Alternative Guitar Design

The Bobber - the black SG is further reduced

2012-01-24T02:05:00.000+01:00

My black SG has had to go through further alterations. I am trying to see, how much you can modify a stock guitar into something ergonomic. Since cutting away is easier than adding on, i've carved a "shark bite" for thigh rest. It allows the guitar to be balanced in a classical playing position with the neck pointing upwards.

On the bass side, I carved a concave area for the strumming/picking hand. It does away with the sharp edge and makes it easier to hold the guitar.

Both were covered in damp-shaped leather, fastened with epoxy glue and copper tacks.

The shark bite made it necessary to relocate the controls, so I added a series/parallel switch mounted in a slanted copper pipe end cap. The jack enclosure is from copper tube and brass plate. The volume and tone knobs are located in what's left of the original control cavity.

The tip of the bass side horn was replaced with a brass one, while the length of the treble side horn was reduced considerably and topped off with a brass cap.

I am going to abandon the new coarse tuner system for now, so next steps on this guitar might be tidying up the headstock brass plate and remount the old high e coarse tuner.

Improved thigh support

2011-12-05T13:11:00.001+01:00

The Lectus Testus has gotten a more adjustable thigh support. The fine-adjustment screw might be over the top... there's a limit to _how_ precisely you need to adjust it, but it _is_ a testbed (and it all is a hobby and supposed to be fun), so on it went anyway. The thigh support was twisted slightly in relation to the body of the guitar. Now it better follows the curve of the player's hip when sitting.

Also added was a treble side horn, giving the player the option of resting the guitar at his thigh in a "traditional electric guitar" style. Unfortunately, the thigh support is now in the way of the flexible outer cables that went from the side of the body to the thigh support, so they had to go for the moment. I might relocate them to the other side of the body.

The whole instrument functions nicely as a playable testbed. It has begun to develop some rust on the steel body, so polishing and bluing might be some of the next steps. Tuning is acceptable, but not extremely smooth. Filing and lubrication should impove that. If not, I'll have to use finer thread (M4 X 0.35).

Coarse tuners part 5

2011-11-06T00:56:00.000+01:00

The coarse tuners that I made for the black SG with the Schaller fine tuning bridge were - after all - too troublesome to string and adjust. I've made another attempt, this time consisting of
- a hex screw going through the head plate,
- an acorn nut with a hole for the string and the top cut off,
- and a hex blind screw going through the top of the acorn not, securing the string against the end of the big hex screw.

All screws have been shortened and filed flat at the end. Many other tubes, screws, etc, can be used. The string is secured at the bridge end, inserted through the hole of the acorn nut.

It seems to work nicely, but I'll have to make some more and try different string gauges.

New tuner, bridge, jack and tubing

2011-10-27T12:47:00.000+02:00

This last month I've been improving some details of the testbed guitar:

The tuner has been changed to my slider-based design. It is mounted on an angled plate ensuring that the strings have sufficient break angle over the saddles. The angle also keeps the sliders in contact with the plate. I've used six modern strat style saddles for sliders - when I get around to it, I'll make some better (and prettier) ones from brass. Using the right screw hole for securing the string ensures that the pull of the string tightens the screw. It's got more travel than I need, so I'll shorten it around 5 mm. The knurled knobs are standard DIN 466 brass knobs. I've used two for each slider so the fingers have more grip surface. They're interlocking with one another, giving great utilization of the existing space, but making it difficult to remove one without loosening them all.

The tuner works very well. The grooves and lid that you see on most other headless slider based tuners aren't necessary, as the string pull keeps the slider oriented lengthwise. When I get some tools for making fine thread (M3 and M4 x 0,35), it'll be even smoother.

The bridge is an improvement from my earlier design consisting of two saddles each holding three strings, but is a bit simpler: It is reversed, being fixed to the body in front of the contact point of the strings. This gives me a shorter overall design, allowing for the tuner to be placed closer to the bridge.

Action is set by lifting or lowering the saddle with the small blind screws in the bottom and then securing with the big inner hex screws. Intonation is set by turning the blind screws going through the vertical flange of the saddle (they press against the big hex screws).

The jack holder is a copper pipe cap - thanks Martin for the brilliant idea. I'll use them for swithces and potmeters as well. The copper tube holds the wires, shielding them from electrical interference. The flexible cable is a piece of gear cable outer tubing back from the days when I was racing bicycles. It allows for the thigh rest to be moved and turned.

It is common among some luthiers to give their guitars a name. Since it's a testbed, and bed is called Lectus in latin, I'll call it Lectus Testus. Yes, it's rubbish latin, I know. And yes, it might actually mean something different.

Added: I just weighed it: 2,5 kg as it is now. That's not too bad.

A guitar that works

2011-09-25T00:48:00.001+02:00

What started as a testbed has turned into a nice, playable guitar.

For the first time, I've made a working guitar that I believe suits my position and style better than anything I could buy. This was the problem, that initially, some four years ago, got me interested in ergonomics and the possibility of building your own, very personal guitar.

That's something of a milestone, actually.

[Blogspot insists on rotating the image on the right. I have no idea why, and I can't fix it]

Things I like about the guitar:

It's comfortable to play. There's still much adjustment (and probably replacement of some wooden parts) to do, but it's more comfortable than any other guitar that I've played.

With the Seymour Duncan pickup, it sounds at least decent. My first impression is that it's a bit shrill, probably due to the steel body.

It's modular, meaning that I can replace components when I want without taking the whole guitar apart.

It's easily adjustable, making it possible to try different positions.

It's thin where it matters ...the area of the body around the bridge pickup hole is only 20 mm thick. And that's the place where it matters, because this is the area with which the guitar rests against my chest. This means that I can have it close to my body without having to reach my arms around it.

Everything on it works. Tuning, intonation, action, pickup adjustment, neck bow, etc. Some parts work really well (the bridge and wooden arm and thigh rest), while some could use improvement (the tuners and the strap horn).

The roughness and homemadeness are style elements, which are imposed by my lack of workshop skills (and the fact that I don't much like to spend money on having a professional doing it for me (because if you spend money, you have to work more, and I'm not particularly fond of that, either)). But I've come to like the roughness and the fact that you can see that the parts are made from stock metal. There's a certain honesty to it.

Things I'm doing these days:

Playing the guitar
Tuning the guitar (I'm dissatisfied with the tuner system, but it works well enough for now)
Moving and adjusting the wooden pieces
Adjusting action and intonation. That's pretty easy on the two part bridge, but I am going to make an improved version with the saddle piece at the rear, and fixing and adjustment screws towards the neck. That'll give more room for the new tuner.

Things I might do next:

Add some copper tubing for the pickup wires.
Copper jack cover plus master volume and switch. I plan to use the principle of copper "cups" that Rick Toone made.
New tuner system (see picture)
New bridge
Make a wide copper pickup cover that covers the bridge cavity.
Shape and smooth the wooden pieces. They're quite rough and lack a common "theme" of shapes and curves.
Blue the body
Test my current transformer pickups on the guitar (after all, it's thought out as a testbed)

But first, I have to buy some more tools and some more metal.

Adding brass and wood

2011-09-07T22:23:00.001+02:00

Got the steel box straightened and reinforced plus the arm rest, leg support and strap horn carved from scrap mahogany. It's all in a very rough state, but I expect it to be ready for neck, bridge, tuners and pickup in a week or so.

It's very easy to adjust or move the wooden pieces to allow for different playing positions. That can be useful when making other, less modular, bodies at a later time.

I'm considering a rustication process for certain areas of the wooden parts, but I have to get the guitar playable first.

Room for pickups

2011-08-27T01:06:00.004+02:00

I decided to put one or two good pickups in the testbed guitar. My original idea was that it should be kept playable at all time. But I was too busy trying out my flat pickups to get a proper pickup mounted. I hoped that I would make a pickup that sounded great, but I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with their sound (more on that later).

I needed a good pickup for the guitar to sound decent, but also to have a sort of reference: something to compare with when trying out the various pickups. I decided to go for a couple of Seymour Duncan pickups, I bought for my first T-beam project, but later put in my strat.

The pickups are wider than the T-beam, so in order to fit them in, I had to cut through the sides of the steel box profile. That was easily done with an angle grinder (my favourite tool these days, with cutting disc as well as flapdisc for shaping wood).

So far, so good. Unfortunately, that put quite a bow in the box profile. I didn't count on that (only thought wood behaved that way), but I suppose that's part of learning.

That's put rather a halt to my progress. I'll make some brackets and beams to straighten and support the box profile in its weakened state. I was going to make pickup holders anyway, but now they're also going to add strength.

Btw, I'm condidering this oil bluing process for the box profile. And, I'm making some mahogany forearm and thight supports (and a strap horn), so I can ditch the acrylic body, that I've grown a bit tired of.

