GregP

'nother question-- I bought a nut that will serve as my 'guide' (I'm using zero fret, so it only needs guide slot duty), but as it turns out, it is.... a quarter of an inch high. That's exactly the height of my fingerboard. Now, theoretically, taking a slightly different approach, I could still use it as a guide. But, that to me seems a bit of a workaround. Should I just put it in the parts bin for a future project and get a new nut, or am I just missing something? It's a Graphtek nut (I wanted black, and that's the only 'quality' black nut I can think of that was easily available locally) that's meant for a Les Paul... I have to admit, I find it a bit odd that it's not already the 'correct' height! Are factory fingerboards normally shorter than a quarter inch? Tips? Recommendations? Greg

Obviously there's a place for it or you wouldn't want to do it, and others would own them-- but to me part of the appeal of a banjo is the different intervals and the drone note. A guitarbanjo or whatever it's called would just be a guitar with banjo tone. Not as cool! Greg

Don't give up so quickly. You never know what the voting public may go for. Perhaps the right 'vibe' will hit home with people and they'll still vote for ya. Not everyone in the world likes pointy guitars. You can enter a guitar more than once, though I guess people probably realize that if you enter a guitar a bunch of times and it still doesn't win, it's probably not destined to be the weiner. Greg

I'll have a look around, but it's hard to find the strangest things around here, that aren't even a thought for people in other cities. This is the hardest damn city to source ANYTHING in. Minor news-- got my inlays from DePaule today (standard block inlays). They look great. I also bought some blanks, so I'll practice doing some inlay work before I try to eff up the fretboard. Greg

Now you'll have other fishermen competing with you! You've just bolloxed yourself! Just kidding. It IS a good idea. I'd probably have to add "available in Canada", which will reduce the number of hits to about 1 every 2 weeks. Greg

Cool renders!

Cheers for the replies. I think I WILL just go for the straight-edge of MDF this time. Setch, I've seen the thicknesser jig, and I was actually going to use it to get my headstock down to size (a mistake mentioned earlier, in which I didn't thickness first before joining-- or WAS that a mistake?) but I don't have a pair of rails. Now, since the area isn't as big as a guitar body, the MDF should actually end up being 'stiff' enough to serve as rails, so I just may go for it anyhow. The 'gap' is literally only half a millimetre, so I'm still wondering if the sandpaper would be right for the job this time anyhow. I'll do a mock-up jig and test with scrap first to see if it's the tool for the job. mledbetter-- regarding the location of the scarf joint: I agree that a neck-location scarf would be 'stronger', that much isn't in question. BUT, considering how strong a properly glued joint is in the first place, the difference seems to me to be purely academic. In other words, if I do a proper job gluing, it'll be plenty strong at the headstock, particularly with the laminate. Regarding having the same problem, I agree, but I also think that the fix would be easier for 2 reasons: a. smaller surface to have to 'plane' before adding laminate; b. it's less important to have it absolutely pefect than on the connection between fretboard and neckwood. Don't get me wrong, it's still highly important, as there is a lot of string tension up there, but it's still *relatively* less important. Or from another perspective-- the way my neck is right now, the joint IS super-strong, but it's less than perfectly level. On a headstock, if I can get a joint that strong, then the laminate won't be doing the job of adding structural support anyhow, so it won't matter as much if the headplate is primarily cosmetic and the glue isn't absolutely perfect. Of course, the main thing is simply that the surface would be easier to get level in order to do as close to a perfect job as possible. So, I think the lesson I've learned is STILL to do the scarf at the headstock instead of the neck. Greg

That StewMac Les Paul tailpiece trem is the ugliest thing I've ever seen. Go Bigsby all the way. Greg

Yeah, I went to an Auto specialty shop a long while ago... like November or something ridiculous. I asked the person for exactly that, and they were like, "I dunno. Whatcha need it for?" and then after I told them they responded with "I still dunno. Our stuff works on cars, though, if that helps." <smacks forehead> I didn't bother continuing research because I knew how far off it would be. Greg

