Andyjr1515

I would recommend a decent fret job as a first step in any case.

Yes l agree. You would lose a lot of resale value if you refinished it, regardless of how well that was done.

Yes - your relief is fine but you have a high spot or high spots on the fretboard. Andy

^This. If there is any perceptible movement of both the G and the E when you tap on the 8th, then the relief is fine. It’s only an issue if either of the strings are hard down against those middle frets. When I set up a bass, I aim for ‘just perceptible movement’

That's what's known in certain circles as a transformation Great job

Yup - a BBOT ordered. That is, a Big Bu**er Other Type

Yes - the joint is OK, both sides (phew!) And so the next steps, while I still have a flat surface to work from, are the pickup and neck pocket routs...but before that, I am going to try to source a suitable bridge...a nice big heavy one. In fact, the heavier, the better (and yes, the irony of that has not passed me by ). I will leave the external shape excess wood until I can fit the neck and place the bridge and know exactly where the bass edges need to be. After that I can trim to the final shape and the basic weight-reducing carve can begin.

Using the pencil again (!), I squiggled a line all the way down each glue joint and spent a happy hour or so's workout sledging each side along my long sanding beam until all the pencil lines were gone. Then, after double checking for gaps when the two sides were held together, out came the Titebond and sash clamps: That will remain clamped until the morning to ensure that the titebond is fully cured.

To the younger folks here, the big white area is called paper, the stick thing a pencil, the brown and black object is a T-square and the blue thing a set-square I've spent my whole working life using CAD CAM...but there are times when it's just quicker to go trad. Besides, I think better when I have a pencil in my hand And the answer to how much of the billet thickness do I need to get the shape I want, with appropriate depth in the right places for all the components and their fixings? All of it! There are a number of things that I am considering to take out more timber, and it probably can go up to 5mm thinner all round, but there is no point pre-judging - I'll just straighten up the jointing faces and glue the blanks at their present full thickness. Which, after my daily argument with the AA (Automobile, not Alcoholics), will be my next job

There is a reasonable leeway. 'From where the heel thickens to close to the nut' is a decent rule of thumb - but you can take liberties. But the risk area is where the rod is going to be primarily pushing. which is up against the fretboard in the middle and down against the neck bottom at the nut and at the heel ends ('up and down' relative to being looked on from the side). So, if you are going to suffer breakthrough, it will be generally under the 1st fret area, where the wood under that force is at its thinnest, and if the fretboard is going to pop off, it will be in the middle of the fretboard.

And so (at least!) one more thing to do before gluing the two sides together...that is, seeing if the billets need thinning down before I start. Simple reason - my Makita thicknesser isn't wide enough to take a full width body and so it is a lot easier to thickness the blanks before joining than messing about with router sleds, etc. But to determine the thickness, I need to confirm the cross-section. I think the most effective compromise between weight/playing feel/control-chamber-depth I've done so far was the design I used for @Len_derby's Swift Lite: Because I do have that extra depth of wood in the present blanks and no separate top, I will probably start the top curve a touch earlier (the start of the top curve of Len_Derby's is determined by the thickness of the poplar burl top wood) but I will play around a bit and see what I reckon will look and feel right while still taking out plenty of wood and still being able to fit the pretty deep Fishman EQ pot!

Great. I would be surprised if he doesn't get you sorted. And he needs to be aware of this problem - it's a popular range and there clearly is a quality problem. Keep us posted.

It's : Dr. Lars Bünning, whom I believe is the owner and I reckon cares very much about his business. I'll pm you his email tomorrow if I can find it.

I raised an email issue with Schaller Customer Services a couple of years back over a weekend...and the CEO replied in less than an hour! He clearly keeps his eye on incoming stuff. The issue was sorted promptly. I'll try and find his name and email address in the morning.

OK - I've managed to eke another inch forward without impacting on the visuals....I've judged best to stop here and cut the bottom blank out: So next steps are to glue up the two pieces and then the routing and carving can begin

Now...I'll readily admit that this is, perhaps, not the most elegant design I've ever come up with... ...but don't be too swayed by the fact that the headstock doesn't colour coordinate yet. Trust me - a coat of shell pink all over and I reckon @Happy Jack will be simply over the moon with it So - almost finished OK - conclusions The above represents a very heavy bridge at 1lb, battery placed at the back but basically all of the actual hardware weight accounted for in broadly the correct place. And the above (remember, the double thickness body blank means we have the full wood weight) is still within target at 6lbs 7oz And the balance point isn't crazily out of the norm - especially remembering that this is 35" scale On the strap - as suspected, it's going to be fine But, comparing the position of the lower waist apex to balance point of a bass I have here, I reckon I need to try to get that lower waist apex one further inch forward - if I can without spoiling the aesthetics. If the drawing just doesn't look right, then we have a decent fall back - and that is to keep the present design and actually ADD some ballast at the tail to end closer to 7lbs. I'm sure there are some challenges ahead, but I'm chuffed so far - it all looks pretty feasible.

And so - next step is to cut out the double-the-final-thickness blanks and see if we are still in the weight target feasibility area. First the billet was cut in half and the broad areas pencilled in: And that gave me the thought for a cunning plan. Ref the final shape of the lower half in terms of the over the knee balance...well, I can physically simulate it. Leaving the lower blank uncut, I have cut the top half to shape - leaving a few areas over-size to give me the much-needed jiggle room: And so the cunning plan is, in terms of confirming the best position of the lower waist for over-the-knee playing: - the above half is double thickness and so is approximately the total weight (and approx weight distribution) of the full carved body, less the pickup and hardware. 2lbs 4 oz on the scale. - so I could strap the actual neck to this blank, complete with tuners, in the correct lengthways position - then I could tape some weights to the blank at the planned bridge and pickup positions - then see where the ACTUAL balance point is and judge if anything needs altering to the design of the lower blank before I cut it. What could possibly go wrong?

