SSS-tonelover

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

I know the band as well (Turo's) 

Those drawings make my brain hurt! I know what series and parallel mean but it would take me forever to figure those out in any drawing. 

Yes, I figured that they were kind of like Weird Al Yankovic, he made lots of hits reworking lyrics of popular songs and making them really funny (though in English)

In this context series means like a standard humbucker (but a very skinny one that really does not sound 100% humbucker) and parallel means like the 2 and 4 position on a Strat (but with the coils placed next to each other, so without the 'quack'). 
One of the combinations I get (using the 5-way, or actually 10-way switch) does give that snappy high end with good low so is a really good one you can't get on a regular Strat.

It takes a lot of time to learn diagram language and how pots, caps, pickups and switches interact and then use it creatively. There are people with far more knowledge on this, I am not a novice but far from the top of the field. It take motivation and interest to bother learning it. This site, https://guitarnuts2.proboards.com/ is pretty pretty core and I learned a lot from them. There are a lot of experts there.

Yes, I think they still play, but don't quote me on that!  Ari has other (more conventional) wiring too, including these, but as you can see he likes to think 'outside the box' and be adventurous.

Quote

Parisian inches

That's a good one!

You both are full of good info!

In Japan they measure room size using 'tatami'....the woven straw mats put on the floor that are 0.88 x 1.76 meter. Yup lots of strange measurement systems out there.

Just slightly off topic, I know another guitar-crazy Finn but from Facebook, Ari Hukkanen, https://www.facebook.com/ari.hukkanen.1/music, who build guitars and basses and lives in Lahti. He plays in Turo's Hevi Gee https://www.facebook.com/groups/104510922915642 and in an Eagles cover band. I wonder if he is also on this site....or if either of you know him or that band, though I can understand if you don't. He has some very far out guitar and pickup designs (and some normal ones too). Here is one of them.
 

Quote

pipes and fittings

That's a good one. I think the answer there is "nominal vs actual" measurement. And if you think that is bad, that's why we all have to try on shoes, clothes, etc., as those numbers are even worse and based on no high standard. Nowadays a 'medium' T-shirt is what a "large" was ~20 years ago (just to keep up with so many people getting overweight in recent times)

I see people using pF, nF, uF on guitar forums so I totally agree with both of you that it gets confusing. I do find myself looking at the conversion charts on the internet from time to time to keep things real.
I'm not sure why I started using uF, but that's what I became comfortable with quite some time ago, and then became the unit of measurement on my little bags of capacitors too, plus how I double-check values on my multimeter.

As far as the curse of the Imperial system.....and string gauges..... it also occurs on car tires and some other parts too and is so embedded it would take tremendous effort to change to change, so probably never will. I guess we just have to deal with it.
BTW there is a story that when the USA was founded they invited over someone from France to show the (at the time) new metric system, but the ship was wrecked and it took time for the guy to arrive on another vessel (maybe even some years later) by which time the new nation had settled on the English system. However even in this case, there are differences such as in gallons between the UK and USA.  Lots of oddities once you start looking at things closely...

Quote

"In the United States and some other countries, a gallon is equal to 128 fluid ounces or 3. 785 liters. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth countries, a gallon is equal to 160 fluid ounces or 4. 546 liters."

Things could have been much different (and more logical) if the USA had adopted the metric system in the 1780s......and to think it was possibly just all due to a shipwreck

Here is a value correction (a typo I missed)

"For the bass cut tone pot I used an Alpha C1M pot from Mouser with a .0022uF cap."

Hi Henrim,

No problem knowing what you love and simplifying to the essentials. In my case a neck single coil is the favorite position so if I had to make a single pickup guitar that would be my default.

This electronics build was an exploration into "what if" so had a different premise. I did find lots of positions (soundwise) don't have individual character but sound alike, though others are worth remembering and saving, and this was something I totally expected. In the end most switches can be left in favorite positions, so one is just 'rowing' the 5-way switch in an actual band situation, and that lessons learned can be applied to any such future builds  reflect simplification to the most useful sounds encountered here.
In that context the Free-Way switch is a real winner: simple to use with true differences easily accessed.

I had a Seymour Duncan "Everything Axe" guitar with the Little 59, Duckbusher, and JB jr. pickup combination which I never really played much (as I love single coil sound best). 
I've reworked it to give single coil, parallel coil, and series for all 3 pickups. For good measure I added the Free-way 10-way switch and goosed it up to give 11 pickup combinations, plus added in a PTB wiring.

