Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'design'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instrument Setup
  • Instrument Building
  • Electronics
  • Finishing/Refinishing
  • Inlay and Binding
  • Repair and Maintenance
  • Tools and Workshop Tips
  • Miscellaneous


  • Guitar Parts
  • Tools and Consumables
  • The Library


  • Guitar Anatomy Class
  • Workshop and Tools
  • The Tipshop
  • YouTube


  • Patreon-only Area
    • Season 1
  • ProjectGuitar.com Forum Guidelines and FAQ
    • Community Guidelines and FAQ
  • ProjectGuitar.com Guitar Of The Month
    • Current Guitar Of The Month Contest
    • Guitar Of The Month entry/poll archive
  • Build Area
    • In Progress and Finished Work
    • The Design Bar
    • Non-Guitar Build Section
  • Tech Area
    • Solidbody Guitar and Bass Chat
    • Acoustic and Hollowbody Guitar Chat
    • Inlays and Finishing Chat
    • Electronics Chat
    • CNC Chat
    • Tools and Shop Chat
  • General Topics
    • Site Feedback, Issue Reporting and Test area
    • Players Corner
    • Put it to a vote
    • The Luthiery Business
    • The Marketplace
  • Forum Tutorials & Reference


  • Documents
  • Guitar Drawings
    • Component Drawings
    • Instrument Plans

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Member Title



Found 14 results

  1. I’m trying my hand at designing and fabricating a chambered, solid body tenor ukulele. This is a prototype build to continue to develop my skills and to learn from my inevitable mistakes :) When I looked at the current set of commercially available solid bodies ukuleles from Godin, Pono, KoAloha, Imua, etc., I wasn’t able to find enough details to deduce how theIr chamberings are configured under the top. Searches of across the luthier discussion forums provide a fair amount of info and suggestions covering chambering/hollowing guitar bodies, but all examples I found were for instruments amplified with magnetic pickups vs. the piezoelectric(s) I’ll be using. Details: 17” scale — Poplar body (1.5” thick) with a 3/16” Indian rosewood top — Mahogany neck with rosewood fretboard (Body image: https://imgur.com/gallery/HPlIdS4) My current plan: 1. Bore a honeycomb pattern in the body with a forstner bit, keeping the center under the bridge are positioned. I’d start by removing around 30% of the body’s weight of material then and test to see if I need to remove more. 2. Include a larger cavity for my volume control wiring and (potentially) a small pre-amp. For those of you who have gone down a similar experimental path, did you discover a preferred arrangement for your chambers? Regarding amplification...I’ve used under-saddle piezo transducers in the past to good effect with my acoustic ukuleles, so unless there are more appropriate ways for a solid body, I’ll likely go down that path. Alternatively, I have a pre-wired triple disk piezo pickup (it looks a bit like a knock-off K&K Trinity Mini) Thank you in advance for the input!
  2. Yet Another Post! So I'm curious how you guys go about designing your guitar bodies! I personally do it all after I've found out where everything should be on the guitar itself. I then trace the shaps on tracing paper My own issues are proportions. How do you guys get your guitars into proportion? Tracing around your own or? Advice and tales fellas! Thanks R
  3. My project of making an 8 string guitar from scratch. I am planning on building an 8 string guitar from scratch. Im just looking for some advise, this is my first guitar, and i know and 8 string is not the best build for a first timer, but i have my heart set on it and i am fairly confident i can do it. I have basic woodworking skills and access to most necessary tools and facilities. I also have a mentor who has made many guitar in the past, although he has never made an 8 string and doesn't know to much about them. I have a budget of around $1200 - $150 and i kinda know what parts i want. In terms of wood, i was thinking full mahogany body with a flamed or quilted maple top, maple neck somewhere between 27" and 28" and an ebony fretboard. With the hardware, I was looking at EMG 808's or 808x's for my pickups, but i'm still unsure of things like the wiring sets that can be used for an eight string. Is it the same as a six? And i'm also not sure about the bridge. What would be the best one and where can i purchase it from at the cheapest price? Any information about making an 8 string is greatly appreciated. Thank you. - Josh
