So a single action cavity should be curved, and double action cavity straight?
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Printable View
So a single action cavity should be curved, and double action cavity straight?
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
It all depends on the style of rod, and there are several types (though the cavity itself isn't curved)
Most truss rods (single and twin-acting) are self-balancing (twin rod or rod in a square channel) and need to fit is a slot that's basically the size of the truss rod itself. It needs to touch the bottom of the channel and the underside of the fretboard to work well, and you don't want any lateral movement either. So a jolly close channel fit.
That single rod 20" StewMac adjustable length TR is (I think) really meant for replacement of a broken truss rod in older instruments. According to my acoustic guitar construction book, it needs a channel that's about 3x as deep as the rod diameter. The ends are help up quite high in the channel by passing the rod through wooden blocks and there's a wooden block placed on top of it in the middle of the truss rod that forces it down to touch the bottom of the channel, whilst the top of the block presses against the underside of the fretboard, forcing it into a curved shape.
It's not as stable as a self-balancing truss rod, and the centre of the curve is a bit offset from where it ideally should be to counteract the string bending forces.
You certainly just can't run that basic type of rod type down a channel and hope it will work.
It's probably time to invest is some guitar-making books.
The one I've got, "The Mechanics and Construction of the Acoustic Guitar" by Eddie Green has a lot of stress theory in it, and concentrates on acoustics, but has a fair amount that also relates to electrics (and a couple of sections mention solid body specifics). It's reasonably priced for a big technical book (£24 in the UK) but only comes in hardback form, no Kindle or pdf version. It may not be available in Australia though.
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Mechanics...ps%2C66&sr=8-1
It also concentrates more on the general theory of guitar construction rather than on practical building techniques, so it's worth looking around for others that focus on the practical side. Unfortunately they are generally limited run books so don't tend to be cheap. I'd definitely recommend the above book, but it is very technical in places, so you just need to ignore some of the equation sections and get to the conclusions and plainer English sections.
So many variations. A lot of the the smaller builders use a strait rectangular channel so the double action truss rod sits flush against the under side fretboard. Some of the larger manufactures use curved channels with single action, or in the case of Warwick, double action rods with either timber curved to press the truss rod against the curve of the channel between the fretboard and the truss rod.I think Gibson did this with the Les Paul, Warwick with their basses. I believe Fender took the approach of having the curve in the neck and the truss rod pressed against the curve from underneath with the characteristic skunk stripe. Rickenbacker do wired things, I believe it's common to their guitars as well as their basses. Twin rods in curved channels, capped beneath the fret board to fit snug in the channel. The modern ones use round bar, the older ones flat bar folded over so the folded end is at the body end and removable . You adjust the neck by loosening off the nuts, physically bending the neck to the position you want and then tightening the nuts to hold in place. The simplest solution is probably to get a standard double action that's too long, route a flat channel, and trim the end and weld...or get someone to weld it for you.
I have a feeling that the Rickenbacker neck bending thing is a hang-over from a couple of years in the late 60s (or thereabouts) where they used too soft a steel for the truss rods so the threads stripped when you turned them if under tension. They then switched to a harder steel and they have been fine (as much as any truss rod can be) since.
I adjusted the only two Rickenbackers I've had to look at in a standard manner without issues. But on a standard width neck (and especially the thin Ricky ones), the two rods are too close together to actually counter any significant level of twist on the neck (which was the case with the 650D I set up). If you did manage to get the fretboard flat from side to side, you ended up with a big back bow. I had to level the frets to get the action down to a reasonable level, but you had flat frets and a wonky board.
I think having the twin single-action truss rod channels weakens the necks and actually encouraged twist. I feel a single double action rod is still a much better solution on standard width necks. Sometimes it's better to dump a dubious practice, even if it is 'tradition'.
Woah woah woah... I don't think we're quite at that point ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Barden
The internet and this forum will do me just fine for now.
