My hollowbody design..

[RaVenCAD]

Have you considered a neck through design? I only ask for a few reasons: 1- You like Carvin and many of them are neck through (or at least they were in the 80s) 2- If you eventually do your removable top design it would make things pretty simple 3- You could probably come up with a universal pickup mounting idea that would make swapping pickups as well as the top simple.

 

 

I thought about neck-thru very early on, but I decided against it for a few reasons. The first being I just don't like how they feel. There is a stiffness to them that just isn't there on a bolt-on or a set-neck. It shouldn't exist, and I can't explain why a neck that doesn't move on a bolt-on is any less stiff than one that doesn't move on a neck-thru, but to me, it just feels stiff. I've seen other people say the same thing about neck-thrus, so I'm not just being weird. I don't have a great answer, other than the fact that I just don't like em, despite the fact that I love a neck-thru's heel. Go figure.

 

Another reason is that a neck-thru sounds primarily like the neck. Whatever wood you pick for the neck is pretty much what the entire guitar is made of from the perspective of the pickups. The "wings" don't matter much. I really want the body and top woods to matter.

 

And finally, I think the construction I've come up with internally beats other contructions I've seen. It combines the best of the bolt-on (the ability to replace the neck) and set-neck (the ability to have a big, solid body..) designs, and can be made as smooth externally as a neck-thru.

 

My pickup mounting is pretty unique as-is, and I think it'll work out nicely, as long as you want 2 humbuckers. That's the flavor I'm going for with my designs, so single coil people are just SOL...

[csm]

All those photobucket shots seem to have disappeared, RVC. 'S'up with that?

 

WANT SEE!

[MahaloVision]

 

I thought about neck-thru very early on, but I decided against it for a few reasons. The first being I just don't like how they feel. There is a stiffness to them that just isn't there on a bolt-on or a set-neck. It shouldn't exist, and I can't explain why a neck that doesn't move on a bolt-on is any less stiff than one that doesn't move on a neck-thru, but to me, it just feels stiff. I've seen other people say the same thing about neck-thrus, so I'm not just being weird. I don't have a great answer, other than the fact that I just don't like em, despite the fact that I love a neck-thru's heel. Go figure.

 

 

Could be the neck angle. Some builders make neck throughs with a zero neck angle, which you can do by either floating a trem or stepping down at the end of the neck shaft. Depending on the rest of the design, it can make it feel like you're reaching more than you normally would. Of course, it's easy enough to design and build a neck through with a neck angle of whatever you want. In the latter case, I got nothin'...

[BoneNut]

Several people have PM'd me recently asking, so I thought I'd give this old thread a bump and let folks know where it stands. My CNC guy called me the other day and told me that he'd be cutting the demo neck after they got back from Thanksgiving break. He didn't want to trust it to students, and he hasn't had time until now to do much with it. I've decided to change my plans a bit though. Instead of starting with the pop-top version, I'm going to work on the set-neck solidbody version first. I feel it's important to get a firm grip on the ergonomics of the guitar before I work on the hollowbody aspect. I have the some basic sketches of the solidbody version worked up, but nothing modeled yet. So this is far from dead, despite the fact I've not been talking about it on here very much. Sadly, I think I'm on my own for the electronics. I had been talking to Al from Dirty South Guitars, but he was apparently abducted by aliens or something around mid-September. Disappointing, cuz what he was telling me about sounded very exciting.

 

 

I'm looking forward to an actual guitar coming out of your project, so more power to you and good luck with it.

 

It very much seems guitarists are an uber traditional bunch. Considering we are basically playing instruments that are exact copies... the more exact the better... of designs that are over 50 years old, a change is long overdue.

 

Even when there is a slight change in design, it's usually limited to small variations in shape and color, what comes down to basically just an image change. Considering the advances there have been in the last 50 years in materials, electronics and all fields throughout the world, why are we as guitarists still "stuck"? When an innovative project like this ones pops up, the peanut gallery often criticizes and condones it, even before the the first one is built or anyone has the opportunity to strum one.

 

Imagine electronics, transportation, textiles, computers, manufacturing techniques and communications from 50 years back. Would any of us be willing to live with that? I know there is a small percentage (compared to the total user population) of people out there that would like to own a old classic car or even have an old rotary dial phone in the living room as a conversation piece. But... would you only have that car and that phone? Wouldn't they own a daily modern ride and have at least a cell phone?

 

Yeah, I know old stuff is cool but isn't there a better way to do things now or is the entire market dominated by supply and demand?

 

Why are we still using magnets to register a strings vibration? Damn, we watch movies read by lasers... frickin lasers on 60 inch screens! We can walk into a dealership and buy a mid priced car that can run circles around a 50s Ferrari. Our cell phones have more computing power than NASA had on Apollo 11. We nuke our lunch and we're still using magnets in our guitar pickups???

[RaVenCAD]

All those photobucket shots seem to have disappeared, RVC. 'S'up with that? WANT SEE!

