Jump to content


Forum Manager
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by curtisa

  1. How thick is that ebony top? Must've cost a small fortune! I wasn't aware of that particular variant of the Trini Lopez. I assume he had multiple iterations of his signature model over the years? The majority of results I get for 'Trini Lopez Guitar' in Google show something that looks more like an ES335 with standard rounded horns and a Firebird style six-inline headstock (also the guitar Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters is associated with).
  2. Youz aint no bloody true blue Aussie unless ya can pass the attached test. Flamin' mongrels... Aust-citizen-test_2020-04-17.pdf
  3. Flamin' hell! Watch out for drop bears and don't let the hoop snakes catch ya!
  4. No. I am saying it's probably not 120 degrees. If it were 120 degrees the math dictates that the point at which the two side baffles meet in the middle is more than half the depth of the cab, which in the second photo at the top of the page doesn't look right. What I am suggesting is that the angle is wider due to the point of intersection appearing to be less than half the depth of the cab. 140 degrees is based on the guesstimate from the photo that the point at which the two baffles meet is nearer to one third the depth. The intersection depth might be more, in which case the angle will be less. But at the end of the day you really just need to decide how critical these dimensions are to you in order to create a cab with this novel baffle arrangement. The cab appears to be a rare item and no plans exist for it in the public domain, so the chances of you ever needing to square your own interpretation of the cab against the Trace Elliot original are slim, both physically and acoustically. If you work within the known parameters (the overall dimensions quoted above and the appearance of an equilateral triangle for the lower baffle) anything you do after that to make it appear close enough should be sufficient.
  5. I think there's a misunderstanding with what there is to 'break' the neck angle from. Again, I still don't see a need to purposely design a neck with break angle in it to mitigate a high bridge (as you would for a guitar fitted with a tune-o-matic bridge for example). You can design a guitar with a neck that deliberately angles backwards if you want. There's nothing here that says it cannot be done. But the strings still traverse a straight line from nut to bridge, and the proposed body design effectively stops at the bridge (sketch held up to camera at 02:00 in second video), so there's nothing left at that point to break the angle away from. The pickups still need to be positioned underneath the strings and the face of the guitar still needs to be at the same angle (more or less) as the strings for the pickups to be able to 'reach' the strings. The body itself is so contoured on front and back that neck break angle where it meets the body becomes completely irrelevant. Borrowing @Bizman62's sketch from earlier, if you extend the neck blank (exisitng lines drawn in burgundy colour) up through the body (new lines drawn in green) there is zero neck break angle required, yet the neck may still be angled backwards as much as you like (relative to other surfaces of the body): Given that the proposed body is such an organic, free-flowing shape, to simplify design and construction of the 'business end' of the guitar (ie, the neck, strings, pickups and bridge) it will be far easier and simpler to keep the neck-thru section as basic as possible. The wings of the body either side of the neck-thru block can then ebb and flow as much as you like in 3D space, pseudo-angling the neck backwards through the contact points with the players' body.
  6. The more I read the OPs design hitlist the less clear I am about what the shape of this is meant to be. I originally thought the whole thing was meant to be some kind of hollowed-out bowl, convex on the front face of the body and concave on the rear. The 'thickness' of the body was to come from the distance from the outermost front face of the convex face to where the outer edges 'fold back' against the players' body. Now I'm not sure if the body was actually meant to be curved on the front and flat(ish) on the back, giving more of a potbelly shape. Both bodies are effectively 7.5cm 'thick', but the construction of each are substantially different if they are to be hollow (cross-sectional rough-as-guts comparison sketch below): Some more clarity from the OP would be helpful here. There are a number of figures quoted that I'm having trouble understanding how they work with each other (1" thick top and back, 4cm thick neck-thru, 5cm chamber depth...). Whether neck break angle is required here may be a little early to call. Getting back to the OPs original call for things to watch out for, I would point out that if there is some kind of (headless?) trem to be installed in this as the sketch seems to suggest, there will be a minimum thickness of wood required around it in order for it to work correctly. 4cm is certainly what I'd call a minimum to make room for the springs and trem block on most typical headless trem assemblies available these days. You can make the block shorter to fit a slimmer body, but beyond a certain limit the leverage forces required by the springs to equalise the strings starts making the trem feel noticeably stiff and uncomfortable in use.
  7. What about the construction requires a neck break angle? Unless I missed something in the video or diagram, I don't see a need to complicate things by adding backwards neck angle to compensate for something in the layout of the instrument this early in the instrument's inception. The bridge itself appears to be a headless trem of some type in the sketch, and earlier illustrations posted by @GarrettS elsewhere seemed to suggest a headless design as well. I'd assumed the sketch above was drawn headless because that was the intent, rather than to omit detail for clarity.