This is where Fishman placed Mike Inez's single when they were trying to replicate his double pickup 'Moon Bass' range of sounds - I've checked the other basses they made for him and the proportions are the same in each case: The demo itself has no real value - it isn't the stock pickup and he has clearly been watching Anderton videos and so is playing most of the time bottom open E. Yes - another one, @Happy Jack - but I'm guessing this was judged to be a decent position to keep both some treble capability of a bridge setting while still not sacrificing the thump of a P neck setting. Anyways, it's whatever @Happy Jack's preference is, but - as a proportion of the scale, measured from saddle to nut (the above is 34" and Jack's is 35") - this is broadly where I was thinking before seeing the above.

I think there are too many variables to draw conclusions - especially as it would need to be wired up with the active components too. I've found a video of Mike Inez demoing his single (they do a Mike Inez custom) and he has it broadly where I would expect...around 1/3rd away from a P/J bridge pickup placement towards the neck pup. I'll freeze the video and measure it, but I reckon it will be close to the standard Musicman placing.

Lovely job

Top and side dots added: Still have to do the fretwork - and have another go at a decal. @funkle sent me a decal from Rothko and Frost... I followed the instructions but it still melted at the mist coat stage. I've used Rob's decals (very similar type, but presumably different inks?) at guitardecals.co.uk successfully in the past so I'll order one from him (and, unlike Rothko and Frost, he always sends a spare which, with these modern gossamer-thin types, is important!). Should be with me by the time I've finished the final fretwork.

It's not an easy rout and back-fill at all - but, in terms of neck depth, you do have enough wood for a standard modern 2-way rod...especially in that you could also rout a couple of mm into the back of the fretboard too. My rule of thumb in terms of ensuring I never get a trussrod bursting out of the back of the neck is to retain at least 4mm of wood underneath the rod channel at the nut end. A typical Andyjr1515 calc would be: Total depth at nut= 21mm Fretboard thickness = 7mm, leaves 14mm Rod channel = 9mm, leaves 5mm = happy bunny So, even if you don't rout into the back of the fretboard, you still appear to have enough room: Neck thickness, excluding fretboard=15mm Rod channel =9mm Leaves =6mm of packer under the rod end =plenty This does assume the simple two way like they sell in Tonetech, not the ones with the enlarged, enclosed, adjuster end that are sometimes sold elsewhere Tricky rout, mind...

With apologies to folks for whom Andertons demo videos represent the heights of irritation...but actually this, between 5.00minutes and 9.16minutes is a decent demo of the three voices of the soapbar at the bridge-only and the neck-only positions. No point in comparing the 'both' demo bits because of the interaction between the two, but, basically any position that the single soapbar is placed from the bridge and moving towards the neck is going to be broadly proportionate to the bridge-only and neck-only sound sweeps.

Yup ^ this. Not sure why they angled the pickups at all/so much on the Spector - but yes, it is the angle of the pickup relative to the strings that means that the outer strings are both missing half a magnet's worth. @Happy Jack and I still have to firm up on the preferred pickup position but, wherever it is placed - bridge side, neck side or middle - the strings will be all be completely inside the strong magnetic width of the pickup with plenty of overhang either side.

As a builder, this is becoming very interesting indeed. As I have the actual neck to hand, I have been able to double check the positioning of the neck on the full-size drawing to get the 35" scale length in the right place. There is a yellow arrow at the mid-scale position of the fingerboard: I've then cleaned up the paulownia billet that Mike has sent to me with a hand plane. And it's a bit of a revelation. It's just as lightweight as I expected, but it is quite a bit harder than I was fearing...which is a pleasant surprise In fact, it is noticeably harder than the 'bitsa' J bass body I used for the veneer demo. It planed very nicely - full length continuous shavings over this whole length and quite resistant to the fingernail dint test, which the bitsa body certainly isn't. And this whole billet above is only 7.5lbs. And, although I will use much of the actual depth in order to get some decent top and back carved curves in, this is at least twice at thick as my average finished thickness will be. And so that makes an effective billet of 3.75lbs. And that's before I cut the shape out of the length! And so, a circa 2lbs wood-weight body is still feasible The next stage, theoretically, is to cut the two body halves out and see what the double-thickness-but-everything-else-per-body-blank weight is...but there is one thing I want to do first, and that is to do with balance: - On the strap, the button position is almost guaranteed to cope with any Centre of Gravity shift resulting from the lightweight body - but I'm still bothered by the over-the-knee waist position. - But I maybe able to estimate that before cutting any wood. - I reckon that, knowing how much further forward from the lower waist mid point to the heel the present design assumes (and with the actual tuners fitted to the actual neck) I may be able to measure the effective weight (actually, for those who remember their Applied Maths, the 'moment') of the neck from that knee position using a spring balance and adding an estimate of the volume of body wood forward of the point - likewise, I can estimate the moment rear of that same point, knowing the weight and probable positions of the pickup and bridge - then I can see if I have to get that lower waist further forward - In the meantime, I'll do a few sketches to see how much further forward I could move that bottom waist without it adversely affecting the look of the bass.