curtisa

The zebrano in the sunset lighting almost looks too laid back for you, Scott. I trust you'll treat it to some jaw-dropping stain and buffing that we're used to from you around these parts?

I had assumed it was a beauty spot Fill it with abalone and call it custom inlay. Take that, you philistines!

Don't bother. Star grounding makes no difference in guitar wiring compared to good, clean soldering, and in many respects is more work than it's worth. Ground it whichever way you like; the only important factor is that your grounding layout is clean and straightforward.

So you'll be rebuilding this one around the jack socket then?

Google didn't take long to pull some results. Nova appears to have been a company set up by John Buscarino in the 90s to build customised Strat and Tele lookalikes. He still builds but has stepped away from solidbody guitars and now mainly makes acoustics and archtops. You could try contacting John via his website to see if he can tell you about it Google images returns a few examples of Nova electrics here and there. From what little discussion there appears to floating around about them, they appear to be (have been) well-regarded. This thread appears to offer some information about the history behind Nova, but it is buried amongst the derailers and could be nothing more than hearsay.

Installing a Floyd is a big task, but if your cohort is equipped and willing that's entirely your decision. Things to consider: Double-check before you commit router to wood that you have sufficient clearance underneath the bridge pickup for the spring cavity and sufficient thickness in the body overall to accept the sustain block. The body of that guitar looks to be carved, falling away towards the edges. This will make securing the Floyd router template tricky as there isn't much in the way of flat surfaces on the body to attach the template to. Double-check that the neck can accept the nut you have. The installation of the R2 nut requires that a shelf be cut into the top of the neck where the existing nut is currently fitted, a fiddly job unless you have some jigs and clamps available to you to position and secure the neck while making the cut. Also consider that you have the truss rod access immediately underneath the nut (will installing the nut inhibit access to the truss rod for future adjustment?), the width of the neck at the nut and the string spacing (is the nut the right dimensions for your neck?). The neck looks to be set in, so you'll be doing the whole operation with the guitar fully-assembled. Also makes the risk of a screw-up more fatal, as you'll have no hope of replacing the neck with an aftermarket one if the nut installation goes badly. The removal of wood from the neck and body will leave the existing finish pretty scarred, so if looks matter you'll also be dealing with a refinish job at the end.

'Fender Jaguar Wiring Kit' seems to return plenty of results in Google, some for less than $60US. You'd get the two single coil pickups supplied, but you'd just chuck them in a drawer and save them for a different project, and it'd probably still be cheaper than buying all the parts one by one. You'd then just replace them with your two Seymour Duncan humbuckers like-for-like. You will have to modify (or replace) the supplied pickguard to accept the physically larger humbuckers, all the little toggle switches and those two edge-mounted volume/tone controls that the Jaguar uses.

The way I read that switch with the diagram you have posted, it should give: Position 1 (switch all the way right) = bridge humbucker Position 2 = inner (or outer, not sure) coils of each humbucker in parallel Position 3 = both humbuckers in parallel Position 4 = neck humbucker coil split Position 5 (switch all the way left) = neck humbucker

If it's come from a HSH Ibby, it's likely to just be a standard 2-pole 5-position switch. Possibly with the in-between positions 2 and 4 merged on lugs 1/2 and 2/3. I actually still have the original 5-way switch from the RG7620 (removed it when I converted it to a LP toggle). I can check it out if you like and see what pins connect to what as the switch is moved through each position if that helps?

The magic will be in the switch, which will not be your average off-the-shelf item from Stewmac. A standard 5-way 2 pole blade switch will not give you those pickup combos. If this switching scheme is anything like the one I had in my old Ibanez RG7620 (twin humbuckers, 5-way blade) the switch itself will contain a custom PCB that gives all manner of wierd and wonderful terminal arrangements. From memory the combos were bridge humbucker, bridge+neck outer coils in parallel, bridge+neck humbucker, neck coils in parallel, neck humbucker. You might be able to make something close using one of those Oak Grgisby 5-way mega switches (the one with 20 solder teminals). Otherwise you'll either need the exact Ibanez replacement switch, or revise the switching scheme to something else that doesnt require such an unusual part. The 3-wire pickup arrangement is just a simplified variant on 4-wire + shield. The tapping point between the two coils in the humbucker is hardwired out on one wire instead of provided as two separate wires which you would normally join together in the control cavity. And the shield is also hardwired to the cold side of the humbucker, saving you another wire to manhandle yourself. The downside is that you can't do special stuff like play with phase reversing and parallel coils within the one humbucker.

