GregP

Hey there, I'm just up the road in Greely. Congrats on your first build. I'm hard for cash, too, but I'm not resourceful so I've spent far too much money on mine already, and I'll be lucky to finish it in the next year. Greg

Could always recess the TOM. Otherwise, looks good so far. Do I detect a bit of unevenness at the edges? A roundover bit could have been your friend there. So far, though, I'm getting rather jealous. Greg

Mostly the latter two. Pawn shops are notorious for over-pricing stuff. Greg

I still palm the neck like a mutha. Lots of self-taught musicians seem to, and whether that's a good thing or not (I vote not) at least I'm in good company. Greg

While it does echo some of the body's curves, I found the body curves and points to be delightfully quirky and unpredictable. I wonder if that spirit could be better captured than your first headstock attempt. Definitely not meant negatively-- but it's very clear what a labour of love the guitar is so far, and it'd be great to see you choose a headstock shape that speaks to you. Greg

Amen to that! I'm ALL about screwing templates. Er.. Well, you know what I mean. Greg

Personally, I've always been able to understand how modes work when isolated... but I've never been able to figure out which songs they should fit into and when writing my own songs, which chords go with which modes. Connecting chord and accompaniment to mode has always eluded me. Someone on this forum gave a pretty thorough explanation of modes and so forth, but it STILL eluded me. I think I'm just thick. Greg

Makes total sense. The only thing the ANGLE should have to do with it though is how easily it allows the string to pass through the nut. If there's a tonne of friction I suppose it could 'bind' up, but assuming a state of zero or at least low friction, the angle won't play into it. Greg

You'd have good reason to be surprised. It's exactly 1/4" at the centre, which means that with the shallow radius, doing it the way you've suggested is sounding like the best option. Greg

That makes sense, Frank. I'd be willing to modify my statement-- there is, indeed, an effect of the extra string length, but not as it refers to tension, which is what people have been suggesting lately. Some people believe that the actual string tension will change depending on headstock. Greg

Seems pretty thin. Also, I didn't realize that the way you described is the standard. I thought that due to tradition if not necessarily function, it should overlap both, thereby "binding" them together. Shows my ignorance. I'll have another look at my fretboard, but I recall it being thin. Greg

What technique did you use to get the fretboard down to size? I couldn't tell by the website. Sanding? Routing with straight-edge same as the neck itself? Also, since the binding overlaps into the neckwood, how did you get a channel only part-way into the neck? Greg

I already have a neck taper that I'm happy with, and I DID use the straight-edge method; except, I used it to make a template which I will then use on a neck. I know it's an extra step for some people, but it gave me confidence that my neck will be the right size, so I didn't mind. Thanks for the link to the binding stuff. I was just going to use this StewMac bit, but if your way will save me some tear-out, I'll give it a try. Greg

Exactly, Setch. PS, I was editing my post to add that second paragraph of mine when Setch had already responded, so he's not repeating information. Independently, we both said exactly the same thing. Greg

MM, you are completely wrong, and I don't know how to explain it. It once took me 4 pages of threads to convince someone, and I don't have the energy to do it with you, given your past track record for being able to listen and digest information. Let me try a short version: Of course pressing down behind the nut affects pitch, because you are changing the tension on the string. Now, without taking your finger off the string, get someone to re-tune the string so that it's a "G" again. You have now returned string tension to its original amount (ie. before you stuck your finger on it). That does not change my argument that position of machine heads, etc., has absolutely no effect on the needed tension to bring a string to pitch. If anything, my claim SUPPORTS the laws of physics. It does not refute them. It's not a bold statement, it's an obvious one. Greg

I'd agree with all of that.

Crap, forgot about the radius thing. I'd want no or very little radius. 12" radius is a bit too curved for a lap steel. Thanks for the idea with string ball-ends. I'll peek into that one. Greg

Any artistically-shaped headstocks now become viable alternatives, too. Before, you had to consider where the whatchamacallits stick out. Greg

Good call, orgmorg. I'll consider that one! The neck has an angled headstock, but will be bolt-on construction. Truss rod channel already routed, and I don't need to drill access holes and all that stuff since it's just a straight channel. The rest of what Southpa says sounds like the #2 option; ie. using the neckwood itself as the template afterwards. That makes 2 votes for option #2. After orgmorg's suggestion, sanding to final shape is sounding more feasible again. Greg

