GregP

That's a great anecdote, John. I imagine it's probably a cliche somewhere, but I've never heard it before. I'm going to stick that one into my personal repetoire (sp?). Anyhow, don't mean to derail the thread. Looking forward to seeing this puppy with hardware if/when it comes to that! Greg

Yeah, I'm definitely not in that camp. It's not that I think every wood is sacred and every project is to be cherished. I agree that the learning is the biggest part of it, too. I just don't have $150 to toss in the bin, and as people have (perhaps annoyingly!) pointed out in previous such discussions, you can learn by fixing certain kinds of mistakes, too. But, I've definitely come around to agreeing with Drak that it's his money, his time, his perspective, and his right to burn and destroy whatever the heck he chooses. Greg

Looking GREAT!

Yup, that's exactly what I had in mind. I mean, if I DID use 'normal' Floyd, I'd of course first see if doing it by hand worked OK, and if so then no problems. But with cheap tuners (I think I even have an ancient set from an old upgraded acoustic around) making a surrogate "tuning plank" would be a breeze. Greg

Kind of like how it redirected to Pringles not that long ago. And the colours changed not that long ago. Obviously the same person.

That's berzerk. And ugly! But definitely interesting. <chuckle> Well, it's not TOO much about money, but I need a low-noise and small guitar for recording at home. The thing is that although I DO really want one just for the design of it, etc., it seems to me that for the time being at least, if it's going to cost more than $700US, I could just get the Synapse, which is ready to go. I'm usually the opposite way, preferring the general aesthetic of "ProjectGuitar" over "BuyAGuitar", but there are times when purchasing makes more sense. I don't think the gearless tuners would be my ideal option. I want the benefits of a locking floating trem, and the Steinberg ones, with small tuners, would still ultimately cost a similar amount to just getting a speedloader or decent "normal" Floyd and trying the way Scott did it. I'd definitely consider other brands, but I doubt I'd save money. They have to be extremely low-noise to operate in the environment I'm planning on using them in (my EMI-littered apartment, which even an AWESOME shiedling job-- if I do say so myself-- does little to combat). So, alternatives would be something like a Lace or Kinman set (Kinman is kinda low-output, though), or a Bartolini set; and that could run me some bucks. Also, for this particular kind of guitar, I kind of LIKE that "hi-fi" sound. It's part of Martin Tielli's tone that I enjoy and wouldn't mind adding to my palette of tones. All things considered, and for the sound I'm after, a set of EMGs will likely be more economical (believe it or not) than the alternatives. I can't remember wanting the exact Steinberger one, though I may have mentioned it. I agree that there are many ways you could make a better one, including the simple dowel method you outline. I had ideas for the Ergo-Blocs, too. Part of me wonders if I'd be better off going for a "fuller" body from the get-go, though, instead of just sticking to the "L-style" Steinberger body. Thanks for your input! Greg

Not being a Floyd guy, I was just wondering if the remaining slack after "hand-placing" the strings through the nut would be tight enough that the fine tuners could bring you to pitch. It seems to me that the strings will stretch enough that this won't work. A surrogate headstock just for stringing up the guitar would work, using just a set of $10 Pings or something. The more I'm thinking about it, though, the more I'm thinking that I should probably just get a Synapse. They're not terribly expensive, and I'll get a better-playing guitar than what I could come up with. I'm not worried about that per se, but with my guitar-building energy I'm sure there would be other more "interesting" projects I could come up with. Greg

Bumping my own thread back from the dead... but yet, not reading the first 2 pages of it to see if this has already been answered! Doh!!! I noticed Scott French's headless guitar just uses a Floyd nut. How would one get the strings in there with minimal fuss? If it's a feasible prospect, I might have to bring this idea back to life. Greg

It's just a beater. Heck, on my pre-Fender Guild, I went to the neck with some 0000 steel wool to give it a more satin feel. If it's a player (my acoustic is), it shouldn't be sacred. A no-name strat... you've gone nothing to lose by using some steel wool! I don't think sandpaper will give you the right feel, though. Wool / synthetic wool is my suggestion. Greg

I went from a Radio Shack iron (30-watt) to a nice little Weller (is that name correct?) rated the same, and the difference was substantial. There ARE times that a craftsman can blame his tools, and this was one of them. My "craftsmanship" improved 100% after moving to something a touch nicer. Greg

Mikhail, yeah it was the back shot I was thinking about. Now I'm enlightened. Cheers. If I had thought it through, I should have realized you wouldn't be at the shielding stage yet anyhow. <smacks forehead>

Looking great! Shielding still needs some completion, though, if that's indeed what I see. I'm droolin' over here, though-- it's turning out even better than it first appeared.

Poor grounding still doesn't contribute to feedback, though, unless you're referring to something as feedback which isn't actually feedback.

