mistermikev

so jacking around tonight working on my own push/pull version of the pa2.  There is a well known schematic and layout link below.  Here's me admitting what I know and what I don't know about the schematic...

so the thing I'm unsure of is the sv1 which is an emg quick connect.  I have no use for that so don't want it in my layout.  looking at that pin header here's how I understand it:

sv1-5 appears to be the output which is selecting on s1 between a amp that is boosted via R4 resistance, and another amp that has no boost factor between pins 6 and 7 on the TL062.  So that amp is functioning as a unity buffer.

on sv1-4 and 3 are obviously to ground.

sv1-2 is on the back side of a polarity protection diode that would feed any further circuitry 9 volts. 

sv1-1 is our input as it seems to have a pull down resistor of 499k going to ground, then a hi pass filter followed by vb... then feeding into both the buffer and the booster. 

so my question is:

do I have those connections right because according to the commercial version website that quick connector on the below schematic is wired wrong.  Perhaps they were wired dif in the past?

below is my version setup to work off of a 500k push pull pot.

EDIT: corrected layout here:

EDIT: doh... doesn't count if no one else caught it... my two 1uf electro caps on the buffer side of things were backwards...

8 hours ago, JayT said:

I found myself cleaning the fret slots often, I slotted first then sanded radius....should I just leave the sandings in the slots until the radius is 100% done? Can I "overwork" the slots making them too deep/wide?

for some reason I always have to fight temptation to constantly clean my slots... probably because once you have binding on (if you do binding) you want to have them clean.  I usually blow them out repeatedly, and freq go in with a razor blade that I've dulled down.  ok, ok... perhaps it's just because I'm ocd about it.  If you ever want talk about it... you know... just rap... I'm here.  (Fret dust haters anonymous - I might be the only member).

looks great with that color on it.  Not being critical, and perhaps it's the pics.. but is that neck sitting reverse angled in the pocket?  I know sometimes perspective gets warbled looking at pics on here... but couldn't help but notice. 

edit- I think it's just the shadow at the bottom making it look like that to me.  ROCK ON. 

2 hours ago, tparker said:

mike v,

Any suggestions on the knobs? Maybe black chicken head?

what I think would work well here is if you bought some clear knobs... perhaps the bell type?  then take some whatever dye you used on the body and mix it with something... maybe tru oil or perhaps mix it with white paint?  and apply to the underside of the clear knob.  get some color matched knobs... that'd look pretty nice.

another option might be to go with some chrome dome type knobs to match the chrome hardware.  Might look nice with some chrome knobs with the black inserts to tie to both the pickup covers and the chrome hardware.

shot of my setup to add the taper to the back of my necks.  I started out with a common neck profile drawing for a late 50s tele.  I have marked the neck with the depth from the top down at the first fret and the 12th fret... then I set the depth of the router to go right up to the mark at the 1st fret... and raise the other side of my planing rails until the blade of the router lines up with that mark. 

and here's the product of putting in that plane...

and he is my tuxedo neck with the grade planed in.

shaped my neck for the les flaws... my first experience with wenge and sharp corners right on end grain. 

installed my truss rod for the tuxedo...

and installed my truss rod for the broadchaser:

decided I would use some offcuts from my tuxedo top to join together for a headstock overlay:

cut the 4 degree slope in my les flaws... had to go snag some 6" bolts to get the correct rise/run...

then feathered that into the rest of the body:

did a test fit for my 4 way switch on the tuxedo and found I needed to remove a little more material... also have carved in my belly cut and neck transition (will show that later)... final weigh in before adding the top:

so was thinking tonight... about a jig I might make to cut the 94 degree cut into the back and sides of the neck where it meets the body and it occurred to me...why not just make it easy on myself and cut a 90 degree transition from the 4 degree plane?  This would be 86 degrees relative to the body.  Then I can simply make all my cuts on the neck at 90 degrees.  Skip the need to build a jig, skip that pesky sanding to match the angle... and since this isn't a traditional les paul build... no reason to not hit the easy button.  Here's my 86 degree line:

talk about documenting your build... lots of good stuff there.  thanks for that.

6 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I'll second that. You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing. 

i just meant my young sense of humor... that rest of me is old as f!

hehe, just realized I cut my tele jack hole on a guitar I'm going to do binding on... doh.  will have to get a 1" dowel and stick it in there... or cut up to it and just make the necc transition by hand.  Scrambling to find work to do while awaiting parts has thrown my whole thing off... so don't do THAT!

edit: perhaps the best advice would be - just don't listen to me or do anything i would do!