  8. The design idea (from my understanding) is to essentially make a semi-hollow guitar with a solid centre section plus a couple of openings at the side chambers. On a basic level that's nothing out of the ordinary compared to just about any guitar with an F-hole. The only real curveball is the heavily contoured profile the body has. Like @Drak I'm not sure why the back needs to be removable as a massive single piece, but maybe that's an experimental or aesthetic choice that satisfies @GarrettS's personal requirements. FWIW Warwick has done bowl shaped rear-contoured bodies on some of their basses, and @Andyjr1515 has incorporated similar design features in a couple of his builds (the 'sucked lozenge' profile was how he described it). Tonally I don't really know how you'd predict what the effect would be on the plugged-in sound by porting the side chambers, especially on a guitar that has such an extreme concave shape. The pickups themselves would be residing within the solid centre section of the instrument. Whether that makes a difference or not I don't know.
  9. I would probably advise the opposite. It's not that the pickups themselves will be microphonic. It's the natural resonances inside the hollow body itself that will be the bigger issue. Consider that to play an electro-acoustic through an amp or PA at high gain you typically install one of those rubber soundhole stopper plugs to reduce the chances of acoustic feedback. Hollow body electrics are no different and can suffer the same issue under high volume.
  10. If in doubt do the math. Imagine looking down on top of the cab. Draw an isosceles triangle with the apex opening at the top of the triangle at 120 degrees apart (the point where the two side baffles meet in the middle) and the longest edge opposite the opening at 675mm long (the width of the cab): The cab is supposedly 370mm deep. All you need to do is solve the unknown height of the triangle using a bit of trigonometry and compare the two values: Rearranging and solving for x you get: Comparing with the photos, the amount the baffles 'sink back' into the box appears to be much less than 194mm (certainly not half of the overall depth of the cab), so I'd say the claim of 120 degrees of sound dispersion is bollocks. From the photos the angle that the two baffles meet has to be much wider so that the depth they sit back into the cab is much less. Maybe something like a third of the depth of the cab? So if you do decide to make that assumption you can work backwards to find the angle the two baffles will meet at: Who says maths is for nerds?
  11. From a German auction site: BxHxT(mm )= 675 x 640 ohne /745incl. Rollen ) x 370 Which I'd take to mean 675mm wide x 640mm high (or 745mm high including castors) x 370mm deep. That'd give you a starting point to guesstimate some of the other required dimensions.
  12. Pretty oddball looking cab, I've never seen such an arrangement before. You wouldn't be tempted to improvise your own plans based on how it looks in the photos? The boxy bit would be pretty straight forward. There must be dozens of rough plans floating around that show how a typical 4x12 guitar cab might be assembled. Looks like a simple square with equal length sides, top and bottom. The speaker baffle is the tricky bit, but the lower section just looks like an equilateral triangle with each edge the same length as the bottom of the box. Tipping it backwards by, I dunno, 10-15 degrees maybe? The two side baffles are then just cut to fill in the remaining voids created by the equilateral triangle on either side. Getting the three pieces to meet in the middle and coming up with some kind of bracket to hold them all together is probably the hardest part.
  13. Stick to sanding paper if you can. If you use steel wool you're going to end up with little tiny 'hairs' of the stuff stuck under the fret ends, which you'll then spend the next couple of hours manually pulling out with tweezers.
  14. I've not worked with ebony before, but I was under the impression that a finish is not explicitly required for fretboards made from it (other than perhaps some kind of fretboard conditioner like the various propietary fretboard oils/lemon oils etc). Ebony has natural oils already present within it. Perhaps the extra danish oil is not penetrating in those spots due to the high oil content already in the timber? Probably best not to continue adding more oil finish if there's a chance of over-saturating the wood. The CA glue dribbles may be removable using a single-sided razor blade or utility knife blade used as a scraper. Scrape along the grain from the fretwire where the CA has set towards the middle of the gap between the adjacent fret, followed by an overall buff with some high (1500+) grit sandpaper to make the whole board achieve a uniform sheen afterwards. The re-sanding may also hide those green-circled 'blemishes' you've highlighted too.
  15. As big as the biggest part you want to machine in one go, plus some overhang, plus whatever 'dead' dimensions the machine itself can't use due to the moving parts having to fit within the maximum travel requirements of your machined part. Say the longest thing you want to machine is a Strat neck. The neck itself might be somewhere around 700mm long. You're also going to need some extra length of travel for the cutter to move around the longest parts of the neck (the tip of the headstock and the area around the highest fret), so maybe allow another 20mm at each end. You might also need to allow some extra to fit clamps, screws or whatever in order to hold the part down to the table as it's being machined, so maybe add another 20mm at each end, The total machine travel required to comfortably machine the neck is therefore 700mm + (2x 20mm) + (2x 20mm) = 780mm. The machine itself needs more physical size to allow all those moving parts to fit within the 780mm of travel which will depend a bit on how the machine is built, but maybe allow another 80-120mm at each end. Overall the machine will probably be over a metre long to fit that Strat neck in. Doing the same estimates for a Strat body you're going to want a machine capable of travelling about 400mm at its widest, plus the excess for the machine itself, so maybe something about 550-600mm wide? Generally the size of the machine itself is secondary unless you are really strapped for space. It's more about what the maximum machining area is available to you underneath the cutter. That's also ignoring all the new skills, knowledge and practicalities required to make the jump into CNC - at times the learning curve may well be brutally steep. And expensive. I found the The Guerilla Guide to CNC Machining handy when I first got started in CNC. It's more geared towards making resin casting moulds for hobby robotics, but the basic principles it detailed were fairly easy to understand and translatable to machining other stuff (ie, guitars made from wood). Edit: duh. Can't do math properly today
  16. Yep. The circuit relies on the inherent resistance (and inductance) of the pickup itself to complete the low- or high-pass filtering effect
  17. It's easiest if you imagine the two sections of the switch moving clockwise in sympathy from position 1 to 4 and then follow the trail it makes from pickup to volume pot, like following a train on railway tracks as the points move across (ignore the 'R-M' thing for the moment); The top section shorts out the 2nF cap and bypasses it completely, but the 22nF cap gets connected between the pickup and ground, effectively making it equivalent to a typical tone control set to zero (aka the 'T- Low pass' setting). Lots of highs are lost and the sound is warm/muddy/dull/bassy etc The 22nF cap is again connected to ground, but the 2nF cap bypass gets removed and is allowed to remain in circuit. The 22nF again acts as a low pass filter, but the 2nF acts as a high pass filter at the same time, resulting in a narrow band of frequencies to pass (you lose some lows through the high pass and lose some highs through the low pass, what's left is the 'untouched' stuff in the midrange, aka the 'T+ B- Band pass' setting). The 22nF cap gets disconnected and the 2nF cap gets bypassed again. The pickup is effectively connected directly to the volume pot with no filters applied (aka the 'T+ B+ Filters Bypassed' setting). Not dissimilar to a tone control on max. The 22nF cap remains disconnected but the 2nF cap gets inserted back into the pickup signal. It acts as a high-pass only, which cuts the bass out of the pickup signal (aka the 'B- High pass' setting). The sound becomes thin/weedy/shrill/bright etc It's not clear what the 'R-M' switch is for, but if you close the switch the extra circuitry gets bypassed and has no effect on the pickup signal. If the switch is open the extra 470k/1nF circuit is added in series with the pickup signal, which acts as a kind of additional high-shelf filter; high frequencies can pass freely through the cap, but lows are forced to travel through the resistor, which slugs some of their energy on the way to the output. You'd probably end up with a moderate bass cut/treble boost when you activate the circuit. I wonder if 'R' and 'M' stand for something like the German terms for 'bright' and 'normal' or 'rhythm' and 'lead'?
  18. In that case I'd be guided by whatever the manufacturer says their product can be thinned with and the ratios to which they can be mixed, rather than try and guess. Check with them first - maybe printed on the tin, the product page on their website or send them an email. Deciphering the MSDS can be a bit hit and miss, and that's not what an MSDS is really meant for anyway.
  19. Mineral spirits is a generic catch-all term to describe a broad range of petro-chemicals and solvents. It means different things to different people in different countries, so it's not necessarily safe to assume that a bottle of something labelled as 'mineral spirits' you can get from the hardware store is the same thing Berger, Minwax or Watco state can be used to thin their products, particularly if those products are imported from different places.
  20. Understood. If it were me undertaking a first-time project I'd probably just choose a product based on the directions on the can, rather than try to blend my own mixture by combining different products. At a basic level that means if you want to try a wipe-on poly, buy a tin of pre-mixed wipe-on poly. If the directions indicate it can be thinned with a particular product, then only use that thinning agent. Keep things simple for starters.
  21. I've used Minwax wipe-on poly before, both the satin and gloss varieties. They both work well and are easy to apply with a clean, soft lint-free rag. The trick to it is more about working out how best to apply the finish so that it doesn't leave behind streak marks or runs. Is there a reason why you're specifically interested in urethane?
  22. Back of the clip might rub against the body during use, which could chafe through the finish above the hook.
  23. If you have a preference as to which particular shot you'd like to use just drop me a PM. Has to be landscape orientation though.
  24. And his guitar teacher was Joe Satriani. One of Joe's other students around the same time was a young Kirk Hammett. Small world.
  25. I think a lot of players and builders probably prefer to see some contrast in the finished product. Paradoxically, that Toshiki Kadomatsu video you linked to, if it weren't for the white pearloid pickguard I'd personally find that guitar pretty visually uninteresting and bland. Almost toylike even. When the finish on the fretboard eventually wears through it might not be everyone's cup of tea either. I have a vague memory from the early 90s that Valley Arts guitars went through a period of tinting the backs of their necks to match the bursting on the bodies (blues, red, cherry, purple etc). And Gibson SGs are kinda synonymous with the whole Cherry-Red-on-everything stain. My PRS Cu22 has a gloss black neck, headstock and back of body on an ebony board, so there are some examples floating around of the everything-can-be-the-same-tone colour schemes. Maybe it just doesn't really resonate that well with the guitar buying public to become more mainstream?
  • Create New...