Yeah, I think that is too thin.
If your plate is thin, join it and laminate it onto something thicker then put the whole thing on the top. The binding will cover the laminiation.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| modify Tele semi-hollow body? http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=10643 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bob J [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For now put the Mex solid body down. Bought semi-hollow, f-hole lam Tele body from LMI a year ago and have l/h conversion prob. Took advice and sawed top from body. Was stunned to see how overbuilt the semi-hollow body is-thickness of sides and back 3/4". I know that this guitar is not intended to be type of 'Luceile' but why is there not more of an attempt to have body more 'hollow'. Bought a Alder body blank and a MASTER (I know, no master in elect tops) incredible Bubinga figured top from BobC. I am thinking, when I route the body to make the sides and back only 1/4", or a little less, and route the top, on inside to same dimension. For solid center portion of the body I will raise certain portions of center block to contact top. I plan to leave area around neck stock and leave a 11/2"area around the area routed for pickups and route away the remaining center block to the 1/4"-geeze, I hope I am explaining correct-. The result will be a much -hollower 'semi-hollow'. Please remember that I know nothing regarding electrics or accoustic electrics. Could you please comment on: The idea, is it viable? What if any problems do you think this idea may create? Your over-all comments. Thanks so much, I don't want to reinvent a wheel that my aready have fallen off the wagon, |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
bump please |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'll give it one more try. What I'm trying to get at is what effect routing sides, back and top reducing fender sides etc. by 2/3. Thanks |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bob - I'd say it's doable. The basic factor controlling things here, in my mind, is being able to resist string tension. Since an electric is typically going to be strung up with lighter strings than an acoustic, its clear right away that the guitar does not have to be any more structurally rigid than a regular acoustic guitar. .08 backs and sides, regular thickness spruce top with bracing, etc. Structural soundness really should not be an issue. How the instrument sounds, and resists feedback, will be of more concern, but I don't have the experience to say how the sound will change as the sides get thinner, the internal blocking around the pickups gets lighter, etc. I love the Tele design - it's my favorite electric body. I have an instrument on the drawing board that is basically a Tele shape acoustic with 2 P-90's, and I don't plan to use any internal blocks aside from the neck. The pickups will be suspended from the top. I'm trying to guess how heavy a bridgeplate I'll need, and I'm trying to imagine how to best screw/bolt the bridge to it if I use a hardtail bridge. I may and up using a regular acoustic pin bridge, though. Jim |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bob - One additional comment. If you are doing this by routing out a solid blank, you are going to end up with a lot of thin areas that are mainly endgrain oriented around the tail and upper bouts. These areas would probably hold up OK as part of the overall body structure, but I would not want to set the guitar down too heavily on it's butt end - I'm not sure how this thing would stand up to hard knocks. (Or what about having a strap button screwed into relatively unsupported end grain in the upper bout, with the guitar hanging on it all the time?) I think I'd rather see laminated or bent sides if you want to go real thin. You've probably thought of all this - it just came to mind as a fear for me. Jim |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you do this my prediction is you are going to end up with a guitar that is much more neck heavy than a traditional electric. I would leave at least the center core solid all the way down and perhaps a little more meat in the tail to counter balance the neck. What is your neck going to be? Maple? Also, how thick is your top going to be? I would go thicker than a standard acoustic plate thickeness. |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks all, and Jim, I had not considered all the concerns you mentioned. Thanks I have considered the neck weight visa vie lighter body. Have also considered more wood left at bottom for strength and better balance. Does anyone have a clue what the reduction of 2/3 of wood from b/s, top will have on the sound-good or bad? |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Would a mahogony neck be enough of a compensation to get better weight balance? I'll have to look into this more. My plan is still just a mental image - I need get it drawn up and compute some volumes and weights. The Taylor T5 is basically an acoustic guitar body, right? No center block, just a regular braced top and pin bridge? I'll have to go see how one of those balances. Bob - I can't even begin to offer an educated opinion on whether the changes would sound good or bad, but I sure do want to know. |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just looked it up and noticed that the T5 is a considerably larger-bodied guitar - not really solid-body electric sized at tall. (16" lower bout). Probably not a good comparison point. |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks, I guess the only way to know is to build the sucker |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
within reason I think it will still sound ok, but again I would caution you on using a top the thickenss of an acoustic and making the sides too thin. Afterall... these are not acoustic instruments. |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brock, I intend thickness to be a little over 1/8"-do you thick that is too thin? |
|
| Author: | bob J [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brock, I intend thickness to be a little over 1/8"-do you think that is too thin? |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, I think that is too thin. If your plate is thin, join it and laminate it onto something thicker then put the whole thing on the top. The binding will cover the laminiation.
|
|
| Author: | bob J [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brock, What about b/s and top a little less than 1/4"? That's 1/2" less than the body I measured. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I make my bodies 1 3/4" and the tops are usually around 1/4" give or take a little. I usually put the top on giving me slightly more than 1 3/4 and sand to final thickness. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|