Alembic Guitars Club
Alembic products => Factory to Customer => Topic started by: mica on March 31, 2005, 02:03:05 PM
-
Once we start the build, I'll add updates here.
-
Here's some action from the assembly table:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/18824.jpg)
Ready for veneers on the peghead.
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/18825.jpg)
Accent laminates are glued to the back laminate. Your body core is at teh tippy-top of the picture, with the front accent laminates in place.
-
gorgeous woods Bob. I bet you're glad you took your time speccing this baby.
graeme
-
From the side:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/20689.jpg)
This is only one side of course, and it's only partially shaped, ready for the roundover. But at least you can see we got all the body laminates in place. The Purpleheart framed in Maple is especially sharp looking.
-
Thanks for the pic - it's very sharp! The colors and little bits of grain look great already.
I'm so happy to see things moving along again!
-Bob
-
Preset time, frets getting installed:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/21285.jpg)
Even here, the body laminates are stunning. Up close, the tiny sort-of-flame figure is evident:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/21286.jpg)
Peghead, with the bevel cut:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/21287.jpg)
And a closeup detail, showing that Chip was able to use Purpleheart interior veneers and boy do they look crisp:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/21288.jpg)
-
Beautiful top!!
-
Mica, thanks for the pics! You sure got back to this a lot more quickly than I would have expected.
Total agreement, Dave, the top is all I could have hoped for if not more. From the pics, I do wish the peghead veneer were much darker to achieve my original vision. Maybe it's just a lighting/flash effect, but my vision was a logo that would leap out at you from a dark and solid base. I am sure it will look great in person, though. The bevel and PH laminates look fabulous with the PH-surrounded-by-maple theme working throughout the instrument.
It looks so close to done, but I know there's so much left to do. I can't wait for the next update, this progress is getting me stoked!
-Bob
-
The bee is in place now:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/29389.jpg)
It's still got glue and gunk all over it, but you can still how cute it looks! The Tahitian black mother of pearl has such excellent color. The gold has nice gold color and there is some good figure in the whote mother of pearl wings.
The bass was back in finish today, so it won't be much longer until you have this bass at home to enjoy.
-
Hi Mica-
I can see a little of the figuring, but as usual, I suspect the picture doesn't do it justice. The balck and white MOPs both look really happening.
Sending you an email as well.
-
Wow, I love that bee Bob (not to mention the rest of the instrument!). Is that on the front or the back?
Mark
-
Thanks, Mark! It's on the back of the headstock. We had talked about putting it somewhere on the body, but I really didn't like any of the possibilities there.
Here's the original inspiration picture, an embroidered patch that was glued on my first bass:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/29547.jpg)
Mica gets the majority of the credit for how it evolved to the final form.
-bob
-
Picking up the converation from the woodbank (http://club.alembic.com/index.php?topic=7884), here's that #3766 with the Small Standard body shape outlined.
-
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/17553.jpg)
-
Thanks Mica! I really needed to see the body lines on there for an approximate scale. While the photos had the inch lines there for scale, I just couldn't picture the scale of the body shape to apply it.
I appreciate that this position captures the eyes in the dark part of the wood, but how about something more like the photoshop hack I am putting in here? I think the four little eyes in a row are cool, and I thought the best feature of this wood was the figuring in the light section near the top center. I can be swayed either way, so I would appreciate any comments from others who may stop by the thread as well!
Thanks!
Here's the pic:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/17557.jpg)
-
Hello Bob,
yes, we can position it that way too, no problem.
As soon as you decide which way you want to go we can begin construction.
Valentino
-
Mica/Valentino, this all looks great! Thanks!
I think we're about there for the top wood, I'd just like to leave it open for a day or so in case anyone has an interesting comment.
Relative to the build order, there are a few things that I am not 100% comfortable with at this point:
1. We need to select a back wood. I am leaning toward either 3767 or 3774. I really like the light/dark/light stripes abutting the sap wood on 3767 (http://club.alembic.com/index.php?topic=7894) and think that would work well with the colors of the PH and ebony in the neck. This one probably is most similar to the top. Otherwise, a reversal of the bookmatch on 3774 (http://club.alembic.com/Images/2344/17052.html?1110263764 target=_blank) would provide for the body contour to approximately follow the rings and create that natural sunburst effect. Anyone have an opinion? I suspect that 3767 with a high placement on the board and cut at the very edge of the sap wood is the likely winner here as it will be the most organic combination with the top.
2. I'd like an extremely dark headstock laminate to really offset the gold H/W and silver logo, preferably something that looks symmetrical. In particular, I'd be looking for blacks and reds with limited orange. I think the orange would take away from the contrast/impact of the gold pegs.
3. Also, on the headstock, what woods will the intermediate laminates be? You ususally don't use cocobolo for this, right? What do you think of an eb/map/ph/map/eb plywood to match the neck laminates (and body sandwich) to the bevel and provide that really dark face? I'd still love a dark cocobolo face in place of the ebony there, but let me know what is feasible and what you think would work best.
4. The original spec had the neck pickup moved a bit toward the neck, though there isn't room to move it much. I want to make sure I can get plenty of bottom out of this thing. The 4R is still the full-sized truss rod cover, right? I am open to guidance on this matter, particularly if the High Wizard has an opinion.
5. I believe that I confirmed this before, but the brass backplates are gold plated, correct?
6. I'd like to be careful about the position of the LED toggle relative to the jack. I tend to use 90 degree cables and hook the lead between the strap and the bass as a strain relief, but it hangs free if I am playing seated. I just want to make sure I don't toggle it by accident, or worse, break it. The control layout from Randy's Custom Clarke Deluxe (http://club.alembic.com/index.php?topic=7356) would be great, but I didn't spec in the side jack. What do you recommend?
7. Also with the LEDs, there's a dimmer pot inside the control cavity?
Thanks again, I am so excited to get the production process underway!
-Bob
-
Oh, and one last thing...
If there is any variation available in the neck laminates, I would like the non-maple lams to be at the thick end of the spectrum. Is there one standard for these, or is there some poetic license from neck to neck? The lams on my '90 Persuader seem fairly beefy at just about 1/4 each.
Also, they wouldn't all have to be the same thickness. I think it would look really interesting if the ebony center lam were slightly thicker than the ones beside it. I think an ideal would be something like 3/8 or 5/16 for the center ebony, 3/16 or 1/8 for the inner maples, and then 1/4 for the PH lams. 1/4 per lam will work just great, too, and I'm probably making this a bit too complicated.
If there's a standard, or if the customization here would be inconvenient or a burden, then I will just go with whatever works for you.
-
Hi Bob and friends,
When seeing this outline of the bass on the wood I wonder if it wouldn't be nice to leave the parallel lines concept of the topwood and go for putting the both pieces bookmatch to center in an angle, so the more chevron style, like this: >>>. You have to leave out a triangle part from the bottom-up. A triangle that could be recuperated in the peghead I guess??
Or in a box??? HA!
Paul the bad one
-
Hi Paul-
Thanks for the thoughts. I played with that possibility myself because I really like the chevron affect. The selected position isn't so much about parallel lines, it's more that there's just some really cool figuring in the center area near the top that I don't wish to give up. Also, I couldn't get happy with the mix of dark and light and the way the instrument flowed with any of my attempts to lay out a chevron.
I would say, also, that I didn't spring for book-to-center. I think this would be a tough wood choice for going to center in balancing the dark and light effects. Also, the pickups and electronics would go over the nifty figuring.
Thanks for making me think about this!
The more I look at this, the more I am pleased by it. I would just want to confirm my photoshop hack with another chalk outline whenever that would be convenient. In particular, I'd be looking at the position of the dark section on the upper wing.
Still looking for thoughts on the back wood and the placement of pickups and controls, though!
Thanks, Paul!
-Bob
-
hi Bob.
Good to see you're finally getting your custom. Have you thought about turning the wood the other way up and swapping sides so the lighter angled figuring (coming down from the 3766 number) is going up the body. this would give a pretty cool chevron effect but would lose the figuring you like. In the end, It's your choice so take your time. My preference is for the swirly patterns. Good look with this one.
Graeme
-
Hi Graeme-
Yes, that is something I played with in Photoshop as well. I do like the interesting grain pattern where it opens up above the dark areas, but the dark areas were still a part of the instrument on the upper wing, and I didn't think the way they ended up fitting in looked as organic. If the board was cut to extend another six inches or so up above the cutoff point, it might have worked, but who knows what would have been going on in the wood up there? I also wondered about the back side of these boards, but I've put these guys through enough hassles and the bookmatch of the wood is likely to be pretty different there.
I really like swirly patterns, too. If I were to have my choice of all the wood ever listed, there are a couple selections from the sold pieces and one or two from the currently available Tribute boards that I really like. On the other hand, since I am trying to build a poor man's version of the SC 30th anniversary bass here, I think this wood comes fairly close to capturing that feel. I really expect this wood to become alive once finished.
Thanks for the thoughts!
-Bob
-
Hi Bob; my first thought too was the chevron approach. But it looks like you've thought that through. Also, I was assuming you were bookmatching to center, and the chevron approach isn't as effective if not going to center.
-
Being a neurotic, I went back over the emails that I had sent over the past few months as well as the discussions pre-order. There are four more items beyond what was already posted.
If we call the neck laminates width question #8, then:
9. Bridge block? I thought it was specified as having one in the order but don't see that represented on your spec sheet. I was asking for guidance on this item, so maybe someone decided I would be better off without it for the tone I am looking for?
10. The crown headstock shape. Originally, we were talking about a K-crown or a crown that was narrower at the bottom than the top. The latter was a consideration to better adapt to the narrow nut width. I think this detail got lost in the order spec, but let me know which crown variant you think will best fit with the rest of the design.
11. Neck dimensions. You sepcified it as 1.5 x 2.25. Is that actual nut width x bridge string spacing? Just confirming here, I think that's what you're saying. In the catalogs, the necks are specified by the nut and 24th fret widths, and I think that 2.25 at the 24th would be way too wide. Could you confirm the actual measurements of the SC 30th bass?
12. Someone had said they were getting their straplocks mounted with bolts into inserts. I asked about this as well since I have always had problems with straplock screws backing themselves out.
Looking back to the earlier issues, I think 3767 will be it for the back wood if it is still available. Can I ask for a pic of it with the body outline drawn in pushed toward the top of the wood and omitting most or all of the sapwood? This would have to be slightly canted to follow the line of that light/dark/light stripe. The stripe isn't perfectly straight, but I am looking to keep as little sapwood as possible without losing the integrity of the lines.
Thanks again!
-
looks awesome- you got the flax neck!!! lol
>heres 2 cents
>go for the continous wood back plates
>it imho looks so much better and you have so much invested already- pls
>think about it,.,,,,its gonna be less than 400
>compare it with some with brass photos
>yes i know no one sees the back....
>but i am kinda weird-i love the backs of alembics- maybe cause its just
>more wood and less stuff
>ask them to show you the back woods
>oh and on the top wood photo
>i tend to lean to chips..
>reason
>all your controls can be slide down a little or will be inside the darker area by itself with none of or few of the lines being covered- also chips has more of a v shape
>did u play with moving it down?
>to right above the pinch in the center
>that might be good too
>tis goona be sweet whatever way
-
Thanks, Jeff!
I do agree on the wood backplates. I wish I took that option. I think the frugal in me didn't want to pay the full upcharge for gold plating, which includes the backplates, and then pay again to replace those with wood. Oddly, I would definitely have taken the option if I were leaving the brass alone. I'll ask if they'll let me make that change and what the cost will be, especially with the nice back wood.
Regarding the body position, I see your point. I considered a number of possibilities there; up, down, canted in, canted out, even the same set of variations upside down. I am really betting all my chips that the flame-looking areas in the center of the board are going to come forward and deepen with time and a finish. If I am wrong, I'll have a very nice bass. If I am lucky, then it will be incredible.
Thanks again!
-Bob
-
Bob, get real: these people are not going to charge you for gold-plating some pieces of brass, throwing them away, and then building you a completely new set of continuous wood plates.
Go for it.
-
Bob,
Certainly they wouldn't go through the trouble of making the plates and paying for them to be plated if the order is changed to continuous wood. I honestly don't know what they would charge under the circumstances, but the details from the configurator don't drill down to that level of detail. I didn't ask when I was making the order, I had enough other details to work out and it was the hectic end-of-year rush when the order was going in. I was too busy waffling on more serious details at the time, like scale length and number of strings! As you can see from the thread, there are even more details that seemed worked out at the time but aren't entirely clear. It's always better to ask than assume, so this will get figured out over the next week or two with everything else...
As much detail as we're getting into before the build, the only surprise I want when this bass gets delivered is how much better it looks in person than in photos. I can't wait to see the abalone! I just love the swirls and colors in that shell.
-
Bob,
I know. If you like, someday I'll email you my own list of details, some of which just fell off the list. And at the other extreme, there is nothing like that first glimpse of the real thing, or even a small part of it.
Though the wait will be difficult, I think you're really in the most stressful part of the process right now. It's actually starting, there's a sense of urgency to nail down every last detail... yet you somehow have to balance that with the magic of the whole thing. And it's very easy to let certain details - like the number you get out of a fairly simple quote generator - distract you from the important stuff.
I just thought it was worth reminding you that you're working with real human beings here, and artists at that (though I know you understand that).
You've waited a long time for this, so take a deep breath, maybe even call a time out for a week or so just to regroup. A few extra days at this point won't matter at all a year from now, and as I'm sure you realize, everyone - most especially you - will be happier if you wait until it all feels right, rather than questioning and changing things during the build, or second-guessing what you end up with.
On a related note, I think we've discussed your frugal nature in the past, and I respect that. Don't know if this will help any, but by the time I finally paid the balance on mine, I found I was already into next year's discretionary spending. Still don't think I really wanted LEDs, but looking back on it now the cost should not have been given as much weight as it was.
It doesn't seem to me that you're one of the people who is going to do a whole series of customs, so take the time to get it right. And lots of slow, deep breaths.
-
I think we're on the same page, Bob. Making changes once the build actually starts is a definite no-no. There's too much chance of missing things or making a change that isn't going to flow with the whole design. Also, I paid in full for my instrument up front (by bank check, so no loss of a couple percent to the credit card people). Answering all of my questions and making design tweaks is enough hardship for any dealer without going out-of-pocket for a couple months while waiting for delivery. You do what you can.
Once production starts, I'll just sit back and take what updates I get until it shows up on my doorstep. The only way I'll be saying anything is if I see something in photos that doesn't match the spec, or if they ask. Honestly, the wait doesn't bother me at all. If the backplates get added, then there will be only one option that I wanted and passed on, getting the logo done with shell. Did I mention how much I love abalone?
-
i will bet you $1 that you WILL make a change during production-lmao
definitely sit back and relax- close your eyes, go into a coma and wake up 6 months from now
-
Bob.
One thing I can guarantee is how much better your bass will be in person than in the Photos. When i opened my case for the first time I just sat and stared for ages;-)
i agree with the other bob here, if your going for a back laminate, continuous wood backplates are a must.
graeme
-
bob
trust me
they will not dfo the brass plating till months from now and will make the change if you wish
get the continous
-
Ok, here's to summarize the discussion in one place for the benefit of all:
Top wood: 3766 in approximately the position I identified. Adjustment criteria would include:
-optimal positioning of the little eyes
-angle and coverage of the dark areas on the body wings
-will there be dark stripes along the sides of the neck, or is that dark just an illusion from the cut? If so, should they be trimmed out?
1. Back wood: 3767 positioned near the top of the board and slightly canted to eliminate most or all of the sap wood. Looking to have the light/dark/light stripes abut the neck. Please show me a pic with templates when convenient.
2/3/10. Headstock: Looking for a very dark and symmetrical face to set off the hardware and logo. Looking to confirm the laminates for the headstock as they will be apparent with the bevel. Looking to get the right crown variation to best flow with the overall design.
4. Need to confirm the pickup placement.
5. Are the brass backplates to be goldplated? This could be trumped by a change to wood backplates at the urging of others in the know. If this change would be allowed, can I get a price including, if appropriate, any reduction in the price of the gold plating? I will let Beaver know I am asking since you will probably want to feed that to me through him.
6. Looking for ideas on control positions, particularly related to the LED toggle and the output jack. I don't want to break/trigger the toggle with my cable.
7. Is there a dimmer for the LEDs inside the cavity?
8. I would like the non-maple laminates in the neck at the wide end of the spectrum if there is any room for variation here.
9. Bridge block: I think it was in the original spec but I don't see it mentioned on the build sheet. I am not sure I fully understand it to know if I even want one. Please guide me...
11. Confirming what your definition of the neck measurements means. Looking for the SC 30th neck, though maybe a hair wider, especially if you believe it is necessary to maintain neck stability in a New England climate and with regular strings.
12. Can/will the straplocks be mounted using threaded inserts?
Valentino/Mica-
You may have my office number, but I have been out of work there since 3/1. I will email you my cell phone number in case you don't have it so that we can discuss any of this directly and at your convenience, as you see fit.
Thanks to all who have participated so far, and to any who may yet choose to chime in!
-Bob
PS - Jeff, once production starts, I refuse to make any change that isn't directly in response to a query from Alembic.
-
Bob, I am also in line to have a 5 string MK with series II electronics built. I have LED's going in and am having a three position switch and a dimmer. The switch will be, all on,side on, and all off. You can talk to Beaver on this as my bass is also going through Bass Central.
Don't feel too bad about making changes at this stage of the build, they are much easier to deal with now. I am still trying to decide on inlays and continuous wood backplates myself. Pete
-
Pete-
With regard to inlays, you may have gathered that I am a big fan of abalone. I really love the colors and the lines, making them much more interesting to me than MOP. I am not familiar enough with the other options to say. I suppose that an inlay materials page would be a great addition to the site so that one could examine all the common materials.
You can see the guidance that others have provided regarding the backplates. Having already paid my bass off in full, it seems easier to find a couple hundred to throw at them now than it would have to push the original total up when I was placing the order.
With regard to the LEDs, I have side only. I had heard that there is a dimmer placed inside the control cavity so that you could adjust how bright they are when they come on. With front LEDs, particularly if you went laser, you might want a more readily accessible dimmer to control their brightness, but that's not what I am talking about here. I think the perfect side LED setup would be a 3-way switch allowing for {off / on low / on high}, but an internal dimmer is better than just on/off. Oddly, the darker the room, the less bright the LEDs need to be.
Thanks for the feedback, and good luck with your bass!
-Bob
-
Hey Bob, have you considered abalone?
-
Interesting concept, Bob. I believe that I have thought long and hard on the subject of abalone. The only thing that would turn me on as much as more abalone would be more cowbell. Unfortunately, I am not sure where I can fit more abalone into the design. Maybe abalone pickup covers? Maybe I should have asked about the cool abalone caps they put on Stanley's control knobs?
-Bob
-
hey bob. Just my two-pennorth. I think the dark edges alongside the neck would look pretty cool and highlight the maple nicely.
no 6. As the LEDs are going to be on or off, put the switch well out of the way - perhaps even on the lower horn - it's not one of the controls you're gong to be playing with during a gig.
graeme
-
Graeme-
I think it would be a lot of work to put one mini-toggle out on the lower horn. I also think that a mini-toggle out there alone would be a bit silly looking. I suppose another alternative might be to use a mini-pot type switch instead of a toggle. Something like what they use for the pickup selector seems like it would be more sturdy and harder to have an accident with. I will wait, though, to see what Alembic recommends on the matter. There's always the issue of how things fit in the control cavity, so it has to go someplace where there is space for it.
Thanks!
-Bob
-
Yep, That was probably a bit extreme but the suggestion still stands. How about tucked below the rest of the controls (looking down whilst playing that is)
graeme
-
That would be a possibility as long as it isn't close enough to the edge that it would get a thigh-tap while playing seated. Worse yet, it might get caught on a loose pair of pants in the same playing situation, and that could be pretty ugly. I'm trying to avoid all of the bad design characteristics I have experienced during 30 years of playing.
When all is said and done, the side jack is probably the easiest option (least hassle, most straightforward, easiest to describe) for Alembic to execute on. We'll find out soon...
-Bob
-
and you said you werent gonna make changes????
lmao
you may not last through this week@@@@@
serenity now!!!
:-)
get the wood backplates or i will torture you throughout eternity!!!!...haha
youre gonna find the money...and then it will be tooo late....
-
Production hasn't begun yet, Jeff. Once we're signed off to start the build, all changes cease unless they ask my opinion on something in the design. Then I sit back for a few months with the occasional photo fix until it's ready for delivery. The biggest delay I will have is gold plating the hardware. Other than that, there's no series electronics or custom inlays that would add complexity.
-Bob
-
Bob. I've just re-read (and understood ) your comments about the side mounted jack. I'd go for this option. The jacksocket on my rogue is absolutely flush with the bodywork - no socket plate or nuts to catch on- and as you'd expect, the craftmanship in this area is spot on. On the Epic, i have the front mounted jack and always feel the cable detracts somewhat from the look of the bass. i use straight jacks though so the cable does stick out a fair bit. Again just my thoughts.
graeme
-
Nothing to say - just a test post checking the behavior of this new threading model...
-
Hey there Bass fans....
Just got off the phone with Valentino and nailed the final details. There were no meaningful changes to spec, just clarifications. That is to say, I backed off on the continuous wood backplates and will stick with the gold-plated brass.
Also, 3774 was recommended as a back wood with the bookmatch reversed from the wood bank photo such that the ring contours follow the body.
The question of LED switch positioning was resolved by looking at the position of jacks on a bass with Series electronics. The output jack on my bass will go where the 5-pin is on a series instrument and the LED toggle will go where the 1/4 jack is usually located.
The neck dimensions should hopefully be more like 1.5 at the nut with a string spacing at 2.15 at the bridge. That works out to about 18mm spacing, wide enough to slap and narrow enough for speed. I definitely am not a fan of 19mm (2.25) spacing. Also, neck laminate width is standardized, so there was no room for tweaking there.
The pickup positions will mirror what would be found on a Series bass, absent the dummy.
The headstock is confirmed to be a K Crown, very dark wood and symmetrical. The headstock sandwich will be whatever they give me...
The bridge block will be present.
The question of insert-mounted straplocks remains open. Valentino is investigating.
There remains a miniscule possibility that there will be a custom inlay. We will see....
That's all for now...
-
Running the nut width and bridge center to center spacing you supplied through my handy dandy calculator, here's what I get:
(dimensions are all in inches 18mm=.708in)
##################################################
id = bsee
scale length = 30.75
string dia. 1=.045 2=.065 3=.080 4=.105
at nut end:
fingerboard width = 1.5
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.375
string center 2 to 3 = 0.375
string center 3 to 4 = 0.375
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.32
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.3025
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.2825
at bridge end:
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = .708
string center 2 to 3 = .708
string center 3 to 4 = .708
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.653
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.6355
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.6155
string edge to edge = 2.199
(projected) fingerboard width at bridge = 2.499
fingerboard width at nut = 1.5
fingerboard width at 24th fret = 2.24925
fingerboard width at 25th fret = 2.26326739040775
fingerboard length = 23.4939662212595
##################################################
(Edge allowance is the distance from the outside edge of the string to the outside of the fingerboard. I used our standard .15 since there wasn't anything different specified.)
I just want to bring to your attention that the fingerboard will be 1.5x2.25
Just for reference, here's the numbers with 19mm(.748in) center to center bridge spacing:
##################################################
id = bsee19
scale length = 30.75
string dia. 1=.045 2=.065 3=.080 4=.105
at nut end:
fingerboard width = 1.5
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.375
string center 2 to 3 = 0.375
string center 3 to 4 = 0.375
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.32
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.3025
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.2825
at bridge end:
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = .748
string center 2 to 3 = .748
string center 3 to 4 = .748
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.693
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.6755
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.6555
string edge to edge = 2.319
(projected) fingerboard width at bridge = 2.619
fingerboard width at nut = 1.5
fingerboard width at 24th fret = 2.33925
fingerboard width at 25th fret = 2.3549511610273
fingerboard length = 23.4939662212595
-
hmmm....
Initially, this looked like information overload, but it made me think. I am looking at the '82 Spoiler I am playing today and the bridge spacing seems even narrower than what we discussed. The rough measurement is about 2 center to center across the bridge. That works out to what, about 17mm spacing? I am pretty sure I don't want anything much wider spaced than this, but am I likely to really notice the difference? Even then, will the narrower nut even it all out in the area where it matters, around the neck pickup where most of the plucking is happening?
The battery in my digital caliper is dead, so I will get a replacement and provide precise measurements tomorrow. Can we delay this until I get a measurement and confirm?
I promise a definitive answer by the time you all arrive for work on Monday, and that will be my proverbial final answer...
Thanks!
-
It's likely the Spoiler you have is set up with side-to side spacing at the bridge unless it was special ordered or altered.
Our typical setup is with center to center spacing at the nut for aiming at the center of the string while fretting and side to side at the bridge, for aiming at the edge of the string for finger or pick. We've found that people that slap alot prefer center to center at the bridge too, since they are aiming for the center of the string with their slapping hand. Sometimes, a player starts with a bass that's center to center, and just gets accustomed to it.
I mention this because we like to make sure you will really be happy with center to center spacing at the bridge.
As far as noticing the difference, this is highly dependent on you. Since you previously expressed a preference for 18mm over 19mm, I would guess you would be as sensitive for a similar size shift down. I'm probably not as sensitive on a bass, but I can't play anything other than a standard size piano key, so I understand how one can become dependent on spacing.
Just for reference, here's the numbers for a typical Spoiler:
##################################################
id = SMB4 Side to Side @ bridge (standard)
scale length = 32
string dia. 1=.045 2=.065 3=.080 4=.105
at nut end:
fingerboard width = 1.75
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.458333333333333
string center 2 to 3 = 0.458333333333333
string center 3 to 4 = 0.458333333333333
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.403333333333333
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.385833333333333
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.365833333333333
at bridge end:
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.655
string center 2 to 3 = 0.6725
string center 3 to 4 = 0.6925
spacing between 1 and 2 = .6
spacing between 2 and 3 = .6
spacing between 3 and 4 = .6
string edge to edge = 2.095
(projected) fingerboard width at bridge = 2.395
fingerboard width at nut = 1.75
fingerboard width at 24th fret = 2.2422045
fingerboard width at 25th fret = 2.2595008
fingerboard length = 24.4490054985465
.6in=15.2mm
I also ran the figures if the Spoiler fingerboard dimensions were set up with center to center at the bridge:
##################################################
id = SMB4 Center to Center @ bridge
scale length = 32
string dia. 1=.045 2=.065 3=.080 4=.105
at nut end:
fingerboard width = 1.75
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.458333333333333
string center 2 to 3 = 0.458333333333333
string center 3 to 4 = 0.458333333333333
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.403333333333333
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.385833333333333
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.365833333333333
at bridge end:
treble edge allowance = .15
bass edge allowance = .15
string center 1 to 2 = .685
string center 2 to 3 = .685
string center 3 to 4 = .685
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.63
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.6125
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.5925
string edge to edge = 2.13
(projected) fingerboard width at bridge = 2.43
fingerboard width at nut = 1.75
fingerboard width at 24th fret = 2.26
fingerboard width at 25th fret = 2.26954136684411
fingerboard length = 24.4490054985465
.685in=17.3mm
Yeah, it's even more information overload, but it may help you with your final answer. The work on the neck won't be started until we get this important decision completed.
-
Mica-
This is great info to put the other data in perspective. I suspect the Spoiler is done side-to-side. A rough measure makes it appear to be about 16mm between the centers of the G and D, and more like 17mm between the E and A, maybe a hair more.
I have a few other basses that I used to find a bit more comfortable to play than the Spoiler when I played non-Alembics. I play the Spoiler for tone more than feel...
I think another reason for slappers to prefer center-to-center spacing would be that it provides extra space in the areas where a finger would be inserted to pop. Space is less critical between the low strings unless you're pulling off advanced moves like double-thumbing. At least, with my limited slap skills, this would be true...
Thanks again, and have a great weekend!
-
Mica-
Okay, I have played several instruments and measured them. Here are some numbers I came out with:
1. On a 34 Spector fretless, the nut is 1.7 and the bridge is at 17.9 center-to-center. I really like the feel in the picking area on this one.
2. On a custom-built 1983 Dean with 34 scale, the nut is 1.5 and the bridge spacing is about .685 side to side. The picking area is a bit wide-spaced on this one.
3. The '82 Spoiler at 32 scale appears to have an uneven bridge spacing. That is probably because it was set up side to side and now has a different guage string set on it. It was probably set up as standard .6 spacing and it is maybe the slightest bit too tight for slap play.
I tested on a few others as well, but there was nothing particularly enlightening. Well, maybe that it is nearly impossible (for me) to slap on a standard-spaced Alembic five. I think it measured at about .5 at the bridge.
My main focus is string spacing in the primary picking/slapping area. I'd like it as narrow as possible to speed picking (finger or pick styles) while wide enough to slap comfortably. I believe that the narrower nut spacing will have a small impact on this as compared to the regular spacing. If my math is correct, the strings should be about .02 closer together at the 24th fret with a 1.5 nut as opposed to the 1.75 nut.
My final answer is this:
1. I definitely want the strings spaced center to center rather than side to side.
2. The 1.5 nut should be great.
3. Bridge spacing anywhere between 17.5 and 18mm should work for me. I think the standard spacing set up for center to center, as you posted above, is maybe a hair too narrow with the 1.5 nut. Since it appears you like to work in inches, I think an even .7 center to center should be perfect.
I also paid some attention to neck thickness and found that the Spoiler feels great. As such, I am hoping that it is a standard neck depth that doesn't need to be specified. I know that the neck on the Epic 5 I played recently felt chunky to me. The few necks that I measured were between .82 and .9 thick near the nut and between .88 and .95 thick around the 12th fret. The Spector was the thin end of the range and the Spoiler was the thick end. The Dean was a bit thicker and felt it, probably because it's one piece of maple and needs the strength. Even then, the Dean was very playable, so I think the dimension would have to be extreme to be an issue.
Mica, I will send you some other information via email and you can take that into consideration as well.
Thanks
-Bob
-
Bob
My rogue has a 'standard' neck and is much slimmer than my old epic. The satin finish makes it much faster than the epic's gloss finish aswell.
just my tuppence worth
graeme
-
Well, the other info I sent to Mica last week was that I made a deal to buy a bass very similar in spec to my custom order. It turns out that the neck on it is even narrower than anticipated.
It is 1.5 nut width, but the spacing at the bridge is 1.75 center-to-center from E to G. The individual strings are spaced at about .53 side-to-side. This bass is very playable, and it will adjust my thinking to be narrower at the bridge. Right now, I am thinking .65 (16.5mm) center-to-center for a total bridge width of 1.95 E to G.
There's really no substitute for playing the instrument set up as you want it. I would never have guessed from the other basses I played that I could go this narrow and be comfortable.
For the neck depth, this instrument is thicker as it moves up the neck than the Spoiler. The basses are about the same .82 at the first fret, but this bass gets much closer to a full inch by the 12th fret. I would rather it were just a little thinner up the neck, like .93-.95. As for the profile, I think this bass would be great if you just took the exisiting neck and flattened it out a little by shaving some of what is there in the middle for more of an oval result. It's great the way it is, but a little flatter would make it perfect.
Does this all make sense?
-Bob
-
You might want to take a break (like overnight) and then pick the Spoiler back up and play for a few hours. Then go back to the new bass. Make sure there aren't things you like to do on the Spoiler that you can't do as well on the new bass. When I first got my Spoiler, I was impressed with how the Classic taper felt compared to the Comfort taper of my Essence; but after a while I realized that there were things I could do on my Essence that were not as comfortable on the Spoiler (certain slap techniques for example). However, I've been without my Essence for a while, and my technique has evolved over time, and I've grown very comfortable with the Classic taper on my S1. All of this is to say that, for me, I was so initially impressed with the advantages of the narrower taper that it took me a while to recognize what I was giving up.
-
Agreed there, Dave. Note that this bass doesn't have the Comfort taper. It's more like a narrower version of the Classic taper in that it doesn't get wide at the bridge. I definitely like the relatively straight string paths of the Classic taper. One thing I can do on this bass more easily is to play an octave pair and add a 5th above.
The fact is, there are a whole lot of possible neck dimensions that would be great. The stock settings are a bit too wide for me, but I once played a medium scale Distillate that was just 1/8 narrower at nut and bridge. That felt great, too. I don't think I'd notice the difference between 1.5 and 1.6 at the nut, but I definitely can feel 1.75 as too wide. I certainly expect that I would notice the difference between 15.5mm and 17mm at the bridge, but I could adapt to it and either would work. There just comes a time when you have to pick a number and go with it, or you'll be going back and forth for a year. Maybe there is one perfect set of dimensions out there, but until they have a machine like the optometrist uses, it won't be found. Or maybe it will, I just won't be able to prove it.
On closer inspection, the nut on this bass is more like 1.53 than 1.5, for what that's worth.
-
Well, Dave, you're pretty smart there. The strings are seeming awfully close together the more I play this guy. I think it may be just a little too extreme for me. The tones, though, are to die for. What a monster!!!
I am not sure if anyone has been paying attention here the past few days to take action. If not, then maybe we should chat a bit more before the cutting starts.
How about 1.6 x 1.95 ctr-to-ctr?
-Bob
-
Well, it's been almost two months since an update here, though there was some email traffic between Mica and me. There was a recent spurt of FTC activity and I feel left out, so I thought I would post.
Last status was that I was waiting for:
1. Confirmation of neck dimensions. It appeared that the neck was at least rough cut before this discussion, so there was some room for variation. My position was that if the nut were already cut for 1.5, that it would be fine, but that I would like the bridge narrowed either way.
2. Are slightly lighter strings available in this scale? If 40-60-80-100 is available for short scale, I would perfer that.
3. Has any examination of the photos I sent in for a possible custom inlay ocurred? If so, are there any ideas for materials, best location or cost?
-Bob
(Message edited by bsee on July 11, 2005)
-
Apparently, this project has been stalled a few months based on lost communications. I just heard that Alembic is waiting for the final neck specs that I emailed to them at the end of May. I guess there's still no substitute for picking up a telephone from time to time, but I didn't want to be more of a pest than I had to. On the plus side, my woods have had a little more time to season and settle in....
