Build yer' own... Fun and affordable..

[okie623]

I currently play a Solene which I like very much! However my next touch/tap instrument will be a home built using a Strat-style 7-string piezo bridge. I have already built the 'body' from 4 pieces of maple laminated together. I paid $15.00 to have the 'body' slotted for jumbo bass frets with a "27 baritone scale. All of the 'parts' are used or NOS. I totaled up my costs - the wood was free - and it will be $300.00 for everything. I will amplify it with my acoustic guitar amp. I could even use nylon strings if choose. I may try another one later using a Carvin 6-string neck through bass neck. That could be readily modified to be a 7 or 8 string tap/touch style instrument if you buy one without tuning peg holes.

I'd love to use a Fan Fret system and Buzz's tuning system, but they just aren't worth the cost. I won't live long enough for the patents to expire!!! Ah well, a young protege of mine will.

Just an FYI for those of you looking for a cost-effective touch/tap instrument. I've owned a couple of different brands of touch style instruments and I've had the use of two other brands for a few months each. None, let me repeat NONE, of them possessed materials or build quality that should make them cost more than $750 - including my Solene which was about $700.00 new. Please save me the economies of scale and other common rationalizations; I'm speaking of value not cost+profit, OK?

If I can do it anyone can do it!!!

[rjgoos]

Okie,

If you have the tools, and skill....go for it! Hey, even if the result isn't perfect, to spend $300 project that engages one's mind and hands for months is pretty cheap entertainment by today's standards.

Unfortunately, I have neither the tools nor the skill for such a project. Despite this, I, too have given thought from time to time, on building my own touch/tap style instrument.

Perhaps it was because this was such a long and dreary winter this year in North Dakota, that I actually thought about it a lot in the past couple months.

For example, I have gone through Emmett Chapman's original patent (3,833,751, expired) which can be viewed at the US Patent office web site (www.uspto.gov), and what a stroke of simplicity the original concept was. In fact, towards the end of the patent, Mr. Chapman writes:

....There is thus provided a musical instrument of uniquely simple and inexpensive construction....

And it had crossed my mind, just for fun, to try to make something like is shown on this patent, but then reality sets in...I don't have any tools, I'm all thumbs with this sort of thing, and I wouldn't know how to properly reinforce the neck. But still, it is fun to think about. Like I said, Okie, if you have the tools and skill, go for it.

Ola has been in the process of making one for some time, check out the archives.

RJ Goos

[murphy]

Originally posted by okie623
I'd love to use a Fan Fret system ...... I won't live long enough for the patents to expire!!!

I just couldn't let this go...Ralph Novak has no business holding a patent on fanned frets. Fanned fret instruments date back centuries. I think any luthier paying him royalties is being had. That is unless they just want to pay him for his template. Any luthier worth his salt could design the template though. Just my $.02. btw...Rich Eberlen built a fanned fret Solene. I'm not sure if it was sold or if he still has it.

Good luck with your build!

[traktor]

The only instrument I've found which resembles fanned-frets is called something like an Orpheum or Orpharium. It does not *appear* to be the same thing. However, I'm no music historian.

However, remember that you can successfully file a patent on things that already exist, when it passes certain tests. For example, a new patent was successfully filed on aspirin, for some new use in pigs. Hmmm. And in fact, when you think about it, my own patent for the MegStrap is a novel device, which had never been used before, but the actual parts are all pre-existing objects. In fact, you can successfully file a patent on most any existing thing, IF you can make it with less parts or less steps. The patent office is kind of strict, but if you come up with something new, even if it reuses something that existed before, it may qualify as a new patent. Of course, I'm no patent expert, either.

The solene does appear to have slanted frets, but they don't look fanned to me.

Lastly, if I remember correctly, Novak will provide license to make yourself a one-off fairly cheaply. Why not call him and ask him?

[murphy]

all good points, Traktor. I just bristle at a lot of patents.
Especially as a guitarist/tapper. Probably no one knows better than you how ugly and stupid that stuff can get. I think the patent office has been known to hand out some fairly ridiculous ones. I don't really blame them though as I can't imagine how they even get the task they handle done with the resources they have at all these days. I was not aware of Novak's license fee being reasonable for small builders. I guess since the post had mentioned Buzz Feiten's patent I had the very stiff fee associated with that in mind.

It's true the standard Solene is not fanned but I was refering to a one-off that Rich built and displayed at the Dallas guitar show.

It's a pleasure to chat with the man who as far as I know was the first to piece together the history of this nutty activity we discuss here.

