GregP

I'm reading late at night, about to go to bed, and my concentration is shot. But since experienced people didn't say anything, I MUST have missed something. That disclaimer out of the way: Why can I see all the way through your guitar? I don't know anything about Jems, but I didn't think there was ANY guitar that required routing right through it except for the trem block. Greg

If they're custom-wound they're probably not Evos. I'd love to see how you get on with a 'manual' version of a 513, though. That'd be super-slick. A sustainer would be great, too, though-- but I could've sworn that even psw's sustainer takes up the space that will be occupied by one coil of your neck humbucker. Still, this guitar turned out wonderfully and I'm definitely looking forward to the next build! Greg

Picture laden tutorials are good, as long as they follow the forum picture rules. (it's true, but I'm mostly just busting your chops because of a recent thread) $90 is what I would consider fairly inexpensive for a decent pickup. I'd say go with the MusicMan style one, but that's just an opinion. Also, for bass even moreso than guitar (in my opinion) it might be worth looking into an active pickup system. Greg

No sarcasm here, either.

Yup, David's response was the needed swing in mood, I think. I have to admit, my original (discarded) response started with "just start doing it" and I used Paul Reed Smith as an example. But then I kept imagining that duo was inexperienced and not confident. Instead of just giving advice, I could have asked him how confident he was about his work. Greg

I agree about the lack of information, so I'm quite looking forward to hearing how it goes. Top-notch worksmanship shown there, eh?

Absolutely. I think we agree and were just miscommunicating. For my part, I mistakenly assumed that you were recommending fretting low notes (ie. on the second fret) and pinching above a fretboard-indicated node (ie. the 14th fret), which is a pretty weak way of doing it. But a 2nd harmonic from a note fretted at the 22nd fret will still get you a shrieker, you got that one right. At half the scale length, you'll still be with a 2nd harmonic dominating the tone, but it will be high-pitched. Your picking hand won't be over the fretboard anymore, but it will still be a half-scale-length harmonic and yep it'll scream. AND, the technique won't have changed from what you were describing. So as it turns out, I have to change my argument and agree with you after all, since you put it that way. Greg

Sure, it all makes sense. If we're not on the same page, it's because my posts are ridiculously annoying to read through at times, since I take 4 pages to say one thing. Let me break it down again, but I can't promise brevity: - I saw you as recommending harmonic nodes that would create 'evenly divided' harmonics such as the 2nd or 4th harmonics. These are very sinusidal (sp?) and predictable in nature. - I countered by saying that the nodes are plentiful, so I'm agreeing with your most recent post in which you say that there is more harmonic content than one would think. In response to your initial post, though, I argued that nodes are found not only at fret locations. And it's the ones found at non-fret locations that contain richer harmonic content and smaller/more oscillations (ie. a higher pitch). - All I was getting at is that the technique you described is not the path toward "screamers", but is simply a harp harmonic with slightly altered content due to the slightly different technique compared to how a harp harmonic is normally played. But, they share the same node, and therefore are very similar. In short: don't play your pinch harmonics over frets. Play them in your normal picking area at various spots.

Since this thread has been bumped, I'll say again that the SpinSaw is an awesome purchase. I've been using it for routing and rotary tool needs, and it's doing both just fine. Greg

LGM - it's not really the physical clicking of the links that's a hassle. It's the not knowing what the heck is going to be behind link 1 of 12, and having to go through all of links 1 through 12 to find a half-decent picture. That's really the only part that irks me. It's far more annoying to go through someone's post with 8 blind links than to just see 3 pictures. On the other hand, and this is the point I think some people are making, it's extra-annoying to see 8 pics, all too large. I agree with that. Greg

Trade you my computer skills for your skills with guitars.

You never know. The local Guitar Centre's technicians might have rather low skill levels. Greg

I have to agree; however, it does make me wonder: When you read magazine articles about guitar-builders, it seems like they all started -somewhere- and that usually meant taking a risk. Since your first customers are your friends, they're already aware that you're not a pro, but they seem confident enough in your fledgling abilities to at least let you give it a shot. Of course, the other less appealing but nobler option is to charge only cost price. You say you want to make a profit, but what you really need to do is ensure that your skills are worth hiring. If you have this line-up of friends already, do at least a run of repairs for free. If your friends are happy with the work, maybe next time they'll hire you. And in the meantime, they'll recommend you to THEIR friends and you can start building a client base. It might seem a better option to go for the line-up of 10 customers you have and try to make a profit from it, but in the grand scheme of things, that profit margin is nothing, so you might as well do the 'right' thing. Either way, though, decide in advance how you're going to 'make it right' if on the off chance you DO screw up some of the work. Every guitar tech started off their career with someone putting a guitar into their hands and saying 'fix it, please.' You're not born with the skills. I'm just not sure how many of them started charging right away, or how much they charged. Greg