I made some basic covers for my lap steel project, and it was my first time ever trying. I had a few "eff-ups" along the way, but the final products turned out very well. You can see much of the dual pickup "ring" there, and a semi-blurry bit of the small control cover (somewhat Tele-style in its minimalism). The photo was actually meant to show the B-Bender, so it's not ideal, but you get the picture. The wood I used was intended to be a "headplate", and was ordered from LMI for about $5 plus shipping. Greg

Probably not, but most retail guitar stores will either have it in stock or can order it in. Shielding has become very popular, so even the stores in Ottawa (which are usually USELESS for getting specialty stuff) stock it. I ordered mine from StewMac when I did an order. Greg

Did I miss something here? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been finished yet.

I've done both, and it's well worth the price to get copper "shielding tape" for the reason mentioned above: the adhesive is also conductive. It's entirely possible to use aluminum, especially with some careful planning, but I'd rather just throw in that copper stuff. Greg

See, that's what I mean, though-- I understand driving the amp with a crazy-hot signal, but there's still a volume knob that goes from zero to max. Somewhere in-between, surely you can find a spot at which it's not driving the amp. Plus, some amps have a lot of input headroom and won't distort as easily; or even still, a solid-state amp (again, with lots of headroom, because solid-state can still be overdriven) might produce a cleaner tone. I'm just remembering back to the glory days of when after-market pickups first caught on, and people used to think that a pickup like a "super distortion" would actually produce a distortion sound all on its own. Greg

I'm having a sort of conversation about this with someone at the moment, and we both tend to agree that you really only need one or the other; however, IMO you have to take the entire signal path into account: - if your Cavity is shielded (thoroughly), then the wiring inside the cavity is already by extension shielded. No need to use shielded wire here. - OUTSIDE of the cavity, though, in the path from the pickups to the cavity, is there also shielding that's continuous with the cavity shield? If not, then a shielded wire will reject a lot of noise, while an unshielded one obviously will not. And if the wire is picking up interference "on the way" to the electronics cavity, having a shielded cavity isn't going to do diddly. - Does the pickup use shielded wire? That's where the real decision lies. Shielding your pickup and electronics cavities is a no-brainer, though beware that using aluminum products that I've seen will be more difficult to ensure continuous conductivity. But then who wants to hack off an unshielded pickup wire and replace it with a shielded one? Nobody that I know of. Which would mean either shielding the entire path (on all sides) from the shielded pickup cavity to the shielded electronics cavity (this is the way things are typically done), or devising your own shielding. Heck, I don't see any reason you couldn't cannibalize the braided shield from a larger wire, send your pickup wires through it, and make sure it's continous with the rest of the shield. That's what I'd be tempted to do. --- Now, all that written, I'm reminding myself that you indicated it was a P-Bass type. Since you can access all the cavities and the "path" from pickups to electronics, the tape method is probably the best and easiest one after all; however, and particularly with aluminum, make sure you test with a multimeter to ensure continuous conductivity. Greg

I don't quite understand the distortion bit. Do they have an onboard distortion circuit? Or is it the electronics of the active circuit that just get distorted (I'm assuming, in a bad way...?). As long as the output of your guitar is clean (ie. the circuit itself isn't being overdriven) then it should be able to "clean up" no matter what. Greg

I can't say I'm a huge fan of this wood, actually, but IMO the sum is often greater than the parts, so I'm still looking forward to the final product to see if my mind is changed.

So shiny! Well, it's at least a Super8 by comparison, but yeah, I can probably swing that.

No doubt that a volume pedal works the same as a volume knob in terms of regulating... er... volume. I don't think that negates the usefulness of having one on board. I've never met anyone who did away with the volume but kept the tone. I'm just curious about the reasoning behind it, not saying that it's "definitely" a bad plan, just that it's an interesting one and I'd be curious to find out its motivation. Greg

Sorry to post a reply that's not directly helpful, but: why no vol? I've heard of many people skipping the tone control, but never anybody skipping the volume control. Worst case scenario, you only ever have it on "full" or on "zero", that's still something important to have. You're feeding back like mad and you can't pinpoint the cause of it, muting with palm isn't quite cutting it, you reach for the volume. OR, even if it's not really about controlling the overall "volume", in conjunction with an amp, the 'volume' control can act to clean up or dirty up your sound. The gain stage of your amp may be such that it compresses the heck out of the signal and volume doesn't really change the actual "volume", but you can still affect the sound with it. Volume swells, the rare time you need them.... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you must have a reason for it, but even if the reason comes down to a simple, "Meh, I always leave it turned all the way up anyhow," I still strongly recommend putting one in. Now, the tone control on the other hand... unless it's an active tone control... virtually useless. Greg

It's pure genius. I'm a-make me one of those. Well, something similar at least. My work surface isn't that big or nice. Greg