Cheers,
murph

[mrINFINITY]

Murphy,

I've met ralph novak and he's a very nice man. In addition to being very nice he also builds awesome guitars. If he was the first to file the patent on the fanned fret system that's cool with me and I think others should also respect it more.

-Alan

[rjgoos]

As someone who has tried to obtain a US patent, it is an odd game. In your claims, you try to push the boundaries of your claim as far as possible, and then you battle with the patent examiner when he/she tries to scale back your claims.

Regarding the patent I tried to get (nothing as cool as the Chapman Stick, Meg-Strap, Novak Fanned Frets, or Feiten System, believe me), by the time the examiner had make his judgement on the scope of our claims, they were so limited that the patent wasn't worth getting.

I keep trying, though. I've got three projects now with patent potential (all having to do with soils and crops). One reason I keep trying is out of sheer, utter, raw, sinful, ENVY. My brother holds a US patent, and I don't. His is for a true, wonderful contraption....a tongue-powered cow feeder (3,952,705).

RJ Goos

[traktor]

Originally posted by rjgoos
... <snip> ... sheer, utter, raw, sinful, ENVY. My brother holds a US patent ...<snip> ... for a true, wonderful contraption....a tongue-powered cow feeder (3,952,705). Rats!

Now I envy him, too!

[rjgoos]

Yeah, Traktor, look up his patent. It is a REAL contraption. The cow licks a wheel that dips into molasses. That activates an auger that dispenses grain beside the wheel. By restricting the amount of wheel exposed to a couple inches per lick, their tongue gets tired before they eat too much grain.

You gotta love it. I think they sold, well, maybe, 20 units??? They were well-designed, self-contained, and made to be towed out to remote rangeland, so the cows could feed themselves. My brother didn't realize, though, that ranchers LIKE to get out and away from their wives, like to drive around on their ranches, and like to feed their cows every day.


RJ Goos

[traktor]

Originally posted by rjgoos
My brother didn't realize, though, that ranchers LIKE to get out and away from their wives, like to drive around on their ranches, and like to feed their cows every day.Hi, rj,

I have actually done this a few times, and it's actually kind of cool. You get up real early, take gloves and bundle up, grab some bales of hay by the wires (that's why you want the gloves), and heave them onto the pickup.

Drive down some dirt roads and you find the cattle, who all start following the pickup. Often in the same place (near a salt lick that's left there), one drives while the other heaves bales off. With pliers you clip and remove the wires, and give the bales a kick or two to separate the packed hay.

Then, pickup back to the house for hot breakfast and coffee.

Everybody happy.

[rjgoos]

Sorry, Okie, for the diversion from instrument making to feeding cows...:)


Referring back to patent 3,833,751....this seems to be about the simplest possible design for a touch/tap instrument, if someone wanted to make one.

How would one go about reinforcing the neck on something like that? That was one thing I couldn't figure out.


RJ Goos

[rockola]

Originally posted by rjgoos
How would one go about reinforcing the neck on something like that?

Probably in a manner similar to reinforcing the neck on any guitar-like instrument: with a truss rod.

[traktor]

The following is my theory. I could be wrong. This theory is not based upon any authorized or inside information, but is based upon having personally owned around 200 instruments of this design, back in the days when I bought, refurbished, and sold these instruments ...

The very earliest instruments had no stiffening agent at all. The neck was a bit thinner than today, and the bridge was a non-adjustable v-shaped moulded piece of some plastic-like substance. The low tension and low action probably minimized the problem, but the instrument had little you could do to affect the action. In the ones I've seen, the wood was invariably ironwood, which is a relatively heavy but stiff wood, which would IMHO minimize the difficulty.

There were probably only 100-200 instruments made to this original production design.

The next step was the intruduction of fixed truss rods. These days it's easy to overlook that truss rods can be either adjustable (for tweaking) or fixed (designed to hold what you got immovable). In the next generation of these instruments, two long channels were routed out on the rear of the one-piece neck. Into these were dropped two lengths of metal, probably iron, and then the channel was filled with industrial epoxy. These instruments are identifiable by the two long black strips on the rear of the neck. Between the ironwood and the iron bars, the neck was now very rigid. This design continued for many years.

Remember, most guitars have a fretboard separate from the neck, normally glued on. Most truss rods are dropped between these two pieces. But if you have the manufacturing advantage of a single piece neck and fretboard, then dropping in a trussrod wouldn't work the same way. Some of the earliest instruments had a separate, glued-on fretboard, as best I recall, but by the 1980s, fabrication was one piece.

The polycarbonates came around then, and perhaps was an attempt to change the sound or stiffness. They are impervious to changes brought about by humidity, though IMHO the one I played for many years was a bit sensitive to temperature changes.

