GregP

The gain staging of an EMG-style active is quite different than a passive w/ preamp. Their "base" output levels are much different as mentioned by Primal. Also, due to the number of windings and other core construction issues, EMGs will pick up and transmit a much wider spectrum of frequencies. It's this frequency spectrum, moreso than just the output levels, that sometimes gives EMG the (false, IMO) reputation of being sterile. This frequency range, plus the different string-to-pickup interaction mentioned by Godin, sets EMGs apart. comparing EMGs to typical passives: - base (non-preamped) output level -> very much lower on EMG = different gain staging - magnetic pull -> much lower on EMG = different string interaction - coil windings -> far fewer on EMG (diff. wire, too? Dunno) = much increased range of frequencies that can be reproduced There's definitely a lot more setting them apart than the preamp. If anything, the preamp is the LEAST relevant similarity, though of course it's a vital component to EMGs because it enables the different construction to "work" properly. Greg

Looking good. Any particular reason you didn't glue up the "wings" before cutting?

The overlay looks better than the truss rod cover.

The egg carton thing is a bit of a myth. They have a similar look to soundproofing baffles, so people just concluded that the uneven surface could diffuse soundwaves. The problem is that almost all audible frequencies just pass through them without taking a hit whatsoever. So, it's not really doing anything except acting as a placebo. What apparently DOES work is rock wool-- but if packed in very densely. A simple thin layer won't do the trick. The other thing to do is make a box within a box. In-between the 2 boxes should be some sort of material that is soft enough to absorb vibration. This will decouple the inner box from the outer, which will go a LONG way toward isolating the sound. Indeed, this is the main thing that separates built-to-order soundproof chambers from DIY "soundproofed" rooms. If built to order, you can float the floors and walls... essentially a huge "box within a box". With the relatively small project of an amp isolation box, you can literally build a box within a box. The aforementioned rock wool would be a good in-between material. Make sure you're aware of heat concerns, particularly if you're planning on recording tube amps. Find out what the tolerances for the circuitry and tubes are, find out how much heat is generated inside the isolation box, and always be aware of these factors while recording. Better to pause a session for a while to let things cool down than to ruin your equipment. Greg

Bertbart, glad to hear everything went well! I hope you don't mind if I call on you some day in the future when it comes time for the installation of my electronics.

What's the difference between a neck and a bridge pickup? If you read the thread, you'll find a quote in the last post from dimarzio saying that you should use f-spacing on neck pickups when using a wider nut.. Sure, but the common situation is not. With a standard width nut and a Floyd trem, the "ideal" is to use an F-space bridge pickup and a normal neck pickup. I think it's mostly all bollocks, anyhow, mind you.

Right. When I said that F-spaced is the "ideal", it was under the assumption that everyone already knew you only f-space the bridge pickup. do they even SELL f-spaced neck pickups?

A heatshrink tube only works well when it's allowed to stay as a "tube"... otherwise it's just a weird shriveled piece of plastic that doesn't cling to much. Electrical tape would have been the way to go in conjunction with the bare wire. Ironically, I think the 1 bare wire is the easier and *less* adventurous way! 3 little loops is for the hardcore and those who don't mind a little pain and suffering. ;-) I tried the 3 little loops and it was a nightmare for me. As long as you got it sorted out, though, both will "work" equally fine! If you're wired up and ready for rock'n'roll, then mission accomplished. Greg

F-spaced is "ideal", but regular will work and the differences will be minimal. If you get your choice of pickups anyhow, get the F-spaced.

Hey retro, Those knobs DO look good! Congrats on the successful wiring, too. A few questions: - how do you use a cell phone to test? I always just tap the polepieces with something metal, but you seemed to be saying that you could somehow 'hear' what the sound is going to be! I don't know enough about airborne signals to know how the cell interoperates with the pickups, but I'd sure like to know this tip for later! - You refer to the no hum being due partially to shielding, but I don't see "proper" shielding in the electronics cavity..? Are you absolutely positive the guitar is properly shielded? Greg

I'm afraid you're probably going to have to elaborate a bit beyond your title and question... for one thing, I don't know anybody offhand that would seriously recommend rear-routing pickups... which is NOT to say that you "shouldn't" do it. Just that for people to give conscientious advice they'll probably want to know things like -- your motivation for rear routing pickups (they might have suggestions to accomplish your end goal that take a different approach), the practical way you're going to handle the cavities... (making a cavity cover of some sort?) etc. In general, though, I think that assuming you REALLY need/want to rear-rout your pickup holes, people are going to recommend making a template, hogging out the excess with a drill, and cleaning up with a router. Which is of course not the "only" way to do it.

In chronological order of people who made me think, "whoah, guitar is cool!" - Eddie Van Halen - David Gilmour - Mark Knopfler - Steve Vai - Joe Satriani - Stevie Ray Vaughan - Chet Atkins - Tuck Andress And then the rest are a blur, though there are many. I can remember fairly distinct moments in time being 'introduced' to the above as guitarists and listening specifically to their guitar work (not at the exclusion of the rest of the song, I mean, but at least being very aware of the guitar's role in it) In terms of "THAT's how I want to be able to play," probably Hendrix and also an unknown Canadian guitarist named Martin Tielli.

Well, it depends on if you're holding the right 2 wires. For testing wiring, I've settled for twisting wires together or holding them together with metal alligator clips. You can also use those screw-thingies that look like little plastic thimbles. But the metal of both "halves" need to be making a solid connection. Just touching the end of one up against the end of the other is going to be an intermittent connection at best, and your thumb won't conduct electrons from one to the other. Use your multimeter to test wires that have been "spliced" together like that.... but ultimately, it's a cleaner job to replace wires rather than splicing them together.