Off Topic: I'm guilty of this, too, so the finger of blame is pointed firmly at myself, as well--> Let's all learn to make a conscious effort not to tell other people they've "missed the point". Now that I've been on the receiving end a few times, I realize how irksome it is. No, I didn't miss the point. I just don't agree with your (the royal "your", here) point. There's a universe of difference. Only one of those has the implied message, "you're an idiot who fails to grasp basic communication skills." Back on topic: with regards to the In-Progress vs. Tutorial pics, there's another fuzzy line, isn't there? I mean, at least some of those tutorials started off as In-Progress threads. LGM: that IS very cool, but it's also a high-speed function. In order to have that functionality, the full-sized picture is the one actually loaded, and then it's "shrunk down" when displayed on their forum. Which means that the exact same load time goes into it. Consequently, it addresses the issue of picture sizing in terms of keeping a post uncluttered and well-formatted, but it doesn't address the download speeds of the users. Could even make it worse as users get lazy about making small files. Greg

AlGee-- my point was that it CAN go back the other way equally as easy. Check it out: "OK, for those bitching about all the pictures, all you have to do is change one setting in your browser and you don't have to see them. Click the links only of the pictures you want to see. It ain't that hard." See? They're both valid points of view, and therefore cancel each other out. The browser issue is a non-issue because either side is equally as strong. Regarding the topic itself--I'm not letting myself be painted as some sort of villain again just for sharing a different opinion. I don't go out of my way to break the rules, I didn't say they're hard to follow, and I'm far too old to rebel against authority as a form of self-expression. Before anyone dumps on me for being of a different opinion, please understand that it's simply in my nature to question faulty logic. LGM's initial post was fine, and I have no problem with it, so that's not even who I'm debating with, in case it wasn't clear. I just think that there are circumstances in which multiple pictures are handier in a thread, I think that it CAN be done more efficiently than the current slow and bandwidth-hungry system, and I believe that in a community, there is ALWAYS room to re-address rules and procedures from time to time. It's Brian's house, but he's an open-minded guy and some day (though not today) there may be a need to update this or another rule, and I'm sure he and the moderators understand that nothing's set in stone forever. FWIW, when *I* started using this forum, part of what attracted me was all of the tutorials with pictures showing. If it hadn't been for the neck-through tutorial page, including all the photos, I may not have realized what a valuable resource this place can be. Visual learners (and there are many!) will be attracted by illustrated examples. On the other hand, have you ever scanned a thread with no pictures and sat up to take notice? Probably not. I've likely already missed some very cool topics because my brain doesn't latch on to a list of hyperlinks as an inspirational thing. I've said my share, so unless someone directly comments on the actual suggestions instead of making blanket statements, I guess that's good enough. Greg

Well, yeah... there's a limit. I've gone overboard in the past (in a relevant thread that SHOULD have pictures) since people sent me PMs saying they were enjoying how detailed my progress thread was. I didn't get ANY saying, "could you put fewer pics?" Part of that is probably due to the fact that I'm conscious of size, though, and I've always picked picture sizes that were very quick-loading and didn't garble up the PG display. That is definitely something that I see as a middle ground, but the problem is that who is going to enforce the rules? It seems pretty silly to come into a thread as a moderator and say, "Don't post links without descriptions." But on the other hand, I find it a hassle when people say something simple like: "Check out these pictures of my neck" and then show 7 links. It's even worse than the old system, because not all of those links are worth looking at, but since they're not breaking forum rules, people do it anyhow. And then I have 7 blind links to follow before I either a) find a picture that gives me an idea of what's going on, or give up and don't bother with the pictures, which could inadvertently be a discredit to the person working on the project. Following 7 links that open in separate windows or tabs is certainly more time consuming than having a user just pick one or two of those (the most meaningful or ones that show different angles). 2 vs. 7 isn't much of a choice for me. I'd rather just see the 2. No, but Grimace may have been! I dunno, but he's got a thing against metal-heads. I've tried to tell him that metal rules, but he just keeps playing country and blues, the silly purple git. I mean, in theory, we're all posting pictures because they're relevant and we want to share them and we think that the other members can get some use out of seeing them. I haven't seen many old-style threads filled with complete crap, but I HAVE seen threads containing too many blind picture -links- ever since the rule changed. Greg

Oops, forgot to respond to sepultura999's comments. Lee got one of them right. Pictures posted here do not use PG's bandwidth at all. Regarding the mozilla suggestion-- I use Opera 7, which features tabs. It's still a hassle. I'll admit, it's a minor one. It's not ruining my life. But it's still a hassle. On the other side of the coin, though, if you don't like images, use mozilla or Opera or even IE and do not load images with the webpage. Then, just click the ones that you DO want to see. The end result is even better than the current method, because you still click only if you want to see them, but they come up in the context of the post. <shrug> If it takes using a different browser to make the experience 'enjoyable', then either side could be argued just as easily, and to be honest I think my suggestion above suits the needs of everybody even better, because it even works with IE. I agree completely, BP, about the size thing, though. Frankly, I think even 600 X 600 is too big. 400 X 400 would suit me fine. Greg

Wes: I'm not forgetting anything. I understand the rules, I just don't like them. I understand that's 'tough', and I'm not particularly upset either way. It's an inconvenience, but compared to the huge -convenience- of this forum, it's a trade-off I'm willing to make until people change their minds.

