djhollowman

Perhaps you mean the actual routed holes in which the pickups sit on the front of the guitar? (Like, for example, on guitars with singlecoil pickups which are NOT mounted in a pickguard?) Maybe you're not talking about the control cavity, but the pickup cavities? If so, I would also be curious about that! DJ

I'm making a 7 string with a TOM at the mo' as well. I used the calculation on StewMac's site to plot on the guitar body where the treble side post would lie, and then worked out how much to move the bass side "back from centre". To do this I used the measurement from the StewMac site to give me the position of where the low E string will be, and simply "extended" the line (cos it's a 7 string) to plot out where the bass side post will be. So it is slightly further back than where a 6-string version would be, but that's what you'd expect right?? The only other 7-string I have for comparison here has a Floyd, but even so I compared string length anyway and it's good! I don't have this guitar strung up and played yet, so I don't know how well it plays or intonates. Hope this helps! DJ

I think I understand your method here, but I'm confused as to why it wouldn't be possible to sand the plugs, filler the joins and repaint to completely disguise the work done. Am I missing something? This isn't meant as a criticism, I genuinely want to understand this one! Hoping for some further enlightenment! DJ

I just have to say, that post needs to be stickied! Best advice ever. And, tools are probably going to be your biggest initial investment. CMA Wow, cool! Thanks Andy! I really appreciate that. I'm really very new to this game myself, so it's good to know I'm on the right track! DJ ...feeling very humble now....

.....and don't forget that measuring tools are very important. If you don't already have them, get good steel rules - I regularly use 3 sizes: 6", 12" and 24". (TIP - get rules with the graduations scribed and marked in ink, not just scribed on, they're much easier to read!) Also, reliable straightedges are VERY important, esp. if you plan to make necks, but also for many other things. I could not live without my digital caliper - it was a cheap one, but I'm not working to tolerances of within 0.0001"!!! Add in decent set-square, protractor, scribe - now you're rolling! +1 regarding the cost of tools and hardware! Tools are always an investment anyway! I sometimes try to buy good tools secondhand from garage sales etc. That way I can get something a little better without shelling out megabucks. Plenty of people who are selling tools, esp. bigger ones, have really looked after them and they make good purchases.

Step 1: Buy the Melvyn Hiscock book. Step 2: Read the Melvyn Hiscock book. All of it. Cover to cover. Make notes whilst doing so. Step 3: Read the Melvyn Hiscock book again. And again. Especially the bits you're not certain about. (Notice how I haven't mentioned buying anything yet?) Step 4: Start breaking it down, then come back with very specific questions. This will enable you to get the most out of the members here. Hope this helps! DJ

If you want to keep the knobs "straight" (ie. not mounted at an angle to match the carved top) you could also cut the recessed holes AFTER carving the top by using an appropriately-sized forstner bit mounted in a pillar drill. DJ

+1 to these thoughts. Sensible advice I'd say! "Doable"?: Definately! "Worth the trouble"?: Well, that's the BIG question here! IHMO: yes! (but, in purely financial terms, no!) OK you could just go out and buy something close to what you're trying to make, it would certainly be easier! But, ask yourself, "Why am I posting questions on Project Guitar then?". I reckon the answer is because you've already been bitten by the bug!! Can you put a price on the satisfaction you get from knowing that you did the work yourself? I started the same way (don't we all??); tinkering around here'n'there with setups and truss rod adjustment etc; gradually working up to swapping and upgrading components, replacing pickups, sockets, tuners etc; then I decided to tackle trying to retrofit a Floyd into a body which used to have a Strat-style fulcrum trem (which went really well!); now I'm almost done with my first ground-up build! I'm always on a budget, so anything I can learn from working on a cheap instrument is good. And, importantly, I've learned a MASSIVE amount from my first build - in fact, I (only semi)joke that the most valuable notes I've written during my first build is the page entitled "Lessons Learned/Mistake Made" I kid you not! I reckon I've saved myself a bundle of cash doing things this way as well. It's also made me much more confident about what kinds of tasks I can accomplish!! Also, bear in mind that you sometimes need to handle cheap stuff to be able to then appreciate better quality!! The main thing is to enjoy yourself, and that's what I'm doing! Just my "2 cents" as they say! DJ

