GregP

Pretty foolproof-- just mirror what's already there.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it's just a production decision. Veneers that end up looking like crap for whatever reason (and there could be many) get sent to the "solid colour" pile and the rest go to the transparent/translucent pile.

Heh, as it turns out, Grimace may be making a return. The old one was getting kinda long in the tooth and pixellated for my liking.

You're not likely going to be able to set the intonation properly, though the Virgo is less angled than many other TOM-equipped guitars. I have a more important question, though: You're already going to rout the whole thing in order to place the controls lefty, and you're already considering redrilling the holes, etc... which means you're not "against" a certain amount of work. Since the routing would ruin the finish anyhow and you'd have to refinish, why not just use the body as a routing template and make a new body? Or, if you're set on using the existing body, for the amount of work that you're going to be putting in, pluggin the holes and drilling new ones is going to be one of the smallest parts of the job, so it's worth doing it right.

The handle (aka "monkey grip") is terrible. I say no.

Flickr link no workie.

I got some decent work done with one of those Mastercraft 3-in-1 thingies... powerful enough as a router to remove good amounts of wood... small enough to use as a Dremel (plus, had the stylus attachment)... Until one day it just wouldn't turn on. Out of the blue. Then I got a "real" (not compared to the good tools some of our members have) router. <chuckle>

If I knew anything about CNC (which I don't), or had access to the skills and machines required, my temptation would be to CNC the body shape and top carve (if there will be a carve) and do things like the neck pocket and cavities with standard power tools. Although some people find it the most satisfying part when worked by hand, using CNC for the back of the neck seems like a good application, too.

Nope, it won't cut it. No pun intended.

Can't offer you any help or technical advice, but I like that shape. It certainly has similarities to Godin designs, but I"m curious to what the "subtitle" of your thread is referring to-- has somebody previously told you that it looks like a Godin guitar? No matter what it may or may not look like, what it looks like is... great! Greg

James Burton was a whole lot more than Elvis's guitarist.... And man, you'd be an amazing player if you could start playing guitar that way, yet incorporate it into a more modern rock sound. No dissin' Burton!! <insert fake anger emoticon here> Good find, though-- Laces are usually a bit more than that, even on eBay.

The waist is a little bit "forward" compared to most typical guitars, but to me that's not necessarily a bad thing-- just keep it in mind, and maybe make a cardboard mock-up to see if it'll "sit" on your lap in a way that you like. In addition to the suggestions about the horns, I would at least -consider- the lower bout(s), which are only about the same width at the widest point as the width of the cutaways at the widest point. They're perhaps even a bit narrower. There's no real rule for that, though, it's just something than an eye catches, having seen hundreds of different kinds of bodies. Overall, it's a good direction. It looks like you're using a vector draw program for the body, no? Spend some time with the bezier curves and you'll eventually end up with something that fits your general design while flowing a little bit more elegantly. I'm sure you'll get there! Greg

DiMarzio are still a pretty strong presence in the pickup world. I think that Seymour Duncan's marketing guys did a better job at attracting OEM opportunities, which ineveitably leads to greater exposure as well. But that doesn't mean that DiMarzio's products are inferior, just that they don't have quite as large a market share.

The one time I sanded down a guitar, a MIM strat, there's no way on earth I could have done it with a block. But I'm confused-- you say to use a machine, but then you say to use a block? Which is it that you're recommending? What kind of machine? A hand-sander in any size or shape will likely cause "uneven" sanding to a certain extent, and I dunno that a thickness sander is the way to go for removing finish. O_o. Not making any statements, just asking questions. My own sanding job sucked badly so I'm definitely not giving advice. Joe's on the other hand, is coming along relatively well despite a bit of uneveness-- doesn't seem like anything unexpected at least. Greg

My personal feeling is that since you already have the 4-pole switch (as opposed to a standard 5-way Fender switch), you have a few good options that don't require additional mini-switches. My PERSONAL feeling is that there's no point burdening yourself with a tonne of options. Here are a pair of choices from GuitarElectronics that will work with your HS3 in neck and bridge, and your Fender single-coil in the middle: http://guitarelectronics.com/product/WDUHSH5L1103 http://guitarelectronics.com/product/WDUHSH5L1102 Remember, your HS3 have 4-conductor wiring just like any modern "splittable" humbucker... so you don't need to look for specialized diagrams for single-coil-sized humbuckers. A diagram using any 4-conductor humbuckers, a superswitch, and a single coil will work fine, so if you know of a guitar that has the configuration you want, you can just give'er. Some manufacturers have custom "superswitches", which won't be helpful, but the research will eventually yield fruit. DiMarzio's own site is a bit trickier to navigate, but I'm sure some exploration would yield results. None of the diagrams reached through the HS3 sub-page cut it, but that doesn't mean DiMarzio doesn't have the answers. Also, pickup companies' tech departments often have informal tech diagrams lying around. EMG's techs were kind enough to send me a few once upon a time and I bet DiMarzio would be able to do the same-- just let them know what you're after. Alternatively, if you still have your standard Fender switch around, you can even say "screw it" to mucking around with coil split, and go for something like this: http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/schem...H_1v_1t_5w.html The HS3s would just be wired in series (that's the 'wired together and taped off' part) and otherwise treated the same way you'd treat 3 single-coils. ---- Bottom line, there's no reason on earth to pick a configuration that will have your HS3 only ever using one coil. There's no point. You definitely want to find a diagram that will allow you to use them as humbuckers in some or all positions, IMO. Greg

