Andyjr1515

It's an acoustic - so it needs yet another jig made Fitting the bridge. Always an area needing accuracy - but particularly with an acoustic where, basically, once it's on it's on. Intonation adjustment is limited to the 1mm difference you can make filing the bone saddle angled towards the back or towards the front. So it has to be right. I use the Stewmac fret calculator app to give me the nut to saddle distances for top E and bottom E, but a steel rule isn't really accurate enough to measure the distances AND get the sideways positioning right. So last night, while watching the box, I made this from some maple binding strip: This is eminently possible to get the measurements right with a long steel rule. Then, the bottom cross-member hooks over the nut end of the fretboard and the top cross member fits into the bridge saddle-slot: I line the jig up to give an even distance between the fretboard edges bass and treble... ...and the bridge should now be in exactly the right position. Fingers crossed

Masterly.

Watching with interest

Not at all a silly question. I put the peak itself a touch behind the nut (ie to the headstock side). The reason is so that a player does not have the peak in the way of their supporting thumb when playing chords at the nut end. But the neck is aleady rising towards the peak at the apex of the headstock angle (ie, under the nut) and therefore I still get the extra thickness and associated strength increase at that weak spot. I'm sure other builders have other strategies...

Bit of final sanding to do, but the neck is pretty much done: This shot is particularly for the member who "does like a nice volute". I hope it meets his approval

Yes - but the size of the core is only one of many factors. The cross section shape of the core (some are round, some hexagonal); the metal they are made of; the thickness and cross section of the windings; the metal they, too, are made of. All of those factors (and more) will affect the tension you need to apply for it to vibrate at a particular frequency and, therefore, at a specific musical pitch.

Beautiful job

It's a perfectly reasonable question. My layman's answer is this. For each given musical note, a string has to vibrate at a specific frequency. Regardless of what the string is made of, the tighter it is, the faster those vibrations are and the slacker it is, the more the string flaps about at a lower frequency. So you can get a rubber band to vibrate at the same frequency (and therefore musical pitch) as a piece of string, or as a piece of wire. The material used, and the size within each material will affect how much you need to stretch them to get the same note. So you will have to stretch a thick rubber band differently to a thin rubber band to get the same note. And - for the same size - you will need to stretch a silicone rubber band differently to an india rubber rubber band for the same note. Guitar and bass strings are just the same. It's not just the size that is different, but the metals they use, and the windings they have around them and event the shape of the windings. And everyone of those differences will affect how much you have to stretch (tension) the string to vibrate at the desired frequency. So if a maker has a combination of metals and windings they are happy with for strength and durability and feel and corrosion resistance and wear resistance and makes ALL of their strings with the same materials, then the only thing that will affect how much you need to stretch the string is going to be thickness. Hence the grades of strings. And - to have compatibility of nut slots, playing feel, etc, most makers have dropped into a convention of the broad size ranges they offer. But if, say, D'Addario, want to make their strings at the same thicknesses as Ernie Ball...but they want to use different metals, with different windings, etc., then the amount they will need to be stretched to produce each frequency, will be different to the Ernie Balls. Somewhere around there is a database of all of the strings from all of the manufacturers with the string tension for a fixed note - they vary CONSIDERABLY across manufacturers and across types of strings from the same manufacturer. Final point. For a given string, how you set up the bass (with one exception) WILL NOT affect the tension at all. You will still have to stretch the string the same amount whether you fit the string on a bass or between two vices! (The exception is an extreme - if your bridge lets you wind back your saddles to the extent where you actually change the scale length, then yes, technically, it will affect the tension). But the opposite is certainly true - the tension of the strings WILL affect the setup. The tension higher or lower will pull on the neck more or less meaning that the trussrod will need loosening or tightening to compensate. Hope the above makes some sort of sense. I'm sure there are more accurate scientific factors I've missed or misunderstood...

Yup - and going to have to again after Brexit!

I'm seeing Matt on Tuesday to give him a 'first fitting' of the neck profile and to firm up the amplification. Then I will be able to put the back on Clearly, until that's on, I can't do the bottom binding and finish off the tailstock, so the walnut and two vertical binding strips here are loose. but gives a decent idea of where I'm heading. The walnut centre-piece matches the rosette and headstock plate: The walnut isn't actually bookmatched - that's a pencil line you can see in the photo - but I was able to find some very symmetrical figuring in the sheet offcut.

Yup - looks fine to me

Excellent tip - and excellent scarf joint! I've never made a success of any scarf joint, let alone a fancy one like this! Top marks

That is absolutely splendid!

