maxrossell

From experience I'd say that if it's your first time doing a sunburst, a three-tone might be a bit ambitious, because you're twice as likely to overspray and have to start over. That and if you use trans blue to solid blue, you'll get the effect of the apparent wood grain disappearing before it gets to the black, which could look odd. As this is only your second refin (correct me if I'm wrong) then if I were you I'd go for a solid colour, a trans blue or a black, and concentrate on getting that perfect, and then on your third project maybe try a sunburst once you're more comfortable with the technique (burst is really hard to achieve well with cans, and even pro guys using paint guns have to train for ages before the're allowed to do bursts). If you really really want to have a go at sunburst then I'd recommend just doing trans blue to black.

[quote name='metaltime' post='659797' date='Nov 20 2009, 12:25 AM']I would be interested in some examples of this in the tech metal genre. Can you think of any obvious examples?[/quote] Dragonforce. A while back I ran into a couple of guys who delivered cables to the studio where they recorded Ultra Beatdown and they saw the guitarist who isn't Herman Li cutting some harmony parts over a half-speed session. To be fair I couldn't even play their parts at half the speed, so kudos on technique either way. Not that I particularly like their stuff, but hey.

When I started out playing guitar and bass and stuff (we're talking maybe '91 or so) I was really into anything really shiny and sparkly and pointy and modern. Trans blue and green flame maple finishes, Ibanez RGs, thin 24 fret necks, Floyd Roses, EMGs, all that stuff that we associate with "modern" guitars. With amp heads it was like, the more knobs and channels and functions and LCD displays the better. Now that I'm at the tail-end of my twenties though, it seems that I've totally changed my tastes and now only older stuff will do. By that I mean older designs. Les Paul Standards, Strats, Esquires, old Gretschs, Precisions, Jazzes, maybe at a push a Flying V. I also only really like single-channel valve guitar amps, and I've totally gone off modern bass amp heads. More than five dials on the front of an amp and I probably won't want it. It's gotten to the point where I generally won't look at a piece of electric music gear unless it's got valves and simple circuitry in it, and I literally would rather not play an instrument if the model wasn't being made over forty years ago. I'm not rich enough to afford actual vintage gear, so at the moment I just stick to the least modern gear I can find. but if I had the money I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't own any instrument, pedal or amp that was built after 1980. I'm curious to know - do you guys think this is a realistic and reasonable approach to music gear, or do you think it's just snobbery and pointless nerdy obsession? Do you share my infatuation with older equipment, or do you believe that modern stuff is better?

This probably a stupid question, but what's a duck tail?

With an S serial it's either '77 or '78.

My two cents: The headstock on that has not been "cracked slightly", it's been almost broken off, and then badly repaired. Based on that, and bearing in mind that I don't know what he's asking for it, it sounds like he's trying to minimise the damage and therefore I assume he's trying to get more for it than it's worth in this condition. Then I suppose you have ask yourself what other quite serious damage he's trying to pass off as "cracked slightly".

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659586' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:07 PM']I had a Fostex 250. It cost me £500 at trade in the early 80s!!! I could get 10 tracks out of it, though, with some bouncing.[/quote] Yeah. It blows my mind that my Tascam 488 set me back £600 in 1997, and now you can pick one up for a tenner on the 'bay.

Good price at £300. I'd have it if I were you.

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659525' date='Nov 19 2009, 07:09 PM']In the 80s I used to record a lot of my own stuff on a Portastudio. I discovered that playing something with the tape slowed down and then speeding it up to pitch made certain things sound tighter. Is it true that technique was used in the days of tape in recording studios? Some recordings I hear from funk bands of the 70s and 80s sometimes sound just a bit too good and tight, especially the horns.[/quote] Yep. It's still used now. Listen to some of the guitar solos on some of the more extremely technical prog-metal albums. They have parts that if you see the guitarists live, they literally can't play that fast. It works even better with digital audio because with timestretch effects you can speed up the rhythm without affecting pitch. I also used the tape trick a few times on my porta 488, but it didn't always work depending on the instrument.

Sweet. Thanks for the advice, dude.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='659384' date='Nov 19 2009, 04:27 PM']But you think it's okay to prime over the sanded existing finish? From sanding, it's really thin anyway, and it would save me a lot more sanding.[/quote] Also, should I use white or grey primer, do you think?

[quote name='henry norton' post='659383' date='Nov 19 2009, 04:25 PM']Yes, prime it unless you want a patchy, uneven top coat. 2 or 3 thin coats of white primer will ensure you've got a good base for your off white. The difference is an hour or so of work and another can of paint but the results will be worth it.[/quote] But you think it's okay to prime over the sanded existing finish? From sanding, it's really thin anyway, and it would save me a lot more sanding.

