dh7892

I thought about that but why would it be that the neck pickup works perfectly?

I've been having a problem with my JEM for a while now. When I select any pickup other than the neck, I get little or no sound. If I wiggle the selector switch a bit, I can usually get output but it can take a lot of fiddling with which is not ideal in the middle of a song! wiggling the volume control or even pushing the pick-guard can affect the "connection". I first thought that it was the selector switch getting dusty/corroded so I cleaned it up and then replaced it with no improvement. I've been through and re-soldered all of the connections several times with no joy. I even put some electrical tape under it in case it was grounding out on the cavity shielding. I'm at a bit of a loss for what to try next. I seems obvious that there's a poor connection somewhere but I can't find it. I've been all over the circuit with a multi-meter to check the continuity but can't find a problem. I'm not sure that this would even help though because the connection can be just a bit crackly and this might still count at continuity for the MM. Any ideas folks? Could it be a problem in the actual picukps or connecting wires? Perhaps I should try directly connecting each pickup in turn to the output to reduce the problem down to its component parts. This is a major PITA though because I have to re-string it each time to test it.

I've always been a bit confused about truss rods too. I've never had any problems with any guitars' necks bending so I've never had to make any adjustments to the truss rods on my comercially made guitars. I guess that the fact that I rarely take them out of the spare bedroom where I play them help keep them stable. As you say, if the small bits of wood where the truss rods concentrate their forces can resisit enough force when why can't those same bits of wood be used instead to stop the neck bending in the first place? I'm sure that the folks on here that have way more experience than me will explain how important they are but I've some real doubts as to how much point there is to them on a well made (perhaps CF reinforced and/or laminated) neck for an electric guitar where the string tension and action (hence bending force) of the strings is so low. I can see it for a metal string acoustic where the string tension and action are much higher. You don't see many truss rods in Classical guitars. I know that their necks are shorter (before they meet the body) and thicker than electrics and the tension is lower but the action is way higher.

Digital calipers are a good idea. They're not too expensive either.

Wow, that's fully mental! @ RubberChicken: I thought about using some ebonized wood for the dark bit but I'm concerned about how it would work. Would I dye the wood first before sticking it on of would it be better to dye it in place? When it comes to final sanding, would I not have problems with the colours bleeding into each other?

Here's that picture of the headstock sketch. The black bit will be ebony. I've drawn it parallel to the neck but it will be tilted back.

That's a fantastic idea. I'd have to get it right but it could be great. It would really help with playing those Bumblefoot tunes that go above 24 frets. He uses a thimble but I'm not big into my sewing so I don't have one! @Geo: Thanks for the encouraging words. I think I'm having exactly the same thoughts as you about the headstock. I think that the top sweep of the teardrop cries out for 6 in line tuners but I can also see it working better with 4+2 Music Man style. I'm definitely going to want a roller bridge and locking tuners so I think I'll need the headstock angled back a bit. I'll try to draw something out and see what you guys think.

Yes, I was going to do that! You can probably see from my pic that the maple intersects with the fingerboard a bit behind the 24th fret (at the low e string). I was planning to have the fingerboard extend up to the maple and keep the frets going right to the end. Given that I don't need pickups, I was toying with the idea of having the top level with the fingerboard (height wise) but I'm not sure if that will make it funny to play. What sort of wood should I use for the "stuck-on" bits around the outside? I want them to be really dark but ebony probably wouldn't be practical.

I agree about the need for full integration in order to make the concept work. I'm gonna take my time with the design and make sure I'm confident about everything before starting out.

Thanks for the suggestions. I did the drawing to half scale (based on a 25.5 inch scale length) but the various image resizings I did before posting it may have messed it about a bit. There is a line near the end of the fret board that marks the 24th fret position (which I thought should be exactly 3/4 of the way along the strings). Based on this, I think the drawing is right. Of course, a full scale drawing will be the way to go before I get too much further. The main thing I was trying to get right was the shape of the maple bit and I'm pretty happy with that. Perhaps the trem just looks further away from the finger board because there are no pickups to fill the space? I might have made a mistake though! @jon: thanks for that picture, that's given me some ideas. I like the way the top shapes around the bridge too. I might go with that sort of thing a bit more. I was originally hoping that I would be able to have no components at all attached to the maple but I can't think of a way to avoid the bridge being in it without making it a very inelegant shape. So, given that I have to put the bridge in it, I might as well shape the top around it a bit more. @rubber chicken: The lower horn probably needs to be a bit bigger like you say. I didn't really put too much effort into that bit for now. I think I'll have to build a simple prototype to get the shape of it right relative the how I like to sit with my guitars when I play. I agree that dark contrasting woods are the way to go for the edging bits. I was also thinking about putting an ebony binding around the whole maple top to frame it. I quite like the arrow head idea, it fits with my concept that the neck is "piercing" the teardrop. I also thought about trying to parody the teardrop shape with the headstock but couldn't think of how to make that work with the machine heads.