Rather than trying email again, I am posting the specs here where I know they won't get lost. Here's a copy of those neck specs in what I believe to be Mica's preferred format:
id =
scale length = 30.75
string dia. 1=.040 2=.060 3=.080 4=.100
at nut end:
fingerboard width = 1.6
treble edge allowance = 0.15
bass edge allowance = 0.15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.410
string center 2 to 3 = 0.410
string center 3 to 4 = 0.410
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.360
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.340
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.320
at bridge end:
treble edge allowance = 0.15
bass edge allowance = 0.15
string center 1 to 2 = 0.650
string center 2 to 3 = 0.650
string center 3 to 4 = 0.650
spacing between 1 and 2 = 0.600
spacing between 2 and 3 = 0.580
spacing between 3 and 4 = 0.560
string edge to edge = 2.020
(projected) fingerboard width at bridge = 2.320
fingerboard width at nut = 1.6
fingerboard width at 24th fret = ??
fingerboard width at 25th fret = ??
fingerboard length = 23.4939662212595
Note two things:
1. The original nut spec was 1.5. If the neck that was started has already been trimmed narrower than 1.6 at the nut, I will gladly accept the narrower spacing at that end. I don't want anything to be wasted or need rebuilding because of this spec.
2. The spacing assumes the narrower 40-60-80-100 strings are available for this scale.
Mica/Valentino, you have my cell phone number if we need to talk about any of this.
Thanks!
-Bob
-
Hello Bob,
that's great, we can get going again now.
Valentino
-
Well, I am told the bass is just about done. I am currently awaiting word about cost/design for the custom inlay.
-
Here's the line art for the bumblebee:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/26434.jpg)
And here I've superimposed it on the embroidered patch so you can see where the lines came from:
(http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/26435.jpg)
Let me know if this has got the look you were after as far as extracting the lines from the threads, and I'll make a mock up with materials.
-
Here's how your work order 13964 reads as of now:
NECK
scale: 30.75
strings: 4
7-piece through body neck MAP|PH|MAP|EB|MAP|PH|MAP
fingerboard: ebony with abalone inlays 1.5x2.25 (like Stanley's)
side markers: Red LEDs with 2 amber each @ 12th and 24th
peghead: Crown, bevelled
BODY
Sandwich:
Coco Bolo top [wood to be selected]
Maple pinstripe
Purpleheart laminate
Maple pinstripe
Vermilion core, hollow
Maple pinstripe
Purpleheart laminate
Maple pinstripe
Coco Bolo Back
shape: Small Standard, no tummy or elbow carving
ROUTING:
pickups: 2 FatBoy
truss rod cover: 4R (standard for SC model)
backplates: brass
electronics: 2 volume, 2 filter, 2-3 position Q siwtches
FINISH:
polyester gloss with satin neck feel
SETUP:
logo: silver no script
hardware: gold plated
strap anchor: gold straplocks
strings: .045-.065-.080-.105
case: hardshell
Please review this list of features. Construction has not yet started, so make sure that any changes, additions, misunderstood instructions are sorted out quickly. Once the top wood is selected, Chip will start building right away.
-
Highlighted in red are the adjustments/clarifications that came out of my phone conversation with Valentino yesterday:
NECK
scale: 30.75
strings: 4
7-piece through body neck MAP|PH|MAP|EB|MAP|PH|MAP
fingerboard: ebony with abalone inlays 1.5x2.15 (like Stanley's)
1.5 is the nut width, 2.15 is the string spacing, center-to-center, at the bridge (approx 18mm)
side markers: Red LEDs with 2 amber each @ 12th and 24th with internal dimmer pot
peghead: K Crown, bevelled
This is the headstock that is narrower near the neck to go with the narrow nut, right? Chip's choice on headstock sandwich to go with the rest of the woods and show off the bevel. Very dark and symmetrical peghead face to bring out the hardware and logo
BODY
Sandwich:
Coco Bolo top [3766 approximately per my template and adjusted to Chip's preference]
Maple pinstripe
Purpleheart laminate
Maple pinstripe
Vermilion core, hollow
Maple pinstripe
Purpleheart laminate
Maple pinstripe
Coco Bolo Back [3774 with bookmatch reversed and the dark curve around the swirly area following the body contour. I'd like to see a template on this before it is cut, but I can live without it.]
shape: Small Standard, no tummy or elbow carving
ROUTING:
pickups: 2 FatBoy
truss rod cover: 4R (standard for SC model)
clarification: Series pickup positioning, so the truss rod cover is small
backplates: brass
electronics: 2 volume, 2 filter, 2-3 position Q switches
The positions of the LED switch and 1/4 jack will be reversed with the jack closer to the neck
FINISH:
polyester gloss with satin neck feel
SETUP:
logo: silver no script
hardware: gold plated
strap anchor: gold straplocks
mounted using threaded inserts rather than screws, if possible
strings: .045-.065-.080-.105
case: hardshell
-
Just a note to capture the results of a phone conversation that Mica and I had yesterday:
1. The pickup positioning and truss rod cover will be as per Stanley's 30th anniversary bass. This corresponds to the positioning of older Series instruments, not the current standards.
2. We will go with the .040-.060-.080-.100 long scale string set.
3. There will be a stop order to discuss the custom inlay at the appropriate time if we haven't nailed it sooner.
-Bob
-
isnt this the same bob who said there were no changes after he placed the order>?