Official Luthiers Forum!
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/

binding necessity and body cavities?
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=20806		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  oli-lgw [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  binding necessity and body cavities?
Hi everyone! First of all, I'm new here (been lurking before but now i want to participate) and I want to say how much I appreciate the way you guys interact with each other, it's nice to see that the respect and encouragement towards the beginners is the same as towards the most experimented [:Y:] [clap] Guitar building is an amazing art, and knowing that the community is so open and sharing is just priceless. So for that, I thank you all.

I am about to tackle my first real build in the next couple of months. I am going for a LesPaul replica... not original, I know, but I personally think that LesPauls have the most perfect look and lines for an electric and... well, that's what I'm going for. I'll go with BC Fir for the core and neck (laminated with curly maple) instead of mahogany, and the top will be spalted mango and the back will also be capped with a mango veneer. As I was making the designs, I stumbled upon two possible building issues and *EXISTENTIAL* questions :lol: :

1- binding; I know the role of bindings, that they prevent crack and help protect the plates endgrain... but is there a long term necessity for them on electrics? Other than cosmetic, that is (i love the look of them)... because if I am to use them, they will most definitely be wood but I know that turning wood, especially figured, like what I intend to use, is difficult in tight curves like the horn on the LP. I want my top to have a burst, and if I am not to use bindings I will leave a "faux binding" around the body (start the burst around 1/8" inside) And any of you used SuperSoft II? if so, what are your opinions on it as far as helping to bend bindings?

2- body cavities; I was thinking about maybe making some cavities in the core, to make it lighter... how will it affect tone and sustain? I am drawn to think it might lower a bit the sustain but maybe give a bit more punch in the tone... what do you guys think? (I haven't played much electric before) and if I do go with cavities, should I carve a bit in the top too to make it thinner over the cavities, or leave it full?

Thanks! And here is the photoshop render of what I would want it to look like... I scanned my top to really see how it can come out, and took some pictures on the internet for the bridge/tailpiece and pickups... I based it upon a plan I had, I am not going with the Gibson headstock but I have yet to draw one I like enough to put, so I left this one until then. And I will go for dual black P90s, probably Lollar, instead of the humbuckers. Any feedback/questions are appreciated :)
Author:  Mike Collins [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
That looks fantastic !!
And P-90s!!!
I can't help you with the body cavities !
Super soft works well when used on bindings !
I hope someone with allot of electric guitar experience posts in here for you !

Welcome !

Go for it !
That's my dream electric !!


Mike
Author:  Bob Garrish [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
1- A few million Strats have survived fine without binding for the last 50-some odd years. While it does add some protection on an acoustic instrument where there are thin plates, on an electric top it's purely cosmetic.

2- Chambering will make it lighter.
Author:  jordan aceto [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
I like the integrated heel cap, nice.
Author:  oli-lgw [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Bob Garrish wrote:
1- A few million Strats have survived fine without binding for the last 50-some odd years.

Yes but they are made of a solid piece of wood, aren't they? My concern is more about the thinner top plates... But I will treat them as purely cosmetic. Thanks for the input :)

Mike, I think I might give the SuperSoft a try then... anyway, what do I have to loose except a few bucks and a little time? hehe and thanks for the welcome!

Jordan, the integrated heelcap I thought would blend the whole body/neck connection in a more erm... fluid? way... anyway, got the idea on a lot of acoustic/classical... glad you noticed it :)


thanks, and keep the feedback coming! its always appreciated
Author:  Bob Garrish [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
oli-lgw wrote:
Bob Garrish wrote:
1- A few million Strats have survived fine without binding for the last 50-some odd years.

Yes but they are made of a solid piece of wood, aren't they?


Some of them might be, but most of them aren't. There's a lot of cost-savings to be had with solid-colored paint :)
Author:  Mark Groza [ Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
I've seen some lps without binding, but they were one solid body.They usually put binding to hide the glue joint on most maple topped guitars.It's not that hard to do and will hide the glue joint better for you on your thin tops.I have bent it on a pipe real easy.I now use my bender and wouldn't go back to the pipe.I also plan on building some thin maple topped ash body electrics this summer with my own body style and they will have binding on them for sure.Good luck with whatever you decide to do on them.
Author:  Brett L Faust [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Greetings, Oliver
You should check out Duncan P rails for pure versatility in a HB size package, also Fralin is a p90 man himself and TV jones has Filter Tron pickups in a p90 size case. So many choices!
Jason Lollar and Lindy Fralin make wonderful p90 style pickups custom wound to your spec.You can't go wrong with any of those choices ,but there are many differences.
As for chambers you should try 2 large chambers one on both sides of a center block. That will give you a very resonant guitar.There is no real need to carve the inside thinner than about 1/4" as too thin a top may cause feedback at too low a volume level. Also a thicker top will allow "good feedback" stronger in the fundemental at a medium to high volume level without much problem. You also will not have as much of a problem with the spalted wood
You get better sustain when your guitar starts to sing at a lower volume level with that arrangment.
Hope that helps [:Y:]
Author:  Brett L Faust [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Oops, sorry I misspelled your name Oli
Author:  oli-lgw [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Nice, thanks a lot guys! I'm pretty much set now on how I want to do things [:Y:]

Brett, yes it does help... a lot! :) The shop I go to belongs to Marc Lupien (from XXL guitars) and his guitars are chambered, but the top plate is pretty thin (you can check out his work here http://www.xxlguitars.com/) So I wondered how a thicker top would react... so thanks a lot for the info bliss As for pickups, as I said I haven't played much electric but from what I heard, Lollar's are what I'm going for! This baby will be my first official project, but certainly not the last... So there will be plenty of room for experimentation in the future ;)

pizza
Author:  Parser [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
I would also recommend the PRS method - aka taping off the binding before finishing...this gives you the look that I think you are hoping to get.

As for semi-hollow electrics, the more hollow you make them the more they sound like archtops...and the more feedback you'll get. If you really want a warm tone, go with a semi-hollow spruce top.

When I was at PRS, we built a poplar SCJ thinline just to test out the CNC programs, etc. That thing sounded better than all that nice maple...!

Trev
Author:  oli-lgw [ Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Trev, thanks for the tip! I'll keep it in mind (and will try it) but for this one I really want the mango top... :D
Author:  Frank Cousins [ Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding necessity and body cavities?
Re body cavities, ccan only really comment on Rics. I used to own a solid body 12 string Ric - (Tom Petty 660/12) with solid maple body and the vintage style pic ups... and it sounded like.... a 360 chambered 12 .. So I guess its down to the wood/pick up etc really in this case...
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/