portugalwillie wrote:the vintage duos look fine. Not really my cup o' tea but the classic vibe duo needs a tinted neck to break up the tan. I usually prefer a more plane neck over the vintage tint but not on those things.
the mustang switch is redundant because there are several positions that give you the same sound. out of the 9 possible positions you can get 4 different sounds. how is that not redundant?
Gotcha, Willie. I agree. Although I hate faking stuff like aging, I do not draw the line at amber-tinting stuff like necks and binding in order to make them more human-friendly. I do agree with you that plain maple neck + desert tan paint = bleeeagh.
Points on the Mustang switches. They are good for other stuff, and if you coil-split on a hummer, for instance, you can easily use all the terminals on the back for lots of options...I am not a wiring guru, but it seems to me that you couldn't do the in/out phase and on/off with slide switches any other way...DPDT would not hack it, so you're left with that redundancy. Why not toggles? Because it would take two toggles, an SPDT and a DPDT, and that was much, much pricier than a couple of slide switches, back in the Switchcraft-only days.
The slides on my '67 Mustang, which I bought brand new, began to bite the dust within a couple of months, incidentally. Switchcraft leaf toggles last for decades.
Mages wrote:some really clever switching for two-coils is that seymour duncan pickup ring thing. no redundant postions there and it has parallel and series. it's kind of engineering genius, I don't know how they did it.
Well it's a printed circuit, you can do anything on those.
portugalwillie wrote:OFFEST IS BETTER. SYMMETRY IS BETTER.
Strats aren't symmetric.
James wrote:If you wonder that you really don't understand what phase is.
I'm not being patronising with that. It's actually fairly interesting. Have a look into it.
Yeah, I was thinking about that and realized that wouldn't really work. IT STILL WAS A GOOD IDEA.
I never said they were? I never said I liked Strats? I was just poking at the fact that you said you didn't like the Duo as much because it wasn't offset and you like the switches because they are symmetrical. I was only joking. Lighten' up, ole' pal.
portugalwillie wrote:The slides on my '67 Mustang, which I bought brand new, began to bite the dust within a couple of months, incidentally.
One slide on my 1965 Mustang was replaced in 2009 and the other is original and working fine as are all the other original parts. Guess I'm a pretty lucky guy.
portugalwillie wrote:The slides on my '67 Mustang, which I bought brand new, began to bite the dust within a couple of months, incidentally.
One slide on my 1965 Mustang was replaced in 2009 and the other is original and working fine as are all the other original parts. Guess I'm a pretty lucky guy.
desertan wrote:
One slide on my 1965 Mustang was replaced in 2009 and the other is original and working fine as are all the other original parts. Guess I'm a pretty lucky guy.
desertan wrote:
One slide on my 1965 Mustang was replaced in 2009 and the other is original and working fine as are all the other original parts. Guess I'm a pretty lucky guy.
you quoted the wrong guy.
Thanks, Willie. Errata, guys. Full credit to the man with the desert tan.
be aware that i also possess the knowledge that a '59 duo sonic is not an offset, so that's a mighty bold statement.
desertan wrote:The original DS like my avatar--it's my '59--was offset, though not radically. Still, the waist is not parallel to the ground plane, nor is it perpendicular to the strings. Therefore, offset.
Mages wrote:some really clever switching for two-coils is that seymour duncan pickup ring thing. no redundant postions there and it has parallel and series. it's kind of engineering genius, I don't know how they did it.
Well it's a printed circuit, you can do anything on those.
..............
yeah, I'm thinking there's a bit more to it than that.
I'm givin it up to Desertan. The Duo-Sonic waist is offset; I've measured it carefully and what he says is absolutely true.
Now there is this classic debate: is the standard for offset guitars not the 10 degrees or so specified in Leo's patent? Well, perhaps, if you're willing to read between the lines of the patent papers and make some assumptions.
But the langauge of the patent papers never defines an offset guitar per se. The patent actually is a description of Leo's design for an ergonomic guitar shape that will balance on the thigh of a seated jazz musician. The language never defines "offset" except in the sense that Leo obviously means the waistline is not perpendicular to the strings, so the weight of the guitar is balanced when resting on the thigh. The degree of offset is specified but this is not worded to establish a standard for offset guitars...it just happens to be the amount of offset he found to be adequate for the particular balance he wanted to provide with this guitar.
