GregP

After buffing with steel wool, the oiliness was completely gone. Not sure I put enough coats for it to do anything other than darken the wood and give it a touch of moisture protection, though. As it turns out, I had a few other issues to fix, so it's not quite done yet. Maybe I'll put a few more coats on, still. Greg

Assuming the black comes off as easily as the gold does, you could always try a dremel tool with one of those circular "wire" attachments, whatever they're called. It's like a disc-shaped wire brush. Stripped off the gold from a few screws I needed in a jiffy. Due to the shape of it, it was tough to get into small crevices, but overall it worked quickly. Greg

If you want something different from mahogany, a lot of people use Limba (aka Korina) in its place. Obviously, there are different tonal characteristics to a certain extent, but everything I've read leads me to believe that you'll be in a 'similar' ballpark. In terms of working it (as opposed to its sound), I MUCH preferred the White Limba I used with a concurrent project. It's denser and tougher on your tools, but at the end of the day it's more consistent in how it's worked. Doesn't have that 'chippy' soft fibrous wackiness of the mahogany I used. So if you're looking for an alternative, you should consider Limba/Korina as well. Nice grain pattern, too. Greg

Awesome-tacular. Stellar job, Godin!

It's just a cheap pickup that used to live in my Yamaha Pacifica 302S. I'm quite certain it's not tapped. The white and red lead "into" the coils, but so does the bare... no idea why! The bare is ALSO soldered to the brass baseplate, which is what made me assume that it's just a shielded ground. I don't remember exactly how it was wired up originally, it was so long ago, but the guitar wasn't tapped and I doubt Yamaha would install a tapped single coil into a production-line budget guitar. You're right about phase, though. I know I can just de-solder, swap, and re-solder if I wire it in reverse of what it SHOULD be, but the way I routed everything, it'll be a headache to do so, meaning that I'm hoping to get it right the first time. Thanks for your input and reminding me of the phase issue, which is different than a polarity issue. Greg

It's bass as in the fish... rhymes with "class". Not bass as in the instrument, rhymes with "face". Its name has nothing to do with its sonic characteristics! As mentioned, though, you're placing too much stock in what is ultimately an unknown. The same guitar with different pickups will sound significantly different. I'd wager that if you compared: - 2 identical guitars, very different pickups (jazz-style vs. metal style) - 2 guitars with identical pickups, the same neck, and mostly the same body except basswood instead of mahogany That the first comparison would yield more significant results. Basswood and mahogany have very similar sonic characteristics, though people will often note, perhaps psychosematically (because it's a cheaper wood) that it loses some definition. And that's just it-- you could hear a hundred different people say the same thing, but many many of them would just be idiots like me who are essentially "duffers" with enough knowledge to be dangerous. I don't like working with mahogany. At least not the mahogany I tried in my last (current, I guess, haven't posted pics yet) project. It was annoying. Tearing out, chipping, and resisting any sort of (admitedly, inexpert) chisel work whatsoever. I'll definitely try basswood next time to see if I like the way it can be worked. If I end up preferring the way my tools and approach interact with basswood, that'll be the deciding factor for me, moving into the future. Greg

I have a tele-style bridge pickup, but it's not 2-conductor like typical similar pickups. My understanding is that the bare is likely just shielding (non-conductor), and that it really doesn't matter which of the other two wires is "hot" and which is "ground". However, I just wanted to be sure. If I'm not mistaken, switching them around changes the polarity (?), but in my setup that shouldn't matter, as it'll be either alone, or with a "full" humbucker (not tapped). The crux of the question is simply this: 1. Am I correct that it doesn't really matter which wire is which? 2. Despite the answer to #1, is there a colour that is more COMMONLY ground in a red/white setup (black/white, from what I understand, has different conventions) Thanks! Greg

I agree that it sounds great-- just want to make sure all thread readers understand that the J-Station is an amp emulator, though... so most of the "tweed" tone going on there is courtesy of the J-Station and not the amp in and of itself. That doesn't mean that the product isn't cool and worth getting, just that it won't have that exact tone just by plugging in a guitar. Greg

I wouldn't say they're 'better', either. Just in the same league. Not pieces of **** dying to be replaced.

Thanks, Al-- that's good to know so that I don't get worried when it's not 'un-greasy' immediately after the steel wool. Greg

Avant and some of the others are just IE with a shell. I use Opera. 'Tis goodly!

Welcome aboard! Hope to see you around lots!

Cheers for the help, Wez. I'll let you know how it turns out. I'll be picking it up hopefully tomorrow (all work is done at my dad's house since I don't have a shop in my apartment. ), and then any final work can be done here at home! Greg

It's cherry and mahogany. So far, all I've done is: 1 - Orbital machine sanding to 400 2 - Gel stain on the mahogany only, thin application, which dried for several days 3 - 2 medium-thin applications of Danish Oil I wasn't going to sand further, since the guitar already has and will continue to have some dings and, shall we say, "character". The extra gritty-bits mixed with the oil can often act as pore filler, but I'm also not terribly worried about having a perfectly level finish. To top it off, I don't even know where I can easily find such fine sandpaper in these parts. 600 was the finest I've seen in most of the local hardware-type stores. It's not that I don't "care" about the guitar-- I'm quite excited by it actually! But I chose the finish due to the 'workhorse' nature of the beast; otherwise I probably would have gone with Poly instead. Do you personally consider the 1200-grit "wet" sanding to be a necessary step? (ie. I know it's not strictly necessary, but can you imagine the finish turning out well without it?) Koch's instructions don't say anything about it, either, which is part of the reason I chose this finish. Less fuss. Greg

Yeah, when I looked at aftermarket pricing, I couldn't believe how expensive some of the Gibson ones were, so I definitely don't think they win the "value for money" race. I wonder if it's just to maintain the "boutique" marketing strategy.

The "harmonic" feedback you're looking for IS the same kind I'm discussing-- sympathetic feedback. If you're standing in the right position and at the right angle, your string will vibrate in harmonic intervals rather than simply the full string at once. Unpotted pickups "squealing" is definitely undesirable and is microphonic rather than sympathetic feedback, which isn't good. Greg

A friend of mine on another forum pretty much thinks that Gibson pickups are more or less "generic" and in some cases worse than generic because many of them are only 2-conductor and hence don't even offer coil-tapping and the series/parallel and in/out-of-phase trickery that you can get with those options. He figures that the sound is also nothing to write home about and that very few people would ever use a Gibson pickup as an aftermarket replacement pickup the way that many people use Seymour Duncans. While I agree that an SD is a more common after-market replacement, I disagreed about some of the other stuff. I felt that the tone is legendary, that many people with a "true" Les Paul will keep the stock Gibson pickups (as opposed to Epis, which many people switch out), and that not everyone wants or needs coil-tapping and therefore the 2-conductor thing is a non-issue. In short, he feels that they're an undesirable pickup, and I feel that they're a worthy pickup. I said that it's "common knowledge" that Gibson continues to make a good-sounding and reliable pickup. I don't mind being wrong, so if you think I'm in left field I won't take it personally. But I'd be curious to know in particular if my "common knowledge" comment was off-base, because that's the REAL point of contention between we two friends. He reckons he's never heard anyone speaking favourably of Gibson pickups and that it's not even close to "common knowledge" but rather that it's very common for people to swap them out in favour of something better-sounding. Heh, I just restated the debate again in different words, but the point being-- am I out to lunch on the "common knowledge" thing? Greg

Hey all, My lap steel is nearly done, and I'm using Danish Oil as suggested by Koch (yep, knowing that my guitar will still eventually be subject to dings and so forth... that's OK!). Even after waiting more than the suggested drying time, the wood is still somewhat "oily" to the touch, though there aren't significant amounts of oil transferring to a test paper towel. So, although it seems oily, I think that it's relatively "safe" and the "oily" feel is partially psychosematic. What I'm wondering is, in the last step (still a few days away, hence the pre-emptive curiousity!) you give'er with some fine steel wool, to produce a final "shine" and somehow harden that last layer a bit. The question then: Is it not until after this final "buffing" stage that the oily sensation begins to disappear? Or is it still required to leave the guitar to "dry" for a few more days? None of the furniture finishing sites I've seen seem to indicate any waiting period, either. I realize that I can find out by just finishing the job as per the instructions and reporting back, but I thought if anyone had any insight or could share any knowledge about the, er, well, "oily" nature of the... hrm... oil! it might come in handy. Thanks, Greg

There's nothing special to know-- the "good" feedback is caused by the speaker vibrating the string, which causes a signal to be fed to the speaker, which in turn vibrates the string, which causes a signal to be sent to the speaker... well, you get the point. In other words, it will never have any better or worse potential than the setup being used. If you have an FX-laden setup for your normal playing, this'll probably translate into weird feedback, too. It really SHOULD just be a "sterile" note, but therein lies the fun. Bending, changing the angle at which you're holding the guitar... moving a bit to the left or right... forward or back... these are the things that cause another string to "sympathize" more easily. So it's about moving around and repositioning the guitar, really... and as one note begins to take over from another note, the beauty evolves. On top of that, I think that a healthy dose of a nice long delay line is handy. When the note is static, it becomes the "sterile" note you refer to, but bending strings and repositioning create a more interesting "layer" in the delay line as the new fed-back notes take over. Greg

I had a bit of a lighthearted chuckle, at your expense but in good will. My girlfriend is a kayaker, so if you don't need the extra paddle, send it my way. Great thread, though-- although in hindsight it may seem obvious now, *I* wouldn't have thought of it, and I now have the wax-paper tip stored away in my "filing cabinet". Greg

A standard nut, even with locking tuners, would ruin the whole purpose of the Floyd Rose, in which case you'd be just as well off with a Wilkinson or similar bridge instead. I'm not a Floyd guy, and I've never installed one, so I can't provide any specific information, but most people will just use the nut its intended way-- as the nut. I can't see any good reason you couldn't use it with a zero fret instead, though, especially if you need a radius other than the Floyd nut's radius. Greg

That's exactly what he says he does. You people must have been too dazzled by the photos to read it properly. I read it fine, and acknowledged such in my post. Now tell me, Mick... how are you getting your hand and arm into the neck pickup cavity, through the body of the guitar, past the 2 'tuning fork dividers' and at the knobs and such, in order to retrieve the electronics? I'm not saying it's completely impossible-- though most of his guitars DO feature rear-access, I see at least one that does not. What I'm saying is that I'm missing a link here somewhere, because I can't see any way it could be done. In the one guitar that it seems to have worked for, the "tuning forks" are also noticeably smaller, thus increasing the access space. Obviously it CAN'T be his hand, so the only thing I can imagine is putting a string and weight on the electronic, threading the string through the electronic hole, and then pulling it through. I'd have to get someone else to do it for me, as I hate those kinds of operations. Even threading a needle drives me nuts. Does all the component-to-component wiring happen in the neck cavity, with long wires going back and forth, or does he somehow wire up a harness, thread the whole thing through the neck cavity, and then one-by-one pull the individual components (hoping he has the correct pots and switches for the correct holes)? I'm just curious as to how he does it (again, remembering that I've acknowledged he's done it-- I just can't see how). Greg

I also don't understand the cavity-less design. How does he get at the electronics if they need replacing or upgrading? I can see installing-- put them on the top before gluing, thread the wires through the neck cavity or whatnot... but later upgrades/replacements? Greg

Unfortunately for those trying to source them, I got them from Frank Falbo, who in turn got them at what I gather was a swap meet of some sort. So, no actual source. They likely originally came from a full-on roller bridge. I suppose if you're desperate enough you could get a roller bridge from GuitarFetish or something, and they'd work, but that's 20-odd bones just for some saddles. Greg

Even if it worked, it wouldn't sound like a 12-string, because you'd be one octave up again from standard guitar tuning. On a 12-string, as you probably know, the E, A, D, and G strings are "doubled" an octave apart, with the B and E strings simply doubled on the same octave. That means you only have 4 strings that are octave-shifted, or strictly speaking only 3 since the low E's doubled string matches the high E, as well. IF you could put the onboard FX in series without crazy artifacts (doubtful-- pitch-shifting is notorious for wrecking tone) you'd end up with a guitar, capoed at the 12th fret, not a 12-string. Greg