Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Fishtone
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=7944		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jocafa [ Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok, I've finally compiled a few of my thoughts to throw out here on the
forum. This is the only place I know of where I can discuss this project.
It's
not an acoustic guitar, so I figured that I should just keep everything
concentrated in this single thread, rather than spreading things out
across a
few and "diluting" the forum. You guys are awesome and I absolutely
respect your work.

Anyway, a few years ago, I ran across the Chapman Stick (www.stick.com)
and really liked the concept behind it and its versatility. I had an
opportunity to go to the 2005 NAMM show while I was working there and
got to meet Mr. Chapman and poke around at a few Sticks. (For the
record,
he's a really cool guy.) I also spoke with Steve Adelson there while he was
playing - he makes it look so easy.

At any rate, I decided that I wanted a "tapping" instrument. The current
wait time for a Stick is just crossing the year mark right now, and well,
patience of that magnitude is certainly not one of my virtues! haha I
looked around at a few of the other tapping instruments out there: the
Warr Guitar, Mobius Megatar, and the Solene... They're all pretty slick in
their own right, but not quite what I'm looking for. So - I decided to take
the other route: build my own!

Why? Aside from the reasons above, it's been a whole lot of fun so far.
After spending long days writing code, I really want to produce something
tangible. There's also an industrial design itch that I've been dying to
scratch and this gives me the opportunity to do so.

Before I go any farther, here's a mockup that I did in Illustrator a few
weeks ago. It's a little out of date, but my current files aren't in a state to
be shown right now.

http://jocafa.com/stuff/fishbone.png

The neck/body will be constructed of 1/16" maple that I'm going to
vacuum-laminate against a 4.5" pipe that I've prepared to be used as a
mold. This curved shape should make the instrument a bit more stiff in
the direction the strings are pulling while keeping the weight down.
Think of it like a tape measure - it bends easily in one direction, but it's
pretty rigid in the other.

The fanned fret idea and design come from Novax Guitars
(novaxguitars.com). The practical upshot of it is: balanced string tension
and it's a little easier to finger some of those wider chords in certain
cases.

After tons of math, digging through data on D'Addario's site, a few perl
scripts, and lots of brain racking, I found that I can fan the frets to a less-
severe degree and get the benefits I'm looking for.

Now for the hard stuff! --

I forsee some problems with fretting that radiused surface at an angle like
that. I might be able to get away with it but I'm unsure (and
inexperienced). Any advice? From some of the tinkering I did in
SketchUp and Blender, it looks like I'd basically have to twist the fret saw
a little in order for the slot to be perfectly perpendicular to the
fingerboard - and I don't see that happening haha. I also considered
going down the road of epoxying in stainless steel rods for frets, but I'm
not sure how that would work either. I figured if anyone would know
what to do, it would be you guys!

I'd really like to use those L.R. Baggs Active Element piezoelectric pickups.
They sound great, require very little wiring, and the setup looks extremely
simple over all. I really want a very clean sound. I think of it a lot like
digital photography: I want squeaky clean data to work with when
processing (or not!). I like the idea of using piezo pickups not only for
the sound, but because I won't have to sacrifice any of the structural
integrity of the instrument in order to mount the pickups. Here's another
image of how the bridges would basically sit in the instrument: http://
jocafa.com/stuff/bridges.png   (that's a cross section - the transparent
grey things would be the bridges and the ribbon pickups would fit just
underneath those).

You can also see the truss rod in that picture. The measurements were
taken from LMI's double action truss rod. Would just the one work, or
should I go down the route of using two?

I'll post a couple of more pictures in the next few days as I get time to
work on them.

If there are any other glaring issues that I've overlooked, please let me
know. I'm still very open to design changes right now and heck, this is
fun stuff.

Thanks guys!
Author:  Serge Poirier [ Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Very interesting instrument Josh, WOW, i'm gonna be following your developments and progress on that for sure!

Good luck!

Serge
Author:  Steve Kinnaird [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Josh,

I'm not too sure I'm following everything here.
No, that's not quite right--I'm actually sure I'm not following it. However, perhaps I got a bit of the concern about cutting fret slots, fanned at that, on a cylinder? Well, why not cut them first, in the material while it's flat, then laminate it around the pipe?
Would that work? Could you keep that in register?
Anyway, like Sergio said, we'll be watching this.

Steve
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Hi Josh,

I know Steve Adelman -- saw him again last month at the 10-string festival up in Connecticut. He gave a lecture and presentation on the Chapman Stick that was very informative. Here's a shot of him playing his Grand Stick at last month's festival:



As you're probably aware, Chapman is building his Sticks now with peaked frets instead of the round one that he used to use. Steve prefers the round ones, btw.

If you look at the Stick's fingerboard edge-on (one with the round frets), you'll see that the frets are actually metal rods that have been installed such that a "minor arc" (less than the diameter) is showing -- that is, the majority of the rod is set into the wood, which keeps it securely in place. I don't know exactly how Chapman does this, but I know how I would if I were to build one.    (Drill holes for the rods first, thickness sand down to the correct fingerboard height, then insert the rods.)

I wonder if having a radiused instrument like you describe would work all that well as a "tapper". I'm trying to visualize this, and it seems to me it would actually be more difficult to play that way.

I also wonder if the fanned frets are strictly necessary. With the tuning system used on the Stick, Steve doesn't have to make long or complex stretches to achieve the chord voicing he wants. Using straight frets would certainly make installation a lot simpler.

Steve's Stick has two outputs. It uses RMC piezo transducers (with an accompanying electronics module) for each of the upper six strings (er, the ones played with the right hand). It is Roland synth ready. He used a VG-88 at the festival, but could have just as easily used a GR-33. He runs these six strings' output into a guitar amp. The lower six run through a different pickup setup, and into a bass amp.

