Andyjr1515

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.

While we are on the subject, visitors leave tomorrow which means I can get my beautiful but exceptionally noisy planer-thicknesser out and skim the rough cut faces of the Paulownia and see what kind of hardness we are actually dealing with. I will also bandsaw the external body shape at its present full thickness to see how much wood I am going to have to 'lose'

Final gloss coat done on neck and back of headstock - this will now be left to harden fully before polishing - and flattened gloss coats finished on headstock front prior to @funkle's decal being applied, followed by a couple of final sealing coats. Over the next couple of days I'll add the side and top dots and then finally do the fretlevelling, etc.. Should be ready to ship off to @funkle the week after this one coming,

With @funkle's neck drying from another coat of varnish and the family visitors off on a half-day train ride ( ) I've found 10 minutes to weigh the bits that Jack has sent to me. The first is this lovely Fishman Fluence Soapbar: And, of course, the neck itself: So that's neck, tuners, soapbar, pots (included with the Fluence), string retainer sitting at 3lbs 3oz Target is 6lbs 8ozs so let's assume 1lb for the bridge (there is an advantage to having a decent weight of bridge for balance, especially as it is right at the very back of the body. This is an item that we might be able to beg or borrow a few ounces if the target weight starts looking overly challenging), that leaves 2lbs 5oz for the body, strings, paint, screws, straplocks and knobs. This is going to be...what's the word...interesting

Big topic and too many aspects to be able to cover single-finger typing on my tablet (baby grandson is asleep in the room with the desktop!) But, a few initial thoughts to be considered or discarded as you wish - the Fender type one piece, single rod truss rod in curved slot routed from the back and covered with a shaped 'skunk stripe' packer is 1000% the most difficult way of doing it - flat topped neck blank with parallel truss rod slot and modern two way rod with separate radiussed and/or fret slotted fretboard is the easiest - if the timber is decent quality and the correct cut, then for normal to short scale, one piece neck blanks should be OK - two piece, with the second piece flipped so that the end grain 'mirrors' will be more resistant to warping and is a useful thing to do for 5-string and above or for very long scale necks - functionally, multiples above two-piece are usually for reasons other than strength (such as avoidance of a trussrod rout cut as @3below illustrates above, for aesthetic reasons or to play with stiffness/hardness sonic tweaks)

That looks splendid!

Looking OK from here

Looking good

What is really clever when you see some of the other videos that Mikey has with some clearer close ups, is the frets don't retract - which would leave gaps either side and create a fretted effect even when in fretless mode - they seem to rotate and a flat section of 'fretwire' fully fills the gap. Mechanically, real blue-sky stuff.

Well, it's the little things in life... (roughly translated to, "Simple things please simple minds" ) Remember the discussion about splitting the centre section or not? Well maybe I can see now why Wal prefer to split-and-flip on theirs. To a humble hobby-builder, this is very pleasing. I'll probably start doing this as a norm: