Andyjr1515

Hi, Andrew I've been a bit distracted in the past week but have kept meaning to congratulate you on a very, very well deserved win of GOTM It's a stunning build. Great job - top notch

Your typo has been amended

On another forum, I've titled it, "A Bridge Too Far?" Definitely my most ambitious project yet... Another bass - but the one after this is going to be a 6-string electric! This one is not guaranteed to succeed but, if it does, will be most definitely in the ultra-modern camp. Its for Mick - do you remember the Alembic-like bass that was falling to bits a year or so ago? That was Mick's. Why is it ultra-modern? The shape - front and cross-sectional piezo under acoustic bridge + hidden magnetic pickup (not headless but) headless tuning, hidden hidden controls full-length, integrated fretboard single-cut ultra-slim (1" reducing to nothing) all white(ish) natural finish This is what I mean by the shape - basically Mick's design and an amalgam of some of the more unconventional specialist makers: The fretboard (fretted) will be set into the body, with a touch of 'neck angle' relief to allow for fingernail and pick clearance, but cross-sectionally will be like a 'contact-lens': This is why it might be a bridge too far...

I think it's horses for courses. The violin / viola fine tuners were developed because the traditional wooden peg system at the head is very difficult to adjust finely enough for the upper strings. Because of the leverage of holding the violin in place with your chin at the other end of the headstock, it seems to make design sense that the 'mechanical aid', when it became available, would be put at the tailstock end so you could rough tune with the pegs, then fine tune with the metal tuners. Traditional guitars also started with wooden pegs (many flamenco guitars still do) but here the leverage isn't usually as much of an issue. Hence the machine heads, when they became available, followed the standard configuration and just replaced the pegs. With a locking nut tremolo system, you still need machine heads to get the strings basically to pitch but then the strings are clamped down at the nut to minimise tuning issues with major string bending from the trem. But with the strings locked down at the nut (which itself affects the tuning slightly) there needed to be a simple fine adjustment somewhere else - hence the screw fine tuners on the trem. The Gibson bridge above is similar - but to improve tuning stability not, this time, caused by major whammy bar use but by significant string bending. The strings will be clamped at the nut, just like on a Floyd Rose, and there will be conventional tuners used, with the nut clamps loosened, to put the initial stretch on the strings. There is, of course, no reason why you couldn't fix the ball ends of the strings at the headstock and have the tuning mechanism at the bridge - especially if you are trying to eliminate neck dive from heavy hardware on a long neck - which is exactly what 'headless' tuning systems such as Steinberger do. So broadly, it's all about 'what problem needs solving and what is the most practical way of solving that' Don't know if any of that makes any sense

These look lovely together. Great job!

Beautiful job. I also used ebony as binding for my first build....and used something different for the second . I found it quite challenging to bend and, once cool, doesn't budge an inch, regardless of how much binding tape and inner-tube mummification. I think you've done well.

Great progress and looking good

Thanks, folks I'm progressively cutting down on the lemons to suck as the stupid grin eases off...

Mind you - not doing so well against your HM6 Halcyon in GOTM! When I said, "May the best man win!" I didn't actually mean it, for goodness sake!

Thanks, Scott

Absolutely. Buxton, tomorrow evening 7.30? In fact, hang the cost - I'll buy two rounds...after all, you'll have travelled further than me. About 10,000 miles further, give or take?

Hi, All Just heard that my piccolo bass is featured "Bass of the Week" this week in the excellent (well, I would think that, wouldn't I ) US-based e-zine No Treble. The link is here I now need to suck lots and lots of lemons to get that stupid smug grin off my face Andy

Yup - looking forward to this

That joint looks very nicely fitted to me. I find achieving a gapless joint on components like this very challenging. I'm interested in the aspects of this build where you are pulling away from 'convention' - an attitude after my own heart! The one I noticed in this post is that you have no locating tenon on the joint. I don't think I've seen a simple butt joint before on a neck, but can't see why it shouldn't work fine. One thing I found on one of my own builds using the same type of fixings was that I had to re-tighten the bolts after a few months playing. I guess the wood continues to compress for a while, even though it was massively tight to begin with.

You could even pop a Gibson 'Rythm Treble' plate on...they are big enough to cover many sins

Fast work and looking really good . Are you planning on wading into the murky world of tap-tuning?

That's remarkable....

I should add that the router I used had one of those height adjusters at the top of the shaft, so I could set the height with just the bearing in place and then dial in the depth cut progressively without any chance of the bit going anywhere other than vertically. Hand held insertion for this kind of thing would be a no-no...

As you say, it's horses for courses...there are pros and cons with all methods. The reason I use a router is that I judged that the speed ranges were probably more compatible than my small and basic drill press. I actually use a coving bit with a bottom bearing. The bearing is smaller than the pot shaft diameter, so I drill a hole in the pot shaft position just a smidge bigger than the bearing, then feed the bearing down the shaft and then continue into the cut - so it's a sort of vertical guided bit! When it's all sorted, I just widen the shaft hole with a stepper drill bit For positioning purposes, the drill press would be better (probably easier and lower risk is a better term) but, as I say, I have reservations about the quality of the cut with my particular one.

A coving bit is what I use also...I haven't been able to find anything that gives anywhere near such a neat result. In terms of tearout, I use good bits (Axminster - as you are in the UK - are OK in my view), and I practice at various router speeds on some offcut of the wood I'm going to use.

I'm not sure I can contribute here. I've never come across a neck block extension. In 'conventional' builds, any bar attached to the top would contribute to transferring the vibrations to areas of the top that will vibrate harmonically with each of the played notes and so the joint with the top would be the critical one. Hence normally all components would be glued to the top and scalloped/ shaped first. These two struts, however, appear to be more to do with strength. I'm intrigued, therefore, how the rigid neck block extension, and attached struts, will affect the vibration of the top. Fascinating stuff...

The couple of acoustics I've done have aimed at a finished back and sides thickness of 1.9mm, (quite - I think we can assume that is best termed 'nominal' .). I have to say that both are substantially rigid structures (one is Walnut and one is London Plane) although I was nervous for the first one that it might not be. You are right that anything much above 2mm is very difficult to bend.

This is a great read, Matt. And I fully agree - life is FAR too short to have uncut kerfing.... I may have missed it in the read, but what thickness did you do the sides down to?

Wow! Not at all sure how I missed this? I LOVE acoustic build threads. I will be reading this with the greatest of interest

Nice clean carve there . Waiting patiently to see the super duper top secret top