curtisa

Probably the more important factor to note is that spray painting using any chemical is considered a hazardous practice. The idea that poly 'smells' more pleasant than nitro should not be used as an excuse to cheap out on the safety gear. Use a respirator rated for use in paint and solvent fume environments. It might cost a hundred bucks and each filter pack good for only 6 weeks at $30 each, but if you're going to expose yourself to known-dangerous vapours then you should be doing what you can to protect yourself. I would also imagine that all solvent-based sprays are flammable. That would include any of the solvents used to thin them. Again, not a reason to handle poly any differently than nitro. Spraying in a confined space also serves no benefit if all you're doing is filling up the area with a high concentration of fumes and atomised paint. All that does is put even more stringent requirements on the protective equipment and control of combustibles. Spray where there is ventilation. Depending on your work area, that may mean timing your spraying activities to coincide with the weather.

Done

That is generally all you should need to do. The grounding of the shield is performed using the already-grounded conductive body of the pot being in contact with the shielding material by way of the pot nut securing it tightly to the cavity wall. Adding a bonus wire directly from another known-grounded point to the shielding material itself serves no real purpose other than to complicate the installation process. The only reason I can think of to do so would be if the shielding material was unable to be grounded in any other way (eg, non-conductive, plastic bodied pots were used). As a side note, cheap pots are unlikely to be the cause of buzz. That's not where buzz originates from. Cheap pots just mean higher chances of poor longevity, poor construction, less than optimal electrical specs, or easy to break during use or installation.

They're usually available for those kinds of prices on eBay. Even cheaper on Aliexpress or Banggood as you're not paying for the eBay price markup to cover the sellers listing costs. Shop carefully though. At those kinds of prices you may be better off buying a bunch and testing them all before using them. You may find one or two in every 10 that may need to go straight to the bin.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Those qualities (assuming they are achievable in a practical all-CF neck) might actually come back to haunt you. A perfectly straight/flat neck is inviting fret buzz unless you play with a particularly light touch. A neck needs some relief in order for the vibrating strings to clear all the frets. No truss rod also means no chance of introducing relief or correcting any curvature errors in a neck when under string tension

Well, as you'd expect in the internet age, someone's already done it http://www.tdpri.com/threads/a-carbon-build.214836/

https://au.mouser.com/Search/Refine?Keyword=bourns+gtr https://www.digikey.com.au/products/en/potentiometers-variable-resistors/rotary-potentiometers-rheostats/84?k=bourns gtr https://uk.farnell.com/search?st=bourns gtr Can be found on eBay too.

Have you seen the Bourns GTR series? They come in both knurled 18T 6mm spline and solid 1/4" shaft options with a brass threaded shaft for about a fifth of the price. Low friction movement. Give them a try on your next build. Are you sure that's the case? PRS could just be buying off-the-shelf products and attaching their markup and brand to them for their resale market. Even so, 20+ quid for a pot is highway robbery. The treble bleed or tone cap you can add yourself to any pot for a few pence each. If you want to loosen up a pot's rotation just squirt a bit of electro lube into the shaft and turn it a few times before installing it.

Do you really need to buy a PRS-branded pot? I've personally been surprised over the years how good some no-name and low cost pickups actually sound. The original bridge humbucker in my old Yamaha Pacifica 112 was a really good sounding pickup, despite being what would probably be considered today as nothing more than a $10 Amazon special. Diamonds on the rough can be found all over the place if you're willing to take a punt, whether they be brand new budget lines or salvaged no-name pickups from guitars of uncertain lineage. And if it turns out you don't like them, it's not like you shelled out several hundred smackers on a premium item.

I think the only way you're going to find out if your design works is if you draw it out at full scale and lay your tuners on to the drawing to see if they will fit. From what I can see your design is quite angular, and if the head stock shape is crucial to the overall look of the guitar you'll be limited by what you can get your tuners to do within that geometry. A quick sketch on paper won't provide the full story. IMO for head stock shapes that extreme you're better off designing in reverse by placing your tuners as you want them and then making the head stock shape fit within the limitations of the tuner placement. If you're happy to live with three tuners that will work back-to-front, then by all means use the inline six set in a 3+3 configuration. If you want all six tuners to turn in the conventional way then use a 3+3 set. That's more likely a decision you need to make based on your design intentions and/or budget (you may have already purchased an inline six set?). The treble side set in a 3+3 are geared reverse to the bass side. Left-handed inline six sets are also geared in reverse so that they tune the 'correct' way relative to the player when they use them. This is also why lefty inline six sets can be marketed as right hand reverse head stock sets, as the gearing needs to be reversed to suit the player's expectation of tuner rotation (lefty loosey/righty tighty).

I'm having trouble envisaging what it is you're trying to achieve here. Your design already looks like you've lined up all six tuners for a straight as possible string path. As far as I can tell none of your tuners or strings will hit either the headstock or adjacent tuners. When you mention you'd like to move two tuners to the top of the headstock, are you wanting to create a 4+2 tuner arrangement where the E-A-D-G tuners are to the left and B-G tuners are to the right? You can, but if you use a six-inline set and fit the G-B-E units on the treble side of the headstock, those three tuners will operate in reverse rotation.