 

 

hmm.. I bet I broke them when I did some house cleaning on Photobucket a few weeks ago. Oops. I'll post new renders when I get the solidbody version worked out.

[MahaloVision]

 

We nuke our lunch and we're still using magnets in our guitar pickups???

 

 

Optical pickups have been around for years, and so have piezo's. Both have their applications. What other technology do you have in mind, and why would you consider that to be better? Just askin...

[RaVenCAD]

Could be the neck angle. Some builders make neck throughs with a zero neck angle, which you can do by either floating a trem or stepping down at the end of the neck shaft. Depending on the rest of the design, it can make it feel like you're reaching more than you normally would. Of course, it's easy enough to design and build a neck through with a neck angle of whatever you want. In the latter case, I got nothin'...

 

 

I think you're probably correct. My Gibson Les Paul has a very pronounced neck angle, and it feels really good compared to my old Carvin DC. Much more natural. And yes, you could build that angle into a neck-thru. Still doesn't fix the fact that everything is mounted to the center block, thus negating the effect of the body/top.

[BoneNut]

Optical pickups have been around for years, and so have piezo's. Both have their applications. What other technology do you have in mind, and why would you consider that to be better ? Just askin...

 

 

I was unaware of optical pickups. Have they gone mainstream? If not, why not? If they aren't better than magnetic pups, why hasn't the technology (or any other for guitar pickups) been developed further to improve on existing pickups?

 

What I'm asking is why guitars, their electronics and other assorted parts haven't been improved and truly transformed in the last 50 or 60 so years and why are we guitarists so enamored of half century old technology instead of demanding improvement of the gear we use? Is it just a case of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" or are even the youngest among us just a bunch of stagnant old farts?

[RaVenCAD]

I agree with Boner. The guitar has been stuck in a time-warp for 60 years. Yes, what we have works; but why stop development just because you found something that works? Propeller planes worked well, but someone still invented a jet. The Model T worked, but today we have much more impressive cars. If there was a new technology out there, I'd be all over it. But I simply don't know of anything suitable.

[ajcoholic]

Has any progress been made on getting this from a rendering to a prototype? Any luck finding an affordable CNC operator?

 

AJC

[ihavenofish]

I agree with Boner. The guitar has been stuck in a time-warp for 60 years. Yes, what we have works; but why stop development just because you found something that works? Propeller planes worked well, but someone still invented a jet. The Model T worked, but today we have much more impressive cars. If there was a new technology out there, I'd be all over it. But I simply don't know of anything suitable.

 

 

the prop plane didnt work well. it was slow, limited by altitude, and thrust for carrying capacity.

 

the model t the same.

 

the improvements were evolutionary based on demand.

 

a guitar makes a noise. a noise people like. playing it is fairly easy. theres is no NEED to make drastic alterations. there has been alot of innovation in guitars since the 50's. dual action truss rods, more reliable vibratos, better strings, more durable fret wires, and polyurethane pain. things that made quantifiable improvements are generally not rejected by the customer.

 

the shape, material, and basic structure, just doesnt need to change.

 

anyhow, heres an idea for you. try using the kickstarter website to launch your innovative guitar. keep it simple (one model in a few colours), market the {censored} out of it, and see how far it goes. that way if you sell none, its no loss, and if you sell 200, you get the cash up front to make them properly. if your design is good, it should do well.

 

ive just put up my own project this week (not guitar related). im using it as a guage to put some guitar stuff up later, like my tuners.

[JonP]

Nifty!

[warriorpoet]

The renders are missing

[RaVenCAD]

 

Has any progress been made on getting this from a rendering to a prototype? Any luck finding an affordable CNC operator? AJC

 

 

Nope and nope.. The CNC guy I was working with was like a black hole of excuses and delays. I've abandoned it for now and I really don't know if I'll ever try again.

[RaVenCAD]

the prop plane didnt work well. it was slow, limited by altitude, and thrust for carrying capacity. the model t the same. the improvements were evolutionary based on demand. a guitar makes a noise. a noise people like. playing it is fairly easy. theres is no NEED to make drastic alterations. there has been alot of innovation in guitars since the 50's. dual action truss rods, more reliable vibratos, better strings, more durable fret wires, and polyurethane pain. things that made quantifiable improvements are generally not rejected by the customer. the shape, material, and basic structure, just doesnt need to change. anyhow, heres an idea for you. try using the kickstarter website to launch your innovative guitar. keep it simple (one model in a few colours), market the {censored} out of it, and see how far it goes. that way if you sell none, its no loss, and if you sell 200, you get the cash up front to make them properly. if your design is good, it should do well. ive just put up my own project this week (not guitar related). im using it as a guage to put some guitar stuff up later, like my tuners.

 

I've looked at that site before, but never really considered using it. Dammit, you got me thinking about this project again..

 

FYI to anyone looking at the renders: This design would be totally scrapped and restarted from scratch if I decided to try it again. The more I looked at it, and the distorted, melted Les Paul looking shape, the more I hated it.