  4. Hey Everyone! Welcome to my new thread on my first proper guitar build! I've been designing this for a while and I'm currently doing an accurate drawing of what it will look like. I had help from people like @ScottR, @curtisa and more to progress in my design and make it better. So thank you to all of them. Here is the link to that thread. Just so you know, I have experience with woodworking and others so I'm not going into this with nothing. The Design So I have been designing off of a telecaster, shape wise, as I have always loved the shape. Other guitars I have designed from include a PRS, Gibson and one of my current guitars, a Lag Arkane. It is a 25" scale with 24 Frets. To start this whole project off, I drew round my Lag Arkane body to get a rough outline. Then I shaped the guitar from that, adding the Telecaster shape. The headstock I designed off a PRS and a guitar that an old guitar buddy was given, a Seraph Sabre. Look him up, Jon Beedle. Here's the original rough design shape of both guitar and headstock. After I got the rough design, I attempted at creating an accurate design however it failed because of improper measurements. So I scrapped it, you can see it in the other thread. The Hardware and other stuff Wood I've been looking into different kinds of wood for this guitar, however I finalised on Black Korina for the body. I made this decision because 1 I like the wood and 2 I can get my hands on it quite easily! I'll need two halves of it so I can route out the middle of the guitar and then glue the top over it (If that makes sense). For the neck I was thinking just Mahogany as I have a lot of very old mahogany to use. It's about 200 years old! and then an ebony fretboard. Electronics I'm thinking humbuckers, don't know what yet (leave suggestion if you wish) but one in the bridge, one in the neck. I was looking into P90s but i'd rather use pickups I'm familiar with at first. I will have the input on the front, like an SG with two Tone and a Volume Knob. I'm hoping to use a Gibson switch as my selector for pickups. Other Stuff The bridge is cheap (£16) but I don't wast anything expensive at the moment. I got it from Northwest Guitars. It's a hardtail and it's chunky which is what I wanted. Currently up to this day I only have this. The Build Last night, 18/02/17, I embarked on a new adventure. I had the advice of people on the other thread, had the equipment, had the pride so I set off drawing a new design. I started by placing my ruler down on the table and drawing out a beautifully straight 25" line for my High E to nut scale. I then made a mark where the 24th fret will be and drew a line 90 degrees to it (you'll see in the pictures) and then added 3mm and that is where my pickup shall go. At the Bridge end of the scale length, I got my bridge that I bought and measured it up to the line with my High E. (My High E saddle is protruded 85%-ish-of the way out). I then went about sketching around the bridge. Then I took the Saddles off the bridge and drew the 5 holes where the bridge is screwed on and then the 6 holes for the strings-see images. From there, I got the measurement from E to E which was 54mm and added 4mm to each side. From there I drew a line from the middle marks on the bridge to the Nut in order to get the fretboard width. As shown in the first few drawings. Upon starting this at 11;25 on 19/02/17 this is all I have done. I plan on finishing this drawing soon and then buying the wood and starting!! Next I am going to mark the humbuckers and draw the body shape and headstock.
  5. Hi all - this is the beginning of what should be a long-term project going through many stages. The guitar will be a fairly standard two-humbucker superstrat, however the point of the design is to document the process from beginning to end. Part of this will hash in with the CAD series of articles I'm penning whilst other bits will be the basis for various how-to articles. A productive design despite being more or less a standard. Essentially, a guitar that anybody can build. Depending on the availability of time, I will try and make this using the most basic of tools and equipment. A simple everyman's build. The name "The Lancaster" comes from the planes that a family ancestor in the RAF flew in his final operations of WWII. I figured that a more vintage "slow looking" design seems to mate with the bomber theme. It's a tenuous link, but a good starting point nonetheless.