Well.... Sort of. I guess it depends on what your needs are. A node is simply a spot where the frequencies work out evenly, which means that any harmonics produced at a node will have a certain mathmatical consistency giving it more volume and a clearer 'bell-like' tone if you don't mess with it further. Literally, you're probably right. I don't have enough knowledge of physics to argue too much. But those nodes are not always at fret locations. The easy ones are, but the sub-divided, teeny-tiny little ones that really make you SCREAM when you hit them aren't usually found at a nice even fret location. You can get a pinch harmonic at virtually (maybe not literally) any location with a little effort. The degree to which it's easy to dig out DOES depend on frequency and 'node' for lack of a better word... but you can also get them in uneven nodal locations; it's just that the note will quickly lose its energy and cancel itself out. But there are some pretty nasty (in a good way) harmonics to be found in there, too. When you're talking about the harmonics found at those more tidy locations, you're more often referring to 'harp' harmonics, which you've already said that you're familiar with. Unlike harp harmonics, a pinch harmonic's 'node' isn't so tidily found, and in those neat mathmatecial spots, they won't scream the way a Zakk Wylde or Billy Gibbons pinch harmonic will. So, to recap-- you're right, in a literal sense, that you get 'best' results from a node (ie. loudest and most consistent). But I would argue that this is really a glorified harp harmonic, and that a good screaming pinch harmonic doesn't use the same intervals for its nodes. My picking hand digs out plenty of screams without needing to move it up to the fretboard area, and I can consistently get pinch harmonics without even 'knowing' where my picking hand is. Some are better and more satisfying than others, and it's obviously helpful to develop some 'physical memory' for where the best ones come from, but at the end of the day it's more about feeling them and just digging in for them. Greg

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd temporarily set aside my current project if I could afford to finance a simpler project to complete first. Greg

I wonder if the Wal-Marts in Canada stock the same stuff. It would really help out when I get to paint, because otherwise it's going to cost me an arm and a leg to get the job done. If anyone knows of any specific available-in-Canada (or even better, available-in-Ontario) rattlecan solutions, I'd love to hear about it, too. Greg

Nope, not at all. I think despite his attempt to make us feel guilty, that he WAS pimping the book a bit overmuch. On a personal level? I really don't mind. I just don't want PG to get into trouble over it. As for tutorials, you raise an interesting point worth responding to! --> If you learn something from... say, the book in question... and then teach us what you learned, but use your own words and your own images to do it, then you have not broken any copyright laws! That's how we're able to have tutorials and share information no matter what the source was. Because we haven't copied the part of the source that's protected by law (ie. the author's words and images). Works out great. So, if Duff Beer Man does the same thing, you won't hear ME complain. The other thing that worries me is that the author of the finishing book probably isn't making money hand over fist. I have no idea how much work he put into it. But until I hear that he's broken any laws himself, I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and say that he should be paid for his work, not ripped off. Anyhow, I don't have huge personal issues. I avoid pirated software like the plague, but I have a few downloaded MP3's. I buy magazines like crazy (and subscripe to Guitar Player), but I've photocopied TABs from friends before. So, although I try to do things the legit way, I'm not a saint and I'm not a preacher. I mostly just don't want PG or Brian to get into any sort of trouble. Greg

Do tell us what you think. But no need to violate copyright. Greg

What an arse. I hate it when people don't give our youth any credit for intelligence or ability (the two not necessarily being the same thing). Of course.. Some of our youth bring it on themselves. But you don't seem one of those. Greg

You can DO THAT? I didn't know. <scrambles off to check settings> Yes, you can! Not sure that I like it, though... lot of scroll-wheel action if you're looking for a particular post. <chuckle> Greg

