GregP

If you'd already decided, then why ask? Confirmation? 1. "I prefer the looks of direct mounting." Perfect! No other reason is necessary, then, this is all the justification you need 2. "You can change the tone to a good extent." Well... this was the point of the whole thread, it seems... you were asking if it changes the tone significantly, and I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that "not much." So, saying to a good extent isn't necessarily true. 3. "You can get a good 1/4 closer..." Yes, but that's a separate issue, and you have to be sure you WANT it right up against the neck. Besides, using a 22 fret neck instead of a 24 fret neck will have a more significant impact on tone, if this is an important part of the tone equation for you. Just make it. Enjoy it. Rock on with your bad self.

Sorry, dude, but there's no way that's just the camera angle. The A-string tuning machine is closer to the D than it is to the E. Looking like a good guitar regardless! Greg

Looks good, Matt. Anyone signing up should take note of the disclaimer at the bottom. They've been blacklisted by Yahoo/AOL for spam, which they deny having sent. Just to be safe, though, I registered with my 'slough' account that I use for registering for such things. Then if there IS a lot of spam, it's not clogging up my main e-mail account. Greg

Godin, there's a slight gaps in your logic. Raising the two middle poles won't make your tone more middy. What they'll do is make those two strings get picked up more, ie. make them louder. A mid-range EQ boost is a much different beast, which can and will affect ALL your strings and notes in varied and subtle ways. A note's fundamental may not be in the mids, but it may have harmonic contents in that frequency zone, which an EQ will also alter. Plus, due to the nature of the guitar (the strings being divided mainly into intervals of 4ths), there is a LOT of note overlap. The same note can be played on different strings, as you know. The same note on the B string, for example, won't have the same middy boost as the one on the G with its raised polepiece. I suppose if you want this unpredictable variety, that's a reason to do it. But not for mid boost. Most people will adjust the polepieces for, as mentioned, improving string balance, not for detracting from it. Greg

The strength will be fine the way he did it, assuming that the two pieces mated up properly. I'm also curious about how/why it was done the other way, but I'm not worried one little bit about the strength. Greg

Awesome.

Lookin' forward to it.

Heh! It sounds like you're going to wind them yourself, then? Or get them custom-made? Don't forget to add a coil tap (not just a coil split) if you want the 513 thing. Greg

If it's done the way PRS does it, but without the circuit boards, surely there's no way you can be sued for patent infringment? He didn't invent coil splitting and coil tapping, so there's no way he's got a patent on the technology. You wouldn't be able to market it as a 513 because that's trademark infringement, but the actual electronics themselves should be fine. Mind, that only applies to guitars for sale anyhow. I don't know what the Evo method is, though-- that's a different story and I haven't a clue of it's patented or not. I don't even know what an Evo is. Something to do with Steve Vai. <chuckle> Greg

Apparently the set-in mahogany neck provides absolute ultimate resonance! I never knew! This guy's awesome. <laff> Greg

I think it's pretty much beyond arguing that oil and shellac finishes are less durable than nitros or poly. Not many would argue that oil is as durable, but some would argue that on certain guitars, they can be the right finish and they're not AS soft as the names might imply. You see "oil finish" and an amateur like me first imagines literally that the wood is just oiled like with normal oil. <chuckle> It's been good hearing from other people that certain other finishes can be built up to a certain level of hardness and durability. I'd like to do a French polish on a guitar, but I have no illusions that it'd be as durable as a lacquer. Greg

Bazzacly. PS, that guitar is the shizznit!

