GregP

Cheers for the input. I haven't seen any mahogany/ebony neck-throughs available, but by the time this project rolls around, I just might end up making my own again. I'll look into the Bartolini stuff, too. I didn't realize there were many active options, which is why I mentioned EMG; however, with Bartolini as another option I'll certainly look into it! Greg

Thanks for the pointers, guys. Skibum-- any idea if those Steinberger trems include the neck/head(less) attachment, too? They only show the bridge in the picture. Since I don't plan on doing any trans-trem-like stuff, I imagine the R-type trem would be fine for me. It seems more or less equivalent to a plain old no-frills Floyd. MikeB-- when the project gets closer, I'll be sure to get back to you about EMGs. Remember, so far this is a pipe dream. <chuckle> Greg

Sage advice, Dugz. Also thanks for the acoustic tip. I actually OWN 2 small-diaphragm, but I've only ever used one at a time. I have a Tube MP Studio V3, and the other one could go through my Behringer mini-mixer. The pres on the Behringer are quite noisy, but the combination of a non-gain application (ie. I'm not adding high-gain distortion) and cleaning it up in a noise reduction algo should help. If you have any other tips for specific acoustic guitar recording recipes, I'd love to see you start up another thread. Greg

HRmm... I've done some quick peeking around: - the ABM one I was thinking of is non-trem - the Speedloader isn't to be found except installed on guitars I know people have built headless guitars on this forum before... any pointers? Greg

Looks good so far. It looks rather contoured and soft around the edges for a 'chambered' guitar, but there's nothing saying that such a guitar couldn't indeed be round and soft. Greg

I'm not worried about the shape so much-- the Steinberger "broom" sold quite well and has had enough testing done on it. Also, plywood's too expensive. <grin> I'm more worried about the components and which to use. There's an ABM (i think that's the company's name) headless system available, but I'm not sure how great it would be, for the asking price. Since the Speedloader's only just gaining some steam, I'm hoping the idea catches on and the strings become more widely available and cheaper. The three SAs with the SPC sound like an option worth checking out. I always liked the way dual-humbucker Steinbergers looked, but the flexibility is what I'm more concerned about.

Well, Until I have even ONE guitar under my belt, this is all just "stuff and nonsense" (ie. blowing smoke), but I've been thinking a lot lately about what my ideal 'home studio' and 'go-to' guitar would be. And strangely enough, it's turning out to be a lot like what a lot of people hate... the Steinberger L-type (ie. broom!) guitar. So far, in my preliminary plans, I've been going over some stuff: 1 - neck: I'd like something rigid and durable like the graphite or composite necks, but that's not going to happen. Since that's not going to happen, maple neck with graphite/carbon (?) rods and an ebony fingerboard is sounding good. 2 - body: I think I'll go with a pre-made neck-through... the only one that would then meet the needs of point #1 would be the USACG neck-through. I wonder if they'd do one without the dot inlay? 3 - pickups: active EMGs. I need flexibility, though, so I'm a bit puzzled. I don't know from EMGs, so I'm not sure which combination will give me the bang for the buck. I would like to have single-coilish sounds (the SA pickups I guess?) at both neck and bridge, but I also need/want humbucker sounds at both neck and bridge. A coil tap seems the obvious choice, but perhaps back-to-back SAs (positioned as humbuckers) would be a better option? How about an SA in the middle, too? Getting too crowded? Any active pickup advice appreciated, since I know nada. The key idea is a broad range of styles, though I don't absolutely need the highest of high gain, since that's the style I identify with least. 4 - bridge: I'm thinking Speedloader, since I don't know of any way to get a Steinberger trem, and I'm not sure that I'd necessarily go for it even if I did. 5 - acoustic sound: This is a low priority, but I was considering looking into piezo and a blend circuit... do piezo-loaded saddles exist for speedloader and/or any other Floyd? Would it even be practical? Perhaps just a single piezo on the trem block instead of saddle-loaded? Thoughts? I know it's a bizarre thing to put on a broom guitar, but it might provide the right tone for certain situations, especially with the option to blend. 6 - that leg thingy for seated playing: where does one get one? Coulda sworn I saw them on MusicYo. Alternatively, I was thinking of a system in which a removable lower bout can slide on/off and clip into place, much like the way removable hard drive bays 'snick' into place. Could probably even retrofit the hard drive clips to do the trick. 7 - other active circuitry - any point to adding anything else to the already tiny body? Would there even be room? Are there circuits worth looking into? I think that's about it... Just thinking aloud, but any knowledge shared or advice given is appreciated. Greg