And herein lies the problem. Take Metallica: ESP (probably bolt-on neck) or Gibson (most likely set neck) guitars with EMG active pickups, and I think they were still using Marshall amps back then. Take Slipknot: BC Rich, Fender or Ibanez guitars (all bolt-on) with EMG active pickups, not sure about their amps, guessing Mesa Dual Rectifier. Take Pantera: Washburn then Dean guitars (both bolt-on) with Seymour Duncan passive pickups, Krank and Randall amps. Take Opeth: PRS guitars (set neck?) passive pickups, Laney amps. Not to mention string choices!!! There's just little common ground to compare here. I believe it's good playing practice, and good ear training to regularly play as many variations as possible. All my guitars are bolt-ons, but I would love to own some set-necks and some thru-necks. Heck, I might even try making some! Plenty of top guitarists used bolt-ons: Vai, Satch, Gilbert, Clapton, SRV, Hendrix, Johnson, etc etc. Plenty of top guitarists used set-necks: Page, Slash, Wylde, Rhoads, etc etc. See what I did there? I agree with fryovanni: I bet I can take any guitar with reasonably high-output pickups, plug it into a decent amp, and wring out a tone damn close to any metal band you can name! It really is all in the fingers. You gotta go with what you like yourself, it's the only way to play with CONFIDENCE.....and it's the confidence that makes YOU play like YOU! DJ PS - actually Slipknot's tone isn't as gain-heavy as you might initially think. Sounds like a lot of studio layering to make a fuller sound. And Dimebag, sorry bud, you were an AWESOME guitarist, but your tone was way too treble-y for me!

I agree with the wrap around theory I am not sure how a lower bridge can make any difference to the string height or action. The reason Fender does not angle the headstock is, it's cheaper and less work to carve a straight piece of wood. Probably the same reason to use screws to attach the neck. Well, it's really just a comfort preference I guess! Resting your picking hand on a bridge as high off the guitar top as, say a typical Les Paul-type instrument just doesn't feel as "natural" to me as the same position on Fender-style ones. Just an opinion. I also prefer the way it makes the pickups look, I always think that pickups sticking most of an inch out of the body looks kinda "cheap". Again, just an opinion! I totally agree with what you say about why Fender make their necks the way they do. And yet, as "cheaply-produced" as those Fenders are, isn't it amazing how many top players believe they are the mutts nuts? Clearly Fender must be doing something right. DJ

It's also more ergonomic to have a guitar which has a neck angle and an angled headstock, because the body and neck kinda "wrap" around your fretting hand arm. In the case of a guitar with no neck angle, as you reach down towards the lower frets you're also reaching slightly further away from your body. If you keep your fretting arm elbow down by your side you'll notice that your forearm wants to move in a circular motion, and guitars with a neck angle feel slightly more in harmony with this arm movement. With all that said, however, I personally will always prefer to have a lower bridge and no neck angle. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make in order to have lower action. But then again, I'm a leftie who plays right handed, so maybe that makes a difference too! DJ

...or indeed staggered-height tuner posts, I believe! Also, I was always led to believe that having the headstock angled back improved the nut's "break-off" point, (ie the point on the nut where the string leaves the nut and continues to the bridge) by pulling the string down over the back of the nut, and thusly improves the intonation. One other disadvantage of an angled headstock: the guitar will not lie flat, like in a case or a bag, or even on a flat surface, which could add tension to the headstock itself if you leave the guitar lying down flat resting on its headstock. This is especially true of 7-stringers with 7-in-a-row configurations. IMHO the angled headstock does look much better however!! Doesn't this kinda come under the old "Fender vs Gibson" schools of thought?? BTW My current build also has a recessed TOM and no neck pocket angle, and an angled headstock. DJ

Cool, I've just visited their site and requested a catalogue and some samples of those bits! (That's the 400-004 coded ones yeah?) Did you order a batch of those then? DJ

Please read my comments in this topic regarding cheapo "Floyds"! Yeah, i like the idea of making one too Wohzah! DJ

Yeah, try Craft Supplies - don't bother trying to order from with their website cos it's RUBBISH! The website has almost NOTHING on offer, and almost no photos. However, their printed catalogue is immensely useful, full of good tools, woods, etc etc. I would phone them, ask for a printed catalogue, they have lots of good stuff. You can get their phone number from the Contacts bit on the website, or I can PM you it if you like. I bought an ebony fingerboard from them recently, it was a 24-fret, 25.5" scale length, pre-slotted and pre-radiused. They have plenty other woods and sizes of 'boards to choose from. Very good! Definately worth asking them to send you out a printed catalogue, please don't be put off by their awful website! DJ

God damn that scares the crap out of me. I'm imagining 100 years from now, right after birth, they do all kinds of modifications on babies. Digital screen implanted into arm and the thumb and first finger work as a caliper device. Lol, I was watching "Gattaca" only last night too!! But, yeah, as Prostheta says, get digital calipers, even cheap ones! I bought mine in my local Lidl store, and I've seen them in Woolworths too. Best tenner you'll spend. DJ

Lol! Yeah, that's what happened! No, actually it was the DiMarzio Evo 2 I installed in the bridge position that did the melting! Face melting, that is! And as for raising the bar, well, I can easily pull up a major 3rd in most positions. Seriously. Yeah, all I'm saying is that these copies have a place - that place won't be in any great instruments, but the one I have is no worse than the standard "Licenced under Floyd Rose patents" bridges you get on plenty of production models. And mine's recessed to float, which is a major plus as far as I'm concerned - but then I'm a HUGE Vai fan!! Doop 'n' scoop baby, doop 'n' scoop!!! Woooo! DJ