  6. Adhering to some form of best practice is not a necessary pre-requisite of a useful CAD plan. In a non-professional capacity a CAD plan only has to be fit for the purpose it is intended for, rather than following an established set of standards and work templates. That said, giving a passing nod to best practice helps improve the quality and reliability of your plans, personal working methods and raising your game. Google search results for "guitar CAD plan", "guitar dxf download", etc. reveal a hugely varying level of detailing and usefulness. Some "plans" exist as nothing more than a body outline whilst some illustrate every last part of every single component. The answer to "which of these is better?" is not always the expected answer; neither. You've probably already switched off by this point, wondering why you can't just draw what you need to draw and "git r done". That is exactly the point! Your CAD plan only needs to be useful for its intended purpose. The "basic body outline" example is usually because that is all the designer personally needed at the time. Overly-detailed plans ensure that every single bit of useful information for every type of end user is within that one drawing. Either that or it makes a great poster for your shop wall! Do we need some form of best practice? No, but your CAD work will always benefit from a consistent and methodical approach, whichever of the two extremes you fall into. A good plan generally demonstrates: use of guidelines and reference geometry grouping of parts by layer and/or colour straightforward representation without unnecessary detail or ambiguity fitness for the intended end use annotation, readability and easy derivation of measurements These might seem like too much to bear in mind, however they all have a direct bearing on how well your technical drawing work translates to organising work in the shop and the final finished item. Best practice makes your CAD plans productive and useful. Guideslines/Reference Geometry Guitars have a very common underlying structure around which the rest of the instrument is built. For example, a centreline is fundamental to 99,99% of instruments work from. Reference geometry is the structure around which the rest of the instrument is defined. Without it, measurements become unreliable or impossible to acquire. Grouping Individual primitives (lines, arcs, etc.) representing a composite shape (such as a pickup rout) should be separable or at least identifiable from others. Simple colour differentiation, discrete grouping or separation by layers organise your geometry. Without grouping, complex drawings become impossible to interpret usefully. Straightforward representation How much information do you need in your plan? Do you need to draw all of the knurls around the nut of your toggle switch, or would it better be represented as a 1/2" circle and a centre point? Superfluous detail clouds communication of useful information. Structure, relevant grouping and useful visual communication produce easily-navigable and understandable plans. Fitness for purpose What is the drawing for? Does it convey required information as comprehensively and accurately as required? Does it answer any questions you may ask at build time? Is it over or under detailed? CAD plans produced with best practice in mind are an accurate and defensible mathematical representation of the final instrument. Musical instruments are themselves based on mathematical models. Keeping that relationship from the initial design through to the shop work ensures accurate and controlled work throughout. Through subsequent articles in this series we'll mention certain useful examples of best practice which will have a direct impact on your design work. Work smart!
  7. I am rebuilding and repainting a Johnson Strat that I have had since is was 7 (know 19). I am going to repaint it but I need some help figuring out what a ertain design is called or how to do it. The design I am looking for almost looks like really little tiger stripes but faded, no solid. I mostly see it on les paul models, or guitars that dont have a scratch guard that covers most of the body. At Guitar Center's website, their les paul page has a picture of a guitar with this print, but I can not find what the print is called. Here is a link to the Website: http://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson-Les-Paul-g26549t0.gc?esid=Les%20Paul I have had this guitar for a very long time, but I did not treat it right at the beginning of it's life with me. It has a lot of scratches and dents in it that I will fill, but i was wondering if I would be able to see the filler through transparent paint. As far as I know, the design I want to put on my guitar should be with transparent paint that One wpuld be able to see the wood grain through. Please Help ! Thankyou
  8. When one thinks of a guitar or a bass, it is easy to think that the number of angles on headstocks, non-flat shapes, radii and sticky-out bits plus various pieces on top of each other would favour 3D; modelling the instrument as a virtual item or set of items. A tangible real-world object often seems more appropriate as one possessing three dimensions. How is it that 2D is still the most appropriate design methodology for the vast majority of instrument design? In many respects, 3D is genuinely useful and definitely relevant for instrument manufacture. As soon as CNC milling becomes part of the equation (or 3D printing of course!) mere flat 2D is no longer sufficient. Whilst basic shape and contour milling ("2.5D" or "3-axis" as opposed to true 3D) have much in common with 2D, what we are in essence doing is directly modelling a real-world item as opposed to drawing a representation of it. The general objective for the 2D approach is to provide drawings which abstractly communicate the metrics, characteristics and specifics of the final product. Whilst a 3D representation has direct relation to the end product, 2D can be far more arbitrary in how it represents details, attributes and the processes required to reach that same thing. To reinforce this comparison, here are two images. One is a 3D representation of a '62 Stratocaster body from a publicly-available Solidworks model, the other is an excerpt from an original Fender blueprint of the same '62 Stratocaster. It should be abundantly apparent that on its own, a 3D model communicates little whilst a detailed blueprint is a goldmine of abstracted specifications and measurements; a virtual instruction manual. The comparison of extremes is perhaps a little unfair in that Solidworks models can have 2D drawings produced from a modelled item. Generally it is not necessary to go up to the level of 3D modelling only to bring it back down to 2D abstractions. Most hand-built guitar and bass designs can have their measurements, layout and specifications represented adequately in 2D and have that translate more or less directly to the final physical woodworking. Operations such as cutting the outline of a body, routing a pickup hole/control cavity, locating the bridge or even planning a neck take place in two dimensions. Whilst 3D definitely offers many powerful modelling and simulation capabilities, in the context of guitar building it is more of an addition than a replacement to "traditional" 2D.