Hi, John It is as received...2mm Ref the Peavey - it's just tru-oil slurry and buffed. Tru-oil was just made for walnut, I reckon....

No - just tried that too. Same result. I guess that Rocklite is made up of shorter fibres and therefore at a certain radius they just pop out. The only standard thickness wood binding I've been able to get round corners that kind of tightness was rosewood for this rebody of a Peavey EVH. And this was after trying a number of other woods including maple (I was surprised that maple didn't do the trick): Your thought of laminating thinner pieces might work...

Close - but probably no cigar, @honza992 Part of my problem was actually that my bending iron doesn't have a radius small enough. As such, I ended up heating and squeezing...and, of course the grain eventually objected: Next, I tried bending it over a soldering iron. Again, tricky and - although it was heading for a VERY tight radius, it eventually split out: In actual fact, you'd get away with this with an application of CA or black epoxy and then sanding. The above one is actually quite a bit tighter than a LP horn so I tried easing it over a wider area - it almost got it, but still started to part grain. It's the top right in this photo: I think that if you had a bending iron the right radius, you might just about do it - but there's no guarantee. Also, ironing around a carved former, still done wet and dousing regularly, might support the grain better and enough, but again it's just a supposition... In all cases, by the way, my bending iron was set on hot and I gave each area I was bending a healthy dousing with my water spray before and during the attempts. In comparison to the above, doing the two binding strips for the back of the acoustic was a doddle

Hi! I'm not sure...but it did bend very easily. Tell you what - I've got a Les Paul. If I get a moment tomorrow, I'll try it to see if I can get that lower horn shape

Thanks, folks And so to the bit of a build I enjoy the most. The neck carve This is my neck carve kit: ...and of the above, the humble card scraper is the one I use the most. I had previously taken some profile measurements of Matt's favourite guitar and transferred those onto a plasticard template for the 1st, 7th and 10th frets. I had also taken neck depth measurements and had thicknessed the neck to those dimensions. I scribbled a pencil line down the spine of the neck to make sure I didn't cut into that depth at all. For shaping necks I prefer to hold the guitar or bass a bit like a back-to-front cello and draw the cutting tools up from the heel towards the nut. First to use was the spokeshave (strictly a two handed job but I was holding the cameral here) I use the templates to guide how close I'm getting : Once I've taken the corners off, I quite quickly move to the card scraper (again, two-handed): Getting there... And quite quickly it's at the sanding to final fit stage:

As I said in the earlier thread, resetting the neck angle (which was putting the predicted action a bit high) once the fretboard has been fitted is fiddly in the extreme. It's when you realise just how rock-hard rock maple is! But, although it has taken me all day - early morning until late afternoon - have finally got there. I still have the side -to- side in the right place (it was before, but it is too easy to get it out of alignment once you start tweaking): And - at long last, the beam is sitting where it should be - just at the level of the top of the bridge: And time for a quick mock up:

Second side of the top binding done - again ironed on: While I was doing a swift inlay on one of @wwcringe 's basses yesterday, I did a couple for the headstock of this while I had all the tools out and set up. Standard stuff: Glued with z-poxy mixed with wood shavings: And tidied up with a sanding block: Next thread is today's task. Taken me pretty much all day...resetting the neck angle.

Not weird and probably would look fine. What fretboard wood are you using?

Yes - exactly that! Well found Must get one. You never know what shortages there will be once our jokers have finished with Brexit

It's an old heat shrink iron from my r/c planes days. I must see if you can still get them because this will give up the ghost at some stage! Standard irons are fine for veneering but a bit unwieldy for binding. Hmmm...travel iron might be a thought. If you do have a go, shout before you start and I'll check through whether there are any tips or tricks I've missed above

The Rocklite Ebanol bindings were pretty easy to bend over the bending iron - much, much easier than real ebony! So same MO as the purfling: Only difference is that each couple of inches takes a minute of two rather than 30 seconds. It is essential that both layers of glue melt together and the extra thickness and width of the binding takes more heat. Also, they take longer to cool and re-solidify the glue...more like 30-45 secs. Again, though, this is a fully repeatable process. So for a gap like this - while you are doing it or after you've finished - it can be simply reheated, then pressed in place and held to cool with the gap closed: As a matter of fact, that is what I do. First time round I concentrate on getting the sides attached and the shape held, seating the binding but not worrying too much about small gaps, and then I go round the whole thing a second time, this time reheating JUST to seat it properly - because either side is still solidly glued, there is no danger of each couple of inches pulling out of shape. And after a satisfyingly short period of time, I've got the first half of the top done :

Very nice routing finish.