The only scientific definition for offset is the measurement of the angle between the true waistline and the taught strings. If it's more or less than 90 degrees, you de facto have an offset waist.
So have at it, debaters. The patent is there for your scrutiny...the ambiguity will be obvious. And the ambiguity means we're free to prefer that an offset guitar has an obviously offset waist. But we are also free to legitimately choose the scientific definition which includes subtly offsets if we like.
Doug wrote:But the langauge of the patent papers never defines an offset guitar per se.
no but the guitars themselves carry labels denoting them as offset. I'm also pretty sure you can find fender marketing info from that time that described the guitars in that way as well. quite simply, before the jazzmaster there was no such thing as offset. any guitar designed and created before it cannot be offset because the concept was not invented yet. it may happen that retroactively you can now measure them and note that they are slightly offset, but clearly it did not meet up to fender's definition since the offset jazzmaster was marketed as being specifically different from these other guitars by way of it's offset waist.
also, I want to note that desertan has my respect as a very knowledgeable guy and I appreciate him posting here.
It looks slightly offset to me, but no more than a Strat, which we don't consider an offset.
I wonder if someone can build a circuit that enables intuitive yet varied Mustang switching options. My favored fashion would be as follows (- for left, + for right):
- - In phase, in series
- 0 Bridge
- + Out of phase, in series
0 - Neck
0 0 Off
0 + Neck
+ - Out of phase, in parallel
+ 0 Bridge
+ + In phase, in parallel
If the circuit was like this, then it would be intuitive yet useful. There's still redundancy, but I never minded that.
honeyiscool wrote:It looks slightly offset to me, but no more than a Strat, which we don't consider an offset.
I wonder if someone can build a circuit that enables intuitive yet varied Mustang switching options. My favored fashion would be as follows (- for left, + for right):
- - In phase, in series
- 0 Bridge
- + Out of phase, in series
0 - Neck
0 0 Off
0 + Neck
+ - Out of phase, in parallel
+ 0 Bridge
+ + In phase, in parallel
If the circuit was like this, then it would be intuitive yet useful. There's still redundancy, but I never minded that.
I guess we must think alike...I mentioned the same idea on page 2. I think it would cool to keep the same look but add more functionality.
When I say 'offset', I'm referring to the geometry, which is pretty obvious, although I would defer to Leo if we're defining it as ten degrees, as the design patent describes.
If we want to use the ten degree standard, I've no problem with that. It's still a short scale, and this is a short scale forum.
Hot Rod, etc., your sarcasm does not flatter you. I'd rather be among friends. I wasn't born with 11K posts and respect you for the work and dedication it took to get there--I have nearly 21K on another forum...we all love these guitars and even newbies have something to contribute as well as lots to learn!
and your high-horse, hard ass approach ain't doin' much for you either.
it's the four posts above that were hard as shit to get straight, and this sub-forum has been more than cluttered over the last few weeks with shit threads covering the same non-sensical kurdtery. i don't know how many times i've clicked 'MARK ALL FORUMS READ,' because i can predict through my crystal ball of sarcasm that it was just incessant swapping of inaccurate facts and 8th grade opinions.
this forum, and myself are plenty n00b friendly. it's the FUCKING N00B's and their inability to quote something accurately that rides me. i'm not speaking for shortscale, and i don't think i broke any rules.
i didn't mean to NOT RECOGNIZE YOU and your wisdom of 20k posts at some other forum, but MAGE pretty much summed it up. i don't have anything further to add in regard to the OFFSET/NOT OFFSET debate, but you're not going to call me out for some petty, sarcastic humor by throwing the rule book at me and have that be the end.
I see that you don't call yourself "Hot Rod" for nothing.
Generally I treat fellow forumites as friends and expect civility in return. There's always a little gentle poking here and there; it's how we bond.
You're not used to acting like a grown-up, although you sure can criticize, and although I expressed respect for your seniority, you turned up the heat and the ridicule. I feel neither hard-assed nor high-horsed, as I've been mostly civil and even-tempered in light of your childish need to be judge and jury, and obscenity-laced, foaming-at-the-mouth rants. After reading your most recent post, I would suggest that the hard-ass, high-horseshoe is on the other foot, in this case.
You will no doubt have something to reply to this, and I will eventually let you have the last word, as that's what you're accustomed to and it's what you expect. I'll back out of this as soon as you've made enough of a fool of yourself (if you haven't already) or cool off a bit, whichever you decide. It's up to you.
.............. 