-Due to my repurposing of the existing pickguard (already with 2 DPDT switches) I had some constraints on placement of additional switches.
-For the standard tone pot I ended up using a no-load A250K with a small .012uF capacitor. I think that suits these SD pickups (which don't really need high frequencies brought down much if at all).
-For the bass cut tone pot I used an Alpha C1M pot from Mouser with a .0012uF cap. This cap seems to be the standard G&L value, so was used as a default starting point. I think I should have a bit more cut to thin out the pickups (in some positions) and will need to go to .0033uF or 0047uF to have a bit more dramatic effect. No big deal.
-I have some quick connects installed (jack-volume wiring + bridge ground) so removing the pickguard is a cinch for reworking cap values.
-I used 3 on-on-on DPDT switches to get not only the parallel and series, but the single coil option as well, just to see what the result would be.
-All the DPDT switches have the shortest toggle handles, so don't interfere with knobs or the Free-Way switch.
-I widened the control cavity rout slightly to accommodate all the goodies and get an easy drop-in fit (so wires don't need any coaxing).

-The initial lesson learnt is that there is no appreciate advantage to the extra work in getting the single coil switch position. The sound is virtually identical to the parallel mode setting (at least at the volumes I've tried so far (lowish non-rock star levels). In fact only by using the multimeter and checking DC volts can I really know for sure I am either in single coil or parallel mode. Dispensing with the switches and using push pull would get the same result and a cleaner look.
-There was actually one fringe benefit to doing the single coil option. In achieving the RWRP setup with either of the other pickups for the mid pickup I found transposing the hot and ground leads on the DPDT relative to the other switches solved the hum. In other words just changing the coil on the switch did not reverse coil direction too.
-The parallel sound and the series sound are fine but in some ways I'm still a single coil lover, so I still don't think this guitar is going to become my number one but it is way cooler now and more versatile. A lot more lower end girth, so into HB territory.
-The Free-Way switch is cool as you can get two or 3 pickups in series together (whether or not they are in series or parallel individually). You can achieve some heavy low sounds/chords. To that end I rigged up a further switch to get all 3 pickups in series (whatever mode they are in individually). It's actually not too crazy, and you can lighten the bass if you need to with the bass cut pot anyway. 

51 minutes ago, curtisa said:

 I'd have to find a way to make it work after the fact (maybe use longer/shorter intonation screws, removing the intonation screw spring to squeeze a little more range out on the lowest strings, plug/redrill the trem pivot screws or simply use different saddles that were a better fit).

-On Strat type objects I design for compatibility of aftermarket parts to avoid future upgrading nightmares, though it will be a rare day when I select a swimming pool rout as a default (though I have nothing against them personally).
-On custom builds like a 30" scale baritone using a Schaller roller bridge I maximize the potential of that bridge as it won't get changed, meaning I use the approach you advocate.
in other words two approaches are used, and the selection is made on likelihood of future changes balanced versus optimizing a design to one or another parts choice.

51 minutes ago, curtisa said:

[Vega] The saddles-all-forward guideline would still hold true on a cold install, though - you'd just pick the longest saddle(s) to do it with. The shorter ones I assume are reserved for the G and low-E, where you need more room at the rear to pull the compensation back in line.

As a retrofit I assume the Vega is primarily designed to just drop in place of an existing Strat-style bridge (that's certainly the way they word it on their product page). If it were me I'd still check everything was going to line up, but I'd have more confidence that Vega have offered a product that by its very nature is designed to fit straight in without any extra math or sawdust creation.

3 long (high e,b,d) and 3 short (low e,a,g) saddles.
I'd prefer they'd let me maximize the potential of the unit, instead of dumbing down all the info.... In other words their approach  is all great for a technician, but lousy for a designer willing to do the math and make the sawdust if you catch my meaning.

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

True Temperament (TT) necks are actually a bit of a red herring.

There's actually no reason why any old guitar can't be set up to intonate perfectly within 12-TET and sound as pure as our western ears need it to in any key; all it takes is decent construction and adjustment. TT by and large just puts a bandaid on a problem that doesn't really exist in the first place.

Could be and I knew Steve Vai gave it a shot, but have not seen him playing it since, but musicians can be fickle. I tend to concur that a traditional layout is fine in dealing with temperament evening through all keys.

Hard to pull off but the Micro-fret company I believe was on to something. I know I've always been fascinated by an true intonatable nut since I heard about their innovation years ago. No one has resurrected that idea really to my knowledge.

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

The problem with the Stewmac calculator quoting those positions based on some feature of the bridge is that it doesn't help you if the bridge you want to use isn't listed there, or if the manufacturer of the bridge decides to change the design of the bridge slightly (unlikely, but could happen in the name of 'continual product improvement').

The easiest way is to simply move the saddles as far forward as possible and use the breakpoint of the saddles themselves as the scale length point when positioning your bridge on the body. Intonation compensation will only ever result in the saddle moving backwards, so the saddles being forward gives you maximum leeway for setting intonation as you need to.

I agree with both your paragraphs, especially the second, the CAVEAT being I typically do the "all the way forward based on the break point" with the traditional Strat saddles, as the GraphTech have a different break point. If you used the Graphtech 'all the way forward', then switch to the stamped Strat type down the road you can run out of adjustment room on the low E, etc.... 
For other bridges (Floyd, Chinese, etc) I do as you say 99% of the time and it works great (assuming scale length is correct to the actual neck).

In terms of the 1st paragraph, I recently bought a Vega Trem and after querying their team, they could only tell me to follow Fender placements, and not give any adjustment range info at all, which was disappointing news. Their design is a bit odd (two saddle sizes on their tremolo which complicates 'moving it as far forward as possible' (for max rearward leeway). ...I reverse engineered their drawing and put it 1:1 on a Fender blueprint to see 'adjustment range' etc. The crazy thing is my reverse engineering drawings (middle and bottom) are better than theirs (top of illustration) and with far more detail. I'm actually trying to get the saddles and adjustment range quantified.
Alternatively, maybe I should just do a test on junk body and neck before drilling out a good one (LOL).
I really did want to quantify this in design before building (and in case you have not guessed), I love design/engineering though seat of the pants 'just trying it', is valid too, and is fine for some work.

13 minutes ago, curtisa said:

1 - 1.5mm is typical.

Yep. Given the sheer volume of Partscasters suppliers out there it's probably a miracle that so many guitars (apparently?) get put together without any issues. I guess it'd be pretty foolproof buying both the body and neck from a single reputable supplier known for that kind of thing (eg Warmoth, Mighty Mite etc). But I'd personally be a bit squeamish about trying to marry any old Strat body with any old neck without worrying about fit and intonation.

Thanks!  I have always been intrigued by compensated nuts, such as Earvana, and the various tunings to compensate. I guess the ultimate expression would be the True Temperament guitar neck in which every fret is adjusted, not just a crude nut correction LOL!  For the moment I try to get the string slots way down (without buzzing) so the sharping is reduced on the first frets. 

I've done quite a number of partscaster.... and body and necks range from crap dimensional accuracy to darn good. This whole experience is pushing me to make neck (not just bodies) to have total control.... We'll see,
Frankly it's impossible to compete with eBay neck prices, so something has to take a hit (time, money, accuracy, etc). I've always been able to work my way out of trouble but then I have time issues on the 'fix it ' side or have to engineer clever ways out o the situations.

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Thus the accurate method would be to put the neck in place and measure how much the distance from the bridge to the 12th differs from 322 mm and act accordingly.

Well, the interesting thing is that if you use the high E string (such as 0.10) you really have no real measurable compensation you have to make on the saddle. What I mean by that is by direct tape measurement (actual guitar) I get 644mm nut to saddle break point, and 322mm 12th to saddle break point, Since saddle have an adjustment range, it's kind of a losing battle to use them as the bridge measurement as it's too amorphous in terms of overall calculation (more just for final intonation touchup). That's way Stew-Mac used the tremolo screw holes (fixed measureable location) for the Strat, Floyd, etc., as that is tangible and can be measured.

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

1. Are you sure the nut is positioned correctly? Nut-to-12th measurement x2 as a measure of scale length only holds true if the nut is positioned exactly at the 'zero'. If the nut is cut closer to the first fret it will throw the nut-to-12th reference short.

2. Note that some manufacturers purposely move the nut closer to the first fret by a small amount to apply a degree of intonation compensation for the lower frets without changing the nominal scale length (PRS for example is notable for doing this).

