GregP

How are the even harmonics of the E6 string? (ie. at the 7th and 12th frets) If they're dull, too, it might be that your pickup is exactly at a node where there is little/no vibration. There is usually no problem since the magnetic field of a pickup is large enough-- but with a narrow magnetic field and just the wrong spot, it's theoretically possible that the even harmonics will be dead-sounding there. Greg

Whew, thanks for being quick to respond, Mickguard-- I ordered so much stuff from Stew-Mac that I just quickly responded that it was Zero-fret. As it turns out, my fretboards were ordered from LMI, also, and not Stew-Mac after all. I agree with Mick that they don't look to be zero-fret slotted. They look either pre-made Fender, or cut right at the nut for Gibson/PRS-style fingerboards. I could be wrong, but they don't seem to be zero fret. Greg

Yes, they slot with a zero fret. Then you can either use it for fretwire and what we commonly call "a zero fret", or have a precise spot to cut off the excess for a traditional nut, or to mount a Fender-style nut. Greg

For TOM-equipped guitars, there's this: http://www.musicyo.com/product_specs.asp?pf_id=772 I have one, but haven't actually field tested it yet. As it turns out, the allen screws for mounting weren't long enough for my stop tailpiece, so I had to manufacture an extra spacer out of a bass string ball-end. Solved the problem, and now it's waiting for completion of my project. I think you'll find that the scalloping to bend within a chord is going to take a LOT of work, especially if you plan to do this in the lower half of the fretboard (ie. frets 1-12). As the space between frets gets wider, you will have to be more conscious of pressing "into" the scallop near the fret to maximize the 'bend'. It'll be tricky to develop a consistent technique. However, nothing comes from nothing. I say give it a shot, and I'm looking forward to hearing if you get any good results from it! There's lots of room for "outside the box" techniques, like bending strings behind a slide for pedal-steel effects in bottleneck playing. Greg

The March 09 regular F-hole was my favourite, but the current favourite on your Blog is a good compromise. Almost the same as the Mar09, but with the segmented "venetian blind" F-hole. Whatever you do, do NOT tempt yourself to put one near the electronics like earlier. The single F-hole is the way to be. Greg

The no-name ones ARE "licensed". Original will say, "Original" on them. There's nothing wrong with a licensed product, though-- it's just that they can be in ANY range of quality. Some will be better than an OFR, and some will be noticeably worse. Greg

I like the new version better, too.

Heh, I only just now noticed Jehle's new banana. Greg

Or, they might just be unknown!

When it does come time to think about hiring someone, though, remember that you can't wait until the person is needed before you hire them. Hire them in anticipation of growth, and use the "slower" time to get them trained up to speed. Plan for success, don't wait for success, or your plan will become hasty decisions! Of course, only YOU know when the right time is, and I'm convinced that you're correct that right now is NOT the correct time; however, moving forward, it's something to think about sooner than later! Greg

You can get Floyd bridges that don't require snipping, but in any event, let's just assume that snipping is the norm and agree that Floyds CAN be a pain. Like I said, that doesn't address any of the benefits, which are listed fairly well here by redwhiteandthemaple. With regards to locking tuners vs. nut, most if it comes down to what redwhite mentioned, PLUS the fact that there's no such thing as a perfectly friction-free nut. That being the case, after a serious divebomb, the strings won't be in tune with relation to each other anymore. You might get close, but that's about it. With a locking system, the nut is taken out of the equation, and the slack after bridge is taken out of the equation. Literally, all that is left is the length of string between the nut (not beyond!) and the saddles (not the string length between the true 'bridge' and where the ball end is anchored. That doesn't mean that locking systems are always perfect. For example, locking trems that have poor engineering or manufacturing at OTHER points of serious friction in the mechanism (ie. the pivot posts), crap springs (laugh, laugh like you will, but it matters!), or even just a poor setup job, will still fail. But with a proper Floyd, manufactured by someone with proper care and Quality Control, will always hold up to "whammy tricks" more effectively than a vintage-type trem. In any event, I don't trust what my friends say about such things, and I don't even trust most guitar store employees about such things. Too many times I've encountered salespeople who really don't know jack, and these are the supposed experts. So no matter what your friends or the PRS peeps say, take it all with a grain of salt and make your own evaluations, after doing as much objective research and critical thinking as you can stand. Greg

Hrm. Surely you must understand the difference between locking nut and saddles vs. the PRS way (just locking tuners, plus (intelligent I might add) straight string pull). Your friend might be right-- certain things about locking trems CAN be a pain!-- but that doesn't address the benefits. Not going to get very far divebombing your PRS (sorry, MULTIPLE PRS) guitars. I don't mean to be overly critical here, but it's clear that you're in the stage of "stars in the eyes" over a particular brand of guitar and their approach. For what it's worth, for my needs the PRS system is simply amazing and I'd put it or something similar on almost any trem-equipped guitar I'd care to make. The fact that you can afford "several" of them, and that you're convinced their system is perfect, makes me wonder what it is that you're hoping to glean from Project Guitar! In any event, the two systems are very different, and both have their place. Greg