Hey hey I'm in the process of redoing a trans-walnut Std Squier Jazz I bought off here a while back. I'll be slinging some new pups in there as well but I'm already sorted for that. What I'm wondering is specifically the best way to treat the body - I'm going to do a refin in olympic white (or similar off-white), but I'm wondering if I need to prime this - the surface of the original finish is now sanded to a good surface for painting, but I'm concerned that since it's a dark brown-red it might affect the appearance of the colour coat too much. So what's the best course of action, bearing in mind that I want to make this a quick project and I'm not particularly picky about the exact colour I get as long as it's vintage-creamy? - Sand it back to bare wood, prime it and paint it (I don't want to do this if I can avoid it) - Shoot what I have now with a thin layer of white primer to give a better colour base, or - Just shoot what I have now with the final colour coat. Also, has anyone used Montana cans for a refin project, and does anyone know where I can get them online (I don't fancy dragging my arse all the way down to Surrey to find a stockist)? If so, do you know which of their range would be best for an olympic white colour? Any advice greatly appreciated. P.S. All this will depend on whether I can resist just going to get a can of vintage white Plasti-Kote from Wilkinson's and doing a relic job on the whole thing when it's finished.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='658863' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:15 AM']Yup. That's how it started for me, too. [/quote] I know what you mean. Every six months I say "Right, time to streamline" and eBay everything, and then six months later I've somehow accumulated twice as much gear as I had before. I'm terrible like that, I always think I don't have enough. The other day I was moaning that I didn't have enough microphones, so the girlfriend pointed out that five dynamics and two condensers is more than enough for a little project studio, especially considering I only even record one sound source at a time. I think the worst thing is that at the moment I'm getting obsessed with vintage valve gear, so it's all three times more expensive. And older racks have fewer features, so you end up having to get more, and it's usually bigger so it takes up more room. But I love it so much.

Actually I just checked - as standard, the amp has four 12ax7s and one 12au7, so right now you're running at an average gain factor of 84. You could reduce that to 68 if you just yank one of the 12ax7s and jam another 12au7 in there. Save you replacing the lot, as well. And if it's still too gainy you could just do the same again.

[quote name='joegarcia' post='658837' date='Nov 19 2009, 02:47 AM']How would they compare with the Philips I linked to above you reckon?[/quote] To be honest, I'd say that if you went for a 12au7, which has a gain factor of something like 20, you'd lose all of the fat warmth and valve character of the amp. If you're worried that the 5751 might still be a bit too gainy, you could go for a 12at7 instead, which breaks up less. It really depends on the extent of the problem you're having. If it's only breaking up a tad more than you want it to, just cut the gain by a third, it should be plenty. Or if you want to get really far into it, you could mix and match, maybe three 5751s and two 12au7s. I dunno, it's your call.

The 5751 has the same plate resistance as the 12AX7, but the gain factor is only 70 compared to 100 for the 12AX7.

[url="http://www.watfordvalves.com/product_detail.asp?id=1564"]http://www.watfordvalves.com/product_detail.asp?id=1564[/url] There you go.

You could try 5751s. They're low-gain. Groove Tubes are £13.50 a pop.

[quote name='joegarcia' post='658825' date='Nov 19 2009, 02:18 AM']Yea, it's an active bass but I tried with a passive too. Rolling off the bass stopped the breakup but then it wasn't bassy enough I spent a long time playing with eq and different gain structures but couldn't get enough crushing low without nasty breakup. I don't mind it not being clean at all but it's not a pleasant kind of distortion really. Thinking about these: [url="http://www.watfordvalves.com/product_detail.asp?id=644"]http://www.watfordvalves.com/product_detail.asp?id=644[/url][/quote] Is it 83s in there right now?

[quote name='MythSte' post='658791' date='Nov 19 2009, 01:05 AM']If your talking about apes fight back, i thought they where awesome. Stop being such a misery guts![/quote] They had exactly the same problem that people are talking about in this thread. It's interesting for maybe one or two songs, but the gimmick wears thin over a set. It didn't help that they were self-consciously "crazy", either.

What bass are you playing? Is it active? If not, did you try rolling off the bass volume a little?

[quote name='NickH' post='658799' date='Nov 19 2009, 01:23 AM']You might want to put a thought towards the total weight of the thing too, especially if there's to be any kind of power amp involved. Depending on the kind of wood it is you might be thinking about some very hefty screws. I take it this is for a home / studio recording setup and not going on the road at any point? + 1 to the thermal issue mentioned above.[/quote] Yeah, it's for home stuff, no power amp as I have powered monitors. To be honest I can't see myself getting an awful lot of rack gear, maybe some mic preamps and comps and EQs, a patchbay, possibly replace my audio interface with a rackmountable I/O, stuff like that. It'll still be quite heavy but I don't plan on moving it around. I'll bear in mind to check the ventilation and I've planned to leave good gaps between the gear and get mesh panel blanks for the front. If necessary I'll install additonal cooling fans. I'm pretty sure that the wood's solid enough to hold everything fine as it's made out of big thick pieces of veneered high-density chipboard, which in my experience is tougher than real wood. As long as I'm careful to pre-drill everything properly and get some long screws it should be okay.

I suppose the only advice I could offer you is to make sure that it doesn't become "Look at how technically good the bass player and drummer are". That being said the other month I gigged with a band that was two dudes, one guy with a Rick through a fuzz pedal and a drummer who also sang. They played really energetic alternative post-punk. And they SUCKED.

Are we doing guitar porn? Here's mine: