Andyjr1515

The critical measurement is from fretboard face of the nut to the bridge and, according to the excellent Stewmac Fret Calculator, that is 35" to the centres of the rear fixing screws of a standard Fender bridge for a 34" scale bass - so yours is spot on. The distance from the holes to the tail is irrelevant in terms of the strings, tuning and intonation.

Yes - great venue. Spot on!

Yes - you're right! Blimey, that is a long time ago!

Yes - Bicarb for your burps; baking powder for your nut; Tineafax for your nuts

I think maybe you ought to repeat that a few times!

And then repeated it three times! Apols it didn't seem to have posted... Admins - feel free to delete the duplicate posts!!!

This is the bit where Andyjr1515 is telling everybody that to raise a nut slot, you can pop some bicarb into the slot and add a drop of CA.... What Andyjr1515 MEANT to say was, "To raise a nut slot, you can pop a small amount of BAKING POWDER into the slot, then add a teeny drop of thin CA and it will set solid, allowing you to then recut down to the desired depth." Apologies if anyone rushed home, used bicarb instead of baking powder and then saw their bass reach a greater height than Elon Musk's latest rocket launch 🚀

Pretty sure that will have been @Marillionred's beautiful 5 string Thumb. We compared my 4 string SWAPAAWTBWADS (same woods and proportions as a warwick thumb but, wisely, a different shape) side by side with it too

Yup - back too. Great to meet up with the folks I already know and the folks I've not met before Many thanks to Peter and Richard - and anyone else I may have missed - for organising and running. Great venue!!! Perfect. Thanks also to listening to my ramblings about bass set up...and apologies to anyone whose bass I tweaked and when they got it home and tried it exclaimed 'W*F????' I realised when I got back that I hadn't taken ANY photos. Hopefully, some folks did - and there should be the group photo shortly too

Looking absolutely splendid!

Yup - spot on an all counts

A modern two-way without a sleeve at the adjuster end* is my recommendation. I get mine from Tonetech. They do a number of lengths, but this is an example: https://tonetechluthiersupplies.co.uk/english/truss-rod-2-way-adjustable-bass.html If your centre splice is 6mm wide and set at the correct depth, then there should be very little fettling needed with the slot. Assuming a headstock adjustment, choose your length (from the nut) to where the neck isn't going to bend (ie where it thickens at the heel in the case of a through neck, or from the start of the neck pocket in the case of a bolt-on) + 30mm or so. Exact doesn't matter as long as the end is anchored in the area that isn't going to bend. By the way, two way truss rods are very often photographed upside down on commercial sites. When fitting, the steel strip goes on the top, flush with the top of the fretboard, with the adjuster therefore deeper in the slot. *The reason I don't like the ones with the sleeves around the adjuster, such as the ones that (decent supplier) Northwest Guitars supply, is that the sleeve adds quite a bit of extra width that then needs chiselling out at the nut end. If you do a cross section drawing of the neck at the nut end, you realise just how little timber there is left holding the headstock on (one of the reasons for the scandalously common head breaks on the earlier Gibson Les Paul's) - so every mm there counts!

I don't know, but I suspect that... And, if so, who can blame them - it is a very good design that works beautifully.

I quite liked the blue...but that green is gorgeous!

You can do. Then again, you will get glue squeeze out which will need to be fully cleared, and there maybe slight misalignment that would also need to be cleaned up so it's debateable whether it saves much time or effort.

Two strips joined would be fine. Orientating them so that any direction of end grain is broadly mirrored will help to eliminate warping.

I've never made an oak neck, but I've used oak in a number of builds. The oak I've used (English Oak) has been actually quite nice to work with. Yes - tough, but pretty cooperative with all standard hand and power tools. It has a reputation for being heavyweight, but the lightest full scale 2xhumbucker electric guitar I've ever made (5 1/2lbs) has an oak back:

There's still a lot of it about. Well done for thinking about doing a test. Look after yourself, Frank

Not a criticism on Sandberg because at least they have configuration options...but it is fairly basic. It only lets you choose the colour for hardware. So the Ida Nielsen base model V in the configurator does have the drop (you can see the lever below - but the only option for hardware you can change in the configurator is the colour): ...but many/most/all other base model V's don't have the drop (and, again, the configurator only lets you choose the hardware colour)

Hmmm....I was looking at this: I'm sure this is Hipshot and it is rivetted. Is the BT3 reverse or reversible (most of the more expensive Hipshots are)? And if the former, then I may have got the number wrong but almost certainly they will then do a non-reverse. But, on the other hand, the stock Thomann pic seems to have a different one. Pretty sure it's still Hipshot, but agreed, it's not the same rivetted plate:

Hi @Aidan63 From the photos, I'm pretty sure that I can see the Hipshot stamp on it - it looks like a 20300G Gold Hipshot BT3 to me, although it would be worth you double checking with Sandberg themselves.

Excellent stuff. Yes - moving those poles down will lower the volumes for it to balance nicely

Great - you posted this while I was posting mine

OK - I think I now understand the question but the answer is 'it depends'. First a couple of things that are relevant, because the answer can be different in each case: - In some pickups, the slugs themselves are individually magnetised - In other pickups (such as the Entwistles above), the slugs get their magnetism from the bar magnets stuck to the bottom of the pickup. The slugs themselves are not permanent magnets - put them near or against the bar magnets and they will become magnetic; take them out and they will not be magnetic. In the case that the slugs themselves are magnetised: The length of the slug is irrelevant - the strength of the magnet is determined by the amount it has been magnetised in manufacture (the gaussing process). So, all other things being equal, the longer slugs will be the same magnetism as the short slugs. In your diagram, however, you have increased the distance from the strings of the four middle slugs. So in your above example, the longer slugs will usually be the same magnetism as the shorter outer ones, but the pull on the strings will be less. In the case of non-permanently magnetised slugs with bar magnets again, it depends. If all the slugs use the full depth of the bar magnets, then, again, there will be no difference at all from the length difference of the slugs - only, again, the effect of the distance from the top of the slug to the string. However, if any of the slugs are lifted so that they are not fully covered by the depth of the bar magnets, then there will be a slight change in the magnetic field - although generally not great enough to be audible - until and unless they are raised to the point that they have been lifted away from the bar magnets altogether. Ref your question on the diagram, Same distance from strings = same pull Longer slugs 'more mass', but gaussed to the same level of the others = same pull

Looks great, Mick