Truly headless

2011-07-21T01:44:00.006+02:00

After postponing it a number of times, I cut off the strat headstock of my very fine Warmoth neck. That took a bit of self persuation, but I needed it headless. A brass angle bracket is holding the strings. I also made a new acrylic body. This time, I tried to make it really fit my torso. I tried too hard: Most of the curves and shapes are too pronounced and it's actually too tight on the body.

Bridge and tuners are the same as in last post. I plan to make an improved version of the tuner bracket (or perhaps abandon it in favour of one using my plunger type tuners).

The pickup is a P90 mounted above the strings. I plan on experimenting with a couple of experimental pickups using primary coils with few windings and a current transformer, but I haven't gotten around to that.

It still needs a strap to be really comfortable.

Things I might do next:

Make a steam bent plywood body in the style of the acrylic ones.
Make a new and more ergonomic acrylic body.
Make a proper wooden body for the neck and ditch the rectangular steel tube for a while.
Test and develop my pickups.
Get back and properly finish the two-string bass. This involves adding a slidable pickup and a piezo-pickup with preamp.

Two piece brass bridge

2011-02-08T22:09:00.005+01:00

The strat type hardtail bridge that's on the developing testbed guitar was in many ways a temporary solution. Tuning lacked smoothness and precision with the strings going through the holes in the bridge plate on their way to the tuners. Also, it looked out of place - being chrome plated as well as being wider than the rectangular steel tube it was mounted on.

The bridge that replaces it is made from a brass U profile. It's height adjustable. To achieve acceptable intonation of all strings, it is divided in two. This makes it possible to adjust the wound bass strings and the unwound treble strings in two separate banks of three.

It seems to work fine, but I haven't tested it enough yet to judge if the design is good enough to develop further.

Future project

2011-01-16T15:12:00.005+01:00

Here's an instrument which I'd like to make some day:

Three string blues slide guitar
For playing seated
Sliding nut
No strap
Spine: 30 X 12 mm aluminium rectangular beam - freely vibrating
Piezo pickup on aluminium beam
Sliding pickup under strings- probably an ultra flat one with few primary windings and a current transformer.
Plunger tuners (this principle)
Minimalistic ergonomic body - the first version would probably be made from heat-bent acrylic plate

New tuner design

2010-12-30T23:42:00.015+01:00

In the previous post, I described my intention of creating a playable testbed for experiments with different pickups. It turned out to be nice to play, so I improved it with a strap horn and the acrylic body from my t-beam bass. As it turned out, it was quite neck heavy. And since I prefer a headless guitar in most circumstances, I began to consider a tuner system down behind the bridge plus removing the headstock.

The design - as many others - uses traditional tuners mounted at the end of the guitar. Most of the existing designs however, has the strings fan out from the bridge and onto the tuners. The tuners have a lot of distance between them in order to allow room for the fingers when tuning. One solution is a design using two rows of three tunes facing each other and sharing the same slot. For the latter, I bought a set of six twelve-string tuners (they have the pegs closer together than six string tuners, saving space).

I built a bracket for mounting them on the end of the testbed guitar. It is soldered together from rectangular brass profiles. The profiles carrying the tuners are at an angle so that there's a (reasonably) straight string pull.

The tuners are made from one side of the twelve string tuners, cut in half - i.e. 2 x 3 tuners. I found out that they had a nice copper coating beneath the crome, so I filed away some of the chrome. I hope, when the steel and copper oxidizes, that they will look more discreet. They seem to work decently, but I imagine that better quality tuners might improve the system somewhat.

The strings can be tuned easily and precisely. Mounting the strings is a bit troublesome, but will probably be easier when I've tried it a couple of times. Unfortunately, my soldering job was insufficient and the top plate broke off. When I re-soldered it (and bolted it too, to be on the safe side), I was too hasty, and the holes for the pegs didn't line up. I had to do a bit of filing, and now the arrangement works, but less smoothly than the first time. I'm not completely satisfied, so I will buy a machine vise for my drill press and make a better bracket. That will give me a chance also to try some better tuners. They could be these due to their good looks (though it might look too _deliberately aged_ for my taste) or these due to their high gear ratio

If they keep working well, I'll cut the headstock off the neck, but for now I am anchoring the ball end of the strings in the existing tuner pegs on the headstock. I plan to play it for some time and make sure that it's a keeper (the overall design, not this particular version). I've got to be certain this works before chopping away.

The developing guitar

2010-11-29T22:41:00.007+01:00

I have begun preparing a testbed for my experiments. I want something that's playable. It should be a proper guitar. But it should also be a proper testbed for new pickups, forearm support, strap horn and leg rest.

It's built from a warmoth strat neck and a piece of 20 x 60 mm rectangular steel tube.

For now, it has a tele style six saddle bridge, but that might be replaced by one of my own designs. It also has traditional tuners in the headstock. I'd like it to become headless at some point, perhaps utilizing the bridge and coarse tuners of my SG experiments. But for now, I haven't developed a headless tuning system of sufficient quality. Plus, it's such a fine neck and I'd hate to cut it.

It's a Warmoth strat superwide wenge neck with a pau ferro fretboard and stainless steel frets. I bought the neck because I have very big hands and I'd like to try if a wider neck made better room for my fingertips at the fretboard (it did, but I think it's a bit _too_ wide). I'm not yet skilled (or courageous) enough to attempt building a playable, fretted neck, so I thought it wiser to buy one.

The design of the ultrawide neck with its overhanging fingerboard at the body end makes it fit the steel tube nicely.

The pickup is my own design. It is inspired by the Lace Alumitone and a thread on the guitar electronics forum. More on that and other pickups in a later post. The distance between the strings and the steel tube allows for easy swapping of pickups, as long as they're not too thick (which mine aren't).

I'm planning to make a strap horn, forearm support and leg rest from scrap mahogany. That'll make it a playable testbed, allowing me to try out new pickup designs, exploring their abilities while having fun playing. Other parts, such as bridges and other shapes of forearm support etc, can be easily replaced as well.

The interchangeable wooden body parts are inspired by Spalt Instruments.

Mahogany sides for the T-beam

2010-07-25T23:16:00.009+02:00

Almost a year ago I mentioned the mahogany sides that I was going to make for the two string T-beam bass. They're coming along slowly, but they're far enough to be shown here.

The main thing is the added mahogany sides. But another thing I've done is rounding off the corners and edges of the T-beam and tuner plate. It makes it look a bit more friendly and playable without the sharp edges.

The lower bottom of the beam is curved in order to follow the shape of the acrylic body. I plan to make another body from a thicker (5 mm) piece of acrylic. It will look a lot like the current one but it is going to have two thigh rests like the Strandberg guitars, which gives a wider variety of playing positions.

I used a surform rasp, belt sander and sand paper. Plus a table router for the inside cavities for tuners, saddles, etc. On the bottom image, you can see burns and tearoffs from the routing, but luckily they're hidden when the bass is assembled. I also bought a spokeshave, but found it difficult to use. I'm slowly getting better at using the tools, but there's a long way to go before I'm going to be really satisfied with my craftsmanship.

Next steps are routing a channel in each side for the sliding pickup bracket, sanding a bit more, and oiling the wood. I'd like to give the pickup bracket a more elegant shape than it has now, so I might do some cutting and filing here, too. Then there's the acrylic body. Knowing myself and the speed at which I work, the body probably won't be finished this summer.

Copper shield and switch added

2010-03-15T20:59:00.004+01:00

I've made a couple of additions to the switching system of my black SG. One of them is a series/parallel switch down by the tone and volume knobs - on the brass disc that leads the copper tubes into the control cavity. I also added a copper shield to cover the holes left by the original knobs and switches. It's still quite fresh and pink, and looks a bit out of place, but I expect that once it has oxidised a little it will turn a more brownish hue and blend in nicely with the rest of the metal.

At present, the shield is only fixed by the nut of the tone and volume pots. I'm still contemplating wheter to use a few screws like on the brass shield or - which would look interesting - a lot of small brass tacks along the edge.

Exposed cabling in copper tubes

2010-02-01T22:09:00.004+01:00

The black SG that I used for experiments with coarse and fine tuners has been modified further. I wanted to be able to phase switch the pickups. Plus, I'd had this idea of having the cables run in copper tubes to shield them from noise. The copper tubes should be on the face of the guitar rather than running inside the body. Each switch or knob should be mounted in its own separate hole with copper tubes running to and from it.

Apart from shielding the wires, I thought it'd look good. And not only good, but also logical. I want to be able to see what's happening with all the switching... to know which pickup is going to what swith and from there to which pot. That way, swithcing would be more transparent. You can't see how the wires go to and from a six way selector switch beneath a strat pickguard, and I missed that. The six-way switch is easy to use, but leaves you clueless as to what is hapenning inside the control cavity.