I too have kicked around the idea of building one, but that's usually as far as it ever gets. Got enough other stuff on my plate right now.

Best,

Michael
Michael McBroom38940.491099537
Author:  Jocafa [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah Steve is a super talented guy. There are a few videos of him playing
on his website (http://steveadelson.com).

Actually, the Stick has two fret options right now, Rods and Rails. The
Rods are basically just stainless steel wire that has been glued into a half-
round channel. The Rails are essentially stainless steel bar stock that has
had a corner removed and set at 45 degrees. Check out the way the slots
are on stick.com under Instruments/Tunings. The slots for the Rails look
like they would be time consuming unless they're using a special router
bit or something. If I remember correctly, Emmett still has a patent on
both fretting systems.

As far as the fanned frets not being needed on the Stick, this is true, but
the stick has a custom set of strings. I'm trying to be able to use a
standard set of 6-string bass strings and standard guitar strings "out of
the box". Making the 36" scale length stretch with regular guitar strings
plus the extra length at the bridge/tail and the length needed to make it
to the tuning pegs would be difficult at best. I emailed D'Addario about
this and their customer support said: "Our guitar strings have a total
length of 41 inches (some plain steel strings; .012” or less are only 39”
long). More importantly, the wound strings are wound to 39 1/2".

Sooo.... 36" scale length + an inch or so at the bridge + around 4" at
most to make the trip to the tuning peg.... that's 41" already right there
without any extra string left over for winding.

Steve - Great idea! Why didn't that cross my mind? I'll certainly try that
out! Once I work out a few more details, I'm going to build a "short"
version so that I can get the technique down before making the real
thing. It wouldn't be playable or anything, just long enough to do the
lamination, hold a few frets, and play with some ideas I have for the head.
Author:  CarltonM [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay, Josh, I commend you for creative thinking, but it has to be said: Why? You're taking a convoluted route to re-invent something that already exists. Chapman spent years coming up with the Stick, going through many prototypes (he began by tapping on a standard guitar). He arrived at his current design for a reason--it works. You're jumping through some strange hoops to come up with something that differs from the Stick, but does the same thing... multiple scale lengths, radically radiused fingerboards (that I think you'll find unplayable)...why? By all accounts, the Stick plays beautifully just as it is. Just buy a stick (my friend, it won't be long before you realize just how short a year is!), or build one and don't make a big deal out of it (just don't try to sell it!).

I have to disagree with you that the Stick is versatile. I only does one thing. It taps. You can't change the volume, except electronically. You can't change the timbre, except electronically. Most players apparently don't like its dry tone, and feel compelled to "sweeten" it with annoying effects. In the (few) right hands it's an awsome instrument, but versatility isn't its middle name.

Now, if you can invent an all-acoustic stick, THEN you'll have something!

Sorry for stompin' on your dream. On the other hand, I might just be a grumpy old flatulent. Feel free to ignore everything I've written, 'cause it's your life and your time!
Author:  Jocafa [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey Carlton - I can completely see where you're coming from and I agree
with you on many accounts. Emmett did put a TON of work into his
designs and experimented a whole heck of a lot before arriving at what
he has now.

My main reasons for doing this aren't about trying to come up with a
better product to sell, or anything like that. I'm mainly just
experimenting, tinkering, and keeping myself out of trouble ;) I didn't
mean to seem like I was making a big deal about it, I just tend to get
excited about things like this.

Actually, Emmett did get together with a luthier to build an acoustic
version of the Stick -- the "Acoustick". I believe Bob Culbertson has it
now. He's recorded a few tracks with it. There are a few pictures of it
here: http://www.stickiwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustick I hope Stick
Enterprises brings them into production soon...

Anyway, when all is said and done - I'm really just having fun with this
project and learning a lot as I go. If it turns out to be absolutely terrible
(which it very well may!) then I've learned a bit, had fun, and got some life
experience out of it.

Again, after writing software all day, it's pretty unrewarding. You really
only hear about bugs, flaws, and the like. Part of me really just wants to
make something tangible. I actually kindof miss the days when I laid tile
and hardwood flooring - at the end of the day, I could look across my
handiwork and feel like I accomplished something.

As a side note - after reading through this forum for a couple of months
now, you guys have given me the itch to build an acoustic that I just may
have to scratch after this. The work that I've seen come through here is
really great and I have a lot of respect for the craftsmanship that goes
into these builds.

Thanks for the comments guys! I'll keep you updated as I go... perhaps
with less rambling from this point haha
Author:  CarltonM [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Josh, I understand completely. It's very rewarding to be able to use your mind AND your hands to come up with something tangible. It's just that old guys can't help trying to steer young guys away from reinventing the wheel, and young guys can't help believing that the wheel can be improved. Who knows, maybe it can!

Hah! The "Acoustick!" These guys are way ahead of me!

Good luck on your quest, my friend. Prove me wrong!

Oh, and yeah, it is hard to resist the call of acoustic guitar building, so I won't be surprised if you jump into the wood pile too. Of course, you'll want to come up with a completely new design.... Go for it!
Author:  Scooter B [ Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Josh,

I like to tinker as well and understand the "urge". I joined up here to embark on my own off the beaten path design.

Anyway I was going to recomend checking out the RMC pickup/saddle tranducers that are on the stick.

I bought some for my AGB design although I did not buy the MIDI elctronics for it. They seem to have a great reputation for good "acoustic" tone and the MIDI option. I may get the MIDI stuff later because I do have some keyboard synths and modules and I suck much less on guitar and bass than I do on keyboards.

Anyway keep us posted on your progress!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/