Andyjr1515

While I still make monumental c**k ups every now and again, there is no doubt that the exposure to perfection from other builders round here is making me a touch more accurate at times. To get a cable channel from the jack socket, I have to get a hole to the bottom of the rear pickup chamber from the edge, intersecting the jack socket cutout. Basically along this line: With a standard length brad-point drill, where it was easier to ensure I was going at the correct angle in all planes, I first drilled from the edge to the jack chamber. It's a 6mm drill so a standard neck dot will fill the hole at the edge : Then got the big b*****d out and went the distance. It came out at the right place and height! And I'm not sure I could do that again if I tried!

Well, Google is your friend. Apparently the non-intrusive fix is a recent innovation. The above pic is apparently attached on Ebay to the text below: "My name is Evan Webb, proud owner of WEBBTECA MUSICAL INDUSTRIES. In the spring of 2006 I invented what is called a MOD-BAR, the end all problem solver for 2 and 3 point bass bridges. These bridges are commonly found on Gibson, Epiphone and even some imported basses like Aria. All of them share a design flaw that won’t let the saddles intonate correctly. This inherent flaw also causes the silk windings (near the end of the string) to rest over the metal saddles, killing the tone and sustain! Many players have wasted time trying to unwind or cut them off. Now you don’t have to… The MOD-BAR will fix this problem!" So from when your bass was built to 2006, it looks like the only way to solve the Gibson three-point bridge "feature" was drilling for through body stringing or a retainer of some sort like the one fitted on yours.

Almost certainly your bass is fitted with a Gibson three-point bridge, @basskit_case. I think these came in around the early 70's, replacing the original 60's bridges that @yorks5stringer refers to: You should be able to confirm this by looking for a centre screw if you look from the other side of the palm-guard, @basskit_case But the retainer at the back is a retro-fit. To fit some form of string retainer and extender was/is pretty much essential as there isn't enough space between the Gibson designed ball claws and saddles for the string binding on pretty much any normal bass strings. On this count, the bridge is, IMHO, one of the worst-designed bridges around. BUT - I'm pretty sure that is what they were fitting as standard in the 70's (and still do on Epiphones IIRC). This is another 1975 example here: The alternative retro-fit accessory to solve this problem was an extender bar like this which has the advantage of not needing any fixing holes in the body but I'm not sure when these were developed: So - back to your question. My personal view is: - unless the original seller stated specifically that it was original, standard and completely un-modded, then I don't think there is anything to gain by going back to the original seller. It is an original 1975 EB-0, as opposed to a fake or a re-issue. And, yes, it's had an accessory retro-fitted - but that basically makes the bridge work. - it's worth, though, putting in any sales ad, that it has, at some stage in its life, had the accessory retro-fitted (and maybe the palm guard too? Were those standard?)

Welcome back!

Onto the jack socket. This (I hope @wwcringe ) is broadly where Tom wanted the jack socket to be. Before I made the cut, I strapped it up to see how much clearance there is between the jack itself and the player's side - there is plenty! So the chamber was cut So this is how it will sit, with the lead in the standard secure "once round the strap and into the jack socket" position: "But surely, you're going to knock the jack with your hip????!!!" No, actually. Stood up or sat down, it's miles away. And, actually, much, much safer than the jack into the front of the jack plate of many Fenders. Here's the jack in playing position - the blue's my shirt, the grey is my leg: So yes, @wwcringe - you chose a good position

Bit more work on the volute and heel, but the profile is pretty much there: While the neck is on, I'll pop a couple of temporary strap buttons on and check out the positioning of the rear jack access. If I get time, I'll have a go at that this afternoon.

I'll creep up on the neck over a couple of days. I'll probably go entirely by feel rather than templates and also there are a couple of areas (especially the volute, re the multiscale and the heel join) where I want time to sit and ponder before removing wood that can't be put back I prefer, where I can, to carve the neck fixed to the body (most of my builds are through necks anyway so it's probably just what I'm used to). Having marked the centre line so I know not to carve into this area, for the rough shape I start with the spokeshave to take the corners off: Then fairly quickly moved onto the micro-plane rasp blade, drawn down the whole length of the neck like a scraper (wearing gloves!): And this is where I'll leave it for today to finish it to shape over the weekend:

OK, Tom's preference is Prototype 1. So this is the final version, ready to fit: The base plate will be sunk the 2-3mm flush with the body and be securely held in place with a fixing screw in the centre of each curved wing. I know the angle and broad positioning that Tom would prefer but - before I cut the chamber - am going to pop a couple of strap buttons on (it will eventually have the Dunlop insert straplocks so when those are fitted, I will just use the screwholes as my drilling pilot holes) and strap it up to make sure that the jack is going to end up in the right place an inch or so right of the player's right hip. But tomorrow's main job is probably going to be making a start with carving the neck profile

So, Prototype 1: And Prototype 2: In both cases they will be sunk into the body by a couple of mm. Playing air guitar with one of my test bed guitars, they both actually work pretty well and with the jack actually well out of harm's way. So I'm going to pass it over to Tom for whichever he prefers. Then I'll make the final one, just tweaked a bit to get the look and the angles a touch better. By the way, this walnut (recognise it @scrumpymike ? ) will darken nicely with any finish applied. This is the same wood:

So prototype 1 is done and - other than a bit more thought about the fixing (the block will be also the access point) - this concept would work. But @Stub Mandrel has got me thinking. I could actually mirror this to become more like a conventional strat / Ibanez, but with more body to it. So still a carved block, but incorporating the type of scoop @Stub Mandrel refers to. I'll have a play and see if I can get prototype 2 done along those lines

Yes - it's an option, but it means a control chamber cover that I'm trying to avoid. While I don't think that there is much chance of splitting the body - trust me, the jack would bend before this wood split! - I understand where you are coming from and, normally would probably opt to do it like that. However, this present option is a concept that Tom and I talked about quite a lot and think maybe it could work. I have the prototype done. I'll post it shortly.

And today's challenge. Can I make something like that on the left with something like this on the right?

Beautiful job. Top drawer!

And for a mere king's ransom....

So - the jack. This is one of those areas where Tom and I will be PMing in the background to bounce off the ideas. But the concept is something along these lines: ie, cable round the strap and then in at the back, from the top and at an angle. Could be an actual upside down strat jackplate like above, or it could be a carved piece of timber with that kind of shape - not sure yet. Why not use a strat plate in the normal position? Because the body is so slim, the jack would poke through at the front! Using an actual reversed strat plate, then I would use a conventional jack. If I did a carved solution, then I would probably use a cylinder jack: Anyway - that's the concept. The actual solution will develop anon

And when I say I have a long drill bit for the cable runs, I mean a LONG drill bit! It performed better than I had expected. The second run - from the jack connection point to the rear chamber - will have to wait until I've done my experimenting...

Although this is going to have the wenge pickup rings and so a close fit of the chambers isn't critical, it's nevertheless decent practice to pretend that they are needing to be close fitted. Each to their own, but regular viewers of my builds know that I don't generally use templates. As always, this is just the way I do it - not that this is the way it should be done. I draw round the pickup directly onto the top, then get a drill of the right radius to get the four corners, and an appropriate drill size if there are lugs like these humbuckers have to do the same to mark the lug positions: Then I use a Forstner to hog out to the edge of the line, around 3mm shallower than the final depth: I then chisel away the wave peaks up to the line and to at least the depth of my router bit bearing: Then my most-used router bit - this diddy bearing-guided one to firstly clean up the sides, and then to reach the final chamber depth: And I then have the two chambers: Into which, happily, two humbuckers fit nicely into :

It's a very reasonable question, Si. For many years I was, too, a bit mystified - and put it down to eye-catching claptrap to be honest - until I had the task of building Pete's Piccolo bass: Because that was going to be guitar scale and guitar pitch, how was I going to make it NOT sound like the bottom 4 strings of a guitar. And the problem is usually the G - on a guitar it is often the string where 'smooth bassy' suddenly becomes 'jarry tinny'. And - and yes, I know you can dial a lot of it out at the amp - but I have always thought the same about basses. Might be just me, but through a completely clean and neutral EQ amp, I find that very often the G sounds 'different' to the other three strings. To my ears, it often doesn't have the tone by brain is expecting from a bass. So the simple theory of multiscale - and you have to always remember that the pitch you tune to is unchanged to standard - is as follows: Let's assume that it is like Tom's - 33" for the bottom E and 31" for the G and therefore to compare it with a fixed scale length bass of 32" : - The longer scale length of 33" of the bottom E string means that, to reach standard pitch, you have to tighten the string more than the 32" fixed scale bass. It's the same pitch, but the note will be a little more 'strident' than on the 32" bass, because the string is tighter. - The shorter scale of 31" on the G means that, to reach standard pitch, the string will need to be loosened more than the 32" fixed scale bass. Again, it's the same pitch, but that lower tension will give a warmer sound than the 32" bass next to it. So instead of having a slightly boomy E and slightly jangly G, you have a touch more clarity on the E and a slightly softer G. You can, of course, achieve similar effects by changing string gauges across the range, but that brings its own challenges. And you lose out on the eye-catching claptrap too It worked a treat on Pete's Piccolo - which sounds NOTHING like a guitar and where the G is very much in the same tonal character as the E. And I could do a direct comparison because I had an electric guitar with the same rails pickup at the same average scale length. But it could have been better. The bit I never thought through at the time was the need to also angle the pickup. But I'm not telling Pete, that