If he already has a lower end PRS, what the heck does he need another guitar for? Not saying we all only need one guitar or anything like that (I'd like to own dozens), but it sounds to me like he's got $1,500 burning a hole in his pocket. Parkers are awesome. I personally think they've just as much soul (or more) than any other guitar, but there IS a certain different vibe to them, for sure. I love Steinberger guitars, and I think they have 'soul', but it's definitely a different kind of soul. <grin> Greg

Nothing, really, unless you had specifically shaped it to stay put. My guitar's the same way, and many other tutorials I've seen do it the same way. In theory, we could have used a system with a round hole for the adjustment nut, but there's no real danger of anything going wrong. Worst case scenario is that it DOES come out. I don't imagine that happening, but if it did, just put it back in. If it slides out that easily, something has already gone very very wrong. Greg

Is this the second thread for this guitar? I only ask because I know for sure that I posted a comment, "either Cheap Trick or ska," and I wanted bragging rights for being the first to think of Rick Nielsen. Greg

I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere, but I dunno. No way am I going through my Project Lucy thread to edit it. If a mod wants to do that, they're welcome to though I'd like to be told in advance so that i can archive the thread first. I know the matter isn't even up for debate right now, so any arguments here are purely academic--> -600 X 600 is way more than enough. I like pics even smaller than that, actually. -However, if I open someone's progress thread, it's because I want to see pictures. It used to be a burning-at-the-stake offence if you opened up such a thread and there were no pics. -Therefore, it's actually MORE work and MORE hassle to have to click each of those pics separately, then close the window that's been opened for it, and also to try to get the context of the picture. When I see someone write, "Notice where I flubbed and got some tear-out" I'd rather just see the tear-out right in front of me. I dunno. Since all of would generally like to see the pics anyhow, I don't see why not just have them posted. I think it's actually accomplishing the opposite intended goal. The idea is that dial-up people won't have to wait while the thread loads. But I'm not on dial-up, the majority of us aren't on dial-up, and the ones that ARE on dial-up are usually still clicking those links anyhow. On the other hand, even though I have a speedy connection, I DO NOT open all of the links, because it's annoying to have to do so, even though in fact I DO want to see the pics. The way I see it, there are 2 different middle grounds: 1. Allow more threads per post, but make sure they're not hi-res 2. Keep the 1 picture per thread post, but enforce a rule whereby the links are described. I'm not going to click "http://www.myphotos.com/Kevan_2005/guitarpicture1.jpg" unless I know what that link is. You should need to put a description along with each link. In situation #1, there will always be people who (for whatever reason) go overboard, and that'll be a hassle. In situation #2, there will always be people who are too lazy to write descriptions, but that's where we're already at. Since either is a decent solution, and neither will be strictly followed all the time by all people, it strikes me that #1 will still be the better option for the majority of the users, who either a) have hi-speed; or want to see the pics and would click the links anyhow. The ONLY demographic that the current rule appeals to is: people with dial-up who don't want to see most of the pictures. That's a pretty limited demographic, and I find it weird that they're the group that would be catered to. However, until I hear differently, I'll make more effort to limit my pics to 1 per post. I'm sure my in-progress thread will be worse for it, but that's life. Greg

I say yes. That's exactly the spot that scarf joints for guitars with angled headstocks are often done, including the very project I'm working on. As long as you can make the fingerboard side perfectly level (for attaching the fingerboard) it will work fine. Greg

A scarf joint should be plenty strong. You don't have to scarf it right at where one piece ends, you could do it in thirds if you want, so that the scarf is actually under the fingerboard. Not sure what the requirements are to make sure that everything lines up perfectly and forms an even plane, or what tools you have access to in order to ensure a job done well, but in theory it's possible. If you scarf up near the headstock, planing the neckwood under the fingerboard wouldn't be an issue, so I guess that's an option. Greg

The threaded inserts idea seems a solid one. Removable neck, combined with the compactness of a Steinberger L-style guitar would be about as compact as it gets. With a removable neck idea, my first thought, though is-- what about the strings? Make sure in your planning phase that you have a way to accomodate the strings. Seems to me that a locking system would work out OK, as long as you can think of a good way to 'manage' the slack strings when the neck is removed. Greg