Bjorn.LaSanche

I think both claims are correct to a degree. I say this because you all have more experience than I as builders. I also think the "voodoo" as some call it is when one is comparing apples to oranges. You cannot get identical tone on two guitars built to identical specs, with each part of the wood for each guitar built from lumber from the same trees. Will the guitars sound similar? Yes, but not the same because of the organic structure of the lumber. If you build a Les Paul spec'ed guitar with anything other than the mahogany, maple, and rosewood they are typically made with, the guitar will still hold the sonic principles of the Les Paul shape due to the geometry of the guitar. It will be different slightly due to the wood used, but it will sound like a LP. Same goes for any other shape. A strat will never sound like a Les Paul, even when using same woods, and humbuckers. It will sound like a Strat with similar aspects that a Les Paul has, but it still sounds like a Strat. Back to the apples and oranges I mentioned above. The "voodoo" is comparing two different types of woods. Each wood is different in density, tensile strength, flexability, porousity. Will each wood sound different? Yes, but when you compare two woods of different species that have very similar or same qualities, maybe the only thing difference is color, is there really that much of a difference? So comparing an all mahogany with rosewood fretboard Flying V to one built with Koa, isn't apples to apples and negates the whole argument. Now the argument would hold more water if you compared the same Flying V build of mahogany from Swietenia humilis and indian rosewood from another build from Swietenia Macrophylla and same type of rosewood. Even two guitars built from same wood from different geographical locations will sound different, but similar. Then again all things being equal all guitars sound slightly different, even if built from the same treee due to the organic nature of wood. The circle comes around again. Then again, I might be totally off base. I am mainly a player and only working on a build because I love woodworking and want to mesh the two hobbies of mine. I am eager to create music through a guitar I have built with my own hands.

I love this design. I always thought the Aria Pro and Takemine spin on the Explorer was the definitive exolution of the original Gibson shape. It is sleek, fast, and quite sexy looking, and stands head and shoulders above the Explorer pro(which looks like a Chunk from the Goonies version of the Explorer), or any of the other manufacture spins. Where do you plan on installing the selector switch if any? I also wonder if perhaps a TOM style bridge with string through body may add to the refined body shape instead of the Hipshot fixed. Have you decided on what woods you plan on using for construction yet?

Hey guys, I finally got the tail piece for my build. Ibanez Quick Change III in Cosmo Black. There are a couple of things I am milling over in regards to this build. I finally got to check out a newer Iceman. I wasn't too thrilled with the balancing of the body. It seems the guitar likes to balance similar to a Strat (i.e. as close to horizontal as possible). I have a hard time playing guitars that do this and why my Dinky almost never gets played. I prefer a guitar that balances to a more classical style position. I also have been thinking about NOT doing an Iceman clone, but rather a clone of my DT-250, but set neck and upsize the body slightly. I also have been toying with the idea about a baritone scale, simply due to that I play in standard B on a six string in my band. Until I figure this out, I plan on just aquiring the parts needed for the build. I am not going to use Ibanez branded machine heads on this build, simply because I have three old Ibanez guitars and frankly the machine heads after 20+ years just plain suck. Which in turn means no Gotoh either, as they manufacture machine heads for Ibanez. Which leaves Schaller. Schaller does not make Cosmo Black as it is a trademarked color for Gotoh, but they have what is called Ruthinium. Slightly different color, but according to a Dr. Lars Brunning at Schaller, is close enough to the Gotoh color that one can only usually tell under strong light and having parts next to each other. Plus Schaller's I can get a little less expensive through my local dealer, than an equivalent Gotoh, or the Ibanez branded part. So, until I decide these few things, this build will be slowly moving. Bjorn

Oh Mah Gawd!!!! Perry that quilting and finish on the head stock at 0:36 of that video is AMAZINGLY SICK!!! It actually looks like sand under water like in pictures of the Caribbean or Fiji. When is this bit of guitar porn going to be released? Put me down for a copy. Back to the thread topic. I have watched most of the Crimson Guitars videos and find them somewhat interesting. I do agree he does ramble a bit, but you can tell he probably has quite a few things going on in his mind while he is taping. I have done the same when showing a less experienced person how to do a task while explaining how to do a task at my day job.

Sorry guys, I do not know how to post more pictures per post or if it is even allowed.

Finally, the glorious packaging the whole unit came in to include part number for Cosmo Black. I did not include more detail such as radius, as the bridge is indeed radiused. Ibanez used these on the SZ line so whatever those guitar's radius was should be what these are. All in all this is a stout part. It weighs more in the hand than the Gibson TOM my V has. When I get the matching tailpiece in I will post pictures in this thread as well.