Damn right it did. It was the rosette that did it

Although, on second thought, are you sure there's any value in having a radio-style on/off switch built in to the volume control? The switch will normally disconnect when the volume is wound down to zero, but the pickup will be inaudible with the volume at zero anyway, which kinda renders the entire premise of deselecting the pickup with the volume pot a bit redundant. If you specified normal volume controls for each pickup instead, that would free up your requirement for independent push-pull coil split on each of the humbucker.

Fixed They're a bit rarer, but still available as a replacement item from specialist vintage radio restoration sellers. You're unlikely to find them in a bricks-and-mortar store though. 250K log from Radio Daze 500k log from Tubes and More Combined on the rotary volume/on-off switches? Yes, too much to expect from a single pot. You could have the push-pull on the tone pot and have it split both humbuckers simultaneously though.

Understood. I had assumed your statement meant that you didn't know how to subscribe to the thread, rather than you didn't want to. I would've thought that making a CZ pick thin enough would also make it too brittle to either be machined reliably or long lasting under playing conditions. It might be hard, but it's probably also prone to breakage at the thicknesses that make it usable as a pick, unless you're happy for it to be similar in shape and size to, say a Dunlop Stubby. I guess what I meant was, is there a particular set of dimensions and angles you're working towards when refining the shape of your picks, and how did you arrive at those values? It's not clear (to me at least) what you mean when you use terms like horizontal/vertical angle, sharpening vertically etc in your paper. A diagram defining what these terms refer to would help. You mention that refining the shape is leading you towards faster speed and lower contact area, but in the photos in your paper, many of the modified picks have quite a 'broad' tip with a large included angle. Isn't this increasing the contact area? To that end, wouldn't a tip with a smaller included angle with the smallest amount of contact area be better for speed, such as a stock teardrop shape or the smaller Dunlop Jazz III? I personally find that the small red Jazz III works for me. I used to use the standard Dunlop Tortex picks exclusively, maybe 1 - 1.3mm thicknesses. Years ago a friend of mine gave me a teardrop pick to try and I immediately fell in love with the small shape, the rigidity and fine point. That eventually led on to the Jazz III, and I've never changed back since. Even now If I go back to the standard-sized pick it feels like I'm trying to pick the strings with a dinner plate; it just feel too big and clumsy in my hands. Weirdly I couldn't get along with the black Jazz IIIs, despite it being the same size and shape as the red ones. The surface finish was slightly different, which made it harder for me to hold on to. The red one is more glossy and easier for me to get a grip with. Super-thick picks don't sit right with me (3mm Dunlop Stubby). Too chunky and clubby. I did try a couple of metal picks years ago. I may still have them somewhere. I had a copper one made from maybe 0.5mm sheet and a quite thick stainless steel (perhaps 1.3mm?); both were the standard shape. The thin copper one tended to snag on the strings a lot which I found irritating (could've been cheaply made with rough edges though). At the time I was heavily influenced by Joe Satriani, and would regularly incorporate pick scrapes on the lower strings while playing, but the copper pick being so stiff and having sharp-ish edges would destroy the wound strings when doing those kinds of effects. The SS one wasn't actually too bad, but the main thing that turned me off metal picks of any variety was the fact that they would tarnish in my hands while using them. I'd end up with blackened finger tips after an hour of playing, and I'd inevitably end up with black smudges showing up all over the white scratchplate. I don't recall having an issue with the sound ('zing', as you say) of these picks though. There was another pick I used to have. Might have been called the 'Dava Speed Pick' or something. It was essentially a more pointy teardrop shape, perhaps 1mm thickness, and the last 5-8mm of the tip was deliberately twisted a few degrees. I guess it was designed to make the pick tip strike the string squarely, rather than at a slight angle that most people's playing hands would naturally hold a pick at, but in my hands it felt like it was hindering more than helping.