So I made a phase switching system for the black guitar. Each pickup goes to its own On/Off/Counterphase switch on the upper horn, and from there, they both go to the control cavity. Each switch is mounted in a brass disc. If I should keep true to my principle, I'd have to also mount the tone and volume pots like this, but I'll stop here. I expect that on a future guitar, I will fully implement the copper tube and separate switches/pots design. For now, I'll stick with it as it is.

It looks pretty much as I expected it to. I like the... "functional steampunk" look of it, though I use the word with some caution. There's quite a lot of the steampunk design aspects, that I like ...the combination of wood, brass and copper, for instance. Still, I think that steampunk has become too much about old-fashioned costumes and glueing cogs and sprockets on top of things. And then spraying them with copper. I wouldn't add anything just for its ornamental value. It has to have a purpose.

Opinions are welcome, constructive criticism even more so.

Coarse tuners part 4

2009-08-30T23:46:00.005+02:00

Since everything - restringing, tuning and playing - worked fine with the latest version of the coarse tuners, I decided (as mentioned in this post) to keep this layout and cut off the remaining headstock. The shape it has now might be altered slightly - I'm not quite sure about that. I have to paint the headstock black where I've cut and sanded it, but apart from that, I am just going to play it for some time and not alter anything (or not much, at least).

It's a real pleasure to play without the head. Much more compact and manageable.

The P90 neck pickup is just for testing. I'll put the other humbucker back in soon.

Coarse tuners part 3

2009-08-08T00:44:00.007+02:00

As mentioned in this post, I am trying to make a set of coarse tuners, compact and light, for use with my fine tuning bridge, allowing me to ditch the headstock. The first version used T-nuts, but this time, I made a brass plate with threaded holes to hold the tuning pegs. I have also managed to lower my failure rate in drilling holes in the tuner pegs (which are blind screws). Now I am down to around one broken drill bit per finished peg. And I've made twelve of them, six short ones and six long ones. Progress!

It's all mounted on the guitar I use for experiments. And it works. It works well, actually. Stringing up - especially getting and keeping a correct length of the string ends through the peg holes - is a bit troublesome, but I believe that once I've done it a couple of times, it'll be almost as easy as with a traditional set of tuners. The coarse tuning itself is easy. The tuners are sufficiently precise, and the fine tuners of the bridge do the more delicate tuning.

Once I've used the system long enough to believe that it works in the long run as well, I'll cut off the excess headstock and shape the remaining part - plus the brass plate itself - in a more elegant way. I will also tidy up the recessed holes for the allen nuts on the back of the headstock - those are the nuts that fix the peg when the correct note is reached. Plus, I will also buy get some prettier nuts. The ones I used are modified from those that you use for assembling IKEA furniture (Zachary isn't the only one building IKEA guitars ;-) The allen nut on the far left in the picture is for mounting bicycle brakes and I am going to get some more of these.

I also intend to recess the screws that hold the brass plate to the headstock and perhaps some time in the future, I will do a galvanic etching on the brass plate. It seems that I'm not even half way with this small project yet. Meaning that lots of fun remains.

To-do list - Status

2009-08-02T01:56:00.003+02:00

I am having slow progress on the T-beam bass (remember the to-do list?). I have carved out the curves for neck and body on the aluminium beam using hacksaw and file. There is still some filing to do before I mount the mahogany sides, which will also have the same bottom shape as the T-beam.

Time to buy a decent plane and spokeshave.

And to learn to use them.

Coarse Tuners part 2

2009-07-10T00:07:00.012+02:00

As described in an earlier post, I've tried to make a compact set of coarse tuners to go with the fine tuners on my Schaller 456 fine tuning bridge, so I could reduce the headstock and loose the big and heavy traditional tuners. The earlier attempt in the form of a locking nut wasn't succesful, but now I think I'm on to something.

I've installed my own coarse tuners, each consisting of a blind screw, a T-nut and an allen nut (a.k.a. an internal wrenching nut). In the blind screw, a hole is drilled for the string to go through, just like the peg of an ordinary tuner.

To tune up the guitar, you turn the blind screw clockwise with an allen key until you reach the approximate tone. Then you fasten it by tightening the allen nut on the back of the headstock. The rest of the tuning is done with the fine tuner at the bridge.

One of the beautiful things about it is that when you tighten or loosen the string by turning the set screw, the height of the string over the fingerborad stays the same, since it rests in the screw's thread. And the pull of the string tightens the allen nut against the T-nut, securing the string even more.

The best thing about it is, it seems to work perfectly. And it's much smaller and lighter than ordinary tuners, so it's a good solution if you want to build a headless guitar - or convert an existing guitar to one. You'll have to leave a little bit of headstock for the T-nuts, but that's not much. And you might want it anyway to stop your fretting hand from sliding off the neck.

On my own guitar I've mounted the tuners on the very end of the headstock. The reason is that I'll be using the other sections of the headstock for experimentation with alternatives to the T-nuts. A set of threaded inserts and a brass plate with threaded holes are some of the things I want to try. Next experiment will probably be threaded inserts mounted on the next section of the headstock. And I imagine that when I have reached the last section of the headstock, next to the nut, I'll know which of the solutions I prefer.

Drilling the string holes in the blind screws was a pain. I only got two made before I had dulled or broken my drill bits. I'll have to buy some new ones and do it right. That's the reason why the remaining four strings in the picture go to traditional tuners.

Btw, I imagine that if you add some loctite or similar to increase friction, you might be able to do away with the allen nut. Afaik, there also is a substance called "peg dope". I have to get some and try if the tuner can hold the string without the allen nut.

To-do list

2009-06-04T21:24:00.005+02:00

Nothing much has happened on my T-beam-bass lately. I've replaced the jack connector since the old one didn't work and clamped the connecting cable going from the jack more securely to the sliding bracket. Plus, I've borrowed a friend's bass to do some comparisons of sound, feel and ergonomics.

His is a 34" bass, and though the picture doesn't really show it, mine, with its 30" scale length, is much smaller and lighter.

My bass still isn't exactly pretty, but I do intend it to be so one day. But until now (and probably some time ahead as well), most of my focus is on experimentation rather than looks.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to convey an idea of what I expect it to become some day, here's a list of some of the things, I'd like to do next:

Make the saddles lengthwise adjustable for intonation, i.e. making slots for the saddles and fastening them with nuts.
Shape the neck as shown on the image . I have to modify the sole plate of my jigsaw to be able to do that.
Make a prettier and more ergonomic shield in 5 mm acrylic (that's approximately 0.2"). The current one is just 3 mm thick, and it's too fragile and flimsy looking.
Make mahogany sides rather than the current spruce ones. What's keeping me back here is that I'm not quite sure yet where the holes for the shield are going to be, and I'd rather keep the mahogany intact and experiment on the spruce.
Decide whether I like the sound of the vertical pickup. If so, I'll tidy up the bracket. If not, I'll buy a P-bass-pickup and use one half of that in a new bracket.

I am not alone

2009-05-08T00:26:00.010+02:00

One of the good things about the T-beam bass or guitar is that it's fairly easy to build a functioning instrument and improve it from there. In spite of its relative simplicity, there's still lots of challenges in it. If you're ambitious, there's plenty of aspects to improve. If you're not, there's still the joy of building your own functioning, albeit crude instrument.

It's a really good project in many ways, but until recently, I thought I was the only one making a T-beam bass.

To my delight, as I discovered here, I am not the only one. Kaspar Torn is building one as well. It's still in its early stages, and so far, it looks very promising. As you can see from the pictures, it differs from my own project in a number of ways:

Strings are anchored in a bolt through the vertical flange

String slots and zero fret

Tuners upside down

Angled tuners

This project is going to be interesting to follow. Kaspar leaves many options open, such as a detachable acoustic body and a spike, allowing it to be played upright.

I will post updates as the project moves along.

A slightly prettier sliding bracket

2009-05-05T00:07:00.004+02:00

I've made a sliding bracket for the small pickup. It slides with little effort and easily picks up the different antinodes of the strings. Unfortunately, the pickup itself doesn't sound that good, so one of the next steps might be mounting one half of a P-bass pickup in a similar bracket - or perhaps have two sliding brackets and the usual switching arrangement.

Trying a good, well-known pickup should give me an idea of what the instrument sounds like and make it easier to find out its particular characteristics.

The system of cable and female jack on the body also works fine. I plan to add tone and volume pots down by the jack at some point.

A body that preserves vibration

2009-04-04T17:40:00.008+02:00

With the addition of a body to the T-beam bass, it begins to resemble an instrument.