I anticipation of the roland VG-99 (and assuming that it's any good) I'm planning a guitar the only has a GK-3 pickup in it. This will enable me to make use of the space normally occupied by the pickups to better show off the wood. Here's a pic of a very early design idea. I'd welcome comments/ideas. The idea is to make the teardrop part from one piece of quilted maple and the "stuck-on" bits around it will be very dark (ebonized wood?). It will be a neck through with a wilkinson trem. I'm not sure about the headstock yet so suggestions welcome there. I really like the idea of the teardrop with the neck through piercing it but it does pose a few design issues. In particular, I don't like the bit just above the trem as I've drawn it but I will need something there to rest my arm on when I play it. Sorry about the quality of the pic, I scanned it from a sketch I did in my lunch break and it's just me trying to get the basic idea down.

Just for the record, sounds are most definately NOT amplfied underwater. Where would the extra energy come from? The speed of sound in water IS higher than in air and sound waves in water DO travel long distances very well. The problem comes when trying to transmit sound waves from air into water. The two materials have very different densities and so there is an impedance mis-match. Because water is denser, a lot of the sound wave energy gets reflected back into the air rather than transmitted. The amount of energy transmitted is related to the frequency of the sound and the relative densities of the two materials. Lower frequency sound waves transmit better than higher frequency ones. Try listening to music in the bath and then put your head underwater (don't actually have the stereo in the bath!!!). You'll notice that the higher frequency sounds get attenuated much more but you'll still hear the bass. The same effect happens between other interfaces (air -> brick for example). That's why you can hear bass through walls even though lower frequencies are less energetic than higher ones. Anyway, Probus is right with all the stuff he's been saying. Just to add and idea into the mix; what about trying to use Zorbathane and the material to isolate the box within the box. I don't know how easy it is to get hold of but I think people use it to isolate vibrations in sensitive measurements for scientific experiments.

Only if they're high enough. I reckon I could still get something caught on the strap and pull it off the wall. Also, rented accommodation prevents any serious drilling in the house. I just thought it'd be nice and easy to have it just roll up some (about half) of the strap. I'll have a bit of a think about it and see if I can invent something. [Edited for typo.]

I've got a few guitars lying about (on stands) in the spare room. It's a bit crowded and I often end up with straps dangling all over the place. I don't care about the untidyness but I tripped over the stap on my Jem once and pulled it over, snapping the neck! This was a very traumatic incident as I'm sure you can imagine. So I was thinking aobut a retracting strap that would wind itself up when there's no weight on it (like a car seatbelt). I've had a good look around on the web and can't find anything like that about. Has anyone got any idea if they exist? I don't like the idea of putting an actual seatbelt mechanism in a guitar because it'd weigh far too much but there must be some way of rigging it up pretty easily.

Yeah but the top is heavily shaped. I'd have thought you would want to do this after gluing the pieces together so you would end up shaping through the binder. Anyway, I seem to have hijacked this thread a but so sorry for that.

That was what I first thought he'd done. It goes right through the body, do you get binding material that wide or would you just have to use a thin bit of wood? Also, you would be able to see where it joins up with itself and I couldn't see that anywhere.

Oh yeah, I meant to say in my last post: is using a USB cable to carry analogue signal data a good idea? Is it screened? Aren't the connectors a bit loose for guitar use?

Very nice idea to have the switch going to the tip and your choice of pup going to the ring. I've got an Ibanez and I tend to use either neck or bridge humbuckers for distortion stuff and the neck + middle out of phase for clean sounds. I can switch between neck and bridge very quickly but hitting the 4th position of the 5-way switch is a little harder if you're in a hurry. I'm thinking of getting a Boss GT-Pro or GT-8 multi-effects and they have a neat feature where you can plug amp channel switching cables into them and use the effects box to select amp channels on a patch by patch basis. I could make an A/B box that switches based on making or breaking a connection, plug it into the GT and get it to specially choose the appropriate pups just for clean patches. All other patches could just use whatever I select from the switch.

Only one way to find out... ...Well, actually, there are a number of ways to find out but I think the best one is to give it a shot and see how it goes.

On closer inspection, I can see that the accent lines are not particularly even in thickness. That's what makes me think they are painted on by hand. Or perhaps they are blackened filler as suggested above.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. I might have a go at it some time.

Has anyone ever come across/used QTC for guitar pickups? http://www.maplin.co.uk/Search.aspx?menuno...=3&doy=30m1 I couldn't find anything on the web and tried a quick search of these forums but got nothing. I wondered if you could use the cable type under a bridge like piezo wire and use it to pickup the vibrations. It would have to work as part of a voltage divider with some active electronics because it changes resistance with pressure rather than generating a voltage of its own. What would be the point I hear you ask. Well, quite! But perhaps it would sound good? Any thoughts?

That Jigsaw bass is fantastic. How do you suppose he did it? There seems to be a layer of black/dark binding between each of the pieces. That's got to be a challenge to do. Then again, perhaps it's painted on afterwards. What do you think? I'd love to have a go at making a guitar like that but I might have to wait until I've got a few more builds (and a lot more experience) under my belt.