  9. CAD ("Computer Aided Design") in its most basic form is the electronic equivalent of traditional pen-and-paper technical drawing. CAD stores drawn shapes (such as primitive lines, points, curves) as precise mathematical representations or "vectors". Whilst this might seem an overly-simplistic description for anybody familiar with CAD, this description is as true now as it was in the late fifties when the idea was first germinated. That a technical drawing or "mathematical representation of real world metrics" could be electronically stored, transmitted, reproduced, manipulated, merged, transformed and have calculations carried out on it with absolute mathematical precision was a profound innovation. It soon revolutionised industries such as automotive, aerospace, architecture, civil engineering, cartography, military, travel, even graphic design and desktop publishing plus countless other disciplines. Consequently, this precision lent itself perfectly to engineered instrument designs, CNC manufacture, virtual product simulation/testing and even - as a distant cousin - the PLEK system. The tools for CAD work have become accessible to the point of ubiquity with many free CAD packages broadly compatible with high value industry standard software. Autodesk (makers of AutoCAD) even provide an online version of their software ("AutoCAD 360") offering basic sketching, modification and collaboration tools. It is no longer true to say that CAD requires the same financial, educational or time investments or that it is hindered by clunky user interfaces, is unreliable and buggy, or worst of all opaque, unhelpful with a steep learning curve. Whilst some software might seem to hang onto these negative '80s aspects of CAD, the general landscape is now completely the opposite; CAD is completely accessible and easy to pick up. tl;dr version CAD was a revolutionary design invention, initially for specialised industries but now a freely-available tool. For the purposes of planning and drawing a personal instrument, the most basic geometry tools available in virtually all CAD packages are more than sufficient. Even if you want to go down the completist route, this too is not too far removed from the most basic tools. For example, you might want to draw out every last screwhole, inlay, radius, fret, cutaway and cross-section to reliably communicate a final design to a third party. We won't be going into this level of detail, purely because our hypothetical CAD journey is to demonstrate taking a practical design from the computer through to the wood, only highlighting details where they are genuinely useful for this end purpose. Vectors Without going into the deep (and unnecessary) history of Euclidean geometry or mathematics, vector geometry is simply the representation of positions and shapes on a 2D plane. Not entirely unlike dot-to-dot on a sheet of graph paper. Unlike graph paper however, CAD coordinates/vectors are almost infinitely resolvable; numbers can be stored to staggering levels of precision. It is possible to zoom into a drawing pretty much to the limits of yours software's ability (more often, willingness) to do so without "losing resolution" as you would with a pixel-based drawing. In real terms for woodworkers, this might seem like splitting hairs. We couldn't care less about losing 0,01mm here or 1/2048" there. Those are impossible to reliably achieve in the wood anyway; these individual measurement tolerances are genuinely not that useful in the workshop. That said, the ability at the design stage to maintain precision, prevent compound tolerance errors and to ensure that the drawings and layouts we do transfer to timber are free of significant error margins, tolerances and inaccuracies is paramount. It is perfectly reasonable to take measurements in the order of 0,25mm or 1/64" to the workshop, however being this coarse at the design stage could leave you a few mm or a large fraction of an inch out later on in the game! To create an awfully mixed metaphor, "looking after the pennies at the design stage means that the pounds will look after themselves in the workshop" (groan) Putting this together, CAD software handles all of the vector mathematics for you at huge precisions without you having to worry about having to work with big numbers or nasty maths. It's happy to locate all of your fret slots to more decimal places than you could ever use behind the scenes but leave you with two or three in your working measurements - if that's what you want in the workshop. Model Space/Paper Space As touched on earlier, a basic 2D CAD drawing comprises a representation of a flat XY space and a corresponding measurement system (most commonly Imperial and Metric). This environment is often referred to as the "model space" where all of your individual drawing objects are created, manipulated and navigated around in a virtual space using a real-world scaling. A model space is normally able to be divided into separable layers grouping and arranging parts of the drawing, not entirely unlike having drawings separated amongst overlaid acetate transparencies for an overhead projector. A "paper space" is subtly different in that it contains a subsection (sometimes more than one) of your model space; a "window" or defined view into your drawing. A direct example of this may be a focus on a specific part of your model space such as the headstock. The term "paper view" originates from its major use; a printable section of the model space. A single model space can have many paper spaces, with each paper space showing different sections or selected layers from the model space plus annotations relevant to that sheet such as scaling, tolerances, filename, revision dates, etc. The model space is where fundamental design work is done whereas the paper space is how parts of the model space are brought out into the real world as useful drawings. The following images show an example of a finished drawing's model space with an example paper space showing a subsection of the model space and a specific selection of its layers, ready for printing. Drawing Entities A drawing in the model space is populated with a number of mathematically-positioned and dimensioned primitive shapes such as points, lines, polylines, rectangles, arcs, etc. In additional to individual primitives, there are compound, complex or specific entities. A hexagon for example, is a compound of six lines in a specific geometric arrangement. A closed semicircle is a compound of a arc plus a line; in fact, a circle is usually no more than a complete arc. More specialised entities like Bezier curves and splines, etc. provide a comprehensive set of objects from which any object can be formed. Individual CAD packages provide many different drawing tools to simplify the creation of complex shapes. Underneath this, the same primitives are at work. TurboCAD for example, can draw a rectangle with rounded corners of a specific radius. Definitely useful for drawing a soapbar pickup cavity! Underneath this convenient veneer is a set of four lines and attached 90° arcs. The following photo shows a selection of primitives and (slightly) more complex objects: Hopefully it now seems clearer that creating a complex instrument design requires little more than knowledge of a few basic shapes and tools. Coupled with a bit of basic geometry and maths (which you can make the software carry out...phew) plus an organised approach, CAD becomes an powerful, efficient and still a creative tool for designing your next instrument.
  10. Many schools of thought exist on the design process for making a solidbody instrument. At one end of the spectrum there's the mad genius school of working directly in the wood by feel and intuition, and at the other there's the CNC gurus who design the entire instrument as a virtual model and have totally different concerns to the general enthusiast luthier. Traditionally, instruments were designed on paper (usually) in 1:1 scale by hand. CAD is not too far removed from this, and adds many layers of powerful use on top of traditional drafting. Through this series I'll be describing my personal design process which I've established over many years and has seen me through the development of many different projects, guitar and otherwise. Rather than teaching "my method as gospel" which it is certainly not, the objective is to break the process down in such a way as to help you develop your own personal design solutions and methods. My specific mindset is to maintain 100% consideration for the final working methods and requirements so that the final CAD plan simplifies and preferably guides the work. Anything less than that is merely a "to-scale picture" rather than your definitive go-to reference. Breaking the series down, we'll be covering subjects such as (in no particular order): CAD fundamentals and basic geometry2D vs. "3D"Best practice from beginning to the endSqueezing the most useful information out of your planTracing an instrument from photos, measuring real instruments and creating a derivative working designSingle-scale instrument design vs. compound scale designUsing your plan to produce templates, guides, reference measurements and "taking it to the wood"Quite an ambitious set of objectives from which we hope readers will all be able to take something to bolster their existing skill sets.... For my own part, I have been using IMSI TurboCAD for around a decade and I'll be demonstrating most concepts via this CAD software. The underlying operation are universal across the vast majority of 2D CAD packages. Whatever you have access to, the ideas will translate across easily. If you're learning CAD for the first time or just don't have immediate access to the software right now then IMSI have a free 30 day downloadable trials of TurboCAD. 30 days is more than enough time to familiarise yourself with the design processes described here. Do try out other packages and figure out whether dropping $40 on the cheapest version of (TurboCAD Designer) would be a good investment for your own work. ProjectGuitar.com has no affiliation or financial interest in IMSI of course! Please leave feedback comments on the articles and I'll attempt to address questions and improve the quality of information on the fly. Most importantly, enjoy! I hope that this series gives both the beginner and the experienced something to take back with them.
