Non-PBG RBX Style Bass Guitar Kit RBX-20 from DIY Guitars

[Alkay]

Your G string should be the furthest forward saddle, and that should end up at or just slightly further away than the 34"/863.6mm scale length. .

Further away in what direction? Towards the nut or away from the nut? Cheers, sorry I'm a bit confused.

[Simon Barden]

Further away from the nut, probably by about 2mm further, making 865mm in total from the nut.

This is one of my basses and although it isn't really a Fender style bridge (as its got through-body stringing and the bridge mounting holes are further forward as a result) its got similar style saddles.



You can see that the G string's saddle is furthest towards the nut, but that it's also still got a few mm of forward (towards the nut) adjustment left. The other saddles are progressively further away from the nut.

So the middle of the G saddle is probably about 865mm from the nut. If I changed the strings to another brand or gauge, then I may have to re-intonate the saddles a bit further forwards or backwards as a result, but there is space left on the adjusting screw to do so. The important thing is to place the bridge where all the saddles have room to move back away from the nut (you'll never get the saddles right against the backstop because the springs will get in the way once they are fully compressed).

I've just noticed I the picture that the E and A adjustment screws are longer than the D and G adjustment screws. On your saddle it's the other way round - and it really should be the other way round on my bridge as well. So your bridge is already OK from that point of view, as the D and G saddles will be further forwards (towards the nut) than the E and A saddles

Is that any better for you?

[Alkay]

Further away from the nut, probably by about 2mm further, making 865mm in total from the nut.

This is one of my basses and although it isn't really a Fender style bridge (as its got through-body stringing and the bridge mounting holes are further forward as a result) its got similar style saddles.



You can see that the G string's saddle is furthest towards the nut, but that it's also still got a few mm of forward (towards the nut) adjustment left. The other saddles are progressively further away from the nut.

So the middle of the G saddle is probably about 865mm from the nut. If I changed the strings to another brand or gauge, then I may have to re-intonate the saddles a bit further forwards or backwards as a result, but there is space left on the adjusting screw to do so. The important thing is to place the bridge where all the saddles have room to move back away from the nut (you'll never get the saddles right against the backstop because the springs will get in the way once they are fully compressed).

I've just noticed I the picture that the E and A adjustment screws are longer than the D and G adjustment screws. On your saddle it's the other way round - and it really should be the other way round on my bridge as well. So your bridge is already OK from that point of view, as the D and G saddles will be further forwards (towards the nut) than the E and A saddles

Is that any better for you?

Yes thank you very much I do test you guys out on this forum with my lack of knowledge so I appreciate you taking the time.

Your bass bridge is very similar to this one even though this one is a cheapy.

I now have it positioned correctly. I hope my brother doesn't want to change bridges anytime soon hahaha. If that happens, if and only if but not likely I have read that they use dowl to fill the holes for the new bridge depending on shape.

Geez the way I'm going I might have to do a scratch build soon hahaha.

Thank you so much Simon. I really appreciate your patience. Time to drill some holes for the bridge, pickups and tuning keys.
Oh and the neck heel too. I'm confident I can do this by myself without an issue as I have done it before.

Here is a picture of it at the moment:



I'm happy with the strings where they sit inside the fingerboard. Cheers Simon.

[Simon Barden]

No problem And don't forget to drill that bridge earthing lead hole!

[Alkay]

No problem And don't forget to drill that bridge earthing lead hole!

Yes I forgot to mention that. I picked up the drill bit for it today...well yesterday now.

Just checked the pickups in the their appropriate cavities. These ones screw into the pickup cavity instead of on the body face like the LP's I have done so that's easy. I'll do that just before I apply the conductive shielding paint or foil in each cavity. I'm not too sure what's the best for shielding a bass. I bought the conductive shielding paint from the UK and used that on my last LP. It works quite well but everyone says use tape now so I'm a bit confused.

The tape is expensive. I have also seen aluminium foil works so maybe if the paint is no good I could use that and get some sort of spray can glue. I don't know just I thought and putting it out there?

