18 minutes ago, MiKro said:

@mistermikev, Just an FYI, you may look into the recon stone type you are using, as it may be this same type of process. MK

 

FAQ · Turquoise · Jun 01, 2015

Is Reconstituted Turquoise Real Turquoise?

Natural stones are formed in the earth over thousands of years and were formed in a very different way. Although we at Turquoise Skies do not feel it is ethical to call it real or genuine, these stones can technically be called “Turquoise” because the manufacturer actually uses a small amount of real turquoise in the composition.  A very rough low-grade version of turquoise in the form of chalk is crushed into dust and mixed with plastics, dyes, and resins to form the compound known as reconstituted turquoise. Using machines and special techniques, the factories can create matrix looking patterns such as the spider web to make the finished product look more natural. Reconstituted turquoise also has a plastic look and feel to it.

right on... thank you for the info. 

at this point I've processed some bloody basin jasper, couple types of turqoise and this lapis... all seem about the same consistency except this lapis.

anywho, will have to do some experimentation when time permits.

3 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

I wonder if you could inlay the pieces in a bigger piece of wood or even MDF for a safer grip. And maybe after that use something like http://www.accu-slice.com/accu-slice-system.html to cut thinner pieces. And then just remove the excess.

well it's certainly good thinking.  I was thinking I could just use the ca glue/tape trick and mount them to a piece of mdf... but A) not sure how well that would withstand a bandsaw blade and B ) the bigger problem... is that I have 1/8" of material and the cut would have to be really precise.  I have too much to just process and too little to resaw given the thickness of the bandsaw blade. 

I can buy 1/4" thick version of this for 2x the cost and maybe i could get 3 x 1/16" slices out of it... but at that point I get one color for $40-60 bux.  that started me down the road of thinking "well what if I just made my own?"

that is a cool bandsaw accessory.  by the looks of it they get some amazing accuracy but I would guestimate my bandsaw just isn't good enough to get anywhere near that precision.  my motor is pretty weak but more importantly the bearing system is very hard to dial in.

so... back before I joined the dark side of cnc... i had thought about a similar jig.  for me... i wouldn't be doing inlay after frets... but I wanted to do it after radius. 

what I was thinking (mentioning on the off chance it adds to the conversation) was to remove my router base altogether and replace it with a piece of reinforced plexi with risers (very similar to what you have there, but not attached to the table... ie moveable, but mounted to the router).  the neck would be clamped like yours... the router would hover above the neck and freely move around supported by removable risers.  removable risers so I could set dif heights (LP vs strat etc).  Base would need to be say 4" wider than the neck so you could reach to the edge of either side of it.  solves issues of bit length because the base wouldn't need to be any thicker than typical router base. 

I have a dremel base much like yours.. planned on attaching similar reinforced plexi - say 6-8" wide with risers on either side for detail work.  using the holes for the two "posts" that attach the alum base to mount the plexi.  plexi would allow you to 'see' where you are w/o the need for a big hole where the router might be 'unsupported' hanging out over the edge.  

anywho... just a thought.

necro bump.  so saw this thread searching random stuff about recon stone.  Had to laugh.  Have learned a few things processing recon and one of the things I've learned is that lapis is much harder than the other types of recon stone I've processed.  Broke a bit pretty quick on it and had to slow things down fyi.  

that said... still have not found a good way to resaw the stuff.  I imagine a bandsaw with a fine tooth blade would work pretty good but I don't want to get that close to a bandsaw blade any time soon.

I'm starting off with approx 1/8" thick slices and really need to get it down to 1/16" as 1/8 would just be a big waste... so I've been flattening it on my cnc... and saving the dust.  

I was thinking it might be more sensible to make my own recon stone.  If I just had a nice square mold around 1/16" thick I could maybe mix up some epoxy and crushed lapis and pour it in?  I think an experiment is in order... might be a bit before I get to it... but imma try it!

anywho... this has been "deep thoughts" with jack handy.

"Need noob guidance please" since you are clearly asking for guidance from noobs only (at least that's how I took it) and I am a noob... here goes: put one foot in front of the other.  I get overwhelmed all the time by projects I think up... but have learned to not worry so much about the parts I don't know how to do yet... and start by focusing on the things I do know how to do... break it down into little manageable pieces. 