[ihavenofish]

The more I looked at it, and the distorted, melted Les Paul looking shape, the more I hated it.

good. now fix it and stop being a quitter!

[BG76]

Raven,

 

Have you explored a Bolt In (not on) design instead of neck through? This would extend your tenon, give you the option to build in a neck angle and still have your bridge mounted on a separate piece.

[RaVenCAD]

 

Raven, Have you explored a Bolt In (not on) design instead of neck through? This would extend your tenon, give you the option to build in a neck angle and still have your bridge mounted on a separate piece.

 

 

That's what you're looking at in my renders.. =)

[ajcoholic]

The reason I asked is (A), I havent seen anything else about this since last Sept (not that I have much time to hang here anymore) and (B) I just purchased a smaller, yet pretty high quality cnc router for my business, and just got it up and running. I have absolutely no intention of doing guitar stuff for anything but my hobby same as before - it was bought for my furniture and cabinet business - but I am always willing to try new things, and thought I'd mention it. As for the programming, I have no idea what format your stuff is in, and the computer side of things is pretty new to me since I last did any cnc work when I was in college in the early to mid 1990's. However it is coming along pretty well and I am already making some pretty complex parts.

 

AJC

[RaVenCAD]

 

The reason I asked is (A), I havent seen anything else about this since last Sept (not that I have much time to hang here anymore) and (B) I just purchased a smaller, yet pretty high quality cnc router for my business, and just got it up and running. I have absolutely no intention of doing guitar stuff for anything but my hobby same as before - it was bought for my furniture and cabinet business - but I am always willing to try new things, and thought I'd mention it. As for the programming, I have no idea what format your stuff is in, and the computer side of things is pretty new to me since I last did any cnc work when I was in college in the early to mid 1990's. However it is coming along pretty well and I am already making some pretty complex parts. AJC

 

 

AJ, sorry, I totally missed your post when this was last bumped. I'd love to work something out with you for some CNC time. Or if you just want a model to play with, I can send you some stuff.

 

That's actually why I looked this thread up. I found a new local guy that's going to cut some parts for me as soon as I get my latest redesign completed. I ditched 95% of the previous design, cuz it just didn't appeal to me. Got a new shape going now and I'm digging it. Might have some renders to share in a few hours.

[warriorpoet]

AJ, sorry, I totally missed your post when this was last bumped. I'd love to work something out with you for some CNC time. Or if you just want a model to play with, I can send you some stuff. That's actually why I looked this thread up. I found a new local guy that's going to cut some parts for me as soon as I get my latest redesign completed. I ditched 95% of the previous design, cuz it just didn't appeal to me. Got a new shape going now and I'm digging it. Might have some renders to share in a few hours.

[RaVenCAD]

No renders yet, but I thought I would describe the changes I have worked on since the last time I posted something.

 

Gone is the fat, too wide body and the anemic little horn. Now it is shaped a lot like a Charvel Skatecaster, which is pretty much just a copy of a Fender Jaguar..

 

I felt the old design was too thin to be worth a crap acoustically, so the new one is a lot thicker in the rear. The cutaway and the gut cut though, those areas are thin. So where you contact the guitar, it will feel sporty and sleek. Still has the heavily sculpted back.

 

Internally, it is very different than the previous design. The old on reminded me of a boat with all the bracing. This one is far less complicated and relies more on big tangencies than extra wood. It's lighter and the analysis shows it is stronger under load than the previous one.

 

On the old one, the pop top just sort of sat on the body and attached with some screws. The split was like 80/20 back/top. Now, they have a lot more overlap, so the resonance should be better because it's a more solid connection that interlocks. This one is more like 55/45. I still plan to use those black clamps, buti doubt I will need them.

 

Still no externally visable screws!

 

Renders when I get em, but I am in no hurry this time around.

[ajcoholic]

Well, I am very busy work wise, and it looks like that will be the case for the rest of this year judging by the work I have lined up since I posted... However, like I said, I am always looking for challenges and some new things to work on.

My biggest concern is if I will be able to import your drawing files into my cam software. But, this is stuff we can try and work out.

We can discuss...

AJC

[RaVenCAD]

 

Well, I am very busy work wise, and it looks like that will be the case for the rest of this year judging by the work I have lined up since I posted... However, like I said, I am always looking for challenges and some new things to work on. My biggest concern is if I will be able to import your drawing files into my cam software. But, this is stuff we can try and work out. We can discuss... AJC

 

 

What formats can you import?

[ajcoholic]

DXF and DWG files, EPS, AI and PDF. I think pretty much any vector drawings.

I know I have imported and made cut files for some 3D modeled stuff. I can only try I guess, I am still learning the software almost daily - I have only been using it for the past 4 months and have lots yet to learn.

The CAM portion is pretty sweet. Back in my college days (just shy of 20 yrs ago) we used MAstercam. I know that is an eternity ago, but the software I am using now is SO much better, for producing the cut files. I have done a lot of 3D stuff for my business. I did cut a strat body as well, but havent had much time for guitars the past few months.

AJC