That first one looks good and all, but it doesn't have any of the actual benefits of a Floyd! The "locking" saddles don't seem to be doing a better job than any plain old ball-end saddle; and there's no locking nut. Locking tuners with straight string pull over the nut are effective and all, but it's still not a locking nut. Greg

Passive wah, as in not battery-powered? I can't imagine that being very effective. The core of a wah pedal is a resonant peak on a filter, which is created by amplifying/boosting/exaggerating certain frequencies. It's possible for it to be done passively, in theory, but your volume level would have to go way down for it to work, which you'd have to "make up" at the amp, thereby introducing hiss and hum to your signal. It's possible that he might have been doing a simple "tone control in a pedal", which should be an easy mod to a volume pedal. Won't sound like a wah, but it'll give you a swept tone effect, which could still prove useful!

Righto! For some reason, I thought it was you in the video! All clear. Greg

I was about to ask how the jig works (or if there was a link to the jig thread), but that video cleared it up. I was a bit confused, though: didn't you just re-attach them so that they're still parallel? I can't see an angle being created! It should end up being one of the original flat surfaces + one of the "bevels" in order to create an angled scarf joint for an angled headstock. Greg

Interestingly enough, I bought a Godin LG with P90's DESPITE its looks rather than because of them. It felt great, had great pickups, great worksmanship, and sounded fantastic. So I bought it. After about a week, I was then in love with its shape, so it all worked out.

Yes, the actual sound "technology" (modelling) of both is absolutely identical. Regarding the tones, I have to say, I find them to be very realistic (ie. not "nowhere near") but it's just the way they're presented (through computer speakers or studio monitors rather than a 4X12 cab) that gives you the impression they're lacking. OK, obviously they're not QUITE as good as a real amp with a good room and the right mics... but pretty close. Greg

3 quick points about the TonePort: 1. If you have any interest at all of doing some recording for the next many years, just get the UX2 now. You'll want the phantom power later, if you end up getting into recording. 2. It does NOT feature GuitarPort Online-like functionality. Ie. no monthly subscription to lessons and backing tracks. Who knows if it'll happen in the future, but for now only the PODxt and GuitarPort have access to the "lesson/tracks" side of things. 3. The bundled software (Ableton Live Lite) is absolutely horrible, especially for a new recordist, and particularly for guitarists who pretty much like to go through songs in a "linear" way when they're first learning to record. That doesn't mean I don't recommend it. Au contraire, I highly recommend it over the GuitarPort. I'm just mentioning these things because they're something to consider at the point of purchase. Greg

Meh. Entertaining, but I'm not inspired one way or the other! Can't really zero in on why. Guthrie was wicked awesome, though. The guy in the middle-ish with the Parker Fly... had some of the most hysterical "guitar face" ever! He seems to take himself seriously when he does it, too, which is the truly funny part. Certainly a better player than I'll ever be, though. Greg

You can use a super-long drill bit and tread carefully. That's how one-piece Les Paul-style guitars are done, and even maple-capped ones (though if I were making my OWN, I would just rout a channel). Greg

The world will never see another one, since it's a "one-off" by a guy who's also doing a prototype Robert Fripp. (not a prototype "for" Robert Fripp, of course) Greg

*bump* to see if there are any last opinions before I start hacking it up. Updates: I got a GraphTech classical nut, which is wide enough for me. I know lap steels often have the strings parallel, but for the sake of my sanity, this option's probably the best for me. I'm waiting for GuitarFetish to get those roller bridges in chrome since they seem easily modified to meet my needs. In the meantime, in addition to other recent questions, the only thing I'm wondering still is: - To add the 2nd pickup or not to add... there's lots of room for it. And if I add, to use the Tele bridge pickup in the bridge and the other one more toward the "neck", or vice-versa... - If I use a second pickup, to mount the switch on the side or on the top? - Mound the volume knob on the side (like the BuildYourGuitar one) or on the top? Mine is wider than his, so there's room. Greg

I fall in to mattia's category of going for the "extremes". I'd rather have that really noticeable difference in tone when switching between my two pickups. On a one-pickup guitar, I feel, you should mount it where you enjoy it best! For you, that seems to be the middle, so go for it! I'm making a lap steel right now (if I can find or make the right parts, grumble grumble) with the intention of approximating a pedal steel sound. And while steel guitar in general is often very thin and trebly, I'm not going to mount its single pickup right in the typical "bridge" position, but a bit forward instead. Maybe not truly "middle", but somewhere in-between. Greg

I just had another peek at Frank's guitar, and I'm thinking that his method of mounting the tuners would solve my headstock issues, and also free up my headplate veneer for a control "cavity" (har har, it's tiny!) cover. The pickup I have is a "Hot Rails"-type of deal, with 4 conductors for splitting. I also have an unused super-generic-super-cheap single-coil tele bridge pickup kicking around. I was originally going to use JUST the 'bucker, but now I'm considering doing a bucker/single-coil thing. I only have a spare 3-way standard Tele switch, though, so I probably wouldn't bother with series/parallel or even coil-split trickery. Greg