|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 10, 2006 18:33:47 GMT -5
You guys are arguing about the difference between cavitying and chambering. We get the point... take wood out. you must feel right at home with the rest of us here! Oh its great to be home
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 11, 2006 6:30:13 GMT -5
You guys are arguing about the difference between cavitying and chambering. We get the point... take wood out. No, just a lively debate. ;D
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 11, 2006 10:30:53 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.
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 non sequitur unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 11, 2006 10:35:48 GMT -5
...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... as much as i like the idea of a pot, to keep things simple, i think i like that idea even more. you will be adding quite a few components, (the 4066 is a quad package, but you still need 1 mercury switch for each step) but the payoff is strong. you can select any value for each step. and set each step at whatever angle you chose. unk
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 11, 2006 14:50:42 GMT -5
Are we talking about a built in wah... or voltage changing?
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 11, 2006 14:58:52 GMT -5
"Non-Sequitur"!?! Intellectually dishonest, one-word, dismissive retorts? What, have we gone the way of Godwin's Law? For the sake of practicality, I shall assume "yes". Alrighty then . . . Up next, some graphics of the wah-bender. Possibly in a tone chamber, who knows. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by TooManyWires on Jul 11, 2006 15:52:02 GMT -5
I know I haven't been active in this thread prior to now, and I certainly don't intend to become involved either, the whole deal is over my head, but I just couldn't help but laugh at the Godwin's Law reference. This is the last place on the internet I would have ever expected to see that particular law brought up. ;D
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 11, 2006 16:46:39 GMT -5
Trust me TMW.... there has been weirder stuff referenced here. Im serious.
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 11, 2006 17:21:10 GMT -5
The yellow box is the existing guitar without the output jack (modeled after one of my dual hb guitars) The red dashed box is a 100k pot that would be attached to a trem arm so you could swivel or pull on the arm to get the wah effect. The DPDT switch is a replacement of the traditional switch used in wah's. It is a toggle switch which can engage or bypass the wah. A stereo output jack is used to turn the circuit on only when plugged in thus conserving battery life. Its that simple. Thinking about it, this could be easily placed into a V, Firebird, Explorer, Iceman, or V2 style guitar. They have so much space on the upper half that this circuit can be placed in it. The circuit itself is actually fairly small and could be placed on a "medium-sized" (317 hole) board. They are only a few inches long and wide. In the end you'd have two control cavities (the wah cavity MUST be sheilded) and a random trem arm sticking out of your guitar. I stole the wah section of the schematic from Geofex www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/wahpedl/wahped.htm Its the second image from the top.
|
|
sharpgt
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
|
Post by sharpgt on Jul 12, 2006 0:41:48 GMT -5
WOW, lots of response here. UNK and Sumgai, I like the idea of a weighted pot control, because it takes a lot of the complexity out of the wah controlling (K.I.S.S.). it would unfortunately mean a lot of jockeying the guitar up and down. but still a very creative approach, which will need some consideration. very neat
vonfrenchie, very well thought out plan of attack, I certainly didn't plan that far into the process. the idea of putting the wah circuit into the trem spring cavity on a strat is probably the best idea yet (and done without arguing one way or another that the spring cavity should be classified as a chamber, cavity or otherwise). The circuit schematics of the wah-circuit to guitar hook up are great, definitely well planned out and useful in the project (if it is ever attempted).
semantics arguments aside thanks for the great feedback. with this much interest, I might just attempt to make this project a reality. thanks every one
|
|
|
Post by jhng on Jul 12, 2006 6:36:52 GMT -5
On-board Wah is a fascinating idea.
In a very similar vein, I've always liked the idea of hacking up an old synth and putting the guts from a multimode resonant filter in a guitar. Space permitting, you could add an LFO, envelope generator or follower and similar. All adding up to having the tone-mangling bits of an analogue synth coupled with the tone-generating bits of an electric guitar.
BTW, what is Godwin's Law?
Hastings
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 12, 2006 13:02:45 GMT -5
BTW, what is Godwin's Law? A Law that states that any heated debate on a UseNet group will eventually devolve to the point where pretty soon someone will reference Nazi's as evidence of ill thinking or stupid behaviour on a wide scale, usually in response to the postulate or argument "well, if [debated idea, point, or behaviour] is so dumb, why do so many people do it!?!", after which, the debate is usually deemed to no longer have any philosophical or academic merit.
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 12, 2006 14:39:30 GMT -5
Yeah.... pretty much chesh.
There really is a difference between chambering and cavitying. Its all about placement and purpose though. Its like donating to charities. Chambering could be like the fight against Cancer and Cavitying could be like Hurricane Relief. They both are similar but different enough to have different meanings.
There that ends the debate.
Oh and does anyone know where I can get a cheap guitar? Im gonna buy a rogue wah and put it in a guitar.
Godwins law REALLY is whoever makes a comparison between the given subject and Nazi's is the loser of the debate. This was back in 1990 so Usenet was the sheehite.
|
|
|
Post by TooManyWires on Jul 12, 2006 15:25:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 12, 2006 18:29:12 GMT -5
Yeah.... pretty much chesh. "Pretty much" what? There really is a difference between chambering and cavitying. Its all about placement and purpose though. Its like donating to charities. Chambering could be like the fight against Cancer and Cavitying could be like Hurricane Relief. They both are similar but different enough to have different meanings. There that ends the debate. Well, I have no clue what that means, but I thought I pretty thoroughly examined the distinction, and said that I agree 100% with it in theory, but simply that I noticed that rarely is that standard applied in the real world, given that I have seen all manner of guitar body excavating done and then loosely labeled chambering. IOW, there is a great deal of "chambering" going on, yet all of this chambering bares nothing in common with all the other occurrances of chambering, which begs the question: "did this project guitar hobbiest just rout some odd hole and call it a chamber, or was there an actual, concrete, standardized science applied to the design of the chamber, and did he actually 'tune' said chamber"? I mean, seriously, if I was just to randomly rout holes all over the inside of a the top- and backwoods of a guitar before laminating them together, making it look like swiss cheese, what specifically would qualify that as chambering? The fact that I called them chambers? The fact that I felt like routing them because someone else did something similar to that? Was there some sort of tuning process that I needed to follow to make them resonantly beneficial to the overall timbre of my instrument? Are there a set of calculations and formulas to arrive at the ideal protocol? What's more, once the two pieces were laminated together, and the guitar completed, what if they weren't properly tuned? How do I go back and fix it? Do I slice the body in half, returning it back to where it was and then start over? What equipment would I use to do this, and then test it? Everyone is talking about chambering (which I concur is a compelling concept) with messianic reverance, but no one has answered these questions, or come close to alluding to an answer, or perhaps linking some luthery article that might shed light on this. Oh and does anyone know where I can get a cheap guitar? Im gonna buy a rogue wah and put it in a guitar. $99 for a starter guitar, maybe? Godwins law REALLY is whoever makes a comparison between the given subject and Nazi's is the loser of the debate. This was back in 1990 so Usenet was the sheehite. Well, the way I described it is the way that it went down when someone called it on me, tho I wasn't calling him a Nazi, but rather challenging an absurd bandwagon postulate on his part with what I thought was a rather effective proof. I think he was just flame-baiting in the guise of an intellectually honest discourse. He kept postulating the same idea, which I new to be falacious, but kept offering plausible if flawed arguments. As I addressed each argument, he just threw out another, and then when he finally said "well, a lot of people do it so it must make sense" (all the while never honestly addressing my points), I simply said "well, a lot of people became Nazi's, and we all knew how that turned out", thinking, of course, he would finally concede the point, of offer an intellectually honest counterarguement. Instead, however, he immediately said "and with the invocation of Godwin's Law, I take my leave". I felt totally played and punk'd. And, in retrospect, he always was kind of a jerk, but the tone of the conversations were usually pretty cerebral and theorhetical, so I never really noticed until then. Anyway, either my rendition of Godwin's Law is a good working definition, or that guy buggered out way too early. Probably more the later. Chesh
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 12, 2006 18:33:33 GMT -5
Looking back I'm not sure why I said "Pretty much Chesh"
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 12, 2006 22:10:38 GMT -5
$99 for a starter guitar, maybe? Thats it Chesh. Ill head down to guitarcenter and buy a nice les paul junior, cheap wah, a replacement trem arm and new switch. Thats gonna happen when i get my paycheck
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 12, 2006 23:29:21 GMT -5
$99 for a starter guitar, maybe? Thats it Chesh. Ill head down to guitarcenter and buy a nice les paul junior, cheap wah, a replacement trem arm and new switch. Thats gonna happen when i get my paycheck Okay . . . well, you could get a used Johnson strat clone perhaps. I mean, dude, what do you want? Perhaps there are some plywood relics from the 70's going for $20 in some pawn shop perhaps. BTW, when did Les Paul Jrs. start going for $99? What, are you talking about a cheap Epi? And as far as the cheap wah goes, weren't you going to breadboard it?