3. The blue cells in your spreadsheet are largely irrelevant to scale length and only matter assuming the body is made to match a particular neck and bridge. The correct way to marry *any* bridge to a body (whether it be a Floyd Rose, Tele bridge, Tune-o-Matic or anything in between) is to position the screws/routes/distance to heel cutout based on where *the saddles* satisfy the scale length and work backwards from there.

1. I did not check that but have noticed that on other necks and even done nut shifting on one occasion (in that case moving the nut toward the body, so the other way [see image]). What would be the normal range for the nut offset? A correction factor could be built in. I suppose measuring from the 1st to the 13th fret is the foolproof way to know scale length (referring to a table for that distance of course)
2. Noted
3. Agreed to all points.

Typically I do exactly as you mention: I mount the neck and then 'drift' the saddle into position so the strings are centered over fretboard edges working backward [see second image]. It works well, of course assuming the scale length was verified....(my major error on this build, which is all on me!) 

This 'formula' limits itself to assume a standard S-type body with a non-standard neck. It also assumes the body is already made and tremolo screw holes are drilled, and body painted. More typically one can plug the holes (should they exist) and move the bridge to compensate for neck variation. The only downside would be a new neck later on (a very rare case) that could recreate the issue. The formula is meant to 'future-proof' later work such as neck substitution (as well as allow a finished body to be used as is).

9 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Carving the pocket 1.85 mm longer towards the bridge should take you spot on. The thin wall between the neck pocket and the neck pickup cavity is of minor structural importance.

You took the 3.7 scale difference (647.7-644) and divided by 2 to get 1.85. Out of curiously why not carve 3.7? Just wondering if I'm using some wrong assumptions.

Certainly material has to be removed either from the neck heel side, or the body pocket side. The  good point of removing it exclusively from the neck heel is that later another neck (a standard length one) can be used as the body has been undisturbed. Also the shortened neck can go on any standard body now and someone (unaware it is a different scale) will never notice an issue, they can intonate blithfully and think all is well in the world

This is just the issue I had earlier this week. A non-Fender eBay neck had arrived and was built and used on an S-type body. It looked the part and fitted fine until.... intonation time.
Turned out the nut to 12th fret distance was 322mm (12.688") which gives a scale length of 644mm (25.354") instead of the usual 25.5" (647.7mm).
I did solve the problem (changed to a saddle with a break point far forward of the Fender stamped type) but it made me consider how to anticipate and correct for non-standard necks on a standard body and keep in the normal intonation adjustment ranges without drama.

If we say the body is a given (no change needed), and if we want to use a different scale (and it could a broader range then the one I had) then the obvious answer is to change the nut to heel length (routing, etc) so that new scale is intonatable. This can work on a neck with overhang just as well as a 21 fret neck without overhang, the nut-heel length is just slightly more complicated to measure, that's all. It's all about the math and measurements, so luthier design execution info we should have in an easy to use form

If this is interesting just let me know where to park the Excel file and you can use it for your own purposes.
Note: - blue shading indicates "body constants" and don't change.
           - green shading is the new calculated nut-heel length

P.S. Using the basic idea, the same math concepts can easily be used on any body and any neck just be plugging in the new default values and let the formula derive the nut-heel number for you,

OK, first pass: Sanding maple is a bitch so within minutes I switched to my router and set it up as a router sled. Quick work with that setup. I only shaved based on the low spot, and took about 1.5mm off, so slightly less that my earlier calculation of 2mm.
I then flipped the neck over and hit the high spot on the other side using the router sled again for that too. Rounding off the shaft will be by hand.

As far as the veneer seeing that I needed about 1.5mm I elected 5to use the 1.5mm thick poplar I have big sheets of.... so I could know out that part of the glue up in one step instead of 3 (0.5mm x 3 to get the same build up).

That veneer was clamped to my dead straight LMI sanding beam along with the neck. I'll let it set up overnight and then see how flat it is. I'm guessing within 0.5mm or less, but only time will tell. Yes, the method using a slight backbow like in the illustration Bizman62 showed.  That could work well too I'm sure, maybe better. Ah, decision was taken, fingers crossed!

Yeah, I like features, and that looks like a good way to turn a problem into an artistic improvement as well as solving the issue. The other hints are good too. Thanks!

