mistermikev

yes, lot of great builds finishing up right now... well... still have a lot on my list. time to make a list: neck pickup sitting at angle... i believe this is due to the edges rubbing the corners - what I get for trying to make the opening "just big enough" and then not using cnc to drill the pickup holes flip polarity on the pickup cut the string slots a hair deeper in nut one knob is not sitting right... i think due to a 6mm post (instead of .25") on the preamp pot... anything I try to put in there is too thick... driving me nuts. toggle switch plate - need to take off and sand it smooth. the ca glue I used was thick and can see some irreg at certain angles currently setup on 10 guage strings... had to order some 9s (who the f uses 9s... well kevin does). need to do intonnation. general clean up - got some buffing compound in the f holes so need to go in there with a sponge need longer screws for bridge pickup - ordered... this pickup is so tall can't get it low enough strap pins need to add a little instruction writeup on the modes... perhaps laminate it and stick to underside of controls. need to make a toggle switch tip need to do a final photo shoot make a video demo - this always takes me forever because I am too long winded. on the bright side... this fretwork was perfect. not one buzz, action is super low. first time I haven't needed any massage there.

so... in wiring up this guitar we had a marathon of murphy's law. issue1 getting things to fit... the preamp literally was 1.5mm too tall, and conflicted w the output jack wire. So I switched to a smaller full freq boost (ala stratoblaster) and wired it up. did not like it for this build. wrestled with myself and finally took the orig (blade based) preamp out to the garage and went at it with my dremel. ended up hitting an output cap and it was enough that I'd have to replace it... finally got that in and sounding good. packed in there pretty tight! issue 2: threaded jack pin - had to switch to 4 conductor wire. push back wire was just not flexible enough to spin and install. issue 3: then I noticed you could see the gold jack right through the f hole. so took it out, painted the end of it black, and put back in. issue 4: despite the fact that I talked to seymour duncan tech support early on and they told me "the vintage stack is wired EXACTLY the same as any other seymour"....... I found the bridge is north up and the neck is south up! Contacted them again in case someone pounded in the poles wrong, got the sm tech from before. he apologized profusely. they are one of a handful of exceptions and are wired with opposing polarity. will have to pass this pickup through my big 1/2" N52 mags to reverse polarity... will do soon. issue 5: start checking other positions of my wiring (two positions sounded perfect). what I learned is... the stew mac 4p5t is wired to make contact in the EXACT OPPOSITE order of the philli luthier 4p5T. shame on me for not checking that earlier. so yesterday morning completely rewired the 4p5T and reinstalled... working perfect. modified the drawing to add two resistors. had switched to 500K pots since most positions would be humbucker... the resistors will run in parallel and knock down the 500K to 280K when either single is selected... and 200K when in middle.

beautiful guitar... excellent work.

i was recently reading about the filtertron pickups... and to my surprise... despite being a 4-5K HUMBUCKER pickup(that's in series)... apparently they are considered one of the loudest pickups. I was like whaaaaa? The article states it has something to do with the very tall narrow footprint of that pickup... and I have tried to ask questions on the pickup mfg groups on facebook to hopefully bite off a piece of understanding... but no luck yet. I have a set from a setzer model... for a future build... now can't wait to try em!

if you tie all the red together and go to the tip of the jack... then tie all the black together and go to the ground/ring of the jack... yes, that's parallel. and series... yup. that is it. now... oddly with speakers the output part works a little different and this digs into how I "simplified" the analogy for pickups. with speakers running at 4 Ohm vs 16Ohm is less resistant... so 4 is actually louder than 16. With pickups it sort of works the opposite in that a 16k pickup is louder than a 4k pickup. Why is that? well you've found the edge of my knowledge on this subject... i will say that 16k vs 4k doesn't necc mean it's going to be louder as that is only a measurement of the resistance and the actual perceived loudness is influenced by a few other things like freq response. that said... dcr is commonly used to gauge loudness in pickups because in general it is accurate. I hope i didn't do more harm than good right there!

ok, there it is... so using seymour wire colors... in series you are going in on black, out on white, into second coil on red, then out on green to ground (using in/out for conceptual sake) in parallel you go in on black, out to ground on white. then in parallel your signal is also going in on red and out to ground on green. so in one case the two coils are running from live to ground in parallel, and in series you go in to 1 coil and then into the next coil and then to ground (i know capt obvious i am). if you think of the two coils like a resistors or like speakers. when you combine in series... you add them. so if coil one is 8k and coil 2 is 8k you are essentially getting 16k. for simplification purposes we'll just make the leap that 16k = 16 units of output ie loudness. in parallel you'd get 4K (1/8 + 1/8 = 8k * 8k/8k + 8k) what do they sound like? well series is higher output, more aggressive, typically associated with a humbucker in a les paul for instance. series also loses a bit of the highs... so is a hair darker. parallel is lower output... often described as 'sweeter'... and typically associated with a strat (all stock strats wired in parallel). it has more highs. that's about the best I can describe it.