For what it’s worth, you’re welcome to come over and take a look at my Benedetto text regarding a G style single action truss rod…take some photocopies.
Thanks Mark, very kind offer (I may take you up on it).
I think I'm going to start with an 18" dual action. I want to make both a 25.5 and a 27 at the same time, so I'll grab a couple and go from there.
While I'm waiting for the truss rods, I'll need to sort out a new jig.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
A jig, or a reel? Maybe a nice polka? Waltz perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by dozymuppet
Some good routing progress
https://i.imgur.com/CYovRnk.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8t5Lzkf.jpg
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Looks incredible.
Not much action has occurred on this one, however I made a similar mistake as with the St Vincent project, routing for 3 pickups, but only drilling for a toggle (as opposed to a blade).
But I'm wondering if I could just wire up three separate volume pots, like a bass, and not worry about a switch at all. :confused:
https://i.imgur.com/ljFnqXG.jpg
Go with a Free-Way toggle, they’re pricey but will give you all 3 pickups and combinations in a single switch.
Or a rotary switch?
You could always use the toggle hole for another pot (some filling in required but it should be hidden by washers and the knob) and cut a slot for a blade switch, even if you need to rout out for a larger cavity?
Yep, that's what I mean. 3 pots, and no switch. I know there are the free-way and rotary options, but I'd rather not. And perhaps 3 pots is something a bit unique for a guitar (as opposed to a bass), but that will work.
I'm not too concerned about combinations for this build. Happy to work with "blending" instead if it works.
I’ve never tried a blend pot for pickups except for blending two pickups on a bass. And whilst in theory this gives you wide range of sounds, in reality it pretty much gives you three sounds (IMO), so you might as well use a switch and not have the inherent treble loss due to another pot in the circuit (if you don’t increase all the pot values).
I’ve just been working on a Fret King guitar that has a humbucker coil split feed pot that provides a variable resistance from the centre split connection to ground. Again in practice, it’s basically on/off in nature and it’s very fiddly to set the pot with just a bit of resistance to thicken the split sound without it sounding very much like the normal humbucker. Better done with a switch and fixed resistor IMO.
Another option is use a push-pull (or push-push) pot on either the volume or tone and use it to add the middle pickup to any of the other positions. I've seen it done with 3-pickup teles. Obviously teles have a lever switch, but it's still just a 3-way regardless of toggle or lever mechanism. A little research may be in order, but it's doable.
I'll have a look and see what I can find!
Electrically, a toggle switch and a 3-way Tele switch are quite different. The toggle switch is composed of two x two-position normally-closed contacts. The traditional Tele 3-way switch is a double pole triple throw switch. The toggle switch has 4 terminals (3 for box types as two of the terminals are internally connected) and the traditional Tele 3-way has eight terminals (though some import switches cut this down to 4 or even 3 for ease of wiring a standard configuration). When used in the normal neck, neck+bridge and bridge configuration they perform the same function, but the Tele switch can be used to do more than the toggle switch if you really want it to.
So they aren’t just a different physical configuration of the same switch.
You could have an on/off mini-toggle switch for each pickup. Quite a few Charvel/Jacksons had that arrangement in the 1980s, and individual pickup switching was popular on a lot of 50s and 60s guitars as well. Not to mention Brian May’s Red Special (along with individual pickup polarity switching).
I over-simplified. But my point being I have seen teles with 3-way toggle switches instead of blade (some prefer toggle) and LP-ish 2-pickup guitars with blade switches. I still believe the addition of a push/pull pot can be configured with a a 3-way toggle to add the middle pickup. I'll work it out tomorrow on the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Barden
It depends on the control layout, and whether there's a master volume or a volume per pickup etc.
It can be as simple as passing the middle pickup output through the pot switch and connecting it to the toggle switch output.
