GregP

Interesting! Not large enough for a guitar body, though, I wouldn't think. Greg

Good advice, Frank. The difference is so minute that aesthetics are way more important. Greg

And to me. Better tell Fender they're doing it all wrong.

LPs famously have humbuckers, but they started out with P90's, and many people still prefer the P90s. I a P90 guy myself, but since I do some home-based recording and I like to eliminate noise as easily as possible, I'd rather have some hum-cancelling P-90s like the Virtual P90 (stupid choice of word, "virtual"... it's not 1991 when that was a big buzzword... <laff> ) but that's about it. Greg

Hey Charlie, Regarding the templates-- funny as it sounds, you may have to make your own. So you make your own shapes... in order to make your own shapes...! It may seem redundant at first, but that's not the case: 1. Messing up a material like Medium-densitify Fibreboard (MDF) is cheaper than messing up the wood you hoped to use 2. MDF is really easy to shape using whatever tools are at your disposal. For certain things, you don't necessarily need a 'template' per se, though the end result is just like a template... for example, if part of what you're doing is simply shaping some straight edges, grab any straight and true piece of MDF or lumber, and just use it as a guide, in conjunction with a template/laminate trim router bit. Regarding the fold-out arms, there's been a recent 'travel guitar' that had some. Let me find the page... http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.ph...opic=16751&st=0 There ya go. Somewhere on there is a pic of the back and the 'fold-out' mechanism. Haven't the foggiest clue what equipment he used to construct it, though. Greg

What's the purported impact of winding the coil assymetrically that way? More mellowness on the tone? Greg

Two unrelated things. The reason maple makes a guitar sound brighter is that it is very dense, hard, and rigid, and the strings are mounted to it vis-a-vis a bridge and other mounting hardware. So, it's to do with the way it affects the vibration of the string. Pickup rings won't impact the resonance of the body of the guitar, and therefore won't make any change in the tone. They may impact the magnetic field, though-- I don't know if it's in the location for disturbing the field much, but maybe! Greg

Imagine.... I'd be happy with a copy carver for now, mind you. Greg

Andy DePaule has top-quality stuff and is a good sort of fellow. He was almost hesitant to sell me the larger blanks simply because he knew that the smaller (and much cheaper) ones would suit my needs. Honest dude, too, he freely admitted that it's good for him to be able to sell off the small stuff, too (hence the low price) because after so many projects, so much of it accumulates. In any event, I ordered the small AND the large blanks, plus a set of block inlays, just so that I'd for sure have what I needed. I suspect Andy is somewhat forgetful, though-- I also ordered a custom headstock inlay which he never got back to me about, so I'm going to try making it myself. He didn't charge up-front for it, though, so I wasn't out any money at all. Greg

I wish there was a way to keep photos embedded in posts. When the host site goes down, craptasticness ensues. Greg

Why would steel rings brighten the sound?

Pretty much sums up what I was thinking but didn't have the patience to say. Thanks for that. Greg

Actually, I may have overstated the case-- if it's all done right, the lamination idea will be strong enough. Let's say rather that there's more potential for a weak headstock if done the lamination way simply because there are more gluing surfaces that need to be prepped and glued. Mostly, though, it's not about strength but about ease and aesthetics. When you've cut your headstock from the suggested lamination method, you'll have a lot more ways you can mess it up, and a lot more work to do to get it right, in terms of planing it flat and so forth. As far as aesthetics, if it's painted on one side and has a headplate on the other it won't really matter I suppose, but in a natural finish, you'll get these weird lines going through it, where one laminated layer is glued into the next. I'm not meaning to say it's an idea that "won't work". If you do it right, it should "work" fine. It just seems to me that you're thinking about it as a way of getting around having to do a scarf joint; however, there's no mystery to a scarf joint, it's not hard to do, the results are already field-tested and proven, and anyone can do it even if it's your first one. I can say this because I've only scarfed up one neck, and while I made a very minor flub, it was easily fixed and I could have taken about 2 minutes worth of steps to avoid that one flub. Doing a scarf joint isn't anything to fret about. Greg

I agree-- the fretboard will cover it up and the truss rod cover will cover up the rest. As long as the rod's still fitting snug in the rest of the channel, you're still fine, I would think. Of course, a pic would confirm, as mentioned.

There's always the danger of 'too much information'. I always forget that not everyone needs to know "why"; some people just want to know "how".

Scarf joint is way easier, stronger, and will look better. There's no good reason to do it the way you suggest. No offence meant-- I'm simply saying that if you're doing it because a scarf joint is intimidating you, then don't sweat it so much. A scarf joint isn't all that tricky. Certainly it's less tricky than cutting out and planing a headstock the way you're suggesting. Greg

Whereas most of us forget there's a main page. The 'staggering' on a bridge, when you've adjusted the intonation, is to compensate for the fact that fretting a string can pull the note sharp to varying degrees. Since it's ALWAYS pulled sharp, the saddle never needs to be adjusted to be closer to the nut than the scale length. It will only ever be moved back. In practice, when everything's intonated, you might find that your G isn't actually the one closest to the nut anymore; however, as long as scale length is measured with at least one of the saddles as far forward as it'll go, you'll be fine. I know on a guitar, the high E tends to the be one that needs the least compensation, so it's recommended to measure using the high E. I'm not so sure that on a bass it's ALWAYS going to be the "G", but like I said, as long as the measurement is done with at least one of the saddles all the way (or most of the way-- some people like to give themselves a millimetre or two of wiggle room to compensate for potential minor errors) forward, it'll all work out. Greg

Right click, Save Target As..? Works on this end... ← Not on this end, unfortunately. The dialog box comes up, and wants to save it as, "winder.htm". So I say, "ah screw it, I'll manually change the suffix after it's downloaded" but only 198B get transmitted. Greg

Oh the irony.

How DO you adjust the height on the Fly? I don't see any way. How the heck do you access the pickups at all? Greg

Godin, if you ever go into business, be sure to look me up to spell-check all your literature for you. Using "too" instead of "to" and vice versa does my head in. Greg

Bugger, I can't seem to download the video. It wants to transmit "winder.htm", and there's naught I can do about it. Greg

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you're trying to set intonation by copying the stagger that appears in a photo. Use your tuner! Greg

I don't have a jointer, either. <chuckle> Belt sander would require a jig for me to feel comfortable using it without screwing up the wood, which is just as much (or more) work than the technique I ended up going with. Given my potential output of guitars (one every 2 years at this rate), I'm not worried about the way I ended up having to do it. The right clamping technique is all that I would have researched more carefully! Greg

I don't have a plane. Greg