sharpgt
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
|
Post by sharpgt on Jul 6, 2006 19:48:36 GMT -5
I was thinking of guitar effects the other day and thought, hey what if the trem arm was attached to a potentiometer, like in a wah-wah pedal, placed behind the bridge so that the guitaur had a built in wah-wah ability? thinking: trem-style bar attached by a swivel mount to an axle in the guitar, connected by gear to a 100k ohm. pot. connected by wire to an on/bypass switch going to the guitar's output plug. so heres the point, has anyone seen this done or have an opinion on this working/not working and/or being worth-while. any comments would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 7, 2006 0:22:01 GMT -5
I was thinking of guitar effects the other day and thought, hey what if the trem arm was attached to a potentiometer, like in a wah-wah pedal, placed behind the bridge so that the guitaur had a built in wah-wah ability? thinking: trem-style bar attached by a swivel mount to an axle in the guitar, connected by gear to a 100k ohm. pot. connected by wire to an on/bypass switch going to the guitar's output plug. so heres the point, has anyone seen this done or have an opinion on this working/not working and/or being worth-while. any comments would be appreciated. Well, first off, the key to getting it to work is just to get it to work. There really isn't anything that you can't do, assuming that you want to spend the time and money to do it. That said, remember, something like this will take a lot of designing, a lot of trial, and a lot of error, yadda yadda yadda, and that all will take a lot of money and resources. Nothing wrong with that if you want to pursue this, but just be ready to do so. As far as practicality goes, there are a few things to consider: First, just how much wah do you think you'll be using? You'd better be a total wah-nut if you plan to undertake this project. This reminds me of a guy who put a spring reverb in a Strat, basically co-opting and recasting the vibrato springs as reverb springs, additionally making the back-rout a lot longer, and the vibrato bridge obviously no longer being functional. Now, that ended up being a very big and rather clunky project, and wasn't pretty to say the least, but it ultimately worked out for him because everything was "under the hood" as it were. It also proved rather practical for him because he played Surf music all the time. He might as well have been D!ck Dale. There was nary a tune that he wasn't using reverb on, so it made all the sense in the world to have that available to him 24/7. So, unless you have a situation like that where you always use wah all the time, I'm not sure how practical it will be. See, I'm not really a very big fan of having any effects onboard, mainly for the abovementioned reason. I think, with rare exception, effects don't belong on a guitar but on a floor rack. Now, in case you fear me a one pup/one vol pot purist, this is what my guitar looks like, and I'm only half-way thru: I actually have a few more switches in the mix that aren't pictured (believe it or not). And, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll technically have somewhere between 5-8 onboard effects by the time I'm done, but I don't consider them to be in violation of my stance that one should avoid onboard effects. Here's why: to my way of thinking, the main purpose of the equipment on the guitar (onboard) should be for tone generation; everything after that (offboard) should be for modifying the tone. To that end, the would-be "effects" really aren't effects. (Ironically, this includes a would-be wah effect, created by manipulating the midrange sweep on my EMG-VMC. Neat effect I discovered whilst tweeking the midrange. However, I wouldn't use that in a concert setting and I get a lot more mileage out of my wah pedal.) So, these "effects" aren't effects in the proper sense, save one (listed at the end), and principly work for tone generation: sustainiac - creates bowed effects and can't be done offboard and must be done onboard, which it's designed for; octave divider - not done as an octavia effect but rather as a method of creating an extended range instrument; wah - see above; EQ - technically not an effect. The only onboard effect that will be used as an onboard will be the alluded-to Artec QDD2, which has 4 different distortion/overdrive effects. Now, the reason why I am going to use that one is because it's the equivalent of having four distortion pedals in one, all available with the flick of a switch, and it takes up one cubic inch of space and has 4K hours of battery life on one 9-volt. In short, it was just too good to pass up. That's the only exception to the rule. (The proverbial exception to the rule that proves the rule.) Now everything that I've listed above are all small units that have a very low drain on battery life. They are also very discrete and non-obtrusive. Very low-maintenance. Those are the hallmarks of any worthwhile guitar component. However, that isn't always the case with effects. More often than not the various effects in question (wah, echo, reverb, chorus) are usually very involved, and require lots of space to function, and can be bugger hard trying to cram into a guitar. (And believe me, I'm someone who knows.) Which brings up the second concern . . .what technology and method of construction will you be using? If it's basic breadboard construction, then you might be in for an ordeal. Case in point: think of your typical wah pedal. That's a pretty big pedal! Lots of real estate to contend with. If you were using SMT (surface mount technology), that's much more practical and doable, but now you need to have it fabricated. That can be done, but you'll pay a pretty penny for it. Third, what are you willing to give up for it? If you are going to try and cram a crybaby into your guitar, that will preclude a lot of things from going in. What are you willing to give up for that? Are you even willing to make this one guitar your dedicated wah guitar? And, if so, how do you transition to it whenever you want to use wah? Only use it for wah songs? Restrain yourself from any wah unless you know you'll be using this particular guitar for a certain set of songs? I'm not in any way dissuading you from wanting to take this on. It's sounds fascinating and exciting. But these are questions you get to ask yourself in the due-dilligence process. Just some things to consider. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by eljib on Jul 7, 2006 12:46:38 GMT -5
Would it be possible to only put the pot onboard, and then have it controling all the guts in the pedal on the floor (which could have a stomp switch for on/off)?
I hope that makes sense. I think you've got a great idea. I can't control my wah very well with my foot, so an onboard method to manipulate would be nice.
-Aaron
|
|
|
Post by fobits on Jul 7, 2006 16:43:02 GMT -5
It seems to me that the hard part would be physically connecting the lever to the pot. It would have to be done in a way that looks half-decent and won't fall apart the first time you get randy with it.
The only effect I have is an Electro-Harmonix Small Clone. I couldn't resist looking inside and found mostly empty space. The foot switch and jacks were the big parts, connected to an itsy-bitsy circuit board.
Others may be different, but it wouldn't be hard to squeeze that one into a guitar.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 7, 2006 17:03:39 GMT -5
sounds about right to me, Frank.
the other bit that should be given some thought is how to switch it in and out conveniently.
on a pedal, you stomp on it.
i don't think that kind of switch would be desirable in the guitar.
but there might be a better way than a mini-toggle.
also there's the issue of spring return or not for the lever.
and if return, to where? top, bottom, or center?
for that matter, which way does the lever "go"? pull for highs, or the other way 'round?
lotta stuff to figure out, especially for a guy like me, who mostly doesn't use pedals.
unk
BTW, Sharpgt, (a belated) WELCOME to GuitarNuts2.
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Jul 7, 2006 17:44:00 GMT -5
holy project guitar, batman... uh, i mean cheshirecat
anyway, i do have one guitar with a distortion effect onboard. it comes very handy when i am meeting with a - well let's say a bandmate - at his house. he has no guitar amp, just a guitar multieffect for his guitar plugged straight into the mixer.
with a built in distortion i can plug my guitar right into the mixer to and jam together with him a bit.
so, in some situations it is ok to have some effects right in the guitar.
|
|
sharpgt
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
|
Post by sharpgt on Jul 7, 2006 22:10:36 GMT -5
to make things clear, I wasn't exactly planning to actually do this mod, but it does sound interesting to me .
to respond to a few questions: I was planning on having an on/bypass switch on the effect so that it isn't always on. I guess the main reason for this mod would be so that I (or whoever plays it) could get wah effects without being tied to a specific position on stage where the pedal is. it could also be useful becase the wah effect is then being controlled by hand; you could probably get a finer control than by foot (unless of course you're like me and you are a drummer and have plenty of foot sensitivity already).
I was thinking that the wah effect would just be controlled by a toggle or lever switch, on/bypass. the hardware shouldn't take up too much room (if you've ever looked inside a wah pedal, you know that most of the real estate is just making the pedal not colapse when stepped upon) it's mostly just a fairly-small circuit board, the pot, and the bypass switch, plus a battery. I was thinking that that all could go into a routed out cavity in the guitar, having the pot attached by a gear or pully to a bigsby style trem. stylish and rugged. as too trem arm pull high or pull for lows, I'd have to think about that and then experiment. all of this thinking theoretically, it could work out pretty cool.
btw. thanks unklmicky, I feel welcomed
thanks for all the feedback, hope for more!
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 7, 2006 23:50:25 GMT -5
sharpie, Hey, to the forums! So you're looking to control a voltage in a different manner, eh? Have you thought of using one of these little gems? These guys will show you how to build a ribbon controller yourself, here: www.paia.com/LabNotes/index.htm, or you can google for a list of parts suppliers. Rube Goldberg ain't got nothin' on you! I'd pay money to see such a contraption, just for the "Golly Gee Whiz" factor, probably at one of those "Roadside Museum" attractions along the byways of America. But would I actually use it? Uh uh, not me, too much risk of breaking right when I needed it. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 8, 2006 0:22:25 GMT -5
Well, first, let me point out: I myself will be using an onboard effect in the form of distortion and overdrive - four of them, in fact, all rolled up into one little unit, so I do see the advantages.
I was otherwise referring to effects that are a bit more involved in size and scope.
Now, in terms of small wahs, well, mine's a Mold Spore, so it's probably a bit meatery than most. For instance, I'm trying to do a mod on my Mold Spore, and there's buggerall room to work with as it is, just for squeezing in a small toggle switch for something special with the inductor.
Still, when you're talking about a distortion effect, that's pretty easy to work with. With other effects, it just depends on what the model effect is or what the starter circuit looks like, and going from there.
BTW, who ever said you had to choose between a vibrato and an articulation arm driven wah effect? Why not use both?
Chesh
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jul 8, 2006 10:15:04 GMT -5
I was thinking of guitar effects the other day and thought, hey what if the trem arm was attached to a potentiometer, like in a wah-wah pedal, placed behind the bridge so that the guitaur had a built in wah-wah ability? thinking: trem-style bar attached by a swivel mount to an axle in the guitar, connected by gear to a 100k ohm. pot. connected by wire to an on/bypass switch going to the guitar's output plug. so heres the point, has anyone seen this done or have an opinion on this working/not working and/or being worth-while. any comments would be appreciated. Yes it could be done, the engineering executed, and it would be very useful to every wah guitarist ..... with 3 arms and hands. Yes the wah is an effect, but it is also ... an instrument. While some guitarists laud its "set it and forget it" tone positioning, the wah is also associated with it's dynamic, foot actuated tonal sweeping effect. So the 'effect' is "played" by moving the sweep with or against the beat, by the foot, effectively a third hand in this application. If you mount it on board, then you will need to develop an advanced picking technique that picks or strums or saws the strings while also manipulating the on-board wah arm..... or grow a third arm and hand (assuming you don't already have said 3rd appendage). There is a similar history of this in Roy Bucannan's Tele mastery, at least in his relationship of picking and manuvering of the Tele volume control. I have read he also did it with the Tele tone, albeit I can't pick out a tune where that can be heard. Otherwise your lever system is just another set-and-play tone control, with a different frequency notching approach. So in that light, why not just use another tone knob, with the wah's pot guts. Ewwwww. that sounds bad.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 8, 2006 10:32:26 GMT -5
awright, how's this for guitarNUTZ thinking.......you put a weighted lever on the pot.
gravity keeps the lever pointed down.
as you raise and lower the headstock, the body of the pot rotates, but the lever (and shaft of the pot) don't.
so relatively speaking, the motion of the guitar, turns the pot.
you would have to rework the circuit, as 90o of rotation would be the most you could do, 45o would be more practical.
and talk about showmanship! VERY visual.
waddaya think?
unk
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 8, 2006 12:54:59 GMT -5
awright, how's this for guitarNUTZ thinking.......you put a weighted lever on the pot. gravity keeps the lever pointed down. as you raise and lower the headstock, the body of the pot rotates, but the lever (and shaft of the pot) don't. so relatively speaking, the motion of the guitar, turns the pot. you would have to rework the circuit, as 90 o of rotation would be the most you could do, 45 o would be more practical. and talk about showmanship! VERY visual. waddaya think? unk Well, while I'm pretty confident that that wouldn't work on any practical level, it does give rise to another idea. You've heard of the internal tele-bender? Well, how about an internal wah-bender?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 8, 2006 17:36:30 GMT -5
Chesh, Well, while I'm pretty confident that that wouldn't work on any practical level. Au contraire, mon ami! unk's idea has high potential, for the showmanship, if for no other reason. unk, that was brilliant! However, I'd use several small mercury switches (in an ever-increasing incline arrangement), and hook them up to a cascade switch (say, a 4066) that'd let me, effectively, step the voltage up and down. That could be smoothed with capacitors, and if it's all done right, the voltage changes would be quick enough for stage use. Seems to me to be an idea who's time is coming! ;D Hmmm, that's not too bad an idea either. Not that I like the idea of chopping out more wood, but there just might be a market for this kind of thing. Uh, oh..... it starting to get awfully "commercial" in here. Maybe we'd better spray for that, ya think?! ;D sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 0:08:18 GMT -5
Not that I like the idea of chopping out more wood, but there just might be a market for this kind of thing. "Chopping out more wood", or " chambering"?
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 9, 2006 2:11:43 GMT -5
Chesh, No, it would be cavity-ing. A chamber refers to a void in the guitar that is meant to affect the tonal properties. Think acoustic guitar here, or some of Warmoth's slightly exotic designs. Contrast that with a solid piece of wood that has had some amount of its material removed, perhaps for mounting controls. Such blank areas are called cavities. Sorry, but I think chamber would be an inappropriate choice of words here. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 13:05:19 GMT -5
Chesh, No, it would be cavity-ing. A chamber refers to a void in the guitar that is meant to affect the tonal properties. Think acoustic guitar here, or some of Warmoth's slightly exotic designs. Contrast that with a solid piece of wood that has had some amount of its material removed, perhaps for mounting controls. Such blank areas are called cavities. Sorry, but I think chamber would be an inappropriate choice of words here. sumgai Well, I think you're nit-picking a bit here considering that I've seen every and all manner of cavitying referred to as chambering, and by some high-end guitar makers at that. So, to that end, how would you specifically define chambering in a practical, nuts and bolts sense. What formulas do you use to determine the shape of placement of a chamber? Chesh
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 9, 2006 14:23:25 GMT -5
Chesh, I knew I should have stuck with my first diatribe, where I went way off the deep end in explaining myself. Sorry, but lack of time (getting ready for a little "road trip") prevents me from going into it in great detail, but the gist of it is, luthiers (and presumably, other intrument makers) do not think of a chamber as being merely a void where there used to be wood. By Merriam-Webster, that would indeed be a correct application of the definition, but not so for instrument makers. They make that distinction because they are intending to distinguish between that which affects tone, and that which does not. In this case, a clarinet, a trumpet and a violin all have chambers. Note that they aren't enclosed, but the "cavity" where the air moves through, and is affected by the opening/closing of holes along the length (wind intruments), that is defined as a chamber. In those cases where a cavity is made in order to accomodate some non-tone-affecting item such as controls (on and electric instrument), or perhaps just for decoration, they are not chambers, but cavities. There is a difference, but it's like trying to tell a cement maker that he's making cement, not concrete. To him, he makes concrete, and cement is only one component of his product. Never mind that the dictionary says different, he's right, because he's a professional! Ditto for instrument makers. But as for what formulas to apply to the making of a chamber, I am not a luthier, nor even an intrument maker of any sort, so I don't have a clue as to how that's all done. I can fix 'em, but I can't make 'em from scratch. That's an arcane art, if there ever was one. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 20:14:34 GMT -5
Chesh, I knew I should have stuck with my first diatribe, where I went way off the deep end in explaining myself. Sorry, but lack of time (getting ready for a little "road trip") prevents me from going into it in great detail, but the gist of it is, luthiers (and presumably, other intrument makers) do not think of a chamber as being merely a void where there used to be wood. By Merriam-Webster, that would indeed be a correct application of the definition, but not so for instrument makers. They make that distinction because they are intending to distinguish between that which affects tone, and that which does not. In this case, a clarinet, a trumpet and a violin all have chambers. Note that they aren't enclosed, but the "cavity" where the air moves through, and is affected by the opening/closing of holes along the length (wind intruments), that is defined as a chamber. In those cases where a cavity is made in order to accomodate some non-tone-affecting item such as controls (on and electric instrument), or perhaps just for decoration, they are not chambers, but cavities. There is a difference, but it's like trying to tell a cement maker that he's making cement, not concrete. To him, he makes concrete, and cement is only one component of his product. Never mind that the dictionary says different, he's right, because he's a professional! Ditto for instrument makers. But as for what formulas to apply to the making of a chamber, I am not a luthier, nor even an intrument maker of any sort, so I don't have a clue as to how that's all done. I can fix 'em, but I can't make 'em from scratch. That's an arcane art, if there ever was one. Well, first off, I totally get the distinction . . . or, at least, the ostensible distinction. And, in principle, completely concur. However . . . (you knew that was coming, didn't you) I am an instrument maker, and I can tell you that so far I haven't seen any literature whatsoever that bespeaks to the myriad principles and applications of chambering in terms of acoustic intonation. It is indeed a subject that is much spoken of, but not much spoken about. Perhaps such sacremental mysteries and arcane knuggets of knowledge are hiding out in some obscure corner of the web on a luthier's blog or homepage, just waiting to be discovered by a guitar nut and hyperlinked here. I would like that very much. Principly because I have debated the merits of chambering my Utah, but given the paucity - nay, nonexistance - of practical, useful information, that has had to take a backseat to other more pressing concerns, such as what color and shape the knobs should be. (That's actually meant only half facitiously, since I might very well be making my own knobs, partly because of the S-1 Switches.) Not only that, but, assuming the Warmoth method as an appropriate protocol, I thought that if I was to actually chamber the Utah, it would very well involve something to the effect of slicing the body in half, seperating the N. Ash topwood from the Mahogany backwood (using a really, really thin blade indeed!), and then devise some sort of geometric matrix of channels, a la Warmoth, perhaps free-handed with my trusty dremel, and then gluing the two halves back together. As you can probably deduce, I wasn't particularly thrilled with that prospect. Well, since then, I've done a heavy amount of excavating (to apply a proper verbation to the coined term) and found myself pretty much with a chambered body in terms of meat removal, and the only thing left to do would be to acoustically tune the chambers. Said hypothetical found-luthier's-blog-info would be very useful at that juncture to say the least. Well, as it happens, I've heard such ideas and terms as "tone chambers" and said tuned "chambers to bring out the Low B sounds" (in a seven string for instance) bandied about, but absolutely no information on exactly how one would do that, or even how the self-congratulatory luthier did it himself. What I have also seen is an utter abundance of all manner of "chambering" without rhyme nor reason of what exactly makes such lutheric excavations a "chamber". For instance, I've seen various hodge-podges, swamps, and quagmires of forstner bit potholes made into one of the backwoods of a project guitar by a "respected luthier" [read: "hobbiest whose sold a few"]; I've seen the matriced channeling of Warmoth "hollowbodies"; I've seen trapezoidal pockets in near acoustic hybrids; I've seen countless versions of the thinline acoustic, a la the T5/Atkins approach (no, not that Atkins, the other Atkins), and so on, all without any conceivable connection, correlation, or commonality, other than the fact that wood has been removed in some roughly geometric quality, and that it was dogmatically christened a "chamber". And let's not forget the original "chambering", that of the semi-hollow body, which, incidentally, Alembic uses to great effect to house their extensive electronics as well as adding to their apropously cavernous sound. Ergo, for all I know, the control cavities I've routed in my Utah could very well be the most perfectly formulated tone chambers I could have ever have designed for the rather unique geometry of the Utah body. I might very well have inadvertantly perfectly chambered my Utah in the process of excavating for all the other goodies I've been putting in it. It's not as farfetched a theory as you might imagine, given that I've been excruciatingly careful to maintain structural integrity (not to mention also maintaining the Core Wood). In addition to that, we get to ponder whether having electronic components in said chambers will cut down on or put a drag coefficient on any acoustic properties it would have. It doesn't seem to be an issue with Alembics, but it still stands as an interesting question. So, while I totally agree in principle with the distinction you outlined, I would have to say that very few "luthiers" act in accordance. Least said, I would definitely like to seem some consistancy on the application on that term. And, for that matter, I would like to know how to tune the control cavities in my Utah. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 9, 2006 20:54:44 GMT -5
...Well, I think you're nit-picking a bit here considering that I've seen every and all manner of cavitying referred to as chambering, and by some high-end guitar makers at that.... wait a minute, are you the same Chesh who abhors the use of the term "coil tapping" being misused for using one coil of HB? and the use of "tremolo" for the vibrato on a Strat ? Fender even refererred to the tremolo (real tremolo) on some of their amps as vibrato. So is that okay? BTW Sumgai, i have another example for you. don't ever refer to them as "cardboard boxes" in the presence of Bill Laimbeer. when he left basketball, he got into the corrugated business. according to him, cardboard is not used for boxes, it's the stuff that posters and stuff are made of. unk
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 21:21:22 GMT -5
...Well, I think you're nit-picking a bit here considering that I've seen every and all manner of cavitying referred to as chambering, and by some high-end guitar makers at that.... wait a minute, are you the same Chesh who abhors the use of the term "coil tapping" being misused for using one coil of HB? and the use of "tremolo" for the vibrato on a Strat ? Fender even refererred to the tremolo (real tremolo) on some of their amps as vibrato. So is that okay? BTW Sumgai, i have another example for you. don't ever refer to them as "cardboard boxes" in the presence of Bill Laimbeer. when he left basketball, he got into the corrugated business. according to him, cardboard is not used for boxes, it's the stuff that posters and stuff are made of. Funny, I thought my predilection for lexiconographic rigor and accuracy was well illustrated in my previous post. On that first point, go back and read said response I just wrote above. On the second point, "corrugated" is the proper term for boxes using corrugated cardboard, as opposed to, let's say, small gift boxes made out of regular, generic cardstock, which is perfectly fine for holding a trinket, tchotchke, or various other gift knick-knack. On the third point, there is a key distinction between cement and concrete. Cement is indeed an ingredient of concrete. Cement also works well in a stand-alone capacity. So, if you were doing some sort of arts and crafts application, then cement would be perfectly fine. If, on the other hand, you were building a house, an overpass, or, for that matter, a stadium, then you might want to mix in a few extra ingredients with that cement to thereby make concrete. And if you can ring in some rebar to make reinforced concrete, all the better. To additionally ring in a fourth point, why not interpret my original postulation as an opportunity to amalgamate such mechanics as would be required by a wah-bender with the prospects of chambering, so as to perhaps create a synergistic effect? To answer my own question, as per my abovementioned lament, such info to facilitate that is not readily available, but if it were, such knowledge could be effectively harnassed to great measure. Guitar bodies are heavy enough as it is . . . wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a science that could tune the cavities necessary for such electronics and mechanics and at the same time additionally lighten the body weight of these guitars? Imagine an LP whose supple lightweightedness was matched only by the cavernousness of it's tone. Also, if I could hazard a fifth point, I think Fender's wantonly inaccurate use and utter butchery of terminology is about as erudite (not to mention ironically idiosyncratic, characteristic, and self-parodying) as calling their ezine "The 60 Cycle Hum". (The thumping sound you just heard was me, JohnnyA, and anyone familiar with his work, banging their heads against the wall at such gross corporate idiocy and ineptitude.) (Incidentally, the whirring sound you just heard was Leo Fender spinning in his grave.) Chesh
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 9, 2006 21:26:54 GMT -5
Kickin it Bo Diddly style. Nice. Thats all I have to say. good luck.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 21:30:31 GMT -5
Kickin it Bo Diddly style. Nice. Thats all I have to say. good luck. Well, that's saying a lot, and thank you. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 9, 2006 22:23:30 GMT -5
hey chesh,
i'll admit i mispoke. what i should have said:
...according to him, cardboard is not used for shipping boxes...