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 13, 2006 16:00:10 GMT -5
Rogue makes a 25 dollar wah pedal. Why buy 40 bucks in parts when I can buy 30 bucks worth and its premade (5 dollar switch).
about the LPJ. Im not sure who makes it. It was just hanging on the wall (at the top... its a big wall) and the tag said $99.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 13, 2006 17:36:37 GMT -5
wow, skip a day around here, and miss a lot!
"Non-Sequitur"!?! Intellectually dishonest, one-word, dismissive retorts?
What, have we gone the way of Godwin's Law? For the sake of practicality, I shall assume "yes".
Alrighty then . . .
Up next, some graphics of the wah-bender. Possibly in a tone chamber, who knows.
Chesh Chesh, since i bear no responsibility for your having been punk'd in the instance you described, i make no apologies for it, nor for any misconception you may have had, that i was trying to do the same. i will say: it was unfortunate that you were punk'd, and offer my condolences. you characterize my use of "non sequitur" as an "Intellectually dishonest, one-word, dismissive retort". honesty (intellectual or otherwise) and brevity are not mutually exclusive. to use a ChrisK-ism: succinct is. unfortunately we'll have to go to the long version this time. this one word phrase.............. two word phrase.............. four word phrase............."seven word sentence", was not intellectually dishonest, nor was it intended to be dismissive. non sequitur.............(literal translation:) it does not follow..................(meaning) there is a flaw in this logic. it was intended to give you a clue to re-read your own post. you claim: "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." logic dictates, if one were honest about their desire to see rigor applied, that person would self-apply the rigor to their own usage, rather than perpetuate the problem by indiscriminant usage. further, if such a person were to have sumbuddy attempt to point out the indiscriminant usage of the term, they could admit the error, and welcome that opportunity to reinforce the correct usage. but instead you chose to dismiss that attempt as "nit-picking" and more recently said: "I just think it's funny to be hyperlegalistic in the usage of that term, when said standard is hardly rigorously adhered to." just exactly when does this rigor get applied, if not initially self-applied by those who would like to see it applied? if everyone waits until rigor is applied to everyone else first, where would it ever begin? one of the very few ways to bring those kinds of change, is to lead by example. there are certainly no guarantees that it will catch on, but it stands a much greater chance of never happening, if the individuals who would like to see it applied, don't apply said rigor to themselves first. if my clue was too suBtle, i apologize for that, but not for your assumption that i was directing this toward an invocation of "Godwin's Law". as to "Godwin's Law" i had never heard of that before you cited it. thanks to all who have illuminated on that subject. unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 13, 2006 17:42:30 GMT -5
...UNK and Sumgai, I like the idea of a weighted pot control, because it takes a lot of the complexity out of the wah controlling (K.I.S.S.). it would unfortunately mean a lot of jockeying the guitar up and down. but still a very creative approach, which will need some consideration. very neat Sharpgt, i would recommend trying the weighted lever or the mercury switch approach on an existing pedal before routing a guitar to accomodate it. you were probably already thinking along these lines. the weighted pot approach will have some limitations on rotation. you will want to determine if that limited rotation is enough to achieve the desired effect. either of these methods will be somewhat prone to a desirable side-effect. a side to side motion of the guitarist, in the long axis of the guitar, will cause the lever to move similar to the way a pendulum swings. likewise it will cause the mercury to slosh in the switches, and function in a similar fashion, without requiring the guitar to be tilted. this might be another (perhaps easier) way to use the device. unk
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Jul 13, 2006 17:45:36 GMT -5
...about the LPJ. Im not sure who makes it. It was just hanging on the wall (at the top... its a big wall) and the tag said $99. GC had Chinese made Epiphone LPJs for $99. the bodies are 1/4" thinner than a Strat. but there is a TON of real-estate behind the bridge. it's a one-piece bridge/tailstop, and there is a LONG way from that to the end of the body. unk
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 13, 2006 19:12:32 GMT -5
wow, skip a day around here, and miss a lot! Indeed. you characterize my use of "non sequitur" as an "Intellectually dishonest, one-word, dismissive retort". . . . Alright, that's a little more like it. Response forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by vonFrenchie on Jul 13, 2006 22:41:03 GMT -5
Plus LPJ's are easy to expand. They use dogear P90's so you can just slap one on and drill a hole under it and you have a second pickup.
|
|