well... I don't see a question but am happy to help if you don't mind rubbing my nose in it directly!

oh, shoot... did not see that you were asking... lemme go look...

wow, that really came out nice.

all smoke and mirrors lol... looks fantastic. note to self... add some tinted black lacquer to the bucket list. just classy as all get outl;. also... those controls being 'dropped down' - nice touch.

that fretboard looks lovely in that light. all wood... seems to have a photogenic angle. that is def the angle for that one! also a big fan of short scale. 32 is my fav size - cut my teeth on a yamaha motion b 32" scale and that just feels right. I don't think that body looks too small... if anything it looks pretty big north to south... but it's only your o that matters. i think the tobias basses have an incredibly small body... and then there's the curbo so... no rules.

well... idk what specific model pickups are in either... typically 490r/498t in the studio - no idea on model in the epi... but in both guitars they are supposedly gibson pickups (which is rare for an epiphone to have). edit: just looked it up: the epiphone has 57 classics in it which are widely considered an upgrade to the 490t. oddly, what I'm hearing is muffled highs and the classics are less overwound than 490 series... should have more highs. this is not meant as "qed it's not the pickups" just stating it as I see it.

There's lots of different factors - agreed. every guitar sounds the way it does because of it's totallity. the magic that the Gibson had over the Epiphone - there is no question for me... that chaps and capn are influenced by the idea that "nitro sounds better"... and their playing on both absolutely displays that... but I don't think I'm unconsciously influenced by that. I personally believe that a thick vs thin finish can make a difference... but beyond that I doubt highly that the type of finish necc dooms a guitar. that said... I think I'm listening pretty objectively but coming to the sm ultimate conclusion that one does indeed sound better to me. I'm def not influenced by their need to sell guitars and I think they are... but I also doubt they would purposely try to make the epiphone sound worse. I don't believe he's feeling any vibration through the neck... and that does sound like malarky to me... but again I'm just basing my opinion on what I hear and trying to be objective despite the criticism my opinion might encourage. I'm kinda putting myself out on a limb and ultimately trusting my ears for better or worse. fender - hehe... well here's my own anicdote that is very parallel. I have owned a cort acoustic since the 90s. I bought the cort despite knowing how frowned upon the name is... because I know that they make some really high end good guitars - the larry coryell and matt guitar murphy for one and two. I had played a coryell and it sounded great. dealer cost on my acoustic guitar in 99 was $700 - so it was a lot of money for me at that time. solid cedar top and mahog back and sides. I bought the undesireable label despite potential criticism.. There were certainly other brand names that were more respected that we were a dealer for (alvarez for one) that I could have bought instead. Not saying I am impervious to the sm brand infuence... just that I'm not afraid of going with my gut despite criticism.

right on. that is the thing... when chappers played it thru his amp... it sounded bad to me... when captain played it thru his amp... it also sounded bad... I think that was the point of switching amps - to show how they sounded on either setup. and the studio actually sounded great on both. no epi snob here... i still have an epi 295 that i like a lot... just that one is a bad example to me and surprising because it has good pickups. it is fair to assume that perhaps it was just that setup... and I dunno if either of them setup their amp using the gibson... but there was a consistency in what I didn't like and the only thing that changed was... the guitar.

glad to have your input on this curtisa. thank you for that. I hear you on the human ear... I am hyper aware of that now and admitedly was less so then... and I always generally take the approach that "I must be wrong" because if you don't believe there is a chance you are totally wrong... you are 99% more likely to be wrong... at least in my experience. I wouldn't mention this guitar... except it was like a literal ice pick to the ear. I didn't even like the guitar that was my #1 before this, and remember distinctly wrestling for months on what I would do - complete refinish? Further note... at the time I had no pre-concieved notions about poly sounding any particular way. I had not even heard of that until years later. The pickups, the hardware, the neck - this was all the sm stuff. Even the amp I was playing thru at the time was the sm. Now, still, I can't be 100% sure... you never can... but I was absolutely convinced at the time. Also... this was an incredibly thick finish. I filled the pores on mahog by simply spraying more poly. I think I went through possibly 5 cans of rattle poly. So.... this anecdote was not meant as a "therefore qed poly is brighter" - just the relay of my recolection of the experience. afa chappers... I hardly even listened to what they said... I was only relaying how I heard those guitars and to me - they are absolutely night and day. Are you saying you don't hear a difference between them? I'm not trying to "emporers new clothes" - you... just I really did hear a difference between them. Even when they switched... and hyper aware that the playing on the epiphone by captain was painfully not as good.... I'm hearing a big dif there. Again, I don't even think that necc every epiphone would sound as bad as this particular one... I fully believe it's this specific epiphone does not sound good to me... also not fully convinced all that difference can be nailed down to lacquer because it's just such a big dif... it would almost have to be a compilation of bad aspects.