Finally, to obtain an adjustable truss rod, a design was created wherein a single rear channel was filled with a metal bar with an adjuster screw securing it to the wood on one end. Now, at last, by adjusting the screw, the truss rod had been made adjustable.

It's fun to watch evolution. The current generation of this particular instrument is IMHO, well made, decently adjustable, and well finished.

The use of narrow, non-standard string spacing on this particular design would make custom, hand-built pickups necessary, and the lack of mass in the body section raises pickup mounting questions. So you might want to consider using a "standard" string spacing so as to utilize standard pickups, and more wood in the body section to give you more pickup mounting options.

Again, the above is my opinion. Everywhere I've seen, guitar-builders have differing opinion about methods, and so contrary opinions or better information might invalidate my impressions as given above. I offer the info in the hope that it might be interesting, perhaps useful, and that it might stimulate further thought on these matters.

[rjgoos]

Traktor,

Thanks for the thoughts on neck reinforcement history.

I was looking at an instrument for sale on eBay (item # 3711977701 ), and it seems that some of these original models had a nut and a "zero fret". Was the height of this fret higher than the other frets, perhaps a higher-crowned fret? Otherwise, all of the lift would need to come from the bridge. Wouldn't that lead to too high of action as you went towards the bridge, and too low of action towards the nut end? Or did the zero fret design work OK?

RJ Goos

[traktor]

The zero fret has been around for a long time, and works rather well. You *must* have a very flat fretboard -- but then all touchstyle instruments must -- but in fact the zero fret approach probably minimizes the inherent "too-sharpness" on the first few frets near a nut.

The first instruments of this type used the zero fret, and then later the designer went to a kind of adjustable screw thing instead of the zero fret.

On any standard nut instrument, either the nut is low enough that "all the lift comes from the bridge end of the string" *or* you have a high nut and an increased intonation problem (and fretting problem) at the frets near the nut.

With a nut, filing the nut to customize it for the gauges of the strings is therefore necessary. This custom work is not something you'd want to undertake if you were attempting to keep productions costs down; and it also means that you couldn't really swap gauges or tunings without customizing a new nut.

That's my theory, anyway.

[rjgoos]

Well. since we are on the subject of frets...

What makes a good "touchstyle" fret for a dedicated touch/tap instrument? Wide and tall? As big as you can get? My instrument has a rod-style of fret, which are huge, by guitar standards.


I also enjoy tapping a regular electric guitar (it is an interesting mental challenge, given the limitations of six strings), and would do more of it, but the instrument available to me (an old cheap stratocaster copy my son discarded after getting much better instrument after 4-5 years of playing) has pretty low frets, and it is hard on the fingertips, as you have to hit the string (and fretboard) pretty hard to get enough sound out of it. Any particular brands of electric guitars known to have better frets for tapping?



RJ Goos

[Consul]

Sorry for the thread necromancy. ;)

I have given a good deal of thought to what it would take to build my own tap guitar.

I really like the compactness and sleek look of the Chapman Sticks, but based on recordings I've heard, the Warr definitely beats it in the tone and sustain department. Chapman also has a few other things going for him, like those stainless steel frets and the PASV-4 pickup, which is a monster for versatility.

I've never made a guitar before, so I really don't know where to start. I have worked with wood plenty of times, but they were long ago. I've been meaning to get a workshop together for a few years, though, so maybe a project like this would be a good kick in the pants for me.

I figured one good place to start would be Stewart McDonalds (http://www.stewmac.com/).

[rockola]

Originally posted by Consul
I've never made a guitar before, so I really don't know where to start. I have worked with wood plenty of times, but they were long ago. I've been meaning to get a workshop together for a few years, though, so maybe a project like this would be a good kick in the pants for me.

I figured one good place to start would be Stewart McDonalds (http://www.stewmac.com/).

Go and check out the Musical Instrument Makers Forum (http://www.mimf.com/) and especially their New Builders' FAQ (http://www.mimf.com/minifaq.htm).

StewMac is a reputable supplier with excellent service.

[Consul]

Thanks for the links. I know I have a long way to go...

[FretDragon]

I'm not getting anything when I search for patent# 3,833,751. did anyone happen to download the pictures who could send them to me?

[rjgoos]

Fretdragon,

The USPTO.gov web site is not easy to navigate, and the results are not viewable by all browsers.

If you search for a patent number before 1976, make sure you indicate that you want to search the "entire database." Even then, you don't get the patent, only a link to the scanned images of the patent. Even then, the images don't show up well with all browsers, and may or may not print properly.