I would just like to stick my tuppence worth in regarding cheapo Floyds! I recently bought a Floyd copy (deliberately!) for a project I was experimenting with. I'm often hearing people asking how hard it is etc to replace a Strat-style fulcrum trem with a floaty Floyd, so I bought myself a cheapo Washburn WR150 (RG-a-like!) and a Chinese Floyd on the 'Bay. The Floyd copy only took 4 days to arrive and that was from Hong Kong to UK, pretty good I thought! Luckily for me, I work for a jewellery manufacturer and have access to CNC milling, so I gave the routing dimensions to my mate who operates the CNC and we made all the necessary cutouts. Then I bunged in the "Floyd", made a shelf for the locking nut, and set it all up. Whole thing took less than a day. As I said, I make castings for a living so I know what to look for, but this "Floyd" was reasonably good, quite well dressed and finished, but obviously made of lower grade metal! Slightly "overpainted" and rounded, and could use a better block. Still, for literally a few quid, not at all bad! And the saddles were quite nice. So, results wise: once I got it set up and intonated (which it did 100%, and I used a digital tuner to calibrate!) I thought "Let's go straight to the disappointing bit and Dime the hell out of it to see how bad it is!" A few minutes and dozens of divebombs/pullups/wiggles/bends later I let it return to pitch - I couldn't believe it! It was still EXACTLY in tune!!! And weeks later, it still holds in tune no matter what abuse I throw at it! OK OK, maybe I was lucky and got a "decent" one, but seriously for what I paid, it's just fine! I realise that the pivot points will wear out, probably the posts too, and the bar will maybe snap one day, but ***, it was an experiment after all. The entire project cost less than a real Floyd, including buying a mule to work on! In summary, I don't know if I would advise anyone to buy a cheapo "Floyd", but using one like I did, going into it with sensible expectations etc, and if you know what you're doing, well why not?? In this manner, I think there's a place for them! I think the final setting-up has to be quite good or you won't be able to judge anything! I mean, I've met folk with real Floyds who just couldn't set them up properly and who thought their guitar was knackered etc. Just an opinion! DJ

That looks great - I really like it!! Very "clean"!! Notice you've changed necks, yeah? Didn't you start with a "hockey stick" headstock? I prefer the trem to be recessed, just a preference, not a criticism! DJ

Here's a link to a page which shows how you know a stereo from a mono jack plug. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jack_plug.png (The top pic is a stereo one, the bottom one is a mono) You want a stereo jack SOCKET, BUT a mono jack CABLE. The reason the socket must be stereo is simply because it has an extra connector which is used to form a "switch" which allows the power circuit to be completed when the plug is inserted, and physically breaks the circuit once you remove the plug. This avoids the obvious problem of your 9v battery draining all the time. I'm sure you knew this already though At this stage, I really would think about at least trying a different cable - if for no other reason than to eliminate that possibility! Hope this helps! DJ

YES YES! Setch mah man you are 100% correct! So, think I'll just epoxy it on after all! Cool. Yes, I realise it's nothing like a real rosette, but I thank you all for your comments anyway! Someday I may have need of this info! Lol - yup it IS pretty ugly, but the one I'm installing is "slightly" less ugly than the one in your photo, as I said in the beginning....it's not MY guitar hahah! And it's all experience isn't it? So there's some value in it. Does this sound like I'm trying to justify something here.....????? thanks guys! DJ

I had a maple/walnut/maple sandwich on the neck that I posted earlier in the thread. The walnut filled just fine with only tru oil, given enough coats. Yeah, that neck looks fantastic too! Thanks for that!! DJ

Could I simply buy some of that printer paper for making waterslide decals on my inkjet and do it that way? Could I clear coat over a waterslide? Would that leave less of an "edge" around it than a vinyl?? Hmm.... just a thought! DJ

Wow! Going OT for a moment: please tell me how you made those inlays? They're spectactular! What kind of metal is around the abalone? And back ON topic: I'm following this thread with great interest as well. Here's my question: My neck has a centre laminate of bubinga, sandwiched between two laminates of maple - the maple isn't going to be a problem, but the bubinga has a much more open grain, so: how do I seal it? Just keep applying more and more coats of TruOil? Will the bubinga grain eventually fill, or do I need some form of additional sealer? At the moment the neck is dry sanded, and has had nothing added to it, just lots of sanding! Thanks, DJ

Thanks for your comments guys! No, I won't be refinishing the guitar. The original soundhole rosette was broken off, but the damage was limited to the area under itself only, so no need for a refinish. The new rosette actually sits on top of the wood surrounding the hole, it isn't "inlaid" flush around the hole......if you see what I mean?? When installed the rosette sits slightly proud of the guitar surface. Could you explain what you mean about the channel please? Still unsure which glue to use though. Because it'll be entirely covered by the rosette anyway, I'm thinking I could use more or less anything really! Are there any glues to avoid in this situation? Thanks, DJ