The body is a 3 mm (around 1/8") acrylic (or plexiglass) shield, cut with a saw and an angle grinder, polished, and bent in shape with a hot air gun. As with almost everything else on the bass, it is not intended as the final version. For this, I will use thicker (probably 5 mm) acrylic sheet and have the leg rest further to the back.

The acrylic shield is slightly bowl-shaped so it follows the contours of my body. It's a fairly deep bowl shape ;-) It has a leg rest bent into the lower part and an arm rest created by folding back a wing on the upper part. It quite looks like the body of an Ovation Breadwinner, though that was not the intention originally. It's very comfortable, and I expect it to be even more so when I've moved back the leg rest.

The four mounting supports that connect the shield to the stick will have to be replaced with a central support mounted on one of the two places where the stick has least vibration. A so-called node. I located the node by suspending the stick on two springy foam blocks, pouring salt on the stick and tapping it with a knife handle. As predicted in the marimba literature, the salt would gather to show the location of the node. Luckily, the node is somewhere in between the mounting supports, which makes construction easy. BTW; marimba and vibraphone builders do a lot of interesting research into the acoustics and vibration of wood; something that the guitar builders might draw upon in their work.

The reason for having the shield mounts on the node is to preserve vibration in the stick and not have it travel through the body and into the all-absorbing torso of the player. The node does not vibrate - or at least it vibrates less than other areas of the stick, meaning that less vibrations will be transferred from this point to the shield than from any other areas. I expect it to have a pronounced effect on sustain, and perhaps also on tone.

Some sort of leaf spring suspension mount might give even better isolation between the shield and the stick, but that will have to wait for a later version.

A sliding pickup

2009-03-19T00:12:00.012+01:00

There has been several attempts - by for example Westone and more recently Norton Guitars - to make a pickup that can be moved to the areas of the strings where different antinodes and their corresponding overtones are located. This gives you the sound of a neck pickup, a bridge pickup and everything in between. Though only one at a time.

The T-beam bass and the bracket for the humbucker pickup were too obvious a candidate to not trying something like this. And since I allow myself an impulsive and unstructured approach to my hobbies, I gave it a try.

The pickup bracket has nylon cable clips screwed to it. The clips grip the edge of the T-beam top flange and allows the whole thing to be slid easily along the beam. It was necessary to isolate the pickup from the vibrations of the guitar body (hence the rubber bands and foam padding). If not, the vibration characteristics of the string on the pickup's location would be hardly audible compared to the much stronger body vibrations also received by the pickup. Isolating the pickup also significantly reduced the noise of the nylon clips sliding along the T-beam... nice, because now it is possible to slide the pickup "in-tone" and hear the subtle changes of the timbre of the string.

The bracket and pickup is big and heavy, so one of the next steps will be making a sliding bracket for the much smaller between-strings pickup, which I made earlier. The small pickup should also be better at sensing a small section of the string, where the humbucker due to its length picks up a lot of vibrations - including the unwanted ones. With the big pickup, you can easily hear the difference up and down the strings, but the effect isn't exactly striking. I hope and believe that the small one will do a better job.

I had to rout a channel in the wooden sides for the nylon clips. With everything on, in the afternoon sun, it looks like this:

A vertical pickup

2009-03-05T20:44:00.005+01:00

I made a pickup that sits vertically between the strings. Since the bass is two stringed, the pickup picks up one string from each side. It works well, but I have to keep it towards the bridge end, otherwise the strings will hit it.

It is made from an acrylic sewing machine bobbin wound (on a sewing machine) with a very thin copper wire: 0,05 mm which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of AWG44. This wire is thin as human hair and very prone to snapping... it happened more than once, but I've learned to handle the delicate wire.

I measured the DC resistance to 2,3 Kilo Ohm. I'm not sure how much I can deduct about its impedance from that information, but it's only around one fourth of the resistance of the humbucker that I used earlier.

The center of the bobbin contains a stack of small neodymium magnet discs and iron cylinders. This allows me to vary the magnetic force by replacing an iron disc with a magnet if I want it stronger - and vice versa, of course.

I can rest my hand on the pickup while playing, but sometimes it's in my way. Still, I usually find my way around it and I really like the simplicity of having one small coil picking up both strings. I might recess it a bit into the aluminium and I might abandon it in favour of a more traditional pickup, but overall, I'm quite satisfied.

BTW, I also made two tuning screws from ordinary screws fixed in oak dowels with epoxy glue. They have just adequate friction against the fingers, but they'll have to do until I get a couple of knurled nuts. Still, compared to using a screwdriver when tuning, it's a great improvement.

Using traditional tuners for headless designs

2009-02-12T13:57:00.007+01:00

A post on this blog contains some nice sketches of headless guitars with traditional tuners mounted behind the bridge. Some designs even had holes through the body for the tuners. That looked good, but it might be difficult to get a good hold of the tuners unless the holes are very big. Since tuner systems for headless guitars are few and expensive, using the old-fashioned ones in new ways is a viable alternative.

It struck me that a possible solution could be to mount the tuners on a metal plate in a hole routed through the guitar, the tuner knobs sticking up through the plate and the strings going through slots in the plate. I've fiddled around with designs like that before (only on paper so far), but in this particular case, with a tune-o-matic bridge, it seems especially straightforward.

On one of the sketches on the blog, it would look like this. Sorry about the artistic quality, the picture only serves to explain the idea.

I couldn't attach images to my reply on that post, so instead i put it here. Anyway, it shouldn't all be about T-beam guitars.

A magnetic pickup

2009-02-09T00:40:00.006+01:00

Previously, I've talked much about piezo pickups. I had great expectations to piezo discs, because they would give me more freedom in construction, since I would avoid having to make room for traditional magnetic pickups. I still have expectations, but so far, I've not been successful in making or buying a suitable pre-amplifier. I've tried a couple of designs, but none have sounded very good so far.

For the sake of my own motivation, I took a little detour from the piezos and put a guitar humbucker on top of the strings. The distance between the two rows of pole pieces is 18 mm - exactly the distance of my strings. This makes it possible to mount it lengthwise over the strings. It gives acceptable sound, but the mounting bracket doesn't integrate well with the overall design idea of having a sleek stick for a bass.

On the other hand, it _does_ have a certain rustic honesty about it. And most important: now I can play the bass and get a decent tone, while I figure out if the neck should be a little thinner, rounder or narrower. As well as many other things.

Wooden sides

2009-02-03T12:12:00.006+01:00

I made two wooden sides from some spruce, just to test how it worked. Also to avoid messing up my good mahogany plank with early mistakes. I routed the cavities for saddles, nuts, strings and tuners with an ordinary plunge router in a table. I have little experience routing, but the cavities do what they're supposed to.

I've tried to make the sides fit tight against the top flange by having the holes in the vertical flange just a tad higher than those in the wood. This way, when I screw it together, the screw tightens the wood sides towards one another as well as lifting them against the top flange. It works ok... if you see gaps, it's because the wooden sides are made quick'n'dirtily, not because there's something wrong with the principle itself ;-)

I'll be sticking with the spruce sides for a while. There's a lot of things that I am yet going to try out - and which will need holes drilled in the wood. The mahogany sides will have to wait until I've settled on a final design. This especially includes whether to make the neck thinner. It feels a bit too thick even for my big hands, so I might slim it down from 4 to 3,5 cm (that's from 1.6 to 1.4 inches). That will still be much thicker than a traditional bass neck.

New tuners

2009-01-22T00:49:00.010+01:00

I've always wanted to try out my a particular form of tuners for headless guitars and basses. They work by having a scew pulling a brass block in which the ball end of the string is mounted. The main inspiration was Jeff Turpin's tuners; drawings and building guide for similar tuners can be seen at ScottyD's home made tuners. But since I have a T-beam, I can do away with the housings for the brass blocks that these designs use, and rather let them slide on the underside of the T-beam like this:

Two of the screws are for holding the brass plate on to the T-beam
The other two are for tuning.

I thought that 'd give it a try since I was going to cut the T-beam to length and I needed a bit of room for the tuners, so it was the last opportunity to try it out. It works very well - very smooth and precise, so I'll stick with them rather than reverting to the traditional tuners. I believe they'll be even better when I've mounted hex socket screws so I won't have to use a screwdriver to tune them. The holes where the strings go through the top flange could use some lengthening as well, which would make the strings' movement easier.

The picture shows the sharp turn, which the cable has to do going through the flange.

I'll stick with the new tuners rather than the standard bass tuners it had on earlier. That will also make it easier to make some good looking wood sides for the T-beam since I won't have to worry about making room for tuners that stick out. The brass blocks and string ends will be hidden within the body.

Earlier, while the traditional tuners were still on the bass, I was making and mounting a string tree that I needed for them. Unfortunately, the aluminium is so soft and sticky, that I broke off one of my threading taps inside the T-beam. Trying to get it out by cutting room around it with a dremel only made things worse. I'm afraid that I'll have to stray from my "form follows function" principle and make some sort of ornament to cover the damage, now that I don't need the string tree any longer.

Headstock-end with damage from string tree mounting attempt
(I later turned the T-beam around so this end was the bridge end back then).

On the image above, btw, you can see the strings going through the flange. They are secured on the underside by cable stops - the type used e.g. for brakes on mopeds.

Next step will be making the wooden sides plus some experimentation with Piezo pickup pre-amplifiers. And then back to tidy up the T-beam. Later, I am thinking about making a detachable body from steam bent plywood.

Stick Bass Pictures

2008-12-14T20:44:00.007+01:00

I've made the spine of the two-string, nylon string, fretless piezo alu T-beam stick bass. Now I have to stick some wood and some piezo pickups on it.

Some photos:

I will shorten bot ends of the T-beam down to the tuners and string holes. Btw, these are not nylon strings as originally described, but flatwound steel strings. I found out that the pull of nylon strings wasn't that much lighter than that of steel strings, so I went for these instead.

I've played it with a cheap non-preamplified piezo pickup on the flange. Sounded very good and feels very alive... I'll make some sound samples to go here. It even sounds good bowed. Plus it was easy to bow; since it only has two strings, they are easy to hit even though the fingerboard is flat (as in not being "radiused" like the fingerboard of e.g. a violin). So far, I am really, really satisfied with it.

Common bass tuners mounted in oak blocks. Bronze saddles through top flange. And yes, the saddles aren't completely perpendicular to the top flange. I'll mount them in slots in the top flange rather than in threaded holes, which will make it possible to adjust intonation. And then I won't have to worry about my crooked thread-cutting.

Action is ridiculously high at the moment, but if I set it lower, the strings don't press properly down on the saddles. I need a string tree, but I'll make it myself, since the strings are 18 mm apart.

Making the wood sides is next. Plus, I might trim down the "fretting" part of the neck to 25 mm (1") thickness. It feels too thick as it is now (4o mm). I was going to do that at some point anyway, but now I'll do it sooner rather than later.

The local staircase manufacturer kindly donated a nice piece of mahogany, and I've just bought a table-mounted circular saw. Plus, I am eager to use my router that I bought over a year ago and haven't used much. Making the wood sides should be a breeze.

Hope springs eternal.

Setting my sights a little lower

2008-11-26T01:00:00.007+01:00

It can't have escaped anyone's attention that I haven't yet built the T-beam guitar. Even though I've talked a lot about it, nothing tangible has emerged. I've bought the components and there's nothing much missing. It's just a question of doing it.

So why haven't I made it yet?

It's mostly due to my busy life with a job and two small children. Yet other busy parents manage to build guitars, so there must be another reason. I've been thinking a lot about it and have reached the trivial conclusion that the T-beam guitar is too big a task for my limited experience. There are too many things that can go wrong in the process, and that's keeping me back.

I've decided that I need an easier task to gain some experience. A task that gives me a reasonable chance of success. This means that I'll have to lower my ambitions and - for starters - build something much simpler: A two-string, nylon string, fretless piezo alu T-beam stick bass. This is way easier than my original goal (a guitar with frets, tapered neck, pickup cavities, etc.), meaning that I might actually get it built.

The instrument minus acrylic body

The simplicity (and hence increased probability of it becoming a reality) of this new project in comparison with my original idea is due to the following factors:

Fretless because:

Fret, bridge and nut placement becomes less crucial or non-existing
I don't have to think about adjustability for intonation (lengthwise adjustable saddles)

Two strings because:

It is simpler than four strings.Whether or not to radius the fingerboard is not an issue.
Stig Pedersen of D:A:D plays a two string bass ;-)
I will be using the same basic design as e.g. Krappy Guitars and Longbow. This means that the neck won't have to taper towards the nut, which in turn means that I can use a standard T-beam and only cut it to get the desired length.
The few times, I've played a bass, I've mostly used the two low strings.

Nylon strings because:

I like playing nylon strings
They put little tension on the neck, meaning that I don't have to install a truss rod.

A bass because

I want to build something simple, and a two string guitar doesn't appeal to me.
I don't want a fretless guitar. At least at present, I want my guitars to have frets and six strings.
I don't have a bass, and I could use one. There's a good chance I might actually play it.
I believe the human ear to be less sensitive to tonal precision in the low register. Therefore, fretlees is a more nearby option for basses than for guitars. On a guitar, it would be very, very obvious if a tone was even slightly off, whereas on a bass, your ears would be more error-tolerant. On a bass, there is a larger margin. And I can use that ;-)

Piezo pickups because

It will serve as a testbed for my preamp/buffer experiments (thought I might swap some components when using them for guitars rather than basses)
I want to be able to use nylon strings, and a magnetic pickup won't pick them up (unless they have steel cores, which would increase neck tension)
I can use a much narrower T-beam than if I'd have to make room for traditional pickups and still avoid the top flange of the T-beam being completely intersected by the pickup cavity. Narrower means being able to use a standard 60 mm aluminium T-beam.

Alu T-beam because

It gives me practice in building T-beam guitars, which is what I set out to do in the first place.
It gives me the opportunity to experiment with mounting the piezos in different wood species on the quarter circle neck "sticks" (e.g. maple and mahogany).
Using semi-hollow wooden "sticks", it allows for wiring and piezo placement in an enclosed space everywhere on the bass (headstock included)
It gives me a reasonably hard fingerboard surface (depending on the alloy and temper), which is important with fretless instruments.
The considerable thermal expansion and contraction of aluminium doesn't ruin intonation when the bass is fretless. On a fretted instrument, this is a problem. This makes aluminium a more suitable building material for fretless than for fretted instruments.

A stick (with detachable body) because:

I believe that the body dampens the strings and reduces sustain. It's not so much the guitar body itself, but the fact that it rests on the player's torso and the player's arm rests on it. If you isolate the body from the neck (or "stick"), it will be able to vibrate more freely and without damping.
It also allows a lot of freedom in designing bodies with ergonomics or looks in mind. The stick remains, but you can swap body according to your playing style and physique. Or your mood, for that matter. Plus, you can experiment with many different shapes and materials for the body. You can have a guitar body designed for seated playing and one for standing up. One for resting the guitar on your left thigh, and one for resting it on your right, depending on preferences.

That's a lot of reasons to build the thing. Some are better than others, but overall I believe the project to have a good chance of success.

A locking nut that didn't work

2008-09-04T21:35:00.014+02:00

Since I put the T-beam guitar on hold for a while, I bough a cheap Gibson SG copy for various experiments. One of the first things I wanted to try out was a tuning system, which uses a locking nut in combination with a Schaller 456 fine tuning bridge

I need to be able to rough tune and lock down each string separately, so the usual ones with two strings per screw won't do. According to the idea, after rough tuning, the fine tuners in the bridge take care of further adjustments.

For some time, I've been looking for a suitable locking nut. After a while without identifying anything useful off-the-shelves, I decided to make one myself.

I started with a piece of 7075 T6 aluminium. I drilled six holes for the string locking screws and two for screwing the locking nut on the headstock. I then threaded the holes (M4).

I then made six grooves; one for each string.

...and filed the grooves smooth.

I mounted it on a piece of brass on the headstock, but the D string snapped when I tightened the screw. On closer inspection, the screws turned out to have very sharp edges, which explains why the string was cut. I'll have to file the ends of the screws flat. I'll have to shorten them a bit anyway, so that's no big deal.

Unfortunately, there was another problem as well: The pressure of the screws lifted the nut off the brass plate (the picture shows the gap between the aluminium nut and brass plate). That can probably be solved by making the nut a bit deeper and having two mounting screws on each side of the string locking screws rather than only having one set of screws.

I'm going to give it another try some day and make an improved version.

Btw, if it had worked, I would have bought six proper set screws for it and cut off the remaining headstock. In an artistic fashion, of course ;-)

I haven't abandoned the T-beam guitar

2008-08-14T23:28:00.003+02:00

...but I've put the project on hold for a while. I've been too busy the last half year or so to really focus on building guitars. Plus, I've found out that there is a number of areas - especially metal working - where I need to improve my skills and learn new ones.

On top of that, there are many things about guitars besides building the neck and body, which I'd also like to do. New types of bridges, new tuner systems, piezo pickups, etc., etc. These are mostly ideas that the design of the T-beam has lead to. For example, I need a locking nut for it, but since it's headless, I can't use the usual ones with three screws, each locking two strings. In order to roughly tune each separate string with the nut (principle described here), I need one screw for each string. Such nuts exist, but they are all narrower than the intended neck width of the T-beam. Meaning that I'll have to try to make one myself.

I did. It didn't work. I'll probably describe this failed attempt in another post and try another approach.