Here is the bridge. I put the outside saddles at the extreme forward and rearward positions. The bridge is 16.85mm deep(front to back) The most forward sits 6.03mm of the rear side of the bridge. The rearmost sits 1.73mm away from the front of the bridge. With my guesstimation math I believe this to be a total of 8.9mm travel distance between full forward to full rearward positions. For practical use I plan on designing my layout using only half of the full forward distance, or whatever still looks aesthetically pleasing while remaining functional. Full forward is actually very very loose in the base and I believe structurally non functional.

Here is the post with bushing. The lip at the top of the bushing will sit proud of the face of the guitar 1.6mm.

I pulled the trigger today. $43.30 after tax. The bridge should be here within a work week I was told. Once I have it in my hands I will take some close up pictures including those post bushings.

Ok, I have to look at the posts/bushings when I get them. For a second there it looked like the bushings were not seated into the body far enough as the edge looks like it has some knurling. Might just be the lighting

It depends on what the maple looks like. If it is highly figured I always thought this guitar was the pinnacle of figured wood/finish craftsmanship. It doesn't even look like wood http://nealmoser.com/guitarpics9.htm Maybe something similar, but a different color. I am drawing a blank on the bridge. I do not like any of the traditional Fender style tremolos. They have never been comfortable to me where I position my hand and always end up cutting into the side of my hand. Carbon Fiber neck. I'de really like to see how these are done

Just a quick thought after looking at the pic I posted. Is it normal for the bridge bushings so sit that proud above the finish? Should you install the bushings before or after finishing?

Bob I am looking at this bridge tailpiece layout exactly. I like TOMs on my non-floyded guitars. I have enough whammy bar guitars and for this being my third ever build I would rather do a TOM this time around. I don't trust myself to make the angle for the bass side on a TOM install yet, so the Giii is like the old ones where the saddle travel doesnt require the back angle for the bass side of the bridge. I also think it looks friggen cool. The bridge and Tailpiece are $40/ea. from my local Ibby dealer. I will be making this purchase(bridge only, the tailpiece can wait a month or so until I get further along in the build)by next wednesday.

I've no doubt about the reliability of the material used coming from Ibanez. I have an old Destroyer with the original Gibralter bridge and aside from normal wear from sweat, it still works perfectly. I am waiting for pricing on the bridge from my local dealer. There is a site from Germany that has US pricing of $40 for the bridge in chrome. I asked my dealer to ask about the cosmo price. The parts section of the Ibanez site (under Support) is where I found the bridge initially. I was actually after the Quick Change tailpiece and was going to originally use a Gotoh TOM. The New gibralter just called to me for my build. Anyways..... If you get the part number off Ibanez' site, it tells you to take the part number to your local Ibanez dealer for acquisition. The build I am planning is a set neck version of my old bolt on Iceman that was stolen years ago. I am making a couple of changes to the design such as moving the body toward the headstock from the 18th fret to the 16th fret, reversing the 3x3 headstock, and using the 4 knob control setup of the more expensive models instead of the 3 knob control setup mine had. Neck and body both made from mahogany and using Les Paul Custom model body thickness at edge(my build will not be a carved top). Fretboard is undecided at this point as I have a rosewood and ebony blank. All other specs are based of a friend who owns a bolt on like mine was, but his came in dark grey where mine was black.

Yes, you can start the body anywhere you like. You could also start it at the 16th, and drop it lets say, 3mm, also. The point that the body starts isnt relevant. It's where ever you want it to be. All it does is visualize, and calculate, the angle you need I am following you. I just was wondering if the actual neck drop angle would change slightly if the top of the body intersected with top of the neck at a different position than the one you drew up? I guess it would in relation to where I put it in my design(neck meeting body at 16th fret) compared to a guitar where the body joined the neck at the end of the fretboard as in a LP Special DC(neck meeting body at 21st fret). If I join the body further into the neck, the angle of neck drop will be a little less than what you drew, but the key elements that determine the angle are the string action off the fretboard, height of the radiused fretboard, and height of the bridge at scale length to the body. I'm going to have to draw this up on paper to verify for myself. @Prostheta, I will take a look at the trig, but Perry's mock up is very simple and easily understandable. I think at this point the math will confuse me. Once I get a handle on the other way, the math will solidify my understanding. Thanks guys for your help.