Make sure you let us know how it goes, elaborating on that tutorial or pointing out where things were different than expected.

http://www.milburnguitars.com/fpbannerframes.html

To people who have used Variax or the VG-- when using alternate tunings, how have you dealt with the "acoustic" (natural) tuning of the string being at odds with the "virtual" tuning? I mean, a tuned D string is still doing to ring out with a D when the guitar's not plugged in at all, which is audible. Headphones for isolation? In any event, I'm more interested with MIDI possibilities of stuff like the Ghost Hex + MIDI brain combination... I'd rather be able to control a virtual violin than simply sound like another guitar. I didn't notice anything in the VG literature indicating the possibility of MIDI conversion/output, which is a shame and a missed opportunity.

+1

I guess I'll be the a-hole: There's very little to commend this design. It has flaws in almost every conceivable area, except one: it's original. And to me, original is only as good as the execution, and I'm afraid that you won't be able to execute this without some serious consideration. Here's some food for thought: - The horns, as mentioned, are problematic in terms of stability. Also, they'll be hard to actually shape-- where there's a will there's a way, but it won't be easy (take a scrap piece of wood and try shaping just one "horn-like" piece). Also, there's not enough clearance in the upper frets. Your hand is going to bump into them and you're not going to be able to play properly. In addition to the horns being plain ol' thin and weird and curly, they're just too 'extended' compared to the body, creating a weird imbalance. - The body is extremely small. I'm a big fan of small bodies (incl. the Steinberger GL-type guitars-- y'know, the "brooms", as well as Johnny Winter's Laser), but their design goals are completely suited to the small size. For example, neither of those guitars have horns. The Steinberger Synapse has an extendable doodad for the strap, but it's straight, not meant to be integral with the look of the body, and stays out of the way. It's probably not going to sit very well on the lap and it'll probably feel weird because there's nowhere for your forearm to rest. That's like a Steinberger, too, so you wouldn't be the first-- but since your guitar's shape seems to at least "want" to be a standard guitar shape, it's something to seriously think about. Unless your entire design goal is to make a very compact guitar, you need to revisit the shape and size. - You MIGHT have room for the electronics-- but it'll take some planning. You seem to have rounded edges, and even compact guitars like the Steinbergers are rectangular so that cavities can be realistically put in there. You only have 2 close-together knobs; I'm guessing, 1 volume for each pickup. I think you actually COULD get it to work, but it'd be fiddly, and without at least a switch you're working with a bit of a bear: each time you want to use JUST the neck or JUST the bridge, you have to twist two knobs. - And my honest opinion: it just looks bad... there's nothing appealing about it aesthetically... (to me). --- I don't mean any of the above to discourage you. Rather, the opposite. I think it's time to take a look from the ground up and tackle it with renewed enthusiasm and dedication! You yourself said you're not sure you like it, so perhaps it's time to try another design attempt. Take into consideration everything-- your materials, the size, the feasibility of certain features (the horn), creating a balance.... while at the same time perhaps holding onto some of the design characteristics that originally inspired you.

D'oh, I crossed a wire there. <chuckle> Cheers.

What PRS? I'm going mad or something-- don't see any PRS in any of those pics. LOVE this project, Johnny! The shape, headstock, everything-- look well thought-out and unique, while not being "bizarre." Looking forward to seeing this one as it goes!

No, you cannot get the same options using a standard Fender switch. The Megaswitch "E" seems to have the options limited, though. This is a benefit if you know for sure you want to use those options, making your life easier and your wiring diagram less painful. You can download the Megaswitch E instructions to see which combinations are possible. If you're still not sure yet, don't mind some planning, and want supreme flexibility you will want a "4-pole 5-position" switch instead. For my money, although I've only used the 4-pole switches myself, I think I'd actually prefer letting the Megaswitch "do the work" for me-- like I said, providing it WILL do the options I want.

The shielding property of factory-sprayed work varies from negligible to good. There's a good chance that you'll obtain at least some tiny benefit by re-shielding it. Copper tape isn't necessarily the "be-all, end-all", and I'm sure that many factory jobs and home jobs using conductive paint will do a fantastic job. But most of the factory jobs I've seen tend more toward the "minimal" burst of paint rather than an "attention to details" job. It's the attention to details that's important. With conductive paint, you'll have to build up enough and ensure continuity in all the right places in order for it to be effective, and I don't trust that most factories care THAT much for their production-line guitars.

I think we agree. The options are actually staggering with a 4-pole switch. It's just that you eventually narrow them down to the 5 you would actually use.