You've laid out a lot of things you want to accomplish in your post... lets start w one of them: headstock w straight string pull.  Lots of dif ways folks do things but the way I would do this is with some graphics program.  gimp is free.  start w what you know.  do you have tuners picked out?  try to find the manufacturers dimension docs.  I use gotoh a lot so I go download one of their black and white images, load it into gimp, do a 'select by color' and choose the white background... and delete it.  now I've got just the lines.  now scale it up to life size.

go to fret2dfind and create a fretboard/strings (you are gonna need to know your bridge spacing and nut spacing).  I would lay that out and maybe copy 6" of strings and go back and delete the frets from that layer... then move it into position over the headstock and scale it thinner until it meets the other strings.  now you've got straight strings over headstock... but you'll have to compensate for string thickness.  to start I'd just lay out some holes where I think the tuners would look good.  use the mfg dimension doc to ensure you have enough room between each hole for the actual tuners.  them maybe go download some guitar plans for headstocks and start w something similar to what you want.  modify it, then modify it some more.  

that's a fair description of how I get started w things anyway.  some folks just get a pencil and go to town.  do what works for you.  hope something there is useful.

1 hour ago, Andyjr1515 said:

That is breathtaking @mistermikev     It is off the scale. 

If you haven't already done so, I think you should put it forward to No Treble in their 'Bass of the Week' feature.   

thank you!  that means the world to me.  I appreciate the vote of confidence too!!

2 hours ago, henrim said:

Pics are fine. I don’t want to get too deep into studio photography but since there is discussion about the black background I think I can say a word about it. In studio if you want a black background you almost never use a black backdrop. As we know the brightness of the light decreases as the inverse square of the distance. So to achieve a very dark background you can use a light colored backdrop as long as the object to be photographed is well separated from the background. This way the blacks get less murky and you can light the sides and the back of the object. This gives a good edge separation and brings out the form better. Also you don’t have any cat hairs or wrinkles in the picture. Of course this means that you have to support the guitar somehow and you need some space too.

well, the guitar here is elevated 1' off the background using bench buscuits... but probably more would be better.  Have oft thought about using 100lb test fishing line and hanging it in front of a window... might try that sometime.  have also considered a green backdrop... but that means some def post work.  

thanks for the replies everyone!

3 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Well, I do have my browser set at 110% and I have a 30" monitor and I use +1 reading glasses. The cat hair are visible without any zooming in that very photo I adjusted. Being a nitpicky old fart I've learned where to look!

right on, given the number of cats in my house... I guess there's gonna be cat hair in my future pics!  perhaps I should have switched to the faux leather background.

12 hours ago, ScottR said:

Damn me Mike that looks amazing! I love all the contouring you did (of course). Really, really, really superlative job!

SR

thank you scott.  was a heck of a journey!

33 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Effortless is  what I prefer as well. Then again, adjusting contrast doesn't take much time. The left side required two mouse clicks to darken the backcloth beyond showing the cat hair, my goal was to keep the wood natural. As said, I added 10 notches of contrast and lowered brightness by the same amount. It looked basically the same with just adding 15-20 notches of contrast.

dang... how far did you zoom in to see cat hair (or are my eyes just really THAT bad lol!  I know it was there... I do have 6 cats... but I didn't think it was so obvious lol!

1 minute ago, Bizman62 said:

I beg to disagree. Post processing has been widely used and accepted from the start of photography. With film the post processing starts during developing the film as the choice of chemicals and the time used affect the end result, not to mention making paper copies of the negatives. They all affect to clarity, crispness, colour depth, contrast and whatnot. With digital cameras an image processing program is just your photo lab, nothing more.

As with any photo you can do all sorts of tricks to your photos. In the black and white era colouring some most valuable photos was common, now we may make digital colour photos black and white to make them stand out. Similarly you use all sorts of effects to make your guitar sound "good". If post processing were a bad thing, shouldn't using any effect, pedal or rack, be avoided as much as possible? Compressors, limiters, tube screamers all can be used to add presence even to a clean sound. Why would digital photography be any different? Doing some Andy Warhol type stuff on a photo is one thing, enhancing the image to improve it is another. Speaking about EQ, I guess colour correction would be comparable to that. Why would it be a sin? The manufacturers have different settings in their cameras, pictures of a Nikon are bluer than those of a Canon. Same thing with films, some are more saturated than others. As long as you're just trying to make the photo look like what you see you're not lying! And even exaggerating with the crispness and colour depth you most likely can't catch the liveliness of the wood, the chatoyance and warmth.