I spend a lot of time thinking my next moves through... not in any sort of organized way... just trying to anticipate issues.  For instance, On my radius top builds... I generally put a belly cut in... but if you make that too extreme and don't leave enough material... there won't be anything to ride a bearing on to do binding.  However, if I ever make that mistake... I could simply cut a piece the right dimension and sticky tape it back on... so for every 'mistake' there is a workaround... and I'd say learning these workarounds probably does more to make you a good builder than actually not making any mistakes. 

that said... all of that info is specific to the type of guitar I build... and how I accomplish the binding.  The things I think we'd all agree on are so obvious they aren't worth mentioning but here goes:

def have to cut the truss channel and put in the truss rod before putting on the fretboard (this rule can be broken... even with a dual action truss... I've seen a thread where a guy installed one in a back channel like a 1 piece strat neck). 

for me... I have to have a fretboard on a neck before I place my bridge.  You can draw it out based on the centerline... but if you make small mistakes like glueing the fretboard scale on a little different... it can change the intonnation line.  also if your neck ends up a little 'off' center, your strings can end up too close to the edge on one side.  So I always get the neck almost done, then use the sides of the fretboard to draw lines going back to the bridge, then find the midpoint between those two lines... THATs my centerline (usually the actual centerline). 

you shouldn't do finish before you do binding... but I recently did a guitar where it had a roundover edge, and binding sitting below that.  I didn't want to have to wet sand right up to the binding as I recognized that that would be hard to do well.  So I finished the guitar and then put binding on. 

my point is... try to think ahead, try to avoid pitfalls, certainly make use of the many fantastic and talented builders here who have experience - ask them specific questions... but know that any mistake you make can be overcome - if you are willing to do what it takes.

2 hours ago, Prostheta said:

@mistermikev is adult enough to know that we rarely adult ourselves, going off on discussions....and is free to shut us down since it's his thread. 

hehe, I'm rarely accused of being adult... but I don't mind at all... even if the ot doesn't involve me.  This is a forum after all... the whole point is people interacting.  I wouldn't dream of attempting to shut anyone down. 

2 hours ago, ADFinlayson said:

There is a difference IMO between bartering for an off the shelf item that anyone can buy and bartering for a commissioned piece built to someones requirements. Anyway, this has gone way off topic, sorry @mistermikev

there is NEVER any issue with going OT in my threads.  Please do.  For me, it's all about just exchanging. 

Just now, ADFinlayson said:

Yeah I think any kind of art/craft/woodworking project where you’re charging for a finished piece, if someone wants to drill you down on price, they should be told where to go. 

 well you know what they say... part of your job as a salesman is education!  Again, not trying to sell guitars at all, just musing at the silliness of it all.  It's a brutal market for that, more inclined to trade guitars for gear I need (rather want... do we really NEED anything?)! 

40 minutes ago, ADFinlayson said:

Mike, what you describe there about friends asking is precisely how I got into building for others. The good thing about them being friends is that I was able to say very clearly that “it will cost £n for parts and consumables which you must pay up front and it will take as long as it takes.” I’ve adopted the same approach for friends of friends and customers I don’t know at all but with a bit more tact, and the £n for parts is now labelled “deposit” with the addition of £y for labour on collection. That approach has served me  quite well so far, but I do get the odd enquiry that requires an hour long conversation on messenger before they disappear into the ether. That being said, one of those conversations turned into an unexpected deposit 6 months later. The trouble with relying almost completely on the internet for new business is that a lot of “enquiries” are a waste of time. All that being said, if I could do it for a living, I’d give up tech in a heartbeat

don't get me wrong "saving the world from badly formatted data streams" is no trip to hollywood but I sometimes enjoy programming.  When I have a new interesting job to figure out the time goes by fast and I love it... but like anything else - has its down side for sure. 

I worked as a music store employee for a stint when I was younger... there are folks that just love to talk shop and I honestly don't mind that... cause I love gear.  The folks I never could stand where what I call the "hunters".  Really only interested in whatever they can't have... so whatever the price is they want it for x-1.  Then when they grind you down and you give in... they aren't interested because they only really were ever interested in 'the hunt'.  None of that interests me... only building interesting things does!

2 hours ago, komodo said:

I've thought a lot about a similar thing lately. I'm sure you guys get this a lot ... "what are you going to do wth that? Sell it?" NO! I just gave birth to it! I'm going to play it! When explaining to my wife about project one offs vs production manufacture and selling - I realized that most of what we are doing here is a lot of problem solving and variable choices when we build these typical project guitars. If I were to sell one of my designs - well, all the geometries and choices have been made in a prototype of sorts. So, then it's just making production templates and figuring material and time compromises to make it efficient and profitable.

