GregP

You'd probably need some tom-foolery with a push-pull pot or a superswitch, but using the PRS style of switching can give you some strat-like tones, or at least as close as you can get with that kind of guitar and keeping it hum-cancelling. The two outer coils in parralel should do it.

Weird, their server isn't showing me the pic! I can imagine, though, that it's a spacer so that you can raise the dogeared P90 if you need it to sit higher. That sound about right?

I know the problem's solved, but just to add to the tone knob idea: I believe with the right choice of lugs, you can have it so that 10 - humbucker, 9 and below (ie. you don't have to go all the way down to zero!), single coil! That's what I had on my guitar, SORT OF... I actually used the volume knob rather than the tone control, though. Volume at full: humbucker. Volume 9 and below: single coil. Now, with LK's help, I have a kick-butt 5-way selector switch instead. Greg

I STILL don't know what you mean. <chuckle> My soapbar P90s are spaced using springs. I've also seen them using rubber tubing before. Never rings, though. Dogear aren't spaced at all, they're just screwed right down.

Rings? P-90s don't use rings. So confused.

Now, if you're not shielding your cavities with copper foil, it's a bit easier to explain: Ground all of your pickups and pots to one spot, including the ground to the jack. When shielding the cavities, it's best to keep anything that could be considered part of the "shield surface" (ie. non-conductive braids, pickup covers when possible, {sometimes they're already wired to the pickup's ground which is fine, too!}, pot shells) as one part, which is why they're all wired to each other instead of to the central spot. That's the main difference between the shielded-cavity and non-shielded-cavity approach. Greg

Or, perhaps you're overestimating how complicated it needs to be. Even on a regular guitar or bass with perpendicular frets, the single scale doesn't end up being absolutely perfect, because the nut is generally narrower than the bridge. This would be the same thing... no matter how you graduate the strings, they will be more or less accurate just by connecting the dots, as I've said. If you have some sort of insane graduation whereby the strings have huge gaps at the nut and only wee gaps at the bridge (ie. the opposite shape of the norm) then I suppose you'd run into intonation problems... not to mention a flawed design. If the graduation at the nut follows the same ratio as the graduation at the bridge, your guitar will intonate even MORE correctly than a single-scale (not fanned) instrument with even spacing at the nut and bridge. If the ratio of graduation is a bit different at the bridge than at the nut, as long as it's still within reasonable parameters, it'll end up being at least as good, if not better, than a standard instrument. In terms of approach, there's nothing wrong with doing a drawing first, either. Then the perpendicular fret would be determined by the way the dots got connected, rather than deciding which fret is perpendicular first. Either with a top-down or bottom-up approach, I think we can all agree that actually cutting the slots would be the tough part.

Well, the placement of the bridge is still important for how the strings will relate to one another in terms of spacing, it's true. BUT, scale length does not and in fact SHOULD not be calculated for each individual string. You do the scale length for the lowest and highest strings, connect the dots, and everything else lines up properly for scale length. It's math. Now, we know that bridges are generally compensated, but that's due to differences in tension of individual strings, not due to different scale lengths for each. If your low string is, say, a 38" scale, and your highest string is 35" (or whatever), then you put a dot at the right spot 38" away from the nut slot, the high one at the right spot 35" away from its corresponding nut slot, and then draw a line. The saddles on your bridges are moved forward as far as they will go while remaining stable, and then the point of contact with the saddle is on the line you drew, no matter how you've decided to graduate the string spacing. Then, once you've strung up, you can compensate individually. Compensation will always require that you move the saddle back from its true scale length, never forward. Greg

Ah, but that's the sneaky bit. It will! Even if you put the 2nd-lowest string an inch away from the lowest, and the subsequent string only 1/8" away from THAT string, each of them will see its own scale length correctly. It's one of those wonderful times that math just allows everything to work out. Greg

Fanned frets largely take care of themselves. Think about it-- when you see an instrument with fanned frets, the frets themselves are still straight, right? No need to calculate the distances for each string. You simply make the low string a different scale than the high string, decide which fret is exactly perpendicular (ie. the 12th! Perfect choice! ), and take it from there. It's just connecting the dots after that. No matter what your string spacing ends up being, as long as your low string and high string are figured out, everything in-between will naturally fall into place. That doesn't mean that in execution it'll be easy. Unlike a standard fretboard, you can't just cut the slots at 90 degrees. I'd imagine (haven't done it myself!) that the difficulty is in getting each different slot lined up and precisely cut. To get the right distances at the bridge, you almost have to use individual one-string "bridges" like the one on the bass of this thread, though. Speaking of this bass-- I am too much of a schmuck with bass to go beyond 5 strings (actually, I'm quite happy with 4!), but I absolutely love the design and execution of this particular instrument. Unbelievable work. GOTM contender, for sure! Greg