Right. I'm still skeptical that potted pickups transmit any of the vibrations in the absence of strings, period. THEN if they do, I'm willing to admit that at least direct vs. rings will impact the tone. At that point in time, the debate really does become, is that difference significant? Greg

Then I'm willing to admit that there may be more to it than I first suspected. I'll try the no-strings thing next time I'm changing strings, and if there's a noticeable amount of signal produced, then I'll reconsider my stance on direct-mounting. It's still not something I'd personally bother with, but I'd be willing to admit that other people might be experiencing more than simply voodoo, which is what I tend to dismiss it as. Greg

Awesome work. I would have guessed blowtorch, too, but that one's already been submitted and turned out to be wrong. Greg

No worries! When approaching a situation, I always think of the pluses and negatives, and decide if one outweighs the other. I believe that there ARE some tricky things that are worth the effort-- when I first joined this site, there was a tutorial on a way to fashion your guitar so that you have clean lines around a humbucker without needing a pickup ring. (ie. so that it looks the way a soapbar would-- clean lines all around, with no 'bump' for the ears). It looked like a lot of work, but since it was the front of the guitar, I thought it seemed like a very worthwhile idea, and the look was great (if I remember correctly-- it's been forever since I've seen it!). So the plus outweighed the negative. Good luck with it, whatever method you decide to go with! Greg

I guess I could try that. Sounds microphonic to me. I can't see any way a pickup is going to generate a signal unless its magnetic field is disturbed. If it's potted and non-microphonic, that's not going to happen with the strings removed as you describe. Muffling won't count, because there are still vibrations happening despite muffling. That's how we can hear even small things like minor string noise. They're not what we think of as 'vibrations' the way we think of properly played notes, but of course they still are. The only way to test is your first way mentioned-- with no strings on the guitar at all. Greg

I meant to ask the other day-- Do you have a pair of tapped and split humbuckers for doing the 513-style wiring? If so, where did you get them? I'd be curious about how many wires end up being necessary for a homebrewed 513. Greg

Amazing. Were I to ever buy or make an Explorer, I'd want it to look an awful lot like this. Greg

#3 is the way to go, being careful of the edge as mentioned. Greg

I'll check out that free one. I've been thinking about doing some CAD stuff. Greg

Of course there's a difference. But there's also a huge difference on an oscilloscope between a single note with a reverb that's 5% wet and the same note with the same reverb, but 5.1% wet. But that doesn't mean anyone's going to notice the difference. I'd be curious to know which 'theory' should give you a massive improvement. The pickups vibrating at the same frequency as the wood won't give you any sort of tangible change to the magnetic field at all. What people seem to forget is that the only thing producing a signal is the metal of the strings interacting with the magnetic field of the pickup. Teeny, tiny, miniscule changes can only be attributed to 2 things: 1. Adding mass to the guitar body by screwing a heavy hunk of gear right to it. This will affect the way the strings vibrate, and doesn't really have anything to do directly with the pickup itself. 2. The barely-detectable 'vibrating' of the magnetic field itself, as the pickup 'vibrates'. However, while we know that the whole body and neck ARE actually vibrating (you can feel it, and it can be magnified by touching your guitar to a door or a wall!), it's doubtful that having the pickups vibrating in unison is having any sort of beneficial effect. Really, reason #1 is the only reason I can imagine as an even remotely logical explanation for any tangible changes in tone. And if you need an oscilloscope to detect them, then it's really a non-issue and aesthetics become the far more important deciding factor, I would think. Greg

If you place the magnets for a 'back' along the edges, and you're conservative and smart in their size and the quantity of magnets you use they shouldn't really have any effect whatsoever on the pickups or strings. Greg

I dunno, dude. If that's what floats your boat, nobody can tell you otherwise. From my perspective, the back of the guitar is the back of the guitar. In the game of tradeoffs, the convenience of an access cavity (and cover) will beat the 'unbroken' surface of the Supreme any day. Seems like a nightmare to install and service. Greg

not sure, What do you mean ← Well, I don't know what radius Floyds normally are-- but I believe they've been available (at least) in 12" radius and 15" radius flavours. Most Tune-O-Matic style bridges are 12" radius. So, depending on what the neck/original bridge were, either you'll have a match or you won't. If you try using a 12" radius bridge on a 15" radius neck, you're going to run into difficulties. Greg