Perfect focusing is preferable and admittedly using the right aperture and shutter speed can do magic for contrast but I wouldn't call post processing cheating. Actually it's better to have the backdrop show and add contrast afterwards than have all the dark areas underexposed and lose some details. Similarly you don't want to overexpose your images with large white spots "burned through".

The video is nice in a good homecooking way. It makes me want to build a bass - and learn to play it too... The only slightly disturbing thing is the background hiss of your vocal parts.

 

well... not indicating post processing is bad at all, nor arguing that post processing isn't a thing... it's also a thing in audio.  Esp now-a-days where you can literally do anything post.  that said my main reason for not wanting to do it is effort.  it'd be best for me if I don't have to touch each picture after!  mostly cause I'm lazy!!

I've taken some courses on audio engineering and for the eleventy hours I spent... one thing stuck w me... and that is that "EQ is something you use when you didn't get a good capture".  granted the two mediums are very different and with audio it's very hard to put back what isn't there... but I imagine photos have their best shot at looking natural with that initial capture. altering pixels via an algorhythm has it's limitations.  that said, my main reason for avoiding is effort.  Some of my shots there had better brightness and I feel like I just need to do more of whatever I did there!  

the video: man... visually it is just terrible.  all washed out.  have a lot to learn there.  i should have pointed my desk lamps up at the wall.  need to diffuse my overheads a lot more... but alas... I'm just a novice.  on the bright side: lots of room for improvement!

anywho, I do appreciate the detailed feedback.  thank you.

got a demo done... admittedly it's quite off the cuff... but I'd appreciate any feedback/comments y'all would be kind enough to give:

2 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Yepp, they almost look like the guitar is floating in darkness. The three last ones also hide the backdrop pretty well. Almost like renderings!

Just to add to your toolbox, here's what I did with one of the others. Using Paint.Net/Brightness and Contrast I decreased the brightness by 10 and increased contrast by 10:

right on.  floating: well I did have it floating a bit... I bought some rockler shop biscuits and used them to prop up the guitar... just about 1" above the backdrop but it is a nice effect.  I did also monkey a bit with brightness/contrast in photoshop but Idunno.... I guess I feel that stuff is a bit like eq... should be a last resort.  I hope that as I get more experience monkeying with the iso and aperture I'll arrive at brighter looking photos at the start... but it is always a good thing to know.  thanks again for the reply.

17 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Can't argue against that, the maple and purpleheart mix is delicious!

And your camera work has improved exponentially! Some of the pictures made me drool...

hehe, thank you biz.  I actually tried an experiment w camera based on some vids I saw where the guy overexposes the pics.  so I went to aperture mode on my camera... and monkied around with that... but it was a pretty bad failure afa results.  then I switched to manual mode... set iso and played with aperture... that resulted in pics 1-7 i think... much darker background.  then my cat puked all over the backdrop so...she must have been satisfied with the pics!

24 minutes ago, henrim said:

That’s a beauty! In my opinion purpleheart has a color that is very difficult to mix with other colors. The way you have done it here works really nice. 

thank you @henrim, that's very kind of you to say.  Truth be told... I'm just picking up what alembic put down back in the 70's!  you just can't go wrong with maple and purpleheart!  I wish I had maintained a bit more of the purple... and I honestly thought the finish I chose would do that... but she turned a rich purple/red instead... and I'm pretty pleased with the accident.  

thank you again for the reply!

so about a week ago I finally found a place to buy a replacement piezo for the purpleheart version of this bass... think I can call it done now so I set about taking some photos.  

Have been working on a demo vid of it... but I guess I don't know how to play fretless anymore lol.  

On 7/24/2023 at 9:17 AM, Prostheta said:

I'll leave this here then.

that is a render right??  it looks so good I honestly am not sure if it's an actual picture of a great build or a great render of a great build... one way or another it looks great!

On 7/26/2023 at 12:15 PM, killemall8 said:

Here's the next batch of builds. 