I absolutely HATE super-low action. The only reason I continue with moderately low action is to facilitate a certain level of speed and to keep the intonation in check. On my acoustic, I'm at roughly 3 or 4 mm high right now at the 12th fret. That's just a complete guess... no point getting out the ruler. It's high, I know that. Greg

Actually, that's the best idea, blakeish. I use an "O" terminal. It can be anything, though, really, like a steel washer, or even just connect'em all up with one of those screw-cap thingies, whatever they're called. Assuming that your cavities are all shielded with copper foil or whatnot, the pots will actually touch the foil and therefore add themselves to this continuous 'ground' circuit. Braided cables (which you don't have one of) that don't use the braid as an actual conductor are also soldered to somewhere on the cavity... it doesn't matter where. Consequently, the wires running ground from pot-to-pot can and SHOULD be desoldered, too, with only ONE ground wire going from a pot (or other location-- stay tuned for below) to the star. In the end, you should have: 1. A continuous ground "cavity". The copper/aluminum-lined control cavities and pickup cavities are all electrically continuous, and when the pots and switch are screwed in and the chassis touch the copper/aluminum foil, they become a 'part' of this one continuous ground. With a multimeter, you should be able to touch one end to a pickup cavity and the other to a potentiometer's 'shell' and get a circuit. 2. ONE ground wire that connects this "cavity shield" to your final ground. I use the back of a pot, but guitarnuts.com recommends to solder a 400V, 33uf capacitor (a big red one!) to an O-terminal (yes, a second one, not the 'star' one) and then put the O terminal onto the potentiometer shaft, on the inside of the cavity. (ie. between the pot and the guitar itself) This replaces a "wire" that would ground your cavity to the star. Therefore, this capacitor now gets soldered to star. 3. The rest of your grounds now go to the star as well. 4. The output jack's ground also gets soldered to star, and is now the only 'path' for the electrons to get grounded to. That done, wrap some electrical tape around teh whole 'star' so that it doesn't accidentally touch the conductive cavity. Now you don't have any ground loops, which can cause hum! Sorry if that was too involved. I could either draw a picture, or you could head over to guitarnuts.com and check out their shielding (Quieting the Beast) section. It's far more useful for single-coil-equipped guitars, but it certainly can't hurt a humbucker-equipped one, either, if for no other reason than removing potential ground loops. Greg

I agree. I've seen a couple user reviews now, and the 2 extensive reviews (plus several quick "I love its") are bringing me right close to buying one. Greg

Hey all, I'm highly intrigued by the Line6 UX2. It's a bit 'inferior' to the PodXT due to the reliance on a computer for processing the signal, but since I mainly do computer-based recording anyhow, it's looking a fantastic option for me as I move toward dumping some coin on amp modelling. Anybody hear anything about this yet or have any personal experience? Here's the page: http://line6.com/toneport/ Even the UX1 would be cool for many people, but if I'm going for one, I'm either going all the way cheap (GuitarPort) or dropping coin (TonePort UX2). Greg

</flashback> ← Not sure what you're flashing back to, but by coincidence, this bass DOES have flatwounds! But they're not too nasty. They're remarkably corrosion-free and I kind of like the sound of them. LK - an 8-string would be sweet. Did your Hag have the damper on it? This model was made with one available, but I don't think my pops ever purchased that option.

As my pops isn't currently in a band and when he pulls out his bass it's likely to be his American Standard Jazz anyhow, he's given me his old workhorse bass on permanent loan. (ie. until I get a bass of my own). This isn't it, but mine looks exactly like it: HIIBN or something like that is the model name. You can't see very well, but there's a switch of some sort on the upper horn. A 2-way. I'm not sure if it's meant to be just a 'kill switch' or not, but that's certainly what it's doing. Might just be faulty wiring. Then the controls are just like Les Paul controls (2 tone 2 vol, 3-way switch). Hasn't been played in years, but when I pulled it out, I found the action to be much more to my liking than the Jazz! The neck is in great shape, but the frets are crapped up. I'm going to mask off the fingerboard and take some steel wool to them tomorrow. Not sure if that's the exact right thing to do, but I have the confidence borne from knowing that I certainly can't make the frets any worse. "Mine" is actually in better shape than the one in the photo. If my camera decides to cooperate with me once I've de-gunked the frets, I'll post a shot. It's a real player! Greg

