Page 20 of 24
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:31 pm
by suede
I think it needs more chrome..
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:30 pm
by dodgedartdave
DGNR8 wrote:It's a prototype, and a good one. A sketch, if you will.
My constructive comments are that the tail end needs a slant to match the horns. I also clipped the horns so that it doesn't look too Fender. I like the reverse offset because it balances better with long horn long tail. I have no idea about how it fits the hip and shoulder--you'd have to play it to see if it feels right. I am mental about margins, so I would like a slightly smaller guard to allow for thicker green edges.
Of course it now looks like a bird eating a worm. Well, it's a thought.
Wow. Looks good. I like the suggestions (and the efforts). The reverse offset fits the body very well. I think that it actually it super comfortible fit because it forces the neck to be straight when you sit. This guitar is one of the best balanced guitars I've ever played.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:50 pm
by Aug
dodgedartdave wrote:DGNR8 wrote:It's a prototype, and a good one. A sketch, if you will.
My constructive comments are that the tail end needs a slant to match the horns. I also clipped the horns so that it doesn't look too Fender. I like the reverse offset because it balances better with long horn long tail. I have no idea about how it fits the hip and shoulder--you'd have to play it to see if it feels right. I am mental about margins, so I would like a slightly smaller guard to allow for thicker green edges.
Of course it now looks like a bird eating a worm. Well, it's a thought.
Wow. Looks good. I like the suggestions (and the efforts). The reverse offset fits the body very well. I think that it actually it super comfortible fit because it forces the neck to be straight when you sit. This guitar is one of the best balanced guitars I've ever played.
I like what you've done with the curve of the upper horn, and that you smoothed out the hump behind it. I also agree about the slant on the butt of the guitar, too.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:10 pm
by Doog
I'd be wary of moving the pickups in as far as DGNR8 did, spesh the bridge unit. A bridge pickup with no bite is no bridge pickup at all.
But obviously I know it's just a sketchy rehash, just thought I'd mention it.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:40 pm
by Aug
Doog wrote:I'd be wary of moving the pickups in as far as DGNR8 did, spesh the bridge unit. A bridge pickup with no bite is no bridge pickup at all.
But obviously I know it's just a sketchy rehash, just thought I'd mention it.
righto! the pups will stay where they are.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:54 pm
by DGNR8
Yeah, and don't shrink them down either.
I was supposed to be working! How do you determine placement? Is there a formula? Just wondering. I have never thought about most of this stuff. All I wanted was something more than a Squier Strat not that long ago.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:00 am
by Aug
yea, there's math involved, but I don't know what the measurements are. The Mercury is a 24", (just like a Fender shortscale) and I simply copied the distance. Now, I know there is something called an "invisible fret" where the neck pup should be located, but I don't know about the bridge pup, so I simply mic'd the distance from the center/center of the bridge to the center/center of the bridge pup.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:05 am
by Mo Law-ka
its beginning to look more and more like a toronado.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:41 am
by dodgedartdave
Mo Rocca wrote:its beginning to look more and more like a toronado.
when you see it in person, there will be no mistaking it for a toronado. I hear what your saying though.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:57 am
by James
Mo Rocca wrote:its beginning to look more and more like a toronado.
It hasnt really changed that much though has it?
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:13 am
by Doog
Aug wrote: Now, I know there is something called an "invisible fret" where the neck pup should be located
Invisible 24th fret, it's to do with harmonics, octaves and magic.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:32 am
by robert(original)
fucking sweet!!!
im not digging the guard all trhat much, but everything ewlse is ace
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:23 pm
by roachello
Since it's a prototype and all, have u guys thought of offsetting the bottom curve?
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:12 pm
by DGNR8
Oh of course it would be harmonically determined. Duh. I get it.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:02 pm
by dodgedartdave
roachello wrote:Since it's a prototype and all, have u guys thought of offsetting the bottom curve?
draw up what you mean
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:55 pm
by robert(original)
hey aug/ dave, how do you feel about a 23inch scale neck
i found a fretting template for one.
thing of it, an ultra scale, no one really has ever used one in mass production(to my knowledge)
let me know if you want any, asap.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:19 pm
by Rikki
robert(original) wrote:hey aug/ dave, how do you feel about a 23inch scale neck
i found a fretting template for one.
thing of it, an ultra scale, no one really has ever used one in mass production(to my knowledge)
let me know if you want any, asap.
I found my mustang a bit tough to play up high on the fretboard, and I got slender fingers, 23" would be crazy
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:55 pm
by roachello
dodgedartdave wrote:roachello wrote:Since it's a prototype and all, have u guys thought of offsetting the bottom curve?
draw up what you mean
I apologize for the utter crappiness of my photoshopping skillz, but I think it gets the point across:
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:40 pm
by SmashingPumpkin
Yeah, so that the curve of the body sort of mirrors the slope of the upper horn, that looks good.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:13 pm
by robert(original)
well the only reason i ask is cuz aug had a 64 with a 22.5 scale and he loved it.
its either 23 or a 24.3./4 scale(that i can do)
altho im waithing to see what 5 rosewood finger boards for 20 dollars looks like.
i got some really nice cocobolo from hibdon tho for 86 cents(its usually 60 a board foot.)