Les Paul from scratch - non warmoth
- Thread starter Danuda
- Start date
I need some advice on what bridge to use for my guitar. The necks will be laminated up this weekend and at that point I am getting close to when I need to have my neck angle decided. So I really need to decide what bridge to use. I mentioned that I don’t want to use a tune-o-matic really and I was thinking about using this Schaller bridge. I have it on my tele and I really like it, I just don’t know if it would look right on a Les Paul/PRS ish type guitar. Any thoughts or suggestions?
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
I'm not certain, but I don't think you could use that bridge on a LP or LP-type guitar anyway. It's designed for flat-topped bodies, and I think you're talking about carved-top bodies. You need something that'll mount on posts, rather than flush to the surface of the body.
My favorite (readily-available) bridge in that style is the Gotoh 510...
It's a dramatic improvement over the Tune-O-Matic bridge/tailpiece, although it still doesn't have individual saddle height adjustments. But, careful installation and setup should get you even string heights so you don't have to worry about that too much. Just about anything with saddle height adjustments is going to be too deep to put on a carved-top body without some serious modifications to the body itself.
My favorite (readily-available) bridge in that style is the Gotoh 510...
It's a dramatic improvement over the Tune-O-Matic bridge/tailpiece, although it still doesn't have individual saddle height adjustments. But, careful installation and setup should get you even string heights so you don't have to worry about that too much. Just about anything with saddle height adjustments is going to be too deep to put on a carved-top body without some serious modifications to the body itself.
Cagey said:I'm not certain, but I don't think you could use that bridge on a LP or LP-type guitar anyway. It's designed for flat-topped bodies, and I think you're talking about carved-top bodies. You need something that'll mount on posts, rather than flush to the surface of the body.
My favorite (readily-available) bridge in that style is the Gotoh 510...
It's a dramatic improvement over the Tune-O-Matic bridge/tailpiece, although it still doesn't have individual saddle height adjustments. But, careful installation and setup should get you even string heights so you don't have to worry about that too much. Just about anything with saddle height adjustments is going to be too deep to put on a carved-top body without some serious modifications to the body itself.
I had considered the 510. The Schaller bridge would technically work. The top of a carved top flattens out enough where I could use it. I just don't know if it would look right. I will have to get a measurement for the height of the 510 so I can calculate a neck angle for it.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
I think the Schaller would look fine unless you're a stickler for "vintage" appearances. Plus, you get all the goodies - height adjustable roller saddles, easy access intonation screws, easy string threading, no wobble, solid connection to the body, lotta mass...
But, it does require quite a bit of flat real estate. I understand the LP's top is flatter in some areas than others, but I'd really want to have one to hold to the body before I'd commit.
But, it does require quite a bit of flat real estate. I understand the LP's top is flatter in some areas than others, but I'd really want to have one to hold to the body before I'd commit.
ihavenothingprofoundtosay
Hero Member
- Messages
- 591
Cagey said:
+ 1. I'd say if you're building this from scratch, than alter the shape of the body to get the bridge you want to work. If this is your first one, you may end up needing to have the extra tweakability that comes with the flatmount bridge. Plus, it could be really neat to carve it intentionally with a flat "shelf" specifically for the bridge - it might take some work to get it right, but it would end up unique, and with the exact bridge you want.
Funny you mention the shelf thing. I had actually thought about making a shelf that sat lower than the pickups so I would not need to make the neck break at an angle. Sort of like how Warmoth has the recessed mount, but mine would just sit lower on the carve. I have to think about how it would look though. Could be a little strange siting 5/8" lower.ihavenothingprofoundtosay said:
Today I did not get that much done, but it looks like I did. I cut the wood I purchased for the necks into approximately 48” pieces. I took the ¾” Padauk , ¾” Rosewood and 1/8” maple strips and used Titebond III and a bunch of clamps. I should have done the Walnut and maple laminates for the other two guitars first since the whole idea is getting practice, but I am pretty confident in my ability to glue. Besides look how awesome!
Routing day, kind of.
