baking a Soloist - need help with recipe

[Prometheus]

Hi All

This is my first post here, and it's gonna be a big 'un. I considered making separate threads for the multiple aspects of this, but decided that - because a guitar is the sum of its parts - it would be better to have the entire formula in one place. It could have gone in "Neck Woods" or "Body Woods", but it really has to do with both. So here goes.

I'm starting my first S-style build. It'll be S-S-S with tremelo, and I'd like to have a "characteristically Strat" essential tone, or something pretty close to it. Not necessarily 100% vintage, just not anything too off the wall. Here's my recipe:

BODY ---------------------------- (sorry, tabs don't seem to work)
Model Soloist, carved top, right-handed
Core Korina
Front Laminate Quilt or Flame Maple
Top Finish Blue Dye
Back Finish Black-Yellow Burst
Control Cavity Rear route
Jack Route ¾” Side hole
Neck Pocket ? Strat with 720 Mod
Mounting Holes Standard 4-bolt
Contours ? Contoured Heel
Tummy Cut
Battery Box Double battery box

NECK ----------------------------
Style Stratocaster
Construction Warmoth Pro Angled
Shaft Wood Maple, flat-sawn
Fingerboard Wood Bocote
Orientation Right handed
Back Shape Clapton
Radius 10-16” compound
Frets 22 frets, SS6150
Nut Width 1-11/16”
String Nut GraphTech Black TUSQ XL
Tuner Ream Schaller
Mounting Holes: Standard 4-bolt
Fingerboard Inlays Mother of Pearl Dots
Side Dots Mother of Pearl Side Dots
Finish Clear Satin Nitro
no scalloping, no binding
Headstock Finish matching body

THE OTHER STUFF -----------------
Bridge FullContactHardware (Babicz) 6-hole tremolo
Pickups Kinman Impersonator 54 set
Controls Volume, Tone, Tone, 5-way selector switch
Tuners Schaller mini locking

I prefer playing pretty clean, ranging from all-clean to SRV. No punk, metal, etc., and not a fan of Jazz. A lot of classic rock, blues, and some other odds and ends. Strings please, not cables. And now on to the meat of the matter...

1) One of my biggest sources of anguish has been the neck choice. I've seen enough "thumbs-down" reviews of the Warmoth Pro necks to make me a little bit nervous. And my local guitar hero/guru also warned me off of it, which carries a lot of weight with me (and he plays a "Warmoth Tele"). But I like the idea of having a non-vintage headstock, and the matched-to-body finish. And non-esthetically, the angled neck. If I went the Vintage Modern way, I'd give all that up. So I'm waffling. Please convince me that I'm OK with the above.

Just as an aside, (not an official poll), but it seems to me like more of the Warmoth Pro nay-sayers are T-type than S-type. Just my impression. And it seems that most of the negative reviews are fairly old. Also, I have been VERY encouraged by the posts of Bagman 67, AprioriMark, and StubHead in the thread "pro neck vs vintage standard neck " http://www.unofficialwarmoth.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=ajiad6tpcphb9jahe4mbau7jo7&topic=18323.15

2) Due partly to my dilemma about the neck, and partly because I want a "full and balanced" tone, my other dilemma is about the woods. Keep in mind that I'm pretty convinced about the pickups and bridge, so I'd rather we left that out of the discussion.

The way I feel about woods is that they contribute to the tone according to their abilities to conduct, absorb, and resonate. These will depend upon their density, hardness, strength, and elasticity. And how these are distributed through the piece (grain and uniformity). But as much as I hear people talking about how "XXX is brighter", I translate that into "it's conducting more highs and/or absorbing more mids and lows". Or "YYY is fuller" into "it's conducting more mids and/or absorbing more highs and lows and/or it's resonating more in the mids". Yeah, I know, too scientific or semantic for many readers, I'm sure. But consider this... if I have a neck/nut pair that scoops (absorbs) mids, and a fingerboard that subdues (absorbs) the highs, and a body that mutes (absorbs) the lows, then what have I got? Well, a particular tone, for sure. This example is tricky because all the components subtract a different part of the spectrum. And the rub is that in fact, that's always going to be the case! So if the parts aren't chosen with a specific tonic goal in mind, then they could combine to rob the best of what the guitar would otherwise be capable of - in other words, random choices = mud!

What many of us consider as the "classic" Strat tone is a mid-scooped spectrum. I have an idea that is where the problem comes into the picture for the Warmoth Pro neck nay-sayers. If the neck is stiffer, it could be more likely to conduct more, and absorb less, of the highs. And it might resonate less. Which means that to some it may sound too bright, and/or the mid tones are either more apparent (presence), or just "off".

For the most part though, I don't have a big problem with that. Because I know that if the higher tones are too strong (apparent), then I know how to cut them out "downstream". On the other hand, if they're not there, I have a heck of a time putting them in!! And rather than just band-aiding it by hard-wiring in a tone cap or permamently setting an EQ, I'd just as soon try first to "offset" the "brightness" of the neck by making appropriate selections for the other woods. This is why the Bocote fingerboard. This is why the Korina body. I'm hoping that this combination will help to "tame" the "bright" Warmoth Pro neck. And still produce a nice voice. What do you think? Impressions? Suggestions?

Of course, if the neck turns out to be as toneful tuneful and wonderful as the yeah-sayers claim, then I'll be one happy camper. But if that's the case... then what will my "compensatory" build choices sound like?

So I'm looking for feedback about my choices. Here's a couple things to head you off at the pass. "Hey, don't sweat it, wood variability is all a crap shoot anyway!" True enough, but why not at least try to get a good recipe anyway, and at least start out right. "Why not a neck wood other than maple?" Because I like its looks and its tone (how and what it conducts), and its strength-to-weight. Other choices seem too "colored" (absorbing or resonating in a way I'm not fond of), or too heavy (ugh), or too rigid (even brighter!). But if you have a really convincing idea, I'll listen! "Why not change the pickups/bridge/tuners/etc?" Because I truly like my selections, for various reasons. Not to say that I might not change them out someday, but if I do, then they're still gonna have to live in this guitar, so it's easier to just keep the discussion to that for now. "Hey, the right amp/EQ/pedals/volume can overwhelm or overcome anything having to do with woods anyway!" True, but recall that I like clean, and whether or not I decide to "post-process" the output, I'd just as soon that's everything it can be, a voice that's even, full, and pleasing.

All other ideas, suggestions, criticisms and support are up for grabs.

 

[Cagey]

Sounds to me like you've got a pretty good handle on things; you're just anxious. The choices you've made make sense, and will look/play/sound great.

I tend to go bright for the reason you've already pointed out - you can always filter out frequencies you don't want, but no knobs/switches will create them if they don't exist in the first place. So, staying away from woods that absorb too much or notch out a band is a Good Thing.

 

[Prometheus]

Say, Cagey, thanks for plugging in. I've seen you around the forums, and your posts always read as sensible experience. Your input is appreciated. And yeah, I've sweated out the config so that it's where I think it should be. Glad to hear you think I'm on the right track. I just wanted to get some fresh perspectives on it.

So, anybody else got two cents to throw in?

 

[Updown]

Welcome aboard  :icon_thumright:

Say, Cagey, thanks for plugging in. I've seen you around the forums, and your posts always read as sensible experience.

Yeah .... But here is what Cagey was gunna write  :icon_biggrin:

Add guitar parts into a large bowl.
Mix thoroughly.
Add some Maple syrup.
Preheat oven to 240
Then place in oven for 10 hrs +

Should be close to baked.


:icon_jokercolor:
(Just kidding)

 

[Prometheus]

Hey, thanks for the tip. I gave it a try, but I must have done something wrong. It came out kinda half-baked.  :laughing11:

 

[Updown]

I gave it a try, but I must have done something wrong. It came out kinda half-baked.  :laughing11:

You failed  :laughing7:

BODY -----
Model Soloist, carved top, right-handed
Core         Korina
Front Laminate Quilt or Flame Maple
Top Finish Blue Dye
Back Finish Black-Yellow Burst

I'm presuming that this will be a Custom Build order.

Looking at your colour finish choice for the body, front and back.
You may have to email / phone Warmoth to see if that can be done.

Usually a Blue Dye Top gives an option for the back in Blue Dye, Clear Gloss, Black Gloss, Trans Blue or Candy Blue.
That's going from the showcase thou.

:dontknow:  If I've seen a Blue Dye top with a Black to Yellow Burst back, before.
But sure Warmoth could do it for you.  :icon_thumright:

Ever thought of a RAW neck ? .... they are lovely.
Or save that for the next build  :icon_biggrin:

 

[swarfrat]

FWIW, Tele snobs are a breed apart from Strat snobs. Not that Strat enthusiasts aren't picky, but "strat" can enompass a much broader range of goals, while "tele" snobs pretty much means a narrowly focused range of options.

That, and sometimes I think Tele snobs are less likely to take their medicines, and are generally grumpier. So they can obsess over minutia.

Check out the 54 Z-caster thread for a vintagey take something different.

 

[Prometheus]

Hey swarfrat, thanks for the pointer to the Z-caster thread. Looks like an awesome project.

Updown, I actually at the last minute "plugged in" the body back finish to my original recipe, because I'd finally settled on the Korina body wood, and just wanted something there. I had previously been entertaining thoughts of Swamp Ash or Alder, and so had planned a black back. But as I'm now gonna go with the Korina for the weight and tone (infinitesimal as its effect may be), I thought "why hide it?". I'd happily entertain suggestions for the back finish. Preferably something that would go with a nude maple neck.