<shrug> I dunno. There's certainly sustain of some sort happening in that video. It was hard to tell how musical it was, but it's more sustain than what I'm currently getting. What I DO know is that there's more to it than, "it can be done" or "look what I did." It has to do with dedication, refinement, and looking at all angles of a project. psw has had a 'working' model for aeons, but something that works and something that works the way it SHOULD (or in a way that he wants) is a different story. Then there's the matter of choosing components and creating a model that will be marketable. psw has done a lot of work, and to just dismiss it because "other people in the world have made sustainers" is ridiculous. In fact, the thread was started 43 pages ago with the very INTENTION of sharing techniques and discoveries with people who had done similar things or were working to create something similar. So rather than "this is easy" or whatever it is that you're trying to say, Wix, you could have become a valued and respected contributor to the discussion. Greg

If it's mainly acoustic guitar you want to record, it's tough to beat a small diaphragm condenser microphone. You can pick up a cheap Apex mic that will do the job (and you COULD use it for vocals if you chose to), though you WILL need a small mixer or preamp that provides phantom power. These are sometimes part of the audio card itself, and sometimes a separate item, depending on what is purchased. I can say this: Stick with the computer mic if all you want to do is 'fool around' and have fun, because one you get started down the path of getting 'better' components, it will become a full-blown hobby and you'll be spending money on recording equipment instead of guitars. <grin> Greg

I quite like these. I'll definitely use them in a future project if I ever get motivated enough to HAVE future projects. They're a lot like those other ones (name escapes me), but much more attractive. The other ones looked 'wrong' tacked on the top of a headstock. I'm surprised if they're stocking new Steinberger parts that they don't have the Steinberger trems and headless systems available, though. Greg

Do you want to include MIDI functionality, or just have the guitar itself? I wonder how tricky it would be to install a MIDI system on a custom guitar.... Greg

Wooo-hooo!

I'm sure other people will get great use out of those tips, guys. Looks like a wonderful tool, and if I had any confidence at all that I could build and then use one with any sort of skill, I'd see it as a viable option. Greg

It sounds like digital clipping. I mean, the mic can't get much worse, either-- but it seems to me that your signal is too 'hot' and you are exceeding the limit. The same thing will happen if you talk too loudly into it. I don't know where on your particular setup to control this, but you will need to trim the mic input a bit. Ie. a lot. To be frank, and not to sound like a butthole even though I know I will-- your efforts will be almost completely wasted using a web mic. Greg

My random orbit sander is a big square-bottomed affair. Well, not huge, but looking at it, I was getting worried about the boxiness of it all. I saw that carve of yours and was well impressed. I guess the only thing to do is try both and see which I like better. Hrm... actually, now that I'm looking at that link you provided, I wonder if my sander is random orbit at all. Seems to me they'd have to be circular. Mine must just be a plain old sander. So, that means buying a new power-tool I don't already own. They're not expensive, though, so it might still be worth it, and it'd be useful for other things, of course. [edit: nope, had a peek-- it is, indeed, random orbit, at 12,000 opm, which seems to be standard. Might be worth a try despite its square shape] Greg

I guess... pretty dumb question when I could just give it a try. I feel like my grade 6 students all the sudden. Mind you, I don't have any scrap maple (I will be 'carving' maple), but at least by trying it on 'something' I'll have an idea. Greg

nice-looking work! Any pics of the neck joint? Greg

bump it up Sorry... I'm just fired up because this looks like it'll meet my dual needs for power tools (I can't see myself carving a whole top with hand tools) but with control. So, again but phrased differently: I know that the wood-carving-specific disc will be light years better, but do you suppose I could at least make a valiant attempt with a regular sanding/grinding disc? Greg