The sheer # of tonal combinations isn't as important as if they sound good. I could be wrong, but I understood the original post as, "here's what I HAVE, what can I do with it?" which doesn't extend to adding extra switches and pickups anyhow... or did I read wrong?

I dunno 'bout that. A guitar's body shape isn't an invention or process; nor (generally) an improvement to an invention or process. Some features of a design (a special cutaway... a twisted neck...) CAN end up being patented, but I think the OP is more talking about a standard solidbody but with his own "shape". Don't think that's the sort of thing that can be patented.

It depends on the protection strategy you want to use. Fender's headstock shapes, for example, are considered Trademarks rather than simply being "copyrighted". This requires formal legal procedings that are best undertaken by a qualified lawyer. I wouldn't want to try to trademark something with any sort of self-processed "trademark in a box" kit or anything. A lot of it is simply a matter of keeping legitimate records. To copyright something, all you need to do, at least in Canada, is put a © symbol and declare your copyright. But that doesn't mean you're going to win a court case... you have to show that the item in question is indeed copyrightable in the first place, that you have defended the copyright, and that your work came before that of anybody against whom you wish to pursue litigation. In other words, if I have published a document under copyright and somebody else later seems to have ripped me off, I have to prove that mine came first as a matter of public record. Also, there are various statutes of limitations on such things... for example, you would have to produce a product based on your design within X number of years (5 in the UK, apparently... just Googled it) in order for the copyright to be legally enforceable. Also, you have the option of NOT bothering with copyrighting the design at all... if you strike hard and make an impact, people will know it's your design anyhow... Fender aren't hurting from the bazillion strat-shaped guitars out there. They keep their headstock trademarked and therefore identifiable as a true Fender. It's too much of a hassle for them to stop strat-shaped bodies. Heck, when Gibson tried the body-shape thing against PRS, they lost. All it would take is a minor change to your design and a would-be copyer would probably get away with it anyhow. It might not be worth protecting so aggressively. Instead, market aggressively and produce a quality product... Bottom line: hire a lawyer. If you're not willing to pay for the expense of the lawyer, you probably weren't serious enough about protecting the design in the first place.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OiN8Lx5Ll-w Sorry. Had to.

surcharges? Isn't that what Ticketmaster dings you with when you order concert tickets? The wire you described sounds like a simple 2-conductor wire. The outer "bare" wire acts as shielding when it is sent to ground, but the inner wire is the conductor that's expected to be used. You don't really "need" shielded wire, but if you wanted to you could always do exactly that-- send the outer 'shield' wire to ground... You could even just solder them together on both ends, in which case it'll act as though it's just one wire. Really, though, you could also just go down to Radio Shack and get some single-conductor wire. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the shielded stuff (and some people might even CHOOSE to use it!) but it does set you up for problems if you don't know exactly what you're doing with it. Greg

Awesome! Also looking forward to seeing the new projects. Glad the move and the new shop setup went relatively smoothly!

The odds of that having been a factory guitar (particularly the body) are slim. Probably a repurposed neck on a selfmade body in a project that was never completed.

FWIW, the one time I put metal covers on a pair of 'buckers, the fit was so tight that positive contact was made without soldering. I put a little piece of copper shielding tape on just to be sure, but I probably didn't even need that.

What do you mean, the wire from vol to jack has no earth? My friend, you are presenting an enigma. I'm quite sure you're able to see the big picture, because it's your guitar after all. But I can only speak for myself when I say that you're muddying rather than clarifying. In guitar electronics, everything ultimately functions as single conductors. Even a 4-conductor wire coming out of a humbucker has those 4 conductors treated individually. So referring to a "wire from vol to jack with no earth" sounds like you're expecting it to be a dual conductor. Ultimately, once the entire path is wired up, you DO have an earth (return) wire at the jack, as well as the hot (?) wire. There has to be, or there won't be a signal. If you can diagram, even on a piece of paper (scanning it in afterward), what your CURRENT (broken) circuit is, someone here can surely help. If you can get a photograph that clearly shows everything, that might work too; however, my experience is that photographs of guitar electronics cavities are too busy and unclear to be of much help. ----- In any event, I'm starting to lose the original point which is that you're suspecting the solder joints and you're wanting to attempt a re-solder. I'd wait until you get a proper diagram sorted out (no point re-soldering something you're going to de-solder later!) but in the meantime there are lots of good online resources for soldering. Here's one I found by Googling "soldering for guitar" http://www.kingbass.com/soldering101.html Greg

LOL, the whammy lid. That'd be wicked-hilarious. Good job as it stands.

You installed a kill switch by cutting the wire from the volume to the jack? I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound right at all. You would generally need to rewire the... er... switch! in order for there to be a kill switch. This wiring should also normally involve sending the entire signal to ground and not just "into thin air". What wiring scheme does your guitar use (Les Paul or Strat standard wiring, for example), and which instructions did you follow in order to determine which wire you thought you needed to cut? If it didn't use a standard scheme and instructions, could you post up a diagram of what you did? Greg

If you're going into music stores rather than building from a kit, be sure to check Yamaha, Ibanez, and (if they carry it) OLP. If by "kit" you meant the boxes that come with a bass, amp, etc., I would honestly be very careful. If it's between a bass kit/pack that costs $200 and JUST a bass that costs $200 but is a bit better, get the bass instead. You'll soon outgrow the little practice amp that comes with those kits... and for a wee little amp of that calibre, you can always buy one for $40 next month if you REALLY are in a rush to get something small like that. Better still, try a few basses that are a little bit more expensive than what you thought you wanted to pay, just to see if there's a huge difference. If you luck out and find a $200 bass that you love more than the $350 basses then by all means go for it. But if you try one of the "slightly more expensive than I wanted to pay" basses and it feels just awesome, save your pennies for another few weeks and get the one that will inspire you to play.