I have two of the necks laminated and I decided while I waited for the third one to be ready that I would start some routing. I do not have a joiner for the laminated neck so I have to make one up. The top of the neck has to be flat so that the fret board can be glued on and everything will be nice and level. I am using a level, some clamps and a router with a flush cut bit. Here is the setup.
It was really the first time I have used a router like this so I practice on the maple and walnut board. It went fairly well so I switched to the Padouk and Rosewood. Success!
The end looks like it comes up, because it does. That end is getting cut down for the headstock so the lip doesn’t matter. The laminated board was longer than 48” so my level didn’t go to the end. It doesn’t really matter since the guitar is shorter than that. I still have to sand it down completely smooth, but it was nice knowing that it works. Now on to my mini disaster.
I had some small imperfections on the first one that I wanted to fix. Then my router slipped because I am an idiot and I gouged the top of the neck. No problem I will just route and fix it right? Nope. I was a little heavy handed and I tried routing too much wood at the same time. The maple just tears like crazy so you need to make very light passes. My problem is now I am getting dangerously close to the blank being too thin. I am not a huge fan of the maple. The walnut cuts great though. Lesson learned. Hopefully through being careful I can fix it this weekend as I would like to get all of the neck blanks finished soon.
I have two of the necks laminated and I decided while I waited for the third one to be ready that I would start some routing. I do not have a joiner for the laminated neck so I have to make one up. The top of the neck has to be flat so that the fret board can be glued on and everything will be nice and level. I am using a level, some clamps and a router with a flush cut bit. Here is the setup.
It was really the first time I have used a router like this so I practice on the maple and walnut board. It went fairly well so I switched to the Padouk and Rosewood. Success!
The end looks like it comes up, because it does. That end is getting cut down for the headstock so the lip doesn’t matter. The laminated board was longer than 48” so my level didn’t go to the end. It doesn’t really matter since the guitar is shorter than that. I still have to sand it down completely smooth, but it was nice knowing that it works. Now on to my mini disaster.
I had some small imperfections on the first one that I wanted to fix. Then my router slipped because I am an idiot and I gouged the top of the neck. No problem I will just route and fix it right? Nope. I was a little heavy handed and I tried routing too much wood at the same time. The maple just tears like crazy so you need to make very light passes. My problem is now I am getting dangerously close to the blank being too thin. I am not a huge fan of the maple. The walnut cuts great though. Lesson learned. Hopefully through being careful I can fix it this weekend as I would like to get all of the neck blanks finished soon.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
These results are a strong argument for investing in a router table or a shaper, but that's another discussion and most of this will apply anyway.
Maple loves to tear out. Something you can do to minimize that is to be aware of the grain of the wood, and cut with it. Your router should be marked with an arrow to indicate bit rotation, but if it's not, just give it a kick once and watch it slow down. Use some masking tape and a sharpie or something to put an indicator on the barrel of the router motor.
Once you know that, you know the direction the leading edge of the cutter is going. You want that to hit the wood first, then pull forward of the wood's grain direction. In order to keep the router from running away from you, you would then start your cut from the side of the work that's on the trailing edge of your cutter. That way, you're always pushing into the cut rather than trying to hold the router back. You'll have more control over it that way. It should also be the side of your work where the grain is lower/deeper, so you're following the direction of the grain instead of facing into it. This might entail cutting from the other side of the piece.
I hope that makes sense, because keeping track of that kind of thing might prevent you from wrecking a piece that already has some time into it, not to mention the acquisition cost.
Maple loves to tear out. Something you can do to minimize that is to be aware of the grain of the wood, and cut with it. Your router should be marked with an arrow to indicate bit rotation, but if it's not, just give it a kick once and watch it slow down. Use some masking tape and a sharpie or something to put an indicator on the barrel of the router motor.
Once you know that, you know the direction the leading edge of the cutter is going. You want that to hit the wood first, then pull forward of the wood's grain direction. In order to keep the router from running away from you, you would then start your cut from the side of the work that's on the trailing edge of your cutter. That way, you're always pushing into the cut rather than trying to hold the router back. You'll have more control over it that way. It should also be the side of your work where the grain is lower/deeper, so you're following the direction of the grain instead of facing into it. This might entail cutting from the other side of the piece.
I hope that makes sense, because keeping track of that kind of thing might prevent you from wrecking a piece that already has some time into it, not to mention the acquisition cost.
Cagey said:
Yeah, a routing table would be nice, but I just don't have the money to get it. I could rig something up, but it won't really work well for the next stages of what I am doing. As far as the other things, that is good advice. I figured most of that out through trial and error. The first time I went the wrong way with the router and it took off was a bit of a shock. Didn't do that again. The wood grain is the pain though. I tried pulling from both directions and it still tore out. I really think I just need to take really shallow cuts. It is only that one section, the rest cuts great so I wonder if there is a bad part of the wood.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
It's not that it's a "bad" section of wood, it's that the grain changes direction on you. You can be cutting with it, and a couple inches later be cutting against it as the grain flows in and out of a straight line. For instance, look at the grain along the cut on these two pieces...
On the joint line of the lower piece, going from left to right the grain is always going the same direction. But, along that same line in the top piece, it changes direction as it goes past that branch growth area. That happens to be oak, which usually doesn't tear out much (although it can), but if that was maple, that's an almost guaranteed tear out area.
It's tough to avoid. Choosing wood carefully so you don't see that situation often, following the grain, and using very sharp tools are your best defenses. It pays to buy the carbide, and use the newest or most recently sharpened bits on maple.
On the joint line of the lower piece, going from left to right the grain is always going the same direction. But, along that same line in the top piece, it changes direction as it goes past that branch growth area. That happens to be oak, which usually doesn't tear out much (although it can), but if that was maple, that's an almost guaranteed tear out area.
It's tough to avoid. Choosing wood carefully so you don't see that situation often, following the grain, and using very sharp tools are your best defenses. It pays to buy the carbide, and use the newest or most recently sharpened bits on maple.
If at first you do not succeed.
I wasn’t happy with the routes I did on the top of the necks so I decided to do it again. They were not flat enough and a lot of it had to do with the level I was using as a straight edge. In comes this.
It’s a 48” x 4” x 1/8” piece of steel. It is easier to clamp down and use as a guide than my level. That and I slipped once and took a chunk out of my level. Oops. The necks were much easier to do and it went a lot faster. I was much more careful with the maple as well and look ma’ no tear out.
The next step was to mark the neck blanks. I marked out the angle of the headstock (13 degrees is what I am using), the nut, the fret board, where the body meets the neck (the 16th fret) and the angle the body will come off the neck to allow for the bridge I am using as well as the 25" mark for the bridge. It is hard to see in the picture, but here it is anyway.
I don’t have a protractor so I just calculated the drop I needed to create the angle that would allow for the bridge I am using and also the headstock. 1.6” for the headstock. I can't remember the number I used for the body and I don't want to look it up in my notes as I am feeling lazy.
My daughter went to sleep so all the power tools had to stop. Good thing pencils are really quiet.
I am working on marking out the control cavity here as well as planning where the controls will go. I tacked the paper on my template and pretended to play it. That way I have all the knobs exactly where it is comfortable for me. I am going to cut the control cavity out of my existing template so I can route straight from that.
Hand saws are also quiet.
Kind of dark, but this is all of the body and top woods together after I cut them to length. There is something kind of therapeutic in using hand tools to cut wood. After getting all the wood cut and lining things up I decided to change a couple things around on the three guitars. The main guitar was going to have a padauk body, but I am now going with maple and then rosewood on the top. I had enough rosewood for the second guitar so that will also be maple and rosewood, just with a maple and walnut neck. The third guitar didn’t have enough rosewood for the top so it will be a straight padauk body. Just doing a maple body would have looked dull and I want to leave the wood natural so painting was out of the question. I am also waffling a little on doing carved top bodies. I am not sure if I am up to the challenge so I may do a flat top semi-hollow with an f-hole. The f-hole will probably be a custom shape rather than a true f-hole. We will see though. Maybe I will get brave.