You may be asking too much from a single pickup. What's likely happening is that the B coil is also sensing C strings and vice versa. Perfect separation of each signal from one humbucker turned 90 degrees is impossible as the two coils and groups of strings are simply too close to each other. The other thing that may be affecting your expected behaviour is the noise-cancelling nature of the humbucker itself. Perhaps the way you have the humbucker wired you're adding the C strings in-phase and B strings out-of-phase, so that when Vb is fully up you're mixing the two signals to subtract rather than add. Try swapping the connections on the B coil of the humbucker and see if that improves things. Unfortunately no. The 'correct' way to make this work would be to use a piezo under-saddle pickup with one element per string, each piezo element then being mixed to produce the two groups of B and C string outputs for you to control as you need. But that also increases the cost and circuit complexity by a significant amount.

The way they were put in? In all seriousness, maybe the pickup wires were accidentally echanged on the two volume pots during manufacture. You could desolder the pickup wires on each volume pot and swap them. Alternatively you can always unbolt the pots and swap their positions into whatever order you'd prefer, providing the wiring is long enough to reach.

Bonus points awarded for using a schematic to lay out your circuit rather than a wiring diagram Version 1 of your diagram is actually closest to what you need. By rotating both pots by 90 degrees and leaving the wiring as-is you get the required behaviour: Vb allows the bordoni coil to be variably shunted away to ground, leaving the cantini signal unaffected. Vm then behaves as a master volume affecting both signals overall. The mute switch will operate better if it shorts the signal to ground, rather than disconnecting the signal from the output as you had it drawn.

Easier to hammer in the frets while the flat back of the fretboard can rest against a solid, flat workbench. If you're making an acoustic instrument it also makes sense to fret first before attaching as it's near impossible to install frets into the fretboard in the area between the soundhole and the neck/body join without risking damage to the fragile soundboard. Can also be of practical use if you're doing a fretboard with binding Easier to clamp the unfretted/unradiused fretboard to the neck while the glue sets up as there are no pesky frets and curved surfaces to deal with while clamping. Some people also choose to leave shaping the neck until after the frets are installed as it means that the back of the neck remains a flat slab for as long as possible to help with providing a stable surface to clamp and reference against during construction of the neck.

Weird. When I click on your links it tries to take me into the Google login page. If I then log in to Google the image displays as a broken link: Maybe the reason why only you can see them is because you've pasted them from some kind of Google-based private storage?

I suspect the links to your images you're inserting is being cached on your local computer but is incorrect on wherever you're hosting them. If I try to edit your post and direct link to the faulty images I get a 404 error. Are you hosting the images elsewhere and linking them into your post or are you taking advantage of Projectguitar's own image uploading in the post editor?

I stand corrected. I'm still not sure I'd trust a bur for super accurate and delicate routing. Maybe for quick and dirty hogging out (on a relatively small scale) but not for the final cuts, where fractions of a millimetre mean the difference between the perfect fit and use of filler to hide the gap.

AFAIK Stewmac doesn't sell micro burrs. Not sure I'd want to use them for anything other than quick material removal, in which case you'd probably just use a larger 2-flute carbide endmill anyway. Anything requiring even more material removal I'd probably just use a chisel and save the really tiny endmill work for the edges and corners of the cuts.

I buy the majority of my CNC endmills from this eBay seller and can vouch for the quality of the Kyocera bits he offers.

Add a new lamination on to the 'headstock' end of the neck that will be big enough to be the proper headstock. It will push the scarf laminations further up the neck, but you'll be able to use the neck without scrapping it.

Using G-clamps with no padding or cauls underneath the jaws? You haven't swept up the floor? You've made up a lefthanded neck blank when you should've made a righthand one?

A collection of your favourite opening lines for use at bars and nightclubs? Nice! Ohhhhhhhhh. The other kind of 'pickup'!

I suspect your method may work, but I'd personally want to experiment with it first over an extended period of time. Three issues I can see with your method: My experience with thick layers of epoxy (>5mm) is that it tends to not fully cure in the middle while the outermost layers set hard, retaining a slight rubbery/waxy consistency when cut. Some epoxies may work better than others. Even the mixing ratios between catalyst and resin may be critical. Given time, humidity and temperature changes the epoxy and wood will likely shrink and expand at different rates, which could result in the bond between epoxy and wood weakening. This could be as minor as hairline cracking underneath the finish or as major as whole chunks peeling away. This would probably be the main reason why filling a pickup cavity with an oversize piece of wood and routing it back down to the correct shape would be better, as the difference in rates at which two relatively large pieces of timber expand and contract would be less than two completely dissimilar materials sharing a comparatively small surface area. If you are going to use a plunge attachment on the rotary tool then set yourself up some square, straight edges on the body to help guide the perimeter of the plunge base in straight lines and create square corners. Practice first. Any slight deviation in the reshaped edges if going freehand will tend to show up more clearly when the square edges of the pickup are positioned alongside them, and might end up looking worse than the original un-modified cavities.