But, all of that decision making and variables part is like a big puzzle....and puzzles are fun....and if you have the kind of brain that just loves that then maybe that's why building these for a hobby is so addicting. And why we have a build started before the paint is dry on the last. More than once I have been done with a build, so tired after climbing the hill - when I suddenly realize I have a NEW GUITAR. It's really weird.

I am a hoarder right now because all my life I couldn't afford anything fancy like many of my cohorts have... now the only thing separating me from owning every guitar I ever wanted is learning to build it.  Along the way it turns out building is more fun than I thought!

that said, I've had a few folks ask me about selling guitars and I'm def not 'above' doing that, but I generally tell folks "I'm really just doing this for fun".  Then, one day I have this guy who is hounding me to sell him a guitar despite repeated "nos".  I finally give in and tell him "ok fine... what would you pay for it" thinking this should end the conversation pretty quick.  He shoots a number that is surprisingly close to what I would part with it for so I tell him 'x + 300' and promptly never hear from him again. 

I didn't even want to sell it in the first place and this jackwagon gets me thinking "well if I sold it I could afford parts for 2 new guitars" only to break my heart.  That right there is why I would not want to build for money.  I only care about building.  I have a few friends that have asked me to build them something but I try to change the conversation.  I'm sure I will sell something or build for a friend at some point because I'm blowing way too much money on this stuff but here's what tempers my view: "find a job you love and you'll never work another day but make what you love your job and it'll become work"

"series of compromises held together by hope" - I like that.  good one!

awaiting some parts and kind of left to all the minor details of my builds for the time being, so thought I'd spend some time on my plans for electronics:

first up: the tuxedo.

going to be using a seymour vintage stack for the bridge, and a 4 way tele switch.  I have a 4 way in a tele and didn't realize until recently that the two middle positions where NOT the two combined positions... so I changed this on my version as I prefer Bridge, BN Parallel, BN Series, Neck.  Also set it up so that the bridge will be in stacked humbucker mode in pos 1, but split for the two combined positions 2 and 3.  Figured it might be nice to go back to single coil for the bridge position so I've got a push pull that will accomplish that, and also swap between 50's and 60's style tone control with the lead for the tone swapping between the pickup side and the jack side. 

next up is the broadchaser:

I'm putting a hot rail in the 'hidden' middle position so that I can use either rail for hum cancellation.  That rail is a bit mismatched with the bridge which should allow the bridge pickup to dominate for a little less hum cancelling but a little more bridge flavor.  Using a 4 pole 3 throw switch here for stock tele operation plus two additional modes: parallel humbuckers and series humbuckers.

finally, the les flaws:

I don't generally tend to care for the split singles by themselves from a humbucker, and the humbuckers I'll be using are sentient/nazgul which (I'm told) don't sound great split anyway... so I figured I'd do a simplified version of my signature "all combos" wiring... and just focus on the 4 humbucking combos: bridge-vs-neck-parallel, inside-vs-outside-parallel, inside-vs-outside-series, and bridge-vs-neck-series.  Going to etch a pcb to keep the wiring of the 4p4t clean.  Using a unique alph 4p4t switch that is fairly small... might have some issues getting it fitted in the carved top but... will cross that bridge.  Also planning an active mid boost mounted on a push pull for this one... I have a jackson preamp etch lying in wait, and an sho... but I loved the 'switchblade' in my sweet spot build so much I might etch another of those... haven't decided.

5 minutes ago, komodo said:

Seems like everything has been discussed. Have you seen the Tundraman neck angle calculator? Google that.

Not to turn this back to ME, but in my current build using the Trisonic pickups, this has been a huge deal for me as they are surface mounted. The neck and middle pickup height has to be dead on. I could make the pocket deeper and add shims to bring it to height, which I have somewhat done, but also tried to get it as close as possible.  I'm still not 100% sure until it;s together with strings on. Point is, added to all the variables, consider pickup heights also.

right on... I have heard of that angle calculator but have not used it... I guess because it appeals to me a bit more to lay it out... play with it a bit and see how the pieces interact, the ultimate goal being a better understanding.  There are some other one's as well... on mlp a spread sheet version... and of course ultimately we are just dealing with a triangle so... could just do some trig. 

certainly pickup height would be something to think about.  In my case, and in most cases with an overwound bridge... there's probably a 1/2" of play so I can't imagine it being an issue but I'll def keep that in mind and take a look at it before I finalize my neck thickness.  thanks for the suggestion.

