Official Luthiers Forum!

I tried to order the LP plans from Pilgrims Project and they said they no longer can sell this item but wouldnt say why. You can see on their website now that the plans are no longer listed.

http://www.pilgrimsprojects.biz/guitar.html

As a machinist, I make my own bridges. Having made the same design out of both 6061 aluminum and 360 brass I can tell you there is no discernable difference in tone or sustain on otherwise identical guitars.

The Les Paul standard uses the Gibson 500T p/u in the bridge position and the 496R in the neck slot. I, for one, love the sound of my Les Paul for blues and rock. The last set I put on a guitar I built were Seymour Duncans. They recommended the SH2N-Jazz for the neck and the SH-1B 59 for the bridge. Turned out pretty well though I might try a higher output p/u on the bridge next time. This combo is also recommend as a direct replacement set for some PRS's.

This clip is me playing one of my builds...mostly using both p/u's in full humbucker mode. The lead work is processed too much to really hear the p/u's natural sound....but I'm very happy with this set as a blues player.

http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/vie ... hp?t=40374

The split coils are thin and weak...as you would expect. I still like that sound a lot though...for strummed rhythm tracks.

The only thing that may get close to what you are looking for are P-Rails. Seymour Duncan SHPR2. They allow switching from humbucker mode to a P-90 coil....which is almost like some straight P-90's I've used. It's hard to say without directly comparing the two....which I can't right now. The P-Rails are pretty cool but in HB mode they certainly don't have the output of a typical high output humbucker.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Thanks for letting us know about the bridge material, Zlurgh.
Just to make it a little harder for you, Kevin,
I recently a/b-ed the S.D. hummer against an EMG hummer,
both with the same 14k ohm output, both passive,
and, well,
they both sounded great,
just different....

I can barely hear a difference (recorded & distorted) between my Les Paul and my EGC aluminum neck thru (lucite body, too). In the room the acoustic differences are huge, but recorded there's only a slight difference. And the pickups are quite different designs!

A string vibrates on two fulcrum points, the bridge saddle and the nut. I think what affects sustain most on electric guitars is the stability in the relationship of the two fulcrums.....relative to each other. A vibrating string will natrually lose energy from elasticity and friction but it will lose more energy sooner if that energy is transfered through one or both fulcrums and into the supporting media.

The body of an electric, as opposed to an acoustic, has too much mass to react to and be displaced by the small amount of energy in the vibrating strings. What it's made of can't matter much when the vibration can't travel trough the bridge and set it to resonate. It doesn't resonate....period. A semi-hollow body resonates a tiny bit, enough to recieve some the string vibration, filter it through the wood, and feed it back into the vibrating string.....flavoring the tone. But I think in the case of a semi-hollow body the vibration travels down the neck to get that started. I don't think much of the vibration comes through the bridge and resonates the free moving wood of the body. An archtop is closer to an acoustic guitar in that the top resonates more freely and more energy from the bridge is transfered directly to the top. Finally, an acoustic guitar is built with the objective to maximize the energy transfer to the top from the bridge.

If you buy all this then it goes to the point that the NECK wood of an electric guitar, to what degree it has any affect, has the most profound effect on tone. If energy can only be lost through the fulcrum at the neck end...then it follows that the stability of the neck and the wood it's made of will be a controllable variable when determining tone.

I'm processing wood to make roughly 35 necks. I'm making ten guitars with necks that will range from hard wenge to soft port orford cedar...and everything in between. I'll certainly be able to prove or disprove this theory over the course of making these guitars.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

So you are going to make 10 guitar EXACTLY alike, except for different woods for the necks (Same pups, nut material, etc.?) JUST to see the subtle differences in sustain? I bet you can get a government grant for this! Be sure to send your scrap wood to me - I'll use it for inlay!

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

They'll all be made from from different woods....mostly.

The idea is to have made 15 total for the additional finishing experience and to have something to photograph for an upcoming web site. 50 necks...50 bodies...50 guitars worth of partially processed wood....and 15 finished guitars. I expect most people will judge that pile as a respectable amount of experience before one passes himself off as a luthier.

I'm filled with theories at the moment. The main point in making these guitars is to prove or disprove certain theories I have so I'm not making stuff up when I talk with people on the phone. I do pretty well on my feet talking....but not if I have to remember my lies.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

@ Stuart - gotcha - that makes sense - I stopped telling lies years ago, because I found it hard to keep track of them - I told that to my wife and she told me she keeps a log book of all of her lies, but I still have never found it - I think she may be lying.

As for the "Luthier" status, my theory is that anyone can call themselves a luthier if they have built a stringed instrument - I have not seen a law anywhere in regards to this "naming" function. Too much grey area. Someone can build 50 really bad guitars and claim the name, but do they deserve the name more than one who has made 5 really good ones? Just a name, but if you are interested, I hear that the *real* luthiers grow long beards and I don't see that on your avatar.... yet

BTW - I love reading your posts - your wit and intelligence is far above my normal exposure, and it's always refreshing to read!

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

Be patient, Virg. A new Czar will be along presently.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

I don't know why I sometimes don't get email notifications when new posts are made to this thread.

Anyhow, I've gone ahead & decided to wire the humbuckers "the regular way" without any bells & whistles. I also ordered a set of Seymour Duncan SH-1 '59's. They're a bit more but I've heard good things about them from all my friends who are experienced players, unlike myself.

This neck discussion is also very interesting. I look forward to hearing your conclusions Stu.

Thanks for all the replies.

Kevin Looker

_________________
I'm not a luthier.
I'm just a guy who builds guitars in his basement.
It's better than playing golf.