curtisa

I'm willing to be it will be something along the lines of this (inspiration only):

Are you using fresh strings when checking and adjusting the intonation? Is the bridge original? You've described it as a 'Floyd Rose' but it looks like the original Tokai JSX came with some proprietary thing called an 'Ayers Rocker III' installed? How are you determining that? Quick check - measure from the leading edge of the nut where the strings leave the headstock to the 12th fret. Specs that I can find for the JSX indicates that it has a scale length of 25.5". Nut to 12th fret should be exactly half that = 12.75". If you then measure from the nut to the bridge you should find that the closest saddle is no less than 25.5". Intonation compensation is an additive adjustment. Even though the scale length is specified as 25.5" each string length with compensation applied will always be slightly longer. If you're finding that the string length wants to be shorter than 25.5" in order for it to intonate correctly and you've accounted for all the obvious stuff, suspect larger problems with the guitar.

There's a listing on Reverb that shows a photo of some documentation (original catalogue? manual?) for a JSX70 that suggests it's just 1x Vol, 1x Tone and 3x on-off mini toggles - one for each pickup. This site lists a JSX75 (no idea if there's any difference between a JSX70 and JSX75? They certainly look identical...) that idescribes the controls in the same way too. Does it sound like your example functions the same way when the controls are operated, or is there some kind of wiring fault that you're wanting to fix on it?

Given the tradeoff between experience, complexity and cost, a sanding block is still the best solution for radiusing the fretboard. Some of the options proposed require skills or tools that many beginners wouldn't have access to. Agreed. The longer ones can be pricey but they're worth it in the long run, particularly if you have intentions of building more than just a couple of instruments. Guitar and Woods have 450mm ones in a range of radii that are a good alternative to the extremely expensive (possibly overpriced?) 18" Stewmac ones. I can confirm from experience that both are good options. Failing that, there are Chinese knock-offs available on Aliexpress or Ebay that might be OK for even less money but quality may be questionable, and it would be a gamble as to whether you'd want to risk it.

Stewmac make such a product. It's an expensive way to do it though. It also suggests to me that the sort of person who'd buy it is after a quick, no-thinking solution - something where you'd just lay down the feeler gauges and hack away with gay abandon using files until the nut slots are all in position. Might be handy in a full time shop where time is money?

There's a good chance that most builders deliberately (or subconsciously) target cutting the nut slots just above the fret height solely because any slip up at that point in the build renders the nut useless. It's easier cut them as close as you dare than it is to cut them *exactly* to the same height as the first fret. I'd highly recommend doing a build with a zero fret when you get the chance. At the very least, not having to stress so much about getting the nut slots 'just so' more than makes up for the modest increase in assembly labour. Automatic setting of the action at the first fret is a massive bonus in its own right too.

Have you tried it? There should be a gap, even if tiny, as you're laying a straight object (the string) across an arc (neck relief).

The former Stewmac quote perhaps overly simplifies what's trying to be measured, as the strings shoot off from the face of the nut in a straight line while the neck (theoretically) starts curving away with relief. The gap between the bottom of the nut slot and the top of the first fret is difficult to measure (they're diagonally opposite each other) and changes based on how much relief you have and how high the action is at the bridge. The latter MI Guitar Craft one puts some of that missing detail back in by stating that the gap between the underside of the string and the top of the first fret where it passes overhead is where you measure, which makes more sense. And even then, it's only suggested '...as a starting point...'. Again, this is dependent on action and relief, but it is easier to quantify. Assuming you were chasing the 'perfect' action, to finish the job off you'd probably spend some more time sneaking Guitar Craft's suggested 0.02" clearance down a bit more. More than likely you'd end up with the nut slots pretty much the same height as the fret tops if the neck was indeed re-straightened out. But then what happens when you depress the string to the first fret? When you levelled the frets and dressed them you made sure all the fret tops were the same height with the neck straight, so by that definition surely the 2nd fret should buzz as it is the same height as the first?

What does experience tell you? Logically, the nut slots should need no more clearance above the first fret than would otherwise be required between the first and second, second and third, third and fourth, and so on. By extension if you could somehow level the nut slots to the same height as the frets while the neck is straight (as most builders would do normally), neck relief will take care of the rest and ensures that the string doesn't rattle on the next highest fret. That's why a zero fret shouldn't need to be higher than the remaining 24. In the real world some players like the safety net of some extra clearance at the nut, or like their necks super-straight, or play with a really heavy picking hand, or just like the feel of a little extra resistance in the first few frets, so you'd probably cut the nut slots a tad higher or install that zero fret un-levelled compared to the rest of the neck. Depends on what you class as optimal action. That means different things to different people - best intonation, player comfort, player preference, buzz free etc...

Do you want the additional rhythm volume/tone controls that were fitted to the Jazzmaster? And do you also want the same 'neck only' switching pattern that engaging the original rhythm circuit did on a Jazzmaster?

Does the crack go all the way through the top, or is it just the top lamination of ply separating from the substrate? Is that normally how high the saddle sits on that guitar when it's strung up? Seems pretty high. I wonder if that's part of the problem?

No. Brushless DC motors are different beasts entirely and wouldn't be compatible either. The SCR choppers are old-school tech - think more along the lines of a light dimmer for incandescent globes. You mean...like a thermostat?

It'll be a generic SCR chopper speed controller. Cheap as chips but not very reliable and of questionable safety. Note you can only use them on brushed motors (hand drills, routers etc); they're not compatible with larger induction motors such as used in drill presses or jointers.

Do you mean this (there's not a great deal there)? https://www.projectguitar.com/files/category/5-instrument-plans/ Try using the forum search and enclosing the words guitar plans in double quotes. https://www.projectguitar.com/search/?&q="guitar plans"&quick=1&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy It might also help if you could throw in some extra keywords - if there's a particular plan out there that you're after, or some phrase you remember being used in the thread in question. Granted, the forum search is generally regarded as being a bit ordinary and there's not much we can do to improve it (it's built into the bones of the forum software itself). But the more information you can throw at it (or other members' memories!) the better the results.

And a fuel tank too. It's going to be a pretty weighty beast by the end of it.

I'll freely admit I know nothing about modern gaming (my level of gaming only extends to reliving my childhood on an Amiga playing Deluxe Galaga or Pinball Fantasies), but I can buy into the aesthetic sensibilities of steampunk or the post-apocalyptic influences being used here. Does the petrol engine need to be operational or is the look enough? That would eliminate issues with noise.

Now THIS is something we don't see everyday. Very Mad Max. I take it you've seen some of the outlandish playable prop guitars that have been made for Steve Vai over the years - the Ultrazone and the recent Hydra?

There are loads of products out there that appear to have the same properties as water (can be spritzed, looks like water, doesn't leave an oily residue on the cloth) that will be more compatible with raw unfinished timber as you'd find on a fretboard than water with soap (white spirit or naptha come to mind). To assume that the Crimson product is largely soapy water seems a bit of a leap. FWIW here's another fretboard cleaner that uses very similar terms to sell itself as Crimson's cleaning solution - no petroleum distillates, all natural ingredients. The difference in this case is that they at least allude to a blend of plant-based oils as the primary ingredients in the product description: https://www.musicnomadcare.com/Products/Fretboard-F-ONE-Oil-2-oz/

What makes you say that? The product description makes it sound more like some kind of natural oil blend. Too aggressive for the application at hand. If you're not happy to get it on your hands then it's probably best to keep it away from the timber as well. Xylene could easily react with the old finish, or if you have any plastics nearby (think binding around the body or fretboard inlays/markers) it may melt them. Things at the milder-end of the scale like a damp cloth, lighter fluid, shellite, methylated spirits etc in combination with good old fashioned elbow grease should be all you need.

Look closer. The heel block is a laminated extension of the neck; pretty standard on acoustic guitars - you can see where it's been attached above the crack (the shadow of the original glue line is visible about one third the way towards the fretboard, and the grain pattern is obviously different between the neck and the heel block which makes it easy to see where the two pieces meet). It's definitely not an end grain joint. The crack is with the grain, which indicates the heel has split under tension from the (wrong type of) strings, or it's received a bit of a brutal knock in a past life that's caused it to open up. I wouldn't use CA as it will wick away into the timber before it gets a chance to allow the two halves to set up, but rather mildly watered-down PVA (Titebond I, Elmers etc). Try and work as much as possible into the crack using something like a business card. If you've got a syringe handy, injecting the glue in will also help get it in as deeply as possible. Some gentle leverage on the neck may assist on opening it up enough to get the glue in there, but go easy - you're not trying to drive a car into the gap! Clamp from heel cap to fretboard to keep it tight and mop up any squeeze-out. Use some kind of protection to stop your clamp faces from denting the timber under pressure. The traditional method would be French Polishing, but it is time consuming and laborious to do right, Wiping varnishes are easy and can look pretty good if done carefully. @Andyjr1515 did a tutorial that's about as good as it gets a while back which you might want to have a look at.

You'll get better results if the clamping beams are gently curved rather than being straight. The threaded rods will put the most pressure on the edges, but if the initial contact point of the beams is in the middle of the faces being clamped, the clamping pressure will be more evenly distributed across the full length of the beam as the threaded rods are tightened up.

More possible combinations of switching contacts. The problem with your switching requirements is that you're after one particular combination of pickups and boost that isn't achievable using a standard switch. Hence the only way to do it is to either use a somewhat esoteric component, or relax the switching requirements to use more standard components (ie, my earlier suggestion of a Tele 3-way switch in combination with a mini toggle). The import-style 5-way switch has a very specific switching pattern that works perfectly with a typical SSS, HSS or HSH pickup configuration. But because of this 'perfect fit' its too inflexible to work with any other kind of switching arrangement.

Depends a lot on the switch. If it's anything like the typical import-style 5-way switches (such as below), then the answer is 'no': Can you post a photo of the switch you have?

Apologies for the spaghetti wiring. I think this is what you're after: Pickup selection options are: Middle+Neck+Boost Middle Middle Middle + Neck Neck Notes: Need to purchase an Oak Grigsby 5-way 4-pole Superswitch to replace the stock Squire one, plus replace the stock output jack with a stereo tip-ring-sleeve (TRS) version. The battery will be disconnected whenever the lead is unplugged to prevent battery drain when not in use. You didn't mention whether you wanted to drill another hole for the treble boost pot, so I've assumed you would have been happy to lose one of the tone controls instead and install the treble boost pot in its place. To that end I've made the remaining tone control a master tone for both pickups. Volume and tone controls are on the output side of the treble boost (again, not sure if this is what you were expecting?) Take care around all the little jumpers on the switch - there are quite a few! The Treble Boost is wired with true bypass when not engaged (switch positions 2-5). Not sure if that's important to you? I have no idea if the wire colours will match your pickups, but you get the idea

I reckon you're going to need to replace the switch with something like a 5-way 4-pole Oak Grigsby Superswitch. Is the duplicated 'middle' position something that you are happy to work with or would you prefer to eliminate it? You could always replace the 5-way switch with a standard 3-way Telecaster-style one and do your treble boost using a push-pull pot or mini toggle switch. Do you have a circuit in mind for the treble boost component?