Geo

I wouldn't write off the Cumpiano book. It's very thorough (except for a few small things which I think were left out), and you can adjust for different techniques. It's a very informative and conversational book.

Now see, I think that's still referencing an equal-tempered system, in which say an F# is always the same frequency. The thing is, a perfectly in-tune D chord will have a different F# than say a perfectly in tune B chord (if I understand correctly). There is no such thing as in tune. The question is, how versatile is your temperament (how many keys can it play in) and how well do you spread the out-of-tuneness around to hide it?

Thanks dude! I agree, bloodwood just feels good. I actually chose it for that reason rather than the aesthetics. I'm still not sure how well the bloodwood will go with the blue/walnut color scheme, but I don't care, I want to play on blood wood!

I get it now. Thanks for the compliment. You had me worried there... Rick, I think it was your mirror-like fretboard that I had in mind when I took those pictures.

So I'm not the only one who notices! To add another thought... an equal tempered guitar will always be out of tune somewhere on the freboard. Try tuning your guitar to a perfect 2nd fret Emaj chord. Then play a D chord in the same position. The G string will be sharp and the B string a little sharp. The guitar is a compromise in many, many ways.

Thanks... yeah, that's the hardware. What does gassing mean? Don't hurt yourself.

Ha ha, thanks... although I'm afraid a Gibson would have better craftsmanship than this. The bloodwood polished up very well. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1906.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1904.jpg The weird grain in the fingerboard is actually kind of pretty. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1907.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1908.jpg

Cool, I like your creativity in making that wood work for you. It's hard to tell, but I hope you got a good invisible glue line on the edges of the top. I think it will work... you might make it easier on yourself if you make a template of your final body shape and use that and a bearing bit to bring your body down. Then it will be square and won't need so much sanding.

Finally some progress. This semester has kept me from working on this guitar, but for time spent working, it's been one of my quickest projects I think. The obligatory mockup: another mockup angle: http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1894.jpg I did the fretboard work in a different order this time. First I planed the taper into the sides, then thicknessed/radiused it with a plane and sandpaper. Using centerline marks I made before this, I aligned it on a squared piece of wood with carpet tape. Then I cut the fret slots in my miter thing. It worked really well mostly, and it allowed me to use a plane. Unfortunately this piece of bloodwood had a patch where the grain changed direction, and I got some nasty tearout while planing. The tearout is too deep to sand out, so I'm going to leave it as is. I thought of inlaying something in place of it, but the board already had most of the radius and was near the final thickness. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1895.jpg Gluing the fingerboard to the neck: http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1896.jpg Here's a sample of the blue stain. The large chunk is ash, while the smaller piece is poplar/walnut waste from the neck. The walnut will look a lot better against the blue once there's tru oil on it. Pickup cavities etc. routed out: http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1898.jpg I'm thinking this will look pretty striking with the blue stain, walnut pickguard/headplate, bloodwood fingerboard, and WBW binding on the body and headstock.

Sounds like a bad pot. Pots do funny things when they break.

If you're asking what the function of bracing is... honestly, you may not be ready to design a guitar like this. This connects to what Fryovanni said... the function of the bracing is dependent on the way the strings are attached. On a flat top, the bridge is being twisted by the strings so that its rear wants to rise and its front wants to break the plane of the soundboard. So the bracing's job is to keep the top from flexing in this way. On an archtop, the strings are anchored behind the bridge, so the bridge only experiences downward pressure. If I remember right, archtops usually have two braces on the top (like on a violin). Their job is not to counteract torque (there is none) but to strengthen the domed top and keep it from collapsing.

I don't think there's any torque like you have with an acoustic bridge or a combo bridge/tailpiece on a solidbody. Er... I don't see how an "acoustic" with very little acoustic volume could have good tone. Or do you mean the strictly electronic "tone" from the "acoustic" pickup etc?

Probably boxy and not very loud. The wood is so thick, I doubt it will be able to produce a satisfying acoustic sound. But I'm sure it would sound beautiful with electric pickups through an amp. I would be worried about the top collapsing without some sort of bracing or arching like an archtop. Remember with a separate archtop-style tailpiece, the bridge experiences a straight downward force (it wants to go through the top). My guess is it would sound like an archtop acoustic with an electric pickup. There's a thread about this over in the acoustic board. Might be interesting to you.