as far as making anthing out of cement (that being portland cement) i doubut you will be able to make anything out of a cement-and-water-only mix, other than a mess.
as it cures the dendrites that form, allow the portland cement to lock in place the sand and aggregate in concrete.
or the sand in mortar.
but, by itself portand cement will be brittle, crumbly, and expensive.
but, back to the question i asked,
i was amazed (and still am) that you supported your use of the term by citing that high-end makers were using it that way.
it seemed to go against your previous positions on "purity" of teminology.
unk
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 9, 2006 22:55:11 GMT -5
hey chesh, i'll admit i mispoke. what i should have said: ...according to him, cardboard is not used for shipping boxes... And he would be correct. The Inuits have over 30 different terms for snow. That may seem like overkill, especially to a Texas boy like myself (by way of Queens and Marietta), but if you were to live among the Inuit on the frozen tundra, I guarantee you, your survival would utterly depend on the proper usage of that highly specific terminology, or else you'd either freeze to death or starve. Likewise, your friend probably wouldn't freeze to death, but he'd have a hard time putting bread on the table if he was so inexact in his terminology whilst at his job . . . tho, come to think of it, if he couldn't pay his electric bill . . . As far as cement goes, that's why I said that cement by itself would only work with arts and crafts, and, yes, it can be pricey, which is why plaster of paris is preferred for artsy/craftsy stuff. But, as you said, "back to the question" at hand. i was amazed (and still am) that you supported your use of the term by citing that high-end makers were using it that way. it seemed to go against your previous positions on "purity" of teminology. In a word, what on earth are you talking about!?! Chesh
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 9, 2006 23:05:46 GMT -5
...In a word, what on earth are you talking about!?! Chesh actually thats seven.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 10, 2006 0:12:51 GMT -5
...In a word, what on earth are you talking about!?! Chesh actually thats seven. Yes, and the term "in a word" (or trinity of terms) was meant in the classic sense (denoting "in a manner acustomed to a concise rule of law" or "a concept concisely stated"), but that's neither here nor there. Specifically, how was I justifying anything in terms of the misusage of others? Actually, quite the opposite, I thought I was clear in taking many of these individuals to task for either a) indiscriminately using the term, often where it clearly did not apply, or b) using it in a grossly loose sense, especially when it aided their self-congratulatory pretenses. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 10, 2006 13:11:33 GMT -5
One thing you have to think about (I hope Im not being redundant and saying what someone else said) is the bypass. On every wah pedal there is a switch thats fairly hard to see. Its engaged only when the pedal is pressed forward (or backward however the wah is setup) all the way. This switch, when pressed, works as a bypass switch. Knowing this you could (Im not saying this would be easy) hook a trem arm up to a wah circuit (they actually arent that big) and instead of having a stomp switch (what is in wahs) you have a nice DPDT toggle switch. You switch it on and wah away. When off your guitar is "wah-less" and you will effectively kick gravity in the behind. The next step is the input output. All you would have to do for this is hook up the input wires for the wah to the output wires for the guitar. Then you would hook up the black wire (negative end) of the battery clip to a stereo (yes stereo) jack. It would have to be hooked up to the second clip. It's a lot to explain about why that is the way it is but Ill spare you. But before all of this you must, MUST, make a cavity and shield it. If you dont shield it your guitar will sound like an airplane.... not in a good way either. After doing all this you would have a guitar with a wah. When your guitar is plugged in the circuit is powered and you can use the wah. When its not the circuit is not getting power from the battery. You NEED a stereo output