Welcome to the forum. You've taken on an interesting topic to write about; one I would think many people wouldn't give as much thought about as you have. I have given your paper a cursory read-through. I have a few ideas that you may like to consider for your work: Your paper is written as a research article, but a good portion of the arguments presented rely on personal opinion. Consider presenting the document more objectively. There is frequent mention of altering the tip geometry of the pick - can you elaborate what these modifications are for and how they are implemented? What is the reasoning behind modification if the stock pick shape is less than optimal? Is this a universal improvement that can be adopted by any player or is it a technique that needs to be adapted to suit an individual's needs? Your choice of strings for the electric guitar tests is unusual (flatwound 6th and 5th, plain 4th. Is there a particular reason you chose such an odd set of strings instead of the more 'standard' round wound set (round wound 6th/5th/4th, plain 3rd/2nd/1st)? How are you determining the relative slickness (friction) and speed of each pick material? Is there some kind of measurement you perform on each pick (objective) or is it down to feel (subjective)? Given the paper makes mention of pick geometry and thickness as being important to improving speed and reducing friction, are you sure you shouldn't also be opening up the discussion to include pick shape? You can click on the 'Follow' button at the top-right of this thread and receive email notifications when a reply is posted in your thread.

The ones in the example I posted are 0.5mm apart and the tape is barely visible in practice. It should be unnoticable up to about 1mm gap unless you really go hunting for it..

There isn't enough thread area to tap a thread into wood for a standard metal thread bolt. You might get the bolt in to the wood, but it will have no strength. In all likelihood the nut will pull out the first time you do a divebomb on the bar. You either need to use woodthread screws and attach from the front or use the bolts and secure the nut from behind, as Ibanez do.

Here's how I do it. Like all good methods demonstrated here, I stole the idea from someone else.

Do a google search for 'variable mid eq schematic' or 'semi-parametric mid eq schematic' or similar. Semi-parametric usually implies that it's variable frequency and variable boost/cut, rather than fully parametric, which will add variable 'Q' to the mix (the 'sharpness' of the boost/cut). The Boss MT2 Metal Zone pedal has an example of semi-parametric mid control, as do the EQ sections of many mixers. Many bass preamps will include a semi-parametric mid EQ section, but they're probably tailored to bass usage rather than guitar. If that's getting too complicated, there a a few fixed-frequency mid boost preamps out there by EMG ($$$) and Guitar Fetish ($), amongst others.

The 4-way Tele mod is pretty common (bridge, bridge+neck parallel, neck, bridge+neck series), but you can treat the two singles on a Tele as the equivalent of the two coils in a single humbucker. That would give the equivalent of 1 = bridge-side single, 2 = coils in parallel, 3 = neck-side single, 4 = full humbucker (note the switching order - that may be an issue for you if you have expectations about how the switch should behave). Haven't heard of being done, but I can't see why it shouldn't work

You still need some way of getting the strings up to pitch from completely slack. The locking nut on a Floyd Rose is just used to secure the strings once they're at correct pitch using the regular tuning machines. The fine tuners on the FR bridge don't have enough travel to get you there by themselves. Are you sure you can't just do a quick retune between songs using the existing bridge? Heck, those NK headless guitars are so cheap you could buy a second one, leave it permanently tuned to drop-D and just swap guitars for the songs that require it. I'm not sure a FR would help you here anyway. One of their key features is to prevent tuning changes.

Sure you can cut frets off to make it shorter. The relationship between fret spacings is the same no matter how many frets you lop off. Otherwise slapping a capo on the 5th fret would result in a guitar that would never play in tune. You just end up with a fretboard that has less frets at the top end.

When myself and The Chosen One last visited the UK, we happened to visit Blenheim Palace on the same day they were shooting scenes for Transformers: The Last Knight. The crew had all the 'body double' cars parked along one side of the building. Security weren't letting anyone get too close to get a good look at all the bling, though.

Lucky sod. Bet those are gentle on fuel.

Hur hur. You mean you actually attempted to make it look the right colour? I would've just used white bathroom silicone sealant to fill the rosette. Should've made for a 'bouncy' tone.