Ah! Been there... that's a pretty demanding type of situation. Still, I think it would be an interesting exercise to try and build this with at least decent acoustic tone/volume. Feedback may be a problem though... perhaps run it through a graphic EQ and notch out the offending frequencies? Because if you make it acoustically lively you WILL have feedback problems... so perhaps it would be better to build it less acoustically active and rely on the electronics to deliver a decent sound to the PA. which has already been said. read posts next time...

I actually don't want more acoustic volume. The less the better. I just want good acoustic tone. Oh... I thought you wanted an electric guitar with electric tone influenced by how acoustically responsive the body was. So really, you want electric tone, and amplified acoustic tone?

Shellac might work to seal it.

Sounds like it would accomplish the same purpose. I wonder, though, if that would be allowing the back to "breathe" rather than the top. The sound coming off the top of a guitar is very different from the sound coming off the back... of course that could be due to the different wood, thickness and bracing pattern. Really I'm just thinking out loud... If you go with a thin back like on an acoustic, I think it needs to be braced. Of course, this Taylor 110 that I'm trying to fix for my brother has no bracing on the back, and the back is a sort of domed laminate. So it may depend on the strength of your material and how much of a radius you give it (more radius = stronger) Are you still thinking a hollowed out body? If you go with a thinner back, it would almost make more sense to bend the sides, attach with kerfing, etc. like on a normal acoustic. But then it would be less of a hybrid and more like an acoustic with pickups on it. BTW I think the switchable soundholes on the back is a good idea. You could do all sorts of stuff with that. Be sure you give the top a radius like on an acoustic (arch the braces, etc.) The electric sound... I imagine it will drop out some of the "glassy midrange" that distinguishes a solidbody from an acoustic. Humbuckers are probably a good choice for this; I think Strat-like single coils would be very thin and honky. A few times, I've played my acoustic into an SM57 run into a Princeton Reverb, which is a very distinctly "electric" electric guitar amp. The sound was incredible, though very bright and "changy", like an early Beatles sound. I wouldn't expect that from your concept, but still, something more to consider.

Well, the crack won't come together with moderate clamping pressure, and I don't want to force it. It looks like the bridge will have to come off after all. I'm by no means a professional repair person (although I know "how" to take off the bridge and repair it), so my brother may be more comfortable taking it to the local shop. And wouldn't you know it, two of the three bolts attaching the neck need a different sized allen key! I guess I need to get a complete set...

Thanks Jammy. I think I'll try just repairing the crack. I've used a pin before to get glue into a crack, but this is thinner than that. I may try a piece of cardstock or paper, or... well, I'll get glue down in there somehow. Thanks again for your help.

Right... but I think the hole is essential for the soundboard to "breathe" so it can make sound freely. But that's just my "hunch", I'm not terribly knowledgable about acoustics. I also think maybe the soundhole serves the same purpose as a port in a closed speaker enclosure... again, letting it breathe. Sounds like you've got the balance figured out. The thicker body is a good idea, you'll probably get more acoustic volume. Regarding the back and sides... I've read somewhere about the back influencing tone just like the top does. I mean, there's a reason acoustic backs and sides are ~1/8" thick instead of being thicker. Try playing an acoustic pressed up against your body, and then move it away so the back doesn't touch your body. It sounds different. What I'm trying to say: you might want to go with a thinner back at least if you want more acoustic sound.

Here's some pictures. With the resolution, I don't know if the crack really shows very well. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Georder/IMG_1648.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Georder/IMG_1649.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Georder/IMG_1647.jpg

Yes! I thought I was the only one! Bloodwood smells so beautiful...

I'm not sure how much acoustic volume you'll get without a soundhole. But I LOVE that design, even at this early stage. I'll be very interested to watch your project and hear what you think of the result. I'm sure you've thought of this, but anyway... balance... with such a small acoustic body, you might want to keep the head-end weight down (small headstock, mini tuners, etc.) Just something else that popped into my head.

In your diagram, you only have two contacts on your switch instead of three (you need a single pole double throw [sPDT]). So some of it is drawn wrong from there. Also, the diagram doesn't show any of the grounds. There isn't much to that schematic. To my eyes, it is its own wiring diagram (i.e. no need to redraw it). But of course we'll help you out if it's not making sense. Also, you might get a better response in the electronics board.

Wow, how did you make that beautiful binding?!