I wasn’t happy with the routes I did on the top of the necks so I decided to do it again. They were not flat enough and a lot of it had to do with the level I was using as a straight edge. In comes this.
It’s a 48” x 4” x 1/8” piece of steel. It is easier to clamp down and use as a guide than my level. That and I slipped once and took a chunk out of my level. Oops. The necks were much easier to do and it went a lot faster. I was much more careful with the maple as well and look ma’ no tear out.
The next step was to mark the neck blanks. I marked out the angle of the headstock (13 degrees is what I am using), the nut, the fret board, where the body meets the neck (the 16th fret) and the angle the body will come off the neck to allow for the bridge I am using as well as the 25" mark for the bridge. It is hard to see in the picture, but here it is anyway.
I don’t have a protractor so I just calculated the drop I needed to create the angle that would allow for the bridge I am using and also the headstock. 1.6” for the headstock. I can't remember the number I used for the body and I don't want to look it up in my notes as I am feeling lazy.
My daughter went to sleep so all the power tools had to stop. Good thing pencils are really quiet.
I am working on marking out the control cavity here as well as planning where the controls will go. I tacked the paper on my template and pretended to play it. That way I have all the knobs exactly where it is comfortable for me. I am going to cut the control cavity out of my existing template so I can route straight from that.
Hand saws are also quiet.
Kind of dark, but this is all of the body and top woods together after I cut them to length. There is something kind of therapeutic in using hand tools to cut wood. After getting all the wood cut and lining things up I decided to change a couple things around on the three guitars. The main guitar was going to have a padauk body, but I am now going with maple and then rosewood on the top. I had enough rosewood for the second guitar so that will also be maple and rosewood, just with a maple and walnut neck. The third guitar didn’t have enough rosewood for the top so it will be a straight padauk body. Just doing a maple body would have looked dull and I want to leave the wood natural so painting was out of the question. I am also waffling a little on doing carved top bodies. I am not sure if I am up to the challenge so I may do a flat top semi-hollow with an f-hole. The f-hole will probably be a custom shape rather than a true f-hole. We will see though. Maybe I will get brave.
I am not a fan of routers.
More on that later. I spent a good chunk of time with me and my jigsaw today. Here is the result.
My poor little jigsaw was burning up. Especially on the maple blanks. I laid out the pieces as they will sit for each guitar and I am pretty happy with changing up the woods. I think a Padauk neck and body would have been too much.
I had hoped to get to truss rods today, but I am still debating the best way of routing them out so instead I worked on the tops. Here is the first of the rosewood tops after a pass with my flush cut bit over the template.
I really am not a huge fan of routers. The more I use it the less I like it. You have to be incredibly careful or you get kickback. I keep getting a mental image of the router flying backwards and taking a chunk out of my leg. Some of it is my workspace which is too high for me and makes it difficult to work. That will be remedied next week though. I may make a makeshift router table as well to help with the truss rod channel.
One last parting picture. All of the parts for the first guitar lined up and showing off. I think it is going to look really nice when it is done.
More on that later. I spent a good chunk of time with me and my jigsaw today. Here is the result.
My poor little jigsaw was burning up. Especially on the maple blanks. I laid out the pieces as they will sit for each guitar and I am pretty happy with changing up the woods. I think a Padauk neck and body would have been too much.
I had hoped to get to truss rods today, but I am still debating the best way of routing them out so instead I worked on the tops. Here is the first of the rosewood tops after a pass with my flush cut bit over the template.
I really am not a huge fan of routers. The more I use it the less I like it. You have to be incredibly careful or you get kickback. I keep getting a mental image of the router flying backwards and taking a chunk out of my leg. Some of it is my workspace which is too high for me and makes it difficult to work. That will be remedied next week though. I may make a makeshift router table as well to help with the truss rod channel.
One last parting picture. All of the parts for the first guitar lined up and showing off. I think it is going to look really nice when it is done.