  11. Hi Everyone I'm new here, started my first build with this kit bought from BYOguitars Shape is in the style of an Scheter\ESP guitars Mahgony body and neck Maple top rosewood fingerboard Hardware: Humbackers that I took out of my Ibanez s Spretzel locking tuner Hipshot trem bridge tusq nut Those patterns around the knobs and in the headstock was printed in my home 3d printer
  12. Hi Guys, As a designer I have been busy messing around with my guitar and finding a new cool addition for a muscial artist. I the recordstore I found a bunch of old classis Vinyl records and was sure to thing of a cool way too upcycle these forgotten things. After some experimenting I came on the idea to try cutting guitar picks from these record, with great succes. They have the right handle, flex and produce a good sound. With the lasercutter you can also engrave a design into the material which with the right records (composition of the vinyl varies with each label) you get a great effect! I'm now busy crafting nice sets of these picks and am curious if there are alot of enthousiastic musicians that would also love to have picks like these! I made a scale of various design that look great on the picks, but ofcourse the coolest thing to have for a musician or band is picks with there own design! I was wondering if you guys would love to have picks like this yourselfs. I opened a little shop on Etsy where I put them for sale, and also offer my services to make you guys your own picks. www.etsy.com/shop/RobertJanvanderKaaij If you are interested, have ideas, or want to ask me about a the options, I'm open for everything and we can always arrange something! Greets, Robert Jan van der Kaaij
  13. This is a project which will have a reasonably lengthy build-up time, so this thread exists purely to gather information, consolidate the design and work methodologies. A little background. I have never built an acoustic or archtop previously to this, so much of this particular thread will consist of my research and references to information online or from books, etc. The Gibson EB-750 and its sister the EB-650 were extremely rare (less than 100) basses built upon the designs of the Gibson ES range. The EB-750 was (as far as I am aware) the same underlying design as ES-175 but with a bass neck and a bridge placed further towards the rear of the instrument. My initial proposal is to build two basses, one with the same archtop design as the ES-175 with the longtitudinal braces and another with the more ES-335 style of build having a large solid central block between the arched back and top. I predict that these builds will be more likely to happen towards the end of Spring or worst case towards Autumn 2013. In the meantime I will be examining and refining more of the project specifics including things like moulds, methods of making the sides (laminating/bending) and the all-important back and top carving. Hopefully throughout the process we can document and critique processes fully for the purposes of tutorials, etc. Is anybody familiar with the EB-750 bass or in fact the ES-175? There is plenty of room for discussion on this one.... Cheers.
  14. I know from a purely logical perspective, for a first build, a bolt-on is best because it will allow for neck shimming, the ability to rebuild the neck or the body if one is messed-up, etc. So, the plan is/was to use non-pretty "left overs" from other furniture, etc. projects. One of these left-overs is a can of DupliColor MetalCast Red Chrome. The idea was to go with the red chrome finish and black hardware and I've already bought the hardware. The conundrum comes in because I love natural finish guitars and it looks like I'll have left-over cherry that's wide enough for the body, but only if I do a neck-through. And the black hardware will still work with a natural cherry guitar. Is a bolt-on that much "safer" for a first build? I've done enough wood-working that I'm not too worried about the mechanics of milling the wood to size, glueing, routing, template building, etc., but I'm still concerned about the unexpected "gotchas", because I've never built a guitar before. Ray
  • Create New...