Which segues nicely into the raw neck option. Hmmm. I'd kinda wanted the Warmoth warranty, and with an unfinished neck, I miss out on that. But I really would like something fast and with a good feel. Here's a question for ya... I have used for years on my bokken a product called "1850 Terra Nova Naturoil" - have you ever heard of it, used it, or have any feelings about it? The only reference I found to its makeup says that it's mostly just mineral oil, but I don't consider a 100? reliable source. I did find some guitar-related references to it, but only in use for fingerboards.

Which reminds me - anybody know anything about the care and feeding of a Bocote fingerboard?

 

[Cagey]

You should be aware that it's only certain necks that require a finish in order to be covered by Warmoth's warranty. Maple, Mahogany, and Koa come to mind. Those woods can sometimes develop a mind of their own as to their final shape, and it can only be prevented by sealing them off with a hard finish. Doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that they won't bet on them.

The other species they use are mostly exotics from tropical and semi-tropical regions where the trees have evolved to repel insects, fungus, mildew, moss, etc. and remain stable in periods of drought or flood. Those woods don't need a finish and once cured will stay in place forever and ever, amen. They're typically very hard and very pretty. Oh, and expensive. But, since you don't need to finish them, sometimes you actually come out ahead doing an exotic, price-wise. For instance, if you like Maple, you can use Canary in its place to get the same performance characteristics and not worry about a finish. Plus, it looks sorta like Maple with a vintage tint, although the grain stripes can be more pronounced. But, burnish it and it's as smooth as a baby's ass, and stays that way. Can't do that with satin lacquer/poly. Pau Ferro is another favorite, as is Goncalo Alves.

Very few woods require as much care as people seem to think they need. It's kinda like new mommies putting hats and sweaters on their babies in the middle of the summer. Totally unnecessary, but they worry. So, keep your various oils and miracle-cure-in-a-can stuff in a cool, dry place in case you need to start a fire someday. Let the neck be. It'll be fine. As long as you play it, your fingers and palm will put more oil on that neck than it needs by a long shot.

 

[Prometheus]

Yes, you're right, a bocote fingerboard shouldn't require any "maintenance" other than keeping it clean. As it's an oily exotic, I should have known better. What you said earlier about my getting anxious is, I guess, pretty close to the mark. And some of my wood-care paranoia also comes from my history with classic guitars. Hard to shake the mindset. I carefully pamper my baby, a Ramirez. And years ago, I learned a hard lesson by neglecting a Takamine. So I'm just a little over-concerned about protecting my investment in any of my guitars. Ah well, a better attitude than not caring.

I read through your thread "Warmoth 2 Canary on Canary Conversion" (wow), and several others espousing the virtues of raw necks, and about canary as a neck wood. I gotta say, I like both ideas a lot - tonally, practically, and aesthetically. As canary sounds close to maple, potentially softening some of the sharper edges of the highs, it's pretty appealing to me. And I would very much prefer a naked neck if it could be kept clean, and your burnishing approach will probably do the trick.

As I stated in my original post, I'm still wobbling between the VM and Pro neck types. I know, done to death already. But that's the reason for my opening the whole discussion about woods in the first place. So two questions. First, is there any reason why raw maple wouldn't burnish as well as canary (and what about the Warmoth sealer treatment)? And second, do you think I could convince the boys at Warmoth to do up a canary neck in a Vintage Modern?

 

[Prometheus]

... addendum - there are two Canary VMs in the Showcase

 

[swarfrat]

If the behavior is indeed harmless, letting new mommies have their OCD fun can be the shortest route to sanity for everyone else. Guitar players are much the same. Slather away if it makes you happy (but you might want to skip the EVH trademark cigarette between the strings).

 

[Cagey]

...some of my wood-care paranoia also comes from my history with classic guitars. Hard to shake the mindset. I carefully pamper my baby, a Ramirez. And years ago, I learned a hard lesson by neglecting a Takamine. So I'm just a little over-concerned about protecting my investment in any of my guitars.

As I stated in my original post, I'm still wobbling between the VM and Pro neck types. I know, done to death already. But that's the reason for my opening the whole discussion about woods in the first place. So two questions. First, is there any reason why raw maple wouldn't burnish as well as canary (and what about the Warmoth sealer treatment)? 

I understand your concern. Keep in mind, though, that acoustic guitars are somewhat more sensitive to environmental issues because they're all raw and exposed inside, and there's a lot of area there. Plus, the wood is necessarily thin so it'll vibrate more readily. Structurally, while they're surprisingly strong for what they are, they're still nowhere near as robust as an electric. Even the flimsiest electric is a brick compared to the box kite that is an acoustic.

As for VM vs. Pro construction on the neck, all I can say is the Pro version is super stable. Appearance-wise, there's little or no difference. But, with the dual-acting truss rod, you have tension in both directions on the neck, so it tends to stay in place much better than standard necks do in the presence of fluctuating temperature/humidity. It's almost a "set it and forget it" neck. They are slightly heavier, but I don't know that it's a deal-breaker unless you're super-sensitive to that. I have no way of measuring it, but I suspect the dual truss rod adds 3 or 4 ounces.