Hi Captain Obvious, I love your two stories, cautions, and experience. I agree the depth of the wood and its intrinsic nature will make a 'heat fix' problematic over time so is best avoided. I have only invested ~$8 on a new truss rod, plus have plenty of veneer (poplar in 1/16" thickness, the others all 0.5mm) and plenty of sandpaper and a great sanding beam, so I will try a 'mechanical' solution, mindful too that I have to build up the truss rod slot so the rod can sit tight in its slot and have adjustability in both directions when all glued up. Yup time to level this neck shaft and then set up for next steps. If it looks a bit strange with a sandwich of veneer, no worries.

Bizman, As I was tossing and turning in bed (I get lazy about getting up sometimes!) I was thinking of that too. It would be pretty fast and reliable, not depending on heat technique. Don't get me wrong: I love heat for bending veneer, 'popping' dents out of bodies too, but I wonder if heat techniques could get it dead straight. I think it could get it close but whether that remaining amount was an under or over correction, I'd still need to do some flattening and as this is not some vintage pices I can easily live with a layer of sandwich veneer to build back the thickness.

I can see that, but with CNC (at the factory level) errors have generally been going down. Now, for example most all clone Strat pickguards are pretty darn accurate in the placement of all 11 screw holes, though that was not true even 10-15 years ago. Things like the Strat blueprint can be found on the internet, including critical neck dimensions, so are available to any clone factory should they look. With the huge partscaster industry, and with all the sharing that goes on legally or otherwise most critical dimensions are known. There is no copyright to avoid when using a neck scale for example, though a headstock shape may be protected.

Anyway lesson learnt, always check, never assume -- even from a previously used supplier.

The image here is a superimposition of a Strat body and neck and some of the calculations (magenta) I use to establish matching references (such as nut to tremolo screw holes) are "Fender 25.5" scale compatible, assuming the scale is that actually (nut to 12 fret should also be measured).  The 1st neck seemed within 1-2mm by my calculation (so within tolerance) and I should have done the same test with the second neck, my error.

i just finished this one. Loosely inspired on Strats, rear cavity mounting, Ibanez jack design, Warmoth chambered concepts, 4x2 neck headstock, upper neck access, and EQ on-board.

This is a "clamshell" guitar with internal chambering impossible to detect from the outside, a "sleeper" so to speak. i used poplar 21mm thick (doubled up for thickness) and with an two layers of 1/16" veneer and two layers of 0.5mm rosewood in the middle of the sandwich to get to 45mm total thickness.
After some drawings (Illustrator) and template creation (1/4" MDF) I got down to it with the router, and then followed up with the other usual luthier tools.

Things went pretty much to plan, however the 1st neck I have earmarked for it turned out to be warped and with a stripped truss rod (GFS 'factory second' I had sitting for some years and had never examined closely!). I got a Kimise 4x2 from eBay and used it, but after assembly discovered its neck scale was not a true 25.5" but 3.5~4mm shorter. Interesting, eh? The Wilkinson high E saddle just could not intonate, it needed to go further forward than the bridge design allowed. I substituted Graphtech saddles as the 'string break point' sits much further forward and allowed perfect intonation. Good thing I knew that. The workaround would have been to use another neck, or shave the heel of the Kimise (about 3mm) and redrill the mounting screws. Too much work for no real gain....
Specs include
-Chambered poplar body
-Graphtech saddles
-Wilkinson bridge
-4x2 locking tuners 18:1 ratio (Aliexpress)
-Artec MT3 control system / EQ
-Mystery Korean pickups
-Free-Way 10-position switch
 

Question: what is best way to get this neck working again?
Note: You can consider this a cheap practice neck, I have plenty of good necks, but I want to improve my chops, that's all, and if I can get it working, even better!

The bow is approximately 2mm+ deep at the max point and well centered on the neck. I can see that the previous luthier tried to tighten the truss rod but due to an overly deep channel on the neck even extreme overtightening could not straighten the bow, just strip the bolt.
-One part of the solution is to drop in some wood strips to get the channel to the right depth
-The main part I have trouble with is how to get the bow out. What I tried: A heat gun with clamp pushing the bow straight concurrently did not work -- or I was not aggressive enough, or have to push it beyond straight to get it to take a new set.... I'm thinking a completely different approach at this point may work better. Ideas and solutions to try?