right on. good info. my interest in having this discussion is mostly to temper my own convictions when building... fortunately for me I like the feel of a bare neck anyway. that said... I can't help but still think a thin finish on a body, and quality hardware/wood, is also a good safe bet. it also kind of makes me think I want to build a series of les paul type guitars and explore differing types of hardware/finish in the interest of observing any differences first hand. someday.

hard to say if their assessment is accurate. A very small difference in neck thickness can seem huge... difference in fret size can make a small neck feel bigger... and certainly a dif in finish thickness could account for it... or some combo of both. How about the necks? - well that is a good point. the neck on the jem has a razor thin finish - maybe one step away from being like a music man. if it has any lacquer it is almost non-existent. then again perhaps some of it has been worn off on mine - it is 30+ years old. I believe the neck on a paisley would just be typical nitro so also quite thin. good point. ok, devil's advocate... guitars that have thick finish but sound good... well for one the rickenbacker. idk if they use nitro... but those finishes sure look thick and they gloss the fretboard and the back. certainly less common.

well... sure... but playing devil's advocate here: I think a thin poly finish is def possible - just more difficult -esp in a mass mfg arena. I have to admit tho - if you look at an epi-fony they typically have a very thick finish. I don't think they even scrape the binding on them - as I recall an epi std I had that had clear over the binding. perhaps too thick to scrape and sand down! that said... ibanez guitars... and the jem 77fp in particular - have extremely thick finishes... yet the fp is widely regarded as the best sounding jem and perhaps one of the best sounding clean tone guitars ever. the flipping thing has actual cloth curtain material burried in gloss! one of the best sounding fenders ever - the pink paisley - has basically wallpaper buried in gloss. I don't know that I'm willing to fully blame it on gloss. 'bare wood measurements'... i don't think your assumption about neck size is accurate. there are so many different gibson profiles... just in the historics there is "pre-59/58 boatneck", "59 roundback" and "60 slim". further, a tribute would undoubtedly be to the '59 burst' ie roundback while a studio typically has something similar to a 60 slim. all that said I trust that if the cap and chappers said it was a thick finish - it was.

fingers crossed - good things for you.

there is a finishing group on facebook... lot of really amazing guys doing crazy good finishes... if you even mention nitro and a difference in sound from poly - immediate ban. i once re-finished my hamer steve stevens in poly... and I will say that initially I detected a super bright quality to the guitar... but this seemed to fade off in about 6 months. I'll draw no conclusions from that... just stating it as I saw it. I have a hard time believing that it could be one thing that makes that guitar sound so different and with that in mind I suspect it is a combination of things contributing to the sound. there are a number of things I wonder about afa contributions to that epi sounding so bad... certainly possible the finish, the veneered overlay, the nut, the difference in quality of wood, did they use the sm quality pots?, the pot metal used for the bridges on those epis. I have heard epiphones that sound surprisingly good... have an ES295 that I rather like and have had epi les pauls in the past that sounded good in proximity to other nice guitars. I really don't think you'd see this kind of difference on every epiphone... but have to admit the video has me somewhat doubting my observations! Out of curiosity... I had an epi bridge laying around, and a gotoh ... and I don't know if that epi was a bad example but tapping on them was noticeably different... and that has stuck a bias in my mind that they are all beyond crap.

the epiphone has gibson pickups... and sounds like rubbish to me compared to the gibson. surprised how dif these two sound. just curious of the general reaction.

really is a lovely piece of mahog... a shame to cover it with paint. that said - rarely see wood I don't think is pretty! sorry to hear the laid off... one door closes and another opens so chin up!!

"heavy metal triangle" lol, noice. looks like some limba? don't even have a guess for the fretboard. def a nice mixture of wood. I've always loved the look of flying v but have never had one because I always play sitting down and just can't make that work.

"Filter’Trons typically have a DCR of 3k-5k, which seems very low. However, due to the size of the magnet and the tall and narrow configuration of the coils, Filter’Trons are considered to be on the louder side of the pickup range. This lower output allows the pickups to keep the single coil clarity, while the construction allows for humbucker warmth." well I'll be, did not know they were s'posed to sound loud... i guess you'll have to let us know how that works out.

well the red and white wires twisted together there is a clue. it likely means they are wired in series and very low output pickups. I wouldn't fret... on chinese pickups that's a good thing because typically they are mud so low output is likely going to mean brighter. they also look like filtertron clones - filtertrons are very low output pickups. that said I'd bet money your wilkinson tele pickup is going to overpower the heck out of your knockoff filtertrons. I suggest you re-think that combo and get a lipstick tube - also a very low output pickup but chrome cover (just ensure you get a strat one, not a dano one - the dano style ones are longer and thinner and mount dif). gfs has some lipsticks but they are really just artec and you'll prob save $10 buying artec off evilbay. afa leads... black is likely live, green and bare are likely ground. if you put it on a multimeter, and tap the coils... and it goes neg - then you have them backwards.