I want to ask one question to this topic if I may. In step 4 of Perry's drawing, the body angle is drawn in relation to the height of the bridge, but the picture shows a body meeting the neck at the end of the fretboard. If the guitar design has the body meeting the neck at say 16th fret, you would draw your body angle line, from the 16th fret(at glue side of fretboard) to the base of the bridge point, or does that matter and follow the diagram as posted? Also if someone could repost the neck/string taper image again it would be an appreciated visual reference to base my drawing against.

I am in the process of planning out a build and was interested in using the Gibralter III bridge from Ibanez. Mainly due to the visual asthetics of the bridge as well as being (according to Ibanez) a modern version of the old Gibralter bridge. These were from what I can tell used mainly on the SZ line. My question to the forums is have any of you seen this bridge in person? If so, is it worth the price from a tech point of view as compared with a standard type TOM? I'm not talking about the cost of the part, but is it a well designed bridge? Thanks for any information you guys can send my way. Bjorn

Have you tried mapping out your fretboard? When I was first learning I would take a piece of graph paper and draw a rectangle 6 squares tall by 13 squares wide. In between the first and second column(up and down) make another line. This represents your nut. now in that first column starting from the top write e, B, G, D, A, E. Now to the right of the darkened line write the note in each square up to the 12th column. Each square represents the string/fret relation on your fretboard. Its easy to look at a picture and find the notes on your fretboard, but actually starting with a blank canvas such as the paper and having to figure out each fret's note value helped me learn the fretboard. You only need to go up to the 12th fret as the whole pattern starts again on the 12th fret higher up the neck. Just smaller frets. Do you know any scales? Learn the Major scale first as all others in Western music is derived from it. You can use graph paper again for this. You will need to have enough room to make a 7 x 24 square block running horizontally. Leave some room to the left of the block to write a title for each row. now in the squares above the block write these numbers. 1, skip a block, 2, skip a block, 3, 4, skip a block, 5, skip a block, 6, skip a block, 7,1, skip a block,(just repeat the pattern and you should wing up writing 7 over the last block on the right. Now, to the left of the first block on first row(top row) write Ionian and copy the numbers into the row just like you wrote across the top of the rectangle in the same positions. Ionian is the first mode of the Major scale. There are a total of seven modes for the Major scale. I won't explain the others right now as it can get overwhelming right off the bat. Just know that the names for each mode in order are: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolodian, Aeolian, Locrian. Now take your fretboard map and Major scale diagram and set them in front of you. Pick up your guitar, and figure out the C Major,1st mode scale. Use only 3 notes per string. Start on the 6th string, 8th fret. The notes of the scale are: C, D, E, F, G, A, B, then the note pattern repeats. Remember, Follow the Scale diagram you made, 3 notes per string, figure out the pattern on your guitar from the 6th string across all the strings. Once you have that box pattern down, it is exactly the same for each Key you happen to be playing in. If you want to play G major Ionian, you just shift the pattern down so the first note starts on 6th string, 3rd fret. D flat(Db) start the scale on the 9th fret on 6th string. I'm not going to give visual reference as I explained it fairly well(I had my non guitar playing Wife read my instructions and she understood how to figure out how to create the basic diagrams). The key to understanding theory is not just reading about it and finding out where on the guitar a certain note or scale is, but reading an example then recreating said example on paper as well as on your guitar. What I wrote out should be enough for a few days unless you are a shut in and all you do is play guitar As far as books go, The best theory books I have found specifically relating to guitar are the Guitar Grimoire series. This is where I picked up the box(graph paper) scale formulation to figure out how each note is laid out in relation to the next and how the different modes relate to each other. DISCLAIMER In regards to what I posted.... Theory is realistically applied only when used in terms of having to relate ideas to other fellow musicians. ***SOMETIMES*** Theory and scales do not exist. Theory and scales are only ways on how others are trying to map out frequencies. When you are learning theory, you are parroting what others have done before you. Use your ears and create your own frequency maps that appeal to your ears. As one famous guitarist stated "If it sounds good, it is good".

Really digging the Valknut. I would love to replace the Sin sigil on my Gibson goth V with a Valknut. Very impressive work.

Yeah I have seen his templates, but the crotch area of the body doesn't look right. The design from guitarbuildingtemplates.com looks more like a combination of Rhoads white Concord with the upper tail length of his black Original Sin version. Might just be the picture though. I have full sized printouts of the RR1 that I am basing my plans off of, its the bevels I am having a time with. I'll figure it out. Thanks though.

From San Antonio. Yourself? Damn Texans invading this forum. Welcome, what part of Texas? Many of us here.