[Simon Barden]

Anything is better than nothing, so if you feel happiest with paint, then use that - but don't forget that you'll still need to connect it to ground somehow in each cavity. The thicker the paint, the more conductive it is, so I'd use more than one coat. I haven't found any scientific testing that says copper (or aluminium) is better than conductive paint, plus the paint is easier to apply. StewMac recommend using conductive paint for cavities and copper tape or foil for the undersides of pickguards where it's easier to get a flat finish.

I'm really not sure how well paint or tape works anyway when the top of the cavity is open and there's no metal cover on the pickup. the shielding will absorb some RF signals but I feel a lot will still get through. The cavities aren't really deep enough or the pickups sitting inside them enough for them to act like true Faraday cages. So here they may attenuate rather than completely block RF signals (though any attenuation is beneficial).

Shielding is more effective in the control cavity where a conductive box can be created, and the smaller wiring holes in it meaning that shielding should be good down to the mid-microwave wavelengths (though some nearby mobile phone signals may still be picked up as they work at these short wavelengths).

So I'd stick with the paint as you've got it. You don't need very low resistance for the shielding to work properly. And just remember that most commercially made guitars don't have any shielding at all!

[Alkay]

Anything is better than nothing, so if you feel happiest with paint, then use that - but don't forget that you'll still need to connect it to ground somehow in each cavity. The thicker the paint, the more conductive it is, so I'd use more than one coat. I haven't found any scientific testing that says copper (or aluminium) is better than conductive paint, plus the paint is easier to apply. StewMac recommend using conductive paint for cavities and copper tape or foil for the undersides of pickguards where it's easier to get a flat finish.

I'm really not sure how well paint or tape works anyway when the top of the cavity is open and there's no metal cover on the pickup. the shielding will absorb some RF signals but I feel a lot will still get through. The cavities aren't really deep enough or the pickups sitting inside them enough for them to act like true Faraday cages. So here they may attenuate rather than completely block RF signals (though any attenuation is beneficial).

Shielding is more effective in the control cavity where a conductive box can be created, and the smaller wiring holes in it meaning that shielding should be good down to the mid-microwave wavelengths (though some nearby mobile phone signals may still be picked up as they work at these short wavelengths).

So I'd stick with the paint as you've got it. You don't need very low resistance for the shielding to work properly. And just remember that most commercially made guitars don't have any shielding at all!

Yeah Ok thanks Simon,

Just from what I have read some people prefer copper tape. I don't have allot of money to spend so I may as well use what I have with the paint left over from the last build. I think it was WazKelly who suggested using the paint. It works for great for me in the fact that I can apply it very quickly without mess. I'm not great with the science with electronics but the tape had a lower reading on the multimeter as opposed to the paint which was a bit higher. The tape I have used on the first LP build took me hours to apply. I do mean hours, a few beers may have slowed down the process but it was tricky to work with but I also didn't have a good soldering iron and absolutely no experience.

Actually you are right too, my first electric guitar is a Samick and she doesn't have any shielding at all but she has noise now but that's probably the jack which I will leave for another project. I may even pull all the electrics out on that one and shield it too while I'm at it.

[Simon Barden]

You really need to measure the impedance at the relative frequencies you're trying to stop getting through - and radio frequencies are a long way from a DC signal!

It's a shame that guitars aren't now shielded as standard. Most were designed in the late '40s or early '50s and the construction methods haven't really changed since then. And there is now so much electronics around us putting out noise compared to then. It really is stupid for most guitar companies to continue to think that what was OK then is still OK now.

[Alkay]

You really need to measure the impedance at the relative frequencies you're trying to stop getting through - and radio frequencies are a long way from a DC signal!

It's a shame that guitars aren't now shielded as standard. Most were designed in the late '40s or early '50s and the construction methods haven't really changed since then. And there is now so much electronics around us putting out noise compared to then. It really is stupid for most guitar companies to continue to think that what was OK then is still OK now.

Yeah true, but manufacturing costs go up if a company has someone dedicated to detail too in regards to cavity shielding.

[Simon Barden]

Not by much in the big scheme of things.