As mentioned, there are other issues besides the locking nut, all adding up to the guitar being a huge task with too many variables for an inexperienced builder as me. Therefore, I am going to fool around for a while, having fun trying out various ideas, hopefully gaining knowledge and skill in the process.

As a testbed, I've bought a cheap Gibson SG copy on which I plan to do some modifications and try out some ideas. This way, I can expriment without ruining anything valuable and have a functioning guitar on which to test the practical usability of the various parts that eventually will go on the T-beam.

More beating around the bush

2007-11-11T14:02:00.001+01:00

As I describe here, things have slowed down considerably since this summer. It quite typical to me (and probably many others), that planning is easy, but when I get to the point of actually making the things I've been planning, the progress goes down.

In the meantime, until I get the motivation for taking the T-beam guitar some steps further, I might as well plan even more. ...and consider alternative methods for future guitars.

One of the issues I prefer to think of is the possible tuner systems for headless guitars. On Building the Ergonomic Guitar, there's much discussion around how to make a headless tuner system. See e.g. here and here.

I'd like to add another possible principle to the discussion: Using a bicycle brake cable tensioner. It is normally used to tighten the brakes of a bicycle by turning the nut with the rubber ring seen here (click the images for a better view). Since the threaded, cylindrical part of the tensioner has a flat area which fits a hole of the same shape in the brake arm, it will not turn (but only slide) when the nut is rotated. On a bicycle, as seen here , the outer cable stops at the tensioner, and the inner cable goes through it and is fastened on the other arm of the brake.

When using it as a guitar tuner, the string passes through the cylinder (the part with the outer thread) and the total of six tuners/tensioners should be mounted in a brace with six holes of the shape that allows the cylinders to slide, but not to rotate . By turning the individual nuts (the part with the rubber ring), the strings are tuned.

Of course, there's no need to use dedicated bicycle brake cable tensioners. It might be better to make the tuners from pieces of threaded rod with a hole drilled through them plus some knurled knobs such as these . Choosing three knobs of each of the two types shown in the picture would even allow for a staggered placement of the knobs, in turn allowing bigger knobs than with an in-line configuration.

I'd expect it to look like this.

It seems to me to be one of the simplest solutions to the problem of making cheap, accurate and reliable tuners for a headless guitar. I may have overlooked some problems with the principle, so prototyping must be the next step. Once I've finished the T-beam guitar.

The desired design expression of the T-beam guitar

2007-10-06T10:19:00.002+02:00

Very early in the design process, I've had a quite clear idea of what the T-beam guitar will look like. I expect the combination of wood and aluminium to result in a very classic look. Not classic in the guitar sense, but rather in an automotive sense.

From when I was young, I've liked the steering wheels of old sports cars. This particular type of wheel had a body made from steel or aluminium with a wooden rim riveted to it.

English Walnut, © Mike Lempert, used with permission

To me, such a wheel was (and actually still is) one of the classiest single modifications, you could make on your everyday car. My then brother-in-law had a Nardi wheel of this type in his otherwise very ordinary Toyota Corolla. It was back before you had airbags and various controls in the steering wheel, so it was a relatively easy modification. All you had to mount on the new wheel was the button for the horn. I borrowed the car for a while and came to appreciate the wheel for its ergonomics as well as its good looks.

The essential thing of such a steering wheel - design wise - is the thick body of metal sandwiched between beautiful wood, often riveted to the body.

Bolivian Rosewood, © Mike Lempert, used with permission

This much talk about the steering wheels might lead one to believe that they will be the major focus of design. This is not the case; the wheels are just a great source of inspiration. I am not building a steering wheel themed guitar. I don't want people to think "steering wheel" when they see the guitar. But I am looking for the same design expression. The same expression which, by the way, can also be found in some knives with wooden handles.

© Donovan Govan, Chef's Knife, subject to GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

Since the T-beam guitar is made from a relatively thick aluminium beam with body, neck and fretboard made from wood, it almost automatically will have the same type of look as steering wheels and knives described above. Still, there are things I can do to make the style of the guitar even more in the direction of "wood riveted to metal". For example, I plan on using brass discs for fret markers. This way, the markers will resemble the rivets holding the rim of the steering wheel. Also, I plan on using a fairly dark wood, preferably walnut - as on the steering wheel in the first of the above pictures.

I hope the above gives an idea of what I am aiming for. If it also explains why I expect the T-beam guitar to be phenomenally beautiful, I'll consider this attempt of explanation a success.

In the meantime...

2007-09-12T21:57:00.001+02:00

It's been a while since my last update. This is primarily due to other, more pressing tasks in life. I haven't done any work on the T-beam guitar, except from a lot of thinking.

In the meantime, I've made a modification to my old Squier Strat. Mostly because I am going to need a functioning guitar during the many months, I expect the T-beam construction to take. But also to get a feel at using a router on aluminium. Plus to try out the pickups, which I bought for the T-beam.

My modified strat with neck only, parallel, bridge only, series, parallel+counterphase and series+counterphase switching options.

The modification consists of an aluminium pickguard, the two Seymour Duncan single coil format humbuckers (a Little '59 for the neck and a Jeff Beck Junior for the bridge), a concentric pot for tone and volume plus a six-way rotary switch allowing combinations of serial/parallel and phase/counterphase pickup configurations.

First step was soldering wires to the six way switch. The wiring diagram can be seen here (go to "Switching between two humbuckers"). It took quite some time and was way less straightforward than it looks on the diagram. Not that it was difficult as such, but with 28 lugs (also counting those connecting to the pickups), there was quite a lot of wires crossing one another - and many possible mistakes to be done.

Next step was making the pickguard. I had an old piece of thin aluminium lying around, and I traced the contours of the original pickguard on it with a permanent marker. I also traced the contours of the screw holes and pickup holes except for the middle one. Rough cutting was done with a pair of tin snips. I used my new plunge router and a router table for the next step of shaping by putting the pickguard flat on the router table and by freehand letting the contour, which I'd traced on the aluminium, follow the router bit.

Routing the edges

This was followed by putting my belt sander on its back and smoothing the edges of the pickguard on the belt. The result was pretty nice, but I had to finish the edges with a small rotary tool to get them sufficiently smooth.Pickup holes were made by drilling most of the hole with an ordinary drill and following the above process - except for the belt sander - for finishing.

Not that shaping such a relatively thin sheet of aluminium gave me a lot of aluminium routing experience. The aluminium bars for the T-beam are ten times as thick and will be quite different to handle - but still... it gave me an idea of the amount of shavings, such a process produces. And I feel a little more confident routing the T-beam now. I'm still going to need more practice, though.

Fragile pickups repaired

Having finished the pickguard, I mounted the pickups, switch and concentric pot on it. I had to repair the pickups with electrical tape since their outer plastic shells had become loose. They were brand new, and I didn't drop them or treat them violently in any way, so it's a bit of a disappointment that Seymour Duncan makes such fragile pickups.

Almost finished, I soldered ground wires from bridge and jack. The knobs for the concentric pot had to be drilled in order to fit the pot shaft. I did so with a handheld drill, and I didn't drill completely straight, so the knobs are a bit skewed. I guess I should have been either a: more attentive, or b: using a drill press. I'll go buy me a drill press for the future.

Many wires on one switch

It gave a bit of trouble mounting the six way switch in the pickguard. After I mounted it, it was very hard to turn. After disassembly and assembly, it worked decently, but not completely smooth. It'll have to do for now, but I'll have to look further into it some day.

The sound is really good. I especially like the counterphase settings, which give a more bubbling and buzzy sound. Apart from a tendency not to work on the "bridge pickup only" setting unless wiggled a bit, the six way switch is very convenient.

The looks of the finished guitar is nothing particular. The creme colour of the guitar certainly does not match the aluminium pickguard very well. I could paint the guitar. Or cover the pickguard in brown or burgundy leather. I could even make a similar pickguard in copper.

There's lots of things, I could do, but I'd better start concentrating on the T-beam.

The aluminium bars have arrived

2007-08-08T23:01:00.001+02:00

The flat bars of aluminium, which I ordered, have arrived. If I arrange them as a T-beam and add the other components I have already bought, it looks like this.

The guitar is almost complete, right? All that's lacking is some wood.

Not exactly. I can see the following steps ahead of me:

Plan exact geometry of the T-beam.
Decide/calculate placement of bridge and pickups
Cut and route top flange
Cut and route bottom flange
Bolt and epoxy glue the two flanges together.
Cut fingerboard and epoxy glue it to top flange.
Mount frets.
Design and make locking nut from a piece of brass.
Level and dress frets.
Drill holes for bridge and mount bridge
Put on strings, test how much too high the action is.
Route recess for lowering bridge.
Cut wood for neck and body
Sand wood parts
Stain and oil wood (I'll probably use spruce for the first version, but I'd like it to look like walnut).
Mount wood parts.
Wire electronics (pickups, pots and jack).
Mount electronics.
Mount strings.
Play.
Adjust.
Play some more.
etc...

If you can think of anything that I've left out - or a better sequence of steps - please let me know. I haven't been explicit about it in my earlier posts, but I've never built a guitar before.

I guess it'll take more than just a couple of months before this can actually be called a guitar. That's all right. I'm not in a hurry.

Visionary lutherie

2007-08-05T11:29:00.001+02:00

The other day, I stumbled upon an interesting and very inspiring website: KTL guitars . It is run by a Norwegian luthier, Knut Tore Ljøsne, who builds a number of very different guitars - different from one another as well as different from all the rest.

In an earlier post, I wrote about the possibility of using traditional tuners behind the bridge and having the strings go through the top of the guitar. Knut Tore actually did that on his Evil Axe guitar. He reports some tuning stability problems, but thinks that without a vibrato arm (which the Evil Axe has), it would be pretty simple to make it work properly. Since I've never been particularly fond of vibrato arms and don't intend to have one on the T-beam, that makes his approach very usable for a possible future guitar of mine (the first version will use a Schaller fine-tuning bridge).

Close up of the Evil Axe's tuners, copyright Knut Tore Ljøsne, used with permission

The Evil Axe is a remarkably beautiful instrument. Especially since everything on it - the arm rest, the horn for the strap, the two horns making up the thigh support - are there for a purpose (yes, I am a form follows function guy). It has no fancy elements "just for decoration" - perhaps except for the Strat-headstock-esque end holding the tuners, which nevertheless looks brilliant.

Evil Axe guitar, copyright Knut Tore Ljøsne, used with permission

Another of Knut Tore's guitars is the Magnum 648, Which is a lot more futuristic in its design. The body is made from a combination of wood and aluminium. Like the Evil Axe, it is a headless guitar, but it uses a Floyd Rose bridge instead of the Evil Axe's traditional tuners. Knut Tore has used an ordinary hand held router and woodworking routing bits for the aluminium part - just as I intented to do on the T-beam - and has kindly provided a couple of tips and tricks, which I look forward to employing when I start metalworking myself.

Magnum 648 , copyright Knut Tore Ljøsne, used with permission

Knut Tore's approach to guitar building involves a lot of computer modelling before the actual build. This allows for the wide variety in his guitars, since there is a greater probability that a guitar with a new design will actually sound good. Without modelling - or a very good ability to predict the acoustic characteristics of a new design - most luthiers are confined to more or less using the same proven formula for every guitar they build.

There are other very visionary and beautiful (and beautifully sounding) guitars on Knut Tore's website. I've just mentioned the two, which have most things in common with my own project. Go have a look.

Making my own T-beam

2007-07-28T01:22:00.002+02:00

As mentioned earlier, I've had an unexpected hard time finding a suitable T-beam. There are lots of them available, but none wide enough for me to make holes for the pickups without intersecting the top flange completely.

For now, I have given up on finding a T-beam, and I will be making my own. It will consist of a 120 mm (4.7") wide and 10 mm (0.4") thick flat bar of AlMgSi0,5, also known as 6063 Aluminium, which will act as the top flange of the t-beam. The vertical part of the T will be a 30 x 10 mm (1.2" x 0.4") AlZnMgCu 1,5 (aka 7075 aluminium).

6063 is a fairly soft aluminium which should make it fairly easy to shape the neck, make holes for the pickups and make a recess where the bridge will be (otherwise the bridge will be too high). I've heard that it is so soft that it can be difficult and "gummy" to shape, but I could't get a piece of 6061 Aluminium, which was my preferred alloy. We shall see how much of a problem it'll pose.

7075, on the other hand, is very hard and strong, which is nice because the vertical flange will have to withstand the pull of the strings. It will be more difficult to drill, saw and file, but fortunately, the shaping needed on this bar is much simpler than on the top one.

I plan to join the two bars with screws and two component epoxy adhesive.

I ordered the bars yesterday, so now it should only be a matter of days before I can get going. All in all, I'm quite satisfied with the solution. I'd have preferred a "real" T-beam, but this solution allows me to have a stronger alloy where it really matters: The bottom flange.

A different tuner system for headless designs

2007-07-13T13:03:00.001+02:00

The guitar I'm planning at the moment might be the first in a series. If it turns out well and the building process is fun (the planning sure is), I expect to build another one. And probably then another. And so on. If the guitar turns out sounding horribly and/or the building is hell, I guess that'll be it. But that hasn't happened yet, so for the moment, I'm happily planning features for future models.

As mentioned earlier, I've settled for the Schaller fine-tuning bridge for the first version of the T-beam. This will avoid a number of potential problems and make the construction more straightforward. I am fine with that. For the next version, however, I have a sleek and efficient tuner design in mind.

The system consists of six arms mounted with one end on a shaft below the top flange of the T-beam. Approximately two thirds to the far end from the shaft, the string attaches to the arm (after going over the bridge and through a hole in the top flange) and is secured either by its ball end or by a screw. The latter solution will allow me to use the ball end at the nut, eliminating the need for a locking nut.

For each arm, a screw is mounted through the top flange. The end of the screw presses down on the arm. Tightening the screw results in pressing down the arm and tightening the string. If the aluminium is strong enough, the threads will be made directly in the top flange. If not, I'll insert some threaded steel or brass bushings.

The picture shows the guitar with one arm only. It is supposed to have six - one for each string.

By selecting steeper or shallower thread for the screws or various lengths of the arm, one can decide how much adjustment is needed for a given change in tuning. An obvious idea is to have a greater ratio for the thicker strings, since it takes more force to tune them.

My rough measurements say that it takes about 4 mm (0,16 inch) to tune the string an octave. That means that there is lots of room for the travel of the arm, even with a relatively thin body.

The idea goes well with using a T-beam, since it uses the top flange for mounting the arm and screw. But actually, I think it can be made as a modification for a wooden guitar as well - all you have to do is route out a cavity for the tuner system and mount it all on a steel or aluminium sheet.

Alternatives to the T-beam

2007-07-10T00:48:00.001+02:00

I've tried quite a lot of places to get the crucial component, the T-beam. It is more difficult than I originally expected. I've tried a couple of scrap metal dealers and the leading Danish metal distributor. Plus a couple of web-based stores. No success yet. It's quite disappointing, especially since I thought that obtaining the T-beam would be the easiest part of the project.

Until I find the T-beam - *if* I ever do - I've been contemplating other shapes of aluminium for the "spine" of the guitar. One possibility is an aluminium flat bar, 100 mm wide and 20 mm (approximately 4 and 0,8 inches) thick. With it, I could make the neck in aluminium only (as opposed to the T-beam version, where the neck sides are wood).

It would look clean and probably give a more pure aluminium sound. It would also be very thin. But it would imply a much larger amount of metalworking than I'm comfortable with. Plus, it would be quite heavy. Good thing it's headless, otherwise it would probably be very neck heavy.

Perhaps worst of all, I'd have to abandon the feature you see on the back of the T-beam versions: A flange of metal sandwiched between wood. I had (or have... I haven't yet given up on finding a T-beam) great expectations for the looks of this particular detail, which would resemble old sports cars' steering wheels ...as well as some knife handles with the blade going through it.

The principle of making a full-aluminium neck that extends down to the bridge is not at all original. The guitar would more or less be a headless version of instruments like Electrical Guitar Company's Custom Guiar - which in turn seems to be based on earlier Travis Bean models, though it seems that the former has a wider piece of aluminium for the body, ensuring greater strength as the pickup holes do not completely intersect the aluminium piece.

The lack of originality takes some of the fun out of the project, but still, with headless neck and an ergonomic and very thin body, it still distinguishes itself enough from existing guitars to allow me to feel just a little like a pioneer.

Next week I plan to visit yet another scrap metal dealer. There might be a T-beam waiting for me there.

On the cover of the Rolling Stone

2007-07-02T11:15:00.001+02:00

Well, almost.

There is a very fine article about the T-beam guitar on Building the Ergonomic Guitar. Have a look - and be sure to check out the other articles as well. There is loads of interesting information on guitars and ergonomics.

Bridge and tuners for the headless design

2007-06-30T00:51:00.001+02:00

Having settled on a headless design, one of the next questions was which bridge and tuners to use. A small number of bridges with built-in tuners already exist, e.g. the ABM or the Steinberger. Unfortunately, they are all fairly expensive, and it was a fun challenge to try to find a cheaper (and perhaps better) alternative.

One of the first ideas was to mount traditional tuners at the bottom as shown in my previous post "The Ergonomic Guitar". To make room for them all - plus the fingers when tuning - the bottom end of the guitar would have to be cut at a quite steep angle. That actually looks quite good and fits well with the idea, that the body should support the right arm (assuming you're right-handed). The T-beam can extend into the upper wing in an elegant way.

