GregP

OT - that's the bridge I'm installing today on my previous lap steel project. I had the "steps" of the base milled down flat, so that it has no radius. Not a bad little bridge for very little money. The string spread is the same as the other TOM bridge I have, which as far as I can tell is a standard spacing. I can't see any reason it wouldn't work. One thing to keep in mind is the angle from the tailpiece to the bridge. Since that tailpiece may end up "anchoring" the strings back further than a stop-tailpiece, make sure you have enough downward pressure over the bridge. Many TOMs on hollowbodies are mounted on a base, which brings the bridge up a bit higher. Of course, the entire design has to be considered-- the neck angle is also more significant. What kind of guitar are you hoping to put it on?

You mean something like Brian Timpe's 2xForce? Haha, that's pretty cool. Sounds a lot like my old squier bass. So cool! If I stumble into a $5 bass pickup, I know what I'm doing...

WOW that's nice. Glad to have seen all the pics before someone tells you to turn them into links.

For a first effort, looks great! You might want to upload a smaller version of the pic, though... that's huge! The finish SEEMS to be nice enough, from the pic, and you made creative use of some nice warm-toned woods there. Purely meant constructively: - As I'm sure other people will mention, the body shape will be very uncomfortable for seated playing, but it wouldn't be the only guitar in the world with that characteristic. - The strings don't seem spaced out on the neck quite right-- the low E is too far in from the edge of the fretboard (and doesn't run parallel to it), and the high I is too close to the edge. - string angle from nut to tuners is creating issues particularly on the three treble-side tuning posts - you forgot to put your truss rod cover back on before taking the pic! - More pics, from different angles!! We love pics here. Greg

Telecaster deluxes have that kind of headstock.

Looks great so far. No way I can convince you to keep it natural?

That's not correct logic, exactly. You need to put the passives through the preamp. The actives are ALSO going through a preamp, but in the case of actives like EMGs (the specific brand mentioned in this thread), they're already going through an inbuilt preamp. You don't want to put them through a second preamp stage, and it certainly wouldn't match its output to passives. So, you're kinda sort of understanding EMG's active technology, but you're missing a crucial step which is throwing off your understanding. The other step that you're missing and which I, too, am guilty of not making clear... is that it's not actually raw volume that you're trying to match (though, altered output level is an effect of preamplification, too) but impedance.

I beat the hell out of one of my own axes as a young man in a funk-turned-madness jam once. Intentionally, sort of. Never really had any regrets about the marks it left, though I'd be in no hurry to do it again as an older and calmer (more boring) man. I think all my guitars have a few dents or scratches. I couldn't care less. I don't go out of my way to put them there, but nor do I mind them being there. As others have said, it's just character. You can't prevent every accident that's ever going to happen. That said, it's your guitar and you get to make that call. I'm just saying that like others here, I can't really relate.

Just to clarify-- I'm quite sure the above poster meant that you put the PASSIVE through a preamp, which, depending on the preamp itself, should bring the two pickups to the same level, and then you can use a wiring scheme that treats them as 2 active pickups. That's really the only "good" way to do it. There's the option of treating them as 2 discrete pathways going to the output jack, but it's a hack if you ask me. Lots of people have done what you're after. I'm sure there are entries in Project Guitar. Though the search function doesn't always turn up the results you might hope it would, you could still give it a try. Google, of course. I know I've seen aftermarket circuits for blending active and passive, but I can't recall any names or costs I'm afraid. Some research should turn something up. Greg

Dunno. Something looks weird about it. There's a balance missing between the cutaways and the lower bouts (is that the correct term?) that I have a hard time articulating. Almost like the bottom end is on its way to "doing something" (unlike typical plain ol' round bouts which aren't really going toward anything) but then decides not to. Whereas the cutaways are all roundy curvy and essentially "normal". I guess that's just a way of trying to explain why it's not to my taste, but it doesn't really need to suit everyone. I remember when Boggs made his first one he had a lot of people who didn't (and maybe still don't!) prefer the shape, but it turned out great. Greg

Yeah, "reminds" would be the only word to choose. They're of a type, but Perry's is superior. The SG cutaway on that one looks narsty. Perry's looks balanced and yummy.

OT Fanned Fret talk, continued: that's my understanding, too, and fits my sense of logic (the 2 scale lengths and then connecting the dots). As for "working", fanned frets aren't to facilitate bending, Rick-- but rather to accomodate scale length needs as well as a (debatably, since not one size fits all) ergonomic layout for fretting.

FWIW, that's the one I'm going with, too.

