volume. or audio for tone, linear for volume and any combination of this. my advice is to try the opposite of what you have now to see if you find like taper more usable

i much prefer audio taper pots for tone controls. a lot of people tell me this is daft, there is no need for audio taper on a tone pot.... but i have A/B'd them in the same guitar and that is what i like so everyone who says i am wrong can bugger off

if your aim is to tame the brightness of paduak then i dont think rosewood would be the way to go. tbh, chambering it will do a fair amount anyway... but i would go for alder or mahogany

imho paduak sounds awesome as it is. It does have a fair amount of high mids but this is really useful in a band situation. i wouldnt call it bright either, its a good complex tone all by itself

i would recommend making a guitar or two out of paduak and/or rosewood before you start guessing what the combination of the two might be. But i would say, as a guide that a solid paduak guitar is a lot mroe usable than a solid rosewood guitar