Unfortunately, the angle of the end of the T-beam had to be *very* steep to allow for room for all the tuners. An alternative would be to use string trees to guide the strings to each tuner - the strings would then spread out from behind the bridge as they do at e.g. the Kramer Duke (which happens also to be an aluminium guitar with the neck going all the way through).

To get a cleaner look and ensure sufficient downwards pressure on the saddles, one could improve this design by letting the strings dive down behind the saddles and continue on the backside of the guitar on to the tuners. To avoid to much friction when tuning, it would probably be necessary to use a very slippery material for saddles and for the material on the bottom, on which the strings rest.

On the picture, you can see that I chose to let the saddles rest directly on top of the T-beam instead of on a bridge plate. I assume it will improve sustain.

On Building the Ergonomic Guitar, a couple of headless guitars using Steinberger Gearless tuners have been described. Todd Keehn and Scott French have used them. Unfortunately, they both mount the tuners the way they're intended, meaning that the strings run on top of the guitars and into the tuners. That means that you'd have to reach to the back of the guitar and feel your way to the tuner in question. It works fine on a traditional guitar where the tuners are mounted on the guitar's head, but for a headless guitar, I believe it is not very practical.

If the Steinberger gearless tuners were mounted upside-down and the strings were routed below the surface of the T-beam (as in the earlier described idea with traditional tuners), the knobs would be on top of the guitar where you could see them. That would make for a clean design and improved usability.

The picture above shows the guitar (without the wings) using this configuraion. Furthermore, the separate saddles are replaced by a custom cut one-piece bridge made from TremNut or a similar low-friction material. That means that the bridge has a fixed intonation like the Les Paul Junior bridge and those on some PRS guitars. I like the idea of these bridges: The less separate parts, the better sound.

Besides Building the Ergonomic Guitar, The Project Guitar site - and especially the forum - has been a great source of inspiration and information. On the forum, a number of alternatives to traditional headless bridge/tuner combinations have been proposed. Among these, there were two, which I found especially interesting.

One of the regular posters had made his own tuners with separate saddles for a bass. With a little modification, this principle lends itself very well to the aluminium T-profile: You can mill six grooves for the tuners and saddles in the top flange of the T-beam - as shown in the picture below.

The knobs are in two planes, as this allows for bigger knobs and therefore easier tuning than if they'd all been in-line. That would be a really nice way of taking care of tuning. Unfortunately, I have almost no experience in metalworking (cutting the T-beam into shape is in itself a daunting task), so this idea will have to wait for later.

Another of the regulars at Project Guitar had used the Schaller 456 fine-tuning bridge for a headless travel guitar. The fine-tuners can't go very far, but he uses a string-mounting procedure with a pair of pliers and a locking nut, ensuring a sufficiently precise tuning when tightening the string with the pliers. The fine-tuners do the rest of the job. I've settled for this solution for the prototype of the T-beam, as it involves relatively little and uncomplicated metalworking as compared to the other solutions.

A very rough sketch looks like this:

I've bought the bridge (as well as some other components), so now that's settled. At least for the prototype. I'm especially keen on trying the Steinberger Gearless/TremNut fixed-intonation bridge combo on a later version. But as this is my first guitar project, I want to reduce the number of things that can go wrong, and the Schaller fine-tuning bridge offers a proven combination of bridge and tuning.

Guitar Ergonomics

2007-06-27T23:30:00.001+02:00

The classical Guitar

Back in the old days, before we had electric guitars, a guitar looked like this:

CC Martin Möller, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Germany, resized by me

It's beautiful and sounds nice, but it's not particularly easy to play.

There probably exists a number of very good reasons for this unhandy shape and size. Being totally acoustic, the guitar needed to have a large body. The tuners had to be at the end of the neck, as mounting them on the thin and acustically crucial soundboard would probably have been out of the question. Why the body had to have the shape of a rather large figure eight is beyond me. It probably has to do with acoustics, too. Alternatively, the reason mighe be that it makes it easier to rest the guitar on your thigh - and for symmetry reasons, the other half was shaped accordingly.

When technologies evolve, they often retain some of the drawbacks of earlier versions. Probably because many designers (and customers) are quite conservative and don't like things to depart too much from what already exists. Early automobiles, for example, resembled horse carriages to an unnecessary degree.

The Electric Guitar

I think the same effect is in play for the electric solidbody guitar. At least when looking at the most well-known brands and models such as Fender, Gibson and PRS. It still has a head at the end of the neck, even though it tends to make the guitar neck heavy and always hits other objects and people when you move the guitar around. It still has a rather large and thick body, though acoustics do not come into play any longer. It still has the shape of a fat figure eight, albeit with cutouts at one or both sides for easier access to the higher frets.

To me, the bottom cavity of the figure eight is in the wrong position: If i have it on my right thigh, it feels too much to the right and vice versa. A cavity located nearer the bridge would be more suitable, as resting the guitar on the right thigh would give a usable position. At least, so I think. Regarding the other inherited features from the classical guitar, I'd like a thin guitar allowing my playing action to be close to the body, a compact guitar with no head for knocking out the teeth of other band members, a light guitar that don't break my back.

The Ergonomic Guitar

Hence, one of the early decisions in the desigh of the T-beam prototype was to go for a headless and ergonomic design. On Building the Ergonomic Guitar, there is a lot of discussion on suitable shapes and design principles, plus articles on some of the smaller luthiers, who build ergonomic guitars. Especially the Klein guitar shape caught my attention: It simply looked like it would be easy and relaxing to play.

My design will be something like this. The exact shape of the wings may vary. I might experiment with several shapes and woods for the wings. But overall, this is what it will look like. I don't try to make it look like any particular one among the existing ergonomic guitars, but I think the Forshage electric guitar is the one it's going to resemble the most. The Forshage, in turn, is inspired by the Klein, BTW.

The picture of the ergonomic T-beam guitar is an older (i.e. around two months) design. I later abandoned having the traditional tuners at the bottom of the guitar in favour of a different desing, instead using a bridge with integrated fine tuners. More about these considerations in a later post.

Background - why and how

2007-06-27T00:02:00.001+02:00

Over the last years, I've become more and more interested in building guitars rather than (just) playing them. I never got around to actually building anything, but I took a couple of guitars apart and put them together again. I also discovered, that people build guitars in aluminium (or aluminum, if you prefer). They sound great. I'd like to have one, but they're prohibitively expensive.

One evening a couple of months ago, when i was looking at metalnecks.com, which links to a lot of aluminium guitars, it struck me that the majority of guitars have wooden bodies with aluminium necks or aluminium bodies with wooden necks. There were comparably few one-piece aluminium guitars. And no aluminium "neck-through"-necks with attached wooden "wings" at all. That puzzled me a bit, because it seems that among luthiers using wood, the neck-through design is widely considered the best overall solution.

I tried to imagine how an aluminium neck-through-neck would look. It might be made from a single long slab of aluminium. That would be very heavy, so you'd probably route out some of the material along the neck like the Kramer aluminium neck. Then you'd get something looking a lot like an aluminium T-beam. You know, these metal beams used for load bearing parts of houses among other things.

Why not use a stock T-beam? That'd be way cheaper than having the neck made from a big slab of aluminium on a CAM router. I think it can be done in the following steps.

You start out with at T-beam, which will act as sort of a spine in the guitar. A top flange of 100mm, a bottom flange of 60mm and 5 mm flange thickness (that will be approx 4, 2,4 and 0,2 inches) will be suitable. They are available, but - as it should turn out later - not exactly readily available.

The T-bar is cut to shape (Pickup holes, neck and head). Due to the width of the pickup holes, the T-bar has to be quite wide in order to keep its structural strength. With a narrower T-bar, the pickup holes would completely intersect the top flange, weakening the T-bar considerably.

Having modified the T-bar, you screw or glue on wings (like on a wooden neck-through guitar), fingerboard and some pieces of wood to give the neck its desired shape. Plus, of course, route out cavities for electronics, sand the body, mount bridge, nut, etc, etc.

This way, you get a guitar with a lot of structural strength from the T-beam. You have great freedom of choice of wood and shapes of the body. And best of all: It should be possible to do it with ordinary do-it-yourself tools (hand held router, metal saw, sand paper, electric drill, belt sander, etc.).

I think it will work. I think it will look amazing. I am not sure how it will sound, but I am going to build myself one. Then we shall see. Or rather hear.

I'll post updates on this blog. I've already done some designing and planning plus a couple of purchases. This will be described in separate posts in the near future, and I expect that when I get around to the actual construction of the thing, my posting will have caught up, and I'll be posting in more or less real-time.