MescaBug

Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that it was clear that I was referring to 'tone' benefits. Both posters replied using a string retainer is cost effective, easier to install and can be a good grounding point, which are all good points. I totally agree with that. But do you see anything 'tone' related? Cause I can't. So yes I disregarded these information, not because they are not interesting but because they don't answer what I was looking for. Thanks. That explains why it shouldn't have any, or none, effect on tone. Good point.

Don't want to be rude but I don't agree with that at all. If I was Godin, making guitars for more than 20 years, and producing more than a thousand a year, and having top of line production machines, I wouldn't care about misalign ferrules.. Most guitars company uses ferrules on entry level and top of the line models. I don't think cost and production rate is a factor here. Most 150$ string-thru production guitars have their ferrules perfectly aligned. Machines rarely screw up. I can tell from experience that a well-machined piece of brass cost more than cheap Asian made ferrules. Sonicly no benefit... Do you have any specific experience to back it up? What material was used in your experiment (brass, steel), what type of wood, what type of bridge. I'm just curious why it didn't had any effect on tone whatsoever. I'm no trying to debate what is the best, I want to hear from people who actually tried it. I'm not afraid of trying it either, but having some opinions first is sometimes better. Well, that's not the way I'm thinking... I don't think my customers would like to hear that. I care about everything I do, and that includes perfectly aligned ferrules, which can look good when done properly. Avoiding a delicate task by going the easy way is not an option for me.

Hi, What would be the benefits of using a string retaining bar instead of back ferrules? Godin Guitars uses it. I'm not talking about cosmetics or usage, that's something else. I did a search, but didn't find anything very useful. I'm french, I don't even know how to call that in english! I would use it with a Hipshot Hardtail string-thru. It's like having a 2nd bridge; the plate is bolted directly on the body, and each individual string can benefit from a larger contact surface with the body. Am I completely off-track? Any thoughts? I'm sure somebody here used it. If only I knew the name of that thing... Thanks, David

Nope... The King V was designed by Ratt guitarist Robin Crosby. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Gibson Flying V. Crosby wanted a guitar somewhat similar to Randy Rhoads. So he asked the Jackson custom shop to build a guitar with 2 symmetrical wings, based on the longest wing from a Jackson Rhoads. These original prototypes were called 'Double Rhoads'. And these were a lot heavier than a Gibson Flying V. Dave Mustaine then asked the Custom Shop to build a shorter, lighter 'Double Rhoads'. And the King V we know today was born. The original Crosby was way too heavy and unpractical to play due to the very large body. I owned both a Mustaine V from from 1993 and a Rhoads Pro from 1990, and both are heavier than a usual Flying V. The King V is 12 pounds. But don't get me wrong, I've played some very heavy Flying V's. Especially a Korina V from early 60's if I remember correctly.. I tried a DV8 once. I've never seen a 'neck-heavy' V. The body is so large, it would need a huge neck to make it neck-heavy. You can't really compared a DV and a King V. The DV is mahogany, King V from Jackson are either poplar or alder. They don't use the same pickups and hardware. As for comfortability, they are very similar, the DV being a little bit bigger.. But you don't really notice.

If you are referring to a Jackson King V, yes there is a very slight curvature inside the two wings. I will give you the 'inside' measurements between the wings, so you'll be able to approximate the radius. Check your PM's.

You don't really need a plan for a King V. It's a symmetrical shape. Just ask somebody who has a King V to take the dimensions. You can then draw it by hand. A King V fits in a square right?. The neck pocket is about 2.5". You center the neck pocket at the top of the square and draw the wings line from the neck pocket to the bottom corners. And then you draw the center line from the middle of the neck pocket to the bottom of the square. And then you draw the V shape between the wings. Easy. I've got some KV's. Need dimensions? I'll PM you tonight.

That's what I do. I always leave 1/4" on each side of the neck. Like Doug, I clamp blocks on each side at the heel and nut to keep the fingerboard centered. When it's glued, I route the remaining 1/4" on each side. No chances of slipping and I get a perfectly aligned neck/fingerboard. I can't imagine trying to glue a fingerboard that is the exact same width as the neck... Too risky. And you don't have any tolerances whatsoever. If you're off by 1mm, you're done. You have to start again.

That's exactly what I did on my first board.. And it was a mess.

Make sure the binding follows the fretboard radius, as if it wasn't even there. I had a similar problem with the first bounded fretboard I made. I scraped the binding flush, without following the radius. So the binding edge was at an angle. There was a gap between the fret ends and the binding. I used the hammer to bend them slightly over the binding. It work, but it wasn't comfortable to play. Sorry for my bad english. Maybe it's not clear..

Compound radius means, in your case, 7.25" at the nut, and reaches 9.5" at the heel (end of the board). About the bridge; it depends on the bridge itself. Bridges are usually between 10" and 14". I usually try to match the radius with the nut and the bridge for a low action. Example; 10"-14" compound radius on a Floyd Rose guitar; 10" matches the locking nut radius and 14" matches the Floyd Rose tremolo radius. Is there a reason why you want a compound radius? Because you don't seem to know what it means... I'm just curious.

Locking tuners were not made to replace locking nuts. They prevent string slippage by locking the strings in the posts. But you can't prevent tuners from turning. Problem with Floyd Rose is that if one string is off tune, it throws all the strings off balance. With locking nuts, that can't happen because turning the tuners has no effect on the strings. Locking tuners helps a lot with Strat style tremolo bridge, hardtails etc. But I wouldn't expect a good tuning after a heavy dive bomb with a Floyd Rose and no locking nuts. I also agree with Greg; there is no other point of friction/contact after the nut. For me, that means easier tuning, easier intonation. Some people don't care, but I prefer Floyd Rose equipped guitars for that reason.

Not sure I understand what you mean... I've got all kinds of Jackson's and not a single one of them has the same distance from the neck pocket to the bridge. King V and Rhoads neck pockets goes deeper than the neck pocket on a Soloist. Why would need that measurement? Some Jackson necks have the fingerboard flush with the neck. And some have the fingerboard protruding from the neck. In that case, the neck pocket is smaller, and the distance from the bridge is longer... Jackson uses different type of neck pockets; some are square, some are rounded, some have short heel, others long heel. The fingerboard length after the last fret can be longer, or shorter by a few millimeters. Not a big deal, but that would make that measurement unusable. Ever tried using a Jackson neck with a locking but, on a body that uses a Tune-o-Matic? It won't fit either. Because the distance from the nut to the bridge saddless (read scale lenght here) is different. Like I just said, that would be impossible to do. Because some necks have slight differences that would make a good intonation and proper string-to-bridge alignment impossible. And what about the neck screws holes? Maybe they will line up, maybe not. And believe me, I tried it. All kinds of Frankenstein Jackson, and 99% of the time, you have to shim here and there, relocate the bridge, change the nut because it is too wide, or too slim. Remember that big companies like Jackson makes thousands of guitars and necks per year. They often make small adjustments during the production. A 2007 japanese DK2 neck might not fit on a 2008 DK2 body...

I agree. But the Stewmac cavity template is really huge.. Maybe a little to large for even a complex wiring. Anyway, it's not a bad thing.

From those pictures, I can't tell... Light figuring like that can be found on many woods. It doesn't look like plaine to me... I can be wrong.