I’d be keen to see if it can work, so I appreciate you taking a look.Quote:
Originally Posted by McCreed
Electronics are not my strength (yet), but when I was investigating this for the St Vincent, I couldn’t figure out how to make it work. That one was HSH. I would have been happy to only toggle between the HH, then just use a push/pull to cut out the HH and cut on the S. Seemed like no dice, but I learnt a bit more about switches.
Hey dozy.
If you follow a standard schematic for 2 pickup/1V/1T but substitute a push/pull for the tone pot (or volume), then wire the push/pull between the middle pickup and toggle switch as per my sketch, you can add the middle pickup to all the standard 3 positions.
Unfortunately position 2 with p/p engaged will give you all 3 pickups on (in parallel). I've not found this very useful in strats, but it's the only simple way to achieve a "5-sound" 3-way toggle switch I can think of.
Sorry for the crude drawing. Too much coffee and I was just scratching to get something quickly.
Cheers,
Mick
Attachment 43504
Edit to add:
Of course, the ground from the middle pickup needs to be connected to where ever everything else is grounded.
So I’d get these combinations if I’m reading that right:
- N
- N+B
- B
- N+M
- N+B+M
- B+M
But no M in isolation.
Correct?
Yes, that's correct. No way to get middle only without a 5-way switch that I can think of.Quote:
Originally Posted by dozymuppet
Another option could be making a custom control plate that you could mount a 5-way blade switch to. It could be recessed or top-mounted like a tele. The plate would cover any modifications to the body you'd need for the blade switch.
Just an idea...
In contrast, I find the all three pickups on quite a reasonable sound. It's a bit thinner and honkier then the standard bridge+middle or middle+neck sound, but certainly useable in some circumstances, especially if playing something funky. Not really an all-out rock sound though. But it is a sound that should sit over the top of another guitar part and be heard clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by McCreed
A second push/pull would allow you to have the middle by itself as well. For example:
- Tone push/pull would select if the middle is solo or combined with the other pickups (when on).
- Volume push/pull turns the middle on/off.
So, with the Tone push/pull down, pulling the Vol up would add the middle to whatever bridge/neck combination is selected by the toggle switch. With the Vol down you just get the bridge/neck toggle output.
With the Tone push/pull up, pulling the Vol up would give you the middle by itself, and Vol down returns to just the bridge/neck toggle output. Quick sketch:
Attachment 43506
There are lots of different ways of doing the 3 pup setup, it just depends what controls you want and how many holes you’re willing to put in the body.
You could simply pass the output from the toggle switch through one side of a pot push/pull switch and the middle pickup through the other side, (so it toggled between the two selections) which would do what you wanted. Best with a single master volume and tone arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by dozymuppet
A better idea, get rid of the two useless strings, put on a new neck and make it a 34inch scale, dump the extra pups and have just the one, wired directly to the output jack. No switches, no pots, just balls to the wall simplicity :rolleyes: .
You could just have 3x volume pots, no tone, so you select the pickups via the volume pots. But then you run into problems with parallel pot resistances to ground, so you’s probably need 500k pots for the single coil and a 1Meg for the humbucker.
It won’t be quick changing pickups for live work though, so not an option I’d recommend. Though if you had each pot a push/push pot you could have individual pickup selection via those., which would be a lot quicker.
I think that’s ok for this HSS set up. (Not so much for the HSH.)Quote:
Originally Posted by McCreed
Thanks for the assist on this \m/
This is a most excellent suggestion… for another project [emoji38]Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit
That is some next level sorcery [emoji15]Quote:
Originally Posted by WeirdBits
Amazing.
I like this and McCreed’s suggestions here. Aesthetically, I don’t really want to add any more complexity. So I’m trying to avoid more holes and conversions. And I’m not so concerned about infinite tone options. But if I’m going to have a HSS, I should put the middle PU to work one way or the other. Neck isolated is more important than Middle isolated, so I think I can get away with the single P/P and be happy. But now I have options [emoji846]