The burl neck will be on a burl king v. 

The quilt will be a quilt/ burl super strat 

The flame v had some super crazy grain and I'm contemplating leaving that dur job as the final color. 

i try not to look at your work too much... cause it leaves me feeling lazy!  You somehow manage to not only put out quantity... but always quality.  "hardest working dude in luthiery award goes to... " well... you know.  

On 7/17/2023 at 9:20 AM, ScottR said:

The hollow body looks sweet! Those may be the cleanest f-holes I've ever seen.

SR

thank you Scott.  Very much appreciate the kind words!

UPDATE ON THE PROJECT(S): so... first of all haven't put much time in for a bit because we've hit some record here in AZ of xx days over 110 and when I go out there it just drains me in seconds. 

That said: I'm at the part where I want to get some necks built.  looking at that it occurred to me that in processing a 2.26" thick body+top and needing to do a 1.75" depth of cut (length of bit)... and w a safe z of .45" above material... I'm at the max height my machine can do.  The max height of my LP style neck is 2.4085".  So with that in mind I figured out that I could take my spindle apart, move the spindle clamp 7/16" north and re-drill/tap 4 new mount holes.  Awaiting some metric metal bits from amazon.

hoping for some rain and a break from the heat this weekend!  

8 minutes ago, JGTay said:

Thanks Mike. Dan's choice of colour and it works very well. 

sure does.

note that this assumes the direction of this switch moves from left to right... you may check your switch to ensure it matches up and flip things if not.  In fact looking at an example apparently the lugs go 54321 from left to right so this is likely backwards but you get the jist.

edit edit edit... looking at your switch pic there... they way I have drawn it here matches up w your switch fyi... i see you found another solution but... good info for the next guy anyway.

with a super switch... you can get any combination.  it's not clear to me what you are trying to do but if you look at a super switch as just 4 switches... each switch has a common and 5 lugs for positions 1-5.  in your case... you could consolidate and probably only use two parts of the super switch... but to keep things simple... you could just use 3 and wire the live to the common on each of those three... then wire your pickup live to whatever positions you want it to be on in.  you of course can replace mid+neck with bridge+neck... just wire the 4th lug for your bridge and the 4th lug for your neck on in those positions.  have I explained it well enough?

9 hours ago, Stu. said:

Thank you, chaps! I've actually been considering scrapping or reworking this one. The transition from beech to veneer to walnut isn't working at all, I'm falling out of love with the beech, and it is HEAVY. Like, I've never held a complete guitar that's packing as much weight as this. I kind of want to blast the beech and top fumed eucalyptus veneer off, chamber as much as possible, and then slap a new top on.

it'd be a shame to blow away that top... but I get it: can't stand heavy guitars myself.  seems like the outline could just use a little sanding/massage.  I think it may have been @Andyjr1515 who first impressed upon me the idea that removing thickness will remove more weight than thinline... could just chop 1/2" off the back... and if that aint enough then thinline it from the backside and put a pretty top on the backside... just some ideas... I know when I get in similar ruts a random comment will often put things in perspective and give me focus.  You know what's best for your build so... "just do it"!

9 hours ago, Professor Woozle said:

Thank you - we were fortunate that the ambulance got to us within half an hour, so she got prompt attention, and glad to hear your wife is OK . Yes, having things to work on is good to take your mind off other troubles - just sanded and oiled the hoofpick handles you can partly see and boy, does that black walnut look nice when oiled. Since they're made out of offcuts from the side wing pieces I got for the Rick build, I'm thinking that an oil finish would look pretty good on that.

right on, always: walnut for the win!

2 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Well, as I get closer to the bucket, the list gets shorter 

I will tinker with guitars and basses until my hands (or mental faculties!) stop letting me, but - having recently finished one must-do, which was the 'essence of Firebird' designed and built for my son-in-law and that I was delighted won this month's GOTM - I have two similar must-do's left:

- a conventional electric but spec'd like a made-to-measure suit for Matt Marriott, a UK pro-player who has been a friend and great support for a number of years.  The spec is agreed and wood should be being shaved in the coming month

- a Guilele/Guitalele sized acoustic for my two young grandchildren for them to learn play if they want to, or leave on top of a cupboard if they don't

 

 

looking fwd to it.