2 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

The above conversations are heading closer where I am coming from - that is, the reationship between the bridge and the fretboard is fixed geometrically...but the top and back of the body around that can be any shape you want

So when I am designing for some of the more...er...'unusual' requests that folks challege me with from time to time,  I don't really think about it as a neck angle, as such.  I am thinking more about 'where does the player want to rest their picking arm'; 'does the back want to wrap round the player's body'; 'where will the instrument sit on the strap - will the fretboard sit at a comfortable angle in all three planes?'.  The shape of the top behind and above the bridge, the shape of any carves at the back, the weight distribution and the positions of the strap buttons will all effect those.

So, rather than starting with, say, a telecaster, in my head - its design being more about the manufacturing convenience of using a slab of body wood (that just happened to sound great) - I'm more intrigued with what those designer's of the 50's did about playing comfort.  If you were going to start with a fixed thickness of timber in the 50's, then how do you make it more comfortable to play?  You could carve the wood away around and behind the bridge (sound like a Les Paul?)  Or you could get the back to feel less like a table top and wrap round you a bit (sound like a strat?)

So a neck angle, as such, relates more to a convenient way of changing the feel of play if you are starting with a 'telecaster' concept of how a guitar should look and feel where the back and tops are a straight line that you can relate to the straight line of the fretboard. 

But, as a custom, hand builder, you have the freedom to unshackle yourself from this - you can think curves

 

 

thank you for responding - some good thoughts there.  I guess the original motivation for gibson was just that they have a 1/2" bridge to overcome... but then it could be that they designed the bridge to be that thick because, as I understand it, acoustic guitars and perhaps even violins and more - had neck angles and they wanted to match that?  Def seems to be ergonomic... but perhaps more by chance/circumstance originally? 

It is an interesting perspective to flip it and think that they carved the body away as opposed to putting an angle on the neck.  I have often thought about starting with a thicker body, and doing a straight neck pocket... but then cutting the body away at 5 degrees... but after carving my tele top that was enough work for me!  Not to mention how much more wood would be wasted.

afa tele... seems at odds to talk about comfort there as it should be an uncomfy guitar, what with the 1/8" radius edge, and no belly cut or forearm relief... yet they feel quite comfortable to me.  I have great respect for the 'lines' of the strat and tele as they ooze that sloping design style of the 50s/60s. 

I get the theme of your post is that the determining factor for you is mostly comfort - a solid goal.  Something we should all consider more as we build. 

so... do you countersink your studs?

1 hour ago, ADFinlayson said:

Hello mate, hope you had a good Xmas. That is a fair and reasonable question, I expect the only one that will be a problem will be the 24th and will probably end up using superglue, tapping the ends in and clamping in for a few hours with a fret caul. I’m not using stainless frets so I don’t foresee any serious pains in the arse 

right on, and you as well (xmas). 

right on... I was thinking it must be something like epoxy or super glue and clamp... just wasn't sure what 'magic' you were going with. 

man, quite the collection of tools you are accumulating. 

monkeys look great.  isn't it going to be problematic to get the fret to seat with the the wood removed?  or am I seeing that wrong?

hope I'm not being an asshat for asking, genuinely curious if I'm missing something there.

that looks kickass!

every time I see this thread title i think "you and me both sister".  Man, I really struggled with my first few fret jobs getting the frets to seat properly and the above advice (chamfer the slot) really helped (probably was curtisa who suggested it to me as well).  looks right to me assuming we are getting a side view looking down the fret slot. 

that said... getting the proper slot dimensions matched up with the proper fret tang was an equally helpful convergence. 

then from there... getting a proper fret caul, and mounting it on a vise grip... took me the rest of the way.  my last fret job arrived action on par with the best I've played - and req very little fret filing/crowning.

here's to it working out for you!

right on... well... within the range of angles possible for my parts... and considering what I have found comfy on my own guitars... I'm going to try 4 deg.  There may be some merit to a steeper angle being more comfy esp on a baritone... as IME it seems to bring the headstock end a little 'closer'.  at least that's how it feels to me. 

Incidentally, looking around at pics of les pauls - contrary to what I would have thought... there are some where the neck/binding sits proud of the body with a sort of 'wedge' of material visible under the binding.  Seems fairly rare as the majority have the binding flush with the top... but I suppose like any rule - made to be broken.  Building guitars is turning out to be more like jazz in that respect!

2 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Thanks, Mike

Same to you and yours.  Hope you had a good one

thank you sir!  Not the best - we spent the day in bed both feeling sick... but feeling better now and enjoyed the entire second season of lost in space so - not a total loss (pun intended)!

Have not, but that first pic... you should be able to easily make a full size template based on it.  use fret2find here to generate the right scale frets pdf, open with photoshop or paint or whatever, scale up the image until the fretboards match and voilla. 

I've done quite a bit of template hunting just for fun and have not seen this one so... might be a bit of a long shot otherwise.  (here's hoping you find what you need!)