<shrug> Lots of great rhythm players and songwriters can't play a lead. I mean, I suppose if you really WANT to be a lead player, it's a good idea; however, I wouldn't do it just because you feel you need to prove anything to anybody. I'm not much of a lead player, either, though I guess when I step back and look, I'm better than some lead guitarists in some bands, so I can't be absolutely horrible. Therefore, I don't know how much my opinion will count, but I basically learned patterns at first. That got me confident enough and gave me a "crutch" to fall back on when my solos started to flounder, so that I could say, "Shoot, I'm losing it... well, back to the box." After a while, I learned box shapes all around the neck, and now I don't really need to stick to just one box anymore and the fretboard is pretty open to me as long as I stick to certain keys. If all you want to do is play the occasional lead and be able to jam, just learn some boxes. <chuckle> On the other hand, there are better ways. It'll bear more fruit, if you ask me, to get actual lessons from an actual teacher who can show you not only boxes (I think most of us have to admit that we use them) but also proper theory, and they'll (if they're a good teacher at least) get you to identify notes across your whole fretboard. I'm very limited by knowing, "OK, this is where I can put my fingers while playing in E" but NOT knowing, "OK, this is where the G is, so I can flat the G to take this into a different modal direction" or whatnot. I'm a pretty generic lead player, that's for sure, and I think formal lessons would be handy. Greg

OK, Another thing that's just bouncing around in my head... I'm not particularly close to making this, but it'll probably happen before the headless just because of budget. I want to make a lap steel that incorporates string-benders for easier mimicing of a pedal steel. The benders I want to use if I can ever get my hands on a pair are these: Epiphone EZ Bender However, they've gone from saying "back in stock April" to "back in stock September" so my optimism is low. As a result, I'll probably have to design my own benders. Either way, it seemed to me that such a thing would work best with roller nut and bridge. Since a lap steel usually has wider-spaced strings and no taper to the "neck", I thought, "why not just use a roller bridge at the nut as well?" The most economical ones I found were ones like this: GuitarFetish generic roller-bridge Then, the bending system could basically just be a lever that presses the string down, behind the nut (but before the tailpiece), and with doubled roller action, I wouldn't need anything too complex for it to work properly. Any thoughts about using a bridge as a nut, for a lap steel? Greg

My bit has only been used for this one project so far, but it's already showing signs of wear. <grumble> Can't seem to find any robo-sander available locally, which is weird. I would have though Lee Valley would carry something like that. It seems like something that should be easy to "make", too, by modifying an existing drum sander; however, I'm not sure that my confidence in manufacturing shop parts is worth the hassle. If I had only thought of it with my last Stew-Mac order. Shipping is too expensive for me to make another order until my next project begins. So that's one vote for method 2. I forgot to mention-- the reason I'm even considering method #1 is that since the ebony will be bonded to the maple that way, I was imagining less risk of tearing the fingerboard. Any logic to that train of thought? Greg

Hi all, I have my headstock and neck templates ready to go... I have a pre-slotted and pre-radiused but otherwise untouched ebony fretboard, an ebony headplate, and a graph-tech nut blank. Now, I still need to thickness the headstock somehow... I was thinking of just doing it with an orbital sander and using a bit of patience. My main concern right now is the order in which to shape my neck outline (ie not the back, just the taper and headstock shape). I understand that ebony likes to splinter, crack, and otherwise do nasty things when it comes in contact with a router, and it took forever to get this fingerboard in the first place, so I'm not anxious to order a new one. The neck blank isn't shaped yet, either, so I have the whole kit and kaboodle. Here are my options, as I see it: 1. glue it all up and then cut: a ) glue all the ebony on b ) rough out the outline using a fine-toothed blade and a scroll saw (I don't have a bandsaw) c ) use the template and a router bit to shape the headstock and neck outline, but from the bottom since the pre-radiused fretboard will make putting it on top difficult d ) use my binding channel router bit to do its job 2. shape and THEN ebony and then shape again a ) use the template to rout the maple neck blank to the right shape b ) glue on the ebony c ) use scroll saw or a hand saw of some sort to cut off excess ebony hanging off the edges d ) use sanding drum to get it down to shape as much as possible (I don't have a robo-sander to go flush, so I'll have to be careful) e ) use binding channel router bit to do its job The idea of sanding appeals to me with regards to the ebony, but since I don't have a robo sander and I'll be using a router bit at some point in time anyhow (for the binding channel) I wonder if it's worthwhile? Greg

It's true only that a zero fret significantly lowers the downward angle and therefore increased tension caused by fretting in the first few frets... the tension 'behind the nut' has nothing to do with it.... I've notice a few people lately that think the position of machine heads and other headstock details affect tension, which it does not. If I had long enough strings, and a headstock that was fifty yards long with the machine heads at the other end, it would require the exact same string tension as a Les Paul in order to get a .10 "E" string to pitch. Greg

I like the looks of them, and I respect Steinberger as a company, so as long as the design is a true Steinberger design and not just Gibson cashing in on the name, they're probably well worth it. Headless with these down at the bridge area would be great for non-trem. No need for special strings. Greg