Zardoz, je deviens d'Ottawa, alors je parle un peu du francais aussi. Welcome to PG Forums! Nice-looking work. If you have any sources of parts and wood for , we're always curious. Greg

I'm really liking the angle grinder idea, which is convenient since I happen to have one. However, mine does not come with any of those special discs; rather, it comes with the usual sanding and grinding wheels. Since I will be finishing the guitar in opaque black, accidental burn marks don't worry me too much-- considering that fact, could I theoretically use my current discs if I take time and patience and don't expect them to take out much wood per pass? Greg

It's all subjective anyhow, but it's not likely they'll sound like your V-Amp, since there's all likelihood that it'll be transistors, capacitors, diodes, whatever the hell the use to make these things... rather than digital. (obvious exceptions notwithstanding). If you hate your V-Amp that much, I'll buy it off you for cheap. Greg

http://www.mmrmagazine.com/news.html#roland Seems as though Behringer have touched a nerve. Whoever mentioned that they've done stuff in the past without authorization may have been right after all. However, the question remains-- have Behringer actually done anything illegal? The pedal housings are OEM and cannot be trademarked, colours cannot be trademarked, the font used is not trademarked, and it would be difficult to prove that any technology was stolen (distortion isn't exactly rocket science, for example). I'm sure Roland/Boss would have to at least TRY, but it says on all the Behringer literature that they are NOT affiliated with Boss in any way. So how are Roland going to be able to win a case? Greg

Heh, I never actually made that connection. Greg

Ah, so it's the Heirloom guitar, then. The Samba isn't quite like a PRS (though similar) and comes with a maple neck. The Samba looks pretty sweet, but I'm not sure I like a Floyd on a PRS style guitar. Greg

Hrm. Well, swing by KVR Audio if you think this is something you want to get involved in... a very helpful bunch! I can tell you that they'll likely advise you to stay away from too much Band In a Box, though. It's not really creative, flexible, or inspiring. It can get the job done if you just want to mock up a track, but beyond that...? Look into different hosts like Tracktion, energyXT, Cubase SL, or Cakewalk's range (including Home Studio)... that's where you want to be. They'll give you the flexibility to record your audio AND your MIDI, in a very real and personalized way, unlike BIAB. Regarding Hardware ----------------------- If you really want to get into this, the first thing you need which will cover both your audio and MIDI needs is a proper soundcard that can handle both. The one Dugz Ink mentioned in the other thread is a good idea if you're sure you want a firewire interface. Otherwise, the Audiophile 2496 is still the industry standard for entry-level. The best? Not necessarily anymore... but it's reliable, well-known, and still sounds great. Then, if you want to control MIDI with hardware, you can start off with a cheap consumer-grade keyboard that has MIDI OUT, or your guitar if it's MIDI capable (I think most have to go through a conversion box before it's actual MIDI information, though I don't know much about MIDI guitar). If you have the dough, I suggest something with 61 keys, and some faders/knobs for controlling your virtual effects and instruments. Regarding Software ---------------------- Really, all you need is the host. Most come with some plug-ins to get you started, and then you can visit KvR to find more free plug-ins than you could handle, including a number of freeware amp simulations. Eventually you will probably want to move to commercial stuff, but some people continue to stick to their freeware. At least you'll be better educated about plug-ins after trying out a bunch-- your commercial purchases will then be more informed Regarding MIDI ------------------ I wouldn't bother worrying about using the sounds of any synths that are in your price range. Your hardware will basically be a 'controller' with no native sounds (unless you're using a consumer-grade keyboard which WILL have sounds, but you'll turn them off. ), and you'll be triggering virtual synths and samplers within your computer. Once you have a host, they're all capable of programming and processing MIDI. You can find and download hundreds of MIDI files off the net, many of which are actually probably violations of copyright law. But as long as you're just using them to see how things are done, I don't see any major harm done. There are also companies that sell MIDI (Groove Monkee, for example, has great drum files) files to get you going. I dunno if I'm getting the conversation rolling in the right direction or not... I'm more addressing your needs than talking about MIDI... sorry about that. ! Greg