Patents after 1976 are searchable by key word, author, etc. Patents before, are not.

I'm pretty busy today, but drop me an e-mail if you're still having trouble, I can probably help you this weekend.

R Jay Goos

[FretDragon]

I did get to the patent, and found that only pictures are available. But no pictures were viewable in my installation of IE6. Maybe I'll have to install another browser... surprised the IE swiss army knife doesn't work.

[traktor]

In perusing the patent office site, as I recall the pictures are usually in the TIFF graphics format. Browsers in general support GIF, JPG, and sometimes PNG.

A plug-in is normally required to view TIFF images, OR sometimes you can download the images and then view them on your computer using most any paint program (because most paint programs can read in a TIFF image).

Generally I've found it quite clumsy, and have never found a plug-in which seemed to work very smoothly.

[lemur821]

Maybe I'll have to install another browser... surprised the IE swiss army knife doesn't work.

I'm not. It's a pretty awful browser. In fact US CERT recommends (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/28/cert_ditch_explorer/) that people use anything but IE.

[mrINFINITY]

I say just download a free copy of fedora linux to use instead of windows and you should be pretty safe :). Why not just ditch IE, ditch windows! mwauhaha.

[woodsman]

I took a look at Pat. No. 3,833,751.
I find the pickups above the strings to be an intriguing idea, having already reinvented the concept unknowingly. I wonder if emmet had conceived the method for the same reasons I did - ease of construction and accesibility. Maybe the idea would merit some experimentation.

[rjgoos]

I think the "pickup above the strings" concept allowed "Prototype 2" (shown in the patent and on page 78 on my copy of Mr. Chapman's book) to be amazingly simple in construction. If my current project fails, my next project will be to fashion something like it.

Jay

[woodsman]

With my project instrument my current concern is finding an economic pickup solution. With string spacing around 8mm I have considered mounting standard pickups at a sharp angle but I have no idea if it will work. I also have considered "blade" style pickups but they tend to be very expensive and the ones I have found have tapered blades and I'm using a flat fretboard...any ideas?
Thanks

[rjgoos]

One can get a blade-style humbucker pickup for about $25 at guitarpartsusa.com. The quality, I don't know.

Jay

[rockola]

Originally posted by rjgoos
I think the "pickup above the strings" concept allowed "Prototype 2" (shown in the patent and on page 78 on my copy of Mr. Chapman's book) to be amazingly simple in construction. If my current project fails, my next project will be to fashion something like it.

If it's such a great innovation, why do you think he abandoned it for the production instruments?

[rjgoos]

I can only guess, Ola. Individual pole pieces above strings would be very tedious to adjust, for example, as you would have to install and remove the pickup unit for each adjustment. The appearance was also not as good. The payoff, I guess, was that the construction of the neck would be greatly simplified.


Jay

[traktor]

Originally posted by woodsman
With my project instrument my current concern is finding an economic pickup solution. With string spacing around 8mm I have considered mounting standard pickups at a sharp angle but I have no idea if it will work.
Any blade type can be mount aslant, but on the other hand, there is probably no harm in letting a blade pickup extend beyond the width of the strings.

If you have pole pieces, then I suspect that mounting aslant might not work as well. My suspicion is that even the part of the pickup that has no pole pieces does pick up some of the string movement. Of course, us speculating here runs a distant and pale second to just getting a pickup and placing it near the strings and listening to it.

Mounting a pickup above the strings may work fine, but here are some considerations --

1) The pickup and the wires from the pickup that run to the control pots must be completely shielded, or you've constructed a receiver for refrigerators, halogen and neon lights, automobile distributors, etc.

2) The instrument is now very thick. What case will you carry it in?

3) The structure had better be strong and rigid, because if it moves around will it remain properly aligned to pick up the strings? And if it moves during play, you may get the sound of the pickup moving relative to the strings. (Ie. The pickup's magnetic field hears relative movement from the group of strings.)

4) Pole pieces alignment might be an issue, or a hassle.

In general, since normally there is a body right there underneath the strings, it's so easy to cut a hole in that nice sturdy body, shield the body with conductive tape, and mount the pickup there, where you can easily run the wires to the pots and output jack. Probably this is why so many quality instruments do it this way. It works so well.

Note that this is one of the arguments for having a body -- by having a (relatively) thick and wide piece of wood, then even after cutting some hole for pickups and electronics, the body is still stiff. Stiffness generally benefits sustain, compared to a thin, flexing, bodiless instrument. For better or worse, a flexing instrument also produces a different quality of sound than a stiff instrument. The sound of the stiffer instrument, to my ears, has less click or chime, and more pop or bam. (Please forgive my dumb-sounding technical terms.) Of course, as always, your mileage may vary, and opinions may differ.

[Glenn Drakeley]

Traktor Wrote:

2) The instrument is now very thick. What case will you carry it in?


Glenn Responds:

Why the very case that the Mobius Megatars MidiTapper Twin comes with, of course !!! :mad:

[traktor]

[Hee hee hee hee!]

Glenn is ragging me, because we here at Mobius Megatar do not have a case to fit our own MidiTapper instrument, which has the Photon-Midi pickups mounted *above* the strings.

[Glenn Drakeley]

Traktor wrote:

[Hee hee hee hee!]

Glenn is ragging me, because we here at Mobius Megatar do not have a case to fit our own MidiTapper instrument, which has the Photon-Midi pickups mounted *above* the strings.


Glenn responds:

Wait a second, my MidiTapper Twin came with a cardboard and yellow foam case didn't it ??

OK, OK, I confess to ragging on Traktor, lack of a case for the MidiTapper Twin is only a problem for me because of my two Feline housemates. When I used to leave my former Warr Guitar out overnight on a guitar stand I swore to the heavens that I could hear it being played while I slept. Well, lo and behold, I caught Elliott and Charline in the act one night, plucking happily away at WarrStrings with their teeth, their playing was as good as mine, so I let them continue, for that night only !!!

The Megatar SofCase is too tight a fit for the MTT, breaks the skinny strings, but that's where I have to keep it !!!

[woodsman]

Originally posted by rjgoos
One can get a blade-style humbucker pickup for about $25 at guitarpartsusa.com. The quality, I don't know.

Jay
Thanks, I took a look there and I believe a pair of those will work. My goal is to make a functional instrument for as little cash outlay as possible - an experimental model first, then later when I can invest more I'll try something more sophisticated.

[woodsman]

Originally posted by traktor


If you have pole pieces, then I suspect that mounting aslant might not work as well. My suspicion is that even the part of the pickup that has no pole pieces does pick up some of the string movement. Of course, us speculating here runs a distant and pale second to just getting a pickup and placing it near the strings and listening to it.

Mounting a pickup above the strings may work fine, but here are some considerations --

[/B]

-Speculation-

From what I have read the pole pieces basically extend the magnetic field so that a string vibration makes the field fluctuate more than if the string was in a weaker part of the field, increasing the current induced in the windings. How much the pickup itself detects in comparison to the pole pieces, I guess would be minor. But then again a sharp mounting angle might cause some weird stuff anyways. (I'm pretty new to guitar specific electronics, but as an Amatuer Radio (Ham) operator, and long time electronics experimenter I (usually)understand electronic principles pretty well.)

anyways...

-long story short -

I agree, it would take experimentation to really answer the question.
If I ever get around to trying it I'll let you know.
For now I'm just going to use some blade style pickups, since there are economy models.


Top mounted pickups now sound like a big pain. Since I didn't plan on experimenting in that direction yet, I think I'll toss that concept in the recycle bin.

Thanks for helping.

oh.. btw traktor have you ever tried Graph Tech Ghosts on your instruments?

[dr_scrimshaw]

Maybe you have found this, but here's a link to an 8 (eight) inch wide pickup. It's not cheap at $108, but think how many strings you could have with 8 inches to play around with! It also comes in a 6 inch wide version.
http://www.windworld.com/emi/products/catalog.htm#hardware

[dr_scrimshaw]

Originally posted by woodsman
With my project instrument my current concern is finding an economic pickup solution. With string spacing around 8mm I have considered mounting standard pickups at a sharp angle but I have no idea if it will work. I also have considered "blade" style pickups but they tend to be very expensive and the ones I have found have tapered blades and I'm using a flat fretboard...any ideas?
Thanks

I just got a package from Stewart McDonald last night, with 2 EMG twin blade pickups, one guitar and one bass (and a whole pound of fretwire, 50 feet I think) I don't have my tapping instrument anywhere near ready to string, so I set up the guitar pickup above the strings on a mountain dulcimer. It sounds great, seems to pick up all the strings just fine, including the 2 melody strings that are maybe 2 mm apart or less. Then I turned everything up to 10 on the amp like Angus Young of ACDC and started tapping out Thunderstruck. Kinda wierd, but the point is that the pickups seem to be doing the job. You can use them as single or dual coil (humbucker). $23.90 each.

[traktor]

Originally posted by woodsman
{B}oh.. btw traktor have you ever tried Graph Tech Ghosts on your instruments? [/B] Have not tried them as yet. They look interesting.