So... 2 screw-ups to report: 1. This actually 'happened' ages ago, but I didn't notice it until now. I was messing around with my parts (guitar parts) trying to decide what to do next, and I'm running my fingers across the fingerboard surface of the neckwood. I had used a scarf joint, but rather than the 'scarf at headstock' option, I read somewhere that scarf mid-neck offered better structure. Well, this whole time, I thought my surface was level, but not I can see that it's not. There's about a half-millimetre gap when I put the fingerboard over top, from where the scarf joint is and going toward the headstock. When I press down, even lightly, there's positive contact with wood all the way through, which is why I never noticed before. But if I grip ONLY at the 'higher' side of the scarf joint and hold it up to the light, there it is. I'm pretty sure that if I glued up, it'd hold, but then: a. I'd always know I did a half-ass job b. it may NOT hold, after all, and then I'd feel dumb c. the curve induced, no matter how small, would have to be corrected with a thorough levelling of the frets. It seems to me that I have to find a way to get that whole surface level, but the only thing I can think of is using adhesive spray to glue some sheets of sandpaper to a flat surface, and then 'have at it'. 2. the neck template that I thought was perfect is NOT perfect. First of all, it's just plain old too narrow at the neck. Second, too late I realized that rather than just do the math, I had gotten my taper from an existing guitar. A guitar that is 24.75" scale. Celia will be 25" scale. Now, the scale length may or may not be much of an issue. The neck would probably still be playable. But the width at the nut is too narrow, so I have to fix that anyhow. I'm tempted to just cut the neck itself, using a jig and a table-saw. If I had more confidence in the table saw itself, that's exactly what I'd do. But no, it looks like I'm going to make another template instead. Maybe I'll use the table saw to make the template, to see if my low confidence in the equipment is ill-founded. It's only MDF, after all... <grumble> Lessons learned: 1. Scarf joint at headstock next time, especially since I'm using an ebony laminate anyhow, which would lend enough strength to it. 2. use real-world objects as a basis and a reference point, but do the maths needed for YOUR guitar, don't just copy the maths that were used on another guitar, because you may have forgotten an important detail. 3. Buy a set of templates from GuitarbuildingTemplates.com next time <grin>. Even if you just use the main 'important' parts, you can still make your own body design. <grin> Actually... if anyone's used those templates before, I'd like to hear about it. My dad's guitar will be either a PRS rip-off or an LP rip... so I'll likely order a set of his templates if they're accurate and work well. Greg

Coming along nicely!

Are we back full circle again. Man, I can't help but chuckle. And agree, actually. A compensated nut corrects problems induced by fretting. Open strings can be perfectly in tune no matter WHERE the nut is, it's when you fret strings that things become tricky. Holy moly... please don't let this thread get to page 12, because I'm the stubborn kind of git who will probably still be adding my damn comments. Greg

I don't really like it, but: a) my opinion is (and SHOULD be!) irrelevant lots of guitars that I didn't initially like, I now love! The only thing that really concerns me is the proximity of the upper cutaway "horn" to the neck. I really think it'll get in the way. Greg

I never noticed until the GOTM thread how your truss rod cover echoes the headstock shape. That's what I call attention to detail. Great-looking finish, too. Not just your usual blue, this. Greg

Absolutely. I've just always thought that the cheapie guitars DON'T care about those tight tolerances. As you say, everything else would have to be identical for a pre-made nut to work properly, which is why I've always found cheapie guitars to NOT work properly. I think there's definitely a middle ground. Look at Godin's budget line. Well set-up and appointed, using Tusq nuts which SEEM to be individualized to the guitar, while maintaining a decent price point. They're not $200, but I imagine part of the extra cost goes to exactly what you're describing-- just that bit of extra time spent making sure that the nut (and other factors, obviously) are right for that guitar. Like you say, the equation becomes very different when you're talking about a company that wants to at least make their guitars 'playable'. I can't remember what the debate is anymore. Greg

[edited to make it more brief] My reasoning depends entirely on the fact that I don't imagine there's any labour cost on the $200 guitar's nut, and therefore the extra cost is mainly simply in the cost of that wee little 2" of fretwire, spread out over huge production runs. If there are labour costs involved in the cheap guitar's nut and no labour costs invovled in the zero fret, then you're absolutely correct. I understand the economics of it all, but I think that some of us have had conflicting 'initial premises'. Ie. my initial premise is that there's no labour cost on a pre-slotted or CNC'd cheapie nut-job. If I'm wrong, then my argument fails, and I'm willing to admit it. But if you go to a "Cort" factory or whatever, I'd be surprised to find people labouring on setting up a nut. Could be, though... could be... Greg

I'm not too big a man to apologize if that was taken out of context. I won't deny that I meant what I said... I think not using zero frets without consideration of all factors IS too dismissive. But I will vehemently deny to the ends of the earth that I had any particular person in mind when I said it. That said, since I didn't have a particular target in mind, I suppose I could have chosen different language. Language is fallible and doesn't always convey the meaning it was intended to convey.

Well, anything further will have to be by PM... no point flinging mud in public... Greg