Next couple of challenges - pickups. And more importantly, cable access for the pickups. We're going for an Artec Ric-ish set of Humbucker and mini humbucker that I bought for another project and never got round to using, so I can gift these to Tom's project. I also rate Artec products. And for anyone fitting an acoustic under-saddle piezo, particularly their piezos. Fraction of the cost of many other piezos and, in my view, just as good. Tom prefers the 'full fat' sound of series humbuckers, and also pickups wired in series (I've fitted series/parallel switching in the past for him, but he generally sticks with the series setting). So these two will be hardwired in series, straight to the jack. And positioning. The whole point of multi-scale is to balance the tone of each string. Putting in pickups at right angles to the strings would completely negate that, by effectively putting the treble strings much closer to the bridge saddles. So the pickups need to be also angled. You can see I've tried a few options, but I reckon this is a pretty good final configuration: I will be making some wenge pickup rings from some last bits of constructional wenge veneer (2mm) that will also be used for the headstock plate. This will mean that adjustment of the pickup heights to get the balance just-so should be straightforward. Now - the big challenge. getting control wire passages in without having to resort to covered channels at the back. I have some super-long bradpoint drills that would actually be long enough to drill through the back of the neck pocket to both chambers, and also from the back to the rear chamber: - but, this is exceptionally hard wood and the drills are not the best quality. I will cut the chambers first and then experiment. It is also not certain yet actually where the rear one would be drilled, as it isn't fixed yet how the jack will be secured and accessed. Tom and I are thinking rear-edge access and angled - a bit Stratocaster/Ibanez style. I need to do some careful thinking where the jack needs to be, where the access and fixing needs to be and where the bridge element fixings are going to be - trying to screw a bridge through a wire-filled passage wouldn't be a great idea Anyway - a bit more measuring, pondering and experimenting before the first step of cutting the chambers

That is superb @Rexel Matador. So ridiculously stylish. Off the scale - really.

Ah - sorry, misunderstood. No - I'll do that with a wood plane. I'll take the inserts out so I don't knacker the blade and just pop a teeny angle on the heel of the neck. Don't have a photo of it, but it's the other side of this:

To be honest, just taking the highspots off with a cabinet scraper or the lightest skim with my trusty block plane. It's just to make sure that the plate is sitting on a flat piece of wood in that area to maximise the compression from the machine screws without overstressing small areas because of any unevenness.

Square would have fit fine - and I'm sure would have been structurally fine too - but once I have reshaped the curve of the pocket, I'm hoping this will add just a soupcon of je ne sais quoi.

Following morning and it's starting to look more like a bass: The carve of the body - almost certainly hand carved from a solid block of wood - is thinner at the top horn than the main body. As such, this looks skewwhiff, but is actually in line with the bridge plane: What I might do is split the difference - angle the neck heel a touch to maybe halve this effect and sink in the bridge elements on the same side to keep the geometry right. The body carve is also slightly wavy - which I want to retain - but at the plate here, it will need to be flattened so I don't have any crack-inducing high spots: Nowadays, I would normally chisel round and underneath something like this to inset the plate flush with the top - it is a small job but makes it look super classy - but in this case I daren't. That pocket base is simply too thin and too unknown strengthwise to risk it. I think next job is probably back to the body and starting to sort the pickup chambers. Got a busy day or two coming up but I'll let you all know how I get on when I get back to it

OK...this has gone a bit weird