jack otherwise your battery will always be in use thus it will usually be dead. So you can gain some perspective on this (bad engrish) This is what would be in your guitar. If I were doing this (I never will) I would take out a strat trem bridge (has to be trem) and switch it with one of these www.guitarelectronics.com/product/GBST1 . Then I would put all the inards of the wah inside of the spring cavity. Then I would attach the wah's pot to the side of the cavity so that the trem arm can be attached to it. Then I would take some plastic a la warmoth (buy a pickguard blank) and cover the opening on the face of the guitar. Then I would add a block to the trem arm and two to the cavity so I wouldnt crank the wah pot out of its place. Then wire the guitar to the wah and thats it. You have a wah'd guitar. But after all of that your guitar would have a wierd scale. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Once again sorry if I was totally redundant. I just didnt feel like reading all of that. And yes... I am completely crazy.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 10, 2006 17:21:07 GMT -5
...Specifically, how was I justifying anything in terms of the misusage of others? Actually, quite the opposite, I thought I was clear in taking many of these individuals to task for either a) indiscriminately using the term, often where it clearly did not apply, or b) using it in a grossly loose sense, especially when it aided their self-congratulatory pretenses. Chesh i understand that you eventually got the distinction. (or, at least, the ostensible distinction) what seemed surprising to me, was that you went here in reply #15: " Well, I think you're nit-picking a bit here considering that I've seen every and all manner of cavitying referred to as chambering, and by some high-end guitar makers at that." BTW, just out of curiousity, where have you seen the term chambering used, to mean something other than removing material from a guitar body for purposes of changing the tonal characteristics? unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 10, 2006 17:24:29 GMT -5
...And yes... I am completely crazy. you must feel right at home with the rest of us here!
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 10, 2006 18:01:19 GMT -5
i understand that you eventually got the distinction. (or, at least, the ostensible distinction) Not "eventually". This is something that I've been observing for a long time. I immediately understood what SG was driving at, and, as I said, I agreed 100% in principle, but so far I have seen very little technological rigor in the application of that distinction. I would, in fact, like to see that very same rigor applied, much the same way I would like to see the same contextual rigor applied to the aforementioned distinctions between vibrato vs. tremolo, and splitting vs. tapping. what seemed surprising to me, was that you went here in reply #15: " Well, I think you're nit-picking a bit here considering that I've seen every and all manner of cavitying referred to as chambering, and by some high-end guitar makers at that." Nothing surprising about it. I just think it's funny to be hyperlegalistic in the usage of that term, when said standard is hardly rigorously adhered to. Like I said, I was pretty thorough in my response to that in my posts. Did you read them or skim them? Not to have the appearance of taking umbrage, but I went to great pains to go into great detail over these points. I haven't, and I never said I did. More specifically, as I explicitly went into in my posts, is that I've seem the term bandied about in connection with just about every kind of body excavating you can imagine, ostensibly for the purposes of tuning the body's resonance, but I have not seen any standardization, nor info on how to reliably tune your guitar thru chambering. Everyone talks about it but no one seems to know how to do it, or at least whoever does isn't telling. Incidentally, I'm not just into electronics. I'm also deeply into construction and have been extensively reading up on the subject, as I've built three of my own, and have plans for more. Believe me, I would love some solid info on chamber tuning, especially since I'm just about done with routing my Utah's body, and will need to start setting it up for the final mods. Chesh
|
|