Not really, because if it was "flush" with the pickguard, the polepieces are more or less the same level as the pickguard's top. Underneath the mirror, they're at the same level as the pickguard's underside. Have you considered using a piece of 1/8" veneer over the whole top? I don't know for sure how it would work, but in my imagination I'm thinking something just thick enough to be sturdy but thin enough that you don't have to shim the neck pocket or anything. [edit: hrm. Forgot about the arm carve... I'll keep the original thought there in case it's worth anything to you, but the carve certainly adds a bit more complexity to the plan]

It's about the same size as a Nighthawk/Blueshawk. Pretty cool if you manage to finish'er up right, actually. I'm still not sure how the top's going to turn out. The mirror thing doesn't strike me as a good idea, but what the heck do I know. Not much. It's the end result of the top that's oging to make or break this project. If you put pickups UNDER a mirror, you might not generate enough of a signal from the vibrating strings. That's the main risk. Borrow a strat (since you've cut up yours!) and lower the pickups flush with the pickguard-- you'll already notice a significant loss of volume and tone. Putting them UNDER the mirror (equivalent to lowering them even lower than flush with a pickguard) just makes it that much more of an issue. Greg

So. Freakin'. Sweet! Great work.

I've been researching into this, and without doing custom electronics there are 2 decent options that I've found-- but they're in the neighborhood of $100 for either. A little bit less actually, but once shipping is rolled in... 1. Fishman Powerchip: It includes its own jack which not only serves as the on/off (for the battery consumption) but will detect a mono or stereo 1/4" being inserted and adjust the output signal accordingly. With a mono plug inserted, it 'blends' the two signals. With a stereo plug, it'll send the mag along one lead and the piezo along the other. The Powerchip is all attached to a *volume* knob. There IS a blend, but it's a mini trim pot on the circuit (inside the control cavity after mounting). But you can also use a 3-way mini-switch to select which signals are being used (mag/piezo/blend) 2. LR Baggs CTRL-X: Similar technology, but different approach. It also includes its own jack, but does NOT auto-detect a plug type. You can manually select output type (mono/stereo) with a push-button, and blend type with a mini-switch. Its knob is a *blend* knob. Each of those products has a reasonably helpful (though not exhaustive) user's guide... just Google and you'll come across them within minutes. Greg

Heck, some electric guitars have been made with no adjustable intonation at all. To me, it seems like keeping everything adjustable is the best possible option-- but lots of guitars have been fine without, including (as you mention) almost all acoustics. There are some pretty general guidelines that are almost universally true-- the G string requires less compensation that the B, and the low E requires the most out of all the strings. If you look at a non-intonatable bridge like this: http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_tailp...ior_Bridge.html and emulate where the strings break, you'll be close enough for rock'n'roll. Some acoustics use 2-piece systems (instead of just the 1-piece like in the pic you referenced). One small bit for the high E and B, and then a larger bit for the G down to the E. To me, that's a reasonable compromise; though, my own acoustics use the typical 1-piece style and I never have any MAJOR complaints about the intonation. Taylor does an in-betwee thing where they use the 1-piece system but with the "B" string area sort of angled back a bit to try to fix that problematic B just a bit. Greg

Good stuff.

Ditto. It's only the headstock holding it back right now.

In past headless discussions, I (and others) have mentioned the possibility of using a "surrogate" headstock. You could probably build one and it'd still pack up neatly into your travel bag. Thinking outside the box, you wouldn't even need it to be a full headstock. One or two tuners at a time would be enough, and you could just "snip as you go". The pliers method sounds fine, too, mind you-- especially if new strings require additional work once stretched. Don't most locking nuts do 2 strings at a time? Any chance of a close-up on your nut? ( lol ) Looks great, though. Congrats on a job well done! Greg

Indeed-- it's the FRETTED note and the harmonic that need to be compared. And since on a fretless you can fret wherever you want, not really any point to that. Contrabass players (well, and violin, viola, cello, etc) play double-stops plenty, without having compensated bridges. Either the two fingers are slightly staggered, or the one "barring" finger is angled. When necessary. In many cases, it's "close enough for rock'n'roll" when playing certain kinds of phrases. You can compensate if you really want to, but it's not typical for fretless instruments. As mentioned, the only real benefit is if you're going to slavishly follow the lines where there WOULD have been frets.

"Compensation" compensates for strings being pulled sharp by the action of fretting. Fretless instruments do not need any compensation whatsoever. You compensate by putting your fingers in the right place. That Carl Thompson bass might be compensated with the assumption that the player will put his fingers on the marked lines. But in reality, there doesn't need to be any compensation-- you just have to understand that a true fretless player wouldn't even want those lines there because they understand that it's not condusive to intonating a note correctly. If you look at other fretless instruments (violin, cello, contrabass) they don't have those lines. Players learn where their fingers need to go for correct intonation.

Tubes are not the holy grail, despite guitar-world lore. Plenty of the most sought-after professional equipment has been solid-state. You COULD make a case for guitar amps and tubes, if you really wanted to get into a dreadfully boring debate-- because we'll intentionally overdrive the tubes. But for mic preamps, mixers, DIs and the like... the tube isn't going to produce any magic for you. It's definitely more than just Behringer using the LED trick, as already mentioned. My ART (a really bad mic pre by the way...) did the same thing.

By golly, you're right, Godin! It's so obvious I didn't see it. Dunno why I kept visualizing stopping partway through, but there ya go.