Dad3353

Don't wait up for me, adoring public, I may yet have inspiration, but it's not bobbed up yet. My Muse is a shy beggar, and without her I am useless. OK, with her I am useless, too, but still ...

Alice..? Who the ............

Disclaimer : more than half-deaf, especially in the upper registers, so... It sounds fine, to me, on my monitors and my headphones; nicely balanced, in fact. As for the playing : yes, that's how Musicians play Music, so no great surprise. Excellent interpretation, which one wouldn't get from a keyboard such as a clavecin or piano, with the subtle vibrato and micro-bends adding tasteful life to the piece. Great timing, too, avoiding the mechanical metronomic rendition that Bach so often suffers from. Thanks for sharing.

And the winner is ... @NickD..! Here, then, is your Winner's Certificates (download and save as pdf file, then proudly print and frame...) ... BC_Chal_Cert_2023_02.pdf ... which look like this (but bigger, of course..!)…

Correct. Mea culpa.

See here ...

Sigh... '...under the modern Fender brand, that's not it's place in the 21st century market...

If they had the same relative cost as those Fender offerings, they would be a bargain, I'd say. Not many new cars around, still less coupés, for sixteen grand. They cost between two and four month's average salary at the time (1928...). Current equivalent would be eight to sixteen thousand. The Thinline, on the other hand, costs far more than its original issue.

It's not (yet...) a suitable proposition for making sousaphones, either. Maybe one day, though, unless Armageddon comes first.

Emma Burton..?

When introduced as a 'new, improved' Telecaster model, the Thinline cost roughly two week's wages ($375; average US salary at the time : $7800...). Things have changed... Wasn't nitro-cellulose deemed a health hazard a while back, and phased out, generally..? How 'green' are the 'new' 'vintage' finishes (or doesn't that worry some Americans any more..?)..?

Any Blender window can be filled with whatever function is required, and split, either horizontally or vertically, so as to compose the view that's right for the circumstances. I can't speak for 'palettes' as such, as I mainly use the 3D functions, and colour things with UV textures, not 'paint' as such. Blender has many facets, and those that I use for 3D are quite different from those used, for example, by a sculptor, or photo-real artist. The GUI stays the same, however, so I could easily adapt another's set-up for my own usage. The mouse movements and keyboard shortcuts would be those I wish to use, and with a 'right-click' on any command, I can add it to an 'express' menu fro my most common function calls. For another project, I may well change these for a more suitable set. It's very flexible, not rigid at all. I doubt that Windows, Apple, GEM, Linux, Unix... whatever... could design a GUI that would be perfect for everyone's use in every situation without offering some form of personalised configuration. 'Horses for courses', and 'We're all different' and all that, of course. I had a look, and couldn't (rapidly...) find a 3D package that adheres to the Apple standard, either. A gap in the market, maybe..?

There was a headstock..?

I was doing fine with learning Fusion360 until they changed the conditions, and the Personal version is no longer useful for 3D printing, which was my prime usage. A shame; I might have bought it if their pricing was a bit more in budget, but the monthly outgoings were far too much. As for the 'non-Mac' interface : I've had all sorts of OS over the decades, and just get on with adapting. I studied the Xerox GUI for a few years, and agree with many of its principles, but have a far more pragmatic attitude, going with Life's flow rather than getting tied to any one method. It was part of my career in any case, and so flexibility was an advantage I played upon. No regrets.

I'm a drummer, and wouldn't consider going to a gig without a spare snare drum, bass drum, one of each tom and few spare cymbals. Spare stands are on hand, and I've a stick bag (and a spare one...) clipped onto each side of my drum throne, and the back-up throne. Bitter experience has shown me that only one spare bass drum pedal is not enough, so I use a double pedal, with a pair of spare ones close by. I don't carry spare heads any more, as it's quicker to roll out the spare drum riser and change the whole kit; I have to check that the drum risers have spare castors, of course, as it wouldn't do to have it all stuck halfway off the stage. I take it as 'given' that the PA folk have spare mics for the set-up, but I have a flight case of ancillary mic's on hand if needed. For the 'live' recordings, I usually rely on having two (sometimes three...) digital recorders rolling, and a trusty pair of Revox reel-to-reels taping everything. Our second tour-bus is followed by an AA van in between venues. We've never had a failure yet, so I don't know if any of these precautions would save the night or not, but it's worth it just for the peace of mind. My stand-in agrees.

Start off by working on how to design for 3D, using whatever software you can afford (I use Blender, which is free; some software costs an arm and a leg each month...). The resulting design has to be in a format that 3D printers work with (typically STI; there are others...), and that the design is '3D-print friendly', which means that it is physically possible to create it by 'layering' slices of the chosen material one on t'other. It's easy to start off, for learning, and can cost nothing but one's time and patience (like many other skills...); one 'designs' a cube to start with, then rounds off the corners, punches holes through, chooses connection points etc... As I boldly stated, it's really not rocket surgery for anyone with a will to learn, and, whilst it's only 'on screen', wastes nothing. Once one has a half-decent little project to be tested (not necessarily a complete guitar; just a test piece such as a small house, or a duck...), there are local 3D printers not far away that will print it, after testing its technical feasibility, for very little expenditure. When it comes to actually wanting to print out a complete body, there are 3D printers that work with almost any material required, including carbon, so no need to invest, oneself, in industrial plant. Start small and modest and it becomes much more 'doable'. You're probably right about a complete, fretted, neck, although I'm sure some hi-tech means are available now, but the day is fast approaching. Anyway, the first step will always be the ability to have the Idea, then create a printable file from the software, and anyone can do that, after putting in the effort. Just sayin'.

Whilst I wouldn't claim that the method and model presented in the video are the be-all and end-all of luthery, looking purely at the financial outlay and the end result, it looks, to me, to be a darned fine deal. The 'mystic' of 3D printing is soon dissolved once one has done a little, and that one's printer is a decent one (mine is an Alfawise U30, so far from 'top-end', but it does a fine job...). I'm sure that you're familiar with amateur silk-screen printing..? It's about the same learning curve, I'd say; a few spoilt tee-shirts and some runny ink, then it settles down to a certain routine. Without having looked at the details of the files offered, I see not major reason why anyone couldn't just bash 'em out; it's not rocket surgery, really. The PLA material used is very inexpensive, with the downside of not supporting high temperatures too well, so such an instrument left out in the sun could well become a Salvador Dali version. There are other materials, such as ABS, that would be fine, but they require a well-ventilated print-room, as they are not really lung-friendly. Customisation would be a doddle to anyone using even basic 3D software such as Blender, and the honeycomb idea makes it even easier. If one wanted to go 'solid' (although most 3D prints are not fully solid, anyway...), it's no big deal. A mistake really only costs the time spent printing (it's not instant; pieces like that would take days to produce, not minutes...), so experimentation would not be a disaster. The material used is not embedded in the print file, which is really only concerned with the actual shape; the software coupled with the printer would decide exactly how to 'slice' the model, with the parameters that the operator would enter. I started out with zero knowledge; I'm certainly not expert now, but such a project daunts me not at all. I've successfully printed far more complex stuff, and anyone with half a grain of experience can do the same, I'm sure. Hope this helps.

I'd keep the drummer; the other two can leave, quietly. Dead weight, mate.

Luke-warm soup..?

Incomprehensible.

Interesting, in the video, to see how each positions the left-hand thumb..!

You've answered this yourself.