I guess I'll send him a question... if HE has the measurement, he should be able to tell me if they'll fit my guitar. Too bad my guitar's not 3X3... because they I could make use of them even if they didn't fit. But I need 6 inline. Greg

So, I have a Yamaha Pacifica 302, the telecaster-style one. Though, I imagine Yamaha uses the same-sized tuners on all their Pacificas. I want to get a set of these: Ebay Auction for Tuners But I'm not sure they'll fit. My tuners don't have the 'tag' for the extra screw, either, but I'm not too fussed about that. I'll just drill new holes or ask him if he ever stocks the kind without tags. I just want the thing to fit the headstock as-is without a lot of fuss. I'm not interested in drilling the holes larger to accomodate new tuners, for example. What's the most common way to measure these things, so that when I send him a question, he'll be able to provide an accurate answer? Greg

I'm thinking of adding a set of these as an 'upgrade' to my Pacifica, and maybe to use them on a forthcoming Lap Steel project as well. Now, despite the name, I understand that they're not truly 'locking' tuners. BUT, due to the simple engineering, I wonder if they're at least an improvement over standard tuners. I can't find an official Wilkinson site, but an eBay auction describes them: Here's the eBay auction while the link's still alive: Click me! Basically, the short version is that there are 2 holes instead of the 1 that goes through standard tuner posts. They're also staggered in height, though that's not a big deal for me. Because they're not straight, the windings have more 'grab' when you tune to pitch, meaning that you don't have to have as many wraps, and that they should theoretically hold on better than a standard tuner. The other option, if I don't go with these, is the "locking tuners" (doesn't seem to say brand name or anything) found for $30US (+shipping) at WD music. The Wilkinson ones are $27 + shipping from GuitarFetish eBay store. The WD one seem more like 'true' locking tuners, but not necessarily high quality. The locking mechanism looks suspect, and they're certainly "no-name" tuners. Neither seem to indicate the gear ratio, though the generic (ie. $9.99 if they were bought retail, I'd wager!) tuners on the Pacifica aren't going to be any better so it's pretty much a non-issue. Greg

The 'snapping' trick is pretty much common fare, but more usable for straight lines than the curves of a pickguard, I would think. Greg

Holy crap. And what was the keyboard player thinking?

Scarfing is so easy. I'm a complete amateur numpty still, but it wasn't a problem to scarf-joint my neck blank.... Not nearly as problematic as trying to inlay my own fretboard. Greg

Well, that was my question, I guess. Didn't see the P-180 there. I see a Dream 180 which is a humbucker, not a stacked P90. The rails from Frank should do the trick just fine, though! I hope the build doesn't take long. The only thing that'll hold me up will be 'engineering' the roller system. Greg

As Erik alluded to, the only place where you really need to be checking is at the input level of your soundcard. If you have an onboard or Soundblaster-type card, it might not have metering. If you already have some pricey gear and want to record, I recommend plunking down for at least something like the Audiophile 24/96 if you don't have such a card already. Other noise is often introduced by aggressive soundcard settings. Soundcard inputs operate using a 'buffer', and if the buffer is too small (which WILL give snappier real-time performance), you get pops and crackles during playing or playback. Not sure that's what you're experiencing, mind... doesn't sound like it. Digital recording is a slightly different game than the rules we're used to from analog tape world. It used to be with tape that you needed to 'print' as hot a signal to tape as possible. But in digital, if you record at 24- or 32-bit (not determined by the host's resolution, which is a different thing, but by the soundcard itself) you can safely record at -10dB average, peaking at -6dB or so, which gives you lots of room for accidental "mega-whacks" of your strings and so forth ("mega-whacks" being the technical term). Then once you've recorded, you can either destructively (ie. permanently on the audio file) or non-destructively (ie. using a virtual volume knob) bring your level up, without getting the 'tape hiss' that was a problem back in the day. The problem with digital is that you absolutely cannot exceed 0db. The second you're at +0.000000000001 dB, you get a nasty-sounding digital clip. It might be small enough that you won't notice it, but it'll be there and it'll be irreversible. This is different from tape, in which the tape would naturally compress the signal and soft-clip it rather than truncate (hard, digital clip) it. Greg

Heck yeah, a strat single-coil would sound great. I mainly want something hum-cancelling because my apartment is littered with EMI as it is. (electro-magnetic interference). A stacked tele or strat pick-up will do the trick, but I thought I'd go for something with a bit of muscle to it, in the form of a stacked P-90 (aka a P-100). P'raps I'll just get the GFS Li'l puncher after all. Then I can switch between humbucking and single-coil, though the single-coil mode will never sound exactly the same as a 'real' single-coil. Greg